Mini 1190: Game over

[hiplop]

Ah, gotcha.

Yeah that doesn't help Hiplop's case at all. I'm all for a Hiplop lynch at this point.

[xvart]

I originally was including the Thomith and Toro being scum buddies exchange but while reviewing the posts and commenting on it I now realize (as much as it pains me to admit it) I did in fact misread one section of one of his posts.

But anyways, back to the others (for ease of reading you only really need to read the red portions and my commentary after each exchange):

Example One

(the most damning due to the blantant contradiction in original post and alleged intention after pressure):

Finally,

what do you mean by "for town."

That sounds pretty definitively that you know I am town.

Is English your first language? I was going to make a derogatory remark here, but realised that would be rash of me considering you may very well speak Albanian as your first language.

If English is your first language, you're reaaaally stretching here and I assume that native English speakers on this site (probably at least of average intelligence if not above-average) will see this.

The gist is,

by saying "for town" I am probably (indeed I am in this context) accusing you of being scum or stupid-town.

(You'd have to be stupid-town to attack me without reading my posts, paticularly when I have commented that you need to start reading my posts.)

When pushed about something hoppster said he comes back with a completely different interpretation than what he actually said. Note that since this defense is weak (unless I am a mind reader for knowing that what he meant was opposite of what he said) the basis of this attack is ad hominem.

Example Two:

I'm going to be watching Empking more and more from here on out, I'm not going to place a vote down on him to start a bandwagon as

there is a chance still he actually is Miller

. I won't make a final decision on what Empking is until I've read him better down the road. As of now I'm going to re-read back through the thread and look at all of the different conflicts going on.

... Come again?

Of course

there's a chance he's town (and therefore a Miller), that's the situation WITH EVERYBODY.

Please... with this logic, you should never ever make a vote apart from a select few scenarios when somebody is confirmed scum.

Hoppster

- First post of his (which includes a CC vote) appears serious, kind of appears as if he's jumping the gun here. (Scum)
- #26: Calls out Sleepy for over-eagerly rushing onto a wagon. Contradiction. Hopp overeagerly started a wagon and pushed for it in RVS. (Scum)

JUDGMENT: Lack of posts doesn't set anything in stone for me yet, but he's leaning scum.

What? How is a serious vote in RVS scummy?

I am also not contradicting myself in

any shape or form

.

Even if I was overeagerly starting a wagon (and I firmly believe I was not), my overeagerness in starting a wagon and Sleepy rushing overeagerly onto a wagon are not mutually exclusive.

I'm not even being hypocritical, if that's what you're driving at. Starting a wagon and rushing onto a wagon are

very different things

.

My wagon was justified, anyhow. Or are you saying this is not the case?

Thomith

- Posting thoughts on game so far. Thru #50. Not really contributing though. (Null)
- Still hasn't contributed anything. #62. (Null-Scum)

JUDGMENT: Is just coasting along echoing others thoughts and hasn't contributed, I think we might have scum here trying to lay low.

---------------------------------

Vote: Thomith

This is actually ridiculous.

Going to refer you back to your logic from avoiding Empking: "I'm not going to place a vote down on him to start a bandwagon as there is a chance still he actually is

Miller

town".

In fact, here's another lovely quote illustrating this:

Because here's the thing, it's not certain that Empking is a miller or not. I don't want to keep my vote on him throughout the whole day phase and potentially mislynch a townie.

Are you saying that there is no chance that Thomith is town? Pray, tell us how you know this.

You have 2 points on Thomith - Null and Null-Scum.

You have 2 Scum points on myself. You have 3 on SleepyKrew.

And yet you vote for Thomith?!

Empking

- Claims miller right off the bat, you all know how I feel about this. (Null)

Yep, that's right, I know you think it's... null? That's not how it looked earlier...

IGMEOY: Empking

^ Ie. MILLER CLAIM TOTALLY NOT NULL

FoS: Toro

[/quote]

^ This is relevant to [1]

because I am making my suspicion of Toro very, very clear

- I'm not 'dancing' around him at all and to say that is just stupid.

It is slightly relevant to [2]

because it's when I first began to think that Toro might just be an idiot

(expanded on later).

[/quote]

Once again, after pressured, he says that he was thinking at the time that Toro "might just be an idiot town" despite there being no indication of him thinking as such in his post.

Example Three:

Mafia One-Shot Vigilante is a normal role. I think it's safer if we tie Toro to a certain specific target, whether that be himself or a lurker. (I'd prefer it to be himself, seeing as lurkers can be replaced.)

I think I've seen one mafia vig and it was a large them (I think). I highly doubt there is a mafia one shot vig in a mini normal all things considered. And the directing a vig kill to a single person is highly scummy due to the influence scum have in the night actions.

The only thing that could even be construed as justified suspicion here would be

if you believe that I am scum and my faction has a Redirector or Bus Driver, with both being explicity non-Normal.

Or perhaps if I have full setup knowledge and know every single person's role.

A hypothetical scum roleblocker DOES NOT mean directing the vig shot is scummy,

AS THEY CAN ROLEBLOCK REGARDLESS OF WHETHER THE SHOT IS DIRECTED OR NOT

AND THEN I HAVE NO IDEA WHAT ELSE YOU COULD POSSIBLY THINK IS SCUMMY

You accuse me of not reading because you have a different interpretation of what you said than what you actually said? Where did you say anything about a roleblocker in your first response? This is another example of you justifying something after the fact with evidence that was not originally stated. What you said originally is completely different than your annotations in blue. The whole point is if there is a RBer they know if the single individual set to be killed is on their team or not. When it is not directed, they do not know if the target is going to be their team or not. Even if they don't have a RBer they can influence the kill during the day to someone who is town and say "welp, at least we got rid of a town lurker." Giving scum advanced knowledge of specific night actions only helps scum and not town because they have more information about night actions to begin with.

Note: the blue text by Hoppster was added much later than the initial quote, under the pretense of explaining how I am not reading his post when he is talking about completely different roles in both instances. The blue text came after I refuted his argument by discussing the roleblocker possibility and how that benefits scum knowing who the target is. I'll repeat for emphasis:

Giving scum advanced knowledge of specific night actions only helps scum and not town because they have more information about night actions to begin with.

[PJ.]

That was convoluted.

[xvart]

That was convoluted.

Yes, that is an unfortunate byproduct of using multiple examples of someone's behavior over multiple posts, especially when that person types inside quotes instead of outside them on occasion confusing the chronology even more. However, is it so convoluted that you didn't understand it at all or have absolutely nothing else to say about it? Do you disagree that the highlighted red comments by him are contradictory, changing explanations, or justifying behavior after the fact with thoughts that were not present at the time? My entire point is, from my perspective,

it appears that Hoppster on several occasions when he was put under pressure has changed his story or contradicted himself and excused it by saying "that was what I was thinking at the time even though I didn't say it." As he says, once can be excusable, but three times? All of which come under pressure about something he said?

Isolating out the second example, read his entire post. Is there anything in there that would suggest anything other than a full blown suspicion? Is there anything that makes you think that Hoppster's read includes the possibility of Toro being "idiot town"? That quote is the point where Hoppster allegedly started thinking that Toro might just be "idiot town" as justification against his suspicion level of Toro waxing and waning with Toro's wagon momentum.

Panzer - you certainly haven't done much the last couple of pages to alleviate your connection to Hoppster upon his scum flip.

[xvart]

I'm fine with a lurker vig provided we tie down Toro to a specific shot.

This goes back to the directing vig kill argument. You are fine with a vig shooting

any lurker

but you want it tied down to a specific lurker for what purpose? Why does it matter which lurker he shoots if you are fine with generalized lurker kill?

[xvart]

And who did you consider a lurker at that point in the game?

[PJ.]

Panzer - you certainly haven't done much the last couple of pages to alleviate your connection to Hoppster upon his scum flip.

But if he flips town, does that make me more town and you more scum?

[PJ.]

I'm fine with a lurker vig provided we tie down Toro to a specific shot.

This goes back to the directing vig kill argument. You are fine with a vig shooting

any lurker

but you want it tied down to a specific lurker for what purpose? Why does it matter which lurker he shoots if you are fine with generalized lurker kill?

No, he is fine with toro being a lurker as long as we can pick his shot.

[hiplop]

SPPOOOON, im goinng camping so will be v/la tomorrow and maybe sunday

[vollkan]

1) Pointing that Emp did it was a way of saying why I'm the only one answering for it. Also, If he doesn't do it, we lynch him for being scum, if he's town he should do it because he obviously played poorly enough and anti-town enough to be a detriment thus should martyr himself for the town. Also, it prevents him from mis-vigging anyone. On a more mafia theory related note, I generally think vig's are a detriment to the town due to them generally hitting town.

But you're forgetting that one-shot scum would be bizarre. Thus, if we let him make a free choice tonight, there is still a prospect that he will hit scum and, moreover, his claim is easily tested if he is faking it.

SK could easily just make 1 kill and let it go. Scum could just claim he was blocked. How else would you test it?

I seriously doubt any SK would be willing to forgo their killing power, and what good would claiming a block do in the long-term? Either way, now that he's outed he's accountable for his choices.

A hypothetical scum roleblocker DOES NOT mean directing the vig shot is scummy, AS THEY CAN ROLEBLOCK REGARDLESS OF WHETHER THE SHOT IS DIRECTED OR NOT

AND THEN I HAVE NO IDEA WHAT ELSE YOU COULD POSSIBLY THINK IS SCUMMY

You're missing the point here.

The problem with directing a vig is that, if scum know what the kill choice will be, that can plan their own actions around if. If they know a vig is killing town and they have a RB, they can safely use their RB elsewhere - and vice versa.

Hoppster admits this is true, although claims it is only coincidence;

First, thanks for giving the details like I asked.

On this point, I had a look back at the paragraph in 419 you wrote on this (Beginning with "Basically, throughout the entire day...") and I am giving for it. The shifting is weaker than might otherwise be the case, because he does acknowledge the shifts (ie. in the post where he says Empking is changing his mind) - but coupling the wagon-coincidence with the cognitive dissonance, it is a scumtell, though by no means as strong as I initially thought.

I agree that town does this, but not to the degree you've done it. The saying "fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me." The fact that you have done it repeatedly says something about your alignment. Multiple examples will be provided later.

I don't think this has significant weight independently, but I think combined with the above, it merits a

Hoppster+7

.The reason this has any weight at all for me is more because it reflects a lack of justification for his changing reads - as in, he can only explain them by asserting unposted intentions.

This has been detailed to great extent, but I'm really less concerned with the original argument of him knowing my alignment and more concerned with the fact that he came back and claimed that when he said "for someone who is town" (or even "for someone whose likely town" if that were the case) he meant "for someone who is scum or idiot town." This is a blaring contridiction and as good of a backpedal as I've ever seen.

Honestly, this point just seems like a semantic debate. I think Hopp's "Mary Kate and Ashley"-type examples make it clear what he was trying to say.

[SleepyKrew]

Panzer, feelings on Hop?
If it comes to it, I'd join the hip wagon. But I'd much prefer Hop.

[Twistedspoon]

TheFool has replaced Jakesh97. Give him a well warmcome

[SleepyKrew]

I missed this page.

[SleepyKrew]

Nothing has changed. But now volkan should vote Hop.

[vollkan]

Player	Score
SleepyKrew	50
CaptainCorporal	50
Sundy	55
Hoppster	57
Thomith	55
Panzerjager	55
Toro	65
Hiplop	65
Xvart	50
Jakesh97	50
PBUG	50
Empking	50

My vote is staying where it is.

[SleepyKrew]

But you would be willing to hammer Hop?

[vollkan]

But you would be willing to hammer Hop?

As a deadline compromise instead of Hiplop, yeah.

First off, to get my standard "How I Play" PSA out of the way: I rank my suspects from 0 (absolutely town) - 100 (absolutely scum). Everybody starts at 50. Because I don't believe in towntells and am skeptical about most scumtells, it is common for people to stay at 50. 50 does not mean "no opinion" - it means "I don't see scumtells" from this person. Absent claims,

need for deadline compromises

, etc. I will always vote the person with the highest score.

[Sundy]

But you would be willing to hammer Hop?

As a deadline compromise instead of Hiplop, yeah.

First off, to get my standard "How I Play" PSA out of the way: I rank my suspects from 0 (absolutely town) - 100 (absolutely scum). Everybody starts at 50. Because I don't believe in towntells and am skeptical about most scumtells, it is common for people to stay at 50. 50 does not mean "no opinion" - it means "I don't see scumtells" from this person. Absent claims,

need for deadline compromises

, etc. I will always vote the person with the highest score.

I hope you will revise all of your scum-points and future town-tells in light of new information (especially after lynches and the night) or this manner of playing will start to seem

awfully

rigid.

[Sundy]

But you would be willing to hammer Hop?

As a deadline compromise instead of Hiplop, yeah.

First off, to get my standard "How I Play" PSA out of the way: I rank my suspects from 0 (absolutely town) - 100 (absolutely scum). Everybody starts at 50. Because I don't believe in towntells and am skeptical about most scumtells, it is common for people to stay at 50. 50 does not mean "no opinion" - it means "I don't see scumtells" from this person. Absent claims,

need for deadline compromises

, etc. I will always vote the person with the highest score.

I hope you will revise all of your scum-points and future town-tells in light of new information (especially after lynches and the night) or this manner of playing will start to seem

awfully

rigid.

EBWOP: I also cannot help but notice that you have null-tells on fully half the players in the game. Don't like it.

[vollkan]

But you would be willing to hammer Hop?

As a deadline compromise instead of Hiplop, yeah.

First off, to get my standard "How I Play" PSA out of the way: I rank my suspects from 0 (absolutely town) - 100 (absolutely scum). Everybody starts at 50. Because I don't believe in towntells and am skeptical about most scumtells, it is common for people to stay at 50. 50 does not mean "no opinion" - it means "I don't see scumtells" from this person. Absent claims,

need for deadline compromises

, etc. I will always vote the person with the highest score.

I hope you will revise all of your scum-points and future town-tells in light of new information (especially after lynches and the night) or this manner of playing will start to seem

awfully

rigid.

EBWOP: I also cannot help but notice that you have null-tells on fully half the players in the game. Don't like it.

Three points:
1) The fact that I use a numerical system tends to exaggerate my null reads in two ways. First, obviously, it means that my null reads are all explicitly stated (whereas most people will only post their town or scum reads). Second, more subtly, it cuts out a lot of nuance - I'm confident I've given my opinions on every significant matter where you might reasonably expect me to hold a position other than a nullread; needless to say, my points chart won't reflect those opinions. I completely admit that I have a much greater than average rate of null reads (see below: this is a meta trait of mine), but I still think that my system exaggerates it.

2) Have a look across basically any of my games, and you'll more likely than not see both: a) That I frequently have many people at 50 (see also my PSA where I warned of this in advance); and b) People complaining about the significant number of null reads.

Spoiler: 3) Somewhat lengthy underlying theory explanation

3) Theorywise, I think it is ultimately a consequence of my admittedly unusual way of determining tells. Basically, I have the fairly standard starting point of defining a [scum/town] tell as "any action more likely to come from [scum/town] than [town/scum]". The big difference is that, because I don't think there is any reliable way to determine more likely (a probabilistic concept) and because I have an inherent scepticism of anecdotal arguments my basic test is

whether or not any given action could reasonably come from a [town/scum] player, with all the known meta characteristics of the player in question and allowing for reasonable levels of error

.

Because it is almost ALWAYS reasonable for scum to take ostensibly pro-town actions, I don't (at least for almost all practical purposes) believe in behavioural towntells.

Likewise, for me to consider something to be a scumtell, it basically has to be something that I don't think could reasonably come from town.

This recent example I found a few weeks ago (where I was referred to in a game that I wasn't actually even in) comes to mind here:

I'd really prefer a Runner lynch to anything on the table right now, but I know I don't have the energy or the capital to commit to a battle against him. I don't see Spyrex as voting Gorrad illegitimately here. He's fluffing his way through the first part of the game. His vote on Cyberbob is kind of lame. [etc etc]

The double negative is gut scummy, and is RC really one of the

vollkan-Netopalis school of "legitimate" and "illegitimate"?

I only forgive that mindset based on case by case meta history - only certain kinds of rare town players read the game as objectively classifying cases as "legitimate" and "illegitimate" (I think the mindset has gaping holes), but it's a convenient MO as a scum player.

From what I can gather from the context, this is a reference to my tendency to ignore (alignment-wise) anything that I can reasonably/legitimately see as coming from town. I quote it only to show the extent to which my views here have a degree of notoriety

[vollkan]

But you would be willing to hammer Hop?

As a deadline compromise instead of Hiplop, yeah.

First off, to get my standard "How I Play" PSA out of the way: I rank my suspects from 0 (absolutely town) - 100 (absolutely scum). Everybody starts at 50. Because I don't believe in towntells and am skeptical about most scumtells, it is common for people to stay at 50. 50 does not mean "no opinion" - it means "I don't see scumtells" from this person. Absent claims,

need for deadline compromises

, etc. I will always vote the person with the highest score.

I hope you will revise all of your scum-points and future town-tells in light of new information (especially after lynches and the night) or this manner of playing will start to seem

awfully

rigid.

I do revise my scumpoints if new information comes to light. But it will be a cold day in hell before I'm seen giving out townpoints (see previous post)

[Sundy]

But you would be willing to hammer Hop?

As a deadline compromise instead of Hiplop, yeah.

First off, to get my standard "How I Play" PSA out of the way: I rank my suspects from 0 (absolutely town) - 100 (absolutely scum). Everybody starts at 50. Because I don't believe in towntells and am skeptical about most scumtells, it is common for people to stay at 50. 50 does not mean "no opinion" - it means "I don't see scumtells" from this person. Absent claims,

need for deadline compromises

, etc. I will always vote the person with the highest score.

I hope you will revise all of your scum-points and future town-tells in light of new information (especially after lynches and the night) or this manner of playing will start to seem

awfully

rigid.

I do revise my scumpoints if new information comes to light. But it will be a cold day in hell before I'm seen giving out townpoints (see previous post)

Yes that is why I said "future town-tells," in order to suggest the town-tells you will begin making, once you realize that this particular portion of your Mafia theory (no town-tells) must be cast aside.

Anyway I did not really need the explanation you so kindly provided, because it is clear you are doing the same in all of your games, and I do not find you very scummy in this one. I am just pointing out that these particular aspects of your game-play (no town-tells, and having a large frequency of null reads) must be very nice indeed when you are playing scum, as it leaves your options wide-open.

This is very dull theory-talk. Will someone please do something exciting, like contribute to a bandwagon?

[SleepyKrew]

UNVOTE:
VOTE: hip

[vollkan]

UNVOTE:
VOTE: hip

Why do you suspect Hip? I just checked your ISO and I can't find anything backing your vote up.

[SleepyKrew]

I agree with the case on him. I've said I'd prefer a Hop lynch but am willing to lynch hip instead.