Mini 542 - Game Over

[vollkan]

vollkan: I don't like how vollkan has been playing. I may be alone in this, but he seems to be way too aggressive in his posting. When he sees something scummy he jumps on it with a vengeance. This may or may not be scummy, but I'm not liking it right now, even if it did jump start our discussions. In particular, how he catapulted the theory discussion with Mills and how he has questinoed many player's first responses so intensely.

You'll find this is pretty much consistent with how I always play.

If you want easy proof, just look at my title. I got "The Interrogator" for the very fact that I am inquisitorial and aggressive.

Votecount up to Post 100

Death's Door (2) - spurgistan, Mills
Mills (2) - Ythill, KradDrol
Hypatia (1) - Mr. President
Mookeh (1) - Jennar
Mr. President (1) - Dean Harper

Not Voting (5) - Death's Door, Hypatia, klebian, Mookeh, vollkan

7 to lynch.

[Ythill]

@ Dean: Mills' assumption about "4:5" is correct.

@ DD: Thanks for answering my questions. I haven't given you a pass on lurking. You were not one of my worst offenders, but neither were you listed as excused from suspicion.

[Mookeh]

Nice LoS, Death's Door. Just wanted to adress a few things.

vollkan: I don't like how vollkan has been playing. I may be alone in this, but he seems to be way too aggressive in his posting. When he sees something scummy he jumps on it with a vengeance. This may or may not be scummy, but I'm not liking it right now.

I think it's refreshing, to be honest. Too often enough, players are scared to jumpstart the game in fear of being bandwagoned. New players often find themselves crumbling under their own logic and being attacked on all sides (by both Town and Scum). While I still think the hunting is a non-tell, I'm not actually getting any strong scummy vibes from him yet.

Ythill: He was the biggest opponent to Mills in the argument over the vote on me. He accused Mills of vote hopping even though he only made 2 votes total, and says Mills jumped off the wagon once a little suspicion was given to it.

I agree: Ythill has been sloppy.

I have a question for you, DD: When you say people should 'distuingish themselves from the pack more', what are you getting it? Do you simply want them to speak up so you can get a more accurate read?

Important notice to everyone: I'll be taking a trip from Europe to Florida tomorrow: the entire trip will last more than 24 hours so during that period I'm not here. I will be taking my laptop with me and will have internet access at most of my hotels. I'll post when I have access again.

[Death's Door]

What I mean is, they should give some new opinions or viewpoints. When all you do is rehash what the rest of us have said, it makes you seem like you're trying to blend in. Not just you, specifically, but all of the background players in general. I know it is hard to be seen with some of the players here, but that doesn't mean we can't get fresh ideas into our discussions.

[Ythill]

Ythill: He was the biggest opponent to Mills in the argument over the vote on me. He accused Mills of vote hopping even though he only made 2 votes total, and says Mills jumped off the wagon once a little suspicion was given to it.

I agree: Ythill has been sloppy.

Sloppy? That's a vague accusation, can you explain what you mean? I certainly haven't been careful, but I have no reason to be.

Regarding what DD wrote, I didn't respond because he had asked us to drop the discussion about Mills' vote on him, and I agreed. For the record, I didn't technically accuse Mills of vote hopping, did I? I inferred that his vote came

too quickly

and said it was based on weak reasons. Also, I

did

say my suspicions of Mills weren't much of a case. I'm certainly not going for a lynch here.

[Mookeh]

Sloppy? That's a vague accusation, can you explain what you mean? I certainly haven't been careful, but I have no reason to be.

My bad, I confused you with KradDrol. Alright guys, off to the USA, see ya in a little bit more than 24 hours!

[Mills]

OK - I've taken some time off to rethink the way people are playing this game and give some proper consideration to something that has been bugging me. I have 'fantastic' luck so the person I am about to 'accuse' is the person who has just said they are going to be away for a day or so (Mookeh if you haven't been paying attention). Looking forward to seeing his reply when he gets back.

I'm going to get rid of all the tiered quoting because it quickly becomes confusing and present it in chronological order.



It starts off with KradDrol drama:

Not really. Bunch of random votes followed by two days of discussion on mafia theory and playstyles. Very little of substance to go off of.

Is this all you are going to post until someone else gets lynched and you feel you can contribute? It's a bit silly when a player posts practically nothing until the other players lynch someone for him. It's clever though I guess. You get to fly under the radar and you have zero accountability if a townsperson gets lynched. Maybe we should all play like this!

I personally feel a little safe with Mills around because of this post: {

Mills' Edit: He is referring to the post above.

}

It makes me feel a little like he is trying to scumhunt, and his answers for questions toward him seem to make sense so i feel slightly safe with him right now.

Mookeh then says:

I don't. Mills' criticism of KradDrol is justified, but I used the same criticism in a previous game when I was scum. It's not a tell either way, I'm afraid.

And I reply:

1. I agree with this statement wholeheartedly. It's not a tell either way because both town or scum could make a post like that. I want to make that absolutely clear before I move onto point 2.

2. I can definitely see scum making that point though as a way to discredit any trust that another player (in this case myself I guess) might have built up (with whoever made that post - I don't even remember!). And if I were scum looking to make a post like the one you just did, I would probably make the same blanket statement such as "I used the same criticism in a previous game when I was scum" whether it was true or not. If you are town, you have no reason to lie and if you are scum you

could

be making the 'evidence' up as a way to credit your post. Could you please link to the previous game you were in as scum where you made a post such as this?

I hope that explanation made sense. Complicated logic arguments are always so difficult to explain when typed.

And Mookeh replies:

Sure. Newbie 496 is the game in question. Post #89. And damn you for making me look that up.

He also follows up with this reply half an hour later:

Specifically referring to the 'looking for a nice speedlynch, or a bandwagon to jump on?' bit. I was trying to plant some seeds of doubt in a Townie in that game, and I was succesful - he got lynched. Mind you, I lost that game anyway.

Not saying that Mills is scum because of that - like I said, it's a non-tell. I'm just getting the impression that some people might get carried away a bit and I'm emphasizing to keep your eye on everyone just now. Last time I was a Townie and we disregarded someone because he seemed so innocent,

he

turned out to be Scum. Open 45 if you want a bit more meta.

Maybe I'm imagining things but it seemed like he made the original point about my post in this game (

which I agree with

) but when I asked for evidence of the previous game in which he said he did a similar thing, he links to a post where I can't really see the connection between his post in that game and my post in this game. And then he follows it up with a post soon after and possibly (?) tries to steer the topic away by suggesting a third game to look at. I'm having a hard time working out if I am imagining this but I am just not seeing the connection.



Here is a copy of his post from the game he links for reference but it might be better if you check out the game yourself for extra context:

I am new and don't even know what a LoS is, but Gorckat has given me no reason to think he is not scum therefore my vote stands.

List of Suspects - basically a short summary of the impressions you get from each person, and the conclusion you have drawn so far. I'd like to point out that "

no reason he is not scum

" is really bad logic to vote someone. There should be a reason he

is

scum.

I would think Gorckat would have gotten a bit more paranoid when he was 1 vote away from being lynched. Funny you are the one that unvoted him back to 2 votes. Maybe it's you two that are really looking forward to nightfall!!

It is funny he didn't get more paranoid - I certainly would have made a bigger case of it. But that's as far as your agument goes. I unvoted him because I voted for him in the random stage and forgot to unvote, so there's no possible way that can be a motive of any kind.

Your BS argument towards gorckat is noted, as is your OMGUS accusation (look it up on the Wiki if you don't know what it is) and your reluctance to vote anything until the rest has voted.

Looking for a speedlynch? Or a nice bandwagon to jump on?

{

Mills' Edit: I have italicised the part of the post that Mookeh says he was referencing.

}

Serious

FoS: SlySly

. Would've been a vote except you

are

new and this could just be sloppy playing on your part, but you're doing nothing to qualm my suspicions. Still waiting for IH so I can decide on what to do. Would also like to hear a bit more from Vaanshir.

Thoughts?

[KradDrol]

Basing a decision or a vote based on what conspired during a previous game is shaky, in my opinion. Who I am and how I play in this game is different from how I'd play in a different game, with a different role. Plus, situations in each game can be different, causing players to react differently. My opinion is that we shouldn't be using "look at my earlier game" as an argument at all.

That said, I don't think you're imagining things, and I don't really see the connection between this game and the previous linked one, but then again, I'm dumb like that.

Internet here is slow, posting will be short and scarce for the rest of the week.

[KradDrol]

Oh, and Merry Christmas, everyone.

[Mills]

I don't base votes on how players have played in previous games. I'm asking if he was caught in a lie or if I'm imagining it.

[Mills]

I don't base votes on how players have played in previous games. I'm asking if he was caught in a lie or if I'm imagining it.

Edit By Way Of Post:

Rather, I don't

usually

base votes on how players have played in previous games. I have made exceptions to this rule when a player is so retarded that it's worth killing him no matter what. Some players really are so bad that they are handicaps to town. :/ Thankfully it doesn't seem like we have any of those players here though.

[Mr. President]

On that note, merry christmas and happy holidays everyone

[vollkan]

Thoughts?

I see your point, but is it scummy? I mean, Mookeh wasn't defending himself or anything, so I don't think he had any real reason to lie in this matter (unless he was scum with Mills, but even then it doesn't seem very sensible because Mills was not under any real attack).

[Mills]

I think you misunderstood.

Mookeh made a post saying that something I did wasn't

necessarily

pro-town (which is a sentiment I agree with) and also suggested that he had empirical evidence.

He then used that post as empirical evidence. But the 'evidence' doesn't really support his original post - in which case his initial claim that he had such evidence is a lie.

And townies don't have a reason to lie.

I assume it makes better sense now...

I really don't see how you jumped to the possibility that me and Mookeh are a scum-pair from that series of events. I'm seriously boggling at your conclusion so I figure you misunderstood in some way.

[vollkan]

I really don't see how you jumped to the possibility that me and Mookeh are a scum-pair from that series of events. I'm seriously boggling at your conclusion so I figure you misunderstood in some way.

Let me be clearer then.

As you said, Mookeh cited a post which did not support things.

The effect of that citation was to render what you had said as a null-tell. Now, the most obvious reason he would have for knowingly lying in this manner would be to defend his scumbuddy, in this case Mills.

As I said, though, that doesn't make sense because you had not come under attack or anything, so I can't see the rationale for lying.

So, basically, I really reject the idea that I jumped to any conclusion. I simply gave what I perceived to be the most feasible explanation for him knowingly lying. Obviously, however, I consider even this infeasible. Thus, I think this is a good case where cock-up before conspiracy ought to apply.

[Mills]

Perhaps it is more likely that we are misunderstanding something that Mookeh said or perhaps it is possible that it was a mistake on his behalf but if we

discount both of those as possibilities for purposes of discussion

then I continue to boggle at why you think a scum would not consider lying in that situation as a third possibility. Scum lie all the time to support their posts. But you don't even list it as a possibility - in fact, you consider it

more possible

that Mookeh is somehow my scum buddy because he tried to make me look more suspicious (which is perhaps the oddest conclusion of all that anyone could make). I appreciate that you now say that your suggestion is not very possible at all, but at a bare minimum you have definitely said that it is

more possible

than a clearly much simpler (and as a result more possible if we're being realistic) explanation.


To sum up again in nice point form since that paragraph is quite verbose:

1. It appears that Mookeh has an incongruency in his posts.

2. I suggest that one of three things has taken place:
(i) I am misunderstanding;
(ii) Mookeh has made a mistake;
(iii) Mookeh is scum and has

lied on purpose

to support his post.

3. vollkan suggests that one of three things has taken place:
(i) I am misunderstanding;
(ii) Mookeh has made a mistake;
(iii) Mookeh is scum

with Mills

and has

lied on purpose

in order to

'attack' Mills

because scum would do this for some reason (I'm not really sure what this reason is but vollkan seems to think there might be a reason that involves 'defending' me. I don't see how raising suspicion on me is 'defending' me so I will continue to boggle for now).

4. Mills boggles because your possibility #3 is completely insane compared to my possibility #3 which is entirely much more likely and you don't even

consider it to be a possibility

.

My eyes are bugging out of my head right now.

[vollkan]

Gah. I just reread over things and I see what I have been confused over.

I had Dean and Mookeh entirely mixed up.

I thought that Dean had attacked Mills and that Mookeh had stepped in to refer to the other game and say that it was a null-tell.

[Mookeh]

Mookeh had stepped in to refer to the other game and say that it was a null-tell.

I did. Hi everyone, playing from sunny Tampa, Florida. Wow that's a lot of shittossing. I'm severely jetlagged, so will post a reply to that stuff. All I can say now is: bulldog much? I pointed out something was a null-tell and referred to previous game, and you spin it to 'he was caught lying'. Weird stuff. Ok, will be posting later!

[Mookeh]

Maybe I'm imagining things but it seemed like he made the original point about my post in this game (

which I agree with

) but when I asked for evidence of the previous game in which he said he did a similar thing, he links to a post where I can't really see the connection between his post in that game and my post in this game.

Well, I can - so maybe I'm interpreting it differently or you haven't been paying attention. His post was criticizing him for standing on the sidelines and basically waiting for a lynch. My post was criticizing that player for standing on the sidelines and maybe waiting for a bandwagon to jump on. Exact same thing.

Now, the fact that you didn't read it properly shows you're either sloppy or you're trying to strawman me. At this point I was going for sloppy,

but

:

Mookeh made a post saying that something I did wasn't necessarily pro-town (which is a sentiment I agree with) and also suggested that he had empirical evidence.

That's an obvious strawman you're being caught on. I never said I had empirical evidence. All I said I was playing in a previous game and used that argument as well. You proceeded to ask for a link. That's a spin, no matter how you look at it.

I did not make a mistake, and I did not lie. I'll post a simple version of what just took place:

Mookeh:

Yeah it's basically a non-tell, used it in another game where I was scum.

Mills:

Link?

Mookeh:

Here you go.

Mills:

I don't see the connection! You're LYING! You said you had empirical evidence!

Mookeh:

Wtf?

Get my point?

[Ythill]

I take elaborate notes because I feel they help me find the bad guys. In my three games on this site, I have only been town but have wondered if, as scum, I would still take notes. It is fair to say that scum might not study the thread as carefully as honest townies.

My point here is that it makes me a little suspicious when players get confused as to people’s identities. I realize that to err is human, but glaring errors

could

be a scumtell. Both Mookeh (in #105) and vollkan (in #116) claim to have confused the identities and/or arguments of players. In this case, I feel vollkan’s mistake is a little more suspect, but only because I read him as otherwise intelligent and thorough. None of this is enough for even a FoS, but I wanted to mention it.

I agree that Mills went a little overboard on the meta-lie argument vs. Mookeh. I see Mills’ point but agree that it’s somewhat unimportant, at least in comparison to the effort involved in making it. The #112-116 exchange with vollkan, however, has improved Mills’ image in my mind. This is enough for me to

unvote: Mills

.

@ Mookeh: You have promised a more elaborate defense to #106. I ask that you do so only to the extent that you believe the attack is relevant. Basically, keep it short. I don’t think too many people are going to jump your case for the accusations in #106 but I do think that an elaborate meta-argument is going to distract from other scumhunting.

And finally… Bush is at it again. In spite of direct questions and suspicions that she is lurker-scum, our President has popped in for another “hi there” post. The timing of this one is interesting because of Mills’ suggestion (in #110) that we do not have a VI. This is a stretch, but the Mr. President account could be a smurf created to try out the VI playstyle. All of this makes me very suspicious and I believe pressure is justified so I will

vote: Mr. President

.

@ Bush: Want to clear yourself? Post your suspicions of (or questions for) the other players. Directly address our accusations that you are lurking and answer me this: do you play under another name on this site?

[Mills]

Maybe I'm imagining things but it seemed like he made the original point about my post in this game (

which I agree with

) but when I asked for evidence of the previous game in which he said he did a similar thing, he links to a post where I can't really see the connection between his post in that game and my post in this game.

Well, I can - so maybe I'm interpreting it differently or you haven't been paying attention. His post was criticizing him for standing on the sidelines and basically waiting for a lynch. My post was criticizing that player for standing on the sidelines and maybe waiting for a bandwagon to jump on. Exact same thing.

Now, the fact that you didn't read it properly shows you're either sloppy or you're trying to strawman me. At this point I was going for sloppy,

but

:

Mookeh made a post saying that something I did wasn't necessarily pro-town (which is a sentiment I agree with) and also suggested that he had empirical evidence.

That's an obvious strawman you're being caught on. I never said I had empirical evidence. All I said I was playing in a previous game and used that argument as well. You proceeded to ask for a link. That's a spin, no matter how you look at it.

I did not make a mistake, and I did not lie. I'll post a simple version of what just took place:

Mookeh:

Yeah it's basically a non-tell, used it in another game where I was scum.

Mills:

Link?

Mookeh:

Here you go.

Mills:

I don't see the connection! You're LYING! You said you had empirical evidence!

Mookeh:

Wtf?

Get my point?

It makes more sense to me now with your explanation so I am happy to chalk it up to a misunderstanding on my part. I went back to re-read again and it definitely makes more sense in the context of some other posts by you in that game.

Regarding your claims that I was straw-manning you, I find that a little silly. I was careful to suggest that I could definitely be misunderstanding or that it could also have been a mistake on your behalf. I do not think I was incorrect in my assertion that you claimed to have empirical evidence either.

Empirical research is any research that bases its findings on direct or indirect observation as its test of reality.

You were using a direct example from a previous game as proof that my post was a null-tell, ie. empirical evidence. The issue was over whether it was actually relevant and upon further reflection I think it was.

[Mills]

I also hate to make this post now since the timing will look scummy right after Ythill's post but I have become a little concerned about vollkan for a different reason.

Throughout that whole exchange, he took the time to make relatively long posts and analyse my initial argument (albeit with a major misunderstanding along the way). This resulted in me having to re-explain 3-4 times what I was thinking and I think this made it look more and more like I was

attacking

Mookeh over and over again. When the misunderstanding was finally resolved, he simply posts to say that he misunderstood and provides no further analysis now that he does understand. This seems strange given how diligentyly he has been playing and given that he had given proper (incorrect) analysis before, I wonder why he would choose not to give proper (correct) analysis now. I'm wondering if the misunderstanding was set up for the purpose of making it seem as if I wanted to crucify Mookeh.

I will admit however that this is a pretty elaborate thing to pull off were it intentional so I feel that in some way mitigates its likelihood of being true.

[Ythill]

Sort of an EBWOP...

I agree that Mills went a little overboard... (etc, etc) ...I do think that an elaborate meta-argument is going to distract from other scumhunting.

This block of text may seem odd in context. That's because it was cross-posted with Mookeh's #118. Mookeh seems to have felt the same way I did... thanks for keeping it brief, dude.

[vollkan]

In this case, I feel vollkan’s mistake is a little more suspect, but only because I read him as otherwise intelligent and thorough. None of this is enough for even a FoS, but I wanted to mention it.

Fair enough. I would note, though, that whilst inconsistent (in that I don't usually make mistakes - though I have made a few over time) there was nothing actually 'scummy' about my mistake itself. Confusing two players obviously is not a good thing, but it is just as likely to come from town as scum, so it is a null-tell.

I also hate to make this post now since the timing will look scummy right after Ythill's post but I have become a little concerned about vollkan for a different reason.

Throughout that whole exchange, he took the time to make relatively long posts and analyse my initial argument (albeit with a major misunderstanding along the way). This resulted in me having to re-explain 3-4 times what I was thinking and I think this made it look more and more like I was attacking Mookeh over and over again. When the misunderstanding was finally resolved, he simply posts to say that he misunderstood and provides no further analysis now that he does understand. This seems strange given how diligentyly he has been playing and given that he had given proper (incorrect) analysis before, I wonder why he would choose not to give proper (correct) analysis now.

Actually, the reason I did not post anything more - and it was deliberate - was to wait for responses and so that I could reread the exchange to post the correct analysis.

Now, the situation as I see it is this:

Mills attacks KradDrol for being a lurker (I agree with this attack).
Dean suggests that Mills' behaviour is a town-tell (I disagree with this)
Mookeh says it is not a town-tell, but is a null-tell, by referring to another game (I agree it is a null-tell).
Mills argues that the reference does not support the argument.

I am aware this has since been resolved, but shall look at these 4 facts in context anyway, as the premise for my analysis.

If the reference does not appear to match the argument, then we have two immediate possibilities:
1. ERROR (from either Mills or Mookeh) - we can now see this was the case.
2. DELIBERATE LYING - In this case, Mookeh (presumably scum if he has lied in this way) seeks to prevent Mils' actions being seen as a town-tell. Tbh, this seems a pretty ridiculous argument - the risks for scum in lying about a reference greatly outweigh the benefit of not having a town-tell recognised. It simply is not a viable scum move.

I'm wondering if the misunderstanding was set up for the purpose of making it seem as if I wanted to crucify Mookeh.

How do you reason to that idea? My misunderstanding was that I thought Mookeh was defending you.

[Mills]

@ vollkan: You are absolutely right. Sorry - I withdraw that as a possibility.

Unvote

I suspect I will eventually be voting for a much better reason than the one I used for Death's Door. My vote for him hardly seems appropriate anymore.

I would like to hear more from the other players and hopefully it will improve after New Years. It feels like there are only four of us talking (myself, vollkan, Ythill, Mookeh). I realise I may be considered to be over-active but some players are barely saying anything at all! (NB: This is not a call out to

everyone

that I didn't list above since I realise some others are making an effort to post quality over quantity - I just couldn't remember more names offhand).