Minvitational 8 - OVER before 611

[vollkan]

I've played with everyone here except BT and Simenon. This looks set to be a good game.

And, in keeping with Erg0's fine tradition,

Vote: Oman

[vollkan]

Is that an Aussie thing?

No. I was under the impression that the desire to get rid of Oman was universal

[vollkan]

Vote Vollkan Voting me is totally UnAustralian.

The fact that you would even countenance using the non-word "UnAustralian" is absolute proof that you are scum.

But, moreover:
Consider the fact that both Erg0 and myself have voted for you. That means that we have a majority of the Australians here choosing to vote for yourself. Thus, the only statistical evidence we have indicates, by a 2:1 majority, that voting for Oman is actually the "Australian" thing to do. Hence, we can conclude that the fact that you are not self-voting means that you are the one who is "UnAustralian", if anybody.

Hypocritical accusations and use of a terrible, terrible word. Please die now.

[vollkan]

Oh it will, will it?

Would it have been better to vote him? What do you think? Why do you see it as neutral? Scum are more likely to want to float under the radar. So doing something cheeky and frivolous, like an annoying "let's lynch cicero har har har" is more likely to come from a townie than a scum. It's a very weak town tell. If you think it's scummy for me to think that then by all means, please join the wagon. Be warned, however, that I think you thinking my opinion is scummy is in fact scummy so voting me will result in me voting you. Not OMGUS, but because I will disapprove of your vote on a townie for not immediately jumping on someone with a vote that is more likely annoying than scummy.

I disagree.

This is the sort of logic that drives lurker lynching - "Scum want to fly under the radar". I'm not convinced that there is any broad correlation between going under the radar and somebody being scum. And the whole thing is WIFOM anyway - since the very attitude of "Scum will rationally want to go undercover" gives scum a rational motivation

not

to hide in the shadows.

In short, silly-buggery is a nulltell.

Oh, and I would love to know why somebody thinking your opinion is scummy is scummy. Saying it beforehand may give you the air of consistency, but it adds no substance.

Is there not scum benefit in starting a wagon on someone like this under the premise of a joke?

Oman scores.

[vollkan]

and Oman is making sense...sort of...

What didn't make sense to you?

I've got to agree with CKD here.

What you said made sense. But the fact that

you

said it doesn't make sense. Thus, it only sort of makes sense

[vollkan]

I hammered enought o find toyu funny.

Now you aren't making any sense at all - which therefore

actually

makes perfect sense.

[vollkan]

People's logic here is interesting. By all means disagree with me about it being a weak town tell. Call it a null tell. But we were on the same basic wavelength. Nothing to vote Simenon over. Just as me saying it is a weak town tell is nothing to vote me over, Oman. Unfortunately because I was the player at issue with his chosen first bandwagon it demanded some sort of response from me. I'm not sure what the magic response was supposed to have been but the fact is I found him annoying and not scummy. The way he went about it felt like townie trying to be flippant playing silly bugger, and thereby promote conversation, which, yes, I feel is something more often engaged in by townies because anything can happen in the early game and most scum will tend towards self preservationism and try to stay out of the early controversies. Not all. Of course scum can WIFOM it. But that's the starting premise of the WIFOM. Scum will do this UNLESS they plan to confound expectations. Don't like my opinion, fine. But think Cicero would only hold that opinion as scum? You are quite incorrect as shall become apparent at some near or later point in the future.

Not true.

It depends on the individual. Some people will play scum by hiding in the shadows and hoping not to be noticed. Others will play hard and aggressive in order to "hide in the open". Arguing that scum will hide in the shadows only makes it more rational for scum to play hard and aggressive.

I like how you note that scum will hide in the shadows "UNLESS they plan to confound expectations", as though planning to confound expectations is somehow something that scum don't ordinarily do. Rational scum will seek to maximise their own survival and, as a result, will seek to confound expectations if they can do so.

This is a thought you are happening to have that lacks foundation.

It's just my opinion.

It's a weak town tell. Anyone else wants to say WIFOM null tell, fine, but you're missing the point. The point was that that action seemed like Simenon being a pest and I wasnt going to vote him for it. That didnt mean I was absolving him for the game or that I didnt think scum could do something townie. Scum do townie things all the time in every game. But so do townies. So I wait to see something scummy before I vote a person.

"It's just my opinion" sounds an awful lot like Gut in a Tuxedo.

man it seems cicero's defense to early bandwagoning is lots of words, which I'm going to have to read.

Please abridge for those of us on the go

[vollkan]

AFAIK, the logic that drives lurker lynching is that it's easier to work out connections, etc, from posts than no posts. Therefore, it's in the town's interests to force people to post, using the sanction of lynch if necessary.

Well, no. There are two forms of lurker-lynching:

1) Lynching as a last resort because a person refuses to participate;
2) Lynching, in whole or in part, upon the basis that the person has been lurking/lurky and is, as a result, more likely to be scum.

The first is a legitimate solution where all else fails to deal with something atrociously anti-town (If lurking is legitimised, then nobody need post).

The latter makes the dubious assumption that scum are inherently more likely to lurk. The problem I have with that is that town can have a rational reason for lurking: power-role trying to be innocuous, aren't fully composed and don't want to make a screwed-up post, playing the observant judge, etc. And, as I have said, scum can have perfectly rational reasons to be of any degree of activity.

Basically, pushing lurking as suspicious is just conflating "anti-town" with "scummy". It shouldn't be tolerated as a matter of policy, but it shouldn't be warped into a scumtell either.

[vollkan]

Decent town players should not act antitown. Therefore, there's far less difference between the two than is generally made out.

Decent scum will also not appear to be acting protown. No?

What this game really needs is for somebody to do something stupid. That usually gets things rolling.

Interesting. You apparently have a clear idea about what "needs" to be done, but you yourself aren't actually prepared to do it? Any reason why?

[vollkan]

What this game really needs is for somebody to do something stupid. That usually gets things rolling.

Interesting. You apparently have a clear idea about what "needs" to be done, but you yourself aren't actually prepared to do it? Any reason why?

Was this a joke?

It was puffed-up inquisition-style.

[vollkan]

What this game really needs is for somebody to do something stupid. That usually gets things rolling.

Interesting. You apparently have a clear idea about what "needs" to be done, but you yourself aren't actually prepared to do it? Any reason why?

Was this a joke?

It was puffed-up inquisition-style.

I wasn't expecting that.

Nobody was.

Don't be silly. Decent scum will act antitown whenever they think they can get away with it, and protown when they can't. Thus accepting the 'it was a mistake' line allows more antitown things to be done.

With the "it was a mistake", that needs to be considered and, usually, will be worth treating with skepticism. Decent scum shouldn't try and rely on "it was a mistake", unless doing so will afford significant advantage and have little risk (ie. a newbie scum might get away with an 'accidental' hammer)

1. there are no idiots or assholes playing in this game
2. I am not distracted due to being in too many games
3. I doubt that tracks or traps will work well, unless they are really really subtle.
4. I would like Erg0 to take me at face value, if possible

And the missing:
5. Playing conservative is probably the biggest mindfuck I could possibly cause.

OK so the consensus seems to be that Adel hasn't played this conservative before. I don't know what that means, but it obviously has my attention.

The reasons she's given are sensible, but since they come from her they might be false. I'm not reading anything into it at this stage (partly because I like conservative play )

[vollkan]

There are are a few interesting things about the Cicero wagon. When the wagon was starting to build, it occurred to me pretty quickly that Simenon was just trolling for a reaction. (Guardian and Oman did this to an extent in Mafia in Vollville on Day 1.) Cicero's response in 40 arouses my curiosity, particularly in how he declared Simenon's act a weak town tell (and not just "I don't find it scummy"). I can think of a number of interesting interpretations of this. Maybe it's a subtle scum attempt at buddying up a bit to help derail the wagon.

Maybe it's a calculated gambit to see if Simenon and/or Oman will press too hard and overcommit on their case against him.

Maybe it's just a simple attempt to feel Simenon out. The wording here does sound a bit funny -- it's enough to raise my eyebrow and wonder about his intentions though, but I'm not going to jump on him for this alone.

This makes sense, except for the bit I have bolded. I don't see how Cicero saying it was a weak town tell can be read as a gambit to cause Simenon and Oman to potentially overcommit themselves. Maybe you could clarify this?

So it doesn't bother you when a player's style changes 180 degrees from their norm?

Shaft.ed, we can all see perfectly well that Adel is not playing as crazily as she normally does. I can't see why you seem so intent on making so much of it, however. There's nothing inherently pro-scum or pro-town about Adel playing differently, and, short of uncovering some actual rational explanation for why she would play differently, it's not something I think it is helpful to speculate about.

The way you phrase your question, it seems apparent that you are bothered. Hence, would you mind explaining why it is actually bothersome?

[vollkan]

But I think the correct townie move in the case where someone shows a different playstyle is to keep an open mind and evaluate the player based on their activities in the current game in light of the meta (don't forget the meta, just try not to let it dominate your scumdar). I think meta is a useful tool, but IMHO, I think that too often players use it to jump to conclusions. "Player X did Y when her meta says she normally does Z! She must be scum!!" What incentive do people have to improve by changing their playstyles or trying different strategies then? I firmly believe that a townie's most important obligation is to help their team win, within the bounds of ethical play.

/agree completely.

The thing about meta is that saying "X does Y as scum, so X must be scum here!" is that it assumes all else is equal - ie. whether or not the person is a power role, what type of power role, how busy the person is in RL (I notice this has a massive affect on my own ability), etc. It's not necessarily comparing apples with apples.

I hate Day 1s without a Night 0, or maybe I am just insecure about my scum hunting abilities day 1 with little to go on. not sure why the wagon is shifting to Shanba if he is not even posting at this site.

It's lurker-pressuring: An exercise in futility designed to make each participant seem as useful as possible whilst ignoring the obvious facts that a person who isn't on-site is not going to be subject to pressure and that, if a lurker does return, it's not a good idea to have their read potentially tainted by pressure.

I probably didn't explain it very well. Gambit was probably too strong of a word.

I think that sometimes, when someone is pushing a case on you, one way to help disrupt it is to agree with them about something (legitimately or not). For example, you may agree with some of the points against you, if they are valid. If done genuinely as town, it shows you are level-headed and fair, and as scum, I think it might help you look as if you were level-headed and fair.

Either way, I think in some cases, it can throw a bit of an obstacle in the path of the person pushing the case against you. And I think how the person pushing the case gets around that obstacle has the potential to be telling. A desperate scum sensing his/her mislynch prey getting away could be tempted to oversell the case.

Perhaps in this game, we are less likely to have desperate scum (since many of the players here are seasoned veterans), but I think the general observation still holds water.

So, you are suggesting that Cicero may have said that it was a weak town tell in order to show partial agreement as a confounding tactic?

Jitsu, your posts thus far seem to have a lot of "it could be this" or it "could be that". Would you say that's a fair assessment?

Yes, it is.

First, I have far less experience playing mafia than most other people here, and because of that, I tend to doubt myself, even in cases when I should not. I don't think I have the track record yet to establish confidence in my scumhunting ability. And even then, I will probably remain the "judging" type that weighs evidence carefully and comes to a decision more slowly than others.

Second, my playstyle is to be honest and open, and a bit conservative. If I'm not sure something is scummy, I'll say so. But if I am really sure (which admittedly is rare), I'll attack hard. I don't like to say or imply I'm sure of something when I really am not. By understating my certainty a little bit, I still get my opinons out there and on record to help the town, and I make fewer enemies in the bargain. I've found it's a lot easier to get information from people if they don't perceive you as an enemy.

So far, I think this style has worked well for me.

You play in a very similar fashion to myself: the two points you make here in particular.

That said, I think you need to distinguish between weighing the evidence carefully, and speculation. I can think of a multitude of explanations for many posts, some of which may be scummy, but I don't see any utility in listing those possibilities (as you did). This is especially so given the potentially manipulative effect of only planting scummy possibilities. Also, giving such speculation can't be justified by being "open".

To unvote at L-3 is a bit strange to me. You know there aren't any wild cards in this game that will come by and hammer out of the ether. Why the concern?

unvote vote: CKD

Why the concern, shaft.ed?

You say the unvote is "a bit strange", but could you flesh out how that oddness translates into scumminess?

Excuse me, but I never said what CKD did was scummy. Why did you come to that conclusion?

I was looking for an explanation why he did what he did and trying to gauge his motives. I did decide to turn up the pressure on him just a notch to see how he would react, because he really hasn't been tested much yet.

He didn't overreact and gave a logical reason why he did what he did, so I find his reaction more likely to be townish.

Cicero has said what I would say re you "not saying it"

In my view, overreaction is, until I see contrary proof, completely independent of alignment. It's a player-based thing.

His reason also wasn't fantastic. Basically saying: "I wasn't comfortable with the pace or the people" is among the first excuses that would come to scum in that situation.

I did have concerns, obviously, or I would not have asked the question. But in my mind, being suspicious of someone, and thinking they are scummy are not the same. To me, the former implies that I am still making up my mind about something. The latter implies that I already have, to some degree. If you consider that splitting hairs,

that's your prerogative.

No. It is not "my prerogative" or anybody else's. It's a matter of evaluating your own behaviour, and it's patently evasive to turn it into a matter of personal view.

Distinguishing "scummy" from "suspicious" is splitting hairs. And, from what I've seen here, you appear to be doing so in order to shirk culpability for accusations and insinuations

because you hadn't made your mind up

.

And naturally, I had to keep my opinion of CKD close to my chest, or I would not have been able to trust the answer. I did say that I have an honest and open playstyle, but I'm not above withholding a bit of information to pull a little gambit or set a trap, if I see an opportunity and think it's in the town's interest. That's not a big part of my playstyle, though. I leave the major gambits to the professionals.

I love secret traps. Since you've admitted that you had a trap, and since the moment has passed, how about being open and accountable about your gambit/trap?

[vollkan]

unvote cicero, vote vollkan

223 does not seem sincere to me. I suspect he thinks that he will be able to get a mislynch on Jitsu more easily than the other players in this game.

You're using words prescriptive of the outcome. Saying my post "does not seem sincere" is no different to saying "it seems scummy", which is not an explanation of what you find scummy or anything; it's simply labelling it scummy but using a slightly more specific word.

Thus, it's mere assertion, and the fact that you presume scummy motivations (bringing down a weak link) is conspiracy.

I agree with Adel that vollkan looks likes he's trying to set up the Jitsu lynch. However, I'm not sure he would be if shaft.ed isn't scum, so I prefer this wagon.

Were my criticisms of Jitsu invalid? If not, why was it wrong of me to make them? It's easy to spin somebody criticising another into them "setting up a lynch", but it's ultimately just a conspiracy.

[vollkan]

yeah, but like chunky milk, you just don't pass the smell test.

Which is ironic really, because I always find that the "smell test" smells like bullshit (in keeping with the digestive theme, the same applies to "gut")

Vollkan: It's a gut feeling based around the timing of your post and shaf.ted's post. It's not worth voting on.

I wrote my pithy remark about "gut" and then see it mentioned in your post.

I think Adel's point on Vollkan is good

Define "good". I don't see how a smell test assertion can rightly be considered a point at all, yet alone a "good" one.

well if I was in ckd-scum's shoes and my scum buddy left me off of a list like that my impule would be "how do I mitigate the risk of other players identifying a connection between us" -- answered by making a post like ckd's.

I have trouble understanding the motivation for ckd-town making that post, lit is like waving a sign saying "I'm lurking!".

I can also see the posibility of ckd-scum making that post if cicero is town in an attempt to link the two of them... but I think it is more probable that it is part of the "we have to interact somehow" problem scummates face.

unvote, vote:curiouskaramdog

Do you think town would not wish to ask what another player thinks of them? I think that town does have a good motivation for pointing out omissions in reviews. For one thing, it forces a thorough record and, secondly, it forces more reasoning out of somebody. The fact it waves an "I'm lurking" sign hardly serves to make it scummy, given that scum has just as little motivation to be limelighted as a lurker.

Cicero I'm a bit confused that you could simultaneously agree with Adel that vollkan's Jitsu case seems disingenuous, while agreeing with a lot of his points about waffling.

I never said that Jitsu was waffling (that would be hypocrisy in the extreme). The closest I came to doing that was criticizing his speculation as to motive, and I was clear that my reason for doing so was that such comments serve no utility and are potentially scummy manipulation.

Waffling is a matter of personal writing style and I don't think it is something that has any game-relevance.

[vollkan]

That said, I think you need to distinguish between weighing the evidence carefully, and speculation. I can think of a multitude of explanations for many posts, some of which may be scummy, but I don't see any utility in listing those possibilities (as you did). This is especially so given the potentially manipulative effect of only planting scummy possibilities. Also, giving such speculation can't be justified by being "open".

Part of it was due to the fact that I was making a catch up post, and I had not fully analyzed all the information to draw conclusions at that point. I just listed what I was thinking at the time. I admit it was speculative. You have a fair point here, and I understand the value of not spreading speculative scumclaims. I understand the potential it has for deception, but I want to make note of the fact that I did not mention only scummy possibilities.

I have a qualm with your explanation here. Whilst lack of full analysis is a legitimate reason for not drawing a solid conclusion, I don't see its relevance to what you did. The speculation you engaged in was over things which, realistically, no player other than Cicero (the subject of your speculation) could possibly form any concrete opinion upon, absent some truly enormous input of further information.

Hence, I see no way in which you could spin this as laying out a number of though pathways while you finalised your reasoning, since the very speculation you were engaged in was something that you couldn't reasonably hope to be able to draw conclusions about.

And the fact that you didn't raise exclusively scummy motivations is pretty much irrelevant. The point I am trying to make is that sowing the seeds of doubt by mere assertion is only going to range from unhelpful to manipulative. Sure, if you had only given scummy motivations, then my problems with this would be exacerbated, but the inclusion of one non-scum motivation (" Maybe it's just a simple attempt to feel Simenon out") doesn't mitigate the problem I have with the speculation itself.

I love secret traps. Since you've admitted that you had a trap, and since the moment has passed, how about being open and accountable about your gambit/trap?

I'm not sure I understand what you are looking for here (and it does sound like you are looking for something). As far as accountability, nobody needs my permission to hold me accountable for something I said. I assume that the basic fundamentals of mafia dictate that. To call it a secret trap is probably giving it way too much credit. I simply wanted to test the waters of CKD's opinion, and to do that, I did have to sell it a bit and apply some pressure.

You said:

And naturally, I had to keep my opinion of CKD close to my chest, or I would not have been able to trust the answer. I did say that I have an honest and open playstyle, but I'm not above withholding a bit of information to pull a little gambit or set a trap, if I see an opportunity and think it's in the town's interest. That's not a big part of my playstyle, though. I leave the major gambits to the professionals.

I was trying to ask (and my request was vague, I admit) what it was that you withheld and why. I mean that I was/am a bit confused by the rationale for withholding your opinion of CKD. As in, why does you expressing your opinion vitiate the trustworthiness of the answer?

ckd bailed off of the Shamba wagon once it hit -3. He was attempting to use his vote for Shanba as a tool to get Shanba to account for his Cicero unvote/Oman vote in post 96.

His stated reason for unvoting was that he didn't like the speed of the wagon (yet it only got to lynch -3) but in his unvote post he left himself an opening to revote Shanba if he didn't like Shanba's reason for unvoting cicero and voting for Oman.

Adel, this was not the only reason for the unvote, I have stated this NUMEROUS times, your failure to acknowledge this is now become scummy

CKD, the reasons I see you as having given for the unvote are:
1) Quickness of the reason-lite votes (this is a spun version of "speed of the wagon" that Adel refers to)
2) Shanba not posting

2) is a valid reason not to pressure wagon. If a player is not posting, then a wagon on them is not achieving anything other than giving the wagoners an opportunity to appear useful whilst being able to blame inactivity upon the lurker. That's my quibble with Adel here.

That said, however, you yourself clearly indicate that the speed of the wagon was a reason in your unvote. That makes Adel's criticism of the speed justification valid, and it makes it necessary for you to respond to them. It's slippery for you now to say that it wasn't the ONLY reason as a means of dealing with this.

ok. Still, do you think the profanity was the result of a genuine emotional outburst, or was a calculated rhetorical device, or something else?

I think it might well have been calculated, but nobody other than CKD can hope to know and the fact that his quote tags were not messed up doesn't strike me as very significant evidence of calculation.

[vollkan]

Let's not play at robots. The intangible plays a strong role in this game. Gut is very important.

Depends on what you mean. Gut can play a legitimate role as a compass. By that, I mean that if I see something that pings my gutdar, that might be a legitimate basis for doing a proper logical analysis. But gut in and of itself is something that I don't believe is justifiable.

It's like the difference between going to war on suspicion of WMDs, and going to war when you actually find a nuclear missile pointing at your nation.

It was an aggressive shot across the bow at a player who, do to a careful and equivocal style and a lower profile on the boards, was the one that, one could surmise, could most easily be punched in the chin and knocked on his ass. I felt the same thing Adel did but didn't want to say anything immediately. I wanted to watch things develop and see whether your push felt genuine.

That is not to say that the reasons for gut are inarticulable. How can I articulate what we all saw. Your earlier postings hadn't been quite as pointed and aggressive. Your swoop on Jitsu was. And it used pointed language. The timing and manner of posting - up to and including strong language and the use of italics - was clearly a rather aggressive shot across the bow. So I noted what others did as well - that this might be an attempt to land an easy day one mislynch on Jitsu by possible scum.

First up, I don't think for a second that Jitsu's lower profile holds any bearing on his ability. I've modded Jitsu and I have a very high opinion of him.

My earlier posts were not as pointed and aggressive, because Jitsu's posts were the first to substantially trigger my suspicions and prompt me to enter debate.

This is far too sweeping a generalisation and may point to a difference in our use of the term. When I say waffling I mean equivocation and unwillingness to pick a side. It is substantive. It is not a matter of style. It often has game significance. For instance when people are pushing a scumbuddy's and you don't want to bus him but you also don't want to have his back. Waffling occurs. Or when you want to keep your poker hand close to your chest in the early game as scum to allow for maximum tactical flexibility as the game goes on. To suggest waffling simly has *poof* no game relevance doesn't make any sense to me, so what are you really trying to say?

Ah. We are using different definitions. By waffling I meant "Not being sharp and to-the-point". I was trying to say that verbosity and long-windedness are style matters, not relevant to the game.

I tend to call what you're talking about here "being wishy-washy", and I agree with you.

Why hasn't vollkan voted for Jitsu?

Because Jitsu is at 60 on my scumdar and I have no desire to vote Jitsu at this point in time.

Second, why isn't it enough that Cicero would be able to react to it? If I accuse someone of acting a certain way, isn't it possible that said person could alter their behavior slightly to compensate? And that such a change could be detected by others? I think I can guess what your rebuttal to that would be: over the long term, couldn't that negatively bias others' opinions of that person? Yes, I can see that possibility, but in the short term, I still think it's possible to induce a scum slip that way.

Why would behaviour alteration be a scumtell?

I see. Was it your intention to be vague, or did you simply not express yourself how you intended?

I didn't express myself as I meant to.

[vollkan]

Why does vollkan still have his vote on Oman?

He forgot to

unvote

.

Other people are doing it for me, really. I don't think it requires MY active participation, I think it requires active participation of some sort.

It does require your active participation. You adopting this playstyle is effectively denying us any information about you. I've ranted often another in other games about the need for people to engage in argument and so, and that precludes the legitimacy of any playstyle based upon "watching others". This playstyle might be "different" but I think we have already seen its failing simply in the fact that it makes you enigmatic.

Sim, I was looking for a specific response to post #344, and I don't see that anywhere. The reason I ask is that you once told me one of your favorite scumtells is someone getting belligerent and rude in the face of an accusation, so I expected you to have something to say about CKD's post #344.

Jitsu responded fairly well to my vote; I hoped that if he was scum for the first time on this site in an invitational game a little pressure might get him to make a nervous mistake. Unvote. Don't see anything from him that screams scum to me.

On reading the thread from a forest-instead-of-trees point of view, I completely agree with Adel's case against CKD, particularly how CKD changed the subject to Adel's "tunnel-vision, narrow-minded" approach. The way I see it is CKD voted for Shanba, and jumped off inexplicably. Logic goes "Shanba not posting, vote shanba to get him to post, oh, others voted Shanba?, well, he's not around so what good does the vote do here if he isn't posting, unvote Shanba, but consider my vote to still be there."

Pretty sure there's a bunch of craplogic there, and when Adel pointed it out CKD gets belligerent and tries to shift the focus of the discussion to Adel being narrow-minded.

I think the interaction between cicero and ckd is interesting, as well. It's just not something I've ever seen before. Adel's play seems genuinely frustrated in that she feels she sees something that others aren't seeing and no one else is buying. Adel seems to be more interested in finding scum and ckd seems to be more interested in destroying Adel's credibility to keep any case from forming against him.

Vote: CKD.

Question: Do you feel CKD adequately addressed Adel's arguments? (it's irrelevant here whether or not he actually shot down Adel's attack; I just want to know whether or not you think he made sufficient effort to respond to them).

I do feel that Vollkan might have singled me out a bit and grilled me harder on my speculation than he has others when speculating in this game. The first part of Cicero's post 367 seems to be a fairly well thought out explanation of his earlier commentary on Vollkan's attack on me. I only wish I could have articulated my comments as well.

That's not true. I was equally strident in my opposition to the speculation of Adel and Cicero. I even called Adel's smell test "bullshit". I think the only respect in which I grilled you "more" is simply that ther were multiple points that I disagreed with you upon and, thus, my critique of you was larger.

In specific, I think Vollkan attacking my focus on scummy interpretations over harmless ones was reasonable, but asking for specific info on why I think something is a tell might be a lot to ask. How sophisticated of a system of tells can I really be expected to have after playing two games? To be fair to Vollkan, I think I did give him a bit of an opening. I was only attacked hard once in the game he modded me, so I think he was trying to get more content out of me.

I don't expect a sophisticated set of tells from anybody; especially since people radically diverge in what is scummy. The reason I asked you was simply to see whether and what reasoning you had behind your suspicions. It's not simply trying to get more content out; I do it specifically because I see a lot of people attack things that just don't intuitively strike me as "actually scummy". By asking people to explain themselves clearly, my hope is to get them to show their reasoning and to critique it if necessary.

Really? I know he's commenting on other people's points but he doesn't feel too engaged. Even when he intereacts with others, he's usually talking about Jitsu. It's kinda like he's sitting in the corner making out with Jitsu while we all play mafia. Though I will admit Jitsu's most recent post was a nice summary of his feelings on the game. I'm used to vollkan pursuing leads more and not passively commenting like this.

I made a critique of Jitsu which spurned argument and discussion from a number of players; it's only natural that, as a result, I would have a disproportionate number of posts responding to Jitsu, or relevant to Jitsu from other players.

Maybe I am reading too much into your post, but this seems to be a backhanded rehasing of the same conspiracy argument from before.

In terms of the playstyle stuff, you've touched on something that has been confusing the hell out of me for some time now. I became a bit disengaged a few months back due to uni, but I am on holidays at the moment (well, I still have a mooting case to prepare, but my workload is much less anyway). I don't think my playstyle has changed, but I know that peoples' perception of my playstyle has. I still inquire; I still have the same focus on probing reasoning - but "something" is obviously different.

Something I've been tossing up lately is re-instating the PBPA-scumdar system that I used to have. I have noticed that the general, and disliked, shift in my playstyle corresponded with my abandonment of the PBPAs (a decision I made mainly because of the "Vollkan effect" as you termed it). I'll henceforth try a reversion to that style in the hope that it fixes things up.

also, used to hearing more from vollkan...Vollkan, requesting you patented % break down please.

As per above, I shall do this in the old format of PBPA and then a number.

Adel[/b]
0: Random vote Fonz and an offer to be sincere, which she wonders if Erg0 will accept.
1: Offer is sincere apparently.
2: Swaps to Cicero.
3: Jokey
4: Cicero calling Sim town is more likely to come from scum-Cicero. I don't agree with this, but I don't think arguing it is scummy.
5: Flippancy is not a towntell. Agreed.
6: Poem
7: iPick reference
8: After Sim says that the Cicero wagon was going nowhere, Adel bumps up Cicero/Simenon scum. I can't see this as making any sense unless there was a very clear point to the Cicero wagon that made it more viable than the Erg0 vote made by Sim.
9: Compliments Jitsu, gives outline of current site activity level
10: Interesting. On one hand, laments that we've let shamba, BT and Erg0 slip by whilst, simultaneously, thinking that the Cicero wagon could (should?) have been taken further. I say "interesting" because Sim left Cicero to pursue Erg0. Adel hasn't said what more could actually be done with the Cicero wagon, but she does recognise the problem of the lurkers. Does she want to have her cake and eat it too?
11: Questions Erg0 on the joke
12: Asks where Cicero is
13: Explains playstyle change
14: Past record of sane D1s
15: Erg0 should trust her since she promises not to trap
16: Cicero says that Adel smells scummy. Adel then requests that he provide empirical proof of his scum-sniffing ability.
17: Adel votes me because my post is allegedly non-sincere and that she suspects I may be trying to bring about a Jitsu lynch. I've argued against this ad nauseum already. In brief: It's conspiracy.
18: Asks shaft.ed whether he would call her play conservative
19: Thinks shaft.ed's vote for Jitsu was distancing (from Jitsu?) and that my post looked more like opportunistic scum attack (on Jitsu).
20: "Does this pot need stirring?"
21: Advocates Vollkan wagon
22: Says I fail the smell test. I'd refer to your previous remarks about needing empirical proof of the smell test (which is not logic, argument, trap, or logick) actually being effective.
23: Doesn't think the exploit thing is a valid slip, because of her usual definition of it
24: Guesses Simenon, Cicero, and Vollkan for scum
25: Cicero/CKD + 1 for CKD noting that Cicero left him out.
26: Explains that she thinks it was probably scum seeking to mitigate. As I said earlier, I don't agree with this because town has an accountability reason to expect and request full review.
27: Notes the writing time of her posts
28: Asks CKD for content
29: Asks CKD for reasons
30: Says Jitsu is not a waffler, but simply has a cautious style
31: Continues question-exchange with CKD
32: Ditto
33: QFTs Cicero's CKD/Simenon pairing
34: Another question for CKD
35: Says it is common for her to be accused of tunnel-vision
36: Makes an argument from ignorance about CKD's questioning on the analysis non-inclusion ("I don't understand why, as town, he would point out that you left him off.") It wasn't too difficult for me to determine a very strong town reason for doing so. Hence, I know that Adel is more than capable of doing the same thinking. That makes me think that she is shifting the onus of proof onto CKD here. It's different to just asking "Why did you do this?" because this is framed like an accusation.
37: Meta
38: Apparently it's pretty common for people to do incomplete analyses
39: Thinks it is more probable CKD was distancing
40: Nothing
41: Logick explanation
42: Lists votes of CKD and myself
43: Vote picture
44: Reviews here x/y + z lists
45: Looks at CKD's time gaps
46: Another edit to voting records
47: Meta
48: Thinks that if CKD wanted a reason he should not have unvoted. As I have said in an earlier post, CKD had already said that Shanba was not posting, so it would be reasonable then for him to unvote. A pressure wagon on someone not posting is useless
49: Here Adel does make a good point that I missed previously. CKD did not have a case on anyone else. Thus, I retract what I said (here and in the other post on this) about the wagon's ineffectiveness as a valid reason. At worst, it was going to do nothing, but CKD moved nowhere else.
50: Says CKD is spamming
51: Was a repsonse to CKD
52: Another vote diagram
53: Adel repeats CKD unvote point. Given 49, I now agree with her rejection of CKD's second reason (for those who missed it, I identified CKD as having two reasons for his unvote: 1) Speed of wagon (I deemed this invalid); 2) Shanba not posting = ineffective (I thought this was legit, until I read 49 and realised my error)) Also breaks down the "you left me off" exchange.
54: nothing
55: Dislikes CKD's swearing
56: Explains why she did not address the CKD unvote at the time
57: Quote tag insinuation. This I do NOT like. Not only is it a very dodgy swipe in the first place, but she frames it in a question and avoids directly committing herself one way or the other, despite the insinuation.
58: Quotes 55
59: Asks whether it was a genuine outburst, or calculated
60: Explains more on Jitsu's style. Asks why I had not voted Jitsu
61: Votes BT - post or perish
62: Thinks that there is enough that further debate would damage s:n ratio.
63: Again flubs off CKD
64: cicero+ckd+1 in response to Cicero's vote for Adel. Whilst Cicero's vote is odd, I don't see how it establishes Cicero/CKD
65: Persists in trying to avoid an argument explosion
66: Notes that Fonz, Oman, BT, and Erg0 are slipping by
67: Suggests CKD is trying to obfuscate other people by complicating the argument
68: Nothing major on Fonz or shaft.ed
69: Thanks Simenon for a simple post
70: Notes Oman's inactivity
71: Asks why my vote is on Oman
72: Can think of other reasons why CKD-scum would not wagon Shanba town
73: Reiterates Shanba unvote point
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Well, the post 49 point is the most important thing I found in this review. I couldn't see the logic in her argument about the Shanba point, but I now do. There are a few points in the above where I dislike her play, however. Overall, I'd place her at

60

. Prior to review, this was 70, but the 49 thing has made me see her argument as making much more sense and is legitimate.

BillyTwilight

0: Random vote CKD
1: Promises content
2: Thinks Simenon's back-off of CIcero is scummy and votes for it. Suggests Cicero's logical rejection of the wagon was strained - unclear how
3: Explains what tl; dr means
4: Seems to find the thread confusing. Votes Jitsu for disappearing after being questioned (NOTE: he is not engaging with the substance of the arguments here, but is voting a player who is under suspicion for a tangential reason. This is clever because it shirks accountability for the arguments themselves at the same time as facilitating a vote for a limelighted player. Asks for a suspicion record from everyone (ha! Says the kind of transparency) Asks for Jitsu's reaction to the accusations (why bother asking this? It is hardly like Jitsu is not going to respond. Again, this fits with the above of you just riding on the accusations but not being accountable) Says CKD's post is "doggy-doo" (clarity is impeccable...)
5: Wants to hear Sim's thoughts on CKD's response to Adel (your own thoughts??)
6: Unvotes Jitsu. Apparently the vote was just for pressure. Agrees with Adel on CKD.
7: Explains belligerence was not his idea of a scumtell
8: More on the above
9: Still voting CKD
~~~~~~~~~~
Ugh! I get nothing really substantial. Question 4 is what irks me most, and it is not extremely strong. It's in situations like this that my number system fails. A player like BT is technically "not very scummy", but that's affected very much by the fact that he has scant posts (most of which are simply asking others to post). On the available date alone, I give him

55

, but he needs to post more and give more of his own opinion

and reasons for that opinion

.

More to follow....

[vollkan]

]
what is the vollkan scale? 0=town and 100=scum? Is a score of 60 supposed to be "60% chance of being scum"? If not, would you mind translating your scores to percentage chances?

For day 1 I'm usually happy if I feel that a person is more than 40% likely to be scum.

0 = completely unquestionably town. 50 = no preponderence of either townness or scumminess. 100 = absolute unquestionably scum. My voting threshold is 70 unless deadline and other circumstances require I go below.

Probability is not the way I tend to think about this, but a ranking of 50 is be the natural probability that any random individual is scum (eg. 25% in a 9:3 game). 100 and 0 are 100% and 0%, but the scale is not linear in that way. I've never thought to peg the rest of the rankings to an actual probability. My intuitive inclination would be to say that above 50% chance is the threshold but I can see why, empirically, 40% might make sense for day 1.

Roughly, using the 9:3 scenario most common for 12 player games:
0 = 0% chance of scum
10 = 5%
20 = 10%
30 = 15%
40 = 20%
50 = 25%
60 = 30%
65 = 40%
70 = 50%
80 = 75%
90 = 90%
100 = 100%

[vollkan]

If you did have me at 70, why didn't you vote for me, or focus your attention on me and interrogate me?

Because that was my unofficial gutsy read and I review for the very reason that such impressions are unreliable. I had criticised your attacks on myself and CKD at a number of points in time, which were the very things that I previously found so problematic.

[vollkan]

Apologies for the double:

Pegging your perception of other players to a % chance would probably help you review a completed game and identify where & when you were especially insightful or misguided.

I like this idea and will try it out.

[vollkan]

ckd bailed off of the Shamba wagon once it hit -3. He was attempting to use his vote for Shanba as a tool to get Shanba to account for his Cicero unvote/Oman vote in post 96.

His stated reason for unvoting was that he didn't like the speed of the wagon (yet it only got to lynch -3) but in his unvote post he left himself an opening to revote Shanba if he didn't like Shanba's reason for unvoting cicero and voting for Oman.

Adel, this was not the only reason for the unvote, I have stated this NUMEROUS times, your failure to acknowledge this is now become scummy

CKD, the reasons I see you as having given for the unvote are:
1) Quickness of the reason-lite votes (this is a spun version of "speed of the wagon" that Adel refers to)
2) Shanba not posting

2) is a valid reason not to pressure wagon. If a player is not posting, then a wagon on them is not achieving anything other than giving the wagoners an opportunity to appear useful whilst being able to blame inactivity upon the lurker. That's my quibble with Adel here.

That said, however, you yourself clearly indicate that the speed of the wagon was a reason in your unvote. That makes Adel's criticism of the speed justification valid, and it makes it necessary for you to respond to them. It's slippery for you now to say that it wasn't the ONLY reason as a means of dealing with this.

ok. Still, do you think the profanity was the result of a genuine emotional outburst, or was a calculated rhetorical device, or something else?

I think it might well have been calculated, but nobody other than CKD can hope to know and the fact that his quote tags were not messed up doesn't strike me as very significant evidence of calculation.

This is all I see from you, and it doesn't strike me as comming from the POV of someone who sees me as having a 50% (on day 1!) chance of being scum.

Actually, I expressed my problems with your reasoning at a number of points.

Quotes from myself:

unvote cicero, vote vollkan

223 does not seem sincere to me. I suspect he thinks that he will be able to get a mislynch on Jitsu more easily than the other players in this game.

You're using words prescriptive of the outcome. Saying my post "does not seem sincere" is no different to saying "it seems scummy", which is not an explanation of what you find scummy or anything; it's simply labelling it scummy but using a slightly more specific word.

Thus, it's mere assertion, and the fact that you presume scummy motivations (bringing down a weak link) is conspiracy.

yeah, but like chunky milk, you just don't pass the smell test.

Which is ironic really, because I always find that the "smell test" smells like bullshit (in keeping with the digestive theme, the same applies to "gut")

...

well if I was in ckd-scum's shoes and my scum buddy left me off of a list like that my impule would be "how do I mitigate the risk of other players identifying a connection between us" -- answered by making a post like ckd's.

I have trouble understanding the motivation for ckd-town making that post, lit is like waving a sign saying "I'm lurking!".

I can also see the posibility of ckd-scum making that post if cicero is town in an attempt to link the two of them... but I think it is more probable that it is part of the "we have to interact somehow" problem scummates face.

unvote, vote:curiouskaramdog

Do you think town would not wish to ask what another player thinks of them? I think that town does have a good motivation for pointing out omissions in reviews. For one thing, it forces a thorough record and, secondly, it forces more reasoning out of somebody. The fact it waves an "I'm lurking" sign hardly serves to make it scummy, given that scum has just as little motivation to be limelighted as a lurker.

My intention was always to review your attacks, but I'd staked out my position. I didn't try to engage in any deep debate with you at that point because, again, all I had was a gutsy 70 and I had said my piece.

cicero

0: Random vote. Is LA
1: Simenon being cheeky is a towntell. I don't agree
2: Explains the above, saying scum will be less desirous of attention. This is a common generalisation and, because of that, scum has a good reason to seek attention.
3: Votes Adel OMGUS for wagoning him
4: Adel's vote is worse than Oman's apparently.
5: EBWOP
6: Questions Sim
7: Misses the point of Oman's post. Oman says that Sim's jokey play is a nulltell, in disagreement with Cicero. Cicero asks what Oman is accusing him of, when the point was that Oman had showed that there was scum reason for it, which went against Cicero's position
8: Angry
9: Reiterates his Simenon point
10: I criticised this post earlier. Basically, I disagree with Cicero's logic since it presumes that scum won't act rationally and seek to maximise their own survival. I don't think this is scummy, though, just wrong. I do, however, not like the fact that he pegs it all back to "just my opinion". It's like when you are arguing with somebody and they say "Well, that's just your opinion". It's simply a means of evading engagement with an issue by suggesting that, because a point of view may be held subjectively, it's somehow of no objective consequence. Attacks Adel for failing to explain why scumCicero would commit the alleged Simenon-townie move.
11-14: Deal with Oman's baseless wagoning, which Oman's responses ultimately affirm was the case
15: Promises content. Asks BT to explain the "strained" accusation.
16: Critique of Adel's play. Uses iPick as meta basis for saying that Adel's play here is not consistent with her usual town play.
17: Explains his suspicion on Adel: reasoning (discussed in 10) and her playstyle.
18: Notes that Jitsu is playing in a speculative manner
19: Questions Jitsu on experience
20: Direction with URL
21: Cicero on CKD's Shanba unvote. His position here is basically what mine was previously: thinks CKD's conduct is completely fine due to Shanba being absent
22: I like his reaction to Jitsu using the "I never said" excuse.
23: Says he thinks Adel's attack on me is good. Cicero responds to my question on this later, so more then.
24: Compares Adel to BM. (ouch...)
25: CKD has not done much (in response to CKD's question about being left off)
26: "haha"
27: Doesn't buy "I'm a late bloomer"
28: Reiterates his earlier suspicions. Posits Adel+Jitsu and Vollkant+shaft.ed
29: CKD+Sim+1. I don't follow your reasoning here Cicero. Could you just clarify why the post you quote here is somehow indicative of CKD+Sim.
30: Reiterates accusation that Jitsu waffles
31: Compares Adel and CKD to Abbott and Costello
32: Explains that he is not yet taking sides but is noting things. Hmhmhm...referring to my previous remarks to Oman, this sort of thing is problematic I find.
33-40: nothing
41: Suggests that Adel moved towards hyper-aggression in order to dodge accusations of conservative play. Interesting idea, but it's conjecture. Plus, nobody meant that Adel was playing in a reserved or passive fashion; just that she wasn't trying to mindfuck (which in itself was a mindfuck in a way...)
42: Contrasts his waffling with Jitsu's, alleging that Jitsu was too cautious and equivocal, whereas he just is short and sharp even if confused. This I agree with.
43: Questions
44: Tries to clarify his gut attacks on me (from 23). Says that it was that I went from reserved to aggressive and it was potentially voll-scum trying to bring down Jitsu. I don't then see how Adel's point was "good", anymore than me pulling any old conspiracy motivation out of my arse. This is pretty much a concession that the point has no operating effect (in terms of "Is vollkan scummy or not?") but is simply an interesting idea.
45: Will let things play out
46: Votes Adel. Doesn't like her approach to CKD.
47: Explains that he thinks Adel's play here (in the swearing issue) is designed to increase s:n. I see his point here. I don't know if Adel would use it as a calculated move to obfuscate, but it is a form of demonisation of CKD.
48: Doesn't like the Anix play. Agreed.
49: Votes BT. Supports an Erg0 vote also.
50: Question
51: Responds to BT.
52: Questions Fonz
53: Votes Fonz
~~~~~~~~~~~~
I don't see anything solidly scummy in Cicero's play. He makes his point well and clearly. The biggest quibble I have is his doublethink on the Adel point: he both thinks it is "good" whilst acknowledging that it's just gut speculation. Using my new-fangled probability method, I give Cicero a

28%

.

Also, translating my past scores for Adel and BT to this scale:
Adel =

35%

BT =

30%

[vollkan]

CKD

:
0: random vote
1-4: nothing
5: Discusses theory-starts. Asks for Shanba to comment on a post. Unvotes BT but notes lurking.
6: Waiting for Shanba to comment. Nothing new.
7: Asks Adel to clarify her meta discussion
8: Thinks we all have metas on each other
9: nothing
10: Still waiting for Shanba, whom he votes
11: The Shanba unvote. Declares that he isn't sure why the wagon is moving to Shanba who is not posting on site and unvotes. Says that his question stands. He

only

justifies the unvote on the basis of the fact that Shanba is not on-site. As has been said, this justification doesn't hold water unless there is an alternative wagon, otherwise there is nothing to be gained from leaving the wagon. It's also important that, at this point in time, he makes no comment on the speed of the wagon making him uneasy, or anything to that effect as he did subsequently. I think this post forms an interesting example of something that, whilst not "anti-town", can be considered "scummy". There's no negative consequence for town of CKD unvoting, but there is no pro-town motivation for the action.
12: Now he says that leaving quickly-building is a "habit" (Are we to take that as a statement of fact that your meta will verify?), and he was startled. It's interesting that he says his vote can be "considered" out there still, but he doesn't "like the company of voters". This is interesting because, in 11, the only discernible reason for the unvote is the futility of an absentee wagon. However, he has now declared that his vote is to be considered to be on the absentee, instead justifying his unvote on the basis of not liking the company. Additionally, I can't see how "the company" is really relevant to the wagon. It wasn't going to go to a lynch (I don't think any of us here would be so naive as to think something like that was reasonably foreseeable).
13: Criticises shaft.ed using his "nose". I agree with CKD's position here.
14: Questions shaft.ed
15: VERY slippery response here. Shaft.ed asks (in an excellent question) why CKD did not take action against the wagoners that apparently startled him so much. CKD responds by asking "who" he should have pursued (as in, he assumes that he can only go after one person), He says he would rather watch them some more, and he makes the point of putting "scumhunt" in brackets afterwards, as if to say "look I'm being useful". He then asks why shaft.ed is pressuring him to vote, which is a complete strawman because shaft.ed mentioned nothing about voting. Also says "if you think I have such a good nose, why are you pushing me when I follow it" which, again, dodges the thrust of the question.
16: Not overreacting is not a towntell. I agree emphatically.
17: Says he was and was not avoiding the wagon, given his pseudo-vote.
18: Now, apparently, he unvoted due to the speed, but "wanted everyone to know that it could returned based on Shanba's reply". He never made any reference to Shanba's reply and, in fact, he had explicitly said that his vote should be considered to be on Shanba in spirit. Also argues that the attacks against him place him in a catch-22, since a snap-vote would attract suspicion as a means of avoiding argument. This is also an evasive response, since it draws attention away from CKD explaining the unvote to CKD attacking the motivations of those attacking him.
19: Notes that Cicero left him out. As I have said before, I don't read anything scummy from this. Town has an interest in accountability, so I have to give CKD the benefit of the doubt here.
20: nothing
21: Says he is more of a "late bloomer", and notes Cicero mentioned other non-contributors.
22: Notes Adel is narrow-minded on the question about being left off. I agree with CKD here.
23: nothing
24: Repeats post 22 line of thought, again I agree
25: nothing
26: Accuses Adel of avoiding
27: QFTs Adel re Jitsu playstyle
28: Ditto of 24 and 22
29: Doesn't understand a post by Adel
30: Explains the Cicero request validly
31: More criticism of Adel's argument from ignorance about the request
32: Meta on Adel
33: Asks BT to post a suspicion list first, after BT's request
34: Flippant post about the X/Y+Z
35: Asks Adel to explain what she means by noting votes
36: "so nothing happened in those 2 days that made me unvote or are you conveniently forgeting it?"
37: More meta
38: Ditto
39: Gives the two unvote reasons: 1) Not posting; 2) Speed of wagon. Nothing new to say here in comment
40: Meta
41: Ditto - meta is on Adel's tunnel-visioning
42: nothing
43: Adel relies on tunnel-vision and logick
44: Says we should all know his meta is to post short and sharp when in heated exchange
45: Response to Adel's case. Affirms that he unvoted for the reasons given previously, and I've said my piece on these already. I do agree with CKD, however, on the Cicero-request issue. Votes Adel for being tunnel-visioned and trying to scrape anything to put a case together. Frustrated town in CKD's position would understandably vote in this manner, so I don't rate it too highly as a scumtell.
46: nothing
47: Cleans up 45
48: Nothing
49: nothing
50: nothing
51: Asks for BT to give his opinions, rather than just requesting others'
52: Wants Adel to respond to him
53: Doesn't think Adel's s:n point holds, given that this is an invitational
54: Questions for Adel
55: EBWOP
56: Notes Adel picking and choosing what to answer.
57: nothing
58: Question for all
59: Doesn't like Oman's passive scum-hunting. /agree
60: Asks for prod on shanba
61: nothing
62: Asks BT to quote where he said he voted Shanba to get him talking (since such a post does not exist)
63: Reiterates his two reasons for the unvote
64: Rejects accusations that he was trying to discredit Adel. In fairness to CKD, nothing he said against Adel was irrelevant. As I said, his attacks on Adel could come from town or scum. He was attacking Adel's style of attack and, especially in regards to the Cicero-request, this was understandable.
65: Asks on probing
66: Requests me to use my % breakdown system
67: Notes that my playstyle has been changing (I'd say collapsing) recently (hopefully a return to the PBP style will fix that)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The unvote was very bad, as was his subsequent explanation of it. My reasons for this are given in significant detail above. That said, I have difficulty deeming either the Cicero request, or the attacks on Adel to be scummy. Neither is really unlikely to come from town in CKD's circumstances. I'd place CKD at about

38%

[vollkan]

Erg0

0: Random vote
1: nothing
2: nothing
3: nothing
4: Asks how the wagon is proceeding
5: nothing (pattern here...)
6: Recognises he owes the game a post (indeed). Questions why shaft.ed thinks we should be wagonning Oman, given that two votes were random. Thinks someone needs to mess up to get things moving
7: Question
8: Clarifies what he meant in regards to the "someone needs to do something stupid"
9: Joke
10: Refers back to one of the 'nothing' posts about taking not Adel at face-value
11: Catching up
12: It is not unusual for Adel to become tunnel-visioned. Is unsure and promises more.
~~~~~~~~
Ugh. I get nothing from this. Erg0's posts thus far have been devoid of meaningful content. I don't mean that he has been posting nonsense (he hasn't), just that there is nothing from which I can glean anything alignment-related. Erg0 gets the default ranking of

27%

.

[vollkan]

Much of the content in Vollkan's PBPA posts are just one line summaries of the posts people made, like an index. Those lines don't really add much insight, so I don't see how it matters much if those lines are there or not. It's the line items where he adds real commentary that matters. And to prevent Vollkan (or anyone else) from posting that kind of content is denying information to the town.

The reason that the "nothing" lines, or basic summary lines are inserted is basically to signify that I find nothing that can be considered alignment-determining in that post. The analysis is very much confined to those posts I find worth analysing. I have considered just omitting the nothing posts, but that doesn't make much sense really - it just means that I signify a "nothing" by absence of mention, rather than a mention of nothingness

Jitsu

0: Random vote
1-3: Nothing
4: Speculates about various motivations Cicero may have had for calling Sim's play a town tell. 2 reasons are scummy, and 1 is protown, but Jitsu concludes by saying it raises his eyebrows and causes wonder about Cicero's intentions. Needless to say, this has been something of a major talking-point today. Basically, I see no pro-town reason for planting the explanations (other than reaction-trawling, and Jitsu did not raise this as a defense) and such speculating can serve to plant suspicion on effectively just assertion grounds. Notes Cicero seems frustrated and links this back to the town-tell thing (which functions as 'evidence' for the insinuations). I think that a lot of the analysis that follows is actually quite good and it seems genuine to me. Ultimately pressure-votes Shanba.
5: Nothing
6: Ditto
7: I agree wholeheartedly with Jitsu here and his reasoning is good - he recognises that a mere change in Adel's meta is not a scumtell in and of itself and that the focus should be on the substance of her play, and not the style.
8: On the same topic as the above, and I agree again.
9: Effectively a concession that Cicero's play was a null-tell, in that he sees both town and scum motivations and makes no finding that one is more likely on the balance of probabilities. Moreover, he thinks that the scum motivation for Cicero's play would be unlikely in a game with skilled players less likely to rely on desperate measures as scum. The fact he recognises this here exacerbates my suspicion of his previous speculation, since he shows that he is clearly able to appreciate the objectively equivalent likelihood of town and scum motivation.
10: Questions CKD on the unvote. The questions are insinuating in tone.
11: Attributes the speculative nature of his posts to relative inexperience to the rest of us here. He also explains his playstyle as being conservative, open, but non-confrontational (since he thinks it's more difficult to get information out of an enemy).
12: Nothing.
13: Question
14: Thinks CKD's explanation was reasonable. Interestingly, he identifies no distinction in quality between CKD's first reason ("too fast", which I thought was bollocks from the get-go) and the second reason ("absentee wagons are futile" that made sense to me for some time).
15: Pulls the "I didn't say he was scummy" move, despite the tone of his questions being one that was accusatory. Jitsu admits he was putting up the pressure, which is really a concession that he felt something was 'up' with CKD's post, despite failing to identify what that 'something' is.
16: Thinks CKD's reaction sounded genuine
17: Didn't attack shaft.ed because he wanted to see how it played out. Says there "may be some merit" to accusations of shaft.ed exaggerating significance of things and echoing. This is very tricky language. He avoids stating the position himself, and is sufficiently vague so as to avoid needing to justify his assertion.
18: Splits hairs between suspecting someone and thinking they are scummy. And says that "If you consider that splitting hairs, that's your prerogative." The distinction he draws here is completely non-existent and simply serves to enable him to, again, avoiding explaining his reasoning process by appealing to mental uncertainty. Again, though, the very fact that CKD's play caused uncertainty is a concession that something must have been particularly pertinent about that post. Thus, the simplest thing to do here would be to identify what that is, rather than drawing an evasive distinction. On a separate note, the "that's your prerogative" thing is a further cause for concern. Appeals to subjectivity are inherently evasive (and annoying. It pisses me off to no end when I am arguing with somebody in real-life and they pull out the chestnut of "But that's just your opinion" as if pointing out what is an obvious fact is somehow the ultimate trump card. /end rant), so Jitsu's reliance on it here only adds to the evasive nature of this post. His explanation that he needed to keep his opinion guarded is also weak. Jitsu says he does this "or I would not have been able to trust the answer". I for one cannot see how withholding his opinion can somehow ensure that CKD will be honest. If CKD is rational scum, he will bullshit to whatever means necessary to promote his own survival. It's unclear what there is to be gained by not wearing your heart on your sleeve unless there is something specific that one thinks needs to be kept under wraps (and Jitsu has raised no such thing).
19: Expains that 'exploit' meant 'to probe'
20: Again reiterates the hair-splitting between 'potentially scummy' and 'scummy'. As I said, the fact that he responds to something particularly shows that it is more 'potentially scummy' than any other post at random (to Jitsu) and, consequently, there must be some reason why.
21: As I said before, lack of full analysis is an excuse for not having a conclusive argument, but that doesn't justify speculation. Plus, the speculation was not going to lead to anything because it related to the inherently untestable matter of Cicero's exact state of mind. Also makes an appeal to the potential for Cicero to react to the speculation. This explanation doesn't strike me as very compelling, but that doesn't matter. Look at Jitsu's language: eg. "why isn't it enough that Cicero would be able to react to it" He is talking in the hypothetical sense here, which means these reasons were not in his mind at the time! This is further confirmed by the fact that such reasons were not raised at first instance. Also, Jitsu, please explain this sentence to me: "I pointed out the inclusion of the non-scum motivation as a defense to a possible threat."
22: Is more bothered by shaft.ed than me, but expresses agreement with Adel and Cicero that I might have been too harsh on him. Needless to say, I disagree. His discussion of shaft.ed is odd. He says shaft.ed has been trying hard to "score townie points" - does this mean shaft.ed is playing well, or that shaft.ed is trying to play well? It's sufficiently vague that, whilst sounding vaguely accusatory, it doesn't mean much when taken in depth. Identifies non-overreaction (not a scumtell), and deadpan delivery. Nothing he identifies about shaft.ed is actually scummy. Or, if he thinks it is scummy, he doesn't explain why.
23: Questions Shanba.
24: Asks for details on my playstyle change
25: Above. I've addressed this above.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
In a nutshell, the recurring problem with Jitsu is the manipulation of language in order to avoid having to give reasons for assertions, upon which he relies to a very significant degree. Some of what he says is good and seemingly genuine, and I give credit for that where credit is due. However, I find the evasive way he dealt with the attacks on his speculation to be especially scummy: he draws a bizarre distinction that even he doesn't provide any real defense of. The shaft.ed stance is another thing I dislike, in that he avoids articulating any reasons for suspicion and just identifies some vague style quirks. Jitsu gets a

41%

.

[vollkan]

Oman

0: Random vote
1: Another one
2: Nothing
3: Thinks Cicero was too quick to identify the town-tell. Asks Cicero to explain why, and threatens vote if explanation is bad.
4: "ADEL!"
5: Rightly criticises Cicero's argument on the town-tell. Doesn't like CIcero's threat, and dislikes Cicero calling himself a townie. Votes accordingly and, in my view, legitimately.
6: Asks that one line be omitted
7: Thinks Sim's behaviour is a nulltell
8: Nothing
9: Retorts to shaft.ed identifying him moving the wagon that he was clear about it, and Adel did likewise.
10: Nothing
11: Nothing
12: Nothing
13: Raises his meta of wagonning as a response to Cicero accusing him of having an itchy finger.
14: Says he is pointing out Cicero's faulty logic, in response to Cicero asking whether Oman was relying on his personal meta. In other words, Oman doesn't address what was actually asked.
15: Admits the meta bluntly here, not evasive, but reliance on a meta is fraught with some difficulty
16: Nothing
17: Nothing
18: Nothing
19: Nothing
20: Nothing
21: Question for me on my post querying Erg0's post saying someone needs to mess up.
22: Nothing
23: Nothing
24: Thinks Shanba is lurking more than BT
25: Nothing
26: Nothing
27: Nothing
28: Votes Shanba. Says he hopes to move it above his, with a smiley face at the end
29: Promises content
30: Wants to pick from the shaft.ed and vollkan wagons. He says shaft.ed can be "easily explained away" (does this mean the wagon is good or bad?) and (correctly) that the one on me is just gut-based
31: Still reading
32: Doesn't think ScumDel would pull the stuff re obscenity. I disagree. Adel is smart enough to know that her meta would probably allow her to get away with what she says.
33: Nothing
34: Nothing
35: Intends to play the passive judge, and thinks doing so will be an improvement. It isn't, by the way, but more on that at the end.
36: Says other people are asking questions for him and he doesn't need to actively participate in that way. Again, wrong.
37: Says my playstyle is off, that CKD seems protown, and shaft.ed is reacting well. Neither of these is backed up by any explanation.
38: Says I am playing with more certainty than in SG-1 (where I was mafia). The only specific evidence he provides for calling CKD town is his "reactions" (vague).
39: Asks Adel what she thinks of a CKD/Vollkan scumteam
40: Doesn't think he is the default lynch, since he "has not really done anything scummy". Omit the word "scummy", and this is actually a pretty good summation of your play.
41: Doesn't think the Vollkan Effect will occur. (On this, it's worth remembering that this game is very much distinguished from House Mafia, where I was confirmed innocent very early on. I made the error of letting that status give me a sort of leadership role, which was fatal for the town. As I've said before, I think, there is an optimum and non-zero level of suspicion at which a player should operate. As in, it is not actually healthy for a player to be treated as infallibly genuine. Even though people were not always simply following me, nobody was willing to take a blowtorch to the reasoning of a confirmed townie.)
42: Nothing
43: Nothing
44: Nothing
45: Nothing
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
There is little meaningful content to go on here. Most of Oman's posts are relevant but not meaningful. That's not inconsistent with Oman's meta, but it is not helpful for analysing him. He is vague at a number of points, but there is not anything that is really very scummy. I give Oman a

28%

[vollkan]

shaft.ed

0: Random vote
1: Says that he won't join the Cicero wagon unless persuaded to do so. This becomes relevant later on.
2: Nothing
3: Nothing
4: Okay. So, in 1 shaft.ed doesn't wagon because he has not been convinced. Here, he joins the Oman wagon without persuasion (actually, in response to a jokey post by me). It's odd that he is reluctant in the case of Cicero, but very willing in the case of Oman. I'd like shaft.ed to explain this himself, rather than give my own thoughts about various motivations.
5: Nothing
6: Nothing
7: Disagrees with Cicero's labelling of Sim's jokey play as a town-tell
8: Meta on Adel, Cicero, and myself.
9: Queries (rightly) Shanba's Oman vote.
10: Responds to Cicero. I don't get anything significant either way from this.
11: Makes a good observation about Simenon changing from Cicero despite seeming to find him scummy.
12: Asks whether Shanba and Billy are usually as quiet as Erg0 in early game
13: Notes Adel's calmness
14: Request for an Oman wagon was a joke
15: Nothing
16: Posits that Adel is being overly-cautious and is worried by this. As I have said a few times now, I really dislike the insinuations made against Adel's style-shift. Tricksy behaviour is less likely to work in this game, and it is reasonable that Adel would be more normal, just on principle. I know that shaft.ed is capable of more nuanced reasoning than that which he shows here, just to insinuate that he is worried about an understandable style-shift.
17: Nothing
18: Asks whether he is wrong in noting that Adel's play is significantly different
19: Recognises that Adel makes a good meta justification of her play
20: Thinks it was odd that Adel singled out the importance of Erg0 taking her at face value
21: Makes the point of noting a consensus that Adel's play is much more conservative than usual. Again, I can't see the point of this. Notes the non-contribution of Shanba, Jitsu, Billy and Erg0
22: Says his attack on Oman for moving the wagon to Cicero was for reaction-gauging.
23: "So it doesn't bother you when a player's style changes 180 degrees from their norm?" The question itself is phrased in a manner that clearly presumes that being bothered is somehow the natural response. Again, shaft.ed attacks Adel for something that I really don't think can be construed as alignment-related. This was, by the way, in response to Fonz requesting shaft.ed's lynch seemingly over the focus upon Adel's style
24: Says Adel is more reserved as scum than town, but adds the note that the obviousness of her conservative play here is further cause for confusion. His focus on this non-issue is also a cause for confusion.
25: Asks for prod on Shanba
26: This is a very interesting post. Shaft.ed begins by saying his point on Adel is being blown up a bit, and says it can be neatly captured in the post 24 statement that: "From the games I've played with her Adel has a more reserved feel as scum than as town, but this is so glaringly obvious I don't know what to make of it." Now, the important thing here is that this is the most equivocal and indefinite statement shaft.ed makes on the issue. What I mean is that shaft.ed quotes as indicative of his general attitude the post where he least directly insinuates that he finds scumminess in Adel's play (or, rather, where he sees the potential scumminess as potentially waived by the obviousness). He then says he wanted people on record because it was a relevant point (cute, but the wording of post 23 suggests quite clearly that you yourself had an agenda) and that he wanted to see if he was over-interpreting the play (jump of the titanic before it sets sail). Rightly queries CKD's unvote, and votes accordingly.
27: Good analysis of CKD's unvote (he makes the Adel post 49 point that I missed).
28: Asks why, if CKD was startled by the wagon, he didn't take action against the wagoners. A good question.
29: Says that he was not accusing Oman by saying "quietly notices Oman's shifting the wagon to cicero" but was simply waiting for reaction. Responds well to CKD's "Why are you forcing me to vote?" dodgy question.
30: Notes Jitsu's hair-splitting and guardedness. Needless to say, I agree emphatically. Also makes the point that Jitsu was quick to accept CKD's answer simply because it was "logical", which is a standard of proof that basically allows anybody (well, anybody in a game of this standard) to escape responsibility.
31: Suggests CKD may have voted Shanba to distance, but then became scared when the wagon accelerated. I actually think that scum-CKD voting town-Shanba and not wanting to be on the wagon is more likely, but an awkward abandon in the way shaft.ed suggests is valid.
32: Votes Jitsu on the exploit thing. FTR, I read the word 'exploit' in the sense of 'Nike exploits developing-world labour' and, so, I do see Jitsu's post as a potential Freudian. Thus, the vote here doesn't seem opportunistic to me.
33: Explains his non-delay in raising his CKD concerns
34: Nothing
35: Things Jitsu's potential slip warrants pressure. I don't have a problem with this.
36: More on Adel usually being a pot-stirrer.
37: Nothing
38: Is awaiting replies from Jitsu and myself. Doesn't think I am scummy.
39: Explains his interpretation of "exploit"
40: Asks for quote tag repair
41: Notes Fonz is lurking in plain sight
42: Wonders how Cicero can call my case on Jitsu disingenuous whilst also largely agreeing with me.
43: Nothing
44: Nothing
45: A few questions.
46: Nothing
47: Admits he wrongly mixed-up narrow-mindedness with tunnel-vision
48: Notes CKD's tendency to make short, rapid posts
49: Thinks it is odd for scum-Adel to solo-drive a wagon. Also thinks CKD's play is not really different from town-CKD. I think this is true, but this overlooks the importance of the substance of CKD's play here (which is reasonably scummier than CKD-on-average)
50: Nothing
51: Disagrees (rightly) with Adel's suggestion that CKD's emotional outburst was potentially contrived.
52: Acknowledged WIFOM on Adel
53: Asks what the people who dislike my attacks on Jitsu think of our recent exchange
54: Very ambivalent post. He says he agrees with Adel's statement that scum are more likely intererested in how people perceive them than town (This is something I disagree with. Any town player has an interest in how people evaluate them, if only due to holding people to account and forcing openness.) but he also concedes that it is not a huge tell, and can be a town tell. As such, he hardly agrees with Adel.
55: Votes Oman for lurking in plain sight.
56: Thinks Oman's justification by relying on Adel's style shift is scummy. I don't feel strongly either way on this point, but I do wonder why shaft.ed raises Adel's reversion to her usual style as somehow constituting a point against Oman.
57: Asks whether Adel agrees with the reasoning that the only scummy reason for CKD's unvote would be if he was scum with Shanba
58: EBWOP
59: Thinks Oman is posting hot air
60: Doesn't think I am engaged and am Jitsu-centric. That's the cost of me not PBPAing.
61: Nothing
62: Thinks CKD's unvote was off. Agreed. Doesn't think the Cicero request was important. Agreed. Notes that CKD has largely confined his analysis of Adel to defensive posts and asks whether he has actually done any additional investigation. Thinks Sim, Cicero, and Adel have been pulling the game along, whilst Oman and I have been coasting (I've tried to change that).
63: Nothing
64: Questions Oman
65: Notes the inadequacy of Oman's response.
66: Maintains that he doesn't see anything scummy with the unvote outside a CKD-Shanba partnership. Shaft.ed, why don't you think that CKD wanting to avoid being on a Shanbatown wagon is valid/likely?
67: Thinks there is potential for the Vollkan Effect. Again, House is distinguishable
68: More on the Effect
69: Scumlist is Oman (for passive play), CKD (for the unvote), and Fonz (seems to be for accusing shaft.ed of lurking and then vanishing. Weakest of the three in terms of his reasons)
70: Would rather lynch a poster than a non-poster.
71: Wants Shanba to be replaced, and wonders after the lurkers.
72: Nothing
73: Notes need for information
74: Nothing
~~~~~~~~~~~
After House, shaft.ed is always going to be a cause of nightmares for me in mafia. Here, I largely agree with a lot of shaft.ed's positions (but, metawise, that is very common, so I don't see that as a towntell for him at this stage of things). There is also very little than I have problems with, the biggest scummy thing being the way he harped on about Adel's style shift. I give shaft.ed a

30%

[vollkan]

Shanba

0: Random vote.
1: Swaps vote to Oman. No reason given. Says he doesn't like Cicero's defense of himself. The words don't match the vote.
2: Promises content
3: Says his vote was not on Oman because of not liking Cicero's defense of himself (that was one interpretation of his words).
~~~~~~~~~~
Devoid of content. That said, the fact he would vote Oman for no given reason whilst expressing suspicion of Cicero is very strange.

28%

. Needs to be given an ass-kicking, or replaced. This activity level is NOT sustainable.

[vollkan]

Simenon

0: Votes Cicero and requests wagon. Seems to be random, flippant and not pressuring
1: Nothing
2: Notes BT does not vote Cicero
3: Nothing
4: More of the flippant anti-Cicero
5: Says the wagon did become serious, despite the tongue-in-cheek origins
6: Says it was not a joke to begin with, in the sense that the wagon was intended to serve utility as a means of generating a good game-start. I don't ascribe to wagoning as a tactic universally, but I think it perfectly legitimate. Is clear in differentiating that the wagon being serious is different for his reasons for suspecting Cicero: namely his town-tell labelling and use of threat (both of these points I am in agreement with Simenon on).
7: Nothing
8: Theory on early D1 strategy
9: Reiterates his distinction between the reasons for wagoning Cicero and the reasons for suspecting Cicero
10: Votes Erg0 because the posting style he is adopting is not meta-consistent
11: Also says he changed because the Cicero wagon had become lame
12: Elaborates on the death of the Cicero wagon's utility.
13: Again, we need to wagon for information.
14: Nothing
15: Thinks Erg0 is being lazy
16: Nothing
17: Nothing
18: Nothing
19: Assumes that Oman's use of tl;dr meant he never read the post.
20: Swaps to Shanba. He lists his reasons (which earns style points from me) and, again, it is based on pressure and/or information-gathering
21: Nothing
22: Swaps to Shaft.ed for the exploitation vote. I disagree with Simenon here. The word "exploit" carries a strong negative connotation and the fact that Jitsu committed a potentially huge slip is legitimate basis for a vote. The second thing dealt with in this post is that Simenon expresses his agreement with Adel's assertion about my attacks on Jitsu. He says he prefers shaft.ed due to him thinking I am not scum unless shaft.ed is (unclear how that works), but that doesn't excuse his support for what I've said again and again is an atrocious basis for suspicion.
23: Thinks shaft.ed misses the context but, again, I reiterate my point about the language he uses. Of course it's conceivable that Jitsu just chose awkward words, but it is still a potential slip. Acknowledges the point against me is "gut"
24: Says the context determines whether or not it can be considered a slip. I don't see how this works. It wasn't clear from the context what Jitsu meant. There is not really any distinction between town probing for inquiry and scum trying to milk an opportunity other than the motivation (as in, an objective townsperson will find it difficult to judge in many circumstances).
25: Thinks Cicero is tying himself to CKD, since Cicero follows every poor post by CKD with a comment making it seem worse. I can't see the logic to this point.
26: Nothing
27: Questions for Cicero.
28: China analogy on the debate about subjective/objective with Cicero. I don't get any meaningful indicators from this debate either way.
29: Question for Adel
30: Nothing
31: Thinks the Cicero request was sincere. Agreed.
32: Nothing
33: Nothing
34: I missed this post, that was addressed to me on the point of gut in scumhunting. I don't rely solely on logic flaws in finding scum. Tone, etc. and other "style tells" (as opposed to "substance tells") are also important. The thing is, though, I don't see what my gut tells me as ever constituting a basis for in-game consequences in and of itself. I may follow my gut to more closely scrutinise a post or player, but that's it. I also don't accept that there are some things that can't be expressed well. Sure, I've found that explanation can sometimes be difficult, but I'm yet to encounter something that I can't express at all.
35: Thinks the Oman issue is overblown.
36: Says he is not lurking, but is just busy (and is not lurking by any but the most extreme standards)
37: Doesn't like the lurker-hunting.
38: Votes Shanba. The lurking is terrible and he says it conflicts with his usual impresion of Shanba. Says he would prefer shaft.ed FTR. Hmm, on one hand, he just attacked Adel and Cicero for lurker-lynching, but supports a lurker-lynch himself. Then again, deadlines necessitate compromises, so it's understandable.
39: Bolds vote
40: Nothing
41: Nothing
42: Nothing
43: Is not voting for CKD unless necessary.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Not much scummy here. Most of the problems I have are simply disagreement, not actual problems in terms of his alignment. Simenon gets a

27%

The Fonz

0: Random vote Jitsu
1: Swaps to Adel
2: Nothing
3: Notes that voting Oman for BWing is stupid. Accepts that the Simenon behaviour is a slight town-tell. Ugh, reasoning is the same as Cicero's, that I've criticised already.
4: Votes shaft.ed for suggesting Oman is trying to move a baseless wagon. I don't see how this is actually scummy...
5: Nothing
6: Nothing
7: Nothing
8: Nothing
9: Nothing
10: Asks for a shaft.ed wagon
11: Nothing
12: Finds shaft.ed's querying Adel's playstyle to be scummy
13: Makes a good analysis of what shaft.ed is doing re adel: insinuating scumminess without attacking anything tangible. Accuses shaft.ed of lurking in plain sight, and echoing the lurker attacks.
14: Doesn't think Adel's play is odd.
15: Nothing
16: Nothing
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Needs to post more. I get no indications either way from Fonz.

27%

Okay, so to place the rankings in a handy listing:
Jitsu - 41%
CKD - 38%
Adel - 35%
Shaft.ed, BT - 30%
Cicero, Oman, Shanba - 28%
Erg0, Fonz, Simenon - 27%

Now, I am cognisant of the fact that a Jitsu lynch is exceptionally unlikely. I seem to be on my own here. Given the deadline, I cast my vote for

Vote: CKD

[vollkan]

Okay, that's odd. My maths must have failed me. I thought deadline was going to pass whilst I slept last night, but it hasn't. Good.

Vollkan, I am surprised you think I am scummier than Adel, and put lurkers so low on your list, but oh well.

The CKD-Adel thing is a real dilemma for me, if that wasn't obvious from my rankings and analysis. I find both of you scummy, but I would be very surprised if you were scum together.

As for the lurkers, you should know by now that I don't find lurking scummy. I find it horribly anti-town and, potentially, lynch-justifiable, but it is not scummy in and of itself. The lynch-justifiability arises from the fact that tolerating lurking legitimises it and provides an out for scum. Basically, lurker lynches are a form of policy-lynch, and I don't like it when people conflate lynching lurkers for doing something which can aid scum with lynching lurkers for doing something scummy.

Please hold Adel to the fire tomorrow for her bullshit today. Dont let her squirm out of the crap she sold today. Ask yourself why if she thought I was scum, did she want to use dice tags to lynch lurkers as deadline loomed, but only changed her vote back once BT called her out for it...the information from my lynch needs to be used, dont let me fucking die in vain.

This is actually a good point. She pushes your wagon all day (and I have acknowledged the poor quality of some of what she has pushed) and then abandons it for a random lynch. That really doesn't match the profile of townDel being a dedicated town on a wagon (however tunnel-visioned she may have been).

This all ocurred on page 1. I am completely posting for my own enjoyment at this time of the game.

Figured as much.

I would argue that for Adel it is alignment related. My meta of her is based firmly on the fact that she is more conservative as scum than town. But as I stated repeatedly it is usually a more subtle difference. This was blazing, so I didn't know what to make of it. And reading back over my posts at that time, I do see that I was tunneled on Adel.

I'm aware of Adel's meta. As I have said, though, there is clearly a difference between this game (where crazy play will likely fool nobody) and a regular game. That's something I think that you should have realised.

I don't that lack of PBPA's is really the problem. It just feels like you aren't going after people as strongly as normal. But this could be due to the very conservative and lurky game we have going ATM.

Well, a lot of the players here are just lurkers. That means that I have very little to analyse, so very little to do with them. I've taken a strong position on all of the day's major issues, but it seems like I've been out of the arguments, which is odd and I am not sure why.

The Fonz
0: Random vote Jitsu
1: Swaps to Adel

2: Nothing

3: Notes that voting Oman for BWing is stupid. Accepts that the Simenon behaviour is a slight town-tell. Ugh, reasoning is the same as Cicero's, that I've criticised already.
4: Votes shaft.ed for suggesting Oman is trying to move a baseless wagon. I don't see how this is actually scummy...

5: Nothing
6: Nothing
7: Nothing
8: Nothing
9: Nothing

10: Asks for a shaft.ed wagon

11: Nothing

12: Finds shaft.ed's querying Adel's playstyle to be scummy
13: Makes a good analysis of what shaft.ed is doing re adel: insinuating scumminess without attacking anything tangible.

Accuses shaft.ed of lurking in plain sight

, and echoing the lurker attacks.
14: Doesn't think Adel's play is odd.

15: Nothing
16: Nothing

~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Needs to post more. I get no indications either way from Fonz. 27%

Bolding is mine. I'm curious why hypocrisy doesn't score more than 27.

I don't know how hypocritical it is. In context, he was saying that your posting wasn't meaningful, given what you were focussing on. I don't agree, but I can see his point. His own content output was dreadful, but I don't think that precludes him from making the criticism of others.

I get a bad feeling off Vollkan. His massive PBPs of players include far too much information that is semi-relevant at best, and I get the feeling of trying to blind people with linguistic dreadnaughts- that is, his posts contain so much data that it is hard to pick out what is important, and therefore his contributions end up clouding the issue, rather than clarifying it (And, as some of you will recall, I tend to think of LOATP as antitown in general).

Meta me (or, rather, meta my PBPAs). They always have a fairly small proportion of actual deep analysis. That's intentional - they function like an index for me.

What ought to be focussed upon is the posts that get paragraph or longer analysis by me. If I just cited the important paragraphs and didn't use the PBP format it would be no different in effect from any ordinary analysis. By showing clearly what I think of each post, it makes it very clear what I am focussing on and what I consider meaningful.

I've explained this also eleventy billion times. 1) I have a very firm meta of scum Adel being more conservative than town Adel. 2) Adel was playing incredibly conservative early game. 3) I had no idea what to make of this, and felt it incredibly strange that I was the only one bothered by it.

Read back over your posts and tell me whether or not a reasonable observer would more likely think:
a) That you found something suspect about Adel's style change; or
b) That you were simply perplexed by Adel's change.

I answer a). As I said in my pbp, you are clear that there is something worrying about her change, which makes the insinuation that it is somehow scummy (supported by the meta data).

[vollkan]

How is it obvious that a Vig/SK killed Adel?

[vollkan]

13. At deadline, if a player has a

majority

of the votes being cast (e.g. all votes not on Not Voting) that player will be lynched. Otherwise, no lynch will occur and night will commence.

"Majority" means "more than 50%"

Before Erg0 voted CKD: 5 votes on CKD. 11 votes cast.

NOT MAJORITY

After Erg0, but before shaft.ed: 6 votes on CKD. 12 votes cast.

NOT MAJORITY

After shaft.ed voted CKD: 7 votes on CKD. 12 votes cast.

MAJORITY

Basically, to attain a CKD lynch, shaft.ed could either have unvoted, or voted CKD. So, strictly speaking, his CKD vote was not

required

, but I think you see my point: he had to do something.

Oh, and just to be a bastard: IF shaft.ed's action had been unnecessary, what bearing, if any, would that have for shaft.ed's scumminess?

My answer: None. I think it is a null-tell. At that point in time, there was nothing that shaft.scum could hope to gain by voting CKD, other than to WIFOMishly put his fingers in the pie deliberately.

[vollkan]

@Everyone: My laptop died yesterday (Carlin and my laptop...my heart is breaking right now ) so my access is somewhat limited at the moment. All going well, I will be up to full posting rate on Saturday.

I don't like how everything's supposedly a joke. You were wagonning Oman; the wagon was of a significant size. You said something that I didn't think made much sense.

To be fair, it was early game. I asked a stupid question of Erg0 early on, for instance. It's not really anomalous, is it?

Question for Vollkan, Oman, and Billytwilight. Of the other two people listed - which do you think is most likely scum?

BT. See my analyses yesterday. BT at 30%, Oman at 28%. That said, neither of this pair had much meaningful content, which makes a read less definite.

I didn't get a decidedly pro-town read from vollkan yesterday. I also think it's a bit odd that after rating Jitsu at 41% in his analysis yesterday he has yet to address him at all today.

Given that I analysed Jitsu just before the end of yesterday, and that he has made only post this day, there is not much new that I have to say to Jitsu.

[vollkan]

My access is back to normal.

I have seen nothing scummier than cicero's change from posting a lot and being extremely defensive to hardly posting and not really comment on gme issues much (earlD1-Late D1) looks scummy scummy scummy.

You know, I am sure that I was once attacked for this the other way round (starting conservative and becoming aggressive)....

Anyway, I don't follow your reasoning here. Is there anything particularly scummy about Cicero becoming more useless over time, or is it just the fact that his style shift that troubles you so?

If I conceed will you not make me reread.

Is this not a concession in itself that your 'case' on Cicero was just hollow rhetoric?

[vollkan]

Why does everyone think Simenon died?

No idea. Night choice speculation is something that is not worth engaging in.

I know that analyzing nightkills on this site has somehow become WIFOM verboten but its worth noting that Vollkan is still alive. He seems to be early kill bait when he's town, no? Alone that means nothing. But he also seems to swoop in to carry off bandwagons on the "weaker" targets. Most recently pushing Oman over his belief that my play dropped off. Earlier Jitsu. And he seems too smart to be on the CKD wagon so easily. He did his great PbP analysis but it was after it was requested. I'd put him as probable scum in this game at this point.

Your analysis here ignores a few points:
1) My survival: The meta that I have for being NKed as town is something that most people here would be familiar with. That diminishes my survival as a meta-tell against me. Moreover, it's hardly uncommon for me to survive a night phase.
2) Bandwagoning: Not sure what you are getting at here. I made a joke vote for Oman (by no means ignore my joke wagon, but it's misleading of you to say that I swooped in), and I made a serious case against Jitsu who, as I have said before, I don't consider to be a weaker player at all. As for my current inquiring of Oman, I challenge you to actually explain why I should not have asked those questions. This whole argument you are making here is baseless because it's seeking to impose one set of motivations upon my behaviour which, itself, you haven't attacked.
3) CKD: I wasn't champing at the bit for CKD's blood. It was a compromise choice. There was a sound case against him though, and I have given my reasons for supporting it. If you disagree with any of them, feel free to take them up with me.
4) PBP: Well done for ignoring all my recent meta history here, especially since it was alluded to in my and other peoples' posts. I have recently been trying to avoid PBPing, due to the Vollkan Effect, but I have decided to shift back because Vollkan without PBP does not work (see Dante's In Fresno).

Put bluntly: I don't like your case, Cicero.

The only thing that strike me as odd about Vollkan(that I can think of) is that he did not address the weirdness I found with his analysis of CKD a page or two back. Vollkan doesn't strike me as the ignore-a-post type. Fonz said his bulky data bombs bother him. I disagree, it's a pretty fitting characteristic for Vollkan from my limited experience with him.

Whoops...I'll address it now (and I am an ignore-a-post type, and every time I ignore a post somebody inevitably casts aspersions on because they think it is out of character).

11: The Shanba unvote. Declares that he isn't sure why the wagon is moving to Shanba who is not posting on site and unvotes. Says that his question stands.

He only justifies the unvote on the basis of the fact that Shanba is not on-site.

As has been said, this justification doesn't hold water unless there is an alternative wagon, otherwise there is nothing to be gained from leaving the wagon.

It's also important that, at this point in time, he makes no comment on the speed of the wagon making him uneasy, or anything to that effect as he did subsequently.

I think this post forms an interesting example of something that, whilst not "anti-town", can be considered "scummy". There's no negative consequence for town of CKD unvoting, but there is no pro-town motivation for the action.

Now he says that leaving quickly-building is a "habit" (Are we to take that as a statement of fact that your meta will verify?), and he was startled. It's interesting that he says his vote can be "considered" out there still, but he doesn't "like the company of voters".

This is interesting because, in 11, the only discernible reason for the unvote is the futility of an absentee wagon.

However, he has now declared that his vote is to be considered to be on the absentee, instead justifying his unvote on the basis of not liking the company. Additionally, I can't see how "the company" is really relevant to the wagon. It wasn't going to go to a lynch (I don't think any of us here would be so naive as to think something like that was reasonably foreseeable).

I hate Day 1s without a Night 0, or maybe I am just insecure about my scum hunting abilities day 1 with little to go on.

not sure why the wagon is shifting to Shanba if he is not even posting at this site.

unvote

my last question to shanba still stands though..and you should consider my vote still there.

I'm curious... Were you ignoring the "not sure why the wagon is shifting to Shanba" part of his unvote post when you wrote this? When I went back to read CKD's unvote (as a result of reading your rundown), the 'growth of the wagon' explanation he later provided, to me, was pretty obviously embedded in that little part of the post. Obviously, this is unclear if you read the unvote post by itself because it's not explicate by any means, but it fits into place when you consider what he said later on. So I'm not understanding how you couldn't see this - you seem to have tried to paint CKD in a manner which made him appear to change his story(or add to it), but what he said does seem to fit with the wording of his initial unvote.

You make a good point here. He says: "not sure why the wagon is shifting to Shanba if he is not even posting at this site". I disagree with your interpretation of this, though.

Remember that, later on, he explicitly attacked the speed of the wagon. Here, he only attacks its utility. The way his sentence is structured is:
1) Statement of concern - "Not sure why the wagon is shifting to Shanba"
2) Reason for concern - "he is not even posting"

Hindsight is 20:20, and, in light of his subsequent posts, you might generously read in an implicit concern about the speed of the wagon, but I don't think that is a reasonable interpretation. What he said initially was that he didn't like the utility of the wagon and, for that reason, didn't like the wagon. The later attacks, on the "character" of the wagon, if you will, were completely different. He also never said: "That's what I meant in my initial post" or anything like that, to establish a clear link between the two.

[vollkan]

1) My survival: The meta that I have for being NKed as town is something that most people here would be familiar with. That diminishes my survival as a meta-tell against me. Moreover, it's hardly uncommon for me to survive a night phase.

This is dumb. People get nightkilled because scum percieve them as a threat, more than any other reason. Second they kill someone they think isn't traceable to them. Third they kill someone they think won't get lynched. They don't keep you alive to confound the meta of you being alive. There is no WAY They decided "lets keep Vollkan alive and someone like Cicero will try to get him lynched." There was just no evidence in play to suggest the likelihood of such a thing.

I agree somewhat. Ultimately, scum make their night choice based on what they think is going to improve their own prospects. The obverse is that scum won't NK a player if they perceive more advantage elsewhere. Scum do play the WIFOM game, Cicero. You might dismiss it, but I really don't think keeping me alive in order to render doubt upon me is so far-fetched as you make it out to be. I don't necessarily think that is what happened, because I really do think that Adel and/or Simenon may have presented more attractive NK options than myself, but you really can't dismiss it so out of hand.

I just wonder, do you think Oman is scummy Oman this game or lazy Oman?

Lazy. We had a dense D1 and now a demoralised D2, so I would not put it past Oman to become a bit lacking in substance. That doesn't mean I see his non-input as a permanent null-tell, but it doesn't buzz my radar at this stage of things.

You really wanted Jitsu. Still feel the same way today?

Yes I did. He is my #1 right now, but there's been nothing new for me to probe on, so it's kind of a dead-end for me right now.

Besides this game do you have others to show me that validate this?

The meta history is that after House Mafia I began to be more opposed to PBPAs, climaxing in my bad play in Cultafia and dismal failure in Dantes in Fresno. It's not like my play has been uniformly poor, but those two very recent games reflect my change.

[vollkan]

EBWOP: I cited cultafia in the above, and criticised my play there, but the game is ongoing (I am dead, however). I see no problem in saying as much as I did in the above post, but please bear that fact in mind.

[vollkan]

@Vollkan - Of course Mafia WIFOM. They WIFOM all the time. The question is whether the WIFOM in this case makes sense. The WIFOM that mafia killed Simenon to cast a shadow on his suspects vs one of his suspects actually killing him makes sense. But what you said about you being alive specifically to confound your own NK meta doesn't make sense at all, I don't think.

Well, again, I don't think that necessarily is the case. It's not necessary to explain my survival that their be an attempt at WIFOM (another candidate just has to appear more attractive to scum).

But, I still don't get why you find it so left-field an idea. If a player has a perceived meta for survival as town, then rational scum might well consider that a relevant factor (WIFOMic) to play into their decision.

Let me try a different angle. Why did you want to check your vote tags in the middle of your post, before typing the reason for your vote that you said you meant to include?

I read this and typed out the below:
"I'll be frank, I can't see where this line of questioning is meant to lead. Giving you the benefit of the doubt, you presumably have in mind some sort of answer which could provide some inference of scumminess? Or are you just feeling around in the dark trying to pad up an image of undertaking inquiries?"

But you kind of answered it with this:

When he said that he knew that admitting it would look suspicious and put the vote under more scrutiny, it sounded to me like he was trying to score a townie point. I got the impression that he had a bit of a guilty conscience and was trying to cover up something, but I couldn't figure out what it was, so I decided to probe to try to find out, though I still didn't know what I was looking for.

Basically, shaft.ed says something awkward and you probed around. I don't have a problem with that per se, but you've taken a while to explain it this way.

The phrasing of this post makes it sound to me like he really didn't realize he was hammering. It's in the vein of "so what if I did?" In my experience, both in mafia and in real life, if an innocent person is wrongly accused of something s/he never says "if I did do it, what's the big deal?". That, to me, is testing the waters to gauge the reaction to a confession, which is relatively strong circumstantial evidence of guilt.

Wrong.

The question he asked is a good one. The fact is that your questioning appeared to be predicated on the assumption that shaft.ed not realising he was hammering was interesting and relevant (or else, townJitsu would have no reason to ask it). His question was to get you to explain the point of your argument.

It's like,
X: "Vollkan, why did you vote in all capital letters?!?!"
Me: "I didn't. Even if I did, why the heck would that matter?"

[vollkan]

Would everyone be willing to share top 3's at this point?

1) Jitsu is stable at number one at 41%
2 Shaft.ed / BT
3) BT/shaft.ed

(Question: Do my percentage rankings change today to reflect the change in number of players alive?)

I've found D2 thus far to be rather lacking in read impact. I may need to reread, because I admit this may just be a perception I am getting, but I can't say that I have seen anything D2 that really changes anything for me.

[vollkan]

Sorry guys, I've been busy with mooting and haven't had much time to get round to the big post I wanted to make here. I'm rereading now and will post.

[vollkan]

EBWOP: Not "rereading". I meant "reading up to date"

[vollkan]

Secondly, I'm not a big believer in a vig being a huge help to town anyway. If we do have a vig, I'd much prefer they avoid making kills at night. We need this game to go as long as possible. Any misfires from an overzealous vig could put us even further behind the eight ball. If there is a vig in the game and he/she happens to be a forced vig I want them out of the game ASAP. The chances of a vig saving us are very slim, and if we let the game get to a point where we need a vig to save us then we probably deserve to lose anyway.

I'm not sure I understand you here. Are you actually suggesting that, because a vig might miss up, a forced vig should actually be lynched ASAP?

First of all, I reread the last few pages, and I can see how badly I handled my attempt to discern a potential lie from Shaft.ed. To a point, I think Fonz is right. I have suspected Shaft.ed for most of the game and I think I got frustrated trying to find evidence to make a case against him. It reminds me a little of Setael in Underground Mafia, where I thought she was scum and I couldn't get anyone to vote with me to lynch her. I think it started out well enough, as Vollkan pointed out, I was probing on something awkward I perceived from Shaft.ed, but it quickly went downhill from there. I kept pushing because I thought he avoided my questions, but I can see now that he may have legitimately been pointing out the flaws in my reasoning. I do think I engaged in some confirmation bias, pushing after I should have stopped long ago.

Good. You recognise this.

I also agree with Jitsu in relation to BT's weird vig point. One question, Jitsu, the reasons you have for your BT vote are somewhat unclear in weighting. Is the allegation that you were distancing from a shafted wagon the main factor for you?

Whoa, what? I've NEVER said that I want to lynch a vig. You again are completely ignoring the SK possibility here. I find that the best way to win a game of mafia is to identify and catalogue everyone in the game as much as possible. The fewer wildcards you have the harder it is for scum to hide. I saw a piece of relevant information that might point out a potentially anti-town faction, or at least help us clarify who and what wrt the players involved. Jitsu, if there is an SK and he/she is one of the players I mentioned above, would you not agree that it's very important that I point that out?

"out of the game ASAP"? Sorry to repeat my question, but I don't think you could reasonably be taken to be saying anything other than that you wanted the vig lynched

The main take away I got from reading the early game is that while it transitioned from random to serious play, vollkan was incredibly non-participatory in the actual game and pretty much only talked about game theory. I really didn't read a meaty post through the whole stretch that I read.

This is simply not true. I've acknowledged the weaknesses in my play early game, but I wasn't just spouting theory. I always tend to have some theory points amidst content, but the two are hardly indistinguishable.

Just looking at early posts of mine: Post 6 I make an argument against Cicero's point on Simenon being a silly bugger. Post 8 I try questioning Erg0 on the need for a screw-up. Post 10, I take the view that Adel being conservative is not a tell. Post 11, I argue against you on Adel....

I'd go on, but the point I am trying to make is that your dismissal of my posts as theory is hyperbole.

None of my posts were "meaty". That much I admit to be true. However, it's important to consider how I was playing globally at the time; namely that I was still under the Vollkan-effect-averting style of posting that I didn't like playing with. I can't justify or excuse my play there, but I am trying to make the point that it was not out of character in context.

Anyway I did some rereading of vollkan after yesterday and I'm not liking his play much. The first half or so of yesterday he mostly skirts around issues making theory commentary.

This is not true. I had theory, and I had content. Nothing was meaty, but your dismissiveness is unwarranted.

Then towards the end of the day he gives his PBP's but still very little interaction with the events that are unraveling.

Sorry? I don't see your point here. Obviously, PBPs are focussed on the past. I don't see why you see that as somehow being a point against me. In the end, I did address the recent posts as relevant in my PBPs.

This also matches up with vollkanscum in iPick where his posting lapses as deadline lynches approach, and is opposite of vollkantown who generally ramps up contributions as deadlines approach.

Have a look at California Trilogy. I was lynched D4 after inactivity. Thespscum made attacks against me in the similar line to that which you are making. I am not meaning that your attacks are scummy (Let me stress that very clearly). But, don't point to iPick to advance one statement of meta whilst ignoring play in another.

You have a point, it may just be that vollkan's interest in mafia is waning, and not that this is typical scum play for him.

My play goes through waves, usually coinciding with uni work. Uni started again for me this week, and I have had mooting practice so often that I don't get much time to sit down and think and read. I haven't been ignoring this game, but it is one that I knew needed a thorough and careful reading that I couldn't just do in the time that I had.

vollkan why do you have yet to vote Jitsu?

General vote laziness and then absence.

Vote: Jitsu

.

I will give you this; if there is a FORCED vig in the game I want them out of the game ASAP, wither by lynching or nightkill, I don't care. I think forced-vig is one of if not the worst power role for town to have in a game. I don't see how you could extrapolate this to mean we should go vig hunting. Again, I have NO WAY of knowing if there is a vig, forced vig, or SK in the game. I never stated who I thought the vig/SK was specifically, and never pushed for a lynch on any of those players, at least not on the premise that they were a SK or vig. I still think it's stretching on your part to try to paint my statements as an attempt to get town to go SK or vig hunting.

In light of this, explain to me why you went on with the "Whoa, what? I've NEVER said that I want to lynch a vig." The use of "Whoa, what?" suggests that you yourself found the idea ridiculous, but now you have back-flipped again.

[vollkan]

Vollkan Moots?

Wait, are you a Rover then?

*headdesk*

No, I meant this sort of moot. Basically, it entails pretending to be a barrister and arguing a case in a pretend court.

Thus, it is nothing like a Rover moot which, google tells me, is something that Australia's scouts do.

(Seriously, I'd rather rot on a crucifix than do all that outdoorsy, physical crap)

I kinda wonder what drives Vollkan to make a big post attacking Billy, and in the same post vote Jitsu.

Because they have both posted things I have problems with. Your post implies that there is something particularly important about the fact that both were attacked, and I can't work out what, so maybe you could explain why you expressed your 'wonder'.

[vollkan]

Vote Vollkan I see nothing against Jitsu that I can consider scummy.

Picques my interest.

You said:

I'll take a look at vollkan, I just feel like my cases are dwindling away and I need to find scum!

And now you are voting me over Jitsu. Fair enough, you might reasonably disagree with me on Jitsu being scummy, but what tilts the balance towards me?

[vollkan]

Why does Vollkan keep asking questions he ought reasonably be able to answer himself?

In this game, it is rare that I will ask a question that I don't think I can reasonably answer. I might be speaking for myself here, but comparing an answer that somebody gives to a question of mine to the answer that I would envisage as most reasonable is often just as useful as simply aquiring an answer.

Jitsu plays as Jitsu plays, granted he has no scum meta.

You however are playing differently, which makes you dangerous, Maveric.

I'd rather take out the unpredictably, slightly strange Vollkan, than the townie looking Jitsu.

Playing differently from when? What game/s are you judging this by? It seems to me, that what is essentially happening here is that people are judging me against one particular idea of my meta. And, let's not forget, some of my most aggressive and hyper-active performances have been as scum. Further complicating things: I've already drawn attention to the fact that the idea that "relatively inactive vollkan is unusual and scummy" has failed before in California mafia.

Basically, the point I am trying to make is that I have no clear meta style either generally, or alignment-based. Sure, I have a number of constants (dislike of hunches especially), but it's sheer deceptiveness to construct one meta portrait of me as "normal" and to deem anything that deviates from that to be "strange".

Tell you what, explain to me what you perceive "town" vollkan to be, and how "scum" vollkan differs from that image. With game references please.