Micro 745: Beyond Death [Endgame]

Micro Games (9 players or fewer). Archived during the 2023 queue overhaul.
Locked
User avatar
BTD6_maker
BTD6_maker
Mafia Scum
User avatar
User avatar
BTD6_maker
Mafia Scum
Mafia Scum
Posts: 2244
Joined: April 7, 2016

Post Post #58 (isolation #0) » Mon Oct 09, 2017 9:08 am

Post by BTD6_maker »

Not much has happened yet, but I am looking at Cabd in particular.

Cabd raises some interesting points. It is certainly true that scum generally want to look useful but stay under the radar. This could indeed be accomplished by sheeping, or by posting without votes (as Northsidegal mentioned). However, one thing that is not conducive to that is to make a point about not voting, which draws attention to it. Town generally don't mind much if they receive attention. They will do what they think is best, typically regardless of whether they fall under suspicion. Scum, on the other hand, want to avoid scrutiny.

Of course, this is very, very weak. I read Cabd as currently nullTown.
"one of these days i'll read you correctly" - Transcend, Micro 714
User avatar
BTD6_maker
BTD6_maker
Mafia Scum
User avatar
User avatar
BTD6_maker
Mafia Scum
Mafia Scum
Posts: 2244
Joined: April 7, 2016

Post Post #175 (isolation #1) » Wed Oct 11, 2017 10:49 am

Post by BTD6_maker »

V/LA until the 16th of October


I will still try to post, though.

Anyway, is there anything in particular that anyone would like to draw my attention to?

In one game, my point about Cabd's making a point of not voting may hold. Of course, if they are known to do this in every game, it can be regarded as completely NAI. I will, however, analyse Cabd some more.
"one of these days i'll read you correctly" - Transcend, Micro 714
User avatar
BTD6_maker
BTD6_maker
Mafia Scum
User avatar
User avatar
BTD6_maker
Mafia Scum
Mafia Scum
Posts: 2244
Joined: April 7, 2016

Post Post #383 (isolation #2) » Tue Oct 17, 2017 6:46 am

Post by BTD6_maker »

In post 198, CheekyTeeky wrote:
In post 50, Cabd wrote:The setup isn't anything too complex,
I will note we will NOT get flips night one;
and no-lynching in this setup is almost always the wrong move.


The two "self-docs" here should be treated somewhat like you would bulletproofs in the matrix 6 setup, with the note that them claiming early like the matrix 6 BP strat is a bad idea.
Ok so the bold is what pings me. We know, and Cabd has admitted, that he rushed in and didn't read the setup. If he were vanilla town he would have received the role PM which gives us the "lingering spirit" ability. He would not know that scum cannot whisper and kill the same night if he did not receive the scum role PM. His mistake with the two-self docs initially alerted me to the fact he hadn't read the set-up, so one can assume that he's only read his role PM and that is the information he's basing this post on.

Therefore I believe Cabd is scum.
I am back. I have skimmed the thread and will be analysing specific posts in more detail. I will answer any questions anyone has for me about this game.

Also, I claim Tree.

I now know that Cabd is the Firefighter (a.k.a. Intervener). CheekyTeeky did not, at this point.

Now, CheekyTeeky is using the fact that Cabd thought that there were two Docs. Of course, this suggests that Cabd had indeed rushed in and did not read the setup. However, their next step is to deduce that because of this, Cabd also would not know that we will not get flips on Night 1 because scum cannot kill and whisper on the same Night, then claiming that the reason they knew this is because they read it in their Role PM.

However, this does not work. When Cabd signed up, they very likely read at least that it was a Forest Fire setup. If they knew that much, they likely knew the function of an Arsonis but didn't bother reading in detail. This setup is different from a regular Forest Fire in one key detail, but Arsonists still function in the way they always have.

This is why this suggests that CheekyTeeky is looking to cast shade on Cabd more than a genuine scumread. Scum are more likely to try to point out contradictions. If scum can make an honest mistake look like a slip, this furthers their goals. Indeed, they are perhaps slightly less likely than Town to refer to an honest mistake as simply an honest mistake (unless, of course, their partner made it, and Cabd is Town). This leads me to a very weak scumread on CheekyTeeky.
"one of these days i'll read you correctly" - Transcend, Micro 714
User avatar
BTD6_maker
BTD6_maker
Mafia Scum
User avatar
User avatar
BTD6_maker
Mafia Scum
Mafia Scum
Posts: 2244
Joined: April 7, 2016

Post Post #421 (isolation #3) » Thu Oct 19, 2017 6:53 am

Post by BTD6_maker »

CheekyTeeky has not responded much to my post, other than to say that my reasoning is similar to Northsidegal's.

The replace outs are unfortunate. It would be interesting to see what their replacement has to say about that post.

I hope that this does not become like Open 642. That was far too inactive and apathetic. It was great for me, because I was scum and the apathy led to two No Lynches, but of course I hope this game doesn't turn out like that.

I will be free in a few hours. If anyone has any specific questions, I will be able to answer them then.
"one of these days i'll read you correctly" - Transcend, Micro 714
User avatar
BTD6_maker
BTD6_maker
Mafia Scum
User avatar
User avatar
BTD6_maker
Mafia Scum
Mafia Scum
Posts: 2244
Joined: April 7, 2016

Post Post #424 (isolation #4) » Thu Oct 19, 2017 8:47 am

Post by BTD6_maker »

In post 422, Micc wrote:Let's start with these:

Have you read the game?
Who do you want lynched today?
I have skimmed the game.

I cannot say I want any one person lynched at the moment. My reads are still very weak and flexible. I will be able to give a better answer later today, perhaps. I do have a very weak scumread on the CheekyTeeky slot, but that slot is being replaced and I will have to read the replacement.
"one of these days i'll read you correctly" - Transcend, Micro 714
User avatar
BTD6_maker
BTD6_maker
Mafia Scum
User avatar
User avatar
BTD6_maker
Mafia Scum
Mafia Scum
Posts: 2244
Joined: April 7, 2016

Post Post #428 (isolation #5) » Thu Oct 19, 2017 11:50 am

Post by BTD6_maker »

In post 425, Hopkirk wrote:Not much point leaving my vote where it is when it’s waiting for a replacement.
VOTE: BTD6

– Gives light scumread on Cheeky, doesn’t follow it with a vote, and promises more content later.
- Two days later. No further catch up. Follows up slightly on Cheeky but no vote. Complains about activity (kind of ironically).

Don’t really like the entrance. Both those posts look longish, but have no significant content in them. I could very easily see the Cheeky vote as a bus.
Why do you think my entrance is more likely to come from scum than Town?

Also, what makes my scumread on Cheeky more likely to be a bus than any other scumread?
"one of these days i'll read you correctly" - Transcend, Micro 714
User avatar
BTD6_maker
BTD6_maker
Mafia Scum
User avatar
User avatar
BTD6_maker
Mafia Scum
Mafia Scum
Posts: 2244
Joined: April 7, 2016

Post Post #429 (isolation #6) » Thu Oct 19, 2017 1:05 pm

Post by BTD6_maker »

In post 422, Micc wrote:Let's start with these:

Have you read the game?
Who do you want lynched today?
In post 427, Micc wrote:Yeah, im on board with this.
VOTE: BTD6_maker
Can you explain how my response was more likely to come from scum than Town?

Also, was your second post simply sheeping Hopkirk or was it also based on a scumread from ?

I am now wondering whether this response is more likely to come from Town or scum. If Town, it could just be you not coming to a judgement on your own but thinking that Hopkirk's reasoning is convincing, hence sheeping them. If scum, it could be an excuse to try to build up a wagon on me without looking suspicious. However, this seems more like Town sheeping, as I doubt scum would simply sheep as an excuse in this situation. The way in which you sheeped made it conspicuous so there would be little advantage for you to do this as scum. You would still come under scrutiny and that harms scum more than Town. You could still certainly be scum, I just think it's a bit less likely.

From these posts, I have a weak Townread on you.
"one of these days i'll read you correctly" - Transcend, Micro 714
User avatar
BTD6_maker
BTD6_maker
Mafia Scum
User avatar
User avatar
BTD6_maker
Mafia Scum
Mafia Scum
Posts: 2244
Joined: April 7, 2016

Post Post #430 (isolation #7) » Thu Oct 19, 2017 1:17 pm

Post by BTD6_maker »

In post 425, Hopkirk wrote:Not much point leaving my vote where it is when it’s waiting for a replacement.
VOTE: BTD6

– Gives light scumread on Cheeky, doesn’t follow it with a vote, and promises more content later.
- Two days later. No further catch up. Follows up slightly on Cheeky but no vote. Complains about activity (kind of ironically).

Don’t really like the entrance. Both those posts look longish, but have no significant content in them. I could very easily see the Cheeky vote as a bus.
I would say that this is slightly scummy. It looks a bit like contradiction hunting, which I mentioned before. If someone's case has contradictions, it is more likely that they are simply confused than actively deceiving, but if scum can expose contradictions their case may look solid, as if they have discovered something that reveals the holes in a player's case. Of course, this is very weak. Town can easily do this as well and genuinely think that they have exposed scum. Hopkirk probably isn't intending on actual contradiction hunting. It's a possibility, though, and if Hopkirk is scum they can do this to try to "expose" me.

Like I said, I do not know if this is actually the case. It's just a possibility. This makes Hopkirk slightly more likely to be scum, but not much, which is why I would say that I have a very weak scumread on Hopkirk.

I am analysing these posts (that are voting me) a lot because I find it easier to read people from their interactions and reads on me, and in particular their reasons.
"one of these days i'll read you correctly" - Transcend, Micro 714
User avatar
BTD6_maker
BTD6_maker
Mafia Scum
User avatar
User avatar
BTD6_maker
Mafia Scum
Mafia Scum
Posts: 2244
Joined: April 7, 2016

Post Post #437 (isolation #8) » Fri Oct 20, 2017 2:24 am

Post by BTD6_maker »

In post 431, Micc wrote:I moved my vote because your wagon is the biggest wagon of players who I have in my lynch pool and this game desperately needs a meaningful wagon.

Can you explain how Hopkirk's post is contradiction hunting? He didn't use the word contradiction or even compare anything as far as I can tell.
There were two main things I saw as possibly being contradiction hunting. (Of course, the word "contradiction" does not need to be used). Both were very weak, as is normally the nature with this.

The first was essentially that Hopkirk made the point that I expressed a scumread for CheekyTeeky but did not vote. It's not inherently a contradiction (I would rather wait until I had more solid reads before voting) but it did seem as though Hopkirk is trying to make it look like one. Of course, this is weak.

The other was that Hopkirk made the point that I was complaining about inactivity. My post did complain about the inactivity in Open 642, but with regard to this game it was more about the number of replacements.

These are only possibilities, and rather unlikely ones at that. That is why I regard them as being so weak.

@Micc: Do you have any opinion on then? I was wondering whether that contributed to your scumread.
"one of these days i'll read you correctly" - Transcend, Micro 714
User avatar
BTD6_maker
BTD6_maker
Mafia Scum
User avatar
User avatar
BTD6_maker
Mafia Scum
Mafia Scum
Posts: 2244
Joined: April 7, 2016

Post Post #441 (isolation #9) » Fri Oct 20, 2017 5:08 am

Post by BTD6_maker »

In post 439, Micc wrote:
In post 437, BTD6_maker wrote:@Micc: Do you have any opinion on 424 then? I was wondering whether that contributed to your scumread.
Yeah, you don't give any reads without qualifying that they are weak. 424 shows no interest in doing anything proactive to get reads that aren't weak. And it took us over a week to get that much out of your slot.
Why is that more likely to come from scum than Town? If you say that something is scum-indicative, this is what you have to show. I have done this for my reads. You have not.

Also, if I had weak reads would you expect me to present them as being stronger than they really are?

I have weak reads at the moment. It will take time for them to get stronger.

It did take over a week, but bear in mind that for the majority of that time I was unavailable due to V/LA. I am now able to provide more content.
"one of these days i'll read you correctly" - Transcend, Micro 714
User avatar
BTD6_maker
BTD6_maker
Mafia Scum
User avatar
User avatar
BTD6_maker
Mafia Scum
Mafia Scum
Posts: 2244
Joined: April 7, 2016

Post Post #443 (isolation #10) » Fri Oct 20, 2017 5:53 am

Post by BTD6_maker »

In post 442, Micc wrote:Hedging on reads early helps scum because it makes it easier to transition into reads that further their game plan as the game continues. As town hedging on reads just makes it harder for everyone else to get reads. Not being proactive stagnates the game and helps scum by creating apathy.

If you have weak reads I'd expect you to do something to get them stronger. Best I can tell you haven't even analyzed 90% of the game.
Unless you consider that everything can come from both Town or scum, you leave yourself open to confbias. Avoiding confbias is my Town motivation for considering everything as possible from both Town or scum.
"one of these days i'll read you correctly" - Transcend, Micro 714
User avatar
BTD6_maker
BTD6_maker
Mafia Scum
User avatar
User avatar
BTD6_maker
Mafia Scum
Mafia Scum
Posts: 2244
Joined: April 7, 2016

Post Post #445 (isolation #11) » Fri Oct 20, 2017 6:05 am

Post by BTD6_maker »

Also, by trying to get my reads stronger do you mean aiming to, for example, turn weak Townreads into strong Townreads and weak scumreads into strong scumreads? If so, that is not a good thing. That is confbias. You must also look for evidence going against your read. Indeed, you should be trying to disprove your read more than strengthening it. That is how the scientific method works.

I generally form at most moderate reads during Day 1. For me, forming strong reads requires a lot of evidence, usually including associations to flips and lynch wagons. A weak-moderate read is, for me, rather strong for Day 1.

PEdit: I thought what you referred to as hedging was considering that what I analysed could come from either mindset.
"one of these days i'll read you correctly" - Transcend, Micro 714
User avatar
BTD6_maker
BTD6_maker
Mafia Scum
User avatar
User avatar
BTD6_maker
Mafia Scum
Mafia Scum
Posts: 2244
Joined: April 7, 2016

Post Post #447 (isolation #12) » Fri Oct 20, 2017 6:45 am

Post by BTD6_maker »

In post 446, Micc wrote:I meant hedging in the sense that every read youve given has had the word "weak" attached to it.

How can you be avoiding confbias regarding reads you don't even have yet. Like as far as I can tell you havent read a single post made my northsidegal or Chip bitty or Sobeov/Zito slot. Can you say something about your read on them so far.
Every read I have given has the word "weak" attached to it because that accurately describes the strength of my read. The alternative would be to lie about the strength of my read. Do you think it is pro-Town to lie about the strength of your read?

I cannot be avoiding confbias regarding reads I don't even have yet. That would not make sense. However, I can certainly try to avoid confbias regarding the reads I do have.

You made a fair point about not reading Northsidegal, Chip Butty, or Sobolev/Zito. It is true that I haven't analysed any posts by them. That is what I will be doing.
"one of these days i'll read you correctly" - Transcend, Micro 714
User avatar
BTD6_maker
BTD6_maker
Mafia Scum
User avatar
User avatar
BTD6_maker
Mafia Scum
Mafia Scum
Posts: 2244
Joined: April 7, 2016

Post Post #507 (isolation #13) » Sun Oct 22, 2017 8:03 pm

Post by BTD6_maker »

In post 460, CheekyTeeky wrote:
In post 421, BTD6_maker wrote:I hope that this does not become like Open 642. That was far too inactive and apathetic. It was great for me, because I was scum and the apathy led to two No Lynches, but of course I hope this game doesn't turn out like that.
In post 424, BTD6_maker wrote:
In post 422, Micc wrote:Let's start with these:

Have you read the game?
Who do you want lynched today?
I have skimmed the game.

I cannot say I want any one person lynched at the moment. My reads are still very weak and flexible. I will be able to give a better answer later today, perhaps. I do have a very weak scumread on the CheekyTeeky slot, but that slot is being replaced and I will have to read the replacement.
I don't understand how these quotes line up. In one you say you don't want a state of apathy, in the next you say you've only skimmed the game and you ask, for the second time (not quoted part) if anyone has something for you to look at. To me this is asking for direction, when town don't want a state of apathy, they are proactive. You can't fear apathy and yet skim read the game asking for direction, that is very contridictory in intent. The only way I can see this lining up is if you're scum concerned about looking like you care about the game state and not wanting to give away too much with stronger reads or pushes, but looking for someone else's opinions to ride on to divert any blame from yourself.
I don't see any contradiction. Asking for direction was an attempt to avoid apathy, not cause it. When Town don't want a state of apathy, asking for direction can help to avoid that. It is not "very contradictory in intent".

Again, this post looks like another contradiction hunt. This would make your point look like it exposes scum when actually it does not do anything like that. Your "contradiction" is not a contradiction at all.

I have already explained why contradiction hunting benefits scum. If you were Town, you would be more likely to notice (after I have said it) that contradictions are not scum-indicative.

This is a weak-moderate scum read. It's the best vote for now.

VOTE: CheekyTeeky
"one of these days i'll read you correctly" - Transcend, Micro 714
User avatar
BTD6_maker
BTD6_maker
Mafia Scum
User avatar
User avatar
BTD6_maker
Mafia Scum
Mafia Scum
Posts: 2244
Joined: April 7, 2016

Post Post #553 (isolation #14) » Mon Oct 23, 2017 11:21 am

Post by BTD6_maker »

In post 538, Chip Butty wrote:
In post 527, Papa Zito wrote:
In post 525, Chip Butty wrote:Nopes again. You don't get to ask questions while blowing off questions from others. You haven't contributed anything except that naked vote on BTD. How am i supposed to townread you based on that?
So here's your problem my friend. You've casually insinuated a few times now that my actions are "scummy" without actually giving any backing to the claim. And I've given you ample opportunity to do so. Just to be clear, I'm not asking so you can convince
me
, I know what my alignment is! But if you actually well and truly believe that I'm doing vague and mysterious scummy things then your reaction should include things like:

1. Voting me
2. Asking others to vote me; pushing a wagon
3. Pressuring me into answering questions
4. Examining my iso and voting history in detail
5. Putting forth a case

My issue is that you've done none of these things. Instead what you've done is:

1. Throw shade at my slot
2. Complain about my behavior
3. Refuse to explain basically anything

I came in with a pretty strong scumread on your slot, so when you presented the opportunity to engage I took it and you've failed spectacularly. Nothing you've done in reaction to me has been townie. Instead you've tried to take advantage of my nonstandard behavior by throwing shade to erode the townpoints my predecessor gained without actually committing to it with a vote or writing down a stance I could debunk. Doing that would pin you down into a 1-on-1 that you're not sure you want because you don't know how good a player I am or how good my reads happen to be.


@Micc:
Are you done with BTD or do you still have things to hash out with that slot?
The thread is in danger of collapsing under the weight of the irony of this post alone. This is from a guy whose own "push" on BTD comprised a single naked vote.
I am reading what Chip Butty has to say about Papa Zito.

I can certainly see the hypocrisy of Papa Zito here, naked voting me and then making this case against you. However, what I am wondering is this: do you think that this hypocrisy in itself is scummy?

I am thinking that if Papa Zito really were scum, they would be aware that they are naked voting me to wagon me. Bearing this in mind, they may think that they themselves will be noticed if they try to dismiss your case as merely casting shade and complaining.

Now, if they were Town, it may be that they are blind to their own hypocrisy. This is psychological projection (essentially, "pot calling the kettle black") and is a common phenomenon. Of course, this means that they are bad Town, but in this case they are still Town.

This is why I would regard that Papa Zito post as being very bad, but slightly Townish rather than scummy. Of course, you didn't explicitly call it scummy but you seemed to imply it, hence why I am asking you.

You have said more about Papa Zito, which I will likely analyse in the morning.
"one of these days i'll read you correctly" - Transcend, Micro 714
User avatar
BTD6_maker
BTD6_maker
Mafia Scum
User avatar
User avatar
BTD6_maker
Mafia Scum
Mafia Scum
Posts: 2244
Joined: April 7, 2016

Post Post #672 (isolation #15) » Fri Oct 27, 2017 12:22 pm

Post by BTD6_maker »

In post 631, CheekyTeeky wrote:
In post 623, Cabd wrote:Still upset at my lolhammer?
Yep. Zitos case made no sense. I'm glad we got scum but it should have been because of something that made sense. I respect Zitos gut reads now, I'll just ignore his logic lol. Also mad that you did nothing to discuss anyone D1 Cabd; and that you hammered without discussion.

What are the chances of scum bussing D1? I'm feeling like that's pretty low but it would explain why Papas case made no sense.
I mostly agree with this. I have already explained why I disagree with Zito's case. However, assume Zito is scum. Zito of course would know that they are bussing, but so would Chip. If Zito made a very weak case and Chip knows that they want a bus on themselves, they would likely not rebut Zito's case in a way that exposes it completely. So why did they do it? Of course, it could simply be what they think they would do if Town, which is simply defend. Another possibility is that Chip rebutting all of Zito's points is a signal to stop bussing, or perhaps a signal that they should start cross-bussing. Overall, though, I think a bus is pretty unlikely here, so I think Zito is likely Town. They are a moderate Townread of mine now. That said, I still think they are bad Town.

Similarly, Cabd is confirmed Town but I think they made the wrong decision to hammer, even though Chip flipped scum. It seems like Cabd took a gamble and happened to get lucky. I would say that Cabd is also bad Town.

I seem to be calling a lot of people bad Town. This is probably true. People generally have a range of cognitive biases (unless they actively try to oppose them, but there are generally still biases even then) so I can see elements of bad Town in many people. In the past, I certainly was bad Town quite a lot. Even now I probably still have many undetected biases. The main reason why I noticed that there are a lot of bad Town is that I seemed to find that the probability that an average Townie's scumread is correct is significantly less than the probability the Townie gives to their read.
"one of these days i'll read you correctly" - Transcend, Micro 714
User avatar
BTD6_maker
BTD6_maker
Mafia Scum
User avatar
User avatar
BTD6_maker
Mafia Scum
Mafia Scum
Posts: 2244
Joined: April 7, 2016

Post Post #715 (isolation #16) » Sat Oct 28, 2017 11:20 am

Post by BTD6_maker »

In post 466, Hopkirk wrote:
In post 428, BTD6_maker wrote:
In post 425, Hopkirk wrote:Not much point leaving my vote where it is when it’s waiting for a replacement.
VOTE: BTD6

– Gives light scumread on Cheeky, doesn’t follow it with a vote, and promises more content later.
- Two days later. No further catch up. Follows up slightly on Cheeky but no vote. Complains about activity (kind of ironically).

Don’t really like the entrance. Both those posts look longish, but have no significant content in them. I could very easily see the Cheeky vote as a bus.
Why do you think my entrance is more likely to come from scum than Town?

Also, what makes my scumread on Cheeky more likely to be a bus than any other scumread?
Because scum benefits more from a no lynch/low activity. Also because hedging is opportunistic, but that's been covered.

The low activity was due to V/LA and is therefore completely null. I have already explained why what you call "hedging" was the Townish thing to do.


I don't understand your second question. I scumread Cheeky (at this point, haven't caught up with their posts since they decided not to sub out), so that would make it a bus if you're scum. It looks like a bus because it's hedging significantly.

There are two parts to this. Firstly, what would make it more likely to be a bus than someone else scumreading Cheeky? What about you yourself scumreading Cheeky? Of course, you know you are Town, but others don't. Secondly, the point about hedging has again been answered by me. You need to either rebut my reasoning or find some other reason.

Of course, this point is now moot because I cannot possibly be scum with CheekyTeeky any more.

In post 430, BTD6_maker wrote:
In post 425, Hopkirk wrote:Not much point leaving my vote where it is when it’s waiting for a replacement.
VOTE: BTD6

– Gives light scumread on Cheeky, doesn’t follow it with a vote, and promises more content later.
- Two days later. No further catch up. Follows up slightly on Cheeky but no vote. Complains about activity (kind of ironically).

Don’t really like the entrance. Both those posts look longish, but have no significant content in them. I could very easily see the Cheeky vote as a bus.
I would say that this is slightly scummy. It looks a bit like contradiction hunting, which I mentioned before. If someone's case has contradictions, it is more likely that they are simply confused than actively deceiving, but if scum can expose contradictions their case may look solid, as if they have discovered something that reveals the holes in a player's case. Of course, this is very weak. Town can easily do this as well and genuinely think that they have exposed scum. Hopkirk probably isn't intending on actual contradiction hunting. It's a possibility, though, and if Hopkirk is scum they can do this to try to "expose" me.

Like I said, I do not know if this is actually the case. It's just a possibility. This makes Hopkirk slightly more likely to be scum, but not much, which is why I would say that I have a very weak scumread on Hopkirk.

I am analysing these posts (that are voting me) a lot because I find it easier to read people from their interactions and reads on me, and in particular their reasons.
1.) I don't see how I'm contradiction hunting there. The way you describe it sounds like it's an unnecessary focus on trivial things. My comments are based on parts of your play that don't make sense (implicitly inviting an explination of them), or that seem scum motivated. The main difference is a focus on words vs a focus on motivation, and the fact that I'm not looking at any contradictions in words.

I can get your point. I read it at first as contradiction hunting, though. Also, I have explained why the points you made don't add up.


2.) If you think i'm 'contradiction hunting' in the way you described then it makes more sense for you to try and clarify what my thought processes are first, to try and work out if it's scum going hard on nothing, or town who've gotten fixated on something minor. I don't see why you'd attack it for being contradiction hunting before actually trying to question the intent, unless you're usually 'contradiction hunting' as an attack/defence/discredit instead of trying to make a better read.

Fair point. I had indeed explained why I view contradiction hunting in general as slightly scummy. Of course, I had also stated why it could come from Town, hence why I read it as being very weakly scum. I did think that warning people about contradiction hunting would reduce it in Town. Of course, from what you said you were not intending to contradiction hunt in that post at all so this point is moot.


3.) Given my points were in response to an entrance post, you seem to have read them as though I'm laying out a significantly strongest scumread on you than I am. Especially since I implied Cheeky was still a bigger scumread, and I'm still suspicious of North. It seems odd you'd go with the response you did, rather than explaining your thoughts (as your first reaction).

I read it as such because you voted me in that post. You did imply that Cheeky is a bigger scumread, which would mean that you were not voting your strongest scumread, which makes your point about me not voting my scumread seem hollow.

In post 437, BTD6_maker wrote:
In post 431, Micc wrote:I moved my vote because your wagon is the biggest wagon of players who I have in my lynch pool and this game desperately needs a meaningful wagon.

Can you explain how Hopkirk's post is contradiction hunting? He didn't use the word contradiction or even compare anything as far as I can tell.
There were two main things I saw as possibly being contradiction hunting. (Of course, the word "contradiction" does not need to be used). Both were very weak, as is normally the nature with this.

The first was essentially that Hopkirk made the point that I expressed a scumread for CheekyTeeky but did not vote. It's not inherently a contradiction (I would rather wait until I had more solid reads before voting) but it did seem as though Hopkirk is trying to make it look like one. Of course, this is weak.

The other was that Hopkirk made the point that I was complaining about inactivity. My post did complain about the inactivity in Open 642, but with regard to this game it was more about the number of replacements.

These are only possibilities, and rather unlikely ones at that. That is why I regard them as being so weak.

@Micc: Do you have any opinion on then? I was wondering whether that contributed to your scumread.
1.) I agree it's pretty weak, but it seemed pretty odd. Generally, I'd expect someone with a scumread to vote that person (unless there were lots of votes on them already, which doesn't apply here).

That certainly does not mean that everyone does indeed vote someone they have a weak scumread on, nor that not voting a weak scumread is scummy. If you want to show that, you need data showing that people who hold off on voting are indeed more likely to be scum. I highly doubt this is the case.


2.) The point about you complaining about inactivity wasn't an attack, it was something that made me laugh when I read it since it was ironic/funny. The points made after the numbers were a summary of your posts content- not specifically just the bad things.

You're acting far too much like my suspicion was major, as opposed to a lean based on an off opening- which i find more suspicious than the opening itself since that's an odd/self-focused reaction.

I have explained that it seemed a lot more major because you voted me above a clear scumread of yours, while also implying that everyone should vote their strongest scumread, which naturally led me to think that I was your stongest scumread worth voting at that point.
"one of these days i'll read you correctly" - Transcend, Micro 714
User avatar
BTD6_maker
BTD6_maker
Mafia Scum
User avatar
User avatar
BTD6_maker
Mafia Scum
Mafia Scum
Posts: 2244
Joined: April 7, 2016

Post Post #720 (isolation #17) » Sat Oct 28, 2017 9:09 pm

Post by BTD6_maker »

In post 712, Hopkirk wrote:@BTD: I still want you to answer the questions I asked you/responses from earlier. This is the third time you haven't responded.
In post 716, northsidegal wrote:btd6 why are you still responding to yesterday's back and forths instead of talking about things going on today? unless you're trying to make some case on hopkirk with those posts as evidence, the game state has changed and your posts should too. i can understand if you feel like something critical had gone unsaid but i don't get that feeling from your posts.
This is why I responded. I am assuming Hopkirk referred to that post as "responses from earlier".
In post 717, Papa Zito wrote:
In post 672, BTD6_maker wrote:That said, I still think they are bad Town.
If I'm bad town what are you, Captain Not-On-The-Scum-Lynch?

Also I'm not a they.
Whether you are on a lynch that flips scum is at least to some extent a matter of luck. Town does not know who scum are. However, I can evaluate their reasoning to see whether it holds up. If you are bad Town in your reasoning, you can still get lucky. If you are not bad Town, that does not mean you have to be a perfect scumhunting god.

My point about bad Town was that they are much more confident in their reads than the actual probability. For example, I think it's likely that if you take every time a Townie claims to be 80% certain of a read, a lot less than 80% of those reads will be on actual scum.

Unless I am certain of a preferred pronoun, I tend to just use the singular they.
"one of these days i'll read you correctly" - Transcend, Micro 714
User avatar
BTD6_maker
BTD6_maker
Mafia Scum
User avatar
User avatar
BTD6_maker
Mafia Scum
Mafia Scum
Posts: 2244
Joined: April 7, 2016

Post Post #750 (isolation #18) » Mon Oct 30, 2017 9:06 pm

Post by BTD6_maker »

In post 741, UC Voyager wrote:
In post 673, UC Voyager wrote:here is my case on BTD6 maaker. he seems a lot more scummy then NSG!
In post 553, BTD6_maker wrote:
In post 538, Chip Butty wrote:
In post 527, Papa Zito wrote:
In post 525, Chip Butty wrote:Nopes again. You don't get to ask questions while blowing off questions from others. You haven't contributed anything except that naked vote on BTD. How am i supposed to townread you based on that?
So here's your problem my friend. You've casually insinuated a few times now that my actions are "scummy" without actually giving any backing to the claim. And I've given you ample opportunity to do so. Just to be clear, I'm not asking so you can convince
me
, I know what my alignment is! But if you actually well and truly believe that I'm doing vague and mysterious scummy things then your reaction should include things like:

1. Voting me
2. Asking others to vote me; pushing a wagon
3. Pressuring me into answering questions
4. Examining my iso and voting history in detail
5. Putting forth a case

My issue is that you've done none of these things. Instead what you've done is:

1. Throw shade at my slot
2. Complain about my behavior
3. Refuse to explain basically anything

I came in with a pretty strong scumread on your slot, so when you presented the opportunity to engage I took it and you've failed spectacularly. Nothing you've done in reaction to me has been townie. Instead you've tried to take advantage of my nonstandard behavior by throwing shade to erode the townpoints my predecessor gained without actually committing to it with a vote or writing down a stance I could debunk. Doing that would pin you down into a 1-on-1 that you're not sure you want because you don't know how good a player I am or how good my reads happen to be.


@Micc:
Are you done with BTD or do you still have things to hash out with that slot?
The thread is in danger of collapsing under the weight of the irony of this post alone. This is from a guy whose own "push" on BTD comprised a single naked vote.
I am reading what Chip Butty has to say about Papa Zito.

I can certainly see the hypocrisy of Papa Zito here, naked voting me and then making this case against you. However, what I am wondering is this: do you think that this hypocrisy in itself is scummy?

I am thinking that if Papa Zito really were scum, they would be aware that they are naked voting me to wagon me. Bearing this in mind, they may think that they themselves will be noticed if they try to dismiss your case as merely casting shade and complaining.

Now, if they were Town, it may be that they are blind to their own hypocrisy. This is psychological projection (essentially, "pot calling the kettle black") and is a common phenomenon. Of course, this means that they are bad Town, but in this case they are still Town.

This is why I would regard that Papa Zito post as being very bad, but slightly Townish rather than scummy. Of course, you didn't explicitly call it scummy but you seemed to imply it, hence why I am asking you.

You have said more about Papa Zito, which I will likely analyse in the morning.
defending Chip in this post. it looks like he was trying to take the pressure of Chip. moving it to Papa Zito.

I was defending Chip for a simple reason - I thought they were Town. I know now that I was mistaken, but you cannot say that Townies should never be mistaken. If you want to suggest that this post makes me more likely to be scum, then get the statistics. How many times was it that someone who defended scum turned out to also be scum? It's probably close to random.

In post 447, BTD6_maker wrote:
In post 446, Micc wrote:I meant hedging in the sense that every read youve given has had the word "weak" attached to it.

How can you be avoiding confbias regarding reads you don't even have yet. Like as far as I can tell you havent read a single post made my northsidegal or Chip bitty or Sobeov/Zito slot. Can you say something about your read on them so far.
Every read I have given has the word "weak" attached to it because that accurately describes the strength of my read. The alternative would be to lie about the strength of my read. Do you think it is pro-Town to lie about the strength of your read?

I cannot be avoiding confbias regarding reads I don't even have yet. That would not make sense. However, I can certainly try to avoid confbias regarding the reads I do have.

You made a fair point about not reading Northsidegal, Chip Butty, or Sobolev/Zito. It is true that I haven't analysed any posts by them. That is what I will be doing.
he fails to read Chip. common scum move to not read their scum buddy. just in case they are lynched. if they scum read them, they will be called out for not voting them. If they town read them, they risk being called out for town reading a scum!

At that point I didn't because I was focusing on reading other people first. When I got to Chip, I Townread them. Also, you are suggesting that anyone who is wrong even once (by Townreading a scum) should be seen as scummy. That may be true, but in that case the people scumreading them are mistaken, at least in the absence of solid evidence.

In post 507, BTD6_maker wrote:
In post 460, CheekyTeeky wrote:
In post 421, BTD6_maker wrote:I hope that this does not become like Open 642. That was far too inactive and apathetic. It was great for me, because I was scum and the apathy led to two No Lynches, but of course I hope this game doesn't turn out like that.
In post 424, BTD6_maker wrote:
In post 422, Micc wrote:Let's start with these:

Have you read the game?
Who do you want lynched today?
I have skimmed the game.

I cannot say I want any one person lynched at the moment. My reads are still very weak and flexible. I will be able to give a better answer later today, perhaps. I do have a very weak scumread on the CheekyTeeky slot, but that slot is being replaced and I will have to read the replacement.
I don't understand how these quotes line up. In one you say you don't want a state of apathy, in the next you say you've only skimmed the game and you ask, for the second time (not quoted part) if anyone has something for you to look at. To me this is asking for direction, when town don't want a state of apathy, they are proactive. You can't fear apathy and yet skim read the game asking for direction, that is very contridictory in intent. The only way I can see this lining up is if you're scum concerned about looking like you care about the game state and not wanting to give away too much with stronger reads or pushes, but looking for someone else's opinions to ride on to divert any blame from yourself.
I don't see any contradiction. Asking for direction was an attempt to avoid apathy, not cause it. When Town don't want a state of apathy, asking for direction can help to avoid that. It is not "very contradictory in intent".

Again, this post looks like another contradiction hunt. This would make your point look like it exposes scum when actually it does not do anything like that. Your "contradiction" is not a contradiction at all.

I have already explained why contradiction hunting benefits scum. If you were Town, you would be more likely to notice (after I have said it) that contradictions are not scum-indicative.

This is a weak-moderate scum read. It's the best vote for now.

VOTE: CheekyTeeky
at this point. NSG had made a case on cheekyteeky. HE votes her on a (moderate scum read)

And your point is?

In post 494, Lycanfire wrote:
VC 1.6Image
The flight is departing.


Leading Wagon:
BTD6_maker (3) - Hopkirk, Micc, Papa Zito
northsidegal (2) - UC Voyager, CheekyTeeky

Micc (1) - Cabd
CheekyTeeky (1) - northsidegal


Not Voting: BTD6_maker, Chip Butty

With 9 alive it will require 5 votes to achieve a lynch.

Day 1 will end in (expired on 2017-10-29 19:07:10)

Mod notes:
CheekyTeeky has reclaimed their slot.
UC Voyager replaces TheThawClown! Welcome, UCV.
right here. both chip and BTD6 are not voting. as if neither of them had found a good miss lynch!

note

after Chip makes a case on papa zito, he says he will look into the Papa Zito case! following his scum buddy!

I looked into the Chip/Papa Zito interactions because that was relevant at the time.

At this point, you are contorting everything I say and do to fit a narrative where I am scum with Chip. This is the height of confbias.


VOTE: BTD6_maker
In post 674, UC Voyager wrote:
In post 672, BTD6_maker wrote:
In post 631, CheekyTeeky wrote:
In post 623, Cabd wrote:Still upset at my lolhammer?
Yep. Zitos case made no sense. I'm glad we got scum but it should have been because of something that made sense. I respect Zitos gut reads now, I'll just ignore his logic lol. Also mad that you did nothing to discuss anyone D1 Cabd; and that you hammered without discussion.

What are the chances of scum bussing D1? I'm feeling like that's pretty low but it would explain why Papas case made no sense.
I mostly agree with this. I have already explained why I disagree with Zito's case. However, assume Zito is scum. Zito of course would know that they are bussing, but so would Chip. If
Zito made a very weak case
and Chip knows that they want a bus on themselves, they would likely not rebut Zito's case in a way that exposes it completely. So why did they do it? Of course, it could simply be what they think they would do if Town, which is simply defend. Another possibility is that Chip rebutting all of Zito's points is a signal to stop bussing, or perhaps a signal that they should start cross-bussing. Overall, though, I think a bus is pretty unlikely here, so I think Zito is likely Town. They are a moderate Townread of mine now. That said, I still think they are bad Town.

Similarly, Cabd is confirmed Town but I think they made the wrong decision to hammer, even though Chip flipped scum. It seems like Cabd took a gamble and happened to get lucky. I would say that Cabd is also bad Town.

I seem to be calling a lot of people bad Town. This is probably true. People generally have a range of cognitive biases (unless they actively try to oppose them, but there are generally still biases even then) so I can see elements of bad Town in many people. In the past, I certainly was bad Town quite a lot. Even now I probably still have many undetected biases. The main reason why I noticed that there are a lot of bad Town is that I seemed to find that the probability that an average Townie's scumread is correct is significantly less than the probability the Townie gives to their read.
if i read this correctly, this says that Papa Zito made a weak case on Chip. i disagree. Papa Zito made a lot of good points. I think he had a solid case.
It's clear we disagree on the merits of Papa Zito's case. I think that Papa Zito made a very weak case and happened to get lucky.

If you think that Papa Zito made a lot of good points, you should be able to list which of his points you think are solid and why the rebuttals to those points are not.

Townies disagree. What's your case on me in this post?

In post 678, UC Voyager wrote:
In post 520, Papa Zito wrote:
In post 519, Chip Butty wrote: So yes, let's chat. We'll both become towner as we go along. And not to be rude or anything, but i feel you kind of owe it to SS to town it up a bit...
rofl I don't owe that guy anything and I sure as hell don't need to "town it up a bit"

Which hey look you've once again made a super vague statement. So here I am asking why you're tossing shade instead of either determining alignment or pushing a wagon. Can you plz solve this mysterious mystery.
In post 524, Papa Zito wrote:My dude.

Once again you've dodged the question while throwing shade. I'll ask the question again: Why would scum Zito be more likely to act this way than town Zito.
In post 527, Papa Zito wrote:
In post 525, Chip Butty wrote:Nopes again. You don't get to ask questions while blowing off questions from others. You haven't contributed anything except that naked vote on BTD. How am i supposed to townread you based on that?
So here's your problem my friend. You've casually insinuated a few times now that my actions are "scummy" without actually giving any backing to the claim. And I've given you ample opportunity to do so. Just to be clear, I'm not asking so you can convince
me
, I know what my alignment is! But if you actually well and truly believe that I'm doing vague and mysterious scummy things then your reaction should include things like:

1. Voting me
2. Asking others to vote me; pushing a wagon
3. Pressuring me into answering questions
4. Examining my iso and voting history in detail
5. Putting forth a case

My issue is that you've done none of these things. Instead what you've done is:

1. Throw shade at my slot
2. Complain about my behavior
3. Refuse to explain basically anything

I came in with a pretty strong scumread on your slot, so when you presented the opportunity to engage I took it and you've failed spectacularly. Nothing you've done in reaction to me has been townie. Instead you've tried to take advantage of my nonstandard behavior by throwing shade to erode the townpoints my predecessor gained without actually committing to it with a vote or writing down a stance I could debunk. Doing that would pin you down into a 1-on-1 that you're not sure you want because you don't know how good a player I am or how good my reads happen to be.


@Micc:
Are you done with BTD or do you still have things to hash out with that slot?
In post 532, Papa Zito wrote:Rockin.

VOTE: Chip
In post 529, northsidegal wrote:not really agreeing here. chip actually
has
done some of the things you're describing! as for pressuring you to answer questions, what do you call and ? you say that he's not examining your iso in detail, but that's pretty much what he does in . you could make the argument that he didn't analyze it in detail, but i would say that there wasn't really a whole lot to analyze. it doesn't make a lot of sense for chip to just suddenly start voting you and pushing your wagon just because he believes you've been scummier than ss was - the townread on ss still exists.
I feel absolutely no pressure from Chip whatsoever. Complaining that he doesn't like what I'm doing (523/525)/ taking his ball and going home (526) forces nothing from me at all. You argued your own point on 521, well done.

The SS hedge is fun but either I'm scummy to him or I'm not. He's thrown enough shade to make it clear he thinks the latter so I think I'm perfectly justified asking why his actions aren't aligning with his words.
Here......this isn't a vague case...a little repetitive....but he has a solid case.
Be more specific. What in the cases is solid? Why do the rebuttals fail? Papa Zito has himself done what he is attacking. Does that make him scummy?
If not, why does it make Chip scummy?

In post 683, UC Voyager wrote:
In post 510, Chip Butty wrote:BTD has been avoiding making strong reads, yes, but he is very conscious of that and keeps drawing attention to it, so he definitely not hoping it will go unnoticed. And he is actually right, there hasn't been anything to form a strong read on yet, so i am sympatico. His approach contrasts with the Micc/CT overstate-and-bluff approach to scumhunting, which also has its merits when used correctly. I'm not feeling BTD's CT vote though. I think he probably just a thoughtful, cautious player who will hopefully get stronger reads as the game progresses. If not then can lynch, but i won't be lynching him today.

I think I'll wait for substantial posts from UCV before actually voting. I'm inclined to look at BTD's wagon next. I've been mentioning Micc a fair bit lately, and Zito is ex-SS so probably okay for now, even though he seems to be intent on scumming up the slot. Time to revisit Hopkirk, methinks, esp since i still hold the view that he and Micc are unlikely both to be scum.
In post 521, Chip Butty wrote:
In post 434, Papa Zito wrote:Hello friends I will commence with the reading.
In post 436, Papa Zito wrote:onice
In post 438, Papa Zito wrote:Aight I read the things. This game is surprisingly dense.

Cabd is a big fat liar and I wanna see my file. Where do I send my FOIA request.

VOTE: BTD6
In post 463, Papa Zito wrote:
In post 462, CheekyTeeky wrote:Don't know what to make of this just yet. Need more from Papa.
More what.
In post 473, Papa Zito wrote:
In post 464, CheekyTeeky wrote:Like you read things but what do you think about it all? Did you get any reads? Why are you voting BTD6_MAKER? What made him scummy to you?
yeah see this is a much better post than complaining

I do have reads yes and unlike Friend BTD6 I had no trouble getting strong reads.

I'm voting him for reasons I don't want to get into at this time.
In post 508, Papa Zito wrote:
In post 474, CheekyTeeky wrote: Complaining? I said I need more...like more information to make a conclusion. I didn't say omg why is Zito not posting more game content. That's a pretty strong reaction to a pretty neutral statement. Prefacing your post like that makes withholding your read seem more scummy than I'd otherwise find it.
That's a strong reaction? ok

Good thing I'm not too terribly worried about what your read on me is I guess.
In post 509, Papa Zito wrote:Shoulda kept reading.
In post 476, northsidegal wrote:so what are those strong reads zito? any townreads? who do you think is scummy? your predecessor (you replaced kawso, right?) thought i was scum, do you agree?
I do have townreads yes.
This is the total PZ output before i poked him. Vote on BTD with no stated reason, and repeated assurances thatvyes he has strong townreads and evidence for them, but nothing forthcoming. And he just blows off anyone who expresses suspicion of him, rather than actually engaging them. That's why i said he is scumming up the slot.

Oh, and I'd REALLY be interested in hearing why Micc is willing to sheep onto such a weak-ass vote on BTD.

Okay, I think we're rolling now, at long last.
In post 523, Chip Butty wrote:Well, can you at least say why you don't want to give your reasons for your BTD vote?

I'm willing to hear you out but you're coming across to me as unnecessarily secretive and evasive. Unnecessarily if you're town, that is...
In post 525, Chip Butty wrote:Nopes again. You don't get to ask questions while blowing off questions from others. You haven't contributed anything except that naked vote on BTD. How am i supposed to townread you based on that?
Lots of interesting stuff I found from Chip about BTD6. He defended BTD6 when there was a wagon on him. You would think that the scum would try to support a wagon...unless the wagon was their scum buddy.
I Townread Chip at that point. There is an obvious scum motivation for their defence of me. They want to buddy me and keep on misleading me. To Chip, I was a useful pawn.

In post 686, UC Voyager wrote:
In post 682, CheekyTeeky wrote:Saying words and criticising is not equal to a case. If you had actually paid attention to the interaction you'd know that all of zito's points weren't true. Chip was actually doing the things Zito said he should be doing as town.

You not seeing the hypocrisy makes me feel like you're not reading the game properly because you know people's alignments. Also you attacking BTD feels like a cheap push. Your hesitation to vote NSG makes me believe she could be town. One of you two are scum and it could very well be you.

VOTE: UCV
My cheap push? Did you read what I said. Did you even look at the chip defending BTD6, BTD6 defending chip? They seemed to support each other a lot. Didn't ever question each Other.
If I were scum, my best move would to support the NSG case. It is a way easier wagon than BTD6!
I have already refuted this point.

Of course, having such a bad case doesn't make you automatically scum. In my opinion, it's consistent with you being very confbiased Town. But someone is scum and you are a possibility, and I need to decide who is most likely. If you are scum, it is possible that together with Chip you planned to set up interactions that the other scum can then use as a case.

In post 690, UC Voyager wrote:I'm pretty confidante in my BTD6 case.
In post 725, UC Voyager wrote:i find it scummy that btd6 seemed to be on the same page with Chip 24/7? how Chip defended him and not tried to join his wagon? i mean.....they look like they are working in a group!
[/spoiler]

lets add more.

BTD6 hasn't even acknowledged my case. He still doesn't seem to be doing much scum hunting, and isn't showing any signs of town
Well, now I have. I have been scumhunting throughout. I think that your "signs of town" do not work statistically. Is Town really more likely than random to show "signs of town"? Be specific about particular signs, then we can use statistics.
"one of these days i'll read you correctly" - Transcend, Micro 714
User avatar
BTD6_maker
BTD6_maker
Mafia Scum
User avatar
User avatar
BTD6_maker
Mafia Scum
Mafia Scum
Posts: 2244
Joined: April 7, 2016

Post Post #776 (isolation #19) » Tue Oct 31, 2017 10:53 am

Post by BTD6_maker »

Is this a self-WFG?

In this situation, obviously scum will lose if they are lynched and so must avoid their lynch at any cost. Town, on the other hand, generally want to avoid their own lynch but in Northsidegal's case they can benefit from being lynched and becoming an IC.

If NSG is scum, they must be essentially using the self-WFG and hoping that their play, which is apparently suicidal for scum, is read as Town and thus they avoid the lynch. I would say that this is pretty unlikely as it would be gambling away the game. If scum, a much less risky strategy would be to simply go after another lynch candidate.

I am confident that NSG is Town, but of course not to the same extent as Cabd, or someone who doesn't hammer in LyLo.

That said, I do feel that we are wasting a lynch here. We still only have two mislynches to spare in the worst case. Of course, it is possible that we lynch a primed Townie, or Cabd is successful, but we will not know if that is the case.

That leaves four likely candidates (from my perspective): UC Voyager, Micc, CheekyTeeky, and Hopkirk. I would be very surprised if NSG or Papa Zito were scum.

At the moment, UC Voyager looks like the most likely. It looks like they were leveraging the interactions between Chip and me to scumread me. Of course, they were most likely not planning to target me specifically, but whoever they could get to agree with and Townread them. Was it likely that they were planning this beforehand? I would say it is moderately likely, which raises the probability of UC being scum above average.

VOTE: UC Voyager

PEdit: There is no point in voting today, of course.
"one of these days i'll read you correctly" - Transcend, Micro 714
User avatar
BTD6_maker
BTD6_maker
Mafia Scum
User avatar
User avatar
BTD6_maker
Mafia Scum
Mafia Scum
Posts: 2244
Joined: April 7, 2016

Post Post #791 (isolation #20) » Tue Oct 31, 2017 12:02 pm

Post by BTD6_maker »

In post 779, Hopkirk wrote:'UC Voyager, Micc, CheekyTeeky, and Hopkirk.' Is this in order (since UC is first)? If so why Micc before Cheeeky?
UC Voyager is indeed first. The rest is unordered for now.
In post 781, UC Voyager wrote:as he lines up several miss lynches....
Once again, you are shoehorning to fit your pet theory. Given that I know I am Town, we all know Cabd is Town, and Northsidegal is flipping, that leaves five people. I have already stated why I think Papa Zito is unlikely to be scum. That leaves four people in my lynch pool. It's simple elimination.

You wanted me to respond to your case. Now I have. In my rebuttal I also asked several questions directed at you. Do you have anything to say about it?
"one of these days i'll read you correctly" - Transcend, Micro 714
User avatar
BTD6_maker
BTD6_maker
Mafia Scum
User avatar
User avatar
BTD6_maker
Mafia Scum
Mafia Scum
Posts: 2244
Joined: April 7, 2016

Post Post #793 (isolation #21) » Tue Oct 31, 2017 12:18 pm

Post by BTD6_maker »

In post 792, UC Voyager wrote:
In post 791, BTD6_maker wrote:
In post 779, Hopkirk wrote:'UC Voyager, Micc, CheekyTeeky, and Hopkirk.' Is this in order (since UC is first)? If so why Micc before Cheeeky?
UC Voyager is indeed first. The rest is unordered for now.
In post 781, UC Voyager wrote:as he lines up several miss lynches....
Once again, you are shoehorning to fit your pet theory. Given that I know I am Town, we all know Cabd is Town, and Northsidegal is flipping, that leaves five people. I have already stated why I think Papa Zito is unlikely to be scum. That leaves four people in my lynch pool. It's simple elimination.

You wanted me to respond to your case. Now I have. In my rebuttal I also asked several questions directed at you. Do you have anything to say about it?
hey. at least if i die, i can still push my case on you........I am very confidante your scum.
Then do you have any answers to the questions I asked you or to my rebuttal of your case?
"one of these days i'll read you correctly" - Transcend, Micro 714
User avatar
BTD6_maker
BTD6_maker
Mafia Scum
User avatar
User avatar
BTD6_maker
Mafia Scum
Mafia Scum
Posts: 2244
Joined: April 7, 2016

Post Post #795 (isolation #22) » Tue Oct 31, 2017 12:37 pm

Post by BTD6_maker »

In post 794, UC Voyager wrote:
In post 750, BTD6_maker wrote:
Well, now I have. I have been scumhunting throughout. I think that your "signs of town" do not work statistically. Is Town really more likely than random to show "signs of town"? Be specific about particular signs, then we can use statistics.
this seems to be the only one......
answer
town will actually contribute. another sign of town is voting for the scum
also scum reading the scum
being separate from town lynch
NOT saying "i dont have reads yet"

so on so on.....you seem to have done nothing to seem townie, and there are reasons to say you are scum!
Read the rest of the post.

Firstly, I have actually contributed. Also, do you have statistics to show that Town contributes more than scum, on average?

Voting for the scum, scum reading the scum, and being separate from the Town lynch all require foreknowledge of the scum. What you are trying to say is that Town has to be right all the time. I already rebutted that. Also, have you ever heard of bussing? It's common.

That point is a PRATT. You keep on presenting it as a solid point without bothering to read the refutation. You have to address the refutation directly and why you think it is wrong. You are not doing so.

The last point is similar. I have said many, many times that I try to accurately show the strength of my reads, and I will not try to inflate them to make them stronger than is warranted. Are you suggesting that lying about reads is Townish?
"one of these days i'll read you correctly" - Transcend, Micro 714
User avatar
BTD6_maker
BTD6_maker
Mafia Scum
User avatar
User avatar
BTD6_maker
Mafia Scum
Mafia Scum
Posts: 2244
Joined: April 7, 2016

Post Post #804 (isolation #23) » Tue Oct 31, 2017 9:22 pm

Post by BTD6_maker »

In post 796, UC Voyager wrote:
In post 795, BTD6_maker wrote:
In post 794, UC Voyager wrote:
In post 750, BTD6_maker wrote:
Well, now I have. I have been scumhunting throughout. I think that your "signs of town" do not work statistically. Is Town really more likely than random to show "signs of town"? Be specific about particular signs, then we can use statistics.
this seems to be the only one......
answer
town will actually contribute. another sign of town is voting for the scum
also scum reading the scum
being separate from town lynch
NOT saying "i dont have reads yet"

so on so on.....you seem to have done nothing to seem townie, and there are reasons to say you are scum!
Read the rest of the post.

Firstly, I have actually contributed. Also, do you have statistics to show that Town contributes more than scum, on average?

Voting for the scum, scum reading the scum, and being separate from the Town lynch all require foreknowledge of the scum. What you are trying to say is that Town has to be right all the time. I already rebutted that. Also, have you ever heard of bussing? It's common.

That point is a PRATT. You keep on presenting it as a solid point without bothering to read the refutation. You have to address the refutation directly and why you think it is wrong. You are not doing so.

The last point is similar. I have said many, many times that I try to accurately show the strength of my reads, and I will not try to inflate them to make them stronger than is warranted. Are you suggesting that lying about reads is Townish?
NO. what im saying is someone isn't voting for the scum, there is a greater chance they are scum. scum dont buss often! It is an ineffective strategy! When scum do buss, Town usually puts it together! I have played as scum before, and never have I tried bussing!
I concede that you do have a point here. Scum are more likely to vote Town than scum. However, what about Town? Town are probably no more likely to vote scum than random, especially on Day 1. So while it may be true that not voting scum makes you more likely to be scum, the increase is marginal at best. Your point is a lot weaker than you think. Repeating the point does not make it stronger. You need better points. Try to answer everything else in my rebuttal.
"one of these days i'll read you correctly" - Transcend, Micro 714
User avatar
BTD6_maker
BTD6_maker
Mafia Scum
User avatar
User avatar
BTD6_maker
Mafia Scum
Mafia Scum
Posts: 2244
Joined: April 7, 2016

Post Post #808 (isolation #24) » Fri Nov 03, 2017 12:47 pm

Post by BTD6_maker »

This is interesting.

This clears CheekyTeeky's slot, for one.

Scum chose to kill. The optimal play seems to be priming until killing has a chance of winning immediately. Thus scum would have wanted a specific reason to have UC Voyager dead. I will need to analyse who this is. This will be very helpful in determining who the last scum is.

We have at least two mislynches, as a result. If scum prime and ignite successfully, we will be in a 3P LyLo.

My lynch pool is down to Micc and Hopkirk, with Papa Zito as the outside chance.
"one of these days i'll read you correctly" - Transcend, Micro 714
User avatar
BTD6_maker
BTD6_maker
Mafia Scum
User avatar
User avatar
BTD6_maker
Mafia Scum
Mafia Scum
Posts: 2244
Joined: April 7, 2016

Post Post #813 (isolation #25) » Fri Nov 03, 2017 1:26 pm

Post by BTD6_maker »

In post 810, Micc wrote:
In post 808, BTD6_maker wrote:This clears CheekyTeeky's slot, for one.
Can you walk me through this one please?
Scum had to actively submit a kill action. There is only one scum remaining that could have done so. CheekyTeeky's slot had been empty throughout the night, so that slot could not have submitted the kill and is therefore not scum.
"one of these days i'll read you correctly" - Transcend, Micro 714
User avatar
BTD6_maker
BTD6_maker
Mafia Scum
User avatar
User avatar
BTD6_maker
Mafia Scum
Mafia Scum
Posts: 2244
Joined: April 7, 2016

Post Post #815 (isolation #26) » Fri Nov 03, 2017 1:49 pm

Post by BTD6_maker »

In post 814, Micc wrote:And you're taking that with 100% confidence?
For all practical purposes, yes. CheekyTeeky had explicitly replaced out so I am assuming that they played no part during the night, because they were no longer part of this game. From this, it follow that since whoever is the remaining scum had to at least be in the game during the night, they cannot be CheekyTeeky.
"one of these days i'll read you correctly" - Transcend, Micro 714
User avatar
BTD6_maker
BTD6_maker
Mafia Scum
User avatar
User avatar
BTD6_maker
Mafia Scum
Mafia Scum
Posts: 2244
Joined: April 7, 2016

Post Post #820 (isolation #27) » Fri Nov 03, 2017 2:13 pm

Post by BTD6_maker »

@Mod

Assuming that a lone Arsonist was abandoned, would they have a 1/3 chance of priming, 1/3 chance of igniting, and a 1/3 chance of No Action or a 1/2 chance of priming and a 1/2 chance of igniting?


VOTE: CheekyTeeky

It would have not been optimal play for scum to have ignited. In general, scum only ignite when they have a chance of winning immediately (it's essentially wasting a priming). Thus this was most likely to occur as the result of the dice roll.
"one of these days i'll read you correctly" - Transcend, Micro 714
User avatar
BTD6_maker
BTD6_maker
Mafia Scum
User avatar
User avatar
BTD6_maker
Mafia Scum
Mafia Scum
Posts: 2244
Joined: April 7, 2016

Post Post #822 (isolation #28) » Fri Nov 03, 2017 2:17 pm

Post by BTD6_maker »

That's why, whenever I am modding and need a replacement during the Night, I always delay the Night until one is found, even if it takes a very long time. I don't randomise actions unless they are Compulsive, and I would never modkill slots for needing a replacement because that would have an influence on the game.
"one of these days i'll read you correctly" - Transcend, Micro 714
User avatar
BTD6_maker
BTD6_maker
Mafia Scum
User avatar
User avatar
BTD6_maker
Mafia Scum
Mafia Scum
Posts: 2244
Joined: April 7, 2016

Post Post #829 (isolation #29) » Fri Nov 03, 2017 10:27 pm

Post by BTD6_maker »

In post 828, Papa Zito wrote:hmm
In post 600, UC Voyager wrote:That really would have looked scummy coming from anyone, but CheekyTeeky! In fact. It honestly makes me town read her!
Why would scum Cheeky want to kill him when this was his last post of the day.
Primed players normally only die at the end. CheekyTeeky likely did not expect to remove UC Voyager from the game until the end. Given this, scum are more likely to prime those they see as hard to mislynch, rather than a threat to themselves personally.
"one of these days i'll read you correctly" - Transcend, Micro 714
User avatar
BTD6_maker
BTD6_maker
Mafia Scum
User avatar
User avatar
BTD6_maker
Mafia Scum
Mafia Scum
Posts: 2244
Joined: April 7, 2016

Post Post #833 (isolation #30) » Sat Nov 04, 2017 10:39 am

Post by BTD6_maker »

VOTE: Nightskip

I generally allow Nightskip if every single slot except for empty slots seeking replacement agree to it.

Mod, how would you handle a Nightskip? Would you require every non-empty slot to agree?
"one of these days i'll read you correctly" - Transcend, Micro 714
User avatar
BTD6_maker
BTD6_maker
Mafia Scum
User avatar
User avatar
BTD6_maker
Mafia Scum
Mafia Scum
Posts: 2244
Joined: April 7, 2016

Post Post #853 (isolation #31) » Wed Nov 08, 2017 9:10 am

Post by BTD6_maker »

In post 852, Micc wrote:
In post 808, BTD6_maker wrote:My lynch pool is down to Micc and Hopkirk, with Papa Zito as the outside chance.
Let's talk about this. Why's Zito the least likely to be scum out of this group?
That was not to do with mechanics. The reason I thought Papa Zito was least likely was because I personally Townread him.
"one of these days i'll read you correctly" - Transcend, Micro 714
User avatar
BTD6_maker
BTD6_maker
Mafia Scum
User avatar
User avatar
BTD6_maker
Mafia Scum
Mafia Scum
Posts: 2244
Joined: April 7, 2016

Post Post #858 (isolation #32) » Wed Nov 08, 2017 8:55 pm

Post by BTD6_maker »

In post 854, Micc wrote:Yeah, I'm asking you about that Town read. Do you still have it? Can you explain it?
I have explained it as being based on the interactions between Chip and Zito on Day 1. My main point was that there would not be much benefit in performing a scum theatre in that manner, with Zito making weak points to try to get Chip lynched but Chip giving refutations.

Anyway, UC Voyager was killed on Night 2. Someone primed them on Night 1, perhaps thinking that they are hard to lynch, and then killed them on Night 2, considering them a threat.

The person who killed UC Voyager did not want to clear CheekyTeeky. The default assumption in most games is that slots which do not submit actions do not perform actions. Thus, unless someone knew about the rules beforehand, they would be likely to think that it would clear CheekyTeeky and thus avoid it. When Day starts, they would want to make sure people knew the rules, knowledge of which would mean that CheekyTeeky was not cleared and was even the most obvious lynch candidate.

All this points to Micc. Of course the real scum could have been inactive at the start of the Day but Micc's actions at the start of the Day seem to be very consistent with scum who knew that once the rules were explained CheekyTeeky would be lynched.

VOTE: Micc
"one of these days i'll read you correctly" - Transcend, Micro 714
User avatar
BTD6_maker
BTD6_maker
Mafia Scum
User avatar
User avatar
BTD6_maker
Mafia Scum
Mafia Scum
Posts: 2244
Joined: April 7, 2016

Post Post #870 (isolation #33) » Thu Nov 09, 2017 8:30 pm

Post by BTD6_maker »

In post 869, Micc wrote:With 6 players alive and no one primed the earliest scum can win is after 3 mislynches. BTD acknowledged this in post 808.

Cabd being confirmed town, clearing cheeky based off the nightkill and knowing his own alignment leaves only 3 players left in the lynch pool. Three players in the pool and 3 mislynches to give is a solved game.

I think he would have gotten to that point in his analysis if he was genuinely clearing cheeky there.
I know my own alignment, but the key point was that Town as a whole does not. Thus there were 4 non-cleared rather than 3.
In post 859, Micc wrote:You're accusing me of deliberately taking advantage of the moderator's role and influence on the game to advance my win condition. Please stop with that crap.

What makes Zito's pressure on Chip less likely to be bussing than mine? I was after him for the entirety of Day 1.
That's not what I am doing. If the Mod had made their mechanics for randomising actions public, igniting (to frame CheekyTeeky) would still have been the best play. I am suggesting that it's
possible
that you asked the Mod about this and then put two and two together. I'm not saying it's likely. Even then, it raises the probability of you being scum above random as I think you are the most likely player, out of everyone here, who would have done that based on your Day 3 posts.
"one of these days i'll read you correctly" - Transcend, Micro 714
User avatar
BTD6_maker
BTD6_maker
Mafia Scum
User avatar
User avatar
BTD6_maker
Mafia Scum
Mafia Scum
Posts: 2244
Joined: April 7, 2016

Post Post #872 (isolation #34) » Fri Nov 10, 2017 5:10 am

Post by BTD6_maker »

In post 871, Micc wrote:
In post 870, BTD6_maker wrote:I know my own alignment, but the key point was that Town as a whole does not. Thus there were 4 non-cleared rather than 3.
Have you ever been Town in 3 player lylo and all of a sudden scum votes you and the other player doesn't hammer. This is the same thing. 1 other player in the pool with 1 lynch available is no different than 3 other players in the pool with 3 lynches available. Lynch everyone in the pool who isn't you and the game is over.

I know what you are talking about. I did realise that, but the same objection applies. A 3P LyLo is not a guaranteed Town win, for the same reasons that this was not a guaranteed Town win.

In post 870, BTD6_maker wrote:That's not what I am doing. If the Mod had made their mechanics for randomising actions public, igniting (to frame CheekyTeeky) would still have been the best play. I am suggesting that it's possible that you asked the Mod about this and then put two and two together. I'm not saying it's likely. Even then, it raises the probability of you being scum above random as I think you are the most likely player, out of everyone here, who would have done that based on your Day 3 posts.

First off, igniting to frame cheeky can never be the right play. It doesn't get scum any mislynches closer to winning the game. Secondly, you absolutely are accusing me of asking how the moderator would handle missed actions over the night period and then intentionally abusing the moderator's flawed system to my advantage. That's gross and no scum win is worth that. This isn't debatable.

Firstly, while it doesn't get scum mislynches closer to winning, it is still beneficial as it means that scum still wins in two mislynches if Cabd protects once or a primed Townie is lynched. If you had just primed as normal, you would not win in two mislynches if Cabd protected or a primed Townie was lynched. Secondly, I was not accusing you. Accusing you is saying that you did it. I said that it is possible. Indeed, for it to be completely impossible that that is what happened, I would need something like the Mod explicitly confirming that no one had privately asked to clarify rules, and we don't have that Mod confirmation. Thirdly, this would not necessarily be "abusing the moderator's flawed system". Framing kills are a part of Mafia, and mechanics may make a particular kill work very effectively as a framing kill. Suppose the Mod had declared their system of resolving Night actions for empty slots before the game. In that case, igniting to frame CheekyTeeky would be no different from any other framing kill. If something gives you an advantage because of the system, that's not necessarily abusing the system. For example, suppose a Mod includes a Cop and a Doctor in a very early game, when Follow The Cop is not well-known. To then suggest Follow The Cop is not abusing the system. I suppose you may count asking the Mod as abusing the system, but then that leads onto my fourth point. There are many ways it could have happened other than you deliberately planning it from the beginning. You could have had experience with Lycanfire. Is he known for using this system of Night action resolution? If so, guessing that that might be the case in this game and then framing CheekyTeeky would not be abusing the system, as it would be essentially the previous case. Other possibilities include that you had not planned the framing when you asked and then afterwards decided to ignite (after all, asking that question doesn't mean you should be forbidden from igniting). You seem to be suggesting that I am saying that you definitely did this, whereas I am actually saying that, in essence, there is a non-zero, though probably small, probability that someone here ignited to frame CheekyTeeky because of some reason (not necessarily specifically asking the Mod with the intent to abuse the system) and that I think it is most likely to be you if it happened. After all, it has to be most likely to be someone.
"one of these days i'll read you correctly" - Transcend, Micro 714
User avatar
BTD6_maker
BTD6_maker
Mafia Scum
User avatar
User avatar
BTD6_maker
Mafia Scum
Mafia Scum
Posts: 2244
Joined: April 7, 2016

Post Post #875 (isolation #35) » Fri Nov 10, 2017 5:32 am

Post by BTD6_maker »

In post 873, Micc wrote:I mean you brought it up as a non zero possibility and then voted me with that being the entire case, so I do think it's an accusation. It's gross.
We probably disagree here on what constitutes an accusation. I do not consider it an accusation (and thus not gross) while you clearly do. Do you have any remarks on the rest of that post?

PEdit: In that case, what would you say about the other cases? If the Mod had made their night action resolution public, would it be abusing the system to frame CheekyTeeky in that way?

In the fourth point, I said that intentionally planning night actions around it was not necessarily the only way this could have happened. Like I said, it could simply be a case of Mod meta. I would not consider it abusing the system.
"one of these days i'll read you correctly" - Transcend, Micro 714
User avatar
BTD6_maker
BTD6_maker
Mafia Scum
User avatar
User avatar
BTD6_maker
Mafia Scum
Mafia Scum
Posts: 2244
Joined: April 7, 2016

Post Post #878 (isolation #36) » Fri Nov 10, 2017 5:58 am

Post by BTD6_maker »

In post 876, Micc wrote:
In post 875, BTD6_maker wrote:PEdit: In that case, what would you say about the other cases? If the Mod had made their night action resolution public, would it be abusing the system to frame CheekyTeeky in that way?
Yeah. It would still be using the moderator's policies to push a mislynch. The moderator is an outside influence on the game. Their policies should not affect who gets lynched. I hate the fact that we auto lynched cheeky slot because of moderator influence yesterday and I especially hate you for suggesting I'd plan my day opening around how the moderator was influencing the game.

It doesn't matter if it was mod meta, or posted in the game rules or PMed privately to me just because the mod thought I might want to know. I think the play you are suggesting I might have done and are voting me exclusively for is unethical. Come find me when you have a real case to push on me.

VOTE: BTD6_maker
The moderator's night action resolution is a part of the mechanics of the game, just as much as, for example, a setup containing a Cop and a Doctor is a part of the game. At the very least, this would be the case if it were posted in the game rules. A rule like "Empty slots will have their Night actions randomised" is as much a part of the game as a rule like "This setup contains a Cop, a Doctor, 5 VTs, and 2 Mafia Goons". The mechanics of the game can indeed affect who gets lynched, and I do not consider this unethical. Again, there may be a disagreement between what is unethical. I personally would consider it unethical when you are trying to do something that would otherwise be against the rules, but in this case you would be playing within the rules (at least, this would certainly be the case if the night action resolution were posted in the game rules). I can't find any rule that is even bent here.

Of course, this is likely just a disagreement in what's ethical. You may consider many cases of playing within the rules to be nevertheless unethical. Does that mean that what I am saying is more likely to be said by scum than by Town? If so, why?
"one of these days i'll read you correctly" - Transcend, Micro 714
User avatar
BTD6_maker
BTD6_maker
Mafia Scum
User avatar
User avatar
BTD6_maker
Mafia Scum
Mafia Scum
Posts: 2244
Joined: April 7, 2016

Post Post #881 (isolation #37) » Fri Nov 10, 2017 6:38 am

Post by BTD6_maker »

"scum have to make bad pushes" doesn't really hold up. Town probably make more bad pushes than scum do, and scum can easily make perfectly good pushes against Town. Indeed, scum would generally make better pushes than Town would, because they have the extra information of knowing everyone's alignment.

Your last point makes no sense. Are you saying that you don't want me in LyLo because you don't think you can push a lynch on anyone else except me? What are you trying to imply here?
"one of these days i'll read you correctly" - Transcend, Micro 714
User avatar
BTD6_maker
BTD6_maker
Mafia Scum
User avatar
User avatar
BTD6_maker
Mafia Scum
Mafia Scum
Posts: 2244
Joined: April 7, 2016

Post Post #888 (isolation #38) » Fri Nov 10, 2017 6:58 am

Post by BTD6_maker »

In post 882, Micc wrote:I like how you ignored the 90% case in order to nit pick at the other 10%. Good posting.
I was going to go after that later.
In post 856, Micc wrote:I'm leaning towards BTD right now as well. 750 is a mess of a post but it caught my eye when looking back. There's a lot of evidence of BTD and Chip defending each other's stances, and some decent pressure being put on BTD from UCV. The pressure on BTD from UCV possibly explains the ignition on Night 2 despite not being the optimal path to victory for scum.

I Townread Chip. I thought their arguments made sense. Indeed, I still do think that they made a lot more sense than Papa Zito's arguments against them. There's no reason why scum cannot make good arguments and Town cannot make bad arguments. There is also no reason why Town cannot be deceived by scum - after all, if Town were never deceived by scum, we would expect a 100% Town win rate.

As for the ignition on Night 2, igniting wouldn't simply be "not the optimal path to victory for scum". It would also, or so I thought at the time, clear CheekyTeeky, and that would be devastating for me. I would have a chance, but it would be very slim indeed.

Is all of this your point about 750, or is your point about 750 a different point? In the latter case, please go into a lot more detail.


The votecount on post 494 is interesting.
Spoiler:
In post 494, Lycanfire wrote:
VC 1.6Image
The flight is departing.


Leading Wagon:
BTD6_maker (3) - Hopkirk, Micc, Papa Zito
northsidegal (2) - UC Voyager, CheekyTeeky

Micc (1) - Cabd
CheekyTeeky (1) - northsidegal


Not Voting: BTD6_maker, Chip Butty

With 9 alive it will require 5 votes to achieve a lynch.

Day 1 will end in (expired on 2017-10-29 19:07:10)

Mod notes:
CheekyTeeky has reclaimed their slot.
UC Voyager replaces TheThawClown! Welcome, UCV.

From here there's some response to the pressure from BTD that I don't think any of us were happy with then gets down a Cheeky vote and goes away for a while. Next comes the interactions between Chip and Zito which lead to Chip's flashwagon and eventual lynch. I can see that being Chip trying to move the wagon from BTD to Zito, but I'm not sure that really fits. NSG would be the easy counterwagon at that point, but maybe it wasn't viable for Chip because he had her as pretty town at this point.

Of course, I scumread CheekyTeeky at the time. I don't think you are making a point against me here. If you are, please explain in more detail what your point against me is in this paragraph.
So here is the "90%" case. There is a lot that needs further detail.

PEdit: Of course LyLo would very likely contain Cabd (unless they have just been primed). The hard part is actually getting the person you know is scum but Town as a whole doesn't lynched. If Micc thinks that they can lynch me then surely they would want me in LyLo.

PEdit: Do you think scum generally make worse pushes than Town? If so, do you have the statistics to back it up? If not, the reasonable position to take would probably be the "null hypothesis", which is that alignment has no effect on quality of pushes. The fundamental point of the game is not that scum will make worse pushes than Town.
"one of these days i'll read you correctly" - Transcend, Micro 714
User avatar
BTD6_maker
BTD6_maker
Mafia Scum
User avatar
User avatar
BTD6_maker
Mafia Scum
Mafia Scum
Posts: 2244
Joined: April 7, 2016

Post Post #895 (isolation #39) » Fri Nov 10, 2017 8:13 am

Post by BTD6_maker »

In post 890, Cabd wrote:
In post 885, Cabd wrote:
While this is very entertaining watching the mutual death tunnel, it would actually be super helpful if you two could lay out towncases for everyone else.
It's not really a death tunnel on my part. I don't consider Micc to be certain (or near-certain) scum, just a candidate for scum.

I have already said my Towncase on Papa Zito. Other than that, there's just Hopkirk and to be honest I don't have much of a Towncase for Hopkirk at the moment. They are another plausible candidate. Hopkirk and Micc need more analysis. So does Papa Zito, for that matter.

Quality of a push is subjective, but I would start by looking for things like whether the push contains logical fallacies, misrepresentation etc. Those are bad pushes (at least, when they are the only reason) regardless of whether the target is Town or scum.
"one of these days i'll read you correctly" - Transcend, Micro 714
User avatar
BTD6_maker
BTD6_maker
Mafia Scum
User avatar
User avatar
BTD6_maker
Mafia Scum
Mafia Scum
Posts: 2244
Joined: April 7, 2016

Post Post #900 (isolation #40) » Sun Nov 12, 2017 1:48 am

Post by BTD6_maker »

In post 899, Hopkirk wrote:'Quality of a push is subjective, but I would start by looking for things like whether the push contains logical fallacies, misrepresentation etc. Those are bad pushes (at least, when they are the only reason) regardless of whether the target is Town or scum.'

Hence, using 'give me detailed statistics of something that's very difficult to collect since it requires very in depth reading' is a bad counterargument to use since nobody is going to do that. That's putting the burden of proof unrealistically high in order to dismiss something, which sounds like a fallacy in itself.
The point is that there has to be at least some evidence. You cannot simply say that scum make worse pushes without any sort of evidence whatsoever, and I have seen none here. Thus, the most reasonable response would simply be to not use that as a reason in a case. What evidence would you consider reasonable? If there is no evidence (that someone would be able to realistically search for) then the entire assertion is unjustified and should be rejected.
"one of these days i'll read you correctly" - Transcend, Micro 714
User avatar
BTD6_maker
BTD6_maker
Mafia Scum
User avatar
User avatar
BTD6_maker
Mafia Scum
Mafia Scum
Posts: 2244
Joined: April 7, 2016

Post Post #902 (isolation #41) » Sun Nov 12, 2017 2:10 am

Post by BTD6_maker »

How would anything be better than random chance? I would say that it isn't, or at least much less than you think.

Scum/Town pushes may not be conpletely indistinguishable, but that does not mean that scum pushes have more flimsy reasoning behind them. There probably are differences, but they are much more subtle.

However, what I think is this: everything is much closer to random chance than people think. For example, if a Townie claims to have an 80% scumread or something on someone else, that person may be much closer to, say, 40%.

This should be easier to get statistics on. When a Townie gives a percentage in a specific range, how often is that person actually scum?
"one of these days i'll read you correctly" - Transcend, Micro 714
User avatar
BTD6_maker
BTD6_maker
Mafia Scum
User avatar
User avatar
BTD6_maker
Mafia Scum
Mafia Scum
Posts: 2244
Joined: April 7, 2016

Post Post #904 (isolation #42) » Sun Nov 12, 2017 3:49 am

Post by BTD6_maker »

In post 903, Micc wrote:What are you even trying to argue at this point?

If there's not a difference between scum and Town play then we might as well be playing a game of lynch whoever rolls the lowest number. I think it's clear based on the fact that you aren't advocating for a completely random lynch that you do indeed think that there are differences between scum posting and Town posting. Quit being ridiculous.
I never said that there is no difference. Indeed, I said the opposite.

There may be differences, but they are probably a lot harder to find than the simplistic ones. I think that, while differences probably exist, "quality" of pushes is not one of them.
"one of these days i'll read you correctly" - Transcend, Micro 714
User avatar
BTD6_maker
BTD6_maker
Mafia Scum
User avatar
User avatar
BTD6_maker
Mafia Scum
Mafia Scum
Posts: 2244
Joined: April 7, 2016

Post Post #916 (isolation #43) » Mon Nov 13, 2017 9:07 pm

Post by BTD6_maker »

In post 914, Micc wrote:Is it about the Night 2 ignition? I've decided I can't justify it unless scum truly didn't understand the setup, and I think that's unlikely. I'm chalking it up to it either a) being BTD thinking he really needed to get rid of UC voyager who was solidly on his case or b) being a WIFOM move intended to be a distraction or c) a combination of both.

I guess I don't think its out of question that BTD would choose to ignite with the plan of coming into the thread first thing in the day to demonstrate his knowledge that ignition isn't the fastest path to victory for scum as a means for trying to get some town credit. TBH he was the most generally scum read player left in the game at that point and he would certainly be looking for an opportunity to shake things up.
Why would I ignite, though? If I thought it cleared CheekyTeeky (and also delayed a scum win) it would drastically lower my chances of winning to ignite. I would be very likely to have a forced loss. There were 4 players left and 3 mislynches, so there was at least a 3/4 chance that I lose instantly.

This leads me to the conclusion that scum very likely did not think (when igniting) that it would clear CheekyTeeky. Of course, this only applies before the Mod clarified the rules. Now, you were the only one to post and you seemed like you at first did not realise that igniting would kill CheekyTeeky. We cannot know if Hopkirk or Papa Zito also thought that CheekyTeeky was cleared so this points towards you.
"one of these days i'll read you correctly" - Transcend, Micro 714
User avatar
BTD6_maker
BTD6_maker
Mafia Scum
User avatar
User avatar
BTD6_maker
Mafia Scum
Mafia Scum
Posts: 2244
Joined: April 7, 2016

Post Post #918 (isolation #44) » Tue Nov 14, 2017 1:27 am

Post by BTD6_maker »

In post 917, Hopkirk wrote:'Why would I ignite, though? If I thought it cleared CheekyTeeky...'

I think it would be fair to assume at least one person in the game is going to ask for clarification about how Lycan would resolve that issue. Especially given there's a few fairly experienced people here. If you're scum then the assumption is that you asked how it would be resolved before, then waited for Micc/someone else to ask how it would be resolved.
Are you "accusing" me of the same thing that I "accused" Micc?
"one of these days i'll read you correctly" - Transcend, Micro 714
User avatar
BTD6_maker
BTD6_maker
Mafia Scum
User avatar
User avatar
BTD6_maker
Mafia Scum
Mafia Scum
Posts: 2244
Joined: April 7, 2016

Post Post #921 (isolation #45) » Tue Nov 14, 2017 7:00 am

Post by BTD6_maker »

I am the one doing most of the analysis on the Night 2 kill and pointing out the evidence. Unless I am deliberately spreading a ton of WIFOM, the evidence points to Micc as the most likely, from my analysis.

Of course, to everyone else that leaves the possibility that I am indeed spreading a ton of WIFOM. My flip will resolve that. Once I flip Town, you will be able to get meaningful analysis about that kill without the fear that I am deliberately misleading you. All my analysis will be revealed as Townish.

If we mislynch someone else today, I will very likely be lynched in LyLo which will cost Town the game. If I am lynched today, we will be in LyLo.

Lynching me today is a good idea if, assuming I am Town, we would have a greater chance of getting scum tomorrow than we do today. That's probably likely, as you will be able to trust that my analysis is, at least, not trying to mislead. Then I can help Town further tomorrow and try to figure out who was behind that kill.

We still have 8 days so there is plenty of time, but I am willing to hammer myself, if need be. I can give you time to discuss before I am lynched.

This is not like Northsidegal's self-hammer. That was suboptimal. In this case, my lynch is actually optimal given two assumptions, which are that I will almost certainly be lynched if we mislynch someone else (and I think that is likely) and that we are more likely to lynch scum tomorrow than today (which I think is again likely, as Town can trust that my analysis is free of WIFOM). Even though I know I am Town, I think that lynching me is the right play here.
"one of these days i'll read you correctly" - Transcend, Micro 714
User avatar
BTD6_maker
BTD6_maker
Mafia Scum
User avatar
User avatar
BTD6_maker
Mafia Scum
Mafia Scum
Posts: 2244
Joined: April 7, 2016

Post Post #923 (isolation #46) » Tue Nov 14, 2017 7:42 am

Post by BTD6_maker »

In post 922, Micc wrote:Cabd gets the hammer not you. And I'm ready whenever he is.

If you're Town I'll take solice in knowing you don't get a vote tomorrow.
You can't really stop me from hammering without unvoting.

Also, why would you take solace in knowing I don't get a vote, if I am Town?
"one of these days i'll read you correctly" - Transcend, Micro 714
User avatar
BTD6_maker
BTD6_maker
Mafia Scum
User avatar
User avatar
BTD6_maker
Mafia Scum
Mafia Scum
Posts: 2244
Joined: April 7, 2016

Post Post #925 (isolation #47) » Tue Nov 14, 2017 8:25 am

Post by BTD6_maker »

I am not a liability in LyLo because of my ability to vote. The only reason that I could be considered a liability is that others scumread me. That is why I am offering to self-vote. That doesn't mean that taking away my vote is something Town should take solace in.

My case on you is based on mechanics. Of course you will disagree because you know your own alignment, but the case holds. It's not about 817. It's about your prior posts. You clearly did not, at least immediately, realise that CheekyTeeky was "cleared" if empty slots take no action, which is the default. Scum would not realise that, whereas Town could. The question is one of Bayesian probability. P(A|B) = P(B|A)P(A)/P(B) where P(A) is the probability that you are scum and P(B) is the probability that you would not realise that CheekyTeeky was "cleared". Now, P(A) did not change during Night 2 (P(A) is the a priori probability, not the a posteriori probability) but P(B|A) is a lot higher than P(B) (scum are a lot more likely than random to not realise that CheekyTeeky was "cleared") so P(A|B) > P(A) and the probability that you are scum does indeed increase.

And why is it a problem for me to think that the case behind the Day 1 scum lynch was bad?
"one of these days i'll read you correctly" - Transcend, Micro 714
User avatar
BTD6_maker
BTD6_maker
Mafia Scum
User avatar
User avatar
BTD6_maker
Mafia Scum
Mafia Scum
Posts: 2244
Joined: April 7, 2016

Post Post #928 (isolation #48) » Tue Nov 14, 2017 8:44 am

Post by BTD6_maker »

In post 926, Papa Zito wrote:It's an attempt to increase the viable lynch pool by discrediting the townies behind the wagon. You need room to maneuver.

That's been my read of it anyway.
Are you assuming that just because a wagon was on scum there was no scum on it?

Secondly, are you assuming that just because Townies lynch scum, their reasoning must be solid?

You are wrong on both counts. A wagon on scum does not necessarily have to be composed entirely of Town, and the people on that wagon should not be automatically treated as unlynchable. Secondly, in this case I do indeed think that Town as a whole were right for the wrong reasons.
"one of these days i'll read you correctly" - Transcend, Micro 714
User avatar
BTD6_maker
BTD6_maker
Mafia Scum
User avatar
User avatar
BTD6_maker
Mafia Scum
Mafia Scum
Posts: 2244
Joined: April 7, 2016

Post Post #930 (isolation #49) » Tue Nov 14, 2017 9:16 am

Post by BTD6_maker »

In post 929, Micc wrote:
In post 927, Micc wrote:Ok so you agree that you're a liability in Lylo? Ignoring the reasons why because we obviously don't agree on those.
It depends on what you mean by liability. If you mean someone who will harm LyLo, the real liability, as I see it, is the fact that the people on my wagon seem to be very confbiased (if Town) or deliberately tunnelling me (if scum). In this way, you are the real liabilities from my perspective.

If you merely mean someone such that Town will have a lower chance of winning if they survive to LyLo, I am indeed a liability in LyLo. But I am not the problem.
"one of these days i'll read you correctly" - Transcend, Micro 714
User avatar
BTD6_maker
BTD6_maker
Mafia Scum
User avatar
User avatar
BTD6_maker
Mafia Scum
Mafia Scum
Posts: 2244
Joined: April 7, 2016

Post Post #932 (isolation #50) » Tue Nov 14, 2017 9:46 am

Post by BTD6_maker »

In post 931, Papa Zito wrote:
In post 928, BTD6_maker wrote:Are you assuming that just because a wagon was on scum there was no scum on it?

Secondly, are you assuming that just because Townies lynch scum, their reasoning must be solid?

You are wrong on both counts. A wagon on scum does not necessarily have to be composed entirely of Town, and the people on that wagon should not be automatically treated as unlynchable. Secondly, in this case I do indeed think that Town as a whole were right for the wrong reasons.
One of the major problems I have with your play this game is posts like these. I'm not here to argue theory with you or debate How Mafia Works, that's just a bunch of white noise. I'm also not terribly interested in watching you set up strawmen and gallantly knock them down.

The purpose of my post was not to convince you that you're scum here, that's a pointless endeavor regardless of your actual alignment. I'm just giving my opinion on that particular topic, mostly for cabd's benefit. Sorry if you thought that was an opening for debate.
If you are giving your opinion, I can ask you about your opinion. You cannot just put a post out there and declare it to be off-limits for debate.

Why are posts like this a major problem? If you are using theory then the theory can and should be debated. If you do not want theory to be debated then do not use it. You cannot simply use theory and say that it shouldn't be debated. I will question it. Indeed, a lot of it seems to rest on unjustified assumptions.

So I will ask you about your opinion. Why do you think that I am "discrediting the townies behind the wagon" by saying that the case on Chip was bad? Obviously you will not convince me that I am scum, but I am very interested in knowing why you think I am.
"one of these days i'll read you correctly" - Transcend, Micro 714
User avatar
BTD6_maker
BTD6_maker
Mafia Scum
User avatar
User avatar
BTD6_maker
Mafia Scum
Mafia Scum
Posts: 2244
Joined: April 7, 2016

Post Post #934 (isolation #51) » Tue Nov 14, 2017 9:56 am

Post by BTD6_maker »

You have already said why you think I am scum, but you have not said why you think I am "discrediting the townies behind the wagon" by saying that the case on Chip was bad. If you have answered that particular question (in different wording, of course) please point it out in your ISO. Otherwise, you are not repeating yourself.

You can give your opinion, but if you won't back it up it will remain as simply an unjustified assertion.
"one of these days i'll read you correctly" - Transcend, Micro 714
User avatar
BTD6_maker
BTD6_maker
Mafia Scum
User avatar
User avatar
BTD6_maker
Mafia Scum
Mafia Scum
Posts: 2244
Joined: April 7, 2016

Post Post #947 (isolation #52) » Sat Nov 18, 2017 12:58 pm

Post by BTD6_maker »

Now everyone knows that what I said was not WIFOM, because everyone now knows that I am Town.

Who was responsible for the N2 kill? You now know that I was not.

Now, the kill was likely WIFOM. However, there is always a Nash equilibrium, which is optimal. Using WIFOM more or less often than the Nash equilibrium is suboptimal. Now, the greater the cost of doing something, the lower the Nash equilibrium is. So in this case, if scum thought that CheekyTeeky was cleared, the Nash equilibrium would say that they should ignite with a very low probability, much lower than if they didn't believe or realise that CheekyTeeky was cleared. Thus, even though it was WIFOM, we can deduce something:

Scum very likely did not realise that CheekyTeeky was "cleared".


Now, before the Mod clarified the mechanics:

I thought that CheekyTeeky was cleared.
Micc had to have it explained to them, which suggests that it was very likely that they did not realise that CheekyTeeky was cleared.
Papa Zito and Hopkirk did not get a chance to post before the mechanics were revealed.

This makes Micc considerably more likely to be scum. Even though it was WIFOM, WIFOM is still subject to mathematical analysis.
"one of these days i'll read you correctly" - Transcend, Micro 714
User avatar
BTD6_maker
BTD6_maker
Mafia Scum
User avatar
User avatar
BTD6_maker
Mafia Scum
Mafia Scum
Posts: 2244
Joined: April 7, 2016

Post Post #999 (isolation #53) » Mon Nov 20, 2017 11:28 am

Post by BTD6_maker »

Regfan, do you also think that the N2 kill is evidence against Micc?

I know you Townread Micc but I want to know whether this is partly because of that kill or despite it.
"one of these days i'll read you correctly" - Transcend, Micro 714
User avatar
BTD6_maker
BTD6_maker
Mafia Scum
User avatar
User avatar
BTD6_maker
Mafia Scum
Mafia Scum
Posts: 2244
Joined: April 7, 2016

Post Post #1144 (isolation #54) » Mon Nov 27, 2017 5:22 am

Post by BTD6_maker »

In post 1135, northsidegal wrote:
In post 1134, Regfan wrote:@NSG & BTD - Where's your head at right now?
sorry, i don't think i've been giving this game the attention that it probably deserves given my play. i'm liking pz for scum a lot more than the other options.
Same. I've been rather busy over the past week.

I originally thought that Papa Zito was much less likely to be scum due to the specific nature of the supposed bus, as opposed to simply the fact that they bussed. I should go back and reread each of the interactions with Chip during Day 1, specifically looking for what goes against my read rather than supports it. I would recommend that everyone looks for evidence that goes against their current reads rather than strengthening it.
"one of these days i'll read you correctly" - Transcend, Micro 714
Locked

Return to “Mayfair Club [Micro Games]”