Minvitational 8 - OVER before 611

[cicero]

That's nice.

Deadline is Wednesday.

[curiouskarmadog]

That's nice.

Deadline is Wednesday.

dammit, didnt know that...ok, will get something later today, though I doubt it will be a player by player thing.

[Jitsu]

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.

What do you mean by "publication in full"?

So you would not be very disappointed if Vollkan discontinued his PBPA posts? Interesting.

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.

And if people do rely too heavily on Vollkan's PBPA posts to catch up on the game and not read closely, that's being lazy and letting others do your work for you. If the scum are going to be lazy, let them be lazy. It should make them easier to catch, right? If the town are going to be lazy, that's just as bad. A town that wants to win shouldn't let people get away with continually polly-parroting someone else's good analysis and not offering any commentary or scumhunting of their own, anyway. IMO, if townie does this, s/he deserves it if someone votes him/her for it. If a scum does it, same deal.

So my question to you is, what are you worried about here? Why are you in favor of Vollkan either ceasing his PBPA posts or their "publication in full"?

[cicero]

With two days left, I'll state my preferences plainly.

On day one I would rather lynch one of our under the radar people or one of the people pushing a bad case, then one of the people having a bad case pushed against them.

Please note the deadline rules. Majority of votes cast at deadline makes a lynch. If no one has a majority there's a no lynch

Shanba and Billy Twilight have given reasonable excuses for their under-contribution and Billy has stepped up recently. Shanba no longer has exams as an excuse and is still under-contributing.

Fonz and Ergo have no excuse. Neither are honestly contributing. Fonz feels like scum Fonz to me. He will duck in and say a few things. When he does his swoop in he gives the illusion of active participation but then goes back to radio silence. This is very much how I felt he played in Pirates vs. Ninjas.

Ergo is simply coasting through day one doing nothing and deserves to hang for it.

Shaft.ed defended Erg0's play as typical day one play. This is very bad. There are other noteworthy alarm bells in Shaft.ed's play but I need to go back to remember what they are.

The case suggesting Vollkan as opportunistically pushing weaker players stands.

Adel is, in my view the worst offender for pushing bad cases. She is also already forming scum groups in her head based on the idea that scum are supporting each other. In one case she discusses (as I recall) a set up of distancing. Please remember that distancing and bussing exist as well. I see no reason to discount an Adel, Vollkan scum team at the moment, for example. Others should see no immediate reason to discount an Adel Cicero scumteam even though Adel and I know this does not exist. You get the idea, though. She also switched up her playstyle once people commented on it.

Simenon's drop off in play is noteworthy.

So is Oman's.

Both were willing to push crapwagons at the beginning of the day, but now seem more interested in riding things out to deadline.

The case's against CKD seem like fluff to me, which doesn't mean they aren't correct by accident. A little of his play seems artificial to me now. In particular the fact that when I've defended him and that became an issue, he's almost actively ignored me and it as an issue. When called out for his emotional reactions, his tone has slowly shifted to a very un-CKD stoicism. Whether he is probing enough is an open question. He says he is but I can see a case for him not.

So anyway, in my view, like most day ones there are lots of small scumtells to draw on. And as usual I, being Cicero, will advocate the lynching of a lurker over a strong contributor. My theory, as always, less information now in return for more information later. As always this will be ignored and someone who was active on day one will die, once again rewarded day one non-contribution as an effective strategy, to my eternal dismay.

[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%

.

[shaft.ed]

What do you mean by "publication in full"?

I'm suggesting that vollkan put down only the meaty parts of his PBP's. I get the feeling some may read such posts and think "nothing to see here" when they go across the more inane sections. For those not worried about it, I suggest you read House Mafia. That game had an all-star cast of townies and I was able to fly under the radar because vollkan was a confirmed innocent who had confidence in me being town, and pretty much all of the townies leaned on him as a crutch for scum-hunting. I realize he isn't a confirmed innocent here, but I do worry that having the cliff notes makes some townies lazy.

I am not trying to censor vollkan. He should post what he feels neccessary for the town. But he has already suggested that limiting his input in such a way may be better for the town. I am voicing my support for this suggestion.

[shaft.ed]

Shaft.ed defended Erg0's play as typical day one play. This is very bad.

I believe I made this statement quite a while ago. I am actually quite miff'ed about Erg0 and the other lurkers. And he has lurked to deadline in another game I am in with him (as well as the Fonz). Quite annoyed about it actually.

Anyway my scum list would be: Oman, CKD and the Fonz. I'm really not liking Oman's "sit back and watch" playstyle. He's lurked in plain site through the whole day, and I felt his answers to my questions as of late were a bit weak. I still don't like CKD's unvote. I think that was the single biggest scum tell of the day, but I still think it's restricted to him being scum with Shanba. His defense against Adel felt like typical townCKD to me, but I've never played with him as scum so I don't know how much deviation to expect. While lynching him may be suboptimal the Shanba tie-in could be worth it. The Fonz did a little bit early on, accused me of lurking in plain site (while I felt he was doing the same) and then dropped off the face of the earth). Don't like his play much today.

I'm also quite annoyed by the lurking in this game (Shanba, BT, Erg0, Fonz, and now Simenon). And as cicero said above I am a little concerned about Simenon's drop off as if cruising in to deadline. I've seen him active across site, but he's not posting in here when it comes crunch time. May consider Simenon if my top three are not available.


I haven't read vollkan's last three PBPA's yet. I'll get comment up on them later most likely.

[cicero]

Why not lynch Shanba then, who is still - post exams - not contributing?

I really don't like associational scumtells on day one. They are double weak.

[Adel]

Why not lynch Shanba then, who is still - post exams - not contributing?

Assuming that a ckd-lynch will not happen, I'm willing to comprimise by lynching Erg0 or The Fonz or Shanba.

[cicero]

Mod - request a prod on all players informing them of the deadline

[shaft.ed]

Why not lynch Shanba then, who is still - post exams - not contributing?

I really don't like associational scumtells on day one. They are double weak.

I'd rather lynch someone with a posting history. But I see your point. If one suspects a CKD/Shanba scum pair, Shanba would be less of a loss to the town if we're wrong about it.

[Adel]

'eff it.

unvote, vote:Shanba

[Adel]

I hate lurking and lurkers. 'kill 'em all.

[Jitsu]

Others should see no immediate reason to discount an Adel Cicero scumteam

even though Adel and I know this does not exist

. You get the idea, though. She also switched up her playstyle once people commented on it.

Obviously, you are asserting that you are town, which is fine -- you can certainly eliminate yourself as a member of any scumteam if you know you are innocent.

Unless you know something about Adel's alignment or role, how can you assert that *Adel knows* it is true?

[Jitsu]

To clarify:

How can you assert that *Adel knows* the two of you are not a scumteam?

[BillyTwilight]

Jitsu, it's quite obvious and your question doesn't make sense. Either he's lying and they are a scumteam or he's not and they aren't. If he's not then Adel is quite aware that they aren't teamscum together.

---

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).

This is part of my problem with CKD's play. I think he attempted to discredit the attack on him; obviously he has tried very hard to do that. However, I think that had he merely left his discussion to explaining his vote then he wouldn't stand out so much to me. Instead I feel that he really tried to attack Adel's person above and beyond what was called for in that situation.

This game is very difficult for me. Here is how I see the play so far day 1:

Attempted approach:

Random phase, quick bandwagon, gauge reactions to the bandwagon, better bandwagon, observe play, proceed into regular day 1 with a lynch later.

Actual results:

Random phase, quick bandwagon, gauge reactions with meta, bandwagon slows down, multiple bandwagons form and dissipate quickly, mass confusion and lurking (myself included), deadline lynch that is little more than random in nature.

In the course of the day many, many minor points have been brought up to be pursued shortly and then forgotten when someone points out that there is very little meaning to be had from them. To be totally honest, the only thing that stuck out to me on rereading is Adel's case against CKD and CKD's reaction. Perhaps that was because it lasted longer and took up a more significant chunk of the game and I was trying to overview in a less details and more overall feel approach in this case, or perhaps it's because CKD's defense was the first truly raw and emotional response from an attacked player in the game; whatever the reason, it sticks out to me as some of the only "real" information that we have to deal with so far in the game. The rest seems mostly speculation and nitpicking.

I have to disagree with CKD's assertion that discrediting a player is a legitimate tactic in the game. There is a big difference between discrediting a persons attack against you and in discrediting the player themselves. I feel that CKD was mixing in the latter with the former; he spent a non trivial amount of time referencing past games and getting conversation turned to Adel's "narrow-mindedness", etc, which I don't feel was very valid at the time. On rereading without paying extreme attention to detail and simply trying to gauge the state of mind of the players as they were posting, I feel that CKD reads like someone who wasn't comfortable with his defense of the unvote and turned to other means to try to relieve pressure on himself.

I am unequivocally against lynching a lurker. I think it's completely useless and gives us no information on the connections between the players alive currently. Suppose we lynch a lurker today and scum kill one tonight? We will be in almost the exact same boat as today, with no resolution to be drawn from day 1 info. Furthermore, lynching a lurker is as bad as random lynching - we are unlikely to hit scum. All things being equal, we need to lynch someone that will give us not only a better chance of hitting scum based on actual game content but also someone who's reveal will help us piece together the information from day 1. My vote is still for CKD.

[Jitsu]

Jitsu, it's quite obvious and your question doesn't make sense. Either he's lying and they are a scumteam or he's not and they aren't. If he's not then Adel is quite aware that they aren't teamscum together.

I see your logic, and I admit my mistake.

But something still sounds funny about the way he phrased that part of his post. He was advising the town not to discount an Adel/Cicero scumteam, but yet, at the same time he affirms that it is untrue and that he and Adel both know that.

Why would he connect himself (subtly or not) to someone he appears to distrust quite a bit, and then advise the town not to discount a case that he knows is untrue?

[cicero]

Because I want the town to look at people bussing, Jitsu. Like I said.

Adel is all like "ooh look at Cicero and CKD kissing" and I'm all like "that's nice, but scum interaction comes in more shades than just red".

And I always phrase it like that. I did it earlier with CKD, I think. When I talk about me and someone else as a scum pair I generally point out that the two of us know it isn't true. For example, Jitsu, I don't know if you are scum or not - but you and I know we aren't a scum PAIR. I know that and you know that.

I am unequivocally against lynching a lurker. I think it's completely useless and gives us no information on the connections between the players alive currently. Suppose we lynch a lurker today and scum kill one tonight? We will be in almost the exact same boat as today, with no resolution to be drawn from day 1 info.

This is the same old argument. Simple fact is that if you let lurkers coast you get stuck with them in the end game instead, with no more information than you have now. If you get rid of them early and push forward a contributory game, you get more information as the game goes along leading to a better end game situation.

Of course I would expect you to oppose lynching a lurker, you lurked through all of day one. But Erg0 doesn't have the excuse of a brand new baby.

[BillyTwilight]

This is the same old argument. Simple fact is that if you let lurkers coast you get stuck with them in the end game instead, with no more information than you have now. If you get rid of them early and push forward a contributory game, you get more information as the game goes along leading to a better end game situation.

Of course I would expect you to oppose lynching a lurker, you lurked through all of day one. But Erg0 doesn't have the excuse of a brand new baby.

I have had this same argument many times. No one has ever convinced me to your side. I don't agree with allowing lurking. Lynching them simply isn't the correct approach to the problem.

I'm of the opinion that all lynches are important; some players believe early game lynches are throw-away lynches that can be wasted on lurkers. Simply put, cicero, the only thing that lynching Erg0 would accomplish is removing a lurker, barring Erg0 being scum, which is not better than random chances at this point. You say it gets rid of a lurker, but what's to say that Erg0 won't be much more active in later game? What's to say that one of the heavy posters in the early game won't lurk heavily later on? It accomplishes nothing and doesn't help us thresh the wheat of todays conversations. If the lurking continues then he (they) need to be replaced. Sucks, but that's the best solution to help; taking lurking into your own hands will bite you more than help you.

This is more of MD topic though. I'll just stick with saying I won't participate in and discourage a lurker hunt.

[shaft.ed]

I'm not a fan of low information lynches.

I would like Shanba to be replaced. This is an invitational and he has four contentless posts. That's sad.

I'd also like to know where Erg0, the Fonz and Simenon are.

[Adel]

Simply put, cicero, the only thing that lynching Erg0 would accomplish is removing a lurker, barring Erg0 being scum, which is not better than random chances at this point.

This game be an idea.

It relies upon three basic assumptions which I feel are valid:

Assumption 1:

At this point, and in this game, lurking players are slightly more likely than average to be scum.

Assumption 2:

Any compromise lynch we reach, because of Guardian's deadline lynch rules and the pace of the game thus far, will be a lynch of very low informational value.

Assumption 3:

A random lynch is better than a no-lynch

Who are the lurker? Oman, Erg0, The Fonz, and Shanba. BT has redeemed himself in recent pages (and has a good excuse).

I say we use the dice tags to pick one of the four, and we lynch that person.

If three other people agree I'll post the list and post the dice tags.

[Adel]

I'm not a fan of low information lynches.

I would like Shanba to be replaced. This is an invitational and he has four contentless posts. That's sad.

I'd also like to know where Erg0, the Fonz and Simenon are.

I would also like Shanba to be replaced.

Should Simenon be on my lurker list for the random lynch?

[Simenon]

I'm not "riding things out until the deadline". I just inherited a large workload, and have been planning to switch my vote for a while.

And anybody who says I'm lurking has standards for activity that are way too high.

[Simenon]

Dislike group effort on the part of Adel + Cicero to remove "lurkers".

[Adel]

Do you really think shaft.ed stands a chance of being lynched today? Why don't you try doing something more productive with your vote?