Mini 765 - Welcome to Hambargarville GAME OVER!!

[Idiotking]

To clarify, the only way for the town to say there is a good lynch is for the town to, you know, actually LYNCH someone yet. Obviously we have not reached such a majority vote yet.

[Sajin]

He was a good lynch as of when he role claimed. Nothing has changed since then.

[yellowbunny]

You're starting to get pretty interesting, Sajin. Why have you only become talkative now that we have a "good lynch" in your eyes?

To be fair, he got more talkative after we called him out for being talkative.

[yellowbunny]

EBWOP: for NOT being talkative.

Note to self: no posting while talking on the phone. >:[

[Hero764]

Asking for permission to hammer can be a scum tell. Especially when the lynchee is a consensus town lynch that flips townie. Scum are often more willing to bus their partners without a blessing from the town than to hammer a townie. If Wall-E ends up being town, this is a strike against hero.

Flawed point. You're under the assumption that I must be scum. I'm more likely to vote for someone if they're my partner? Ever considered that maybe I don't have a partner?

The "I'm not too fond of your style of attacking Wall-E" bothers me. I don't think it's something scum would say to a townie attacking scum. I do, very much, think that it's something scum would say to a buddy attacking town.

Explain your reasoning.

I don't like Idiotking right now. It seems as though he's trying to look for a reason to get off Wall-E's back now that it makes him look bad. Its just inconsistent with his earlier behavior. He goes from arguably leading the case against Wall-E to unvoting simply because Wall-E had posted better(or something to that effect)? He's also pretty quick to jump on Sajin once qwints posts his suspicions of him. What were minor suspicions here and there have turned into a full confrontation.

That's all I have to say at the moment. qwints and Sajin are looking better than they did. Still waiting for that replacement on CUB. If I missed anything that I need to address please point it out to me.

[Idiotking]

I don't like Idiotking right now. It seems as though he's trying to look for a reason to get off Wall-E's back now that it makes him look bad. Its just inconsistent with his earlier behavior. He goes from arguably leading the case against Wall-E to unvoting simply because Wall-E had posted better(or something to that effect)? He's also pretty quick to jump on Sajin once qwints posts his suspicions of him. What were minor suspicions here and there have turned into a full confrontation.

Inconsistent with my earlier behavior... do you think it's impossible for me to change my mind? I'm still iffy about Wall-E, but my main problems with Wall-E were his refusal to defend himself (partially resolved), and his refusal to respond to our statements (again, partially resolved). As both are partially and not completely resolved, I'm iffy.

And I've been suspicious of Sajin for quite a while now, him as well as qwints. So no, this is not as sudden of a change in focus as you make it out to be. qwints has made his opinions pretty clear, so he's not as bad anymore, but Sajin's still hiding. I hate the fact that he wants us to withold information until day 2. Do you think I'm suspicious for holding this opinion?

[Hero764]

Inconsistent with my earlier behavior... do you think it's impossible for me to change my mind? I'm still iffy about Wall-E, but my main problems with Wall-E were his refusal to defend himself (partially resolved), and his refusal to respond to our statements (again, partially resolved). As both are partially and not completely resolved, I'm iffy.

You can change your mind, yes, but it doesn't seem like you would based on what Wall-E;s done. He defended himself, what, once?

And I've been suspicious of Sajin for quite a while now, him as well as qwints. So no, this is not as sudden of a change in focus as you make it out to be. qwints has made his opinions pretty clear, so he's not as bad anymore, but Sajin's still hiding. I hate the fact that he wants us to withold information until day 2. Do you think I'm suspicious for holding this opinion?

I'm so concerned about your reasons for attacking Sajin, its the timeframe that makes me iffy. And I can't really see any posts of yours until after qwints made his post of any serious suspicions of Sajin(maybe I'm not looking hard enough?). Would you care to point them out for me?

[qwints]

Asking for permission to hammer can be a scum tell. Especially when the lynchee is a consensus town lynch that flips townie. Scum are often more willing to bus their partners without a blessing from the town than to hammer a townie. If Wall-E ends up being town, this is a strike against hero.

Flawed point. You're under the assumption that I must be scum. I'm more likely to vote for someone if they're my partner? Ever considered that maybe I don't have a partner?

I made no such assumption. I said 1) asking for permission to hammer is a mild scum tell and 2) that IF you were scum, then your play would be more consistent with Wall-E being town. I do admit, however, that the conclusion is flawed. The conclusion should be IF hero is scum, Wall-E is more likely to be true. The statement that IF Wall-E is town, THEN Hero is more likely to be scum is the converse of the proper conclusion and not necessarily true. The statement that is implied is that if Wall-E is not town, THEN Hero is more likely to be not scum. I'm not sure how I feel about that conclusion, even though it seems to follow from my initial premise.

[X]

Hero, your 594 is contradictory.

"Oh hey, I'm Mr. X and I like to be obscure as fuck in my posts."

1. If I've been obscure consistently, point it out and I'll try to clarify.
2. Saying end of Day is good is trying to persuade people to end the Day, especially in the charged way that you said it.

1. It wasn't meant like that. I'm sure if I looked I could some posts but I really don't think it would impact the game that much.
2. Charged way? Explain.

"Hey guess what?" is sort of a humiliating sentence, trying to make Wall-E look stupid. Furthermore, the use of "shitload" is an exaggeration. Both are (confrontational) ways of trying to persuade. You use them here:

Why would you want to cut off discussion like that Hero?

Hey guess what? Discussion usually picks right back up on Day 2, only difference is we have a shitload more to go on.

qwints' first post is quite illuminating, and I like his points. His second starts slow, with really weak town tells on Kreriov, which I don't think are valid, but continues to show some very good analysis. Kreriov I'm seeing as pro-town now, and I actually think I can understand his POV in 21 - he's reserving judgment, giving Wall-E a chance.

Not rolefishing at all. It's actually the opposite of that; I'm saying there's no way we could EVER know Wall-E's real role until he's dead, so we shouldn't try to figure it out unless Wall-E suddenly becomes very, very cooperative.

Once you start talking about roles other than Town v. Scum, it can be rolefishing, or at least speculating. You were definitely speculating on Wall-E being a PR.

My plan hurts scum worse then it hurts town.

Wait, you really think we should not talk about anything other than Wall-E right now?

FoS: Sajin

.

I made no such assumption. I said 1) asking for permission to hammer is a mild scum tell and 2) that IF you were scum, then your play would be more consistent with Wall-E being town. I do admit, however, that the conclusion is flawed. The conclusion should be IF hero is scum, Wall-E is more likely to be true.

The statement that IF Wall-E is town, THEN Hero is more likely to be scum is the converse of the proper conclusion and not necessarily true.

The statement that is implied is that if Wall-E is not town, THEN Hero is more likely to be not scum. I'm not sure how I feel about that conclusion, even though it seems to follow from my initial premise.

No, I thought that

Wall-E

==>

Hero764[/b]

made sense, because scum are more likely to ask permission to hammer townies - not just more likely than scum hammering scum, but than town hammering anyone. Still, the whole thing (asking to hammer) is only a minute tell.

Sorry, this should be my last college visit.

V/LA until Tuesday.

I'll try to get to a computer, this game is second in precedence right now (after finding a replacement for Mini 761).

[X]

Woohoo! Good news! Found a replacement (pre-empting the offers I would have received).

[Hero764]

Hero, your 594 is contradictory.

"Oh hey, I'm Mr. X and I like to be obscure as fuck in my posts."

1. If I've been obscure consistently, point it out and I'll try to clarify.
2. Saying end of Day is good is trying to persuade people to end the Day, especially in the charged way that you said it.

1. It wasn't meant like that. I'm sure if I looked I could some posts but I really don't think it would impact the game that much.
2. Charged way? Explain.

"Hey guess what?" is sort of a humiliating sentence, trying to make Wall-E look stupid. Furthermore, the use of "shitload" is an exaggeration. Both are (confrontational) ways of trying to persuade. You use them here:

I was just a little annoyed that Wall-E would attack me for that without even giving me a reason, so I tried to explain to him how it wouldn't be bad at all. I admit I could've been less confrontational, that's just how I post sometimes. I wouldn't say I was advocating it though, hell I didn't even have to. If I thought the best move was to lynch Wall-E I would've done it. I didn't know if it was the best move though, and I was just asking the town if it would be. I said I had no problem lynching him, yeah, but I didn't make some stupid mistake. I didn't think I would be wrong in asking for advice.

I made no such assumption. I said 1) asking for permission to hammer is a mild scum tell and 2) that IF you were scum, then your play would be more consistent with Wall-E being town. I do admit, however, that the conclusion is flawed. The conclusion should be IF hero is scum, Wall-E is more likely to be true. The statement that IF Wall-E is town, THEN Hero is more likely to be scum is the converse of the proper conclusion and not necessarily true. The statement that is implied is that if Wall-E is not town, THEN Hero is more likely to be not scum. I'm not sure how I feel about that conclusion, even though it seems to follow from my initial premise.

Fair enough.

No, I thought that Wall-E ==> Hero764 made sense, because scum are more likely to ask permission to hammer townies - not just more likely than scum hammering scum, but than town hammering anyone. Still, the whole thing (asking to hammer) is only a minute tell.

Woah woah woah, slow down. You're saying that hammering is a scum tell? Is unlikely for a townie to do?

[Sajin]

I don't see that at all actually. Quick hammers yes, scummy. Hammering in general is not incredibly scummy.

[Idiotking]

You can change your mind, yes, but it doesn't seem like you would based on what Wall-E;s done. He defended himself, what, once?

Once is more than none, and coming from Wall-E, and considering the way he's acted throughout the entirety of Day 1, I think it's significant enough to warrant an unvote for the time being. He didn't defend himself when he was at L-1, but he did later when he was calmly talked into it. I don't think I would react as well under similar pressures. Then again, he's acted like a raging lunatic for ages, so I'm still not convinced of his innocence, either. Not even close.

I'm so concerned about your reasons for attacking Sajin, its the timeframe that makes me iffy. And I can't really see any posts of yours until after qwints made his post of any serious suspicions of Sajin(maybe I'm not looking hard enough?). Would you care to point them out for me?

None of them outright said I thought he was scummy, so I don't think you've missed any. Notice also that I haven't FOS'd Sajin nor have I voted for him. But I'm interested, and I find his thought process flawed and his aims anti-town. So while I'm not going to make a direct move against him, it's still interesting.

Not rolefishing at all. It's actually the opposite of that; I'm saying there's no way we could EVER know Wall-E's real role until he's dead, so we shouldn't try to figure it out unless Wall-E suddenly becomes very, very cooperative.

Once you start talking about roles other than Town v. Scum, it can be rolefishing, or at least speculating. You were definitely speculating on Wall-E being a PR.

If that's true, it was unintentional. I personally don't want to know his role, because I won't believe it no matter what he says. If he's a vanilla then I already know it. If he's a power role, he's already claimed vanilla, so why would I believe him? There would be no point. Is this still speculation? I'm not used to dealing with roleclaims like this, so for technique training purposes, I need to know.

[hambargarz]

VOTE COUNT

(4) Wall-E (Sajin, X, Kreriov, qwints)

(1) X (CUBAREY)
(1) Idiotking (Wall-E)

Not voting
burfy, Ojanen, Hero764, Jase, yellowbunny, Idiotking

[Sajin]

None of them outright said I thought he was scummy, so I don't think you've missed any. Notice also that I haven't FOS'd Sajin nor have I voted for him. But I'm interested, and I find his thought process flawed and his aims anti-town. So while I'm not going to make a direct move against him, it's still interesting.




If that's true, it was unintentional. I personally don't want to know his role, because I won't believe it no matter what he says. If he's a vanilla then I already know it. If he's a power role, he's already claimed vanilla, so why would I believe him? There would be no point. Is this still speculation? I'm not used to dealing with roleclaims like this, so for technique training purposes, I need to know.

[Sajin]

(I fail at previewing, alright so assume I quoted the above in this post.)


What exactly do you find wrong with my ideas? Can you perhaps quote it and dispute it? I am tired of several people saying I don't like it, and not backing it up with anything for me to clarify them on. Its frustrating for me.


2nd paragraph- Yes well Walle did claim vanilla and we now have to deal with it. Its role fishing when you start speculating about the other roles that could be in the game. The best way to deal with this is to assume lynch all liars policy. The only people that should lie are scum. I don't think you would be having this problem if you believed in that policy.

[Idiotking]

The more information the scum have about exactly what each of us think about each other, the more they can set up the next day to be able to lynch a townie. If we have talked enough to determine a good lynch I will shut up until the next day. So if you want me to post more about other people you need to convince me why you are not a good lynch.

I've already said what I find wrong about your ideas, but here we go again: The above quote is anti-town because it attempts for us to close off discussion until the scum get a nightkill in before we gain information from the guy who was nightkilled. This limits discussion. There is a point where prolonged discussion becomes detrimental to the town, yes, but I don't think we've gotten there yet. You say we've determined a good lynch, right? How can you say that when we haven't actually killed him? Wall-E's a good lynch in YOUR eyes and in the eyes of some others, but until the majority of the town is voting for him, the discussion should continue. It is scummy to try to limit information and discussion in any case. The reason for this is, the less info there is to go around, the greater the opportunities the scum have to bend the uninformed town to their will. I do not think that the mafia will get anything out of further discussion at this point, but I do believe the town will.




For your 2nd paragraph:

Townies can lie. To say they can't is folly. Do you know what a gambit is? Sometimes they require lies. Lynch all liars is a good guideline to follow, but it's not absolute law to me. So I guess it's not lynch ALL liars as opposed to lynch MOST liars with the exception of gambits from townies. The trouble is isolating the gambits from the scum lies.

[qwints]

Notice that Wall-E hasn't posted since Wednesday. Once the pressure comes off him, he starts trying to hide.

[Wall-E]

Or I just haven't been online.

I'll try to post tomorrow.

[X]

Hero's first response satisfies me. As for his last response, hammering is not a scum tell. Worrying about looking scummy due to hammering is a scumtell - because if town is considering hammering, they will think the person is scum, and if the scum is considering hammering (unless they are forced to bus), then they will know that the person is town. And yes, quick hammers are scummy. Now would not be a quick hammer, but still bad because replacements are to be found.

Townies can lie. To say they can't is folly. Do you know what a gambit is? Sometimes they require lies. Lynch all liars is a good guideline to follow, but it's not absolute law to me. So I guess it's not lynch ALL liars as opposed to lynch MOST liars with the exception of gambits from townies. The trouble is isolating the gambits from the scum lies.

Gambits should be used extremely sparingly - as in, only when the potential gain is large and extremely likely. When someone is forced to roleclaim and they claim VT, I assume they're telling the truth until I get a really good reason otherwise. So the only exception I see to LAL is when the person contradicts themself, they explain why they lied in the first place (ie, Lepton's Gambit).

[qwints]

Wwwwwaaaaaaa-llleeeee!
Where are you?

On another note,

Because I don't think it's clear, I want to clarify why my original reasoning about Wall-E being town implicating hero was incorrect:

I said that scum often ask permission to hammer townies, but don't to hammer partners.

So in this case,
If (hero is scum) and if (wall-e is town) then (hero will ask permission to hammer)
but
If (hero is scum) and if (wall-e is scum) then (hero will not ask permission to hammer)

Let H be "hero is town" and !H be "hero is not town"
Let W be "wall-e is town" and !W be "Wall-e is not town"
Let P be "hero asks for permission" and !P be "hero does not ask for permission"

Thus my propositions can be reduced to:
If !H and W then P
but
If !H and !W then !P

These statements imply only their contrapositives, not their converses.
In other words they imply,
If !P, then H and/or !W
and
If P, then H and/or W.

Now, we know that P is true: hero did ask for permission to hammer Wall-E.
That means, assuming my initial premise, either Hero and/or Wall-E is town. All we can learn from that is that Hero and Wall-E are not both scum if scum never ask for permission to hammer scum buddies.

In symbolic terms
If !H, then W
and
If !W, then H

[Idiotking]

Townies can lie. To say they can't is folly. Do you know what a gambit is? Sometimes they require lies. Lynch all liars is a good guideline to follow, but it's not absolute law to me. So I guess it's not lynch ALL liars as opposed to lynch MOST liars with the exception of gambits from townies. The trouble is isolating the gambits from the scum lies.

Gambits should be used extremely sparingly - as in, only when the potential gain is large and extremely likely. When someone is forced to roleclaim and they claim VT, I assume they're telling the truth until I get a really good reason otherwise. So the only exception I see to LAL is when the person contradicts themself, they explain why they lied in the first place (ie, Lepton's Gambit).

Which is why you'll never see me doing one. But in my opinion, if you're a skilled player, and you can successfully perform a gambit, you're golden. If you fail at it, you can explain it well enough (if you're a good player). If you're overestimating your abilities and attempt a gambit that's doomed to failure, bad luck. But all are situations where townies can, will, and do lie.

[Wall-E]

Wwwwwaaaaaaa-llleeeee!
Where are you?

On another note,

Because I don't think it's clear, I want to clarify why my original reasoning about Wall-E being town implicating hero was incorrect:

I said that scum often ask permission to hammer townies, but don't to hammer partners.

I challenge this idea and everything you predicate upon it. How do you know this is a tendancy and that your statement here is accurate?

[hambargarz]

Looker replaces CUBAREY.
Thanks Looker!

[Looker]

familiar faces-uh, avatars...