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

[springlullaby]

confirming

[springlullaby]

Hi guys,

vote: springlullaby

[springlullaby]

Hi springlullaby,

Unvote, Vote: vollkan

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.

[springlullaby]

Vollkan, before I answer you, please clarify something for me: do you seriously believe that acumen in theoretical standing is in anyway indicative of alignment?

[springlullaby]

And what insight have you gained from your 'jumping' on him?

And yeah, other people need to chirp in more.

[springlullaby]

I assume here that you are pursuing the same line of reasoning as Volkan pointing out my contradiction, right?

If it is, I'll answer to it in group after Vollkan has responded.

[springlullaby]

I'll get the answers out of the way first because I behind.

@Vollkan on random voting.

It is my pet view that the random voting stage is a form of greeting ritual custom to forum mafia and that its symbolic is to indicates one's willingness to scumhunt and lynch - I'm sure that this view is debatable, however I'm not interested in adding another theoretical topic to the discussion.

What I think everyone can agree on is that the random voting stage serves a function which is to generate discussion.

Now, hypothetical scenario: what would happen in a game in which nobody were to random vote but self-voted instead?

I think the answer to this is that the self-votes would serve no purpose because it really gives nothing to people to work on - or even less than random vote if you want - and that is why I think that in absolute self-votes are always bad and inherently anti-town, and should never be viewed otherwise.

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.

@Vollkan and Spyrex on 'contradiction'

1. I see no contradiction in my play. See above.

2. Actually you guys seem to think that I have voted Vollkan because 'I think self voting is inherently bad'. I don't like this because it is not the case.

@Mykonian

1. I did state why I didn't like ecto's play. I don't see where I'm following spyrex.

2. Your point about my 'keeping my options open' irritates me.

See my answer to it from another game:

Link removed:

Do not talk outside the game thread about an ongoing game except where allowed to do so by your role.

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

Next I'll examine people post more closely and give my opinion.

[springlullaby]

Vote: ortolan

Two non joke votes, two vote that sucks.

1. I already answered on the 'contradiction' thing, though it was mistakenly addressed to spyrex. Don't like the way the question addressing me is dangling at the end of that post, looks like scum changing vote but putting something at the end to signify that they aren't dropping former suspicions entirely to appear consistent.

2. Don't understand your vote on Ectomancer, what are you saying exactly? That you agree with spyrex and OP? Do I detect shedding of responsibility in the formulation of that phrase? Don't care for the drama around L-2.

I'm on page 4 of my reread, and have actually only skimmed the last page, will get to it eventually, but I feel pretty good about my current vote.

[springlullaby]

Ectomancer, please state what you think of ortolan now.

[springlullaby]

I think I've been clear in the post I voted you on why each of your vote sucked but I'll go in further detail since you are asking.

First let me do something I've overlooked doing, commenting one of your prior post.

Vote: ortolan

Two non joke votes, two vote that sucks.

Just to clarify so I understand: by this you mean keeping my vote on you past the joke phase and then changing my vote to Ectomancer? If so why do both of these votes suck exactly? I don't follow.

Are you deliberately isolating my statement from the rest of my post here? Here your quoting makes it appear as if I have voted you without reason, but the rest of that post you quoted states clearly why I think your votes sucked.

1. I already answered on the 'contradiction' thing, though it was mistakenly addressed to spyrex. Don't like the way the question addressing me is dangling at the end of that post, looks like scum changing vote but putting something at the end to signify that they aren't dropping former suspicions entirely to appear consistent.]

I already had that question addressed to you at the end of my post, and in the process of writing it I decided to change from FoSing Ectomancer to voting for him. Just because I decided there was enough of a case against him to vote for him doesn't mean I should deliberately omit what I wanted to ask you from my post. Would you prefer if I'd made another post especially for you?

I detect deriding in there. I'm not asking you to do anything, I'm stating why I find the question you asked at the end of your post scummy.

Plus, that question had no reason to be in the first place, it implies that I have not addressed the concern, but actually I did here. If you have qualm with my answer, please do point out why.[/b]

2. Don't understand your vote on Ectomancer, what are you saying exactly? That you agree with spyrex and OP? Do I detect shedding of responsibility in the formulation of that phrase? Don't care for the drama around L-2.

What's there not to understand about my vote against Ectomancer? I believe there is a mild case against him, but that this case is stronger than the one against SpyreX. And when you say I agree with SpyreX and OP, yes I think orangepenguin's summary shows Ectomancer's case against vollkan was relatively insubstantial but quite keenly pursued. Also the only reason I mentioned the L-2 was that I was effectively lynched in another game for putting someone on L-1. I feel if I draw attention to exactly how many votes are on someone (because sometimes the vote counts by the admin can be wrong) then this prevents people putting on the L-1 then lynching vote and being able to claim they were mistaken about the number of votes. It was as much for my own benefit as anyone else's, noting just how close to a lynch we were.

Errr, this is the post in which you vote Ectomancer and for which I called you out:
http://www.mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopi ... 09#1349909

I do not read a clear explaination of why you are voting for Ecto in it.
I'm not saying that you are agreeing with OP or SpyreX, I'm asking if you are indeed agreeing with them because even that wasn't clear to me. In fact the entire passage in which you supposedly explain why you are voting Ecto is nonsensical to me, which is scummy in itself.

Plus, I don't like the picking of side/judging other people case attitude you display in your answer above, it's passive and easy.

And I think there is something pretty scummy in you casting a vote you don't seem to be sure about yourself, then making a big show of warning everyone else about it being L2. If you are unsure of a vote and fear a quick hammer, just don't cast it.

These two factors combined smells of 'don't blame me for my vote' to me.

Now looking back, I dislike your first vote on me even more:
http://www.mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopi ... 98#1343298

This post doesn't actually say anything does it? I had to actually guess what you find unsatisfactory about my post. Tell me, did you even know why you voted for me there?

I don't get you. In your last couple of post you are like all over the place acting as if you were pressured into voting Ectomancer and wondering why you are attacked because of it. But guess what, no one pressured you into anything.

[springlullaby]

Unvote

Second time I provoke a mason claim day 1 in recent history.

Ortolan, OP: you being claimed does not entitle you to being passive, if you guys are genuine you have nothing to fear now so step up.

I have finished my reread, I'll post my thoughts on the game so far next post when I summon the energy to write it up.

[springlullaby]

Vote Vollkan

I actually agree with the Vollkan vote. There are a number of things that sounds ungenuine, and a sense of unclear perspective in his post.

Beside I think this post
http://www.mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopi ... 71#1350271
is a fake. It looks like a misplaced post, but I believe it is dirty tactic aimed at proving his consistency in his play - an angle he has been going about a lot, I've done that as 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.

I can see the vote on Spyrex, but I think he reads town in his defense.

Mykonian reads town.

[springlullaby]

There are a number of things that sounds ungenuine

Examples and explanations?

1. I think your first vote on Ectomancer is unclear and is wrapped up in excess of rhetoric to make it look more solid than it is.

Here is your vote:
http://www.mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopi ... &start=275

The reason of your vote for Ectomancer is at the bottom of this post and is in fact isolated from everything that you have been arguing about. But what's more, the reason of your vote seems coherent with your rhetoric and displayed attitude toward mafia play, but I feel it is not genuine because I think Ectomancer's vote on Spyrex has merit even thought his construction does not fit in your systematic approach. This is scummy I think because I would think that you have enough experience to recognize this as town.

You see, I think there is a certain quality of tension building up between yourself and Ectomancer during the earlier phase of the game, and I think what you did there was voting first so you could stay ahead in the event Ecto were to vote you, and the 'streching' nature of your vote maybe the symptom of that.

Alternatively I can also conceived it as a soft vote for distancing purpose, because you dropped it pretty fast when the ortolan case surfaced.

I'm not decided between the two atm, but I'd like to put both theories out there.

2. I do perceive the double standard ortolan is talking aobut. At several occasion your post seemed to indicate 'good sentiment' toward me, and imo for no good reason whatsoever.

Right now I am too lazy to go fish them up, but from memory you exemplified my case against ortolan as a 'good example'. Only I think it was as much 'without any basis' as any case in mafia, and I think equally justifiable in your own system than Ectomancer's vote on Spyrex.

At another occasion you said something along the line of 'good catch' to my asking ortolan if he had isolated my post on purpose. I do not believe what I said merited such attention because I think it was a minor point.

And you see, I think that that 'double standard' is most significant in light of the fact that Ecto and I were the most affirmative in our diverging opinions concerning your selfvote. And I think this artificiality is pretty scummy because I think that what you did there was 'compensate' by casting me in a relatively good light for you going after Ectomancer to make you look less OMGUS-y.

a sense of unclear perspective in his post.

I'm not even sure what this is supposed to mean.

Well, I think you've been arguing a lot with lot of people and you seem to be pretty strong in your convictions when it comes to what you apparently think is good play, but I do not discern clear train of thought when the discussion is out of theorical grounds and when it comes to scumhunting.

Beside I think this post
http://www.mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopi ... 71#1350271
is a fake. It looks like a misplaced post, but I believe it is dirty tactic aimed at proving his consistency in his play - an angle he has been going about a lot, I've done that as scum.

*sigh* It was a misplaced post - not a cynical attempt to improve consistency. In any event, you only need to look through my history to see that I frequently get into clashes over my opposition to gut.

[/quote]

This is a judgment call of mine, I think that it is a tad too coincidental that the misplaced post should be another post about your 'position' on mafia play whereas one of your leitmotiv in this game has been 'I'm very consistent with myself'.

At any rate, to be frank, what I think of your play and your list and your 'consistency' is that it is a tactic that you use as much as a methodology to find scum than as a rigid frame into which you can confine yourself to disguise your play as scum.

And you see, you frequently going 'into clashes' over your positions doesn't exempt you from being scum when you do it; and more importantly and I think your constant reminder to town that it is a nulltell for you is pretty scummy, because no one as of yet has said that you are scum because of it.

[springlullaby]

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.

Why specifically do you think Ecto is more likely to be scum of vol is scum? "Willingness to squabble" isn't really valid, given that it is within the interests of any townie to defend themselves against any accusations thrown their way, lest someone pulls a "hey, why are you avoiding my question?"

Well, from my perspective it was easy to cut short through that discussion, I did, and I think Ecto saying that he doesn't like 'muddying the waters' (a sentiment I agree with) is a tad contradictory with his pursuing the subject, well before Vollkan voted him.

Also I think that if you look at their discussion what looks like a 'big clash', and if there is a certain tension in the discussion, stays in fact in the very safe zone of theory.

When I say Ecto and Voll may be scum together, I'm not thinking about a premedidated stage fight, a big machination, but more like two scums going into game and discovering/knowing that they disagree significantly on a subject and profiting from their discordance and continuing the dispute beyond what is necessary to make it looks like they can't share an alignment. I can picture that very well.

[springlullaby]

Phase One - Post Analysis

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:

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.

1) Yes I think self-voting in general is always antitown and should never be viewed otherwise, I also do believe that the symbolic of self-vote is to indicate one's willingness to catch scum. However I never said that self-vote meant automatically scum, nor that one is scummy for doing it alone. If your question here is 'why have self-voted when you think badly of self-vote' my answer is: because I wanted to see what Vollkan would say to it.

2) I did not intentionally parrot anything but yes it is a sentiment I agree with.

3) No, this is untrue, iirc you reproached Ectomancer his aggresiveness, I have nothing against agressiveness, what I didn't like in Ectomancer's play was that he was pushing Vollkan but never crossed to overt aggression - hence 'toeing the line'.

The next few posts are one-liners. Post 89 has a callout to lurkers which, all things considered, again stands out.

Yes I did that, and I feel it was justified since as the time I posted it there were people who had commented to nothing at all.

However, then we get to this:

I'll get the answers out of the way first because I behind.

@Vollkan on random voting.

It is my pet view that the random voting stage is a form of greeting ritual custom to forum mafia and that its symbolic is to indicates one's willingness to scumhunt and lynch - I'm sure that this view is debatable, however I'm not interested in adding another theoretical topic to the discussion.

What I think everyone can agree on is that the random voting stage serves a function which is to generate discussion.

Now, hypothetical scenario: what would happen in a game in which nobody were to random vote but self-voted instead?

I think the answer to this is that the self-votes would serve no purpose because it really gives nothing to people to work on - or even less than random vote if you want - and that is why I think that in absolute self-votes are always bad and inherently anti-town, and should never be viewed otherwise.

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.

@Vollkan and Spyrex on 'contradiction'

1. I see no contradiction in my play. See above.

2. Actually you guys seem to think that I have voted Vollkan because 'I think self voting is inherently bad'. I don't like this because it is not the case.

@Mykonian

1. I did state why I didn't like ecto's play. I don't see where I'm following spyrex.

2. Your point about my 'keeping my options open' irritates me. See my answer to it from another game:

Next I'll examine people post more closely and give my opinion.

In rereading, this one is a hoot.

1) First of the postulate that the random vote is tied to willingness to scumhunt and lynch. Even if I do not agree, she in-fact self voted denying her own postulate.

2)Then there is the doublespeak. On one hand self-voting is always bad and inherently anti-town (Volkan) yet it is not indicative of alignment or even always antitown (her self vote) On top of the fact that this doublespeak allows her to justify the vote - it is backwards. She said she thinks its always bad - so doing it would always be a bad thing yet if it is not indicative of alignment than how could it hold the vote for Volkan?

3)Also, she says she did state why she didn't like ecto's play - the only mention of that is, again, the parrot I mentioned earlier. Ecto was not mentioned aside from this in any of her posts.

1) This is as superficial a contradiction as it gets. Please acquaint yourself with the meaning of ritual and symbolics and them tell me about 'denying my own postulate'. Note here that my expressing my stance on self-votes in general was in direct response to Volkan's inquiry.

2) I feel I'm repeating myself.
a)It is not backward or whatever, consider the following statement: lurking is antitown, yet lurkers are not always scum. Then consider the correctness of the following: most people know perfectly well that lurking is antitown, yet they may lurk as town. Then apply this to self-voting.
b) I already repeated many time that I did not vote Vollkan for selfvoting, the quote you are looking for is above, bolded, in red.

3)Again, untrue, my view on Ecto was pretty much opposed to yours. I do not know what 'Ecto was not mentioned aside from this in any of her posts' is supposed to mean.

However, we are going to see in the next post her deeper opinion:

Vote: ortolan

Two non joke votes, two vote that sucks.

1. I already answered on the 'contradiction' thing, though it was mistakenly addressed to spyrex. Don't like the way the question addressing me is dangling at the end of that post, looks like scum changing vote but putting something at the end to signify that they aren't dropping former suspicions entirely to appear consistent.

2. Don't understand your vote on Ectomancer, what are you saying exactly? That you agree with spyrex and OP? Do I detect shedding of responsibility in the formulation of that phrase? Don't care for the drama around L-2.

I'm on page 4 of my reread, and have actually only skimmed the last page, will get to it eventually, but I feel pretty good about my current vote.

Again, this isn't "You are scummy because of X" it is "Your votes suck".

1.) The question Ort posed was:

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

She is justifying the vote on Ort under the grounds that this was answered - it was not.

Untrue, I think I explain why I think Orto's votes sucked ok in my vote post, furthermore I have explained my vote further in my reply to Orto's question that you have omitted to post in its entirety.
Here: http://mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopic.ph ... 27#1352227

Then we have a little one liner callout to Ecto to jump on the ort-wagon.

I'm not going to quote all of 186 - this is mostly debate with orto about the vote. However, there is a big gems.

Now looking back, I dislike your first vote on me even more:
http://www.mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopi ... 98#1343298

This post doesn't actually say anything does it? I had to actually guess what you find unsatisfactory about my post. Tell me, did you even know why you voted for me there?

Without even looking at the link - can you guess what it is? I sure could. The first vote was for the self-vote / calling out Volk for a self-vote.

I don't understand this, what accusation are you making exactly?

Then masons jump out and we get to.

Unvote

Second time I provoke a mason claim day 1 in recent history.

Ortolan, OP: you being claimed does not entitle you to being passive, if you guys are genuine you have nothing to fear now so step up.

I have finished my reread, I'll post my thoughts on the game so far next post when I summon the energy to write it up.

Only posted to show the number difference (I'll get to this later) and reference to the upcoming thoughts-post.

I don't see where you are getting at with the number difference here, if anything I had lurked for even longer streches of time before.

Vote Vollkan

I actually agree with the Vollkan vote. There are a number of things that sounds ungenuine, and a sense of unclear perspective in his post.

Beside I think this post
http://www.mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopi ... 71#1350271
is a fake. It looks like a misplaced post, but I believe it is dirty tactic aimed at proving his consistency in his play - an angle he has been going about a lot, I've done that as 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.

I can see the vote on Spyrex, but I think he reads town in his defense.

Mykonian reads town.

A)An agreement vote (why say you agree when, in fact, you already had suspicion?) on a growing wagon for three reasons:

1.) Sounding ungenuine - ?
2.) Unclear perspective - ??
3.) That Volkans post quoting another player in a different game was deliberate to show consistency in his play....

B)Also, this is the thoughts on the game. Aside from the very flimsy bandwagon vote he mentiones by name: Ecto, SpyreX and Myconian. Even with the assumation that the masons are town and do not need to be mentioned that still leaves us with no mention at all about 3 players: Spoilum, Mrfixij and TDC (this again becomes important later).

C)Also, of the players she does mention two are very hedged: Ecto is scum if Volk is (what) and she sees the votes on me but says I am town.

This was really a red-flag post for me for a lot of reasons. The flags continue with the explanations.

A) My agreement is with ortolan, I'm expressing it because I have criticized him before.

B) I expressed my opinion on the players I had an opinion about at the time. I still have not formed an opinion on the three others you mentionned.

C)Please explain what you mean by 'hedged'.

So replies to the questions about her vote:

1 - Ungenuine

A) 1.) Volk is ungenuine becaue it is wrapped up in excess rhetoic to make it look more solid than it is. (Keep in mind in reading the post in question it is obvious that the first-half is a continuation of their discussion whereas the last paragraph is the justification of the vote). Additionally it is not genuine because SL says Ecto has merit in the vote although it is not systematic (see Volkans reason for his vote).

In addition:

-- She says that Volk voted as a pre-emptive OMGUS.
-- Or it was a soft vote for distancing from the lynch.

B) Neither of these make sense in the earlier theory of Volk AND Ecto being scum together.

A)
a)I think the way Vollkan presented his post is indeed scummy because if you look at it in context it appears to flow from the huge post, whereas it could have been said in a one-liner.

b) It is further scummy because Vollkan later said that he voted Ecto only because Ecto's case on Spyrex was based on the assumption that Vollkan was town: it is not the impression I got.

Here is Voll's vote:

So, basically, you have contrived one particular little narrative for Spyrex's behaviour which is entirely dependent upon me being protown. Assuming his motives without any basis is bad enough (why is it not equally valid to think he is just agreeing with me? Your assumption that he is buddying up is just a form of pseudo-OMGUS), but to basis that assumption on a further assumption as to MY alignment is simply absurd. This is simply just assertion and innuendo without any basis in evidence.

I read this as the emphasis being put on Ecto making 'assertion and innuendo without basis' in general, which conforms to his displayed attitude toward good play (not that I agree with it), not with the emphasis on Ecto assuming that Voll is town, which is an entirely different argument altogether.

The former is akin to a policy vote, putting suspicion on whoever do not conform to his line of play.

The latter forms an assumption that scum is more likely to assume another person is town because they have that knowledge.

c) Not that you have formulated a proper suspicion or indeed understood me, I do think that Vollkan not recognizing the merit in Ecto's argument is scummy. And I think it is further scummy in light of the good sentiment he displayed toward my case on orto, because there too can be said to have made 'assumption without basis' in the orto case in his own approach/system, hence discrepancy.

2.) That Volk is implying a double standard in voting (Ecto is bad, SL is good yet they do the same things).

-- That this double standard is due to Ecto and SL being the most affarmative in disagreeing with the self-vote (keep in mind SL did self-vote) and it was designed to be less OMGUS-y (keep in mind again that Volk did not vote for Ecto based on that discussion, but the vote on me).

One of my point is that I think Vollk stated reason for voting for Ecto is imo streching and ungenuine.

2-Unclear Perspective

That Volk is only concerned with theory and not scumhunting (see the actual votes he placed).

Yes, and see how he dropped each so very easily. Although I do not blame him for the orto unvote, my opinion is that Voll has been at his most vocal and determined when expressing his opinion on good play, but in contrast is I cannot detect a focused train of thought in his scumhunting. Case in point, I do wonder what he thinks of Ecto now.

3-The "post"

Gut call that Volk is doing this to further his scum-meta. Its also scummy that he's saying its not pro-town in and of itself even though no one has said its scummy (they have).

Where did anyone say that his outlook on game was scummy in itself? Please quote.

So, all in all this reads as weak justification for a bandwagon vote. Only one more to go in phase one.

No it is not a weak justification, and it is a more thoughfull case than your case against me so far.

Well, from my perspective it was easy to cut short through that discussion, I did, and I think Ecto saying that he doesn't like 'muddying the waters' (a sentiment I agree with) is a tad contradictory with his pursuing the subject, well before Vollkan voted him.

Also I think that if you look at their discussion what looks like a 'big clash', and if there is a certain tension in the discussion, stays in fact in the very safe zone of theory.

When I say Ecto and Voll may be scum together, I'm not thinking about a premedidated stage fight, a big machination, but more like two scums going into game and discovering/knowing that they disagree significantly on a subject and profiting from their discordance and continuing the dispute beyond what is necessary to make it looks like they can't share an alignment. I can picture that very well.

Ecto is scummy because the statement doesn't mesh with the actions. The clash is fake because they are both scum again - but it wasn't planned from the outset it naturally happened.

...

Simple paraphrase and ellipses don't make for a case. If you have something to reproach me, formulate it properly.

Here is the timestamps on every more than one/two line post SL has made. (14 posts total).
Game start: Nov 2.
Posted: Wed Nov 05, 2008 4:00 am
Posted: Sun Nov 09, 2008 5:22 am
Posted: Tue Nov 11, 2008 10:25 pm
Posted: Thu Nov 13, 2008 10:23 am
Posted: Mon Nov 17, 2008 12:15 am
Posted: Sat Nov 22, 2008 11:14 pm
Posted: Sun Nov 23, 2008 10:30 pm
Posted: Sun Nov 23, 2008 10:47 pm

8 posts that can be considered content. 3 of which have occurred in the last 2 days. From the start of the game we have 5 posts.

This is lurking. Hardcore. And with a very good reason that I am about to unveil.... DUH DUH DUH.

I post when I have something to say, and that's it.

SL is scum:
1.) Inconsistent play.

Not true. See above.

2.) Lurking.

True to an extent, but like I said I don't post when I have nothing to say.

3.) Parroting.

The only instance it can be conceived to be true is my having the same opinion than Ectomancer on Vollkan possibly playing on the 'can't lynch me'. Beside I think I have expressed my fare share of controversial opinions.

4.) Bandwagon Jumping.

Define scummy bandwagon jumping. Then define how it applies to me.

I'm also noting that you say 'town has been devouring itself', whereas I was the first to vote ortolan.

For the rest, I do hope you have good reason to be saying what you are saying.

[springlullaby]

I see the post I'll reply to Vollkan another day.

[springlullaby]

Also,

please mod

could you fix my tags in my reply to spyrex, something went awry betwen the third and fourth block quote.

[springlullaby]

Uhhg just uhhg. I'll give this 2 hours and proceed in order of post.

[springlullaby]

Nice job - a proper case.

Phase One - Post Analysis

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.

1) She repeats twice that she has resolved the apparent contradiction here, but I still don't see where.
2) As I said at the time, it's very important people have to give reasons for their suspicions - a "you can't lynch me" attitude is not scummy; it's a nullity unless taken to extremes
3) And, yeah, aggression is not scummy - even when you obscure it with gut labels about "something muffled"

I'll get the answers out of the way first because I behind.

@Vollkan on random voting.

It is my pet view that the random voting stage is a form of greeting ritual custom to forum mafia and that its symbolic is to indicates one's willingness to scumhunt and lynch - I'm sure that this view is debatable, however I'm not interested in adding another theoretical topic to the discussion.

What I think everyone can agree on is that the random voting stage serves a function which is to generate discussion.

Now, hypothetical scenario: what would happen in a game in which nobody were to random vote but self-voted instead?

I think the answer to this is that the self-votes would serve no purpose because it really gives nothing to people to work on - or even less than random vote if you want - and that is why I think that in absolute self-votes are always bad and inherently anti-town, and should never be viewed otherwise.

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.

@Vollkan and Spyrex on 'contradiction'

1. I see no contradiction in my play. See above.

2. Actually you guys seem to think that I have voted Vollkan because 'I think self voting is inherently bad'. I don't like this because it is not the case.

@Mykonian

1. I did state why I didn't like ecto's play. I don't see where I'm following spyrex.

2. Your point about my 'keeping my options open' irritates me. See my answer to it from another game:

Next I'll examine people post more closely and give my opinion.

In rereading, this one is a hoot.

First of the postulate that the random vote is tied to willingness to scumhunt and lynch. Even if I do not agree, she in-fact self voted denying her own postulate.

The postulate itself is pure BS. The random stage is meant to start the game - there's no purpose in "signifying a willingness to catch scum. To quote myself:

No player in their right mind would think "Oh, look, vollkan cast a random vote. He must be willing to catch scum. +10 townie points for vollkan."

1) I believe that like Spyrex you do not know of feigning to not know what ritual and symbolic means. Just wikipedia it or something.

2) My stating my view on random voting in general is in direct response to your inquiry. You saying it is BS is your opinion, it is my opinion that there is an interesting essay to write on the formation of customs and ritualized human interaction specifics to mafia play, but this thread is not the place for it and it is a point that has no bearing on anything. i.e. I think your system of scumhunting is BS too, yet I do not think you are scum because of it.

Then there is the doublespeak. On one hand self-voting is always bad and inherently anti-town (Volkan) yet it is not indicative of alignment or even always antitown (her self vote) On top of the fact that this doublespeak allows her to justify the vote - it is backwards. She said she thinks its always bad - so doing it would always be a bad thing yet if it is not indicative of alignment than how could it hold the vote for Volkan?

She didn't vote me for the self-vote per se - the impression I got was that the vote was for my use of the "need evidence" defence.

Yes you are right.

An agreement vote (why say you agree when, in fact, you already had suspicion?) on a growing wagon for three reasons:
1.) Sounding ungenuine - ?
2.) Unclear perspective - ??
3.) That Volkans post quoting another player in a different game was deliberate to show consistency in his play...

The thing here is that not once does she explain how I am X scummy for doing Y. I mean, the claims she makes are essentially unfalsifiable. Almost by definition, one cannot prove that one is not ungenuine. An "unclear perspective" is similarly vague. And the point about my mistaken post, whilst technically valid, glosses over the facts that: 1) Arguments of this sort are common for me; and 2) Mis-posting is hardly a very bizarre error (especially with tabbed internet browsing).

1) I explain why I think you are scummy pretty well in my post detailing my case against you.

2) The 'unfalsiable' point is making me roll my eyes. All cases in mafia are 'unfalsiable', with the only exceptions of cardflip and investigation result. The nature of mafia play is the vying of 'unfalsiable' hypothesis, if that was not the case the scumhunting success rate would 100% and there would be no point to the game. Now explain how my putting forth 'unfalsiable' claims is scummy.

3) You know, I think that your use once again of the 'benefit of the doubt' defence is pretty scummy, it is oftentime a scum trait to want to disminish the potential scumminess of their own action in their accuser's eye. I would expect town to say something along the line of 'think what you will, it was a mistake and that's it'. Beside, I actually did meta you, and the misplaced post was the only one of this nature in the timeframe in which you post it, so yeah the odds of my being right are improving.

-- She says that Volk voted as a pre-emptive OMGUS.
-- Or it was a soft vote for distancing from the lynch.

Neither of these make sense in the earlier theory of Volk AND Ecto being scum together.

I thought she meant that it was a distancing vote from ecto - which would be consistent with her theory of vollkan and ecto as scum (but the pre-emptive OMGUS is not)

Yes you are right.

Aside from your point about the lurking, what is interesting is the way that she returns to a vote for me after claimed-Orto does, but she doesn't rely on Orto's reasons (instead, she makes her own conspiracy argument: 1) Ungenuine; 2) Unclear perspective; and 3) "The Post"). The reason this is interesting is that she begins by saying that she agrees with Orto's vote on me, but makes no attempt to defend Orto's reasoning (other than the argument that I use "double standards", but that's a fundamentally malleable principle).

This is a long paragraph, it doesn't say if and why you think I am scummy for the action you describe.

I mean, her votes so far:
1) The self-vote: Still confusing

Confusing how? Plus I do remember you posting something that seemed to indicate that you were ok with my justification of my self-vote right after I made it.
Here:
http://mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopic.ph ... 97#1345697
Tell me, if you really thought my self-vote was confusing, why didn't you pursue the subject at the time?

2) The Orto vote: Her reasons are - 1) She didn't like the "dangling question"; and 2) Doesn't understand Orto's vote and asks if he is avoiding responsibility.
-- Earlier, I said this:

Her first point is subjective, but the reason given is subjective [this should read 'objective']. You (and Ecto ) need to understand that there is a difference between drawing an inference and gut. Spring is drawing a reasonable inference as to scum motivation based on behaviour. I don't agree with her there, because I don't think that's the only reasonable inference, but it's an objective reason.

As for the second point, you have completely mischaracterised it. She isn't expressing agreement with anybody. She is saying that Ecto just seems to be agreeing with Spyrex and OP. In fact, she is ATTACKING agreement.

And, obviousy, there is room for agreement in this game. The point is, though, every player should still be able to explain things themselves. Otherwise we run the risk of having strong, articulate scum being able to pull the wool over townie's eyes just by posting impressively.

That was defending SL's vote against an argument made by Orto:

I cite springlullaby's last post (144) as an example of this- her 2 points against me are basically entirely subjective: one is putting an additional question at the end of my post after voting, and the second is deferring to others' reasoning- if no-one agreed with anyone else in this game I don't see it going very far.

The above paragraph looks like a long paragraph that flows into your case against me, but it actually isn't.

However, I did also ask:

@Spring: Why is it not just as plausible that town-Orto might have left the question dangling as an afterthought?

Orto's rebuttal was wrong - her points here were not purely subjective. That said, she never did explain at all why the "dangling question" was a scumtell (Why is X scummy for Y?). Same goes for the second point; she draws an inference of shirking responsibility. That said, however, neither of these is a compelling argument at all; they both make large assumptions which, whilst objectively explained, aren't supported enough by evidence to carry a vote.

1)The answer to that question that I did omit to respond to is: it might, but I thought it was scummy for the reason I described and pressed it.

2) I explain further why I think it looks like shirking responsibility and why think it was scummy in my reply to orto that follows. I also do remember you having no qualm with the second point when I posted it.

3) Here please define what is according to you 'enough evidence'. I thought orto's post was pretty scummy and said why.

The reason I went back to this vote is that I think we can see a rather clear tendency here. Coming to my point about assumptions underpinning arguments. What we see is that even where SL's logic is impeccable (Objectively speaking, I

could

very well have quoted "the post" for the reasons she supposes), her assumptions are not (ie. mistake is a more reasonable explanation in the case of a mispost). Her arguments on "genuineness", however, fall into a different category, since they don't construct an argument stemming from anything specific in my play. They fail for being unfalsifiable gut assertions.

Here you seem to say that I invented -as in not basing them on your play int this game at all - my reason to I think you are being ungenuine. It is not the case, I refer to two very specific event in your play: your vote on Ecto and you seemingly finding my posts good and the discrepancy of that attitude compared to your case against Ecto.
I explain it very clearly in my post with the case against you:
http://mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopic.ph ... 46#1368546

Unvote (if I am), Vote: SL

If I resume your vote here, it is something along the line of 'not enough proof, assumptions in my cases'. Correct?

That's my big problem with you Vollkan, all your votes seems to conform in appearance to your self-displayed rigid frame of 'objectivity' and 'proofs' or whatever - and maybe it is true that I could be said to not conform to your displayed idea of good scumhunting, I don't care - but yet you never offer why I am scummy because of it (or in your own word why X is scummy for Y) or indeed any real insight into the game that feels to come from genuine/alive thought process.

And I think that is the very picture of safe-play and bullshit case and scum thinking.

There is no objectivity in mafia, there is being right and wrong, and there is people who agree or disagree with you. And I think I'm being very right concerning you.

[springlullaby]

Red mine above.

[springlullaby]

1) Yes I think self-voting in general is always antitown and should never be viewed otherwise, I also do believe that the symbolic of self-vote is to indicate one's willingness to catch scum. However I never said that self-vote meant automatically scum, nor that one is scummy for doing it alone. If your question here is 'why have self-voted when you think badly of self-vote' my answer is: because I wanted to see what Vollkan would say to it.

2) I did not intentionally parrot anything but yes it is a sentiment I agree with.

3) No, this is untrue, iirc you reproached Ectomancer his aggresiveness, I have nothing against agressiveness, what I didn't like in Ectomancer's play was that he was pushing Vollkan but never crossed to overt aggression - hence 'toeing the line'.

1.) You're saying something in general is always anti-town. Yet, you do it - to provoke a response? What response were you expecting? You are saying the difference is in the character of the players - that Volk would do it whereas you would not.?

Yes, and I did not expect anything particular, I just wanted to see what Voll and to an extent others people would say. No, I'm saying that I could imagine very well Volkan doing the self-vote as a sort of gambit, creating a false peek of interest toward him and appealing to the 'why would he attract that much attention to him as scum'. My answer to that question is that it is very probably not a good question to be asking oneself when it is apparent that it is a question that is dictated in the subtext of the person's action.

2.) Intentionally of course can not be proven - however the similarity is apparent.

Again, the only point that could be said to be true is for the thing with Ecto.

3.) So you were not concerned with the aggressive tones, but that Ecto was pushing without being aggressive?

No, I did not like the fact that Ecto was pushing Vollkan while staying short of being really aggressive. aka I think his behaviour toward Vollkan could be qualified as passive-aggressive, he was needling him on many things but never expressed suspicion that was backed-up with a vote. This is bad because it puts people in a defensive position whereas there is no clearly stated game relevant opinion opposite.

Yes I did that, and I feel it was justified since as the time I posted it there were people who had commented to nothing at all.

What I am getting at is, aside from the post above, you were lurking. Calling lurkers out is a method to push for a lynch.

I had nothing to comment on beside my desire for people who hadn't said anything at all to express something. Push for what lynch?

1) This is as superficial a contradiction as it gets. Please acquaint yourself with the meaning of ritual and symbolics and them tell me about 'denying my own postulate'. Note here that my expressing my stance on self-votes in general was in direct response to Volkan's inquiry.

2) I feel I'm repeating myself.
a)It is not backward or whatever, consider the following statement: lurking is antitown, yet lurkers are not always scum. Then consider the correctness of the following: most people know perfectly well that lurking is antitown, yet they may lurk as town. Then apply this to self-voting.
b) I already repeated many time that I did not vote Vollkan for selfvoting, the quote you are looking for is above, bolded, in red.

3)Again, untrue, my view on Ecto was pretty much opposed to yours. I do not know what 'Ecto was not mentioned aside from this in any of her posts' is supposed to mean.

1) You made, and have repeated the stance "Self-voting is always anti-town" further, you said it was because it showed a willingness to look for scum. You then self-voted. This is not a superficial contradiction.

I have explained this in good faith several times now and you are repeating yoursef, I think I have made myself clear but I recognize that I may have been prickly about it so I will make the effort to explain this point again, but this is

the last time

I will. (Consider yourself lucky that you're not getting an educational leaflet because I haven't got the time.)

a) It is my view that the

symbolic

behind the

greeting-ritual

that can be said to be the nature of the self-voting stage is to signify one's willingness to find scum and lynch.
i.e.
Ritual: hand-kissing
Symbolic: historically/culturally to signify one's respect and allegiance.
.
Again, I'm not open to debate on this subject in this thread as it this theory and has no relevance on the game itself; I have expressed my view on this only in direct reply to Vollkan's inquiry and made it clear.

Note here that it is self-evident, and that by definition, the symbolic of a gesture is not the same thing as the intention/motive of its execution

b) I do believe that self-voting is antitown as lurking is antitown, and should never viewed otherwise for the reasons I have explained (i.e. Imagine a town in which everyone self-voted etc.). This describes the inehrent value of self-vote, which I think is nil. Yet I do not believe that antitown=scum.

Note here that contradiction you describe is ineherently linear and works only on paper, it doesn't describe anything real as it assumes that if someone acknowledge that X is antitown, they would never do X as town.

Furthermore it doesn't even work as far as linear logic go as you are totally missing out the fact that I do believe that self-vote can generate value, not by the inherent quality of the self-vote, but by going against custom, and stated it.

2.) Again, you have said self-voting is anti-town. Unless you do not think anti-town behavior is "bad" then you did something anti-town. You then condemn Volkan FOR it (you're still saying the vote itself is an anti-town sentiment because of the 'you cant catch me' attitude which of course requires the self-vote to exist) yet you then say it is not even always anti-town (your vote).

I never voted Vollkan 'FOR it'. You saying that I did because my reason for voting Vollkan then required the self-vote to exist in the first place is plain bad faith and fallacious: the very same action can be scummy or not depending on the circumstances.

3.) So you are saying you thought Ecto was a suspect for not being aggressive. The latter is simple: You, aside from this, mentioned Ecto once in the above post.

I answered this above. I don't see what you are implying with the rest.

Untrue, I think I explain why I think Orto's votes sucked ok in my vote post, furthermore I have explained my vote further in my reply to Orto's question that you have omitted to post in its entirety.
Here: http://mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopic.ph ... 27#1352227

The post later that I say was omitted? Yea.

Again, you are saying "Your votes suck" but that != "You are scummy because of X".

This is untrue, I explained why I thought orto's post was scummy. Just read my damn post.

I don't understand this, what accusation are you making exactly?

You are deriding ort for voting what is clearly, as he mentioned more than once, your self-vote / voting Volkan. His reasons are clear and, once again, you are pish-poshing it away as though it is a non-issue.

I may be prickly sometime but I never deride people maliciously. Plus, I distincly remember that I wasn't in the least mocking in the passage you are refering to. And maybe I was uncooperative on this but I thought that I made myself clear the first time, still think I did, but it is apparently not others people opinion.

I don't see where you are getting at with the number difference here, if anything I had lurked for even longer streches of time before.

You lurked pretty much through the entire fiasco and yes, this is notice that you are lurking.

Quantify lurking. I responded to orto meantime the 'fiasco'.

A) My agreement is with ortolan, I'm expressing it because I have criticized him before.

B) I expressed my opinion on the players I had an opinion about at the time. I still have not formed an opinion on the three others you mentionned.

C)Please explain what you mean by 'hedged'.

A.) Huh. I can accept that.
B.) In your thoughts on the game (including calling out lurkers) you have no opinion on 30% of the game?

Yes I had no formed opinion pertaining to their scumminess or townishness that I wished to express at the time. What are you accusing me of here exactly?

C.) You are giving yourself outs if/when wagons form on either Ecto or I.

This is your interpretation.

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.

A)
a)I think the way Vollkan presented his post is indeed scummy because if you look at it in context it appears to flow from the huge post, whereas it could have been said in a one-liner.

b) It is further scummy because Vollkan later said that he voted Ecto only because Ecto's case on Spyrex was based on the assumption that Vollkan was town: it is not the impression I got.

I read this as the emphasis being put on Ecto making 'assertion and innuendo without basis' in general, which conforms to his displayed attitude toward good play (not that I agree with it), not with the emphasis on Ecto assuming that Voll is town, which is an entirely different argument altogether.

The former is akin to a policy vote, putting suspicion on whoever do not conform to his line of play.

The latter forms an assumption that scum is more likely to assume another person is town because they have that knowledge.

c) Not that you have formulated a proper suspicion or indeed understood me, I do think that Vollkan not recognizing the merit in Ecto's argument is scummy. And I think it is further scummy in light of the good sentiment he displayed toward my case on orto, because there too can be said to have made 'assumption without basis' in the orto case in his own approach/system, hence discrepancy.

I put Ecto's up there for all the playa's in the house.

A.) I did look at it in context and had no issue separating the different parts of the discussion from it. That aside, how is that scummy?

I already explained why I think it was scummy, you either agree or disagree.

B.) Looking at what Ecto said (and the first line of what Volk said) are you holding to Volk's alignment being a key part in Ecto's statements? If you are saying this was policy... why wouldn't he have done it earlier?

Your are missing the fact that I highly doubt Vollkan is town.

--- You did not address my issue of you saying Volk and Ecto being scum together and that not meshing with your other theories.

It does, read me again. Lol, I should really stop this whole antagonistic thing shouldn't I. But I think you don't know how to read.

C.) I haven't formulated proper suspicion? Also, I am taking it this is the statment of good sentiment?

Man are you doing this on purpose? What are you even talking about?

Her first point is subjective, but the reason given is subjective. You (and Ecto Razz) need to understand that there is a difference between drawing an inference and gut. Spring is drawing a reasonable inference as to scum motivation based on behaviour. I don't agree with her there, because I don't think that's the only reasonable inference, but it's an objective reason.

One of my point is that I think Vollk stated reason for voting for Ecto is imo streching and ungenuine.

Give the reasons why. "Stretching" and "ungenuine" are the kinds of words that need explanations.

Yes, and I did explain.

Yes, and see how he dropped each so very easily. Although I do not blame him for the orto unvote, my opinion is that Voll has been at his most vocal and determined when expressing his opinion on good play, but in contrast is I cannot detect a focused train of thought in his scumhunting. Case in point, I do wonder what he thinks of Ecto now.

Each? He dropped Ecto as I did when Ort did some very scummy things. He dropped Ort when he claimed mason. I did both these things. Am I scum?

Bad faith.

Where did anyone say that his outlook on game was scummy in itself? Please quote.

Outlook? You said he purposefully misplaced a post to further his ends in this game.

Yes. And how is that relevant to your original line of questionning to which I responded to? In the future please quote yourself when you make reply, else you misrepresent me as the one who is answering beside the point.

As for the outlook on the game? You have said he's using rhetoric to hide his play. Ort has said he can't be meta'd. Even some of the Ecto debate has this same sentiment (this has nothing to do with my point but I cant help myself).

My point has some ovelapping with their views yes, but I it is also distinct as my reason for thinking him scummy is his confidence in arguing theory vs his feeble and text book scumhunting. I actually reread the only game I played with him, and in that game his townplay's scumhunting feels a lot more flexible and genuine.

No it is not a weak justification, and it is a more thoughfull case than your case against me so far.

OHH ICE BURN.

Dismissal of a case.... scum or town? YOU BE THE JUDGE.

Yeah, you be.

Simple paraphrase and ellipses don't make for a case. If you have something to reproach me, formulate it properly.

Well I must have paraphrased it right since you didn't say anything about it. You are making the statment(s) - Ecto is scummy now (she was town earlier and hadn't posted too much between) because she didn't like muddying the waters. You are saying they are both scum and didn't plan this but naturally flowed into it - which has no bearing on absolutely anything.

You are now not only trying to tighten weak strings on Volk, but trying to imply a chain lynch.

Bad faith. It has a bearing on what I can envisage two scum doing. What do you mean 'imply a chain lynch?

I post when I have something to say, and that's it.

Or you post just enough to not get modprodded and obviously lurk. Unless you have something to say 2-3 days apart consistently.

Here I think you are being very bad faith because you are making it out as if I didn't post anything relevant.

SL is scum:
1.) Inconsistent play. Not true. See above.
2.) Lurking. True to an extent, but like I said I don't post when I have nothing to say.
3.) Parroting. The only instance it can be conceived to be true is my having the same opinion than Ectomancer on Vollkan possibly playing on the 'can't lynch me'. Beside I think I have expressed my fare share of controversial opinions.
4.) Bandwagon Jumping. Define scummy bandwagon jumping. Then define how it applies to me.

1.) I did. Still inconsistent. Opportunistically inconsistent.

Not true, see above. Quantify 'opportunistically'.

2.) Admitted to lurking? Noice.

Nice what?

3.) Assuming you mean that your vote for Ecto wasn't the same as mine (in fact the opposite meaning that he wasn't aggressive) - sureish. However, the myriad of Ecto is scum/not scum is its own dance.

Yes, and I change my mind a lot too, sue me.

4.) Why was ort worth the vote over Volkan? Why did you wait until Volkan had other votes on him?

Because he did something very scummy. The second question is bad faith and loaded, I didn't wait for anything.

I'm also noting that you say 'town has been devouring itself', whereas I was the first to vote ortolan.

For the rest, I do hope you have good reason to be saying what you are saying.

Killing, not devouring.

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.

No it wasn't blindlingly obvious.

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

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

Loaded, taunting.

[springlullaby]

Next mrfixij

[springlullaby]

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

I've answered to this already.

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.

I have already responded (please reply to it) and think that your description of my post is wrong, but this is actually the third time you commit a heinous crime against French language, and beside the pointlessness of quoting in a foreign language thrice when you obviously do not know to do it right, I also think you have a very poor grasp of what deconstuction is - the very idea of 'poor instance' of

Il n'y a pas de hors texte

is ridiculous and actually quite ironic. Tell me, can you explain what you mean exactly here and how your use of Derrida's

formule

is in anyway relevant here?

You know, I have noticed a trend toward unwarranted pompousness in your post, spherical cows and stuff, at this point I do not know if it is saving-face and making out as 'bigger than you are' scummy or just your personality.

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.

You mean the part were I say that I am rereading the game? This game takes a lot of concentration, big posts with lot of stuff that isn't always relevant, was difficult to separate 'le grain de l'ivraie', so yeah, I had to reread.

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.

I think you will have a hard time coming up with 'statistical' backing for you theory, because to my knowledge no one ever bothered to compile the data, but beyond that what disturbs me here is that you are talking about one of the clichest scumtell that exists within the mafia-meta as if it is a novel and original idea. I'm not sure if it is true newbiness or what.

I'm also of the opinion that if there is any truth to that theory, it is because scum often don't bother to start cases of their own and dislike to have a vote to close the the lynching one. And that often only apply to newbscum, except when it does not.

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).

What non-logic? I have already explained the linearity of the first point and I have written an entire post on why I think Ecto and Vollkan could be scum together.

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.

I really don't like the softclaim in there and see no point in it but I am not willing to push the point atm. It should be however noted.

[springlullaby]

Two replies to Vollkan to go.

At this point I want however TDC and mana-ku to express who they are suspicious of and Ectomancer to comment on the case against me.

I have no feeling on what mykonian said lately, could go either way I guess, but there are earlier post of his that had impressed me as town, and I'm going to stick with that.

[springlullaby]

1) I believe that like Spyrex you do not know of feigning to not know what ritual and symbolic means. Just wikipedia it or something.

I understand perfectly well what you mean; don't patronise me. My point about "+10 townie points" was a reductio ad absurdum of the very idea of some kind of ritualistic "We want to hunt scum" activity. As I have said, that isn't the purpose of the random voting stage, and your employment of it as the purpose simply concocts a justification for suspicion where, in fact, one does not exist.

I have made further reply to this.

2) My stating my view on random voting in general is in direct response to your inquiry. You saying it is BS is your opinion, it is my opinion that there is an interesting essay to write on the formation of customs and ritualized human interaction specifics to mafia play, but this thread is not the place for it and it is a point that has no bearing on anything. i.e. I think your system of scumhunting is BS too, yet I do not think you are scum because of it.

And yet, you do take issue with my self-vote because I go against this ritualistic activity. By your own logic, that's invalid because you are presuming that I am sharing your opinion about the purpose of random voting. Maybe there is an interesting essay to write on the subject - doesn't mean that people see the random voting stage in the same way that you purport to.

No I have never taken issue with your voting for 'going against ritualistic activity', I voted you based on my assessement of your character.

2) The 'unfalsiable' point is making me roll my eyes. All cases in mafia are 'unfalsiable', with the only exceptions of cardflip and investigation result. The nature of mafia play is the vying of 'unfalsiable' hypothesis, if that was not the case the scumhunting success rate would 100% and there would be no point to the game. Now explain how my putting forth 'unfalsiable' claims is scummy.

Facts

- Cardflips and mod-confirmed knowledge. These are usually the only way of completely proving something untrue.
|
|
|
V

Theory

- This is the level at which scumhunting operates. We have a variety of competing theories. Now, take the example of "Player X hammers Player Y, a claimed vig, with no explanation of his vote. Player X claims it was a mistake". We have a number of vying ideas: (for simplicity sake, I shall list three) 1) Player X is scum trying to off a vig, 2) Player X is a townie who made a mistake, 3) Player X is a cop with a guilty on Y. Now, we cannot "prove" any of those to be true. Likewise, we cannot "prove" any of them false. However, we can effectively do the same based on the reasonableness of each theory - how likely it seems. For instance, 3) would be extremely unlikely and, absent a claim, should not be acted on as valid. 2), likewise, presumes an exceptional aberration in play, which makes it also highly unlikely. 1) in contrast, fits perfectly with motivation of scum and, thus, is most reasonable. But the important thing to note here is that the 3 theories can be challenged and debated. You might point out X's propensity to make mistakes a s town. That might make 2) more likely. For the purposes of the game, theories can be falsified. Not

proven

to be true or false absolutely (that would require them to be facts), but proven to be false as reasonable explanations.
|
|
|
V

Conjecture

- I have much disdain for this category. This includes things like "gut" (when used as a justification for suspicion/vote), a declaration that "something seems fishy/ungenuine/etc." The reason is simple: claims of this nature CANNOT be challenged or rendered unreasonable. They depend entirely upon what the individual making the claim thinks (or, in the case of scum, purports to think). I cannot prove I am not "ungenuine", for instance, or even prove that is not a reasonable explanation. Because it is one wholly subjective interpretation of my play.

In essence, theories can be proven invalid as a matter of gameplay. But conjecture cannot ever be refuted. You are conflating the two.

Why does your use of conjecture make you scummy? We see in your attacks a reliance upon making claims that people cannot rebut. This might range from your point about "rituals" (You even just now tried to reduce it to a "that's my opinion" thing), to calling me "ungenuine" or having an "unclear perspective". It's all effectively just emotional rhetoric. We cannot possibly hope to debate with you, because you shroud it all in the cloak of "my opinion". That's scummy because, firstly, you are avoiding accountability by only making arguments which cannot be refuted and, secondly, because it allows you to play the offensive without actually having to find evidence of scumminess.

1) Your disdain does not concerns me, I play the way I think is good and so far I think my own method of scumhunting is pretty good so I see no reason to change it.

2) If anything my vote against you stands firmly in the 'theory' zone of your scale. And I think you are very scummy for trying to represent my vote as totally disconnected from elements of this game: I have explained why I think you are being 'ungenuine' based on evidences in your play this game, and the same goes for what I describe as 'unclear perspective. Go ahead and quote me. The only thing that can be said to be 'conjecture' in your own scale is my opinion on your misplaced post, and I take full responsibility for it.

3) I never avoided acountability, I have expressed my opinions in this game and I stand by them.

a) Furthermore, your thing about argument which cannot be refuted is I think pure BS. The only way it could be said to be scummy would be basing it off the assumption that only town could refute theories, and scum would ultimately fail to refute them. Or even that town would never make these calls. I do not believe for one second that someone with your experience can really believe that.

b) Do quantify 'play the offensive without actually having to find evidence of scuminess'. I found what I consider evidence of scuminess in your play, and I think you are entirely sidestepping the issue by repeating continually saying 'no evidence' 'no evidence'.

3) You know, I think that your use once again of the 'benefit of the doubt' defence is pretty scummy, it is oftentime a scum trait to want to disminish the potential scumminess of their own action in their accuser's eye. I would expect town to say something along the line of 'think what you will, it was a mistake and that's it'. Beside, I actually did meta you, and the misplaced post was the only one of this nature in the timeframe in which you post it, so yeah the odds of my being right are improving.

I'm not going to say "think what you will", because I don't accept that there are good reasons for suspecting me for this. That's just granting you license to continue peddling this nonsense. The game is still ongoing, but check out Mini 688 "The Iceman Modeth". I stress that the game is ongoing (I am dead, however, which is why I am referencing it), so please say nothing which could influence that game. That is where the post was meant to be made.

Just because you say it is nonsense doesn't make it so. I don't get why you are referrencing that game here, I get that it is where the misplaced post was supposed to be destined to, but so what?

And you know, the strangest thing here is that I'm starting to think that I may have been wrong about you misplacing your post intentionally, but I still think you are very high chance of being scum based on your response. Your first response to it, and indeed to my entire case on you was pretty much on the appeasing side, now you are blurring the lines and saying that I'm scummy because of my reasons to think you so.

This is a long paragraph, it doesn't say if and why you think I am scummy for the action you describe.

I assumed it was self-evident, but since you press me: Craplogic is something which is inherently scummy. When craplogic is used there are basically two explanations: 1) Scum trying to justify an ungenuine attack; 2) Town making an error. If we shirked from any suspicion because of the chance of 2), we'd never be able to justify suspicion. There's no magical line in the sand, but that makes craplogic scummy because, accounting for the prospect of town error, there is scumminess. Thus, sustained use of craplogic can justify a lynch, because the odds of 2) diminish.

Okay, yet to fail to demonstrate how anything I say is craplogic. Please quote.

Confusing how? Plus I do remember you posting something that seemed to indicate that you were ok with my justification of my self-vote right after I made it.
Here:
http://mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopic.ph ... 97#1345697
Tell me, if you really thought my self-vote was confusing, why didn't you pursue the subject at the time?

First off, you never said that was your justification? (If I am wrong, where did you say it?)

I don't believe that, and I think you are backpedalling here: it is written '@Vollkan' at the beginning of that, and my post prior to that was my saying 'before I answer you, let me ask a question'.

And, in any event, you'll find that the post you quote actually has me profoundly disagreeing with you:

Now, hypothetical scenario: what would happen in a game in which nobody were to random vote but self-voted instead?

I think the answer to this is that the self-votes would serve no purpose because it really gives nothing to people to work on - or even less than random vote if you want - and that is why I think that in absolute self-votes are always bad and inherently anti-town, and should never be viewed otherwise.

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.

You are entirely correct. My very tactic of self-voting relies on the fact that it will be controversial. If self-voting ever became the norm, the tactic (like any sort of ploy) would become entirely invalid.

It's wrong to judge play based on its effects "if everybody did it" because, quite simply, that inquiry doesn't relate to whether or not something is pro-town or anti-town in any given instance (this is analogous to the distinction between deontologism and utilitarianism).

There's no tension between believing that self-voting would be bad if everyone did it, and believing that self-voting can be good in any particular instant (as you say, by going against customary practice)

In essence, "Yes, you are right that my self-voting requires controversy - but that is really irrelevant to the question of any specific instance where not everybody does"

Huh, that's not the impression I got from the post at all. I do not believe that if you had an objection to what I said then you would have let it drop, wasn't it your stated motivation of your self-vote manoeuvre?

1)The answer to that question that I did omit to respond to is: it might, but I thought it was scummy for the reason I described and pressed it.

I know that is what you purport. What I want to know is why is YOUR explanation more reasonable than MY explanation.

You prove me that my explanation is LESS reasonnable than yours. Man do you have a point? This is going into BS arguing land hardcore.

2) I explain further why I think it looks like shirking responsibility and why think it was scummy in my reply to orto that follows. I also do remember you having no qualm with the second point when I posted it.

No, I didn't attack your second point at the time. I did say this:

As for the second point, you have completely mischaracterised it. She isn't expressing agreement with anybody. She is saying that Ecto just seems to be agreeing with Spyrex and OP. In fact, she is ATTACKING agreement.

And, obviousy, there is room for agreement in this game. The point is, though, every player should still be able to explain things themselves. Otherwise we run the risk of having strong, articulate scum being able to pull the wool over townie's eyes just by posting impressively.

Am I missing something or are you recognizing your own contradiction? What is the point of what you quoting yourself here? You said in you last post that you objected to my point, I pointed out that was not the case and now you are saying...what?

You know what, I think what you are doing here is acutally sidestepping the issue.

I am objecting to your idea that it is necessarily scummy as shirking. There are a range of acceptable behaviours. Some agreement is alright, but too much is scummy.

BS strawman. I emitted the hypothesis that it may have been shirking responsibility, I distincly remember putting my accusation of orto in the form of a question.

3) Here please define what is according to you 'enough evidence'. I thought orto's post was pretty scummy and said why.

There's no magical quantity or anything, but I mean that your arguments should aggregate a number of scumtells which would, in total, make scum the most reasonable explanation overall. Even if a player is not scum for any one individually, 1) becomes more reasonable than 2) in the aggregate. The points you raise fail that threshold.

This is something new and your stated opinion about what one should do, like I said, it does not concerns me. Beside, I think you have played enough mafia to know that's BS.

[springlullaby]

On a different note, as this has went to "I dont know how to read" I'm out of this whole "discussion". I'm only going to give this - a previous dismissal + now a dismissal of my ability to play.. town move or scum move?

My vote is staying barring some huge change in play. I suggest people read this discussion and make a call on it.

If other people have questions about my case I'll be more than happy to answer/debate.

SL is as good as already lynched as far as I'm concerned.

It is only dismissal if there is a possibility of truth in what you are saying.

Here quoted for you since the obvious thing to do when someone tells you that you are wrong is not to verify your facts but go into 'lalalala I'm not listening to you' land.

You say:

You did not address my issue of you saying Volk and Ecto being scum together and that not meshing with your other theories.

I say, you don't know how to read:

Alternatively I can also conceived it as a soft vote for distancing purpose, because you dropped it pretty fast when the ortolan case surfaced.

You know, I've been stepping into a lot of ego-fights lately, so obviously I must be doing something wrong. But man, you are the one to talk about dismissal when you reply to my hour long post with a one liners and 'lalala'.

[springlullaby]

Yes, and I did not expect anything particular, I just wanted to see what Voll and to an extent others people would say. No, I'm saying that I could imagine very well Volkan doing the self-vote as a sort of gambit, creating a false peek of interest toward him and appealing to the 'why would he attract that much attention to him as scum'. My answer to that question is that it is very probably not a good question to be asking oneself when it is apparent that it is a question that is dictated in the subtext of the person's action.

So, in essence, you self-voted for a reason that was essentially the same as mine - to provoke reaction.

I love that when

you

do it is pristinely pro-town but when

I

do it you seem to object to it becasue you can "very well imagine" me doing it for nefarious purposes. Your hypocrisy is truly astounding.

Misrepresentation, I never said that I was 'pristinely pro-town' for anything, people throw crap contradiction my way, I point out how they are talking crap.

And here you are representing me as an hypocrite when you gloss over the fact that the reason I voted you at the begininng of this game is totally different from what people have been reproaching me.

No, I did not like the fact that Ecto was pushing Vollkan while staying short of being really aggressive. aka I think his behaviour toward Vollkan could be qualified as passive-aggressive, he was needling him on many things but never expressed suspicion that was backed-up with a vote. This is bad because it puts people in a defensive position whereas there is no clearly stated game relevant opinion opposite.

"no clearly stated game relevant opinion opposite"? Say what you will about the viability of Ecto's arguments, but it is absurd to say that he had no clearly stated opinion. Backing a point up with a vote does nothing to alter whether or not there are clear opinions - the two exist independently of one another.

The term is 'game relevant opinion' with the emphasis on 'game relevant'. You know, who think whom is scum and why.

a) It is my view that the symbolic behind the greeting-ritual that can be said to be the nature of the self-voting stage is to signify one's willingness to find scum and lynch.
i.e.
Ritual: hand-kissing
Symbolic: historically/culturally to signify one's respect and allegiance.
.
Again, I'm not open to debate on this subject in this thread as it this theory and has no relevance on the game itself; I have expressed my view on this only in direct reply to Vollkan's inquiry and made it clear.

Note here that it is self-evident, and that by definition, the symbolic of a gesture is not the same thing as the intention/motive of its execution

Uh, this is very relevant to this game - because it was a basis of your argument against an action of mine. You've essentially just made your own assertion about the point of random-voting and now expect us not to debate the viability of it. Again, as I keep saying, the random voting stage is just to kick off the game. There is no symbolic point to it.

1)It is not the basis of any of my votes against you, how many times have I demonstrated that already? Do you think you repeating yourself is gonna make it true?

2)Oh so since you say it has no symbolic to it it must be the truth, is it? And you have clearly by your sole statement eradicated any possible viability of my opinion. Next time you say the earth is round, I will say 'no, there is no vialibility to what you are saying - because I keep saying it is flat'.

b) I do believe that self-voting is antitown as lurking is antitown, and should never viewed otherwise for the reasons I have explained (i.e. Imagine a town in which everyone self-voted etc.). This describes the inehrent value of self-vote, which I think is nil. Yet I do not believe that antitown=scum.

FFS. By that logic, being an accountant is inherently bad because, if everybody were accountants, there would be no food. Just like self-voting, accountancy is only viable as a profession because not everybody does it.

What does FFS mean. Strawman, reductio ad absurdum.

Lurking is inherently bad, yet it is not indicative of alignment. Agree/disagree?

I think the same applies to self-vote.

Are you really missing this?

I think people should seriously consider Vollkan, I think my point in 287 still stands true. You are at liberty to have you own opinion on the misplaced post thing, but consider also the points in my replies to him.

[springlullaby]

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?

Lets look at her first post:

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.

So, on one hand mrfix is bad for making a "character judgement" from SL's first post. On the other hand Volkan is scum because of a "character judgement" of his, in fact, first post.
[/quote]

You are putting words in my mouth, and this point is, again, BS.

I pointed out that the self-vote was my first post in this game (which means well prior to my expressing my stance on self-voting) in reply to mrfixij saying something along the line of my self-vote 'ringing the bell of irony' or something to that effect, which is indeed not a judgment that he could have made because to my knowledge mrfixij has no knowledge of my stance on the issue prior to this game.

On the other hand, my judgment of Vollkan came after he stated his opinion on the self-vote issue, plus I have cardflipped game experience on Vollkan.

You know, I'd appreciate it if you stopped selectively replying to what I say, and using loaded words repeatedly without even refuting my replies.

[springlullaby]

Messed up tags. Ignore above correct as follow.

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?

Lets look at her first post:

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.

So, on one hand mrfix is bad for making a "character judgement" from SL's first post. On the other hand Volkan is scum because of a "character judgement" of his, in fact, first post.

You are putting words in my mouth, and this point is, again, BS.

I pointed out that the self-vote was my first post in this game (which means well prior to my expressing my stance on self-voting) in reply to mrfixij saying something along the line of my self-vote 'ringing the bell of irony' or something to that effect, which is indeed not a judgment that he could have made because to my knowledge mrfixij has no knowledge of my stance on the issue prior to this game.

On the other hand, my judgment of Vollkan came after he stated his opinion on the self-vote issue, plus I have cardflipped game experience on Vollkan.

You know, I'd appreciate it if you stopped selectively replying to what I say, and using loaded words repeatedly without even refuting my replies.

[springlullaby]

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.

Please explain how this reply is in any way relevant.

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?

I take issue with your 'all proper logic is obvious', but I'll pass on this one because unfortunately I do know that there are people who actually believes that while as the same time being oblivious to all evidence to the contrary. Now, where did I ever use false or made up information. And yes it is one of my fav scumtell.

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.

What is the meaning of your reply here? What irony?

You say that my self-vote ringed the bell of something something, I'm pointing out to you the fact that you could not have that judgment because my self-vote was my first post in this game.

[springlullaby]

Dear Vollkan, the energy you put into arguing unarguable grounds that may sounds pretty on paper but are indeed very far removed from mafia reality is amazing, and I think quite scummy because I think you do have the pragmatic experience to know that you are spewing BS.

Please do show me one case in the entire mafia history that couldn't be explained 'reasonably' away, especially on day 1.

Then I'll show you any number of instances where a case is spot on despite being possibly 'reasonably' explained away.

You see, any scum worth his money knows to thrive within the confines of reasonableness, and I do not believer for one second that you can be oblivious to that fact.

Mafia is about perspective, and finding the right one in a sea of possibilities that are all equally uncertain. The reason of this uncertainty is because there isn't a standard for scum action that you can 'objectively' check people's action against to determine what is scummy or not. What is left is hypothesis, and agreement or lack thereof upon them.
----------------------------------

That said I'm still sold on Vollkan. I think my original arguments stands true and I also urge people to reread our argument, because I think there is backpedalling on Vollkan part (specifically on my 'contradiction' thing), I also think that his manner of responding first appeasing-ly to my case then going full steam for 'I'm so scummy for it' is scummy. Plus, his latching on my 'misplaced' post argument and trying to represent all my arguments as equivalent is what I would expect scum to do.

I'm not gonna respond to Vollkan last post addressing me because I think the points he makes are not true, and that I have responded to them already at one point or another, and I feel I'm facing an endless fountain of words, mainly saying the same thing again and again. Now if someone else want me to address something specifically, ask and I'll reply.

I also would like a

prod on Mana_Ku

.

[springlullaby]

I made my case, if I were better town I would do a nice summary in one post, but I'm not and you will have to go over from my original vote, and argument with Vollkan. At this point I can't imagine town Vollkan, all his votes and especially the one on me is so stiff, I don't think it's real. If someone want me to answer further something he brought up, I'll do.

mrfixij, I have no handle on, earlier play looks ok, if a bit pompous in tone. In any case I'm not willing to pursue a lynch on him today.

I still feel mykonian is town.

I do not get the point of TDC's last post at all and the undecided-ness is starting to grate on my nerves.

Of the mason, OP is being very crap. ortolan, please paraphrase your PM, without emitting any of the key elements.

[springlullaby]

Huh, I see another post by vollkan and another instance of the use of the word conspiracy.

[springlullaby]

I forgot that you said you knew both of you were town.

[springlullaby]

Just an interesting meta exchange I came across whilst reading California Trilogy - Going to San Francisco a game where I was lynched as town. A bit of "food for thought" shall we say:

I don't like your analysis of me. It doesn't look genuine.

Thankyou for giving me your conclusion. Now give me the reasons which led you to it.

Same attack as I have received here, and I have the same attitude to it.

This is interesting, tell me who are you trying to convince here? And of what exactly?

[springlullaby]

Ok, it's like this. From now on, I'm not even reading Vollkan's posts anymore.

I will wait till johnson catch up before posting one summary of why I think Vollkan is scum. Then everybody here is going to have to explain point by point why they are not voting Vollkan.

[springlullaby]

Announcing VLA coming up dec 20 to janv 2.

Will probably post one big post before going.

[springlullaby]

BTW, you can lynch me whenever you want, but what is the use of doing it today? All you get with it is an extra nightkill. While when you leave me in the game, you can lynch someone else, and with that you would make the amount of possible scum smaller. When lynching me, you only give scum a free kill on a confirmed player. Think about it, is it that usefull to lynch scum when you got him for sure? Does it matter if you lynch him right away? I think it does, you loose the opportunity of using the towns best weapon for

searching

, as you have already found me. The only thing that stands between you and a win, are my partners, you only need to find them, you could lynch me anytime...

I was gonna say myk scum isn't so clear cut to me because counterclaiming doc as scum is just dumb but that solves it. Out of interest, what did you try to achieve by that counterclaim? It seems very short term reward to me.

Anyway, I stand by the Vollkan lynch, skimming over the last page I don't think the claim would have changed my mind much, especially with the counterclaim. Contrarily to Spyrex, I think it was a very plausible counterclaim.

Also, yes, Jailkeeper+doc+masons does look overpowered, even with more than two scums. Now I'd like to know why mrfixij felt the need to softclaim D1 if he is what he says he is. Note here that I don't like the SK talk at all, how does 2 potential kills per night works in a 10 people town?

Rereading.

[springlullaby]

Having fun aren't you?

Done rereading.

I'm good with lynching mykonian.

For the record, I think TDC is very scummy for taking zero stand. I'm very unhappy Volk didn't turn out scum because I think Spyrex was very scummy D1, but I don't think he could be faking the 'told you so-ness' that well.

Vote:mykoninan

[springlullaby]

Wait before doing anything, I'm getting confirmation on something.

[springlullaby]

Ok, if someone want to claim vig kill, they do it now.

[springlullaby]

Back. Claim: I'm the forensic investigator, I can determine the alignment of whomever committed a kill.

Today's death were both mafiakills, that is what I was getting confirmation on.

Breadcrumb yesterday:

BTW, you can lynch me whenever you want, but what is the use of doing it today? All you get with it is an extra nightkill. While when you leave me in the game, you can lynch someone else, and with that you would make the amount of possible scum smaller. When lynching me, you only give scum a free kill on a confirmed player. Think about it, is it that usefull to lynch scum when you got him for sure? Does it matter if you lynch him right away? I think it does, you loose the opportunity of using the towns best weapon for

searching

, as you have already found me. The only thing that stands between you and a win, are my partners, you only need to find them, you could lynch me anytime...

I was gonna say myk scum isn't so clear cut to me because counterclaiming doc as scum is just dumb but that solves it. Out of interest, what did you try to achieve by that counterclaim? It seems very short term reward to me.

Anyway, I stand by the Vollkan lynch, skimming over the last page I don't think the claim would have changed my mind much, especially with the counterclaim. Contrarily to Spyrex, I think it was a very plausible counterclaim.

Also, yes, Jailkeeper+doc+masons does look overpowered, even with more than two scums. Now I'd like to know why mrfixij felt the need to softclaim D1 if he is what he says he is.

Note here that I don't like the SK talk at all, how does 2 potential kills per night works in a 10 people town?

Rereading.

Meaning, the kill was not SK yesterday.

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

This means 2 mafia of 2 and 1 each. This means town has a chance to win only if we lynch the 2 man mafia.

Right now I'm very much doubting Spyrex' claim:
1. I very much doubt there is another investigative role on top of mine.

2. The breadcrumb Spyrex pointed to sucks. It doesn't indicate anything positive, just that 'he knows'. Which leaves big room on claiming whatever he likes on TDC's alignment. I would expect a cop breadcrumb to be a positive indication of guiltiness or innocence.

3. I still think his play D1 was very scummy.

This is very relevant in light of the fact that I think Spyrex is part of the 2 man mafia, gambitting to the finish line. He is either telling the truth about TDC or TDC is his scumbuddy.

Mrfixit is either telling the truth or remaining member of the mykonian scumgroup.

Thoughts?

[springlullaby]

Town lose anyway because I was telling the truth.

[springlullaby]

No, mrfixij was probably in the 2 man mafia.

[springlullaby]

The winning team is not too insufferable either, so I'm content.

[springlullaby]

Lol, you can drop it, it's not as if I'm trying to win here.

[springlullaby]

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.

Heh buddy, my primary objective wasn't to make myself look good, but to save your ass as you were the roleblocker. If I could have convinced the other mafia to doubt Spyrex, that would have been ace, but saving my roleblocker was good enough. It almost worked too as TDC and Spyrex bought it line and sinker before don_johnson's malicious intervention.

Though I miscalculated, I thought the other team had a roleblocker, hence I tried to save mine so we could get at least a draw in endgame.

Had I known the other team didn't have a roleblocker, I wouldn't have bothered and bussed your ass to hell.

I have to say, jailkeeper is a terrible claim, it translates automatically to RB in people's mind. Like vig and SK.

I disagree on this game being unbalanced, it just was very swingy, if the doc hadn't been lynched D1, it would have made stuff very difficult for everyone.

I had an absolute hoot lynching Vollkan, kuddo scums.

[springlullaby]

- I think you should've posted this "only roles from this wiki page can be in the game" somewhere in this thread, too. That probably would've prevented two scum from claiming impossible roles.

I completely agree.

Yeah, if I had one complaint to make, it would have been this.

[springlullaby]

I am going to rub my belly some: Day 1 I said Sl, Dj, myk as third and fix was next on my list.

At least that explains the TERRIBLE VOLKAN LYNCH. Seriously. All 4 scum and the masons. If this was a 12 player game I think we'd have lynched down that line and won.

Yeah, nice scumhunting, but I think you hurt yourself by overheating on me. It made you look tunneled, and my job at playing pissed off town easier. Your case on me is I think what made Ectomancer and TDC pussy out of voting me. It made you look town but put you in the 'questionable judgement' case for the duration of D1.

[springlullaby]

lets say that you were a great team.

*hides*

Lol, the irony in this is that I made 'misplaced post' argument on Vollkan especially for you, thinking that you were town and you would defend me on it because of the mini we were both in. You did, but that kinda backfired when you turned up scum.

[springlullaby]

I really can't believe it. This should have been a town win. Night three, both scum teams know what is going on, where the other is. Why didn't they shoot each other?

i thought fix was sk and spring was town until fix turned up rb. if i had not targeted spyrex i was going to nk TDC thinking he was an opposing godfather. the idea of a forensic expert actually seemed as though it might fit into a set up with two mafia. so yeah, i figured "i'm mafia, kill the cop". i didn't think the other mafia would target me because then we both lose. i only voted SL to keep in character. i almost claimed vig, but i'm glad i didn't. it seemed like a good time to take a back seat.

replacing in at 20 pages or so was ridiculously hard as scum. i really didn't think we'd get anywhere near endgame.

Yeah, I didn't try to convince town that I wasn't scum. In my mind if I had a person to convince to switch the vote off me or off mrfixij, it was the other mafia team because you would be more inclined to believe in 2 mafia.

fixij and I cooperated really badly. I blame it all on fixij though, panicking and softclaiming day 1, then claiming scum is baaaad idea :p

No, seriously, fix had the right idea about killing spyrex N2 and played pretty ok. That vote switch toward Vollkan was very smooth, I clapped interiorly when I saw it. I think you were just a little too impressed by Spyrex' play. But you see, undermining sure as bull townie is where the fun in being scum is at.

[springlullaby]

spring was more likely to make the mistake, because the cop threatened to investigate her. She also had a small disadvantage, because she didn't know what the other scum would be: TDC could still be a godfather.

Bah, you see, I just didn't anticipate the other team not having a roleblocker.

Which is pretty dumb of me because I specifically asked the mod to confirm that in case of mutual RB, no action would happen.

This meant that if the other mafia had a blocker they would have blocked mrfixij before killing ortolan. Hence Spyrex' wouldn't have been blocked.

It just didn't hit me, and I'm kicking myself now, because my Spyrex kill was a throw away kill. Had I killed TDC, it could have still meant a win for us. Or was the Godfather NK immune?


Anyway, neat lil game, gg scum, see ya all.

[springlullaby]

Good game all; I kept reading throughout.

Including my gut read on ixfij, I had all the scum picked out on D1, and I had Spyrex picked as town.

My lynch was a perfect example of why town shouldn't tolerate subjectivity. I am henceforth blacklisting the phrases "doesn't seem genuine" and "unclear perspective".

As for the misplaced post thing...*vomit*

Heh, my favorite day was D1. Seriously, your argumentation was turning masochistic toward the end of the day. You can't imagine how much fun I had when I announced in thread that I wouldn't read your posts any more and *knowing* that I would get away with it.