I claimed haiku herefhqwhgads wrote:Winning scum last game
Townies swinging from the trees
vote: RedCoyote
why would you take this from me?
obviously scum.
I assure you, don_johnson, my motives are pure.don_johnson wrote:distraction, perhaps. is that the best you can do?
'twas spolium who attempted the theft of haiku.
it seems that he says, that if things go his way,
scum catching can result from questionable play.
this may leave us in a pickle, fhqwhgads, my friend,
for how can you trust one such as he in the end
when he knowingly treds on the dark side of life
and mingles with thieves when out of our sight?
This explanation seems reasoned and justdon_johnson wrote:aye, good questions do come
from one named spolium,
my usage of "friend"
was a means to an end.
if i had more skill, or perhaps more time,
i could have searched around for something to rhyme
with fhqwhgads, but alas
how am i to announce
a rhyme for a name i can't even pronounce?
I sought to address this in this post (and as someone noted, the poems don't necessarily have to rhyme), but you're probably right about the comprehensive difficulty. I'll save mine for selective use.Lynx The Antithesis wrote:It's gonna be nearly impossible to keep up with and people can justify slips up by saying that they needed to preserve rhyme.
I don't mind the rhyme once in awhile, but this way is just over-kill. I think we should just play normally with the ocasional flavor thrown in to the mix.
I really don't see this big difference you keep talking about. If there's more discussion taking place then there's more opportunity for scum to slip up, so prompting discussion is more likely to lead to a scumtell than not doing so (as you said yourself, drawing town out of the random phase is essentially pro-town).Goatrevolt wrote:The things I'm suspicious of are:
1. That he voted a target in expectation of later seeing scum tells rather than based off of something he thought was scummy.
2. When I questioned him on 1, he responded that he was just trying to spark discussion, which is completely different reasoning than above.
I'm not sure that this is a fair question. When trying to provoke discussion, it's impossible to determine exactlyGoatrevolt wrote:Secondly, what kind of discussion did you anticipate your vote would spark?
I agree totally.Goatrevolt wrote:This depends entirely on the type of discussion. Discussion of the wrong things can actually harm scum hunting. For example, have you ever seen two townies go at it with each other for 3 pages over minor things? I would argue that isn't helpful discussion. All it does is muddy the waters and make it difficult to pick out who the real scum are.
But since he was called out before the discussion had a chance to start, it's impossible to know what the nature of the resulting discussion would have been. How can you judge the usefulness of a discussion which never took place?Goatrevolt wrote:So, to be more specific on my reasoning:
1."That he voted a target in expectation of later seeing scum tells rather than based off of something he thought was scummy." To go with what I said above, I think this can generate the wrong kind of discussion. Sure, it might generate discussion, but I don't think we'll be any closer to catching scum if everyone votes like this.
The broader explanation doesn't exactly contradict the more specific one, either.Goatrevolt wrote:2."When I questioned him on 1, he responded that he was just trying to spark discussion, which is completely different reasoning than above."His original reasons were specific: To pressure wolf into making scumtells. When I asked him about that, he backed off into the more general: "just trying to spark discussion." To me, that rings of him knowing his original reasons were bogus and so he fell back to "trying to generate discussion" which has the connotation of being a pro-town play.
Because in my experience scum take care to avoid appearing anti-town.Goatrevolt wrote:Why, exactly?Spolium wrote:Frankly, I'd expect scum to take more care in avoiding this.
I see where you're coming from, but I'm getting mixed messages from the emphasised part. Since it is true that he "shut off meaningful responses" by revealing his motives, how could he possibly validate what he did?Goatrevolt wrote:Basically, he voted Wolf, admitted Wolf hadn't done anything wrong, and then said that his vote was specifically to get out of the random phase. By explaining the motivation behind why he did everything and admitting his vote wasn't based on anything,Spolium wrote: In order to answer your question, Budja would have to blindly speculate about whatmightarise from a provocative vote, and such speculation would be easy to criticise. I mean, what answer could Budja give you here which you would even accept as valid?I feel like he shut off meaningful responses. I wanted to know what meaningful responses could even be possibly generated from such a vote. My question was basically a "what did you expect to gain from your actions" kind of question.While he certainly can't predict exactly how people are going to respond to it, I would expect he at least has some general idea of how it could be helpful to the town.
Getting out of the random stage IS generically pro-town, regardless of whether scum initiate it. That doesn't mean that Budja (or anyone who does this) is off the hook - it means that even if it's handled poorly I still view it as a step in the right direction.Ice9 wrote:Holy alarm bells, Batman!Why are you trying to minimize damage for budja?Both of you are labeling what he claims to have been trying to do ("move us out of the random stage") as generically pro-town, which is a silly idea in the first place because if that is always considered pro-town then the scum will justdo thatto get brownie points
I didn't think that it was a terribly productive way to ascertain the reasoning behind Budja's actions, for reasons which I've stated already.Ice9 wrote:but at least goat broke down the flaws in budja's actions and pointed out the possible scum motivation for them. You just blandly agree with the assessment that trying to end the random stage is pro-town whiletrying to get goat to drop the rest of his argument.
I think it's important to make a distinction between the two, since townies can easily and unintentionally do things which are anti-town.Ice9 wrote:And then you go on about how budja is being anti-town but not scummy... uh, what?Could there be a more perfect way to try and get your scumbuddy off the hook? And the last line is just a WIFOM mess.You're saying budja can't be scum because scum wouldn't be so sloppy. Yeah right.
Not quite. My point was that he couldn't answer the question in a meaningful way, nor could anyone. He had already explained his motives as being "to apply pressure" and "to spark discussion", so the only way he could expand upon this would be to guess how a group of individuals (most of whom he hasn't played with before) would react to either of these. He would basically be guessing, and be open to criticism not in the sense that he would be implicated, but in that there would be no "right" answer to give.Ice9 wrote:Spolium wrote:I'm not sure that this is a fair question. When trying to provoke discussion, it's impossible to determine exactlywhatsort of discussion is going to arise (particularly so in a game where everyone is second-guessing themselves/others, and scum are waiting to pounce on any careless townie).
In order to answer your question, Budja would have to blindly speculate about whatmightarise from a provocative vote, and such speculation would be easy to criticise. I mean, what answer could Budja give you here which you would even accept as valid?And you just keep going on the budja cover-up, fielding a question for him by means of trying to get it disqualified. What you've essentially said here is that budja can't answer this question without implicating himself, so he shouldn't answer it at all.
No, I don't think he looks particularly scummy. Where did you get that idea?Ice9 wrote:SoSpolium wrote:Don't get me wrong - I'd like to see a fuller explanation from Budja too. I'm just aware of the fact that he made plays like this as a townie in another game; he seemed to be wishy-washy and vague, was the prime suspect for an entire day, came ridiculously close to a lynching and ended up being the guy who zeroed in on the scum.what you're trying to tell me is that budja looks scummy
My argument was that in my experience Budja has played like this as town, and to say that he's proven himself perceptive and capable where necessary is a far cry from claiming he's the best player we have.Ice9 wrote:but he's actually secretly the best player we haveso we shouldn't lynch him. Well,at least you're getting creative in your protection now.
This was the last game in which WolfBlitzer posted (on 31/01/09), andIce9 wrote:WolfBlitzer's prolonged absence in the face of my suspicion is mighty convenient for him. He seems to have dropped off of everybody's radar altogether.
I've already stated what I thought would've been more productive, and the reason for which that strategy would be ineffective at this point should be resoundingly clear.Ice9 wrote:So instead of oh, I don't know, trying to find a more productive way of ascertaining Budja's reasoning, you tried to shoot down Goat's attempt to do so?
This comment had nothing to do with making excuses for Budja; you questioned my position, and I tried to clarify it.Ice9 wrote:Stop. Making. Excuses. For. Budja.Spolium wrote:I think it's important to make a distinction between the two, since townies can easily and unintentionally do things which are anti-town.
I'm not sure what you're trying to say here - that townies never do things which are interpreted as (or actuallyIce9 wrote:You're using your opinion - and yes its an opinion, not a fact - as this general brain sink to avoid actually analyzing Budja's actions.
To say something can be anti-town but not scummy might not explain much in and of itself, but the point of saying it in the first place was to explain my position. You can consider his actions scummy all you wish, but I would prefer to reserve my judgement in this case.Ice9 wrote:Saying "its anti-town but not scummy" explains absolutely zero. And yes, it is WIFOM, and I'll call it a mess if I want to.
I wouldn't have criticised the question if I didn't think it stifled information in and of itself.Ice9 wrote:Every answer to every question is meaningful in some way, and trying to get someone tonotanswer a question is only stifling the flow of information.
Budja's lack of in-depth answer is currently revealing information through the reactions of other players. The way in others are deviating from his case is giving us further information. This arguably tells us more than a direct answer from Budja would.Ice9 wrote:The way in which he speculated could have been helpful in diagnosing whether he is pro or anti-town, but now it won't be since you gave him such an overt in thread warning to stay the hell away from the topic because its a minefield.
I don't find this to be the case, necessarily (and certainly not in the context of the meta-argument which I was making). I would consider "wishy-washy and vague" to beIce9 wrote:Well when you call somebodySpolium wrote:No, I don't think he looks particularly scummy. Where did you get that idea?or at least liken him to somebody who's play you characterize in such a way, I just assume that like the rest of us you find wishy-washy and vague to be indicative of trying to cover something up, like for instance an alignment which is anti-town.Spolium wrote:wishy-washy and vague
How exactly is meta "uncalled for" in this case? It's entirely relevant to the argument which people are making against Budja.Ice9 wrote:But you are providing a totally uncalled for meta defense. Got it.Spolium wrote:My argument was that in my experience Budja has played like this as town, and to say that he's proven himself perceptive and capable where necessary is a far cry from claiming he's the best player we have.
I've already demonstrated where you misrepresented my arguments. Asking me to do it again is a redundant exercise, and smacks of an attempt to pull this around in circles.Ice9 wrote:How have a misrepresented your arguments. Please, demonstrate this to me. Because it seems to me that all that has happened here is, you bolded what you perceived to be the weakest part of my points and responded to these (I believe thats called... strawmanning, is it?... and responded to these by simply restating your same points in more wordsSpolium wrote:Ireallydon't like this. Your flagrant misrepresentation of my arguments
NowIce9 wrote:If you'd like to try and prove that mySpolium wrote: (not to mention loaded language - see the bold text in the above quotes) concerns me a great deal.writing stylesomehow makes me scum, I'm all ears.
Okay, you have a point here - consider this retracted. I thought you'd placed FoS on more than a couple of people, but a reread suggests I was mistaken.Ice9 wrote:I am casting suspicion in very specific directions, and not simply "hoping that something will stick," I am driving home the point to make sure that it does.
Okay, bandwagoning noted.Ice9 wrote:Ok, did you not see the part where I spoke of my agreement with the case already in place against Budja? If every single person voting for someone had to bring some new, unique piece of data forward we would very likely never get anywhere at all. We can't all be the shepherd, my friend. On a bandwagon, somebody has to play sheep.
What's loaded about it? Calling someone out on inactivity during a general state of inactivity is an underhanded and manipulative way to cast further suspicion.Ice9 wrote:Talk about loaded language.Spolium wrote:This was the last game in which WolfBlitzer posted (on 31/01/09), andhe hasn't posted elsewhere since then, even in his other active game.
This is a ridiculously insidious way to drum up suspicion against someone.
Step 1: Click "profile" on a WolfBlitzer postIce9 wrote:Well, excuse me for not checking site wide player logs before making a comment.
Until WolfBlitzer returns (assuming he is not replaced, which seems increasingly likely) there is not a great deal we can do about it. Personally I'd be more concerned about Springlullaby's lurking - although I find her comments in #77 interesting - as I haven't come across many townies who risk this sort of play - RC's comment in #81 reflects my own feelings.Ice9 wrote:My point that he is dropping, and has dropped, off of the communal radar is still valid.
I don't really need to see any further response from Ice9 to the argument which was carried on from my exchange with Goat. We really were butting our heads together there, since we're each likely to stand our ground on those points whether either of us are town or scum.Lynx The Antithesis wrote:Things do change in mafia though. On a similar note, I don't really agree with the change of direction you've tried to create by your recent line of questioning. By shifting your focus you've evaded Spolium's response. You say that butting heads with him isn't helpful, which can be true if other players use at to shy away from participating, but it's still necessary to address points against yourself even if you don't want Spolium to be lynched.
Okay, so amend the enboldened text to readGoatrevolt wrote:The bolded section is wrong, and that's where your hypocrisy case breaks down. It has nothing to do with "giving potential scum an easy ride." It has everything to do with the players attacking SL jumping on her, but ignoring the other discussion at hand and that being scummy.Spolium wrote:FHQ: I have a feeling Budja may be a scapegoat. That Goatrevolt is pushing the case on him seems noteworthy in that mistaken judgement on his part is bolstering a case for scum to push.
Ice9/Goat: We have a feeling Spring may be a scapegoat. That some players are pushing the case on her seems noteworthy since their negation of the larger debate isgiving potential scum an easy ride.
I would disagree. While it's true to say that his statement "Goatrevolt wrote:In my case against fhq, I attack him on the basis of "shutting down scumhunting" because he presents the idea that pressuring mistakes could lead to someone being wrongly accused and construes that as possibly scummy.
As I noted previously, I see a distinction in terms of how each scapegoat argument was presented, but not in theGoatrevolt wrote:This is completely different than the situation with SL. In the case of SL, I attack people jumping on SL, not because they could be wrong about SL and lead to SL getting wrongly lynched but because they jumped on SL but subsequently ignored other nearby discussion. Do you see the distinction? My idea that SL is a scapegoat comes after this fact, based on my interpretation that the votes on her are scummy, thus she is less likely to be scum.
The context shifts substantially without the "if" since he never claimed to know that "Goatrevolt wrote:Does the context really change with or without the if? Can you honestly read that post and not get the general impression that fhq thinks we're just townies arguing amongst ourselves, even though he says "if"? The fact that he then suggests we pressure a lurker instead agrees with my interpretation.
Presumably you're referring to FHQ's "Goatrevolt wrote:I also want to add to my suspicion of Fhq the fact that his post prior to the one I jumped on was him first saying that the "biggest thing for him was Budja's 3rd vote" and following it up by basically coaching Budja in what he should do next. Biggest thing for him is Budja's 3rd vote implies suspicion. Coaching does not imply suspicion, as why would you ever want to coach someone you think is scum? I consider this to be a pretty big point.
All I did was point out why I thought the questions seemed off to me. As I said before, there's nothing wrong with the questions in themselves (that a couple were probably not worth asking is merely my opinion) and I have in no way suggested that youIce9 wrote:Why is it that all you ever seem to be doing is trying to shut down other people's attempts to scumhunt?
You said: "Goatrevolt wrote:No, it doesn't. The bolded section is still wrong. You're still missing the point entirely. It had absolutely nothing to do with "shifting emphasis" or anything else you have proposed. It had entirely to do with people attacking springlullaby for lurking, when they had avoided discussion themselves (aka, hypocrisy).Spolium wrote:Okay, so amend the enboldened text to reada sign of scum trying to shift emphasis from the larger debate. My point still stands.
See above.Goatrevolt wrote:"It is by no means a scumtell, but hey guys, if Budja flips town, Goat is to blame. Just pointing that out. Lurker anyone?" The rest of that clearly suggests the opposite. Actions louder than words.
Interesting. While semantics and presentation are undeniably important, at this point I would prefer to take the stated reasons for actions with a pinch of salt, since we we know that scum will be lying. I'd rather study theGoatrevolt wrote:Both are similar, and have similar storylines about scapegoating. The reasons, are entirely different, and the reasons why people do stuff is so much more important than what is actually done.
So basically he said "if we are townies fighting among ourselves then lurking scum are getting off light" and proceeded to state that there should be more pressure on lurkers.Goatrevolt wrote:He never outright claimed that "we are just townies fighting among ourselves." You're absolutely right. He put an "if" in front of it. However, he then goes on to ignore everyone in that group and push for lurkers. That means that he DOES think we are just townies fighting among ourselves. Actions...louder than words.
I never said you did. I just don't think this supports your "how does he know who the townies are" angle.Goatrevolt wrote:Nope, and I've never attacked him specifically because he did attack lurkers.Spolium wrote:His suggestion that lurkers be pressured is hardly an uncommon sentiment.
Sure, you present it in a different way to FHQ, but the implication of both statements is the same - that Budja needs to explain himself.Goatrevolt wrote:I don't see "now you gotta follow through buddy" as at all the same as "explain yourself, Budja". The first implies that Budja has gotten the attention of the world, and now needs to do something to satisfy us, i.e. "Ok Budja, you've gotten attention. Now follow through and tell us what you've learned or how it was pro-town, etc." The second is us asking Budja to tell him why he did what he did, i.e. "This is what you did. Why was it pro-town?"Spolium wrote:Presumably you're referring to FHQ's "now you gotta follow through buddy" when you say "coaching".
Tell me: how is this "coaching" any more than you or Ice9 telling Budja that he needs to explain himself?
Do you see the difference. What fhq said was "here's what you need to do to look pro-town." What I did was "here's where you didn't look pro-town, what gives." Large difference there.
When I first mentioned it in the thread (#90) I did not address your direct criticisms of him or provide "answers" for him - I pointed out the similarities between his scapegoat comment and yours/Ice9's, then highlighted what I considered to be a discrepancy in the reasoning for your attack based on hindsight.Goatrevolt wrote:Along this same vein. Why are you providing answers for fhq? A simple: I disagree with your case, but I'll let fhq defend himself so we can get a better read on his alignment would have sufficed. I don't really think you're all that scummy Spolium, but you gotta cut that out. Letting people answer for themselves gives them a chance to slip-up and out themselves as scum.Ice9 wrote:Why is it that all you ever seem to be doing is trying to shut down other people's attempts to scumhunt?
I'd like to see Ice address your question about SL as well, but it's interesting to note that you've danced a little dance around mine.Goatrevolt wrote:At this point, I think Ice should address your extended case. Originally, I didn't have a problem with him avoiding it because he was absolutely correct in that it was a back and forth between the two of you and everyone was staying out of it. Now that others have stepped into the mix, we should hear it. I also want ice to answer my question about his question to SL.Spolium wrote:Open Question:Would you consider Ice9's continued evasion of my extended case against him to be a subtle attempt to shut down my own attempts to scumhunt? Please elaborate further if you do not think this is the case, preferably with reference to his claims that I am doing so to him.
Good job I didn't make that assertion then, isn't it?Goatrevolt wrote:You seem to think that when the word "scapegoat" is used it implies the situations are identical. You seem to think that when someone claims another person is a scapegoat I am supposed to immediately perceive that the situations are identical and respond in exactly the same manner. That is a ridiculous assertion.
Indeed so, and as I noted previously, the implications of each of the "scapegoat" comments are basically the same.Goatrevolt wrote:Why they called the other person a scapegoat, how they went about doing it, the implications behind it, are the ENTIRE point.
If I were comparing your case on FHQ's scumminess to your case on the scumminess of Spring's attackers, you would have a point here.Goatrevolt wrote:Look at these two situations without the word scapegoat:
I think Fhq is scummy because he implied that if Budja is town, I am scummy for having pressured him. In doing so, he establishes the precedent that "if you attack someone and they are town, then you are scummy for having attacked them" which is a deterrence to scumhunting.
I think the people attacking spring are scummy because they attacked her for lurking when they are just as guilty of lurking, having avoided the discussion of Budja/fhq. The hypocrisy present is scummy
This example only really works because the motives of the people are verifiable. This is not the case with you and FHQ - how can I be expected to take your comment at face value, or give it any credence over FHQ's?Goatrevolt wrote:Real life example: A man goes into a store and takes an item without paying for it and leaves. That is wrong. A cop goes into a store and takes an item without paying for it and leaves, but immediately outside the store uses that item to save another person's life. That's not wrong. Just because both people took an item from the store doesn't mean both situations are identical and should be treated the same way. The "Why" behind them taking an item is what is ultimately important here and what is relevant in whether or not they are justified or wrong in stealing.
I appreciate your effort (it says more good of you than can be said for Ice9), and do not require a further response from you regarding the above. Right now I would like to know what others think of the case, given our respective arguments.Goatrevolt wrote:I have summed up the above situation as clearly as I possibly can and expressed it in a variety of fashions. If you still don't get it after this point, there is literally nothing more I can say.
I agree, it doesn't. The fact remains that nothing about that post stands out as scummy to me, and consequently I am compelled to question your accusations.Goatrevolt wrote:What you have done above is point out a scenario where Fhq could be town and his actions make sense from a town perspective. That doesn't mean he is town or that the above actually was his mentality.Spolium wrote:Why is this suspicious again? His actions follow logically from his statement, and I'm yet to see how either of those implies that he knows who the townies are. Assuming FHQ is town for a moment, if he was willing to accept Budja's retraction, an expected consequence of this would be the realisation that in pushing Budja hard you were building a case which could benefit scum, who wouldn't need to be a part of the debate in order to benefit. Were I in his position, my thoughts may also have turned to lurkers.
I thought I had explained the "why", but I can try again.Goatrevolt wrote:Wrong. Coaching involves telling someone how to do something to perform better. That is entirely in the future tense. "This is what you need to do to appear pro-town." That is coaching. "This is what you failed at, explain yourself" is not coaching, unless you are only asking expressly for the purpose of later on saying "so now this is what you need to do". What I did was investigating, scumhunting, etc. It's asking someone to explain what their actions in the past tense for the purpose of divining their alignment. Telling someone what to do in the future tense to play correctly is coaching.Spolium wrote:If we assume either of you are scum, BOTH of these become examples of coaching. The only difference is that you were less overt.
So yes, what Fhq did was coaching. "Now you gotta follow through buddy" is telling Budja "this is what you now need to do after the actions you have taken." That is not how someone interacts with a player they deem suspicious.
You trying to paint my scumhunting as coaching based on literally no logic whatsoever is scummy. All you are doing is placing the two side by side and saying they are the same without explaining why.
I find the term quite suitable. Lynx pointed out that he thought Ice9's shift was evasive, and don_johnson seems to think that his lack of response is worth mentioning also. Ice9 has posted once since the latter stated his opinion, only to accuse me of attempting to block his scumhunting (where I arguably did not); he has therefore not only evaded the case initially, but continued to do so despite it being mentioned explicitly by two other players.Goatrevolt wrote:As of right now, no. The reason is that I think your term "continued evasion" is misleading. The reason I find it misleading is that it suggests that Ice has acknowledged that others want to hear his response and has still declined to answer. To my knowledge that has not happened.Spolium wrote:To rephrase: now that others are "stepping into the mix", thereby negating Ice9's reason for casually disregarding my extended case, do you think Ice9's continued evasion of said case is scummy? If not, why not?
Weird. I could've sworn that this exchange took place:Goatrevolt wrote:Absolutely nothing, and I never implied it did.Spolium wrote:Just out of curiosity, what has my use of the term "continued evasion" got to do with whether or not Ice9 is scum?
In retrospect, I am perhaps coming on a little hard, and think it would be best if IGoatrevolt wrote:That has more to do with my own perception of you. You are exaggerating the situation. I didn't find Ice's original reasons for avoiding debate with you scummy at all. After that, people called for him to answer your post. That call from others right there marks the starting point from which you can legitimately accuse him of "evasion." He has posted once since then, and it was a 1-line post.
Your term "continued evasion" insinuates that this is a repeated offense than has gone unchecked. In reality, it's one post, and that single post was a 1-line post. Ice didn't address my question to him or a variety of other issues in that post as well. What you are labeling as evasion, and not even evasion but "continued evasion," would in reality be much more aptly labeled as "hasn't gotten around to it yet." I'm suspicious of the hyperbole here and how you are making this into something larger than it actually is.
Try to understand that I'm not assuming a conclusion, butGoatrevolt wrote:This is absolutely absurd. You skirt the real issue and use ridiculous reasoning and assumptions to ignore the facts.
I would consider it a weak tell.Goatrevolt wrote:Do you think a player coaching someone they think is scum is scummy? I want you to directly answer that question.
Agreed.Goatrevolt wrote:In other news, there is by far enough information in the thread right now for springlullaby to form opinions.
This also seems reasonable.RedCoyote wrote:Both you and Ice9 seem to be at each others throat. Now that Wolf has been replaced, which is where these problems stemmed from, perhaps we should focus this energy to interrogating him.
I was willing to accept that he wanted to drop the debate over Budja, and I was in agreement that it was for the best at that stage. However, I had presented a further case based on the respective scapegoat comments, which I thought was worth a response (as did you, and you specifically said so in #98). His total lack of response to that did not really sit well with me, though as noted above I may have been hasty and would be willing to drop it for the moment in favour of obtaining more information from others.RedCoyote wrote:I don't like the term evasion because Ice9 made it clear he wanted to drop the issue. Ice9 said there wasn't much meat left in it, and said he would rather ask new questions of other people. I don't know why you would call that evading.
Yeah, I think you nailed the misunderstanding there.There's the issue then. You're assuming I'm comparing them as two scum buddies, and then you're showing how me and Budja as two scum buddies would be similar. I now understand your point, and the disconnect is that you are wrongly assuming that I think Fhq/Budja are necessarily scum buddies. I think the evidence suggests that it's scum-to-town, but I need to rethink this when I'm not as tired.
I'd never have thought of it in this way.Goatrevolt wrote:My thoughts of scum-to-town are based on my idea that fhq slipped up in revealing knowledge of Budja-town.
As for why he would do it, I don't actually know, but I can wager a guess. I've been called out for coaching before when I was scum and it was a very valid point against me, so it's one of those personal tells I pay attention to. I think it's very meaningful. Have you noticed that people generally address those they consider town in more of a nice, friendly manner, and address those they consider scum in a more hostile fashion? Coaching involves being nice and helpful to someone by explaining what they should do. People with legitimate suspicion do not act this way to those they are suspicious of, hence it reflects insincerity.
As for my own personal example, I was scum, and the other player was town. I was "coaching" him because I thought being helpful and telling other people how to play a better game made me look more pro-town. In reality it was a beacon of how insincere my suspicion really was.
I find this statement alarming. You don't know who Ice9 is?don_johnson wrote:i have no idea who Ice9 is
Neither do I, but if the scope of meta available for a player was pertinent to something I wanted to know then I would consider it prudent to check their post history.don_johnson wrote:nor do i check peoples posting frequency or location as a matter of habit
Interesting. Is there any particular reason that you didn't raise such concerns when I employed meta to explain Budja's actions?don_johnson wrote:so i dislike people referring to meta in most cases, and when they do i prefer to question them on it and find out where they are getting it(unless i agree with them).
Can you be more specific? Why do you like it, exactly?Jebus wrote:Post 32 - Budja jumps on wolfwagon. I like this move.
Same goes for this - why would you consider such a declaration to be a "bad move"?Jebus wrote:Post 35 - RedCoyote. About halfway through he declares the RVS over, something I've learned is a bad move.
Noteworthy in what sense?Jebus wrote:Post 67 - fhqwhgads: "I am however, willing to accept Budja's retraction. I just get this funny feeling that he's being the scapegoat here..."
The mention of this is very noteworthy to me.
Can you elaborate on what you consider to be "Jebus wrote:What singled out fhqwhgads for me was how he said it - he thought you were being used as a scapegoat. The general connotation of the post was just off.Budja wrote:I have to say I don't really like the fhq case.
Fhq said that he considered me a scapegoat after I had stated my actions.
I think he was just trying to stop the town becoming too tunnel-visioned, not that that was a problem in this case. A few people have also at least partly accepted my explanation (e.g Spolium,Lynx). I don't see why fhq should be singled out here
Maybe I should have phrased this one more clearly.Jebus wrote:The general connotation of the post is how the wording makes it sound. Words are powerful, you know.Spolium wrote:Can you elaborate on what you consider to be "the general connotation of the post"?
Aka, this is the same thing as the vibe you get from a post.
Interesting observation - I hadn't considered this, and was beginning to lean a little towards a Spring vote. Are such roles common in Normal games here?RedCoyote wrote:The only thing that worries me is that we have no idea what roles are out there, and I'll suggest here and now that maybe spring has something to gain through her own lynching.
Dodgy assessment, since (a) it was the jokevote stage, and (b) haiku are somewhat limiting. I do recall that you requested that people clarify whether they were being serious or not so I'm not overly concerned about this.springlullaby wrote:Spolium:
16. RV GADS
17. another joke on the RV - trying to hard to make it look random?
19. bizarre jumpiness, bait for banter, yet very quick to say 'only jest'
21, 22. clearing confusion, reafirm only joke - looks nervy
These two are somewhat related. I had become aware that people may try to explain away terms and phrases perceived to be scummy by claiming poetic license. #36 was meant to address this potential problem and improve clarity, so I'm not sure why you didn't like it given that you were one of the first to call for this.springlullaby wrote:33. response to don, a little dramatic maybe, the friend acusation seems a litte too obvious - hard to tell if it's the style or what
36. general warning about word use - do not like
I was actually expecting someone to point this out a lot sooner.springlullaby wrote:74. write post in draft - serious business is serious, may be scummy
I'm not sure what point you're making (bold) - is it that townies are often hypocritical and thus arguments based on hypocritical behaviour are less valid?springlullaby wrote:90. reply to Ice, nice and tidy. "as I haven't come across many townies who risk this sort of play" - scumslip? - interesting sophisticate looking case on goat, the contradiction is there but it is kinda nitpicking,townies are very hypocrite creatures too
I don't really understand this either. What do you think I was suggesting about Ice/Az, and why?springlullaby wrote:96. something about urgency of drawing people's attention away on Az' part - a little convoluted maybe, I don't like this kind of open ended accusation,seems to be suggesting Ice/Az
Actually, I was voting Ice9 at the time - that vote was placed in #73.springlullaby wrote:117. UNVOTE - wait did you ever vote goat in the first place? I don't think so.
For the record, my suspicion of you has lessened considerably since you started participating more actively, and in light of this:springlullaby wrote:173. fraid of jester it seems, beginning to lean toward a me vote
As I said before, I don't think I've played with anyone who engaged in such... aggressive lurking? This seems a suitable phrase.springlullaby wrote:175. same to you as to jebus - do not presume to know how other people should play.
Oh man, that's too perfect.Goatrevolt wrote:Hahahaha. Freudian slip?Spolium wrote:Generally I consider lurking to be frustratingly anti-town. Lynx's post (#204)scumsup my own feelings on you at the moment, though in itself your slightly bizarre approach is a null tell.
I've given this some thought, and tentatively I'd have to say Budja or Spring, for the following reasons:springlullaby wrote:Spolium shut up you're gonna give us up with slips like that haha...Seriously though, you aren't voting. Who's your prime lynch candidate in face of a deadline?
Eh? A deadline has already been set. Why are you asking for a deadline if you don't have enough time to answer?I'd like to ask for a deadline, because I actually don't have all the time I need to answer.
If you're town you want to give me the time to answer everything.
Announcing something before doing so does not necessarily excuse it.RedCoyote wrote:Her post was prefaced with the comment that that post was her uncensored shorthand for following this game.Spolium 234 wrote:- wallpost ambiguous enough to explain away "misinterpretations" if necessary
I didn't exactly mean that she wrote it with the intention of being ambiguous; it would be more accurate to say that the ambiguity which arises from the rough notekeeping style would make for an excellent scumscreen (where town would benefit from greater clarity). I will concede that this is a bit WIFOMish though.RedCoyote wrote:To argue that she concoted it is one thing, to argue that it was purposefully ambiguous is another. I found her summation of most players to be apt, and I don't expect a post such as hers to be 100% accurate with regards to everyone's interpretations at the time they made the post.
This is a fair point - all poor votes should be considered - but it's the flexibility of Spring's "good to vote" list which concerns me, not just in itself but also in light of the aforementioned flexibility of her shorthand notes.RedCoyote wrote:I see this as much less of a sin then some of the other players here. [..] I think all of these players have a worse record for voting than spring does because spring has given us her a recent, updated opinion of the game... you know, like she actually cares about who we're going to lynch today.Spolium 234 wrote:- "I'm happy to vote players x, y and z" with no vote
Wait, what? Haven't you been criticising various cases on Spring primarily because you believe that they're rooted in WIFOM?RedCoyote wrote:I'm certainly not going to deny it's a possibility,fhq 231 wrote:Directly after her post, my feelings toward her were much more positive. But I didn't study her post thoroughly and only focused on the things she accentuated. This is exactly what I think she tried to do with that post. Reading back the responses about the amount of mistakes she made, it seems to me these 'notes' weren't made during the game, but rather after the fact.my whole point is it just seems so unlikely for scum to draw that much attention to themselves, especially a more seasoned player like spring.
RedCoyote wrote:Let me ask you something fhq, can you think of a valid strategy behind what she did if she were scum?I can't think of anything reasonable outside of the complete WIFOM argumentthat, "she anticpated we would get upset at her inactivity but then write her off completely once she posted some notes".
My goodness, you have!RedCoyote wrote:I don't think one player here has given a decent reason to look at spring that isn't completely derived in WIFOM(e.g. only scumspring would post "notes" like that).
As for the rest of the post... well, when it comes down to it, explaining away an extended defence of a particular player as anRedCoyote (300) wrote:Moreover, I've said that lynching spring is acceptable today. Granted, I think that would be a bad move on the town's part, because I certainly don't think she's the most scummy player here, but spring has no one but herself to blame for ignoring the game as she hasn't given anyone an acceptable excuse of her behavior other than "deal with it".
It doesn't bother me that your argument derives from WIFOM - playing mafia well demands WIFOM, even if using it as an argument is something of a faux pas - my problem lies with (1) the fact that you are declaring other cases on Spring invalid for being WIFOM when yourRedCoyote (300) wrote:Whether or not one wants to hold her more accountable for her lurking is not up for argument. I have said that I don't like it, but I've also said it would be hypocritical of me to continue to pursue that point chiefly because I don't think it's a rational scum move. Whether or not that position is derived in WIFOM is irrelevant because I'm not sping; I don't pretend to know why spring did or didn't do something. It's my opinion of her, not a stated defense of her.
Goat called out RC on the basis that he carried on countering attacks on Spring, evidently contradicting the above declaration.RedCoyote (230) wrote:I'm not ashamed to admit I've had a change of heart on spring. Do I agree with the way she played this game? No, and I've said as much. She says, essentially, "Well I did it, now call me out for it or don't".If Goat or Lynx want to continue pushing her on that point, then I will await and see how much else they'll learn from it, but I don't think she's scum at the moment.
It seems that Goat didn't really return to that point, but I feel it is a potent one. RC shifted from "RedCoyote (254) wrote:as I'm basically trying to say that I don't really see the necessity behind it but I will not completely shut my mind out to it if it produces anything.
I must be missing something - what is the link between FHQ's statement and Goat's statement, and why does it justify a vote?Budja wrote:That is a really good point.fhqwhgads wrote: [...] or you KNOW spring's alignment already
Reminds me a fair bit of an quite insightful comment Goatrevolt said way back.
unvote: Vote RedCoyoteGoatrevolt wrote:As for my own personal example, I was scum, and the other player was town. I was "coaching" him because I thought being helpful and telling other people how to play a better game made me look more pro-town. In reality it was a beacon of how insincere my suspicion really was.
Looks like you just overtook don on my scum-scale.
That depends on how likely is it that there are more than two mafia in a game of this size, though IMO it's likely to be a red herring (or otherwise irrelevant). Probably best to ignore it.Spring wrote:Significant or not?Budja wrote:Good luck to myscumbuddy. At least I got you the Doc.
That push in the direction of a lynch concerns me either way, really.Goatrevolt wrote:If he intended to self-hammer, then he failed pretty hard by not checking the vote count first. Or maybe he just voted himself because it's obvious he's going to get lynched after claiming scum.
Prior to post 300, 183 was actually the last time that you so much asRedCoyote wrote:You shouldn't as I've mentioned the prospect of a spring lynch since post 184.Spolium wrote:I don't know about anyone else, but I can't help but get a backpedalling vibe from RC when reading #300
It doesn't matter a damn what you consider it when your recent posting history goes something like:RedCoyote wrote:Just like calling my "defense" WIFOM is meaningless. I don't consider it a defense.
I guess you missed #275, which highlights the two occasions on which you criticised other arguments on the basis of WIFOM.RedCoyote wrote:There's something wrong with this. My contention has always been that I prefer the explanation that spring made a genuine post to the idea that it was concocted. I've made clear my own positions on spring. Without reading back, I don't think I've called another player out for a WIFOM argument on spring. I've said that many of the cases against her were derived from speculation, which is a different idea altogether.
Bullshit. When someone says "RedCoyote wrote:The rest of your post is reading far too much into my word choice.
He's already claimed scum. Why are you presenting reasons - vague, gutty reasons - for finding him scummy at this point?millar13 wrote:Vote: Budja for the simple fact he just comes off so scummy it isn't true. I know I am deep into this...but he is uncannily evil
Not necessarily, no.RedCoyote wrote:I need to ask you a question, because it could change this entire argument altogether. When one player references another player, gives their opinion of another player's actions, in a game of mafia, does italways necessarilyfall into a category of either offense or defense?
I don't think this is relevant. While it's true that you said you considered it unlikely for her to be scum and you were willing to see what others would learn from their push on a given point, the fact remains that you went on to argue with them as they tried to pursue said point.RedCoyote wrote:The context within the comment entailed a level of pointlessness in the current flow of questioning. Namely because I think Goat and Lynx were both pushing spring on the wrong things, that her post was flawed because they saw it as ingenuine.
I emphasized specific parts of the comment to help break it down. I said I would wait and see if they learned anything, but as for me, I was in the spring = town camp at that moment.RC 230 wrote:If Goat or Lynx want to continue pushing her on that point, then I will await and seehow much elsefrom it,they'll learnat the moment.but I don't thinkshe's scum
No, I am under the impression that when you declared your intention to wait and see what happened when Goat or Lynx pursued their points against Spring, you would have done just this.RedCoyote wrote:What's throwing this discussion off is I think you are under the impression that I was just as interested in Goat's questions that he was.
Actually, what I said was "springlullaby wrote:Spolium has been pinging me too. You said you didn't think RC was scum, yet you are pushing him now.
At least I wasspringlullaby wrote:In fact, you haven't done much since that flaccid case on Ice ages ago and been barely scrapping by from participation bonus because of your long winded and unproductive argument with Goat.
How have I been discreet about questioning RC, exactly?springlullaby wrote:Plus I think of all people, you have been discreetly pushing for case other than budja's toward the end of the day.
Goatrevolt wrote:Tell you to wait in line.millar13 wrote:If i said i was mafia and wanted you all dead...what would you do to me?
Option 3: you are scum, there is no doctor and you orchestrated the doc claim/counter claim and the subsequent no kill to throw people off the scent.Spring wrote:Hmm. Either I succeeded in my protect. Either there wthe as no kill/ delayed kill/ some other kind of screw.
However unlikely, I see it as a viable option, and hardly a complicated one. The only real problem was the one you mentioned - that scum could not be sure that there was a doc in the town. Regardless, the following points are of concern to me:Goat wrote:Seriously? This is a highly complicated gambit that is both extremely unlikely and has a huge chance to fail. What if there was a real doc, who counterclaimed both of them? Besides the fact that it would be hilarious for two scum to out themselves in a unnecessarily complicated failing gambit day 1, the chances of them actually attempting to coordinate something like this is pretty much zero.
I'm pretty suspicious of this here. Resistance to confirming innocents is scummy.
In your own time, I guess. Is teasing the town with your protection target the new lurking?Spring wrote:I am pondering whether to reveal who I protected as of for now. Maybe a later, if I feel like it.
Assuming you mean his's point about lynching Spring, I do not think it is a good idea. The position town is in at the moment might appear favourable but ultimately the lack of NK has denied us information, and popping offRC wrote:Does DO have what you would call a good point (post 378)?
I'm working under the assumption that you mean the general proposal of the double doc claim business, as opposed to DO's Spring lynch proposal.RC wrote:Do you think Goat being too dismissive of this proposal (post 374/381)?
I believe I've already noted both that I am currently satisfied with the claim and that I don't consider the double doc claim scenario to be overly likely.Goat wrote:Complicated may not have been the right word. I wasn't trying to say that the plan was somehow difficult to wrap your mind around, but rather than it was a convoluted scenario to accomplish a simple goal. I meant that it was an extremely roundabout and risky play for minimal reward. The reward in this case being an attempt to confirm a player by handing the noose to another. Occam's razor is a good way to describe it. Which is more likely, Spring is the doc, or this convoluted "you claim doc, and I'll counterclaim it" scenario?
I can see how you read 373 to mean that and will admit I could've worded my thoughts more appropriately.Goat wrote:There's a difference between "a degree of skepticism" and what you did. The last part of your post 373 reads exactly like you believe Option 3 to be the truth, right down to the part where you ask her for her target and reasoning. Since then, you've been wishy-washy on it, eventually settling to Spring not a top suspect but you're still suspicious.
I'm not implying anything - the mention of a third scum just stands out to me. It could suggest that you consider it likely for there to be a third scum, or perhaps you have special information which leads you to believe it. Maybe you just threw it in there to imply that anyone casting suspicion on Spring could be a third scum, or maybe you were trying to highlight what you saw to be a ridiculous situation.Goat wrote:I'm guessing you're referring to the Budja "good luck to my scumbuddy" post, suggesting a 2-man team based on the singular word choice? I'm not putting much weight in it. I think it would have been a valid consideration if we had seen two night kills or something last night, suggesting multiple scum groups, but the lack of any would suggest a singular killing faction.Spolium wrote:I find the presence of "scum3" in Goat's "sample" pro-game dialogue noteworthy - I get that it's supposed to be satirical, but is it actually likely for there to be a third scum?
When you say it was noteworthy, what are you implying?
I don't know how Spring plays as scum so I can't really comment. I see what you're getting at though, and will note once again that I don't consider the pairing to be very likely.Goat wrote:Here's a question for you. You are under the impression of a 2 man scum team. Wouldn't a 2 man scum team make it less likely that spring as scum would throw away Budja like that?
Can you elaborate on these reasons?Goat wrote:I have no clue how to read that post at all. Your speculation is plausible under the 2 man scum team idea, but not really something I would throw any weight behind for a variety of reasons.Spolium wrote:Incidently. what does everyone think of millar13's "If i said i was mafia and wanted you all dead...what would you do to me?" from the end of D1? There's been no mention of it so far, but it seems pretty relevant. The only context in which the comment makes sense to me is that he's scum and can't be bothered to play the game, which could explain the lack of nightkill (however, I'm not sure if there are roles common to mini normals which benefit from an attempted lynch, so if anyone can clarify it'd be appreciated).
Actually, the meta defence was mine. You can read the thread I was talking about HERE - pages 12-14 in particular cover a push on a Budja lynch.Lynx The Antithesis wrote:Don- His meta excuse for not seeing Budja as scum could be valid, I just don't have anyway of knowing that.
It's not that I think three scum is out of the ordinary; I simply have no basis for comparison in a game this size so I can only really go by what the more experienced among you suggest to be likely.RedCoyote wrote:I think it's more likely that there are 3 scum than there are 2, that's what I would consider the norm for a 12 person game. I'm more inclined to ask you why you would imply that a player assuming three scum seems out of the ordinary than to question whether or not Goat has some sort of information.
Okay, that makes more sense.Lynx The Antithesis wrote:I wasn't very clear. The post I was referring to was here:Spolium wrote:Actually, the meta defence was mine. You can read the thread I was talking about HERE - pages 12-14 in particular cover a push on a Budja lynch.
(etc.)
Defending Budja in any way was a pretty stupid move on my part - I'll admit that - but it's somewhat disingenuous of you to describe my vote as "the only one laid largely due to the impending deadline" without considering thatLynx The Antithesis wrote:Spolium- I think there's a decent chance he bussed Budja. He layed his vote primarily for the deadline and when it was extended he didn't really press Budja any further(though not many on the Budja wagon did after the extension, but I feel his vote was the only one laid largely due to the impending deadline. Once it was on he simply left it on and didn't really address it any further.) Another thing that sticks out to me was the back and forth between Goat earlier in the game. Spolium sticking up for Budja somewhat eased the pressure off him.
In post 251 RC criticised cases on Spring for being WIFOM, whiched seemed hypocritical in light of one of the sentences at the start of the same post: "my whole point is it just seems so unlikely for scum to draw that much attention to themselves, especially a more seasoned player like spring".Goat wrote:I'd also still like a summarizing of the WIFOM argument between you and Spolium. Either of you are welcome to provide it.
That's probably true. I didn't have a great deal more to say about Budja either - he didn't defend himself from my arguments (nor did anyone else question them) so there wasn't much more for me to say on the matter until he fakeclaimed.Lynx wrote: I do still maintain that once you voted Budja you appeared to lose focus of him. It may have been your problems with RC that shifted your attention though.
It doesn't matter if you were willing to vote her on the basis of a policy lynch; you were still defending her from criticism. By way of comparison, I was willing to vote Budja on the basis of unhelpful posts and maximum information gain, but when it comes down to it my criticisms of attacks on him were basically defensive,RC wrote:if player A made it clear he was prepared to vote player B based on policy despite not feeling very comfortable about it, is player A defending player B?
[..]
I do not agree with the way she played this game and I obviously meant that I COULDN'T DEFEND her play in this game.
Not really. If you'd just said "I think Spring's post analysis was not written after the fact" and left it at that, then all would be well. I wouldn't consider that defence.RC wrote:again, that's similar to saying that every statement in regards to another player is either an attack or a defense, right?
I really can't accept this. Numerous playersRC wrote:Then I suppose we have a different definition of the word defense.
What are the exceptions you mentioned in the first sentence?RedCoyote wrote:With only a few exceptions (those of which, rest assured, I haven't forgotten), many players, including Budja, have been actively attempting to tie me and spring together because I do not accept the above two propositions (her post was concocted/delibrately misrepresentative). Many of you have went so far as to say that because I do not accept those arguments, then I am thus a spring defender.
Just to clarify, are you attributing this to me?RedCoyote wrote:
The reason why that logic is incorrect is because it is affirming the consequent.
You couldn't have waited for Lynx to reply first? So far you've been quite content to tar everyone who challenged Spring with the same brush, so why change your tune now?RedCoyote wrote:I wanted to see if Lynx would bite down on this, hence the reason I had asked Lynx and not you, but this is what I was leading toward.
This. You're the most trusted player right now Spring, I think it would be worthwhile if you shared your thoughts before the weekend hits.RedCoyote wrote:But... you haven't posted during the week either!spring 429 wrote:Hi, Weekend V/LA notice.