Open 127 (Lovers Nightless -- GAME OVER) before 761

[Plum]

Let's see - Zwets and mith in the same six-player game. Good heavens.

Vote: Zwets

- on Marathon Day he asked if I'd dance salsa with him - perhaps he's found a steadier Lover by now?

On the subject of (*sigh*) theory: Yes, I've skimmed/vaguely followed some of the previous runs of this setup. In specific, I recall Senstown arguing that a random Day 1 Lynch is optimal, strategy-wise. I'll want to read up on that more myself . . .

[Plum]

Day 1 is for getting information. If a "random" lynch (such as guardian's) is what's needed then that's what we should do. If you're talking about agreeing to lynch someone and then rolling a dice, then hell no.

Also, as I'm pretty sure it will help the town. If Mith is put on L-1, I will hammer.

Vote: Zwets

- I like RVS.

So you say, my friend. I notice that our esteemed mith doesn't actually have any votes on him at the moment - not even your random vote, which went on Zwets, who already has a random vote (mine). Were you trying to specify mith here or did you mean 'I'll hammer anyone put on L-1'?

Eliminating possibility of being buddies with the other players multiple times was a trick Sens tried with some success, it's true. The question remains whether it's worth risking certain premature hammers to try to earn that info.

Additionally - mith, you say that if we can't lynch scum, the next best thing to do is 'force scum to use their influence to push the bandwagon'. How do you propose to get them to do that and how do you propose to figure out who's scum influencing bandwagons from the townies?

How do we balance trying out multiple bandwagons with possibility of sniffing out scum hesitant to vote a buddy but still keep the risk of actually having a hammer before we want it low?

I've raised a few questions I can't answer quickly at the moment, but I'm thinking - and perhaps you guys might also think on it.

[Plum]

I don't like this connection emerging between Mith and Empking, especially since Emp is now being more logical than he's been acting in any of his other games.

Do you believe the connection has a strong possibility of being a scum/scum connection?

Empking has declared that he will hammer mith if mith's put at L-1. This does seem to make the possibility of the two of them being buddies seem less likely, at least on the face of it. Doesn't change the probability that one or the other is scum, and it's obviously still possible that such is the case, it's just considerably more remote.

That said, that's no reason to

put

mith at L-1, in and of itself.

Is Empking trying to do what town-Sensfan tried to do? Maybe, but this doesn't look quite as useful. Sens went in with the mentailty of willingness to hammer anyone who got close on Day 1, and unless I remember incorrectly held multiple players there Day 1 - two or three, maybe. Is declaring intentions to hammer a certain player if certain player is hammerable

alone

useful? Not as much. I'm not sure that half-measures are going to be very useful here.

As Sekinj points out, going at bandwagons just to see who's willing to

hammer

is not much help by itself. Can we all just say 'well, I'm willing to hammer anyone'? Not really, and not at all if all we try to do is prove townhod or eliminate pairing possibilities through hammers votes and willingness to place them. We have one Day 1 hammer. Best use is on scum. But we can't rely on it for the bulk of our info.

As mith put it, we have to milk info out of other things, too. I will think of ways to get info out there. You guys come up with some ideas too. Next step is blind collaboration via implementation. We must all move our ideas, without speaking of them, in tandem. Cleverly, we will avoid banging into each other and throwing the whole dance into a mess.

Now, presume for a moment that in the one game of the three runs of this setup the scum have won the scum didn't draw much attention to themselves - I believe that this was at least somewhat the case, and perhaps the correlation was in this case a partial causation. This presumption would spur the question 'who has been quietest', at which point we wonder what Ortolan is doing. He doesn't seem to be lurking, but he has been quietest overall. Which wouldn't be a scumtell as much as a jumping-off point.

Now, presume for a moment that Sekinj is scum, theoretically.

Now, presume for a moment that I am scum and Sekinj isn't (in reality, with info I currently have the first thing in that statement is false and the second is unknown).

Unvote; Vote: sekinj

[Plum]

@plum - you say ortolan is a jumping off point and then vote me? i don't understand your two presumes at the end of your post....

My 'presumes'? Hm, no, I'm not entirely sure what purpose they'll end up serving. I mean the first (you being scum) is obviously something I think is a possibility - otherwise I don't believe I'd vote for you. The second (presume Plum is scum and Sekinj isn't) is presumably one thing one might put in the list of possible answers to the question 'Why did Plum just vote Sekinj?'. I suppose I'm saying 'I'm thinking about thinking about thought processes, and maybe everyone else should as well.

Yes, Ortolan has plenty of room to be a jumping-off point. I might explore that later. You yourself are another jumping-off point, perhaps more fertile in these early stages. In some ways, you're an equally promising place for my vote as Ortolan, in one way slightly less, and in one way potentially a fair bit more, and it's far from being all about you, Sekinj. Now think about my thought process here (if you feel like it; feel free to not do that, of course).

[Plum]

@plum - okay, I've thought about your thoughts. and I think you are just trying to get a vote in for no reason by hiding it behind something that sounds thoughtful, but is really nothing.

Thank you for thinking about my thoughts. The fact that you came to the wrong conclusion doesn't matter much. Believing what you profess to believe, however, do you find me scummy for doing so?

Plum: Do you think Sekinj is the scummiest?

I don't have enough information to determine anyone here being substantially more or less scummy. I do, however, think that my vote is perhaps most useful on Sekinj right now.

Has Ortolan been posting elsewhere on the site? Yes. I note that.

[Plum]

Plum, our best lead now is to test this interaction between our two suspects. The question is whether we lynch the founder of MS or the useless VI.

Ah, but the other question is: Which one

is scum

, if any (or, remotely, both). And I must say that you're one to talk about being a VI, Zwets .

I have an idea, Zwets: You may play with mith and Empking as you will. I will play with Sekinj and Ortolan for now until I get bored of that or something shinier catches my eye, because frankly I'm not sure exactly why you're speaking of mith and Empking as if they're our only two suspects, or even as if they should be our two main suspects. If you'd like to argue that Empking is scummy for his proclamation re: hammering mith, argue that. I'm not sure where mith even did much more than respond to Empking's proclamation and be its target - why would he be one of the two we'd need to choose between for the lynch?

There are worlds of possibilities out there still. Boxing ourselves in (for example, to a mith-or-Empking for lynch only mentality) could allow us to play into the hands of scum.

Rereading the thread:

Put him onto L-1 then.

Why? Do you think that testing out your claim immediately is really the optimal strategy here? Putting aside whether the statement was townie, scummy, smart, stupid, or anything, was

asking mith to be put at L-1 so you could prove you aren't buddies with him

really a good idea at that point? Think hard, little grasshopper.

[Plum]

Zwets - I'm not sure what you mean by me 'taking the heat off mith'. I was just uncertain as to why you felt the need to paint the situation such that we must choose between lynching either Empking or mith. Empking attempted something less than useful, so that's slightly sketchy. Mith's response was, to me, a nulltell. Unless I recall your argument incorrectly.

The problem with Zwets is that I don't think it's humanly possible to get a read on him. Has anyone ever actually seen the guy flip scum? I haven't, but I have seen lots of townie sketchyness . . .

Heya, Ort!

As to your questions - I'm short on time, so I'm numbering instead of quoting you.

1. Because there's a fair chance mith

will

be put at L-1, putting either Empking in a position where he may be pressured to vote mith. Emp knows this. It's still possible, of course, but at face value the likelyhood that they're scum goes down to likelyhood of scum Emp trying a risky gambit. Some benefits there, of course, so I'm not completely ruling it out. Also, note, their relative scmminess independent of one another remains unchanged (aside from possible scumtells on the part of Empking. Reread and analysis there forthcoming).

2. Empking challenged Sekinj, who didn't believe that the possibility of an Emp/mith scumteam was significantly lessened, to do so.

Put him onto L-1 then.

In retrospect I should have been more concerned about that. Read on; my response to that, as I reread the thread, was

Why? Do you think that testing out your claim immediately is really the optimal strategy here? Putting aside whether the statement was townie, scummy, smart, stupid, or anything, was

asking mith to be put at L-1 so you could prove you aren't buddies with him

really a good idea at that point? Think hard, little grasshopper.

@ Emp - did you ever even respond to my question???

3. I'm 'hesitant' to take a stand on it because I'm somewhat unsure. And that's mostly because I thought Empking may have been attempting something Sens-logic-y but epically failed. Having said that, yes, it does't look

practically

helpful. At this point having seen more, reread, and see mith's accusations brought to clearest fruition, I'm much more convinced of Emp's scumminess.

4. I'm somewhat torn between telling my thoughts on the optimal strategy, and having town debate it openly (letting the scum devise strategy to counter it) and trying to see what I can do to effect it in the game without explicitly mentioning it. Thus I'd like to encourage everyone to think about useful strategies themselves, either leading to my line of thought or to something else useful. Say - have you done anything like that? Do you have any fresh ideas as to what might be beneficial, whether or not you think the time right to speak of it openly?

5. Nice; it's appreciated. Sorry about my recent lack of activity here. Have been fairly busy. Must practice what I preach.

6. Playing with you = focusing certin of my attention on you. Obviously the Emp/mith situation is interesting in and of itself, but I'd pefer to keep poking you and sekinj (and, yes, Zwets too, but talking to him at tha point made me feel like approaching it like a basketball game: you cover them if you feel like, and I'll take them. Obviously I need to play defense and guard Zwets as well. But if Zwets wanted to focus on mith and Emp, I wanted to keep a fair amount of my own attention on you and Sekinj)

I don't like that zwet is already implying that the choice for today comes down to me and Empking, and I am somewhat suspicious of him for that. I think it makes it less likely he is scum with Empking, though.

Fair enough. I think it's weird how much he's suspecting

you

. I haven't seen you act sketchy in the context of Emp's stuff.

a. Do you agree that as a general rule you should only hammer players you actively suspect, rather than hammering an arbitrarily chosen-in-advance player?
b. Do you agree or disagree that this also applies to this game?
c. Did you state you would hammer me only to generate reaction to that statement, or do you intend to follow through with it if the situation presents itself?

a.Yes
b. Depends if the town know you're hammering a specific player in advance.
c. If the situation presents its self I'll hammer.

I don't agree that even lessening the possibility of ths pairing is woth putting yourself in the situation where you migh vote someone you don't suspect. At all. And the argument has gone through its paces (thank you, mith) and

here

is Emp's scumminess.

I'm not sure about pairings yet, but I am most suspicious of PLum so far. I think his ramblings are a lot of words that are supposed to look like reasoning, but really amount to nothing.

I can see that. Again, if my explanation of what I've been thinking about (and not expressing very well) would be more useful, you think, than being a bit cryptic, I'll oblige. I that the general consensus?

but your plan does not accomplish your goal.

Agree - at least, not as definitively as necessary to outweigh downsides to the plan - see mith's list of bad things that could happen.

You think there's at least a 50% chance that Mith is scum. Why aren't you voting him?

Yes, I agree - at least that if such is the case, you ought to be voting for either mith or Empking.

You asked out 100% if you and mith were scumbuddies. I answered that there is a 50% chance you are, which is the same percentage i personally have between everyone else.

I think you mention later that you're bad at math. But the odds on two specific people being buddies together, from your point of view assuming Sekinj-town, should be (2/5)*(1/4) = 1/10 if I'm right. The 50% odds you claim are huge. But meh. You seem to have explained that you're not good with mah and such. I'll deal.

Vote:Empking

In no specific order (I wanted to make sure I got them all in). Readings will go from 1 - very unlikely to 10 - extremely likely.

Emp/mith: 2.5. Emp's statement makes this pairing less likely but by no means an impossibility.

Emp/sekinj: 6. Sekinj questions Emp fairly sharply and calls his reasoning re: mith's playstyle 'nonsensical' but it seems I'm still her top suspect (it could be anyone else she's suspecting in favor of Emp I'd find it fairly weird whoever it was). Granted I haven't had too much time to post in a bit and stuff.

Emp/Ort: 7.5 or so. Ort literally doesn't take a stance, saying it's night impossible to distinguish town-Emp from scum-Emp. The only problem is that from my point-of-view, there's no known way of distinguishing town-Zwets from scum-Zwets . . . meh. Don't know if the guy even has a scum meta. It's possible Zwets is being more quiet than his wont, but that may be because this game is smaller and running at a somewhat slower pace than many of the games Zwets plays.
[/ramble]

@ Ort - dude, you seem to call me out on not taking a strong stance on Emp/mith earlier but don't really end up taking a strong one yourself (you say Emp's plan is 'useless' but don't commit to a read on his alignment).

Emp/Zwets: 6.5. Emp mentions Zwets once - in the RVS. Zwets seems to frame the Emp/mith thing as something where it would be best to focus on lynching either one or the other, and calls me out for taking the heat off mith . . . it makes little sense.

mith/sekinj: 5. Sekinj leans towards mith's side vs. Emp - nulltell in regards to the pairing itself. Mith mentions Sekinj around an average amount, I guess, and isn't very antagonistic towards. But Sekinj hasn't looked hugely scummy; null again.

mith/Ort: 5. Mith agrees with Ort's analysis of my posts. Fine. Ort takes mith's part etc. Nothing suggesting anything beyond null.

mith/zwets: 5.5. One post of Zwets' indicates possible connection, but then again is at least as likely to be Zwets spouting his usual nonsense. Mith weakly suspects Zwets.

sekinj/Ort: 5.5 Both mention one another little, and Sekinj puts him down as a medium-low suspect overall.

sekinj/Zwets: 3.5. Fairly unlikely. Zwets comes at him pretty hard at first.

Ort/Zwets: 5.5. Ort mentions Zwets not at all. Odd - but then not

extremely

odd. Zwets hasn't exactly been verbose. Zwets mentions Ort only in context of possible/probable scumpairs, with me.

The thing that's occurred to me about Empking's plan (another): The same degree of clearance re: being the partner of a given player can be achieved through other means which bear less risk of being put in a position where you have to hammer someone you don't think particularly scummy.

Emp's vote on mith also extremely weak basis. Exercise in determining mith's average post length meta seem useless, distracting, and generally counterproductive.

Sekinj: What do you think of Emp, alignment-wise, scumwise, etc.? You don't think he's a strong suspect; explain more please?

@ZWETS: If the votecount were reset and you had to vote for a suspect

this minute

who would you vote and why?

Suspects:

(in order, in line)
Emp
sekinj Ort
zwets mith

[Plum]

Plum, who do you choose to go next?

ZWETS. Haven't seen much from him - standard for him, but we're going to need more than he's provided thus far, I think, and I want it ASAP.

Zwets - I has a challenge for you. I think you'll need at least five sentences to fully treat the matter. Either

a) Use at least five sentences to address the issue

or

b) Prove me wrong by

fully

treating the issue in less than five sentences.

Please .

[Plum]

I did a quick check, he has been scum in two games: Newbie 673 (Replacement), Batman 2 (Marathon). Not sure how useful either will be, but in case someone wants to do some research.

At a glance:

First link he literally replaced on the last page of gameplay. Too hard to get a read on him.

Second link he looks mostly like himself until he says something coherent, trying to be convincing, but it's clearly false and scummy. Tries to argue against a convincing Cop claim.

Not extremely useful, but, hey, it didn't hurt.

[Plum]

I would vote Mith if the votecount were reset. Instead of responding to my accusations of Plum pairing he asks me why Emp isn't as suspicious. Emp is playing like he does in every game, being largely unhelpful and not really making much sense. Mith, however, has an urge to try to reason and argue with him, which he ALREADY KNOWS is useless to do. I'm not sure if he's trying to prove that he's being objective with him, but if that's the case I find it an uncalled for attempt to look more townish. Sekinj, YES, fabricating percentages is a scummy thing. Plum, I'm curious as to why you want my scum meta so badly. Looking for what to accuse and what not to, eh?

I've got no idea how to read you and in fact do not know if there

is

a way to read you. Obviously I want to be able to get some sort of read on you if possible and thought that looking at your scum meta would indicate things to look out for amid your general . . . Zwets-ish-ness; unfortunately, your scum-meta is about as meager as mine (which is saying something).

Do you believe that Sekinj really intentionally "fabricated" percentages (scummy) as opposed to just happens to be bad at math, as she claims (nulltell)?

[Plum]

Prodded. Many apologies.

Happy scumday, mith .

Wait, wait, something I thought of when I was rereading/skimming: Empking says he randomly chose a player (mith) to declare that he would hammer said player (mith) if said player reached L-1. Mith is, on basis of experience and impression (as Zwets said, hey guys, we actually are playing with the founder of this site and all) the least likely player to reach L-1 - especially Day 1. The question is: is there any significance to that which should make me doubt that it was, as Emp said, a random choice? Thinking aloud about possible benefits to that if Emp is scum, I'll say at least that Emp doesn't run into problems of looking scummy, whatever his reaction be, if mith would reach L-1. Avoiding that but still trying to look useful? It's not itself condemning, but it make my gut twitch weird.

New stuff: Zwets' inane focus on the supposed scumminess of Sekinj's 'fabricated' percentages is noted and scummy - though this is Zwets, and, as I've learned, with Zwets an obvscumtell needs to be downgraded a few degrees.

FOS: Zwets

, though.

New list:

Emp
Zwets Ort
Sekinj
mith

For the record, Zwets appears before Ort because I think there's a slightly greater chance of him being scum than Ort.

@ Zwets: Why don't you vote for mith? Curious, as you'd only be putting him at L-2 (though, granted, I can start to see more of the stupidity which will arise from Emp's claim). You even say explicitly that you want a mith lynch. - so why no vote?

It's clear that, argument-wise, Sekinj is in the right. She's bad at math and put 'scale from 1-10' into percentages, unless I'm much mistaken, and by '%50' on a mith/Emp scumteam she meant 'average chance of pair existing (and not, in her mind, significantly affected by Emp's claim)'.

Ort: In one part of a post of mine you questioned, I was addressing the fact that I seriously don't know if it's humanly possible to get a real read on Zwets. Then I said hello to you. Part of my problems with you, in this game, stem from the fact that - do I recall incorrectly? - you accused me of being scummy partly in not taking a stance on Emp while you took little strong stance yourself. Though I haven't said it in quite as many words as you, I do happen to be aware that Emp often loks scummy regardless of alignment. I'm trying to work with it anyway - but you attacked me rther hypocritically in the context of Emp, but refused to take a stance on him yourself. The whole thing does make that pairing seem more likely in my eyes.

Ugh, a whole page of arguing back and forth re: Emp's playstyle (and mith's meta - as I think I've explained, Emp's behavior in that area is one of the things that concerns me about him). Not on my list of things to do . . . everyone focusing on it is focusing on mostly the wrong things, partly, I think, due to questions with little or no point and demands that they be answered. I got to see mith give a sorta cryptic though on my play and playstyle, however .

pot...kettle...

QFT.

Hey, did I not unvote or did the Mod make a mistake? I'm too lazy to check the ruleset now, so I'll assume it was probably my fault. For posterity, a page or two ago I voted Emp. I don't think I unvoted. My vote, according to the votecount, is still on Sekinj. Sorry about confusion. Please note that I intended my vote to be on Sekinj since the post in which I attempted to vote Emp.

Unvote; Vote: Emp

[Plum]

Quick reply. Tis late. More extensive replies coming soon.

Plum: Your pairings/comments don't mesh with your posted suspicion list in 113. For example, you have zwet as more likely to be scum with Emp and with me than sek, and have them equally likely to be paired with orto. Yet, sek is listed ahead of zwet on your suspect list. From your posted pairings your suspect list would seem to be Emp > orto > zwet > sek > mith (which is more like what you posted in 183). Any response?

Myself and my method may have crashed, and if that's the case I bear the brunt of it. The method, in this case, having been rushed, I may have taken the wrong route in analysis of possible pairings and been more stringent in analysis of whether a pairing was likely based on interactions vs. interactions and individual scumminess. In which case my 1-10 scale would be a scale less of suspicious pairings and more of 'not unlikely do to interactions' pairings. Having now realized this, it obviously necessitates a rectification by way of a new list of pairings and probabilities, being sure to correctly weigh both variables, on my part. Seeing as some of my suspicions have shifted (for example, Zwets looks scummier for various reasons which I plan to list in my next post, coming ASAP).

Addressing some of Ort's concerns:

Appears to be an attempt to appear irreverent while interacting with mith i.e. "hehe he's not my scumbuddy because I address him so casually".

I often congratulate players, regardless of my own or their alignment, on a scumday or birthday. I did find it amusing that it was the scumday of the site's founder, and acknowledged that feeling.

This is scummy. I have not played with mith before and have zero intention of giving him a free pass. Your attempt to do so with this appeal to authority is scummy.

Completely taken out of context, sorry. I was musing about the fact that Emp made his declaration about mith, who (yes, having stumbled across the MD 'Hangman Ratio' thread) for various reasons might be less likely to be put in a position where Empking would have the opportunity to hammer him. Which might weakly indicate that Emp was scum trying to gain the benefits of looking townie while avoiding as best he could the risks inherent in making such a declaration, on a scumbuddy or not.

Wait so the same argument I applied to Empking and which you criticised me for isn't valid here?

You applied an 'I can't read Emp' attitude while criticizing me for not taking a stance on Emp, which I found hypocritical and potantially scummy. I'm perfectly willing to try to get a read on Zwets but recognize that Zwets says a lot of stuff which for him are nnulltells, even though for others they may be strong scumtells.

FOS: Ort

. Misrepresentation does not sit well with me, sir.

No, I don't have a real scum meta - mine is about as substantial as that of Zwets.

Zwets continues to be erratic, accusing me and Emp of fabricating numbers (what are you referring to?)

Other parts of Ortolan's case for a mith/Plum scumteam are, again, misrepresented etc., as mith indicates.

I need a reread, I just know it.

:arrow: Having said all this, I don't believe that getting two votes on me now is, in the long run, necessarily a bad thing. It's the bitter medicine part of my thoughts on optimal strategy.

[Plum]

Meaningless waffling? No. Admitting to having accidentially taken a partially wrong approach to listing scumpairs? Yes (you can see this, if you will, from the fact that I made comments mostly on interactions between players in the pairings I discussed). This will be rectified as soon as I can fully address the issue, which may take a substantial amount of time to treat as fully as is necessary. I'm in school. I've cobbled together some lunch/Computers time to address certain things before my analysis of Zwets/new scumpairings analysis/perhaps a vote switch and explanation tonight - to lighten the load I'll have to address then, as it were.

I love how you characterise zwet as merely "erratic" here, while reading nothing scummy into his play.

(for example, Zwets looks scummier for various reasons which I plan to list in my next post, coming ASAP).

I did not have the time to do a thourough analysis and argument as to Zwets' scumminess. I did, however, say that such was the case and that complete analysis is coming shortly. I'll try to get stuff done now - I have maybe fifteen minutes until my lunch period is over.

This single line is extremely scummy, from the deferral to mith for reasoning for attacking me, to the extremely vague (itself a misrepresentation? ) accusation of misrepresentation, to the fact she doesn't have the guts to vote me, but merely FoSes me.

You took a quote from me about Empking completely out of context in your argument for a mith/Plum scumteam. That was blatant misrepresentation, which concerned me a lot. You made a similarly stupid attack on mith, again in the context of a Plum/mith scumteam, which mith himself addressed.

"He knows he agrees with me but isn't quite sure of what Plum is saying, but probably agrees with her. Again, implying he has trouble understanding what she is saying thus he can't possibly know her well enough to be her scumbuddy." - I can't decide whether this is spin or just stupid. I wasn't quite sure what her stance was because she didn't actually take a stance (just asked a question that implied a stance, in 125). The only think I was implying there was that I don't like putting words in people's mouths.

Which I see as another case of scummy-looking spin which is all too easily proved ridiculous.

I often congratulate players, regardless of my own or their alignment, on a scumday or birthday. I did find it amusing that it was the scumday of the site's founder, and acknowledged that feeling.

This point fit in with my theory of you being scum with mith, so I made it. I agree taken by itself it doesn't necessarily mean anything.

My point was that I can't see it being indicative of anything. Why do you think that this supports a mith/Plum scumteam and isn't just a nulltell sort of interaction, as I explained it was?

Completely taken out of context, sorry. I was musing about the fact that Emp made his declaration about mith, who (yes, having stumbled across the MD 'Hangman Ratio' thread) for various reasons might be less likely to be put in a position where Empking would have the opportunity to hammer him. Which might weakly indicate that Emp was scum trying to gain the benefits of looking townie while avoiding as best he could the risks inherent in making such a declaration, on a scumbuddy or not.

Well, my view is that I was amazed and a little jealous of mith's propensity for not being lynched as town. It seems almost like a self-fulfilling prophecy, but one which could readily be exploited by scum- by both mith and a potential scumbuddy- "hehe you're not going to vote for me, because I never get lynched, because I always look town, like here", which is circular and is almost meant to intimidate us into being more hesitant to lynch him.

No argument against my argument that you took my statement completely out of context, but not an acknowledgement thereof in sight. Do you think if you don't mention it I'll forget? Here - we both have expressed in the thread knowledge that mith has a propensity for not getting lynched as Town. I see your point that a scumbuddy of mith's could try to use that to his or her advantage in this game. You do not, however, prove the point that what I said was an attempt to do that sort of thing. Explain?

Your insistence that one can read Empking but not zwet is making me re-evaluate zwet. I see them as very similar in it being difficult to identify when they are scum/town.

I've had more exerience with Zwets, which might have caused me to express feelings about the difficulty of reading him more strongly. I'm willing to agree to that statement and work to hunt scum from all the players despite it. You are, too?

"I'm going to feign calmness with two votes on me (despite my lynch being an auto-loss), that way no-one could possibly think I'm scum".

No, actually. My main thought is that having multiple, even many, bandwagons form (with reasoning and not randomly) Day 1 would be optimal - this is the strategy on which I had been musing.

So, Ort, you still have a strong belief in a mith/Plum pairing? Explain? You neglected to post a full scumpairing analysis, instead arguing strongly for that pairing, I note.

[Plum]

A long reread and analysis coming up:

My main problems with Zwets, condensed:

- Insistence that Sekinj 'fabricated' her numbers even tough that's clearly blatantly false.

-

I would vote Mith if the votecount were reset. Instead of responding to my accusations of Plum pairing he asks me why Emp isn't as suspicious. Emp is playing like he does in every game, being largely unhelpful and not really making much sense. Mith, however, has an urge to try to reason and argue with him, which he ALREADY KNOWS is useless to do. I'm not sure if he's trying to prove that he's being objective with him, but if that's the case I find it an uncalled for attempt to look more townish. Sekinj, YES, fabricating percentages is a scummy thing. Plum, I'm curious as to why you want my scum meta so badly. Looking for what to accuse and what not to, eh?

Problems here include reluctance to vote a player to L-2 (I believe Emp's vote was on mith at the time). As votes and patterns thereof will be an important source of information in this game, he shouldn't have held back and the one other vote on mith should not have had the impact Zwets' implying. It further suggests scum not willing to take a stance until explicitly asked to do so, as I did, and even more reluctant to commit to a vote.

The attack that mith was trying to earn townie points 'uncalled for' is a badly-expressed weak suspicion at best and a logical fallacy at worst, as, in general, everyone is concerned with looking town. If Zwets made the argument that mith was focusing on looking town as opposed to scumhunting, that would be one thing. As it stands, I need to ask:

@ Zwets - what were you trying to say there? Explain more fully, please?

Additionally, his attack on mith was based on the idea that because he didn't respond to the accusation that I was 'taking the heat off mith', which he admitted was a problem with me, not mith.

The case is almost completely baseless aside from accusations which are either stupid at best or downright scummy at worst.

Sekinj - a bunch of her latest posts are short bits of stuff which don't entirely address new issues. She's asked some decent questions, I suppose, but I'm interested in seeing some new analysis out of her. Especially because her relative tendency to not come up in my mind when I run through the game mentally gives me a very bad gut feeling.

Re-analysis of Empking, from the top:

The gambit, or whatever you'd like to term it, wasn't smart and had more downsides than potential benefits (qualitatively, not quantitatively) - I believe that and it's what I'd call the general consensus. Scummy or not? was the question, which I eventually believed to be a 'yes'. Especially having considered the fact that Empking stated that he agreed that 'as a general rule you should only hammer players you actively suspect, rather than hammering an arbitrarily chosen-in-advance player' but argued that in the case of this game, if the town knew about hammer-resolution in advance, after the good arguments put forth against it (to summarize: being pressured by your declaration to hammer someone you feel is

not

scum, scum could use it as an excuse to hammer an innocent, townie-Emp looking scummy if you avoid hammering because you don't believe specified player is scum, etc.). The useless diversion into whether mith's playstyle - specifically

general post length

was closer to his scum or town meta, especially as his argument that it was closer to the scum meta was based on multiple clearly stupid assumptions, was obviously useless, unhelpful, and distracting.

Having said that . . . but wait, I'll leave that until the end. Analysis of mith:

A lot of his early play was focused on Empking; understandable, and his arguments were reasonable. Rereading, however, I do have a couple of questions:

I've been attempting to determine whether he actually thought his "plan" was a good idea for a pro-town player (somewhat successful: I do now think he believes that, whatever his alignment), and the reactions to the argument have likely been more striking than they would have been had I just said it was a dumb plan and dropped it.

I haven't seen exactly where and why you came to the first conclusion or what you mean by 'striking'. I see that later you think he might be using it to try to look town rather than help town and that it would therefore slightly indicate Emp-scum.

Asks Empking's age, which segues into another long, not too useful detour, though Empking bears more blame for that. He also states (after he votes me etc.) that something I said would fit well with a Sekinj/Plum scumteam. In the post after that, however, you seem to ask the same question, which would indicate you believe it to be a reasonable query of Zwets and a null indicator - what's with that?

@ Emp: you stated explicitly that mith's one post dramatically changed your perception of him in this game. Now please tell us all

why and how

, pretty please?

So, Ortolan:

- Hypocrisy: Criticizes me for not taking a strong stance on Empking's declaration early (he calls it 'useless-looking', I believe) but doesn't elaborate himself, and when asked about Empking, matching up with an example of Emp's scum meta, etc., says only

I find it hard to distinguish Empking-town from Empking-scum. That said perhaps he is a bit more aggressive as scum.

- Misrepresentation:

He knows he agrees with me but isn't quite sure of what Plum is saying, but probably agrees with her. Again, implying he has trouble understanding what she is saying thus he can't possibly know her well enough to be her scumbuddy.

To reexplain what mith said, because apparently otherwise I'm deferring to him: I implied a stance which Ort had taken explicitly and mith then professed to agree with. Making note of others who agreed with his stance, he noted Ort among the people who agreed and noted that it looked like I did - but again, wasn't explicit. Normal interaction given a scummy spin by Ort.

Another example:

This is scummy. I have not played with mith before and have zero intention of giving him a free pass. Your attempt to do so with this appeal to authority is scummy.

As I explained, in the case brought I had been musing about whether the fact that Emp made his declaration on mith, who is perhaps less likely to be lynched, was indicative of anything. I clearly did not imply that I myself want to give mith a free pass because he doesn't draw many lynches, nor did I attempt a scummy appeal to authority. Scummy misrepresentation.

Says that my accusation of misrepresentation is vague and half-jokingly adds that it might qualify as misrepresentation itself, when I'd clearly argued that he'd taken what I'd said completely out of context and implied it to indicate what it absolutely did not. That itself should qualify as misrepresentation.

Later argues that something he agrees is a nulltell 'fit in' with his mith/Plum theory, and so posted it, though ' taken by itself it doesn't necessarily mean anything'.

Also implies that I made statements regarding mith from a scum mentality and exploited the fact that mith is rarely lynched in a way indicative of scum - still connected to my unrelated thoughts about Empking. States that I refuse to read Zwets, who I have discussed and was, for a while, my #2 suspect.

Suspects, New List:

Ort
Emp
Zwets -- sek
mith

Pairings, this time correctly weighing things in my mind, but, as it's late, without extensive comentary.

Ort/Emp - 7
Ort/Zwets - 6.5
Ort/sek - 6.5
Ort/mith - 6
Emp/sek - 5.5
sek/mith - 5
Emp/Zwets - 4.5
Zwets/mith - 4.5
Zwets/sek - 3.5
Emp/mith - 3

Totals are approximate and subject to change.

[Plum]

Sekinj, what, if anything, do you think your questions along the lines of 'X, do you think Y is your scumbuddy' will achieve?

Having said that - Zwets, why not answer? And what about it do you find so reminiscent of McCarthyism?

Ortolan, still waiting for any new thoughts on your proposed mith/Plum scumteam, and, if possible, a complete list of pairing suspicions, because I believe you expended most of your energy to arguing for the former and neglected the latter.

[Plum]

I may have gotten lynched but at least my top pairing (both times!) was correct. And we won. All in all, everything ended up being pretty much good.

First, I can hardly believe that Ort wasn't spotted as obvscum by anyone. My response to mith's suspicions was just to funnle all my energy into the scumhunt, where I clearly argued that he was misrepresenting me and reaching to make absolute nulltells part of his case against me and against a mith/Plum team

and

taking things completely out of context or giving things blatant scum spin.

And

refusing to comply with mith's plan to try to trap the scum by making everyone post pair suspicion lists. He never did, as I pointed out, and I'd hoped mith would note that and maybe even delay calling for my immediate lynch until after he addressed that. And the reaction to my flip wasn't that impressive, either . . . that deal was so illogical for a townie to make (well, not that logical for scum either) that it should've turned more heads.

Basically I was hoping, apparently against hope, that people, mith especially, would study my case against Ort and find that obvscum (Ort, if you'd flipped town I would've had to shove my hand through the internet and throttle you, because no Townie has any excuse for playing like you. Scum do - they're scum - so that's all good, and anyway I won, so . But your play did grab me by my shoulders and shout 'ORT IS SCUM' at the top of its lungs, so).

Y'all came together at the end and nailed 'em, so that's all good and well.

Note that both scum pushed meta and meta and meta when it came to determining scumminess.

[Plum]

I hear you, Ort. Town's EV is already ~%60, yeah? And with the Lover-Mafia aspect, is it tilted even more towards the Town? Talking with a former scummer friend, she never really saw how scum was supposed to win. That said - Town never has won Lovers Day 1, yeah?

I honestly couldn't be bothered trying to fabricate an entire suspicious pairings list and it would way too difficult for me to stay consistent with it and still have a chance of getting someone other than Empking lynched. So I just gambitted with the Plum-scum "promise".

It worked on Sekinj just fine; she hammered but didn't push for your lynch immediately, did she? I was gnashing my teeth in frustration there. And the fact that you refused to post a list. Mith should've been all over that, I thought, but you pulled that off, too.

[Plum]

Mod notes/thoughts?

[Plum]

I'd be interested in seeing the Mafia quicktopic, if they don't mind posting it.