Minvitational 8 - OVER before 611

[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%

[Adel]

I don't want to get too sidetracked here, but it makes more sens if you take yourself out of it: 8:3 = ~27% chance for any one player other than myself being scum. Based upon my study of completed mini-normals (now six months out of date), day 1 lynches have ~20% (19 and change IIRC) chance of being accurate, while the hypothetical fully random lynches have a 25% chance of being accurate. Those percentages go up after each NK and mislynch, and down after each accurate lynch.
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.

~~~

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

[cicero]

Unvote. Vote Fonz

[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.

[Adel]

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.

[Adel]

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.

no prob. The part I left out is that you would be able to use the daily % chance of each other player being scum as a control.

[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%

[mith]

Vote Count 15

Oman[3] (Erg0, Shanba, shaft.ed)
Shanba[2] (Jitsu, Oman)
shaft.ed[2] (The Fonz, Simenon)
curiouskarmadog[2] (Adel, BillyTwilight)
Adel[1] (curiouskarmadog)
The Fonz[1] (cicero)


Not Voting[1] (vollkan)

[shaft.ed]

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

that's not even close to addressing my question.

I dont have time to read vollkan's posting right now but I'm glad to see some contribution.

[shaft.ed]

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.

I need to get better at putting my points across. I swore I said this word for word when I was going back and forth with CKD, but it is buried in my text and not clear. I'm still puzzling if there's anything that makes this scummy outside of a Shanba partnership cause I really don't see it. I know Adel put for the "avoiding being on bandwagon" theory earlier, but the unvote out of the blue draws more attention that being the originator of a valid pressure wagon doesn't it?

Also, vollkan I see your point re: the vollkan effect and the PBP's. I do think people will be using them as a cliff notes version of the game. I would not be terribly disappointed if you discontinued there use, or at least there publication in full.

[Adel]

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.

I need to get better at putting my points across. I swore I said this word for word when I was going back and forth with CKD, but it is buried in my text and not clear. I'm still puzzling if there's anything that makes this scummy outside of a Shanba partnership cause I really don't see it. I know Adel put for

th

the "avoiding being on bandwagon" theory earlier, but the unvote out of the blue draws more attention

that

then

being the originator of a valid pressure wagon doesn't it?

I'm not a grammer nazi (I know that I live in a glass house) I'm just making corrections in the above post to ensure that I'm reading it correctly.

I didn't connect the dots for why there would be a ckd+shanba scumteam until reading this post and trying to think of reason ckd wouldn't follow up more strongly on Shanba once Shanba returned.. I needed it spelled out clearly like you did in this post.

~~~

I don't think Shanba expected his unvote to draw attention. I think ckd-scum saw a chance to slip off the wagon before it became too big.

ckd+shanba +2

ckd is finially over my 40% day 1 criterion. I'm ready to lynch him. I now see his most likely partners to be Shanba and cicero.

~~~

I really don't like how stingy people are being with their votes. Votes are one of the only quantifiable pieces of information a mafia game provides. My ability to detect scum relies upon them.

~~~

mod: please prod The Fonz and Erg0, and Shanba if he needs it by the time you check this.

[Oman]

Vollkan effect does not occur in this case I'm sure.

[shaft.ed]

Vollkan effect does not occur in this case I'm sure.

Are you talking about the quality of the players involved? Cause in House Mafia the player list contained CKD, Erg0, Adel and Pooky. I'd say there's potential. And thanks for avoiding my question again.

[Oman]

Oh sorry, I'll do that question now.

Re: vollkan effect: I'm talking mostly about the fact that it has been recognised so epoeple will likely avoid it.

[Oman]

I refer to it as Bullshit now because in hindsight it was built on very very little but overblown. Much like most D1 stuff.

[cicero]

Sorry - exactly what is the "Vollkan effect"? He does his PBPAs and then inexperienced players pooh themselves?

[Adel]

no, he does a PBPA and then everyone else stops posting.

[cicero]

oh, that's weird.

I stop posting now and then because I figure I am overposting. That's about it. :p

[Oman]

No he does PBPA and everyone follows them blindly.

[cicero]

Ah. That's not weird. That's just dumb. (and smart of him).

[Oman]

The reference has been made to cliff notes. That's pretty accurate of the phenomena.

[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%

.

[curiouskarmadog]

I am still here...getting my game ready to mod, work has been busy, and I am getting behind on a couple other games...should be posting back here by Thursday....hopefully with a mini Player by player break down, but no promises.