Mini 987: Alternative Vote Mafia- Ovah!

[vollkan]

I think lack of attention to the rules is at least slightly more likely to come from scum.

Vote: Zach

until you give an explanation.

The "scum don't pay attention" line is just a lazy attack and is bogus as far as the meta of this site goes. Moreover, there is no theory reason why scum should pay less attention - they have just as much need to be convincing and to avoid appearing to use craplogic.

[vollkan]

I think lack of attention to the rules is at least slightly more likely to come from scum.

Vote: Zach

until you give an explanation.

The "scum don't pay attention" line is just a lazy attack and is bogus as far as the meta of this site goes. Moreover, there is no theory reason why scum should pay less attention - they have just as much need to be convincing and to avoid appearing to use craplogic.

Less incentive to. There's generally less need to read or pay attention to the game when you don't need to figure out who's what.

Two points:
1) To an extent, town obviously have a greater need to be correct and thus pay attention. But scum have a strong incentive to appear as pro-town as possible, and so the difference is somewhat negligible.
2) Moreover, there are a whole heap of other reasons why somebody might overlook or misread something - laziness, posting in a hurry, simple mistake, etc.

You think it's bogus? Explain to me why, cause your say so isn't something that's going to carry a lot of weight in my eyes.

As I said - because there are a huge number of reasons why people might not pay attention. It's extremely simplistic to assume that you can determine an action to be scummy simply by reference to what would rationally be done by somebody properly playing their alignment.

Also, I don't see a need to be convincing as something that's mutually exclusive to paying attention to everything.

If you are going to be convincing, you can't miss important things. Since you can't know a priori what is important and what is not, it is necessary (but obviously not sufficient) to pay attention even as scum.

I think that in a game with unusual mechanics like this everyone would read the rules (equally) carefully, and therefore not reading the rules carefully would be a nulltell. Thoughts?

I'd say it's always a nulltell, but I can understand why someone like yourself who presumably doesn't would think that it was more of a nulltell in this sort of setup

[vollkan]

Zach, why do you have to seem so much like scum jumping a quick, early wagon?

Vote: Zach.

Why is wagonning scummy?

[vollkan]

The reasoning he gave is iffy, IMO, and I don't like it.

So it's his reasoning, not his wagonning?

[vollkan]

I don't think Pom is scummy enough to lynch.

Why not?

[vollkan]

Non Offical Ballot:

1) Volikan
2) Jason
3) SV
4) Zach
Banana) Jack

Discuss.

Why don't I get a banana?

Because, just the opposite of what you said. In a "special" game such as this, I would think everyone would read carefully. Those that don't read, are paying less attention, thus, are scum.

Your logic is completely stupid. In a game like this, both scum and town have more of a reason to read the rules. It follows that reading the rules is bad play no matter what your alignment. It isn't scummy.

But seriously, "appearing town" and "reading" go hand in hand.

1) Thus, scum also have a strong incentive to read.
2) Thus, not paying attention is not a scumtell

Thanks for proving my point for me

[vollkan]

Scum don't have a strong incentive to read carefully. That's like saying students have a strong incentive to do their home work early, because they get a bad grade if they procrastinate.

But that's true: students do have a strong incentive to do their homework early because procrastinating will get them a bad grade.

[vollkan]

Town: Volkan, Jack, Shattered, Button
Scum: Pom

What was the purpose of posting that list of ratings?

[vollkan]

Town: Volkan, Jack, Shattered, Button
Scum: Pom

What was the purpose of posting that list of ratings?

Now who hasn't been reading carefully? Remember how we vote this game...

Exactly. And in any normal game, there's no way in hell that somebody should be able to get away with simply giving a vote without substantiation. The fact that the final result is determined by a ranking system rather than first-past-the-post voting doesn't alter that.

[vollkan]

Town: Volkan, Jack, Shattered, Button
Scum: Pom

What was the purpose of posting that list of ratings?

Now who hasn't been reading carefully? Remember how we vote this game...

Exactly. And in any normal game, there's no way in hell that somebody should be able to get away with simply giving a vote without substantiation.

That's not true.

Specifically, which of these do you disagree with?

1) Town players should vote for whom they think is scum
2) Town players should think that other players are scum for good reasons
3) Therefore, town players should vote for other players for good reasons
4) Town benefit from being able to collectively consider good reasons
5) Scum are disadvantaged by having to justify votes with good reasons
6) Thus, votes should be backed up with good reasons

I thought it was tomorrow too...

Irony, much?

Read him in ISO and keep the fact that he thought deadline was tommorow

Yes...?

also his reaction to the being voted for being jason is also a slight scumtell to me as well.

Because he took the vote seriously? (Trying to get at your reasons...)

[vollkan]

vollkan is right as far as reading the rules goes,

zach is right as far as the game goes. Although I don't think scum are particularly lazy early day 1.

How convenient

[vollkan]

1) Town players should vote for whom they think is scum
2) Town players should think that other players are scum for good reasons
3) Therefore, town players should vote for other players for good reasons
4) Town benefit from being able to collectively consider good reasons
5) Scum are disadvantaged by having to justify votes with good reasons
6) Thus, votes should be backed up with good reasons

1) Agree
2-6) Disagree

Then why not just submit an official ballot right now, using random.org or something?

1-6 are completely wrong; like 100% wrong.

(I'm abbreviating you to TBM from now on)

I detect sarcasm. If not, same question.

Now in regards to obvscum jason; he thought the day was ending yet he did nothing, he was happy to go through the day just coasting along avoid discussion, he didn't give any reads, act in anyway concerend about the day's end.

What should he have done as town?

Of course you got a vote. What you didn't get is a ranking within all my votes.

Now, I'm convinced you're scum (and you just moved higher on my list).

Your argument rests on this:

As for my other point; He was voted for "for being jason". He chose to interpret this to mean "for being scum jason",

In my experience thats not a natural way for town to interpret its meaning.

(bolding mine)

Two questions:
1) Why isn't it a natural way for town to react?
2) (the oft-neglected part of scumhunting) Why IS it a natural way for scum to react?

[vollkan]

In what way are bad reasons better than random?

[vollkan]

Note the parenthetics around good. I meant what I guessed you considered good/bad.

The main one is I don't think it's "bad" to feel someone is scum/town with no reason at all or based off whatever feeling one gets from one post.

Oh god

It's not a matter of motivation for the scum, it's human bias

I didn't ask what the scum motive was. My question was, since you were saying it wasn't a natural play for town, why it was so for scum.

The fact that seomthing is weird (which, I fully accept, his interpretation was) doesn't make it scummy.

Also you continue your trend of only asking questions, never contributing anything.

Define 'contribute' (and see below )

I have a feeling the whole question thing is the norm for volken by those two little words over his avatar

Yes.

[vollkan]

vollkan: Since you asked me a question based on a misattributed quote, do you have any other questions for me?

Yes. Why did you ask me that?

[vollkan]

Feel like posting something that doesn't end in a question mark?

Your not scumhunting at all, just asking a bunch of fairly weak questions without following them up or doing any analysis of people answers.

I primarily scumhunt by analysing reasoning. Basically, as you saw when I criticised the "scum don't pay attention" thing, I am very skeptical of many of the commonly considered scumtells. The only one I tend to find reliable is people's reasoning.

Now, when I gave my 1-6 list thing, people just said wrong, without explanation.
When I asked about why Jason's reaction wasn't natural, which was a quote of your's (albeit misattributed), you didn't respond. Your answer was:

SV didn't say that; I did. Also to answer your question; experience. It's not a matter of motivation for the scum, it's human bias.

Also you continue your trend of only asking questions, never contributing anything.

If I am short on analysis, the default is at your end.

Just making sure I'm up-to-date.

That doesn't make sense. You can assume that if a player, especially an active player, is not questioning you, then they don't have any outstanding issues with you.

Thoughts? I'll make an official decision by tonight.

An extension would be good.

[vollkan]

I have asked you and re-referenced a question on this exact game that I asked you - about why jason's reaction was natural for scum. It's very easy to keep banging the "you're pushing a theory debate" line, as you are, but it is complete bullshit. If you don't have a decent explanation for your attack, that is a valid scumtell.

I have to say that I find it truly ridiculous that pushing an erroneous line of attack (eg. "scum don't pay attention" or "Jason's reaction was unnatrual") is somehow useful, but my play is useless.

what I want is your opinions on the game

I've given my opinion on every major development. The fact that my response has generally been "That isn't scummy; your reasons aren't valid" doesn't alter that.

[vollkan]

Yes; people pushing what you (Vollkan) think is an "erroneous line of attack" is quite useful; when people push something it forces them to publicly put things in writing. Which the rest of the players can then judge and form their own opinions on, unlike your play style of calling everything useless or invalid which contributes jack diddly squat. Dismissing someones line of attack as wrong is quite different from making attacks of your own; you've been judging people attacks as invalid, not the posters as scummy or town.

I generally consider consistently poor reasoning a scumtell. Hence, it's untrue to say that I've "been judging people attacks as invalid, not the posters as scummy or town"

I don't consider instances of lacking attention scummy. I don't consider somebody interpreting a particular post in an understandable, if unusual, way scummy. By my count, those are the only two serious issues to have arisen thus far in this game. It follows that I am not going to attack people for those things. My argument on both those points (I'll come to the latter in just a moment) has stood solidly.

Now, on that latter, you said:

Also I already answered your question about why I found it a scum tell as for you not liking my answer well;

It's not about me not 'liking' your answer.

Quick review:

Read him in ISO and keep the fact that he thought deadline was tommorow

Yes...?

also his reaction to the being voted for being jason is also a slight scumtell to me as well.

Because he took the vote seriously? (Trying to get at your reasons...)

Your response:

Now in regards to obvscum jason; he thought the day was ending yet he did nothing, he was happy to go through the day just coasting along avoid discussion, he didn't give any reads, act in anyway concerend about the day's end.

As for my other point; He was voted for "for being jason". He chose to interpret this to mean "for being scum jason", In my experience thats not a natural way for town to interpret its meaning.

My response (I've snipped the SV stuff to avoid confusion):

Now in regards to obvscum jason; he thought the day was ending yet he did nothing, he was happy to go through the day just coasting along avoid discussion, he didn't give any reads, act in anyway concerend about the day's end.

What should he have done as town?

As for my other point; He was voted for "for being jason". He chose to interpret this to mean "for being scum jason",

In my experience thats not a natural way for town to interpret its meaning.

(bolding mine)

Two questions:
1) Why isn't it a natural way for town to react?
2) (the oft-neglected part of scumhunting) Why IS it a natural way for scum to react?

And you:

SV didn't say that; I did. Also to answer your question; experience. It's not a matter of motivation for the scum, it's human bias.

Also you continue your trend of only asking questions, never contributing anything.

Me:

I didn't ask what the scum motive was. My question was, since you were saying it wasn't a natural play for town, why it was so for scum.

The fact that seomthing is weird (which, I fully accept, his interpretation was) doesn't make it scummy.

And that's it. Points to note:
1) You entirely ignored my question about how town should have reacted come end of day
2) Your argument in suppot of your attack on jason's reaction boiled down to a feeble "It's not a matter of motivation for the scum, it's human bias".

[vollkan]

Quote yourself calling someone scummy or town.

I haven't. I've pointed out where I've seen bad reasoning, but I'd be loathe to make an alignment call simply based on a few isolated instances thereof.

So you think nothing of note has happend this game? Damn it's going to be tough to cast your votes eh?

Apart from the two examples I have given, tell me just one other thing that you think I should be seriously considering as a scumtell.

Well first off; town wants discussion, town wants people giving reads. I expect a towny when they see that deadline is in less then 24 and there's no clear lynch canidate, multiple posters have avoided saying much and that they hadn't given their reads on people to be quite vocal and point out the deadline and demand people start posting their ballots.

But more importantly it's what he did during the day, he thought the day was four days long and proceeded to avoid as much as it as he could, avoiding joining any discussions or starting any attacks.

Valid.

@Jason: Address the above.

2) Yes.

Care to elaborate?

[vollkan]

vollkan, TBM, get a frigging room. You're honestly coming across, to me, as two scumbuddies arguing incessantly to look like a town vs town fight and give yourselves both town cred.

Fake arguments tend either to be on non-issues and/or involve ridiculous hyperbole. My argument with TBM was neither, so I'm curious as to why you claim it looks fake.

[vollkan]

The push on Pom is making absolutely no sense to me. The only semi-coherent accusation I can find against her is Zach's accusation of "more willing to discuss game theory than actually scum hunting", which on closer inspection I have serious issues with. Four problems, specifically:
1) The "theory" that Pom had discussed at that point was directly relevant to the paying attention issue re: Jack (which, ironically, Zach himself brought up, by saying that "lack of attention to the rules is at least slightly more likely to come from scum" - so it's not only wrong of him to accuse her of this, but downright hypocrticial; that is, unless was expecting to be able to make his theory claim without being challenged on it, which is simply unacceptable)
2) It was page 2. Zach said this was a "good early vote" - fine, but even if we accept that, it doesn't explain the continued suspicion.
3) At that same point in time, other people (including myself) had also joined in the theory debate, but Zach doesn't mention this at all
4) In a later post by Zach he says:

Jason is not being as proactive as I would expect him to be.

Pretty much everything I've seen from him is just defending himself, and just noticing a lack of proactive scumhunting from him otherwise, which is something I've come to expect from town Jason.

Don't really like Shattered Viewpoint much either. I don't feel like he's done a particularly good job backing up his reasoning for his suspicions.

The reasons here, particularly on Jason, would seem to be much stronger than on Pom - and yet, he sticks to the popular target.

[vollkan]

@Pom: Explain this please:

Also Pom, why are you voting for me again? I can't really comprehend any reason other than the fact that your vote feels like it's a retaliation to mine.

Because everyone else's vote makes sense to me except for Elli, but that's just his playstyle. Your less so. Still, looking back at the post in which you voted me, I will

Unvote

.

Now, Zach:

Let's see. Pom's contributed relatively little more than to question my attack on Jack. Votes me in direct response to calling her out on that. Backs off once she realizes how bad that would look, and since then has been posting... very... little at all, more or less seeming content to just stay quiet and wait for all the pressure that she's earned to just go away, so that someone like you Vollkan, can then come and question why I'm still attacking her for some early theory issue. It's beyond that theory issue now. She's not doing ANYTHING. (Except asking questions about or to Jason, the player who's gotten the most attention besides herself.)

That's an improvement. Now @Pom, please respond to the above (and his post of quotes from you).

So yeah Vollkan, I'm not sure how you can say the push on Pom doesn't make sense, or how you're characterizing my continued push on her as me doing it just because she's the popular target. She's the popular target for a REASON.

Your push on Pom didn't make sense to me because you hadn't backed it up with anything. Everything I said before was valid - you've only now supplemented yourself with additional reasoning. I'm not going to analyse your reasons yet, though, because I am interested in seeing Pom's defence.

Vollkan is over analyzing a low activity game

Um, how? I pointed out some fundamental problems in Zach's arguing. Low activity can't justify craplogic.

Zach, what have you done so far this game?

^Rather than rebutting Zach's case, Pom resorts to tu quoque.

I'm suspicious of Jason

Why?

and I'm still waiting for a response to a question I posed to him on the previous page.

1) Does Jason not having answered your question preclude you from posting on anything else?
a) If yes, fine (But I will expect an explanation later on.
b) If no, then why are you "waiting"?

[vollkan]

Yea, I have not been paying attention to this game. I have been wrapped up in my other game and forgot about this ome. SV case on me is silly I feel at this point.

Though somewhat hypocritical... right now Anon is topping my list as he has done nothing.

It's not "somewhat hypocritical". You've been lurking and you claim to have a legitimate excuse. I'm fine with that. But you undo that by then turning around and attacking Anon for exactly the same thing. It means you are either being outrightly hypocritical or being too lazy to make a case but also too dishonest to just admit that laziness.

Yes, I did think the deadline was earlier than it was... I was guilty of not reading the deadline date and guilty of assumption. Truthfully, I have not gotten into this game the way I hoped I would hence the lack of activity.

Even with an imminent deadline? You didn't even think to post anything?

I was kinda on the fence about pom, but this post has convinced me Pom is scum.

I think here you're just latching on to the next most feasible case, which would be...let me think...oh:

deflection.

is volkan saying here that pushing people with no reasoning is something he has serious issues with? Volkan, is this the first time you see someone pushing without explaining his reasoning?

I thought I was clear. Let me reiterate:

I

do not

think attacking somebody without reasons (what I call 'gut voting') is scummy. I do, however, consider it completely anti-town and I generally cajole the hell out of people who gut vote to make them give me my reasons. To quote from the "Theory Schools" MD thread a while back, to back this up meta-wise (though, googling vollkan and gut will give you a good idea as well):

I really think Vollkan's actually been pretty much on his own in hating gut votes.

(I am not, by the way, talking about a situation where somebody, for tactical reasons, may say "I am not going to disclose my reasons at this point in time")

Unofficial ballot:

(I'm also using my 0 = obvtown, 100 = obvscum scale, and supplying reasons. I will caveat that in this game my numbers more a rough reflection of relative strength of suspicion, rather than the way I use them in some games of being cumulative additions of scumtells, mainly after replacing in)

Zachrulez

I said before that I wasn't going to take apart his reasons because I wanted to see Pom's defence. That will stand. I will say I think they are very weak, but I'm not counting them as a major problem given the nature of this game. However, the points I raised in my previous "overanalysing" post do stand: his original attack on Pom over discussing theory rather than the game was absolutely untrue (the theory was directly relevant to Jack, he failed to apply this standard to other people, and he kept on Pom despite his suspicion on Jason being clearly stronger at some points, looking seriously like he was hedging his bets). 65

jasonT1981

I don't agree with the "unnatural reaction" attack on him, and I don't think his lurking is scummy. That said, he needs to be questioned over the deadline thing and from the points I raise above, he seems to be approaching his lurkiing in a dishonest manner by trying to deflect on to the consensus candidate of Pom.

60

Anon

Crappy attack against Pom for her tone in asking a question, and then making a lazy line of attack against me for posting 'fluff' and spamming the thread.

55

Ellibereth

I basically find Ellibereth unreadable so far. Seeing now that there is a legitimate case against Pom, at least for a game this low on content, I'm not prepared to find him scummy for the unexplained push on Pom (ie. I would have if it hadn't been explained to be as having some sound basis). So he nets a

50

.

Jack

Basically same as Ellibereth.

50

Shattered Viewpoint
Pomegranate
TheButtonmen

Have to study,....will finish shortly

[vollkan]

Unofficial ballot:

(I'm also using my 0 = obvtown, 100 = obvscum scale, and supplying reasons. I will caveat that in this game my numbers more a rough reflection of relative strength of suspicion, rather than the way I use them in some games of being cumulative additions of scumtells, mainly after replacing in)

Zachrulez

I said before that I wasn't going to take apart his reasons because I wanted to see Pom's defence. That will stand. I will say I think they are very weak, but I'm not counting them as a major problem given the nature of this game. However, the points I raised in my previous "overanalysing" post do stand: his original attack on Pom over discussing theory rather than the game was absolutely untrue (the theory was directly relevant to Jack, he failed to apply this standard to other people, and he kept on Pom despite his suspicion on Jason being clearly stronger at some points, looking seriously like he was hedging his bets). 65

jasonT1981

I don't agree with the "unnatural reaction" attack on him, and I don't think his lurking is scummy. That said, he needs to be questioned over the deadline thing and from the points I raise above, he seems to be approaching his lurkiing in a dishonest manner by trying to deflect on to the consensus candidate of Pom.

60

Anon

Crappy attack against Pom for her tone in asking a question, and then making a lazy line of attack against me for posting 'fluff' and spamming the thread.

55

Ellibereth

I basically find Ellibereth unreadable so far. Seeing now that there is a legitimate case against Pom, at least for a game this low on content, I'm not prepared to find him scummy for the unexplained push on Pom (ie. I would have if it hadn't been explained to be as having some sound basis). So he nets a

50

.

Jack

Basically same as Ellibereth.

50

Shattered Viewpoint

His stupidity over the "appearing town" strikes me less as scummy than as a nulltell. It's unusual for scum to have that level of "I'm right, and if you can't see that, well" self-confidence. For now, null, but if it is an inherent part of his playstyle, it becomes slightly scummy. The attack on Jason over the interpretation of the vote makes absolutely no sense, and I can't see how you could reason to it, which suggests exaggeration AtE. Later, attacks my argument with TBM as looking like scum, and when asked to explain why chalks it up to an unexplained different of opinion.

56[/n]

Pomegranate

As I said earlier, the theory she discussed early on was game relevant. I don't hold that against her. That said, she has been posting fluff, roughly from Jun 17-21, whereupon, after being attacked, she started to pick up the pace again. That said, it seems that she was also genuinely falling behind, and I've more than once as town tried to maintain a semblance of followiing while desperately needing to acquaint myself with the material - ie. both theoretically and from experience, I don't think losing track of a game is scummy. And Pom made it pretty clear that RL things were causing her trouble. That said, even after she picks up, it is still little to no analysis. @Pom: Roughly what amount of time have you spent on this game so far? I'm giving Pom a tentative 55, subject to increase or decrease depending on the circumstances of her subtantive inactivity.

TheButtonmen

I don't think his push on the deadline thing is scummy, so much as a playstyle difference from me (ie. I want to question before attacking; he is attacking before/during questioning). The "for being scum Jason" "unnatural reactino" thing makes no sense; and he's couched it in this amorphous "human bias" thing. The only semantically coherent thing I can from this is that he is saying that scum are more likely psychologically to interpret a vote for them as being a vote for them for being scum. But that's crap. I see no reason why, and TBM hasn't provided one, why town wouldn't think exactly the same way. That said, a lot of the steam between us seems largely a product of clashing playstyles (in a nutshell, I am more interested in why a person is voting for somebody than who they are voting). 53.

So, to give an unofficial ballot:
1) Zachrules
2) Jason
3) Shattered Viewpoint
4) Anon
5) Pom
6) TheButtonmen
7) Ellibereth
8) Jack

Have a law exam at 8am tomorrow, so will be inactive for the rest of today.

[vollkan]

In that case, since it's probable I might not get time to post one otherwise, I will officialise my previosu ballot

Official Ballot:

1. Zachrules
2. Jason
3. Shattered Viewpoint
4. Anon
5. Pom
6. TheButtonmen
7. Ellibereth
8. Jack

[vollkan]

vollkan, why did you throw away your #1 vote on zachrulez?

Zach was my #1 suspect, for reasons stated. Since it's preferential voting, by definition I wasn't throwing my vote away.

[vollkan]

vollkan, why did you throw away your #1 vote on zachrulez?

Zach was my #1 suspect, for reasons stated. Since it's preferential voting, by definition I wasn't throwing my vote away.

What do you mean by the last sentence? It's false. 1st place is 1 of the tiebreakers, and doing it that way allows you to slide anon in over pom in the middle of the list. Although you ended up voting for jason anyway I guess.

I hadn't factored in the tie-breaker point. Seeing as it is preferential before that, the odds of it going to a tie break are exceptionally low - but technically, of course, you're right.

VOLKAN: What did you think of Jason's messing up of amount of people in a scumteam? Why did you not regard that as a scumtell?

Can you provide the quote from Jason?

Zach, pretend I have an innocent on Pommy: then who's scum?

Shattered Viewpoint and Vollkan.

Your argument is compelling

1. Zachrules
2. Shattered Viewpoint

Quoting reasons:

Zachrulez

I said before that I wasn't going to take apart his reasons because I wanted to see Pom's defence. That will stand. I will say I think they are very weak, but I'm not counting them as a major problem given the nature of this game. However, the points I raised in my previous "overanalysing" post do stand: his original attack on Pom over discussing theory rather than the game was absolutely untrue (the theory was directly relevant to Jack, he failed to apply this standard to other people, and he kept on Pom despite his suspicion on Jason being clearly stronger at some points, looking seriously like he was hedging his bets).

65

....

Shattered Viewpoint

His stupidity over the "appearing town" strikes me less as scummy than as a nulltell. It's unusual for scum to have that level of "I'm right, and if you can't see that, well" self-confidence. For now, null, but if it is an inherent part of his playstyle, it becomes slightly scummy. The attack on Jason over the interpretation of the vote makes absolutely no sense, and I can't see how you could reason to it, which suggests exaggeration AtE. Later, attacks my argument with TBM as looking like scum, and when asked to explain why chalks it up to an unexplained different of opinion.

56

[vollkan]

I remember that now. Basically, to state my view explicitly, I regard it as a nulltell, for two reasons:
1) It is possible that it was a genuine town slip from ignorance of the number of scum. However, that's largely offset by the ease with which it can be faked by scum (it's one of the more obvious sorts of fake error).
2) To the extent that 1) above makes it a slight towntell, I don't consider it to be such because there is no real reason why, in making such a post, scum couldn't genuinely forget to apply the number of scum in this game (ie. scum attacking other people has no reason to think back to the actual number of scum, and since 3 scum is how many scum there are in most games people play, it's natural for somebody to think that there are 3 scum even if they have knowledge, obvious from the 9-player setup anyway, that there are less scum than than).

[vollkan]

SV is the other scum, this game is easy when you do some iso'ing.

Good fine on the inconsistency

The claiming has now become mental. TBM is right - there's no way that there is cop, doc and bodyguard in a 9-person game. Counterclaims?

[vollkan]

This makes no sense. The absence of NK strongly suggests a protection, and yet the way the claims have gone it would mean that TBM must be lying and, conversely, that Zach must be telling the truth (which surprises me, to say the least).

She knows I have a meta for freaking out at lack of claims near death.
She was almost certainly dead if I had voted her outright at the top of the list yesterday.
So I thought she couldn't be scum, because she would know to claim just to appease my usual bloodlust over lack of claims.
But I thought there was no reason for her to do it as a vnilla.
So I thought she was a PR>
Which is why i avoided stating reasons over why. Lack of kill today made me think she was doctor.

How do you know she is aware of your meta for freaking out about lack of claims?

[vollkan]

I have a confirmed sane innocent on Button.

Which means, absent inv-immunity, Button can only be scum in a Elli-Button scumteam. This increases the likelihood of Zach being scum, but also my confusion.

Pom and Shattered are yet to check in. That's it right?

Yeah.

Also, I said that she would claim and I would vote her, and she said no twice or something here, and I didn't think scumPom would take a risk like that and Pomvanilla would have just claimed.

Okay. That makes sense.

[vollkan]

The push on pom "makes absolutely no sense" after the votes on her started coming in, but vollk should have mentioned it before, yeah? That's been how he's playing. If the case was terrible he should have attacked it before, perhaps he didn't want to defend his partner. He critiques Zach's case here which fits with his attack on Zach, but doesn't critique Pom herself. Eww, then he makes a point of asking her a bunch of pointless follow up questions.

I attacked the wagon when I did simply because at that point in time I realised it was serious and not just an early-game hulking pile of gut that was going to go away. So, I tried to look for any basis for the wagon, and Zach's was all I could find. Your argument assumes that I somehow knew all along why people were voting Pom, which isn't just baseless, but entirely ignores that the beginning of my post there showed that I was completely confused by it.

By the followup questions, you mean my directing Pom to respond to Zach? If so, I hardly see why that is pointless.

But does it stand? One gut town thing I see about the post that this is from is that he mentions what people said about Pom about 5 times.

I don't understand this.

They are both 55...Anon ends up higher on the list. SV is a 56 for some reason, and ends up 3rd on vollks list. I don't buy that vollkan thought Anon was scummier. This is not how protown vollkan deals with two of the main lynch candidates.

Did you bother reading my comments on Anon and Pom? If you had, you might notice that there were about four lines of text where I equivocate on Pom because I'm concerned that she is losing track of the game due to RL. Whereas, my reasoning on Anon had no such qualifications.

I

don't like

how jason ranked 2nd on vollk's list either:

jasonT1981 I don't agree with the "unnatural reaction" attack on him, and I don't think his lurking is scummy. That said, he needs to be questioned over the deadline thing and from the points I raise above, he seems to be approaching his lurkiing in a dishonest manner by trying to deflect on to the consensus candidate of Pom. 60

And this is why I went and reread vollk in the first place (+ pom's having SV at the top of her list)

I suspect, judging from how thorough your reading was in relation to my views on Anon and Pom, that you are querying my Jason attack based on the fact it was two lines long. (I say "suspect", because you haven't actually explained at all what you find scummy about my post)

In that same post, before the rankings, I had two other points on Jason:
1) He had the hypocrisy to attack Anon for lurking when he was also doing it
2) Hasty jump onto the Pom wagon.

[vollkan]

blah blah blah my name is vollkan and I'm trying to suggest possible town thinking behind my posts

The working definition of a scumtell is an action that is more likely to be taken by a scum player than a town player. This relies on motivations, as most things in mafia do.

When a player takes an action, evaluating it on the basis of "would this action more likely come from a town player, or a scum player" should be the way that players determine the scumminess of that action.

It is worthwhile to note here that subjectivity plays little to no role in this distinction. POSSIBLE motivations for scum to take a given action are not sufficient to call an action a scum tell. An action is scummy if and only if it can be deemed more likely to come from scum than from town, A perfect example of this occurs in mini 636: Gangland mafia. Kuribo asserts that an action is a scumtell to him, because he can think of A justification for scum to do it, but neglects, as vollkan points out, to show that this reason is likely.

I know who the lynch for today is. Who do you think the lynch for today is vollk?

SV.

And, while this doesn't detract from that position, I am confused in the background about the claim situation. Yes, it's balanced, but it still doesn't explain the lack of NKs.
- If we assume that after the lynch yesterday it was 5:2 (as we can assume it is now), then it makes no sense that scum would simply choose not to kill, because a 4:2 setup means that with a mislynch and a scum NK, the scum would win. So, absent the basically negligible likelihood that scum would simply not NK for the fun of it, I can eliminate that possibility
- Other possibility is that scum failed to submit a NK. The only player who is inactive to the extent that I could see that happening is Pom. This would mean that Pom would have to be a GF that needs to be the kill submitter. Also, less likely, that the scum just forgot or missed the deadline.
- The other possibility, which now looks like it won't be reality, is that Zach's claim is a lie and another

@Elli: Why use it N1, why

us

and whos your preferred lynch for the day?

?????

[vollkan]

Both basically look dreadful. Zach claimed in circumstances where, as scum, he'd be risking a high likelihood of a counter claim; however, it's fair to say that with a claimed cop (who Zach-scum would have no reason to think one-shot) and the likely prospect of a doc/other protective role giving the cop a possible safe night, fakeclaiming seems a valid, if not optimal, strategy for Zach-scum. This last part applies to Pom as well, but to a lesser extent because of the 1-shot claim.

[vollkan]

Dear TheButtonemen:

My top two are still Jack and Zach.

Love,
Shattered

Your last ballot:

1. jasonT1981
2. Anon
3. vollkan
4. Ellibereth
5. Jack
6. Zachrulez
7. Pomegranate
8. TheButtonmen

Also as you said before:

Vote: Shattered

Zach, pretend I have an innocent on Pommy: then who's scum?

Shattered Viewpoint and Vollkan.

Reasons, people. Reasons.

Indeed. Give us reasons. Now.

Specifically,
1) Why is it that you suspect Jack and Zach?
2) How is it that, since the end of yesterday, both Elli and myself have dropped below them in your rankings?

[vollkan]

We should have the top suspects vote first and explain why.

Agreed.

[vollkan]

I support a Zach lynch. I suspected him more than Pom before this and, as I said a few posts back, his claim is worse in the circumstances.

This is the only game I've ever played that's dead despite a claim-counterclaim.

Yeah, but usually a counter-claim is made in circumstances where somebody claims at L-1. A counter-claim during a massclaim, particularly where both players are suspected (though, to varying extents by different people), makes it far less clear-cut.

I agree with a ZachLynch.

Wholeheartedly.

You very obviously are not scum with Zach. Because if you were scum with him, you would not wholeheartedlly support his lynch.

(Seriously, do the rest of us seem

that

stupid?)

[vollkan]

I agree with a ZachLynch.

Wholeheartedly.

You very obviously are not scum with Zach. Because if you were scum with him, you would not wholeheartedlly support his lynch.

(Seriously, do the rest of us seem

that

stupid?)

I also note that SV ignored the questions for him in a recent post of mine.

In all seriousness, I need some clarification here. What do you mean by the last sentence?

Your post shows a standard form of AtE - emphasising that you are really wiling to lynch somebody. So that, in the event Zach flips scum, people are less likely to suspect you.

However, as is the case here, it usually looks extremely obvious to all but the most stupid.

Official Ballot:

1. Zachrules
2. Shattered Viewpoint
3. Pom
4. Jack
5. TheButtonmen
6. Ellibereth

[vollkan]

Not cool. I suppose we lynch SV.

Agreed.

TBM.

Which means scum either didn't submit, or they targeted TBM. I can't think of any strategic reason for scum to have not submitted and there is nobody so inactive that they couldn't have submitted. So it then looks more likely that they targeted TBM, but that itself makes no sense strategically.

[vollkan]

Official Ballot:

1. Shattered Viewpoint
2. Jack
3. Pom
4. TheButtonmen
5. Ellibereth

[vollkan]

It doesn't make sense to have a bodyguard with a 1-shot cop and a doctor. The 1-shot cop claims, the doctor protects him and the bodyguard protects him...if the scum try and kill the cop the bodyguard dies pointlessly. Protecting a used up cop is not that important. Maybe it's so that he gets to use it even if he has to claim day one.

Completely agree that it's a strange setup - I can't understand your argument that it doesn't make sense though. And the cop could be protected even with a D1 claim with only a BG or a Doc; so that doesn't explain why there would be both.

But the scum both claim doctor gambit would have required them to skip a kill that would have put the game into lylo. Maybe makes sense if they were sure pom would be lynched. Then the no-kill next night is to get us back to even numbers so that scum have more room to hide. So I want to say pom is scum.

I've read this 5 times now, and I still don't understand it. Can you clarify/elaborate?

[vollkan]

Perhaps vollkan's weird interaction with pom that I thought was scummy yesterday was just him avoiding a townie wagon. And the zach stuff was distancing.

I've already addressed your problem with my stance on Pom. The wagon made no sense to me from the start, and then when it reached a near-critical mass I tried to find out the point behind it, and all I found were Zach's arguments. As for the distancing accusation, is this based on the "thrown-away vote" thing. As I already said, the fact it is preferential meant that I honestly didn't even contemplate the electoral system effect of my ordering to such an extent as considering its effect on a tie-break.

-vollkan finding Zach scummy for for finding Jack scummy could also be weak distancing (post 21)
-He put Zach at the top of his ballot D1, while Zack was in no danger of being lynched, which could've been safe bussing/distancing.

Could you explain how either of the two things you raise there is indicative of me being scum rather than me having a genuine suspicion of Zach?

I mean, he made a crappy attack on Jack, and I attacked him for it. While of course objectively it could be distancing, you've provided absolutely no explanation as to why that is a worthwhile explanation for my actions beyond taking them at face value. Similarly, on your second point, in my ISO post #23 I gave extensive reasons for all players as to why I had given them the rankings that I had. Zach was my #1 suspect, so I put him at #1. Why does that suggest distancing/bussing as opposed to genuine suspicion?

vollkan, who do you think is scum?

I haven't found either you or Jack scummy throughout this game. At this stage, probably yourself, for two main reasons (but I need to think through everything more closely): 1) Your claim leads to a really strange setup; 2) Something which plays to an extent in Jack's favour is that yesterday he pushed the line that a Zach-scum lynch would somewhat clear me, which would have been against his own interests as scum.

vollkan does a lot of debating and not a lot of scumhunting D1 (except for possibly his back and forth with TBM which was... weird).

This is a meta-trait of mine.

[vollkan]

viewtopic.php?f=53&t=12791.

You did have a long back and forth there. But you seemed to be doing a lot more than you are here.

Why do you think that is?

[vollkan]

V/LA until Monday

[vollkan]

Your opinion on Zach Day 1 was? And why? Before your ballot submission and afterwards?

Before and after:

Zachrulez I said before that I wasn't going to take apart his reasons because I wanted to see Pom's defence. That will stand. I will say I think they are very weak, but I'm not counting them as a major problem given the nature of this game. However, the points I raised in my previous "overanalysing" post do stand: his original attack on Pom over discussing theory rather than the game was absolutely untrue (the theory was directly relevant to Jack, he failed to apply this standard to other people, and he kept on Pom despite his suspicion on Jason being clearly stronger at some points, looking seriously like he was hedging his bets). 65

[vollkan]

Reread zach pom vollkan in iso. Doesn't make sense to think that zach was bussing pom. Doesn't sound like it and he had one of the very early ballots.

Why does Zach on pom not look like bussing?

[vollkan]

Well, I'm town, so with three official ballots, that means scum has won.

Redundant now, but:

Official Ballot:

1. Plum
2. Jack
3. Ellibereth