Mini 495 - Mafia on a Plane! GAME OVER! =)

[originality]

Yes, its been pretty much that since the beginning of D2. The fact that dybeck put her at medium high in his scum list without ever mentioning her outside of that just reinforced it.

And I also have to disagree with your thought that Lucienne was shaft.ed's investigation. He gave no sign of ever finding her suspicious at all, and as far as I can tell, the few times he acknowledged her D1 was actually agreeing with her. (232)

Okay, on 210 he had a minor disagreement with her on the quality of her posting, but I doubt that would influence an investigation. It seems likely to me that shaft.ed would go after Dr.B that night, the most controversial player. And I'm pretty sure he got an innocent. On post 848 he cites his 'second tier' candidates as Lucienne and Gemelli. I somehow doubt he would put someone he knows for a fact to be town in any position for a lynch. The only person besides himself, me and alyg that he doesn't advocate lynching is you, vollkan. I think that he investigated you.

[vollkan]

Good observations, Orig.

I think all we can say is that shaft.ed did not suspect Lucienne, since it is obviously dangerous to assume he actually found her innocent. Also, are you saying that you think shaft.ed investigated my predecessor or BS (Gemelli's predecessor)?

[originality]

I think that it would be likely for him to investigate Dr.BS, but since he showed mild suspicion against him on D2 I sort of doubt it. I'm not sure yet why he would investigate thesleepless (only had 2 posts in the entire game, 0 of which had any content). Maybe it was a random investigation. I don't know. But from evidence of D2, I'd say you were the investigation, and turned out innocent.

[Korlash]

It is a scumtell. He is holding suspicion of me for arbitrary reasons and no substantive case. What do you think of this theory: If Korlash is scum, he and his partner were hoping that getting rid of shaft.ed would cause you (Gemelli) to attack me more. That might explain Korlash's baseless suspicion of me from the start of this day and his vague support for your case.

I need to say something before this goes to far because this happened to me in the last game I was in and it took me forever to get back out of it.

To me any list that I do not put the word "scum, lynch, or vote" on it is more of my suspicions list. To me, suspicious =/= scummy.

see, I label anyone whom I agree with a lot/ listen to their cases/ seem to sway me via their opinion, suspicious. I do this so that I will try to look at their things differently, maybe find ways to attack them, etc. etc. etc... If that person defends himself well I become more inclined to believe him/his case. And so by attacking/suspecting the person whom I most listen too I find I am less label to be swayed by weak case or attacks. And thus Gem and Vollkan (The two I most listen too/ agree with) take the top of my day 2 list.

At the same time I also find playstyles I do not argee with to be suspicious. Such as the "Trap" move you do.

So yes, I put you at my #1 for "arbitrary reasons and no substantive case." simply because I do not feel I need a case until I am ready to vote. I merely need suspicions so I can get a better read on things. (Such as the Elias case...)

Now believe me or don't. I will still be doing my reread tonight. I will still be commenting on the Elias/Gem things I see/ have been said. And I will continue to play the exact same way as I have been.

(I'm thinking next game I get stuff like this out earlier so as to prevent this from happening a third time XD)

But yeah more later.. WAIT! NO!

It is extremely common to have a godfather in three-scum groups. The fact we have a cop, a tracker and a vig suggests that the scum might have a godfather, or a mafia roleblocker. Hmm...what if Orig was RBed last night?

man two games in a row I hear Mafia RB.. weird... I need to look up these roles I think...

Anyways from what I keep hearing is people are linking Godfather to Lucienne and some sort of RB mafia thing... In this situation I find it impossible for Lucienne to be the Godfather and for Orig to have been RBed... See, The tracker(alyG) went after Lucienne and got no result. So that means she did not RB, or do any night killings. So either A) We have two other mafia or B) The other Mafia did both the RB and the Killing, which I believe is impossible. Or is it? Not sure as I have literally never heard of a mafia RB before...

So in other words Orig being RBed by mafia, and lucienne being the Godfather is only possible if we have 3 mafia...

Plus I find it more likely that if the scum had a RB they would have targeted AlyG.

this I can see... They target AlyG to RB.. and have Lucienne do the kill... That seems possible. But it puts a lot of faith in Orig doesn't it?

Still when I think about it that theory is possible... Then again it is possible that Lucienne isn't the Godfather, but someone else is. It is also possible there is no mafia RB and so Lucienne as the God father did not do the killing, the other one did...

Or that is my take on it.

[vollkan]

It's really all just speculation. I think that the best we can say is that shaft.ed did not suspect Lucienne, Gemelli or myself. Make what you will of those.

Something else...Lucienne said she would be back by Monday (the 5th). It has now been over a week since that day. I dread the prospect of us needing a replacement at 59 pages.

[Korlash]

Um... Night lasted about a week... so technically she hasn't actually been gone that whole time...

[vollkan]

She left us on Friday 2nd. It is now the 13th. The Monday she

should

have returned was the 5th and she has not shown up at all in over a week.

[Korlash]

Ohh... still... She COULDN't have shown up during night...Well... Unless she was scum and she never showed up to talk to her partner... (Looks sideways at Vollkan0 Interesting...

So technically she has only been missing sense day 2 started.. so...

Sun- Nov 11- Mon Nov 12.. One day... more accurately 32 hours... I will not be against prodding the known lurker just in case she really is gone... But I still find it odd you count night as time she has been missing...

[Elias_the_thief]

As an aside, I find it rather amusing that this is the second time that I have led the charge to get a mafioso killed and then moved onto to argue against you.

Damn right I'm reaching for excuses. This isn't my post, I don't know why he did it. Therefore anything I say will be "reaching for excuses" as you put it. Anyways, in the context of what I had posted, my point still makes sense. I was pretty much the only one to not put down his idea, and he knew that I still needed to post something.

It doesn't make sense. You had said nothing on the topic and yet dybeck randomly asked for your help.

You know what? Dybeck did it. Not me. If you wish to hold it against me, then fine, but I can't explain his actions. More and more I find myself thinking that his day two play was purely for setting up a series of unfortunate events for the town, including the framework to support my mislynch. I think it's perfectly feasible. First, he ran into a LOT of suspicion early day two, explaining why the course of action would be taken. Second, he falseclaimed cop, and didnt even do a good job of it. I believe this was simply an attempt to out the cop. If we take his position from that of a scum trying to stay alive, to a scum trying to hurt the town as much as possible before he goes down, me being town makes a lot more sense.

Ouch, now that is a bad answer. Any good mafia player knows that all scum act differently. To say you "know what scum characteristically do", especially when you've played in so few games, is pretty sketchy reasoning. For instance, were I scum in his position, I would make my list for the most part the same as an obvious townie. That way, the list looks legitimate while I'm alive, then completely useless once I die. I'm not saying this is what he did, I'm just saying that there are many, many, different reasons for the way that list is. If you're not basing your reasoning on it, including it in your case makes me suspicious that you are trying purposefully to inflate a case that you know is weak.

Yes, all scum do act differently; my answer is not affected by that.

How is a point based on what scum "characteristically do" not affected if you admit that scum do not necessarily act in this way?

Dybeck had consistent attitudes towards everybody, except where he went rabidly against shaft.ed and buddied himself to me right near the end.

k. So basically you're saying his consistent stance towards me is a null tell, since he did it to the majority of players.

You ask why I bother to include if I am not basing my reasoning on it. Remember Oman's list of vig targets in Mini 486. I kept referring to it throughout the game even though everything I was saying about it was this same sort of wifom speculation. The fact is that these lists are valuable, not as bases for accusations, but as ways of getting a perspective on things.

If you say so. However, be aware that last time, all of your guesses based on Oman's list were wrong. (especially the part where you thought it indicated I was scum)

The interpretation of dybeck's list is consistent with how I have read his attitudes towards people overall. I think he is most likely to have been scum with (in order of likelihood) yourself, Gemelli, Lucienne or Korlash. Thus, that is how I

currently

rationalise the list.

So basically you're saying that you saw the list, saw a few possible scenarios that could explain his reasoning, saw one that gelled nicely with your own assumptions on him, and took it? Is this how you get all of your evidence? Find the possibility that conforms with your predetermined notions and advocate it?

Simply the fact that you list two possible incentives makes me more skepticle(sp?) of your point. Regardless of why he did it, all this does is show further evidence to him being scum, which has already been proven. I'm uncertain as to why this is incriminating to me.

You said I had showed nothing, other than that he had a consistent outlook. What I was showing was that he had changed his attitude in regards to myself and shaft.ed. It does not incriminate you, but it suggests to me the level at which he was operating. That helps me rationalise his actions. It doesn't relate to you directly, but it relates to how I interpret dybeck and, thus, how I see his relations to you.

How do you know the level he was operating at? He was under pressure almost all day. I wouldnt trust what you think about any info he provided day 2.

I'm not sure why. Three possible incentives for attacking BS: Distancing, bussing, going with the flow. To say that Dybeck attacking BS means that he is not aligned with Gemelli is nothing more then an interpretation of a wifom action, and certainly nothing incriminating.

Hence, why I said "to an extent". You seem to be importing a much greater degree of certainty onto what I am saying than I actually expressed. That point had nothing to do with you; I was merely noting something which ran against the grain of dybeck-Gemelli.

And you're acting as if I was defending myself. I was simply showing how that reasoning was false. You know, just because I'm defending myself doesnt mean I cant look at other aspects of the game as well.

1) An attempt to lynch a lurker is probably the best lead you have on page one. I don't see why attacking LAL(urkers) is a point against me.

Simple. You should know that LALurkers is considered legitimate by a significant proportion of people (myself among them). Thus, I find it rather odd that you would go after someone for proposing LAL; it's very easy to accuse an LALer of being scum.

sigh...
you dont get how I work in early day 1 do you? I find small scum tells, exagerate them, form bandwagons, and garner information. Of course I took advantage of an oppurtunity to attack him. It lets me get a bandwagon, which as I argued in our last game, helps the town.

2) What exactly makes going after an easy target suspicious? As a townie, I saw this as a relevant lead to look into, and applied pressure. As scum, I could've attempted to fit in by doing the same, but have we honestly gotten so wifom that now what began as a mafiosos attempt to look like townie has now become a scumtell and nothing more?

You are experienced enough to know that LAL is not a scumtell, but that it is very easy to draw suspicion onto LALers. That's why I don't like the fact that you went after Orig for LALing.

The fact that you say "experienced enough to know its not a scumtell" is where I know I can discount what youre saying. Are you familiar with the concept of wifom? Ya know, taking what you think scum wouldnt do and doing it as scum? Besides, I would make the play as scum and town. Its good for town if I am town, it makes me look protown as scum because I do it as town. So what you've got there is a null point.

"echoing dybeck"? are you kidding me? I painstakingly investigated the posts that Orig had made, wrote up a post, lost it, and posted another shorter version anyways. I'm fairly certain that most of those points were original ones. For the record, agreeing with someone on a point for different reasons =/= echoing them.

In 988 you attacked dybeck's assertion that he had a gut feeling against CC and noted that he had assumed SK. Dybeck had been making much the same line of attack regarding "You really think that a pro-town vig could possibly have found carrotcake the scummiest player yesterday?" consistently (and repetitively)

Ah. So basically you're saying that since I had one similar point to support a similar conclusion, the entire post was echoed from him. Got it. That totally makes sense.

To correct you, I thought the majority were wierd actions, not scummy. There is a difference. There were really one two good points in the case, thus I found it lacking. You yourself admitted in the next post that it was lacking. So why is it a scumtell that I am the one who's opinion you agreed with?

Let me run through the points:
1)

Dybeck's certainty

- I said weird, but not a massive scumtell; though, I did not like it. Your response was that it was weird but not a scumtell, since mafia wouldn't know who the SK was.
2)

Dybeck's "don't lynch SK shaft.ed"

- I said confusing and you thought a nulltell
3)

Prima facie acceptance of AlyG

- I thought scummy and you agreed.
4)

The fact dybeck said "it's not like we didn't think he was scum yesterday" despite having opposed the orig wagon

- I thought this was obvious hypocrisy; you dismissed it as weird.
5)

Dybeck's repetitive craplogic

- Again, obviously scummy to me and you asked for clarification as to what of his arguments I meant.
6)

Singular focus on Orig

- I took as self-evidently scummy; you said "That's not too bad. Town wants that just as much as scum at this point."
7)

That dybeck was only hunting SK and ignoring mafia

- We agreed this was very scummy
8)

Wishy-washy attitudes

- Again, I took as self-evident. You asked for me to elaborate
9)

Dybeck shifting on Oman being the SK

- Me = Self-evident. You wanted clarification
10)

Readiness to hammer Oman, including without asking for claim

- Me = self-evidently scummy. You took it as "Bad town play or obvious scum play. It could be either. Thus I say unto you: wifom."
11)

Dybeck pre-empting the hammer being a townie

- Me = self-evident. You took it as "weird".
12)

The fact Orig would NK if Oman was SK lynched

- You gave this as a maybe and gave an alternative explanation.
13)

The fact dybeck never FoSed Oman all day but was ready to hammer

- Me = Self-evident. You "kind of a tell, but I dont think its too strong. "
14)

Certainty

- Me = self-evident. You = "Normally I dont see certainty as a scum tell (look at just completed 486 where I was certain hermit was scum, and we were both town)."

So yes, that makes 9 points against dybeck which you downplayed; and 3 that you asked for further information on. At the time, I was doubting the case myself and your attacks galvanised my uncertainty.

I'm sorry, but the downplaying was justified. The fact that you saw the sense in this then should show you how true it is now. I'm not going to say that just because he was scum that all the arguments pointing in that direction were good ones. I believe a similar issue arose in 486 around I think seteal. Go back and read. I disputed all cases against him long after he was proven to be scum.

I didn't want it to be considered a defense because:
1) I had not fully decided on whatr I thought of Dybeck, so calling it a "defense" would be an overstatement.
2)I still needed some things clarified, so I wasn't even sure whether I supported your single post yet.
3) You know very well I'm conscious of making scumtells as town. I didnt want to look suspect if he came up scum.

As you probably guessed, number 3) was what I was getting at. That I thought you were trying to avoid being seen to be defending him.

Yup. If you recall, I also attempted to avoid unnecessary scum tells in 486 as town. So what point are you getting at here?

2) A few posts later you do the "its alright, but its not too convincing. I would probably be willing to vote Dybeck at deadline".

ok. Whats your point?

It's ambivalence, which as you know I consider scummy.

Its not ambivalence. I said it wasnt convincing, ie I wouldnt vote for him under normal circumstances. I also said I would vote for him at deadline. I think thats a pretty clear cut idea of what I thought of it, pinpointing when I would and wouldnt vote him, and all.

I was arguing the actual reasoning behind it, but I never once in those posts said that I wanted to lynch orig that day. I simply noted that I was weary of trusting anti town factions to do what we expected them too.

I know, but in the context it was against the "Say No to Lynching Orig" position. Again, ambivalence. You should have been clearer that you did not want Orig lynched, but that these were issues.

I was clear...I said it about two posts in that I was still against the Orig lynch.

Yup. Believe it or not, I as town did not know the truth of his claim, and thus gave a tentative yes.

For someone with your critical powers, the fact that you even gave a tentative yes is scummy, hence the ambivalence thing.

My "critical" powers? Vollkan, there's a reason that I have a bad town record. I am very bad at scumhunting. The only real skill I have at mafia is defending myself (which I've only recently developed, since I started debate). I made it clear that I leaning towards yes, but was unsure. Also, do you really find it odd that someone who had been absent most of the game might have trouble pinning down his feelings on a claim?

I "jump ship"? what do you mean?
anyways, is it really spectcaular that I post dybeck as my preferred lynch after being pressured into naming a preferred lynch?

Well, your post has certainly changed my mind on the Dybeck claim. Theres a lot of inconsistency there, and the motivation for scum to fake claim cop there is certainly plentiful. So, I'd put my opinion on the Dybeck claim as a tentative no, as opposed to the tentative yes that was there before.

My perception of you that day was in these stages:
1) For Orig lynch
2) Professing to be against Orig lynch but still criticising the sense of keeping him alive
3) Critical the dybeck case
4) Ambivalent on dybeck being cop, though leaning in favour
5) Dybeck isn't cop (deathbed conversion)

alright. is this something that you think a townie is unlikely to go through?

I dont believe that was my first attack. Regardless, /not a scumtell.

It was the first hard stance that I noticed. And no, it isn't a scumtell per se, but it speaks of last minute distancing.

Hard stance and attack are different vollkan. you know this.

I don't hold your number of posts against you.

understood.

[Elias_the_thief]

Um...I was going off of your post's list of uncertains...if you look at that post, you already have dybeck written off as cop or mafia, which was my opinion at the time. I was simply speculating as to the uncertains.

But that's not what you said. You said "Assuming we have 3 scum, there is our scumgroup." You didn't include Dybeck in the equation at all.

This is consistent with my point...I said he was either cop or mafia, and at the time it was before shafteds convincing post on dybeck. This means I still was leaning towards dy being cop. Vollkans post on various peoples opinions at the time a few pages later should confirm this.

Dybeck is an experienced player. Do none of you find it unlikely that he would purposefully NEVER post suspicion on me?

He may be experienced, but he was on the defensive for almost all of D2, having triggered the town's collective scumdar early. And you could just as easily ask the question: why would a mafia purposefully NEVER put suspicion on someone he knew to be town? The answer to both questions is probably the same: the "average mafia" would probably not "purposefully" do either thing. But the fact is, Dybeck has done exactly that. Don't you think it's worth speculating why he treated you differently than everyone else in the game?

Yes, that's exactly my point. I believe he treated me differently because besides him, I would probably be the easiest to get a mislynch on the next day. I believe he was trying to set up my mislynch by never expressing suspicion.

[Gemelli]

Elias, since we're down to just seven players in the game, each of us is naturally coming under closer scrutiny from the others.

Believe it or not, I do find it plausible that you are pro-town and finding yourself in a bad situation. However, I think that if you ARE in that situation, you would serve the town (and yourself) best by advancing theories on who the remaining scum are. So far, you've defended yourself -- all well and good, but tell us, who SHOULD we be focusing on, if not you? If you were to place the rest of us in a scummiest-to-towniest list, what would the order be, and why?

[Streeflo]

::prods Lucienne::

[Korlash]

Hey guys I just realized it's a Monday night o.O

I have stuff to do so I might not actually get to my reread tonight >< Sorry... No excuse tomorrow though I promise...

[Elias_the_thief]

Elias, since we're down to just seven players in the game, each of us is naturally coming under closer scrutiny from the others.

Believe it or not, I do find it plausible that you are pro-town and finding yourself in a bad situation. However, I think that if you ARE in that situation, you would serve the town (and yourself) best by advancing theories on who the remaining scum are. So far, you've defended yourself -- all well and good, but tell us, who SHOULD we be focusing on, if not you? If you were to place the rest of us in a scummiest-to-towniest list, what would the order be, and why?

Ok. AlyG is almost certainly tracker. Orig is either vig or SK (SK in my opinion). Lucienne is really hard to read considering how absent she's been. This leaves me with Gemelli, Korlash, and Vollkan (though lucienne isnt out of the picture). Anyways, I'm pretty sure at least one mafioso is in that three. Based on the evidence, Korlash is most likely. He's been acting really wierd about his suspicions towards Vollkan. In addition to that, Oman's behavior day 1 was very suspicious. Also, I think that Oman/Korlash had bigger ties to dybeck then I did. His opinion for a while on dy's claim was "not telling" and then undecided. I'm ambivalent, Vollkan? So yeah. Pretty sure that Omlash is scum. He's the only person besides me (town) who has any what looks like ties to Dybeck.

[vollkan]

You know what? Dybeck did it. Not me. If you wish to hold it against me, then fine, but I can't explain his actions. More and more I find myself thinking that his day two play was purely for setting up a series of unfortunate events for the town, including the framework to support my mislynch. I think it's perfectly feasible. First, he ran into a LOT of suspicion early day two, explaining why the course of action would be taken. Second, he falseclaimed cop, and didnt even do a good job of it. I believe this was simply an attempt to out the cop. If we take his position from that of a scum trying to stay alive, to a scum trying to hurt the town as much as possible before he goes down, me being town makes a lot more sense.

In other words, you are reducing this to a simple WIFOM:
1) dybeck's play was all designed to set you up for a lynch and that his crappy falseclaiming was not him panicking but was him attempting to out the real cop (that he didn't even know existed and which I had said was unlikely to exist)as a result of him having fallen under suspicion for his play early D2 (are you saying that his crappy play was deliberate?)

OR

2) dybeck just blundered his way through D2

Gemelli referred to Occam's Razor, but I think a different principle is in order; the Sir Bernard Ingham variation of Hanlon's Razor:

Cock-up before conspiracy

Thus, I present my "Cock-up Model":
Dybeck found a confirmed killer of D2 and began to push its lynch. He encountered opposition and got drawn into an enormous debate that pulled him under suspicion. All day long he was fighting his case as the rest of us debated the best course of action. Eventually, dybeck panicked after thinking he was at L-1, or at least was in peril of lynch, and so he claims cop. I don't think this was to draw out the real cop, so much as it was a last-ditch effort to bring Orig down. Dybeck failed miserably and got lynched.

How is a point based on what scum "characteristically do" not affected if you admit that scum do not necessarily act in this way?

I've already explained this. I take what I think to be the most sensible explanation for things and then frame my reasoning and investigation around it. For example, yesterday I had no proof dybeck was mafia but I figured it made most sense to me if he was mafia trying to off Orig. Of course, I wavered at points, because it was only a framework scenario, but gradually it emerges whether or not I am really on the right track or not.

Thus, for dybeck, my most sensible scenario points to him being scum with you. As such, I frame things in that light and see the results.

The fact that I could be wrong in my

framework

is inconsequential because it is simply a reasoning tool anyway, by which I process the game and conduct my arguments. If the framework is demonstrably flawed, I can find another one and try to find a different angle on things that works more effectively.

k. So basically you're saying his consistent stance towards me is a null tell, since he did it to the majority of players.

Erm..no. I mentioned nothing about a null-tell. I simply said that dybeck only altered his position on myself and shaft.ed, towards the end of the day.

If you say so. However, be aware that last time, all of your guesses based on Oman's list were wrong. (especially the part where you thought it indicated I was scum)

Yes, and since that I have learnt to be more careful about not becoming entrenched in my frameworks. I interpreted Oman's list as being an actual reflection of things, rather than doing what I should have done: trying to make sense of it and using it without becoming convinced that my thoughts corresponded to what had actually happened.

So basically you're saying that you saw the list, saw a few possible scenarios that could explain his reasoning, saw one that gelled nicely with your own assumptions on him, and took it? Is this how you get all of your evidence? Find the possibility that conforms with your predetermined notions and advocate it?

My steps:
1) Look at the available evidence and find the outcome which seems most sensible
2) Investigate, accuse and attack based on that outcome. Since 486, I have learnt to make sure I remember that the outcome is only a framework.
3) Use the results of those inquiries as further sources of information so as to re-assess the validity of the original outcome and to alter as necessary

Ah. So basically you're saying that since I had one similar point to support a similar conclusion, the entire post was echoed from him. Got it. That totally makes sense.

It seemed to be your dominant reason for suspecting Orig.

The fact that you say "experienced enough to know its not a scumtell" is where I know I can discount what youre saying. Are you familiar with the concept of wifom? Ya know, taking what you think scum wouldnt do and doing it as scum? Besides, I would make the play as scum and town. Its good for town if I am town, it makes me look protown as scum because I do it as town. So what you've got there is a null point.

Not null, just unreadable. You do bandwagon a lot, that's true.

Ah. So basically you're saying that since I had one similar point to support a similar conclusion, the entire post was echoed from him. Got it. That totally
makes sense.

In 988 you went after Orig on the basis of his gut feeling and the fact that he assumed SK. The former of these was dybeck's line and the latter is pretty meaningless.

I'm sorry, but the downplaying was justified. The fact that you saw the sense in this then should show you how true it is now. I'm not going to say that just because he was scum that all the arguments pointing in that direction were good ones. I believe a similar issue arose in 486 around I think seteal. Go back and read. I disputed all cases against him long after he was proven to be scum.

Wasn't Setael my mason partner in 486? I think you might mean Shanba...

But, as I have said, at the time I was losing faith myself, purely because it was going nowhere. Your downplaying of the points hit at the foundations of my case and caused me to lose my belief that dybeck was scum. I mean, all of those points are scumtells, of varying strength.

Its not ambivalence. I said it wasnt convincing, ie I wouldnt vote for him under normal circumstances. I also said I would vote for him at deadline. I think thats a pretty clear cut idea of what I thought of it, pinpointing when I would and wouldnt vote him, and all.

This is getting into semantics. The "it's alright thing" is ambivalence and neutralisation of the issue. You don't defend, you don't attack. Of course your explanation is "sufficient", but it doesn't change your ambivalent stance.

I was clear...I said it about two posts in that I was still against the Orig lynch.

I was having to argue pretty damn hard against the Orig lynch, since my only consistent supporter was shaft.ed. You did say you didn't want the lynch, I know that, but you still criticised our case against it without making it patently and consistently clear that you did not want Orig lynch. In that situation, where we were having to argue forcefully, it should have been obvious to you that anything you said in counter to us would be fuelling dybeck's cause.

My "critical" powers? Vollkan, there's a reason that I have a bad town record. I am very bad at scumhunting. The only real skill I have at mafia is defending myself (which I've only recently developed, since I started debate). I made it clear that I leaning towards yes, but was unsure. Also, do you really find it odd that someone who had been absent most of the game might have trouble pinning down his feelings on a claim?

Again, ambivalence. You are now justifying it on having been away. Shaft.ed and I had been attacking the claim and you still took the half-hearted approach.

alright. is this something that you think a townie is unlikely to go through?

A townie should go through some degree of wavering, but you were consistently indecisive until things became cemented one way or the other. That is a scumtell. It is basically just allowing yourself to fall in with the majority without having to commit to anything.

Hard stance and attack are different vollkan. you know this.

Semantics. You know what I mean. All day you had been "tentative" about anything to do with dybeck or Orig unless the majority opinion had formed hard on something. Your only definite stance/hard stance/proper attack on dyebck came at the end.

[vollkan]

Ok. AlyG is almost certainly tracker. Orig is either vig or SK (SK in my opinion). Lucienne is really hard to read considering how absent she's been. This leaves me with Gemelli, Korlash, and Vollkan (though lucienne isnt out of the picture). Anyways, I'm pretty sure at least one mafioso is in that three. Based on the evidence, Korlash is most likely. He's been acting really wierd about his suspicions towards Vollkan. In addition to that, Oman's behavior day 1 was very suspicious. Also, I think that Oman/Korlash had bigger ties to dybeck then I did. His opinion for a while on dy's claim was "not telling" and then undecided. I'm ambivalent, Vollkan? So yeah. Pretty sure that Omlash is scum. He's the only person besides me (town) who has any what looks like ties to Dybeck.

Odd...I actually agree with the logic of this. Of course, if you are mafia with Lucienne, this crumbles completely.

Grr... the implications of this make me want to see Lucienne post something even more now.

[Elias_the_thief]

You know what? Dybeck did it. Not me. If you wish to hold it against me, then fine, but I can't explain his actions. More and more I find myself thinking that his day two play was purely for setting up a series of unfortunate events for the town, including the framework to support my mislynch. I think it's perfectly feasible. First, he ran into a LOT of suspicion early day two, explaining why the course of action would be taken. Second, he falseclaimed cop, and didnt even do a good job of it. I believe this was simply an attempt to out the cop. If we take his position from that of a scum trying to stay alive, to a scum trying to hurt the town as much as possible before he goes down, me being town makes a lot more sense.

In other words, you are reducing this to a simple WIFOM:
1) dybeck's play was all designed to set you up for a lynch and that his crappy falseclaiming was not him panicking but was him attempting to out the real cop (that he didn't even know existed and which I had said was unlikely to exist)as a result of him having fallen under suspicion for his play early D2 (are you saying that his crappy play was deliberate?)

OR

2) dybeck just blundered his way through D2

Gemelli referred to Occam's Razor, but I think a different principle is in order; the Sir Bernard Ingham variation of Hanlon's Razor:

Cock-up before conspiracy

Thus, I present my "Cock-up Model":
Dybeck found a confirmed killer of D2 and began to push its lynch. He encountered opposition and got drawn into an enormous debate that pulled him under suspicion. All day long he was fighting his case as the rest of us debated the best course of action. Eventually, dybeck panicked after thinking he was at L-1, or at least was in peril of lynch, and so he claims cop. I don't think this was to draw out the real cop, so much as it was a last-ditch effort to bring Orig down. Dybeck failed miserably and got lynched.

Essentially, yes. This is a simple Wifom. I've said that from the beginning, and have really only been pushing other scenarios to show you how wifom it is. Basically a null point now.

How is a point based on what scum "characteristically do" not affected if you admit that scum do not necessarily act in this way?

I've already explained this. I take what I think to be the most sensible explanation for things and then frame my reasoning and investigation around it. For example, yesterday I had no proof dybeck was mafia but I figured it made most sense to me if he was mafia trying to off Orig. Of course, I wavered at points, because it was only a framework scenario, but gradually it emerges whether or not I am really on the right track or not.

However, as you later admitted, you interpret info to fit your own agenda. Thus, I think your scumhunting style is extremely flawed (for one, its incorrectly fingered me as scum twice now).

k. So basically you're saying his consistent stance towards me is a null tell, since he did it to the majority of players.

Erm..no. I mentioned nothing about a null-tell. I simply said that dybeck only altered his position on myself and shaft.ed, towards the end of the day.

I know you didnt directly say it. I'm drawing a logical conclusion from it, which is that it has nothing to do with me and is thus a null tell. Are you going to argue the point or no?

If you say so. However, be aware that last time, all of your guesses based on Oman's list were wrong. (especially the part where you thought it indicated I was scum)

Yes, and since that I have learnt to be more careful about not becoming entrenched in my frameworks. I interpreted Oman's list as being an actual reflection of things, rather than doing what I should have done: trying to make sense of it and using it without becoming convinced that my thoughts corresponded to what had actually happened.

Alright. I guess if you're not basing it as reasoning towards me being scum I wont argue it. Especially since its your personal interpretation, something that even I can't argue against.

So basically you're saying that you saw the list, saw a few possible scenarios that could explain his reasoning, saw one that gelled nicely with your own assumptions on him, and took it? Is this how you get all of your evidence? Find the possibility that conforms with your predetermined notions and advocate it?

My steps:
1) Look at the available evidence and find the outcome which seems most sensible
2) Investigate, accuse and attack based on that outcome. Since 486, I have learnt to make sure I remember that the outcome is only a framework.
3) Use the results of those inquiries as further sources of information so as to re-assess the validity of the original outcome and to alter as necessary

So youre on step three now, correct?

Ah. So basically you're saying that since I had one similar point to support a similar conclusion, the entire post was echoed from him. Got it. That totally makes sense.

It seemed to be your dominant reason for suspecting Orig.

Go and read the post again. It certainly was not my only reason, and far from the "dominant" one.

The fact that you say "experienced enough to know its not a scumtell" is where I know I can discount what youre saying. Are you familiar with the concept of wifom? Ya know, taking what you think scum wouldnt do and doing it as scum? Besides, I would make the play as scum and town. Its good for town if I am town, it makes me look protown as scum because I do it as town. So what you've got there is a null point.

Not null, just unreadable. You do bandwagon a lot, that's true.

Null tell = unreadable in my opinion. If you cant draw conclusions on my alignment, then its null in relation to my alignment. But this point isnt worth arguing, as its far from relevant.

Ah. So basically you're saying that since I had one similar point to support a similar conclusion, the entire post was echoed from him. Got it. That totally makes sense.

In 988 you went after Orig on the basis of his gut feeling and the fact that he assumed SK. The former of these was dybeck's line and the latter is pretty meaningless.

Did you also see the posts where I outlined that he contradicts himself by showing that his gut pointed the other way? This is a third and entirely new point that I brought up. Even were you to win this point with me, what relevance does the fact that I saw the same faults in someones claim have to do with our alignment in relation to eachother?

I'm sorry, but the downplaying was justified. The fact that you saw the sense in this then should show you how true it is now. I'm not going to say that just because he was scum that all the arguments pointing in that direction were good ones. I believe a similar issue arose in 486 around I think seteal. Go back and read. I disputed all cases against him long after he was proven to be scum.

Wasn't Setael my mason partner in 486? I think you might mean Shanba...

But, as I have said, at the time I was losing faith myself, purely because it was going nowhere. Your downplaying of the points hit at the foundations of my case and caused me to lose my belief that dybeck was scum. I mean, all of those points are scumtells, of varying strength.

If you want to get into a metadebate, I'm all for it. But after the game please. I disagree with you on the validity of those scumtells. Are you going to tell me that my meta opinion on certain tells should show me to be scum or town in any individual game?

Its not ambivalence. I said it wasnt convincing, ie I wouldnt vote for him under normal circumstances. I also said I would vote for him at deadline. I think thats a pretty clear cut idea of what I thought of it, pinpointing when I would and wouldnt vote him, and all.

This is getting into semantics. The "it's alright thing" is ambivalence and neutralisation of the issue. You don't defend, you don't attack. Of course your explanation is "sufficient", but it doesn't change your ambivalent stance.

ambivalence is defined by uncertainty...I gave a clear cut idea of when I would vote for him and when I wouldnt. It's not my fault you interpret this as being uncertain, though frankly, the fact that you do is ridiculous.

I was clear...I said it about two posts in that I was still against the Orig lynch.

I was having to argue pretty damn hard against the Orig lynch, since my only consistent supporter was shaft.ed. You did say you didn't want the lynch, I know that, but you still criticised our case against it without making it patently and consistently clear that you did not want Orig lynch. In that situation, where we were having to argue forcefully, it should have been obvious to you that anything you said in counter to us would be fuelling dybeck's cause.

Is this a bad thing? I was clear that I was against the lynch. I posted it and you missed it. The only result of "feuling the cause" as far as I can tell is a better read for you, which is good. Dont underestimate me Vollkan: I may be a bad scumhunter, but I certainly understand the value of getting reactions out of people (the reason I love bandwagoning).

My "critical" powers? Vollkan, there's a reason that I have a bad town record. I am very bad at scumhunting. The only real skill I have at mafia is defending myself (which I've only recently developed, since I started debate). I made it clear that I leaning towards yes, but was unsure. Also, do you really find it odd that someone who had been absent most of the game might have trouble pinning down his feelings on a claim?

Again, ambivalence. You are now justifying it on having been away. Shaft.ed and I had been attacking the claim and you still took the half-hearted approach.

Um, no. I said yes. I was unsure, but I gave an answer, despite my uncertainty. I am only blaiming the lingering uncertainty on my absense.

alright. is this something that you think a townie is unlikely to go through?

A townie should go through some degree of wavering, but you were consistently indecisive until things became cemented one way or the other. That is a scumtell. It is basically just allowing yourself to fall in with the majority without having to commit to anything.

This is untrue, first of all. I've made several independant points in this game, though I admit my absense has made it hard to get definitive reads. Also, this is not a scumtell, or at least it isnt for me. I have a habit of falling in with the crowd as town. Check my town games, you'll find its a recurring theme, though I'm trying to fix it. Once out of the early stages, my helpfulness to the town is mostly used up. Again, something I'm trying to fix.

Hard stance and attack are different vollkan. you know this.

Semantics. You know what I mean. All day you had been "tentative" about anything to do with dybeck or Orig unless the majority opinion had formed hard on something. Your only definite stance/hard stance/proper attack on dyebck came at the end.

I still disagree. I had formed my opinion on Orig within my very first post back into the game. And again, I contend the validity of this as a scum tell.

[Elias_the_thief]

In other words, you are reducing this to a simple WIFOM:
1) dybeck's play was all designed to set you up for a lynch and that his crappy falseclaiming was not him panicking but was him attempting to out the real cop (that he didn't even know existed and which I had said was unlikely to exist)as a result of him having fallen under suspicion for his play early D2 (are you saying that his crappy play was deliberate?)

OR

2) dybeck just blundered his way through D2

I'm saying his play was not crappy. I'm saying that it was an attempt to make it look crappy. His indignation when I called him a relative noob should reinforce this. Also, even if the possibility of there being cop is uncertain, an attempt to out him would be a good play on his part. It seems to have worked since they managed to hit cop on the following night. I don't think someone who's been playing for two years really "blunders through day 2" anymore.

[vollkan]

You know what? Dybeck did it. Not me. If you wish to hold it against me, then fine, but I can't explain his actions. More and more I find myself thinking that his day two play was purely for setting up a series of unfortunate events for the town, including the framework to support my mislynch. I think it's perfectly feasible. First, he ran into a LOT of suspicion early day two, explaining why the course of action would be taken. Second, he falseclaimed cop, and didnt even do a good job of it. I believe this was simply an attempt to out the cop. If we take his position from that of a scum trying to stay alive, to a scum trying to hurt the town as much as possible before he goes down, me being town makes a lot more sense.

In other words, you are reducing this to a simple WIFOM:
1) dybeck's play was all designed to set you up for a lynch and that his crappy falseclaiming was not him panicking but was him attempting to out the real cop (that he didn't even know existed and which I had said was unlikely to exist)as a result of him having fallen under suspicion for his play early D2 (are you saying that his crappy play was deliberate?)

OR

2) dybeck just blundered his way through D2

Gemelli referred to Occam's Razor, but I think a different principle is in order; the Sir Bernard Ingham variation of Hanlon's Razor:

Cock-up before conspiracy

Thus, I present my "Cock-up Model":
Dybeck found a confirmed killer of D2 and began to push its lynch. He encountered opposition and got drawn into an enormous debate that pulled him under suspicion. All day long he was fighting his case as the rest of us debated the best course of action. Eventually, dybeck panicked after thinking he was at L-1, or at least was in peril of lynch, and so he claims cop. I don't think this was to draw out the real cop, so much as it was a last-ditch effort to bring Orig down. Dybeck failed miserably and got lynched.

Essentially, yes. This is a simple Wifom. I've said that from the beginning, and have really only been pushing other scenarios to show you how wifom it is. Basically a null point now.

No. Wifom =/= Nullity. From the perspective of inquiries I am taking what seems to be the most likely interpretation of dybeck on the totality of the evidence. This isn't a point you can rebut, or that we can debate over, because, as you say, it is dybeck not you. The fact is that the evidence points to dybeck being scum with you. Yes, it depends on wifom, but that doesn't invalidate the point. You seem to be trying to neutralise the point by calling it wifom. Any attempt to interpret somebody in this game is ultimately wifom; wifom arguments can be made either way on anything.

The knack is to be able to use the evidence properly. That doesn't mean I am correct here, but I think I am approaching this in the correct way.

How is a point based on what scum "characteristically do" not affected if you admit that scum do not necessarily act in this way?

I've already explained this. I take what I think to be the most sensible explanation for things and then frame my reasoning and investigation around it. For example, yesterday I had no proof dybeck was mafia but I figured it made most sense to me if he was mafia trying to off Orig. Of course, I wavered at points, because it was only a framework scenario, but gradually it emerges whether or not I am really on the right track or not.

However, as you later admitted, you interpret info to fit your own agenda. Thus, I think your scumhunting style is extremely flawed (for one, its incorrectly fingered me as scum twice now).

Agenda is the wrong word. It implies conscious intention. I form a view of what is most likely based on what I have seen, and then try to to frame things in that light to see what comes of it.

I haven't "incorrectly fingered" you here: 1) Because I don't yet know if I am in error; and 2) Because I have not "fingered" you. My mistake in 486 was relying too much on my own case framework rather than interpreting what was going on around it.

k. So basically you're saying his consistent stance towards me is a null tell, since he did it to the majority of players.

Erm..no. I mentioned nothing about a null-tell. I simply said that dybeck only altered his position on myself and shaft.ed, towards the end of the day.

I know you didnt directly say it. I'm drawing a logical conclusion from it, which is that it has nothing to do with me and is thus a null tell. Are you going to argue the point or no?

I don't think this is actually a point either way.

What I was saying was that dybeck had consistent attitudes to everyone, some more interesting than others, except for myself and shaft.ed.

If you say so. However, be aware that last time, all of your guesses based on Oman's list were wrong. (especially the part where you thought it indicated I was scum)

Yes, and since that I have learnt to be more careful about not becoming entrenched in my frameworks. I interpreted Oman's list as being an actual reflection of things, rather than doing what I should have done: trying to make sense of it and using it without becoming convinced that my thoughts corresponded to what had actually happened.

Alright. I guess if you're not basing it as reasoning towards me being scum I wont argue it. Especially since its your personal interpretation, something that even I can't argue against.

No. I reason towards you being scum for the purpose of argument, but the main purpose is to assess reactions and gather information. The best way to understand things is to debate, not to read.

So basically you're saying that you saw the list, saw a few possible scenarios that could explain his reasoning, saw one that gelled nicely with your own assumptions on him, and took it? Is this how you get all of your evidence? Find the possibility that conforms with your predetermined notions and advocate it?

My steps:
1) Look at the available evidence and find the outcome which seems most sensible
2) Investigate, accuse and attack based on that outcome. Since 486, I have learnt to make sure I remember that the outcome is only a framework.
3) Use the results of those inquiries as further sources of information so as to re-assess the validity of the original outcome and to alter as necessary

So youre on step three now, correct?

Yes. I am still arguing with you, because there is more I want to learn, but I have other ideas floating around which I shall bring to the fore shortly.

Ah. So basically you're saying that since I had one similar point to support a similar conclusion, the entire post was echoed from him. Got it. That totally makes sense.

It seemed to be your dominant reason for suspecting Orig.

Go and read the post again. It certainly was not my only reason, and far from the "dominant" one.

Here is post 988 (So I no longer need to trawl):

Shit shit shit. I had a huge post ligned up but my computer died. Don't worry, this isnt an excuse to get out of content. But it will be less content.

Alright. The AlyG claim? I believe it. Orig admitted to targetting CC, so it's pretty obvious Aly is telling the truth. On the other hand, I find Originality very unlikely. Firstly, I find Originality's argument that he had a gut feeling against carrot day 1, VERY unlikely, since he did not ONCE express any suspicions on CC. The bulk of Origs content is attacking lurkers..if he had suspicion of CC, wouldnt it make sense that he'd say so instead of attacking lurkers? The fact that he had other suspicions and went after lurkers makes me think that he is probably trying a little too hard to appear protown. Second, I find his claim that he killed on gut feeling night 1 very hard to believe. Even if it were his first game as vig, its certainly not his first on the site. I'm certain he knows that lynching on gut is bad for town, so why would he NK on gut? I just dont see why a protown vig would kill on so little...
Anyways, moving on, I find his claim that he had a gut feeling against CC even less likely when you look at this post (344) directly after night scene is revealed.

Uh... This is weird, because carrotcake was pretty quiet imo. I guess ima go with shaft.ed here, in that carrotcake must have scared someone enough into killing him... So AlyG would be a suspect, but i dont know if hes the only one carrotcake was after, so i will that, post in a min.

This definately doesnt sound like someone who had a gut feeling that he was scum. Also, there is this post (368):

I think this hasn't been brought up yet, but do we know for sure which death is mafia kill and which is the sk? I don't know if theres a set pattern here that a certain type of death will tell who killed who, so is there anything im missing here?

In this post, he 1) assumes there is an SK, not a vig, and 2) helps spread the opposite of his later claim by speculating about the SK's killing method. It seems very suspect.
So yeah. Orig is your SK, pretty sure he isnt a vig. His claim doesnt hold water.

vote: originality

The first huge section is about CC, in a similar vein to dybeck. The latter point is that he assumed there was a SK (which fits with him wanting to distance himself anyway). The same goes for the thing about CC being quiet.

The fact that you say "experienced enough to know its not a scumtell" is where I know I can discount what youre saying. Are you familiar with the concept of wifom? Ya know, taking what you think scum wouldnt do and doing it as scum? Besides, I would make the play as scum and town. Its good for town if I am town, it makes me look protown as scum because I do it as town. So what you've got there is a null point.

Not null, just unreadable. You do bandwagon a lot, that's true.

Null tell = unreadable in my opinion. If you cant draw conclusions on my alignment, then its null in relation to my alignment. But this point isnt worth arguing, as its far from relevant.

No. /ooc A nulltell is something inherently ambiguous in alignment. Something can be unreadable because of a particular player. A good example is Oman. He has done incredibly scummy bandwagoning here and in other games, but often does not get attacked purely because he gets recognised as being unreadable in relation to wagoning.

Ah. So basically you're saying that since I had one similar point to support a similar conclusion, the entire post was echoed from him. Got it. That totally makes sense.

In 988 you went after Orig on the basis of his gut feeling and the fact that he assumed SK. The former of these was dybeck's line and the latter is pretty meaningless.

Did you also see the posts where I outlined that he contradicts himself by showing that his gut pointed the other way? This is a third and entirely new point that I brought up. Even were you to win this point with me, what relevance does the fact that I saw the same faults in someones claim have to do with our alignment in relation to eachother?

Above.

I'm sorry, but the downplaying was justified. The fact that you saw the sense in this then should show you how true it is now. I'm not going to say that just because he was scum that all the arguments pointing in that direction were good ones. I believe a similar issue arose in 486 around I think seteal. Go back and read. I disputed all cases against him long after he was proven to be scum.

Wasn't Setael my mason partner in 486? I think you might mean Shanba...

But, as I have said, at the time I was losing faith myself, purely because it was going nowhere. Your downplaying of the points hit at the foundations of my case and caused me to lose my belief that dybeck was scum. I mean, all of those points are scumtells, of varying strength.

If you want to get into a metadebate, I'm all for it. But after the game please. I disagree with you on the validity of those scumtells. Are you going to tell me that my meta opinion on certain tells should show me to be scum or town in any individual game?

I'm just taking it for what it is worth: You neutralised a case on dybeck. That is a strong indictor of alignment. It is not confirmation, but it is something I need to address and deal with to better see what is going on here.

/kind of ooc, but maybe not: I just had a thought: Is it possible the reason we clash so much is that our playstyles are polar opposites? I focus on drawing out cases with evidence, often raising points I don't even consider conclusive, just to make argument and debate things and garner reactions and so on. In contrast, you seem to always play the role of a neutraliser; in that you don't even strike back at people, you just reduce everything to a thing on meta-opinion (at least with me). I'm just wondering how much of this is actually because our ideas are completely at odds?

Its not ambivalence. I said it wasnt convincing, ie I wouldnt vote for him under normal circumstances. I also said I would vote for him at deadline. I think thats a pretty clear cut idea of what I thought of it, pinpointing when I would and wouldnt vote him, and all.

This is getting into semantics. The "it's alright thing" is ambivalence and neutralisation of the issue. You don't defend, you don't attack. Of course your explanation is "sufficient", but it doesn't change your ambivalent stance.

ambivalence is defined by uncertainty...I gave a clear cut idea of when I would vote for him and when I wouldnt. It's not my fault you interpret this as being uncertain, though frankly, the fact that you do is ridiculous.

Because it downplays the case. You are neither for or against it, but you would support it when push comes to shove.

I was clear...I said it about two posts in that I was still against the Orig lynch.

I was having to argue pretty damn hard against the Orig lynch, since my only consistent supporter was shaft.ed. You did say you didn't want the lynch, I know that, but you still criticised our case against it without making it patently and consistently clear that you did not want Orig lynch. In that situation, where we were having to argue forcefully, it should have been obvious to you that anything you said in counter to us would be fuelling dybeck's cause.

Is this a bad thing? I was clear that I was against the lynch. I posted it and you missed it. The only result of "feuling the cause" as far as I can tell is a better read for you, which is good. Dont underestimate me Vollkan: I may be a bad scumhunter, but I certainly understand the value of getting reactions out of people (the reason I love bandwagoning).

Hmm..you made me think of something. I want to check on people's reactions to what you said.

My "critical" powers? Vollkan, there's a reason that I have a bad town record. I am very bad at scumhunting. The only real skill I have at mafia is defending myself (which I've only recently developed, since I started debate). I made it clear that I leaning towards yes, but was unsure. Also, do you really find it odd that someone who had been absent most of the game might have trouble pinning down his feelings on a claim?

Again, ambivalence. You are now justifying it on having been away. Shaft.ed and I had been attacking the claim and you still took the half-hearted approach.

Um, no. I said yes. I was unsure, but I gave an answer, despite my uncertainty. I am only blaiming the lingering uncertainty on my absense.

It's a sufficient explanation which I cannot refute. Moving on,

alright. is this something that you think a townie is unlikely to go through?

A townie should go through some degree of wavering, but you were consistently indecisive until things became cemented one way or the other. That is a scumtell. It is basically just allowing yourself to fall in with the majority without having to commit to anything.

This is untrue, first of all. I've made several independant points in this game, though I admit my absense has made it hard to get definitive reads. Also, this is not a scumtell, or at least it isnt for me. I have a habit of falling in with the crowd as town. Check my town games, you'll find its a recurring theme, though I'm trying to fix it. Once out of the early stages, my helpfulness to the town is mostly used up. Again, something I'm trying to fix.

As above.

Hard stance and attack are different vollkan. you know this.

Semantics. You know what I mean. All day you had been "tentative" about anything to do with dybeck or Orig unless the majority opinion had formed hard on something. Your only definite stance/hard stance/proper attack on dyebck came at the end.

I still disagree. I had formed my opinion on Orig within my very first post back into the game. And again, I contend the validity of this as a scum tell.

We're running in circles now. I wanted continual definite stance, and you say that you had formed it in the beginning, to which I say you should have affirmed it.

Anyway,

Unvote

The debate has reached the double-rebuttal limit and nothing substantative has emerged.

I'm saying his play was not crappy. I'm saying that it was an attempt to make it look crappy. His indignation when I called him a relative noob should reinforce this. Also, even if the possibility of there being cop is uncertain, an attempt to out him would be a good play on his part. It seems to have worked since they managed to hit cop on the following night. I don't think someone who's been playing for two years really "blunders through day 2" anymore.

Again, cock-up before conspiracy. I don't like arguments like this because they are a higher order of wifom.

[Elias_the_thief]

You know what? Dybeck did it. Not me. If you wish to hold it against me, then fine, but I can't explain his actions. More and more I find myself thinking that his day two play was purely for setting up a series of unfortunate events for the town, including the framework to support my mislynch. I think it's perfectly feasible. First, he ran into a LOT of suspicion early day two, explaining why the course of action would be taken. Second, he falseclaimed cop, and didnt even do a good job of it. I believe this was simply an attempt to out the cop. If we take his position from that of a scum trying to stay alive, to a scum trying to hurt the town as much as possible before he goes down, me being town makes a lot more sense.

In other words, you are reducing this to a simple WIFOM:
1) dybeck's play was all designed to set you up for a lynch and that his crappy falseclaiming was not him panicking but was him attempting to out the real cop (that he didn't even know existed and which I had said was unlikely to exist)as a result of him having fallen under suspicion for his play early D2 (are you saying that his crappy play was deliberate?)

OR

2) dybeck just blundered his way through D2

Gemelli referred to Occam's Razor, but I think a different principle is in order; the Sir Bernard Ingham variation of Hanlon's Razor:

Cock-up before conspiracy

Thus, I present my "Cock-up Model":
Dybeck found a confirmed killer of D2 and began to push its lynch. He encountered opposition and got drawn into an enormous debate that pulled him under suspicion. All day long he was fighting his case as the rest of us debated the best course of action. Eventually, dybeck panicked after thinking he was at L-1, or at least was in peril of lynch, and so he claims cop. I don't think this was to draw out the real cop, so much as it was a last-ditch effort to bring Orig down. Dybeck failed miserably and got lynched.

Essentially, yes. This is a simple Wifom. I've said that from the beginning, and have really only been pushing other scenarios to show you how wifom it is. Basically a null point now.

No. Wifom =/= Nullity. From the perspective of inquiries I am taking what seems to be the most likely interpretation of dybeck on the totality of the evidence. This isn't a point you can rebut, or that we can debate over, because, as you say, it is dybeck not you. The fact is that the evidence points to dybeck being scum with you. Yes, it depends on wifom, but that doesn't invalidate the point. You seem to be trying to neutralise the point by calling it wifom. Any attempt to interpret somebody in this game is ultimately wifom; wifom arguments can be made either way on anything.

Exactly. They can be interpreted either way. Do you understand why I feel it's unfair that you use it against me when its equally as likely it could point in an entirely different direction? Saying something like "the fact is" about how this evidence points is ridiculous.

How is a point based on what scum "characteristically do" not affected if you admit that scum do not necessarily act in this way?

I've already explained this. I take what I think to be the most sensible explanation for things and then frame my reasoning and investigation around it. For example, yesterday I had no proof dybeck was mafia but I figured it made most sense to me if he was mafia trying to off Orig. Of course, I wavered at points, because it was only a framework scenario, but gradually it emerges whether or not I am really on the right track or not.

However, as you later admitted, you interpret info to fit your own agenda. Thus, I think your scumhunting style is extremely flawed (for one, its incorrectly fingered me as scum twice now).

Agenda is the wrong word. It implies conscious intention. I form a view of what is most likely based on what I have seen, and then try to to frame things in that light to see what comes of it.

Are you saying you form your framework on accident?

I haven't "incorrectly fingered" you here: 1) Because I don't yet know if I am in error; and

Whether you know it or not has nothing to do with it. You have incorrectly interpreted the info and incorrectly seen me as scum once again.

2) Because I have not "fingered" you. My mistake in 486 was relying too much on my own case framework rather than interpreting what was going on around it.

As I use the phrase, it means to think someone is very likely scum. So yes, you have incorrectly "fingered me" (ew).

Ah. So basically you're saying that since I had one similar point to support a similar conclusion, the entire post was echoed from him. Got it. That totally makes sense.

It seemed to be your dominant reason for suspecting Orig.

Go and read the post again. It certainly was not my only reason, and far from the "dominant" one.

Here is post 988 (So I no longer need to trawl):

Shit shit shit. I had a huge post ligned up but my computer died. Don't worry, this isnt an excuse to get out of content. But it will be less content.

Alright. The AlyG claim? I believe it. Orig admitted to targetting CC, so it's pretty obvious Aly is telling the truth. On the other hand, I find Originality very unlikely. Firstly, I find Originality's argument that he had a gut feeling against carrot day 1, VERY unlikely, since he did not ONCE express any suspicions on CC. The bulk of Origs content is attacking lurkers..if he had suspicion of CC, wouldnt it make sense that he'd say so instead of attacking lurkers? The fact that he had other suspicions and went after lurkers makes me think that he is probably trying a little too hard to appear protown. Second, I find his claim that he killed on gut feeling night 1 very hard to believe. Even if it were his first game as vig, its certainly not his first on the site. I'm certain he knows that lynching on gut is bad for town, so why would he NK on gut? I just dont see why a protown vig would kill on so little...
Anyways, moving on, I find his claim that he had a gut feeling against CC even less likely when you look at this post (344) directly after night scene is revealed.

Uh... This is weird, because carrotcake was pretty quiet imo. I guess ima go with shaft.ed here, in that carrotcake must have scared someone enough into killing him... So AlyG would be a suspect, but i dont know if hes the only one carrotcake was after, so i will that, post in a min.

This definately doesnt sound like someone who had a gut feeling that he was scum. Also, there is this post (368):

I think this hasn't been brought up yet, but do we know for sure which death is mafia kill and which is the sk? I don't know if theres a set pattern here that a certain type of death will tell who killed who, so is there anything im missing here?

In this post, he 1) assumes there is an SK, not a vig, and 2) helps spread the opposite of his later claim by speculating about the SK's killing method. It seems very suspect.
So yeah. Orig is your SK, pretty sure he isnt a vig. His claim doesnt hold water.

vote: originality

The first huge section is about CC, in a similar vein to dybeck. The latter point is that he assumed there was a SK (which fits with him wanting to distance himself anyway). The same goes for the thing about CC being quiet.

Key phrase here is "similar vein". I dredged up entirely new posts by CC and Orig in which he contradicted his own claims. Dybeck only really went as far as to say "omg he wouldnt have nked CC". Besides, Dybeck never even touched on the way that Orig would later contradict himself.

The fact that you say "experienced enough to know its not a scumtell" is where I know I can discount what youre saying. Are you familiar with the concept of wifom? Ya know, taking what you think scum wouldnt do and doing it as scum? Besides, I would make the play as scum and town. Its good for town if I am town, it makes me look protown as scum because I do it as town. So what you've got there is a null point.

Not null, just unreadable. You do bandwagon a lot, that's true.

Null tell = unreadable in my opinion. If you cant draw conclusions on my alignment, then its null in relation to my alignment. But this point isnt worth arguing, as its far from relevant.

No. /ooc A nulltell is something inherently ambiguous in alignment. Something can be unreadable because of a particular player. A good example is Oman. He has done incredibly scummy bandwagoning here and in other games, but often does not get attacked purely because he gets recognised as being unreadable in relation to wagoning.

Yeah...I consider a null tell to be when alignment cannot be derived from an action, universally or individually. This is clearly a difference in interpretation, and not really worth debating.

Ah. So basically you're saying that since I had one similar point to support a similar conclusion, the entire post was echoed from him. Got it. That totally makes sense.

In 988 you went after Orig on the basis of his gut feeling and the fact that he assumed SK. The former of these was dybeck's line and the latter is pretty meaningless.

Did you also see the posts where I outlined that he contradicts himself by showing that his gut pointed the other way? This is a third and entirely new point that I brought up. Even were you to win this point with me, what relevance does the fact that I saw the same faults in someones claim have to do with our alignment in relation to eachother?

Above.

um, no. You dont explain why seeing the same faults in a claim is scummy. Also, you did not respond to the fact that I raised a third point which dybeck had not touched. saying "above" is not sufficient.

I'm sorry, but the downplaying was justified. The fact that you saw the sense in this then should show you how true it is now. I'm not going to say that just because he was scum that all the arguments pointing in that direction were good ones. I believe a similar issue arose in 486 around I think seteal. Go back and read. I disputed all cases against him long after he was proven to be scum.

Wasn't Setael my mason partner in 486? I think you might mean Shanba...

But, as I have said, at the time I was losing faith myself, purely because it was going nowhere. Your downplaying of the points hit at the foundations of my case and caused me to lose my belief that dybeck was scum. I mean, all of those points are scumtells, of varying strength.

If you want to get into a metadebate, I'm all for it. But after the game please. I disagree with you on the validity of those scumtells. Are you going to tell me that my meta opinion on certain tells should show me to be scum or town in any individual game?

I'm just taking it for what it is worth: You neutralised a case on dybeck. That is a strong indictor of alignment. It is not confirmation, but it is something I need to address and deal with to better see what is going on here.

No, it isnt a strong indicator of alignment, its a strong indicator of me seeing a bad case and shooting it down. You even backed down. My neutralisation was well founded. I shoot down bad cases when I see them, regardless of alignment, because I play that way as town, and can blend in as scum that way, based on my town play. So as I would say, null tell. As you would say, unreadable.

/kind of ooc, but maybe not: I just had a thought: Is it possible the reason we clash so much is that our playstyles are polar opposites? I focus on drawing out cases with evidence, often raising points I don't even consider conclusive, just to make argument and debate things and garner reactions and so on. In contrast, you seem to always play the role of a neutraliser; in that you don't even strike back at people, you just reduce everything to a thing on meta-opinion (at least with me). I'm just wondering how much of this is actually because our ideas are completely at odds?

I think we clash so much, not because we're polar opposites, but we disagree on some major points, and we're both intelligent in argumentation. However, we're not so different. We both see the major importance of genuine reactions, and we can see eye to eye on at least a few things. Really, I enjoy playing with you a lot. You at least make me think. Hopefully at the end of this game you'll take something away once again, and improve your playstyle once again (hint: its because I'm once again town).

Its not ambivalence. I said it wasnt convincing, ie I wouldnt vote for him under normal circumstances. I also said I would vote for him at deadline. I think thats a pretty clear cut idea of what I thought of it, pinpointing when I would and wouldnt vote him, and all.

This is getting into semantics. The "it's alright thing" is ambivalence and neutralisation of the issue. You don't defend, you don't attack. Of course your explanation is "sufficient", but it doesn't change your ambivalent stance.

ambivalence is defined by uncertainty...I gave a clear cut idea of when I would vote for him and when I wouldnt. It's not my fault you interpret this as being uncertain, though frankly, the fact that you do is ridiculous.

Because it downplays the case. You are neither for or against it, but you would support it when push comes to shove.

First, the downplaying was a justified action regardless of my alignment. Second, what does it matter if I'm for or against it entirely? An attempt to say that I must either be for or against it at all times, rather then vote if need be, but not otherwise, is really an oversimplification of how the game is played. Or at least, how I play it.

Hard stance and attack are different vollkan. you know this.

Semantics. You know what I mean. All day you had been "tentative" about anything to do with dybeck or Orig unless the majority opinion had formed hard on something. Your only definite stance/hard stance/proper attack on dyebck came at the end.

I still disagree. I had formed my opinion on Orig within my very first post back into the game. And again, I contend the validity of this as a scum tell.

We're running in circles now. I wanted continual definite stance, and you say that you had formed it in the beginning, to which I say you should have affirmed it.

I didnt affirm my opinion? first post back into the game, 988:

So yeah. Orig is your SK, pretty sure he isnt a vig. His claim doesnt hold water.
vote: originality

Anyway,

Unvote

The debate has reached the double-rebuttal limit and nothing substantative has emerged.

Deja vu.

I'm saying his play was not crappy. I'm saying that it was an attempt to make it look crappy. His indignation when I called him a relative noob should reinforce this. Also, even if the possibility of there being cop is uncertain, an attempt to out him would be a good play on his part. It seems to have worked since they managed to hit cop on the following night. I don't think someone who's been playing for two years really "blunders through day 2" anymore.

Again, cock-up before conspiracy. I don't like arguments like this because they are a higher order of wifom.

"higher order"? What makes it a "higher order"? All it requires is for dybeck to create an illusion that he is a poor player in order to orchestrate a mislynch...I've done it before. Its really not that uncommon.

[Gemelli]

OK. So far, it looks like most of the Elias/Vollkan discussion seems to boil down to whether there is or isn't evidence linking Elias to Dybeck. There hasn't seemed to be any discussion around posts of Elias that provide evidence AGAINST such a relationship, although it's possible I've just missed them due to work kicking my ass up and down the block today.

What I think I need to see is one of the following:

(1) A strong argument that provides evidence of why the Elias/Dybeck pair does NOT make sense, or
(2) A strong argument for why another player is a MORE LIKELY candidate than Elias for being scum with Dybeck.

I'd also like to hear from AlyG and Lucienne, obviously. Even a quick scumdar rundown from them would help quite a bit.

[Korlash]

(2) A strong argument for why another player is a MORE LIKELY candidate than Elias for being scum with Dybeck.

Um... Not to make myself the proverbial Sitting duck here but... I believe I have more evidence connecting me to Dybeck. Or that is what I saw when I scanned Vollkan's earlier posts.

Anyways I will be doing my reread tonight *woot* I figure I will try to outline all case I have ever used against Vollkan, if only to disprove the "NEVER" he used before... then comment on the Elias thing.. and maybe a quick snack... then insult Gem by calling him names >.> <.< (Kidding... jerk... =D)

[vollkan]

I'm not going to address everything, since you seem to agree that most of it is just me having a different view on things to you.

Are you saying you form your framework on accident?

No, just that I don't have an "agenda"; which, semantically, suggests I am doing it for a deliberate purpose of getting a player lynched. I look at the evidence, find what seems most sensible to me, build a picture of the game from that and judge the likely town and scum, and then I start arguing with people.

See, the thing is Elias, when I start the argument with you, I really have no intention other than to argue. My purpose is not to score a lynch, it is to spark something which can help me judge the person and thereby try and reform my model.

um, no. You dont explain why seeing the same faults in a claim is scummy. Also, you did not respond to the fact that I raised a third point which dybeck had not touched. saying "above" is not sufficient.

Which is the third point? (just bold it or something)

No, it isnt a strong indicator of alignment, its a strong indicator of me seeing a bad case and shooting it down. You even backed down. My neutralisation was well founded. I shoot down bad cases when I see them, regardless of alignment, because I play that way as town, and can blend in as scum that way, based on my town play. So as I would say, null tell. As you would say, unreadable.

As I have said, I backed down because I was losing confidence myself and then your criticism cemented my doubt. As for the scumtell thing, this is again a difference of opinion. I see all of those as scumtells, whereas you see most as negligible.

First, the downplaying was a justified action regardless of my alignment. Second, what does it matter if I'm for or against it entirely? An attempt to say that I must either be for or against it at all times, rather then vote if need be, but not otherwise, is really an oversimplification of how the game is played. Or at least, how I play it.

Hmm...playstyle difference again. Unless I am keeping something hidden for a purpose, I am usually fairly blunt about whether or not I think something is worthwile or not. You're much more defensive than I am.

"higher order"? What makes it a "higher order"? All it requires is for dybeck to create an illusion that he is a poor player in order to orchestrate a mislynch...I've done it before. Its really not that uncommon.

Right. It is wifom for me to say that dybeck's behaviour points at alignment. It deepens the wifom even more to say that dybeck played in a consciously bad manner in order to implicate yourself.

[Elias_the_thief]

What I think I need to see is one of the following:

(1) A strong argument that provides evidence of why the Elias/Dybeck pair does NOT make sense, or
(2) A strong argument for why another player is a MORE LIKELY candidate than Elias for being scum with Dybeck.

Does it bother you that the "evidence" towards me being with Dybeck depends entirely on wifom interpretation, and could mean entirely the opposite of the way Vollkan is interpreting it? (pretty likely, because I'm town). I'm starting to think you're our third scum. I've already presented evidence as to Korlash having ties to Dy, though nothing compared to what Vollkan did. Second, I'm pretty sure we're in LYLO here *at the very least, potentially). Are you really going to trust the game deciding lynch on the fact that theres nothing better then a weak connection case?

[Elias_the_thief]

um, no. You dont explain why seeing the same faults in a claim is scummy. Also, you did not respond to the fact that I raised a third point which dybeck had not touched. saying "above" is not sufficient.

Which is the third point? (just bold it or something)

Dybeck simply pointed out that the NK was unlikely. I outlined specific posts in which Orig contradicted his own statements, as well as the possibility of having the gut feeling. So not only did I say it was unlikely, I pointed out the contradictions.

No, it isnt a strong indicator of alignment, its a strong indicator of me seeing a bad case and shooting it down. You even backed down. My neutralisation was well founded. I shoot down bad cases when I see them, regardless of alignment, because I play that way as town, and can blend in as scum that way, based on my town play. So as I would say, null tell. As you would say, unreadable.

As I have said, I backed down because I was losing confidence myself and then your criticism cemented my doubt. As for the scumtell thing, this is again a difference of opinion. I see all of those as scumtells, whereas you see most as negligible.

It is a scum tell to shoot down a bad case?

"higher order"? What makes it a "higher order"? All it requires is for dybeck to create an illusion that he is a poor player in order to orchestrate a mislynch...I've done it before. Its really not that uncommon.

Right. It is wifom for me to say that dybeck's behaviour points at alignment. It deepens the wifom even more to say that dybeck played in a consciously bad manner in order to implicate yourself.

Not really. Basically we are on the same level. There are two major options here: He was either playing poorly and indicated a buddy due to bad play, or he knew youd think that, and thus indicated a townie. Frankly, for someone with 2 years of experience, I think that the latter is much more likely.