Minvitational 8 - OVER before 611

[cicero]

Do you ever look to see what, specifically, is causing your "gut" reaction? I appreciate gut a lot. But its useful to identify what the specific flags were: timing of posts, certain phrasings. You get the idea.

What I am missing from your answers is the substance. Why specifically Billy Twilight more than Vollkan?

Where is Billy Twilight by the way? His last post is Sunday. You out there, Billy?

[Oman]

In my review I found BT to be far more scummy than Vollkan.

[The Fonz]

I've covered this already. I refer to attacking page 1 votes as reaching. You are thus reaching with this attack

Again, just because you've asserted something, doesn't make it true. It's not a big plank of the case- but it fits the hypothesis, therefore it stays.

Didn't seem comical to me.
I've covered this already. I refer to attacking page 1 votes as reaching. You are thus reaching with this attack.

Now we've progressed to page 2. Here I've already stated that it was a half joking post. It was a long shot to test Oman's reaction. I did not expect to get a read out of it and I didn't. But it was worth a try. Why are you so worried about a L-3 wagon in a game full of responsible people?

I'm not- why did you think Oman would be? That's my point.

No it's not more likely what you said. There were plenty of examples of other people asking for metas D1. Oman backed me up on this on your first accusation. Here you're taking a behavior that multiple people have exhibited and claiming its scummy because I did it.

That's untrue.

Last time I checked there were only scum and town alignments at play, that means it was a null tell and thus nothing. And yes that is true of any response to anything. But a) one doesn't get a response if one doesn't make a comment and b) some statements are more likely to elicit a scum response than others. Glad you agree with me on this one.

I ask you how what you found wasn't 'nothing.' You claimed that it wasn't nothing, but now you're admitting it is.

This is a bald faced lie.

I agree with Jitsu's point against CKD...

unvote vote: CKD

You, sir, are the liar.

Again there are a large number of players doing this same thing, you have no problem with it. In addition scumFonz has handed townshaft.ed his hedgey ass in two games now. Both Heroes and Space Monkey mafia I was wishy washy as hell and you took advantage of it in Heroes by making me second guess my intuation.

Again, the mud defence. JUST BECAUSE OTHER PEOPLE ARE DOING IT DOESN'T MAKE IT NOT SCUMMY IN THE CONEXT OF YOUR PLAY! I read your contributions, and I find a desire to hide behind other people, attempts to 'get reactions' that were never likely to do anything, and a couple of points which just seem like harping on trivialities. Combine this with the delayed OMGUS, and your actions re Adel/CKD, and it just doesn't look to me that you're honestly scumhunting.

[cicero]

Fonz, can you please identify who you are quoting in posts like that. I know it's Shaft.ed but it would be helpful if you could identify in those type of posts.

[The Fonz]

I normally do: but direct quoting there would have led to a quote pyramid, so i took the pertinent bits out.

[shaft.ed]

I'm not- why did you think Oman would be? That's my point

I didn't expect it to get a tell from him. I was just making the statement to generate a response in case it lead to a tell.

You, sir, are the liar

Thanks for quoting the 3 posts where I go back and forth with CKD spelling out why I felt his unvote scummy.

attempts to 'get reactions' that were never likely to do anything

How many early game attampts to get reactions actually amount to something? Everyone was playing incredibly conservative yesterday. I was trying to move the game forward.

[cicero]

That's fine. But just look in the code and put ="shaft.ed" in the first quote bubble if you remember. The rest are then inferred.

[Kison]

What was the problem with the CKD case? I just didn't get the gut I get from reading a scumcase. In fact, looking at Kison's work on it, it seemed more like crazy Adel going to town on X+Y +1!

Are you saying my Vollkan-dedicated paragraph is induced by Adel's insanity(:(), or that I exemplified the insanity of Adel's argument from yesterday(:))?

Cicero : I can see that moving his vote in order to prevent a useless wagon on an absent player is not scummy in itself, but it's not as if he had anywhere better to put it(he kept himself unvoted). CKD seemed to attribute his unvote more to the others with him on the wagon, and its size, which doesn't make as much sense to me.

Have not yet read too deeply into this Fonz VS Shafted debate. Hopefully I'll be able to comment on it before too long.

[cicero]

Kison, why doesn't that make sense to you?

You think other people are scummy so you fear you might inadvertently be helping along a scum wagon. Where's the problem there?

Why do you think a player need a new player to put a vote on in order to move a vote?

[Kison]

Why do you think a player need a new player to put a vote on in order to move a vote?

It's not that I find that unvoting without revoting is necessarily scummy. You said this :

its about realising you are pressuring an absentee and getting off it. Hell. continuing to leave your vote there is scummy in and of itself.

What CKD did was unvote, FoS, and proclaim that his vote was still more or less there. So unvoting without revoting someone else while maintaining the significance of the vote is not really doing something more useful.

You think other people are scummy so you fear you might inadvertently be helping along a scum wagon. Where's the problem there?

I understand that he mentioned not liking the two(?) people who hopped onto the wagon because Shanba wasn't even around to give a response. But the fact that he didn't really follow up on his critiques made that explanation feel less genuine to me. I guess what I recall most about his argument was that he was worried about a quicklynch(size of the wagon). That's the part that doesn't feel valid to me given the actual size of the wagon.

That being said, I'm thinking what I disliked was the focus of CKD's arguments following the backlash he received, primarily the 'unvote due to quicklynch threat' idea, which makes the unvote feel sneakier than it might actually be. This might be because the hounding he received was about that point in particular. I'm not sure. It's something

else

I intend to focus on as I reread. Just this back and forth between you and I has caused me to rethink my initial take. I feel like my brain's playing tug-of-war. But, that

was

my take on it, and being the stubborn bastard that I am, had to explain my line of thinking.

[Guardian]

Prod-ing BillyTwilight and Jitsu.

[Jitsu]

I'm answering my prod. I'll have a more substantive post later this morning.

[shaft.ed]

Oman I'm not really getting your cicero vote. Most of your case against him comes from the fringe of the random stage. I'm personally gettinga townie vibe from him. Do you have any reasons for your case or are you still basing your vote on the early wagon?

[Oman]

What was the problem with the CKD case? I just didn't get the gut I get from reading a scumcase. In fact, looking at Kison's work on it, it seemed more like crazy Adel going to town on X+Y +1!

Are you saying my Vollkan-dedicated paragraph is induced by Adel's insanity(:(), or that I exemplified the insanity of Adel's argument from yesterday(:))?

Do you have any reasons for your case or are you still basing your vote on the early wagon?

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.

[Jitsu]

What was weird to me about Shaft.ed's vote was the fact that he threw it down and didn't feel remotely compelled to say "Well, I'm doing this because...". It was just "I'm here." Bam. And it was after Erg0 speculated about him trying to cause a No Lynch. Not even "I know I said Adel but that isn't going to happen because..."

I dunno. Something about the way it went down tweaks me. Maybe that he felt pressured by Erg0. Maybe he just figured it was self evident. Not enough for a vote. But definitely worth my making a note.

I got the same impression about the tone of the hammer post. It just seemed way too casual for a hammer. Like Vollkan pointed out, I can't imagine what motivation a scum or townie would have for trying to No Lynch, given that CKD flipped town. The only possibility I can think of for someone wanting to do that is if Shaft.ed is a third party role with some weird power or win condition, but that possibility is very unlikely, I think.

I know admitting this is probably going to put my vote under more scrutiny than not, but when I posted that I hit submit instead of preview. I was checking the bold tags and was intending more comment. I didn't get my post up prior to Guardian locking the thread. But it was basically going to say how it was pretty much inevitable that CKD would be lynched. I might be away from thread, so in order to avoid a No Lynch I was hammering. I felt both CKD and Adel slightly scummy so they were better candidates than most.

As I said above, I agree with vollkan that the vote itself is a null tell. With time running out and a No Lynch on the horizon, voting CKD can't really be considered much of a scumtell. Actually, I had checked the thread and saw the first post on Page 24, and was preparing to vote CKD myself. When I went to submit, both Erg0 and Shaft.ed had already voted, and the thread was already locked.

However, I don't quite believe part of your explanation above. It is plausible, but something about this doesn't feel right to me. When you voted for CKD, the two posts immediately above yours were a vote count and Erg0's vote. So it should have been reasonably ovbious that your vote would be the hammer. And you don't appear to contest that you knew it was the hammer.

Now, I'm going to try to imagine what a logical flow of ideas would be. If I'm voting someone near the end of the day, and I'm going to be the hammer, and I've just typed in "hey, I'm here." and cast a vote for CKD, my next thought as a townie would be "Even though this hammer is a townie move, I need to give some kind of reason", so I'd write a quick paragraph with my reason and *then* check the quote tags when I'm done.

I just can't imagine a logical flow of thoughts where I cast a hammer vote and think, hey, you know, I better stop and check those tags before I write out my reason. I mean, sure, if it were a longer post, I could understand it, and hitting Preview would be like "taking a break" and checking out the post partway through, but that hammer post wasn't exactly the sort requiring a break halfway through.

I do think Shaft.ed probably did make a mistake and hit Send a bit too quickly and had some pangs of remorse. But I don't believe it was because he accidently hit Send while intending to check his quote tags on the vote. If I'm right about this, and he did lie, I think it's a little more likely that he is scum.

This, by itself, isn't quite worth a vote, as it is subjective and a pretty fine point, but I still find it a little suspicious. I will reread Fonz's case on Shaft.ed though.

FoS: Shaft.ed

I have some questions also.

@Cicero: How satisfied are you with Shaft.ed's answer I quoted above? Also, admittedly, you thought Adel to be scummy yesterday in part due to meta, and it seems to me that Adel being scum was more of a factor in your view on the game than it was for several other people. My question is, now that she's flipped town, how has that changed your view of things?

@Erg0: I agree with your point that Shaft.ed's vote on Fonz didn't help anything. If you thought Shaft.ed was engineering some plan try to force your vote on CKD, what do you think he was trying to accomplish with that?

@Oman: You seem to be saying that Cicero was not commenting on game issues much from early D1 to Late D1. Can you explain better what you mean by this? If he wasn't commenting on game issues, what do you think he was up to?

@Shaft.ed: In 556, you appeared to pretty much write off the possibility of a Fonz lynch. Yet, in 573, you change your mind and vote him when he had NO votes at that point. If you were honestly trying to get Fonz lynched, why didn't you present a real case? Did you really think that "Fonz has been reaching against me, casting suspicions that are hardly scummy and apply to almost half the players here, and being hypocritical." was going to get Fonz seven votes in 8 hours?

[cicero]

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.

Weird. I don't think one word of this is true.

[cicero]

@Cicero: How satisfied are you with Shaft.ed's answer I quoted above? Also, admittedly, you thought Adel to be scummy yesterday in part due to meta, and it seems to me that Adel being scum was more of a factor in your view on the game than it was for several other people. My question is, now that she's flipped town, how has that changed your view of things?

I'm satisfied with Shaft.ed's answer there as I believe I pretty much already said.

The answer to the Adel question is that it doesn't change much usefully except that I'm not chasing Adel around today calling her scum, which I definitely would be if she was alive, because she gets so wrapped up in her magic Adel logick and attempt to be disingenuous (i.e. "play differently") in every game and be hard to read that she just ends up being scummy.

I'm a bit worried about town's chances in this game at the moment. Maybe I'm just the village idiot but I think day one got off to a bad start with people calling things out as scummy in order to get the game going but are now trapped in the pattern of standing by those convictions. If town is going to win we need to reset and go back to trying hard to get an honest read from our guts. Scum is going to have to claim things that go against what intuitively feels right and that's their weakness. If town miscalibrates its instincts, scum wins.

[Oman]

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.

Weird. I don't think one word of this is true.

And you're the impartial judge of my arguments against you, of course?

[cicero]

Other people can judge and act accordingly. I objectively think you are either scum or you are off your moogle rocker.

[Oman]

Either are possible, I'll grant you that.

[Jitsu]

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.

I'm afraid I can't quite see this.

I'll give you that he was being defensive early, and that did change later in the day, but I'm having trouble seeing the rest.

As far as I could tell, Cicero was pretty active on Day 1 through most of the day. Can you cite examples when he is posting but not commenting on the issues much?

You're using fairly strong language here, and yet, you don't seem to be pushing his wagon. Is Cicero a good enough suspect to deserve a real case from you?

[shaft.ed]

Either are possible, I'll grant you that.

Don't forget both. People always seem to forget both.

[Oman]

Post 40: "Your bandwagon isn't right. I am town. And I suppose I could vote you for voting me with no reason, but the truth is being a cheeky bugger early in the game is probably a town tell. " This is what kicked it off for me. Cicero writes of someone as town early, something I like to do as scum. Not only that, he does it for a null tell, and does something I hate, states himself town. He continues in the subsequent posts, it just seems to be bad logic.
Post 47: "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." This is terrible, obviously terrible.
Post 83: Cicero says Sim is scum several times but is still voting adel. The switches to Erg0 with this: "(like I dont have enough early enemies in the game, let's open up a WHOLE NEW FRONT!.) to draw attention to the fact that he is speaking only when spoken to (I call this my "Candyman" scumtell, and find it surprisingly effective) and, in responding, avoided taking a stand on the issues in play. Instead, he just posted fluff. " TO DRAW ATTENTION? You think you've found scum yet you're valiantly going off to draw attention to someone who isn't posting much?
Pops in 210 to dump on CKD. Seems like he only posted when he had enough ammunition to take someone out.

Thats my issues with cicero.

[shaft.ed]

The only possibility I can think of for someone wanting to do that is if Shaft.ed is a third party role with some weird power or win condition, but that possibility is very unlikely, I think.

This seems like an odd thing to speculate on given the clear ruleset we are working with.

So it should have been reasonably ovbious that your vote would be the hammer. And you don't appear to contest that you knew it was the hammer.

I never contested knowing I was the hammer. Not sure where you got that idea from. Is it more scummy if it was a hammer?

"Even though this hammer is a townie move, I need to give some kind of reason"

If it's that obviously a protown play to explain your hammer, wouldn't you think mescum would have provided a reason with the hammer?

This, by itself, isn't quite worth a vote, as it is subjective and a pretty fine point, but I still find it a little suspicious. I will reread Fonz's case on Shaft.ed though.

Are you always this guarded with your votes? It feels very much like you want to test the waters on a reaching argument instead of just jumping in head first with your vote. It's not like I have a wagon on me or you have another suspect.

@Shaft.ed: In 556, you appeared to pretty much write off the possibility of a Fonz lynch. Yet, in 573, you change your mind and vote him when he had NO votes at that point. If you were honestly trying to get Fonz lynched, why didn't you present a real case? Did you really think that "Fonz has been reaching against me, casting suspicions that are hardly scummy and apply to almost half the players here, and being hypocritical." was going to get Fonz seven votes in 8 hours?

It was Fonz's 557 that made me think he was more likely scum. I should have voted him in my reply in 559. Thinking about the situation over the RL night, I felt the Fonz more likely scum than CKD or Adel. So I put the vote out there with the very clear disclaimer of where I stood on the CKD/Adel issue. Seeing as how both CKD and Adel flipped town, what point would there be in scumShaft.ed trying to derail a mislynch and have a possible No Lynch at deadline? I just wasn't very excited about lynching between CKD and Adel when I felt a better suspect existed.

[shaft.ed]

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.

Weird. I don't think one word of this is true.

Yeah I'm not really getting that from reading cicero either. I read over the cicero wagon yesterday and there really wasn't a lot of information in it, especially with Simenon now dead. I guess that's the only strike against cicero, but a fairly minor one considering Simenon seemed to have moved on about a third of the way through D1.