Minvitational 8 - OVER before 611

[curiouskarmadog]

ok I can see why you thought that.

I thought that Shanba was directly avoiding answering my question, which upped the scum factor in my book...Once I found out that he was gone and was unable to answer questions, that lowered the scum factor. If you dont believe look at he post...Shafted posted (183) that Shanba hadnt been on site "since friday"..upon reading that and checking it out I immediately unvoted (186).

Coupled with the fact that people were also jumping on him for no reason knowing that he wsnt around...it just didnt seem right to me. I have explained this numerous times already.

[cicero]

@Fonz - you picked Adel over CKD. What do you think of the argument that BillyTwilight makes (and Adel does too) that Adel is scumhunting harder than CKD and therefore CKD is more likely scum and Adel more likely town?

@Erg0 - What's goin' on? Hi! What's new in your world? New baby like Billy Twilight? I'm told I should ignore your play this day one because you are always like this on Day one. Is this true? Should I excuse you?

[Jitsu]

I'm more bothered by Shaft.ed than Vollkan so far, though I have to agree with Adel and Cicero a bit -- 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.

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.

As for Shaft.ed, I get the impression that he is trying really hard to score townie points. The question I'm wondering about is, does he need them? He seems to be quite good at deflecting suspicion of him aside without going into a lot of words. I don't know if it's significant or not, but I find it a bit odd that he seems to be overeager to attack and has on a few occasions seemed quick to paint things in a scummier light than they really were. Hoewever, he does not seem to have overreacted once on his defense, being quite careful and guarded and showing a lot of discipline. I agree with Simenon that some of his answers have seemed kind of deadpan. I think I see what the Fonz sees, but I'm not ready to vote him just quite yet. Shaft.ed been a bit more cautious lately though -- I'd like a few more data points.

As for the CKD/Adel saga, I see parts of the case. I do think that CKD's stated reason for the unvote shifted. It looked to start out more as "I didn't like the company I was with on the reason-lite Shanba wagon", and then later on "the wagon is turning more into a pressure wagon, and I don't see the point anymore". I admit it's possible that CKD really did have all those reasons in mind the whole time, but his written reasons in thread aren't totally consistent. Cicero seemed to be getting that impression that it turned into a pressure wagon also. Let's face it, part of the purpose of every vote is some kind of pressure. But to say that the wagon was turning into a purely pressure wagon seems inaccurate, since it implies that someone changed reasons somewhere. And, as far as I can see, Oman, Simenon, and I did not change our reasoning.

Cicero was quick to defend CKD in a couple of cases (when I attacked CKD about the unvote originally, and then when Adel made a case against him). If Cicero is legitimately suspicious of Adel and mistrusts her, that explains the latter to some degree, but not the former. Cicero's defense of CKD just seems a little different to me than his interactions with other players. I tend to agree more with Simenon in 268 that Cicero is linking himself (or allowing himself to be linked) to CKD, rather than the other way around. CKD's not interacting with Cicero as much, and CKD's comments toward him are more low key, IMO.

On the other hand, I don't see Cicero leaving CKD's name out of the recap as significant, nor CKD's pointing it out. I've done that myself as town, and given that Cicero's been telling us all along about his opinions on CKD, there was probably no need to mention him. I think I would want to know what people thought of me regardless of my alignment -- maybe it is a little more important for scum to want to know this, but I don't have the experience to be able to comment on that. Also, the deal about the quote tags all being closed perfectly doesn't seem significant. If he's doing it through the GUI button in the editor and not typing them in himself, he could easily still be steamed and get that right.

I don't think any of the meta is really reliable at all, brought up by either party. Adel does often exude false confidence (especially on Day 1's), but I understand this, because it is ofent hard to lynch someone on Day 1. I (as town) tried my dardnest to get Setael-scum lynched in Underground Mafia, but I just couldn't convince the town to do it. I did see Adel get sucked into a postsplosion with Korlash in Underground Mafia and basically stop answering his questions (as town), and I also saw CKD (as town) get into a pretty heated discussion with Mexal (another strong townie) on Day 1, over practically nothing. Also, I think everyone here is very cognizant of their meta, and most are either intentionally acting close to it, or intentionally shaking things up to reduce its effectiveness. I think meta cues are going to be less telling here, and I'm going to be extra careful in how I use meta to judge this game.

The one part of the meta here I will consider is that CKD is no stranger to Adel's tactics. He's obviously seen Adel attack people hard before with questionable cases, but he let Adel get to him anyway. He made himself look worse by continuing to sling mud back at her (even after he'd promised he'd stop). Adel's did probably push her case as being stronger than it really was, but if I were pushing at CKD's buttons and he reacted like he did, I admit I probably would have thrown more oil on the fire too.

The tone of ckd's recent posts directed at me is typical of many of our generation (ABR, BM, ect). I think Jitsu's style is better, and I've tried to re-incorporate some of his into mine.

Wow.

Now, starting around 375, things definitely shift. This time Adel refuses to answer questions (might be she's trying to avoid CKD pulling her down with him, but I still don't like it when people avoid questions intentionally). Cicero votes in 378 to criticize Adel for this, which I happen to agree with. If Adel really thinks CKD is scum, why not keep him talking and let him hang himself? However, I can't quite shake the impression that Cicero is defending CKD again. Cicero makes a good point on Adel in 381 and asks specifically why Adel is after CKD like this, but I think Adel responds with a good counter in 384 about the defensiveness of CKD's response.

I agree with Billy's statement that CKD is looking more to discredit Adel than to try to scumhunt.

Why would behaviour alteration be a scumtell?

This seems like another vague question to me, but I'll try to answer. First, I already gave an example from Underground Mafia where I thought it was. Second, in the general sense, I admit it is pretty hard to construe a single instance of behavior change as a scumtell, but I think it is something you can look on later in the game to see if it stands out as being inconsistent. Within a larger body of information, it has the potential reveal something that the individual event does not.

[shaft.ed]

I've learned that Vollkan isn't playing the way I'd expect him to.

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've learned that CKD is playing in a very town way.

So you disagree with BT's recent assesment then? I think his point was pretty good. Whether or not CKD was knocked back on his heels by Adel, he hasn't really been probing a whole lot.

I've learned that you, shaft.ed, are reacting well to the bullshit that I feel was thrown on you.

Hmmm...I don't really recall that much bullshit being thown on me. Care to elaborate?

[curiouskarmadog]

Jitsu, couple points I need clarification on...where did I "sling mud" at Adel...I am not sure what you are referring to (was it my cursing?)...where did I say I would stop "slinging mud" (I just said I would remove the curse words)...and once a said that, where did I "resling the mud"...just not sure what you are are talking about here.

also, Jitsu and BT, where am I trying to discredit Adel?...I feel like her attack on me is scummy so I point out the flaws in her attacks..when I do, she refuses to address them. To say someone is discrediting someone is scummy is silly. A case against someone you feel is scummy will eventually have the result of trying to discredit said person. Hell, by definition, a vote against someone is a discredit. If you are using those terms then, Adel is trying to discredit me by stating "he is spamming the thread" when she knows that simply is not true...yet Jitsu and BT seem dont use the term "discredit" in regards to that point of her case.

why? isnt that discrediting..but in this case, simply a lie?

[curiouskarmadog]

shafted, how do you define probe? Me, asking questions and getting reactions....You feel it is something else? Was I not probing when asking Shanba the question and voting..was I not probing (then attacked) for commenting on Cicero's mini cap, have I not probed Adel at all?

seems to me that I might be in the top 3 probers of this game.

I see you probing..asking question, then asking thought out follow ups, I am just curious how you see me as not probing.

who do you feel are the top 3 "probers" of the game..bottom three?

[curiouskarmadog]

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

[shaft.ed]

I don't know if it's significant or not, but I find it a bit odd that he seems to be overeager to attack and has on a few occasions seemed quick to paint things in a scummier light than they really were.

I feel I've only overreacted to your earlier post, and I'm pretty sure that was just due to my lower level of vocabulary than yourself and others in this game. When I see something off I will usually tend to call someone out for it. I also wanted to see how you would respond to the pressure as you are an unknown to me.

Hoewever, he does not seem to have overreacted once on his defense, being quite careful and guarded and showing a lot of discipline. I agree with Simenon that some of his answers have seemed kind of deadpan.

If you read up on me you will note that I am not an emotional player. And I try to make sure my responses are as clear as possible when answering another's questions. If you would like elaborations on anything you feel I was guarded about you are free to inquire.

I think I see what the Fonz sees, but I'm not ready to vote him just quite yet. Shaft.ed been a bit more cautious lately though-- I'd like a few more data points.

The Fonz called me out quite a while ago for lurking in plain site and has since dropped of the face of the earth himself. What exactly are you seeing that "the Fonz sees?" And I take it I am thus your top scum candidate? You don't mention voting for anyone else.

[shaft.ed]

shafted, how do you define probe? Me, asking questions and getting reactions....You feel it is something else? Was I not probing when asking Shanba the question and voting..was I not probing (then attacked) for commenting on Cicero's mini cap, have I not probed Adel at all?

seems to me that I might be in the top 3 probers of this game.

I see you probing..asking question, then asking thought out follow ups, I am just curious how you see me as not probing.

who do you feel are the top 3 "probers" of the game..bottom three?

I don't think your Shanba probe was all that significant. The point had been made by others prior to your vote. And I still feel that your unvote was off.

Your comment about being left off of cicero's list would have just been a passing post if not for Adel's glomming onto it. I don't think it was likely to uncover anything of import.

Your probing of Adel has been largely defensive IMO. Mostly shooting down rightfully bogus points of her line of attack. I haven't seen you going back and looking at any of her earlier play as she has done in regards to you, yet you do have a vote cast against her. Did you look back and not find anything is that why it's not there, or where you happy with the evidence at hand?

Ignoring myself, I think Simenon, cicero and Adel have been doing the most work in this game as far as investigating goes, though I'm unhappy Simenon seems to have trailed off as of late. BT's recent posts have been nice but have not made up for his absence for the majority of the game.

Of the people actually posting (ie not Erg0, the Fonz or Shanba) I feel vollkan and Oman have been exceptionally light on the probing (taking vollkan against his normal standard), your posts seem rather reactionary and Jitsu's seem mostly observational similar to vollkan.

[curiouskarmadog]

I think you are correct in regards to my probing of Adel. Her case was poor and from my pov disgenious, that is why I attacked and got angry. I was going somewhere with Shanba until he disappeared..since then (the unvote), it does feel like I have been on the defensive (in regards to everyone but adel)

well, maybe I will try to reread and give a good old fashion player by player break down. Since it looks like I am getting the majority of heat atm I should get my thoughts out there while I can....going to be gone most of the weekend, so hopefully next week.

point on vollkan, I feel his playstyle has been changing as of late...due to ongoing games I can not go into detail yet, but I am used to a different vollkan.

[Adel]

If I was right about ckd's vote on Shanba being a matter of him trying to find a nice place to park his vote for a while, and the he unvoted because he didn't want the attention (and accountibility) of being part of a large wagon, then I would expect him to ignore Shanba after Shanba's return.

[shaft.ed]

So then him acknowledging Shanba's return throws that idea out?

[Adel]

I assume when you get back, you will answer in a little more depth.

and I dont really think you are reading Adel's post

is pretty close to ignoring him, if his original reason for voting shanba was genunine.

If you are chasing scum based off of an early post, why give the potential scum a chance to get caught up on the thread and develop a safe opinion? ckd should press his case against Shanba, direct those questions, & not give him a chance to identify a way out! -- or admit that his orginal vote against Shanba wasn't part of scum-hunting.

[Guardian]

Vote Count 14

Oman[4] (Erg0, vollkan, Shanba, shaft.ed)
Shanba[2] (Jitsu, Oman)
shaft.ed[2] (The Fonz, Simenon)
curiouskarmadog[2] (Adel, BillyTwilight)
Adel[1] (curiouskarmadog)
BillyTwilight[1] (cicero)

~~~

Remember, deadline looms.
I am still vacationing; If I've missed something or players need prodding or whatnot, let me know.

[Jitsu]

My vote on Oman was not because I disliked cicero's defence. That would be pretty stupid. CKD - calm down, re-read Adel's posts, and stop getting wound up. Your OMGUS is emotional and doesn't really make much sense.

I reread 96. I think I interpreted that post wrong. I think Shanba just voted Oman (with no reason given), then then made a separate comment about Cicero's defense.

But even assuming that's true, you still didn't give a reason for the vote on Oman. So what was the reason?

[Jitsu]

point on vollkan, I feel his playstyle has been changing as of late...due to ongoing games I can not go into detail yet, but I am used to a different vollkan.

What do you think this means? I understand you can't comment on his behavior in ongoing games, but can't you still make comparisons between his behavior here in this game and his other completed games?

[Oman]

I've learned that Vollkan isn't playing the way I'd expect him to.

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 don't find that to be wholey correct. I think Vollkan is playing with more certainty than he did in SG-1 (IIRC)

I've learned that CKD is playing in a very town way.

So you disagree with BT's recent assesment then? I think his point was pretty good. Whether or not CKD was knocked back on his heels by Adel, he hasn't really been probing a whole lot.

You're right. I do dissagree with BT. Yes, he's not probing, and thats a point I hadn't considered (especially as he got into me about not probing). His reactions seem town to me, though.

I've learned that you, shaft.ed, are reacting well to the bullshit that I feel was thrown on you.

Hmmm...I don't really recall that much bullshit being thown on me. Care to elaborate?

[/quote]

Early, page 10 or so, there were two major wagons, Vollkan and Shaft.ed. You dealt well with that.

[Simenon]

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.

Some things are hard to articulate and hard to explain. If I understand your argument correctly, you think that gut is what leads you to find scummy flaws in logic. I disagree. I think that scum don't need to use bad logic to win. In fact, I think the best way to catch scums is through looking at tone, sentence structure, and the context to determine scum. And some of those things can't be easily explained.

In case you cared.

[Oman]

What do you think, Adel, of a CKD+Vollkan scumteam?

[Simenon]

The Oman issue is overblown.

[shaft.ed]

I've learned that you, shaft.ed, are reacting well to the bullshit that I feel was thrown on you.

Hmmm...I don't really recall that much bullshit being thown on me. Care to elaborate?

Early, page 10 or so, there were two major wagons, Vollkan and Shaft.ed. You dealt well with that.

Interesting. I only see one vote on vollkan and two on me. I have to assume that by bandwagon you mean the pressure being "thrown on me." I can't help but notice you were part of that pressure. Why do you refer to it as "bullshit" now?

[Adel]

I haven't noted anything that suggests it, or indicates that it is more likely than say a ckd-Erg0 team, or ckd+Fonz team, or a ckd+Oman team for that matter.

It looks like you will be the default lynch at deadline. Feel like doing some posty scumhunting now?

[Oman]

Who me?

The default lynch? That'd be pretty lame, as I don't think I've really done anything scummy and don't understand why I still have votes on me.

Anyway: Shaft.ed. I'm unsure as to which page, but there were two competeing wagons.

[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....

[Adel]

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.