Mini #682: C9++ (Game Over!)

[Shanba]

mykonian: let me clarify how "only copying what people say" can be a scumtell.

There are in essence, two reasons. The first is that it can be hard, as scum, to put forth a convincing case. For scum, especially relatively inexperienced scum, it can be difficult to put forwards an argument that sounds "town": you know you have to get townies lynched, but you simply don't know how to do this. It can be tricky to divorce yourself from a scum perspective of "he's a weak player, I'm going to go after him" and look at things from a town perspective of "well, he's pretty likely to be scum because of x, y, and z". Using other people's reasoning allows you to get around this.

The second and more compelling reason it is scummy is a little bit harder to nail down. It's related to bandwagoning and active lurking. People think you're saying something, but you're not, you're just padding your posts. Worse, if others don't catch that you're using their arguments, it can become easy to think they are town - we all tend to look more favourably on those we agree with.

Just because once it was misused by you as scum does not mean it is inherently scummy. It is true, however, that it's not a certain scumtell: nothing ever is. You always have to look at context, too: it could be that the player is a weak or inexperienced townie who is too easily swayed by others' opinions, or it could have other explanations. Difficult to say. In this case, however, I think it's somewhat more likely that sekinj is scum, and that, in this case, it is a scumtell.

It's not my case, by the way. It's simply me trying to understand zade's and Riot's case. And I'm not suspicious of Wall-E because of his playstyle. It's more something else, which unfortunately happened in an ongoing game so I can't explain more fully.

[sekinj]

So... are we done talking about the lack of case against me? great.

I'm still supicious of Wall. I didn't like his vote against me, but I also don't specifically know what in my responses made him unvote.

I think many of Sig's comments have been ignored becuase of his lurking. I know earlier when he wasn't making sense, I didn't bother questioning him because I figured he was still trying to catch up in the reading or something. I always have a hard time reading lurkers, but I can definitely see how his comments have been anti-town and confusing. I think if he posted more we would be able to see it more clearly, but I woudln't have a problem with a scig lynch today.

[iamausername]

Votecount #23!

Scigatt (2) - mykonian, Shanba
Scheherazade (1) - Kairyuu
sekinj (1) - CF Riot
Wall-E (1) - germy

Not voting (6) - Scheherazade, SilverPhoenix, Wall-E, Scigatt, wolframnhart, sekinj

6 to lynch.

-=Scigatt has requested replacement. Now seeking a replacement for Scigatt.=-

[Shanba]

Well that's convenient.

-_-

[mykonian]

Shanba, really I wasn't attacking anyone, I only said it is an argument that is too easily used on a towny, so that if it formes the greatest part of a case on someone, and there aren't big arguments that make the person scummy, I am reluctant to vote for such a person.

So, I basically, I think the case on Sekinj is rubbish, but I think it is unlikely that 3 scum would go on one bandwagon for weak reasons on Sekinj.

No matter who the replacement is, my vote isn't very to move right away. I don't think that person isn't likely to be lynched right away, so he/she can tell his/her story, and my vote wasn't unreasoned.

[SilverPhoenix]

(On a side note, SilverPhoenix, I'm pretty sure I've played with you before, but I'm finding it nigh impossible to place you. Argh.)

It was the Fire Emblem mini. I went on hiatus from about December (I guess) until about a month ago, so I sadly didn't finish it.

[Kairyuu]

(Still V/LA, so this will probably be short.)

I don't like the case on sekinj, not one bit. Its based on conjecture, misrep, and null tells. Her play thus far in D2 has been, if not extremely pro-town, at least better than neutral. I'm on her side for now, but may look into her a bit later (Some of this opinion comes from the reread that I finally got around to).

I'm becoming more suspicious of germy as well, for reasons that Wolf mentioned. He's being hypocritical in his behavior towards Wall-E. Not enough for a real case at this point, but I'm just putting that out there.

Scigatt worries me. I can see joining myko over there, but I disagree with myko's opinion on active lurking. It is quite the scumtell, because it makes you look like you are helping out without actually saying anything (this is one of the things I see as a misrep of sekinj. I do not agree that she has been active lurking after I called her out on it in my first LoS on page 2 or 3).

Wolf I see as solidly pro-town. He doesn't post all that much, but when he does it is always with some sort of evidence to bring forward (or a promise of such).

I maintain that if Zade is scum, so is CF Riot. Before it was for the repeated "there is no case," which I dropped, but now it is that those two are working rather closely together pushing for sekinj. I'm thinking scum driven wagon on a townie right there.

Wall-E is giving off very eccentric vibes. I like that. He seems quite wacky, which is fun, and extremely good natured, which is always nice to have. I also like his reasoning on sekinj, which leads me to now link Wall-E to my ever growing association tree (now I see either Wall-E and sekinj or Zade and CF Riot as scum, with the other group being town).

And of course, Zade is still at the top of my Most Wanted list, and I die a little inside when I log on and only see my own vote, all alone there. Oh well. Masons are better working together, so I suppose I can leave Zade for tomorrow (when I hope for a lynch).

unvote

and

vote:Scigatt

On a rather interesting note, this is the second player in this game that got replaced as suspicion of them was mounting. I find that odd.

[SilverPhoenix]

On a rather interesting note, this is the second player in this game that got replaced as suspicion of them was mounting. I find that odd.

Eh, I find it coincidence. There is a fair amount of replacing in every game in MS. (On a related note, great job with the replacing, username!) Also, the usual dislike of lurkers makes inactives more often then not suspicious than others.

[Scheherazade]

@Shanba: I'm sorry, I mistook "fragmented" for "having too many directions" making the case "unfocused."

But yes, from your posts it seems like you understand the case I see against sekinj.

@mykonian: I'm having difficulty deciphering post 597, where you criticise the case against sekinj. The things you bring up are weak, I agree, but you seem to be missing other significant parts of the argument.

I recall you saying that you had a gut feeling that sekinj is town, so I'm not going to try to change your mind right now, but if you have criticisms of the case, would you phrase them again so that I might answer them?

@sekinj:

So... are we done talking about the lack of case against me? great.

Your attitude has certainly vindicated you in the eyes of a few players, but that last exchange didn't exactly come out in your favour. Wouldn't you prefer that the town discuss your case a bit more? If it's rubbish, it ought to crumble.

@Kairyuu: You're going to die a lot on the inside if your wish comes true. I take it from this post that your reread hasn't changed your mind much on me. I'm glad you're interested in examining sekinj, another pair of eyes will help, I feel.

I do wonder, when you say "I also like his reasoning on sekinj, which leads me to now link Wall-E to my ever growing association tree" you mean that because he reasons his unvote of sekinj well you tie his alignment with sekinj's? I'm not sure I like my alignment being tied to CF Riot's and sekinj's, but those I can understand if not support. I don't quite understand this one, though, between sekinj and Wall-E. Nothing here lowers the likelihood that they could be of two alignments in my mind. Would you care to explain?

---

I'm leaning towards a Scigatt lynch today. I brought up my specific thoughts on his scumminess earlier. I'm withholding my vote until his replacement can answer.

[Wall-E]

First, I agree with your observation that "It behooves scum to conflagrate conflict." Do you think that the sections of sekinj's posts 12 and 21 directed at Kairyuu and Artem are trying to extinguish or fuel the dispute between them? In their effect, which do you think they accomplished?

Second, you think that the purpose of her post 40 was to ask those two questions?

You raise an interesting point about posts 12 and 21 (if you even were making one... I feel like I'm second guessing what I originally thought of BOTH of those posts). I originally thought they were diminishing the conflict. Now I'm not sure. I'm going to stick to my original assessment and assume I'm overthinking things like I sometimes do.

I don't think that was the purpose of post 40. I think the post naturally flows: It's an organic argument. A follows B follows C follows conclusion. The convincing tone of it is what originally drew me to the post.

I'm happy that Artem had a solid play, that gives Wall-e room to play (don't use it too much).

Can you explain what you mean by this? (I'm pretty clueless 90% of the time... it's called Asperger's disease )

[Scheherazade]

@Wall-E: I was raising a point, which you see. You and I read those sections differently. It's interesting to me to hear that we had exactly opposite conclusions, that you believed they sought to diminish strife and I thought they sought to increase it.

I think I understand you on post 40.

[Wall-E]

And I'm not suspicious of Wall-E because of his playstyle. It's more something else, which unfortunately happened in an ongoing game so I can't explain more fully.

Well that's convenient.

601 is scummy for the following reasons:

So... are we done talking about the lack of case against me? great.

Flippant attitude... typically a town tell, but

after

getting off the hook...?

I'm still supicious of Wall. I didn't like his vote against me, but I also don't specifically know what in my responses made him unvote.

When I don't know something I ask a question. Leaving the fact of your ignorance dangling like proof I'm scum is attempted framing. You can blow this comment out your bung tunnel.

I think many of Sig's comments have been ignored becuase of his lurking. (what does this add to the conversation?) I know earlier when he wasn't making sense, I didn't bother questioning him because I figured he was still trying to catch up in the reading or something. (why didn't you ask a question, then?) I always have a hard time reading lurkers, but I can definitely see how his comments have been anti-town and confusing. (translation: "wifom meta and what he said") I think if he posted more we would be able to see it more clearly, but I woudln't have a problem with a scig lynch today. (whatever, as long as it's not me)

[mykonian]

Shanba: I think your case against Scigatt is quite clear. That with his weak hop on SL's wagon, and what I think was placing things out of context in order to defend Zade, is why I vote Scigatt on the moment. I agree that he is quite obvious, far more then Sekinj.

That case on Sekinj that I thought weak:
post 14, Wall-e interpretation was that Sekinj had voted without reason (she hadn't voted yet), but this was about Springs semi random vote on Sekinj action against Edify (I thought that action justified).
post 20, this is an "if she is scum, this would be something scum could say, because" argument. Or she is town, and then this is useless.
post 30, this is a weird move. The unvote before Kai claimed. She could have read me and Kai right, or it was something else, but is it scummy?
and then something that is not understandeble.

this was a clarification on why I thought the case on Sekinj as posted by Wall-e (582) was not enough to vote on. To avoid enormous quotes, I didn't quote it.

Guy's, this can hardly be a reason to vote for someone day 2. This are no found reasons, these are sought. If nobody has more on Sekinj, the lynch of Sekinj can't be different then a bad one. But there is more then one person on Sekinj, and yesterday was, so I can't imagine this is everything against Sekinj, because then the votes are in my eyes completely unjustified.

the main case I see in CF's post, is active lurking. If you want to lynch a lurker, lets go for Scigatt, because he has done scummier thing in the posts he posted.

To conclude, Sekinj's play hasn't been strong, but also never antitown. She has done nothing to derail the play, nothing that benefits scum. Active lurking is about the weakest reason you can place for a vote. Scigatt is much clearer in this. He is clearly lurking AND his posts have been far from town. He hopped on the SL wagon for little reason... Can hardly be town. Sekinj had been there for a long time, posted reasons for that, and her vote was therefor much more town.

bolded is my answer on what I think was unclear to you. Also I will be far from convinced by a case that is based on active lurking, that isn't too obvious. I want more to go on. Scigatt has lurked (slight scumtell) but has done in his posts pretty scummy things. That makes a case for me. Those arguments reïnforce each other, with Sekinj there is little to reïnforce it, to me. And Zade, you really had me doubting my opinion about Sekinj at the end of day 1, but as I said, that would be something for day 2. It was not gut, but on that moment I saw her unvote on Kai as protown. Today, I really tried to look objectively on it, but still I get the feeling that the case on Sekinj is far from great. Be honest, has Sekinj done so much antitown things?

And maybe to put some meta in, Sekinj seems to have this problem more (I read a game she was in). Sekinj, I think posting more cases against players, and showing who your suspects are, with your thoughts, could help. Nobody would ever accuse you of active lurking, and you would be acting pro-town.

[germy]

Can you quote the lie(s)?

Sure.

I have reasons, but wish to withhold stating them publicly for now. I also have a reason for that, but I'll save that, too.

When I started my readthrough, he kept pinging on my scumdar. I started to build a case on him. I went to bed. I woke up. I read my case again. I wasn't quite sold.

When I asked those questions I was judging his reactions as a kind of a final yes/no judgement. I think he's questioning, paying close attention to the thread, and generally doing very helpful things (assuming he's town, which I now do), so I'm happy to let him continue to ask questions and provide content for today.

The strikethrough text is irrelevant, since it took place

after

your vote on sekinj.

I can go through the thread and pick them out if you'd like, but building a case against someone I think is town seems distasteful to me.

And this implies that you never did build a case.

The

only

reason you have stated for voting sekinj was for "pinging your scumdar." This is not "reasons," let alone needing to save it. Either you were being intentionally misleading, or you still have not shared your reasons for voting sekinj in the first place.

---

I still agree that Scigatt, by lurking, his tunnelvision posts, and his vote on springlullaby, is likely mafia and I will be fine voting for him. However, the fact that Wall-E didn't actually build a case against sekinj until

after

he voted for her, instead of before (as he claimed), I find incredibly suspicious.

---

I didn't do the second. No one I've asked questions to so far have said they have reasons that can't/won't be revealed.
...
It was only 1 string of questions, it just had to be repeated twice because people seemed to miss/ignore the original post. They never said, "I have an answer, but I'm holding it," none of them made any comment at all, which made me think they just didn't see it.

These were in reference to wolframnhart, who was asking it of Wall-E. I called you out for fishing by continually asking about "thoughts on night actions."

---

Germy, you said that with me asking Wall-E about his reasons for voting Sek were suspicious, that along with the questioning of CF_Riot, i was becoming suspicious to you. Little bit later you start asking Wall-E the same line of questioning about his reasons and now there is nothing wrong with it?

Nope, not the same at all. You repeatedly were asking when Wall-E said

he was purposefully withholding his reasoning.

I have asked only after Wall-E unvoted and began providing his explanation, of which I have repeatedly attempted to clarify.

Two very different things.

I'm becoming more suspicious of germy as well, for reasons that Wolf mentioned. He's being hypocritical in his behavior towards Wall-E. Not enough for a real case at this point, but I'm just putting that out there.

---

You also seemed very confident of your ability to back up your vote: I thought that we'd get your reasons in due time and I could make a better judgement then. Of course, if they never came, I would have been rather suspicious, too.

Since the reasons never did come (for his reasoning

before

the vote, not the case he built

after

), are you suspicious of Wall-E, now?

---

My thoughts on sekinj (not scum) and Scigatt (scum) remain the same, and have only been reinforced, since Yesterday. I'm more suspicious of Wall-E and definitely of wolframnhart, though I doubt both are scum together.

I have no problem lynching Scigatt before the replacement comes in to muddy the issues.

[mykonian]

I didn't dare to say this, to lynch Scigatt before the replacement comes, but I feel you are right. I don't agree with your case against Wall-e, for meta reasons. Not that Wall-e shouldn't change this, and he should always give reasons, but it is no reason for me to vote him.

Wall-e consider it, you help town more by posting your reasons, and thereby you improve your chances of winning. If you don't do this, you actually act antitown, because you could have acted more protown. And lynching you when you are a towny couldn't help also, could it?

[Wall-E]

The only reason you have stated for voting sekinj was for "pinging your scumdar." This is not "reasons," let alone needing to save it. Either you were being intentionally misleading, or you still have not shared your reasons for voting sekinj in the first place.

False choice, because in actuality, I did build a case, and then I erased it.

Wall-e consider it, you help town more by posting your reasons, and thereby you improve your chances of winning. If you don't do this, you actually act antitown, because you could have acted more protown. And lynching you when you are a towny couldn't help also, could it?

Sentence 1: I disagree.
Sentence 2: I don't understand this part.
Sentence 3: What?

[mykonian]

2 if you can play protown, but you don't, you act antitown.
3 that can result in mislynching you (I've seen it), and that helps even less.

It more or less follows from the first sentence, so you getting that one is the most important.

[Scheherazade]

@mykonian: Okay, but do you think active lurking is all there is against sekinj? That's what confused me, I suppose. Was that statement made because you felt that active lurking was all that was left of Wall-E's case after you'd dealt with those specific posts?

@germy: It's odd, but I'm inclined to take him at his word for now, that he thought he had reasons, slept on them, discarded them and won't share more now because he thinks arguing against someone he believes is town will waste our time or give scum an opportunity. I made that statement thinking "if your vote was on sekinj and your reasons never came, then I'd be suspicious." I'll keep it in mind, but I still don't quite see what he would have gained as scum. If you see an advantage for a scum player there, then I'd be happy to hear.

[mykonian]

not only Wall-e's case. I got the feeling that it was also the main argument in CF's case. I don't think it is really obvious that she is active lurking, and if it isn't that obvious, I think it is a little sought (incorrect English, I guess, from "to seek"). So it isn't an argument that I'm not likely to trust. Sekinj has had some original content, and I feel people are looking at it as scummy, because their gut tells them she is scummy, and when they are searching for reasons to make a case, they come up with this. It is simply too easy to use to on someone that is somewhat hesistant to tell everything, or is a bit uncertain, or is afraid to be called scummy when that person posts everything he/she thinks.

I guess it is the last, but I certainly don't think Sekinj has been very antitown, and I also think she has posted things of her own.

[mykonian]

Is everybody waiting for the replacement?

[SilverPhoenix]

Is everybody waiting for the replacement?

Maybe. It would certainly be nice to have the replacement's input. Although I am for a Scigatt lynch too. Either way is fine with me.

[sekinj]

Your attitude has certainly vindicated you in the eyes of a few players, but that last exchange didn't exactly come out in your favour. Wouldn't you prefer that the town discuss your case a bit more? If it's rubbish, it ought to crumble.

It already has crumbled. I really don't what you are still trying to discuss.

And - as far as meta goes, yes. everyone always thinks I'm scum. *shrug* I guess I have some room for improvement, but right now I'm just playing as "me". However, I usually don't get the "Active Lurking" label like I have been in this game. That is difficult for me to argue against in a game like this where many of the players write books with every post. Yes, I keep up with the game. Yes, I try to post everyday. Is that active lurking? I don't believe so. but, I'll take myk's criticism with grace and try to improve as a player by making more cases, ectetera... Just sometimes I don't see the point when other players have already made very good cases...

[Shanba]

Shanba, really I wasn't attacking anyone, I only said it is an argument that is too easily used on a towny, so that if it formes the greatest part of a case on someone, and there aren't big arguments that make the person scummy, I am reluctant to vote for such a person.

When I said you were attacking someone, I was referencing what you said about when you'd used that argument as scum to attack a townie in another game.
As for whether it's too easily used against townie: I'd say that's somewhat irrelevant. Pretty much any tell can be used against a townie if a townie commits that tell. Perhaps townies echo fairly often - I'm not going to argue that - but if we work out why something is a scumtell, as I did above, we can often then begin to look at when it applies. In this case, I'd say it's scummier a) if the player does no acknowledge it is happening and b) if the player is good enough to put forwards thoughts of their own, but doesn't. Both these seem to be true in sekinj's case.

So, I basically, I think the case on Sekinj is rubbish, but I think it is unlikely that 3 scum would go on one bandwagon for weak reasons on Sekinj.

There's probably something to this sentiment in general: I've always argued that it doesn't make sense for scum to deliberately use weak logic when stronger logic is more likely to convince the town. But it's not whether you consider the reasons to be weak that's interesting from that perspective: it's whether they consider the reasons to be weak. If they consider the reasons strong (and you have to analyse them to see whether they do believe the reasons to be strong) then the premise of 3 scum on the bandwagon is, once again, possible.

I'm unsure how to proceed with Wall-E. I can't push a tell I can't explain. I do think he's scum, though.

On Scigatt/replacement: Personally, I think we should either lynch him before a replacement gets here or, if a replacement comes, give him enough time to claim/list suspects/whatever, partly because it's a pain in the arse to replace into a game, read the thread and then discover they've lynched you before you could say anything and partly because getting his claim etc. can only help us make our decision.

[mykonian]

Happy birthday Shanba!

Thank you for the lesson. It helps.

And I'm for lynching Scigatt before the replacement comes.

[Shanba]

Thank you for the lesson. It helps.

Heh, if you want my advice, the single most important lesson of all is don't accept anything as dogma. If something doesn't stand up to scrutiny, discard it, regardless of anything else.

And thanks