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.
-
Zwets wrote: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:
mith wrote: 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
ortolan wrote:I find it hard to distinguish Empking-town from Empking-scum. That said perhaps he is a bit more aggressive as scum.
- Misrepresentation:
ortolan wrote: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:
ortolan wrote:
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.
) accusation of misrepresentation, to the fact she doesn't have the guts to vote me, but merely FoSes me.
