Open 457: Double Day Unlimited - GAME OVER!

[Voidedmafia]

Vote Chaos

Amen to that.

[Voidedmafia]

So important theory type thing in this setup - large amount of votes out are anti-town in nature. If you MUST have multiple out it needs to be explicitly clear who your top suspect is.

Vote Venrob

Also rule 8? Seriously?

Yes, seriously. If this is a problem please see rule 12.

To be more specific, don't put out more than 2 votes at a time. I mean, RVS is fine, but to increase responsibility for your votes only 2 are really needed.

buldermar: Of course you don't.

[Voidedmafia]

To be more specific, don't put out more than 2 votes at a time. I mean, RVS is fine, but to increase responsibility for your votes only 2 are really needed.

Even two votes are borderline bad. The more votes the more chaos and confusion and thats something that helps scum far more than town in just about any situation.

One vote. If you must have more you absolutely have down who is your top suspect.

Eh, I think two votes are fine for a top 2 kind of thing. It didn't hinder town in the previous two (non-Micro) runs of this setup.

[Voidedmafia]

Unless people are seriously lost as to another scumread, I doubt that that would be a problem (the top suspect part).

[Voidedmafia]

Hello.

Vote: RainbowDash

Whenever I see you talk about setup, I think it's scummy.

Sample set of 1.

Why would that be? Isn't it best to think about how the setup works and all the possibilities?

[Voidedmafia]

While I doubt I'll go past 1 vote myself, I also don't think 2-3 votes is necessarily anti-town. Of course that heavily depends on the manner of votes as well.

3 votes is too many. 2 votes is the maximum that should be allowed (and ideally you should indicate which of those two is on your main suspect). Again, having any more than that dilutes your responsibility for a lynch and can allow people to backtrack and say, "well, he was only my secondary or tertiary suspect!"

To also quote CES from the 1st run of this setup:

Having 2 votes to use frees you up to do some interesting things. More votes than that and responsibility gets diluted.

Unfortunately Dashie and I are just gonna have to agree to disagree on the number of votes allowed.

On that note, I like my vote on Chaos.

[Voidedmafia]

Wouldn't the first hammer vote only count? Neither of the previous two setups had a double hammer clause in them unlike DV mafia, so I'd imagine that the first hammer vote would count and the rest are ignored like if someone was hammered normally.

[Voidedmafia]

I think that some (perhaps many) players here are incapable of making proper adjustments to the game theory optimal for "conventional" setups.

And you think these players are...?

The RD wagon needs to go away, and fast. Voting her because of setup spec is rather rediculous. (and on that note, why aren't you voting me if that's the reason? I'm dabbling just as much into this as she is.)

[Voidedmafia]

Am I the first vote because you remember me the most?

(also, please unvote RD, that's L-1 for her)

[Voidedmafia]

Not really, and more importantly, not in the same way.

If the main reason people are voting her is because of her setup spec, which is what it looks like to me, then yes it does.

If there's something else here, then I'm all ears.

[Voidedmafia]

]That should be self-evident from my position on the matter.

Pretend I'm stupid and don't know, please. (really, I don't.)

[Voidedmafia]

How something is done is at least as important as what is done. Dash did it in a pro-active manner to curry leader-points; you simply posted.

But I was just as much discussing setup spec and trying to set us all on the correct path as she was, just that she started the entire discussion?

[Voidedmafia]

Someone who doesn't understand why rule 8 is absolutely optimal is unlikely to be capable of making the proper adjustments to game theory that I have been talking about.[/quote
A.) How the hell is Rule 8 absolutely optimal?
B.) This is more related to personal commitment than to game theory. I understand that there is a link between the two, but I really don't see the strong connection you're making here.

To be more specific, don't put out more than 2 votes at a time.

You're unlikely to make the proper adjustments as well for thinking that there can't logically be a time where voting three people, for instance, is superior to voting only two.

There isn't. Not in this setup. Again, having more than two votes out dilutes your personal responsibility for a lynch that happens on any of the people you're voting, and thus also allows wiggle room for people to attempt to slither out of that.

I think that 2-3 votes are fine too. anything more will just be useless(half the town being voted) but yeah, you understand.

This shows a proper understanding in my opinion - particularly because shos seems to know why, for instance, three votes can be optimal.

...If you can really see that in the post, you're either reaching or can somehow comprehend things better than I can because I don't see any understanding of what you're trying to sell at all, only that he agreed with what you're saying.

3 votes is too many.

This is wrong in an absolute sense.

Nope. Prove me wrong.

This one should be self-explanatory, although in this case there is a small chance that Venrob votes everyone because he knows that he is town, which effectively skews the alignment of everyone else towards scum, and doesn't have any reads to otherwise change this distribution. It's still suboptimal from a global vantage point.

It's self-explanatory inasmuch as it seems to be his RVS post.

Finally there is all the ongoing random voting (and promotion hereof), which is always worrying to me

...What? Where?

(this I will not discuss because a) it is so retardedly obvious on theoretical grounds alone that something random can never cause something non-random and b) I've had to discuss it in essentially every game I've played).

You'd be surprised what can come out of RVS sometimes, and there does need to be some sort of platform to work off of in the early game, anyways.

(Unrelated, but maybe that's your problem for discussing it every game? You seem to be waaay too analytical for your own good, IMO.)

[Voidedmafia]

Fuck me and my terribleness at getting quotes right -_-

Also, Dashie has it absolutely right in her response to Buldermar. Small point of dissent in regards to the amount of votes that should be in play, but still.

[Voidedmafia]

...Please don't do that ever again. For my sanity, at least. (not that I'll literally go insane, but it's really annoying to respond to things when it's like that.

Because determination of alignments should never happen based on seing someone eagerly analysing the thread during nighttime.

Of course not. No one really does that here, anyways. Hence why this is related to one's personal commitment that these games require and not anything related to theory.

I think rule 8 is quite easy to understand. If one fails to understand it, understanding the proper adjustments to game theory should be a difficult task.

Dashie is a far better person than me in the understanding department. If she doesn't really get why it needs to be in place, then I don't think it's easy to understand at all.

You're wrong. Suppose you have two votes out on the two people you find most likely to be scum. There is a 3rd person whose alignment you think is slightly skewed towards scum, but less so than the first two. You think the rest of the persons have their alignment skewed towards town. The 3rd person is L2 but one of the remaining persons just hit L1. The optimal play here would be to put out a 3rd vote on that 3rd person to increase odds of him being lynched rather than the 4th. There is no reason to unvote the first two whom you consider even more likely to be scum. This isn't as hypothetical a scenario as you may think.

Just unvote the 2nd person to vote the 3rd. Easy.

Suspicion doesn't go away when your vote leaves a person, only when you decide that the person isn't scummy anymore. The only thing that does leave is the pressure of a possible lynch which can easily be reapplied at a later date if lynches on persons one or thre don't work out (or if information from either's flips influences your read on person two).

It is because understanding why three votes can be optimal is counter-intuitive wheras holding that only one or, at most, two votes is optimal is simply applying knowledge adequate for conventional setups.

And why's that a bad thing, anyways? The mechanics here aren't so outlandish that using conventional knowledge is counter-intuitive.

Also, "It is because understanding why three votes can be optimal is counter-intuiitive?" Huh?

Exactly, with the key difference that he is voting everyone.

...And it's his RVS vote. What's your point?

The vast majority of votes thus far has been either without reason or for arbitrary reasons because people wrongfully assume that it magically "gets the game going".

I'm not going to debate this because I doubt you can present me with a perspective I havn't already taken into consideration. Sorry, this is me being completely honest in a condescending fashion.

Consider this:

Person 1 - *votes Person 2 for silly reason*
Person 3 - *Sheeps Person 1*
Person 2 - Why do you vote me?!
Person 4 - *side comment about the wagon on person 2*
Person 5 - *votes Person 4 based on his side comment and demands an explanation from Person 5*

And then the game goes on into more serious discussion. This is just as much as likely scenario as any, and has certainly happened before (I personally find it impossible that in the 2000+ games on this site that that situation hasn't ocurred at LEAST 3 times), and furthermore proves how RVS can "get the game going".

Is it an infallible way? No, I'll give you that. Sometimes RQS or the lack of either RQS or RVS get the game going instead. But it's wrong to assume that it doesn't spur on serious discussion all the time.

For me, there is no such thing as too analytical.

There is when analyzation gets in the way of actually getting shit done and scumhunting, or using said data to scumhunt. That's more or less what we call information Instead of Analysis (IIoA).

Shos, what exactly is odd about that? That sounds pretty common to me.

[Voidedmafia]

Are you aware that you put Dashie at L-1, Ven?

[Voidedmafia]

I disagree that it is not related to theory.

Do tell, then.

This is inferior to voting the 3rd person in addition to voting the 2nd because you effectively lower the odds of the 2nd person being lynched by unvoting.

That's why you revote the 2nd when there's a better chance for that person to be lynched. Besides, if Player 2 is at L-4 or L-3 or something, then they're not really in any danger of being lynched anyways and then that vote is useless and should be repurposed by unvoting player 2 and using that vote to vote player 3.

This is not related to my point. I'm talking about effectively lowering or increasing odds of the individual person being lynched by unvoting and voting, respectively.

The odds of a person being lynched is not specifically related to the number of votes on a person, though that is the easiest part to actually discuss and analyze. The amount of actual suspicion on a person must also be taken into consideration, as well as how difficult the wagon on said person is forming.

Someone at L-1 that has had heavy resistance from other players in regards to his lynch is still much harder to lynch than someone at L-2 or L-3 that other people have consistently found scummy. Sure, if you just look at the number of votes the L-1 person is more likely to be lynched than the L-2/3 people, but that's not the entire story. In such a case, it would be more prudent to go for the person more likely to be lynched via unvoting the L-1 person to put one of the others at L-1 or L-2. Note that you can still actually suspect the person previously at L-1 and can still put him back at L-1 if no one else has unvoted him or put a vote bak on him, and so technically the "odds" haven't really lowered at all because the threat is still evidently there.

I mean exactly what I said, but you misunderstood me. Understanding why three votes can be optimal is counter-intuitive. Intuition would dictate applying conventional strategy, because that's what you're most familiar with. Applying a different strategy requires deliberate thinking.

I still see no problem with applying conventional strategy when it actually

works

. Trying to inject counter-intuitive strategies into something that already has been clearly shown to work is counter-intuitive itself and is overall a detriment.

That it's not one vote, but several votes. There is a difference - I hope we can at least agree on that.

Okay, there's more than one vote. It's his RVS.

What's. Your. Point?

It is ignorant of you to proceed discussing something I explicitly refused to discuss. I'm not going to repeat myself again.

Tough. Besides, you can always ignore it.

I don't perceive information and analysis as a dichotomi.

When you spend the entire game doing nothing but setup spec, theory talk, meta discussion, and don't actually scumhunt, then it does.

Venrob, why didn't you check to make sure Dashie wasn't going to be put at L-1, RVS or not?

P-EDIT: That still doesn't show why you voted him.

[Voidedmafia]

Do tell, then.

I already did.

You said that "determination of alignment should not be done based on people reading the thread during nighttime." I said that, for one thing, people don't do that kind of analysis, anyways. Secondly, because of point 1, that's not theory-related. That's commitment-related.

That's why you revote the 2nd when there's a better chance for that person to be lynched. Besides, if Player 2 is at L-4 or L-3 or something, then they're not really in any danger of being lynched anyways and then that vote is useless and should be repurposed by unvoting player 2 and using that vote to vote player 3.

I'm making a hypothetical example of when using a 3rd vote can be useful and you are trying to argue against it on the premise that you shouldn't use a 3rd vote when that's exactly what I'm pointing out that you should.

Your example doesn't show how useful the 3rd vote is without indicating where Player 2 is at, anyways. No matter your suspicions on person 1 or person 2, if either of them aren't anywhere near in danger of being lynched then the vote of them is effectively useless and needs to be repurposed. Hence why you unvote one of the two with the least amount of votes and move that vote to the 3rd person.

The odds of a person being lynched is not specifically related to the number of votes on a person, though that is the easiest part to actually discuss and analyze. The amount of actual suspicion on a person must also be taken into consideration, as well as how difficult the wagon on said person is forming.

I don't see how this is relevant to the point I made.

Because trying to determine the odds of someone getting lynched is not done purely by the amount of votes on a person. Not taking all factors into account skews your analysis and makes me less likely to believe it.

Still don't see how any of this is relevant to the point I made.

See above reply.

Not if you do it optimally, which is what I refer to with proper adjustments.

There are no "proper adjustments." That's my point.

It is suboptimal from a global vantage point.

Fine, it's "suboptimal from a global vantage point."

Does that help you in any way to figure out if he's town or scum?

When you spend the entire game doing nothing but setup spec, theory talk, meta discussion, and don't actually scumhunt, then it does.

The game isn't over, I'm not doing nothing but setup spec, theory talk and meta discussion, and I actually do scumhunt.

[/quote]
I wasn't meaning you, specifically. You said that you don't see how IIoA works, more or less (at least, that's what I got from that quote). I was explaining why that is.

P-EDIT: That still doesn't show why you voted him.

You missed this, btw.

[Voidedmafia]

I don't see how it can't be both.

Well, to be frank, then that's stupid.

It doesn't show

how

useful, it just shows that using three votes is superior to using two, which is what I wanted to prove. Obviously my premise is that there is a chance that either of them will be lynched, which, in game with no investigation roles, is an entirely fair premise to have. Note that they don't have to be on L1 - or L2 for that matter.

If you want to show that using three votes is superior, you have to show how it's useful as well. If you can't show that, you can't prove it's superior. And if you can't find a counterexample to what I provided, you haven't proven anything.

I'm not trying to determine the odds of someone getting lynched, I'm merely stating that the odds increases when a vote is placed and decreases when a vote is removed. It's not a matter of believing or not believing my analysis, it's a matter of you being incapable of comprehending it

and

(apparently) a matter of you being incapable of comprehending your own inability to comprehend it.

Well, perhaps I read too much into the argument, but simply trying to state something that is rather obvious doesn't really seem to be something worth stating, IMO (if that sentence made sense).

And that's where our little adventurous dicussion will end, because I refuse to waste my time arguing whether or not proper adjustments exists when I've already showed you one.

Okay, if you want to leave while being wrong, be my guest.

It is suboptimal from a global vantage point.

Fine, it's "suboptimal from a global vantage point."

Does that help you in any way to figure out if he's town or scum?

Yes, because I give him credit for understanding this as well. Thus his alignment is skewed towards scum.

Wait, why does that give him scumpoints? Wouldn't it be more townish to realize that?

No, I said I don't perceive information and analysis as dichotomous.

Again, it isn't, but when you do far more information than you do analysis to the point where you're doing nothing BUT information, that's where problems begin (and why I think that being too analytical can be a problem).

I still don't see what's so scummy about the quantity of votes in Venrob's first post. The only scummy thing I see was him inadvertently putting Dashie at L-1 without realizing it.

[Voidedmafia]

I'm not trying to determine the odds of someone getting lynched, I'm merely stating that the odds increases when a vote is placed and decreases when a vote is removed. It's not a matter of believing or not believing my analysis, it's a matter of you being incapable of comprehending it

and

(apparently) a matter of you being incapable of comprehending your own inability to comprehend it.

Well, perhaps I read too much into the argument, but simply trying to state something that is rather obvious doesn't really seem to be something worth stating, IMO (if that sentence made sense).

To make my stance more clear, I understand that increasing the amount of votes on someone increases the likelihood for that person to be lynched. That's pretty obvious and more or less mafia 101. However, if you're going to discuss the odds of someone getting lynch I don't think it's a good idea to focus

only

on that, which is what your example in orange looked like.

[Voidedmafia]

You're wrong. Suppose you have two votes out on the two people you find most likely to be scum. There is a 3rd person whose alignment you think is slightly skewed towards scum, but less so than the first two. You think the rest of the persons have their alignment skewed towards town. The 3rd person is L2 but one of the remaining persons just hit L1. The optimal play here would be to put out a 3rd vote on that 3rd person to increase odds of him being lynched rather than the 4th. There is no reason to unvote the first two whom you consider even more likely to be scum. This isn't as hypothetical a scenario as you may think.

Here you're saying that I hypothetically already have two votes out. Someone else who I find slightly suspect is at L-2 while someone else who isn't one of those three is put at L-1 (I'm only guessing here based on you saying "rather than the 4th" later, which implies to me that this other person who got put at L-1 wasn't one of my main suspects or the third lesser suspect). You're asserting that it's better to increase the quantity of votes that are out by voting the 3rd person rather than maintaining the quantity by unvoting one and voting the 3rd to increase the odds of that person being lynched. I'm asserting that unvoting one of your suspects to vote the third person does the exact same thing, and also maintains your own personal responsibility for the lynch if it happens while your vote is on that 3rd person. By adding on a 3rd vote instead of moving a 2nd vote, that action dilutes your individual responsibility for getting that person lynched because you have, like, two other votes out on people seemingly equally likely to be lynched. It's much easier to walk away from any lynch then, as opposed to keeping two votes where you're much more accountable for the lynch that occurs. Does this not make sense?

BINGO. No, I'm not going to discuss the odds of someone getting lynched - nor did I ever in this game attempt to discuss the odds of someone getting lynched. I was discussing whether the odds of someone getting lynched increased or decreased based on a particular action, namely voting and unvoting, and when this action should be applied and to whom.

My example in orange never "looked like" me discussing the specific odds - don't blame me your horrendous reading abilities and/or inability to comprehend. You failing to understand something I state does not necessarily mean it's phrased inaccurately by me. You're probably better off assuming you misunderstood something and reread my post(s) before you start correcting me.

1.)discussing whether the odds of someone getting lynch is increasing or decreasing IS discussing the odds of someone getting lynched, for rather obvious reasons. I believe I've already accepted that you're talking about a specific facet of the odds of getting someone lynched, anyways, just that I think that you can't stop there.
2.) I never said you were discussing the specific odds, only that you were specifically discussing the odds in relation to the number of votes and excluding everything else that goes into determining said odds. There's a non-semantical difference there (more like a grammatical one).

I don't have to show how useful it is - it is sufficient to show that it is more useful. Please tell me you understand this difference.

You're trying to tell me it's more useful. I wanna know how it's more useful. So far, I'm not convinced.

Ask 20 people picked at random and see who they think is wrong and right in our little controversy.

Or you could just ask the other players in this setup (who are being suspiciously mum in regards to their opinions on this debate).

Jesus, are you serious? You'll have to reread this part until you get it, because I cbb repeating myself again

Or maybe it's because I have no fucking clue what "suboptimal from a global vantage" is supposed to mean, nor how it relates to his scumminess.

Two people so far have seriously sad that Venrob's RVS is scummy because he voted everyone in the playerlist that wasn't himself: Buldermar (you), and Mr. K. You went on to say that because he reailzed that this is "suboptimal from a global vantage point" (which I'm only able to assume is referring to the topic of how having more than 2 votes is a bad idea), he's scummy. Why, exactly, does that make him scummy? He could be town making all those votes to joke around before unvoting as many as necessary (or, to point out what he actually did, unvote all of them) to get down to business just as much as he could be scum for it.

If you want to argue that he's scummy for jumping on multiple bandwagons while seemingly not realizing that said wagons exist, that's fine--in fact, that's what I find suspicious. Otherwise you're arguing a bad point that should be dropped.

I suggest you look up the term "information" - last time I checked it wasn't something you could "do".

Thank you very much for completely missing my point to go on a completely unrelated tangent to how I'm using a particular word.

In other news, I trust more discussion from outside parties will come after Sunday activites come to an end?

[Voidedmafia]

If you want to argue that he's scummy for jumping on multiple bandwagons while seemingly not realizing that said wagons exist, that's fine--in fact, that's what I find suspicious. Otherwise you're arguing a bad point that should be dropped.

While I don't know if this was addressed to buldermar alone (I very much don't like when other people answer questions I specifically meant for other people), I'll clarify from my part since my name was mentioned as well.

I think I was mainly talking to Buldermar.

The quoted part was my main reason for voting as well. I don't think anyone in their right mind would enter a game with this setup and vote everyone without first checking the wagons. Even less so when the vote count had just been posted. But furthermore, I ALSO don't see how such a series of votes would be beneficial to the town in any case. Even in the scenario where Venrob would be town, his series of votes puts ALL the other towns one vote closer to a mislynch.

I'm willing to let the series of votes slide because those seem more like RVS votes than anything else. Well, all the votes except the one on Dashie, anyways.

As town it makes no sense but as scum he would not only be able to put someone in L-1 but also be able to add a vote on EVERY town-wagon. All this completely without an excuse. I also don't like how he pretends he didn't know why he was voted.

This is another good point, though.

[Voidedmafia]

[quote="In post 80, shos

@Venrob - Why did you order the "Vote All" list the way you did?

this is a good question too. List of players:

[01]buldermar
[02] ChaosOmega
[03] Empking
[04] Mr.K
[05] Rainbowdash
[06] shos
[07] uctriton
[08] Venrob
[09] Voidedmafia

list of votes:

VOTE: Voided
VOTE: buldermar
VOTE: Chaos
VOTE: Emp
VOTE: Mr.K
VOTE: Rainbowdash
VOTE: shos
VOTE: uctriton

so it's 9-1234567. possible scumteam V & V?[/quote]
That's not really a good question. I don't see any kind of pattern in the votes that could point people in either direction. Be kind and show me what I'm missing?

[Voidedmafia]

Just saying hi. (reference to last run)

I think this does a little bit in regards to explaining why I'm at the top. At least, I think it does.

[Voidedmafia]

Venrob and I both played in the previous run of this setup in the Open Queue (no link cuz I don't wanna). I don't know if this is entirely true, but I'm led to believe that he put me first because of said connection.

At least, that's my explanation.

[Voidedmafia]

Wish VM wouldnt have answered for Venrob there.

It's only my interpretation. I expect him to explain in his own words when he gets back.

*sigh* read it, and I agree with buldermar. also voided, how comes you ignored me as a person who things Venrob's RVS is scummy?

Why you're suspicious of it is the same reason as to why I'm suspicious of it, so I have no problems with your reasoning.

[Voidedmafia]

VM, it's interesting. I'm trying to read into those reminders early in the game that kept saying "please unvote, that's L-1". And I think both he and shos are chasing a red herring in the listing of the players that Venrob posted. I have this as null.

Hm? I'm fairly sure I denounced that line of reasoning as not being productive.

[Voidedmafia]

Welp, I can see that some amount of stupidity is the name of the game here--that being the stupidity of hammering like that and not allowing Venrob to post.

Vote: uctriton

[Voidedmafia]

Vote: Rainbow

And this is supposed to do what, now?

Vote: Empking

[Voidedmafia]

I can deal with the quickhammer itself being null, but uc's reasoning is shitty as hell. My vote isn't leaving.

I'd have to agree with Shos concerning Chaos - Post 20 overally isn't really that scummy, and his question to Buldemar was actually a fairly good question to ask. He's not townie McTown, of course, but I think any concise read is going to have to wait for him to post again or when a replacment comes in.

Regarding Shos himself, though, he certainly came off worse in his argument with Dashie. Some of the arguments just feel like he's trying to justify the null reasons he voted Venrob in the first place (and yes, they're null).

Vote: Shos

[Voidedmafia]

I will under no circumstances postpone hammring the person I think is the most likely to be scum at

any

point in this game.

So...You wouldn't wait for a person at L-1 to answer any remaining questions if you think they're scum?

This is not an issue in this setup because there are no power rules. I don't get why this is so astonishing difficult for you to comprehend.

He could still be town? THere's a

reason

that the idea of "declaring intent to hammer" has been given out by most ICs before. One reason is to allow for potential claims (which is obviously not applicable here), and the other is to actually allow for the person in question to actually answer anything directed toward him (if there is anything), and/or to allow other players to discuss things prior to the mod potentially calling an end to the day as soon as the hammer is thrown down. Consider it as last-minute affirmation of reads, or something like that.

I mean, if you think someone is scum and want to hammer, and then they produce a town-like response to a question, certainly you'd have to reassess your opinion on the player at the very least? Depending on the strength of the response, you could almost think they weren't scummy. (depending again on the strength of the town-like response as well as the strength of your read on the player; obviously if you REALLY think he's scum then nothing short of a townslip or conftown reveal of some sort will change your mind, but still.)

bulder, any quickhammer robs town of information and possibly makes a mistake that town could avoid doing. just like uctitron did.

Also what I wanted to say.

I was thinking to myself earlier today whether I should vote Mr. K, but decided to wait and see if he would jump oni the uctriton00 wagon. As expected, he did - and without much clarification as to why. He hasn't been participating much in ongoing debates. Furthermore, I have some fairly strong town reads.. on you and Rainbow in particular, and possible Voided.

But, he did clarify as to why: He thought about the hammer and the reasoning behind it, and couldn't see how any way he looks at it sounds good/townie. Why are you ignoring this clear reason?

Unvote: Shos
Vote: Buldermar

[Voidedmafia]

So quickhammering = policy lynch?

Um, no?

[Voidedmafia]

Void, the issue with postponing hammering is that others might unvote while you still want him hammered, which could lead to yourself getting lynched instead. The last person you want lynched in this setup is yourself, no matter your alignment. You're assuming that waiting for the person to respond to one question will often change the game drastically - I find that it influences the game to a much lesser degree than do allowing others to unvote and allow for the possibility of yourself getting lynched instead.

Well, no, I don't think that the questions will drastically change the game--well, depending on who you're playing with, anyways--but the fact remains that if there's a potential for doubt in that person being scum, that doubt should be assauged via letting him/her answer those questions. If they aren't satisfactory, go ahead and hammer. If they are, call it off.

And if you do call off the lynch and wind up getting lynched yourself, well, that's your problem, ain't it?

I didn't ignore his clear reason, I just didn't comment on it because it was obvious that it would be the reason he'd be using as scum. It's an easy go-to solution that figures to be widely accepted based on previous conversations in the game and doesn't require much deliberate thinking - I'm very convinced that he's scum.

I...guess I can follow this, if only because the reason presented was already given. It's still entirely possible that he's just sheeping, though.

Also, Voided, I find it exceptionally scummy that you so thoroughly opposed the idea of three votes and now are voting three people yourself.

VOTE: Voidedmafia

Until you explain why you suddently made this drastic change in what you find to be optimal theory from the town perspective.

B'duh!

Unvote: Empking

Fixed tags.

[Voidedmafia]

...Apparantly I do -_-.

Also, I must've thought that I had a vote on shos when i voted you when I actually had one on Empking.

[Voidedmafia]

Well, yeah, that's my 2nd. One on him, one on you, ya?

[Voidedmafia]

Well, yeah, that's my 2nd. One on him, one on you, ya?

Yes, since you now unvoted one. You had three votes out before after deploring the idea of having three votes out excessively.

Also, I must've thought that I had a vote on shos when i voted you when I actually had one on Empking.

the shos ISO shows inclinations against Buldermar.

I can go ahead and say that well because Buldermar is town, then that means shos is likely scum, when taken into the account he too was on the Venrob wagon and also on my wagon.

Wait, why does him saying buldermar is scum mean he's scum?

Also, remind me, what "common denominators" were you looking for?

uctitron's 160 - do you have any point in analysing that first wagon? I haven't reread day 1a, but from my memory, I can say that my and empking's votes were legitimate. I dunno about the first two, but that hammer was awful and has no justification. "what if this is venrobs plan? that someone unvotes" are you serious? seriously? I mean seriously? wtf.

Also a good reason to be on uct's wagon.

[Voidedmafia]

Uct's post-hammer play looks town.

In what way, exactly? Hopefully not his reasons behind his hammer.

Interested in hearing why Dashie sees K-scum, considering that she isn't adhering to Buld's reasons and I certainly don't agree with those.

[Voidedmafia]

Most of it's just us arguing theory, really. I think you can safely skip them.

@shos - Can you reexplain how your justification for the uticon wagon is any different than what should be justification for a vote on me or bulidmar?

You can do better in answering this, though.

[Voidedmafia]

Empking, you could learn to not be that frigging obtuse. I do feel that shos's irritating with him is genuine, though.

[Voidedmafia]

and I'm not getting the joke >_>

Hint: Replace "Who's there?" With "WHo's Scum?"

Why are you avoiding the questions? What are you losing by answering?

[Voidedmafia]

Voided, instead of posting useless posts like 245, perhaps you should tell us what you think about everything too? and for god's sake maybe empking will cooperate for once as well?

How is it useless when it seems I aided in getting you to actually respond to Dashie? That's not useless at all.

Empking does raise a point about the voting. If Dashie's so sure Shos is scum (and I think that what was outlined in 241 is enough to be a voteworthy case), why didn't she vote? None of her votes allowed votes aren't on Shos (who shouldn't be having 3 votes out, hinthint), so there shouldn't be a reason why she can't just vote him.

Empking can grudgingly be town. "Grudgingly" because I hate the way he posts, but he makes sense in the one-liners. Though...

Rainbow is too wellspoken to be a Day One lynch.

When you say this, do you mean you don't want Dashie to be 1b's lynch?

[Voidedmafia]

it doesn't seem that way, I was dead tired and it was like 2 am, THAT is the reason I didn't answer, lol. I answered not because you prodded me, but because I was awake

Hmph.

Look, I have other reasons to vote rainbow. the fact that he doesn't vote me does not make me scum. I have really no idea why he doesn't vote indeed, but I won't cry for not being voted. either way; I'm not scum, and I'm pretty sure that rainbow is.

I was talking about Dashie, not you.

ChaosOmega* - lurkerscum.

What's with the asterik?

Rainbowdash - Scum Scummy McScum of Scumland the Scumth. or an incredible moron, no offense

Trust me, she's not a moron. I can vouch for that much.

Voidedmafia - seems to be very careful, not taking concrete stances iirc, but is logical. null.

I believe I've stated quite clearly that I think that uct is scum (though it appears that support for that wagon is waning now), and that I think that buldermar is scummy. Empking does bring up a point about Dashie not voting you in 241, which does make me question my read on her, but that read isn't quite as solid, that's true.

[Voidedmafia]

flipping a 180 and buddying me is not getting you any comfort from me.

lolwut.

Unvote: Buldermar
Vote: Shos

[Voidedmafia]

...Huh?

That's not a scumclaim at all. How in the world does "wanting more information floating around before a lynch" equal "scumclaim?"

[Voidedmafia]

...Huh?

That's not a scumclaim at all. How in the world does "wanting more information floating around before a lynch" equal "scumclaim?"

What more information did RD want?

Well, that's for her to answer (assuming the answer hasn't already been given), not me. But that's not really the point. Since when has requesting more information/time been a scumclaim at ALL?

[Voidedmafia]

What information could she have wanted? Delaying tactics have always been a "scumclaim". You're the one excusing her by "more information floating around before a lynch", I expect you to be able to give a

possibility

of what that information could be.

I've asked for what you call a "delaying tactic" to get thoughts down as town when a lynch was nigh so that what I wanted to say wasn't lost before night, usually when I was conftown ready to be killed at night or when there was a distinct possibility that I would be NKed/vigged/etc.

I've seen other town request similarly so they don't fail to get their opinions out under similar circumstances. So your claim that its always a scumclaim is false.

As for the other part, I'd like to note that I'm only raising the possibility that she wants more information. I don't know if it's true, nor do I know what exactly she wants, so that's her question to answer, not mine. but, if you'd look at 303, she also stated that she didn't want anything derpy to happen (like someone accidentally hammering AGAIN), so there's at least one point.

[Voidedmafia]

It was hyperbole. That's why I put it in "".

I don't recall quotations when you first said it was tantamount to a scumclaim.

If wanting me information is a possibibility then there must be some possible information; what is it? You were ther one to come up with the excuse and therefore you're the one who has to support it (or disown it).

She stated she wanted more talking (which I more or less interpreted as "more information"). Again, that's her question.

I don't think: "RD was so convinced that shos was scum that she devoted multiple paragraphs to it but was to lazy to write the "L-1" that would be required if she voted him to prevent accidental hammers," is a particularly convincing argument.

Yet, as we've seen, people can be rather derpy with hammers in this game. It's not a bad precaution to take.

[Voidedmafia]

I only called delaying tactics a "scumclaim" once. i don't buy her non-vote as a delaying tactic. I consider it pretending to be suspicious of someone she doesn't want lynched.

But even if I am to believe that she actually doesn't want to lynch Shos, what of her argument? You can't deny that people have found her argument against Shos substantial enough to actually vote him (myself, for example), and doing this kind of "attack (via case) but don't attack (via voting)" seems more like it'd make her more suspicious.

So you simply paroted her and took her at her word? I'm town. Why is her word to be taken as gospel and unexamined? And will you take me at face value?

She's claiming that she wants there to be more talking going on. Neither of us exactly know (or haven't bothered to find out) what kind of talking she actually wants--as in, if there's a specific subject we should be discussing or if she just wants us to talk, argue, debate, etc. like we're doing now. I'm simply saying that we should learn from her what exactly she's wanting before attempting to call her scum or her actions delay tactics, and then proceed from there.

[Voidedmafia]

To your first paragraph, are you suggesting that you find RD doing "this kind of "attack (via case) but don't attack (via voting)"" suspicious?

No, that seems to be your attack point unless I missed where you also dismissed the case or where less than 2 people endorsed her case on shos. I'm simply pointing out that such a method, were it to be true, is just illogical and would only serve to put more suspicion, on her, thus I'm more likely to believe that she does actually want Shos lynched and her reasons for not yet voting him are town motivated.

"learn from her", so that is you taking her words at face value. Why?

Am I supposed to have gleaned some kind of special meaning from her words? I don't know her intentions, so I kinda have to take what she says at face value.

[Voidedmafia]

as a sidenote, what DO you do with people like that in general? I mean... I have honestly never bumped into this before so I don't know. The guy tries to keep on prod-dodging through two lynches but doesn't ask for a replace either.

You lynch them.

Or he gets replaced at some point. Lynching's usualy faster, though.

[Voidedmafia]

As a scum, how would you play the game from that point?

I can think of at least two things:

1.) Push that into a lynch. Most everyone who suspected you for the hammer (and subsequent explanation), which would be me and Mr. K off the top of my head, have already done this, so the next path would be to either check why they're going after you (is is just for the hammer? Just the reasoning? Mix of both?), and possibly what they think now that a wagon is looking unlikely.

2.)Be suspicious of them, push a little, but not exactly want their lynch; just have them hang over as a middling scumread that you can fall back on just in case.

Option 1 feels like the more townish reaction (Quickhammer? LYNCH DAT FOO! etc.), which does make it the safer option for any potential scum. Of course, it'd be mitigated by how they're pushing that particular angle.

Option 2 is more cautious and neutral, which is more on the null side than in any direction. That means that you'd have to actually look at the reasoning given for this kind of stance.

And then there's probably an Option 3 of calling it all null or something like that.

[Voidedmafia]

flipping a 180 and buddying me is not getting you any comfort from me.

lolwut.

Unvote: Buldermar
Vote: Shos

[Voidedmafia]

...I just quoted it. Are you daft?

[Voidedmafia]

I asked WHY you vote me, not WHERE.

I know. It's in the quote.

Read, please.

[Voidedmafia]

CF be failing. We trollin'.

[Voidedmafia]

Let's look at context, shall we, Shos?

VOTE: Rainbowdash
You're not trying to find scum, you're just trying to get someone lynched.

So... im going for the easy lynch by backing off shos... who I have a case against... who I would have put at L-1... with bulidmar calling him scum and not voting... who said he would hammer anypony at L-1 who was a scumread...

yeah...

Maybe im just not good at this whole "just trying to get somepony lynched" thing or something. I dunno.

Shos is town outside of Chaos-scum probably.

flipping a 180 and buddying me is not getting you any comfort from me.

Note how Dashie never indicated she had you at a townread nor was trying to buddy you, yet you almost deliberately misinterpret this post as her turning 180 in her view on you. Note how VERY CLEARLY WRONG you are in this regard, as if you're trying to discredit her, not any case she has against you.

[Voidedmafia]

lol let's give ucti the honor xD twice in one gameday.... XD

No.

Why the hell are we voting Dashie, again?

[Voidedmafia]

made it larger for you to see.

That is "Shos is town

outside of Chaos-scum

". That is, you're town ONLY if one specific condition is met, that being ChaosOmega is scum. That does NOT mean that you're town to her.

even if it wasn't there tho, are you serious that, with all the content in this day, you would choose to lynch ME for THIS? in all seriousness?

Obviously I wouldn't be voting you for only that. That's just what tipped me back to voting you again.

[Voidedmafia]

The specific condition is CO being town, not CO being scum.

Fine, I was wrong there. I still don't really see this "180 and buddying" angle.

and if that is onlywhat tipped you back, why did you not answer me when I asked, WHY ARE YOU VOTING ME.

uh, hello? I've suspected you before? Did you forget?

[Voidedmafia]

Regarding Shos himself, though, he certainly came off worse in his argument with Dashie. Some of the arguments just feel like he's trying to justify the null reasons he voted Venrob in the first place (and yes, they're null).

Hint: Replace "Who's there?" With "WHo's Scum?"

Why are you avoiding the questions? What are you losing by answering?

That's not really a good question. I don't see any kind of pattern in the votes that could point people in either direction. Be kind and show me what I'm missing?

Hmph. Not as much as I thought there was in my ISO. Even so, I still don't understand the "180 and buddying" angle you're trying to push with Dashie. All I see is that she changed her read.

[Voidedmafia]

about 130 - I don't understand; are you saying that I'm scum because my reasons for voting Venrob were null in your opinoin? O_o

Not in my opinion. Except for the "putting people at L-1 without knowing" most of the other reasons for wanting him dead were at

best

objectively null. Any attempts to argue otherwise felt like you were just arguing for the sake of arguing and/or to overjustify the point rather than trying to push genuine reasons. It wasn't a good attack.

245 - which questions have I avoided? tell me and I'll answer. that knock knock joke had really nothing in it, I have no idea what either of you's point was.

241.

82 - er..we've already been through this like a dozen times I think... >_>

Even so, it does go back to point 1 considering it's related a little.

if that's your "case" for thinking I'm scum, you should rethink, lol.

You're still scummy, mind.

that 180 and buddying is not a push with Dashie you know. there's realy no pressure there, I was just saying that it did not change my opinion at all. I'm really not following you.

You're the one who called that she was doing a 180 on you and buddied you (which I believe was also accompanied with a vote). That's not "no pressure" or "not changing my (Shos's) opinion" at all.

[Voidedmafia]

in 241 dash asked why vote empking over chaos. the answer is the difference between LURKING and ACTIVELY LURKING. the latter is worse.

But Emp wasn't active lurking IIRC?

can you really not see anything wierd at all that he ordered his votes 912345678??

No, not really.

firstly, I did not vote with that post. my vote was there from long, long ago.

I wasn't sure if you had or not, hence "I think." My point would've been better if you had, but it still stood without that.

secondly, tell me how is it pressure in these events:

1. shos votes dash.
2. dash votes shos.
3. dash rambles bla bla buddies and unvotes shos.
4. shos says 'that is not going to help you'.

????

Well, I wouldn't call that "rambling"

And I still don't see this buddying. No one's explained this at all to me.

thirdly - I wrote, and I quote (without the ..., they're just for parting the sentences)
"flipping a 180 and buddying me....... is not getting you any comfort from me."
this could be rephrased, if you will, and tell me if I'm wrong here, to:
"doing what you just did................... is not getting me to change my opinion on you"

So you're using it as another reason to call Dashie scummy (which honestly IMO isn't a reason at all)? Okay, you're not pushing the issue, my bad, but in either case you're using this as an angle against Dashie.

And I STILL don't get how Dashie got to L-1.

[Voidedmafia]

eh I have no idea what I was thinking about empking lurking lol, maybe confused games dunno, I'll get back to it somewhen when I feel like~ :<|

Empking hasn't really been lurking this game. Chaos fit it more than Empking did.

Speaking of Chaos, where's his replacemnt?

and it's perfectly normal that he ordered then 912345678 then, yes? not singling someone out at all, yes?

It means nothing without scummy intent. Trying to claim that he was singling out his scumbuddy was seriously reaching, so the entire point here was just useless posturing, more or less.

it doesn't matter if it's rambling, point is that he says something, and that something does not change my read. I honestly cannot see how you're seeing me sticking to my thought as a scumtell.

It's not that you're sticking to your thought. It's because saying "it does not change me read" tells me that, even if it's to a small degree, you may and could be using this as another attack on Dashie.

AND NO FFS WHAT DONT YOU UNDERSTAND
THIS IS NOT A RESON FOR CALLING HIM SCUM IT IS COMPLETELY UNRELATED. IT IS SAYING SOMETHING, STATING A FACT, AND IT IS NOT ANYTHING THAT SUPPORTS ANYTHING AGaINST DASHIE.

But you see Dashie as scum, right?

I don't understand if you're really so dense or what. no hard feelings yea? but I'm really lost here. WHERE THE HELL IS READING COMPREHENSION. Dash has done bla bla bla over tha last 300 posts which all together apparantly caused people to vote him; then he posted one post which I bother to say is not changing a thing and you think that I'm pushing against him there..I've kinda lost my point or yours, this is just becoming idiotic.

But what, exactly, has been so "bla bla bla?" Why is this so hard to answer? (that question is not just directed at you, btw; I honestly haven't seen much that points to Dash-scum from anybody, everyone else's apparant avoidance of the thread notwithstanding.)

And if you'll note, I've dropped the pushing part.

[Voidedmafia]

exp taught me to not ignore details, and the odds of randomly picking 912345678 are tiny. why incentive did town have to singling you out?

Why would a potential scumbuddy?

"even if it's to a small degree, you may and could be using this as another attack on Dashie."
...which is a reason to vote me? something that I may be using, in YOUR opinion, makes me scum?

Well, the original vote was based on a misreading of her post and yours

yes I see dashie as scum, completely unrelated to that specific post.

So if you do, then this does indirectly support your stance, hence why I said it's another reason to call her scum.

Seriously, where is everyone else?

[Voidedmafia]

I'm here.

Anything else?

[Voidedmafia]

I refuse to vote Dashie. This wagon is absurd, without reason (or what reason there is is stupid), and completely pointless.

Unvote all
Vote: Mr. K

I could be persuaded to Empking if someone was willing to do it (since he's the nearest competing wagon other than Mr. K), but Dashie will not get my vote today.

[Voidedmafia]

Empking's somewhat town to me. Like I said, you can always convince me of Emp-scum.

[Voidedmafia]

holy crap, this whole page is a really, realy big shitstorm, like, Sandy-size. not one piece of logic was given this page.

So are you trying to find any way to discredit Dashie, now?

only thing I have(or want, actually) to say is that Dashie, your read on me as you wrote in 375, is based on that I read you as scum and then changed to town. except I never did that. at all.

Obviously she's not talking about you.

[Voidedmafia]

So...

This is where you (and MK) seem to be lacking... reason. You say I apparently was trying to get shos NOT lynched, which would mean he is scum, which is why he is attacking me when its obvious that if I was scum and got lynched there is no way he could win the game. Unless you are arguing that shos is town, which defeats everything in 330 which basically says that im trying to get anyone lynched, by not puttnig somepony at L-1 who would be hammered by yourself.

So im either scum cross bussing a partner who a few think we are scum together OR I am scum who is "just trying to get a lynch" by keeping somepony who would have been hammered off L-1. Both arguements fall flat.

This isn't logical?

I refuse to vote Dashie. This wagon is absurd, without reason (or what reason there is is stupid), and completely pointless.

Unvote all
Vote: Mr. K

I could be persuaded to Empking if someone was willing to do it (since he's the nearest competing wagon other than Mr. K), but Dashie will not get my vote today.

Or this?

I think you were trying to gain town cred by pretending to be trying to not get shos lynched. I have a strong town read on shos.

Nope. Creates too many town reads I cant let go of as scum. I already wouldnt be able to touch uticon at all, have a hard time going near you and VM. Shutting down a fourth wagon leaves me just three to pick from and limits movement a whole lot. If you are going to limit yourself as scum the win needs to be obvious (see SCIENCE game) or you are going to need to be dead on with predicting how reads of critical components progress, even then risking quite a bit.

Way too risky to shut down shos, if it becomes a concensus read (which when im primary pusher in split scenario it easily could be) thats bad play. Just let him get lynched and instead make moves to setup an adventageous endgame.

I would vote Emp over myself (obv) but MK is making the worst moves right now to me, especially calling me "trying to just get a lynch" after passing up two really easy lynches. Its more of a disguised OMGUS that reformed when I attacked Emp (why they are my favorite pair).

Or this?

Keep trying to lie. Go on.

[Voidedmafia]

@Voidedmafia are you voting for me only because you're sheeping Rainbowdash and/or because you're sheeping her or do you actually have a reason of your own for the vote as well?

That's rich coming from you.

[Voidedmafia]

I'm feeling better about my vote now. Rainbowdash continues to be too incoherent for her own abilities. You see how logically she's analyzing the game and moves in it but she doesn't play in a logical way.

How (well, why) does it make her scum?

buldermar just specifically stated that he's sheeping exactly the same case that makes me look the worst. Yet somehow magically it doesn't make him look scummy. How does this make any sense? If my case is so bad, surely it would make buldermar seem scummy as well. If buldermar is town but still sheeps my case, surely there has to be some sense in it?

Well, for one thing, Buldermar isn't the point of discussion here. Secondly, you are just looking for any lynch, while Dashie is actually applying her reads.

[Voidedmafia]

I'm feeling better about my vote now. Rainbowdash continues to be too incoherent for her own abilities. You see how logically she's analyzing the game and moves in it but she doesn't play in a logical way.

How (well, why) does it make her scum?

When an otherwise logical person starts to purposely apply logic only when it suits her case, that is scummy. Or narrowsighted, which is something that can happen to the most logical people, but I don't think it's the case here considering how little sense her defenses make as well. If she's town, I think she would have AT LEAST given a very different answer to the buldermar-sheeping I brought up.

She's not applying logic only when it suits her. You, on the other hand, at this point are more or less trying to find any reason to find Dashie scummy. And her response isn't that bad, really (not to mention, again, that wasn't the topic).

Yeah, I seriously don't know if you're trying to provoke me into doing something (don't even know what, though) or what the point of this claim was. So yeah, if it was a serious comment, do at least start by describing in what way I'm looking for any lynch.

Well, let me amend my statement: You're looking for any reason to get Dashie lynched. Your attacks on the last two pages have been seriously reaching in their attempts to incriminate Dashie.

You think:
I am scum because my case is so poor that I have to be scum
buldermar is town even though he agrees with my poor case

One would think that buldermar - who you consider town - agreeing to the case would at least

make you realize that the case cannot be so bad that it's scummy

. It's simply not possible.

Or BUldermar could be making a blunder in his sheeping. The case is honestly rather bad, and I don't really like how Buldermar is using it, but just because he's trying to advocate it doesn't make your case any better and I don't see why it would.

Now, instead of acknowledging this in any way, you decided to take the less logical approach again and tried to brush it under the carpet by saying "Really im not sure why MK isnt dead. He literally just responded to an attack with "buldimar did it too" as a defense."

So you're trying to deflect attention off your weak "he did it, too" by painting Dashie's reply as weak? That's arguably worse than what you're saying Dashie's doing.

This is pure appeal to emotion (which I don't consider a scum tell in every case but considering the importance of the observation, I certainly do here) without even an attempt to reason.

That's not Appeal to Emotion. Not even close.

[Voidedmafia]

I don't say shit in here because I haven't read shit and don't want to embarass myself from saying something dumb.
Anything I should know right now, like cop investigations, any claims and stuff?
Sorry for my absence.

...Not sure if playing stupid or really stupid.

Get to you later, K.

[Voidedmafia]

Is this game special mechanics?

...Yes.

[Voidedmafia]

Read the first page, Gunny, will ya?

[Voidedmafia]

And for the love of mafia gods, if you're going to vote Dashie please make a good case for it.

[Voidedmafia]

A townie would have bothered to defend herself in

some

way. Rainbowdash decided to basically call me scum for pointing out this inconsistency and

that

I do find pretty incriminating.

She's scummy for pointing out an inconsistency? When has that happened?

Had someone without a wagon pointed it out, she wouldn't have dared to do that.

And you know this, how?

Also, I'm not about to let you tell me which topics I can discuss. Aka. it was the topic because I brought it up.

The topic you were trying to bring up was irrelevant to the argument at hand.

I love this arrogance.

So you're going to ignore what I say (more or less) and deflect off of it by calling it arrogance (which it isn't, btw)? Smooth, man.

For some reason, everyone in this game thinks they know it all and they're always right!

Lol. I'm not MoI, thank you.

If you say my case is "honestly rather bad", it doesn't make it bad, you know?

Well, duh.

Whereas if someone agrees with the case, it means that someone

gets it

.

Okay, and? What does that have to do with the case being bad/scummy or good/townie?

(Hint: It doesn't)

At this point it's not even a matter of my own opinion about my case anymore, at this point it is confirmed that the case works to some extent.

Nope.

I'm not saying that it automatically makes it a

good

case but if a town agrees to it, it does automatically mean that it can't be so bad that its creator is scum for the case.

So if, hypothetically, a well-known VI like PMysterious replaced into CO's slot (and we'll assume for the sake of this hypothetical that the slot is town), read your case, and agreed with it, that means it's not so bad that its creator isn't scum?

Yes, I'm aware that's more of a worst-case-scenario-type example, but the fact remains that just because someone agrees doesn't mean the case is so bad it's terrible. That just means someone stupidly agrees with it. I won't deny that certain people agreeing with it will affect the case a little, but that's not what determines an argument to be good or bad; that involves the points and premises in the argument. And even then said people can still be wrong.

Oh, and town can sheep wrongly, too, yknow.

I opted against using capital letters for a reason. That reason being that I for real didn't know if there is some very specific framework that is used with the AtE-concept. However, I figured that I might be hitting the AtE-concept so I figured I would clarify that I don't think it's scummy just because it is (if it is) AtE. So, the important bit here was not the name of the term but the fact that the defense was built purely on emotional level and none at all on rationality.

It isn't even close to AtE. No way no how.

Secondly, that wasn't really an emotional response. Besides, if you're going to play this kind of game then you're just as guilty of this for your claim that "Buldermar did it to, too!".

Twisting. I am literally saying that I disagree with a couple of claims in what you say which results to the claim not working. Even if the claim would hypothetically work should you use facts in it.

But you're still agreeing with the logic behind it, which means that you should think that Dashie is town. Bad examples are just bad examples; they don't necessarily destroy the argument/logic itself, and you haven't said that the logic itself is bad.

Wow, you really think everyone who ever agrees on anything with anyone who has ever done anything scummy is scum? Just wow.

And you're using this as a defense?

Isn't it very convenient for you how you've reached this position only a couple of posts after you defended yourself by saying it would be hard to touch buldermar for you? And you blame me for leaving doors open.

Doors open and close in mafia as reads shift and change according to how said reads play, from small blunders that snowball into destroying a townread to cop investigations turning a townread to a scumread.

Not to mention that she's not using it to call Bulder scum YET (and I think i'm reading this correctly this time). If you flip scum then it's good ammunition to use against Buldermar.

I believe we do have two scum in this game.

And that relates to Dashie's point here, how?

The excessive use of absolutes (such as "entire", "never", "everything" etc.) is also suspect in my opinion.

I took the entirety of #415 to a word doc and searched for those three absolutes, each bolded for easier finding.

Entire - Occurs only once:

No. The fact that your

entire

defense is actually "you should be calling him scum too" is almost more of a tell than him actually doing that.

Everything - Occurs only once:

I am logical in

everything

but my reason to vote MK is what his new case is.

Never - Occurs only twice:

MK opens up a day with the attack on Uticon. He

never

makes any distinction as to why Uticon is scum for the hammer but why myself and bulder are not scum for supporting him in that fact.

And

When I move votes from shos to Emp, he calls me scum for "Trying to get anypony lynched" which is

never

explained how, especially since my vote on EITHER put them at the same number of votes.

How, pray is this an "excessive use of absolutes?"

[Voidedmafia]

I read uctriton00's post three times I still seriously don't understand it. Some parts I might understand but since I don't understand the rest, it makes me doubt the other parts as well.

What's not to get? I understand it fairly well.

As for your vote... wtf are you talking about? The deadline is tomorrow, you say Rainbowdash is town so you should have approximately one option.... who you just unvoted. Seriously?

Apparantly you can't read entire posts, only what suits you.

[Voidedmafia]

Well, the first page was pretty fun. The game is about double voting, triple voting and so on and so on.
And we are limiting ourselves to vote only once and twice at the max (correct me if I'm getting this wrong)?
That's like buying 40 inch samsung led smart tv and only watching rental dvds.

And make you be less responsible for any lynch because your votes are on every person in the game? I don't think so.

Anyways, on more serious note, I think VoidedMafia is doing heck of a lot of bootlicking and ass kissing on RBD. I'll have to read closer on him. Do you normally like the taste of boots of other players, VM?

I'm not "bootlicking" or "ass kissing" as you call it, thank you. I don't remember when defending someone meant I was ass kissing.

Don't think scums would actually have fun time playing a game as scum with players like Empking, RBD, VM, etc around.

...Is this a compliment?

As wierd as it is... no lynch today is far from bad. We dont lose any lynches given the mech. Its not optimal, but it actually doesnt do that much damage since we still have two more mislynches, just at 5-2 and 4-2 instead of 6-2 and 4-2.

No lynch is fine, we lose no lynches and make scum make the first move making the actual lylo if we mislynch far more unpredictable for them. Granted a lynch of a scumread is better, but if somehow anypony got uticon to L-1 or something I wouldnt hammer.

This does make sense, but I just feel that the information from a lynch is worth it as opposed to giving scum the chance to dictate LyLo.

The only explanation is that

tyhat's what he wants you to think

. There is no town motive that I can see for his actions.

What, am I playing some sort of reverse psychology, now?

[Voidedmafia]

"such as" indicates that these are only a sample from a greater population of absolutes. Another way to put it would be that these are examples. Examples are not exhaustive, as I'm sure you know. Do you have a comment on the other part of my reason for voting as well?

I just went over that post again, and I still don't see any more examples of absolutes in 415.

I want it to be known that my vote on Rainbowdash has now changed from being merely a sheeping vote to being based on post #415, namely the (in my speculation) knowing use of counterproductive rhetorical tactics designed to let the wrong party steal victory from the true winner, that is, the rightful winner as determined with respect to content. This use is only necessary for scum because scum has to make fallacious cases sound reasonable.

So...you're saying Dashie is scum because she's fabricating content?

@ Emp, unless I'm not reading your ISO correctly, how did a Venrob flip implicate Rainbowdash?

It didn't. RBD being scum before the whole 9123... thing came up is what made me vote RBD. If Venrob did flip town then that would have mostly condemned VM and cleared RBD but the town flip was null on those issues.

If Venrob's townflip was supposed to condemn me how does that suddenly change to it being a null point?

@Voided: If what you were doing wasn't bootlicking, how would you describe it yourself?
Well, you can read it as a compliment, but it was more of an indication of the situation where experienced players are around.

I said so in my reply: I'm defending her.

And...I see.

[Voidedmafia]

That was surprising.

Vote: Voided

I suppose I shouldn't be surprised, but you're sure nothing changes your mind?

Agreed.

vote: shotgun

Why?

VOTE: Empking

Should I assume that you're following Dashie's last request (that is, to quickly lynch Emp), or do you have your own reasons?

I'd hazard that uctriton died because he was (or was becoming) a near-universal townread to everyone in the game. I'll have to think on who his kill implicates, but for right now it doesn't do much to change who Dashie's lynch implicates.

Vote: Emp

[Voidedmafia]

No time for any detailed stuffz (got a paper I ned to do some last-minute doublechecking on for History), but I do implore people to look at Dashie's ISO, cntl+F and put in Emp and look at the posts where Dashie talks about Empking being scummy. I'll get my own analysis up sometime today (assuming I don't forget like I'm wont to do <_<)

[Voidedmafia]

I think the most notable place to look is her posts leading up to the lynch. Dashie was thoroughly convinced of scum being in Mr.K-Emp-DMS that I find it very hard to believe that she'd be wrong on at least one of them.

[Voidedmafia]

Why?

It's the amount of conviction she has in her posts. Prior to the flip, you would have a point in suspecting it, as it could've been Dash-scum either trying to keep a buddy safe or set up mislynches. However, now that she's flipped town, her conviction reads more like town that's very certain in her reads. Couple that with what she's said about each of them and what I think about each of them leads me to believe her reads more and want to vote along with them.

Vote: Voided

Oh, really? Coming from Mr. "I'm going to play the 'don't-know-anything' card and hope it sticks" this doesn't faze me at all.

Why am I scum?

[Voidedmafia]

Uh-huh. Do show how I've been "ass-kissing" one too many times.

Also, emp, you sidestepped my question back there. Please answer it.

[Voidedmafia]

That was surprising.

Vote: Voided

I suppose I shouldn't be surprised, but you're sure nothing changes your mind?

Seriously, Emp. It was right there!

[Voidedmafia]

Kissing ass here.
You seem to have different opinion about a lynch occuring, but your opening phrase is: "Make sense".

Okay, I find what she said to have made sense. How is this ass-kissing?

RBD later retracted her opinion on having no lynch, showing that she didn't make much sense of the tactic and yet you had to agree/kiss-ass regardless of what personal thought you had.

Wouldn't ass-kissing involve me simply not giving much personal opinion at all (or giving an opinion that was rather alike to hers)? Having a completely different viewpoint to her isn't in the definition of ass-kissing, last I checked.

Showing no sign of trying to change RBD's position but sneaking your own thought to insinuate the possible course of action RBD should take in the future.
"Let's agree to disagree." Ha.

I've found that, when Dashie's set into an opinion, it can be pretty hard to dissaude her from it. Unless I myself believe just as strongly in the side opposing hers, its not a good idea to try and shake her from her position until I do believe that much or she drops on her own/

Acting like RBD's spokesperson or something here.

Wrong.

Shos was trying to say that no one on that page was doing any good (which does end up mainly being Dashie since she had the majority of posts on the page at the time). Unless you completely agree with his opinion, my objection to his stance should still be valid regardless of whether or not I said Dashie. Hell, if anyone else had posted in Dashie's place, I would've said the same thing.

Or better, you are pretty much defending RBD for defending's sake.

Nope.

What's your own opinion on what your slot should look like to us now that RBD flipped Town, Voided?
What I should think of my slot is irrelevant. Unless you're planning on getting a leg up on a read on me based on whether or not I humble myself, this is a pointless question.

Mmmmmm.

Simply going "hmmmm" doesn't get you anywhere. Especially when you ignore my entire point with that post.

Grossly cleaning RBD's battle-boots until it melts on your tongue.

loool. Typical to save your insults for last, huh?

I'd already stated multiple times that I did NOT want Dashie's lynch at all. I don't particularly care if you're going to grill me on that, but I think it's good to make people actually work for their lynch, no?

Good misreps, brah.

Unvote: All
Vote: Empking
Vote: Shotgun

[Voidedmafia]

are we officially in mylo now, btw?

6 alive, 2 scum/4 town. So yeah, this is LyLo.

[Voidedmafia]

are we officially in mylo now, btw?

6 alive, 2 scum/4 town. So yeah, this is LyLo.

No LyLo is Day 2b.

I mean the day as a whole is LyLo. 2a is obviously Lylo-1.

Shos: That it?

[Voidedmafia]

Just expected more than that, is all.

[Voidedmafia]

holy shit it has.

are you scum empking?

My facepalm at this was so good it made an actual, audible noise. Which is directly inverse to how good this post was.

Fill up that case on Gunny, Shos. Can't be a one-liner.

[Voidedmafia]

So lynch shos already.

Well, lessee:

I think you're town (mainly PoE. Shouldn't have done that quickhammer, but...)
Mr. K is a middling-scum read (aka not one I'd put my faith in on LyLo)
that just leaves Shos and Gunny. I still believe in my Gunny case more, but it will depend on how Shos develops his own case.

P-EDIT: Unless Mr. K comes in with a surprisingly good post, all we're waiting on is if Shos will deliver on his Gunny case.

[Voidedmafia]

Voided's town play fits this game very very much

Oh.

THAT

game. -_-

(btw, if you want links, I've been in every non-Micro run of this game, so all the links are in my wiki.)

As for Gunny, I do like Post 511, and I agree with most of his points (poinst 1, 2, and 5), but his next post just reeks. It reads like a gross exaggeration of what shos was going to do and when he was going to do it as there's a difference between "Lemme take an hour before I go to reread the thread" and "lemme take most of the game day to reread the entire thread" (the latter is what Gunny's implying). There's also the fact that rereading the entire thread can't be a scumtell anyways, especially in a 5p LyLo where such a reread might actually be necessary to adjust your reads and make sure you're still on the right track. The only point there I agree with is him calling Shos scummy for telling people not to vote given the context of it.

In comparison to Gunny, I certainly like Shos a lot more, and his analysis from his reread makes me think he's not the lynch for today. I still wouldn't trust my Mr. K read on LyLo, so that leaves just one person.

Vote: Shotgun

[Voidedmafia]

voided, can you explain in your own words why you think I am scummy?

I believe that most of what I was saying about you yesterday (in both halves) still applies, and I also think that Gunny's 511 still has some good points in it. However, his tone and other attacks on you combined with what I believe to be a decent enough reread analysis lead me to think that, while you're still scummy, I'm not inclined to vote you today.

and are you sure enough for me to vote gunny right now?

Unless the scumteam is you/Mr.K or you/Buld, yes. Besides Gunny self-voting (implying you/Gunny), those are the only two options I have to fear, and only the first one gives me any pause.

[Voidedmafia]

Where were you, btw, Buld?

My reads still stand, more or less. I won't deny that what Shos said about Buld's interactions with Mr. K are suspect, but with Mr. K flipping town that lifts some of the suspicions I'd have coming into today. Couple that with my already-present townread on him does make the choice for today a simple one, but I'll do a reread of Shos to make sure I'm not wrong.

[Voidedmafia]

Ah, I see. I was simply curious as to where you were, is all.

[Voidedmafia]

Could be. If I recall, though, didn't he do the same thing with me? I know he made a case on me and voted me for it, though it may have been that he switched his attention to Shos instead of unvoting me (though that accomplishes the same thing.

As for the hard-defense, I suppose what Buld quoted in 554 was the most obvious instance of it. I really and honestly did not get how Dashie was getting lynched, and I was hoping that by being enough of a dissenter it could've helped to dissolve the wagon, even if I wasn't as explicit until that post. Unfortunately, as we can see, that didn't quite work out.

[Voidedmafia]

Voided: what do you think about shos claiming not to know that I was going to quickhammer Empking?

I find it very hard to believe he'd miss this:

shos will you vote empking for me?

I'd like to quickhammer.

You conveniently overlooked this?

Of course, in the original quote it wasn't formatted like that, but I still find it hard to believe he'd just skim over that.

why did you wait for me to vote before you? why didn't you jsut vote?

Because I seem to be the only one here willing to quickhammer.

We've had this discussion already <_<

Shos: You do that. I'm interested in how you'll change your read on me again.

[Voidedmafia]

have I said that I missed it? no. I have said that I didn't think it was serious, and didn't know I was putting in L-1. why the misrep?

Skim, didn't take it seriously, etc. The point is, Buld has done and has clearly threatened to do what he just did to Empking, and you more or less brushed it aside. Perhaps claiming you skimmed and didn't see it is a false attack, but then the fact remains that you knew he'd do it and you

still let him

. Either way it shows that you don't really have a keen interest in watching who dies and who doesn't.

P-EDIT: Vengeful 451.1. <_< Also, Open 411: SCIENCE!! (may not be 411, but its around there)

[Voidedmafia]

--owait, I'm thinking of Om not Gunny. Oops. Nevermind. Forget I said anything in the meta dept. (if you're watching from the Dead QT, don't take this as an insult!)

As for the first paragraph, are you trying to say that I'm removing responsibility from myself and giving it to you, or is this referring to Buld? I'm fairly sure I mentioned that I believed in Dashie's reads when I voted him.

[Voidedmafia]

I already answered that... <_<

[Voidedmafia]

Just start from the beginning of the day and look from there.

[Voidedmafia]

Prod-dodge. Bit busy with non-mafia things atm (and I was more focused on another Mafia game, too).

Buld, are you trying to discern patterns in Shos's play pre-LyLo and in LyLo?

[Voidedmafia]

*sigh* this lylo is going to be long and hard to determine >< can anyone just vote me and make my life easier?

I was focused on other things so I forgot to ask, but why would that make it easier for you? I mean, I get the general principle, but since you've indicated before that you'd cross-vote with the person who voted you I don't really see how that'd make it easier.

[Voidedmafia]

Your case on Gunny (and my rebuttal which helped in that regard) was good. I won't deny that. However, both of Gunny's cases (on me and on you) are way too forced and way too contrived, his case on you moreso than his case on me. His play when he replaced in was very off-putting and clearly didn't give him the towncred he wanted (hell, IIRC no one called him town for that), so he hoped to make a case on me to at the very least get some towncred and/or get a mislynch put through, either in his stead or through such a link to me via the case.

However, when THAT fell through (the case itself IMO was shot down easily, you (Shos) thought it was bullshit and so did a couple others), Gunny turned to his scumpartner with a desperation case, not really meant to get towncred from what I can tell, but more to try and give you a leg up come LyLo with the possible expectation that you could at least stave off suspicion to finish the mislynch on me that he wanted.

Besides, a scumteam of gunny/Buld just feels so outlandish. Sure, posts like 514 give a good distancing link between them (Gunny's apparant reason for unvote was because Buld pushed for the quickhammer, which feels fairly odd coming off his case in his preceding post), but there's not really a whole lot of interaction between either of them. Buldermar himself doesn't directly talk about or to Gunny at all while the latter's alive, only mentioning in 558 how Gunny's 513 could be fabricated (which I'm already suspecting it is, on top of how shallow it is). It could be some kind of attempt to get away from Gunny post-mortem, but why not do that while Gunny's alive? Even moreso, why, again, mention him now when Buld didn't do it at all D2? It doesn't really make much sense to me, and as a result a Gunny/Buld scumteam is off the table.

[Voidedmafia]

You have REALLY got to start separate out the quotes and replies. It looks like a giant wall of text rather than seaparated replies -_-.

Your case on Gunny (and my rebuttal which helped in that regard) was good. I won't deny that. However, both of Gunny's cases (on me and on you) are way too forced and way too contrived, his case on you moreso than his case on me. His play when he replaced in was very off-putting and clearly didn't give him the towncred he wanted (hell, IIRC no one called him town for that), so he hoped to make a case on me to at the very least get some towncred and/or get a mislynch put through, either in his stead or through such a link to me via the case.

you do realize that you yourself said that three of the points in his case which were around half the case are things you agreed with? so how comes now you say that it was too forced and contrived?

Just because I agree with some points doesn't mean the case can't feel forced. It just like you can be dead-on with a read, but no one will bother listening to you when you've been belligerent, antagonistic, and been on everyone's bad side the entire game (hypothetically).

Gunny himself wasn't acting like that, of course, but he was scummy prior to making this case and after making it. Me agreeing with his points doesn't always mean my read will change (and in this case they didn't).

However, when THAT fell through (the case itself IMO was shot down easily, you (Shos) thought it was bullshit and so did a couple others), Gunny turned to his scumpartner with a desperation case, not really meant to get towncred from what I can tell, but more to try and give you a leg up come LyLo with the possible expectation that you could at least stave off suspicion to finish the mislynch on me that he wanted.

I'm not getting this. what are you referring with 'THAT'? I thought you were referring the case on *me*?

PARSE CORRECTLY, PLEASE! (and think for a moment) Which case came first: His case on me or his case on you?

Answer that, and you've answered your own question via logical PoE.

eventually I voted him mainly because I figured there was only one scum between you three, so how does his doing give me towncred in any way?

IIRC it didn't? It just made him scummier than you.

he would do that when gunny's alive because by then my case on him was already made.

Huh?

other than that - a shos/gunny team does not look outlandish? IIRC, it was me who always pushed for prodding/replacing chaos. a lurker/flaker scum rarely gets caught until they start talking, since people usually don't like to policylynch, and it's obvious that he survives because why would scum kill him. chaos did literally nothing this game; only post 20 which is nothing. I really can't see how a me/gunny team works better than bulder/gunny :\

So you're saying that a Shos/Gunny team doesn't work because a Chaos/Shos team doesn't work, even though Chaos and gunny are two different people who acted in two completely different ways (even if they're in the same slot)? How does that work?

[Voidedmafia]

You'll have to excuse me for not remembering gunny's case on you. I'll make my reading~

In short, his case on me was that I was ass-kissing Dashie.

anyway I said that I went through gunny's ISO and it appears that the case on you was even more crap than the one on me, basically just 'he kissed ass'. and yes it was before the case on me >_>

So do you realize what "THAT" was referring to, now?

@second-to-last quote: him=gunny.

But that still doesn't answer why there was practically no mention of Gunny by Buld until LyLo. Regardless of whether or not it was mentioned for analysis purposes of any related kind, the distinct lack of explicit dialogue between the two doesn't really make sense.

@last: my point is that I really can't see anyone working well in association to gunny; so I don't understand why you think that bulder/gunny is more unlikely than me/gunny. mainly comes of frustration, there's no real logic here..

I suppose I understand your point here. Agree to disagree, perhaps?

Buld: Is there any analysis of such patterns you can give, or is that still ongoing?

[Voidedmafia]

Do you want me to provide similar (and please restate what you want if so)?

[Voidedmafia]

uh...okay.

Vote: Buldermar

[Voidedmafia]

So, how wonderful was I?

[Voidedmafia]

what?

[Voidedmafia]

tbh, most of this game I felt like I was attacking things that IMO honestly felt scummy, and defending against attacks (either on myself or someone else like Dashie) that I honestly felt were bad, etc., so I guess that helped.

Still, it WAS fun watching Buld and Shos basically destroy each other in LyLo.

(DASHIE, PLEASE DON'T HOLD THIS AGAINST ME! THIS IS IN NO WAY REVENGE FOR THAT SCIENCE OPEN, I SWEAR!)

[Voidedmafia]

I was probably busy, idk. I'm not entirely sure the timestamps are correlated to my timezone (which is Central time). Or I just missed it, or something.

[Voidedmafia]

I mean, I would've liked a perfect game as much as anyone, but it's still a good thing I was prepared for the case w here Gunny was lynched.

[Voidedmafia]

Actually if you look at early on dead QT, I was trying to get you NKed because I was really unsure of you being town but keeping you alive was a benifit to me. All I knew were shos/uticon were town for those reads but had to take the risk on you being town too or no hope at all.

Speaking of, can we have the QT link?

uticon dying N1 was a big red flag that some scum had to like their position, he was town for sure to me... but it was a useless slot and there were a few active prob-towns that would be important to first get rid of.

I can see why it would be. In our Mafia QT, Gunny and I did consider Buld and uc to be the best kills N1.

Still stand by my rule 8 arugement, and the fact that Chaos not being replaced for two weeks of prod-dodging was a major mod semi-helping scum situation

Out of curiousity, why would that be?

Sorry for not being particularly amazing substitute and thanks for the win Voided

To be fair to your case, I do tend to buddy and sheep Dashie more often than I should as town or scum. It's just that in this game I honestly felt like the stuff on Dashie was crap.

Voided: Well played. I think I would have ended up voting shos for his tunneling on me and (from my perspective) quite outrageous accusations. Congratulations.

Like I said, looking at this as scum it was fun to watch you two go at each other. I think, if I was dead town looking in (and, say, Dashie was in my place), I'd probably be screaming "STOP YELLING AT EACH OTHER, DAMMIT! YOU'RE NOT GETTING ANYTHING DONE!"

Oh well! Yeah, well played Voided. Think you would have won with me in lylo as well.

I'm not entirely sure. You were still slightly slanted toward me being scum, and I wasn't entirely sure a Buld or Shos kill would slant you more towards voting me.

On the other hand, I knew Buld had a solid enough townread on me going into the night, and I figured that so long as I did well he wouldn't change his mind on me that much.

[Voidedmafia]

No Dead QT?

[Voidedmafia]

Did people seriously not honestly suspect me until I put down that hammer (or until Gunny dropped my initials)? I honestly expected one of the townies to be suspicious of me due to the fact that I was still alive or something.