Mini 780 - Chosen - Game over

[AceMarksman]

spring, you're on a wild goose chase, these questions are getting neither of us anywhere, unless you had a point for perusing this inquiry?

[Incognito]

Vote Count #3 of Day 1

hp [leaves] (2) <-~ Nuwen, ekiM
ekiM (1) <-~ AceMarksman
Nuwen (3) <-~ hp [leaves], q21, Claus
q21 (2) <-~ springlullaby, Albert B. Rampage

Not voting (1) <-~ Lawrencelot

With 9 alive, 5 will do it.

Saturday, May 16th at 7 P.M. EDT.

[springlullaby]

Are you serious? What wild goose chase?

Yes, I have a point: I find your post 66 to be scummy because I think it is fake naiveté.

I ask you precise questions: you state that you think scum are lurking - I said that I want you to name names, because if you are not going to cast suspicion on somebody in particular, then your post 66 is totally useless, and it would be scummy for that reason.

What don't you understand there?

Let me repeat, who do you think is 'lurking scum'?

Unvote, vote AceMarkman

[Albert B. Rampage]

Sorry, but I agree with springlullaby for now.

Unvote, vote q21

I don't get it, why do you need to be apologetic while agreeing with me?

Anything you find particularly worthy of agreement?

Because I don't have anything to add to your amazing post.

[ekiM]

Ace, responding to "Give me names of who is lurking scum" with "The theory discussion is a null tell" is a complete non sequitur. Then when asked again you say the question is pointless. Evasiveness is scummy.

FoS:AceMarksman

.

If you actually believe that some players are lurking scum, why not name them? Why aren't you voting for them? If you don't actually think that, why did you say it?

If you had genuinely read the thread and looked for lurkers, there is no way you would not have noticed hp. hp's posts so far:

7: Random vote.
15: Random OMGUS vote.
33: Three word post responding to questions.
65: "I agree that a lynch is better than no lynch."

Four posts, none of which have any content at all, in nearly six days. Blatantly non-interactive. Yet when asked to name someone you suspect for lurking, you got nothing. Doesn't add up.

[AceMarksman]

*sigh* Really now? I answered "null tell" to number three because I don't have any concrete suspects yet, I just had a gut feeling that we're going to be screwed over by scum if we keep biting each other's heads off.

[hp [leaves]]

Ace, responding to "Give me names of who is lurking scum" with "The theory discussion is a null tell" is a complete non sequitur. Then when asked again you say the question is pointless. Evasiveness is scummy.

FoS:AceMarksman

.

If you actually believe that some players are lurking scum, why not name them? Why aren't you voting for them? If you don't actually think that, why did you say it?

If you had genuinely read the thread and looked for lurkers, there is no way you would not have noticed hp. hp's posts so far:

7: Random vote.
15: Random OMGUS vote.
33: Three word post responding to questions.
65: "I agree that a lynch is better than no lynch."

Four posts, none of which have any content at all, in nearly six days. Blatantly non-interactive. Yet when asked to name someone you suspect for lurking, you got nothing. Doesn't add up.

Four posts in six days is actually good for me. I live in Europe so it is rare for someone to post when I'm online. I also don't have computer access every day.

[Albert B. Rampage]

Unvote, vote hp [leaves]

bandwagon

[AceMarksman]

ABR, that's three votes on hp. Are you on his bandwagon because you think he is scum or are you on it just to be on it?

[Albert B. Rampage]

The reasons for which I am on hp leave's bandwagon are not easily explainable to everyone, more like a personal choice such as abortion. Sometimes its better to vote without giving any reasoning. Mafia isn't a game of complete control, it must always contain an element of spontaneous action, and votes like mine are variables in the equation full of constants.

[Lawrencelot]

Normally, almost everyone looks town to me. This game, almost everyone looks scum to me. I agree with most things that are said about Ace, but Claus also looks pretty agressive to me. Unfortunately, from experience I know that being agressive is not a scumtell at all. Since these are my highest suspects at the moment, I'll

Vote: AceMarksman

. Mostly gut, but I don't have much more this early in D1.

[AceMarksman]

Eh, I can't really defend myself from people's gut

(well, there's weight loss pills)

. Does anyone have a formal case against me that I can respond to (did I miss one? I'm very liable to do that atm)?

[Nuwen]

Eh, I can't really defend myself from people's gut

(well, there's weight loss pills)

. Does anyone have a formal case against me that I can respond to (did I miss one? I'm very liable to do that atm)?

You can start by naming which lurkers you believe are scum - most players in this game have been responsive, with the glaring exception of HP [leaves]. Do you think his scant few posts are scummy?

Four posts in six days is actually good for me. I live in Europe so it is rare for someone to post when I'm online. I also don't have computer access every day.

It isn't the quantity in which you post, but the quality. Thus far, you've failed to comment on majory events in this game. Your only contribution to the recent wagon on me was an "I agree" coupled with a blanket statement expressing an obvious sentiment: "Any lynch is better than a no lynch as it reveals information."

What do you think of ABR's vote on you right now?

[hp [leaves]]

What do you think of ABR's vote on you right now?

As he didn't give a reason with it, I can only speculate. He might have voted me because he isn't satisfied with my activity, or my last reply. Or he just wants to give the bandwagon some momentum.

[Claus]

Got a busy spell the last two days. Expect me to post in about 7~10 hours from now.

[Claus]

Ok. This is a quick catchup post. I thought I would have the night free. Fortunately, that is not the case After this post I'll be away until the 5th, and then back to usual. (I might get a post in tomorrow, don't count on it though).

=======

You seem to be saying that probably some of these three people are scum, because it is 100% the case that you are right and RVS OMGUS is a strong scum tell. Is it really so cut and dried?

Yeah, I was a bit boggled by that too. I share this mindset. I found Nuwen making a big deal of this weird. Specially because she seemed to actually believe what she was saying.

Assuming this is directed at me... I don't think I "pulled the newbie card".

Sorry for getting your name wrong. For some reason, it always come out "ikem" when I type it out. And I take back the "newbie card", I re-read the post to quote it, and now I see what you meant - you just don't seem to be that confrontational.

I'm also don't see what's wrong with voting for people who aren't saying anything, or how a six line post is 'elaborate'.

Hmmm. Unless you are going to tell me that the sole vote on a guy who hadn't posted at all yet was a serious case, for me your vote was a second random vote (=non-serious vote), and I don't like that. And a six line post is a bit big for a random vote.

Right now I am more interested in making sure everyone is involved in the thread, both so that they can help scumhunt if they are town, and so that scum aren't allowed to lurk.

I like this. What about Lawrence? Do you think he contributed more or less than HPLeaves as of that post?

===

66: Aceman -> Hoping he helps solving the problem he is (correctly) pointing out. (Extra: he didn't)

===

I don't get Claus, why he's supporting q21. I agree with post 54. Especially the 'scumhunting doesn't come from nowhere' part. I would like to hear both q21 and Claus's opinion on that.

Yes. Scumhunting doesn't come from nowhere. Theory discussion is another place where scumhunting doesn't come from. Making cases and questioning those cases is a much better place to generate scumhunting.

I don't really understand what you mean. And I totally don't understand what post 41 has to do with it.

Post 41 is a big nothing. I call that "active lurking" - you post, but you don't contribute to the thread. 44 is another "nothing" post, but in it, you call people who hold a position similar to q21's as scummy, without accusing him. And this post is another "nothing" post, because you comment on the currents events without positioning youself.

(really, in what case does discussing things NOT help town?)

When those things are not related to scumhunting. There is such thing as overloading the town to apathy with useless information.

===

Olé, the big guns already? This is kinda surprising.

Thanks The game needed a hard shake out of the RSV. (and my week was pretty shitty)

Do you agree with this?

Hmmm. Actually, I do, and you may be right that she was cut off too early. But from her responses to q21, it didn't look too likely. q21 had a better argument. Maybe I was bitchy.

It is a disagreement vote, and not a scumhunting vote.

I don't think that's true.

So what is your reason to vote q21 that is not based on the fact that he and Nuwen disagrees about theory? (real curiosity here)

Were did I say that he wasn't scumhunting?

Here:

when you say 'more scumhunting please' what exactly do you have in mind? I think your call here is entirely empty.

But if you take that back, then okay.

He said that the RSV stage would eventually lead to a lynch, which was be superior to theory discussion because it supposedly wouldn't.

RSV will eventually lead to a lynch. Which doesn't mean that the lynch will be random. Bandwagon, counter bandwagon, counter counter bandwagon. Much better than theory discussion.

a town which somehow never reaches a lynch because of theory discussion is a fiction I don't envisage ever happening

That is not the problem of Theory discussion. Scum can post "pro-town" things honestly without hurting their game with theory discussion. Also, theory discussion will delay a lynch and demotivate the town. Because of that, it is sub-optimal. I've seen both happen quite often enough.

so why do you sound so weary?

... Yeah, actually I was weary.

Because of a game I've been very recently lynched on. Can't really comment on it as it is ongoing, but if you read it I think you'll understand my rage.

And I differ on the assessment of q21 's post. I don't think it is extraordinarily scummy, but I don't think it as pro-town as you make it out to be.

Still you vote him. How strong is your vote?


===

77 - another disagreement vote from spring. hmm. Actually, I find that a bit pro-town.

80 - I have to remind myself to read some other games with this guy. I agree with this in principle (and I know I'm often guilty of it)

84 - This is the Albert that I know and love (still keeping an eye on you, though).

85- I feel this vote to be EXTREMELY opportunistic.

87 - This is much better from Nuwen. Nuwen, what do you think of Lawrence?

====================

Don't like Lawrencelot's 67. He is not contributing to scumhunting. My vote on Nuwen was an overreaction.

unvote: Vote Lawrencelot

- Die scum die!

I would like to invite others to share with me their opinions on how useless Lawrencelot has been (more or less than HPleaves/Ace?). Feel free to join me/try to convince me I'm wrong.

And with that I go on my trip. Hope I'll be less grumpy when I return!

[springlullaby]

Were did I say that he wasn't scumhunting?

Here:

when you say 'more scumhunting please' what exactly do you have in mind? I think your call here is entirely empty.

Well, if Nuwen had not engaged that conversation, q21 would have had nothing to comment on: fact is scumhunting doesn't arise from nothing.

Now, you say that my vote is a disagreement vote - what would you call q21's vote then?

RSV will eventually lead to a lynch. Which doesn't mean that the lynch will be random. Bandwagon, counter bandwagon, counter counter bandwagon. Much better than theory discussion.

---

That is not the problem of Theory discussion. Scum can post "pro-town" things honestly without hurting their game with theory discussion. Also, theory discussion will delay a lynch and demotivate the town. Because of that, it is sub-optimal. I've seen both happen quite often enough.

Random votes don't lead to lynches of any value (see Killing Verses Mafia and fail town D1 with a random lynch to convince you of that), pushing through the random phase does. I maintain that the phantom menace of 'nothing but theory discussion' is a fantasy that isn't likely to happen, unless there is something really wrong with the town.

I'm adding to that that if you suspect someone of offering nothing but noise theories, than the best strategy for town is not to nip the suspicious behaviour in the bud, but to let it develop for a certain time and see.

... Yeah, actually I was weary.

Because of a game I've been very recently lynched on. Can't really comment on it as it is ongoing, but if you read it I think you'll understand my rage.

Not to appears unsympathetic or overly paranoid, but link please?

Still you vote him. How strong is your vote?

I would say that q21 is mildly scummy. His vote look vaguely pro townish for the displayed desire to move things along (in much the same manner as Nuwen actually), but objectively it accomplished very little, and doesn't constitute a strong scumhunting vote. I would also say scummy on a gut level because I can cite a game in which I made a vote very similar to his as scum, whereas on the other hand I made moves similar to Nuwen's as town.

But right now I think Ace is scummier.

[springlullaby]

Eh, I can't really defend myself from people's gut

(well, there's weight loss pills)

. Does anyone have a formal case against me that I can respond to (did I miss one? I'm very liable to do that atm)?

What don't you understand in my posts?

[Nuwen]

Nuwen's theory questions are spurious - she is starting from a misleading premise, and seems to be trying to shape the town's mind into a "one of these three is scum" mentality.

You seem to be saying that probably some of these three people are scum, because it is 100% the case that you are right and RVS OMGUS is a strong scum tell. Is it really so cut and dried?

Yeah, I was a bit boggled by that too. I share this mindset. I found Nuwen making a big deal of this weird. Specially because she seemed to actually believe what she was saying.

These posts misunderstand what I originally posted:

At least one of these votes comes from a town player, so I'd like to pose the following questions to the above voters:

"At least one of these players is town" is not equivalent to "x number of these players are scum." Spring caught on and recognized that in an open setup with two scum, any one of three players must be town. Seeing three players commit an inherently anti-town action begs the question: why is one town player behaving in an anti-town manner? I used theory polling to extract positions on OMGUS and absolute tells to determine whether or not the certain town player out of Ace, Hp leaves, and Lawrence was acting consistently with a conflicting theory. Action consistent with an opposing theory

would not constitute a tell and could also be used as a reference for future behavior

.

------------------------------

Upon a quick rehash, these posts stick out the most to me:

nuwen is scum for going on about a topic that has no real benefit to the town. springlullaby is her buddy for spurring her on.

Discuss.

I dislike two-directional scum buddy theory that assume one person's alignment in order to prove another - there's no independent case against Spring. Trying to prove that someone is defending, distancing, bussing (or any other buddy-interactive tell) without an independent case is idiotic;

any

action can become an interactive tell if it's being used to prove one half's alignment.

Example:

Player 1: Player 2 is scum, guys. Lynch now. Vote: Player 2
Player 3: Player 1 is pushing for a lynch with no case; I find that scummy. Vote: Player 1.
Player 1: Player 3 is obviously partners with Player 2 and is guilty of defending his scumbuddy.

Less theory, more scumhunting, please.

This snippet bothers me the most. Posing theory and scumhunting as mutually exclusive items is a form of strawmanning - does theory discussion (and being aware of players' theory)

never

aid the town under any circumstance?

[Incognito]

q21 has been prodded.

[AceMarksman]

spring, I don't think you understand my position. I meant that if we carry on with this argument amongst ourselvs, then scum will start to lurk and let us kill each other. I'm starting to notice patterns of lurking from q21 and hp, so they are at the top of my suspect list at the moment. I would say q21 is more scummy than hp, because q21 started this entire argument in the first place. So,

Unvote, vote:q21

[springlullaby]

spring, I don't think you understand my position. I meant that if we carry on with this argument amongst ourselvs, then scum will start to lurk and let us kill each other. I'm starting to notice patterns of lurking from q21 and hp, so they are at the top of my suspect list at the moment. I would say q21 is more scummy than hp, because q21 started this entire argument in the first place. So,

Unvote, vote:q21

I'm trying to evaluate how likely it is for this to be awkwardness/newbishness because, well, I kinda expect scum to be better than that.

But bottom line is, it's one hell of a scumslip. So yeah, my vote is probably sticking, short of scum claiming scum.

[ekiM]

*sigh* Really now? I answered "null tell" to number three because I don't have any concrete suspects yet, I just had a gut feeling that we're going to be screwed over by scum if we keep biting each other's heads off.

So you don't have any suspects who might be lurking scum? I think you're saying that people should stop arguing theory and get down to scumhunting. A fine sentiment, but you should really back it up with some scumhunting yourself...

spring, I don't think you understand my position. I meant that if we carry on with this argument amongst ourselvs, then scum will start to lurk and let us kill each other. I'm starting to notice patterns of lurking from q21 and hp, so they are at the top of my suspect list at the moment. I would say q21 is more scummy than hp, because q21 started this entire argument in the first place. So, Unvote, vote:q21

You said scum were staying out of the argument to avoid attention. Now you're finding the person who started the argument suspicious. Not very consistent...

Four posts in six days is actually good for me. I live in Europe so it is rare for someone to post when I'm online. I also don't have computer access every day.

Posting every other day or so would be fine if those postings had a lot of content. Your posts so far in this thread really haven't. You've done no scumhunting at all, and that's not a good sign. Reading the thread, who do you suspect? Do you have any questions for anyone?

I don't see what you're getting at with nobody posting when you're online. You can still comment on things that got posted when you weren't online.

Sorry for getting your name wrong. For some reason, it always come out "ikem" when I type it out. And I take back the "newbie card", I re-read the post to quote it, and now I see what you meant - you just don't seem to be that confrontational.

No worries, people often seem to have problems typing it; maybe being backwards makes it hard to process.

Hmmm. Unless you are going to tell me that the sole vote on a guy who hadn't posted at all yet was a serious case, for me your vote was a second random vote (=non-serious vote), and I don't like that. And a six line post is a bit big for a random vote.

Why is two random votes bad? Also the six lines of text was responding to something else, not reasoning for the vote.

I like this. What about Lawrence? Do you think he contributed more or less than HPLeaves as of that post?

He had contributed slightly more, but not by much. Right now, the three biggest non-contributers are Hp, Lawrence, and Ace.

Hp has still said literally nothing at all so far this game. Hard-lurking.

Lawrence has written more words, but only just said more than Hp in terms of content. Most of Ace's posts are one-liners, voicing feelings. 95 also contradicts 66, which makes his suspicions look worryingly insincere. Both of these two are active lurkers.

Not finding anyone else suspicious at the moment.

"At least one of these players is town" is not equivalent to "x number of these players are scum."

It is suggestive though, especially when you insist that their action was brazenly anti-town.

Spring caught on and recognized that in an open setup with two scum, any one of three players must be town. Seeing three players commit an inherently anti-town action begs the question: why is one town player behaving in an anti-town manner?

Well, maybe they don't see RVS OMGUS as especially anti-town?

I'm trying to evaluate how likely it is for this to be awkwardness/newbishness because, well, I kinda expect scum to be better than that.

But bottom line is, it's one hell of a scumslip. So yeah, my vote is probably sticking, short of scum claiming scum.

Is this referring to the contradiction with his previous thinking, or something else?

[Nuwen]

Well, maybe they don't see RVS OMGUS as especially anti-town?

And that's what I was attempting to find out.

1. Do you believe in any absolute and universal scum tells?
2. Do any of the above tells, if existent, carry less or more weight during RVS?

OMGUS is one of those binary scum tells. A vote is either OMGUS-motivated or it isn't. A solely OMGUS-motivated vote is either always scummy or not a tell. I wanted to find out if A) Any of the three voters I addressed believed in similar absolute tells, which I feel OMGUS falls under and B) Whether they felt these tells could be taken more lightly during RVS (explaining why a town player might feel it appropriate to behave in an anti-town manner,

if

he believed it anti-town in the first place).

Responses were as follows,

1. no
2. less

Those 3 examples aren't really omgus because a) it's the random voting stage b) the voters do not really use it in a case

1)no, tells should always be taken with a grain of salt and should be considered in context. For example, my OMGUS vote was for shits and giggles and isn't inherently scummy.
2)less.

1. no
2. no weight

All of which are consistent with their actions. Nothing to continue pursuing on those three votes.

-----------------------

I absolutely agree that HP [leaves] is actively lurking in the worst possible manner. His comments on the game thus far are sparse, noncommittal, and provide very little insight into his opinion of other players. His play is reactive, not proactive, and seeks to put forth the least possible amount of solid positioning.

HP, name your two top scum suspects in your next post.

Vote: hp [leaves

[Lawrencelot]

I see Nuwen got what she wanted with her theory about OMGUS, but I still would like to add that my (random) vote wasn't even OMGUS, as you can notice from the post itself, so you were kinda chasing nothing there. I don't really think this is scummy though.

What I do find scummy is q21, Claus, and Ace's behaviour. q21 mostly because I disagree with everything he says, Claus for his first reaction to 'theory discussion' and his latest post, though in both these players I might be biased, I'm not going to vote anyone just because I think they're wrong.

Yes. Scumhunting doesn't come from nowhere. Theory discussion is another place where scumhunting doesn't come from. Making cases and questioning those cases is a much better place to generate scumhunting.

I disagree. Any discussion, including theory discussion, is a place to start scumhunting, for example by looking for inconsistencies, motivations, or scumtells in general. Normally, the RVS flows into a discussion about lynching lurkers, massclaim, questions for a specific player, or in this case, theory discussion. You can't make a case or question a case if there is no discussion. If you say we shouldn't talk about theory discussion, you should provide an alternative so that we have a source to look at.

Fos: Claus and q21

Post 41 is a big nothing. I call that "active lurking" - you post, but you don't contribute to the thread. 44 is another "nothing" post, but in it, you call people who hold a position similar to q21's as scummy, without accusing him. And this post is another "nothing" post, because you comment on the currents events without positioning youself.

Unless you're skipping like half of post 44, I was definitely positioning myself there.

When those things are not related to scumhunting. There is such thing as overloading the town to apathy with useless information.

I'd argue that there is no thing as useless information, besides things that are off-topic. Anything can be used for scum-hunting, if it isn't good for anything else you can just check if a post is consistent with the previous posts, or see what the differences are with the posts of the same player in a different game.

Wanted to post more about Ace, but I gottago. I'll try to make a case on him later.

Unvote

before that happens.