Mini 934 - Troubles at Smiths&Catharts (Game Over!)

[charter]

@SK: is charters sudden switch to you the only reason that you believe he is scum? Do you encompass previous days in your reads in any way?

I have not gone back to look at the previous days, no. However, I consider the evidence I have presented so far strong enough to confidently vote for him.

Lol, so the entire case against me is OMGUS, like I've been saying.

Thor, can you give me a summary why you think I'm one of the two scummiest players?

[Thor665]

@ Thor:

What is the town advantage for not voting someone you think is scum?

Still looking for the answer to this.

My answer for this question is meaningless unless you can actually connect clear scum energy to the tell. I don't need to attach a town tell to it in order to not accept it as a scum tell. The reasoning doesn't follow.

To answer; to propagate discussion. Other then that, not much. But you 'scum reasons' for it are all based on hearsay so I really feel what we're looking at there is a null tell. It doesn't strike me as something that is advantageous for scum to do. *Maybe* he's trying to see if support is out there first, but what if there wasn't? If there's no support for a wagon you get off it and no one thinks of that as a scum tell when someone does so. So he could have voted for you, had no support, and then gotten on the strongest wagon on a town player just as easily.

Thor, can you give me a summary why you think I'm one of the two scummiest players?

More a process of elimination but here goes;

Michel's shift to get Fate lynched nets him solid town points, only possible reason I see for him to be scum is if Kerrigan is scum - hence Kerrigan is scummier and needs to be lynched first of that possible pairing.

Shovel is cleared for CSL and Fate attempts to wagon TCC and Socrates respectively.

Cyberbob/Zorblag/Cyberbob had a lot of good conversation points and suspected Fate early on. I agree with the Shovel's pointed out note where Cyberbob called out Fate as scummy early on. If he's scum he's not likely to be paired with Kerrigan, so the only partner I see for him is charter with whom he's sharing some solid buddying antics. That makes charter the first to lynch of this possible pair.

You (charter) have the joining with Fate push on Copper and a lot of vote appearances on wagons I feel are suspect as well as some questionable lurking. You now have solid buddying with Cyberbob and a strong push on a claimed PR after some mental acrobatics to clear me (I still haven't re-read Day 3 to assess those acrobatics or to re-read Pie's scum claim on you).

[SaintKerrigan]

My answer for this question is meaningless unless you can actually connect clear scum energy to the tell. I don't need to attach a town tell to it in order to not accept it as a scum tell. The reasoning doesn't follow.

To answer; to propagate discussion. Other then that, not much. But you 'scum reasons' for it are all based on hearsay so I really feel what we're looking at there is a null tell.

If you can't attach a good town tell to it, shouldn't that tell you something? I've

seen

scum do this before. I even provided an example. By contrast, under normal circumstances, I've never seen a townie withhold their vote on someone they thought was positively scum, with the exception of holding off on a lynch vote to further town discussion (which isn't the case here).

Because I've seen scum do this before, and have never seen a townie do it except for reasons which aren't valid here (holding back on a lynch vote to generate discussion, being forced to lynch the opposite scumteam), I strongly consider this a scumtell.

If you can find examples where a townie thinks someone is scum and doesn't vote for them under normal circumstances, then present them!

Everyone, look at this post.

This is the critical post of my example. Read what Archaebob-scum does. It's the same thing I've accused Charter of doing: calling me scum, yet not voting me. I'm serious, people. This similarity in behavior is not a coincidence.

If you withheld your vote on an L-1 suspect to allow more discussion, I could agree with that. Beyond that, what discussion would not voting someone you think is scum generate? People are just going to ask why you think he's scum but aren't voting for him. Do you really think people will accept "I'm not voting because I'm trying to generate discussion"? I know I wouldn't accept that answer as valid. If you want discussion, voting for your suspect is a much better way to go.

Let's try this: have

you

thought someone was positively scum and yet not voted for them? If so, why?

Anyone is free to answer this question.

[Thor665]

If you can't attach a good town tell to it, shouldn't that tell you something?

I can't attach a good town tell to self-voting.

Self-voting is not a scum tell.

Didn't you hold back your vote about as much as Archaebob did?

[SaintKerrigan]

can't attach a good town tell to self-voting.

Self-voting is not a scum tell.

Okay, wtf is this? Where did self-voting enter the discussion?

Didn't you hold back your vote about as much as Archaebob did?

The difference is that I was still suspicious of Garnasha. Note what I said immediately following Archaebob's post:

I've also come to think that Garnasha is town. Something still nags me, though, and that nagging is the

only

reason I'm not voting for you, Archaebob.

A few posts later, Garnasha's response convinced me that he was town. In the exact same post I said Garn was town, I voted for Archaebob. Since I thought Garn was town, I had no reason to not vote Archaebob.

This

is what townies are supposed to do.

[Thor665]

can't attach a good town tell to self-voting.

Self-voting is not a scum tell.

Okay, wtf is this? Where did self-voting enter the discussion?

You acted as though an inability to put a town tell to not voting for someone you think is scum equates to making it a scum tell. I was pointing out how there are tells that are unable to be given pro town implications that do not make them scum tells. It's valid and it follows our debate path.

I've also come to think that Garnasha is town. Something still nags me, though, and that nagging is the

only

reason I'm not voting for you, Archaebob.

I

think

I've made up my mind that SK is scum.

Emphasis is mine.

Your evidence is predicated on a concept that Arch had absolute confidence in you being scum. His post doesn't follow that. Same difference for charter.

Personally I think charter looks suspicious enough regardless of this particular point.

Both shovel and I (arguably the people you should be trying to convince since I suspect Cyberbob and Michel are pretty set already) have expressed disbelief in this being a worthwhile scum point against charter. Slapping us in the face with it over and over again while screaming "oh gawdz, obvious scumtells!1!" isn't likely to change our minds. Why don't you look for other evidence or sit back and wait for us to draw our own conclusions. This particular angle isn't going anywhere unless you see something I don't.

[Steam-Powered Shovel]

When I look at that example I see scum who 1) was definitely going to vote for you and 2) gave a pretty decent reason for not voting the first time around which suggests strongly he didn't make it up after the fact. I don't see that example as having more than a superficial resemblance to charter's play.

Thor, what it essentially boils down to is that I don't think SK-charter works. So if I assume exactly one of you is scum, there are three pairings left to which I assign a significant positive probability: Thor-charter, Thor-Cyberbob and SK-Cyberbob. As to why I'm suspicious of you: it's mostly gut, combined with healthy doses of process of elimination and behaviour towards Fate that doesn't entirely fit.

P.S. I haven't called someone obv scum and not voted for that person as either alignment. I'm just vote-happy.

[SaintKerrigan]

You acted as though an inability to put a town tell to not voting for someone you think is scum equates to making it a scum tell. I was pointing out how there are tells that are unable to be given pro town implications that do not make them scum tells. It's valid and it follows our debate path.

If you can't attach a good town tell to it, then at the

least

it's anti-town. However, I have not said it's scummy just because there isn't a good town tell for it. I've said that I've seen scum do it before, and have never, with exceptions that don't apply here, seen a townie do it. No good town tells, proof that scum have done it before, and no proof that townies have done it before (except for said exceptions). How is this not a scumtell?

Emphasis is mine.

Your evidence is predicated on a concept that Arch had absolute confidence in you being scum. His post doesn't follow that. Same difference for charter.

Did you read the whole post by Archaebob? He flat-out states Garnasha is town, presents scores of reasons for why he thinks I'm scum, and his entire tone towards me shows very clearly that his presented mindset thinks I'm scum. Even

if

you argue that his tone doesn't mean anything, the fact that he cleared Garnasha as town means

by default

that I have to be scum. And with all that, he doesn't vote for me. Sound familiar?

Why do I keep repeating this point? Because I think it is an absolute scumtell, and I'm frankly shocked that people can't see why it is.

[SaintKerrigan]

When I look at that example I see scum who 1) was definitely going to vote for you and 2) gave a pretty decent reason for not voting the first time around which suggests strongly he didn't make it up after the fact. I don't see that example as having more than a superficial resemblance to charter's play.

The first explanation for Archaebob not voting me was acceptable. The

next

one (which I specifically linked to in Post #1352) is the clincher. Read it thoroughly. There is more than superficial resemblence to Archaebob's play and Charter's play.

[Steam-Powered Shovel]

As I see it, charter does something weird, you come up with a lame motivation for it (as if placing a vote is somehow so much more definite than calling him someone scum outright!) and one example which is only superficially similar (note also how quickly Archaebob voted you after that original post, charter's acted very differently). I'd actually argue that this example is at least as far away from charter's play as any of the townie plays you noted as exceptions.

And one example isn't statistically significant anyway.

[Thor665]

So if I assume exactly one of you is scum, there are three pairings left to which I assign a significant positive probability: Thor-charter, Thor-Cyberbob and SK-Cyberbob.

What happened to Thor-SK and when did Thor-Cyberbob come into play?

What is my behavior towards Fate that doesn't fit?

[SaintKerrigan]

As I see it, charter does something weird, you come up with a lame motivation for it (as if placing a vote is somehow so much more definite than calling him someone scum outright!) and one example which is only superficially similar (note also how quickly Archaebob voted you after that original post, charter's acted very differently). I'd actually argue that this example is at least as far away from charter's play as any of the townie plays you noted as exceptions.

You haven't been coming up with town motivations for it, either. Ultimately, though, what matters is that both Archaebob and Charter called me positive scum (Archaebob through clearing Garnasha, Charter through clearing two previous suspects) and both Archaebob and Charter withheld their votes on me despite calling me positive scum. Since Archaebob was scum, it is perfectly logical to assume that Charter is also scum,

especially

when his excuse for not voting me is "I didn't feel like it." Why does a townie

not

feel like voting for someone they're sure is scum?

By the way, I asked this question earlier, but no one's bothered to answer it, so here it is again:

Have you thought someone was positively scum and yet not voted for them? If so, why?

I really want people to answer this question.

And one example isn't statistically significant anyway.

It's much more significant if no one has been able to offer any evidence to the contrary. Consider that the combined number of games the people in this game have played likely nears the hundreds, I'd think that if sufficient proof against the scumtell existed, one of us would be able to find it rather easily. So far, nothing has been offered. Lack of proof against the scumtell is just as good as proof for the scumtell.

But don't worry. After this game it'll become two examples.

[Steam-Powered Shovel]

Two is not exactly one, Thor. (And Thor-SK is obviously irrelevant in terms of comparing you two.) And Thor-Cyberbob never left play, I just find it least likely among the pairings I find realistic.

What is my behavior towards Fate that doesn't fit?

I just looked again and I bothered to look at the dates this time. You may ignore this.

You haven't been coming up with town motivations for it, either.

Because I know that sometimes people just do strange stuff.

I answered your question, SK, by the bye.

It's much more significant if no one has been able to offer any evidence to the contrary. Consider that the combined number of games the people in this game have played likely nears the hundreds, I'd think that if sufficient proof against the scumtell existed, one of us would be able to find it rather easily. So far, nothing has been offered. Lack of proof against the scumtell is just as good as proof for the scumtell.

All the lack of proof shows is that this behaviour is rare. One example doesn't magically become more significant by failing to find more examples either way. Suppose I'm a researcher who thinks black swans are cannibals. Failing to find non-cannibal black swans is not support of the theory if I simply fail to find black swans.

[SaintKerrigan]

I answered your question, SK, by the bye.

So you did. My apologies for missing it. Now what should that tell you about Charter's behavior?

Because I know that sometimes people just do strange stuff.

So that's your word for it? "Strange"? It's just "strange" that Charter didn't feel like voting for his #1 suspect who he thinks is positively scum? Why is it a town "strange" instead of a scum "strange"?

All the lack of proof shows is that this behaviour is rare. One example doesn't magically become more significant by failing to find more examples either way. Suppose I'm a researcher who thinks black swans are cannibals. Failing to find non-cannibal black swans is not support of the theory if I simply fail to find black swans.

Your example does not relate because you assume that you can't find black swans. This is not a problem on Mafiascum. You can find almost every single game ever played on this site and use it for reference. Since I don't think anyone wants to look through that many games, I've narrowed it to the hundreds of games played by the players of this game. So far, in those hundred-odd games, when someone doesn't vote for the person they claim is scum, 100% of the time they're scum, and 0% of the time (with the previously-mentioned exceptions) they're town. At least a hundred games is a good sample size, in my opinion.

Also, don't forget that votes show belief in your case. Charter's lack of voting shows a lack of belief in his case, which is odd considering he claims I'm scum. If he actually thinks I'm positively scum, why not vote for me to support that belief? Why do you not feel like voting someone you consider to be scum? Even without my example, this just does not look like town behavior.

[Thor665]

As to why I'm suspicious of you: it's mostly gut, combined with healthy doses of process of elimination

and behaviour towards Fate that doesn't entirely fit.

Okay, so we're down to gut and process of elimination for why you suspect me. Is there any particular reason you can sort of generally grunt towards as to why I'm higher on the suspect ladder then Kerrigan and/or charter? Conversely/additionally maybe a reason you're more likely to clear one/both of them?

Finally, what's the reason you suspect Kerrigan more then charter?

[Steam-Powered Shovel]

Now what should that tell you about Charter's behavior?

Absolutely nothing.

So that's your word for it? "Strange"? It's just "strange" that Charter didn't feel like voting for his #1 suspect who he thinks is positively scum? Why is it a town "strange" instead of a scum "strange"?

It's not a town strange, it's just strange. Charter should have voted for you regardless of his alignment.

Your example does not relate because you assume that you can't find black swans. This is not a problem on Mafiascum. You can find almost every single game ever played on this site and use it for reference. Since I don't think anyone wants to look through that many games, I've narrowed it to the hundreds of games played by the players of this game. So far, in those hundred-odd games, when someone doesn't vote for the person they claim is scum, 100% of the time they're scum, and 0% of the time (with the previously-mentioned exceptions) they're town. At least a hundred games is a good sample size, in my opinion.

If you want to draw the inference "player A isn't voting despite claiming someone is scum" -> "person A is scum", you need to find instances of the former happening. To continue my example: suppose I owned 1000 swans, 999 white non-cannibal ones and 1 black cannibal one. In those 1000 swans, when a swan is black, 100% of the time they're a cannibal, and 0% of the time they're not.

Also, don't forget that votes show belief in your case. Charter's lack of voting shows a lack of belief in his case, which is odd considering he claims I'm scum. If he actually thinks I'm positively scum, why not vote for me to support that belief? Why do you not feel like voting someone you consider to be scum? Even without my example, this just does not look like town behavior.

It also doesn't look like scum behaviour.

Okay, so we're down to gut and process of elimination for why you suspect me. Is there any particular reason you can sort of generally grunt towards as to why I'm higher on the suspect ladder then Kerrigan and/or charter? Conversely/additionally maybe a reason you're more likely to clear one/both of them?

Re: higher on the suspect ladder than Kerrigan, see post 1356. Re: higher than charter, what I said in 1356 regarding Kerrigan actually works for charter too, but more than that I wouldn't even suspect charter if not for partner considerations. I think his interactions with Fate suggest he's town. (That should also answer the question I didn't quote.)

[Thor665]

Re: higher on the suspect ladder than Kerrigan, see post 1356.

I quoted the the relevant to me parts of 1356 and have since then had you retract at least one of the stated reasons for suspecting me. I'm just trying to get you to sort of say (type) out loud why I'm more likely to be scum then Kerrigan.

If the entire case is gut just say so, otherwise pointing to something shouldn't be too dramatically difficult.

[Steam-Powered Shovel]

I guess I should've been more explicit.

Thor, what it essentially boils down to is that I don't think SK-charter works. So if I assume exactly one of you is scum, there are three pairings left to which I assign a significant positive probability: Thor-charter, Thor-Cyberbob and SK-Cyberbob.

You appear in two of these. SK appears in one. If we condition on Thor-SK not being the scum pairing, I'd assign probabilities approximately thusly: Thor-charter 35%, SK-Cyberbob 30%, Thor-Cyberbob 25%, 10% something else, which gives you around 60% chance of being scum as opposed to 30% for SK.

[SaintKerrigan]

If you want to draw the inference "player A isn't voting despite claiming someone is scum" -> "person A is scum", you need to find instances of the former happening.

Excuse me, but I already did that.

To continue my example: suppose I owned 1000 swans, 999 white non-cannibal ones and 1 black cannibal one. In those 1000 swans, when a swan is black, 100% of the time they're a cannibal, and 0% of the time they're not.

That's right. So in order to prove that not all black swans are cannibals, you have to find at least one black swan that isn't a cannibal. No one's done it so far. Until proven otherwise, I see no reason not to assume that Charter is scum.

It also doesn't look like scum behaviour.

I disagree. This fits very well with the scum mentality.

Has anyone besides me even been questioning why Charter went from a town read on me to a scum read? Or how my claims can take me from town to scum in an instant? Or that the person he's doing this to is a high-profile suspect? Or that this is Mylo?

His issue with my claim is "convenience". You want convenience? Read the above.

[Steam-Powered Shovel]

Excuse me, but I already did that.

I don't even agree with you that the example you linked is the same thing. Even then, it's just one example. Note the plural in my quote.

That's right. So in order to prove that not all black swans are cannibals, you have to find at least one black swan that isn't a cannibal. No one's done it so far. Until proven otherwise, I see no reason not to assume that Charter is scum.

The point of the example is that the 999 swans are irrelevant. And no, I don't need to find a second black swan. One example is not statistically significant.

Has anyone besides me even been questioning why Charter went from a town read on me to a scum read? Or how my claims can take me from town to scum in an instant? Or that the person he's doing this to is a high-profile suspect? Or that this is Mylo?

I've looked at it, but I find his explanation relatively satisfactory (ie. that Pie's death caused him to re-evaluate his suspicions.) And your claim is convenient. I'm not at all surprised that he's going after you for it.

[SaintKerrigan]

I don't even agree with you that the example you linked is the same thing.

I went and explained everything for you. I honestly don't know how the hell you can think the two behaviors are dissimilar. The similarities are more than obvious, and any differences have no effect on the argument I'm presenting.

The point of the example is that the 999 swans are irrelevant. And no, I don't need to find a second black swan. One example is not statistically significant.

The more games you find that don't disprove the scumtell, the more valid the scumtell becomes.

I've looked at it, but I find his explanation relatively satisfactory (ie. that Pie's death caused him to re-evaluate his suspicions.)

So you think it's perfectly reasonable that Pie's death not only motivates him to drop me from town to scum, but also clear both of his previous suspects? I hardly consider Pie's death strong enough motivation for the severity of the actions he's taken.

[MichelSableheart]

Sorry SK, but can you please drop the point? The rest of the town has stated that they don't find that particular argument very convincing, so please drop it and move on. I have better things to do with my time then read a page of endless bickering that isn't going anywhere.

[SaintKerrigan]

(sigh) Fine.

If we don't lynch Charter and he winds up scum, though, don't say I didn't try to warn you...

[Thor665]

That just bugs me that you listened to Michel and not to me when I requested the same thing earlier. I'm totally not baking you cookies after this game.

Okay, I've done my read through and really haven't found too much brilliance to latch a vote on. I keep hoping for aspects of this game to be more objective in nature and yet I'm always making gut calls in any case.

Vote: charter

Eh - I'm basing this on myself outguessing the mod, buying into Pie's case, and generally feeling that you have certainly had a bit of attack dog tendency around a few of the potential lynches this game.

I will be kicking myself if Kerrigan is indeed scum, but I see Michel as her only likely partner and I'm pretty townish on Michel so I'm just too wimpy to go with that as a read.

[SaintKerrigan]

That just bugs me that you listened to Michel and not to me when I requested the same thing earlier.

Well, pardon me for saying so, but I'm more willing to listen to someone I think is town than someone that I still consider a possible suspect. It's how I roll.