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

[vollkan]

I've already said that, from what I've witnessed, that I think your playstyle is different this game. Being so amazingly ostentatious and getting into extremely complex arguments, if townie, is a pretty good way to get the mafia to night-kill you (unless by tunneling you were actually trying to mislynch a townie so that the mafia would love to keep you alive and let you stay about your night-time protecting unperturbed).

And I've already said that my playstyle isn't any different. I'm more pissed off here than I usually am, but the reasons for that should be pretty obvious perhaps even more so after my claim.

Secondly, my playstyle is one which tends to get me NKed anyway. If I suddenly abandoned that playstyle, it wouldn't take much for scum to cotton on to that fact. I "hide in the limelight", so to speak.

Wouldn't the reason be "so that hopefully people would pick up the breadcrumb", rather than "so it looked less spur of the moment"?

No. Whenever I breadcrumb, I deliberately do so in ways which won't be easily noticed but, simultaneously, won't risk breaking the "no cryptography" rule. For the same reason I don't like claiming, I don't like hinting at my role through obvious breadcrumbs. Much better to use odd punctuation and so on which I can refer back to.

Why do I so far find your arguments re: your claim to be far less convincing than those you could make when you could fall back on the situation of no-one having any game relevant info?

I don't understand your question.

[ortolan]

In terms of not drawing attention, one thing that springs to mind is for example...not self-voting.

[vollkan]

In terms of not drawing attention, one thing that springs to mind is for example...not self-voting.

Firstly, I'd place a higher premium on catching scum than on protecting my ass, seeing as the "vollkan is a known good player" thing already makes me at high risk of NK.

Secondly, I really think that tarring myself with self-voting actually makes my NK less likely, not more.

[mykonian]

And why only breadcrumb your role after having been on L-1?

I didn't do it early game. When I realised that I was going to likely be in a position whereby I had to claim, it made sense for me to breadcrumb, so it at least looked less spur of the moment.

Why do breadcrumbs help a true claim vollkan? Because they show you knew way before you got into trouble that you had that role, to show us that it is not something to escape from a lynch.

What you do here, is after you get into trouble, you set up a fakeclaim. Crumbs help for that too, you know... And here those crumbs completely lose there protown use, because you only thought up your role after you got into trouble. After you got into trouble, you suddenly realized we came a bit too close, and hastely tried to make a fakeclaim.

vote vollkan

[vollkan]

And why only breadcrumb your role after having been on L-1?

I didn't do it early game. When I realised that I was going to likely be in a position whereby I had to claim, it made sense for me to breadcrumb, so it at least looked less spur of the moment.

Why do breadcrumbs help a true claim vollkan? Because they show you knew way before you got into trouble that you had that role, to show us that it is not something to escape from a lynch.

What you do here, is after you get into trouble, you set up a fakeclaim. Crumbs help for that too, you know... And here those crumbs completely lose there protown use, because you only thought up your role after you got into trouble. After you got into trouble, you suddenly realized we came a bit too close, and hastely tried to make a fakeclaim.

vote vollkan

No, that would be one interpretation of my actions. I've already explained why I breadcrumbed when I did. The great irony here is that I daresay you would have less objection if I had not breadcrumbed than had I breadcrumbed when I did.

But, anyway, it makes me feel all warm and fuzzy about my vote to see that you dropped DJ like a hot coal once the prospect of leaping onto a less-than-perfect claimed doc presented itself.

[ortolan]

If you weren't willing to test a mason claim why are you willing to test a doctor claim?

Vote: mykonian

[TDC]

..

Ectomancer: Your request for vollkan's claim comes pretty much out of nowhere, I can't remember when you last voiced suspicion of him. Why could only his claim move the game along and not, say, dj's claim? What made you push for

vollkan's

claim specifically?

mykonian: It's one thing to keep your vote on a claimed doc because you don't buy the claim. But actually moving your vote to him, because he claimed doc?
You preferred dj, but now that vollkan claimed doc, you think he's more likely scum than dj?

[mykonian]

Yes vollkan, I probably would have thought it more normal that you would have claimed without the breadcrumbs. You are trying to show us that you claim is strong then it is. It was a claim, set up after you got into trouble, and now because you have "breadcrumbed" you ask us to believe you. The breadcrumbs make a fakeclaim more likely, as they were posted after you got into trouble, just to save you.

Orto: your masonclaim was crumbed a bit better (earlier), and you had OP backing you up. Look at it yourself, you can't compare it to this... You pointed it out yourself: why would vollkan only breadcrumb after L-1? I think this most likely: because he is scum, and suddenly we came to close to his lynch for his comfort, and he had to set up a fakeclaim to fend us off.

DC: yes, I am quite certain that vollkan fakeclaimed, and unless he is gambiting again (what I don't believe), that would mean he lied. This is just a badly set up fakeclaim, and that is why I vote vollkan.

if I were to vote DJ, it would be because he had two weak based cases. Scummy indeed, but now he is my second scummiest person.

[ortolan]

Oh no, I agree and I'm highly skeptical of the breadcrumbing.

But you think it's worth risking a claimed doctor (especially as someone else already claimed a power role earlier, can't remember who)?

[vollkan]

Yes vollkan, I probably would have thought it more normal that you would have claimed without the breadcrumbs. You are trying to show us that you claim is strong then it is. It was a claim, set up after you got into trouble, and now because you have "breadcrumbed" you ask us to believe you. The breadcrumbs make a fakeclaim more likely, as they were posted after you got into trouble, just to save you.

Actually, I've been fairly clear that I know my claim is not strong. So yeah, you're spouting bullshit when you say I am trying to buff it up.

Having said that, whilst it's certainly possible that scum-vollkan might have flipped out and started crumbing doc when I did, it's equally possible that town-vollkan would have decided to do likewise, figuring that some crumbing wouldn't go astray.

Orto: your masonclaim was crumbed a bit better (earlier), and you had OP backing you up. Look at it yourself, you can't compare it to this... You pointed it out yourself: why would vollkan only breadcrumb after L-1? I think this most likely: because he is scum, and suddenly we came to close to his lynch for his comfort, and he had to set up a fakeclaim to fend us off.

1) How much earlier did Orto start crumbing?
2) See above. Town-vollkan has just as much reason to crumb as scum-vollkan.
3) Please explain how the "bit better" of Orto's claim makes his lynch unconscionable, but is enough to prompt you to

change

your vote to me.

[ortolan]

2) See above. Town-vollkan has just as much reason to crumb as scum-vollkan.

This is a problem though, because the manner of your breadcrumbing made it _completely_ useless for confirming your role and if anything the fact you tried to slip it in at such a late stage seems kind of suspect to me.

[vollkan]

As I said, the utility of my crumbing showed it wasn't a spur-of-the-moment thing. I know it doesn't have the value of a first post breadcrumb, but you should be able to see that it at least has some utility. Put yourself in my position at that point in time: You're a doc, it looks like you might be forced to claim, and you haven't yet crumbed. Do you really think you wouldn't seriously consider crumbing, even if it wouldn't be sure to get you off the hook?

[vollkan]

EBWOP: First sentence of that post should read:

"As I said, the utility of my crumbing [

was that it

] showed it wasn't a spur-of-the-moment thing. "

[mykonian]

Like I said, the breadcrumbing was better. Not only from orto, but also OP began with defending orto. That means scum would have thought it out before the game started. Not an on the moment thing.

With you, you want to tell us it was not a spur-of-the-moment thing. But wasn't it? It was to late to help vollkan. It only helps your claim if we can tell with it that you knew you were that role before. Here you try to push your fakeclaim through with breadcrumbs that have to tell us... what? It makes no sense vollkan.

If you are to late with breadcrumbing, you are too late. It won't help anymore. Why were you late? because you forgot to do it? Or because you only read your role-PM after you got at L-1?

No Vollkan, the likeliest option is here: you made it up then. That's why you must be scum.

[ortolan]

Let's see if he gets counter-claimed.

If not, I'm inclined to believe his claim especially considering the distribution of other power roles.

Either way we gain nothing from rushing into a lynch in light of this new information.

[mykonian]

I set him to L-2.

Lets see if scum would rush to that lynch, I would love to see it.

Orto, all I did is making my decision about that claim of vollkan. I don't like it -> I vote vollkan, because I think him most likely scum.

[vollkan]

Like I said, the breadcrumbing was better. Not only from orto, but also OP began with defending orto. That means scum would have thought it out before the game started. Not an on the moment thing.

With you, you want to tell us it was not a spur-of-the-moment thing. But wasn't it? It was to late to help vollkan. It only helps your claim if we can tell with it that you knew you were that role before. Here you try to push your fakeclaim through with breadcrumbs that have to tell us... what? It makes no sense vollkan.

If you are to late with breadcrumbing, you are too late. It won't help anymore. Why were you late? because you forgot to do it? Or because you only read your role-PM after you got at L-1?

No Vollkan, the likeliest option is here: you made it up then. That's why you must be scum.

How far before Orto came under fire did OP begin the defence?

And again, I repeat the point that my claim would have been taken better had I not bothered to breadcrumb at all.

And answer my question from post 811.

Lets see if scum would rush to that lynch, I would love to see it.

Well, with you, DJ and SL already on the wagon, there's a pretty good chance they don't need to rush onto the wagon at all.

[mykonian]

Yes, without the breadcrumbing, this would have been better. just saying, "sorry people, I forgot", is much better then "look, I must be the doc, because I breadcrumbed", while there are objections to that. It is not obvious, and the way you try to get past us there is scummy. Why do you think I vote you?

[don_johnson]

volkan, your last post to me was off the mark. i can go pbp if you want, but it seems to get us nowhere. not sure if you realize, but you have called ALL of my produced evidence in my defense of spyrex' s attack "irrelevant". why is

everything

irrelevant to my defense? if you read my responses to him you will see that i was trying my best to explain a poorly posted list of early game suspicions. it was my mistake, but all of my responses are reasonable. you yourself say that in the face of "craplogic" you expect someone to either back it up with evidence, or admit that it was weak. i did the latter, yet you call all my reasoning justifying my actions "irrelevant." if you think all of this, why are you not voting for me? is anything i have contributed keeping you from lynching me? if so, what?

Thus making the entire argument about Spyrex and Vollkan being scumbuddies completely wifomic. The hallmark of a scum relationship is not attacking or defending, but inconsistencies - attacks which seem a little too vigorous, defending which seems off, changes of behaviour that just don't fit, etc.

this argument is not

completely

wifomic. there is a correlation. i will back this up with the math when i get time, but you and spyrex have voted together a significant amount of time. the two seemingly distinct times that you have not voted together are during a) the random phase, and b) after the "deadline" interruption. yet during this second period you vehemently defend spyrex's right to answers and deny any and all evidence i produce in my defense. yet you never

vote

me. to me this is an inconsistency. not to mention the inconsistencies of your logic which i have previously pointed out.

also, i don't believe ecto actually voted for you. your claim is a bit premature, but

unvote

, unless we have a counterclaim. the inclusion of a doctor does not seem unreasonable to me at all.

[vollkan]

Yes, without the breadcrumbing, this would have been better. just saying, "sorry people, I forgot", is much better then "look, I must be the doc, because I breadcrumbed", while there are objections to that It is not obvious, and the way you try to get past us there is scummy. Why do you think I vote you?

Except it is complete bullshit on your part to suggest that I have adopted an attitude of "I must be doc because I breadcrumbed" when, in fact, I have been anything but smug about my claim.

All I'm saying is that, whatever reasons you might have for not liking my claim, the breadcrumbing doesn't damage it. Town in my position could reasonably breadcrumb. Your continued non-answering of 811 speaks very loudly on this.

volkan, your last post to me was off the mark. i can go pbp if you want, but it seems to get us nowhere. not sure if you realize, but you have called ALL of my produced evidence in my defense of spyrex' s attack "irrelevant". why is everything irrelevant to my defense? if you read my responses to him you will see that i was trying my best to explain a poorly posted list of early game suspicions. it was my mistake, but all of my responses are reasonable. you yourself say that in the face of "craplogic" you expect someone to either back it up with evidence, or admit that it was weak. i did the latter, yet you call all my reasoning justifying my actions "irrelevant." if you think all of this, why are you not voting for me? is anything i have contributed keeping you from lynching me? if so, what?

Because the basis of my attacks was more reasoning in an attack on Spyrex.

Your reasoning is poor whether or not you voted, replaced, admitted weakness, feared deadline, etc. I also didn't say they were all irrelevant - timing of entrance and deadline can extend grace, but they don't extend to a leave pass.

And I did not say the choices were "back it up" or "admit that it was

weak

". The choices were:

By defending one's original point and explaining its merits, or by coming out and admitting error straight off the bat.

There's a fundamental difference between "weak" and "crap" (ie. error), which I've explained already.

this argument is not completely wifomic. there is a correlation. i will back this up with the math when i get time, but you and spyrex have voted together a significant amount of time. the two seemingly distinct times that you have not voted together are during a) the random phase, and b) after the "deadline" interruption. yet during this second period you vehemently defend spyrex's right to answers and deny any and all evidence i produce in my defense. yet you never vote me. to me this is an inconsistency. not to mention the inconsistencies of your logic which i have previously pointed out.

What's the inconsistency?

The fact I didn't vote for you is just a product of the fact that you weren't my number one suspect, despite being seriously suspected by me.

also, i don't believe ecto actually voted for you. your claim is a bit premature, but unvote, unless we have a counterclaim. the inclusion of a doctor does not seem unreasonable to me at all.

He didn't actually vote, but he stated he was going to do so.

My claim was not a L-1 claim, but I had been requested by two people with expressed intention to put me at L-1. I wasn't going to risk running the gauntlet of "refusing to claim", when it was clear the chips were most definitely down and I wouldn't be able to avoid claiming by any means.

[don_johnson]

volkan, your last post to me was off the mark. i can go pbp if you want, but it seems to get us nowhere. not sure if you realize, but you have called ALL of my produced evidence in my defense of spyrex' s attack "irrelevant". why is everything irrelevant to my defense? if you read my responses to him you will see that i was trying my best to explain a poorly posted list of early game suspicions. it was my mistake, but all of my responses are reasonable. you yourself say that in the face of "craplogic" you expect someone to either back it up with evidence, or admit that it was weak. i did the latter, yet you call all my reasoning justifying my actions "irrelevant." if you think all of this, why are you not voting for me? is anything i have contributed keeping you from lynching me? if so, what?

Because the basis of my attacks was more reasoning in an attack on Spyrex.

Your reasoning is poor whether or not you voted, replaced, admitted weakness, feared deadline, etc. I also didn't say they were all irrelevant - timing of entrance and deadline can extend grace, but they don't extend to a leave pass.

And I did not say the choices were "back it up" or "admit that it was

weak

". The choices were:

By defending one's original point and explaining its merits, or by coming out and admitting error straight off the bat.

There's a fundamental difference between "weak" and "crap" (ie. error), which I've explained already.

i understand here, but i am wondering why the post by ecto that i submitted is dismissed in this matter. i wrote in my notes "

seems

to be dodging questions and accusations". when asked to back it up i clarified it by stating that his play appeared "dodgy" in general. i understand why that looks crappy, but when i back it up with ecto's post i don't see why it's still considered total crap. someone else found it difficult to get something out of spyrex during that time period in the thread. it is a similar gut read to the one i got from reading the thread. i see that as a reasonable defense. should it give me a leave pass? no, but is it unreasonable to offer as evidence? no, its a concurring opinion on spyrex's

play during that particular portion of this thread

. i believe that makes my reasoning better than simply "poor".

this argument is not completely wifomic. there is a correlation. i will back this up with the math when i get time, but you and spyrex have voted together a significant amount of time. the two seemingly distinct times that you have not voted together are during a) the random phase, and b) after the "deadline" interruption. yet during this second period you vehemently defend spyrex's right to answers and deny any and all evidence i produce in my defense. yet you never vote me. to me this is an inconsistency. not to mention the inconsistencies of your logic which i have previously pointed out.

What's the inconsistency?

votes=concrete evidence. yes they are open to interpretation, but it is a fact that you consistently voted for the same players spyrex was voting, and for an extended period of time. then, you simply agreed with him and backed his reasoning against me. this while denying every shred of evidence i offered while

not

voting with him. that is a statistical inconsistency and that is the only point i am making. to me this showed you distancing your vote, but still working together for a lynch. your claim temporarily debunks this theory, but i am within my rights to point out this inconsistecy. also, the inconsistency in your logic is what i believe to be this denial of evidence. spyrex misinterpreted a post of mine earlier. i called it a lie and you have no comment(thus far). if his excuse of misinterpreting what i said is reasonable, why is my "misinterpretation" of his earlier posting not? like i said, he is pushing for a lynch, so his lie has much more damning potential than my "lie", which i contend he manufactured through his "gameshow" post.

The fact I didn't vote for you is just a product of the fact that you weren't my number one suspect, despite being seriously suspected by me.

reasonable, but still results in an inconsistency. how sure are you that spyrex is town? why do you feel this way?

also, i don't believe ecto actually voted for you. your claim is a bit premature, but unvote, unless we have a counterclaim. the inclusion of a doctor does not seem unreasonable to me at all.

He didn't actually vote, but he stated he was going to do so.

My claim was not a L-1 claim, but I had been requested by two people with expressed intention to put me at L-1. I wasn't going to risk running the gauntlet of "refusing to claim", when it was clear the chips were most definitely down and I wouldn't be able to avoid claiming by any means.

yeah, i wasn't trying to plug anything here. just give my opinion.

who do you think is the best lynch and why?

[Ectomancer]

@TDC - Several reasons. Vollkan has been the focus of the game in a number of ways. He was at the center of several lengthy debates with a number of players including myself. He has a peculiar relationship going with Spyrex. That alone makes his alignment of particular interest.
While you may not feel that I have particularly expressed any recent suspicion on Vollkan, you can find instances where I have chastised other players in this game for their play that makes Vollkan's points against their cases appear legitimate. I've also warned Vollkan directly about his play.
You get a knot in your hair, you can tease it with a comb all you want, but eventually you're forced to cut the knot out.
As for Don_Johnson, I can understand what he's trying to say. Though I haven't stepped into it with he and Spyrex, I understand why he made that early quote from me. The only way I can understand Spyrex's point is if he thinks Don read my quote first, then made a comment about Spyrex in his notes first, then quoted me. (Read ahead, then went back and created his view of the situation)

vote Mykonian

You've got to be kidding me. Tack this weird vote for a Day 1 claimed Doc on to my earlier complaint against you and I'm comfortable in actually taking this one to a lynch.

[mykonian]

We'll have a lot fun in this game if there is no doctor...

Look at that claim yourself, is it that strong? What do I see, what you can't?

[Rage]

Vote Count - Day 1

With 10 alive, 6 votes is majority.

don_johnson - 2 (orangepenguin, Spyrex)
orangepenguin - 0 ()
ortolan - 0 ()

mykonian - 4 (ortolan, mrfixij, vollkan, Ectomancer)

springlullaby - 0 ()
Ectomancer - 0 ()
vollkan - 3 (mykonian, springlullaby)
SpyreX - 0 ()
mrfixij - 0 ()
TDC - 0 ()

Not Voting - 2 (don_johnson, TDC)

Vollkan

is at L-4, four votes from a lynch,

mykonian

is at L-2, two votes from a lynch.

[TDC]

Ecto: Do you agree with dj that if vollkan were to come up town, SpyreX is more or less confirmed, too?
I can understand the possibility of them being a scum pair, what I don't get is how it is supposed to work the other way around.

--

We'll have a lot fun in this game if there is no doctor...

Look at that claim yourself, is it that strong? What do I see, what you can't?

What do you mean "is it that strong"? It doesn't need to be "that strong". It's a freaking doc claim.
What you are saying is that

because

he breadcrumbed, it's impossible for the claim to be true. How does that even make sense?

--

To those on the myk wagon: What do scum gain by lynching a doc as opposed to lynching someone else (assuming that someone else is not one of them) and then nightkilling the doc? Put any other role in that spot and it makes more sense (because that role might be doc protected at night), but with the doc himself (how many gmaes have two of them? Not many), the only "risk" I can think of is a watcher. But that's kind of a moot point when

everybody

can see how you're pushing for the doc's lynch at day.
So I don't really understand what the myk-scum rationale for pushing the vollkan-doc lynch would be, it would be so much easier to move on the dj wagon and just wait for the night to kill vollkan..
For myk to be scum, I would think either dj needs to be his partner (who was the leading wagon before vollkan was forced to claim), or vollkan himself (this, at least would explain how he knows the claim to be false and would give him big "Told you"-townie-points if he vollkan is lynched and comes up scum.)
That or he isn't aware that doctors usually can't self-protect.