Mini 728: Ye Olde Tymes Mafia: GAME OVER

[vollkan]

vote Yosarian2

This way someone will call me out saying WIFOM/revenge voting is a scumtell,

then I argue that they are a moron

, and then we get discussion going!

Already resorting to ad hominem?

Die scum.

Vote: Minineko

[vollkan]

I wasn't aware someone had self voted. Definatley scummy.

Vote: UltimaAvalon

I want in on this

Unvote, Vote: Vollkan

1) Why is self-voting scummy? The structure of your "argument" is an observation (that UA self-voted) followed by a conclusion ("Definately" scummy"), without any explanation of how you reach that conclusion;
2) After answering the above, please explain how UA self-voting is scummy, given that he has a meta for it.

Self voting either means you are voting for someone you know is town, which seems scummy, or you are scum

Very true. That still doesn't explain at all how self-voting is scummy. You say it "seems scummy". I want to know why.

[vollkan]

EBWOP:
Stupid chrome browser...

I don't care about meta.

If you are trying to work out who is town and who is scum based on people's conduct, then it is absolutely vital that you know or, failing that, be prepared to take full account of people's behavioural tendencies. Why don't you think meta is important?

[vollkan]

Very true. That still doesn't explain at all how self-voting is scummy. You say it "seems scummy". I want to know why.

If you are town, you are voting for a townie(yourself). Voting for a townie is scummy behavior, meaning, either scummy in appearance, or scummy in fact.

But

why

is it scummy? You can keep repeating again and again that "voting for a townie is scummy" without explaining why.

Also, let me try a different line of questioning:
Why might a townie self-vote at this point in the game?

I should vote you for that if you weren't making a point.

Yay, another one.

I repeat my question:
Why is self-voting scummy?

If you are trying to work out who is town and who is scum based on people's conduct, then it is absolutely vital that you know or, failing that, be prepared to take full account of people's behavioural tendencies. Why don't you think meta is important?

I just prefer to analyze behavior in the current game. In my experience meta lynching leads to more mistakes than scum.

Nice strawman.

I never mentioned "meta lynching".

I wanted you to explain why, in light of the fact that a large proportion of this game involves judgnig behaviour, we shouldn't take account of people's tendencies across the site. You responded with an assertion that your "experience" (do you mean statistical evidence, or just fluffy intuition) tells you meta-lynching is inaccurate.

[vollkan]

Very true. That still doesn't explain at all how self-voting is scummy. You say it "seems scummy". I want to know why.

If you are town, you are voting for a townie(yourself). Voting for a townie is scummy behavior, meaning, either scummy in appearance, or scummy in fact.

But

why

is it scummy? You can keep repeating again and again that "voting for a townie is scummy" without explaining why.

Also, let me try a different line of questioning:
Why might a townie self-vote at this point in the game?

I should vote you for that if you weren't making a point.

Yay, another one.

I repeat my question:
Why is self-voting scummy?

If you are trying to work out who is town and who is scum based on people's conduct, then it is absolutely vital that you know or, failing that, be prepared to take full account of people's behavioural tendencies. Why don't you think meta is important?

I just prefer to analyze behavior in the current game. In my experience meta lynching leads to more mistakes than scum.

Nice strawman.

I never mentioned "meta lynching".

I wanted you to explain why, in light of the fact that a large proportion of this game involves judgnig behaviour, we shouldn't take account of people's tendencies across the site. You responded with an assertion that your "experience" (do you mean statistical evidence, or just fluffy intuition) tells you meta-lynching is inaccurate.

You can do whatever you want, when I decide who I am going to vote for, I will base it on the current game

more than

meta.

1) Thankyou for completely ignoring everything in my post except for the last point (and even then you didn't even address the strawmanning point)

2) You've now used the weaker phrase of "more than". Finessing disagreement? Though, clearly, we must be setting the bar pretty high if "more than" allows you to completely ignore UA's record of self-voting.

3) I think ignoring meta is anti-town. I've explained the basis for my reasoning that way. You've refused to either justify yourself or alter your play. Tell me, do you think it is acceptable that people can do anti-town things and not be expected to justify themselves?

Do you really want me to answer for MM?

I don't mind. If he proclaims that he agrees with you, then I will expect him to be able to defend your (and, purportedly, his) position.

Oh, I'll also mention it's the same reason that my voting for the mod is scummy.

Uh...I don't think your voting for the mod is scummy

[vollkan]

K. Voting the mod or voting yourself is scummy because it denies the town the random vote information that exists since scum random votes, or even the "reasons" used can set the character of the relationship between two players. Most notably, I was caught as scum once when I prematurely claimed victory, and my partner was caught because of my early interactions with the person I attempted to frame saying we'd lost with all the protective roles we didn't kill. Long story short, going back to D1, while not enough to actually determine someone as scum or town from nothing, can be an excellent tiebreaker if it gets iffy in late game. So, denying the town an actual vote, by voting yourself, the mod, or basically anything not a player in the game can be construed as a slight scumtell.

To clarify, are you saying that your partner was caught because of a random vote, or just because of general early game interactions?

If the latter, then I'd simply point out that a self-vote early on doesn't in any way preclude early game interactions with people (quite the contrary, actually, given that self-voting inevitably stirs a lively discussion)

If the former, then I'd point out that it is exceptionally rare for random votes to have any substantial impact on the game. At the same time, self-voting has an extremely high likelihood of stirring relevant early game discussion (the discussion we are having right now is not a "theory discussion" in the pejorative sense, because it focuses on the scumminess of UA's and my actions). As such, basic utilitarian risk vs reward says that self-voting is a reasonable course of conduct. Obviously, random votes for other people are also fine for stirring discussion - I am not arguing that self-voting is "better" than random voting, merely that the minute prospect of attaining scum linkages shouldn't render self-voting inherently scummy.

1) Thankyou for completely ignoring everything in my post except for the last point (and even then you didn't even address the strawmanning point)

2) You've now used the weaker phrase of "more than". Finessing disagreement? Though, clearly, we must be setting the bar pretty high if "more than" allows you to completely ignore UA's record of self-voting.

3) I think ignoring meta is anti-town. I've explained the basis for my reasoning that way. You've refused to either justify yourself or alter your play. Tell me, do you think it is acceptable that people can do anti-town things and not be expected to justify themselves?

1) Sorry, didn't realize you required a response for every sentence.

1) My post had a number of discrete points within it that you should have responded.

I'll even be sweet enough to identify them for you:

Very true. That still doesn't explain at all how self-voting is scummy. You say it "seems scummy". I want to know why.

If you are town, you are voting for a townie(yourself). Voting for a townie is scummy behavior, meaning, either scummy in appearance, or scummy in fact.

But

why

is it scummy? You can keep repeating again and again that "voting for a townie is scummy" without explaining why.

Point #1

Also, let me try a different line of questioning:
Why might a townie self-vote at this point in the game?

Point #2

I should vote you for that if you weren't making a point.

Yay, another one.

I repeat my question:
Why is self-voting scummy?

If you are trying to work out who is town and who is scum based on people's conduct, then it is absolutely vital that you know or, failing that, be prepared to take full account of people's behavioural tendencies. Why don't you think meta is important?

I just prefer to analyze behavior in the current game. In my experience meta lynching leads to more mistakes than scum.

Nice strawman.

I never mentioned "meta lynching".

Point 3

I wanted you to explain why, in light of the fact that a large proportion of this game involves judgnig behaviour, we shouldn't take account of people's tendencies across the site. You responded with an assertion that your "experience" (do you mean statistical evidence, or just fluffy intuition) tells you meta-lynching is inaccurate.

Point #4

I don't expect a response to every individual sentence. I do, however, expect that where I make a post containing a reasonable number of points (4 is a reasonable number), that they will all be addressed, rather than receiving a half-assed answer to the last one of them.

2) My dislike of using meta is a preferance, not a policy. Clearly there are situations where it can be useful. I'm not ignoring UA's record of self voting, I'm stating my dislike of self voting as a tactic and my dislike of using meta as a tactic.

2) You said: " I will base it on the current game more than meta". Yes, that's a preference, but it is also a policy. Moreover, you're now saying that there are some situations where you will use meta and some situations where you won't. On what basis do you make that decision? It seems fairly arbitrary to say that, because you don't like self-voting (and again I scream from the rooftops: "WHY IS SELF-VOTING SCUMMY?!"), UA's meta isn't relevant, but in other circumstances meta will be relevant.

3) First of all, I'm not ignoring meta. I'm stating that my view on self voting outweighs his meta, in my opinion in this instance. I don't believe that's anti town, I believe that's pro town. You're entitled to your opinion and I'm entitled to mine.

3) How does your view on self-voting outweigh his meta?

And one of my biggest pet peeves is when people talk about them being "entitled" to their own opinion. The crux of this game is determining who is scum based on behaviour. People are entitled to whatever loopy ideas they want, but they have to be able to either justify themselves, or face accountability.

[vollkan]

EBWOP: that example is convoluted. There were a lot of protective roles, so in my last day of life (after premature declare victory), I tried to frame someone by "giving up", and purposely mentioning my "partner". It was WIFOM that almost went in my favor. But someone went back to D1 and found an interaction in the random votes that boiled down to "that really doesn't feel like scumbuddy's interacting"

Was it the random vote itself, or an early interaction? And please see my point about about utility.

I repeat my question:
Why is self-voting scummy?

Well, if you're town your job is to find scum. You indicate this with your vote. If you are voting yourself you are saying you think you are most likely to be scum/you have a better chance of being scum than other players. I know I am innocent this game, and I will not vote myself since my role tries to kill guilty people. By voting for yourself however, you either don't know your role or add nothing to the town (or even hamper them) by preventing discussion.

I think I addressed most of this in the above, but just to respond specifically to your post:

A vote usually means you are saying that "Person X is most likely scum". Obviously, though, it doesn't mean that in the random stage of the game. Nor does it mean that when people make pressure votes, etc. My point is that votes are routinely used as information-gathering tools.

By voting for myself, I am voting for a person I know to be town. However, there is negligible risk attached to my action, and it stands to create substantial discussion. As such, it is on balance not anti-town for me, since I add a new avenue of relevant discussion to the game.

Self voting when everyone else is random voting is pretty much irrelevent. So is random voting the mod, or not random voting, or random voting a small orange housecat. Actually, assuming the primary purpose of random voting is to get reactions, I would actually think self voting is MORE anti-town if you do it every game then if you only do it once, since you're less likely to get reactions if you do it every time. It still dosn't really matter though.

Self voting at any other point in the game is very anti-town, and is usually good reason to lynch the guy doing it.

I wouldn't say it is "MORE anti-town" if you do it regularly; it just becomes less likely to generate reactions (provided people are aware of your meta)

But yeah, self-voting at later stages of the game becomes more serious. I don't think it is necessarily a lynchable offense, but it is a lot more problematic.

[vollkan]

The random vote itself, with the explanation. If the random vote hadn't been made, there would not have been any subsequent "explanation", and thusly it wouldn't have caught him out.

Okay. Then this is one case where random voting was important. Do you agree, however, that such cases are the exception and self-voting in the random stage is also reasonable, given my previous post's argument?

But if self voting isn't considered scummy, the meta shifts and we end up dealing with it being stagnant again like normal self votes. And I'm not sure that prospect is so minute. It doesn't happen often, but I'm sure others have tales of being screwed as scum by random votes or winning as town.

Yeah, self-voting for reaction-fishing relies on people having a problem with it. If it didn't spark anything, it wouldn't be worth doing.

And yeah, I am sure that it happens, but I don't think that renders self-voting unreasonable. The benefit of self-voting is a channel of discussion. The cost is the loss of things coming from random voting (but, of course, that same thing can come from the self-vote discussion)

[vollkan]

2) My dislike of using meta is a preferance, not a policy. Clearly there are situations where it can be useful. I'm not ignoring UA's record of self voting, I'm stating my dislike of self voting as a tactic and my dislike of using meta as a tactic.


2) You said: " I will base it on the current game more than meta". Yes, that's a preference, but it is also a policy. Moreover, you're now saying that there are some situations where you will use meta and some situations where you won't. On what basis do you make that decision? It seems fairly arbitrary to say that, because you don't like self-voting (and again I scream from the rooftops: "WHY IS SELF-VOTING SCUMMY?!"), UA's meta isn't relevant, but in other circumstances meta will be relevant.

Case by case basis.

"Only sith deal in absolutes." - Obi-Wan, SW: ROTS
[/quote]

I don't care if you think that meta should be excluded in some circumstances, I want to know the basis upon which you decide when meta is excluded and when it is not.

I do think meta is always relevant, but I am open to rational disagreement. You, however, haven't presented any explanation for this apparently arbitrary decision not to take account of UA's meta.

One of my pet peeves is people who think their opinion is more important than everyone else's. I think self-voting is scummy regardless of meta, you don't. You think my opinion is "Loony", I think it's pro-town. That's your opinion versus mine. One person versus One person. You're accountable to me as much as I'm accountable to you. Get over it.

I don't think my opinion is more "important" than everyone else's.

This is a game that revolves around judging behaviour, so let's review some of yours:
1) You voted UA for self-voting, and haven't engaged with the question of why it is scummy to any reasonable extent
2) You've made assertions about meta relevance, which seem to depend on nothing more than "when it suits you"
3) You are now avoiding discussion by pegging everything on a difference in "opinion"

You have every right to disagree with me. In fact, I encourage you to argue against me. But the way you are playing is just evasive.

[vollkan]

Not necessarily. Just because I'VE only seen one case personally, I'm sure it happens more often than that.

Yeah, it happens. But I haven't seen or heard of it happening enough to think that self-voting discussion doesn't at least do an equally good job.

But since the discussion focuses on the self vote, it doesn't really get relevant unless someone starts sweating for no reason.

Yeah. But, trust me, it's like clockwork that somebody will always sweat.

So, in other words, a meta of self voting ends up making it useless.

Only if everybody is aware of the meta.

Not to mention that not liking self voters is a meta, and a null tell.

So, UA's meta for self-voting is irrelevant.
But, your meta against self-voting is relevant.

You're doing wonders for demonstratnig that this is not just an arbitrary distinction.

[vollkan]

There are two elements to it. Firstly, the effect, which is reduced information for the town to act upon later, and secondly the intent, which is divestment of accountability (trying to avoid responsibility for your actions) - one of the strong scum behavioural patterns. If it didn't attract such a predictable response - back before self-voting had really been considered - it would be a good shielding tactic.

On the first element: I don't think it provides "reduced" information, so much as it provides "different" information. A normal random vote can provide information of the sort that FL refers to in her meta example. A self-vote sparks a discussion which provides a different source of information. I don't think either is demonstrably better than the other.

On the second: I don't see how self-voting amounts to a divestment of responsibility. A person is as accountable for a self-vote as if they make a random vote. In fact, with the attention that a self-vote attracts, I would argue that a self-vote actually results in extra accountability in many cases.

The question then, of course, is why anyone would want to establish a meta practice which they acknowledge is harmful to the town? The thing is, I can see why it's beneficial to its user (countered attacks of any sort make it harder to launch additional attacks later - and it's the response to the self-vote, not the vote itself, that ends up being effective), and that's going to be helpful to them in all situations. Town doesn't want to support an easily-adopted individual defensive strategy, but at the same time it's genuinely meaningless in the majority of cases (just because there are good reasons why scum would do it and bad reasons why town would do it doesn't mean it's driven by scum intent). So, the best approach is to neutralise the part of the strategy which has an impact - namely the argument over whether it's scummy or not, by ignoring it and moving onto other matters.

I have a meta practice of self-voting precisely, but I don't think it is at all harmful to the town.

Could you elaborate upon your point about "countered attacks of any sort make it harder to launch additional attacks later", since I am not sure what you mean?

And yes, it is the response and debate that is useful, rather than the actual self-vote, but I don't think that really says anything about the utility of self-voting for town.

Reaction-fishing for demonstrably anti-town behaviour (even if it's demonstrably non-scummy) is, however, a fundamentally flawed approach. Fire attracted from doing something wrong is, relatively speaking, poor fire to analyse - scum and town approach it the same way. Either they know about its meta context, in which case they'll know to ignore it (or make the point about it being anti-town and move on), or they'll be new, and they'll attack what they see as being a valid tell. What you are very likely to get, however, is fire from someone in the game, which is then easily defended and supported by others - and that process of attracting fire is a pre-emptive defence. The tactic has a very definite effect, and it's a different effect to that (I believe) most people think it has.

Well, what I look for is not whether or not people like self-voting, but "how" they respond to it. Newer players will tend to see it as scummier than experienced players will, but that isn't the important thing. My focus is on why people find it scummy, and how they justify themselves.

[vollkan]

Not to mention that not liking self voters is a meta, and a null tell.

First, I thought meta didn't inflect your play?

Second, do you mean site wide meta, in which case no, it's not a null tell, it depends on the person

And Third, if you mean personal meta, I suppose I could see that.

Certainly I have a meta, I just meant that it shouldn't be used as a primary method for determining my alignment. Clearly I could use my meta as a way to show that not liking self voters is not a scumtell, but I'd prefer people to look at the logic behind my opinion, my voting history, and things like that. And I'll look at other people's in game behavior first before looking at meta.

I mean, if someone state's in every applicable game they play in that they don't like self voters, then not liking self voters is not a scum tell, because they are saying it weather they are town or scum. I haven't been here long enough to know what the site meta is on self voting, I was referring to self meta.

You're using your meta to defend yourself against any charge that your attitude to self-voting is inherently scummy (which it isn't). You still haven't explained why UA's meta is not equally relevant.

True enough, and most are with most people who do it. I guess you could trip up new people to the site.

Obviously, newer people are more likely, but they by no means exclusively find self-voting scummy.

But are they scum?

No. Again, my focus is not on what people think about self-voting, but how they explain themselves. That is to say, I look for craplogic, strawmanning, etc. rather than simply what a person's opinion is.

I'll have to agree to disagree since I think we have different thresholds for cost/benefit.

Hmm.

Well, I think the costs of self-voting are a minutely increased chance of one's own lynch, and the loss of the sort of information that you referred to in your meta-example. I think the benefit is the information gained from a discussion on the scumminess of the self-vote, which I think offsets the costs.

Well, what I look for is not whether or not people like self-voting, but "how" they respond to it. Newer players will tend to see it as scummier than experienced players will, but that isn't the important thing. My focus is on why people find it scummy, and how they justify themselves.

(-) appeal to authority;

The statement you just made seems pretty revealing to me. Pretty much the whole game so far you've been implying that the town should trust you more because your view is the view of experience, and that they should trust other players less because of their inexperience. Experience doesn't your argument any more valid, or make you less likely to be scum.

How is the statement an appeal to authority?

And since you say "the whole game", would you mind explaining how I am making implicit appeals to authority elsewhere?

I'll say right now that I think you are spouting absolute BS here, as I have never once justified myself on the basis of authority (which I don't have anyway )

[vollkan]

Here you use probability scenarios to further your case, without backing them up, and are implying that people should trust you based on your knowledge of mafia probability.

*facepalm*

I am not appealing to authority. You are abusing a logical fallacy label.

Yes, I am making two statistical claims (1) random votes rarely have a major impact; and 2) Self-voting very often stirs discussion). I base both of those claims on my experiences playing this game, and reading games. I cannot recall ever seeing random voting playing a major role in things. In contrast, I can't recall a game where self-voting has not spurred discussion.

Making those claims is not an appeal to authority. I am not saying "My argument is right because I have been on the site longer than you/have played more games than you/etc." I am simply doing what any reasonable player does in assessing the relative utility of two different plays, both of which are theoretically valid - assessing that validity in light of empirical practice.

It would be an appeal to authority if I had said anything like: "Self-voting is not scummy because I am an experienced player and I know better than you"

People are entitled to whatever loopy ideas they want, but they have to be able to either justify themselves, or face accountability.

Here you are insulting other players perfectly valid ideas.

No. I am saying that I don't really care what people think (argue that the best scumhunting strategy is to randomly lynch, for all I care), provided they have good reasons for their positions.

Here you are assuming that your experience makes your opinion more worthwhile.

Again, no I am not.

I am saying that my experience leads me to reach a particular conclusion.

Take a step back for a moment: I made a theoretical argument for self-voting and random voting both being reasonable. FL "countered" me with one game where random voting made a big difference. I said, fine, but in my experience that isn't very common. What am I meant to say - "Oh gee, well I better throw my theory and my experiences in the dust-bin because, hello, random voting proved important in one game"?

Here you say we should "trust you" without giving examples.

Yes, I don't keep mental tabs on "Games Where Self-Voting has Created Discussion". My apologies for that.

And here you actually go right out and say that you think new players opinions are less relevant.

No, I didn't.

Eek, I just relalized I'm like totally posting in the wrong game here...

my apologies.

Thank you for stealing a few hours of my life

There are two issues to consider here. The first is the information gain from the original vote, where it's better to vote someone else (some, but not a great deal of information) than yourself (no information). The second is the result of that vote - the discussion - on which I think that discussion on self-voting has the effects of a) providing a defence to the self-voter (at least in this meta), b) providing an easy target in whoever attacked the self-vote, and c) forcing the agenda onto a specific topic early, whereas more organic discussion topics are, I feel, more educational.

I agree with you on the first issue.

On the second, I'm not too sure what you mean by providing a defence (defence against what, exactly?). As for the "easy target" point, I don't think it does that any more than any normal sort of argument would (the usual pitfalls regarding inexperience, poor communication, etc. still apply). I also don't think it precludes organic discussion - either occurring concurrently, or subsequently (case in point - MM's debate with me about my apparent appealing to authority)

In the case of a meta self-vote, where it's something someone does all the time, the stock defence is "I do it all the time, therefore it's a null tell". The frustrating thing about that defence it it's valid, and to pursue someone on something, no matter how retarded, that they do all the time regardless of alignment, isn't productive.

I see what you mean. My reasoning on this is basically that the average random vote, like the one I made before I decided to self-vote and have go a round with MM, is extremely unlikely to attract suspicion anyway. Obviously, it's unfortunate when a player can simply say "It's my meta", even if they have no justification for what they do. However, I think that, given there is little risk in the alternative path of a standard random vote, a self-vote, which at least exposes the self-voter to scrutiny in argument, is a reasonable course. (having said that, it's obviously true that if a person simply self-votes for the sake of self-voting and then says "It's my meta" without any wider point, then their conduct is self-insulating and has no net benefit of any sort)

I have a meta practice of self-voting precisely, but I don't think it is at all harmful to the town.

What do you mean by self-voting precisely?

It's a typo. I use Google Chrome and as my browser it has this annoying tendency to appear to delete words when in fact they aren't deleted.

I had initially written: "I have a meta practice of self-voting precisely because I don't think it is at all harmful to the town." That didn't sound right to me when I wrote it. However, looking at it again, it makes more sense than what I actually posted.

There are a few key points which result in attack fatigue:

Firstly, if you attack someone and lose the debate, you will be more reluctant to attack that person again on the basis that the last time you did you were defeated - you will feel you need a stronger case to launch an effective attack.

Secondly, if you attack someone and lose, when you have additional arguments you will be concerned that the original defeated argument is still affecting your judgment and you will need a greater body of evidence to feel prepared to launch an attack.

Thirdly if you launch repeated attacks on the same person, you run the risk of being viewed as having a "hard-on" for that person and your opinions not being taken as seriously by the town.

Fourthly, every time a given player wins an argument, outside observers will generally view that person as more town, regardless of whether it says anything about their alignment or not, and they will therefore be more reluctant to attack.

That's the psychology behind it.

I've never thought of this before, but you make a very good point (or, rather, four very good points) here. The one point I have in response is that the same can be said for any early game debate. Obviously, though, that becomes somewhat more problematic when a self-voter deliberately creates a debating environment. I need to think about this some more.

The underlined point is key. Generally, newer players are much less adept at explaining why they think things are scummy, mostly because they don't have a solid theory of their own yet and much of their theory is learned only superficially - effectively all they have is appeal to zeitgeist. It's therefore much easier to deconstruct them on a justification and/or consistency basis.

I know this, and I do try to account for it. The same goes for any argument with a newer player.

This makes me look like an absolute idiot. Not as much as Vollkan though :p

I operate on the assumption that the people posting here are meant to be posting here. Clearly, I may have to revise that assumption. (I just checked to make sure

you

were in the game )

So my question is - what am I going to be able to get away with? I don't have a developed meta on this site - so would voting the mod or myself (something I already did) be a scumtell?

It would depend on how you justified yourself.

Are we going to forgive scumtells later in the game based on meta?

I don't agree with the premise of your question. I think scumtells are inseparable from meta. Sure, we can objectively reason certain things to be more likely to come from scum than town, but putting them into practice within a game, I think, requires that you look at a person's history.

[vollkan]

He didn't seem like he would be arguing so much against the majority as scum, who probably would have handled the argument less aggressively. And they probably wouldn't have made a one-sentence response to a really long post.

Meow.

It was hardly a "majority" that he was arguing against and, anyway, I can't see what is un-scummy about going against a majority.

As for the aggression point, I again can't see any basis for concluding that scum would be less likely to be aggressive.

As for the one-sentence answer, I can't see at all how you can conclude it to be a towniness indicator. He was avoiding responding to my argument by addressing only the last point, and even then he didn't respond properly.

It's not actually entirely true. Monkeyman certainly did look like a newish town player with a particular viewpoint which he stuck to, and defended pretty reasonably. Players' reactions to this remain relevant.

Vote: Vollkan

Looks like opportunistic scum browbeating a newbish townie.

I don't think MM's 'play' was remotely evasive. He seemed remarkably forthcoming and straightforward to me. Vollkan was looking like he was trying to win the argument and paint the other guy as scummy, rather than figure out if the other guy was actually scum. It struck me that the argument being had was the same old 'Doing things that scum are likely to do/ doing things that hurt the town' argument that he has in every game, at least every one i've been in with him, and disagreeing over the validity of lynching for one thing over another is the kind of thing town players can, and do disagree on all the time.

Case in point: MafiaSSK lurks every game, but I still try to get him lynched every game for it.

1) He didn't defend himself reasonably. He stated his opinion on self-voting initially, and never once directly explained his reasoning as to why he held that view, dodging my points in the process, and deflecting with bogus attacks against me. To say nothing of his double standard in relation to the relevance of meta.

2) Despite the above, it was obvious to me that he was inexperienced. Maybe we have a different play philosophy on this point, but I don't think inexperienced players should be treated more "gently" than experienced players. I consider experience level relevant at the stage of determining whether a player is scummy, but that doesn't in any way impact upon the procedural side of things (ie. questioning and debating). For what it's worth, I found his responses scummy but, in light of his inexperience, much less so than I would have if he was a more experienced player.

3) On your point that "Vollkan was looking like he was trying to win the argument and paint the other guy as scummy, rather than figure out if the other guy was actually scum": This isn't true. He voted UA because UA had done something which, he claimed, was scummy. In light of that, I wanted to see how he would respond to having to justify his reasoning. In turn, he was evasive, swiping, etc, which was more material for me to discuss with him. The process of the debate is one tool in trying to find out whether he was actually scum, in contrast to your suggestion that I was arguing simply for the sake of it (which is the same reason why I often allow myself to enter these debates in games

Also, is being even more pointlessly tl;dr than usual, which in addition to being incredibly annoying makes me wonder if he's overcompensating for being caught out 'not looking like town vollkan' in his last game as scum.

I wasn't being more tl;dr than I normally am when I am arguing with somebody.

. He then proceeded to paint vollkan with scummy attributes rather than answering the question of "Why should UA's meta of self-voting be discarded while your meta of voting self-voters is ok?"

I think it's more a case of 'Well if you think meta is an acceptable defence, then why isn't the fact that I always vote self-voters relevant?'

I don't think so.

He began the game with a blunt stance of not caring about meta. He then shifted to this weird state of meta sometimes being relevant, depending on whether or not he wanted it to be relevant. It was at that point that he invoked his own meta as indicating his opposition to self-voting as being a nulltell. When questioned on the apparent double-standard by FL, he responded by saying:

Certainly I have a meta, I just meant that it shouldn't be used as a primary method for determining my alignment. Clearly I could use my meta as a way to show that not liking self voters is not a scumtell, but I'd prefer people to look at the logic behind my opinion, my voting history, and things like that. And I'll look at other people's in game behavior first before looking at meta.

I mean, if someone state's in every applicable game they play in that they don't like self voters, then not liking self voters is not a scum tell, because they are saying it weather they are town or scum. I haven't been here long enough to know what the site meta is on self voting, I was referring to self meta.

Basically, he's relying on his own meta as a defence, albeit muddying the waters and avoiding outright hypocrisy by saying it shouldn't be a "primary method". It comes back to the point I was making about an arbitrary distinction:. He treats his meta as relevant. He dismisses UA's out of hand. And, of course, he still doesn't explain why UA's isn't relevant.

[vollkan]

About "browbeating a newbish townie" thing, read MM's posts again. They are inconsistent. His refusal to accept

anybody else's

metas is astonishing.

Fixed.

[vollkan]

That's what I figured. It didn't seem like the right time to use that ability for either alignment. We hadn't got into anything, really. We were still discussing whether or not MM's involvement in the game was worth anything... but that was about it. I don't see why someone would end the day at that point in time.

I agree it was most likely a PR.

Now, 3 scenarios come to mind (I don't pretend these are the only 3; they're just the only three that occur to me):
1) The PR is town and compulsive (

has

to use their power once per day) - In this case, it is understandable to use the power before it will risk disrupting a major discussion (We were only discussing the MM stuff, and the day ending didn't significantly cut anything)

2) The PR is town and non-compulsive - Makes less sense here, but I suppose they could have reasoned that a night phase might gather information and have more utility than letting things play out. More dubious though

3) PR is scum: Free night, with as little information as possible coming to town as a result given how early it was.

[vollkan]

Now, 3 scenarios come to mind (I don't pretend these are the only 3; they're just the only three that occur to me):
1) The PR is town and compulsive (has to use their power once per day) - In this case, it is understandable to use the power before it will risk disrupting a major discussion (We were only discussing the MM stuff, and the day ending didn't significantly cut anything)

That's a really strange idea - a compulsive town day-ender would render lynches impossible, making the game almost completely pointless. Also, I most strongly object to the suggestion that it's a good idea to use it before proper discussion gets going - sure, interrupting a big debate will hamper that debate, but a partial debate is better than none.

Sorry, I meant to add that it would have to have a limited number of uses; obviously, it would be impossible otherwise.

And I agree with you that it would be better to wait, but my point was that, in that scenario, it would be understandable, even if not ideal.

I wouldn't be surprised if it was a mod action, intended to find a middle ground between day start and night start (giving us a pre-night discussion phase, but no lynch) and an artificial discussion point. I can't cite any precedents, but it makes sense from a design perspective.

I hadn't thought of that; but it is another viable explanation for what happened.

OMGWTFBBQ

Does that mean he caused the day 1 to end so fast? I notice the mod mentioned a storm with the sudden end of D1

I also noticed he self destructed 4 days into day 2, and day 1 lasted 4 days; I wonder if he had to choose each day, 4 days into it, to either end the day early, or self destruct? [/rampent speculation]

Possibly, but that would be a really weird role.

[vollkan]

I also noticed he self destructed 4 days into day 2, and day 1 lasted 4 days; I wonder if he had to choose each day, 4 days into it, to either end the day early, or self destruct? [/

useless

speculation]

Fixed your tags for you

also

Vote: Occam

simply because it makes me feel better

Nobody expects speculation to create any definite answers, but it is helpful to have ideas on the table about what might be going on in this game so we can potentially better prepare.

[vollkan]

Fritzler knows full well that the likelihood of an early day-ending happening again today is remote - it would be really bad bastard-modding. Taking that into consideration, the comment is not helpful at best - but it's exactly what I'd expect from Fritzler. I'm kind of surprised you took it at face value.

Meh...I would expect Fritzler to be especally frustrated at a day then ended without a lynch like that.

Yeah, me too. I wouldn't be surprised for him to make a post pushing for a quicklynch day 2 even in normal circumstances, for that matter - that's just how Fritz rolls, and I don't think 106 tells us anything about him.

But that's not what got my attention - what got my attention was your approaching his comment as if it were a serious strategic suggestion, because it seemed obvious to me (and I would have thought to anyone who knows Fritz at all) that that wasn't its purpose. Especially given how it ties into a heavy focus on early day-ending, and how to handle that situation.

vote: Yosarian2.

Hmm, I don't agree with you here. Fritz suggested a quicklynch on the (dubious) premise that we were at risk of having another day cut short. In that context, Yos's remarks were perfectly valid.

@Fonz: Do you not agree that his post was incredibly antitown? I don't know the players here all that well.

Why are you seeking Fonz's endorsement of your opinion? If you think the post was anti-town, state so bluntly (rather than asking leading questions), and explain why you think that way.

[vollkan]

I don't have a case on Yos, just a gut feeling. It's just that he's done a couple of things that felt odd to me - the Fritz thing was the more minor of the two (the other being the 4-day speculation, which I'm still uneasy about but am not quite sure why), but one that at least merited explanation. Nothing he said was invalid, it just seemed strange to me for him to take a Fritz comment like that seriously - and sometimes being overly literal and clinical in approaching a game can be a sign of deliberate detachment. Of course, it could simply be that he approaches Fritz differently from how I do.

The four day thing is a reasonable mistake. I don't think it makes Yos more likely to be scum.

I agree that an overly-clinical approach can be scummy, but I also think the context in which Yos addressed Fritz is very important. Fritz made a decent argument for a quicklynch, but based on a bad presumption. It was a serious strategic suggestion in light of that fact.

[vollkan]

@ Fonz - That's nice and all, that your gut has become more reliable to you over time - but why should anyone else trust it? That doesn't work as a valid reason or point of evidence for me.

#

You are of course, correct that one player's gut isn't likely to convince another. Doesn't mean it's an invalid basis for a vote.

Sure, it isn't inherently "invalid". Two points:
1)

The "Why Gut isn't Good for Scumhunting" Argument:

Ultimately, a town player makes a "gut" vote because they don't know or cannot voice the reasons for their suspicion. Whilst that doesn't render their suspicion "invalid", it is extremely dangerous because, at the end of the day, you are placing confidence in a non-rational judgment.

2)

The "Why Gut is Anti-Town" Argument:

This is a game of incomplete information and deception. Nothing makes the game easier for scum than allowing them to avoid argument and accountability. Whilst a player is accountable for a gut vote in a very limited sense - if Player X's gut reads conflict considerably with Player Y's, there is room for arguing that they are possibly coming from a different perspective - but since all "gut" is suspicion in the absence of known evidence, such an attack relies on a presumption that both players are responding to precisely the same things, and that's a presumption which cannot be tested. See the recently finished Mini 701 for an excellent example of this at my expense; my lynch was pushed

Obviously, that's the ideal, but it's not always possible. The case I gave you is this: someone's giving you strong scum vibes, but you can't pin down exactly why. Nonetheless, he's your top suspect. You can either a) lie about the basis of your suspicions b) vote him and explain it's a gut thing or c) vote someone else, who you don't actually suspect as much, but for whom you can articulate a reason why their play might be seen as scummy. That lists covers all the options.

You can let people know of your gut feeling and try to work out why you feel that way. As in, use your gut as a pointer.

The logical extension of your argument, if your best indicator of someone else being scum is a gut feeling, but it isn't acceptable to vote on gut feelings, then you have to make a case against someone who you don't actually think is as likely to be scum. Which, obviously, in my eyes is scummy, and therefore your position is scummy.

That's not true.

Ignoring a gut feeling doesn't mean you are going after people you "think" are less likely; it is going after people you "feel" are less likely. It's simply a case of not trusting an emotional judgment.

Lynch all claimed millers.

Do you have any meta precedent for this view?

If millers were not policy-lynched, it becomes too good of a claim for scum. They essentially get immunity from being busted by a cop. Therefore, millers should not claim, and claimed millers should be lynched. It's a policy lynch because it's not based on the likelihood of the individual miller claimant being scum- but because it hurts towns, in general, to allow miller to become an acceptable claim.

I disagree.

A miller claim inevitably places a player under greater-than-usual scrutiny; and it makes people a lot more comfortable with their lynch. The cop immunity incentive for scum is basically outweighed by these factors.

Moreover, let's say Occam didn't claim. N1 he is investigated by cop. On D2, cop claims guilty on Occam. Occam claims miller (along the lines of the Christmas Carol I wrote in the GD tread ). The obvious outcome is a D2 mislynch of Occam and town praying that it has a sensible doc on N2. It is MUCH better for town to avoid that whole sorry scenario by simply having the miller out him/herself.

[vollkan]

If millers were not policy-lynched, it becomes too good of a claim for scum. They essentially get immunity from being busted by a cop. Therefore, millers should not claim, and claimed millers should be lynched. It's a policy lynch because it's not based on the likelihood of the individual miller claimant being scum- but because it hurts towns, in general, to allow miller to become an acceptable claim.

I disagree.

A miller claim inevitably places a player under greater-than-usual scrutiny; and it makes people a lot more comfortable with their lynch. The cop immunity incentive for scum is basically outweighed by these factors.

Moreover, let's say Occam didn't claim. N1 he is investigated by cop. On D2, cop claims guilty on Occam. Occam claims miller (along the lines of the Christmas Carol I wrote in the GD tread ). The obvious outcome is a D2 mislynch of Occam and town praying that it has a sensible doc on N2. It is MUCH better for town to avoid that whole sorry scenario by simply having the miller out him/herself.

But in the end, all it really does its make it really suck to be a Miller. But then, nothing's changed, except that the policy insures Scum can't use it. Either way, it makes for a great Jester claim.

Well, it doesn't ensure scum can't use it. Miller-claiming makes sense for scum if they anticipate a serious risk of cop investigation. Better to run the gamut of a miller claim and have a decent chance of survival than to get guilty-ed.

But yeah, it is a great move for Jester.

[vollkan]

Good point