Mini 701 - That's a Wrap! (Game Over)

[mrfixij]

/confirm

[mrfixij]

Well, this game is a pleasant surprise. Glad to have a few familiar faces and a few new ones in game.

Spyre, if your avatar is from Star Control 2, I officially love you.

That being said:

vote vollkan

[mrfixij]

Can someone explain to me why a random jokevote on oneself is any different to a random jokevote on somebody else? I'm curious.

The only time it is in your faction's best interests to self-vote is when playing as scum. Usually it's done when the scum is at L-1 and discussion is continuing. The scum will vote himself to cut off discussion, allow his team to get in a night kill and then disrupt town's momentum.

As a joke vote though, it's hardly different. The idea behind a random vote is to have a chance at landing on scum. If you vote for yourself, you're either not contributing to that chance or saying that you are, in fact, scum.

I don't like it, but I'm already voting for him, so there's not much more I can do.

-------------------------

Vote Count - Day 1 - As of Post 35

With 10 alive, 6 votes is majority.

Juls - 0 ()

orangepenguin - 2 (Spyrex, Juls)

ortolan - 0 ()
RealityFan - 0 ()
springlullaby - 1 (ortolan)

Ectomancer - 2 (orangepenguin)

vollkan - 2 (mrfixij, vollkan)

SpyreX - 0 ()
mrfixij - 0 ()
TDC - 0 ()

Not Voting - 4 (TDC, Ectomancer, springlullaby, RealityFan)

[mrfixij]

mrfixij I didn't think the idea of random voting was to try to "land on scum", more to see what reactions you get- i.e. scum may react defensively to your vote even though it wasn't serious etc., which then makes you wonder why they are so defensive.

Perhaps a random self-vote isn't that constructive when you're town, especially because it makes others suspicious of you, but I hardly think it can be considered a hanging offence by itself.

I realize how my application of degree can be misinterpreted. I don't like the play in any situation. As it is, if I had to place suspicion on

edgeworth

vollkan, it would be extremely minor at this point. Were it later in the game, I'd consider a self-vote damning. As it is, with this game being rather light-hearted so far, I'm just expressing my distaste for the move in general, not necessarily voll's application of it. The part about having my vote on him already was tongue-in-cheek when I wrote it. As an afterthought, it appears significantly less so.

[mrfixij]

I realize how my application of degree can be misinterpreted. I don't like the play in any situation. As it is, if I had to place suspicion on edgeworth vollkan, it would be extremely minor at this point. Were it later in the game, I'd consider a self-vote damning. As it is, with this game being rather light-hearted so far, I'm just expressing my distaste for the move in general, not necessarily voll's application of it. The part about having my vote on him already was tongue-in-cheek when I wrote it. As an afterthought, it appears significantly less so.

I don't care how "minor" a suspicion is. If you suspect me for something, you have to prove that it is scummy.

And,"I don't like it"/"distaste" is NOT an acceptable justification for suspecting something!

Also, how on earth can you justifying treating something as generally scummy without regard for the particular circumstances?

As far as I can tell, a self-vote is not pro-town behavior. Perhaps I am looking at objective results that would be seen in a page 1 summary rather than the contribution that it would have to discussion. As it is, if the goal behind a self vote was to generate discussion, it's working. But by the inherent value of a vote, a self-vote serves to generate confusion. At later times in the game it can guillotine discussion as I've said.

Like I say, from my view of the game, a self-vote has no place. It fails to apply pressure on anyone, and the only chance it has of landing on scum is if you yourself are scum. By the inherent value of a vote (+1 to lynch), it is not pro-town behavior. I understand the application which you are using it for, but i consider it largely poor form.

[mrfixij]

It should also be noted, as I carelessly failed to mention in my prior post, that a vote can be used to apply pressure during the limbo in which the prudence of a lynch is uncertain. Said pressure can force a town to defend himself or a scum to slip up. Again, when self-voting, you cannot pressure yourself, and it's against your faction's play to lead towards your own lynch.

Perhaps this is a case of Il ne pas de hors texte, or "there is nothing past the text." A disagreement stems not from a disagreement of ideas but from a disagreement of definition. I suspect that my definition of the purpose of a vote is substantially smaller and more narrow than yours.

[mrfixij]

Disagree.

Votes for "pressure" without any argument behind them are purely meaningless. Town cannot defend themselves because, by definition, there is nothing to defend against.

The only effect of a "pressure" vote is to, potentially, cause someone to react badly - but that is not any more or less likely to come from scum or town. It ultimately just reflects the ability of the players and says squat about their alignment.

I'll prove it:

Unvote, Vote: mrfixij

Feeling pressured?
...
Not even a little bit?

With this I disagree. In the absence of power roles (which is the effective situation that exists on day 1), no CERTAINTY of scum can be established. From a strictly numerical and probability standpoint, each vote exponentially increases your chance of being lynched. While a drastic oversimplification of the voting process, mathematically it remains true.

Being that we have 10 players, assume 10 unloaded 10-sided dice. It would take 6 dice landing on the same number to lynch. If votes were

truly

random, if each vote is taken sequentially, two consecutive rolls landing on the same number drastically increases the chance of said number reaching the quota of 6. It means that rather than 3/5 of the total pool, it requires 1/2 of the remaining pool to lynch, 10% less than required previously. If a player has more votes on him, a significantly lesser percentage of the remaining player pool needs to vote for him to lynch him. Granted, there is a significant subjective degree, but as stated above, this is a dramatic oversimplification, much like a spherical cow in physics.

As arguments get tossed around, posts are torn apart and logic becomes shaky, the dice begin to get loaded, or as we call it in mafia, a player looks "scummy". This means that a player is more likely to receive a vote from any given player. If you pack this on top of the reduced portion of the player pool required to lynch, you begin to see the numeric effect of pressure votes. It is a general fallacy to consider objectively that where a vote is cast is a scumtell. The first vote is just as damning as the last mathematically, instead we use a psychological tendency of where a vote is, in turn playing a WIFOM game.

Again, I believe we view the game from different eyes. I see a vote as a primary indication of probability adjustment and the reasoning as a secondary adjustment on top of said vote. I believe I understand the general priority of your logic, but have a hard time verbalizing it.

[mrfixij]

Policy.

[mrfixij]

@TDC: I'd have preferred a dice vote, even if it had landed on himself. It shows that it is indeed random as opposed to deliberate and inflammatory. Again though, that's based on my idea of a vote, which it seems that Voll and I have agreed to disagree on.

@

Star Control

SpyreX, very well then, if you don't mind, since I'm at a bit of a loss at the moment, would you care to lead the discussion away from our mafia theory tangent?

[mrfixij]

One thing I'd like to point out, is that with self-votes now being votes for no-lynch, "what ifs" about future self-voting in this game is more discussion of mafia theory. As Spyre said, it's great conversation and wonderfully interesting, but unfortunately, it doesn't help us catch scum. It does, however, set a tone for players that will be a good reference point for further down the line.

[mrfixij]

Take a scan through and let's see what you've got.

[mrfixij]

mrfixij - begins by saying that it is only in scum's interests to self-vote (Big claim). Then says he is only expressing distate in general and his suspicion of me for it was only extremely minor - this is a major backpedal from what he just said, and he doesn't acknowledge that fact. If something is only ever proscum, it cannot ever be only minorly suspicious. Then we start going into spherical cows

I think I can address this. I stated before that the misunderstanding and suspicion vs. distaste is a matter of degree. Vollkan himself states that he uses a sliding scale from 1-100 to determine how scummy a player is. IIRC, he uses 1 for confirmed town and 100 for confirmed scum. Naturally, some statements, logical fallacies, etc, will slide that scale further.

As it is, I believe that tells can also be placed on that sliding line. A self vote will never, EVER go below 50 on that line. As the game goes on, it slides progressively to the right as each vote becomes more and more significant (again, going back to my spherical cow).

If I am, again to use the Vollkan sliding scale, my personal interpretation is that between 40 and 60 is essentially a null-tell. It leans one direction or the other, but is not worthy of the same degree of investigation that a more extreme tell would be. Rather than using this numbers system, I usually express a like/dislike for posts that fall in that range. It just so happens to be that it is easier to explain with Vollkan's sliding scale (which I may need to borrow for future use). I consider suspicion to be from 60-100, with varying degrees of suspicion that I tend to use subjective terms for.

As a quick recap, a self vote will never fall below 50. I will always and unconditionally express distaste for it. The situation dictates the extremity of suspicion, which prior to clarifying I called "extremely minor", or in my personal range, "distasteful."

Again, the statement that Vollkan is requesting out of me is justification for suspicion that he reads as more severe than I wish to put forth.

[mrfixij]

For all the playa's in the house:

What -are- your motives for jumping on him? No walls of text, just nice and simple.

Policy. After the policy phase was over, it was just reactionary.

[mrfixij]

Hi, I'm here.

Can we have your thoughts so far?

[mrfixij]

As per TDC's request, my thoughts on post 75, and an expansion of.

Prior to that post Spyre was fairly... lacking. He issued a compliment (in my opinion) to Voll and I for our neutrality in post 52, as follows a portion:

From an outsider not even concerned necessarily with what is being spoken but the how of it - ecto is very suspicious. My reads show both you and volk behaving neutrally (although on different sides of the argument) - echo is aggressive to the point that it sends up warning flares.

This establishes a position, but also seems to be an appeal to emotion to both Voll and I, who being on opposite sides of a verbose debate from the start, would send a powerful message if we were to both agree with a decision/suspicion that Spyre would make. Meanwhile, ecto, who takes up a similar position to mine, but strays from the theoretical aspect and goes straight to attacking Vollkan, is thrown to the wayside as dangerously aggressive, sending up "warning flares."

Then in post 59, Spyre is commenting on the game, as opposed to the events therein. It's almost like a way to ward off a prod for inactivity, except Spyre is being plenty active.

62: Again pushing on Ecto for being aggressive. I don't know about Spyre, or the rest of you for that matter, but I prefer having at least one aggressive player to keep the game moving, as opposed to 10 semi-lurkers. I also think that it's not scummy to be aggressive. At the very least, it's not anti-town behavior. I'd rather a player take a strong point and stand behind it than only go halfway and back off before he is convinced of a player's town/scum status. Aside from that however, post 62 is rather inconsequential. His reference to "the razor" I presume to be Occam's Razor, but I fail to see its application and would like him to clarify what he meant by that.

64: Theory, establishing a conservative meta. Perhaps trying to give his vote more emphasis when it is cast non-randomly.

Post 75 is what I was initially asked about, before I decided that the rest of his recent posts deserved some analysis. Again, he continues an appeal to emotion/authority when he ambiguously flatters Vollkan from the start. The attempt at humor with a cowstorm was rather entertaining, but insubstantial. And he returns to a mention of the onus, which neither agrees nor disagrees with Vollkan, but discourages gut play and says that a lynch should require a solid case. As obvious as it is, I'm inclined to believe this statement to be incredibly slightly pro-town.

There is nothing remaining on page 4 of any real significance, save for this little tidbit at the end.

I can see the method to Volk's madness. Its not just pure theory at this point.

Again, I'll try more specifically:

Echo, what are your reason(s) for pushing on the self-vote so strongly?

The part about ecto I like. I don't think Ecto's scummy at this point. Spyre does, and is pushing it. However, he's not planting his feet so to speak, so part of the pressure he's putting on Ecto is causing him to slide backwards himself. If his argument against Ecto so far was more solid, I'd refrain from saying that he's overusing appeals to emotion, gut instinct, and a small amount of craplogic.

Post 108 is where Spyre finally brings something to the table, and on initial inspection, I'm inclined to say it's good. He finally gets his feet secure and stops sliding backwards. As much as I dread using separate tabs to get my point across, I think I'm finally going to have to for this post.

This post was put together to question the motivations of Spyrex, who I believe to both be buddying up, and 'taking sides' in an argument that he believes could result in the lynch of one or both of us. If you need an extrapolation, it is my suspicion that he could be scum that was simply looking for the first crack between two town players (this theory is dependent upon Vollkan being town of course), and then Spyrex is simply making himself the wedge to widen the crack into a lynch.

This is cute on some level. If either of you got lynched solely on the grounds of this discussion then the town might as well throw in the towel. However, what comes out of it might cause, in fact, a new and directly-relevant discussion of

why

the first discussion went the way it did.

Am I really buddying up to Volkan? Of course not. I lean town on him because of what his discussion is bringing to light - all of my comments have been directed at what he is saying in context of this discussion. I tend to think, at this moment, he is a town pushing for discussion versus a scum looking for a gambit to trap a town in for a lynch.

This brings up an interesting point. First off, Spyre makes a slight ad hominem/degradation of the validity of Ecto's point, but after doing so says that a lynch which is fundamentally based on a difference in viewpoint of policy would be a nail in the coffin for town. Which is funny because Spyre places no suspicion on me when I say that my vote on Voll is because of policy.

I'm also failing to see how we can reflect on WHY the conversation went the way it did, seeing as how if we did so after N1, we would be using post-hoc logic, which only is valid under the invalid assumption that a suspect MUST be scum. It's playing a WIFOM game.

I also feel that all of Spyre's appeals to emotion are in a direct effort to establish a (false?) linking between him and Vollkan. As I said previously, he compliments both myself and Vollkan for our neutrality. Even if he claims to not realize it, I fail to see how it can be argued that he isn't buddying up to Vollkan, and to a lesser extent, me.

As for his point 1: Do you mean to tell me that prior to Vollkan's explanation you weren't confused? Because I sure as hell was. Point two/three seems to be a case of making a case out of something which is ultimately a null-tell. Spyre has a somewhat valid if confusing and circular point against Ecto here. There's been many times in which I have ceded a point because I realized that there was a fundamental flaw in my logic. I consider that not a scummy trait, but rather an honest one. Of course though, we cannot judge sincerity, so your point does stand, but I don't consider it to be a strong one.


As it is right now, I'm not convinced of Vollkan or Ecto's alignment. I AM, however, convinced that Spyre's case against Ecto is weak and rather unfounded up until recently, where even then it has holes. As a result, I would like to

unvote
vote: SpyreX

I don't like to face the possibility that a fellow Star Control 2 fan could be scum though (fanboy plug, lol)

[mrfixij]

Also, an additional point that I carelessly forgot to add into my vote, one part of post 52 REALLY irks me.

From an outsider not even concerned necessarily with what is being spoken but the how of it

- ecto is very suspicious. My reads show both you and volk behaving neutrally (although on different sides of the argument) - echo is aggressive to the point that it sends up warning flares.

You may have been an outsider to that discussion, but you are an insider to this game. As town, not only the how but the what is crucial to all of your logical deductions. You don't know if there was a tiny scum slipup in that discussion, and from the bolded portion, it appears that you aren't concerned with that possibility. We've already said that scum go off gut feelings, you're saying in not so many words that you're reading through that discussion not to find evidence but to build a gut feeling.

[mrfixij]

I'm confused to all hell as to WHAT exactly ort was saying in his vote post. You're basically saying that you have no read on Voll's affiliation with Spyre, have no read on my affiliation with Ecto, and have no opinion although you entertain the ideas of the starting discussion. While it's great to have you sitting on the sidelines as a spectator, I'd kindly like to ask you to step into the playing field and give a

BIT

more material than a bunch of non-reads.

[mrfixij]

I'm confused to all hell as to WHAT exactly ort was saying in his vote post. You're basically saying that you have no read on Voll's affiliation with Spyre, have no read on my affiliation with Ecto, and have no opinion although you entertain the ideas of the starting discussion. While it's great to have you sitting on the sidelines as a spectator, I'd kindly like to ask you to step into the playing field and give a

BIT

more material than a bunch of non-reads.

Saying what I did about my varying hypotheses was meant to relate to what I said about the theory discussion being relatively unhelpful in actually turning up scum. To support, this I started that all it had given me were various hypotheses, none of which have particularly more support than any other (but obviously, I have a slight leaning towards Ectomancer). And you can hardly say my post was like that of a mere spectator, obviously it was at least substantive enough to draw a vote from springlullaby.

I disrespectfully disagree. Your post gave the impression that you had no clue what was going on, was overly ambiguous, and drew a vote from springlullaby BECAUSE of that. Very similar to posting a list of all players with a brief summary of your thoughts on each one, you posted a respectably sized post with absolutely no content, making it seem like you're paying attention when really you're not. I'm willing to pass it off as a mistake, mostly because I think my vote on SpyreX is more justified and voting for you would be based on policy alone. However, don't assume that your post was good because it made spring vote for you.

[mrfixij]

I honestly can't make a read one way or the other on ecto, but I can say that Ort's "case" is using other peoples' logic and is hardly a case at all. I'm going to leave an

FOS: Ort

If you have one more post of craplogic, my vote goes to you. Policy or just general scummyness, please be a little more sensical and use your own logic, even if it just building off someone else's case, bring MORE to the table.

[mrfixij]

I still think that SpyreX needs to address the contradiction I pointed out prior, how is ecto scummy for pursuing a lynch based on what Spyre deems no more than policy than I am for that same reasoning behind a vote? However, I also think Orto is digging himself a deep grave. At this point, it could very well be an elementary slipup is turning him into a lynchalicious, but a few things I'd like to know from him before I place a vote.

What exactly did you mean in your 7th post, quoted here?

It wouldn't be my choice of a case. I don't think it should be yours. That's all.

I think this whole discussion to be weird. It is mostly about theory (the self vote, what is "gut") and there are only a few people actively posting. Personally, as noob, I'm quite scared by the huge posts, but what I get from them, doesn't seem to be worth the effort, as it doesn't tell me a lot about the game itself. From that, people suddenly find scum. That is why I vote.

I have to agree with this to a large extent.

In this discussion it's hard to distinguish an argumentative nature from excessive aggression (and even excessive aggression isn't a guarantee of scuminness).

Thus far I've entertained many different hypotheses e.g. the self-vote and ensuing discussion was one big gambit by vollkan or he was simply trying to bait people into attacking him irrationally to show up scum. He is/isn't in league with SpyreX. mrfixij is/isn't in league with Ectomancer etc. I don't particularly favour any however I've got a leaning against Ectomancer, especially in light of how orangepenguin and SpyreX represent the progression of his argument.

So I'm going to

Vote: Ectomancer

which puts him at L-2. I wouldn't suggest anyone else votes for him without providing (very) strong justification at this point.

Also to springlullaby: your last post (114) still does not explain why you self-voted then voted for vollkan for doing the same.

It seems that you're implying a pairing or antipairing between myself and ecto, and a pairing or antipairing between Spyre and Voll.

This is relevant to my interests because one: if you had your way with your vote, ecto would be on his way to getting lynched, and you meant in your post that there is SOME connection between me and him, which places me under suspicion tomorrow. Naturally, I don't want that, so I'd like you to explain yourself. Also, I don't like this because my vote is on Spyre, and if there were a pairing or antipairing between Spyre and Voll, I should find Voll suspicious, which at the moment I have no lean on him.

Also, I feel this needs to be addressed.

I also acknowledge the case against Ectomancer isn't particularly strong. It's possible he is townie and just likes indulging in lengthy theory discussions mid-game. I also see it as quite viable, however, that, as mafia, he tried to jump on you for the self-vote (as can often be done successfully in other games) then realised after your rebuttal that no-one else would support it, was drawn into a deep discussion of why he had reacted against it, and whether that sort of thing is good or bad in general (a discussion which he tried to curtail in post 99).

Could you elaborate on this a little bit? I find it interesting that you accuse him of jumping on Vollkan when he never voted for him. If anything, it seems more like playing devil's advocate than jumping on him.

Also, why is it that you seem to have a persistent nay-sayer vibe about you? It seems that the only opinion you're consistent with is that of scum-tells not being effective and the likeliness of lynching a towny. That seems scummy, and a future-justification of lynching a townie by accident.

[mrfixij]

Mason or scum it looks like.

[mrfixij]

Do we really have no other idea's then vote ecto, or vote vollkan? As good as it started, voting for the major players is still kind of random.

I don't believe I have yet advocated lynching Vollkan.

If we assume the two O's are town, then scum would have known it. Not recalling who brought it up at the time, I would wonder about quick votes on the wagon, or of course, the person who first complained that the wagon was "building too fast".

How would scum have known that they're masons? IIRC, momentum halted as soon as the mason claim came to be. I think this course of thought will only yield a WIFOM, which I'm not a big fan of following. I'm still not a fan of Spyre's appeasement strategy and his counter-aggression against Ecto's fast play.

[mrfixij]

The appeasement was part of the reasoning for my vote initially. You seemed to be trying to buddy up to both Vollkan and I. At this point, I'm restating the case I made initially, and summarizing it in case anyone doesn't remember.

[mrfixij]

This post was put together to question the motivations of Spyrex, who I believe to both be buddying up, and 'taking sides' in an argument that he believes could result in the lynch of one or both of us. If you need an extrapolation, it is my suspicion that he could be scum that was simply looking for the first crack between two town players (this theory is dependent upon Vollkan being town of course), and then Spyrex is simply making himself the wedge to widen the crack into a lynch.

This is cute on some level. If either of you got lynched solely on the grounds of this discussion then the town might as well throw in the towel. However, what comes out of it might cause, in fact, a new and directly-relevant discussion of

why

the first discussion went the way it did.

Am I really buddying up to Volkan? Of course not. I lean town on him because of what his discussion is bringing to light - all of my comments have been directed at what he is saying in context of this discussion. I tend to think, at this moment, he is a town pushing for discussion versus a scum looking for a gambit to trap a town in for a lynch.

This brings up an interesting point. First off, Spyre makes a slight ad hominem/degradation of the validity of Ecto's point, but after doing so says that a lynch which is fundamentally based on a difference in viewpoint of policy would be a nail in the coffin for town. Which is funny because Spyre places no suspicion on me when I say that my vote on Voll is because of policy.

This is the big issue I've had. The fundamental arguement at said point in the game was based on Il nya de pas de hors texte. A disagreement on terms and mafia theory. It was eventually resolved, but that doesn't excuse your condemnation of a policy lynch without involving me in your suspicion.

[mrfixij]

Again, where does Ecto say that the play was policy?

I've been very clear about this - the whole "enemy loves confusion" and further statements set a tone; not one of a policy lynch but of "Volkan, who is causing said confusion, is the enemy."

This aggression in and of itself wasn't the kicker. When combined with the 180 on the issue and the attack on me for it was.

Just because I'm not voting for you doesn't mean I'm not suspicious. However, when looking at your interaction versus Ecto's in that mess I find ecto's play to be far more suspicious.

It seems rather obvious to me that the case against Vollkan was a continuation of the self-vote, and later a disagreement over "gut" and whether or not it's acceptable in arguement. I don't know about you, but I consider that kind of case/argument policy.

@ ecto: my bad, I misunderstood your pronoun use at 1:17 AM. I had assumed that you mean "it" as in the mason claim, since scum knowing who is town hardly seems worthy of mention.

The second paragraph confuses me, could you elaborate as to who and what exactly you are addressing?

@ Mykonian: Your last paragraph is also confusing, I can't help but feel that you made a typo there and skewed what you meant to say, because I don't get it.

[mrfixij]

@ Mykonian: Your last paragraph is also confusing, I can't help but feel that you made a typo there and skewed what you meant to say, because I don't get it.

Could be. I'm not very good on English, so maybe I stated it a bit weird. Could you quote the part you don't understand, then I can try say it in different words.

But after this happened, like Ecto said, we should look at what happened around it, and just blindly go back to the big players, the people that actually made this game the first pages. It is too easy, and has little basis. I know it isn't always right, maybe even wrong, but I like active players better then lurkers.

I think I get what you're trying to say, but I'd rather you restate it to avoid any confusion. Basically you're saying that our lurkers are just as big of a threat if not moreso than our active players.

Also, @ posts 250 and 251, I don't want to discuss an ongoing game, but I just saw town hit a scumlynch D1 based on meta. It's a valid tool in the town and mafia arsenal and shouldn't be discounted. It just so happens that it's easy to manipulate by a perceptive player, which vollkan definitely is. The case still remains that it can't hurt to check vollkan's scum games if you wanted to declare him pro-town.

Yeah, when I wrote "dropped like a hot potato" I meant your unvote. (Which, as you'll admit changes the tone of your questioning of him a lot).

If you don't like implicit claims, why did you not just ask them about it, but instead pretended nothing happened? Policy?

As for it possibly being something other than a mason claim - They both claimed to be 100% sure. Unless you consider two cops investigating each other a viable possibility.

That's post-hoc logic. Scum doesn't know power roles. Town doesn't know scum. It's to town's advantage to avoid drawing out or claiming power roles whilst lynching scum, but even moreso to avoid lynching power roles. We cannot assume that vollkan's line of question was to draw out the mason claim, as we do not know if vollkan believed ort to be scum or KNEW him to be town. It's truly a null-tell in the rapidity of which he pulled his vote. Would you rather he typed a multi-paragraph response and took his time unvoting while a scum or foolish town player said "Nope, don't buy the claim" and lynched ort? I think that a hasty unvote was a towny move. Whether or not it fits Voll's meta is another story.

@spyre: Please explain to me how vollkan's activity is explicitly pro-town. If you refuse to acknowledge his meta, how do you know that this is not EXACTLY how vollkan acts as scum?

Rewritten for easier viewing with permission from mrfixij - Rage

[mrfixij]

Would you rather he typed a multi-paragraph response and took his time unvoting while a scum or foolish town player said "Nope, don't buy the claim" and lynched ort? I think that a hasty unvote was a towny move.

You are misunderstanding me. I had asked vollkan why he didn't unvote when I unvoted (a page or so earlier than when he actually did).

Yes indeed, I am misunderstanding you. Requesting the jury to ignore said statement.

[mrfixij]

Looking back on page 8 where the unofficial mason claim was that TDC caught and the rest of us didn't completely buy into, I just realized how much information we can garner from that.


Mama_Ku Juls - 0 ()
orangepenguin - 0 ()
ortolan - 3 (vollkan, Spyrex, springlullaby)
mykonian RealityFan - 0 ()
springlullaby - 0 ()
Ectomancer - 2 (ortolan, orangepenguin)
vollkan - 0 ()
SpyreX - 2 (mrfixij, Ectomancer)
mrfixij - 0 ()
TDC - 0 ()

Not Voting - 3 (TDC, mykonian, Mana_Ku Juls)

We have 3 votes for all but known town, and one that was just pulled from known town (TDC voting for Orange).

4 votes were elsewhere.

Given that we now know with reasonable certainty that Ortolan and Orange are town, it is rather feasible that at least one of the votes on those two is from scum.

Basically, with some players confirmed town, we now have vote records to show scummy play.

I think after Vollkan's point about the subjective logic for her vote on Ort, it's good enough for me to abandon my vote on Spyre and at least see what comes from Spyre.

unvote:
vote: Springlullaby

[mrfixij]

That last instance of Spyre should say spring. And I messed up the bold tag.

unvote
Vote: Springlullaby

[mrfixij]

Alright guys, I just got back from work.

I think spyre's case on spring is pretty solid. The one thing that I did notice is this.

Yes you were the first to vote a mason. No, your vote had nothing to do with my vote. As should be blindlingly obvious from what I said - I was talking about Ecto/Volk, Ecto/SpyreX and Ort/Volk.

Good reason? I'm sold on you being scum. If I said I didn't what would you do, night kill me? Twisted Evil

Or are you going to come out and say I'm scum?

Post-hoc logic. Town didn't know he was mason, scum didn't know he was mason. If bob is scum and I am the first to vote for bob, does that make me scum or town?

[mrfixij]

@TDC: I have a monster post that I'm drafting right now that explains my vote further, addresses why I've been less active recently and throws fuel on the fire. Just give it a few minutes.

[mrfixij]

Its just as ballsy as if the masons are actually scum. With 10 of us there is a very, very high chance of only two scum - I would be really surprised if they connect themselves as simply as the obvious pairings would be. Again, this connects with SL being scum - there is not a definitive partner (a few that would be highly surprising, but no one specific that stands out).

Not really a big fan of discussing setup over members. And I disagree with you on what it's likely to be, but that's for another day.

Well, yes and no. The main contradiction I am not seeing as small - I expect rational coherence in town; I may not always agree with what someones thought process is, but normally a town is going to connect-the-dots as it were. The idea of condemning self-voting while self-voting doesn't do that. When combined with the other pieces it sets off a scum klaxon.

I absolutely agree. I felt like there was a gigantic bell of irony tolling when she self-voted, as if to signify a "lynch me" sign.

Ohh there are more players that are lurking. There is also a direct correlation between the players that are lurking AND the players that SL didn't mention. I cant go chasing them all around until I have proven my hypothesis correct with SL being scum however.

I know you posted a list of lurkers last page. I just caught a 3 day break from work, so I finally got time to make a serious post after having caught up as opposed to responding only to recent events. If you feel like checking my active games, you'll note that my activity in all of them has dropped sharply recently, since I started training at my new job in preparation for the Christmas season. If I catch any good days off, I'll try to stop in and give my thoughts from here on out, but don't expect a set interval/regular timing. Days off are the exception, not the rule.

So to get down to the nitty gritty, the good and bad of the spring case.

good

Post 47 wrote:
Hi guys,

vote: springlullaby

OHH NOES another self-vote. This, in and of itself, wasn't a big deal. However, this self-vote came in after the ball had started a rolling on the discussion about Volkan's - and it slid right in. What really makes this stand out is her next post:

Post 68 wrote:
Lol, at least you seem to be consistent with yourself.

IMO self-vote is clearly antitown because random votes, beside the joke-ness, is meant to signify a willingness to catch scum. Self-vote however is an entirely selfish act, which give nothing about yourself and who you are willing to vote. However I do think that given the present state of the meta, even though the 'you have no proof you can't lynch me' state of mind is IMO best left to scum, people who self vote are equally likely to be scum than town.

What is left is judging the self voter's character. I think you may just be pretentious enough to be the type to play on the 'you can't prove what I did is bad' thing.

Vote Vollkan

You've been talking lot, tell me, have you gained any insight on people's alignment from your discussion?

That said, I also don't like Ectomancer, there is something muffled in his toeing the line of aggression with Vollkan.


This one has a few key points that stand out

1.) She calls self-voting (not Volkan's specific instance) an antitown play. More to the point, he says it shows no willingness to catch scum.
--- See her first post.
2.) She parrots Ecto's sentiment of "you cant lynch me"
3.) She parrots my sentiment of Ecto's aggressiveness.

Obvious Phoenix Wright-ism here. I'm satisfied as to the scumminess of this play by the self vote followed by calling a self vote anti-town. Being that spring stated this opinion as an absolute, spring basically gives herself no wiggle room out of that arguement. Also interesting is how she's parrotted my views on self-voting and the purpose of random voting (expressed in my infamous spherical cow). Also, the note about Ecto's aggressiveness is a good catch because like I said to you, aggression isn't scummy.

Regarding post 114:

This post isn't doublespeak. It's not a contradiction. It's not even a post. It's complete nonsense. Again, Spring tries to play back to my spherical cow and the purpose of a vote. She tries to double back on terrible reasoning, and keeps digging her grave deeper in the self-vote. She's not even using crap-logic to defend it, she's using non-logic. I think the only point that she may have tried to make, but missed on the delivery is this:

However, as I already said, I do acknowledge that, given the current meta self-voting is not indicative of alignment, or even always an antitown move. But this not because of any 'inherent property' to self-voting, but simply because you can sometimes derive value by going against custom.

She uses a poor instance of Il nya pas de hors texte (nothing beyond the text) and misinterprets meta. Instead of using meta as a sitewide metagame on a player's alignment, she uses it as a local form of standards and norms in a single, isolated game. She then tries to refer to that as justification for a self vote and simultaneous condemnation of a self vote, when it is really a non-point because our localized meta is not established, since vollkan's alignment is not concrete.

regarding post 144

I'm not really sold on the "You are scummy because of X". Especially not on day 1, where it's rare that we find such an obvious contradiction like we did in SL's self vote condemnation. What bothers me about this post is an open admission of nonchalance and not really following the game, as if to compensate and make one seem uninformed. That's usually one of my favorite scumtells.

regarding post 279

The big thing I want to address here isn't the content of the post, but the timing. Statistically, the closer a vote is to the numerical mean of a bandwagon, the more likely it is to be scum. Had a vollkan lynch succeeded, Spring would have been right at that numerical mean. That's enough to add suspicion to SL for me, even without all the additional information that you posted. Especially because this is the second time that Spring has been the third vote on a wagon. I have my own theory that if a wagon reaches the halfway point, and the lynchee is town, then someone on that wagon is scum. IF vollkan and ort are both town, AND Spring is scum, then this theory remains true.

addendum to the case

Vote Vollkan

I think Ectomancer is ok, a couple of his earlier post sounds extremely town. Though I do not like his apparent willingness to squabble interminably with Vollkan. If Vollkan is scum I'd say Ecto is the more likely to be scum too.

Does anybody else see the obvious contradiction with this? I noticed it before the case sprang up, but couldn't put my finger on it until I made this reread. Let me put it in a systematic approach for you all.

IMO self-vote is clearly antitown because random votes, beside the joke-ness, is meant to signify a willingness to catch scum.

Interpretation: You vote to catch scum. A random vote has a chance of hitting scum, as you get more information you vote based on thinking your target is scum.

Vote Vollkan

Interpretation: I think Vollkan is scum.

I think Ectomancer is ok, a couple of his earlier post sounds extremely town. Though I do not like his apparent willingness to squabble interminably with Vollkan. If Vollkan is scum I'd say Ecto is the more likely to be scum too.

Interpretation: Ectomancer is alright. If Vollkan is scum though, Ecto probably is too.

Resulting train of Spring's thought:

I think Vollkan is scum because I voted for him. I think Ecto is town based on X. I think Ecto is scum if Vollkan is scum based on (message drops off here in a fit of circular nonlogic).

Points I have against the case for spring: holes if you will

Spyre's conjectures.

Today the town has been killing itself.

1.) The town has more power roles than the masons.
--- one of those power roles is investigative in nature (tracker, cop, etc)
2.) There are two scum and not three.

1.) The masons are confirmed town.
2.) Volk and Ecto are town.
3.) An investigative role will cover one of the other players.

There a bit too many jumps in logic here for my own taste, it reeks of tunnel vision. Yes, I think Spring is scummy and is our most likely scum target. But aside from the masons, I'm not willing to stake ANY wager on anyone else in the game (aside from me, obviously) being of one alignment or the other.

Poor assumptions that you're making right now, IF Spring is scum.

1: Volk and Ecto are town.
Spring has been consistantly vouching for Ecto's person. I don't know if spring is dumb enough as scum to do that first day for a scumbuddy, but the possibility can't be passed up. Or on the opposite end of the spectrum, spring's recent attack on Vollkan could have been bussing as he gained momentum which she didn't see as likely to stop.

2: You're town.
This is a hell of a case, no doubt. But Spring's play has been deteriorating, and it was really only a matter of time before she was called out on it. It's fully possible that you decided to take a gamble and pull off a massive bus on the scale of LlamaFluff in the game he's being mentioned for in the 2008 scummies awards, or Demonikuski in newbie 663 D1.. In short, it's fully possible that after Ecto made the second vote for you, spring tried to chainsaw your wagon, got called out on it, and you made a massive case against her.

I don't think this is likely, but it's possible and been done before.

3: Setup. Namely 2 scum, 8 town.

It's usually considered a very small scumtell to speculate on setup. Also, in my own experience, the setup you're suggesting is wrong, as a 1/3 scum to players ratio is usually desired. But to verify one piece of your idea, I can tell you that town DOES have another power role, although I won't elaborate any further.

4: The absence of 3rd party/anti-town/cop-proof roles.
Your speculation would be thrown off a great deal by roles such as miller, princess, or my personal favorite, miller princess. Also, SKs and the like. I don't want to speculate on setup any more, but you're taking a very optimistic stance here.


I think this about sums up my thoughts on this case. Spring definitely looks scummy, although I think moreso for her timing and circular reasoning, rather than most of the reasons that Spyre has stated.

Also, for the TLDR inclined, I just got a new job, and have been training for Christmas, so that's why I've been less active recently.

[mrfixij]

I'm assuming with 10 a fairly even balance but yes those roles could throw it off. As could a jester or a myriad of other things. Wink Until reason to believe otherwise, I assume the razor.

To be honest, I just wanted to mention the miller princess, the most unbalanced role EVER.

[mrfixij]

Lets never put meta in, ever. Its not helpful.

My first D1 on this site ended in a scumlynch thanks to meta. I beg to differ on that point.

[mrfixij]

One thing I'd like to also point out is that gut can go both ways. I can have gut that Myc is town or I can have gut that he's scum. Vollkan just has a gut read on me, he never specified which way it went. Seems like an obvtrap.

[mrfixij]

TBH, I think the gut vollkan is feeling is in morbid disgust to my avatar. That's just my thought though. Some people can't stomach the neckbeard.

[mrfixij]

ok. I can see how you read that as a strawman. It was not the intention. I told you what I thought of that argument in isolation. That its support to your case couldn't be big.

there is no final part. The lurking and the weak reasons for her votes are there. However, you come up with a really big case, where I think a lot of points are null-tells used as scumtells, and I don't agree. Lurking, the selfvoting (vollkan's really is something different then springs), maybe more. I think you really believe spring to be scum, and when you think that you are going to see scumtells everywhere. You are not my main target in this. mrfixij is. He jumped on spring in a very ugly manner. Voted after you, provided his reasons after you. Copied most of your case, and added his own weak scumtells to it.

I can't see scum be that obvious, so if mrfixij is scum, you are probably not.

unvote vote mrfixij

I beg your pardon. If I am reading you correctly, your chief complaint is my timing, which is a core part of my case against Spring. So if you are accusing my vote timing correlation of being a weak scumtell, then you're damning your own accusation.

Also, to address the response to my statements of the downsides of spyre's case, he stated that a series of things had to be right for his case to be valid. I pointed out situations that could have slipped his mind. I personally think that timing is a valid scumtell, especially when it comes to vote position. If you don't think that is, then you're using what you consider a weak scumtell as your own justification.

[mrfixij]

about mrfixij.

post 291: spyrex votes spring, tells us something big is coming.
post 292/293: mrfixij votes spring for voting reasons, quite random from that post. Same reasons would have counted for spyrex, yet he says he'll stop going after spyrex. mrfixij waits for spyrex's case.
post 294: spyrex his big case
some talking about it.
post 304: mrfixij likes spyrex's case (we could guess that...)
post 307: I state that I don't like mrfixij's play around the case of spyrex.
post 313: finally mrfixij's reasons for his vote. partly copied from spyrex, following him, mrfixij added: inventing new words for bad reasons, springs nonchalange, timing of mid day voting (if vollkan had been lynched, spring would have been on a scummy place...), another "shocking contradiction". After that he comes up with some points against spyrex.

Now you say: you can't vote me for bad timing, as springs was bad too.

Guess what, I can. Spring would be in the middle of a bandwagon, if vollkan had been lynched. Too many possibilities. You hopped on a wagon, that didn't need to be logical for you, and you tried to go with the flow, and follow spyrex until I told you I didn't like it. After that, you come with your "reasons" that consist mostly out of spyrex's case, and the weak reasons stated above.

First off, the word is nonchalance. As in casual attitude and uncaring state.

With that pet peeve out of the way, right before I take off for thanksgiving dinner, let me address some things.

Also, you're twisting the words of my quick defense. I don't say that you can't vote me, I'm saying that you're using the same logic that you're accusing me of using. You're converting my statement into a childish, minimalistic OMGUS statement.

Secondly, I had a lot more material to read Spyre from. He looks townier than Spring by far. I had my vote there before because I wasn't too big on Vollkan or Ecto, and Spyre's wagon wasn't even built at any point. There was no better case at the moment, since the scummiest player was a claimed mason. Ort is still making ridiculous logical jumps and unstable statements.

And finally, give me something to defend against please. I can't defend myself against phantoms, generalizations, and overly broad statements. I understand my timing was scummy. Spring's was twice scummy. So can you give us some solid evidence that everyone else can mill over and that I can put up a defense against?

[mrfixij]

I see a lot of us are offering a big 3 suspicions list. Well, for the record, mine are almost my voting history. SL by a wide margin. Vollkan afterwards, although now that is more due to a remnant of early-game controversy, and right next to Vollkan is Spyre, who I happen to have the same suspect with.

Also Mykonian, in a lighter tone, I'm slightly offended that you don't think I'd be able to see a potential gambit. I've been caught in them before on AIM mafia, but I'd like to think I'm learning

Also, as a last side note, I will be LA this week starting Tuesday.

[mrfixij]

spyrex, could you point out where I dismiss a major point, just like that? If I remember well, I have looked at the individual points and given my opinion of it. You should be able to tell where I went wrong.

And mrfixij: I didn't see any possibility for a gambit not that experienced as you are I guess. But anyway, why did it take so long for you to post reasons for your vote? why did you wait for someone to point out that you hadn't given any?

Take a look at my timestamps please. I know it's a weak defense to use my outside life, but there was about 26 hours between my initial vote and my followup monster post.

During that time, I corrected my vote, went to work until midnight, came back and made a short post because I didn't have the energy to go through and analyze everything with the same vigor I did in my case. From there I had to sleep for class in the morning, and I finally got back to state my case.

Also, to address spring, I do not claim to be at all versed in the French language, I caught the expression elsewhere where it was most likely misused, and began misusing it in the most pretentious manner possible. Since the rest of your rebuttal was a parrotting of "already answered this", that's all that happened to catch my eye. Well, except this.

1) I have explained this. 2) So you don't expect rational coherence from scum? 3) Personally, one of my favourite scumtell is excess of obivous logic, because what scum want is to be beyond criticisms.

2) Scum can look like town by being rational. Eventually they'll start kicking at a dead horse because there's nothing left to attack, but a lynch must go on. Obv town players are big targets for scum, but a mislynch is more dangerous than a scum NK imo. 3) All proper logic is obvious. When you start nesting assumptions, it becomes poor logic. When you base assumptions on false or made up information, it's craplogic. So your favorite scumtell is players establishing themselves with safe logic?

You do realize that my self-vote was my first post in this game, don't you? So tell me, what are you trying to say here?

I've played a game where someone's first post was a hammer vote. Scum or town do you think? Regardless, the irony is too much to bear.

[mrfixij]

Next week is finals week, I should have time to go back and mull over what's been said after monday.

[mrfixij]

Alright guys, I'm back. Still don't like spring, but I've got a few things to question vollkan about, as I'm seeing a lot of recent stupidity from him.

Okay, I think this whole inductive v deductive thing is irrelevant.

Explain to me, please, how from an inductive perspective SL's logic is valid.

Wait, what? Are you saying that it doesn't matter if her perspective is inductive or deductive, we should just view it as inductive because it makes her look scummy? If inductive vs deductive is irrelevant, why do you mention inductiveness right after explaining the irrelevance?

Emotive language is only problematic if unjustified. "prejudiced" can be emotive, but in the context I am using it, it is justified. My judgment is not "subjective". I've already said that I wanted to see whether and how you would react to me saying something which I knew would provoke charges of hypocrisy from a careless or judgmental observer, into which category I predicted you would fall.

Appeal to self-authority. In fact, I'm seeing a ton of implicit semi-gambits that you're playing in order to view a reaction. I'm quite curious about this. You take issue to the unspoken aspect of mafia as you say here:

I didn't *want* to imply anything; I've already been clear about that. I was just saying the way I felt. Maybe someone else felt similarly; maybe the day would end and it could serve as a note to myself or another; maybe it would set in motion a train of discussion about Ixfiij. I don't know. Enough with your bullshit conspiracies about my intentions. It's as though you won't be satisfied unless I specifically give some specific outcome that I sought. If it weren't damn obvious already, I didn't act seeking anything specific - just to voice my opinion and see what flowed.

But then go ahead and leave numerous implications and contradictions in your posts for the sole purpose of "drawing a reaction" In fact, your self-vote, which we're criticizing Spring for was also to "draw a reaction." I've got no issue against scumhunting, and if this "reaction-drawing" is a primary method that you use, then would you please make that explicit now? As it is, you're using a ton of good logic, but then throwing in bits and pieces of personal opinion which go against your logic.

In fact, I think I see what Spring meant by unclear perspective, but I think she worded it wrongly. You're hedging your cases inside each other. You're making your case based on strong logic and contradictions in others' statements. But when you put forth your own opinion, or interpret your arguments, you're leaving a rather large gap and putting your foot in your mouth so to speak. Your perspective is very clear when you offer it. However, your perspective tends to not follow the case you line up.

And on a lighter note:

I've neither done nor said anything relating to Ixfij which requires justification.

In any event, this pretty much confirms you aren't a Freemason; they have a requirement that members be of sound mind.

HOLY EGO BATMAN!

Also a joke: these quote tunnels seem to be hedged inside each other. Perhaps this an exampled of HEDGING ARGUMENTS!

Sorry, sometimes I think the mood gets too dire in this game.

I'm going to wrap this up because I don't want to lose another hour and a part of my mind in an immense argument.

Vollkan: your issue is in your interpretations vs your arguments. Your arguments are solid, your interpretations and opinions are not reflective of said arguments. This is a seeming contradiction. Also, your excessive use of gambits intended to draw a reaction is slightly worrysome, and I'd like you to be explicit here and state if this is what you have been and plan to do for the rest of the game.

For the record: I don't know if Vollkan is being scummy or not. The above is simply my critique of his style recently. As he responds, I'll be able to see if he's scummy or not.

Spring has brought forth lots of defense but little content so far. My vote stays, but I acknowledge the mitigation of suspicions.

I'll get back to mykonian in a second, this post is dragging on long enough.

[mrfixij]

EBWOP for vollkan: Also, I wanted to know what the "opinion" that you expressed having, but never elaborated on was pertaining to me. I meant to add that to my paragraph of summary about you.

[mrfixij]

Mykonian's primary case against me is my vote on spring. Said vote is scummy, and was not justified until after I'd been asked about it.

I've already addressed this, but I will go back and restate my defense.

In hindsight, it may have been better to not place my vote until I had time to present my case also. However, I consider the short timespan between my vote and my case good enough. I had 26 hours between my vote and case. Of those 26 hours, I had 8 hours of work, a short post in the meantime which was rushed, and mostly an indication of a skim through spyre's argument at 1:00 AM. After that, I had to sleep until class, and I came back to post at 4:00-5:00 PM.

In short, the only scummy thing in there was not waiting to vote until the next day. I didn't know when my next chance to post would be, so I wanted to get a vote cast.

I don't like using real life to defend myself, but in such a short timespan it's ridiculous to assume that a case was provoked by a demand for it.

[mrfixij]

I'm going to go back and read over vollkan's recent activity. The immense amounts of material that he puts forth and the limited time I have to read it makes it very difficult for me to analyze it critically. I'll give my thoughts on the case against him as I go. As it is, I'm inclined to restate what I said before. I don't find him inherently scummy yet. A re-read may change that.

[mrfixij]

Alright. I'm looking back through what I've missed. First off, wading through vollkan posts at two in the morning is painstaking. Secondly:

I haven't made a single subjective argument. If you mean the gut thing, and you don't want to wade through my posts, I made no claim about Ixfij's alignment from my gut. I simply stated that I felt something odd, and I was clear that I don't take that as indicating anything objective about him.

This is doublespeak. No, your statement about me was not subjective, but it was also not objective. At least not objectively justifiable. You're saying something feels "odd" about my play. I don't know how you could be saying something was odd about me without an indication as to my alignment while still remaining pertinent to the game.

That's a big issue I'm having with you vollkan. For chrissakes, you've gotten into numerous arguments with Ortolan, who is the closest thing we have to confirmed town. What's the purpose of it? To convince him to vote with you? To satisfy your own personal lust for an argument? I think you're failing to see the forest for the trees in front of you.

I didn't *want* to imply anything; I've already been clear about that. I was just saying the way I felt. Maybe someone else felt similarly; maybe the day would end and it could serve as a note to myself or another; maybe it would set in motion a train of discussion about Ixfiij. I don't know.

Enough with your bullshit conspiracies about my intentions

. It's as though you won't be satisfied unless I specifically give some specific outcome that I sought. If it weren't damn obvious already, I didn't act seeking anything specific - just to voice my opinion and see what flowed.

And this is an example of your personal analysis falling flat on its face. During the day phase, the ONLY difference between scum and town is intent. Scum wants to lead a lynch towards town, Town wants to find the outsiders and lead a lynch towards them. As an individual player, your actions are used to find your intention, and by correlation your alignment. If you discourage speculation about your intentions, you discourage speculation about your alignment.

If your entire gameplan is centered around finding reactions to your behavior, then read this reaction.

unvote: Spring
Vote: Vollkan

Although I am not a fan of the terrible play by both of our masons (were they not all-but-confirmed-town, they'd be at the top of my lynch lists.), the fact that you argue extensively with Orto on page 18 over fundamentally nothing strikes me as curious. In fact, out of your thousands and thousands of words, most posts seem to be self-important and arguing for the sake of arguing, not scumhunting. Particularly once you start growing an ego around pages 17-19

[mrfixij]

It could help if you reposted your case, with what you think of what happened last, and what my defenses of it were, maybe I can talk it out of your head day 1, otherwise, I'm sure I can day two. At least we agree on the fact that we absolutely don't need a deadline now. Town is just talking in front of themselves. Orto and Spring see only vollkan, you want only me, I'm mostly busy with mrfixij, and Spyrex is on don. don has weakened his stance, so I don't know what he is thinking now, and the rest I even don't know who they want to lynch. Maybe it could be a good idea to get some sort of consensus here...

And mrfix, I know you are online now, would you care to play? I'm not forgetting you while cases on vollkan and don make the play. Please don't hope I will.

I haven't been posting because this is ridiculous. We're basing discussion with Don on information that is less complete than what town already has. Last I checked, Don hasn't even read through the entire game and is trying to answer questions and throw suspicion. That's not scummy or town, that's just stupid. While it is nice to have a new perspective, I'd rather the perspective be complete. I don't want to get caught up in a debacle of lynching someone based on less complete information than is available at the moment.

I think Spyre is premature in questioning Don. Or at least Don is premature in answering Spyre. Spyre's getting butthurt at being near the top of Don's scumlist, which may be a mild scumtell. Meanwhile, people are criticizing Orto's play, which may be bad, but that's for the post-game report, not a critical time when we have a new guy replacing in.

Yes, Orto and Orange were playing badly. No, we shouldn't lynch them for that because they're all but confirmed town. So discussing their play is sidetracking, and popular sidetracking to boot.

This last page and a half has yielded no information except Don's lack of information and the zealousness to discuss bad play of confirmed town.

[mrfixij]

Picked up prod. Will catch up with game this week if possible. Retail + holiday season + fencing = moderately LA. I'll also respond to Myk's point about lurking when I get the time IRL.

[mrfixij]

Time for me to offer my opinions.

First off Vollkan. I still think you're scummy. But I think the point which I considered you scummy for before is less relevant now. That point being the incessant arguing and attacking of Ortolan after his mason claim. As it is now, I'm starting to be a bit more sure in my suspects. You're starting to break down a little bit in your play. I don't know if this is a result of the accusation and increasing pressure upon you, or a frustrated backlash to play from the rest of us that you deem as unsuitable and poor. Either way could be interpreted as scummy, but is more a nulltell than anything.

unvote: vollkan

I've still got my eye on you, but as was demonstrated in Iceman mafia, you're a really damn hard read. It takes a strong push on sometimes objectionable grounds to get you lynched one way or the other.

Don Johnson: Spyre was pushing pretty hard on you. However, I like your willingness to respond, but not the inability to respond to everything. However, I think your issue was that you decided to start throwing out thoughts and answering questions before you had caught up with the entire thread. If this was a result of additional knowledge outside of the thread's contents (scum) is uncertain. However, this haphazard approach means you're either enthusiastic town or overconfident scum. I'm leaning towards town ATM. What does strike me as odd about your entire role is that you're still on OP after a supposed random vote 30 pages ago.

Ectomancer: You pushed for a lynch on a claimed mason. You PUSHED for a lynch on a CLAIMED MASON??!!? This is long past the stage in the game where a policy lynch is allowable, but that's absurd. Right now you're in the stage after a gambit which yielded borderline results. As it is, I don't think you're a safe lynch for today, just based on what I could read. regardless of your idea of lynching a claimed mason. I think I have a good read on your "gambit" It seems like a heavy use of premeditated circular implications that only confuse anyone who reads it.

Last but not least. Mykonian: You've been a little jumpy recently, after I caught up in my reading. You vote for OP in your 75th post after he claims mason for his logic being "off". Right after in your 80th post you say that the mason claim is a good thing because it prevents 2 mislynches. Those two seem contradictory. Yes, you explain it a little in post 76, but it's weak and saying that it's okay to take risks because he's confirmed town. In the same timespan, you threaten to vote for Don, then back off and ask Spyre what exactly his case is. Right after, you decide to finalize your threat that you just second guessed and vote for DJ based on spyre's case that you didn't see two posts ago. Keep in mind that you accused me of doing the same thing with Spyre's case against spring.

Myk's post 86 is back to questioning what spyre's case is while STILL FOLLOWING IT WITH HIS VOTE ON DON. Then in your 90th post, having not mentioned me in 15+posts, you say you're busy with me, and shift your attention (but not your vote) off Don.

As I look through your posts, each one seems to be moderate suspicion against a different target. With Spring and TDC nowhere to be found recently, you seem to be ignoring them awfully well.

Last but not least is your vote on Vollkan. This is not OMGUS. This is an obvious countervote. And even worse, you put him at L-1 with this countervote just because you're frustrated with the way he's playing. I don't know if you've ever played with Vollkan before, but he's frustrating. This doesn't mean that you should let his actions goad you into a nonthinking vote.

At this point, I think it's safe to say that of Vollkan and Myk, at most 1 is scum. And mykonian's recent actions and indecisiveness are making him more scummy.

vote: mykonian

[mrfixij]

I'm not entirely certain what to think about the doc claim. On one hand, I don't like to meta roles. On the other, it's beginning to look like a really stacked town. However, I don't want to lynch a claimed doc without a damn good reason for it or a CC. As such, I think mykonian is our best bet. He has voted for a claimed mason, a softclaim, and a claimed doc AFTER their respective claims. If not scum behavior, it is certainly antitown. I say lynch it.

[mrfixij]

Well, for starters,

unvote

Secondly, This is a bit of a predicament. I am CERTAIN that we don't have two docs. On one hand, vollkan has a reputation for fake claiming doc, as even he admits. On the other hand, he breadcrumbed nicely and mykonian's claim reeks of last minute indecision. Neither has looked particularly protown to me, as I've had my vote on both. However, this is also because it's not in a power role's best interests to lead town.

I'm leaning towards vollkan right now just because of his meta, but I want more discussion before I attack him.

[mrfixij]

Vollkan: this is the second game I've played with you. This is the second time you've claimed doctor. The first game you were lying. Naturally, that leads me to be suspicious. The fact that you drew attention to your previous doc fakeclaim seems to be very WIFOMic behavior.

Mykonian didn't breadcrumb in the same way as vollkan did, but he did breadcrumb. Right off the bat, Mykonian was aggressive against the doc claim. Also, the previously mentioned post about "when there is no doc." Common power roles tend to downplay the possibility of them being in the game as a way of taking the spotlight off themselves. As such, suggesting that there is no doc is a massive tell and breadcrumb of BEING the doc to me.

Mykonian's behavior has been erratic, certainly. But I don't think it has been explicitly stupid. Counterclaiming doc is stupid, full stop.

Consider this a vote on vollkan, pending votals. Do not want to hammer.

[mrfixij]

vote: vollkan

I already explained myself before. I just didn't want to cut off discussion with a hammer.

VOLLKAN IS NOW AT L-1!!!

[mrfixij]

vote: mykonian

Obvious scum.

As for why I'm alive, I don't know. I may have gotten lucky, but I'll explain that later.

[mrfixij]

I'm actually with ecto on this one. I'd like to cut out the voting and stop the quicklynch. It might help us figure some stuff out, like who to lynch tomorrow and why I'm still alive.

[mrfixij]

Wow, I can't believe I forgot to unvote:

EBWOP:

unvote

[mrfixij]

The sheer amount of meta which I was drawing from my role vs vollkan's is perplexing, to say the least. Between his now flipped role, and mine, which is rather similar, town is highly protective and significantly overpowered in my personal opinion. Also, Vollkan's recent fakeclaiming of doc in mini 688 was another reason for me to vote for him.

But regardless, I am the town jailkeeper. I serve as a roleblocker and a doctor at the same time. I jailed mykonian last night. The only reason I can think that I am alive is that he tried to kill me, and we have another killing role that fired, be it vig or SK. I don't see any reason for a vig to kill a claimed mason, so I'm guessing we have an SK on the loose.

[mrfixij]

and why did you delay claiming today (looks like you would have been perfectly happy for the game to go to night, had a few more votes gone through.

Because now the odds are against me. I need to find the right jail to stay alive. Every night. Even then, if I'm right about a second killing party, I could still be dead. It was better to be on the radar, but an unknown threat, as that means more chance of the next kill being the confirmed mason. At this point, I'm guessing that I'm designed as a pseudoscanner, where it's my job to out mafia with a successful block. However, now that I'm revealed, if I'm not right, I'm dead.

[mrfixij]

Also, if I were to be alive longer, it means more chance of catching scum via a good jail. Right now I have a block/doc on mykonian, which tells us nothing were it not for me being alive. Say myk were to flip scum, and I jail spring the next night, and there's no kill or only 1 kill (which goes claimed publicly), then we've caught another scum.

[mrfixij]

I haven't decided on my jail target tonight. That's why I decided to double back and let discussion run for today, I want to see what I can determined from D2.

[mrfixij]

I softclaimed because Spyre's case was reliant on a lack of other power roles. JK is a very protown role, but really, REALLY goddamn scummy because there's no way to prove it. Should suspicion have been shifted to me, I'd rather have not needed to claim JK out of the blue because it would have been the same WIFOM discussion we're having now, but a lot closer to a mislynch. Not to mention the fact that while I agreed with Spyre's case on spring at the time, it was a factor that Spyre hadn't addressed. In fact, by stating that his case was dependant on having no other power roles, he himself was softclaiming in my opinion. The difference is that my softclaim was much more pronounced.

So in essence, I softclaimed for two reasons: 1. preemptive survival
2. filling in the gaps on Spyre's otherwise solid case.

[mrfixij]

I was roleblocked last night. Unfortunately. I couldn't save Ort due to that. TDC's sudden jump in activity and immediate jump to conclusions regarding setup and night actions is suspicious to me. I think this is lylo, or at the very least, lynch wrong and lose. Therefore, I'm witholding my vote, but I think TDC has some extra information that the rest of us could use, judging by his jump in activity.

[mrfixij]

You've been a pretty obvious cop from D1 spyre, in your demeanor at least. What surprises me is that you weren't targetted N1. As far as the two roleblocks go, I have no clue what to even begin to think. I think you're lying spyre, personally.

[mrfixij]

lying about being roleblocked, that is. I've seen a similar gambit run on AIM mafia, but I can't see why it would be run. Like I said, it's very confusing to me right now.

[mrfixij]

Correct. I've seen it done in AIM mafia to pin a shot on someone that you have a strong gut on, while holding a scan (usually a second inno) for your own personal knowledge to be revealed during twilight.

[mrfixij]

I've already claimed, so I can't be of any further merit. However, I'm guessing that I'm soon to be prodded, so I'm signifying that I'm still in existance.

[mrfixij]

Well, I couldn't expect it to go on forever. TDC is absolutely right about the "wasn't us, must be them" mentality. I'm mykonian's goon. Softclaimed D1 because I didn't think mykonian would counterclaim doc. He said N0 that he was going to bus me, but he went overboard, and then got himself killed. Were it not for the softclaim, his death would have made me virtually invincible thanks to the ridiculous push he made on me D1.

We agreed N1 to have mykonian send in the kill in case of tracker/watcher. He was a dead man walking anyways, no sense in risking my hide. Imagine my surprise when he was roleblocked, but a kill still occurred. Naturally, my claim would have to be some kind of blocking role, which if the blocker claimed would out him. Town Roleblocker sounds scummy as hell, so I decided to go with Jailkeeper because deciding the kill is a good as docing a towny. And yes, I killed ecto N2. The 2 man group decided to kill ort to make a claimed town player look bad. Given that they had a roleblocker who targetted myk, it makes sense that they knew I was bluffing.

However, based on Spring's finding, there must be another group of 2 out there. A 1-person mafia is a serial killer. With 6 left, lynching me results in mafia 2 winning. I'm getting shot tonight, no questions asked. The only way town can win is with a lynch of mafia 2 today, or a crosskill tonight.

I'd like to hear from Don. He's been scummy as all hell, and since he's not my buddy, I'm guessing he's part of the other maf. Or perhaps a TDC godfather, although godfather/blocker against goon/goon is unlikely. Regardless, since I can't call anyone out on a scum quickhammer, since I am in a way scum...

vote: don Johnson

[mrfixij]

TDC: I'm afraid you're mistaken.

3/2/1, with me being the 1. If I die in day, part of the 3 dies at night, and the 2 person scum wins. At this point, town has to use me as an SK in order to survive, numerically. Otherwise, two townies die and the game goes to 1/1/1, where town wins with a NK and scum wins with an opposing team lynch. It's a classic scenario on AIM, where stranger setups are more common. 2 scum teams also balances out the masonry, which otherwise severely balances a game towards town (see mini 688, where vollkan faked doc as scum)

[mrfixij]

Unless that was a slipup, and you're admitting to being in the 2 man mafia? Yes, you have an inno scan on you, which makes you nigh invunerable. However, spyre's cop could be a fakeclaim (mod confirmation of sanity in a closed setup is O_O), you could be godfather, or you could have just missed the number crunching.

[mrfixij]

As soon as a mason outs himself, that becomes 2 high-priority targets for scum who town will 99/100 times never lynch. That's 2 scum night kills, while the SK whittles away at any killing role he can to save his own ass. It's not in an SK's best interests to kill a mason because the town is going to spend so much time mulling over the mason death that it's easy to go beneath the radar.

[mrfixij]

Should I live through tomorrow: It'll end up a night WIFOM game where the towny is forced to NK and hope that the killers crosskill. I've won and lost a handful of games in the same manner on AIM. The sheer fact that I am not the blocker and myk was blocked is good enough to convince me that it's crucial for me to find the blocker, otherwise I'm a guaranteed loss due to being blocked when I try to kill scum.

[mrfixij]

Au contraire, I think spring isn't town. She's maf. That's why she said two mafia kills. Seeing mykonian die, who definitely isn't her scumbuddy (unless we're dealing with unknowing aligned here), she realizes that there's something up, and covers for it by outing her own mafia in a way. In which case, it makes sense to lynch her. And DJ is her buddy.

[mrfixij]

Don: they're not lynching me because it's better not to gamble. Should you an spring be buddies (which you are) then killing me results in mafia 2 winning. While killing you or spring results in a town chance (snowball's chance in hell)

[mrfixij]

I'm still claiming that I'm not the blocker. Myk was blocked, claiming a blocking role verified that I'd have some sort of tangible effect.

[mrfixij]

You're not getting it, are you?

I've claimed the lone wolf at this point. If spring is a lone wolf is uncertain, and if she's not, Don is her partner, which explains his vote on me: he wants to win today. Lynching me = town loses tonight. Lynching spring or don = 1 more day.

[mrfixij]

actually, I retract that. lynching spring = 1 more day. Lynching me = ???, lynching don = ???

[mrfixij]

Oh. I thought there were 6 instead of 5, I'm confusing this with another game I'm playing. Anyways, gg, too bad town couldn't salvage it.

[mrfixij]

Masonry = 2 man mafia.
Cop/doc = 2 man mafia
My irritation over this game was twofold:

Cop confirmed sanity.
Roleblock not announced to target.

I played bad, I'll admit that. However, the only way the town was going to win that was crosskill between the two factions.

[mrfixij]

Also TDC: that meta pissed me the hell off.

I was maf RB, which isn't a standard role by that wiki link.

Lack of miller to hint at godfather also handicapped town.

Game needed to be bigger to justify 2 maf. 11 or 12 maybe. 2 mafia in 10 is balanced, 2/2/6 is dead town.

And on a sidenote: spring that was a TERRIBLE claim. Not to say that mine was good, but it was passable.

[mrfixij]

I actually wouldn't have minded leaving vollkan in the game. I knew myk was scum and voll was doc though, so I had to lynch doc.

[mrfixij]

I want to know why maf 2 didn't target me when I softclaimed.

[mrfixij]

Aww, give me a break myk, JK isn't a bad claim by any means. Forensic on the other hand... dear god.