Mini 856 - Star Control: Zeta Sextantis - Over
-
-
Kast tl;dr
-
-
Kast tl;dr
- tl;dr
- tl;dr
- Posts: 2663
- Joined: January 12, 2009
@Sigma-
Strongly disagree with your generalized statement. Scum can give themselves away on a first post on page 1 or early page 2. This is not such a rare event as to be equivalent to being unheard of.
In our current situation, I don't think anyone has publicly identified any such events, but that says nothing about the general case. Using a fallacious generalization instead of directly addressing your point of contention leaves lots of space for ambiguity and is just generally sloppy and not great play for town.
@Excedrin-
Strongly agree with this assessment of how things often work.
@Rising-
You're putting a crap straw man argument into Excedrin's mouth and justifying a stupid vote on that as though it were a serious one. He didn't setup any such trap. He made an observation that is very rational, easily corroborated with anecdotal evidence, and easily corroborated by checking any of a number of ongoing and/or completed games on the forums.
@Porkens-
Are you actually in need of replacement? If so, since we are still very early and not everyone has posted beyond confirmation, perhaps we can get the mod to "bend" the BaM rule set and replace. If not, does a player who requests replacement get modkilled and banned from future BaM games?ShowT: 9/6.5/0
M: 8/2/1
O: 0/3.5/0
V/LA Pretty much all Weekends and Holidays-
-
Kast tl;dr
- tl;dr
- tl;dr
- Posts: 2663
- Joined: January 12, 2009
@Rising, 44-
-You may personally be incapable of catching scum tells without the benefit of hindsight. Please don't automatically assume that your limitations are true for everyone else.
-Excedrin never claimed that looking for a player who "does something really obvious at the start of a game and then gradually appears more and more town" is a valid strategy for scumhunting. You are setting up and maintaining your straw man when you repeat this falsehood. I find it extremely anti-town that you continue to perpetuate this falsehood despite multiple players pointing it out. Please stop engaging in anti-town behavior.
From context, the purpose of Excedrin's post was to counter the idea that townies should avoid placing "real" votes based on early game behavior. However, there is no advocacy for placing votes based on early game behavior. There definitely is no advocacy for placing votes based on early game behavior while ignoring future behavior.
-Your proposed "experiment" is pretty off topic. That said, if conducted in the manner you describe, then it would completely fail to test the hypothesis. The actual hypothesis (which you quoted in the same post) is "scum sometimes does something really obvious at the start of a game and then gradually appears more and more town". To test this, we would look at games (completed or ongoing with known scum) and find if there are times where scum make mistakes at the start of the game but appear more and more town as the game progresses.
As proposed, your straw man experiment makes a pretty petty and childish attempt to discredit both myself and Excedrin by attempting to point at irrelevant meta-statistics instead of addressing either of our actual posts.
@Sigma/Dry-fit-
I'd say the goal for generic townies right now is to find out which player is most likely to be scum and convince all others to lynch that player. Discussion is a great tool for helping us find out which player(s) is(are) most likely to be scum. A player who "generates discussion" is not necessarily a townie; practically any post or action has the capability to generate discussion.
I think Dry-fit is seriously misrepresenting Sigma's reason for voting kmd. This could in part be due to different understandings of the term "generate discussion". Sigma clearly contrasted posts which are intended to "generate discussion" from posts which are intended to "convince other players to vote your lynch target". In a literal sense, these obviously are not mutually exclusive since a post which attempts to convince other players to do anything is inherently intended to generate discussion. Despite the usage of that phrase, I don't think Sigma's post was unclear, and it looks like Dry-fit's attack is a veiled attempt to argue semantics.
@Plum, 48-
I like this post.
@Rising, 51-
-You manufactured a "tell" by creating a straw man.
-Your post is based on crap logic that assumes a fictional argument from Excedrin. If you substitute Excedrin's actual post for your fictional straw man, then your post becomes completely invalid.
This is not a semantics issue over how anyone defines the word trap. You are fallaciously claiming that others agree with your crap-logic. Nobody has done so. You may think it is a good scumtell, but it actually isn't.
Your adherence to your position and refusal to consider that you may be mistaken despite multiple players pointing out your mistake is anti-town. Worse still is that if you are a townie who genuinely believes that the players telling you that you are wrong are mistaken, then you have taken no steps to address and clarify things for them other than stubbornly insist that no matter what you are correct.
If you are a townie, re-read and realize that stubbornly holding to one idea without being open to discussion is very dangerous behavior that does not take advantage of the town's strengths and allows scum to better utilize their strengths.ShowT: 9/6.5/0
M: 8/2/1
O: 0/3.5/0
V/LA Pretty much all Weekends and Holidays-
-
Kast tl;dr
- tl;dr
- tl;dr
- Posts: 2663
- Joined: January 12, 2009
@Plum-
-I'm assuming that "Kise" refers to "Kast"? You kinda swapped there in the middle.
-To paraphrase your argument, you admit that I am scumhunting and have raised several valid points, however, you object to my failure to vote based on any of the things I have raised. Is this an accurate summary of your reason for voting "Kise"?
I'll vote when I'm ready to vote; either if I find a player I am willing to lynch or if I feel my vote would help to elicit a response/reaction.
-I don't think it helps to give scum lots of easy wagons to jump aboard. Voting for each and every potential tell just lets scum blend easier while pushing a mislynch without getting any heat for doing so.
@KMD-
I'm not sure why you read me as obv-town. You've called me that in at least two other games we've played (I was town in both and you were town in one and scum in the other). The game where you were town, I could understand why you called me obvtown. The game where you were scum, I didn't see why you as a townie would call me obvtown, but I accepted your support nonetheless. I'll accept it again here, but I'd like to hear your reasons.
@Rosso-
Are you going to share your reason(s) for wanting to hammer me?
@Zito-
-Agreed that sarcasm itself is not inherently scummy. If it is used in place of defending oneself, that is scummy (although this is by virtue of not giving a defense, not because anything is wrong with sarcasm). I don't see Zito's situation as falling into that category.
-I'm not seeing the case against Zito. I think he is right to say it is extremely weak.
@Rising-
-When you avoid addressing an argument by attacking a player's irrelevant, personal, meta-statistics, that is petty and I'll call you on it. If you didn't post that in the first place, then I wouldn't call you on it. I didn't call it stupid.
Perhaps you felt your example was clever and relevant. I disagree and feel it was a very petty and childish way to attack other players while avoiding addressing the main point.
-Your new argument against Excedrin is much more valid; objecting to his claim that "sarcasm" is a scum tell is reasonable. It is not the same as your initial argument which you pushed despite others pointing out it's flaws. It looks like you have abandoned your initial argument.
-Ironically, you call out Dry-fit for the same behavior that you engaged in within the same post. This has been pointed out, but should not detract from your point against Dry-fit which is valid.ShowT: 9/6.5/0
M: 8/2/1
O: 0/3.5/0
V/LA Pretty much all Weekends and Holidays-
-
Kast tl;dr
- tl;dr
- tl;dr
- Posts: 2663
- Joined: January 12, 2009
@Thoughts regarding Rising then response to his recent post-
-Excedrin voted Zito for sarcasm
-Excedrin argued against the idea that townies should not place early "real" votes by claiming that scum often make mistakes early and correct their behavior later
-Rising attacked Excedrin for using a "trap"
-Multiple players tell Rising that there is no trap.
-Rising maintains his position without offering evidence or explaining how Excedrin's behavior constituted a trap. He also proposes irrelevant straw man experiments.
-Rising eventually changes his argument and claims Excedrin's original reason was not strong.
I get the feel that Rising is a townie and is capable of contributing, but can also quickly jump to conclusions without bothering to re-read or fact check. Despite seeing multiple things that could be tells, I'm not interested in voting for Rising today. I like some of his recent posts; his response to Dry-fit is pretty clear and I believe fairly captures and presents that situation.
I'm guessing that Rising completely misread the second point and misunderstood Excedrin's justification for early voting as either justification for voting Zito OR setup for future justification of votes for Zito. I think this is more likely than that he was attempting to intentionally push a straw man to get Excedrin lynched.
You are misquoting and changing context here. You made a personal insult and called me a jerk in response to my response to your "experiment". Incidentally, you still, apparently, fail to understand that your experiment does not test anything relevant. The theory is that scum sometimes make mistakes initially but appear more pro-town as the game progresses. To test we would need to see whether the following are true:Rising wrote:Kast wrote: "You may personally be incapable of catching scum tells without the benefit of hindsight. Please don't automatically assume that your limitations are true for everyone else."
Irrelevant? Nope, you brought this issue up yourself, and it wasmewho calledyouout on it. I was willing to put your statement above to the test.
-There are games where scum make mistakes early
--If so, then see if any of those scum appear more pro-town/less suspicious as the game progresses.
If any cases exist, then the theory is true. The theory says nothing about whether townies do the same thing, nor does it propose using this pattern of behavior as a scumtell. Your repeated explanations that it is not a valid tell are irrelevant noise. You may as well tell us that there are townies in this game. That is true but irrelevant.
That said, you seem to be upset about this quote. This quote itself is another example of me calling you out for adopting an anti-town and demeaning attitude towards other players. This is not the same "petty and childish" attitude that you display with your "experiment". Don't assume that other players are incapable of doing things just because you are incapable of doing something.
Please be more clear. It is misleading when you quote one phrase and then reply to an out of context word from a completely different post on a completely different subject. It is also a pretty common scum tactic (though this also is not necessarily a tell as it could simply be badposting by a townie).Rising wrote:
I didn't accuse you of callingKast wrote:I didn't call it stupid.this particularsentence stupid (you did that in an earlier post). I wondered why you had to be such a jerkin this game. If you want to provoke to get a reaction there are other, much better ways.
This is a new argument. You never mentioned this previously as a reason for attacking Excedrin. Your previous posts only attack Excedrin for setting up a trap. Excedrin did not set up a trap so it was an invalid attack. You now attack him for having a poor reason for his initial suspicion. This is a valid reason for attacking him. Your justification for why this is not a new argument is crap-logic. Simply because the action you are attacking happened early in the game does NOT mean the argument you are making is not a new argument.Rising wrote:
What are you talking about? That is not my "new argument". That was just what had happened in the beginning of he game, when I wrote my first post. I therefore naturally assumed that every player had seen it, so I didn't feel the need to point it out.Kast wrote:Your new argument against Excedrin, objecting to his claim that "sarcasm" is a scum tell is reasonable
Read more carefully. Was your new attack on Excedrin just copying other players without understanding what you were posting? You specifically state that your reason for taking offense was because his reason was not strong (it was because of "sarcasm"). Regardless of whether another player voted for the same reason that Excedrin used, you are still capable of making a case against Excedrin (which you did).Rising wrote:And how could you possibly believe that the argument you propose would be a reasonable argument againstExcedrin?It wasKMDthat started the bandwagon against Pipo and said that sarcasm was a scumtell (he'sstillsaying it, btw). It would've been extremely scummy and completely nonsensical for a player to vote Excedrin and not KMD, if his argument was what you've just proposed.
@Rosso-
I don't like your posting style. I think you could contribute a lot more to the game by sharing more. I assume you disagree. I don't really have a read on you.
@Plum-
I liked more of the earlier posts, but now Plum seems to be fizzling and looking to KMD a lot.
@Sigma-
Goodposting recently; driving conversation.
@All else-
Please post more.
@Star Control 2-
-I'm not familiar with the game. I've looked at the stuff on wikipedia. Is anyone else familiar with it?
-Are there any races that are specifically aligned with the Alliance/Hierarchy/????
-Is it public knowledge when a player is outside of a ship?ShowT: 9/6.5/0
M: 8/2/1
O: 0/3.5/0
V/LA Pretty much all Weekends and Holidays-
-
Kast tl;dr
- tl;dr
- tl;dr
- Posts: 2663
- Joined: January 12, 2009
@Sigma/Zito-
Thanks for the info.
@Mod-
If a player is outside of a ship, is that public knowledge?
@Sigma-
I don't like this, it sounds insincere. My first guesses are that either you were being too lazy to list races OR you were trying to subtly fish while disguising it as humor.That said, I'm not sure I want to start naming specific races as examples. Why exactly do you want to know? Did SpyreX not give you a safe-claim?
I agree that some thematic information can potentially reveal information about a player's own role or help scum in developing claims. But often sharing thematic information can help players less familiar with the source in evaluating other posts (particularly claims). In this instance, asking if any player(s) can list slightly obscure but publicly available objective information about the races in the SC2 game doesn't fall into that category.
To be fair, I don't have any immediate, publicly known reasons to request information about the different races. I think it will definitely be helpful in the long run. I see no pressing need to share any private reasons (there might not be any).ShowT: 9/6.5/0
M: 8/2/1
O: 0/3.5/0
V/LA Pretty much all Weekends and Holidays-
-
Kast tl;dr
- tl;dr
- tl;dr
- Posts: 2663
- Joined: January 12, 2009
@Plum-
-Yes, I do get easily sidetracked in non-essential arguments. I don't think it detracts from me looking at other players.
-I'm not clear on what specifically you are looking for in my other games. I think I play fairly similarly as town or scum. It sounds like you want to see some examples of my town play to determine Kast-as-townie also engaged in the behavior that you dislike in my current play style?
I haven't actually completed many games as town here on mafiascum...you can look up an ongoing where I am already dead as another example of my play as town.
Betrayal
Open, Party!
Newbie
@Rising-
-You are wrong. Plum posted that your trap argument is fallacious and that Excedrin was simply voting on a strong scumtell. You said that nothing would be wrong with what Excedrin did if he had a strong tell. However, you call Excedrin's tells weak and dismiss Plum's post. Your post does not refer to KMD directly OR indirectly. But we can examine the actual post instead of looking at isolated snippets and trying to spin new meanings on them:Rising wrote:
Let's have a look at my post #58 - which you think is where I changed my argument.Kast wrote:Rising maintains his position without offering evidence or explaining how Excedrin's behavior constituted a trap.[...]Rising eventually changes his argument and claims Excedrin's original reason was not strong.
You are apparently focusing on this sentence "But when all you've got is a person that didn't post a vote in his first post, and responded with a sarcasm when attacked for it, then it's a completely different issue." This is not my case against Excedrinat all(and why should it be? Excedrin didn't start the wagon against Papa Zito.KMDdid.)
I wrote the sentence above to correct Plum, and to let her know that what she said had nothing to do about my case against Excedrin. The next sentence of my post reads: "I don't think what you just wrote applies to this case - or anything that I've written (or at least what I meant by it)at all."
There you have it. What you're calling a changed argument isn't an argument against Excedrinat all.
-You say that IF Excedrin had a strong case, then it would be okay to make post 39. However, you say his case was not strong, and conclude that Plum's argument, which assumes a strong scum tell, does not apply to this case which does not have a strong scum tell.Rising arguing that Excedrin used weak scum tells wrote:If this was a case of a really strong scumtell - an actual "mistake" - then of course I would've been fine with it. "Ouch. You did something really bad there, buddy. There's just no way for you to talk yourself out of this mess, I'm sorry. You're definitely the lynch for today." Nothing wrong with that. But when all you've got is a person that didn't post a vote in his first post, and responded with a sarcasm when attacked for it, then it's a completely different issue. I don't think what you just wrote applies to this case - or anything that I've written (or at least what I meant by it) at all.
You clearly state that you "would've been fine with it" if it were a strong case. KMD has not posted anything that would require a strong scumtell for you to excuse, whereas Excedrin has. Plum specifically named Excedrin, and your response is directly aimed to Plum's post. This is clearly about Excedrin and not KMD.
Excedrin did not do 2. Your original - first of two - argument against Excedrin fails due to this. You have never once attempted to show that Excedrin did this, despite other players telling you repeatedly. THIS is my point. You explain repeatedly that a player who did this is scum and repeatedly state that Excedrin did this. HOWEVER, you completely avoid showing that.Rising wrote:Thisis (later in that post):
"There's a huge difference between:
1. "Hmm... I've noticed scum do this before." - Perfectly reasonable for a pro-town scumhunter.
and
2. "Hmm... I've noticed scum do this before, and they always come up with a good explanation afterwards, managing to explain away and fix their scummy behavior. " - why did this person add that last part? That wasn't necessary for pointing out the scumtell. This sets off my alarm, because scum have a tendency to go ahead of themselves, like proposing chain lynches (another scumtell I believe in)."
Andthatis where I explain my original - my one and only - argument against Excedrin. The thing that I call a "screwed if you do, screwed if you don't"-trap. You claim that I've never explained my argument, but that is simply not the case.
-You explained that the trap, as you described it, would be scummy. Nobody disputes this. You STILL have not explained how Excedrin's post fits the bill of the trap that you described.
You are the one trying to play the martyr card. Since you have fallaciously done so, I have pointed out your error.Rising wrote:
*Slap forehead* Dude! You canKast wrote:You made a personal insult and called me a jerknotbe serious!
You said that I was "justifying a stupid vote", "You may personally be incapable of catching scum tells without the benefit of hindsight. Please don't automatically assume that your limitations are true for everyone else." and that my attempts were "petty and childish". You arecompletelydisqualified from playing the martyr card.
Your vote against Excedrin was a stupid vote. That's not a personal attack, nor does it say anything about you personally. The vote is baseless, senseless, irrational, illogical,...call it what you will.
The latter isn't an insult. You insinuated that nobody is capable of finding scum tell without the benefit of hindsight. I ask you to keep such a blanket generalization to yourself instead of assuming it of everyone else.
If it's not clear, those were not meant to offend you personally. If you were offended, my apologies. If it's not clear, I'm not going to completely change my posting style simply because you are easily offended. If you play poorly, I'll call you on it. If you get upset, that's kinda tough.
This is playing the martyr card again. If you don't enjoy and want to get out, then do so. Please don't whine about thinking about doing something.Rising wrote:Youhavebeen a textbook jerk, and did a pretty good job at sucking all my enjoyment out of this game back on page two. For a while I even considered leaving the game cold to get myself modkilled.
If I think your behavior is inappropriate to the game, I'll tell you. If you think the same for me, return the favor. I agree with your sentiment; the game doesn't need people to be assholes to be enjoyable. I disagree that I have been an asshole to you, and I think you are too sensitive.Rising wrote:But ok, for what it's worth; if youwereinsulted by my post - as I've been insulted by yours, I'm sincerely sorry. Usually, when I play, I sound like you; I call people's posts stupid, naïve, childish and whatnot. I can be a real asshole. But I've come to realize that it's actually pretty mean and that it doesn't belong in a game that is supposed to be fun and exciting.
Sure.Rising wrote:So. Friends?
False. The statement is that "SCUM sometimes make one mistake initially and do not make any more mistakes" which counters the argument that "real votes should only be placed on players who make multiple mistakes".Rising wrote:
If the theory doesn't say that scum does thisKast wrote:The theory is that scum sometimes make mistakes initially but appear more pro-town as the game progresses [...] The theory says nothing about whether townies do the same thingmore often than town players, then it lacks merit for scumhunting. All it says, then, is that "PLAYERS sometimes make mistakes initially but blah blah", and what would be the point of that?
Further, a tool, theory, approach to scum-hunting does not necessarily need to show that scum engage in a behavior more often than town players.
(1)-Statement 1 is true.Rising wrote:
What?Kast wrote:Your repeated explanations that it is not a valid tell are irrelevant noise. You may as well tell us that there are townies in this game.
2. "There are townies in the game" (or some other nonsense)
does not follow logically from
1. "I doubt that X is a valid tell", does it?
"Is X a valid scumtell?" -thatis an important question - it is relevant to the game.
"Is X something that scum does sometimes, and maybe townplayers too?" Isn't. As an example; a lot of scum begins the game by typing "/confirm" in their first post. This can easily be tested using your proposed experiment. But what does it imply?
(2)-Statement 2 is not a tell.
(3)-Player A says Statement 1.
(4)-Player B says Statement 2 is not a tell.
(5)-Player B says that Player A says Statement 2 is a tell.
(6)-Player B calls Player A scum for (5).
Player A is Excedrin.
Player B is Rising.
Statement 1 is "Scum sometimes make a mistake initially but appear pro-town for the remainder of the game (and thus do not make any more mistakes)"
Statement 2 is "Players who make a mistake initially but appear pro-town later are more likely to be scum than town"
Statement 2 is NOT equivalent to Statement 1. It is irrelevant. You could equivalently replace it with any statement that is not a tell (such as the statement "There are townies in this game"). Unless you replace it with Statement 1, then it fails because Player A did not say Statement 2. If you replace it with Statement 1, your argument still fails since Player A did not say that Statement 1 was a tell.
I'll probably look into it this weekend.Rising wrote:
I've read a lot about it, but only played it for a day or two. Pretty fun. I have only met a few other species, though.Kast wrote:-I'm not familiar with the game. I've looked at the stuff on wikipedia. Is anyone else familiar with it?ShowT: 9/6.5/0
M: 8/2/1
O: 0/3.5/0
V/LA Pretty much all Weekends and Holidays-
-
Kast tl;dr
- tl;dr
- tl;dr
- Posts: 2663
- Joined: January 12, 2009
@Excedrin-
-Missed your previous post about disliking my lack of vote and claiming that Rosso's behavior is better than my own. Strongly disagree.
I've been sharing thoughts with explanations on multiple players throughout my posts. Nobody has jumped out as probably scum, so at this point I don't see any reason to place a vote yet.
Rosso has neither placed a vote nor offered any thoughts. I can't fathom how saying he would like to hammer a player for absolutely no reason can possibly be better than actually sharing thoughts and participating in the game.
-Dunno about an easy way to just see a list. You can click the player's profile and find all posts by that player, then jump around to different pages to find completed games.
-From personal experience, I find walls are indicative of personal play style and not alignment.
@Kmd-
Somewhat agree. I think Rising is probably stubborn town who realized his vote on Excedrin was terrible but doesn't want to admit it. I think he was probably looking for anywhere else to park his vote.Kmd4390 wrote:Plum, I think Rising realized he had a bad vote out and was looking for somewhere to put it and found Dry-fit.
However, I think the point against Dry-fit is valid (though not damning). I think Dry-fit did misrepresent sigma's post, and his attack is based on different meanings of the phrase "generate discussion" (semantics argument) instead of addressing content.
@Rising-
-It is not equivalent to your playground argument. If you were planning to drop it, I don't see the point in mentioning a false analogy. I guess we'll see if you really drop it
-Mostly agree that KMD, Porkens, and Excedrin all voted for Zito for the same reasons.
--Random vote in second post (Excedrin may not have used this one).
--Sarcasm.
-You and I, and others, agree that sarcasm is not inherently a scum tell, and in this case it was either not a tell or at best a very weak one.
-Initially, you had no objection to these two tells.
-Initially, you objected to Excedrin using a "trap"
-You claim the trap is that Excedrin claimed that if Zito explains his behavior, that would damn Zito.
--Excedrin did not say this despite your claim. You have not shown that he said this.
"that's when you take what would otherwise be a natural and helpful reaction for a townplayer and make it look like something suspicious, in advance."
This is where your argument fails. Excedrin's post does NOT take a natural and helpful reaction for a townplayer and make it look like something suspicious, in advance. You still have not shown or even attempted to show how it does this.
-I'm debating you because I enjoy arguing especially with people who are capable of rational thought but are not engaging in it. I think there is a possibility that you will admit your mistake like a good townie instead of stubbornly clinging to crap logic and developing a sub-optimal play style.
-Statement 2 is EXACTLY your statement. That is REQUIRED for your argument to make sense.
"If Papa Zitodoesn'tcome up with a valid and sensible explanation, he will of course remain looking like scum. But if hedoescome up with a valid and sensible explanation, he fits right into Excedrins proposed scenario of a likely scum-behaviour."
If Zito did come up with a valid and sensible explanation and fit into Excedrin's proposed scenario, it would not make him any more suspicious than he already was.
Your use of likely is slightly ambiguous.
-If by "likely scum-behavior" you mean behavior that is indicative of being scum, then you are repeating Statement 2.
-If by "likely scum-behavior" you mean behavior that scum would probably engage in, then the situation does not say anything about Zito's affiliation.
Would the following situation hold with your usage of the term "likely scum-behavior"?
(1)-Statement 3 "Scum are likely to post if someone votes for them".
(2)-Player C says Statement 3.
(3)-Player C votes for Player D.
If Player Ddoespost, he fits right into Player C's proposed scenario of a likely scum-behaviour.
Player D is not screwed if he posts, despite fitting into the scenario. Likewise Zito is not screwed if he posts, despite fitting into Excedrin's proposed scenario.
IF Excedrin had stated Statement 2, then fitting into his scenario would be a trap. Since he did not and you agree that he did not, then there is no trap.ShowT: 9/6.5/0
M: 8/2/1
O: 0/3.5/0
V/LA Pretty much all Weekends and Holidays-
-
Kast tl;dr
- tl;dr
- tl;dr
- Posts: 2663
- Joined: January 12, 2009
Scanned through everything again.
@Dry-fit-
-You posted an attack on Sigma. Does this imply that he is your top suspect?
-Do you think anyone else has been suspicious?
-You felt that KMD's vote on Zito was not intended to lynch, but rather to generate discussion. The wagon on Zito is still there; what do you think about each of the other players and their reasons?
-Do you believe that any action that generates discussion is pro-town?
-If KMD (or anyone else) pushed strongly for the lynch of another player early in the game with poor reasons; would you find that behavior suspicious?
@KeelieRavenWolf-
Please post something. You had a reasonable post early and nothing to follow that.
-Do you think sarcasm is a valid tell?
-Have any players stuck out so far as appearing opportunistic? (and is that good, bad or neutral?)
@Locke Lamora-
You seem to dislike the wagon on Zito.
-What do you think about Excedrin's, Plum's, or Porken's votes and reasons at the time they voted?
@Porkens-
You haven't been posting much recently and even older posts I'm not seeing much in terms of non-RVS or game irrelevant thoughts. Please post more.
-Do you think the case against Zito is/was reasonable?
-What was wrong with Plum's defense of Zito?
-Do you think it is generally (always/sometimes/never?) a scum tell and/or anti-town for one player to defend another player?
@Rosso-
Do you have any thoughts to share?
-If you are unable to hammer Kast, are you willing to vote/hammer other players to avoid a no lynch?
@Sigma-
-Your question to Porkens still was not answered. However, it seems like Porkens was just joking/messing around. If his comment that you asked about has any in game relevance, does it help to draw attention and/or press him for a response?
-Please elaborate on what you meant when you said you were coming around to KMD's argument on Zito. Do you think KMD's vote on Zito was serious? Do you think his reasons were valid?ShowT: 9/6.5/0
M: 8/2/1
O: 0/3.5/0
V/LA Pretty much all Weekends and Holidays-
-
Kast tl;dr
-
-
Kast tl;dr
- tl;dr
- tl;dr
- Posts: 2663
- Joined: January 12, 2009
@KMD-
I'm not following what you're referring to. I think Rising is probably a stubborn townie. The Excedrin case itself is terrible, but that doesn't mean he is scum. Townies are just as likely to use crap-logic as scum, that's far more about personal play style than about affiliation.
I think he's pushed a terrible case against Excedrin and a much better one against Dry-fit. I think he probably jumped for Dry-fit to put distance between himself and his crap-logic driven Excedrin case, but I think he also could genuinely think Dry-fit is suspicious. The two are not mutually exclusive and there is nothing wrong with having multiple reasons for doing something.ShowT: 9/6.5/0
M: 8/2/1
O: 0/3.5/0
V/LA Pretty much all Weekends and Holidays-
-
Kast tl;dr
- tl;dr
- tl;dr
- Posts: 2663
- Joined: January 12, 2009
@KMD-
Straw men and a long reach are both tools in the crap logistician's toolbox. Regardless what you call it, I've seen plenty of townies use straw men and stretch things pretty far (especially on D1).
I'm not saying those things are town tells on Rising. I'm saying that despite engaging in anti-town behavior, Rising's posts read as stubborn town instead of scum trying to drive the town to confusion/mislynch.
I think Rising genuinely believed his terrible case when he initially proposed it. He has indirectly and inadvertently admitted his mistakes through the course of discussion, although I think by now that he knows he was mistaken and just doesn't want to admit it.
That he is still stubbornly clinging to it after his attempt to let it disappear quietly failed strikes me more as something stubborn town would do than scum. If he were scum, his intentions in switching to Dry-Fit would seem to be to remove attention from the bad argument. When he was called on it, Scum would be much better off admitting and dropping instead of stubbornly picking it up again.
@Sigma-
-No comment about coming around on KMD's argument for Zito?
-Porkens was probably joking. If he were seriously saying something about his role, please explain how that helps the town to be revealed. If he was being serious and reveals anything about his role, that could very easily help scum with targetting and not help town much at all.ShowT: 9/6.5/0
M: 8/2/1
O: 0/3.5/0
V/LA Pretty much all Weekends and Holidays-
-
Kast tl;dr
- tl;dr
- tl;dr
- Posts: 2663
- Joined: January 12, 2009
@Rising-
I think it's anti-town to intentionally use bad arguments to pressure other players. I agree that there are enough players who use bad arguments when pressuring other players seeing a player who is using a bad argument is more likely null than a tell. Individual situations may be different.
(1)-Player F does something suspicious.No, you're right: it would not make him any "more" suspicious. But it wouldn't make him any less suspicious neither. And usually - when you come up with sensible explanations - it does.
(2)-If Player F provides a plausible explanation, then all other players will be (should be) less suspicious of Player F by some amount S.
You appear to believe that Excedrin's post supports eliminating (2). At most, I could see that it would decrease amount S proportionally with how likely a given player already thinks Player F is scum. This is normal and reasonable; it would be a mistake to assume that an explanation and subsequent pro-town behavior should automatically remove suspicion that was a result of a scummy action. Excedrin's thought merely verbalizes a concept that most of us apply naturally.
Further, in our specific case, the explanation was made in response to the charge that it was too early in the day to have a strong/valid suspicion of another player. It was a counter-example from anecdotal evidence.
-Show with quotes. Explaining that a situation in which a player is screwed if they do one action or screwed if they don't does not show that EXCEDRIN set up that situation. You discuss and repeat your conclusion. Nobody is arguing about that. *IF EXCEDRIN SETUP A TRAP, THEN IT WOULD BE A SCUMMY MOVE*. What has been pointed out to you repeatedly is that Excedrin did not setup a trap. You have never once posted any evidence that he setup a trap. You jump A>B>D>E skipping C. You can repeat A, B, D, and E as many times as you want, but it does not mean you have shown C.
Your last post at least makes an attempt to explain how Excedrin's post could be interpreted. It falls short of the mark in showing that Excedrin's post does what you claim.
False. It would say that my affiliation is not confirmed (or at least not confirmed to you).In a pure logical sense, it doesn't say anything about your affiliation if I were to say "You could be scum", "you're possibly scum", "I've seen scum do what you're doing" etc in every one of my posts.
Mafia is a logical game. Sound logic is a strong tool for town to catch scum. Unfortunately, most of us make mistakes and not all of us have the same reasoning capabilities.
@KMD-
-I don't think stubbornness itself is a town tell. I think the tone and content of Rising's posts convey that he genuinely believed the bad argument he was pushing against Excedrin. I think his overall posting content and style reveal that he is being honest for the most part, though I think he has realized the argument was bad and is being dishonest in not admitting it due to stubbornness.
I don't think any of the potentially scummy tactics that Rising has used are indicative of him being scum. I think his behavior in general makes more sense as a stubborn townie than as scum. As scum, he would be playing pretty badly and somewhat nonsensically.ShowT: 9/6.5/0
M: 8/2/1
O: 0/3.5/0
V/LA Pretty much all Weekends and Holidays-
-
Kast tl;dr
- tl;dr
- tl;dr
- Posts: 2663
- Joined: January 12, 2009
I don't like Dry-Fit's responses. I get the impression he was looking for something to jump for. I posed some mildly leading questions and he jumped at them.
My read is he is either a townie who doesn't know how to contribute and is eager to do so but doesn't want to "mess up" again like he did with his Sigma case, OR scum trying to avoid attention and latch on to a "safe" mislynch wagon. If it goes anywhere, he could always drop responsibility back at me for suggesting it, if not, he still appears to be reasonably trying to help out the town.
This isn't extremely strong, but I think it's the clearest thing I've seen so far and is sufficient for a vote. It is less ideal since two others have expressed suspicion of Dry-Fit (although Rising also kinda jumped on leads I dropped). This also wasn't exactly a trap set for Dry-fit specifically; I think he could easily have responded with similar content but changed his tone and I would probably be fine with it. His tone makes me suspect the response that he did give.
Vote: Dry-Fit
I'm also going to be pretty busy this weekend so probably won't be around to post. I'll try to check in a few more times today.
-Addendum to this. If Dry-fit is scum, I could see Rising's vote as a distancing/bus.
@Plum's post-
Good post on the whole. I think you're doing a good job of looking at a player for personal consistency, which Rising lacks. I don't think your post gives a fair treatment to Dry-Fit; who clearly misrepresented Sigma's posts.
@Excedrin-
Rosso's posting style is anti-town. The difference between my posting and his is far more than his being directed and mine being general. Suspicions should have reasons attached. As a townie, if you have information to guide the town to make a good lynch, then share it so the town does so. Sharing your thoughts also helps you avoid mistakes in your reasoning by giving you input from others who might notice mistakes that you make.
I'm not advocating lynching Rosso for having an anti-town playstyle. However, it is ridiculous to claim his behavior is at all better than anyone who is actually playing this game.
@Rosso-
-You didn't answer my question. Please do so.
-Consider that you aren't helping the town by telling people to throw votes with no reason. Your behavior essentially asks everyone to give you a free pass to not play in this game but while actively lurking. If you are a townie, I hope your night play is much better than your day play.
If you are genuinely suspicious of me, then help the town by letting them know why they should vote for me. If you aren't, then you clearly are not doing any scumhunting. We already have one inactive/lurker, we don't need more deadweight.ShowT: 9/6.5/0
M: 8/2/1
O: 0/3.5/0
V/LA Pretty much all Weekends and Holidays-
-
Kast tl;dr
- tl;dr
- tl;dr
- Posts: 2663
- Joined: January 12, 2009
@Rising-Rising wrote:But then again, a lot of the time you get one of those early scumtells from a townplayer as well, so what Excedrin said hasn't really got any meaning. So whydidhe wrote it?Kast wrote:-Excedrin argued against the idea that townies should not place early "real" votes by claiming that scum often make mistakes early and correct their behavior later
...
I'm guessing that Rising completely misread the second point and misunderstood Excedrin's justification for early voting as either justification for voting Zito OR setup for future justification of votes for Zito. I think this is more likely than that he was attempting to intentionally push a straw man to get Excedrin lynched.
Here Rising is playing the semantics game. If he is wrong, he just changes the definition of a key word and suddenly he is not technically wrong, just misunderstood.Rising wrote:[Wrong. It was mostdefinitelya trapaccording to my definition, which I have explained thoroughly. If you're used to see that word in another context, then I'm sorry for the confusion, but I think I've explained this enough by now.ShowT: 9/6.5/0
M: 8/2/1
O: 0/3.5/0
V/LA Pretty much all Weekends and Holidays-
-
Kast tl;dr
- tl;dr
- tl;dr
- Posts: 2663
- Joined: January 12, 2009
@Rosso-
-Is this a description of what you are attempting to do?The scum thrive on their information, and having even more enables them to disappear easier.
-How is the disappearing working for you right now?
-How does your strategy prevent scum from disappearing?
--In the event you correctly identify scum, how does your strategy help the town lynch that scum?
--In the event that you incorrectly identify scum, how does your strategy help the town at all?
-Would it help the town if most (all) players follow your strategy?
--Your strategy promotes clamming up and reducing/eliminating discussion. Discussion is one of the town's tools and is pretty generally accepted as necessary for town to win.
I'm assuming you cannot and will not actually answer most of those questions. Barring a response, forgive me if I conclude that your play is anti-town. If you have a good reason to think I am scum, then you aren't doing anything at all to get the town to lynch the player you think is scum. If you're just messing around, then sucks for town if you are a townie, and good job to you if you are scum. It looks like most people just accept that you don't like playing the game and are willing to give you a free pass.
-Two comments to this.As a townie, how do I have any night play at all besides dying or not dying?
-All players (townies included) have guaranteed night abilities as well as any abilities granted them in their role PM.
-Fishing much? As a townie, you have the guaranteed actions that everyone else has. You may have additional abilities, which you should not comment on. This is pretty standard for most games, and should be hardly surprising in a flavor rich theme game. Probing for any private information that I may have (either directly as part of my role or indirectly derived from it) is completely unnecessary in determining affiliation.Game Specific Rules wrote:Each PM has two parts to it. The Pilot (thats YOU) and the ship you are currently on. Both parts are colored how they would investigate (if that is possible) Alliance, Hierarchy or ????
...
Every ship possesses:
P.) Energy value. Your default value, unless otherwise noted, is your max value.
A.) Jettison (N) - Destroy your own ship sending all players on it into space. This requires 0 energy.
A.) Retrieve (N) - Select a player who has been jettisoned. They will become part of your ship. This requires 0 energy.
-What is a "pos post"?the fact that you get all concerned about one pos post like that is reeeeeeeeeeeeally scummy.
-Perhaps you can follow your own advice and include the name of the person who wrote the post you are referring to (and if you could give a post number or a link that would be even better...though perhaps that is asking too much)?
-Why are you breaking your own beliefs and providing a reason which could help scum avoid doing something scummy and help them to disappear? (Don't get me wrong, I'm glad that you're at least attempting, even if you are just trying to invent and fit reasons to your suspicion instead of the other way around)
---
Regardless, you still have not answered my initial question.-If you are unable to hammer Kast, are you willing to vote/hammer other players to avoid a no lynch?ShowT: 9/6.5/0
M: 8/2/1
O: 0/3.5/0
V/LA Pretty much all Weekends and Holidays-
-
Kast tl;dr
- tl;dr
- tl;dr
- Posts: 2663
- Joined: January 12, 2009
Thoughts on each player before I'm out for the weekend. Also reminder we have about a week til deadline and we NEED a majority for a lynch. If the lynch candidate is going to have enough time to claim and have the claim evaluated, people may need to compromise away from top choice to second or third choice.
Rosso Carne- Doesn't want to play the game, just wants to put hammer votes on random players. Anti-town/Neutral read.
Porkens- Low on content, a bit random at times. Seems to be playing off others a lot. Neutral/Neutral read.
Papa Zito- Haven't checked his other games but apparently not scumhunting as much as he normally does? Regardless, doesn't seem to be hunting much, OMGUS and outrage at the weak case against him. Playing very reactively. Neutral/Neutral read.
Kmd4390- I'm suspicious of his calling me obvtown as potentially buddying. Play seems consistent with meta as either town or scum. Neutral/Slightly scummy read.
Plum- Pretty rational on the whole, but a few points seem to be a bit "off". A strong reliance on KMD's opinion, which is odd and potentially buddying, but also actively promoting discussion with other players. Pro-town/Neutral read.
sigma-Fairly rational and actively looking into other players. Shares his own thoughts as well.
KeelieRavenWolf- Lurker. Anti-town/Neutral read.
Excedrin- Pretty rational/reasonable and engages in discussion. Fairly reactive style and playing off others. Doesn't seem to offer much on his own initiative. Neutral/Neutral read.
Rising- Can be reasonable but also extremely stubborn. Pushed a terrible case on Excedrin, that despite admissions of how bad it was in part, refuses to admit it in whole. Jumped for a valid case on Dry-fit, but now wants to run from that when challenged again. Anti-town/Slightly town read.
Locke Lamora- Reasonable and actively engages other players. Initially very little offered in terms of stances or personal beliefs, although that has been changing. Pro-town/Slightly town read.
Dry-fit- Misrepresented then lurked when called on it. Popped back up and jumped at a weak case when presented with slightly leading questions. Since then lurked again when challenged. Anti-town/Slightly scummy read.
Nobody is appears so strongly town that I would prefer No Lynch to them, however, I would prefer a Dry-Fit lynch the most. After a huge gap, I would be okay with Rosso, Keelie, or KMD (first two as policy lynches, KMD as weak gut), then followed be everyone with a */Neutral read, then everyone with a */Slightly town read.ShowT: 9/6.5/0
M: 8/2/1
O: 0/3.5/0
V/LA Pretty much all Weekends and Holidays-
-
Kast tl;dr
- tl;dr
- tl;dr
- Posts: 2663
- Joined: January 12, 2009
@Keelie-
I get that you are saying the lurking is unintentional/involuntary. The point remains that you aren't present much and that you not being present is not helpful for the town. Please continue to post what you can and try to increase frequency. Your vote on Rosso is suboptimal given that we need to agree on a lynch target.
@Dry-Fit-
I agree that it would be difficult for you to drop all blame to me if you successfully pushed a mislynch. However, that does not mean you (or scum in general) would not attempt that. If I were killed, it would make it much easier as you could boldly associate your push with a dead confirmed townie and try to gain credibility. Regardless, I think this is a significant enough possibility that my vote belongs on you.
@Locke-
There is nothing inherently scummy about being wrong. Content of some wrong or incorrect posts could be scummy. Refusing to correct an incorrect belief after being shown that it is incorrect is anti-town. It can also be scummy depending on the content.
@Rising-
-Excedrin prefaced his post by making it clear that he did not know for certain what Sigma was posting, however he was providing a counter-example to one possible reason behind Sigma's statement (which did not have any reasons shared yet). At the time, Sigma's reasoning for warning against asking other players to place real votes was left ambiguous, but the clear implication was that there is not sufficient time to make a good case.
-Absence of other cases does not make a terrible case any less terrible. Also, your case was worse than an arbitrary/random vote.
-I initially posted that Dry-Fit was misrepresenting Sigma's post. Your post essentially rehashes what I said.
@Porkens-
-How does the information that you shared help the town converge on a lynch suspect? You've also just shared your planned night actions with scum and have directly shared information which you yourself admit could be beneficial to them. It looks like you are attempting to distract the town from successfully lynching today.
-If scum are actually looking for your ship as you suggest, then you've just painted a target for them. Jettisoning will also leave you outside your ship and at the mercy of whoever decides to pick you up tomorrow. If nobody takes the risk of picking up a potential ship hijacker (which I'm going to admit now that I see almost no chance of picking up someone whose claimed flavor is that he hijacked a ship), and you are a townie, then you've just killed off a townie for scum. I suppose if you are scum, you can safely get picked up by an ally if absolutely necessary.
-Unnecessary mega posting.
That's debatable. Also, you fail to say why this is scummy.
-Too many pbpa's on day one,
That's debatable. Also, you fail to say why this is scummy.
-expressing very strong reads on people.
How is this bad?
-Preferring no-lynch
This is a lie. I specifically stated I prefer lynching anyone over no lynch.
-Does not attack lurkers strongly enough.
Wtf? I guess you were too busy not reading the "unnecessary megaposts" to realize that I'm the person who called out Keelie for disappearing (and that goes for almost everyone else who had stopped posting).
Actually, let me broaden this a bit - what was the point of claiming this information?
Please elaborate on this. I don't follow how your information helps us or has any strategic benefit. Weakly, you could be referring to your guess that scum may have the ability to steal ships, but that is information you could have shared without revealing that you yourself have a scum allied ship.I brought this up so people would have something concrete to talk about, and because I thought it would be best, strategically, for the town. The only downside I see is the aforementioned info to the scum.
Your claimed choice to destroy your ship likewise was completely unnecessary to share. If scum can steal ships but self destruction stops them, then you've given them fair warning to steal from someone else. If they can get around self destruction, then you've just revealed what you were afraid of. How does it help town at all to give us this information of your claimed night action choice?
@Zito-
Why did you assume that Porkens has role info suggesting my affiliation? What would you normally think if a player waits until right before deadline then suddenly tells people that he has role information indicating another player is scum; a player who he has not mentioned any suspicion of previously and actually completely ignored the entire game?
@Rosso-
If you actually played the game, people wouldn't need to ask you to do so.
@Mod-
-What happens to a ship when a player is killed/lynched?
-What happens to other players on the ship when the pilot is killed/lynched?
-What happens to the ship if a passenger is killed/lynched?
-When you rescue a jettisoned player, do you learn any information about that player?
-Does the rescued player learn any information about you or your ship?ShowT: 9/6.5/0
M: 8/2/1
O: 0/3.5/0
V/LA Pretty much all Weekends and Holidays-
-
Kast tl;dr
- tl;dr
- tl;dr
- Posts: 2663
- Joined: January 12, 2009
@Mod-
Thanks.
-When an unmanned ship is destroyed, is there any public information revealed about that ship?
@Porkens-
-I can understand deciding to share some setup information that you feel is better for the town to know. This seems independent of your reason of providing solid information for the town to discuss. Your previous post seemed to imply that your information would be relevant to today's lynch. Was that what you meant to imply? If so, do you feel that it has done anything to achieve that purpose?I feel that keeping this information to myself and hoping to deal with it independently has a higher risk of failure than bringing it to light now. I also suspect that knowing scum can use this ship, knowing that I was on it night one, and possibly knowing who might end up on it later could make it harder for the scum to take and use.
-Why did you wait until there was less than a week to go to share this information?
-Dropping game setup information that does not point to a lynch or any vote leaders right before deadline is...distracting. We need a strict majority or else we will have a no lynch. I don't see how your choice to reveal information is helping us move towards a lynch consensus.
-You say your reason for sharing this information is to help town. How does it help town?
Maybe I'm lying. But that possibility should be obvious, so why are you fishing?How does it help town at all to give us this information of your claimed night action choice?
-How is my question rolefishing?
@Sigma-
-I believe Porkens is telling the truth that he plans to destroy his ship and jettison. He would be pretty crazy to claim that then not do it.I believe Porkens' story. Why bother with have abilities be 'racial' if everyone starts with a ship aligned to their race?
-I think it is plausible that he is on a ship that does not match his race (I'll also caution everyone else to be careful and not reveal if your own ship matches your race; Porkens could be fishing for someone to let that slip).
-I don't think either of those says anything about his alignment.
-I think it is definitely possible that a ship could be destroyed without the player being killed, which would result in players needing to be rescued and ending up on ships that don't match their race.
-We have a known public game mechanic which allows players to go from one ship to another (with the pilot's permission) and could also result in a player's race not matching the ship.ShowT: 9/6.5/0
M: 8/2/1
O: 0/3.5/0
V/LA Pretty much all Weekends and Holidays-
-
Kast tl;dr
- tl;dr
- tl;dr
- Posts: 2663
- Joined: January 12, 2009
@Zito-
-I am willing to lynch you to prevent a no lynch.
-You are the vote leader and, atm, the most viable lynch. If you are going to defend yourself and/or claim, consider doing it sooner than later.ShowT: 9/6.5/0
M: 8/2/1
O: 0/3.5/0
V/LA Pretty much all Weekends and Holidays-
-
Kast tl;dr
- tl;dr
- tl;dr
- Posts: 2663
- Joined: January 12, 2009
@Locke-
I'm pretty sure that KMD's post was not saying that Rising is the only wall-o-texter. I'm pretty sure he was implying that out of all the wall-o-text posters, Rising is the one he thinks is most likely to be scum.ShowT: 9/6.5/0
M: 8/2/1
O: 0/3.5/0
V/LA Pretty much all Weekends and Holidays-
-
Kast tl;dr
- tl;dr
- tl;dr
- Posts: 2663
- Joined: January 12, 2009
@Dry-Fit-
Here's what I see.
I pushed you a bit about your case on Sigma.
(1)-I had already called out your prior reason for pushing Sigma as weak.
I also pushed Sigma on two issues.
(2)-His pressure on Porken's "vig" comment which looks like joking but which Sigma was treating as a serious issue.
(3)-I questioned his stated position on Zito (he responded by voting Keelie).
In response, you confirmed that you are seriously pushing Sigma with three main points:
(A)-You are no longer using your old reasons.
(B)-You dislike his weak vote for Keelie (and Locke to a smaller degree).
(C)-You dislike his repeated references to Porken's "vig" comment.
(1) and (2) directly correlate with your (A) and (C). (2) and (B) loosely correlate in that I pushed him about his voting/suspicions and you likewise pushed his voting.
I suppose the symmetry may indicate you were trying to convince me to your point, but it feels a lot more like you were trying to buy complacency by agreeing with me, while giving yourself an "out" in the event that your vote turned into a mislynch.ShowT: 9/6.5/0
M: 8/2/1
O: 0/3.5/0
V/LA Pretty much all Weekends and Holidays-
-
Kast tl;dr
- tl;dr
- tl;dr
- Posts: 2663
- Joined: January 12, 2009
@Dry-fit-
Would you move your vote to avoid a no lynch?
@Sigma-
I would assume from your previous posts that you would be okay with either a Dry-Fit OR a Zito lynch. Is this an accurate assumption?ShowT: 9/6.5/0
M: 8/2/1
O: 0/3.5/0
V/LA Pretty much all Weekends and Holidays-
-
Kast tl;dr
-
-
Kast tl;dr
- tl;dr
- tl;dr
- Posts: 2663
- Joined: January 12, 2009
There was 4 on Zito, with myself and Sigma both indicating preference for Zito over no lynch. That is a viable lynch. Please explain how switching to Kast prevents a NL?Based on recent events, I think Porkens is town, so I'm willing to switch to Kast to prevent NL.ShowT: 9/6.5/0
M: 8/2/1
O: 0/3.5/0
V/LA Pretty much all Weekends and Holidays-
-
Kast tl;dr
- tl;dr
- tl;dr
- Posts: 2663
- Joined: January 12, 2009
-
-
Kast tl;dr
- tl;dr
- tl;dr
- Posts: 2663
- Joined: January 12, 2009
Again, do you have any reasons for thinking this? It is good that you clarify that your vote is not solely to avoid a no lynch, however, you haven't said why you think I am scum.Excedrin wrote:I think Kast is likely scum.
-I believe town can handle more than one line of discussion. But I grant that others don't always hold that same belief.Porkens wrote:I had thought about it early on, but I didn't want to hijack other possible roads of conversation.
-If you genuinely think this information helps town achieve a lynch, then what have we discussed previously that was so important that you felt the town would suffer from having attention diverted to your claim instead? What changed this to make it okay to claim now?
-It sounds like you were fully aware that your claim could be distracting and would not necessarily bring about immediate results. Why would you choose to share so near deadline while knowing this?
Interesting point.Porkens wrote:Hmm, only if that person has been jettisoned, and I don't think the player who was jettisoned has a choice.
@Mod-
Can a player who has been jettisoned refuse a rescue?
@Excedrin-
You like to count Rosso's "invisible" vote, yet you choose to discount Rising's actual vote and Sigma's "invisible" vote.
However, that pales against your failure to address Zito's 3 actual votes and 3 "invisible" votes plus others who are willing to vote anyone over no lynch.
Summary of "reasons" to vote for me:
-Avoiding a no lynch by dropping the vote leader to 1 less vote (Excedrin)
-Being too helpful (Rosso Carne)
-Not making weak OMGUS votes (Rosso Carne)
-"Fishing" (Porkens)
-Not calling Porkens for lurking (Porkens)
-Too early to have a "Neutral" or "Slight" read on other players (Porkens)
-Posting too much (Porkens)
Everything except for the "Fishing" and "Lurking" comments would normally be reasons to NOT vote for someone.
The "fishing" consists of Porkens saying "I'm doing X because of Y", then me asking "How does X accomplish Y?". He can't explain because it would reveal too much information?!?
The lurking comment is just weird. Btw, I DID ask Porkens to post more content and to post more, so arguably it isn't even true.
Preview Edit-Separate post to cover Excedrin's next post.-
-
Kast tl;dr
- tl;dr
- tl;dr
- Posts: 2663
- Joined: January 12, 2009
-Do you disagree that any of the instances I pointed out are good posts?Excedrin wrote:
1. Kast seems to have dropped a lot of minor "I like your post, good job!" pats on the back to a lot of people (to me #42, Plum #53, Sigma #102, KeelieRavenWolf #137, Locke Lamora #173, and even Rising (multiple cases of "Rising is a townie-just bad at logic" #102, #120, #140, #143 etc)) looks like buddying.Porkens wrote:Why?
-Agreeing with a point is normal, and also a regular part of my meta.
-Has this been at expense of not participating in other capacities?Excedrin wrote:2. Kast has spent far too much time/energy/words arguing with Rising over a "who cares?" kind of point
-How is this indicative of alignment?
-Not being extremely strong does not mean it is extremely weak. Tone is not contradictory to logic. Dry-Fit's behavior fits best as scum, hence my vote. Is he guaranteed scum? No. I don't think anyone has made any extremely strong tells today. That usually doesn't happen on D1.Excedrin wrote:3. Dry-fit looked like an easy target considering Rising and sigma had posted suspicion of him before Kast posted his:
Extremely weak "well, I guess I'll vote here, maybe he's scum." Really? Tone is good enough after all the BS you've spewed about logic? Alright then.Kast wrote:#168
This isn't extremely strong, but I think it's the clearest thing I've seen so far and is sufficient for a vote. It is less ideal since two others have expressed suspicion of Dry-Fit (although Rising also kinda jumped on leads I dropped). This also wasn't exactly a trap set for Dry-fit specifically; I think he could easily have responded with similar content but changed his tone and I would probably be fine with it. His tone makes me suspect the response that he did give.
As opposed to what? You're wielding an inconsistent standard here. Your unspoken implication is that it is better to avoid mentioning other players at all.Excedrin wrote:4. It's OK to not have a clear top suspect on day 1, but that Kast has weighed in with so many "neutral/slightly scummy" kinds of reads seems like an attempt to avoid scrutiny after a mislynch.
Your statement there is just as wrong now as it was then. Voting for your top suspect and having a preferential list for the next 3 candidates, with reasons for all of those, is much better than refusing to vote and insisting on only hammering a randomly selected player but refusing to do anything to get others to vote for that player or try to determine if that player is scum.Excedrin wrote:His lack of a vote seems very different to me from Rosso Carne's lack of a vote, as I stated in #148.
@Zito-
-Defend yourself however you can. It is unfortunate that the town as a whole is not active enough that the Porkens/Excedrin duo has had undue control of discussion by virtue of placing weak/reasonless votes that they undoubtedly will not be held accountable for. However, that is the state we are in, so you'll just have to deal with it as best you can.
@Deadline-
We've got three days to deadline. If anyone is claiming they should do so soon so town has time to evaluate claims.
I don't think I'm anywhere likely to be lynched, however, with 3 players maintaining votes or "intent" to vote for no real reason, and given Zito's decision to not claim, I think it is likely that:
-Zito will not feel enough pressure to claim until it is too late for a claim to do any good
-We will either end up lynching Zito without giving him adequate time to claim OR we will end up with a no lynch
If anyone is actually willing to vote for me, say so and I'll give a partial claim.
@Excedrin-
-Okay, then I'll move you from 1 bad reason to no reason at all. It is telling that instead of showing another reason, you just complain that your reason to not lynch me should be ignored.
-Why do you ignore Sigma's stated intention to vote?
-Why do you ignore my main counterpoint?-
-
Kast tl;dr
- tl;dr
- tl;dr
- Posts: 2663
- Joined: January 12, 2009
@Zito-
Thanks for your insights.
I feel that a vote for Locke Lamora is a wasted vote this close to deadline and with a sword over your head. Townies have to compromise on vote candidates when a strict majority is required.
I suggest Dry-Fit.
-Directly misrepresented Sigma on something that was pretty clear.
-After being called on it, he lurked until I posted some pressure on Sigma. He then immediately popped up and echoed my pressure as his new reason for voting. Since then has lurked again except when called out.-
-
Kast tl;dr
- tl;dr
- tl;dr
- Posts: 2663
- Joined: January 12, 2009
Point out what is misrepresented.Excedrin wrote:
This is blatant misrepresentation.Kast wrote:refusing to vote and insisting on only hammering a randomly selected player but refusing to do anything to get others to vote for that player or try to determine if that player is scum.
He will not vote for anyone.
He will only hammer.(he has not explicitly stated this, but it's common knowledge)
He will hammer a player who he selected for either no reason or equivalent to no reason (colloquially a "random" player).
He refuses to do anything to get others to vote for that player.
He refuses to try and determine if the player is scum.
Porkens+Excedrin's votes determined Zito as a candidate to be lynched. Now you are attempting to make Kast another candidate immediately prior to deadline with no reasons. Two players determining both lynch candidates is undue control. You are blatantly misrepresenting when you claim that I labelled that as scummy. I labelled it as unfortunate; it is a bad idea for town to let that happen. It is much more a failing of the town than anything either of you did.Excedrin wrote:Kast wrote:
-Has this been at expense of not participating in other capacities?Excedrin wrote:2. Kast has spent far too much time/energy/words arguing with Rising over a "who cares?" kind of point
-How is this indicative of alignment?
So, Porkens/Excedrin duo has had undue control of discussion and that's scummy. But Kast/Rising duo has posted huge pointless discussions that prevent and derail discussion and that's not scummy?Kast wrote:It is unfortunate that the town as a whole is not active enough that the Porkens/Excedrin duo has had undue control of discussion by virtue of placing weak/reasonless votes that they undoubtedly will not be held accountable for.
Kast/Rising posting walls of text that other players chose to not read derails discussion how? Despite the walls of text, remind me which players have been actively engaging others and drawing them back into the game and while raising new points to consider and analyzing the information available and the responses of other players.
You can contrast with Rosso who says players should not discuss or give reasons for anything. Rosso actually discourages discussion.
To be clear, does this mean you have no reasons to provide?Excedrin wrote:
What? Are you intentionally trying to confuse?Kast wrote:-Okay, then I'll move you from 1 bad reason to no reason at all. It is telling that instead of showing another reason, you just complain that your reason to not lynch me should be ignored.
False. Sigma has been a supporter of Zito AND Dry-Fit as lynch candidates for most of the day. In the post you quoted, he clearly states that he agrees with kmd and will vote pick between Zito and Dry-Fit. His research is to decide which of those two is better to lynch.Excedrin wrote:
sigma has voted for a lurker. He's stated that he will continue to research Papa Zito and Dry-fit. He has not stated willingness to vote beyond that.Kast wrote:-Why do you ignore Sigma's stated intention to vote?
It is not a counterpoint to a reason for voting me, so your argument is invalid. It is a counterpoint to your inaccurate representation of the game state with respect to which players are valid candidates for being lynched.Excedrin wrote:
According to you, I have no reasons to vote you, so I'm not sure what your main counterpoint is.Kast wrote: -Why do you ignore my main counterpoint?
Altogether, there are 5(6 counting you but your position has been inconsistent) players willing to lynch Zito, 3 players willing to lynch Dry-Fit, and 3 players willing to lynch Kast. Everyone except for Rosso appears willing to lynch anyone rather than no lynch.-
-
Kast tl;dr
- tl;dr
- tl;dr
- Posts: 2663
- Joined: January 12, 2009
Please read section addressed to you. You are welcome to read other sections if you choose. Please answer the questions posed to you (elaboration is very welcome). Also please confirm if the summary your stated suspicions is accurate/up to date. If it is not, please let me know so I can correct it. Thanks.
@Dry-Fit-
-I'm assuming your FOS on Plum indicates willingness to lynch her.
-Is your comment to LL also indicative of willingness to lynch him?
-Is there anyone you would be unwilling to lynch rather than a no lynch?
-Do you expect that your vote on Sigma will have any relevance for D1?
@Excedrin-
To be clear:
-You prefer a Kast lynch, then a Sigma lynch, followed by a Zito lynch.
-You are unwilling to vote for Porkens (or yourself).
-You are willing to vote for other players if that is required to prevent a no lynch.
@KRW-
-I haven't seen your promised post(s). Hope everything is going okay and looking forward to some response. Please do not disappoint; every vote is important.
To be clear:
-You are most suspicious of RC, followed by Plum.
-You plan to vote for someone who will guarantee a lynch instead of a no lynch but currently do not know which player among the vote leaders is the scummiest.
@KMD-
-What do you think of the case on Kast?
To be clear:
-You are most suspicious of Zito and would prefer his lynch.
-Your next suspect is Rising, but you do not feel that a Rising lynch will occur anytime soon.
-You are willing to vote for others to secure a lynch rather than a no lynch.
@LL-
-Do you have any suspects other than Zito?
-You have been gathering information on other players for the majority of the game. Do you have any analysis of this information available?
-You dislike the Dry-Fit wagon. Do you dislike it more than the Kast wagon?
To be clear:
-You would like to lynch Zito.
-Are you willing to lynch others to secure a lynch rather than no lynch?
@Zito-
-Your recent posts have answered my questions already. For completeness:
-You would prefer a lynch of Locke Lamora over all others.
-You prefer lynching Porkens or KMD next and equally to each other.
-You prefer a lynch of KRW, RC, Ex, or DF next and equally to each other.
-You prefer a lynch of Sigma after that.
-You prefer a lynch of the rest after that rather than a no lynch.
@Plum-
-I get that you think Rising is scummy, however, consider that you may be letting that influence you and bias you to dismiss Rising's case against Dry-Fit.
-I have the impression that you may equate agreement with towniness. Consider if that is affecting your thoughts/analysis.
To be clear:
-You prefer a lynch of Excedrin, then Zito, then Rising.
-You are willing to vote others to secure a lynch rather than no lynch.
@Pork-
-Do you think that your case/suspicion of me is strong?
-I get the impression that you don't really know or care if I am scum, but would happily lynch me just to remove a source of long/tedious posts. Is this accurate?
-Do you think Excedrin's reasons for wagonning are valid?
-I don't believe you ever answered whether you think it is generally scummy for one player to defend someone else. Do you think this?
To be clear:
-Your preference is currently Kast, then Plum, then Zito.
-Are you willing to change your vote to secure a lynch rather than no lynch?
@Rising-
-Please confirm if you plan to move your vote from Dry-Fit. Are you still unwilling to lynch Dry-Fit today?
-Have you found anyone that you prefer to lynch rather than Dry-Fit? Please share who you are moving it to and why.
-What do you think of the case against me?
-What do you think of the case on Zito?
To be clear:
-You suspect Dry-Fit, then Excedrin.
-You would like to vote for a stronger case than the one you have against Dry-Fit.
-Are you willing to change your vote to secure a lynch rather than no lynch?
@RC-
-Please confirm that you are only willing to hammer Kast and unwilling to vote in any other manner for D1.
@Sigma-
-Please confirm that you are considering Zito and Dry-Fit as lynch candidates (in particular that your post 23 states this).
-Have you made a decision yet?
-Are you adding Kast to the list of your candidates under consideration?
To be clear:
-You are willing to lynch either Dry-Fit OR Zito and cannot currently decide which you prefer.
-You are willing to vote for others to secure a lynch rather than no lynch.
Summary of who people are willing to vote for:
Compiled from above assumptions. Please correct above assumptions if anything is inaccurate.
(A) Player
(B) # 1st or 2nd pick
(C) # 3rd pick
(D) # Lynch rather than no lynch
(E) # Unknown (probably will add to previous column)
(F) # 1st, 2nd, and 3rd picks
Code: Select all
(A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F) Zito 4 2 1 3 6 DF 3 1 3 3 4 Ex 2 2 3 3 4 Kast 3 0 5 2 3 Plum 3 0 5 2 3 RC 2 1 4 4 3 Sig 2 0 5 3 2 KMD 2 0 3 4 2 LL 1 1 4 4 2 Ris 1 1 4 4 2 Pork 1 1 4 3 2 KRW 0 1 5 4 1
------------------------------
@Excedrin-
In general you are being very inconsistent and exhibiting signs of confirmation bias. Immediately following are your points of inconsistency. Below that are answers to your post. Answers have been numbered to facilitate responding.
-You claim that you will return your vote to Zito if Kast wagon is not a viable lynch. You claim that the Dry-Fit wagon, which is equal to or stronger than the Kast wagon, is not a viable lynch. You fail to return your vote to Zito.
-You claim that discouraging discussion is very scummy. You admit that Rosso's posts can be seen as directly discouraging discussion (given that he directly stated that players should NOT share or discuss reasons and should JUST vote, that seems impossible to rationally deny), but claim that is okay. You inconsistently claim that Kast's large posts could potentially discourage discussion, and claim this potential is a valid reason to think Kast is scum.
-Inconsistently you also ignore other players who posted long posts.
-You are intentionally engaging behavior that you claim discourages other players from posting and is scummy.
-You request explanations from other players, but inconsistently say it is scummy when Kast provides explanations.
-You also inconsistently excuse Rosso Carne for giving no reasons/explanations.
(1)-Technically you are correct that Rosso did not directly state this. However, you can amend my point to "He will not place a vote that is not a hammer vote AND will not place it on anyone except for Kast". Do you have any objections to this longer form? I mistakenly assumed the shorter form was clear enough. From context it should have been clear that "He will hammer a player who he selected" is distinct from the voting in the previous post. The link is an example that he is not even willing to vote for Kast, his hammer target.
(2)-False. Sometimes players try to get squirrely and claim that saying a vote is because they think a player is scum is providing a reason for voting that player. It really is not; but leaving that debate for another time (but still noting it since I assume that if I do not, you will raise it as a straw man objection), a hammer is OBVIOUSLY made because you think a player is scum. That is NOT a reason for wanting to lynch the player. That is roughly equivalent to saying your "reason" for voting is because you wanted to vote. It does NOT answer the question.
(3)-You fail at parsing that phrase. In that post he refuses to share his reason(s). This is equivalent to and indistinguishable from having no reasons.
The parenthentical refers to the entire sentence and explains that a vote with no reasons is equivalent to and indistinguishable from an arbitrary vote. Colloquially, we call these arbitrary votes "random votes" and restrict their use to the RVS. They are generally restricted to RVS because a combination of game theory plus thousands of games of mafia have proved out that use of these arbitrary votes outside of the initial RVS is extremely anti-town.
(4)-The link is one example of Rosso refusing to do anything to get others to vote for his target. It is typical of his play. If you disagree, then instead of resorting to ad hom and insulting my post, try providing a counter example. It should be simple, yet Rosso has done nothing. Suggestion: scan through Rosso's posts in isolation, and you will see that he has done nothing to convince others to vote for his target.
He also makes it clear that he is willing to withhold information from the town to get revenge on a player who was rude to him. This behavior is anti-town and very childish.
(5)-False. I assume that since he DIRECTLY STATED that he will not share his thoughts/provide an explanation and that he thinks doing so is SCUMMY that he is telling the truth and refusing to try and determine if a player is scum. Instead, he is advocating JUST voting for suspects without discussing anything with them.
He made a decision from the beginning of the game and refuses to make any attempt to determine if that decision is true or false or otherwise have any effect on the rest of the game. As I've stated before, Rosso Carne is refusing to play and instead actively lurking (unfortunately, his meta makes it clear that this is not indicative of his alignment).
(6)-False. More confirmation bias. I have maintained that Zito is the only currently viable lynch. Dry-Fit and Kast are roughly equal runners up, though Dry-Fit's wagon is stronger. You are the one who keeps presenting an inconsistent false dilemma.
However, you are correct that I shouldn't say no reasons. Ishouldsay negative reasons or anti-reasons or something to indicate that you and Porkens are voting and justifying the vote by providing reasons why you both should not vote for me. Wherever you see no reasons, feel free to refer to this paragraph.
(7)-This is an inaccurate representation of our game. At least one person read all my posts (and others have indicated that they read all or the majority). I also disagree that I posted anything that isn't useful.
I have posted some things that were non-essential for catching scum. How is doing that scummy? You are inconsistent in claiming that this is scummy but only attacking me for this.
(8)-To be clear, we agree that discouraging discussion is anti-town. That said, please explain how you determined that my posts have discouraged discussion.
I strongly disagree and believe that the posting record reflects that I have generated a great deal of discussion, probably more than any other player. While there may be some players who dislike reading through long posts, and some players who are discouraged to see multiple pages of posts to go through, I think it is a huge misrepresentation to claim that this effect has been greater or even anywhere near the amount of game relevant discussion that I have generated by directly engaging other players, pushing other players to share their thoughts, sharing my thoughts, and providing information and analysis of all game related points thus far.
If you would like, and if you will actually read and respond instead of simply dismissing it, I can provide an analysis by player of posts that I encouraged, total posts, and posts indicating discouragement from posting as a result of my posts. Please don't make me waste time on that if you are going to just ignore it.
-Rosso Carne has discouraged discussion. Saying he is just terse does not mean he is not discouraging discussion. You are attempting to excuse him on basis of playstyle (which makes you inconsistent). However, his direct statement that players should not share thoughts and instead should just vote is completely independent of him being terse and IS a discouragement of discussion.
(9)-To be clear, no I am not intending to confuse. It looks like your confusion results from your attempt to avoid my point. Please address it now. If you have a reason FOR thinking I am scum, please share it.
(10)-I realize a lot of players on these boards don't have English as a native language or are unfamiliar with colloquial phrases. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume one of those two refers to you instead of assuming that you are intentionally not understanding the posts you quoted.
-The phrase "come around" means to change one's mind. Zito initially disagreed with KMD's argument, but changed his mind and now agrees with them. He confirms this by agreeing that the case on Zito is legitimate.
-The phrase "any takers?" is a question asking whether anyone is willing to do something. In this case, he is asking other people are willing to join the wagon on Dry-Fit. He begins by explicitly stating that he is suspicious of Dry-Fit, providing reasons, then asking if anyone else is similarly suspicious.
-These two differ from all others; Sigma has clarified that he no longer disagrees with KMD; he has clarified that the vote on Porkens was not due to suspicion but to get Porkens to answer his question; the vote on Locke was similarly to get Locke to post an opinion instead of only posting questions; and the vote for Keelie has also been clarified as not meant to lynch but meant to get Keelie to stop lurking and to post.
The cases on Dry-Fit and Zito, combined with his post directly stating that he agrees with KMD and is deciding between Dry-Fit and Zito (which you quoted previously but failed to include this time), show a clear difference between Dry-Fit/Zito and other players.
-This aside we can hear him confirm this himself.
(11)-Your response to my response fallaciously combines two independent and separate points as though they are the same.
You claimed that you have reasons for voting for me, but actually did not have any.
Independently of that, you have also misrepresented the current state of the game by claiming that Kast is a viable lynch target and not addressing that Zito is the only currently viable lynch target.
Instead of addressing this point, you (inadequately) attacked a minor point. It is nonsensical to combine your failure in this area with your failure in another area.
(A)-Player A claims Statement 1 proves Statement 2.
(B)-Player A claims Statement 3 is true.
(C)-Player B claims Statement 1 does not prove Statement 2.
(D)-Player B claims that Statement 3 is not true because of Statement 4.
(E)-Player B claims that Statement 3 is not true because of Statement 5.
(F)-Player A claims that Statement 5 is not true.
(G)-Player B claims that Statement 5 is true, but that Statement 3 would still not be true even if Statement 5 is false because of Statement 4.
(H)-Player A claims that the existence of Statement 4 as proof that Statement 3 is not true implies that Statement 1 must prove Statement 2.
(12)-Your position has been inconsistent. After switching to me you claimed that your vote would return if the Kast wagon was not viable. It is not viable but you are not returning. That is inconsistent.
(13)-Until Rising moves his vote and/or confirms that he is unwilling to lynch Dry-Fit, his vote is still on Dry-Fit's wagon. We will get a confirmation from him, but from context, he is suspicious of Dry-Fit. From recent posts, the post you quoted, and our game state, it appears that he has not found anyone who he would prefer to lynch over Dry-Fit, and he does not have much time to change that.
Excedrin wrote:
(1)You interpret this as "will not" vs actual meaning of "I'm currently not voting." I can be certain of Rosso's actual meaning here because, to hammer, he has to vote, and he has stated that he will vote for you. It's in scumKast's favor to plant this misconception, I'm not sure why townKast would do this.Kast wrote:
Point out what is misrepresented.Excedrin wrote:
This is blatant misrepresentation.Kast wrote:refusing to vote and insisting on only hammering a randomly selected player but refusing to do anything to get others to vote for that player or try to determine if that player is scum.
He will not vote for anyone.(2)In that post he gave a reason.
(3)In this post he says he won't share his reason(s). That's not the same as random.Kast wrote:equivalent to no reason (colloquially a "random" player).(4)Question asked was "Ready to reveal yet?" and his answer was "nah." How can you go from "nah" to the BS you said?
(5)You assume that because he hasn't responded with a HUGE POST like this one, that he's "refusing to try."
(6)Alright, it was unfortunate. I guess it was an unfortunate-tell. Fortunately, your reaction to my vote are to support the false dilemma that I originally objected to and to repeat "no reasons" which is absurd(ly scummy).Kast wrote:
Porkens+Excedrin's votes determined Zito as a candidate to be lynched. Now you are attempting to make Kast another candidate immediately prior to deadline withExcedrin wrote:Kast wrote:
-Has this been at expense of not participating in other capacities?Excedrin wrote:2. Kast has spent far too much time/energy/words arguing with Rising over a "who cares?" kind of point
-How is this indicative of alignment?
So, Porkens/Excedrin duo has had undue control of discussion and that's scummy. But Kast/Rising duo has posted huge pointless discussions that prevent and derail discussion and that's not scummy?Kast wrote:It is unfortunate that the town as a whole is not active enough that the Porkens/Excedrin duo has had undue control of discussion by virtue of placing weak/reasonless votes that they undoubtedly will not be held accountable for.no reasons. Two players determining both lynch candidates is undue control. You are blatantly misrepresenting when you claim that I labelled that as scummy. I labelled it as unfortunate; it is a bad idea for town to let that happen. It is much more a failing of the town than anything either of you did.
(7)Why would you knowingly post huge posts (that aren't useful anyway) that nobody's going to read? You definitely knew that some of your posts were "non-essential" (aka: does nothing to find scum).Kast wrote:Kast/Rising posting walls of text that other players chose to not read derails discussion how? Despite the walls of text, remind me which players have been actively engaging others and drawing them back into the game and while raising new points to consider and analyzing the information available and the responses of other players.
Plum pointed this out in #119 and you replied:Kast wrote:#120
-Yes, I do get easily sidetracked in non-essential arguments. I don't think it detracts from me looking at other players.
Both posts came before #143 and #147. which each inspired huge responses from Rising.Kast wrote:#135
I'm debating you because I enjoy arguing...
(8)Your discussion with Rising contributed to town's unfortunate lack of posting. You knew that your sidetrack in a non-essential argument would lead nowhere despite taking effort to attempt to wade thru (nevermind replying). That is how it's indicative of alignment.
You spent a lot of words to come up with "Rising is town."
I can see how you'd think that. But Rosso Carne is just terse. Your method of discouraging discussion is subtler and you can later point at it and say, "look at how active I've been."Kast wrote:You can contrast with Rosso who says players should not discuss or give reasons for anything. Rosso actually discourages discussion.
(9)Are you admitting that you intend to confuse?Kast wrote:
To be clear, does this mean you haveExcedrin wrote:
What? Are you intentionally trying to confuse?Kast wrote:-Okay, then I'll move you from 1 bad reason tono reasonat all. It is telling that instead of showing another reason, you just complain that your reason to not lynch me should be ignored.no reasonsto provide?
Your "no reasons" mantra is relaxing.
(10)Lets have a closer look at sigma, then you can elaborate how he's supported both Zito AND Dry-fit lynches today.Kast wrote:
False. Sigma has been a supporter of Zito AND Dry-Fit as lynch candidates for most of the day. In the post you quoted, he clearly states that he agrees with kmd and will vote pick between Zito and Dry-Fit. His research is to decide which of those two is better to lynch.Excedrin wrote:sigma has voted for a lurker. He's stated that he will continue to research Papa Zito and Dry-fit. He has not stated willingness to vote beyond that.
sigma's votes with reasons:
#21 Dry-fit: RVS
#33 Kmd4390: found scum on page 2, too early
#91 Porkens: didn't answer question/lurking
#93 Locke Lamora: questions / no opinions
#142 KeelieRavenWolf: lurking
sigma wrote:#130
After a few pages, I'm beginning to come around a little bit on KMD's argument on Zito.sigma wrote:#144
KMD has made a valid point about Zito's lack of scum-hunting which I agree with. His earlier arguments were instigating. I've already said I disagreed with that somewhat, and that's as good a reason as any to vote that early. So, 'I'm coming around' mainly refers to the lack of scumhunting pointed out by KMD.
I contend that sigma has also stated no strong opinions on anyone who's actually playing. I can't find any statement by sigma like, "I'm willing to lynch X" except for his statement to lynch KeelieRavenWolf for lurking.sigma wrote:#162
I'm a little concerned about dry-fit. Here's what he's done so far:
1. Scumhunting/attacking me.
2. Defend himself from Rising attacks.
3. Respond to Kast questioning.
I have an obvious bias because he's voting me, and I'd like to get others' reads on Dry-fit -- any takers?
(11)My eyes glazed over long ago. I have no idea what you're saying here. Is anyone else reading this far?Kast wrote:
It is not a counterpoint to a reason for voting me, so your argument is invalid. It is a counterpoint to your inaccurate representation of the game state with respect to which players are valid candidates for being lynched.Excedrin wrote:
According to you, I have no reasons to vote you, so I'm not sure what your main counterpoint is.Kast wrote: -Why do you ignore my main counterpoint?
(12)My position hasn't been inconsistent. I voted Papa Zito pretty early and when I switched to you I stated that I'm still willing to change my vote in order to lynch Papa Zito (or sigma).Kast wrote:Altogether, there are 5(6 counting you but your position has been inconsistent) players willing to lynch Zito, 3 players willing to lynch Dry-Fit, and 3 players willing to lynch Kast. Everyone except for Rosso appears willing to lynch anyone rather than no lynch.
(13)Since Rising isn't willing to lynch Dry-fit, who else are you counting here?-
-
Kast tl;dr
- tl;dr
- tl;dr
- Posts: 2663
- Joined: January 12, 2009
Btw-
I've been lazy and assumed that Rosso's meta is actually to just place hammer votes without reasons, as others have claimed his normal meta is.
I looked at his first game and it is completely absent. Rosso can and does actually engage in discussion.
Jumping forward (May 08) he still does not have this hammer policy nor does he evidence his disdain for posting reasons/suspicions. He has a terse posting style at points, but that is brief and confined to the RVS.
Okay, here's a game with KMD, Keelie, Plum, and Rosso Carne. RC uses the hammer only strategy, and picks a random player from the beginning of the game with no reason (Plum). Differing vastly from this game, he easily changes his target (though he returns to Plum) and is willing to discuss with town and share his opinions/thoughts. His random suspicion is (unsurprisingly) wrong, but he actively looks for scum, even going as far as baiting and trapping the serial killer.
@RC-
Do you have any example games where you as town showed a similar disdain for posting thoughts or reasons that you show in this game?ShowT: 9/6.5/0
M: 8/2/1
O: 0/3.5/0
V/LA Pretty much all Weekends and Holidays-
-
Kast tl;dr
- tl;dr
- tl;dr
- Posts: 2663
- Joined: January 12, 2009
Updated with Porkens and Sigma's posts.
(A) Player
(B) # 1st or 2nd pick
(C) # 3rd pick
(D) # Lynch rather than no lynch
(E) # Unknown (probably will add to previous column)
(F) # 1st, 2nd, and 3rd picks
Code: Select all
(A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F) Zito 4 1 2 5 5 DF 3 1 4 6 4 Ex 2 2 4 6 4 Kast 3 0 5 8 3 RC 2 1 5 8 3 LL 2 1 4 7 3 Plum 2 0 6 8 2 Sig 2 0 6 7 2 KMD 2 0 4 8 2 Ris 1 1 5 8 2 Pork 1 1 4 7 2 KRW 0 1 6 9 1
@Excedrin-
-Confirmation bias refers to when you only look at things from one point of view; accepting evidence that supports or can be perceived to support your already determined viewpoint and rejecting evidence that contradicts it. It is essentially fitting the facts to your preconception, instead of forming your judgments based on the evidence.
-He directly states that players should not share their thoughts and that doing so is anti-town. It doesn't get more clear and direct than that.
-So to be clear, you are not interested in seeing whether people actually posted more (overall were encouraged) as a result of my posts and don't care to defend your claim that people posted less (overall were discouraged) as a result of my posts?
Also, false generalization. Posting lots of words can generate discussion but does not necessarily do so. My posts in particular have generated a significant amount of discussion. Most of this discussion has been completely game relevant, some of it has been only tangentially relevant or irrelevant.
-Your reasons are inconsistent.
1. This is your only point that could be a valid tell. You are inconsistent in applying this to me but not to others.
2. This is false. You have failed to provide any evidence to support this claim. If you are just going to make up stuff, then obviously those inventions are not reasons.
3. Having a weak case on Day 1 is not a scum tell. The case on Dry-Fit is NOT extremely weak.
4. A "Neutral" read or a "Slight" read is not the same as a weakly held read. You may not fully understand the term "weakly held" but it means the person is not convinced about the idea and can be easily swayed to change it. This is an inaccurate description of the current situation. Even if it were the case, this is not a scum tell.
5. You appear to not understand either what a dismissive response is or when that term is valid as a scum tell. It is scummy when a player gives a dismissive responseinstead ofaddressing a point. I have provided an explanation with everything that I have dismissed. Simply using a dismissive response is a part of speech and does not itself indicate alignment.
(10) Sigma has clarified. He was deciding between Dry-Fit and Zito. He is willing to lynch Dry-Fit and has decided against lynching Zito. He has also added LL as his new top choice. Your post is an example of a dismissive response that is used to avoid answering the issue.
Your response here vaguely hints that Sigma is scummy. From your PoV, you are knowingly engaging in what you define as scummy behavior. Why are you doing this?vaguely hinting that someone might be cause for "concern" is scummy.Please be consistent
(11) Your attempt to use a dismissive response to trivialize my post is noted. Another example of you knowingly engaging in behavior that you define as scummy.
Second, you make a distinction that the player must include the vote within the same post that the vote is made in. This is irrelevant. A reason can be provided before or after the vote. Until a reason is provided, the post is indistinguishable from a post without reason.
-If a player claims to have a reason but does not have one, then from the perspective of other players, they do NOT have a reason.
-If a player claims to have a reason but refuses to share it, then from the perspective of other players, they do NOT have a reason.
-If a player claims to have a reason but does not provide it, then from the perspective of other players, they do NOT have a reason.
-If a player says they have a reason to vote and the reason is "the target is scummy", then no that is NOT a reason. (RC)
-If a player says they have a reason to vote and the reason is actually a reason to NOT vote, then that is NOT a reason. (Exc)-
-
Kast tl;dr
-
-
Kast tl;dr
- tl;dr
- tl;dr
- Posts: 2663
- Joined: January 12, 2009
@LL-
I'm putting that down as Zito first, Porkens second, Plum third.
Code: Select all
Zito 4 1 2 3 5 DF 3 1 4 2 4 Ex 2 2 4 2 4 Kast 3 0 5 3 3 RC 2 1 5 3 3 Plum 2 1 5 2 3 LL 2 1 4 3 3 Pork 2 1 3 3 3 Sig 2 0 6 2 2 KMD 2 0 4 4 2 Ris 1 1 5 3 2 KRW 0 1 6 3 1
Zito remains the most viable lynch. I agree with his assessment that his name claim looks unlikely to change anyone's mind.
Two days to deadline. I'd really like to hear from Keelie, Rising, and KMD.-
-
Kast tl;dr
- tl;dr
- tl;dr
- Posts: 2663
- Joined: January 12, 2009
@Excedrin-
-Kast lynch was never happening. Your attempt to distract the town has failed. The throwaway comment where you copy my call for Plum, KMD, and Rising is out of place. It sounds like an attempt to draw attention away from your failed attempt to distract the town.
-Are you going to follow your leader again? Or are you going to break your 3/3 streak?
-Sigma already clearly stated that he thinks Zito has been scumhunting recently.
If the player who is modkilled is town, then it ends the day. If the player is scum, then it does not end the day. However, if the modkill is a result of lurking, then it does not end the day. This was already clarified by Spyrex.Does a modkill end the day?
@Porkens-
-How is a claim to be a human convincing? This is similar to changing your vote when someone claims generic townie. This is scummy. Zito himself admitted that his claim isn't a good reason to stop lynching him.
-Why the vote for LL?
Suggestion:vote for Dry-Fit if you genuinely think that Zito's claim means Zito should not be lynched.
@Zito-
Suggestion:vote for Dry-Fit rather than leaving yourself as the vote leader.-
-
Kast tl;dr
- tl;dr
- tl;dr
- Posts: 2663
- Joined: January 12, 2009
Forgot to put the updated list:
Code: Select all
DF 3 1 5 1 4 Zito 3 1 3 2 4 Ex 2 2 4 2 4 Kast 3 0 6 2 3 LL 3 0 5 2 3 Pork 3 0 3 2 3 RC 2 1 7 1 3 Plum 2 1 6 1 3 Sig 2 0 6 2 2 Ris 1 1 7 1 2 KMD 1 1 6 2 2 KRW 0 1 8 1 1
By my count, DF is now the most viable lynch (close with Zito, but Porkens statement that he doesn't want Zito lynched leaves DF in the lead on votes to prevent a mislynch).
@Zito-
Okay. I'm counting explicitly named neutrals or third candidates (if neutrals are not named) in the same column so order doesn't really matter. Suspected townies or players not named are being counted as willing to lynch rather than no lynch so order doesn't really matter there either.-
-
Kast tl;dr
- tl;dr
- tl;dr
- Posts: 2663
- Joined: January 12, 2009
-
-
Kast tl;dr
- tl;dr
- tl;dr
- Posts: 2663
- Joined: January 12, 2009
@Keelie-
-Does "no-lynch strategy" mean placing a vote with the intent of avoiding a no lynch?
-Yes, I hoped for more. No comment on Dry-Fit?
-Zito has claimed. Reactions?
@People who (for whatever "reason") actually think I am scum-
-Don't let your opinion of me as scum bias you against voting Dry-Fit.
-Also, if you look at my completed games as scum and you'll see Kast-scum has no problems at all with bussing a scumbuddy, especially not on D1 when it buys a lot of town credibility.-
-
Kast tl;dr
- tl;dr
- tl;dr
- Posts: 2663
- Joined: January 12, 2009
@Mod-
Was this an error in the old vote count?
At that point in time, Porkens had been voting Kast, then switched to Zito. The vote for LL was not placed until after this vote count.Locke Lamora(3): Papa Zito, sigma,Porkens-
-
Kast tl;dr
- tl;dr
- tl;dr
- Posts: 2663
- Joined: January 12, 2009
@KRW-
Much less ideal than a Dry-Fit lynch, but this is preferable to a Zito lynch.
One huge problem/drawback from a KRW lynch is that everything points that KRW will not post a defense or claim. Votes on KRW are, for all intents and purposes, final votes.
If this game has limited reveals on death (ie. name+affiliation only or name+race+affiliation), we're losing information that could give scum more freedom in future.
On the plus side, KRW's inactivity isn't a result of one time circumstances (as claimed), so it is unlikely that there will be any increase in activity even later in the game.
Unvote, Vote: KRW
@KRW-
If you check the boards again, strongly consider claiming.ShowT: 9/6.5/0
M: 8/2/1
O: 0/3.5/0
V/LA Pretty much all Weekends and Holidays-
-
Kast tl;dr
- tl;dr
- tl;dr
- Posts: 2663
- Joined: January 12, 2009
@LL-
-Yes, I think a KRW lynch is preferable to a Zito lynch.
I roughly agree with your assessment that lynching KRW is likely to provide less direct information than a lynch of Zito would. However, information gained from a lynch is not the sole factor to consider, nor do I think the decrease in information gained is going to be significant.
Ideally, we want to identify the player whose lynch grants the highest expected utility to the town. This is comprised of two main components, the probability that the player is town/scum, and the utility to the town of a given person's death. The utility function for each player would include (though this is not an exhaustive list) account for:
+Info about game setup
+Info about vote history of the lynchee
+Info about vote history against the lynchee
+Info about post record of the lynchee
-Info from the lynchee
-Info from future posts by the lynchee
-Abilities of the lynchee
It's usually not possible to quantify these criteria with hard numbers, but it is usually possible to make a qualitative judgment (especially one relative to another player under consideration).
This whole exercise is usually dominated by probability under the assumption that the utility of correctly lynching scum is the maximum benefit to town.
KRW reads very neutral in affiliation (there's just nothing there to build a good read on). KRW's posting has been anti-town in that she is lurking heavily and not voting responsibly.
Zito reads mostly neutral; not doing anything scummy. He has been overall pro-town, and as Sigma noted, has been doing more in terms of scum hunting towards the latter half of the day.
In terms of probabilities, I'd say Zito is probably more likely to be town than KRW, but both are ambiguous and it is close enough to be a wash.
Looking at the criteria in my utility function:
~There is nothing to suggest that the first point is any different between the two (and with KRW unlikely to post again or make a claim, this is likely to remain equal).
~Zito's votes have been pretty sparse but transparent. KRW's are a bit less clear. Both of them have very reactionary votes which won't tell us much.
~I think we learn a similar amount from the wagons on either; however, I agree that we probably learn a little bit more from the wagon on Zito since there has been more activity regarding Zito.
~Zito clearly has a much richer post record to mine through.
~Nothing suggests a difference in this factor; there is a marginal benefit in lynching KRW since KRW could potentially have information but never share it even if she is not lynched.
~We lose far more from Zito's death than from KRW. This is a HUGE difference.
~Nothing suggests a difference in this factor; there is a marginal benefit in lynching KRW since KRW could potentially have a night action but never use it or use it irresponsibly.
Overall, I think the benefits from lynching either of them are similar, the risks from lynching KRW are much lower than the risks of lynching Zito.
-I strongly dislike strict majority requirements as they force townies to make less than ideal votes, and allow scum to hide their bad votes behind a facade of doing the right thing for the town.
-Btw, I think the outrage against KRW placing an uninformed vote and not catching up is overzealous. If KRW is actually busy with two jobs and whatever else life is throwing at her, then it is understandable (not good, but understandable) that she would throw out a vote on the best information she had at the time (which was that Zito was the vote leader and nobody else was even close).
Somewhat wifom, but I think it more likely than not that lurking scum would just continue lurking; all indications point that nobody would have taken KRW to account for lurking through the rest of D1 (at least, not until D2).
@Excedrin-
To be clear:
You are saying that you think KRW is almost certainly town, not because she herself has been pro-town, but because the people voting her are doing so in a very anti-town manner or doing so for anti-town reasons?-
-
Kast tl;dr
- tl;dr
- tl;dr
- Posts: 2663
- Joined: January 12, 2009
@LL/Excedrin-
Claiming that we should not lynch KRW because we "learn little" is an invalid argument. We need to decide between a limited number of candidates. What we need to compare is not an absolute value, but something relative. We "learn little" from anyone, that is irrelevant. What matters is how much we learn from one lynch relative to (an)other(s).
This is probably a bit unfair to LL since he didn't actually state what Excedrin posted.ShowT: 9/6.5/0
M: 8/2/1
O: 0/3.5/0
V/LA Pretty much all Weekends and Holidays-
-
Kast tl;dr
- tl;dr
- tl;dr
- Posts: 2663
- Joined: January 12, 2009
@Excedrin-
That's a very squirrely post.
It's a simple request for clarification based directly on your recent statements.
Please indicate agreement or disagreement with the following:
-You believe KRW is almost certainly town.
-You do not believe KRW has been playing in a pro-town manner.
-You believe that players who vote for KRW are likely to receive less scrutiny if KRW is lynched and flips town, than they would receive if they lynched any other player and the other player flipped town.
-You believe that the previous point indicates that scum would be inclined to vote for KRW.-
-
Kast tl;dr
- tl;dr
- tl;dr
- Posts: 2663
- Joined: January 12, 2009
@KRW-
-The sudden increase in post frequency doesn't jive so well with previous claims. Don't get me wrong, I like it and hope it continues.
-Agreed with Zito that your flavor for purpose sounds like a survivor win con. Not scum maybe, but not town aligned either.
-I haven't taken the time to try out SC2, though I have downloaded it back home, so for now I'm reliant on whatever information others here can provide, and what I can search for and find. Your pilot name does not appear in the Star Control II Super Melee Module Extended Reference Text (which includes lists of all ships/races/captains). Mine does, as does Zito's claimed name.
Either your name was provided to you, or you are making it up. I think it is unlikely that Spyrex would provide a fake claim name which was completely made if all the real names came from actual game characters. This would be extremely unfair to scum.@Zitodoes KRW's claimed name fit with normal mmrnmhrn naming conventions?
Is this flavor, or are you actually claiming an ability?Unique mental structure, immune to mind-influencing effects and such.
@Zito-
This sounds like you are not Alliance, although you could be third party who can win with the alliance (similar to KRW's claim).I was kicked from the Alliance for being reckless and insubordinate.
A huge difference between your analogy and your flavor is that Kirk wasn't kicked from the Federation or Starfleet.
-I meant to ask this previously, what does slave-shielded mean?
@Excedrin-
The claim actually is kinda weak and potentially has holes in it. I'd agree that even if completely plausible, KRW hasn't said anything that should make a townie retract their vote (barring private information). However, the possibility that the holes in the claim are signs of a botched fake claim is something that could reasonably convince someone to vote and/or reinforce a weakly placed vote.Plum, what is there to think about regarding her claim? It kinda changes nothing.
@KRW-
My vote stands where it is.-
-
Kast tl;dr
-
-
Kast tl;dr
- tl;dr
- tl;dr
- Posts: 2663
- Joined: January 12, 2009
@Mod-does this game use limited reveals on death?
@Mod-how would you normally handle a mistake such as making a typo in a player's role PM name (or race or ship name)?
@KRW-
-I would think a town win con should be more indicative than your PM color.My PM info was green. This, I assume, stands as town, as Porkens lead me to believe that red is the scum color.
-Is Porkens your scumbuddy? If not, I don't see why (or how) you are taking advice from another player on what your alignment is. Scumslip?
-Please answer my question. You listed some racial "flavor" previously. Was that flavor or an ability claim?I, on the other hand, know none of it, and my flavor is only that which is assumed, since I was given no backstory for my character, only an ability, a ship and it's abilities, and a racial name. Other than that; nothing.
-I assume you were also given a character name and are not here stating that it was made up. Did you make a typo in telling us your name? Please check with the mod.
@Zito-
Interesting. My PM has flavor, but nothing that I would call a "backstory". KRW's claimed flavor has a similarity to mine in terminating with an imperative to help end the war. It says nothing about surviving.Also interesting. My PM has a specific (if sketchy) backstory for my character.
I don't think KRW was intending to claim survivor, but if she is a survivor and I would expect her flavor would include something about that. I can see a newbie survivor sharing flavor that reveals herself.
@Rising-
Welcome back.
"KMD wrote:Your post looks more like you'd prefer to lynch Zito[/KMD]" Haha, look at the complete moron. I bet he's pretty embarassed.
-I don't think an RC or Porkens lynch is at all feasible at the moment (barring some extremely scummy post from either of them and even then it's doubtful).
@All-
I suggest to everyone not on the KRW wagon, if you plan to move your vote, do not wait until the last second. Set a public, personal deadline a couple hours before the actual one, just in case you can't make it or something comes up.-
-
Kast tl;dr
- tl;dr
- tl;dr
- Posts: 2663
- Joined: January 12, 2009
@KRW-
If you think a full claim will save you OR if you think the town would benefit from knowing any abilities you may have (this may NOT be the case) post accordingly.
Mod seems on the ball, we may have very little twilight. Please prepare any final thoughts.ShowT: 9/6.5/0
M: 8/2/1
O: 0/3.5/0
V/LA Pretty much all Weekends and Holidays-
-
Kast tl;dr
- tl;dr
- tl;dr
- Posts: 2663
- Joined: January 12, 2009
@All-
Also, if KRW decides to claim, PLEASE don't offer reciprocal information about your own role PM, UNLESS you actually plan to convince others to lynch elsewhere. It always sucks when dying scum outs power roles at deadline.ShowT: 9/6.5/0
M: 8/2/1
O: 0/3.5/0
V/LA Pretty much all Weekends and Holidays-
-
Kast tl;dr
- tl;dr
- tl;dr
- Posts: 2663
- Joined: January 12, 2009
I dislike this. If you think it is valid to punish you for lurking behavior that you claim is outside your control, then waiting until D2 is unnecessary.I'll be here next day round if I'm wrong, feel free to lynch me then.
-No comment about name.
-No comment about "flavor".
I don't get a sense that you are very interested in staying alive, which is perplexing (though perhaps you've just got a lot of stuff going on).ShowT: 9/6.5/0
M: 8/2/1
O: 0/3.5/0
V/LA Pretty much all Weekends and Holidays-
-
Kast tl;dr
- tl;dr
- tl;dr
- Posts: 2663
- Joined: January 12, 2009
@D2-
-From end of D1 voting, Plum and Zito are night confirmed in my eyes. Plum's vote was vital in making KRW a lynch candidate (I'd argue mine was the deciding one, but obviously I'm biased).
-Porken's vote could be a bus. Sigma's less likely but also possible.
-Excedrin and Rising placed late votes that don't reliably say anything about their affiliation.
-KMD's insistent defense of KRW is suspect. RC's complete lurking is also suspect.
@Sigma's Ship & Claim-
D1 post regarding Porkens' claim is consistent with his claim (indicating he is telling the truth or was already planning that false claim). Afterburners that are equivalent to every night commuting sounds plausible.
@Zito-
I agree with Sigma's assessment. He did not claim to be Thraddash; he claimed that IF he were scum, then he would not have thrown away a ship that makes him untargettable. This is still fallacious since if he is Thraddash, then it is likely that he is lying about his ship's ability.
@Fishing-
[quote=Sigma]I also think the scum tried to kill me or porkens and failed because the jettison took place before the kill action.[/quote]
-This is pure speculation. I dislike this without an explicit reminder that people should not comment in a way that could give away if they know more about this. Without that, it is entirely possible that this is a fishing attempt. To add to this, we don't know the method of the scum kill; we don't even know if they kill pilots, ships, or both.
[quote=Sigma]Let's use some logic, people. Why would I bus my scum-partner and then jettison my ship which allows me to be untargetable? What sequence of night actions would result in porkens and me getting a ship destroyed? I don't think you can come up with a plausible scenario where I'm scum.[/quote]
If you are scum, then you are probably lying about your ship's ability. If you are scum, then you had your claim ready from D1 and probably had the plan to destroy your ship (for whatever reason) already ready.
Porkens either jettisoned OR has some ability which destroys his ship. He would be suicidal to claim that he is going to jettison and then end up with his ship still alive today.
Your ship being destroyed could come from a number of common town powers; I don't think you need anyone to come up with plausible scenarios for you, and asking for them is fishing and I don't like it.
@Excedrin-
Townies should only attempt to pick up someone who they strongly believe is town. Also, rescuing a player is an active ability. Townies who already have active abilities should probably use those rather than pick up an unknown player.
-If both Porkens and Sigma are town, that makes a strong implication that scum have some ability or incentive for getting on other player's ships. This makes me much less willing to rescue anyone.
@Excedrin, All-
-I'm going to go ahead and reveal part of what you're referring to. Thanks for the breadcrumb and your discretion in not immediately revealing me. I prefer that you keep my ability a secret for now.
-I want RC to post and explain himself.
Vote: RC
-I have a night ability that let's me insult my target. My target is told who insulted them and the effect of the insult. I targeted Excedrin last night, and basically called him a really big idiot. I believe this reveals that I am Pkunk and confirms me as a townie.-
-
Kast tl;dr
- tl;dr
- tl;dr
- Posts: 2663
- Joined: January 12, 2009
@Zito-
-Without revealing the effect of my ability, I don't see how you can at all reasonably claim that my ability does not fit.
-Revealing the purpose for targeting Excedrin will require revealing the effect of my ability. I see absolutely no reason to share that and have already expressed my position regarding that.
-My target receives mod confirmation of both flavor and function. The flavor alone is enough to confirm my race (and therefore my affiliation). From a mafia game mechanic PoV, it also suggests itself as a townie power since it reveals me to my target, inherently drawing attention.
This aside, I want to hear from Rosso Carne on whether he has a hierarchy ship, and if he does, then why. This is a short day; so he really needs to post quickly.
@KMD-
I'm not a confirmed name, I am a confirmed race (to Excedrin). The race is an alliance race. I think it is extremely unlikely to the point of dismissing that Spyrex would arbitrarily change the affiliation of a race to contradict the source game.-
-
Kast tl;dr
- tl;dr
- tl;dr
- Posts: 2663
- Joined: January 12, 2009
Wifom. Scum defend each other when they think it will help them and they think they can get away with it. In this game, KMD clearly expects that defending KRW will not or should not reflect badly on him. It is unclear whether he thought it would actually help.@Kast: I think KMD is town -- scum usually don't blatantly defend each other to the extent that he did.
@Mod-
Can you prod RC? (also Plum/LL/Dry-Fit/Porkens)-
-
Kast tl;dr
- tl;dr
- tl;dr
- Posts: 2663
- Joined: January 12, 2009
@Zito-
This isn't really applicable. I can use my power again tonight and again on each subsequent night. As the game progresses, I can confirm with more and more townies.If there was one scum left I'd agree but I'm guessing there's at least two left.
-The reason I posted is because I didn't want this information lost. If Excedrin is scum, then he knows my race and the ability I used. My ability lends itself well as something I can partially claim fairly safely.
@Rising/Zito-
I don't follow Zito's clarification.Papa Zito wrote:
The Umgah. But they didn't have to aboard someone's ship to use their Caster.Rising wrote:I am sort of suspicious of Kast's claimed ability. There are a race of pranksters in the Hierarchy whose name I don't remember right now, but they have a tradition of broadcasting messages and pretending to be someone else. I was pretty much just waiting for someone to use an ability like this and trying to convince us that it clears him.
After looking up the Umgah, it looks like my ability does not necessarily confirm my race. Regardless, the nature of my ability; informing my target of who I am and what it does; does not lend itself as a scum ability.-
-
Kast tl;dr
- tl;dr
- tl;dr
- Posts: 2663
- Joined: January 12, 2009
This contradicts what Spyrex told me. I specifically asked if my target is told the effect(s) of my ability and he said that the target is told the effect(s).I'm not certain what Kast's ability does
@Zito-
The Ultronomicon wiki on the Umgah states that the Caster was stolen by the Spathi. At what point in time did this happen?ShowT: 9/6.5/0
M: 8/2/1
O: 0/3.5/0
V/LA Pretty much all Weekends and Holidays-
-
Kast tl;dr
- tl;dr
- tl;dr
- Posts: 2663
- Joined: January 12, 2009
I strongly dislike this speculation (Porkens isn't the only one who is doing it). If there is a doctor, you are narrowing down (or implicitly doing so) that you are not the doctor. This holds for many other theoretical townie roles that could be involved with the lack of dead players last night.The lack of a nightkill bothers me. I think that the scum would be able to kill a ship and everyone on it with their night action (my podship had that ability plus doc plus the ability to do both in one night.)
I'm lead to believe that the lack of a nightkill was a strategic decision.ShowT: 9/6.5/0
M: 8/2/1
O: 0/3.5/0
V/LA Pretty much all Weekends and Holidays-
-
Kast tl;dr
-
-
Kast tl;dr
- tl;dr
- tl;dr
- Posts: 2663
- Joined: January 12, 2009
N.B. Porkens' post this follows the exact same pattern that he used D1:
-Make an anti-town post.
-Get called on it.
-Object by saying "rolefishing", even though there was no rolefishing.ShowT: 9/6.5/0
M: 8/2/1
O: 0/3.5/0
V/LA Pretty much all Weekends and Holidays-
-
Kast tl;dr
- tl;dr
- tl;dr
- Posts: 2663
- Joined: January 12, 2009
@Porkens-
There are three situations we can be in. Two of them are clearly better to leave both Porkens and Sigma to die. The third situation would be better to have both of you rescued. The three situations are indistinguishable, however, the second and third situations suggest that townies should be very careful about letting anyone board their ships.I don't quite follow this part. Your assumption is that we are town but leads to the idea that you don't want to rescue us.
-If you are both scum, townies should not pick you up.
-If one of you is town and one is scum, there is some incentive to picking up the one who is a townie, but townies would be better off picking up neither of you (reduces to 1-for-1 trade situation).
-If both are town, then townies shouldn't know your affiliation and should at best be hesitant to pick you up. The claimed circumstances, that scum want to board someone else's ship, inclines townies against picking up either of you.
It's really not that complicated.
By already saying your piece, do you mean you have already done your damage? You sure haven't said anything at all relevant to rolefishing (FYI- including the word "doc" in a post does not make it rolefishing).I've said my peace on the subject.
You are lying. I said I would partial claim and I did partial claim. I suppose you might be trying to fish for more details about my role?Why did you say you wouldn't reveal your role/power and then do so anyway?
False. You posted "I'm not a doc, I think we have no doc", and I posted, "Your post is anti-town and helps scum find townie power roles." So please stop helping them and don't encourage townies to engage in similar anti-town behavior.You were the one that brought up "DOC OMFG," I was giving my thoughts on the results of the night.-
-
Kast tl;dr
- tl;dr
- tl;dr
- Posts: 2663
- Joined: January 12, 2009
@Porkens-
There are three possible situations. The first two are definite situations where it is bad to pick up either of you. The third (which is the only case where it would be reasonable to consider picking up either of you) implies a game setup in which townies do not want to pick up anyone. Your argument relies on crap logic.
The argument structure is:
IF A AND B, THEN C. IF C, THEN D.
An underlying assumption which is not stated because it is obvious is:
IF NOT A OR NOT B, THEN D.
You are fallaciously claiming that my argument is:
IFF A AND B, THEN C. IF C, THEN D.
A=Porkens is town.
B=Sigma is town.
C=It is probable that scum want to get aboard a town ship.
D=Town should not rescue
-Implying that you are not the doc IS damage. You promote others to join your speculation with agreement or disagreement. If you are town, then you have narrowed down possibilities for scum. This is anti-town. It is not a scumtell, it is a bad player tell. Your implication that not being a scumtell makes something okay is crap-logic.What damage? To imply that I'm not the doc? You're saying this is a scumtell?
Spelling your rolefishing out clearly: You said "oh you just said your not the doc." That opens the door for me to give a more solid stance, which I'm not going to do.
-False. You already spelled out that you are not the doc. You should not have done that. It is terrible play for town. Telling you to stop talking about it is COMPLETELY OPPOSITE of telling you to comment with confirmation or denial.
You are a liar. Your post is false both in letter AND in spirit. If it were a simple mistake, then you should have checked after I called you on this and posted evidence if you thought I was mistaken. Your failure to do so is very anti-town.You said "I'm not going to give out info about my role." Then you said "I can do X, Y, and Z and I'm Pkunk" no? Am I reading the chain of events wrong?
I revealed part of my claim:Kast wrote:-I'm going to go ahead and reveal part of what you're referring to. Thanks for the breadcrumb and your discretion in not immediately revealing me.I prefer that you keep my ability a secret for now.
-I am Pkunk
-I can insult someone at night
--My target learns the player name of person who insulted them
--My target learns the effect of the insult
--My target learns the flavor of the insult
I have not revealed the effect of my ability. I have not revealed additional powers or even if I have any. Your attempts to draw more comments about this are fishing.
I never wrote "DOC OMFG". But I'm not going to pretend you are stupid (I'd appreciate if you extended that courtesy to everyone else here) and make a crap logic argument against that.Now you are lying. I never said I wasn't the doc, nor did I say I didn't think we had a doc. I didn't encourage anyone to do anything of the kind. You are just straight making shit up now.
It is obviously a paraphrase. You directly stated that you think the mafia chose to not kill. This is equivalent to stating that the lack of a night kill is NOT because of any action that you took AND that you do not believe it was a result of any action that any other player took. If you are a townie, then it is possible that you are intentionally trying to mislead scum, however, scum are in a far better position than townies to determine this AND your post itself encourages other townies to comment on your speculation. Any further comments also help scum.
And to forestall your probable attempt to evade my point, I am explicitly asking that you DO NOT CONFIRM OR DENY THAT YOU ARE NOT A DOCTOR. DO NOT CONFIRM OR DENY THAT YOU ARE ANY OTHER ROLE, UNLESS YOU INTEND TO CLAIM AND FEEL THAT THE CLAIM HELPS TOWN MORE THAN IT HURTS. ALSO DON'T CONFIRM OR DENY WHETHER YOU INTENDED TO TRICK SCUM. You've already done damage, so STOP before making things worse.
Your very post implies that you don't realize your speculation is anti-town, which is EXACTLY why I explained it and warned against others making the same anti-town mistakes. This is not inherently scummy, but is very anti-town.
Your objection to stopping players from helping scum narrow down power townies is BOTH anti-town AND scummy. Your misrepresentation to defend your anti-town actions likewise scummy.
@Sigma-
-It is hard to believe this is true. If it is, then I suggest you look at the wiki for standard roles.It was interesting because I genuinely was at a loss as to explanations for hypothetical sigma-scum's ship getting blown up, and that was the first plausible thing I'd heard.
-Bodyguard is only tangentially an explanation for hypothetical Sigma-scum's ship getting blown up. Hypothetical Sigma-scum would not bodyguard against his own scum team kill, so unless you were referring to hypothetical Sigma-scum bodyguard-protecting a hypothetical scumbuddy from a hypothetical vig, the explanation doesn't seem that interesting (or rather, only seems interesting as an exercise in convoluted hypothetical explanations).
It could be an explanation for hypothetical Sigma-town's ship getting blown up unintentionally (however that suffers from the problem that Sigma-town should not lie to us AND that your ship does not seem to fit flavorwise with bodyguard ability).
@Dry-fit-
Does your race match your ship?-
-
Kast tl;dr
-
-
Kast tl;dr
- tl;dr
- tl;dr
- Posts: 2663
- Joined: January 12, 2009