Newbie 694 (over)

[GIEFF]

None of that discussion is relevant to this game, uri, and is becoming distracting. I think we have all agreed that there is pretty much no reason for town to lie in this setup, and the fact that infamousace2 has lied TWICE now about his reasons for unvoting Xtoxm is a large part of why I find him so suspicious.

Thanks for the in-depth post, CarnCarn! Regarding your IGMEOY for me; I said thanks because I was not comfortable being at L-2 (really L-3, though) from 100% random votes.

Ok typo on my part, Swap the names GIEFF and militant. I'm referring to GIEFF. GIEFF appeared to be defending you. In the face of the evidence he appears to have an unusual bias to innocence regarding you. I know everyone has their own opinion, If GIEFF provided rock solid reasons that would have been acceptable otherwise, it looks like he's defending you.

hambargaz, I have already addressed this, in post 178.

Post 178:

hambargaz - it looks scummy to me because the logic behind it is faulty. The case against militant was based on him changing his opinion, but as I said, there was no opinion to change - it was a random vote.

I never said militant is innocent, or even looks innocent, I simply said that the unvote does not seem scummy.

Do you disagree?

Again, I have never said I think militant is innocent. All I am doing is questioning logic that I do not understand, which is not at all the same as defending militant or claiming he is innocent. Calling people scummy for questioning logic without "rock-solid reasons" is BAD for the town; we should welcome frank discussions about the reasoning behind votes. Do you agree with this, hambargaz?

In the next few paragraphs, I am going to deconstruct what I feel is a faulty argument on Clockwork's part. It may appear as if I am defending militant, but that is simply because the logic I perceive as faulty is attempting to do the opposite. I hope the difference is clear, as this may come up again later. As I've said again and again, my strategy to find scum is to look for faulty logic behind votes, which is what I was doing in post 196, and what I am doing now.

It was more in the way he did it. I said discuss and he tried to make it seem like he had something to add without really giving an opinion. So, he tried to appease me with his answer while being wishy-washy.

Here is his answer:

Well, you are voting yourself. At any rate you are trying to create discussion which I understand as a protown behaviour. What your possible motives for you to vote yourself still escape me though.

There is content there, his answer was "I feel it's pro-town." I don't see the wishy-washiness; he gave his opinion, but said that he still doesn't understand what your motives were for doing so (which you still have not answered, incidentally). Also, I don't really see how this is appeasement, as the question was not directed at militant.

And even if this WERE a wishy-washy answer, it is hardly a central issue here. As I said in post 196, appeasement about an actual vote in the game is MUCH more suspicious than "appeasement" about theory or other metagame considerations. Scum has no incentive to lie about discussions of theory; their incentive to lie only becomes apparent when trying to explain the reasons for their votes, as there are other factors at play (i.e. actually KNOWING who is town and who isn't, instead of needing to try to puzzle it out, like the rest of us). Does this distinction make sense to you, Clockwork, or am I missing something?

IGMEOY Clockwork

. I do not agree with the logic you have so far presented to support your vote for militant.

[urielzyx]

None of that discussion is relevant to this game, uri, and is becoming distracting. I think we have all agreed that there is pretty much no reason for town to lie in this setup, and the fact that infamousace2 has lied TWICE now about his reasons for unvoting Xtoxm is a large part of why I find him so suspicious.

First off, I'd like to remind you I have a vote on Infamousace2 already, so convincing me is not supposed to be at the top of your concerns.

Secondly, I have stated several times(if I'm not mistaken) that I wasn't speaking about a specific setup but about the policy in general, and that in this case I would agree you should lynch the liar.

Last but not least, about the fact it is becoming distracting, I had not brought it up this time but only responded to a question that looked like a suspicion.

Btw, not that I terribly mind, but my name is Uriel and not Uri...

[GIEFF]

I've bold and underlined the parts that don't sit right to me, The wordings of these appear to have a bias account of what happened with militant. I can see that GIEFF has chosen to disagree with arguments against militant but that wouldn't make him use the language he has in his above recap.

What are you trying to say in those posts? are you implying that I am suspicious in attacks on militant? It appears that way with the language you have used. If you think you are suspicious of me, go right out and say it.

No, I am not trying to imply anything about you. I will go through each of the underlined parts:

I don't see the forcing...

" I still don't see the forcing. This is not bias, I just do not agree with the charge.

soon

: 10 posts later is soon after, and that word works in that it shows that your vote was based on similar reasoning used by Xtoxm.

active lurking

: I am just trying to reconstruct the narrative of what happened. Xtoxm's reason was "active lurking," and you agreed.

immediately

: This means "the very next post." I used words like soon and immediately because I'm trying to review the militant wagon without forcing people to go back and read the whole thread. Without words like soon and immediately, the context can become lost.

OMGUS-FOS

: I did find your post 110 a little suspicious, hambargaz. Why did you choose to wait until Post 110 to FoS Clockwork, instead of doing so immediately after his self-vote? I labelled it an OMGUS-FOS for this reason; you didn't not FoS Clockwork until he FoS'd you. I didn't think this was all that suspicious, though, and I didn't want to add to an already-too-long post by going off on another tangent. Do you disagree with my characterization of the FoS as OMGUS?

Clockwork, do you still feel suspicious of hambargaz for focusing on militant? Or were you convinced by his answer in Post 102?

If Clockwork was not convinced of my answer, why would this make me be suspicious? You are kind of leading the question here, implying there's only 2 ways to look at it. ie. Either my answer is right, or i'm scum rather. When this is not the case. It also appears like you are inciting suspicions against me without stating you have them yourself.

Where did I say it would make you suspicious? I'm not trying to lead a question at all; I am just wondering why Clockwork removed his vote for you, because in post 103 (right after your post 102 explanation), he seemed to still be suspicious, and did not unvote until much later, and without further discussion. I am still interested in the answer to this, Clockwork, especially considering I find the reasoning behind your new vote (to militant) suspect.

Somewhat ironically, hambargaz, I DO find suspicious your defensiveness in thinking I was saying you were suspicious. Was there anything else besides my use of context words (i.e. soon and immediately) or the OMGUS-FOS thing that made you think I was trying to attack you?

I FoS'd militant in Post 146

RealityFan and militant are the only two people who still have their random votes active (both on me, incidentally). I'm going to FoS militant, as RealityFan appears to be inactive.

Here you've stated you have FOS'd militant. This doesn't stop me from feeling you are buddying with militant, it feels more like distancing, mainly because the reason you gave was wishy-washy. It is as if you are excusing you're FOS.

I am not excusing anything; again, I am just summarizing the wagon on militant, of which I am a part. Also, militant was the ONLY active player in the game who still had his random vote "on," even after I questioned infamous and militant for it; in what way is using that reasoning for a vote wishy-washy, hambargaz? Does anybody else find it wishy-washy?

I believe I already have an FOS on you. I haven't voted for you because you're summaries smell townie to me making militant the more likely scum, but I can't ignore things like this, coupled with you're defending of militant. militant should answer for himself, only scum have a reason to defend someone.

I addressed your "defending" accusations in more depth in post 210, and would like to hear whether my point makes sense to you.

1 - Active lurking.

Obviously I Agree.

2 - Random vote left on too long.

Neutral. I see this as a very minor point

3 - Appeasement.

I Agree.

4 - Withholding scummy evidence.

I Agree, I think you may have misunderstood Elennaro's post. militant made the excuse that something I said was scummy which motivated him to re-read with a particular "interest" in me. The question is.. Why didn't militant just outright say what it was that was scummy? I'm quite certain it's because he DIDN'T have a case and had to go back and make one up on me.

Thanks. Your point on #4 makes Elenarro's accusation more clear to me. It does seem suspicious that the only evidence militant later presented was the fact that you, too, were lurking, which is hardly enough to warrant a re-read with particular focus on you.


My apologies about your name, uriel. I understand why you brought it up again, and I wasn't trying to scold you or anything; I just wanted to establish that we've achieved consensus on that point, and get back to the flurry of activity that CarnCarn has helped to start.

[hambargarz]

hambargaz, I have already addressed this, in post 178.

Post 178:

hambargaz - it looks scummy to me because the logic behind it is faulty. The case against militant was based on him changing his opinion, but as I said, there was no opinion to change - it was a random vote.

I never said militant is innocent, or even looks innocent, I simply said that the unvote does not seem scummy.

Do you disagree?

Again, I have never said I think militant is innocent. All I am doing is questioning logic that I do not understand, which is not at all the same as defending militant or claiming he is innocent.

I may have given the impression that I got the impression you were saying militant was innocent. I know this isn't what you said. Given that the evidence in my eyes, points fingers at militant, I may have misinterpreted your post. But I also didn't mean that you were saying he's certain innocent, I couldn't think of a better word at the time. What I meant was more like "innocent in relation to his accusers". Obviously you would not say he's innocent (how would you know right?).

Calling people scummy for questioning logic without "rock-solid reasons" is BAD for the town;

I'm not asking for 100% concrete evidence, that's impossible. But I don't find the counter argument in post 178 satisfying. It's based on a misinterpretation of the "change of opinion". The original backpedalling was in regards to leaving the RV on rather than WHO was RV'd, post 178 did not address this.

we should welcome frank discussions about the reasoning behind votes. Do you agree with this, hambargaz?

Yes I agree. You need to give good reasons though, otherwise it just looks like defending someone.

There is content there, his answer was "I feel it's pro-town." I don't see the wishy-washiness; he gave his opinion, but said that he still doesn't understand what your motives were for doing so (which you still have not answered, incidentally). Also, I don't really see how this is appeasement, as the question was not directed at militant.

The wishy-washy part for me is his position on clockwork's motives. The part about "I feel it's pro-town" was directed at starting discussion in general, which is the forced part. Of course promoting discussion is pro-town, militant is stating the obvious. You put these together and it's a strong case of active-lurking

And even if this WERE a wishy-washy answer, it is hardly a central issue here. As I said in post 196, appeasement about an actual vote in the game is MUCH more suspicious than "appeasement" about theory or other metagame considerations. Scum has no incentive to lie about discussions of theory; their incentive to lie only becomes apparent when trying to explain the reasons for their votes, as there are other factors at play (i.e. actually KNOWING who is town and who isn't, instead of needing to try to puzzle it out, like the rest of us). Does this distinction make sense to you, Clockwork, or am I missing something?

The actual action or issue on theory is not significant, but what is significant is the motives behind the posts. "appeasement" wether it be about theory, voting or lynching is still "appeasement". ie. The scum is still trying to look good for everyone. Evidence of this can be seen in the smallest things and is significant, even though the actual context seems mundane and insignificant

[ClockworkRuse]

I'd like to say this tonight, and I'll respond to everything tomorrow.

GIEFF has some excellent posts up there. I will give you a response as to why I think militant is wishy-washy and answer any other questions for you tomrrow.

@CarnCarn, I've seen StrangeCoug use it as a pro-town move, but otherwise I mostly agree with you.

[CarnCarn]

I've seen StrangeCoug use it as a pro-town move, but otherwise I mostly agree with you.

I went back and took a quick look at that game (Meerkat Manor, right?), and his argument, as well that of as a few others, is that it is a null-tell in the RV stage, only intended to generate discussion (much like your self-vote), but generally not a good move. Others argued that it is a outright scum-tell. I don't think it is a scum-tell but but do think it's generally not very useful, and sometimes downright distracting (which is why I think it is anti-town play, intentional or not).

[hasdgfas]

militant has requested replacement. Looking for one now.

[GIEFF]

militant has requested replacement. Looking for one now.

I assume the request is due to this:

I am doing a quick re read rather than a slow one. I have a unexpected visit to a unwell relative this evening which I was not anticipating.

Best wishes, militant; I hope everything is all right.

[militant]

Yep. I am awful sorry I had to be replaced. Enjoy the rest of the game everybody. Thanks again hasdgfas.

[ClockworkRuse]

I've seen StrangeCoug use it as a pro-town move, but otherwise I mostly agree with you.

I went back and took a quick look at that game (Meerkat Manor, right?), and his argument, as well that of as a few others, is that it is a null-tell in the RV stage, only intended to generate discussion (much like your self-vote), but generally not a good move. Others argued that it is a outright scum-tell. I don't think it is a scum-tell but but do think it's generally not very useful, and sometimes downright distracting (which is why I think it is anti-town play, intentional or not).

Indeed it was Meerkat Manor. Also not how freaking unlucky my daykill was. D=

[Xtoxm]

Mmk skimmed through most stuff, not that long, was worried it would be!

Random Vote: Xtoxm for his cool avatar.

<3

On the cop with guilty - I was refering to this game only. Sometimes in larger games he might want to hold onto it.

We do not know, however if a cop has a guilty he certainly wants to get it out there right away. Then other peoples decide...

About Militant - Yes, I did find it a bit forced, although it was for the most part just trying to start things off. I have been unimpressed with Inf since I brought him up, hence shall change.

Unvote Vote Inf

[infamousace2]

I honestly don't see how much info can be discussed before the first lynch....this is amazing...

[ClockworkRuse]

I honestly don't see how much info can be discussed before the first lynch....this is amazing...

The first day is basically gauging reactions and determining who is scum from that. It's about building pressure on someone and seeing how they react.

For example;We've put a bit of pressure on Militant lately and I'm still gauging his reactions. There is one post that stuck out to me that I'll have to go back and fetch once I've got a better read on him, but that's how you hunt the first day.

Pressure, and pressure, and pressure. Looking for anything that seems out of place/anti-town/or scummy.

Can anyone tell me if anti-town = scummy. [Besides ICs?]

[GIEFF]

I don't think anti-town = scummy; the player could just be confused, or could be a victim of unintended consequences.

But if someone continues to exhibit anti-town behavior, even after repeated warnings, then I think the behavior becomes scummy.

I'd still like to hear your thoughts on some of the questions I've asked you, Clockwork, especially your reasons for voting militant and unvoting hambargaz, although this isn't all. Although militant is back down to L-3 now I think, and infamous is now at L-2, I'd still like to hear people's thoughts on the 4 reasons to suspect militant that I outlined earlier.

[hambargarz]

Can anyone tell me if anti-town = scummy. [Besides ICs?]

* puts hand up *
Anti town does not equal scum. My last game is a perfect example of this. We had 1 extremely anti town townie. He hammered a townie before discussion, when pressured with votes the next day he self lynched, making the day last only 36 hours. it was day 2 and the town had no information at all and the scum had a free ride to day 2. He was not the only one who self voted that game too. Anti-town play all around, not surprisingly the mafia won it.

[Elennaro]

Hi guys. I've had a lot of uni work this week, and am really very tired, that's why i haven't done my analysis yet, that'll be something for next week. For now I'd just like to explain myself to CarnCarn.

And anyway, the only town power role who should really try to remain hidden is the doctor, and he could play active townie just as well, it should be really easy for him, because he has no knowledge the town does not have

This is really a strange thing to say. What do you mean by "hidden"? Your suggesting this is in itself suspicious since it sounds like you are trying to influence the doctor's playstyle.

FoS: Elennaro

What I was saying is that the doctor should normally try not to make himself known (save if he's going to be lynched). He doesn't have any useful information to give the town as he does not know more than a vanilla townie, and claiming is going to get him killed, which screws things up for the town. The doctor should try to look like a townie, which should be easy for him as he doesn't have knowledge townies don't. What I was basically saying is that lurking should not be an acceptable strategy. It is anti-town behaviour, as you are passing up on a chance to create debate, and thus information. That's why I suspected RealityFan. However, my opinion on this has changed. Lurking IMHO is scummy behaviour, but flaking is not. I even view it as a (very minor) town-tell, as I think townies are more likely to get bored with the game.

[ClockworkRuse]

I don't think anti-town = scummy; the player could just be confused, or could be a victim of unintended consequences.

But if someone continues to exhibit anti-town behavior, even after repeated warnings, then I think the behavior becomes scummy.

I'd still like to hear your thoughts on some of the questions I've asked you, Clockwork, especially your reasons for voting militant and unvoting hambargaz, although this isn't all. Although militant is back down to L-3 now I think, and infamous is now at L-2, I'd still like to hear people's thoughts on the 4 reasons to suspect militant that I outlined earlier.

Working on it, I've been a little side-tracked by other games recently. Expect an answer later tonight.

[hasdgfas]

_over9000 replaces militant. Thanks!

[_over9000]

/confirm


still have to read through, I'll get to it tomorrow.

[hasdgfas]

Prodding CarnCarn and urielzyx.

Don't like the activity level. If it keeps up, I'll have to institute a deadline.

[CarnCarn]

OK, I'm going to

Unvote:Elennaro

after his response. I just didn't want anyone, especially a possible doc, to misinterpret his previous comments.

Right now, I have to say I'm a bit lost about who is scum. I want to see _over9000 (replacment for militant) make some responses to outstanding questions.

Will try to post more thoughts in this game tomorrow or Tuesday; schoolwork is getting more intense towards end of the term.

[urielzyx]

Picking up the prod, I am sorry if it looks like I'm inactive, it's just that I log in only at very different hours then most of you so there is nothing worth noting that I can see and that no one had said yet, I just see it as pointless to repeat someone else, and that is why I did not write anything, every time I do notice something that no one else seems to have noticed I post, also, I post every time I am asked a question that needs answering, if anyone can specify another situation where I should probably post, I will gladly do so...

[hambargarz]

Lurking IMHO is scummy behaviour, but flaking is not. I even view it as a (very minor) town-tell, as I think townies are more likely to get bored with the game.

I don't think flaking is an indicator one way or the other. In my last game, a scum player was replaced twice.

It's unfortunate _over9000 has replaced with some explaining to do. To me he is the most suspicious so my vote remains.

_over9000, do you have anything to say in your defence? What are your thoughts on GIEFF's protective behaviour of you? What are your thoughts on infamousace2's deliberate lack of contribution?

[Elennaro]

Lurking IMHO is scummy behaviour, but flaking is not. I even view it as a (very minor) town-tell, as I think townies are more likely to get bored with the game.

I don't think flaking is an indicator one way or the other. In my last game, a scum player was replaced twice.

I do see it as a very, very minor tell. Something that will not put you on my priorities list, but won't take you off it either.

[GIEFF]

Lurking IMHO is scummy behaviour, but flaking is not. I even view it as a (very minor) town-tell, as I think townies are more likely to get bored with the game.

I don't think flaking is an indicator one way or the other. In my last game, a scum player was replaced twice.

It's unfortunate _over9000 has replaced with some explaining to do. To me he is the most suspicious so my vote remains.

_over9000, do you have anything to say in your defence? What are your thoughts on GIEFF's protective behaviour of you? What are your thoughts on infamousace2's deliberate lack of contribution?

This is a leading question. I have not protected anyone; I have simply questioned logic with which I do not agree.