Mini 761 - Game Over

[Debonair Danny DiPietro]

Vote: Amished

He was town in the last game we played together, the Law of Averages suggests he's more likely to be scum this game then.

[Debonair Danny DiPietro]

Vote : Debonair Danny DiPietro

He doesn't know why... but I do.

Is it because I'm a Cincinnati Bengals fan.

[Debonair Danny DiPietro]

Are you secretly Penn Jillette and thus voting me for my avatar?

[Debonair Danny DiPietro]

No, it's actually because I am married to one of the people you killed in newbie 727.

As bad a reason as any other.

[Debonair Danny DiPietro]

I didn't think the vote was serious.

[Debonair Danny DiPietro]

Would you prefer if we built a barn against you instead?

[Debonair Danny DiPietro]

Basically Wall-E's entire "serious" vote is based around Zach's joking RVS vote which strikes me as pretty ludicrous. My experiences don't currently lead me to believe this is inherently a town or scum behavior, but it sure as hell doesn't strike me as useful.

Unvote

FOS: Wall-E

I'd also like lordzoner to come back in and let me know how/if his vote was at all serious.

[Debonair Danny DiPietro]

No, DDD, it wasn't serious. But the Law of Averages is by no means statistically sound.

But if it makes you more comfortable, I'll

Unvote

.

Doesn't really make me more or less comfortable. I was just checking to see if you were taking my weak sauce joke logic (like Wall-E did to Zach) too seriously.

The Law of Averages is statistically sound... when applied retroactively. However, when dealing with independent events such as this it is completely useless.

[Debonair Danny DiPietro]

look at you, talking down all over the posts i'm making like they're interrupting some amazing content from you or someone else too feeble to drag their mouse pointer over the "Reply" button and press click - what was I saying?

Someone's defensive, aren't they?

What is wrong with being defensive?

When there's plenty of substantive heat from several directions a defensive reaction is fairly natural and expected. When it's heat from one person on page three based on discussion of RVS an overly defensive response doesn't fit with the degree of the "attack". And unnatural actions are usually viewed, rightfully or wrongfully, as the actions of scum.

[Debonair Danny DiPietro]

Prod recieved. I'm not thrilled by the type of analysis that's gone around so far; trying to argue over word choice seems shaky at best in terms of actually finding scum. More thoughts later.

[Debonair Danny DiPietro]

@everyone:

clarify me what you think the difference is between anti-town and mafia?

Anti-town behavior is just that, actions which are detrimental to the town. Examples, almost always fake claiming by a townie is anti-town, heavy lurking, and an unwillingness to hunt for scum are anti-town actions.

However, while these activities do not help the town they are not invariably the actions of scum who usually want to blend into the town and sometimes/often are the actions of newer and inferior players.

I disagree with lordzoner's line about elminating both anti-town actions and scum. We need to eliminate scum, we need to cut through the fog of any non-scum anti-town actions, but eliminating townies who behave in anti-town fashion is not terribly helpful to the town either.

[Debonair Danny DiPietro]

@everyone:

What is your stance on having people at L-2? you think it's dangerous? what do you think is the limit?

People should be put at L-X for whatever X is appropriate, there isn't a limit to that. In fact putting the heat on to L-2 and L-1 is often extremely useful to see how not only the individual under pressure reacts, but how the rest of the town reacts.

[Debonair Danny DiPietro]

Amished: I almost had you there.

Seems like he's admitting to trying to bait Amished. Wall-E's arguments have been poor, he tried to pick a fight with Zach over RVS and pre-emptively tried to defend against claims of hypocrisy and poor play. His actions have been largely anti-town in such a manner that it seems he's likely to be scum.

Vote: Wall-E

Furthermore, I agree with Amished that scum hunting "too hard" is a bad thing (though not a scum-tell), the town needs to uncover the truth. If you're working too hard to find scum and isolating the smallest details you're either neglecting the bigger picture or manufacturing issues where there are none.

[Debonair Danny DiPietro]

You guys are pretty dumb. Amished isn't saying that we shouldn't lynch people we know are 100% scum, those are the obvious lynches. But rarely do we actually know (as in confirmation) that anyone is for sure scum, so the town has to take some risks by lynching people who we think are scum, but that we don't know are scum.

[Debonair Danny DiPietro]

It's hard to understand what exactly he's saying because he words the statement badly. "As town we have to take some chances from time to time and voting who we think is most likely scum, not just people who are 100% scum."

As town we have to take chances and vote for who we think is mostly scum and not just the people who we KNOW are scum?

Who's really the dumb one here? The people who can't understand what he's saying, or the guy saying it?

No, his phraseology isn't the best, but it's called context, he clearly defined how we know anything 100% and since we obviously often don't have that information it's obvious that he's pointing out that we have to just do our best without it, because simply waiting for confirmation isn't an option.

And no, Amished doesn't get "town points" for the post, but there's nothing in there to indict him as scum either. On the other hand you and alexhans completely missed the plot and then blamed Amished for it, so hey you both earned some more "scum points".

[Debonair Danny DiPietro]

Because the rest was either pointless or an indictment of Amished and I figured I'd let Amished defend himself when it came to the actual arguments.

[Debonair Danny DiPietro]

You guys are pretty dumb.

Thanks for the free insult. Why don't you let Amish defend himself instead of putting words into his mouth? We interpretated the post our way you in yours... Amish should clarify.

Oh hey, what a shock I know how to read so I understood what Amished was saying. Thanks for the clarification, Amished.

Amished isn't saying that we shouldn't lynch people we know are 100% scum, those are the obvious lynches.

And I actually disagree strongly with what you think... If we know that someone is 100% scum let's focus on others because he is obv scum and we can lynch him another day? that's not right.

No one has said that; so again, you're completely running off on whatever irrelevant tangent you decide is appropriate with no regard for the facts. If we have confirmation (which is rare) of scum they should be lynched as fast as possible. However, since we rarely have such confirmation we must take chances by lynching those most likely to be scum without true confirmation.

But rarely do we actually know (as in confirmation) that anyone is for sure scum, so the town has to take some risks by lynching people who we think are scum, but that we don't know are scum.

Isn't this always the case? if we don't know that anyone is 100 % scum until he is lynched... why all the fuss?

Because apparently you don't know how to read and instead decide to substitute in whatever ideas you decide would be fun instead of what's being said.

On the other hand you and alexhans completely missed the plot and then blamed Amished for it, so hey you both earned some more "scum points".

I missed the plot you just invented... I blamed Amished? how? with this?:

The fact that he says we should not lynch people who are 100 % scum is REALLY weird.

... Isn't it understandable that I find weird what he says? Or, if you think I misinterpreted, what I thought he said? Why do I earn scumpoints for that...?

Sorry, you only found it "weird" while Zach found it scummy, you're right. So either you have trouble reading or you simply chose to misread it. One of those is bad play, one of those is scum play, neither are good play.

Oh, and I've got my left kidney on you, Alex.

[Debonair Danny DiPietro]

I'm still rereading the last posts and trying to understand them... I don't like very much what i see.

That's understandable since the point of my very last post was to be a belligerant jerk and to mock you. Productive? No. Fun? Yes.

What I perceive from you both is an extremely defensive attitude. I'm not out there to get the first one i suspect... I'm trying to gather enough info to find a lynch that I believe is very probable scum.

I'm not sure what I'm being defensive about is the problem. And funny, I'm trying to find scum as well, it's very helpful to know that we're on the same page. Of course it would've made my job that much easier if you'd admitted to trying to lynch townies, but I guess I can't expect easy.

But suddenly I point something about you and you start attacking me from all sides and judging my gameplay. It could be called Omgus If i had ever wrote anything like a Fos... wich I didn't because I like to have serious grown up discussion and analyze things. Not just biting at each others heels. Not everyone that points something in your posts is scum or out to get you, maybe they just like to figure things out. Learn to live with different opinions.

It would be an OMGUS if I'd actually you know suggested you were scum or even one of my top suspects. As it were, I think I've pointed out that you have an alarmingly tendency to misread things and that's about it. And thanks for the advice in the last two lines, I was so terribly confused about this game, I thought every was just supposed to agree with me, but you've cleared that right up.

Anyway... I'm going to leave this be for now and have a tranquil re-read tomorrow. Trying to see it from an objective angle.

I suggest reading the posts through a prism, that'll make the solid block of text burst into colorful individual rays of knowledge.

[Debonair Danny DiPietro]

A step in the right direction.

3 votes to go...

Cheerleading for a lynch with no content in the post and dubious reasons at best for that lynch. Yeah, looks mighty suspicious to me.

[Debonair Danny DiPietro]

A step in the right direction.

3 votes to go...

Cheerleading for a lynch with no content in the post and dubious reasons at best for that lynch. Yeah, looks mighty suspicious to me.

As opposed to... this is the guy I think is scum but please don't vote him?

Ok then...

I'm saying if you don't have anything useful to post, then don't. The town should approach lynches cautiously because they're our biggest weapon and the thing most likely to cause us to lose the game. A townie wouldn't know Amished's alignment and thus should be looking for the truth, not an easy lynch. Scum would know Amished's alignment and would look to push it hard if they deem it convenient.

Unvote

Vote: Zachrulez

I don't like Wall-E's play, it's suspicious, but Zach's last post was so blatantly anti-town he's now my top suspect.

[Debonair Danny DiPietro]

Danny seems to be trying to protect Amish a bit more than a townie would.

@Danny-- Don't you think it is useful than, to apply pressure to Amish to get more info to see if he is scum or not? Or are you suggesting we not pressure him to find out more?

Seems like you two are acting quite scumbuddidly

Do you see Zach suggest to put pressure on Amished? No, you see him root for three more votes, three more votes isn't pressure, three more votes is a lynch.

I don't know about your guys' experience, but I just got out of a game with Amished. I think I've got a pretty good read on him and I see nothing so far that suggests he's scum. I'm not terribly interested in how I appear to you guys, but I am interested in both finding scum and preventing us from lynching townies. And when I see a player I identify as town and then a player simply cheering on the lynch attempt on that player I'm going to step in and point it out.

[Debonair Danny DiPietro]

Danny seems to be trying to protect Amish a bit more than a townie would.

@Danny-- Don't you think it is useful than, to apply pressure to Amish to get more info to see if he is scum or not? Or are you suggesting we not pressure him to find out more?

Seems like you two are acting quite scumbuddidly

Do you see Zach suggest to put pressure on Amished? No, you see him root for three more votes, three more votes isn't pressure, three more votes is a lynch.

I don't know about your guys' experience, but I just got out of a game with Amished. I think I've got a pretty good read on him and I see nothing so far that suggests he's scum. I'm not terribly interested in how I appear to you guys, but I am interested in both finding scum and preventing us from lynching townies. And when I see a player I identify as town and then a player simply cheering on the lynch attempt on that player I'm going to step in and point it out.

If you're not going to back up your read with examples, don't expect me to listen to it.

If you have examples, then I'll take it under consideration.

Let's see the "points" against Amished.

His comment about scumhunting too hard (which prompted your and Ash's votes) is in fact a correct statement as I noted before. Scumhunting too hard can lead to tunnelvision, missing the big picture for insignificant details and essentially manufacturing reasons to vote for someone. It's also convenient cover for scum, it's hard to be right or wrong about something insignificant like too many people using the word plenty and it gives the appearance of trying to find scum really hard. So your initial vote came on Amished because he was correct on a point, now the point does sound "bad", but it's fundamentally correct. Voting for someone because they understand the game is a bad idea.

Wall-E's vote is based around Amished's perceived defense of him. The point Amished seemed to be making to me was more an indictment of Steph and not a defense of Wall-E however so it's invalid on those grounds. Furthermore, no one else can practically use this argument since none of the rest of us know Wall-E's alignment.

Steph's vote is basically an advanced and well covered OMGUS as basically all his points about Amished revolve around his own interactions with him. I count eight of his ten his points where Amished appears correct to me and thus Steph is blowing smoke. I'd have to go back and review the other two, but alone they hardly make a case even is Steph is correct.

The latest and greatest permutation appears to be that Amished is trying too hard to "earn town points". First, all of the "obvious" arguments Amished are making are in response to someone else's fallacious logic and correcting faulty logic isn't a scumtell. Furthermore, it's a fallacious argument as well since it's just a permutation of the old "too town" argument. Almost everyone is going to try and appear town whether scum or town, so it doesn't tell us anything in that regard either.

The game Amished and I were in we were both NKd N1 and is ongoing so I can't link to it, but there's nothing I can see in contrast to that game that makes me believe he's scum.

[Debonair Danny DiPietro]

Well just because I thought zachrulez was scum doesn't mean I didn't stop thinking Wall-E was scum. Let's see where this action and topic take us.

Unvote

Vote: Wall-E

L-2

[Debonair Danny DiPietro]

Well just because I thought zachrulez was scum doesn't mean I didn't stop thinking Wall-E was scum. Let's see where this action and topic take us.

Unvote

Vote: Wall-E

L-2

mmmm... I find that explaining that you're fishing for reactions won't get you any...

And I find that if you push someone to L-2 and then someone pushes the entire thing to L-1 that whether or not people want to respond, they have to respond.

[Debonair Danny DiPietro]

Vote: Zachrulez

Going back to his cheerleading for an Amished lynch which was highly anti-town then and even more blatent in retrospect. The reasons for the attempted Amished lynch were basically manufactured reasons instead of legitimate one. He buddies with a townie or defends a scum buddy in Steph. And he's quite content to ride a lynch of a stupidly anti-town townie at two different points.

[Debonair Danny DiPietro]

1. There is a such thing as a scummy townie. Amished fit the bill in my opinion.

If you're not scum then you're clearly just a terrible scumhunter since I completely blew up those arguments in 204 and then it was confirmed how wrong you were with his death. On the other hand considering how much of a stretch I consider the arguments you, Steph, and Ash put against Amished I'm more inclinced to believe that at least some of that set, you first and foremost are scum.

2. My cheerleading wasn't really scummy. Arrogant and wrong, yes.

Maybe not "really" scummy, but completely and virulently anti-town? You bet your sweet bippy.

3. Your case rests solely on the fact that Wall-E and Amished are now confirmed town. You're arguing scum on the basis of a nightkill which is full of WIFOM, and ignoring the fact that you also voted for Wall-E.

No, I issued most of these statements on D1 when I voted for you the first time, so while their deaths confirms what I felt; it was not contingent upon their deaths. Unfortunately, I got distracted and didn't go with my gut instinct and fell into supporting an easy lynch. However, just because I made a poor decision does not absolve you of yours.

4. There is scope to a scum pairing theory between me and Stephoscope, but it's based on the presumption that two people paired as scum will always try to defend each other and never try to distance or make cases against each other to look more townie.

Right, regardless of Steph's alignment your actions can be taken as buddying a townie or protecting a scum buddy. Thus your behavior doesn't speak to Steph's alignment, but it adds just another thing to be suspicious of yours.

5. You completely ignored Gateway's death. Perhaps Amished was a part of

your

mafia agenda and the other kill doesn't concern you?

I see no reason to wildly speculate on topics of which I have no knowledge. I do not know how or why either Amished or Gateway are dead and I find speculating on such topics to be relatively useless. However, I will use their day one interactions to further help me figure out who is scum.

[Debonair Danny DiPietro]

As you recall, I agreed with this in many points... scumhunting too hard was a stupid point for me. If it's good scum hunting, even if it comes from scum, it can be beneficial for the town. As opposed to scum shutting up like a clam or active lurking.

Not exactly sure what you're driving at here. The point isn't that "scumhunting too hard" can't find scum, it can. But so could picking a random name and lynching them. But both activities incur far more risk then the possible benefits.

If Amished argued that "scumhunting too hard" was a scum-tell, I disagreed with him, but I do agree that such behavior is not in the best interest of the town.

He buddies with a townie or defends a scum buddy in Steph.

A scumteam getting paired together in such way on day 1 seems unlikely. It's moer possible that he was buddying Steph.

Possible, but I don't like ruling out any possibilities, as it stands neither scenario is all that favorable to Zach.

Dude... You mean Wall-e? You voted for him to get to L-2 and Parked your vote there... unnecessarily clarifying that you still considered Zach scummy.

And as I mentioned, I should've stuck with my gut instead of being swayed to an easy lynch, but just because I made a mistake does not nullify my opinions or exonerate anyone else. And I don't believe my clarification was unneccessary since it provided the town with more information. I was simply noting that Zach did not appear less scummy or more town, but that Wall-E began to appear even more scummy.

[Debonair Danny DiPietro]

If you're not scum then you're clearly just a terrible scumhunter since I completely blew up those arguments in 204 and then it was confirmed how wrong you were with his death. On the other hand considering how much of a stretch I consider the arguments you, Steph, and Ash put against Amished I'm more inclinced to believe that at least some of that set, you first and foremost are scum.

Clearly this can't possibly connect to my 5th point... not at all.

Note he can't refute the fact that his arguments were poor, he simply tries to redirect attention.

Maybe not "really" scummy, but completely and virulently anti-town? You bet your sweet bippy.

So you're admitting that it's not a scumtell...

I really shouldn't have to explain the importance of the scare quotes around the word really, nor should I have to explain when I call something virulently anti-town that's not meant as a compliment.

No, I issued most of these statements on D1 when I voted for you the first time, so while their deaths confirms what I felt; it was not contingent upon their deaths. Unfortunately, I got distracted and didn't go with my gut instinct and fell into supporting an easy lynch. However, just because I made a poor decision does not absolve you of yours.

Ignore my poor decision, focus on my case against Zach. Let's not talk about your possible scum motives for that "poor decision."

We can talk about my mistake, of course my response will continue to be, "I made a mistake, should've played my gut" but feel free to beat that one into the ground all you like so I can condemn you further on the exact same topic.

Or I simply didn't find his day 1 behavior scummy. Wasn't it you who said you weren't interested in mislynching townies on day 1? Apparently that CAN'T factor into why I wasn't supporting a Steph lynch on day 1. Apparently it's impossible that I've played with him before and have seen no indication that he is scum based on the read I had on him in THAT game.

It's certainly possible, on it's own it's not a very strong point, but when you consider everything else it's just another thing to be suspicious of. And if you have played a game with Steph before AND you have a pro-town read on him, you should say these things instead of assuming I know your entire game history and how you view players based on that.

I see no reason to wildly speculate on topics of which I have no knowledge. I do not know how or why either Amished or Gateway are dead and I find speculating on such topics to be relatively useless. However, I will use their day one interactions to further help me figure out who is scum.

Oh please, you're using the knowledge that Amished and Wall-E are town as some kind of proof that I'm scum. If anything, your soft support of the Wall-E lynch is a lot more telling than my aggressive play. Yeah... didn't Amished think that was a scumtell? Maybe an underlying motive to kill him, in fear that he might figure that out later. It's definitely a hell of a lot more subtle then the implication that scum has to be either me or Stephoscope simply for our pressure on a dead townie.

I'm not using such knowledge. Most of these arguments are the same ones I made yesterday when Amished wasn't confirmed in any fashion. And hello, WIFOM, how are you doing today? Perhaps you killed Amished so you could claim I was scum killing him to prove my arguments against you. Your argument is ridiculously speculative with absolutely no grounding in reality.

[Debonair Danny DiPietro]

I was going to pull apart Zach's quotes again, but his big defense appears to be saying, "the evidence is in the thread, let the town decide" and considering how the evidence damns him I have absolutely no problem with this.

Furthermore, that's a good catch by ryan, if zach is indeed a townie there's absolutely no reason he should be willing to sacrifice himself; a "known" townie for what's at best a toss-up on another player.

[Debonair Danny DiPietro]

Well Danny STILL hasn't done anything else then criticize peoples points and nit pick at what they say, and criticize people for voting what they believed was a townie.

So really I think my vote on Danny is well placed, He still has yet to make a post that really helps the town.

So, you're using the Big Lie theory here. That is, using a lie so "colossal" that no one would believe that someone could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously.

[Debonair Danny DiPietro]

Well Danny STILL hasn't done anything else then criticize peoples points and nit pick at what they say, and criticize people for voting what they believed was a townie.

So really I think my vote on Danny is well placed, He still has yet to make a post that really helps the town.

So, you're using the Big Lie theory here. That is, using a lie so "colossal" that no one would believe that someone could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously.

mmmm... DDD I too feel that you've been excesively aggressive and tunnelvissioned with sparks of sarcasm. Just dismissing everyone else's posts... But I know you can play better. I have faith in you

Sorry, I just keep forgetting that the best technique to find scum is sitting around nicely and waiting for someone to identify themselves as such, they're usually so helpful.

Wrong answer, Alex. I at least find scum by aggressively poking and prodding people who behave in anti-town and scummy fashion. And if I focus on one person it's not because I have no interest in only lynching them, it's because they continue to behave in such a manner as draws my attention.

Furthermore, it's ironic that you call me "tunnelvisioned" in quoting the post where I start looking at another player.

AK's statement basically boils down to the fact that he's voting for me for "not contributing" which is so far removed from the truth that it's in fact several million lightyears away. Because the truth is I've answered questions on mafia theory (see discussion on the "danger" of L-2 as well as my notes on the dangers of scumhunting too hard on D1), I've built a case on an individual I believe to be scum (twice), and I've defended another player from unwarranted attacks. You could say I have an ulterior motive or that something in those posts makes me scum, you'd be wrong but you could make the argument; but there's no way I can be accused of not helping the town without the player making those statements flat out lying.

[Debonair Danny DiPietro]

Sorry, I just keep forgetting that the best technique to find scum is sitting around nicely and waiting for someone to identify themselves as such, they're usually so helpful.

What would we do without your sarcasm DDD? Don't twist my words. I didn't say that.

You criticized my play faulting it for it's aggressiveness. If my play is faulty because it's aggressive then the implication is that to improve my play I should shift to a more passive style. As the sarcasm points out this is sub-optimal strategy and thus your criticism of my aggresiveness is unfounded.

Not so emotional. Give cold arguments that can be answered. Not just screams of: You're scummy ! ARGH!!

The cold arguments are contained in post 330. Zach addressed them, I countered by arguing against his rebuttals. My tone may seem harsh, but don't let that distract you from the facts I'm presenting.

And loose the sarcasm please.

No, it can be an effective tool and it allows me to blow off steam.

Don't let a mod kill (in another game) anger you sorry.

I was plenty sarcastic before that, thanks. But feel free to keep discussing an ongoing game and maybe get yourself modkilled and then you'll see how funny it is.

Don't worry... I don't think Ash (better than AK, that's hard to understand) has a strong case against you DDD.

I wasn't worried, the point that should be considered isn't how Ash's statements reflect on me because his arguments are complete falsehoods, but what possible motives and reasons Ash would have for making such a blatantly false post. So far the only explanation I can come up with is that he's scum.

[Debonair Danny DiPietro]

I wouldn't say there "falsehoods", it's just how I interpret your game play thusfar, and of course you may not agree with them, but they are my thoughts...

Great, then you can interpret for me how the things mentioned here...

AK's statement basically boils down to the fact that he's voting for me for "not contributing" which is so far removed from the truth that it's in fact several million lightyears away.

Because the truth is I've answered questions on mafia theory (see discussion on the "danger" of L-2 as well as my notes on the dangers of scumhunting too hard on D1), I've built a case on an individual I believe to be scum (twice), and I've defended another player from unwarranted attacks.

You could say I have an ulterior motive or that something in those posts makes me scum, you'd be wrong but you could make the argument; but there's no way I can be accused of not helping the town without the player making those statements flat out lying.

Do not help the town. Thanks.

[Debonair Danny DiPietro]

I don't think Amished turning out to be town is any reason to think that Lester is innocent.

Agreed.

Consider the fact that Pitstop originated the scum hunting too hard comment, but was perfectly happy to let the blame for the comment fall on Amished.

A) I hope you're not planning on using the scum hunting "too hard" disagreement against someone again.

B) Did pitstop let Amished take the blame while posting about other things or was that the point where pitstop disappeared?

[Debonair Danny DiPietro]

I want to know what DDD, lester and ryan think too

I have yet to see a point against Panz that makes me think he's scum.

I agree with him, in general, that speculating about the night kill is generally a pointless endeavor.

Jazzmyn is hypocritical to hilarious degrees in post 365, she calls out Panz for saying the Steph lynch is obvious and then as Zach noted she called Wall-E "obvscum" earlier in the game and asserts with complete confidence that Panz has to be scum. So either she's behaving in a fashion she herself deems scummy or she's blowing smoke about it being a scumtell, neither answer is good.

I seem to recall it being considered a point against Panz that he requested the mod put votes in time order, which reeks to me of someone trying to find a reason to vote for someone instead of actually bothering to do the hard analysis.

So, the evidence doesn't suggest he's scum, but his posts don't really sway me to believe he's a townie. So I have him in the middle of the pack and would probably label him a townie of some stripe based on the ratio of scum/town.

I do not think lynching Panz would be a good lynch and I think there are several better suspects on the day.

Speaking of which...

Mod: Prod Ash

X:

AshKetchummm was prodded immediately following post 418.

Unvote

Zach suddenly seems interested in helping the town, suspicion is hardly gone, but is currently alleviated to a degree.

Vote: Ash

Assuming he picks up the prod and gets back to us, I want an answer for my post #373.

[Debonair Danny DiPietro]

Statement 1: Really? Nothing by Panz makes him seem scummy? I am extremely surprised that someone at this stage at the game would say "nothing" Panz has said is scummy.

Nothing compelling, that is nothing I couldn't see a pro-town player doing or saying.

Statement 5: Interesting you make this point. Really seems like fencesitting. If he's scum, I can see why, and if he's town, I said so.

I felt comfortable enough with Amished to state I felt he was pro-town. Despite the arguments against Panz being weak his own actions don't seem explicitly pro-town to me. I'm not going to endorse a strong statement about a player I don't have a strong opinion on.

Statement 6: Vote on Ash is understadable, as we have all told him how we feel about his lurking. But the thing is, even you yourself say there are better people to lynch. Yet you apply a pressure vote? Interesting

I said that I think there are better people to lynch than Panz, Ash is one of them. It would've been easy for Ash to ignore or much more benignly for him to simply miss my question seeing as it's within a larger post on several topics. However, with the vote attached it's clear I want to hear from him.

[Debonair Danny DiPietro]

Sorry for the triple post but after going back and trying to find the problem. I can't the tags appear to be correct.

Word's default text uses slant quotes of the style ” instead of ". Since the forum software doesn't recognize ” as a double-quote it simply breaks the quote.

[Debonair Danny DiPietro]

Ryan, if some of your points were addressed at me in your wall o' texts (as some of them might have been, I couldn't be sure because of pronoun usage) please isolate them for me to review.

And I'm not confident that it's appropriate for Panz to claim at this juncture, but I'm quite willing to be swayed if someone has a good argument for it.

[Debonair Danny DiPietro]

Danny he's at lynch -1, and as was pointed out by Stephoscope, he was speculating about his own role. (And indicating he might be a power role.)

Yeah, I wasn't thrilled about that argument either. Except I've done the same thing as a third party, so it's not entirely a foreign concept to me, though I don't know what it suggests in this case about Panz's alignment because I can come up with scenarios from every perspective why someone would make that statement.

Would you find it a responsible town action to hammer Panzer without a claim after considering the above?

This statement is contingent on a hammer, considering I'm currently on the record as thinking a hammer is a bad idea. I would say it's irresponsible, but moreso because it needlessly cuts off discussion then because of a lack of claim.

[Debonair Danny DiPietro]

Yes, but we aren't the only people in the game.

Lester and Ash could both hammer at this point as well.

The issue isn't so much whether or not hammering is a good idea, the issue is whether a hammer is possible, or even probable, and whether or not we'd be hammering someone who's potentially a power role. (Which Panzer can tell us by claiming.)

If Lester or Ash are intent on hammering, then claim or not they will. The defenses for such an action either with or without a claim on the board are both weak, but are basically impossible to refute, usually consisting of the phrase, "I thought he was scum" or "I didn't believe him". If we view hammering without a claim as worse, by pushing the claim off as long as possible we hopefully hold scum in check to give us more time to get everyone involved and discuss everything that needs to be discussed.

[Debonair Danny DiPietro]

At DDD: the only thing I ask of you is that when you don't think people post compelling arguments, say what isn't compelling. Break the argument down, just don't say it "isn't compelling"

See post #433 where I broke down what I considered to be three of the most common arguments I'd seen against Panz. With several people making wall posts against another player I'm not always going to step in and do a full quote for quote breakdown.

@Ryan, I really don't see how I contradict myself unless you take what I say out of context.

Also, have you modded before? It's not that much work. Also I've always found it EASIER to put votes in order. Anyway, I digress simply because either way, it's not a tell.

Again. That's all you have to say? I agree that it's a simpler way of modding though, especially after reading the thread made by X asking about this particular motive. He received practically unanimous answers that that's the easiest and most helpful way. But I did found it lazy.

Alex, unless you've got some brilliant logic or evidence on how lazy = scum I have no idea why you're still harping on this point. It distracts from any real arguments you might be making.

[Debonair Danny DiPietro]

Unvote

Vote: Stephoscope

Unless Panz is running the dumbest VT gambit of all-time at least one of these two is anti-town. The reason for the vote are twofold, I need more information to try and untangle this situation and lynching Panz doesn't give me that. More pressure on Steph on the other hand might. Secondly, for game theory reasons I currently believe Steph to be the better choice.

[Debonair Danny DiPietro]

Why does lynching Stephoscope over Panzer give you more info?

Lynching doesn't give me any information for today, but putting the pressure on does. We've seen how Panz reacts when at L-1 with a large portion of the town bearing down on him, but since it's either him or Steph I'd like to know how Steph reacts in the same type of position.

Why do you feel Steph is a better choice?

While I'm not thrilled by the Panz claim and the way he went about it, I'm pretty confident I can predict his reasoning for his behavior. And while it's a legitimate high level town technique it's also quite a convenient backdoor as scum.

The reason I'd wouldn't mind a Steph lynch as much right now is because I expect one of the killing roles (since we clearly have another one besides a basic mafia) to take care of Panz tonight no matter what his alignment. I could see Steph making it through the night however and leaving some nasty WIFOM in his wake.

[Debonair Danny DiPietro]

We've seen how Panz reacts when at L-1 with a large portion of the town bearing down on him, but since it's either him or Steph I'd like to know how Steph reacts in the same type of position.

If you're hoping for a roleclaim from me, why don't you come right out and say it?

If I wanted a role claim now, I would've asked for one, thanks.

(Note: Panzerjager's lynch will clear me, and I see no reason, despite DDD's questionable logic, why I should be lynched before Panzerjager.)

A. No, it won't, there's this little technique called bussing which often happens.

B. Because the case on Panz is flimsy as hell and mostly based on stringing together if and coulds in my view. Now his claim is a bit ugly, but again I don't see "for sure" scum in it either. Hence I'm quite willing to consider both options in this case.

You know, let's do this, could someone please give me a quick and dirty summation of the points showing that Panz is scum, please?

[Debonair Danny DiPietro]

The Watcher is most commonly understood to be an information role that can target a person at night and learn who else targeted (or visited) that person on that same night.

Allegedly Watcher Panz targeted Amished and saw Steph target Amished. Steph denies targeting Amished last night.

[Debonair Danny DiPietro]

Okay, thanks.

So basically we can trust Panzer and lynch Steph, or we can believe that Panzer is lying, lynch Panzer and if he flips what he's saying lynch Steph anyway?

We trust Panz -> Lynch Steph -> Steph is scum, huzzah
----------------------------------------> Steph is town, Panz is NKed or lynched next day.
We think Panz is lying scum -> Lynch Panz -> Panz is scum, huzzah. Steph may or may not be scum.
-------------------------------------------------------> Panz is a watcher, Steph is scum, Steph is NKed or lynched the next day.

[Debonair Danny DiPietro]

DDD never looked at panzer.

Not even close to being true, I looked and didn't find anything that compelled me to believe one option was much more likely than any other. That doesn't mean I didn't look, it means I didn't find anything in that look that convinced me of a superior opinion.

Your points in 526 were mediocre.

On re-read #1 could be scum looking to at least get a claim on the board; to a lesser degree a watcher would possibly consider being watched or tracked and targeting Amished would make him highly suspicious. Maybe the best point against Panz in retrospect.

I don't see anything especially interesting in #2. #3 isn't inconsistent with a watcher claim. #4 falls perfectly in line with my own play style, I don't generally speculate on night actions and will use the likely numbers to make projections about alignments, not a scumtell.

Anyways, I ran a similar argument to Panz's as scum in a newbie game claiming cop so I won't be surprised if he flips scum, but I don't run dumb gambits so it's certainly plausible as something a pro-town player would do.

[Debonair Danny DiPietro]

Your points in 526 were mediocre.

I don't think they are worse than your case on Zach (a case that you called early on day 2 and you looked pretty convinced).
526 is not my whole case. It's a corolary given the last things Panz had said and his claim. My case is much bigger and sounder and a lot of people agree with it in general so I'm guessing it's not mediocre.

See, adding more mediocre points to a previously mediocre case doesn't much impress me. And I'm sure I'll get some grief if Panz does flip scum, but we could randomly lynch and occasionally hit scum, that doesn't mean the random lynch idea is a good one. Oh and why hello argumentum ad populum, how are you doing today. Hint: he's not doing so well because you're abusing the heck out of him.

But he did speculate on the setup to make a case against me.

Considering your scum which is normally a fourth of the game, and a fourth of the game has died. That would currently make the scum a third of the game. So that’s you plus 2 if this game runs the average 3 scum set up, takes 5 to lynch..and 4 people had me pegged as scum. So in essence you’re attempting to convince one person with this terrible appeal to emotion. =)

And...? There's a world of difference between wildly speculating about night actions and using the expected distribution of scum and town to make an argument.

Yeah... you don't run gambits but you vote for Steph just because you state that he will be harder to catch if Panzer flips town? Great case on him. You really think that Panzer was pro-town with his actions?

You do realize there's more reasons to vote for someone than just to get them lynched? Everyone was keen to explore the Panz side of the equation and ignore the Stephoscope side of things. Subsequently, the town will likely have that much less useful knowledge tomorrow then we could've.

[Debonair Danny DiPietro]

To DDD I give this last post as my proof that you are REALLY ANTI-TOWN.

And I offer to the town this post as proof that you are REALLY ANTI-TOWN. Get back to me when you can actually argue my statements instead of making wacky and untrue blanket statements.

[Debonair Danny DiPietro]

I didn't say you were anti-town DDD... maybe that's what you understood, I guess I wasn't clear enough.

I was talking to Panzer directly. So where I said "you" I was talking about Panzer.

Need to work on your pronoun usage then because if you direct a post/point at someone and then refer to "you" it means you're talking about the person whose attention you called to the post.

And you're suspiciously wrong on multiple accounts. First, you're trying to use information acquired after the action to justify the action. Second, I wouldn't disagree that if true Panz's actions have been anti-town. But you must have a short memory because on D1 we lynched a very anti-town player in Wall-E who flipped town. Eliminating anti-town townies does not help the town; our object is to eliminate scum, not anti-town players.

[Debonair Danny DiPietro]

On day 1 I stated all along that I wasn't convinced with his lynch, I don't have a short memory, stop attacking me every time if is not game related, it's annoying.

Then if you remember that there's often a difference between anti-town and scum then either your points about Panz being anti-town are relatively meaningless or they show you're going after anti-town individuals and not necessarily scum. Which is great for looking town, but not actually being town.

Also... Why you put the word "suspiciciously" before "wrong"? Subtle attacks are not helpful. You want to start laying a case for tomorrow? Then do it now. I'm not justifying the action with his new unexpected claim.

They're suspiciously wrong because they're convenient opinions/stances for scum to take.

And I'm a touch annoyed with you that you keep trying to dictate my playstyle. Things like sarcasm and subtly are tools to make a point and I don't care for you trying to take those away from me.

The way in wich you say first and second makes it appear like they're both signalling my being suspiciously wrong. But the second part is just you admitting that I may be right if Panzer flips town so I don't know why you word it like that.

You accused Panz of being anti-town, true enough. Either you were stating the obvious, pointlessly or you thought you were making a point with that comment. Assuming you wouldn't just post to post the most logical reason is to reinforce your case and continue to try and sway me that your case was strong. However, not only is anti-town as a scumtell a weak point, given our D1 it's suspicious that any townie would use that to bolster their claims.

[Debonair Danny DiPietro]

I was also REALLY surprised that my promise to help lynch myself if Panzerjager flipped town never came up again. That was why I later said something about how Panzerjager's play probably lost the game for the town...even though obviously his suspicions were correct.

I didn't even think Panzerjager WOULD flip town...I figured him to be an SK.

You got away with this because Panzer LIED. He was completely discredited even before his flip.

This is why you don't lie about your role as town.

D2 is why you don't lynch uncountered power role claims.

[Debonair Danny DiPietro]

I was also REALLY surprised that my promise to help lynch myself if Panzerjager flipped town never came up again. That was why I later said something about how Panzerjager's play probably lost the game for the town...even though obviously his suspicions were correct.

I didn't even think Panzerjager WOULD flip town...I figured him to be an SK.

You got away with this because Panzer LIED. He was completely discredited even before his flip.

This is why you don't lie about your role as town.

D2 is why you don't lynch uncountered power role claims.

I feel absolutely terrible about asking Panzer to claim now, I feel like I somehow encouraged that play

Well, personally I'm in the camp that you only call for a claim if you're willing to put down the hammer right then and there, so the badness of your play depends on that.

I actually think it was a great gambit, but it failed because two scum were already on the wagon and they suddenly had no desire to be anywhere else and Jazz the vig knew he was lying as well because she was the one who had sent in that kill, which meant there was only one person who he could possibly swing off his wagon.

Fuck, looking back at it, Panz claiming tracker instead of cop makes it even more obvious he was town. Scum would've claimed cop to try and draw a counterclaim at the very least, claiming tracker avoids that danger for the town allowing the imaginary cop to stay hidden.

[Debonair Danny DiPietro]

Anyways, as a VT I'm beginning to see that I generally stink at actually finding scum, I am however quite competent at finding other townies. It’s seriously disheartening to spend all my time arguing with three people on D2 (Zach, Zlex, Ash) and not have a single one be scum. Amished was obvtown for me and it turns out completely on target D1 so it really, really sucks that our vig killed him on N1. Compliments on the scum side to ryan as he never drew my attention at all during the game.

Looking at the QT I’m only moderately insulted that ryan thought I wasn’t getting the arguments against Panz and had external information. I got the arguments that were made, I just properly sussed out that they were bogus; at least I ended up soaking up a NK as a VT because of it.

[Debonair Danny DiPietro]

DDD more defending me "knowing" that I'm town... *shrug* o well, not much I can do I guess.

Were you going to come after me on D2 of this game for that?