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

[springlullaby]

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

[springlullaby]

Also,

please mod

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

[SpyreX]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The post later that I say was omitted? Yea.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A.) Huh. I can accept that.
B.) In your thoughts on the game (including calling out lurkers) you have no opinion on 30% of the game?
C.) You are giving yourself outs if/when wagons form on either Ecto or I.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A.) I did look at it in context and had no issue separating the different parts of the discussion from it. That aside, how is that scummy?
B.) Looking at what Ecto said (and the first line of what Volk said) are you holding to Volk's alignment being a key part in Ecto's statements? If you are saying this was policy... why wouldn't he have done it earlier?
--- You did not address my issue of you saying Volk and Ecto being scum together and that not meshing with your other theories.
C.) I haven't formulated proper suspicion? Also, I am taking it this is the statment of good sentiment?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

OHH ICE BURN.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1.) I did. Still inconsistent. Opportunistically inconsistent.
2.) Admitted to lurking? Noice.
3.) Assuming you mean that your vote for Ecto wasn't the same as mine (in fact the opposite meaning that he wasn't aggressive) - sureish. However, the myriad of Ecto is scum/not scum is its own dance.
4.) Why was ort worth the vote over Volkan? Why did you wait until Volkan had other votes on him?

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

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

Killing, not devouring.

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

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

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

[orangepenguin]

unvote

- Looking things over, I realize that my reasonings for voting ecto were bad, I must admit. Like I said above somewhere, I am going to read through in a couple days, when I finally have enough free time (ugh! =[..) to properly do anything.

[mrfixij]

Alright guys, I just got back from work.

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

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

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

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

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

[orangepenguin]

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

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

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

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

You could just be scum bussing your partner.

[SpyreX]

@Fix

I was being snide. I wasn't talking about that at all - SL brought it up under the idea of:

1.) I said the town is killing itself.
2.) She started the ort wagon
3.) Ort is town
4.) Hence, if the town is killing itself, she is town.

I know better than that. I was getting irritated at some of her snide remarks so I threw one in myself.

[mykonian]

Am I the only one that thinks it weird that mrfixij suddenly goes after spring for a weak reason after spyrex has promised a case?

I agree with this point:

3.) She parrots my sentiment of Ecto's aggressiveness.

Spring votes vollkan, but fos'es ecto, without a reason for the last.

Most of the case seems to come from small contradictions, and the rather weak reasons for suspicion on some players.

I can't check this, but from feeling I also got the idea that OP and Orto would have lurked. You are right about town killing itself, IF vollkan and ecto are town. The starting discussion was a lot of activity, but it really killed. Suspicions only went to the main players, and it was hard to get between them. Orto and I have complaned that it is sometimes hard to read those massive posts, and they don't invite to posting. I think you would find the lurking with more players then SL. The first part of your case was better.

I don't get all the things said about Ecto and Vollkan being scum together. It would solve our problem rather easily, but I really doubt it.I see now that spolium kinda says what I think

I think that people who's votes suck are scum.

mrfixij is says the case on spring is quite solid. I don't agree. There are good points, but I'm certainly going to look at you.

fos mrfixij

.

[SpyreX]

Most of the case seems to come from small contradictions, and the rather weak reasons for suspicion on some players.

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

I don't get all the things said about Ecto and Vollkan being scum together. It would solve our problem rather easily, but I really doubt it.I see now that spolium kinda says what I think Smile

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

I think that people who's votes suck are scum.

Yes and no. 'Suck' is a very relative term. People who votes for reasons X,Y,Z when none of the

reasons

make sense are scum. Thats part of this whole 'gut' discussion - people who vote for 'gut' are voting for a reason that cannot by nature be analyzed and that makes them scummy.

I think you would find the lurking with more players then SL. The first part of your case was better.

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

[mykonian]

I think that people who's votes suck are scum.

Yes and no. 'Suck' is a very relative term. People who votes for reasons X,Y,Z when none of the

reasons

make sense are scum. Thats part of this whole 'gut' discussion - people who vote for 'gut' are voting for a reason that cannot by nature be analyzed and that makes them scummy.

we agree completely

I think you would find the lurking with more players then SL. The first part of your case was better.

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

here the sheep metaphor works again. People that are active are more talked about. That is partially the use of lurking. I would have been surprised if SL talked about a lurker constantly

[TDC]

SpyreX: I don't understand why you see this "self vote contradiction" as central point of your case.
Would you think that the statement "WRITING IN CAPS LOCK IS SCUMMY!" is a contradiction of similar magnitude?

Why do scum get tangled up in contradictions? I think it's because they want to appear pro-town and say the "right things" but ultimately might do the opposite to further their goals.
Does her self vote do anything to further scum goals? What do you think did she want to achieve with the self vote?

--

mrfixij:
What parts of SpyreX' case do you agree with? Everything but the point you mentioned?
What where your reasons for voting her before SpyreX posted his case?
You only cited her being on the ortolan wagon (together with your previous vote, Spyrex, and vollkan) as reason.
What about her vote was worse than the other two?

---

vollkan: What do you think about mrfixij's vote? It seems to conflict with how you have said votes have to be justified, yet you didn't mention it at all.

[mrfixij]

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

[SpyreX]

SpyreX: I don't understand why you see this "self vote contradiction" as central point of your case.

Important? Yes. Central? Kinda. Its more like a jigsaw puzzle of scumminess and the fact that she came out with such a cognitive dissonance is an edge piece.

Would you think that the statement "WRITING IN CAPS LOCK IS SCUMMY!" is a contradiction of similar magnitude?

It depends on the context, of course. It'd be more of an "WRITING IN CAPS LOCK IS ALWAYS ANTI-TOWN VOTE: OTHER PERSON DOING IT"

and then in the next post giving conditionals to the "always"

Why do scum get tangled up in contradictions? I think it's because they want to appear pro-town and say the "right things" but ultimately might do the opposite to further their goals.

Thats part of it. The self-vote fight was such a juicy apple I think she just had to take a bite.

Does her self vote do anything to further scum goals? What do you think did she want to achieve with the self vote?

Set a stance in the involving fight where she could pick up on either side as warranted and put her name out as to not instantly be called a lurker but sit back and let the town devour itself.

Or it could be the WIFOM aspect or a bad play or a myriad of things - hence its not "central" but just a part of the larger pie.

[mrfixij]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

good

Post 47 wrote:
Hi guys,

vote: springlullaby

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

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

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

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

Vote Vollkan

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

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


This one has a few key points that stand out

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

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

Regarding post 114:

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

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

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

regarding post 144

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

regarding post 279

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

addendum to the case

Vote Vollkan

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

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

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

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

Vote Vollkan

Interpretation: I think Vollkan is scum.

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

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

Resulting train of Spring's thought:

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

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

Spyre's conjectures.

Today the town has been killing itself.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

3: Setup. Namely 2 scum, 8 town.

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

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


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

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

[SpyreX]

Ohh at some point we need to have a theory discussion.

I'll get to the big one that I think has some relevance.

First off - I didn't think about an SK. I could buy an SK / 2 Scum.

But, I am really against the idea of 3 scum simply because that means tomorrow is mylo. A highly-potental day 3 instant loss doesn't seem balanced.

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

Vouching and then going back on it - I think it more likely to be trying to setup a potential lynch later. However, I will agree it is a possibility.

Considering my stance on the number of scum I find the bussing to be lower probability than in most games. However, I will agree again it is a possibility.

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

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

I never made the case fully that I would be town. The only reason would be the lack of bussing but yes, it is there.

3: Setup. Namely 2 scum, 8 town.

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

I can agree with speculation minute-tell but I really, really dont like the fact you quasi-outed yourself as a PR.

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

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

[mrfixij]

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

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

[orangepenguin]

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

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

I've never been in a game with a miller, but I have been in one with a princess. I doubt there'd be one in a newbie game (even though that's not what you meant).

[springlullaby]

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

[springlullaby]

Nice job - a proper case.

Phase One - Post Analysis

Lol, at least you seem to be consistent with yourself.

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

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

Vote Vollkan

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

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

This one has a few key points that stand out

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

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

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

@Vollkan on random voting.

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

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

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

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

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

@Vollkan and Spyrex on 'contradiction'

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

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

@Mykonian

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

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

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

In rereading, this one is a hoot.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yes you are right.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yes you are right.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

However, I did also ask:

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

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

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

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

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

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

could

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

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

Unvote (if I am), Vote: SL

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

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

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

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

[springlullaby]

Red mine above.

[SpyreX]

I know its not even addressed to me but I just cant help myself.

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

YES I DO NOT KNOW MEANINGS OF WORDS

(P.S. The "Learn 2 Read" Defense - scummy or not? YOU BE THE JUDGE)

Ok, smarm aside. I'll address this because it furthers my point.

You are, I hope, saying that the random vote is a symbolic gesture: that in random voting someone you are signifying a willingness to lynch scum.

You, who believe this, then self-vote. This, by nature of the symbol, means you are stating an unwillingness to lynch scum.

As for the beginning of the game being ritualistic - if this is a ritual and part of your condemnation of Volkan is for not taking part in the ritual... did you also not abstain from the ritual YOU are putting stock in?

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

This is more of that fun stuff I like so much. I wanted it all there, then I've got a pair of quotes for ya.

I think your system of scumhunting is BS too, yet I do not think you are scum because of it.

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

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

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

Unfalsifiable and falsifiable have diametrically opposed meanings.

Sounding ungenuine and having an unclear perspective by nature (much like 'gut') are impossible to prove false.

A case (or at least pieces of it) built on causality can be proven false. There's examples of this in when I questioned your reason for affirming a vote on Volkan who you already had suspicion on and you responded with a valid answer. The point was then dropped.

Neither of those two statements can have that occurrence.

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

What is the difference between "benefit of the doubt" and "it was a mistake and thats it".

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

There is no objectivity in mafia? What is the purpose of building a case on anything if there is no objective standards in which to measure behavior?

This little blurb, alone, would make me suspicious of you for the rest of the game. With everything else - Swish.

[mykonian]

doesn´t unfalsible mean that you can´t prove it is wrong?

You are way to late to call the selfvote of spring confusing now. It had its purpose, but didn't alter the play.

and let's put some meta in. Previous game we lynched spring day 1, and for as I recall much the same reasons. I don't think we should do this fast...

Also, I have not read all the large new posts. It is a bit too late, and I couldn't comprehend everything.

[SpyreX]

Yes, unfalsifiable does mean it can not be proven wrong - subjective rationale for cases such as 'gut' feelings, 'ungenuine' behavior and/or 'unclear' perspective are by nature unfalsifiable.

SL made the leap that ALL cases therefore are unfalsifiable.

Is the you in that referring to me?

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

[mrfixij]

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

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

[ortolan]

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.

1) You're just parroting vollkan's claim here, I already made about 3 posts arguing with him about this, but if you wanted to follow vollkan's "approach" you should come up with your own arguments.

2) Ditto.

3) We haven't gotten very far in 13 pages. vollkan's approach allows him to jump off suspicions on any number of players before we have anything at all concrete to go on. See him attacking Ecto, me, springlullaby (may have been another in between) also in a mainly opportunistic fashion. I was not the first to observe the "muddying of the waters" elicited by vollkan's "gambit".

4) Firstly; this commits the fallacy of argument from majority. I notice vollkan didn't pull you up on this either, another case of his double standards. And this point depends entirely on how you define "valid" anyhow. If you think lynching masons through bandwagons is a form of "valid attack" then obviously you're going to consider that one.

5) Yet it's exactly what you've just done, as I've shown- you're implicitly parasiting from vollkan's arguments.

6) You've totally misread this. I was not referring to the "validity" of my actions but rather the validity of possible hypotheses vollkan could have held about my behaviour.

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

What purpose did this serve? Voting for someone without giving reasons and promising them in the future is no different to voting for someone without giving reasons simpliciter.

Now I see in post 296 vollkan has completely changed his mind about springlullaby. Good job SpreX, says he: a proper case! I was trying to bandwagon ortolan but he's a mason so let's revisit some aging posts and read scumminess into them that I failed to notice the first time round!

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.

Um is this a joke? You specifically quoted her drawing attention to this as a "good find". If anything you drew as much attention or more to it as she did.

@ SpyreX: I think it's a bit rich for you to be complaining about lurkers- all your arguments find some way of agreeing with vollkan so when posting you're rarely obliged to respond to his massive attack posts. For others replying to vollkan the volume of text one has to deal with can be very off-putting.

On the whole, I am very unconvinced with the case on SL- a large part of mrfixij's case against her seems to be dredging up a seeming inconsistency in her self-vote which I already brought up much earlier. While I still don't really understand the point of it, it seems a minor point and I fail to see how you can properly read scuminess into it. I also don't like the way SpyreX, vollkan and mrfixij are all trying to re-interpret her posts to make her look scummy when no-one acknowledged this the first time round- seems highly suspect to me. I am increasingly happy with my vote on vollkan.

Finally; mrfixij:

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

I didn't see much of the "good and bad", seemed more a direct attack on her.

But Spring's play has been deteriorating, and it was really only a matter of time before she was called out on it.

I don't agree in any way that her play "has been deteriorating". I was skeptical of her play earlier in the game and am actually less so now. This statement is much more subjective than you make it sound.

Yes, I think Spring is scummy and is our most likely scum target.

Whose most likely target? You certainly haven't convinced me of anything.