Every single one except for The New C9 so far of our finished games, but rofl replaced out of that one.roflcopter wrote:its a random vote. i random vote korts in every game we play together, because he has an alarmingly high rate of being scum when i'm in the game. almost 100%.
Considering the amount of logical fallacies generally used in random voting, why pops in particular? I notice rofl, Netlava among others using clearly broken logic, yet you only point out pops.BlakAdder wrote:unvote, vote:popsofctown
Logical fallicies ftl
How is it strange, and how is it related to experience? I didn't remember that this is a 12 player game. Anyway, my point still stands, and I haven't gotten a reply yet. BlakAdder, why point out only pops' broken logic when it was pretty apparent he wasn't the only one?Netlava wrote:Re-reading the thread, I just thought it strange that an experienced player would think the scumteam had only two players.Korts wrote:EBWOP: actually it's not distancing. I thought the scumteam was only two players, but since it's three, rofl-BA-Net seems more plausible derived from that.
I realize. But I'm trying to make serious discussion out of jokes. That's the general progression into scumhunting.popsofctown wrote:I'm not sure if me or Korts is failing at internet former, my defense of Gambler's Fallacy and saying it's not a fallacy is meant to be a joke.
That's a good question. He's been posting some elsewhere, but to be fair there's little going on here so far. rofl seems pro-town to me atm.Caboose wrote:Speaking of meta...
where's rofl?
:goodposting:GIEFF wrote:I agree with these three points, with the caveat that if we are not to follow Resolution 2b, we should be careful not to reveal the doc to the scum. To help in this regard, EVERYONE should try to mix up whether they pick a person that has been targeted yet for that night, whether they pick a person that they have targeted before, and the order in which they hypo-doc claim.
I've thought about suggesting this before, and no. It gives scum the "most pro-town" vote of the town, and they get an easier NK. I think letting a random person start (random.org or dice should do the trick) and then continuing popcorn style is the best while still keeping scum relatively in the dark.GIEFF wrote:I vote nay on Resolution 3, although I don't think strictly alphabetical is best. Is there a way to give us a little more flexibility? The hider clearing as many townies as possible before dying is CRUCIAL, and limiting his ability to hide behind who he/she thinks is town on the first few nights is very bad. What if the town voted on who gets to hypotarget first? A big drawback of this is just the time commitment it would take to get everybody in the thread and paying enough attention to vote, but I feel it gives us more flexibility than a simple alphabetical system.
It got carried away very fast. I believe that scum would either jump on a good town wagon at this point or start bussing.I'll analyse the wagon when I have the time. Right now, I got a train to catch.Netlava wrote:I find this comment suspicious since I think town would focus more on the specifics rather than vaguely calling out the wagon. Plus, it is a bit of an exaggeration
Would you answer my question with something other than a question, please?Gamma wrote:Do you want it to be an OMGUS case?Korts wrote:Why pre-emptively defend OMGUS accusations? Are you deliberately making an OMGUS case?Gamma wrote:It will most likely get called out as OMGUS. that's fine with me.
OK, I thought that's what you wanted to say. But "someone" is a very general term; "call out a player who is voting someone" does not equal "call out a player who is voting someone on their wagon".Gamma wrote:Listen harder.Korts wrote:Give this sentence another go, please. I can't figure out what exactly this means...Gamma wrote:Not to mention someone will consider it OMGUS to call out a player who is voting someone.
If I made large and unsightly case against someone who had just voted me, would it not sound a little like revenge?
Korts wrote:Either way, cases against someone who voted you aren't definitely OMGUS. If you make your reasons for suspicion clear, any accusation of OMGUS will be invalid. As long as your reasons make sense, of course.Thus, since you were already supposedly preparing a case, pre-emptively defending yourself against any OMGUS accusation makes you look like you have motive to think you'll have to defend yourself and your case.
No, you're supposed to start helping the town again; one single post making a case on ryan does not make you exempt from any further efforts. But I guess an admission of anti-town intentions is good enough too.Gamma wrote:Am I supposed to be scared?Korts wrote:Gamma is unhelpful to a painful extent. Add to that the pre-emptive defense of his case on ryan, and we have a scummyperson.
vote: Gamma
Yes, the whole world is out to get you. Quit whining and give some content--opinions, analyses, anything that would help town catch scum in your opinion.Gamma wrote:No.Korts wrote:Any reasoning besides outright denial?Gamma wrote:It is not.
This is not a scumlynch, as you all know and try to hide. You want to lynch me because I'm not doing a good job of mafia, am I right?
Why talk about Gamma in the third person? It makes you seem more intent upon convincing the town of Gamma's guilt than finding scum.popsofctown wrote:He's still given no new case, or even a reitieration of his other case. He's apparently trying to claim his scummy behavior was induced by the hypo-claim discussion?
While this may have been the case, your explanation rubs me the wrong way. What connection is there between "my last post was not scummy" and the circumstances in which you were prodded? Moving does not absolve you of being non-committing and piggy-backing on others' arguments.ryan wrote:I really don't see how my last post was scummy. I was prodded because I was in the process of moving and packing for schooll after CHristmas break, and didn't have internet up in that time frame.
I would call a vote more a tool than a convention, since it has actual bearing on the game's outcome through lynching. But yes, I agree with this point, you don't have to FoS or HoS when you can just as easily express your suspicions in nicely rounded sentences. Some like the theatrical expressions of pointing a Finger of Suspicion, but I just hate stuff like that. Voting, on the other hand, is always good; I like to keep my vote in action, because it's something that you can use to actually "threaten" people with.popsofctown wrote:EsoMonty, FoS's and votes are just conventions that people optionally use to emphasize their suspicions about a player. (a vote has actual lynching power, but it's sometimes used more as a convention then an actual attempt get someone lynched). No one has to use those conventions if they don't want to. Sometimes i use an FoS or HoS, sometimes i just talk about my suspicions without bolding anything, especially if they aren't serious, aren't tied to one specific action, or are especially dependent on the reaction i get.
You are still expected to make your own opinions. If there were "nothing wrong" with piggy-backing, scum could easily coast to endgame without having to say a single original thought.ryan2754 wrote:Ummm, isn't this game about making a case about someone as scummy and then getting others to follow suit to get someone lynched? Thus, I really don't seem anything wrong with "piggy-backing" or simply agreeing with someone else's argument, especially if it makes sense.Korts wrote:While this may have been the case, your explanation rubs me the wrong way. What connection is there between "my last post was not scummy" and the circumstances in which you were prodded? Moving does not absolve you of being non-committing and piggy-backing on others' arguments.
I also don't think your jab at rofl is justified. rofl's playstyle is more opinion-orientated than based on thorough analysis.
If you want something to read, you should take a look at rofl's posts in isolation in the linked games. His style, while not analysis-orientated, is not, in and of itself, anti-town. Whether opinion-orientated play or analysis-orientated play is better in helping town is another and subjective matter, but you're making a scumtell of something that isn't one.ryan wrote:Umm, whether or not it is his "style," opinion-oriented << thorough analysis.
Well, I'm town, I know that. However, I'm not that sure about you at the moment. Take a look:rofl wrote:korts is this the first..er second.. time you're actually gonna be town in a game with me?)
This doesn't explain his general and quite straightforward unhelpfulness. Try defending your buddy more subtly next time, please.rofl wrote:gamma is starting to look like the vi who attracted a crap bandwagon.
Yes he does, mostly.pops wrote:rofl's "opinion" style is weird to me. He really always does that?
Why are you working so hard on having these two against each other? Scumsenses tingling...EsoMonty wrote:I can see why people are considering you for a lynch, you are being evasive to people's questions. However, I am going to ignore that and reiterate my question. Posts since your scumhunting of ryan. Do you believe that his posts have become scummier or less scummy and how so?Gamma wrote:I'd prefer if you'd explain to me which posts you mean by "latest posts".EsoMonty wrote:
You have FOS ryan and believe that he could be mafia. I am looking to you to look through his latest posts which I believe to be scummy and tell me why I am wrong or right.
@Ryan:
Do you believe that Gamma's latest posts have been scummy? Please explain your answer.
Meh. I still think its real utility is when scum make it, preferably while they still think they could slip away.Xtoxm wrote:No, it's for if you flip town. I've never seen such a request in a position where anyone has then backed down and said, nah that looks town, let's not lynch him.Korts wrote:It's not necessarily for if you flip town. It's much more immediately revealing if you're scum.
I PM'd Incog shortly after my death. I just couldn't wait 'til endgame.GIEFF wrote:When did you find out that I was scum?Korts wrote:Good game, scum. Particularly GIEFF. I suspected a scum win when I found out that you are one of them, and I was especially angry that I chose to target you and you thus had a very good chance to survive by sheer WIFOM of nightkill overlapping with weak doc. I don't blame the town, I blame the scum for this one.
