Mini 720 - SPQR Mafia {Game Over}

[OhGodMyLife]

Vote Count:

6 to lynch.

dahill1: 3 (charter, Tuberkulos, Coriolanus)
Yosarian2: 2 (Glork, Erratus Apathos)
Coriolanus: 1 (El Destructo)
Erratus Apathos: 1 (Yosarian2)
El Destructo: 1 (Incognito)

Not Voting: 2 (dahill1, Assmaster)

[Incognito]

I even SAID that they made themselves obvious targets in my first post today, and NOBODY batted an eye at my comment then... so why question it now all of a sudden?

Hmm.. I just looked back now, and I actually didn't even notice that comment when you made it. I must have been focusing on your early responses to my early D2 post about not allowing Assmaster to get a post in before deadline.

[Incognito]

EBWOP: And anyway, you didn't mention specific people who you thought might have offed Pathetric like you have recently. "Why those people in particular?" was my original question.

[Glork]

Because I know that they know and have played with Patrick/Ether and me before, and that we are considered "high-profile."

This is something I know you know. Why are you asking stupid questions?

[Glork]

To elaborate, briefly: There are a handful of known veterans, who know each other pretty well through games, scumchat, meets, what have you. I figured that attention would end up on me if they died, assumed that at least one other veteran / scumchatter / high-profile player is probably in a scumgroup, and that Pathetric would be an obvious kill for them. Thus, I assumed that Pathetric was an obvious or likely kill choice.

[Glork]

I should also point out that they would be a very reasonable kill choice even if they didn't suspect me to the point where Patrick told everyone to look at me if he died, simply because they are one among a handful of good players.

[Incognito]

Glork, I wouldn't ask the question if I thought the question was stupid or if I knew the answer to it. I'm pretty sure that the other people who you didn't mention in that list could pretty damn well determine that you, Ether, and Patrick are all high profile players who probably played a bunch of games with one another. Blah blah blah. Hell, even I knew that within a few months of coming to this site. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure that out, so I was wondering why you chose to single out the people in that group in particular. That's all.

[Yosarian2]

I should also point out that they would be a very reasonable kill choice even if they didn't suspect me to the point where Patrick told everyone to look at me if he died, simply because they are one among a handful of good players.

And, to be fair, Patrick and Ether were incredibly obv town, and no one really suspected them at all.

I don't really think they were killed just because they were high profile, good players, and experenced, though; in a normal game, I'd agree with you, but oddly almost everyone is this game is a high profile, good, experenced player. This game is nearly an invitational, as far as average skill level goes.

[Coriolanus]

What did you think that you saw?

i don't think i should say (and honestly, it's not much.)

i like how dahill waffles on the EA/Yos argument, and ends up barely choosing the most popular argument.

this game could really benefit from a wagon right now. i say dahill.

[Glork]

After 10:00, still haven't made it out of the office... re-read will probably not come tonight, either. I'm really sorry, guys.

[El Destructo]

I've finished my read. Like Elmo said, I had a really strong scum read of Yos throughout and am leaning far towards town on EA. I'm definitely feeling like Elmo and I should talk these reads over before filling the thread up with noise.

I also agreed with pretty much everything Pathetric said, especially Ether's reads, including what she said about dahill. So that's something else I'll have to talk over with Elmo.

For your info, the reads I sent Elmo yesterday, which didn't really change when I read the rest of the thread, were that Yos was obv scum and that the rest of the scum were probably in {dahill, Incog, Glork}.

Give us like a day to sort the above out.

des

[El Destructo]

The kill is ridiculous. After Patrick said "If we die, seriously look at Glork no matter what," I instantly felt that any group containing Primate/Assmaster, Corio/Simenon, Incognito, or Yosarian2 (and possibly even Dahill) would have tried to off them. And while I won't deny that I would have if I were scum (believe me, it would have been a no-brainer), I can hardly believe that it points any more or less to me.

Uh, yeah, that's not what I said. I

said

you can read whatever you want into their getting killed; I

said

that they are probably the two people who know you best still active on this forum, and they - in collaberation - thought you were scum. In addition to my own view, independant of them. So I am curious as to your view on how these two players, who know you well, and as you said are very good players, and are now confirmed town, happened to be so wrong about you. 'cuz I don't think they were.

Other stuff is coming. Holy fuck I hate this IE7.

Elmo

[Glork]

In Satin Doll Showdown, Ether was rather convinced that I was scum throughout much of D2. While this was in part because a player had claimed a bogus guilty result on me, I do believe you remember how strongly she both disliked and misread my assumption that everyone was some kind of dancing girl.

Additionally, in that very game, Patrick was not at all pleased with my gameplay on D1, and by the end of D1, I was right at the top of his suspicion list (behind you, Elmo), AND his last three posts of the game made it very clear that he thought I was scum. And you know what happened that night? I'm sure you remember, Elmo. You killed him on the very first night.

So don't you dare give me ANY of this bullshit about how either or even both of them suspecting me and being protown and dying N1 makes me any more likely to be scum. I could bring up examples where Thok, Yos, PJ, or anybody else have thought me to be scummy when I was protown, and I can find examples of me having completely snowed people I knew while scum.

If you want to know what I think about Patrick/Ether being "dead, town players who know me and thought I was scum," I'll tell you in three simple words.

They were wrong.



Now, you've stated in two separate posts that you believe me to be scum. I'd like to hear some reasons.

[Glork]

So, while ranting to somebody about how much of an idiot you are, Elmo, a thought occurred to me.

You see my title there? Burden of Proficiency typically refers to when a "good" player fails to have success in finding scum, and other players accuse him or her of being scum because of it.

The false premise behind such an argument is this: A good protown player has statistically been shown to be more accurate in finding scum. By applying that principle to a particular situation, this "good, protown player" can be made to seem more likely to be scum.

What you're doing here follows the same basic principle of "good protown player being more likely to find scum," although it differs in its in-game application.

Here, you're claiming that because Ether and Patrick are "good protown players who know me," that they are "statistically more likely to be accurate" in their reads on me, and you are trying to apply that assumption to this particular case to make it appear that I am more likely to be scum.

Yet it still follows the same flawed principle, so it is still a burden of proficiency.



So, to reiterate what I said in my last post: They were wrong. It happens. The assumption that I am more likely to be scum because X protown player said I am scum is flawed. If you believe me to be scum, I want to see some original thoughts. But you are not going to get away with heaping suspicion on me with bullshit tactics.


And that's all I have to say about that.

[Coriolanus]

Vote Glork

[charter]

That's a step in the wrong direction.

[Coriolanus]

just hold on.

[dahill1]

voting someone based on a previous player saying "If I die XXX is scum" is just retarded
i wanna see where corio's going with this

[charter]

See what I mean?

[Erratus Apathos]

It's pretty clear to me that he's not interested in scum hunting.

Hah. You wish I wasn't interested in scum hunting.

I'd like you to make a list of people who have done more scum hunting this game then I have. (Hint: you're not on the list.)

Yeah, and? Am I supposed to infer that you can't be scum because you post more than I do? The fact that you were involved in the scum hunt yesterday doesn't change the fact that you weren't today.

Also, it's scummy as hell that, when the only attack you've made at all today was a vote on Glork, you suddenly turn around and take advantage of Glork's logic-less vote on me without questioning it. Especally considering how insistent you've been on voting for Glork, compared to the general shittyness of your case against him.

"take advantage of Glork's logic-less vote"? What in the hell does that mean?

You're doing the same bullshit you tried day 1, again, when you complained about my contributions while you hadn't done anything yet. I'm posting and actually doing stuff, and you're really not; this is only your third post of the month, and the first two were complete garbage, as I pointed out about your Glork case at the time; and yet you again act like I'm the one who's not scumhunting, just because I haven't voted yet today?

And you're doing the same bullshit you tried day 1, what with your defense

still

being pure ad hominem.

also, erratus, what exactly were you trying to convey with those scare quotes? usually, I associate it with sarcasm, but that makes no sense, because you later say that you think yosarian was contributing something. so what was the point?

I don't really recall; I sure as hell don't commit grammatical decision processes to memory. Best I can guess is that I thought just calling them contributions straight up was an unfair implicit comparison to other contributions.

I do think Yosarian2 makes a valid point about Erratus Apathos -- it doesn't seem natural to me for Erratus Apathos to start off D2 with a vote on Glork, end D1 with a vote on dahill1, conclude in his 468 that he's leaning town on both of them, and then vote Yosarian2 shortly after Glork had reasonless voted for him. I'd think if Erratus Apathos was truly suspicious of Glork, he might have questioned his Yos2-vote rather than just following Glork's suit after this stretch of time since EA's second to last post. I don't even remember EA acknowledging Yos2's 447 or Tuberkulos's 448 where they both comment on the Glork-posts EA brought forward.

Erratus Apathos, can you explain your thought process as to how you suddenly arrived at town reads on Glork and dahill1?

I'm not going to right now.

[El Destructo]

Hi Glork. Do you often defend players whose alignment you aren't aware of? Can you give me links?

[El Destructo]

* des

[Incognito]

Erratus Apathos, can you explain your thought process as to how you suddenly arrived at town reads on Glork and dahill1?

I'm not going to right now.

Any reason why?

[Yosarian2]

Yeah, and? Am I supposed to infer that you can't be scum because you post more than I do? The fact that you were involved in the scum hunt yesterday doesn't change the fact that you weren't today.

Again, where the hell do you get the idea I wasn't looking for scum today?

And, no, I'm not suggesting that, although it certanly is a point in my favor. I am suggesting that you are scum, since every attack you've made on anyone all game has been scummy craplogic.

"take advantage of Glork's logic-less vote"? What in the hell does that mean?

I mean that you know that if Glork is attacking someone, even if he's not using logic yet, their odds of survival tend to go way down, and you tried to take advantage of that. As Incog pointed out, if you were really suspicious of Glork, and he voted someone using zero logic, it dosn't make sense for you to go ahead and vote that same person without questoning his vote at all.

And you're doing the same bullshit you tried day 1, what with your defense

still

being pure ad hominem.

Um, no. Ad hominem would be "You are wrong because you're stupid'. What I did was say "You're not making any sense. Also, you haven't made any sense at all this game, so you're probably scum." That's not what "ad hom" means.

And no, my defense against your day 1 craplogic attack wasn't ad hom, at all.

[Glork]

Des:
D1 of Face-to-Face, I defended Thesp very strongly (even though such defense originated in some early-game random banter).

In this post during D1 of Lights Out 2, I listed seven other players whom I believed to be at least 75% protown; turns out I was right on all seven of them. I don't recall specific defenses of individual players on this list, but I do recall standing by my list even though a number of people said they had issues with me calling people protown so early.

In D1 of LoudmouthLee's "New C9" I defended Guardian so staunchly that MBL noted my "hyper-defense" of him.

In D1 of Satin Dolls (linked to it in my earlier post), I went out of my way to defend Elmo, simply because there appeared to be a really awful bandwagon on him as the deadline approached. This one is especially interesting considering Elmo was actually scum.



So there are a handful of examples I came up with off the top of my head. I can't find the post because apparently the search function is broken, but I know that I've talked about the benefits of seeking out protown players and using that to aid someone in finding scum. I guess outright staunchly defending somebody because I believe them to be protown is somewhat rarer because it's not often that those people come under heavy scrutiny.