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

[SpyreX]

@Myko

What is it that makes the SL case bad except for poor votes vs mrfix poor vote?

[mykonian]

by SL it is that the votes are half based on gut. By mrfix was the time, and the time he gave his reasons weird.

[Ectomancer]

Ok, my current one is Mykonian. The simple gist of it is that he has had a remarkable 180 degree turnaround on SL with regards to his early attacks, followed by his recent vehement defense. Nothing in game seems to be the source of this new direction, therefore ulterior motives are suspected.

Who else's name do we toss in the hat and why?

Did you have any more specific ideas as to what ulterior motive might exist for such a change in position, or is the simple fact of a "broken pattern" as you called it?

I briefly touched on this topic in a response to TDC, but to put a fine point on it, there are 2 ways to interpret it with Mykonian as scum:

1: SL is scum. Mykonian came out with an early attack for distancing. Symptoms of this are that A: Mykonian has a good basis for his attack but B: Dropped it for no apparent reason.
*Argument against this is the hard defense by Myk for SL. I'm not certain a scum buddy would stick their neck out that far.

2: SL is town. Mykonian came out with an early attack with good basis, but didn't follow through because he didn't want to be seen pushing the wagon against a town member. Now defending SL to be seen as the voice of reason in the event of a townie SL lynch. Problem is, there is no evident reasoning for sudden vehement support.
*Argument against this is __________


@TDC - I dont sleep with an alarm clock because, in general, my internal clock works fine and wakes me when it gets close to being time to get up. Mod vote counts are roughly a game equivalent of that. I may take a quick glance at it, but not closely unless I'm going back looking at trends, or I know that a wagon has been building enough that a more accurate count than my general awareness is needed.

unvote, vote Mykonian

[don_johnson]

hello all. replacing in. i will need some time to get caught up and hope to contribute soon.

This is true, don_johnson replaces Spolium.

[orangepenguin]

don: What are your first impressions of each person, before interacting with anybody?

[vollkan]

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

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

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

Orto's argument was that SL's logic was valid inductive reasoning, and that I was over-prioritising deductive reasoning. I thought this distinction was irrelevant because of the point I made about needing to disprove the validity of counter-hypotheses.

I asked Orto to explain himself to see how he could manage to argue for the validity of SL's reasoning despite her arguments being conspiracy. I was reasonable certain the distinction was irrelevant, but I needed to see his argument to make sure.

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

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

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

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

I see no tension between insisting on objective play and also doing reaction-stirring.

It isn't a "primary" method of scumhunting of mine (insofar as I don't always use it), but it is definitely one I have a history of using.

///The following isn't necessary to read to understand me - I say this because people are complaining about my verbosity - but I give it as substantiation of my history of reaction-gathering //

See Mini 495 an example. To give the necessary background: I was town, shaft.ed was town, Korlash (who replaced Oman) was scum, AlyG was a tracker (and had claimed at the time of my trap), and Orig was a vig (he had claimed by virtue of being outed by AlyG, who tracked his NK and thought he might be scum)

Now, in that context I made this suggestion:

One possibility would be to lynch AlyG.
If AlyG comes up mafia, we pretty much know that Orig is mafia also. If that happens, we know we have a SK and I would be willing to bank very strongly on it being Dybeck.

(The SK bit is known because there were two nightkills, so if Orig was mafia there must have been a SK - not a vig since no counter-claim)

Now, the above quote was complete BS by me. The very idea of lynching a claimed tracker to prove that he wasn't mafia is stupid. That was not, however, how Oman (who, I stress, was scum reacted):

Dybeck is choice #1 for a lynch, but AlyG could help us confirm Orig mafia if(when:lol:) AlyG comes up mafia.

Then we're left at...something:1:1 (Didn't do the math) In a WCS
Yeah, I reckon either AlyG or Dybeck.

Shaft.ed, who was town, rightly rejected the idea, but Oman took the bait. It didn't result in his autolynch, due to other factors and suspicions, but it haunted him and Korlash throughout.

I think it instructive, in the context of this game, to have a look at Korlash's attitude to my trap:

I raised the option of an AlyG lynch, as I said, to see what people though. By that, of course, I meant that I was interested to see who supported it. Again, shaft.ed, you have taken the pro-town option, whereas Oman has, again, supported something on a dodgy basis. I have done this also, which was why I raised the AlyG thing, to see the extent of what Oman would support.

HELLO? OTHER TOWN PLAYERS? HOW CAN YOU HAVE COMPLETLY OVERLOOKED THIS?

*cries blood*

1) How can the excuse "I voted player X just to see who would also vote him! Actually voting him is scummy! So lets lynch the person who agreed with me!" fly... How come Volkan is still alive? Why did this last an additional ... 20 odd pages... ???!?!?!?! Is there a logical answer later on? Did I miss something? What?

2 Now I'm not saying the excuse "I want to see how fast someone would bandwagon" or "I want to see how fast someone would switch votes" or something similar means anything bad, I'm saying the excuse Volkan used in this post seems like something a scum would say to throw a "Bandwagon" he started onto the shoulder's of someone else... It seems like either a frame up, or a cover up...

3 Also a bit more of that Shaft.ed is town stuff from Volkan... still not anything plausible, but seeing a pattern over and over is something I like to run with...

In this game I didn't even go quite so far with my trap, because I didn't advocate something anti-town or say anything untrue.

An even more extreme example is Mini 486. This game had an unusual setup. Mod confirmed at the start that "There are 3x mafia, 3x masons that win with the town, and 1x day-vig that can be a mafia, mason or townie." I had the fortune of being a dayvig-mason. On D1, a very bad wagon occurred - a player named Nelly632 self-voted (just after random stage) and got put to L-1 for it. It wouldn't surprise any of you to learn that I didn't like the wagon at all. So, I took a big gambit. I prematurely claimed one-shot dayvig (Not vigmason, in the hope that it would save my life by making me an unattractive kill target), influenced largely by the fact that I feared being NKed. Anyway, I started toying with Oman (Oman again ) and proposed a BS dayvig shortlist (risky, given that the mod had confirmed the possibility of a scum-vig). He took the bait and got dayvigged. He was scum.
////////////////////////////////////////////

Trapping doesn't at all go against my principles of logic. In the examples above, I work out what scum would likely do in response to certain conduct, and then proceed to test people. In this case, my test confirmed my suspicion of Orto's prejudice. At the very least, he wasn't looking at me in a detached manner. In both the examples I give above, my actions were such as to place myself at risk and, in that sense, were anti-town. But it all comes back to risk v reward - I expected good odds of a return for taking a risk so I was willing to gamble a bit.

Basically, for those on the go

: the standard pattern of my reasoning is to look at somebody's action and then evaluate whether it is reasonably scummy. The trap pattern is simply a reversed version of this, in that I work out what a reasonably scummy response to conduct would be and then proceed to commit that conduct in order to see whether the action occurs.

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

I frankly don't understand this at all.

Maybe I answered it above. Otherwise, could you give an example or something? (As you should have anyway).

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

What do you mean by "interprations and opinions".

As for the gambitting, see above. I have been gambitting (self-vote and the gut comments) and I will continue to do so if I see an opening.

[vollkan]

EBWOP: Just to make my preceding post clear, this:

///The following isn't necessary to read to understand me - I say this because people are complaining about my verbosity - but I give it as substantiation of my history of reaction-gathering //

applies to everything written up until this:

////////////////////////////////////////////

[don_johnson]

don: What are your first impressions of each person, before interacting with anybody?

well i've only read a few pages so far and am still trippin out on the self vote issue.

first impressions:

orangepenguin: asked a very smart question. probably a smart person. could be town playing good town, or scum playing town well.

mr.fixij: he seems logical in the early goings. just not sure if its

my

kind of logic.

ectomancer: the first one to realize(or at least publicize) the WIFOM of the self vote discussion(or so it seems). need to read more.

volkan: just scrolling down the page and seeing the giant smoke bomb of a post makes me suspicious, however, he could just be one of those really wordy types. i like longer posts, but only if they're meaningful.

aahhh, day 1... more later.

[springlullaby]

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

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

I still feel mykonian is town.

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

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

[mykonian]

Ecto, since when is a vote good, when it is based on one shaky post, where one person is voted, and one FoS'ed, and where for the FoS weren't clear reasons. I'm not going to stick with that a whole game.

And, I went to far in telling you the case was worthless, as it is more or less the reasons for my first vote, but then about 3 or 4 posts, with lurking. But I had not the feeling you were listening.

[springlullaby]

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

[ortolan]

I don't want to get modkilled so can someone give me a rough idea of what's generally considered "acceptable" paraphrasing

[vollkan]

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

This is ridiculous.

SL cast a vote for me based on vague, unfalsifiable assertions. I argued extensively with her and Orto and, frankly, I don't think they have a single leg to stand on.

For her now to say that people should just read over the debate is absurd given how long things ran for.

[ortolan]

don't worry I'm still going to reply to vollkan's latest and possibly previous post when I can muster the energy, but solely on the earlier meta point (which is probably more useful than merely responding to your latest crappy arguments), I didn't think we were allowed to reference ongoing games, so was loathe to refer to specific games (the one in which you were lynched and flipped scum was an exception as clearly your alignment was already revealed)

[vollkan]

I don't want to get modkilled so can someone give me a rough idea of what's generally considered "acceptable" paraphrasing

I am assuming you mean in the context of role PMs.

Okay, say your role PM was

You are a mason, along with Mr. X. Each night you and your partner may communicate via PM.

Both you and your partner win when all threats to the town are eliminated

It would be unacceptable to write:

I am a mason, along with Mr. X. Each night, my partner and I may communicate via PM.

My partner and I win when all threats to the town are eliminated

But (and this is only going by what I would allow as a mod, and I don't pretend to be authority on this), I imagine this would be acceptable:

I a mason with Mr. X. I can talk with my partner each night via PM. We are both pro-town

The main issue is making sure you don't include anything which could potentially lead to the mod being identified as an author. The role PMs I made up used the common "Role. Details. Win condition" structure, which is acceptable for paraphrasing given its ubiquity. If there was a more peculiar structure, it would be inappropriate to use it in "paraphrasing", because it might confirm your claimed role.

I'd be inclined to always check with the mod before attempting any paraphrasing (as in, PM the mod a planned paraphrasing) - it just saves a lot of trouble.

[vollkan]

don't worry I'm still going to reply to vollkan's latest and possibly previous post when I can muster the energy, but solely on the earlier meta point (which is probably more useful than merely responding to your latest crappy arguments), I didn't think we were allowed to reference ongoing games, so was loathe to refer to specific games (the one in which you were lynched and flipped scum was an exception as clearly your alignment was already revealed)

Huh? Neither of the games I referred to is ongoing.

And it's generally alright to refer to an ongoing game, provided you don't provide comment on what occurred within it. I'm not sure what rage's policy is (which is why I am not going to refer to it), but saying "In ongoing game ### vollkan was scum and did X" doesn't have any real dangers.

[SpyreX]

I think we've hit a wall - again.

We need to make a decision or get deadlined. I think we are now going in circles.

[mykonian]

I hope you weren't waiting for a modkill SL...

[vollkan]

I hope you weren't waiting for a modkill SL...

What do you mean?

[mykonian]

What was the use of asking orto for that PM? If she wanted to know if they were unconfirmed, she could have asked that. Now she asked from orto to test out the mod.

[ortolan]

I did already say btw that my pm specifically guarantees we are both town and have the same win conditions

That said I realise I don't feel that strongly about vollkan-scum to argue with him for another round so

Unvote

[mykonian]

So, problem solved, no need to annoy the mod, and lets look for the correct lynch.

[ortolan]

I'm still happy to oblige sl's request, if for no other reason that it will prevent suspicion being wasted on two players who I know to be town- myself and him (I pmed Rage as vollkan suggested, am still waiting)

[ortolan]

EBWOP: the "him" refers to OP

[springlullaby]

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