Mini 698 - Georgetown Mafia - Game over

[Ythill]

Hello all.

It's late and I just got my role PM. Will catch up over the next day or two.

[Ythill]

Reread complete. It was quick, so forgive me if I missed some details. I'll inevitably reread this game several times and eventually will have at least as good a command as the rest of you.

First off, some answers that were not provided by my predecessor...

Obviously, there is no mod-enforced PR. I don't know why Primate was doing the picture thing but I can't say I'm upset about it. His behavior drew out at least one good tell and, knowing his alignment, I find his visual breadcrumbs more enlightening than the rest of you do. However, even I do not know what the military patches mean.

SC was indeed Primate's PE#1. Someone asked whether this was based on Nz info and I can confirm that it was not. My role has no more info at this point than anyone else. Having reread, I see where Primate was coming from with his suspicions. In the first few pages, SC seemed to be trying a little too hard to push things out of the RVS. I've come around to a townier opinion of him since then. Not

townie

, just

townier

. I currently have him @ MotR.

Finally, as long as you keep in mind that I am not Primate and am incapable of reading his mind, I can try to answer any other questions you might have for me about his actions.

On to current topics...

Corvus is going to be frustrating to me. I don't see it as scummy, but I very much dislike his my-way-or-the-highway style of play. Different people play this game differently and that fact seems to get his ire up. He seems to have a black-and-white view of what is and isn't pro-town, which means that he's creating a lot of smoke where we need clarity. I don't intend to vote or pressure him for it because I don't see it being suspicious, but I will probably give him grief for it as the game progresses.

A few of you (including Corvus) are looking for buddies already. I call such evidence conspiracy theory and I don't like it. It leads to confirmation bias, false conclusions, and mislynches.

My chief suspects are Atlas, Apothacary (whom I will forthwith refer to as Rx), and Mitey.

Mitey hasn't been very suspicious, but has placed a couple of weak votes. Chief tell against her, IMO, is something that has not yet been mentioned. In #110, MM confuses the monkeys, which is not a big deal in itself. Then, in #114, she slips in that comment about how town are more likely than scum to make subtle slips. Together, these two posts demonstrate an overly-guilty attitude that I find often indicates scum. This, combined with the weak votes, does not add up to enough for a vote, but I will be keeping a close eye on Mitey.

Rx is a lurker, which is only enough to make me look at him closely, but that scrutiny has revealed a few tells. Others have already mentioned some of these and I will not bother repeating. What bothers me most is his timing dichotomy. When he pops in unbidden, Rx asks things like whether we are past random voting, which makes it seem like he is not paying attention to the game. But when he’s called out, like in #174, he shows up within two hours to post a coherent defense (in #176). Coincidence? Maybe, but I smell a rat. I also don’t like the way Rx seemed unnecessarily defensive in #227, clearly responding to the attacks on Mac's prod-avoidance.

Atlas has been slinging lots of mud, trying to find a place where it will stick. It

could

be an aspect of his early game play and therefore null, but time will tell. I don’t like Atlas’ entrance, where he tries to bog things down with theory. And I don’t like his more recent buddying.

The worst tell against Atlas, IMO, starts in #157, wherein he tries to transform the pressure wagon on Primate into an alignment wagon. He does it via a very unlikely hypothesis (that a PR would make it easier to avoid the noose) and a glaringly false dilemma (that either the PR is mod-dictated or Primate is scum). He initiates and continues to push this stance, citing an assumptive gut feeling, without placing a vote or even a FoS, even though he gets evidence that the PR is voluntary. Once the wagon loses steam, Atlas changes his stance with no good reasoning.

I find it odd that Llama, sharp as he is, completely missed these Atlas tells. But, like I said, I don’t like conspiracy theory, so I will just file this last bit for after we have a card-flip.

unvote; vote: Atlas

[Ythill]

I didn't start suspecting anyone until I voted for Zeppo, where I was suspicious of a grand total of three players.

Zeppo in your #10, Primate in #12, Sminty in #14, SC in #19, MM in #28, and Rx in #32 (post #’s in isolation). That’s just your suspicions. Mud-slinging also refers to the way you act as neutral instigator in some arguments.

Afterwards I became suspicious of Primate (who didn't?)

Everyone. Plenty of people claimed that his voluntary PR was counter-productive. You were the only one who put forth a (flawed) scenario whereby it demonstrated his alignment.

I was trying to get people into discussion that is relevant to the game.

General theory discussion is relevant to MD, not to this specific game. Bringing it up can be a way to distract the town and eventually lead a witch-hunt against those who disagree with the majority. Scum aren't the only ones who do this, but IME, they do it more often than town.

What buddying are you talking about?

#10, #19, #23, #24, #27 (in isolation).

It’s interesting that the targets remain constant, demonstrating a level of favoritism that belies a pro-town alignment.

The worst tell against Atlas, IMO, starts in #157, wherein he tries to transform the pressure wagon on Primate into an alignment wagon.

Not really. I was giving my opinion, not trying to transform anything.

An opinion based on faulty logic, that possibly serves ulterior motives, pushed without a vote on a growing wagon against an unpopular player is a serious tell in my book. Maybe you were just sharing. Maybe not.

You say this as if there are any other logical reasons for Primate to fake a PR. As town,

are

there any others?

My first thought was that it was a meta-game strategy. Plenty of players adopt a personna so as to attain the best win ratio over multiple games. But that's beside the point. You asserted that his style had scummy motives behind it, it is not my responsability to prove that it was townie, but rather your place to prove that what you said was rational.

PRs draw attention, they ostricize players who have them. One of the points of adding a PR is to make survival difficult for a player. A PR, fake or otherwise,

does not

help someone avoid the noose. Explain how it does.

I did not present a false dilemma because I pointed out the possibility of Primate fishing for reactions. It's true that in #157 I only suggested two situations, but that's because they were the most likely.

Player X: "Do you know what time it is?"
Player Y: "Yes, but not right now."

Start making sense.

Saying

either A is true or player X is scum

where A = something that is obviously untrue, and where other options exist, is a false dilemma. Look it up. Then, rather than pretend you didn't do it, explain why you did it.

If I actually believed that his alignment revolved around two scenarios (one of which you agree is wrong) then I would have voted for him.

Your lack of a vote was one of the questionable bits. Now you twist it into a defense? You were pushing without voting, hoping that townies would say

yeah, you know, that primate is afully scummy

and, if they had, I'm certain you would have voted him later.

Once the wagon loses steam, Atlas changes his stance ...

What?

#172: Corvus unvotes.
#173: Cephrir unvotes.
#174: Mac’s done talking about Primate.
#181: Atlas is getting sick of it too, and isn’t encouraging it continuing.
#182: Mac thinks we should start treating Primate like any other player.
#n (multiple): the tide turns to SC and that argument pits him against Primate in a way that suggests Primate is town.
#203: Atlas agrees with Mac’s #182 and then drops the Primate-is-scummy argument, even saying that Primate is likely town!

[Ythill]

Ythill, why am I being called RX now?

I work on the fringes of the medical field. Rx is the medical abbreviation for apothecary.

[Ythill]

A well-known fact about Ythill: Mondays and Tuesdays are usually quite LA for me, b/c they are the only days I get to spend evening hours with my wife. And b/c poker night is Tuesday.

So, yeah, I know that I need to respond to Atlas and now Corvus but other games took up all of my Monday time (and then some) so don't expect much wordiness out of me until Wednesday. I will check in occasionally in case something is needed right away.

Peace.

[Ythill]

Sorry this is so long… I’ll try to keep up so that I don’t have to resort to WoW.

I'm sad. No one is really talking about me.

Cheer up, lad. I'm back.

First off, some current events…

I'm not completely a 'my way or the high way type person'. I just judged that is what I needed to be in this game.

FTR: I didn't mean to infer that I thought this was scummy. It was just an observation to keep in mind when reading you for motives. I tend to be a profiler at times, b/c I think it makes me better at determining scummy-seeming actions from those that are actually alignment-motivated.

Of course, town could do it if they legitimately think the players are individually scummy, but when conversation is, "who are the scum buddies",

"who is he buddying with

, I can imagine it with SC", etc. it makes me worry.

I already stated how I feel about conspiracy evidence so, yeah, I agree with your first point. However, please remember that an accusation of "buddying" (what I bolded, above) is a different animal altogether. If A buddies to B, it doesn't say anything about B's alignment but, since scum often adopt townies as fake-buddies and/or use kid gloves with their real buddies, can be highly suggestive of A's alignment.

But enough about theory. Just a quick note before I move on to Atlas. Corvus, you are misusing the term "bus." Anyway...

There's nothing wrong with pointing out suspicious activity on six players, especially if your top suspect remains the same for the majority of the time.

First you minimized the width of suspicions, now you say there's nothing wrong with it. I don't like shifting arguments.

And now can you cite where I have been a "neutral instigator"?

Can? Yes. Will? No. At least not yet. I've already provided a fair amount of cites. We can come back to this later if you like.

True, but I meant who didn't find him anti-town. This is kind of irrelevant now though.

Backpeddaling, but forgiveable. It is relevant though, because you were the sole person who thought Primate's play was

scummy

and you tried to make it seem otherwise.

There are many cases where theory discussion does not value the town, but this isn't one of them. In orde

See? Theory discussion is so boring, you nodded off while trying to defend it.

#10, #19, #23, #24, #27 (in isolation).

Okay, by buddying do you mean buddying up to players or lumping people together? Because several of those posts contain one or the other, or neither.

All of them contain the former, which is what I said and what I meant. Pick one you do not agree with and I will expound.

Fair enough. You are up to interpret it the way you want, but I don't see how you could interpret that one post as "pushing". In #14 and #15...

What you did in other posts means nothing. It was a good time for scum to do what you did when you did it. It did not jibe with the rational flow of evidence, but rather with the strategy that would best suit an anti-town alignment.

Like I said earlier if Primate kept up the act without ever stopping, e.g. when he gets dangerously close to a lynch, then some portion of the town would believe that he actually does have a PR. Of course I never did and the same goes for several players, but the amount of people who were either uncertain or willing to let Primate play this way backs up my theory. If the majority of the town decided to let Primate play regularly then he would surely have an easier game.

This is entirely assertive and not at all deductive. You're just repeating yourself with bigger words. Explain

how

Primate might have avoided the noose because of his PR. Would it have made him seem more pro-town? No. Would it have helped him blend in? No. Seriously. I can't think of any way it might have helped. Enlighten me.

Ythill, when you posted your case you

knew

that I considered three possibilities, and you

knew

that I clearly didn't follow only two of them...

I

know

very little and I certainly can't read your mind. Again, what you post at other times has no bearing on the post in question. If, indeed, you knew of other options but still boiled the matter down to a false dilemma, this fact makes the act

more

suspicious, not less. Go ahead... ask me why...

If you asked me if New York City was going to blow up anytime soon and I said "No", and then a day later I found a radioactive exploding man, I would probably change that no to "maybe". It follows the same premise of what I did with Primate.

Well, I agree with your premise. However, I do not see your actions following the flow of evidence. They seem more motivated by the placement of others' votes.

How is my lack of a vote questionable?

It allowed you to push a mislynch without getting on the wagon yourself, a common scum-trick.

I'm noting that you cherry-picked my post a bit. I don't believe this is a tell, because I do it myself as town. Just realize that I am keeping track of the arguments and noting the points you don't reply to as acquiescence on your part. For example, you failed to respond to my burden-of-proof argument so I am assuming that you are ceding the point that Primate could have been playing the meta-game (or maybe even something else) with his voluntary PR.

PS: still not buying the SC case. There are scummier fish to fry.

[Ythill]

More votes for Atlas please.

[Ythill]

More votes for Atlas please.

No. I don't buy his case, and asking for more votes on somebody is tantamount to rushing the day, which is scummy.

Unvote: Zeppo007
Vote: Ythill

LOL. SC is distancing with me and I'm not even his scumbuddy. Maybe I

should

take another look at those cases against him.

Ythill, are these votes to pressure Atlas, or to actually lynch him?

The best way to find out is probably to place some on him, huh?

Ythill, if you want more votes on me you should make a better case.

It's D1 dude. There are no good cases. If you and I continue to be alive and you are indeed scum, the evidence will inevitably mount and I'll have a damn good case against you. It's not like I'm going to make stuff up just to gain support.

That includes backing up your accusations, like pointing out where I have been a 'neutral instigator'.

Patience, my young padawan. Let's deal with the present topics, then we can move on to secondaries. K?

First, stop exaggerating. Minimize means to make as small as possible (book definition), or to significantly reduce (my casual definition). I did neither; in my original defense I pointed out five suspects, while leaving out Apoc because I forgot that I had said anything about him. Subtracting an off-hand sentence on one player is in no way 'minimizing the width of suspicions.'

Don't argue semantics with me. You will lose.

minimize or -mise

Verb

[-mizing, -mized] or -mising, -mised

1. to reduce to the lowest possible degree or amount:
   these measures should help minimize our costs
2. to regard or treat as less important than it really is; belittle:
   I don't want to minimize the importance of her contribution

You made six into five. You lumped three together. You pointed out that other players were doing it more. In a word, you

minimized

. Which is fine. Then you admitted to the widespread suspicions after I cited them, but claimed it was not scummy. If it was not scummy to begin with, why did you minimize it?

See what I'm getting at?

#10- Agree with Primate, call Cephir's vote a bandwagon, suspect Mitey and Cougar.
#19- Agree with Macavity & Apoc, think Primate is likely town if Cougar is scum.
#23- Corvuus said something and Macavity didn't deny it (at the time), so I assumed it was true.
#24- Agree with Corvuus.
#27- I accept Cephir's defense.

What part of "pick one" did you not understand? This goes back to that whole "neutral instigator" thing. Let's not cloud the thread with WoW. Since you didn't pick one, I will arbitrarily choose the first: #10.

There was a bit of a reach on my part here, but the buddying I mentioned was evident in the unecesarry defense of Cephir as well as the way you agreed with Primate to do so. The former is actual buddying, the latter is less so, but I lumped it in because it is similar.

Would you like to pick another

one

to discuss?

'Jibe with the rational flow of evidence'? The evidence was: NO ONE actually found Primate scummy, only three players (Corvuus, Sminty, and Cephir) showed much interest in his lynch, Cougar was actively derailing it by throwing suspicions around, Apoc distracted from the situation with a random vote, Zeppo claimed to enjoy the PR, Mitey didn't do much either way, and Macavity threw suspicion on the wagon's main pusher AND denied the PR being anti-town.

None of this is evidence of Primate's alignment. All of it is consensus of suspicion on Primate, so you've really just proven my point. You became suspicious of Primate and then backed off

even though the evidence of his alignment did not support such changes

.

And yet, it is in scum's best interest to be the oddball in the thread and claim that Primate is scummy?

Are you really making the too-scummy-to-be-scum argument? After claiming that Primate's play would help him avoid the noose? Contradict yourself much?

Would it create more null-tells than any other player?

Of course.

Maybe.

Quote fixed. Most everything that happens here is a null tell.

And null-tells usually don't cause a lynch.

Nor do they prevent it. Your assertion was that his play would aid in preventing it.

Also I deduced from several reactions to Primate's PR that he may achieve a cover for the rest of the game. How is that not deductive?

You're doing it again. How did you deduce it? What was the evidence?

Atlas is scum. Why? He is acting scummy. How? He's doing things that somebody with a mafia alignment would do and a pro-town person probably would not; things that will help him win the game as scum. What things? Well, I looked at some things and figured out that he is scum; how is that not fiiguring it out?

Do you smell what I'm stepping in here?

Your entire case hangs precariously off of one post...

Not even close. Though I agree that single post is the most compelling evidence, there's more. You've been discussing more with me. And you're minimzing again.

I consider it silly that you think I would abandon my whole "push a mislynch" scheme one day after I started suspecting the target.

I'm glad I entertain you.

The amount of time that passed has no bearing whatsoever. A wagon was building. You took that wagon's arguments to the next level without any real cause. You did so without voting. The wagon started dying. You backed off without any real cause. This is the thesis of the tell; disprove it (or at least reasonably challenge it) and I might believe you.

I'll even help you with some suggestions... Convince me that you had a good reason to believe that Primate's play was scummy instead of simply anti-town. Then show me what happened to change your mind about his alignment. Can you?

Did I mention that I want more people to vote for Atlas? C'mon SC, hurry up and vote for him, would you?

[Ythill]

Hmmmm... that makes things interesting. I will have time to reread SC tomorrow, I'd like to ask that nobody hammer him until I do. Nothing wrong with SC claiming now though.

Meanwhile... Mitey, I don't think you have much of a case against Ceph, but I do dislike the dangerous defense vote he's made.

[Ythill]

Sigh. I am getting really sick of doc claims.

Meanwhile... Mitey, I don't think you have much of a case against Ceph, but I do dislike the dangerous defense vote he's made.

Huh?

You know, the whole I'm-not-scummy-look-at-him thing in your last post. I don't know that I feel it's a scumtell, but I certainly don't think it helps the town.

Quickly reasoned votes are okay. Not @ L-1 though.

[Ythill]

Wait, for people claiming Doctor, is there actually a doctor role to claim?
I'm confused as at the beginning, it doesn't specifically if there are any special roles in this game.

I didn't look at your post total until just now. All of a sudden 2+2=4.

The set-up is not explicit, but left to deduction. Trying to determine the truth of SC's claim is going to be problematic for now, but we can prove or disprove it over time if he isn't NKed.

I'll not abide by lynching a claimed doc on D1, nor will many others, which is one reason it's such a common claim. But I daresay that the meta of the doc-fake-claim is flawed in that it is easy to determine before endgame. For now, let's just move on before some fool counter-claims.

Anyone up for an Atlas wagon?

[Ythill]

Zep, are you an alt? The experience level apparent in your stated opinion does not match your post count. Please explain.

[Ythill]

If that person lives thorugh the night, and there was a kill, I'd be a bit suspicious...

Which is why mafiosos often leave the claimed-doc alive for a night or two. As a mobster, once you know who the doc is, it becomes a lot easier to guess who he'll protect. Or just RB him.

As the field narrows, however, a fake-doc will eventually be revealed by the NK choices. That's if someone doesn't track/investigate/NK/role-cop him first.

We should move on. There's no point in discussing this

ad nauseum

right now. We need another wagon or three to build the record for tomorrow.

[Ythill]

I am however concerned with Ythill concentrating on Atlas. It just seems to be a bit odd how he wants more people to vote him, when I believe there are people who need more pressure.

Wait... I'm supposed to vote based on your beliefs, not mine? How does differing from the pack make me scummy? Chances are, if there's a D1 majority, there's scum in it.

Your suspicion seems ingenuous and your stance on SC's claim is just plain wrong.

unvote; vote Apothecary

Let's see where this leads...

[Ythill]

This is a bigger tell then the Atlas case?

No, but few people have shown interest in Atlas so I have no problem setting him on the back burner for the moment.

Also, remember that Rx was already on my suspect list from before.

[Ythill]

(1) Is your name pronounced why-thill or yih-thill? (2) Also I'm not familiar with WoW. (3) Or cherry-picking, but I presume it means picking certain arguments to respond to and ignoring the ones that will cripple your defense on mention.

I added some numbers for reference.

(1) Yih-thill.
(2) WoW = Wall(s) of Words = long post(s)
(3) Cherry Picking = what you said above, though I don't know if the term differs between doing so strategically (the "cripple your defense" part) or in general.

I used a different sense of the word. Anyways I minimized my suspicions because earlier you said that I was "slinging lots of mud", which I felt was an inaccurate description of how many suspects I actually had and based on how many everyone else did. I claimed it wasn't scummy because it's not. I used two defenses above because you used two accusations; 1) I slung "lots" of mud, and 2) slinging lots of mud is scummy. I responded to both parts of it.

The above feels a little like scrambling for an answer. I'll leave it at that.

Why don't you pick the one that you feel is the most incriminating?

Asking you to choose was an effort to narrow the discussion without manipulating it. I was trying to be fair.

As for #10, your reasoning is whoa. 1) My defense was motivated by Zeppo's weird accusation. It's not like I swooped down to defend Cephir from a valid case.

Good scum will always have a reason. It's the number of instances that is most alarming. It belies a townie's level of paranoia.

Would his PR make it tremendously harder for players to have a detailed argument with Primate and draw conclusions from the many implications that originate from word-based posts, which are then used to lynch him? Sure.

Yes, what you say above is true, but it would be no more likely to inhibit conversation than any player who posts opinions and votes without reasoning, and doing such is, in itself, likely to lead one to the noose. Remember, we're not talking about the

potential

or

possible

effects. We're talking about effects

probable

enough to be the basis of a strategic decision, as scum, to do something that was guarenteed to make him stand out.

I believe this may be the most important point of our debate. I

need

to understand how you came to the conclusion that the PR was scummy, rather than just anti-town.

You're (mostly) attacking me for being suspicious of Primate at a convenient time, correct? A "strategy of anti-town alignment" includes suspecting a player when most of the town does already, when scum would go unnoticed.

Shifting again. You're barking up too many trees.

Another question: you dismiss my immediate posts after #157 that go against your case, yet you take into account the ones that occur pages later? Just because they support your case?

I did not discount any posts. I just insisted that something you said later does not change the weight of what you said in #157. I'll explain why: #157 was scummy, it is

possible

that you realized this and posted damage control. So I'm taking #157 at face value.

That said, parts of your defense are sounding okay to me. And, yeah... you busted me on the "reactions" hunt.

[Ythill]

Alright then. I don't believe SC's claim. But I don't believe he's a scum either, but a townie hoping that the claim will shield him from the lynch.

This is offering "various views"? You're right that it doesn't suggest anything. It specifically states your beliefs. Now you backpedal to say you were just covering all of the angles?

[Ythill]

I simply offered an alternate viewpoint. I don't see why this is arousing this much angst and suspicion. If we all jumped on someone when they offered an alternate view, we'd never get past day 1.

Fail. Strawman. You are not being attacked for voicing an alternate viewpoint. You are being attacked for...

(1) Stating an explicit belief for which you have been unable to give reasoning.
(2) When questioned about that explicit belief, trying to pretend that you were just offering other possibilities.
(3) Shifting your read on a player (SC scum--->town) without any reasonable evidence.

I just passed a comment that may or may not have shown others that there isn't a rigid set of scumtells.

Fail. Misrepresentation. You stated... explicitly... that you believed SC was fake-claiming as town. Explain what made you believe that.

Ha! I'm bankrupting my credibility! Most of us have done that already in this game!

Fail. Instead of pointing vague fingers, you should be explaining yourself.

Right now you lot are just grasping at straws for quicklynches!

Fail. Appeal to emotion. You have seriously backpedaled on an explicit statement and, until you can explain why town-Rx would have done such a thing, we are grasping at something more substantial than straws.

See, it has occured to me why a n00b scum player might make that statement about SC fake-claiming as town, but I can't imagine how a townie would be convinced of that in light of the evidence we've seen.

[Ythill]

@SC: First off, I'll reiterate that I don't understand why some peeps are calling you obv-scum, or why they are beating a doc-claimed horse. There have been a couple of compelling points against you but I believe you have answered them well enough.

However, I want to address your rushing-the-game accusation in full, because you keep slandering me based on it, and it is completely off the mark.

Prima facie

, your argument is wrong because I have not rushed the game at all. I voted the player I found most suspicious at the time and asked for others to support the wagon. This might have been realistically considered rushing if he had more votes but, at the time, I was the

only

person voting him. Had he been wagoned to L-2 or so, chances are I would have unvoted, even if I still found him scummy, b/c it was still too early to lynch.

The reasons I'd do what I did as town are obvious and, now that my vote is elsewhere, I'll explicitly state them for you. (1) I wanted more pressure on Atlas to see how he would react. (2) In case I was wrong about him, I was fishing for scummy vote changes. Sorry I didn't say these things before, but they would have defeated the purpose and I wasn't very concerned about the accusation of a player who was already pigeonholed for the noose.

I'd like to point out that

Atlas himself

determined what I was up to even though I was his attacker and OMGUS might have been tempting him to see my actions as more insidious than they were. So what's your excuse?

Furthermore, even if I had been rushing the lynch, I don't see it as scummy. If you were to meta me, you would find that I am not one of those players that believes more information is always better for the town. There comes a point (usually after 2-3 wagons) when the town is in danger of having too much informtaion in the thread, both because it makes rereads too long and complicated to be effective and because it risks revealing too many power-roles to the scum. The way I play, it is ideal to make sure that everyone has taken an explicit stance on a couple of wagons, find someone who reads as scummy, and end the day with a solid lynch.

In fact, now that we are 17 pages in, I feel that we should start moving in that direction. Not

hurrying

, but at least working on consensus. Of course, we need to give Jazz time to catch up and state his/her opinions first, especially since Zep had been a suspect for a few people.

[Ythill]

Corvus, you are taking this way too far.

We agree that we are not going to lynch SC today, right? So why are you still pursuing him with bared teeth?

You're distracting us from finding scum and settling on who we will actually lynch, and you're worsening the sig:noise of D1. I want to be clear that I don't believe this indicates your alignment. I am simply asking you to stop.

K?

[Ythill]

Calling someone for slinging mud and then "temporarily" writing it off is something that I really dont like.

Can you cite where I did this? I think you might have misinterpreted something.

I also dont know how much you can prosecute people for about how they acted about the Primate situation. There were points when I was catching up where I would of just prefered a policy lynch type attitude over anything else.

There is a difference between a policy lynch and an alignment lynch. My point was that a bunch of people were either pursuing a policy lynch or at least applying policy-based pressure and then Atlas tried to push that into an alignment-based situation. I don't understand how you don't see that as scummy.

While I will agree that Apoc had a wierd response to the claim, its more of a bad idea then a scumtell.

Don't lump me in with the crowd that thought Rx's response was a tell. What I found scummy (in addition to my earlier read) was the way he responded to pressure about that statement by changing his stance. When I saw that, I looked back at the statement and asked myself why town/scum would insincearly say what Rx said. I only came up with an answer for scum.

If you want one of so many lynched, and no one is biting on one wagon while people are willfully pushing the case of your second suspect, the logical thing to do is to vote your second suspect. Not to keep hanging on to your top suspect untill the second wagon dries up a bit.

While that may be the "thing to do" in your opinion, I'll continue to play based on my opinions, thank you very much.

What happened was the combination of two factors: (1) I came to terms with the fact that I was unlikley to get support in pressuring my lead suspect (2) my second suspect did something that pushed him further up in my suspicions. I did not base any part of my decision on the number of votes that were on Rx at any time; the fact that his wagon had "dried up" was nothing but coincidental timing.

You are looking at my actions in the scummiest light... conforming your evidence to the conclusion rather than the other way around, which makes your "case" reach more than a proper case should.

[Ythill]

Mac gets a whole pan of townie brownies for his last post. Sorry about putting you to sleep. I’m an admitted blabbermouth.

@ Corvus & SC: Nested quotes are bad enough when the tags are done right. Please preview before posting. Pretty please?

Atlas has been slinging lots of mud, trying to find a place where it will stick. It

could

be an aspect of his early game play and therefore null, but time will tell.

You called it null but at the same time can easily change it later

Oh. That wasn't me dismissing it. It was me admitting that there

might

be another explanation. Note how I put “might” in italics... same way I did with “could” in the original quote.

I was talking about possibilities, not conclusions. Fact is, I could be wrong about Atlas, so I try to look for holes in my own evidence.

I think its partially an anti-town vs scummy debate.

I don't buy this. In #157, Atlas said. "Assuming it is voluntary I see Primate's play style as both anti-town and scummy." This means that, no matter how subjective the difference between anti-town and scummy is, Atlas had differentiated between them and found Primate

scummy

.

I wasn't questioning why you didn't pick a post, you know. I just wanted you to choose another.

I didn’t know that, actually. Thanks for clarifying. I choose #24 (iso). You dismissed Corvus’ overplay offhand, though you agreed it existed. You then demonstrated your displeasure with the argument, stopping just short of suggesting that the subject be dropped.

Isn't insisting something does not matter basically dismissing it?

You’re still taking me out of context. I didn’t dismiss anything

overall

. I did rule it out as conclusive in my reading of #157, for the aforementioned reason.

I'm not shifting, I thought this entire time that "you had convenient suspicions" meant "you had suspicions when it would be easy to get everyone to

agree with you and

lynch Primate", which directly relates to what everyone thought rather than how Primate was acting.

Quote fixed. You’re a tricky one, Atlas, and I want to say that I really enjoy arguing with you.

In a nutshell… I asked you to show me why you found Primate scummy, you demonstrated that consensus found him anti-town rather than scummy, I pointed that out as not being what I’d asked for, now you build a strawman out of “convenient.”

Convenient suspicions = people were voting for, questioning, and attacking Primate. None of them said he was scummy.

You

took the argument to the next level. This is all clear. I am trying to determine

why

you did that. There are two theories: (1) scum with convenient suspicions or (2) town/other honestly convinced that Primate was scummy (not just anti-town).

Whether or not

you believed

Primate was scummy has nothing to do with town consensus and everything to do with how (you perceived) he was acting.

I think so too. I'll start with the general concept; at the time I believed that Primate's main goal was to convince the town that his PR was real, a feat that you agree

would

could

make him less likely to be lynched.

Quote fixed. There is a big difference.

I think I’m understanding you here though. Let me paraphrase and simplify, tell me if I’ve got this right… You believed Primate was scum because his actions had the actual effect of earning him allies, regardless of what the reasonably expected effect of those actions was? If no, tell me why.

Why would Primate risk doing this, while not knowing how the town would react? That is something you brought up; for meta-game purposes. You said yourself that he may have been trying to "attain the best win ratio over multiple games" (actually I have no idea why you said this, because a townie is more likely to lose if he fakes a PR) which could be applied to town or scum.

I don’t want to get too deep into theory here, but you’ve got me wrong. I believe that the worth of an empty meta, to those players who favor it, is that it gives them an unreliable meta defense when they are scum but also provides excellent late-game information to their allies when they are town.

Problem is, if it’s a meta, you and I both know it’s a null. If it’s not, then it makes no sense as a scum tactic to avoid the noose. I know that I didn’t meta Primate because I know his alignment. Did you?

In addition, as far as I am aware, grasping at straws = straw man (but again, someone needs to correct me if I am wrong).

I have a special place in my heart for correcting people when they are wrong, but Mac beat me to it in a way that only leaves QFT.

Apoth never used straw man arguments or said that.

See below.

I simply offered an alternate viewpoint. I don't see why this is arousing this much angst and suspicion. If we all jumped on someone when they offered an alternate view, we'd never get past day 1.

Fail. Strawman. You are not being attacked for voicing an alternate viewpoint. You are being attacked for...

Okay. After reading the wiki article, I would just like to say I was not "Strawmanning".

Rx, if someone accuses you of something and shows evidence of how you did said thing, responding with

nuh-uh

is absolutely unconvincing. Or, in other words…

Did so!

[Ythill]

When you make a case you dont defend the person or add filler, that just makes the case weaker so it wasnt for either of those reasons.

How do you know what I do? You know how you play the game. I make my cases the way I do to

help me determine

if someone is scum, not to craft an airtight argument that neither scum nor town would prevail against.

As for the rest of the case, look how often you used "seem"... my favorite one was where you were trying to accuse me of preparing to do something that hasn't been done by anyone, because I "seem" like I'm

going to

do it. Seeming is made up of (my) action and (your) projection, and your PoV

seems

to be skewed.

It seems like the main reasoning was the stance on SCs claim (which you claimed wasnt a reason before), and that his suspicions were ingenuous.

There's the "s" word again. So, when I say something is

just plain wrong

, as opposed to disingenuous, wouldn't most people think of those two things as opposites. Thing A is a lie, thing B is

just

wrong.

[Ythill]

Meh. I haven't seen any reason to suspect Llama. Not saying he's looking townie, but I haven't noticed anything really scummy about him either.

Projecting is often done subconsciously, so I don't think it's a reliable scumtell.

[Ythill]

I dont try and make cases against people who I dont have a solid read on, or think might be town or anything to that matter. That is kept for my mental notes, or if someone asks my opinion on a player. When I do make a case, its as airtight as I can make it, because I am trying to get scum lynched.

That's what you call the case on me? "As airtight as [you] can make it?" Remind me to never buy scuba gear from you.

I honesty dont understand making a case on a null read player...

Where did I say I made a case on a null player? I thought Atlas was scum, I still believe there is evidence that suggests his alignment as scum. However, unlike you, I realize that there is sometimes a difference between what I believe and the truth. So I attempt to determine the truth in spite of what I believe at any given time.

I'll also note that you have admitted you don't understand this, which makes me wonder how you can reasonably claim that something you don't understand somehow leads you to a conclusion.

...and I feel like by saying that your cases are made to help determine if someone is scum you are trying to relieve yourself of some of the responsibility for anyone flipping town.

If you want to talk about your feelings, call your therapist.

If I think you are doing something scummy, I will say what it is and why I think its scummy.

That's fine, but realize that you are ignoring my explanations and stubbornly looking at things in the scummiest light.

Seriously, what if I said that your earlier misrepresentation

seems

like you trying to discredit me to save your buddy Rx? Is it possible? Sure. If I look at it in the scumnmiest light, does it

seem

probable? Sure. But there are other explanations and, if I attacked you for it I would be doing the town a disservice.

Why did you not try and convince the people coming off the SC wagon that Atlas was scum?

They are as capable as anyone of reading through my evidence on Atlas and making their decisions. The lack of pressure on him demonstrated that he was not going to support a viable wagon at that time. Just because you follow your (incorrect) gut

ad nauseum

does not mean it is good play, nor that others will play the same way.

Why did you vote for Apoc then?

I've already explained myself...

Rx is a lurker, which is only enough to make me look at him closely, but that scrutiny has revealed a few tells. Others have already mentioned some of these and I will not bother repeating. What bothers me most is his timing dichotomy. When he pops in unbidden, Rx asks things like whether we are past random voting, which makes it seem like he is not paying attention to the game. But when he’s called out, like in #174, he shows up within two hours to post a coherent defense (in #176). Coincidence? Maybe, but I smell a rat. I also don’t like the way Rx seemed unnecessarily defensive in #227, clearly responding to the attacks on Mac's prod-avoidance.

~

We should move on. There's no point in discussing this

ad nauseum

right now. We need another wagon or three to build the record for tomorrow...

~

Wait... I'm supposed to vote based on your beliefs, not mine? How does differing from the pack make me scummy? Chances are, if there's a D1 majority, there's scum in it.

Your suspicion seems ingenuous...

And since then I've found other reasons to suspect Rx, moving him up on my suspect list.

When I have to start scrounging around for reasons your vote landed on him, chances are it was a weak vote.

Your inability to find the obvious has nothing to do with the strength of my vote.

[Ythill]

I'm stubborn when I think im right, so when people stop suspecting someone who they obviously have at their top pick, it really bothers me.

So your suspicion boils down to the fact that you suspect me because I do not play like you do. Also, I didn't stop suspecting Atlas. He's moved down my list due to some of his defenses, but he's still a suspect.

Nice way of making my wording null my point. When I said that, what I ment was that I see no town motives for weakening your own case.

Actually, I misunderstood you. And again, your suspicions can be traced back to our difference in play. I believe that honesty in mentioning a tell that could be either scum- or null- is important because it helps to avoid mislynches.

...again, you are dodging my points due to wording.

No, I am not. I will not seriously address an accusation based on your feelings, your gut, or what "seems" to be happening.

You have hypothesized why I might act as I have as scum. I have explained why I acted as I have as town. Now, either you or wrong or I am lying, but the burden of proof lies with you here. Simply repeating that you still "feel" a certain way is not a factual argument.

If you want to keep your vote on me in spite of my explanations, just do it. However, I will not abide by you tainting my reputation with rhetoric and empty repetition.

By saying they are more aids for you then for others, you bring down the ammount of blame that can be put on you for mislynches, but still claim credit for any scum lynch.

Again, looking at me in the scummiest light. You have concluded that I am scum b/c of crap reasoning and now will accept any evidence to prove that conclusion. Look what you have done here, shifting your argument. First, I was scummy for supposedly setting up an attack for later. Now that I have explained my actions as intended to avoid a potential mislynch, you accept my general explanation but attribute scummy motives to it.

Your accusations are highly assumptive.

How do I even defend against this?

Maybe you should have thought of that before you did it...

This is saying that B is true because A is true, so lets do action B when A has not been proven true yet. Completely different then anything I am doing.

This makes no sense to me.

First off, I have no clue what ad nauseum means.

It is a latin idiom (commonly used in English) that means something like "until someone pukes." It's one way of claiming that something was overdone or repeated far too much.

There were people who were looking for a new top suspect, and you comprimised to a new wagon.

Repeating your flawed theories does not make them true. Atlas was my #1 but nobody was interested in putting pressure on him. Rx was my #2 but did something scummy. I moved my vote from Atlas to Rx right after he did the scummy thing. That's the whole story, the motives you are attibuting are fantasy.

I kind of more was hoping for a bulleted list type argument.

• other factors voiced previously (I'd have to look these up again, b/c I don't remember them exactly, I just remember that I agreed with others' points made before I replaced in)
• lurking
• timing that demonstrates that his claims of not knowing what is going on are false
• overdefensiveness in that he defended himself against an attack meant for someone else
• suspicions that do not seem genuine

These are the tells

before

my vote. Things have happened after my vote to make me even more suspicious but, since we're talking about my vote here, I'll refrain from listing them. Another reason for my vote (second post in the quote) was that we needed a few more wagons to build the record and there were a few people who suspected Rx.

You have been saying I am looking at things in the scummiest light, but to say that his efforts are fake is a big strech to make anything he does look scummy.

A big stretch? Hardly. His suspicions do not follow the flow of evidence, they are not backed up by a reasonable line of thought, and he is quick to retract/reinstate them when it benefits him in an argument. I can't believe that you, of all people, don't agree with me. After all, you are a self-admitted stubborn player who thinks it's scummy when people play differently than you and Rx is a flag flapping in the wind.

[Ythill]

Thanks for pointing that out, SC. I might have missed it, which just goes to show that these attacks from Llama are effectively shutting down my hunting.

[Ythill]

@ Elmo:

A summary of Ythill vs. Llama. Llama’s main complaints against me are the timing of my move from Atlas to Rx, my soft arguments (where I weigh tells in a narrative), and places where he says that my actions appear strategic. I have explained the reasons behind my wagon jump (no support on Atlas, new tell on Rx as my #2), the purpose for soft arguments (designed for inquiry, not winning an argument), and the motives behind the points of play that he felt were strategic.

Llama, please feel free to add to the summary if you feel it is insufficient.

@ Jazz:

Just some general thoughts about your posts.

Re Rx: I don’t agree that hypocrisy should be considered a scum-tell

prima facie

. And, did Llama really bring up the point about Rx showing up quickly when attacked? I thought I had been the first to note that.

Re Atlas: I still am not convinced about the infamous

Primate’s PR

post and a few other less-important points, but we have argued them into the ground. Would you mind weighing in on the topic of Atlas’ attack on Primate for his PR?

Re Ceph and Corv: No comment. Mostly concur.

Re Elmo: The “who is scum” thing is cultural, I’ve seen plenty of townie replacements enter that way. I haven’t looked too closely at Elmo but will keep the “lazy” case in mind.

Re Llama: Obviously I don’t agree about his case on me, but I do find him slightly townie.

Re Mac: LOL. I

can’t wait

to hear your opinion of me. Your view of Mac seems reasonable.

I look forward to the rest of your analysis.

[Ythill]

I forget who said it but it was "One of Llamas main problems is that he thinks everyone should play like him as town".

I said that about Corvus. Is that what you mean?

I have used this tactic before as scum...

Which has no bearing whatsoever. If you want to reference past games, how about looking for what

I've

done as scum.

There is never any real "proof" in this game.

Take "proof" lightly if you will, but something stronger than empty repetition. The burden is still on you. I can only tell the truth. As accuser, it is you who must convince others that your theory is more likely than my explanation.

The main difference of what I have presented against you and what you have presented against Atlas is some wording. If I cut out all of the "feel" and "seems" and put things like "is" in, it would be pretty similar.

Look at what you've said. You think I'm scum, right? So my case against Atlas must be contrived. Yet you claim that your case is

not

contrived by saying it is similar to my case on Atlas.

Not only is this an invalid statement about your case, but it heavily suggests that you know me to be town, because you are arguing from the Yth-town point of view against supposed Yth-scum. This is the first real scum-tell I've seen you make, but it's a big one.

dont know what it was for. That action you took to me

is[/s] scummy, and it can be used for one of the two mentioned reasons. Setting up mislynches, lessing responsibility for a case or thinking out loud. The last one just seems perposterous to me, especially compared to the other things that you have done.

Awesome. First it was one theory. Then another. Now it could be either one. Your case is falling apart before our eyes.

Why didnt you try to move the SC voters at least?

Why don't you come up with questions I haven't already answered? It's still empty repetition if you rephrase it.

Why is overdefensiveness a scum tell?

In most cases it is not. However, in this case, Rx was responding to an attack made against someone else. It was stated that someone else's particular behavior was scummy, Rx then made a defense for that behavior even though nobody had pointed out him doing it. It made him sound guilty.

...the actions that others have taken though make me think he actually might be town.

What actions?

If I have learned one thing from this game, some people are really bad at making cases and couldnt make one to save their life...

Why would you say that making a weak case is a null-tell while giving ground in an argument? Hmmmmmm...

[Ythill]

Also, on current events...

Elmo's #470 exemplifies the phrase wishy-washy.

Rx is digging himself deeper.

SC's meta-defense is not valid but at least, if he

is

telling the truth, he's already learned his lesson about naming targets.

[Ythill]

I am just making a point that its a pretty valid and successful tactic to be playing...

You have made no such point. All you have done is made an appeal to experience, and an ancedotal one at that. Your argument makes several assumptions (1) you are an expert at playing scum (2) the specific situation in another game included the same variables as in this game (3) I am an expert at playing scum with strategies similar to your own. I have already shown that my strategic views differ from yours.

Let me explain this very carefully. I am getting annoyed that you are casting aside parts of my case due to word use, if I just dropped all the "emotional" words from it, my case looks similar in wording to your case on Atlas.

I'm glad you reiterated, because you have confirmed that you meant exactly what I thought you meant. Which is a smoking gun. Congratulations on reaching my suspect list.

Dont get this really. I called you town because by adding "emotions" to your case I can make parts of it "invalid"?

No worries, I'm sure others understand what I meant. Let me simplify, just in case.

Your argument: If we remove "feel" and "seems" from your case on me, it is just as valid as my case on Atlas. So let's ignore "feel" and "seems". We now have two equally valid cases. Either they are both valid or they are both invalid.

If they are both invalid, then you have no reason to continue suspecting me, but you do still suspect me, so this cannot be true. Therefore, they must both be valid.

So you are saying that I (who you assume scum) have made a valid case against another player, in your opinion. Since scum, by their very nature, do not make valid cases, you are saying that I am town. But also that I am scum.

To the penut gallery: I really want to hear others' opinions about this specific point.

When someone does something that goes against all logic that I can come up with, and shifts a wagon at an odd time, something is wrong.

QFT, but it could be something wrong with your logic, your perceptions, or your alignment.

Still dont get it a whole lot. As any alignment I try and kill any suspicion

coming against me

pretty early, and it works out well. What post was this in?

Read what I bolded. The suspicion wasn't "coming against" Rx, it was "coming against" Mac. The original suspicion was posted by Corvus in #217 and discussed by others afterwards. Rx's response came in #227.

No one really pushed him hard while the SC wagon was going on, but there was no real rejection of the wagon. When the SC wagon died, there was a really quick move to him. If he was scum I would think that someone would at least of tried to deflect from him a bit.

This is 100% WIFOM.

I dont think that I am giving ground here.

You called my case on Atlas valid and are considering points of my Rx case to be true. You are most certainly giving ground.

People who cant make good cases not being able to make a good case is a null tell. People making a bad or BS case is a scumtell.

Are you capable of making a good case? Am I?

[Ythill]

I am not really too hot on LF's thing, but then I haven't really read it properly.

LF: Ythill's stance looks daft to me, from what I recall.

Flip-flop much?

In what dialect is "we should probably lynch one of these two people today" wishy-washy?

The dialect where you say it by naming MM and SC as buddies, and weighing the identity of the third between me and Rx, and decide Rx based on LF being either wrong or scummy (you were vague), and then concluding that we should hang MM or Rx.

Maybe you're just paranoid.

[Ythill]

This logical fallacy is the result of some weird wording on Llama's part, I think. Unless he was actually intentionally saying that his case and yours were of roughly equal calibur.

Which fallacy is it, and why? I don't buy the "wording" theory. First Llama said, "The main difference of what I have presented against you and what you have presented against Atlas is some wording. If I cut out all of the "feel" and "seems" and put things like "is" in, it would be pretty similar." Then he reiterated by saying, "Let me explain this very carefully. I am getting annoyed that you are casting aside parts of my case due to word use, if I just dropped all the "emotional" words from it, my case looks similar in wording to your case on Atlas." That sounds pretty clear to me.

More importantly, to say that scum don't make valid cases is a bit odd. Scum are perfectly capable of creating well-reasoned cases that are pretty convincing and can, in fact, be true (if they're bussing).

I'm not talking about what

can

happen in reality. I'm talking about what is reasonable in the

mindset of an accuser

.

Llama doesn't think I'm bussing. He finds Atlas townie (too many cites to list), and don't forget that, when he voted me, Llama had this to say about my case on Atlas...

Quickly Ythill launched an attack on Atlas for what seems to be key points of; slinging mud (which was later written off as possible null), buddying, theory discussion, trying to get Primate lynched on alignment instead of uselessness, using a false dellima and abandoning the wagon.

First off, I think theory discussion being put as a scum tell is just stupid. There is nothing wrong at all about discussion theory in a game, even in the early stages. Using theory to distract from a larger point is, but that did not occur. Buddying is weak at best too, town tries to hook up with town in order to get more pull in the game, or at least it is something that I always attempt to do.

Calling someone for slinging mud and then "temporarily" writing it off is something that I really dont like. If its a tell, its a tell. Bringing something up early, dismissing it, but still leaving it as an option to return to just sits bad. When you dismiss it due to not knowing his playstyle, it is fairly simple to pick up again later when needed. Things should either be called a scumtell and pushed, or just not mentioned at all. Creating things that are weak or can be used later in a case feels like padding, and a failsafe for later if its ever actually needed.

I also dont know how much you can prosecute people for about how they acted about the Primate situation. There were points when I was catching up where I would of just prefered a policy lynch type attitude over anything else. This also somewhat can be put into the "is anti-town meta scummy?". There are players who always are scummy, and are lynch bait, Primate is obviously one of them. If I knew that Primate was never going to be replaced and would continue acting like that, I would of pushed that lynch as the right one since keeping him around hurts the town.

Going through the entire Atlas WoW argument they had and continually picking out why I dont like the case is something I wont do, but basically I think the Atlas case that Ythill has been pushing is weak, and some parts like the mudslinging were designed as fodder for a case if ever needed.

Question is... is Llama now arguing that my case was valid (like his is) or that his case is invalid (like mine was) if the "emotional" words are removed? Fact is... it doesn't matter. The simple existance of the question reveals that his arguments are either fabricated or wrong.

[Ythill]

Almost forgot.

unvote; vote: LlamaFluff

[Ythill]

Wow, you seriously are missing my point this much? Multiple times you have dismissed parts of my case because of my word choice, not because of what I am agruing.

How can I argue with your take on what your feelings are?

You are saying my case is bad because I am using emotion words.

Fail. I have said your case was incorrect for several reasons. One of those is that you are basing it heavily on your

preconceptions

and therefore

projecting

your own

assumptions

onto my actions. This is

made obvious

by your use of what you call "emotion words" but it would be true even if you avoided them.

You say a certain thing "seems" scummy, I explain why I did it as town, you say that you don't play like that and so it still "feels" scummy. That's fine, but you are not making a new argument, just repeating yourself. When you have stated facts or theories, I have posted counterpoints.

The main difference between, for example, me saying that Atlas was scummy for his timing on Primate and you saying I was scummy for my timing on Rx is clear.

Prima facie

they are similar, but Atlas couldn't explain how the evidence (what was common knowledge in the game at that time) lead to his move, while I did explain that a lack of pressure on Atlas combined with a new scumtell from Rx (my #2) prompted my move. The fact that you still "feel" my move was conveniently timed does not, in any way, challenge my explanation. If Atlas had made a similarly reasonable explanation, I would have conceded the point.

Still dont get how I "slipped" at all. You are saying my case is bad because I am using emotion words. I turn around and say that this is a poor point since I could pull up your Atlas case, add emotions and then it makes it "bad" to you.

That's not at all what you said. You said that if you removed "seems" and "feel" from your case, it would be similar to my case on Atlas, which you previously touted as crap logic as a major reason for voting me. So my case is a model for validity? Or it is a reach that marks me as scum? It can't be both in your opinion.

I'm having a really hard time understanding the Ythill-Llama argument to be honest. I'm trying to boil this down as well as I can, and I'm getting the following:
1) Ythill thinks that Llama's case against him is framed just like Ythill's case against Atlas.
2) Llama really doesn't like the way Ythill moved off of his Atlas-wagon.
Am I right? Am I missing something? I'd like to have a more simplified summary before I comment.

You're missing plenty, which is understandable.

1) I beleive that certain points against Atlas still stand, but he has defended himself well against others. The comparison between Llama's case and mine has nothing to do with my beliefs and everything to do with his. He has said, explicitly, twice, that removing certain semantic points reveals our cases to be similar. But, earlier, he decried my case as crap-logic, which was one of his reasons for initially voting me.

2) I think Llama's points are a little more complicated than you put forth, but your assumption is true, if not complete.

Simplified summary: Llama has claimed that (1) my Atlas case was weak and therefore scummy (2) my Atlas case is a model for validity. The difference was tactical, meaning that he is saying whatever serves him best at the time, rather than what he truly believes. That's a pretty serious scumtell.

When I read Elmo's post, my interpretation was that his read of Llama was incomplete, and that he was neither wrong nor scummy.

I see the "incomplete" part as well, but I took it more as a justification than an opinion. He did say, "I am not really too hot on LF's thing," which says that Llama is either wrong or scummy. He added, "but then I haven't really read it properly," which I took as him saying something like,

I could be mistaken though, because my read was incomplete

. Which, in all fairness to the original point, makes him sound even more wishy-washy.

I'm not anywhere near convinced Elmo is scum, I just wanted to throw some dirt his way for reactions, because he's been allowed to fly under the radar. The most damning thing against him, IMO, is the part where he flip-flopped, but I do understand that it might have been townie-OMGUS.

[Ythill]

Is LlamaFluff saying that your Atlas case is a model for validity in the sense that it is logical and backed up with evidence, or is he saying that it is a model for validity so he can prove that your case is invalid?

I think the correct answer here is: neither. His intention was to say that my case was a model for validity in order to validate his own case. However, his intention doesn't matter in this instance (see below).

Which fallacy is it, and why?

It has to be a specific one? Maybe I don't know what 'fallacy' means, then.

Here's a list to help you. Changing "fallacy" to "error" doesn't take away the fact that I've already shot down your initial reasons.

Multiple times you have dismissed parts of my case because of my word choice, not because of what I am agruing. This really pisses me off because I get the feeling that you are trying to take down my case by refuting how I am presenting it instead of what I am saying.

This is true, by the way.

You're both just getting into semantics about the way Llama's wording his posts. What SC just quoted may be a contradiction, but I also think Ythill is being intentionally dense. He also hasn't made any attempt to deal with what Llama just pointed out, that he's been dismissing some of Llama's case based on its wording...

I addressed this very point, at length, in #504. So pooh-pooh on your, "He also hasn't made any attempt to deal with what Llama just pointed out..." Llama has morphed his argument to appear semantic, you believing him is "dense."

...it's pretty obvious that he didn't mean what it's being taken to mean.

You are confounding two conecpts here, "meaning" and

intention

.

If someone were to say, "Ythill is scum because he did X," and I were to defend myself by saying, "I can prove X isn't scummy because I am scum and still didn't do X," my

intention

would be to prove that X was not a scumtell. Saying "I am scum" would be unintentional, but it's "meaning" would be clear.

Back to the real world... Llama

intended

to say,

you can't decry my case for semantics because it is as valid as your own.

Which means

Yth's case is a model for validity

whether he intended it or not.

[Ythill]

That's like asking me, "Why does SC ask ridiculous questions?"

I have no idea why Llama had done what he's done. I only know what he has written and what I can glean from it.

[Ythill]

* I have no idea why having multiple suspects is supposed to be "wishy-washy". We are looking for more than one scumbag, obviously? If one played perfectly, you'd just say "these x people are scum".

It was more about the tone of your post than the number of suspects but, like I said, the main purpose of my comment was to draw some reactions out of you and I don't see anything overtly scummy in those reactions, so I don't feel the need to argue this point.

* I haven't contradicted myself. "Yhill's stance is daft" does not contradict "I'm not too hot on LF's case against Yhill , but then I haven't read it fully".

I was talking about the way you decried both sides of a serious argument but, looking at your current suspicion list, I can see how these two comments do not contradict one another.

The way SC+Yhill appear to be flocking together against LF reinforces my belief.

Please note that, other than me not agreeing with the wagon on SC, all of the the "flocking" has been his. I'm still not sure whether I find him scummy or just VI but, if he is scum, he's adopted me as a fake buddy.

I disagree with what Yhill said about LF to the extent I have read it; Yhill is somewhere between daft and scummy based on that alone.

Would you mind explaining why you disagree with it? In your opinion, what caused Llama to change his opinion of my Atlas case so drastically?

[Ythill]

I'll just snip Llama's list, add numbers for reference, and extrapolate. The following is not meant to be a representation of what Llama was saying but, rather, of the truth...

1 -- Weak case on Atlas (which he cites as a model of validity later)

2 -- Addition of (one point which could be a scumtell or a) null tell

s

3 -- Abandonment of case (a.k.a. accepting some of Atlas' defenses and moving on)

4 -- The timing of the move to Apoc (which I explained; Llama has ignored my explanation, citing only his opinion as the reason)

5 -- SC wagon had just died freeing votes (this is just a detail about #4, so Llama is trying to fluff-up his case)

6 -- Apoc had stronger lynch following earlier (see #5, same thing)

7 -- Dismissal/downplay of parts of my case due to wording (this point is wholly a fabrication of Llama's; what I did was cite his use of the qualifiers "seems" and "feel" to show how he was projecting assumptions rather than arguing facts)

[Ythill]

Hi qwints. Please be aware that you are one of my suspects, though your predecessor's defenses and other factors have moved you down from my #1 slot.

We need four to lynch at deadline. Might as well ensure that one of my suspects is the fallback lynch...

unvote; vote: Apothecary

[Ythill]

No-lynch D1 leaves us with no more info on D2, and is extremely anti-town.

Besides, you're scum, so lynching you is doubly good.

[Ythill]

The move of Ythill right there was odd though. Deadline is still about two weeks away, there is no need to comprimise a D1 vote at this point.

Who's compromising? You're both scum.

[Ythill]

Oh yeah Ythill, cause two townies dead in one day is certainly better!

You act as if I'm the only one saying no-lynch is anti town.

But of course you wouldn't care about that, because you're scum.

I am astonished by your airtight case.[/sarcasm]

I believe you're at L-1. Time to claim apothecary.

It's L-2, actually. Why the hurry?

And as to what I'll claim: Townie.

This is not a claim.

And when you do lynch me, you'll see your mistake.

Resigned to your fate already? Shouldn't a townie be trying to defend himself and looking for scum to hang?

[Ythill]

It was (and still is) L-1, unless I'm miscounting. SC, ML, Corvuus, Yt, Qwintz voting

with 6 to lynch.

Bold added for emphasis. My bad, I'm used to minis where it's 7 to lynch on D1, I'd forgotten about this. Luckily it was brought up before somebody believed me and accidentally hammered.

unvote

My vote will likely come back to Rx in a little while, but I just woke up (yay Sunday!) and I want to get some coffee in me, study Rx's defenses, and honor his request for a condensed case before I make that decision.

Personally, I still believe you're scum, but I'm probaly reacting badly from your methods.

This has been known to happen. I can be a bastard when I think I'm onto someone.

[Ythill]

I'm not going to claim a power role.

That's not what I meant. “Townie” is an alignment, not a role, hence not a claim. Now that you have clarified that you're not claiming power, I will accept “townie” to mean vanilla. I agree that your claims (both of them) have the ring of a choice, rather than a truthful statement, but I don't know how telling that is.

Anyway, here's the condensed case...

1. Not reading the thread, evidenced by the random-stage question and the vote for discussion when there was plenty of discussion.
2. Lack of suspicions by page 8.
3. Fence-sitting on SC in #196.
4. Lurking (which is linked to points 1&2 above).
5. Quick defenses (#176 is one example) in spite of point 1, suggesting that you not reading the thread is an act (note that this point actually counters point 1).
6. Post #227, in which you defend yourself against accusations aimed at someone else.
7. Ingenuous suspicions against myself (in #367) and SC (in #314, retracted in #367).
8. Making a bold claim (SC is ‘nilla fake-claiming doc) without evidence and then trying to pretend you didn’t say it when questioned.
9. Illogical defenses to some of the above points (see my #402).
10. Another illogical defense in #431.
11. Argument for no-lynch; though it is possible you are just wrong here, because other evidence points to your n00bness, so I see that this could be a null-tell.

So there you have it, Rx. If you are town, I implore you to argue rationally against me. I’ve been wrong plenty of times before and have no desire to mislynch today. In your favor are Llama’s attacks and qwint’s L-1 vote on you, since they are also on my suspect list, though I wouldn’t blame either of them for bussing you with the way you’ve been playing and Llama quickly counteracts his attacks against you by going balls-to-the-wall against one of your attackers (me).

@ everyone:

I'm going to leave my vote off for the moment. However, I will revote Rx if he doesn't defend well against the above,

even if that vote is the hammer

, so I wouldn't recommend putting him @ L-1 again unless you are willing to see him swing.

Also, during my reread I noticed a couple of things unrelated to the above.

First, in spite of the smoking gun dropped by Llama (the model of validity point), I still get a townie vibe from skimming his posts. It’s possible I’m overreacting. I’m still going to consider him a suspect for now, but I don’t know that he’s a good lynch for D1. IGMEOY will suffice.

Secondly, one of Llama’s points against me was that I quickly changed my vote from Atlas to Rx

without even trying to keep an Atlas wagon alive

when the SC wagon fell apart. However, my reread reminded me that I made four posts between the SC claim and my Rx vote, including #353, in which I asked, “Anyone up for an Atlas wagon?”

[Ythill]

@apoc: Not committed to the game? Why weren't you curious and anxious to find the scum? Why didn't you want to commit to an opinion on SC?

I often feel really threatened in these sorts of games when people press me. But 176 was a post because people asked why I voted for Corvuus. (Point 5)

So you admit that you were reading along. Then why did you ask if we were out of the random stage when it was obvious?

If we don't lynch, we'll have one dead innocent tomorrow (assuming one unblocked nk) to re-read today in light of. If we do, we'll have two to analyze - without costing us any time.

This sounds like you know Rx to be town.

[Ythill]

The identities of my suspects should be clear enough. Others' are clear as well, and I don't see any reason to give the scum a one-page reread for NK selection.

I'm waiting on Rx's answers. His defense was more appeal-to-emotion than anything, but qwints possible slip has given me a moment's pause. At least enough to go through a last-minute re-appraisal of Rx.

[Ythill]

@ Ythill, saying that lynching scum is a secondary goal of the D1 lynch is a theory point, not a slip.

I saw your explanation and will keep it in mind (hence me calling it a

possible

slip) but don't expect me to dismiss the tell altogether. I'm still not sure if you're honest or just good at covering your ass.

[Ythill]

It more seems like that if Apoc flips town you have another case to be working on.

I suppose it could be taken that way, but I'd rather prevent a mislynch than attack qwints after one.

[Ythill]

I'd like Rx to answer the questions I posted before we push to hang him.

Qwints, how is your #593 any different than Mac's #590? I think your FoS trigger needs to be adjusted.

[Ythill]

I asked for specific comments.

Mac addressed this as I would have, so I don't need to.

Wasn't apoth's defense the answer to the questions you asked?

He defended in #568. I read his defense and asked more questions in #571. He hasn't posted since then, which is suspicious b/c he wrote, "I hope this is enough, but if not, okay then, fire away," at the end of his defense, which suggests he'd be around to answer questions.

I'm getting sick of waiting, and will probably put my vote back in my next post.

[Ythill]

@apoc: Not committed to the game? Why weren't you curious and anxious to find the scum?

Why didn't you want to commit to an opinion on SC?

Rx: Please answer the bolded question which you have overlooked.

As to your second point, where did I admit that I was reading? I said I didn't like being pressured, and that 176 was a response to my actions.

The initial accusation in point 5 of #558 was that the quick timing of your defenses made it seem like you were reading but not posting. Your defense in #568 was that you felt threatened by pressure. You could not have felt threatened by something you didn't read, so this half of the accusation is proven.

The question remains: why did you ask if we were out of the random stage when it was obvious?

[Ythill]

vote: Apothecary

Tired of waiting for responses.

[Ythill]

I still think the scumgroup is some varient of {SC, MM} + one of {Ythill, Apoth}, with Ythill somewhat more likely.

Considering the view on active lurking you put forth in #611, how is it that you find me more suspicious than Rx, when he has admitted to active lurking?

Ok...so I got home today to find that my husband had been cleaning (he threw out all my mafia notes...grrrr) I'm going to have to read again and get them all assembled.

This excuse was given across the board, and is not likely related to MM's alignment in this game. The meta scan I just gave indicates that MM not living up to her normal activity and wordiness levels (some reasons I've suspected her) is global.

[Ythill]

The question remains: why did you ask if we were out of the random stage when it was obvious?

[Ythill]

There it is again.

@ qwints: Why are you acting as if you know Rx is town? If you think he's town, why are you voting him? If you think he's scum, why are you coaching him? Why bring up the SC claim now, other than to smokescreen?

unvote: vote qwints

[Ythill]

I'm taking him at face value. He asked me what I would do in a "situation like this." I took that to mean what I would do if I was town (as he has claimed) and was close to being lynched. I answered the question in the hope of improving his play in the future.

Yet if he's scum, which you claim to believe, then his townie play isn't being questioned. If he's been caught being scummy because he's mafia, it doesn't make sense to want to improve his play as hypothetical town, because you don't know how he plays as town. You simply don't have the mannerisms of a player who believes Rx is scum, yet you are voting him. Considering my earlier suspicion on Atlas, this rings alarm bells for me. Especially since Rx is the easy lynch of the day which, in my experience, is to be distrusted.

The thing about Rx is that his excuses, though they demonstrate that he is a player who would be worthwhile as town only because he boosts our numbers, are plausible. Atlas never did convince me that his push on Primate was anything but scum tactics and you, qwints, are confirming my suspicions.

I suggest that the rest of you get Rx under 4 votes and join me on this one. Rx might be scum or he might be a bad townie. Atlas/qwints has played more carefully, but is, IMO, more likley to flip scum.

And for those of you who suspect SC, what do you think of his push on Rx?

[Ythill]

Bandwagons that don't start until this close to deadline are dangerous...

True, but the evidence came at this time. The easy lynch is often dangerous as well.

...if we do end up lynching Apoth and he flips scum, I'll be looking very closely at you.

I hope you'll be looking closely at me either way, but Rx as scum is hardly a reason to suspect me more. Meta me. If I was scum and had a buddy getting half as much attention as Rx, chances are we'd have hung him already, and I would have been one of the loudest supporters.

I am town, meaning that I have no idea what Rx's alignment is. The best evidence I've seen of alignment, however, points to qwints as the play, and qwints wants to hang Rx.

Conversely, if Apoth flips town, I think that your points on qwintz and his presupposing Apoth-town aren't bad ones, and I'll be looking at him. Yay for day 2 targets!

This isn't a good idea. You are you telling scum how to manipulate you if I am wrong about qwints but right about Rx. If you think my points "aren't bad" then how can you so off-handedly dismiss them to lynch a person they suggest is town?

Sorry to ask a question when you have declared LA. Someone else from the gallery may pick up where Mac left off if they share his views or wish to argue them for discussion.

[Ythill]

LOL... EBWOP...

You are

you

telling scum...

[Ythill]

Ythill - You claim qwints/Atlas is scum given that he showed knowledge that Apoc is town in 630? I read it as coaching but not necessarily scum-town coaching since he nearly said "do A B C and I will unvote you". I dont see the motivation of scum telling town what to do in order to not get lynched.

If one were to say "do A B C and I will unvote you," and then his target were to follow those steps, it would be easy for him to keep the vote on by claiming, much like qwints has, that the coaching was for next game and the current ABC defense is too little too late, so I don't think the post would hurt qwints-as-scum if Rx was town. Even if it lead to Rx-town avoiding the noose, he'll probably be flipped before endgame and the move then becomes evidence of qwints-scum's cautious townie play.

Qwints' motivation doesn't play a part in my theory and may have been as simple and null as answering Rx's question. It was his manner of speaking and his answers to my questions that suggest he knows Rx's alignment. I haven't claimed that the coaching was a strategic move but, in conjunction with the Primate attack and the first possible slip about Rx's alignment, it provides a conclusion I can't ignore.

However, it occured to me earlier that the move could be an act of scum trying to protect scum-power. I don't think this is likely, which is why I didn't bring it up before, but it's possible.

You must see something in what I've brought up, because you're not spouting the Ythill-is-scum-protecting-his-buddy theory I'd expect from you at this point.

[Ythill]

Also, @ Mac: Fair enough. I understand your PoV. Just please try to remember this conersation tomorrow, no matter what Rx flips, in case I don't live through the night. The evidence against qwints isn't the best I've seen, but it's pretty compelling.

[Ythill]

The day is winding down and it semms as if Rx is going to be the lynch no matter what is said. I'm not entirely against this, since I've seen a fair amount of evidence against him, but I still think qwints is the better play.

Again I ask, if you are one of those who suspect SC is lying scum, why let Rx hang when SC is voting for him and pushing for his lynch?

Anyway... a little late day summary of my beliefs...

SC, Mac, Corvus, and qwints are all voting Rx. I think Mac and corvus are town. I'm undecided on SC but, really, my only points against him are buddying and the claim itself. I never did agree with the early case against him, but doc is a common scum claim and he hasn't been playing like a doc should IMO, so I'm going to watch him closely and will probably propose a future wagon on him before LYLO. Qwints is my PE#1 due to tells dropped across the replacement which is usually a very good indicator of a role's alignment.

MM was on my scum list when I arrived. The main reason was her level of participation, which seemed out-of-character for her. I have since completed a meta-scan, however, and noted that her participation level has declined similarly everywhere and so have bumped her back down to MotR. I will not take action against her until I've gotten a read on a replacement.

Llama is a tough one. His attack on me was forceful. Then I counter-attacked and backed down myself. Now he has backed down. I do see how a townie might have gone through that change of mind, but it still piques my interest a bit, because I can also see scum going for a perceived easy target, realizing the backlash potential after the fact, and taking advantage of an opportunity to avoid further bloodletting. I suppose Llama is still on my suspect list, but he's at the bottom of it.

The remaining players (Cephrir, Elmo, and Jazz) are a little harder to read. I have no comment at all on Jazz except to caution everyone that this role has been allowed to fly under the radar. Ceph I see mostly as town but there are a few small reasons to question that read. Elmo seems scummy occasionally, but mostly null. I should examine these three roles more carefully on D2, but it's kind of pointless now.

[Ythill]

confirm vote: Apoth

We've given Apoth every chance to redeem himself. My read is that he's afraid to give us anything more because he's afraid of outing his scum buddies. At this point we've gotten all we can out of him before the lynch.

This push is interesting.

At this point, Rx will be the deadline lynch in just over two days. You say that he is, "afraid to give us anything more," but it is you who seems to be rushing the day.

Do you feel it will hurt the town to let this lynch happen at deadline? If yes, how? If not, why are you pushing? Also, please give any opinions you have about Llama's latest post (#654).

[Ythill]

Neither is my top choice at this point, but I'll vote to hang Rx over SC if it comes down to it.

Noting the speed and ease with which Llama and qwints allowed themselves to be talked into lynching the claimed doc.

[Ythill]

Unless something surprising happens in the next 12 pages of reading I'm afraid the current leading wagon on apothecary is just gonna be your standard lurkerwagon, which at this point feels like its going to be full of fail.

The wagon on Apothecary is not a lurker wagon. He's also acted very suspicious after my claim. He's misrepresented my stance on claiming and he's non-committal.

QFT. See #558 for a summary of my own points against Rx. Also, see #549 for SC's sum-up of his own (and others?) reasons for voting Rx.

Anyway... I'm disappointed that, even after my second attack, not a soul is willing to act on the evidence against Atlas/qwints. Now that we see how quickly he's agreed to lynch the claimed doc, it should be even more obvious that he's scum.

But it looks like we're being forced into a decision between SC and Rx for the lynch, so I might as well participate. Rx is more likley than SC to be scum, and he's the safer mislynch if both are town.

For those of you voting SC, unless you are n00bs you must surely understand that there are ways of proving or disproving SC's claim before LYLO. Lynching him presents an unacceptable risk so long as there are other alternatives, and it gains us nothing we can't get later, in a safer way. If he's the doc, we either effectively take away the scum kill by not lynching SC (b/c they will target him) or we force them to play WIFOM in keeping our doc alive. That's a win-win for town.

Unvote; vote: apothecary.

I'd still

much

rather hang qwints, so if enough of you decide to agree with me at the last minute, keep in mind that you will have my vote.

[Ythill]

Tied at deadline = no lynch, correct? Beware the deadlock.

There is at least one townie on the SC wagon. That person is making a huge mistake. Whoever you are, please come to your senses. If you doubt my argument, explain why and lets talk about it.

But it's not like the scum would ever kill a hypothetically town SC anyway.

This is a good thing. Doc claims can be confirmed. By not lynching SC we guarentee an advantage for town, no matter what SC's alignment is. Before LYLO we can know

for sure

what his alignment is, and act accordingly, or force the scum to use a NK to regain neutral ground.

I've dealt with a doc-fake claim and an actual doc claim from a player who seemed scummy. Waiting is the best course of action for the town.

[Ythill]

Ythill, you don't seem to be consistent. I thought you said that my "slips" implying that I "knew" apoth was why you thought I was scum. Doesn't this mean that if you think I'm scum, you think apoth is town?

Yes, but I could be wrong. It doesn't seem like lynching you will happen, so I am only able to take the most town-friendly of the options open. Of the choices, Rx has the better chance of being scum and the least risk if both are town. I've already explained this.

If you are scum, there's a pretty decent chance that both SC and Rx are town.

I will note that we need at least four votes to lynch at deadline and that a tie means no lynch. Those not voting (apoth and jazz) need to justify why they think we should no lynch if they want to not vote.

A subtle push of the SC wagon, since Rx will obviously not vote himself.

I suggest a different course... as deadline nears, those voting for a tie need to justify why they are willing to accept a no-lynch over the front-runner for which they are not voting. Since Rx is another major suspect of many SC wagon-jumpers, including yourself, the answers should be entertaining.

[Ythill]

I'd say somebody should drop the hammer.

Seeing as I'm doomed, I'll do it myself.

Unvote: Apothecary
Vote: StrangerCoug

Damn it. You'd better be scum.

[Ythill]

Ythill, you've got some explaining to do.

You seem pretty sure of yourself. Know something about SC's alignment that I don't?

[Ythill]

He self-hammered. He's scum.

I've seen town do it too.

Ythill's ongoing smear campaign against qwints is very nothelpful...

I'm going to venture a guess that it's more helpful than your one-man campaign to hang the claimed doc. I don't know your alignment, but I hope you're scum, because I don't want someone on my team who is gifted in manipulating others while being so clueless about what's good for the town.

[Ythill]

Yeah, by all means pre-declare a vote against me so I don't die tonight.

[Ythill]

Bah! Go get 'em.

[Ythill]

I have now officially lost more games as town than I have won. Somebody lynch me quick before I breed. Oooops... too late.

I haven't been reading deeply enough since my death to grasp all the finer points, but I've been skimming along the whole time. WTF was that SK claim? If I'd been alive, I'd have been hard pressed to not lynch Corvus when he said that, for policy if nothing else.

Good game scum. LF's survivor claim was a nice move.

[Ythill]

Yeah, thanks Huntress. The game was smoothly run and it's hard to believe that it was your first.