Some things I would like to address first:
-About looking into the night actions: Looking into the night actions is necessary in and of itself as it is the only conrete evidence we have. They are the cold hard facts that the town has and can use to find scum. However, do I feel role/set-up speculation is necessary? No because, well, it will eventually get brought to our attention later in the game. On the same course, we do need to look at these events - We know both Gateway's and Amished's alignments, and can use this to the town's advantage. It needs to be discussed - both situations of Amished and Gateway as the scum's pick, and see what information can be gleaned from that.
-About looking at defending/attacking of one player by another: Attacking and defending, in and of itself, is a nulltell. Any player can attack and defend a player as they see fit. However, the scum have the inside knowledge of whether that person is town or scum, and can act accordingly. They have inside knowledge that can be used. Thus, the actual act of attack/defend isn't scummy, but the extent and context of the attack/defend needs to be looked at in the same regard to find whether that attack/defend is scummy or not.
Unto the actual posting:
Like I said, the attack/defend scenario in and of itself is a nulltell. Yet Panzer uses it to cast a quick and irrational vote on Steph. Zach then explains why this may be his thought process (Amished attacked Steph, Amished died, so Steph must be mafia). I have already said their exchange in and of itself it a nulltell. However, Panzer votes Steph hastily, simply because of the death of town Amished. He seems to be making a very large assumption that
Amished was the scum's kill
. He then seems to be riding the tide and hoping people follow to get another town dead using a nulltell case. Seems fairly scummy to me, and hints at inside knowledge. No to mention his reasoning for the hammer of Wall-E reeks as well.
Panzerjager wrote:Why no comment on why they picked Gateway and Amished?
Well, it seems that you already think that Amished was the scum kill. I look at it this way.
If the mafia killed Gateway, they are playing the safe route. Gateway didn't add to the conversation (even less than Ash, which I will address later). Thus, not giving the town much from a data point.
On the flip side, if the mafia killed Amished, they are either: 1.) trying to set up Steph or 2.) Trying to absolve Steph (thus, him being mafia). Again, in this situation, a mafia kill on Amished would be a nulltell on Steph's alignment, as the mafia always has the ability to use the double-bluff scenario addressed above.
Panzerjager wrote:I did. Read Zach;s post in which i responded yes. Also, you're only analysing that there was a sk kill, and not who the kills were on. So that either means you don't finad the mafia kill interesting or you already know why the mafia killed who they killed. Both would lead to you know who the mafia killed and being in the mafia.
Panzer does make a good point here about Lester. Although I wouldn't like to draw the same conclusion as Panzer just yet, it is something that needs to be looked into. Lester, care to explain?
But then he follows up with this:
Panzerjager wrote:EBWOP: Also, It's not like we are at lylo so me being hasty to lynch isn't a tell.
It doesn't matter whether it is lylo. Hasty vote is completely anti-town, in any round, as no one has chimed in or said anything about night. The vote is the best thing the town have, and throwing it around hastily after RVS is dumb.
Panzerjager wrote:Terribly scummy idea and only scum would benefit from doing such a thing.
How is it scummy to want people to discuss the night kill? If it were scummy to do that, according to your thoughts, then town would never win. We NEED to look at the night kills, assess them, and see what everyone says about them in order to find scum. Your reluctance to do so is disheartening.
Debonair Danny DiPietro wrote: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.
Gives a reasoning behind his vote. Personally, I don't agree, because it brings up the same assumption that Panzer fell into: Amished was the scum kill, and thus, brings up the double-bluff situation. So in and of itself, it is bad logic. However, he backs it up with the manufactured reasons, which I do beleive in.
alexhans wrote:
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.
Agreed. Scumhunting, no matter from who, is pro-town. Obviously, there is such thing as a pro-town scum, and anti-town cit. Either way, even scum scumhunting helps, as the more people talk, the more information thrown out, and the more likely scum can slip.
AshKetchummm wrote:Vote Danny
Reasoning--
After reading through his post, he seems to bring up very little speculation, and instead, decides to criticize other people, and discuss things that are not really helping find scum. Yet he doesn't mind throwing his vote down.
As for my play, I'm not the kind of person that comes in and delivers huge post, I'm here every day and I'm always reading, and I make my comments with something arouses my suspicion, not on every thing that is being brought up, but if I'm asked I'll give my input.
Ok, well then, I am asking for your input. Everything that people bring up needs to be evaluated by everyone. I urge you especially, Ash, to speak up more and become more of the conversation.
Stephoscope wrote:
- He [Panzer] has been here longer than any of us and has thousands of posts to his name, and yet some of his posts have just been so amateurish. I find it difficult to believe an experienced player would interpret the nighttime actions as obviously implicating me. It's all WIFOM--I know I won't be able to totally clear myself--but to (supposedly) decide right away that I am the "obvious" lynch? Really?
- Panzerjager's EBWOP post (324) raises a bigtime red flag. He advises that his vote wasn't a "tell"--but as LesterGroans immediately corrected him, no one had claimed or even implied that it was. Hmmm, what sort of role would be most worried about whether he had committed a "tell" and have that sort of thing on his mind?
Now let's go back to yesterday...
- He's "with Amished" in 267...then Amished turns up dead today. WIFOM and unproveable, but the scenario in which Panzerjager kills off someone he "agrees with" is an easy one to envision. If the scum were most interested in keeping up confusion, they would probably have left both Amished and myself in the game, since we both had suspicion and votes. (RIP Amished...sorry about yesterday.) Instead, they clearly have other motives if they were responsible for the Amished kill: frame someone and/or make themselves look innocent. (I don't know what to make of the Gateway kill...a good guy might have thought he was mafia, a bad guy might have thought he was a power role.)
- His request for a chronological vote count in 299 just seems weird, given that X has very obviously kept everything in strict alphabetical order all game long. And there's no reason Panzerjager couldn't have figured out the chronology himself, without saying a word, if he really cared about it. Trying too hard to look like he's analyzing things?
Paragraph 1: Experience doesn't equate with your definition of "Experienced posting style." In itself, this is a nulltell. People's posting styles are all different. Just because Panzer is experienced (in the number of games he played), doesn't necessarily mean his posts "show it," as you seem to think.
Paragraph 2: I already addressed how I felt about this.
Paragraph 3: Again, the double bluff situation. In and of itself again, either reasoning could hold (frame someone or frame self). Again, we need to look at the motives behind it and both situations of Amished/Gateway combo kill, and what the implications of both situations are.
Paragraph 4: I don't like this. You got criticized for "scumhunting too far," but are willing to attack someone else for it? Don't like it one bit.
Panzerjager wrote: Night speculation IS ANTITOWN. It's given mafia info which gives them room to plan their next attack and depending on who says what they could very clearly pick a good nightkill. Who killed who DOESN"T matter cause unless the other killing party claims their kills we'll never know who the kills were.
Anyway, Lester is definently by far the scummiest and Alexhans is not far behind. This is due to so openly wanting to give the scum information about what the town thinks about their night actions which is terribly scummy and the only motivation I can see behind that is self-congratulations.
This is probably the worst post by far. So we have conflicting ideas on looking at the night actions. We need to look at what the mafia might have had in mind (on both sides of Amished or Gateway being the mafia kill) to see what the benefit may be. Again, there is the double-bluff situation, but the object of the town and for a successful win is to find which is the more plausible explanation, and which the mafia would most likely use, based on the what people have said, and supported in the thread. Although I don't put all of my weight into night speculation, it is necessary as it spurs on conversation in finding scum. We need to find possibile explanations and theories to their actions, and weed out the irrational ones. That's part of the game: looking at all given information, and using it together to find scum, and looking at the night actions (since it is hard evidence) is necessary.
As an aside, personally, I put a lot of weight into vote analysis and patterns. I have found that it is very useful in finding remaining scum, and becomes useful in later rounds. I do not intend on doing it for just the first round, however, as the sample size is so small. I will do it after D2, and subsequent days, and it is very useful in finding scum.
DDD, in Post 339, fairly again gives reasoning and defends himself against Zach. Zach then defends himself adequately, in my opinion.
@DDD, I really don't like putting people as pairs early in the game. It has the possibility of absolving individuals that are scum, and making others look scummier. Again, it comes down to the defend/attack issue I brought up- scum have more information so we need to look at the conext. Personally, I don't like Zach's retaliatory vote for DDD. Although it looks scummy, I think their exchange looks like two townies against each other.
Zachrulez wrote:
I think you are stretching a bit and most certainly OMGUSing Steph. I can see both sides of the argument in this instance. I believe Panzer's reaction comes from a position of not wanting to risk power role tells being dropped in NK conversation, which would benefit the scum.
I happen to disagree with how scummy night kill discussion is, but I can certainly see where Panzer is coming from.
I can see what he is saying. I do agree with Panzer that speculation on the stepup and possible roles is irrelevant, and gives mafia places to hide, but the hard facts of the NKs and their alignments need to be analyzed. Along the same boat, in our given situation, people's reactions to which one of the NKs was the mafia's needs to be addressed, as well as possible reasons why, which is where I disagree with Panzer. Oh, and I don't like the reasoning for your vote, Zach.
I still would like to know what people think in both situations: Amished as mafia kill and Gateway as mafia kill. Looking at both possibilities is necessary in this round for finding scum, and both scenarios need to be addressed.
@Zach's 347. Well he defended himself on both accounts. Do you think his responses weren't adequate, because I do. You seem to be extremely bullheaded and strongwilled to the point where you are never wrong. This is simply never the case.
At this point, I find Steph, Zach, and Panzer's play to be scummy at this point. Again, I urge Ash to add more to the conversation.
Personally I think the attacks on you have been unfair.
Ignore my poor decision, focus on my case against Zach. Let's not talk about your possible scum motives for that "poor decision."
