Newbie 580 - Game Over!

[td]

Whew, I'm finally done with reading through the game.

First, Muerrto's Questions.

1. I want everyone's opinion on BaB's 'newbie' claims. Several points: Are they sincere? Are they too numerous? Are they justified? Should it matter?

From what I saw, his claims seemed to be sincere, but I think he did overuse the claim. Also, I'd like to point out that claiming `newbie' might be an excuse for ignorance, but not necessarily for scumminess, as it is perfectly possible for newbies to actually be scum.

Seeing how BridgesAndBaloons appears to be eager to learn, I'm surprised that he hasn't actually read the wiki guides or other games to get an idea of what is considered scummy---actually, he indicates that he did read other games, but he doesn't seem to have learned much from it, confer him lying to trick curiouskarmadog.

--

2. What's your opinion on Occult's/my support of a deadline and his claim that it was just to spark discussion? He claims he was under the assumption it was retractable, is that believable? Also, was this a scum tell?

I don't think that asking for a deadline in a standstill situation like the game was in at the time to be overly scummy; Occult neither requested that it'd be a non-retractable deadline nor that it be overly close. In a situation like that, I'd expected a deadline two or three weeks away, retracable if discussion picks up (which, anyway, it did; so even if that might not have been Occult's motive, it was his effect).

--

3. Does WLC/Black lurking bother you? Is it a scum tell? Have they improved?

I think that lurking itself is not inherently scummy, there are dozens of reasons why someone might not actually post for a while. What is indeed scummy is when someone picks up a prod and then continues to lurk, which didn't happen here.

Also almost everyone of the original players is guilty of flaking out, thus they must have lurked during the game at least once.

While not having flaked out so far, WeyounsLastClone has been lurking in the past (I actually do think he has improved on that), but even Radio_Interference has had four days between posts (twice).

Obviously, in a game where everyone has been lurking at some time, lurking cannot be a scum tell.

--

4. Do theory discussions distract from scum hunting? Are they useful? Can semantics and definition discussions be used as scum tells etc?

I think theory discussion might be helpful, because it requires that players abstract from the actual game, which helps ordering thoughts and forming opinions. However, excessive theory discussion might also lead away from actual scum hunting, which in principle is a bad thing. Balance is the key here.

While I believe that discussions on the definition of something don't belong in the game, discussions on the applicability of a certain definition certainly do.

--

5. Does RI's playstyle make it easy for him to hide his emotions and opinions? Does he seem more experienced than he first claimed? Did it bother you that he claimed to be new and not an alt then finally came clean about his extensive history with werewolf etc.?

No, I don't think it's his playstyle. His experience, however, is something to be wary of; he seems to know how to hide `his emotions and opinions,' but that wouldn't change even if he wouldn't use his style.

--

6. Did it surprise you to see CKD go off on BaB? Was it normal for an IC? Was it coincidence Bog did the same thing earlier? Is displaying emotion a scum tell?

ICs are still normal people, basically they are as likely to get emotional when provoked as newbies. IC just means `played a couple of games,' not `emotionally stable' or `can control his/her anger.'

--

7. Don't have anything about Amor or Sauce at this time so if anyone else does please put it up.

For the time being, I don't have anything to add here.

--

Next: A few things I noticed during reading.

2) RI: I need to see your post by post case against Amor. Sorry for the inconvenience, but it is entirely necessary imo.

Why is it necessary?

I love theory discussions. Especially in a newbie game it's useful.

How would it be useful?

Speaking of the summary, I asked you because I think it would extremely benefit the town if you did. It would be helpful to see fresh eyes on the thread, it would be really helpful to have another summary, and it would be great to get some lengthy posts from you considering we have very little to go on about the person you are replacing.
I'm going to maintain that it will be extremely beneficial for town for you to write a summary, but if you think not, well, I guess you won't do it.

Why would it be helpful?

You seem to state things as useful/necessary/scummy/whatever as if it were a fact that they are, when it isn't obvious why they should be. I'm surprised you got that through without anybody asking (except for when you said certain actions where scummy and curiouskarmadog challenged you to say why they were, but even there, you failed to provide reasoning). Please clarify.

--

Did you read post 261? I'm guessing not. Basically, vague was the wrong word. Your statements weren't vague. Again, you're hammering me for using the wrong word again. Trying to de-credit me?

I noticed you claimed that `vague' was the wrong word before. What interests me is what you think would have been the right word? You haven't said that so far.

--

There's a whole lot more reasons besides me being scum. I agree though, it seems very strange that I haven't been lynched. Maybe one of those four is correct?

You completely disregarded all the options I that said, one of which is actually occurring.

How come that you changed your mind on what is happening this quickly? Which of the options do you think it is and why?

Official Vote Count

BridgesAndBaloons - 2 (Amor, Muerrto)

curiouskarmadog - 1 (BridgesAndBaloons)
Amor - 1 (cerebus3)
td - 1 (WeyounsLastClone)

Not Voting - 4 (curiouskarmadog, JimSauce, Radio_Interference, td)

5 to Lynch

[BridgesAndBaloons]

Also almost everyone of the original players is guilty of flaking out, thus they must have lurked during the game at least once.
[...]
Obviously, in a game where everyone has been lurking at some time, lurking cannot be a scum tell.

100% disagree and I think you're skewing the facts. RI only missed 4 days once, while Bib (you) flaked the entire game.

There's a huge difference from missing a couple days and not posting any helpful information all game

.

For the time being, I don't have anything to add here.

*Noted*

Next: A few things I noticed during reading.

2) RI: I need to see your post by post case against Amor. Sorry for the inconvenience, but it is entirely necessary imo.

Why is it necessary?

I don't believe statements w/o evidence. RI posted a statement w/o evidence, and so I didn't believe him. I wanted to see what his evidence because more evidence = helpful for town.

I love theory discussions. Especially in a newbie game it's useful.

How would it be useful?

Are you seriously asking this question? You answered it yourself:

I think theory discussion might be helpful, because it requires that players abstract from the actual game, which helps ordering thoughts and forming opinions.

I also know that this is a newbie game which is meant to help new players so theory discussion is important.

Speaking of the summary, I asked you because I think it would extremely benefit the town if you did. It would be helpful to see fresh eyes on the thread, it would be really helpful to have another summary, and it would be great to get some lengthy posts from you considering we have very little to go on about the person you are replacing.
I'm going to maintain that it will be extremely beneficial for town for you to write a summary, but if you think not, well, I guess you won't do it.

Why would it be helpful?

Because it would be "helpful to see fresh eyes on the thread." and it would be good to "get some lengthy posts from you" to analyze.

Did you read post 261? I'm guessing not. Basically, vague was the wrong word. Your statements weren't vague. Again, you're hammering me for using the wrong word again. Trying to de-credit me?

I noticed you claimed that `vague' was the wrong word before. What interests me is what you think would have been the right word? You haven't said that so far.

I don't know if there's a single word that fits well. His statements contradicted themselves out by saying that they could be or not be scum tells. That's just like Amor acted very earlier on in the game, and it's not helpful for the town.

--

There's a whole lot more reasons besides me being scum. I agree though, it seems very strange that I haven't been lynched. Maybe one of those four is correct?

You completely disregarded all the options I that said, one of which is actually occurring.

How come that you changed your mind on what is happening this quickly? Which of the options do you think it is and why?

I didn't change my mind. These two quotes have the same opinion.
First, I say one of the four could be correct,
Second, I say one of the four is [probably] occuring, or that's what I meant.

These are one in the same.

FOS:TD

[Radio_Interference]

Krrzzztt....

...2 gigawatts of electricity!? Maybe in your time period uran...

[td]

Welcome to the game.

[Personal-Life]

I run sound tech for out highschools spring musical every year, and this year I was going to have someone to help. This kid decided to quit out yesterday, and the play is from the 18th-20th. Now I have to be at quite a few more practices organizing things, so I can't say that I'm going to have many super huge posts until after I'm done with the play. I will still have time to read the thread, and answer questions asked yata-yata-yata. Just some heads up .

[Response/Muerrto]

Well, CKD's posts set off my spidy senses. I have been confused by what he's implied with his use of structuring his posts, and so have others. Other then that you kind of hit me at a dry spot with this question, last week I would have been able to write more, and i'm guessing next week I will too. Right now I'm just kind of at an inbetween lull .

*Transmission out*

[td]

100% disagree and I think you're skewing the facts. RI only missed 4 days once, while Bib (you) flaked the entire game.

There's a huge difference from missing a couple days and not posting any helpful information all game

.

You're the one skewing facts here. Radio_Interference disappeared for four days:
- first time between his third and fourth posts, Thu 2008-03-13 03:39:57 to Mon 2008-03-17 08:10:27
- second time between his posts 17 and 18, Sat 2008-03-29 08:06:32 to Wed 2008-04-02 02:33:43
- third time between his posts 21 and 22, Wed 2008-04-02 06:41:52 to Sun 2008-04-06 23:23:35
- fourth time between his posts 24 and 25, Tue 2008-04-08 06:05:45 to Sat 2008-04-12 05:02:54

Also, `flaking out' refers to needing to be replaced due to absence, so it's something you can do exactly once during a game, not continously.

Regarding the difference: Exactly, and that's why lurking is not a scumtell, because it simply means

that you do not post

. Of course, that's also not helping town, but it is what everybody in the game has done at some point during the game. Thus, the argument is valid against any player, making it effectively a null tell.

--

RI posted a statement w/o evidence, and so I didn't believe him.

Could you please cite the statement you mean? Also, how did you get the impression that Radio_Interference actually had a case against Amor?

--

Are you seriously asking this question? You answered it yourself:

I think theory discussion might be helpful, because it requires that players abstract from the actual game, which helps ordering thoughts and forming opinions.

I also know that this is a newbie game which is meant to help new players so theory discussion is important.

I'd prefer to hear

your

answer to that question, not mine. I happen to know what I think.

--

Because it would be "helpful to see fresh eyes on the thread." and it would be good to "get some lengthy posts from you" to analyze.

I can read what you have written. Obviously, that's not enough for me, otherwise I wouldn't have asked. So here we go again: Why would it be `helpful to see fresh eyes on the thread' (which was what I wanted an answer to from the beginning, hence the adjective `helpful,' not `beneficial' or `good')?

--

I don't know if there's a single word that fits well. His statements contradicted themselves out by saying that they could be or not be scum tells. That's just like Amor acted very earlier on in the game, and it's not helpful for the town.

If you don't know exactly what you want to say, how can you expect others to understand what you mean?

The difference to what Amor did is that curiouskarmadog was asked a specific question and he said something along the lines of `in general, [...] are scum tells, but there might be cases where they are not,' while Amor was more along `[action] by [player] could be scummy, but it also couldn't because of [reason].'

That is not contradictory, but existential-quantifying a statement so as to not make it false. In that specific case, that is simply stating facts. Also, it is theory discussion, which you claimed is helpful for the town, but you claim that curiouskarmadog was

not

helpful for the town, contradiction.

Thus, one of the assumptions must have been false:
- theory discussion might not be helpful for town
- curiouskarmadog might not have made a crontadictory statement

Guess which one it is?

--

First, I say one of the four could be correct,
Second, I say one of the four is [probably] occuring, or that's what I meant.

I can't read your mind, either you write it out, or you keep it to yourself.
You didn't write `probably' and that is why I asked.

--

He [WeyounsLastClone] even knows what his own town meta is, which means he could EXTREMELY EASILY manipulate that. WLC might be scum trying to act like his town meta dictates he should. The fact that he brought up his own meta makes me very suspicious. If he was town, i would think he would have brought it up MUCH earlier (306).

Actually, the first to bring up WeyounsLastClone's town meta was you, way back in post 128.

[Muerrto]

BaB - If it helps I think all of Td's questions 'why is it helpful' etc was for you to ask yourself why you think that. Simply saying it's helpful is fine but why? Posting his answer tells him why HE thinks it's helpful, not why you do. He wanted it in your own words.

He actually seems to be simply trying to improve your posting structure rather than grilling you.

[Amor]

td: Why did you only pick BaB's posts to respond to? Were those the only ones you found worth mentioning in the whole thread?

[td]

They were simply the ones that stuck out most because they threw up questions I didn't find answers to in the thread or that weren't even asked yet.

[BridgesAndBaloons]

You're the one skewing facts here. Radio_Interference disappeared for four days:
- first time between his third and fourth posts, Thu 2008-03-13 03:39:57 to Mon 2008-03-17 08:10:27
- second time between his posts 17 and 18, Sat 2008-03-29 08:06:32 to Wed 2008-04-02 02:33:43
- third time between his posts 21 and 22, Wed 2008-04-02 06:41:52 to Sun 2008-04-06 23:23:35
- fourth time between his posts 24 and 25, Tue 2008-04-08 06:05:45 to Sat 2008-04-12 05:02:54

This is the type of evidence that I like to see. I only noticed the most recent one, so you are right, I guess. Again I'm trying to do a read-up of the game again, but i'm still busy.

Also, `flaking out' refers to needing to be replaced due to absence, so it's something you can do exactly once during a game, not continously.

did not know that. Thanks.

Thus, the argument is valid against any player, making it effectively a null tell.

. I think you're really quick to dismiss it as a scumtell since you (bib) was the guiltiest of lurking. I haven't lurked this game, to my knowledge, and there are plenty of replacements who haven't. There's also people who have lurked much more than others, and I would give evidence right now, but like I said, still busy.

--

RI posted a statement w/o evidence, and so I didn't believe him.

Could you please cite the statement you mean? Also, how did you get the impression that Radio_Interference actually had a case against Amor?

Post 117:

[Amor] I can go back, quote and highlight every part of every post you've made that fits this description if you want me to, bu as I found when I quoted them all to a word document, thats quite a lot of posts to quote in one message. What I'm talking about is that so far every post except for the ones in direct response to a question have followed this pattern:

Part (1)- Say something is suscpicious/scummy
Part (2)- Explain why it doesnt really matter

His case was that "every post[...] have followed this pattern" and he didn't include evidence.
--

Are you seriously asking this question? You answered it yourself:

I think theory discussion might be helpful, because it requires that players abstract from the actual game, which helps ordering thoughts and forming opinions.

I also know that this is a newbie game which is meant to help new players so theory discussion is important.

I'd prefer to hear

your

answer to that question, not mine. I happen to know what I think.

.
They're useful because we have to understand the theory behind the game in order to play it. It's the general rule of life.
Analogy: Most of the time people don't compose symphonies until after they know how to read music.

--

Because it would be "helpful to see fresh eyes on the thread." and it would be good to "get some lengthy posts from you" to analyze.

I can read what you have written. Obviously, that's not enough for me, otherwise I wouldn't have asked. So here we go again: Why would it be `helpful to see fresh eyes on the thread' (which was what I wanted an answer to from the beginning, hence the adjective `helpful,' not `beneficial' or `good')?

I'm not witting a poem or a story here, so I'm not analyzing the difference in diction between "helpful," beneficial," and "good." I couldn't find my original post, btw, so please let me know what post # it is.
I think it's obvious to see new eyes on the thread. Everyone gets a different perspective and it would help to see what someone elses in. You then average the two analysisis and you get something closer to the truth.

it would be good to "get some lengthy posts from you" [who was I talking to!?] since the person they replaced hadn't posted much and we needed things to analyze to see wether they were pro-town or anti-town.

--

The difference to what Amor did is that curiouskarmadog was asked a specific question and he said something along the lines of `in general, [...] are scum tells, but there might be cases where they are not,' while Amor was more along `[action] by [player] could be scummy, but it also couldn't because of [reason].'

.
OMG. Ok, you are completely defending CKD here, just like Bib did. You just gained super scummy points here! You have successfully given me confidence that you and CKD are the scum pair, and I'm really happy I find you out.
And you are completely wrong. Amor was actually more direct than CKD was. If you look back in the thread, amor had been targetting me slightly for a while (that's not to say he didn't follow the pattern.) CKD completely canceled out what he was saying.
He basically said, "

these are scum-tells

not really." He got rid of any progress that would be made of knowing what his scum tells were by saying that they couldn't be reliable ever. He was doing the same thing that Amor did, but worse. Wording it in a more pleasing way isn't less scummy.

That is not contradictory, but existential-quantifying a statement so as to not make it false. In that specific case, that is simply stating facts. Also, it is theory discussion, which you claimed is helpful for the town, but you claim that curiouskarmadog was

not

helpful for the town, contradiction.

Thus, one of the assumptions must have been false:
- theory discussion might not be helpful for town
- curiouskarmadog might not have made a crontadictory statement

I don't mean tot attack you here, but this argument [actually, entire post] is extremely spinny. I didn't make an assumption. Theory discussion is helpful for the town since we new players need to understand the game! This is a fact. What is also a fact is constant theory discussion is a scum-tell. CKD did make a contradictory statement, he just nullified any progress that would have been made by his statement.

Actually, the first to bring up WeyounsLastClone's town meta was you, way back in post 128.

I know! But WLC acknowledges this also, and he said it in a way that made me think he's known about his meta the whole time.

[Muerrto]

I think you're really quick to dismiss it as a scumtell since you (bib) was the guiltiest of lurking. I haven't lurked this game, to my knowledge, and there are plenty of replacements who haven't.

Right, replacements. You're not an original so your predecessor lurked, right? That was his point.

RI and WLC are the only originals and they both 'lurked' at some point.

[JimSauce]

Not much to say. I see Bridges is still giving Bib no credit for what he's posted this game, and is now downplaying RI's lurking. (I don't think I'm one to talk, as I haven't posted much this week...)

I think td's questions are justified, which means I'm wondering why he got a FoS out of nowhere.

[td]

I think you're really quick to dismiss it as a scumtell since you (bib) was the guiltiest of lurking. I haven't lurked this game, to my knowledge, and there are plenty of replacements who haven't. There's also people who have lurked much more than others, and I would give evidence right now, but like I said, still busy.

You're mixing two things here. On one hand, you accuse me because backinblack167 was lurking. On the other hand, when I point out that every player in this game has been at some time, you claim that the argument is not valid. How is backinblack167's lurking any different from ZaneWasHere's lurking? Granted, the former one's lurking was more extreme, but neither you nor I have been lurking.

Also, how can anybody be

more guilty

of something than somebody else?

--

His case was that "every post[...] have followed this pattern" and he didn't include evidence.

That is hardly a case, at best, it's one point in a case. Also, regarding providing evidence: Why didn't you just

read

Amor's posts and see for yourself? If you know what to look for, spotting the pattern is easy.
This is also a good idea in general, if a point is easily verifiable, just do it, because evidence can be made up.

--

I'm not witting a poem or a story here, so I'm not analyzing the difference in diction between "helpful," beneficial," and "good." I couldn't find my original post, btw, so please let me know what post # it is.
I think it's obvious to see new eyes on the thread. Everyone gets a different perspective and it would help to see what someone elses in. You then average the two analysisis and you get something closer to the truth.

It's not about the difference in diction, it's about the difference in reference. Your original post was 170.

On averaging two analyses: In general, that just doesn't work.

Suppose we have a linear scale from 0 to 10, where 0 is the truth, analysis A is 3 and analysis B is 9. When you average A and B, you get 6, which is actually

farther

from the truth than one of the original analyses.

--

OMG. Ok, you are completely defending CKD here, just like Bib did. You just gained super scummy points here! You have successfully given me confidence that you and CKD are the scum pair, and I'm really happy I find you out.

You think curiouskarmadog is scummy, because you think he made a contradictory statement that was unhelpful for town.
I point out that the statement is not contradictory, like backinblack167 already did before.
You claim I defend curiouskarmadog and therefore have to be scum.

Basically, that is the Guilt by Association fallacy, except that curiouskarmadog isn't even proven guilty.

CKD completely canceled out what he was saying.

EVERYTHING CAN BE A SCUM TELL IN CONTEXT AND GIVEN A PLAYER. One trait that might not be a scum tell for one, could be for another....

I should have quoted that post earlier, the point is actually much more serious.

What curiouskarmadog said wasn't `in general, [...] are scum tells, but there might be cases where they are not' like I originally said, but actually
`given the right player and the right context, everything can be a scumm tell, but in general, x, y, z are scum tells.'

Now please point out where that is `contradictory,' `vague' or `cancelling out what he was saying.'

He basically said, " [-]these are scum-tells[/-] not really." He got rid of any progress that would be made of knowing what his scum tells were by saying that they couldn't be reliable ever. He was doing the same thing that Amor did, but worse. Wording it in a more pleasing way isn't less scummy.

No, he didn't say anything like that. If anything, it was more like `these are scum tells, but there are many more possible.'

Also, where did he imply that the tells he listed `aren't reliable ever' and how would that have hindered progress?

--

I don't mean tot attack you here, but this argument [actually, entire post] is extremely spinny.

Curiouskarmadog might fall for that accusation, you might fall for it, I'm not going to. You either point out

which

part of my post is spinning

what

fact, or I'll regard that statement as what it is, a plain accusation without any evidence.

I didn't make an assumption. Theory discussion is helpful for the town since we new players need to understand the game! This is a fact. What is also a fact is constant theory discussion is a scum-tell. CKD did make a contradictory statement, he just nullified any progress that would have been made by his statement.

One more time, as you seem to not understand what I'm getting at:
- curiouskarmadog lists possible scum tells, saying that `given the right circumstances, everything might be a scum tell.'
- listing scum tells is clearly theory discussion.
- you stated that theory discussion benefits town.
- you claimed that curiouskarmadog was making a contradictory statement and therefore not helping town.

Now, he apparently was both helpful to the town (by listing scum tells) and not helpful (by making that `contradiction') at the same time. Obviously, that is a contradiction. To resolve that contradiction, we have to realize that (at least) one of the facts we used to arrive at that contradiction was false.

- curiouskarmadog

did

list scum tells, so that is a fact.
- scum tells

are

game theory, therefore listing them is theory discussion. Thus, this point is also verified.

That leaves to possibilities to resolve the contradiction. Either, theory discussion does not help town (in which case curiouskarmadog would not have been helping town by listing scum tells) or he did not make a contradictory statement (actually, it is even possible that both of these assumptions are wrong, although unlikely, since there happens to be a consensus that theory discussions actually are helpful).

As I pointed out above, curiouskarmadog's statement was

not

contradictory, therefore he wasn't being unhelpful.

[BridgesAndBaloons]

JS: I was wondering for someone to ask about that. I FOSed him because he just seemed to completely make me come back to my original idea that Bib was scummy. If I knew

why

I did, then I would have written about it.
Ok I was jumping the gun when I exlaimed that TD and CKD were scum, but I was just a little excited when I got scummy vibes from him.

There's something I wanted to point out that's extremely interesting and maybe not a coincidence:
Boggzie was extremely emotional and over-defensive, and CKD (his replacement) acted very similiar.
Bib agread with CKD and defended CKD. Td is doing the same.

[cerebus3]

Lol I know it's WIFOM, I even said that:

not saying I trust Amor 100% but I doubt he'd be on his partner with only 2 votes on him, and yes that's WIFOM

But it's also logical. I've said this argument a million times but don't get into the habit of thinking everything that's WIFOM is useless dribble.

I am not saying the Amor/Bab pairing is WIFOM, I am saying that you saying that people didn't attack Bab is evidence of his scummyness is WIFOM. What you essentially claimed is that since nobody pushed for Bab's lynch, he is more likely scum, which is crap. Especially since Amor (and you) DID push for his lynch, saying he thought that Bab was scummy regardless of his newbness, but you ignored this merely because he was already voting him, which is also crap. You can still push for a lynch even if you are already voting him.

UNVOTE, VOTE: Muerrto

[BridgesAndBaloons]

You're mixing two things here. On one hand, you accuse me because backinblack167 was lurking.

NO I DON'T! I accuse you for calling lurking not a scum tell in this game. Firstly, instantly discrediting lurking as a possible scum tell just because many people have done it is a negative action.
Secondly, it's only suspicious that you are defending lurking as not anti-town since the person you replaced lurked, therefore you defending his actions which then defends you.

On the other hand, when I point out that every player in this game has been at some time, you claim that the argument is not valid. How is backinblack167's lurking any different from ZaneWasHere's lurking?

Bib only responded when prodded and post every couple of days, however he DID continue you this for an extremely long time! An entire month! This is clearly following the game while lurking. Zane only lasted a week, and it appears that he simply lost interest or forgot about this game. Bib did not forget about the game, and he countinued to post every so often for an entire MONTH!

Also, how can anybody be

more guilty

of something than somebody else?

Maybe I phrased that wrong.
I mean that there's a difference between beating up one old man, and slaughtering 50 old men.

It's not about the difference in diction, it's about the difference in reference. Your original post was 170.

Oh now I get what you were doing with the "helpful" and "good" thing. (now that I see the post I made.) Wow after re-reading it I realized I didn't really say why. Did I explain it more clearly earlier?

On averaging two analyses: In general, that just doesn't work.

Suppose we have a linear scale from 0 to 10, where 0 is the truth, analysis A is 3 and analysis B is 9. When you average A and B, you get 6, which is actually

farther

from the truth than one of the original analyses.

.
No NO NO!!! Ah! I have no idea why you want people to think averaging the two analyses are bad, but imo you are completely wrong.
Firstly, you can't add quanitative measurements to something like how truthful something is. It's qualitatively either an "attempt to be truthful" or "a biased attempt to make other people scummy and me and my partner look good"
Secondly, if you have two analyses, the chance right now is 4/9 that one of them is made by a mafia member. This means that if you believe one of the analyses you have there is a VERY CONSIDERABLE chance that you will believe a mafia's analysis. This will cause you to believe something extremely untruthful and biased.
Thirdly, your statement is spinning the facts. Let's say you originally believed B, it means that the analyses you now have is much more true than your original guess. You only consider the situation that would make averaging two analyses not work. *spinning by not acknowledging the other side of the argument.
Fourthly, one person's analyses may be really true in one aspect and really aweful in others. We you average multiple summaries of the game, you are bound (since 7/9 of us do want the town to win) to have a summary that aproaches the truth.

--

You think curiouskarmadog is scummy, because you think he made a contradictory statement that was unhelpful for town.

. Nope. It's just more evidence.

Oh and thanks for the info about the Fallacy. It's theory-talk like that, that helps the town.

Now please point out where that is `contradictory,'

`vague'

or `cancelling out what he was saying.'

. I have mentioned vague being the wrong word a hundred times by now. I think that by saying that "anything and everything can be a scumt tell" before his phrase is like saying that you shouldn't use this tells or pay attention to this post at all. That's what I got from it, obviously, you disagree with me and

and agree with and defend CKD

. He was "cancelling" out any progress that would have been made my his post imo. I agree, you disagree (obviously.)

I don't mean tot attack you here, but this argument [actually, entire post] is extremely spinny.

Curiouskarmadog might fall for that accusation, you might fall for it, I'm not going to. You either point out

which

part of my post is spinning

what

fact, or I'll regard that statement as what it is, a plain accusation without any evidence.

.
1) you direct the entire post at me, ignoring everyone else.
2) You re-itterate arguments that CKD has already brought up several times.
3) *here* (above)
4) You make it seem as though I'm contradicting myself with saying CKD wasn't helping the town when I wasn't. (see below)

One more time, as you seem to not understand what I'm getting at:
- curiouskarmadog lists possible scum tells, saying that `given the right circumstances, everything might be a scum tell.'
- listing scum tells is clearly theory discussion.
- you stated that theory discussion benefits town.
- you claimed that curiouskarmadog was making a contradictory statement and therefore not helping town.

. I said that CKD was cancelling out what he was saying, and thus cancelling out his theory discussion. Henceforth, he wasn't actually doing theory discussion that would help the town, and therefore I made no contradiction.

What I said here can go to respond to all the rest in this post. You pushing this very weak argument is what I was talking about when I said "spinning."

[BridgesAndBaloons]

Ok I need to step back for a couple of days. I have been way too in the spotlight. I'm spending all of my time responding and I'm not able to generate my own ideas.
I just need to think things through right now.

Unvote[/b.]

Why?
I'm not sure what I think right now. There's a lot of different ideas that I need to sort out. I might come back voting for CKD again, but I really need to view the entire thread. We're getting serious now.

[Muerrto]

I am not saying the Amor/Bab pairing is WIFOM, I am saying that you saying that people didn't attack Bab is evidence of his scummyness is WIFOM. What you essentially claimed is that since nobody pushed for Bab's lynch, he is more likely scum, which is crap. Especially since Amor (and you) DID push for his lynch, saying he thought that Bab was scummy regardless of his newbness, but you ignored this merely because he was already voting him, which is also crap. You can still push for a lynch even if you are already voting him.

UNVOTE, VOTE: Muerrto

Sigh. I already said it's more LIKELY he's scum not that he IS. I also said it's WIFOM and explained how sometimes WIFOM makes sense. I ALSO explained how no one pusing for his lynch really when he's an easy target DOES make it more likely he's scum.

You can disagree but how exactly does my pushing for a lynch of BaB cause a vote from you?

I voted him in my first post. I thought he was scummy since the beginning.

The problem is you sold yourself on your 'VI' theory and now think he's INCAPABLE of being scum. That's not good.

[Muerrto]

EBWOP: Also this is page FOURTEEN on day 1. Pushing for lynch after this insanely stagnated game has gone on this long is by no means a scum tell.

My FIRST post told people not to be so damn careful with voting and yet here we are.

[cerebus3]

Sigh. I already said it's more LIKELY he's scum not that he IS. I also said it's WIFOM and explained how sometimes WIFOM makes sense. I ALSO explained how no one pusing for his lynch really when he's an easy target DOES make it more likely he's scum.

You can disagree but how exactly does my pushing for a lynch of BaB cause a vote from you?

I voted him in my first post. I thought he was scummy since the beginning.

You are completely ignoring my argument. I am saying the fact that you claimed that Bab is more likely scum because nobody pushed for his lynch is 100% crap. In fact bab explained quite nicely why it isn't a feasible argument.

I also find it out that I'm not out. Apparently I acted extremely scummy, so I should be out by now. I think we're dealing with some very careful scum, possibly. However, there's a bunch of reasons that I can think of why this isn't happening:
1) If CKD is scum, then he couldn't directly* attack me back, it would look too OMGUS-like. Then his partner doesn't want to attack me because after CKD is unearthed it will be easy to find them?
2) Our scum is someone who has a very cautious playstyle, for example, WLC. He even knows what his own town meta is, which means he could EXTREMELY EASILY manipulate that. WLC might be scum trying to act like his town meta dictates he should. The fact that he brought up his own meta makes me very suspicious. If he was town, i would think he would have brought it up MUCH earlier (306).
3) Our scum don't want to attack me, since many people think I'm a pro-town idiot/newbie. They're afraid that this will look suspicious, which it would. In fact, this would be the smartest move for the scum, since Muerto was specifically looking for this.
4) You're scum, and you saw that noone attacked me and decided to use it as further evidence.

There's a whole lot more reasons besides me being scum. I agree though, it seems very strange that I haven't been lynched. Maybe one of those four is correct?

And once again, you are saying that you are exempt from your own reasoning about pushing for his lynch because you are already voting him, which is BULLSHIT. You put forth an argument for why you thought he should be lynched, which is pushing for a lynch, my friend.

I am voting you because you are using a crap argument to push a lynch, even ignoring things that would contradict your argument even if it wasn't crap, which is scummy.

The problem is you sold yourself on your 'VI' theory and now think he's INCAPABLE of being scum. That's not good.

What? I said I was leaning toward agreeing that he was scummy in response to your question.

1. I want everyone's opinion on BaB's 'newbie' claims. Several points: Are they sincere? Are they too numerous? Are they justified? Should it matter?

The first time I read Bab's case on Occult, I nearly choked on how scummy the argument was, but I was sort of swayed by the sentiments of other players that maybe the newbie card was justified. Yes, the VI thing was kind of drastic, but I wanted to do something drastic to get the game moving again. I don't think it worked too well though. I am beginning to move back to the Bab is scummy side though, and I think that some of his stuff couldn't be excused with the simple newbie card (though it could with the VI card.) In the end, I really just want to look at other players, but it is pretty hard when half of them are lurking and the other half aren't really looking at other players themselves.

[Muerrto]

You are completely ignoring my argument. I am saying the fact that you claimed that Bab is more likely scum because nobody pushed for his lynch is 100% crap. In fact bab explained quite nicely why it isn't a feasible argument.

Sigh...because it has the possibility of being wrong doesn't mean it IS wrong. I'm not gonna try and explain that again as you've obviously been brainwashed into thinking WIFOM=scum.

So since we're all guessing because we don't know each other's roles, isn't it all really WIFOM? Kind of makes the game moot, yes?

So SOME WIFOM is necessary for the game to function, yes?

Also, please note you're getting emotional defending BaB, not a good thing.

[cerebus3]

And just because there is a possibility that you are right does not mean the argument is right. Just because Bab is more likely scum than other people does not make your argument any more valid than if you had said the same thing about the fact that nobody pushed for, say, WLC.

And, even then, If it was just that, I wouldn't be voting you, but you ignored a clear contradiction to your argument (Amor) and still tried to pass it off as valid.

You are trying to dismiss my argument as merely a WIFOM point, which i don't like.

[Muerrto]

And just because there is a possibility that you are right does not mean the argument is right. Just because Bab is more likely scum than other people does not make your argument any more valid than if you had said the same thing about the fact that nobody pushed for, say, WLC.

And, even then, If it was just that, I wouldn't be voting you, but you ignored a clear contradiction to your argument (Amor) and still tried to pass it off as valid.

You are trying to dismiss my argument as merely a WIFOM point, which i don't like.

I disagree. I didn't dismiss Amor at all. I said I DON'T see BaB/Amor as distancing and at this time I suspect BaB more, ergo Amor has to be town AT THIS TIME? So if Amor's town the BaB SHOULD have 2 mafia that can jump him. If I'm wrong about BaB, fine, but I can't suspect both Amor and BaB at the same time if I don't see the distancing. So if I suspect one, the other's town. I explained all this to BaB a couple pages back.

Do you see the difference?

[td]

I accuse you for calling lurking not a scum tell in this game. Firstly, instantly discrediting lurking as a possible scum tell just because many people have done it is a negative action.

I'm not saying

many

people have done it, I'm saying

every single player

has done it. Obviously, not every single player is scum. Therefore, you can't distinguish between lurking scum and lurking town. Thus, lurking effectively becomes a null tell. Why do you think pointing out facts is a negative action?

--

Bib only responded when prodded and post every couple of days, however he DID continue you this for an extremely long time!

This is just wrong. As an example, look at posts 85 and 86, where Radio_Interference falsely accused backinblack167 of lurking and requested a prod on him after only two days absence, stating it had been `like a week.'

Also, backinblack167 was prodded exactly two times during the game, the second of which caused him to be replaced. He also did start to post after the first plot before going into lurking again.

--

I mean that there's a difference between beating up one old man, and slaughtering 50 old men.

The principal difference is that `beating up' is something different from `slaughtering' and will probably get you arrested for assault and battery, while the second will get you convicted for mass murder. That being two very different crimes, your analogy just sucks.

Also, in some countries, you'll end up dead for murder anyways, regardless of how many you actually did kill, so even if you intended to imply that the beaten up old man died because of that, it still doesn't really help your point.

--

Wow after re-reading it I realized I didn't really say why. Did I explain it more clearly earlier?

You did, although I still disagree on your `averaging' theory (see below).

--

Firstly, you can't add quanitative measurements to something like how truthful something is. It's qualitatively either an "attempt to be truthful" or "a biased attempt to make other people scummy and me and my partner look good"

If you can't quantify it, you can't average it, so either your theory fails or that argument does.

Secondly, if you have two analyses, the chance right now is 4/9 that one of them is made by a mafia member. This means that if you believe one of the analyses you have there is a VERY CONSIDERABLE chance that you will believe a mafia's analysis. This will cause you to believe something extremely untruthful and biased.

Your numbers are wrong, because you forgot that you know what your alingnment is.

For a townie player, when looking at two analyses from different players,
in 15 out of 28 cases, both analyses are from other townies. In 1 out of 28 cases, both analyses are from scum. In the remaining 12/28 cases, exactly one analysis is from scum.

That means, when averaging analyses, in 16 out of 28 cases you take the risk that you actually get farther away from the truth due to the truthful parts cancelling each other.

For scum, the question is not as interesting, because scum knows who is scum and therefore knows which analyses are truthful (nevertheless, the chances are 1/4 that one of them is the analysis from the scum buddy, 3/4 that both are townie analyses).

Also, nobody asks you to

believe

an analysis. If there's evidence, go check it and make up your mind. If there's none, the analysis is pointless anyways.

Thirdly, your statement is spinning the facts. Let's say you originally believed B, it means that the analyses you now have is much more true than your original guess. You only consider the situation that would make averaging two analyses not work. *spinning by not acknowledging the other side of the argument.

I only have to show that there exists a single case where it doesn't work to prove it isn't generally applicable. That is what I did.

My original point was `it doesn't work in the general case,' please tell me how I could have proven that

without

demonstrating a case where it fails? Of course, in some cases, it does work. I never claimed that there aren't cases where it would work. It's you who is spinning here.

Fourthly, one person's analyses may be really true in one aspect and really aweful in others. We you average multiple summaries of the game, you are bound (since 7/9 of us do want the town to win) to have a summary that aproaches the truth.

No, much in the same way that a sequence with more than one accumulation point doesn't converge. Also, people tend to get things wrong, meaning even if all analyses converge on something, that needn't be the truth.

--

I have mentioned vague being the wrong word a hundred times by now. I think that by saying that "anything and everything can be a scumt tell" before his phrase is like saying that you shouldn't use this tells or pay attention to this post at all. That's what I got from it, obviously, you disagree with me and and agree with and defend CKD. He was "cancelling" out any progress that would have been made my his post imo. I agree, you disagree (obviously.)

You still don't seem to get it. `everything can be a scum tell, but here are some examples' (which is what he did say) is completely different from `here are some tells, but they might not be applicable here' (which you claim you read out of it).

So either you are deliberately misinterpreting curiouskarmadog or not reading both his and my posts thoroughly enough.

--

1) you direct the entire post at me, ignoring everyone else.

So what has happened between my posts 332 and 335 that would have deserved attention? 333 is basically Muerrto clarifying one of my points you didn't get and 334 is JimSauce summarizing the last few posts and wondering about me being FoS'd. Why would I need to address any of that? Also, in what way is focusing on you spinning?

2) You re-itterate arguments that CKD has already brought up several times.

I reiterate because you still don't understand why your point is invalid and you just keep claiming that they are. How is rewording a point to ease understanding spinning?

3) *here* (above)

See above (and please answer the question up there).

4) You make it seem as though I'm contradicting myself with saying CKD wasn't helping the town when I wasn't. (see below)

No, I didn't. I said that there was a contradiction, not that you were contradicting yourself. The contradiction was between curiouskarmadog doing theory discussion and therefore being helpful and you claiming he wasn't helpful. Putting it bluntly, you were contradicting reality.

--

I said that CKD was cancelling out what he was saying, and thus cancelling out his theory discussion. Henceforth, he wasn't actually doing theory discussion that would help the town, and therefore I made no contradiction.

No, you claimed that by saying something, he cancelled out his possible scum tells. That is different from completely cancelling out theory discussion, because even discrediting scum tells (which he wasn't doing) is inherently discussing scum tells and thus theory discussion.

--

What I said here can go to respond to all the rest in this post. You pushing this very weak argument is what I was talking about when I said "spinning."

The argument is certainly not weak because you call it so, could you please point out what makes it a weak argument?

--

Ok I need to step back for a couple of days. I have been way too in the spotlight. I'm spending all of my time responding and I'm not able to generate my own ideas.

Interesting coincidence (might be along the same lines of both backinblack167 argueing against your `contradictory statement' claim), I start picking your `case' apart and you feel to have been in the spotlight too much. Also, while you might have spent all of your time answering, you still have to answer a few of my questions:

Also, where did he imply that the tells he listed `aren't reliable ever' and how would that have hindered progress?

--

Sorry, right now, I'm too tired to continue. I'll comment on the cerebus3/Muerrto exchange tomorrow.

[BridgesAndBaloons]

One of the reasons I'm stepping back as that I'm suddenly feeling anti-town feelings from you, and I want to make sure it's not a biased omgus type feeling.

[Amor]

Ok I need to step back for a couple of days. I have been way too in the spotlight. I'm spending all of my time responding and I'm not able to generate my own ideas.
I just need to think things through right now.

Unvote[/b.]

Why?
I'm not sure what I think right now. There's a lot of different ideas that I need to sort out. I might come back voting for CKD again, but I really need to view the entire thread. We're getting serious now.

What happened to knowing CKD was scum and not unvoting him until he got lynched? This seems like a clear attempt at retreat and, as you said, trying to stay out of the spotlight. That's something scum would want a lot more than town. If you want to go back and do a reread than fine, but I really don't like you basically saying "Come on guys stop talking about me, talk about... I dunno, someone else."

I think Muerrto's theory was pretty reasonable, and BaB would indeed seem to be an easy target. However, given that practically nobody was voting for anyone in this town, I can easily see scum trying to fit in by doing the same. So in this specific case, it's not really significant that no one is voting BaB. Still scummy for lots of other reasons, of course.

However, I'm worried about Cerebus3 voting for Muerrto on the basis of a weak argument. (At least what he sees as a weak argument) He did the same thing to me, and offered a similar lack of explanation for why it was scummy. There really doesn't seem to be much reason behind his votes.

[Muerrto]

I'll be less/more worried about Cerb when I see his response to my last post and whether or not he sees the difference.