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

[Ectomancer]

Ecto, I feel that the same applies to you, that there is little difference between town ecto, and scum ecto. (based on reading games)

But doesn't everybody know that meta is not a very strong way of research. You have to get scum on the way they choose. If vollkan scum makes a habit of making bad choices, then we lynch him. If vollkan makes a lot of good choices, we lynch him in the end just after his buddies. That is the way you can get every scum.

Wait, if Vollkan makes bad choices, we lynch him, but if he makes good choices, you still plan to lynch him in the end? On what grounds?

[Ectomancer]

I concocted about 3 different ways to say this, but I'll do it as a question. What is this that you refer to as a "bad choice" or a "good choice"? Think you can define them? I hold that whether a choice is 'good' or 'bad' is only decided when someone convinces the town that it is. Witness that Ortolan following OrangePenguin was a 'bad' choice until masonry was claimed, then it was no longer a bad choice, but a mason following his partner.

I guess that's my roundabout method of poking fun at your last sentence:

That is the way you can get every scum.

[vollkan]

@vollkan: If you know which assumptions are wrong, and which are right, I know you could pick out the best wrong one and show us that it was the best.

I don't know if I am completely understanding you, but I assume you are saying that scumcould argue that a wrong assumption is a right one. And, yeah, that's true. Again, importance of reasons and so on. Unless a townie has actually committed something scummy, at some level there should be something wrong in the scum's reasoning at an assumption level (or higher).

I thought your defense weird, vollkan. well, defense... You seemed to attack orto more. A claimed, and likely mason. Seemed the wrong way.

Frankly, if he hadn't claimed I'd have posted a "Confirm Vote: Orto" or something in response to his attacks.

His arguments against me were, as I have submitted, very dodgy indeed. I'm not sure if this is just error on his part, or taking advantage of his claimed position for a bit of OMGUS-style revenge; I'd hope it's only the former.

[vollkan]

Didn't mean to hit submit...

But doesn't everybody know that meta is not a very strong way of research. You have to get scum on the way they choose. If vollkan scum makes a habit of making bad choices, then we lynch him. If vollkan makes a lot of good choices, we lynch him in the end just after his buddies. That is the way you can get every scum.

I don't understand this at all.

[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.

[vollkan]

There are a number of things that sounds ungenuine

Examples and explanations?

a sense of unclear perspective in his post.

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

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.

[SpyreX]

So, still waiting on that nice list of whats going on with volk.

@SL

Some of what Volk is saying is "ungenuine"? Care to elaborate.
The post, in the wrong forum was done on purpose?

Ecto is town based on earlier posts (what posts) but if Volk is scum then Ecto is scum?

[orangepenguin]

I'm sorry. I claimed and then I for some reason, I haven't really said much sense. It appears ort disappeared as well. I'm not as sure about Ecto (being scum) anymore the more I think about it. I think tomorrow, I will look things over, and reassess it.

[mykonian]

Ecto, I feel that the same applies to you, that there is little difference between town ecto, and scum ecto. (based on reading games)

But doesn't everybody know that meta is not a very strong way of research. You have to get scum on the way they choose. If vollkan scum makes a habit of making bad choices, then we lynch him. If vollkan makes a lot of good choices, we lynch him in the end just after his buddies. That is the way you can get every scum.

Wait, if Vollkan makes bad choices, we lynch him, but if he makes good choices, you still plan to lynch him in the end? On what grounds?

If vollkan made the towniest choice everytime as scum, he is going to have a very hard game. assuming we find him sometime we lynch him in the end. Scum is not exactly as town, because certain choices affect the outcome of the game.

scum wants the antitown choice, and will try to make the town choose that. (here we can catch scum). But if they want to look towny, they are actually choosing the choice that makes them less likely to win! To look at the extreme: If scum made town vote his scumbuddies the first days, he would look very town, but would he win the game?

I hope this answers your question. It isn't important, and quite obvious.

[ortolan]

vollkan; a glimpse at your profile allows a weighing up of your play this game compared to your meta. In both games I compared your play to your posts are almost universally shorter and actually seemingly express quite concise ideas, which I can see despite not playing in those games. In contrast, even when arguing with you this game I barely understand your remarks in response to my arguments. I get the impression your main tactic is convoluting things to the point of confusion (how can one person have so much to say about self-voting?) For reference, the reason I didn't respond to your last post was that I just got tired of us circling over the same issues. Anyhow; here's some more examples of you trying to spin your way out of my arguments:

Yes, vollkan-scum would have a vested interest in bending the rules if he thought it would be to his advantage. Any scum player would do the same thing?

No, this was not my thesis. My thesis was that you would act ostensibly logically, while applying this logic inconsistently. It included examples. You still have not responded adequately, apart from various attempts to straw man it.

Yes, Orto, I am not blind. I know you had more material. Let me spell this out for you as clearly as possible:

The "vollkan is hard to catch as scum point" cannot, by your own admission, carry a lynch.

In one breath you acknowledge that point wasn't intended to be judged by itself, then in the next you imply it was intended to "carry" a lynch, as though it was the SOLE or OVERRIDING EVIDENCE for the lynch. You can't slip out of this inconsistency with weasel words.

Also the example you give is completely invalid. You hedged because you were presenting your suspicions as "slight leaning" and a "mild case", without actually giving any substance as to why.

In contrast, I voted for you "until someone screws up more". As I have already said, all that means is that I was saying that I would be voting you unless somebody scummier came along. That isn't hedging - I never once expressed self-doubt. In fact, it's perfectly ordinary play - voting for the scummiest person.

They are both qualitatively similar because they both express that there is a contingency in one's vote. Furthermore, if your remark "until someone screws up more" is perfectly ordinary play and merely entails voting for the scummiest person, why did you ever feel the need to make this remark, which you claim was already implied, explicit?

His arguments against me were, as I have submitted, very dodgy indeed. I'm not sure if this is just error on his part, or taking advantage of his claimed position for a bit of OMGUS-style revenge; I'd hope it's only the former.

Now what worries me here: You have strong reason to believe I am a confirmed mason at this point. Having attacked you, if you were town, I would think you would try very hard to see the merit in my arguments, as you would wonder what possible reason a townie could have for suspecting you. Instead, you've pretty much remained on the offensive. You're basically trying to discredit me by suggesting my case is motivated purely by revenge. As for the "error" comment, I'm feeling that's less likely with your every post.

And if more support is needed for my argument that vollkan's "principles" have been applied only opportunistically this game, take SpyreX's post 268:

I'm getting this bizarre sense of deja vu.

Orto, nice simple list: Why do you think Volkan is scum?

I see a lot of words again, however I see a severe absence of "X is scummy for Y" or even "X is scummy"

I actually think vollkan would be a good lynch target. As has already been pointed by others and himself; it is very difficult to determine his alignment using meta and/or analysis of his posts in and of themselves. And as he himself has just said that even as scum he will maintain a logical demeanour. That and I do think the discussion stemming from his self-vote (which he strongly contributed to perpetuating) has effectively "muddied the waters" for the town, and accomplished little. Had I not been a mason, it probably would have led to me being lynched. Obviously I am partly to blame for this, but I don't think wholly. He suggested (as did others) that I was scummy for deferring my reasoning to others. I think an equally valid hypothesis is that such extensive and unreadable discussion will lead to someone tiring of the dead-end stalemate, and seeking a lynch to break it. After all, all it achieved up to that point was votes for vollkan and Ecto, and then votes for SpyreX for "buddying up". I find it hard to believe that such an intelligent player as vollkan wouldn't recognise that a discussion like that, verbose as it was, was ultimately leading nowhere.

This alone, if you were not a claimed day-1 mason, would make me want to vote for you again.

Here SpyreX simply quotes a post of mine and says it would make him want to vote for me again. He doesn't explain why. I still don't know what problem he seems to have with it. vollkan has constantly told us how much he hates gut play i.e. attitudes given without reason. He also hates merely citing others' arguments, as he told us in Post 165:

And, obviousy, there is room for agreement in this game. The point is, though, every player should still be able to explain things themselves.

Yes. Because if you cannot articulate your reasons, you avoid accountability (because it means that you are protected by the other player's reasons).

At best, Ecto's post is the first case- expressing an attitude towards me without giving reasons. At worst, it is the second case- hoping by merely parroting vollkan's suspicion of the paragraph he will be vindicated by whatever vollkan makes of it.

Yet, vollkan hasn't even felt he should mention it. He's carried on as though nothing's happened, and benefited from SpyreX continuing to defend him. Clearly, vollkan has been highly opportunistic with his "principles" this game.

My final reason for voting for vollkan: town still has absolutely nothing to show for your thoroughly wordy play throughout this game. To me your posts have seemed motivated more by gaining authority for yourself as a "thoroughly logical player" (which then gives you leeway in spinning things, as you've done) than actually catching scum.

[Ectomancer]

At best, Ecto's post is the first case- expressing an attitude towards me without giving reasons. At worst, it is the second case- hoping by merely parroting vollkan's suspicion of the paragraph he will be vindicated by whatever vollkan makes of it.

I understand the individual words in this quote, but put together like that, I am unable to decipher the underlying meaning.

@Whoever griped that I kept going back and arguing about page 1 events, I first discussed it with Vollkan repeatedly, then Spyrex jumped in, then orangepenguin with his pbpa.
I was tired of discussing it too, but when a wagon is building on you, you are obligated to defend your position, even if for the 3rd or 4th time. Im tired of discussing my discussing it

[Spolium]

Apologies for the lack of activity so far, but I had a weekend of unprecedented busyness.

I'm also giving the thread a re-read before I get my teeth into a case, but in he meantime I just wanted to get

some

sort of input in. Hopefully the perspective of someone who's just taken in the entire thread as a whole will be of some worth.

The Ecto/vollkan debacle is an interesting one, considering it's broader effects. The aggressive style of both players has been a mixed blessing for the town; although the first few pages of back-and-forth between him and vollkan produced more dead-end theory-based content than is

any

fun to read whatsoever (:P), their "my diatribe is bigger than yours" battles have prompted a great deal of discussion in other players.

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?"

Once or twice I entertained the thought that they might both be scum, but if this is the case then they're being

extremely

bold, locking horns in the centre ring like this. At this point I'm more inclined to believe that either

one

of them is scum, or neither is.

I'd go so far as to say I'm cautious of even placing the FoS on either at this time. Both have logical styles of play, and a lot of the flak they're taking seems to be a result of their high activity and the general flurry of accusations dancing around them. It might be worth focusing our efforts elsewhere for the meantime, at least until D2 when there'll be more to work with.

[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.

[SpyreX]

Here SpyreX simply quotes a post of mine and says it would make him want to vote for me again. He doesn't explain why. I still don't know what problem he seems to have with it. vollkan has constantly told us how much he hates gut play i.e. attitudes given without reason. He also hates merely citing others' arguments, as he told us in Post 165:

I didn't think I had to if you reread it. However, I'll be more than happy to explain.

I actually think vollkan would be a good lynch target.

1.)

As has already been pointed by others and himself; it is very difficult to determine his alignment using meta and/or analysis of his posts in and of themselves.

2.)

And as he himself has just said that even as scum he will maintain a logical demeanour.

3.)

That and I do think the discussion stemming from his self-vote (which he strongly contributed to perpetuating) has effectively "muddied the waters" for the town, and accomplished little.

4.)

Had I not been a mason, it probably would have led to me being lynched. Obviously I am partly to blame for this, but I don't think wholly.

5.)

He suggested (as did others) that I was scummy for deferring my reasoning to others.

6.)

I think an equally valid hypothesis is that such extensive and unreadable discussion will lead to someone tiring of the dead-end stalemate, and seeking a lynch to break it. After all, all it achieved up to that point was votes for vollkan and Ecto, and then votes for SpyreX for "buddying up". I find it hard to believe that such an intelligent player as vollkan wouldn't recognise that a discussion like that, verbose as it was, was ultimately leading nowhere.

1.) You are saying you want to hang him because you cant meta read him as town or scum.
2.) You say that because he would play the same as scum... its an indictment of him being scum?
3.) How did this discussion "muddy the waters"? A statement like this needs backing.
4.) You are implying the attack wasn't valid (see how many people were voting for you because of your play)
5.) This is true. Period. Even if you know your mason is town its not a "dont try to play the game free" pass.
6.) Its equally valid that you did this just to break a stalemate and had no feelings on the issue?

So, yes, I would have voted you in a heartbeat had this not been a day 1 mason claim. Emphasis on the day 1.

[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.

[vollkan]

vollkan; a glimpse at your profile allows a weighing up of your play this game compared to your meta. In both games I compared your play to your posts are almost universally shorter and actually seemingly express quite concise ideas, which I can see despite not playing in those games. In contrast, even when arguing with you this game I barely understand your remarks in response to my arguments. I get the impression your main tactic is convoluting things to the point of confusion (how can one person have so much to say about self-voting?) For reference, the reason I didn't respond to your last post was that I just got tired of us circling over the same issues.

Firstly, what games are you comparing with?

Secondly, the conclusion you draw - that my posts are typically shorter than they are here - really couldn't be further from the truth. My reputation generally is for enormously long posts. And, not infrequently, this does draw the criticism that I hide behind walls of text as a shield. Not true - I am just naturally verbose.

Thirdly, if you find it hard understand what I am saying, that doesn't in any way justify drawing a conclusion of scumminess, yet alone a conclusion that I am deliberately hazing.

No, this was not my thesis. My thesis was that you would act ostensibly logically, while applying this logic inconsistently. It included examples. You still have not responded adequately, apart from various attempts to straw man it.

No, this was not my thesis. My thesis was that you would act ostensibly logically, while applying this logic inconsistently.

You are such a hypocrite. If you have trouble understanding me, then it is my fault and I am scum delibereately trying to fool you. But if mistake your thesis (via a perfectly reasonable interpretation of the word "inconsistent"), you accuse me of strawmanning.

In one breath you acknowledge that point wasn't intended to be judged by itself, then in the next you imply it was intended to "carry" a lynch, as though it was the SOLE or OVERRIDING EVIDENCE for the lynch. You can't slip out of this inconsistency with weasel words.

I'm getting tired of repeating myself here.

I KNOW FULL F***ING WELL THAT YOU HAD OTHER REASONS!

What I was doing was isolating your point and showing that it cannot be judged by itself. That is to say, it is not a justification for suspicion. I needed to treat it specifically because, despite not being a reason for suspicion, it carries emotional connotations that I needed to shut down.

This isn't a case of inconsistent logic - it's a case of you not understanding what I am saying.

They are both qualitatively similar because they both express that there is a contingency in one's vote. Furthermore, if your remark "until someone screws up more" is perfectly ordinary play and merely entails voting for the scummiest person, why did you ever feel the need to make this remark, which you claim was already implied, explicit?

As I have said, every vote is always contingent upon "unless somebody else is scummier". If voting was never contingent than "unvote" would get a lot less use than it does.

Why did I make it explicit? Frankly, I don't have a reason for making it explicit. It's just like a figure of speech. I don't see why that should be relevant, though, since your whole point is that I am inconsistent for making my vote have any degree of contingency, which is ridiculous. There is no inconsistency in saying, on one hand, that people should not hedge their cases by stressing how weak they are whilst, at the same time, deeming it acceptable for people to unvote if somebody scummier comes along.

Now what worries me here: You have strong reason to believe I am a confirmed mason at this point. Having attacked you, if you were town, I would think you would try very hard to see the merit in my arguments, as you would wonder what possible reason a townie could have for suspecting you. Instead, you've pretty much remained on the offensive. You're basically trying to discredit me by suggesting my case is motivated purely by revenge. As for the "error" comment, I'm feeling that's less likely with your every post.

The fact you are a likely mason (I wouldn't use the word "confirmed" - because you're not) doesn't mean you are more likely to be correct in your suspicions than anybody else. Fine, you probably don't have malign intent, but that really doesn't help your credibility at all.

I am also not suggesting that you are motivated purely by revenge. I am saying that your perspective on me may be tainted by revenge - that you might be prejudiced against me based on my prior attacks on you.

And if more support is needed for my argument that vollkan's "principles" have been applied only opportunistically this game, take SpyreX's post 268:

I'm getting this bizarre sense of deja vu.

Orto, nice simple list: Why do you think Volkan is scum?

I see a lot of words again, however I see a severe absence of "X is scummy for Y" or even "X is scummy"

I actually think vollkan would be a good lynch target. As has already been pointed by others and himself; it is very difficult to determine his alignment using meta and/or analysis of his posts in and of themselves. And as he himself has just said that even as scum he will maintain a logical demeanour. That and I do think the discussion stemming from his self-vote (which he strongly contributed to perpetuating) has effectively "muddied the waters" for the town, and accomplished little. Had I not been a mason, it probably would have led to me being lynched. Obviously I am partly to blame for this, but I don't think wholly. He suggested (as did others) that I was scummy for deferring my reasoning to others. I think an equally valid hypothesis is that such extensive and unreadable discussion will lead to someone tiring of the dead-end stalemate, and seeking a lynch to break it. After all, all it achieved up to that point was votes for vollkan and Ecto, and then votes for SpyreX for "buddying up". I find it hard to believe that such an intelligent player as vollkan wouldn't recognise that a discussion like that, verbose as it was, was ultimately leading nowhere.

This alone, if you were not a claimed day-1 mason, would make me want to vote for you again.

Here SpyreX simply quotes a post of mine and says it would make him want to vote for me again. He doesn't explain why. I still don't know what problem he seems to have with it. vollkan has constantly told us how much he hates gut play i.e. attitudes given without reason. He also hates merely citing others' arguments, as he told us in Post 165:

And, obviousy, there is room for agreement in this game. The point is, though, every player should still be able to explain things themselves.

[quoet] Yes. Because if you cannot articulate your reasons, you avoid accountability (because it means that you are protected by the other player's reasons).
[/quote[

At best, Ecto's post is the first case- expressing an attitude towards me without giving reasons. At worst, it is the second case- hoping by merely parroting vollkan's suspicion of the paragraph he will be vindicated by whatever vollkan makes of it.

Yet, vollkan hasn't even felt he should mention it. He's carried on as though nothing's happened, and benefited from SpyreX continuing to defend him. Clearly, vollkan has been highly opportunistic with his "principles" this game.

I bolded the key sentence in what Spyrex said. His reasons are pretty clear - you spout a large paragraph against me but it contains nothing explaining why I am actually scummy. Thus, he doesn't simply say it would make him vote for you. His reason is your poverty of reasons. That makes perfect sense.

My final reason for voting for vollkan: town still has absolutely nothing to show for your thoroughly wordy play throughout this game. To me your posts have seemed motivated more by gaining authority for yourself as a "thoroughly logical player" (which then gives you leeway in spinning things, as you've done) than actually catching scum.

FFS, my posts have produced discussion. That's all I wanted. I didn't expect to ensnare scum D1, nor do I think it is reasonable to require that of me.

And, your point about me simply trying to garner authority is pure conspiracy.

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.

ex vote was based on an assumption of me being town. Without repeating my earlier point, that's scummy - no matter what appraoch to play you take. No townie can defensibly mount a case based on a presumption of another's alignment. That wasn't the only reason for my vote - as you say there was clear tension between us - but it was the immediate prompt because I found it especially egregious.

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.

I explained my position on your Orto vote. Your reasons were subjective but based on reasonable implications, NOT (contra Ecto) on assumption of somebdoy else being town.

And "good catch" is just to express my agreement with you. Doesn't alter anything, other than showing that I agree with your point.
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'.

Not really. It's amazing (or perhaps it isn't ) how often I get into playstyle debates. I cannot fault you for finding it highly coincidental, but I think you are drawing a long bow to suggest it was deliberate, especially given that I could just as easily have referred to my meta, rather than contriving a fake wrong post.

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.

I play my style primarily because it is how I am personally and it works for me at scumhunting. By necessity, I then need to follow the style as scum (lest I want to have an obscene failure rate as scum). I admit that I do seek to maintain a consistent meta to benefit myself as scum - but doesn't everybody?

[SpyreX]

Hold onto your hats boys and girls.. I think I've got me a case a brewin. Something new, something fantastic... something that has to wait until I'm awake.

To spark the fire though:

Unvote, Vote: Springlullaby

[mrfixij]

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


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

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

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

4 votes were elsewhere.

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

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

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

unvote:
vote: Springlullaby

[mrfixij]

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

unvote
Vote: Springlullaby

[SpyreX]

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.

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

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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....

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).

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.

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.

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.

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.

So replies to the questions about her vote:

1 - Ungenuine

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.

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

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).

2-Unclear Perspective

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

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).

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

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.

...

Phase 2: Posting Times

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.

Phase 3: My Conjectures

I have every reason to believe SL is scum. Further, if I am correct, what does this mean for the grand scheme of the game?

Today the town has been killing itself.

Scum has been lurking to let the town devour one of its own - it would have worked with Ort had he not been a mason.

Before I get started, there are two major assumptions that if I am wrong about could screw this up:

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.

If the following is true, and SL is scum:

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

At that point, if the person investigated is innocent and not dead we have 6 confirmed players. Thats game. If the person investigated is scum, well, thats even easier game.

However, even if I am wrong and SL is scum:

I would look really, REALLY hard at the following players:

Spoilum, Mrfixij and TDC

They fall victim to the unfortunate scum problem of unconscious distancing. They have not been mentioned at all (even though once she called out lurkers, but none specifically by name).

Now, if I am wrong and SL is town:

Pies. This is really dependent on me being right about everything I've seen.

Phase 4: Tl;dr

SL is scum:
1.) Inconsistent play.
2.) Lurking
3.) Parroting
4.) Bandwagon Jumping

Furthermore, if I am right, there is a high chance this game is in the bag.

[mykonian]

I'm tired and will look at this later. Just too big posts for me on the moment, but this is important for orto:

I am also not suggesting that you are motivated purely by revenge. I am saying that your perspective on me may be tainted by revenge - that you might be prejudiced against me based on my prior attacks on you.

really, he is right on this one. On the moment I can't understand and look at everything he said in a scumhunting manner, but the statement above is very true. I don't know if you are, and if you are you still won't know it yourself, but watch out for it.

[vollkan]

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."

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.

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).


-- 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)

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).

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

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.

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.

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.

Unvote (if I am), Vote: SL

[Spolium]

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.

True, but there are much better ways for scum to engender confusion.

I'd be more cautious, for example, of anyone spurring the argument on - knocking a highly active and prominent player off-balance for just a moment is like dangling a thread of wool over a box of kittens. It's much more worthwhile for scum to encourage cases on the major players since that's where most of the focus lies.

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.

I'm having trouble making sense of this paragraph. Are you saying that any tension (or perceived "big clash") in the discussion is an illusion as they're not discussing anything which explicitly reveals their alignments?

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.

Premeditated or not, it'd still be risky as all hell - I can imagine a brief flurry of disagreement followed by some "okay guys, let's get this on track" sooner than I can conceive of the gargantuan testicles required to hammer each other over a disagreement in policy for several pages.

I think it's reasonable to assume that one of them will be an investigator's first target (assuming neither is an investigator, obviously). Since they're both experienced players, don't you think they would've realised this and avoided such a poor tactical approach altogether?

[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.

[Rage]

Vote Count - Day 1 - As of Post 165

With 10 alive, 6 votes is majority.

Mama_Ku - 0 ()
orangepenguin - 0 ()
ortolan - 0 ()
mykonian - 0 ()

springlullaby - 3 (vollkan, Spyrex, mrfixij)

Ectomancer - 1 (orangepenguin)
vollkan - 2 (ortolan, springlullaby)
SpyreX - 1 (Ectomancer)
mrfixij - 0 ()
TDC - 0 ()

Not Voting - 3 (mykonian, TDC, Spoilum)

springlullaby is at L-3, 3 votes away from a lynch.

Also, I realize I haven't been posting Vote Counts as regularly as I have in the past, or should be, but don't worry, I have not forgot about you!