somestrangeflea wrote:Bandwagon and pressure are IMO, quite closely linked, with one major difference. For town, the point of Bandwagon is to create pressure. For scum, the point of bandwagon is to mislynch.
Bandwagon and pressure are entirely different thing. Bandwagons cause pressure, but that's only part of the definition of both of them. They're incomparable.
YogurtBandit is apparently reading the thread enough to make Post 440, but not actually provide any content. I don't like that.
YogurtBandit wrote:I do, I still think Darko is scum...
Why?
I don't think Sarcastro is scum because of his "certainty", and I don't really like the people pushing that angle. Num defends ryan in 475. SirT posts a list in 480, that could prove to be useful later on.
NabakovNabakov wrote:Hooray for defense through apology! I think I'm a bit of a trend setter in that regard. Num's post seems genuine enough, and even though he's a polished player, I don't think anybody went into this game with a good idea of lover tactics.
Why? What makes Num's apology genuine?
I don't like daemno's vote in 485. I don't like ryan's apparent change in playstyle.
Guardian wrote:SirT, you have failed miserably to provide us with any sort of pbpa on Jordan -- you have not even posted a paragraph about your thoughts on him -- all I am getting is that he is the most "Neutral" of all the players for you.
I see a strong link between SirT and Jordan. SirT has never said anything definitive about Jordan, and Jordan has never said
anything
about SirT. Both have addressed each other, but never anything meaningful or indicative of their opinion of the other's alignment. Then, I find Jordan suspicious and I lay out a case, SirT promises to post some thoughts on Jordan and never does, and what we get from him in the end is a "neutral" feeling about Jordan.
I would like very much for
people to comment on the above
and not ignore it
. I think I am on to something.
Connections are useless until one of the connected players turn up scum. If you say they are connected, then you must be able to make a case for
both
of them. A connection is, in itself, not something which makes people scum. Scum get connected to Town, Town get connected to Town, Scum get connected to Scum, it's all part of the game. Connections are only reasonable evidence for a lynch if the guy you're accusing is connected to a scumbag.
Adel's 498 is somewhat arbitrary. So are Xdaemno's numbers in 501. Adel suggests Xdaemno as scum in 504. I don't really like posts like that, they always look like someone nudging someone else to do the dirty work for them, or someone exploring someone else as a lynch option but not wanting to be solid yet.
pickemgenius, 517 wrote:I admit I'm liking Sarcastro a shitload more recently.
Why?
Jordan-Sarcastro interaction in 518-522. Mass overreaction from Jordan's side, I can't say I like that. Pretty solid PbPA from Num in 537, I'll have to take a look at Jordan's posts myself, though.
Xdaamno wrote:Zindy being town is exactly the problem; allying yourself with smart, pro-town people makes you look better.
To be an ally, the buddying must be reciprocated.
Sir Tornado wrote:It would have been 10 had NabNab not made a post in between. Basically, I think people pay much more attention to more number of small posts than one huge post. Besides, it saves me the effort to copy-paste the quotes (I can simply hit the "quote button" and quote the entire post I am replying to.
Tabs are your friend.
Ergo's 550, I don't like. He pretty much picks the two least interesting things to contribute about. Future posts need to be better.
Talk about mathematics. I think I could figure out the random chances here, but I really don't see the use in that. As long as the setup is reasonably close to 50/50 (which it probably is), I'm okay with it.
The setup is open. We'll know when we're in LyLo, and we'll know what to do then. The only relevant statistics for us are those that have anything to do with lovers. More contentless posts from Yogurt.
Numenorean7 wrote:Sometimes when people see a case against them, they panic. They don't actually answer any of the case, and start being extremely defensive, talking about how it would be a really bad idea to lynch them, etc. Jordan didn't answer
all
my points, nor did he clear himself of suspicion, but at least he didn't starting being irrational.
And irritational=scum?
Guardian (567) correctly points out Adel's buddying in 396, I think I said something back then about that as well...
He also points out a really nice contradiction from Tornado, from 428 and onward.
Sarcastro wrote:2. I'm obviously not calling myself either of those things. It was basically an insult towards several people I was frustrated with (as well as a compliment to you, I suppose). I don't know what else you want to read into it.
I was curious to know why you said it that way.
3. I would have thought that would be obvious. In a game this full of newbies, it would take a lot for me to be willing to lynch you day one. Maybe you don't agree with that philosophy, but since I'm pretty confident that you're not going to be lynched anyway, it doesn't really matter to me.
Actually, I don't agree with the philosophy. I vote for whoever I think is scum, regardless of his playing capacity.
I don't think Adel's 592 helps the town in any way. She goes out of her way to try to incite reactions, but things like that don't help the town. I can see town jump on it just as easily as scum.
Guardian wrote:Adel wrote:for now on, talking about relationships between living players is a HUGE scumtell
Adel is smarter than this. I think. I think her whole theory is meant to hinder the town. She has a history of bad theories, but this one just stinks.
What makes this theory different from the other ones? In the only other game I've played with her (which is currently ongoing, but she's dead town), she also came up with some horrible theories and was lynched over them.
Saying that lynching you is a scumtell is... you guessed it, a scumtell.
I've said this before (I'm getting the feeling I'm repeating myself in every other sentence), but this really is very much true.
Adel wrote:I think I have you nailed. And I think your scumbuddies are making short little precise posts and you realize that I just called out their major tell. Everything about your play in this game seems really scummy to me right now.
...
Adel, seriously, get your brains together.
Why is Guardian scum? Who are his supposed buddies, if you have this tell? Why is it even a tell?
FoS: Adel
Adel wrote:Like I would stick my neck out like this if I were scum? Bull. Especially thanks the games we have had together, your case against me reads like a list of everything I've been accused of in our other games. Where I was town. Like I am in this one.
Classic WIFOM, as Guardian pointed out.
There's some talk about lynching Fernando. I personally use two differing words: lurker and inactive. Inactives are people who just aren't there, lurkers are people who are there, but not posting. I don't lynch people over inactivity, I do lynch people over lurking.
pickemgenius wrote:Guardian wrote:I would add peg to that, below xyzzy, he is here but isn't saying anything.
pickemgenius wrote:
To not expect big ass posts from me very often, and most of them will be brief and to the point.
I'll admit your posts have been brief, but I don't think they have been very much to the point.
YogurtBandit wrote:Here and still voting Darko.
FoS: YogurtBandit
This post is unacceptable.
Yogurt's post 635 is, again, horribly weak. That isn't a case. We're on what, Page 26? If, at Page 26, that is the best you can come up with, you don't have a lot.
Sacred wrote:Arguably indeed. I know I'm a good player, but best is kind of a stretch at this point. In addition, Sir T wouldn't know that anyway.
I believe that, at that point, I had already praised your abilities.
I also agree with the Nab's buddying up to Sarcastro as pointed out by Sacred in 639.
Sacred wrote:>463<
Gunny's views are nice, Sacred, but Lynch all Lurkers (like Lynch all Liars) is inherently flawed.
Also 463 wrote:However, the lurkers/inactives issue really shouldn't be left unsolved until later stages of the game. Ask Zindaras. He will attest to the fact that 4-5 lurkers will be the death of the town.
It's not very nice to remind someone of his shortcomings.
Yes, Adel's thing looks staged, but that's because she did stage it, regardless of alignment. She even claims she's staged it. The only thing we should wonder about is whether or not it's fake.
Tornado points out a few very questionable points of Guardian's in 667.
Numenorean7, 673 wrote:I expect the lurkers haven't been voted because there has been so much other suspicion flying around. I'd agree that we've only seen relatively minor scumtells, but there have been a lot of different controversial accusations against a lot of different people, as well as discussions of various theoretical strategies. I think that we have been so busy debating about various issues, we forgot the inactives were even here. The ideal situation for a malicious lurker...
I find it interesting that Sacred has been advocating a "lynch all lurkers" strategy, but her vote is on Guardian.
ryan wrote:Which we do definetly have a few of those unfortunately
Again, the despised blanket statement.
Fonzie's entry. I like the fact he attacks ryan. I dislike the way he does it. I'm getting the feeling he's mostly agreeing with points I've already made regarding ryan. However, he only mentions me by name once, and that's on a completely different (and irrelevant) subject. I really don't like the way he ignores quite a few players there. 683, 686, Sir T and Adel want to vote Guardian/ryan.
Sir Tornado wrote:That is oh so misguided. A townie is never a liability to the town unless they are a vig who is going on killing like a SK. The only "liability" a townie has is that they can be mislynched instead of the mafia. In lynching a townie thinking they are a liability is actually making them a liability to the town.
Hah. Let's wait and see how you think about that once you've played with the truely bad players.
I don't like YB's 697. More Num-ryan links. Ryan also attempts to metagame Jordan.
Adel wrote:I still don't see how those lines, even in isolation with each other, would make anyone think I am scum. Have I played scum in other games? Yes. I was talking, innocently, about why a post was or wasn't scummy- and part of that includes attempting to model scum behavior. :shrug:
Yet your posts fit the exact model you yourself state. Short and careful.
Erg0 defends Adel (768). Don't really like fleaboy's list in 775. I don't see why Guardian and darko are still there. I disagree hugely with Jordan's case on darko in 776 and think it's quite flawed. Appealing to emotion is bad play, but not necessarily scum. I think the case for darko being scum as presented there is very weak for a game this size.
I stopped my reread at Post 825, as I don't think I should skim and I do want to post my current opinions.
Since Guardian wanted, well, my thoughts on everything, here they are (at least the thoughts I have now):
-Xdaamno: Blech, we just had to start off with someone I don't have much of a read on. The few things that I did get to read have me somewhat leaning to scum, but there's really no way I can say this.
-JordanA24: I really disliked the darko-case. I've prodded the guy in the past, to some response. I'd have to reread his full posts to really see if this guy's scum.
-YogurtBandit: Lurker of the worst kind. I can't for the life of me see why a townie would play this way.
-The Fonz (replacing xyzzy): Hmms, I didn't really like the way he entered the game, but I did like his interactions with ryan. I'm leaning to town on this guy.
-Sacred: So far, she's squarely in the town block, but I have to say that her vacations haven't really helped anyone in getting a good read on her.
-Adel: Okay, this is the first interesting one here. Adel's a really difficult one to get a read on. I've thought on more than one occasion while reading this thread "What the hell are you doing, Adel?" But I also can't see a scumbag post like she's done. On the other hand, I have noted that she takes her sweet time responding to things aimed her way, something I've always found scummy. I'll have to reread her posts in isolation again.
-Sir Tornado: Also in the town block. There have been some questionable things (as Guardian pointed out, the contradiction with the PbPA thing), but I think that could be said about everyone.
-Ether (replacing Honary Hitchhiker): I have zero read on her, as she just replaced in. If someone put a gun to my temple and threatened to shoot me if I didn't give a reading on her, I'd say she's town.
-darko: Town. I don't think I can really explain this very well, but my overall gut vibe on him is town.
-ryan: Scum. I'm going to try to take a look at his posts in isolation and post a PbPA, but I haven't gotten a single townvibe from him in the entire game. He's posting, but he's avoiding giving opinions. I've posted a lot of minor things against him, I believe.
-Numenorean7: I think it's very funny, and more importantly telling, to see Numenorean vote ryan. I've noted Numenorean as actually defending ryan throughout most of the thread, and to suddenly see him actually voting ryan is quite the surprise. I think this could very, very well be a buddylink here. I have a scumread on him.
-NabakovNabakov: In the middle. I've seen some scummy things from him, but I've also gotten town vibes from him at some times.
-Jalyn (replacing FeRnAnDo): See Ether, including conclusion.
-pickemgenius: Eh, he's an enigma. Insists on being short and to the point (though I don't see a whole lot of points). Has definitely not provided enough input on most players.
-Guardian: Leaning strongly to town. His early game sucked, but I'm quite happy with his posting after his own wagon. I'm especially happy with the way he's argued with me. His opinion of me is perfect healthy suspicion. Not so much as to change into paranoia, not so little as to be naive.
-Erg0: Eh, lurker. I've come to expect a lot more from him. I want to say scum, but I've been horribly wrong with expectations lately, so I don't think I'm going to.
-somestrangeflea: Eh, I really don't see why he's the current vote leader. Then again, I haven't gotten to the case on him yet. To be honest, my read on fleaboy has been town. It'd be very much appreciated if someone could give me a link (or general direction) to the flea-case.
-Sarcastro: The playstyle accusations were bogus. His posts have me strongly leaning to town. I do expect him to play better after today, as he pretty much announced he would.
Vote: ryan
for being obvobv scum.
As we're getting dastardly close to deadline, and I'm unfortunately going to my grandmother's for a couple of days from Thursday onwards, I'm going to change my reading style. I will answer specific questions for rereading and I will reread the major suspects.
. Nah, ryan, what got you in trouble is that the reasons you expressed for defending me were highly shaky. Defending someone from a wagon you don't like is fine, but you need to clearly express good reasons for doing so. As this turned out, even I am still a bit suspicious of you defending me. Hitting preview, what Fonz said applies too.
.
