Open 35: Big Love - Game over!

[Bookitty]

With the caveat that I am not very good at scumhunting, I think Korlash, ryan and NabNab are the most likely to be scum.

Mod edit

Not voting: everyone

With 9 alive it's 5 to lynch.

[Korlash]

Well at least someone is thinking about me... thats the important thing... ^^

And I could care less what people think about my vote as long I get some answers out of it... Now either a couple of you force Elmo to tell me why Ryan is apparently town or however he put it, or I'll see no reason not to put my vote back.

[ryan]

Man, this game has been going for so long that I'm forgetting about things that I'd previously observed. I took another look at my case on ryan from post 1784 and I think I had some good points in there. Also, the little chat between Fonz and ryan here reads a lot like distancing in retrospect. I note that he's still doing the questioning without action thing, too.

FoS: ryan

Can you honestly tell me that you've been more active than me? I agree that the game has been going on for a long time and it is difficult to remember past points/arguments on certain players but you've been very inactive and I find it very possible that you've been the silent mafia member just sitting back while the rest of the town picks eachother off. If you really want me to clarify (again) my thoughts on The Fonz, feel free, but as you noticed I had been calling him scum for a long time now

[Elmo]

Popping in quickly.

Why won't you answer my question/statemnet/implied content/reasons for vote/whatever you wish to call it?

Because I'm interested in the fact that you're voting me when no-one knows my reasons. I'd like to keep it that way for a while, and we talk about that; this conversation is much more interesting to me than a debate about my reasons for ryan being town.

HI

1) Korlash is using Elmo as bait, what a horribly irresponsible thing to do!

Frustration votes are fine for non-lylo situations. This is a lylo situation. You are not voting elmo because you think he is scum; until you do think elmo is scum and not just "unhelpful", unvote him.

Korlash: Are you voting for me because you believe I'm scum?

At this point... I have to say yes... Although if you only answer my question I'll gladly reverse my thinking.

HI THERE

Elmo: Who do you feel are the scum in the game?

scum are fonz, nabnab, korlash, probably skruffs

MY NAME IS ELMO

I note that he's still doing the questioning without action thing, too.

FoS: ryan

Blah blah blah words

Votecount:
ryan (3): The Fonz, LoudmouthLee, Skruffs

???

With the caveat that I am not very good at scumhunting

incorrect

I think Korlash, ryan and NabNab are the most likely to be scum.

Korlash/NabNab paring ftw

@Elmo: Did you notice the bit in the thread where everybody and their mother was saying "NabNab is scummy" but

nobody

voted me? Back then I used the term "ghostwagon" for it.

Cűld be. I think no, but I will look sometime.

Skruffs's comments on Korlash are a bit odd. Muh.

You took measures to make sure that nobody else would follow you, which seems appropriate

He's kind of actively pre-fossing anyone who jumps on the wagon, which is pro-town

Yeah, let's try and find the pro-town parts of

voting someone in LyLo for crap reasons

. (Fun fact: either the scum quicklynch or they don't. On or off. One or zero. Yes or no.)

I acknowledge my part in all the mislynches of the past, but I also felt that Ether's consistent confidence in the face of being wrong should be acknowledged. Whether anybody wants to beleive it or not, I feel like I was pressured into a couple of wagons I really didn't want to join by Ether. I'm not holding this up as a sheild, just as an explanation.

The problem is that you've said "If she

{Zindaras}

makes good cases, those cases have every right to lead the town", yeah? Confidence doesn't come into it; in fact, almost no-one's going to follow someone who isn't fairly confidant of what they're saying. You talked about "explicit direction", which is to say you thought Ether was deliberately leading the town in the wrong direction, no? So did you not think they were good cases (why didn't you say so) or have you contradicted yourself (why)?

I would love to hear more about how you were pressured into voting for someone. You poor, abused townie.

Ether: The short version was the wagon on Erg0 and Fonz's behaviour toward him. As I'm sure you gather, the long version might take a while, as and when I can be bothererd.

[NabakovNabakov]

Yeah, let's try and find the pro-town parts of voting someone in LyLo for crap reasons. (Fun fact: either the scum quicklynch or they don't. On or off. One or zero. Yes or no.)

Yes, let's. If there's a pro-town part, why

shouldn't

you mention it. Town is all about making decisions, and decisions take full disclosure.

I think you misunderstand the way I think of a "good" case. If a case has solid logic, does a good job of pointing out what parts of a player's play have been scummy, and generally holds up to scrutiny, it's a "good" case, even if its on a townie. Good=/=Right (and it isn't even a matter of degrees)

@Elmo: Did you notice the bit in the thread where everybody and their mother was saying "NabNab is scummy" but nobody voted me? Back then I used the term "ghostwagon" for it.

Cűld be. I think no, but I will look sometime.

Wait, are you saying you made a case on me without even noticing that? What the hell were you reading if you didn't see this?

@Sarcastro: I can't believe you're arguing that certainty isn't scummy. Mafia is a game of the uniformed majority vs. the informed minority. The only people who can be really certain are the Mafia. To go around being definite this early in the game strikes me as odd as does your explanation for why you don't beleive Guardian's defense. You're screwing up cause and effect. You're not saying you think Guardian's scum because you disbelieve his conclusion, you're saying you disbelieve his conclusion because you think he' scum. Craplogic.

However, that might just be a playstyle difference. I always try to check my suspicions. My style of play is very rarely in black and white (which is why I was expecting more of an explanation for why you didn't believe Guardian's defense), and I think that's how this whole

ghostwagon

(a wagon of suspicion curiously lacking in votes) got started.

Everybody read my first real post forcefully accusing Darko, and I have to admit that that post did not put my best foot foward (despite the fact that several players happened to agree with me). I screwed up in being so certain in my post that Darko was scum, and now I'm catching flak both for that certainty and for changing my mind. Now I'm doing my best to give a pro-town impression and find scum (I'm even attempting to revert to my original sytax for Adel's benefit). Expect the results of a re-read tonight.

Or this?

I'm trying to play a more tempered game right now. I'm suspicious of Flea and Sarcastro, but I'm not going to discount playstyle difference as large contributers to that. I also get slightly scummy (this is elaborating somewhat on the faint reads mentioned earlier) on Pickem because he's been more stubborn than usual in posting content. I would probably urge people to look at silent contributers to the two major bandwagons to date (and even my

ghostwagon

if they so desire).

An example of an above mentioned principle:
A case which ignores everything but a few isolated posts quoted and snipped to make the poster look scummy is not a "good" case.

[Elmo]

Let's make this one littler.

It's not "mentioning it is wrong". It's that taking a fairly obviously scummy action and pointing out the pro-town silver lining to the anti-town black cloud strikes me as off, especially when I'm suspicious of the two players in question already.
The problem is that you say you're willing to follow good cases, and indeed that if a person makes good cases they have every right to lead the town, and yet complain about Ether when she makes good cases that turn out to be wrong. Do you think's made good cases or not?
I know entirely what you mean by the ghostwagon. I don't think that accounts for it, but I'll go back over it in detail sometime. *shrug*

I would love to hear more about how you were pressured into voting for someone.

Also that.

[NabakovNabakov]

It's not "mentioning it is wrong". It's that taking a fairly obviously scummy action and pointing out the pro-town silver lining to the anti-town black cloud strikes me as off, especially when I'm suspicious of the two players in question already.

Well I guess it's too bad that it "strikes you as off" Do you have any actual reasons? One-sided analysis is a horrible habit.

The problem is that you say you're willing to follow good cases, and indeed that if a person makes good cases they have every right to lead the town, and yet complain about Ether when she makes good cases that turn out to be wrong. Do you think's made good cases or not?

I am willing to follow good cases, and to a certain extent, I did. Many parts of Ether's cases were good, they made me see why Jordan or Flea or Guardian n' Friends might be scum. They weren't perfect, and I wasn't always convinced. I just sometimes felt what pushed me over the top was the way that Ether made it out to be "NabNab, you're scum if you don't vote for this person" I don't necessarily think targeting Flea or voting for any of the other wagons was a serious misstep in judgement, but I think Ether's pressure might have clouded my judgement to a point where I might have missed the

actual

scum.

If I still thought Ether was scum (I've since dropped that realizing that the scum would have little or no motivation to buy the town an extra day like she did yesterday by saying not to lynch the lovers), my issue wouldn't be that she's made "bad" cases, just that she's made "wrong" cases, and the assumption would be that it was on purpose.

Just so we're absolutely clear: "Good" and "bad" are being used to describe the quality of the cases, how convincing, balanced, and supported they are. "Right" and "wrong" judge simply whether the case is on scum or not. This is an important distinction to make, and helps enormously in reading a game objectively.

[Erg0]

Man, this game has been going for so long that I'm forgetting about things that I'd previously observed. I took another look at my case on ryan from post 1784 and I think I had some good points in there. Also, the little chat between Fonz and ryan here reads a lot like distancing in retrospect. I note that he's still doing the questioning without action thing, too.

FoS: ryan

Can you honestly tell me that you've been more active than me? I agree that the game has been going on for a long time and it is difficult to remember past points/arguments on certain players but you've been very inactive and I find it very possible that you've been the silent mafia member just sitting back while the rest of the town picks eachother off. If you really want me to clarify (again) my thoughts on The Fonz, feel free, but as you noticed I had been calling him scum for a long time now

Duh. Hence my use of the term "distancing". Following the line of thought that Fonzie is "expendable" scum, I don't doubt that at least one of the other scum has been using him for target practice throughout the game.

Also, I don't really see what activity levels have to do with it. You seem to have ignored my point and instead attempted to redirect against me on the grounds that I'm lurking. I won't argue that I've been active (I haven't), but that doesn't invalidate my observations.

[Erg0]

I note that he's still doing the questioning without action thing, too.

FoS: ryan

Blah blah blah words

Votecount:
ryan (3): The Fonz, LoudmouthLee, Skruffs

???

I don't understand what this means.

To expand on my reasons for suspecting ryan: I had very similar reads on him and Xdaamno, and thought both were scummy for essentially the same reasons. When Xdaamno turned out to be the doctor, I lost confidence in the read and more or less dropped it.

What I realised yesterday is that, reflecting on the times that I've applied this tell, it seems to catch both scum

and

doctors because both have a tendency to try and avoid undue attention without wanting to appear to be doing so. The fact that Xdaamno was the doc doesn't invalidate the tell, it just means that I went with the wrong choice initially due to Xdaamno's reaction. I feel pretty confident at this point that ryan is scum based on his early play.

[ryan]

So you have a tell that works on scum and doctors? HUH? Post again when you find a tell that works on finding scum as that's what we're trying to do here.

[NabakovNabakov]

So you have a tell that works on scum and doctors? HUH? Post again when you find a tell that works on finding scum as that's what we're trying to do here.

Why the "HUH?"? Erg0's explanation makes sense, and a tell that works on Docs and Scum would be fine at this point in the game considering it's an open setup and the Doc's dead.

[Korlash]

Yeah, let's try and find the pro-town parts of voting someone in LyLo for crap reasons. (Fun fact: either the scum quicklynch or they don't. On or off. One or zero. Yes or no.)

Well... They won't quicklynch if the said person is in fact scum... >.> so... yeah people can't forget that one...

To expand on my reasons for suspecting ryan: I had very similar reads on him and Xdaamno, and thought both were scummy for essentially the same reasons. When Xdaamno turned out to be the doctor, I lost confidence in the read and more or less dropped it.

What I realised yesterday is that, reflecting on the times that I've applied this tell, it seems to catch both scum and doctors because both have a tendency to try and avoid undue attention without wanting to appear to be doing so. The fact that Xdaamno was the doc doesn't invalidate the tell, it just means that I went with the wrong choice initially due to Xdaamno's reaction. I feel pretty confident at this point that ryan is scum based on his early play.

Are you basing this on past performance? I mean if I used a tell that "caught the doc" I woudl be very careful to use it again.

Also does anyone else think it funny that a "tell" that is suppose to catch scum caught the doc, and then we continue to use it because, oh it obviously catches both scum and doc?

[Erg0]

Put another way: the reason it will sometimes catch a doc isn't that the tell itself is bad - it's just that some people play like scum when they're the doctor. The tell itself is good and I've used it to catch scum in at least four games now (since Glork used it to catch

me

in Methodical Mafia). It does have the occasional miss though, like any tell.

[ryan]

So you have a tell that works on scum and doctors? HUH? Post again when you find a tell that works on finding scum as that's what we're trying to do here.

Why the "HUH?"? Erg0's explanation makes sense, and a tell that works on Docs and Scum would be fine at this point in the game considering it's an open setup and the Doc's dead.

My HUH was the fact that we don't have our doc anymore so using that tell didn't work out so well did it?

[Elmo]

*noogies NabNab*

Erg0: You were indicating a post by Fonz, saying that it looked like he was distancing with ryan, and he (I assume Fonz) was "still doing the questioning without action thing", when Fonz was voted for ryan. Reading it back, I guess I find it ambiguous.. run it past me again, would ya?

I know what Erg0's on about, and I'm not sure why people aren't getting it. There is some set of behaviour that is more likely to be done by both doctors and scum, which he noticed with ryan and xdaamno. I mean, even ye olde wiki article Finding the doc sez: "Part of the reason Doc makes such a good claim for scum is that they have similar desires: Remain under the radar." m i rite? Xd, the doc, is now dead, so ryan can't be the doc. *shrug* I don't necessarily agree with the conclusion, but I'll go back and look if you point me to a good example or two.

What I realised yesterday is that, reflecting on the times that I've applied this tell, it seems to catch both scum

and

doctors because both have a tendency to try and avoid undue attention without wanting to appear to be doing so.

It's not that hard to understand, y'know?

[Elmo]

MY WIKI SKILLZ ARE UNSIFFICIENT FOR ZIS CHALLENGE

Finding the Doc

[Korlash]

Thats a 50 DKP minus! Bad... pahilure!

[Erg0]

Erg0: You were indicating a post by Fonz, saying that it looked like he was distancing with ryan, and he (I assume Fonz) was "still doing the questioning without action thing", when Fonz was voted for ryan. Reading it back, I guess I find it ambiguous.. run it past me again, would ya?

Ah - I was referring to ryan in that quote.

I know what Erg0's on about, and I'm not sure why people aren't getting it. There is some set of behaviour that is more likely to be done by both doctors and scum, which he noticed with ryan and xdaamno. I mean, even ye olde wiki article Finding the doc sez: "Part of the reason Doc makes such a good claim for scum is that they have similar desires: Remain under the radar." m i rite? Xd, the doc, is now dead, so ryan can't be the doc. *shrug* I don't necessarily agree with the conclusion, but I'll go back and look if you point me to a good example or two.

What I realised yesterday is that, reflecting on the times that I've applied this tell, it seems to catch both scum

and

doctors because both have a tendency to try and avoid undue attention without wanting to appear to be doing so.

It's not that hard to understand, y'know?

This is exactly what I'm getting at.

[NabakovNabakov]

@Ryan: I still don't get what you're driving at. A tell finds people. If you have a tell on Docs and Scum, you are going to find Docs and Scum. Erg0's tell found the Doc, it therefore "worked". If you are referencing how the tell misfired, there isn't any chance of that

now

is there? So why not use the tell?

*noogies NabNab*

That's it?

[ryan]

NabNab: I guess what I was saying is that his "tell" brought out the doc but there is no guarantee it also brought up scum (as he's inferring it did to me)

[Erg0]

Without wanting to be too glib, there are few guarantees in life and even fewer in mafia.

[Elmo]

Thats a 50 DKP minus!

THROW MORE DOTS

Following the line of thought that Fonzie is "expendable" scum, I don't doubt that at least one of the other scum has been using him for target practice throughout the game.

There is much WIFOM in this line of thought. Having said that, Fonz has a markedly higher chance of being outed, so they would probably make some kind of adjustment. Hrm.

*Noogies NabNab some more*

[Erg0]

There is certainly WIFOM inherent in believing people are scum based on attacks on Fonzie, but at the very least I'd say that such attacks offer little proof that the attacker is a townie.

[Elmo]

Yea.

[Ether]

I acknowledge Elmo's defense of Erg0 but still want elaboration. (Process of elimination would be a decent excuse for your train of thought--but I think the Nabakov/Zindie linkages themselves were mercilessly overstated.)

Skruffs's explanation of Nabakov's attention is also important.

And Ryan's thing.

That being said, I also don't understand why Elmo doesn't just answer the damn question (perhaps we should gang up on him ala Molly Ringwald in The Breakfast Club)

No, I was thinking more a choir of "answer the question!"s.

Wanting to know Elmo's motives for remaining silent and wanting to know his thoughts on Ryan are two very different things. Still curious?

1) Korlash is using Elmo as bait, what a horribly irresponsible thing to do!

This is an odd first thought.

I just sometimes felt what pushed me over the top was the way that Ether made it out to be "NabNab, you're scum if you don't vote for this person" I don't necessarily think targeting Flea or voting for any of the other wagons was a serious misstep in judgement, but I think Ether's pressure might have clouded my judgement to a point where I might have missed the

actual

scum.

(While this was not my intent, I can easily believe that I'd give off such a vibe. Move along.)

they made me see why Jordan or Flea or Guardian n' Friends might be scum.

In retrospect, my attack on Mansikuar sucked, and a large part of it depended on you being scum.

And the Flea part is a clear contradiction.