Newbie 785 - Game Over

[qwints]

Vote: shotty to the Body

Your name's too long.

For those new to the game, welcome to the random vote stage.

[qwints]

unvote, vote falkomango

For making an acknowledged OMGUS vote.

[qwints]

it's page 1. What do you think?

[qwints]

aye aye

[qwints]

ok, my vote is serious now.

[qwints]

ok...let put some pressure right now...since it's early and there is not real reasons to put in danger anybody...but, the explanation of qwints doesn't be enought...

unvote, Fos qwints

You can't create pressure by saying "let's pressure him." You create pressure through pointed questions and votes. The fact that you say "there is not reals reasons to put in danger anybody" makes this post basically white noise.

I'm Going to Retract My Vote.

Unvote

Things arent going nowhere here at the moment, and I need a lead here, there doesnt seem to be one at the moment, then again,

I vote qwints

He flip flopped too quickly by saying, and I quote.

ok, my vote is serious now.

He says it like he had a reason even though he said it was random.

You're clearly misrepresenting me. My first vote choice switch was a joking response to falkomango. I made it clear (upon Phily_EC's) request that I was not being seroius. I stated that it

was

a real vote only after falkomango made a post saying implying he wasn't going to participate until after the random voting phase was over. Wait and see approaches are scummy. I've got no problem with criticisms of RVS, but you don't get to say "I'm going to sit out of the game until we find actual suspects." That's basically announcing your intention to actively lurk and it made me say that my vote was now serious.


*IC Hat on*
Everyone make sure to "unvote" before you place your next vote. Some mods will not count your new vote until you cancel your old one.

Mod note:

Read the rules

for the specific mod. I don't require an unvote first, but it's a good habit

[qwints]

yeah....just advice me when the RVS stops, and the serious voting start...

This is not simply saying he's not going to voe. This is him saying he's not going to participate until "the serious voting start."

Phily_EC, why are you defending him so fiercely so early?

[qwints]

1. It's page two, there's no particular need to be reasonable.
2. I wasn't pushing for a lynch.
3. It did deserve a vote because active lurking is to be discouraged.
4. Defending players (as opposed to attacking players for dumb votes) is scummy. You tried to explain falkomango's actions in 46. Let him speak for himself.

[qwints]

Unvote

[IC Hat]
The form above is the only way to unvote. Mods like the standardized format because it makes it easier for vote counts and the like. Gadget, your vote will stay on me until you write "unvote" in bold. It also helps to place that vote at the start of a line or in a separate line.
[/IC Hat]

Given the fact that falkomango has continued to participate, he no longer deserves my vote. I stand by the fact that his post 20 sounded like he was going to sit out until random voting was over, not that he wasn't going to vote randomly. His actions, however, belie my interpretation.

That brings me to PhilyEC. In response to my explanation for my vote in post 45, he posted

but you don't get to say "I'm going to sit out of the game until we find actual suspects." That's basically announcing your intention to actively lurk and it made me say that my vote was now serious

He just said he wasn't going to make a random vote. He can still participate if he finds something scummy. Its up to town to agree or disagree so I dont see where you're going with this one.

Note that he explains falko's post for him. He's giving an excuse for falko's scummy sounding post instead of letting falko do so. That's scummy for two possible reasons:
1) Buddying - he's defending a player he knows is town to ingratiate himself
2) Helping - he's telling his scum buddy how to defend himself.

Furthermore, besides these two possible scummy motivations, defending players in htat manner is anti-town. One of the best ways to figure out players is to examine how they explain themselves when pressured. Providing a response for someone else robs the town of information.

Later, in post 50, Phily returns to a blatant misrepresentation:

1. It's page two, there's no particular need to be reasonable.
2. I wasn't pushing for a lynch.
3. It did deserve a vote because active lurking is to be discouraged.
4. Defending players (as opposed to attacking players for dumb votes) is scummy. You tried to explain falkomango's actions in 46. Let him speak for himself.

Votes are for scum, not for people uninterested in RVS. Gotta stop digging yourself a hole here...

I said I was voting to discourage active lurking. I never said not liking the RVS was scummy. Note that Phily_EC had explicitly responded to the reason for my vote in post 45. His misrepresentation in this post must, therefore, be intentional.

Lastly, the fact that Phily has already appealed to a meta-defense twice on page 3 of a newbie is suspicious. Especially because he's not using it to explain his tone but rather his anti-town behavior of defending people.

tl;dr (too long didn't read summary)
Because
1. PhilyEC has misrepresented me
2. PhilyEC has needlessly defended someone else
3. PhilyEC has appealed to meta-defense early and often

Vote: Phily_EC

P.S. Interesting choice of words here:

I ... go down on those in the wrong.

[qwints]

Phily, it's not up to me to explain the possible townie reasons for your behavior. That's called "defending." Your defense seems to be that you're just highly active. That's possible, but you could simply have attacked me for misrepresentation and said "I think I know what what falko meant but I'll let him explain it."

You're also pretty paranoid about being lynched when you have 1 vote on you. I don't what that means about your scumminess, but calm down. We would need to have a very, very good reason to seriously try and lynch someone before page 10.

[qwints]

I let up on Falko because he participated rather than sitting back. My vote on him was only because I thought he intended to wait until the end of RVS to participate.

I missed the fact that alfredo said he was waiting for RVS to end.

FOS: Cornelius Alfredo

Since we're clearly into substantive discussion, he's as likely to be a flaker as a lurker. He needs to post or be replaced.

[qwints]

[IC Hat]
Meta means to compare a player's play in this game to other games he has player. Things typically looked at are the frequency of posting, the tone of the posts and the length of posts. You can see all of another player's posts by clicking on their profile and then clicking "find all posts by [player name]." The link is right under their post count. Some players, I am one, post all their games on their wiki page so that they are easier to keep track of.

Meta can be used for a number of purposes.

Perhaps most often, it is used to defend against behavior others see as a scum tell. Behaviors like voting without a lot of reasoning, low post content or hyper-aggressiveness.

It can also be used to try and spot scum [or PRs if you're the scum], comparing a player's posts when they're scum and when they're town [or when they're vanilla and when they're PR] can give you a sense if they're more active or aggressive with one role or another.

Finally, some players deliberately play against their meta in order to confuse others, either in the game they are currently in or to mix it up for the future. Some players look down upon this, especially if it's anti-town play. (Like a whole bunch of no-content 1 liners)
[/IC Hat]

The reason that I said Phily was scummy for appealing to his meta so early in a newbie game is that it is a fairly weak excuse. It's almost a hand waving defense - I always do that so you should just ignore it. In a game where players are unfamiliar with how to read metas, it's especially suspicious.

Your suspicion is floating around now, I've not seen you play like this before (you're more aggresive). Why is that?

I'm not sure if you're just talking about soulshift (where I sucked), but I'm just trying to keep the game moving. I attacked Falko over a misunderstanding, when he corrected me and showed me he was going to participate my vote shifted away from him. The only reason I had for voting him was I thought he was going to active lurk and he didn't. So I moved my vote.

To you, Phily. You who have already admitted at least one anti-town play (defending falko) and have to tried to get me to drop it. You who have been extremely paranoid about one vote and some questions leading you to bring up the danger of mislynching a cop. You who have already claimed town. Why so eager to proclaim your allegiance?

[qwints]

Sorry, I've been slammed by finals. What attacks am I supposed to be responding to?

[qwints]

I haven't seen much to respond to in the thread. Are there any specific points I should respond to?

[qwints]

A PBPA is a post by post analysis. Basically, you go through the game and comment on all of someone's posts. The point of this is to find trends in the behavior and build a case against against them.

Now, for me to catch up...

[qwints]

Ok, first on the question of my defending myself against accusations - I honestly don't see anything I haven't responded to at some point; Let me know if you want me to and I will. Most of the points on my seem to be inactivity, I wrote something like 85 pages last week on finals and end of term papers. Now I'm only working 40 hours a week, so I should have time to post

As for other cases - I really don't buy corp's case against Shotty; talking about how to be pro-town is not scummy, especially in a newbie game.

I really like Cyren's approach to the game so far. I haden't picked up on what was wrong with his WIFOM point on phily. Keep it up.

Lastly,

unvote

Phily's still kind of crazy, but it's gonna take time to filter the weirdness out to figure out if he's towny or scummy.

[qwints]

Prod received. I'll have a substantive post Tuesday; this weekend is busy for me.

[qwints]

The last few pages of post have changed my mind on Shotty's scuminess; he certainly hasn't done himself any favors.

I would recommend against an accumulation of "pro-town" lists as they often turn into "to-kill" lists for the mafia.

Sorry, real life stuff came up today. I'll post more in-depth ASAP. Don't be surprised by a shotty vote.

[qwints]

OK, here we go:

Shotty v. Zito

Zito came in with Shotty as his top target in post 178. Shotty's response to the attack (182) was to admit a lack of content and try and excuse by pointing to his pro-town advice and suggesting he was looking for scum but didn't have a great case. Papa pressed his case in 186. Then Shotty responded with a decent defense in 213.

We then come to a rather bizarre pair of posts:

I'm not going to interject into the Gadget/Cyren conversation here since Cyren doesn't need my help, but I am going to say that the above solidifies Gadget as my #2.

All - keep in mind that we have a deadline a week from today, so we'll need to start moving to a consensus soon. At this point I'm fine with either a Shotty or Gadget lynch.

I dont think it was that concrete a result. Thats a bit of a stretch Zito.

No? Hmm. I'll explain then. Sorry Cyren, wasn't trying to interfere.

Cyren's basically saying "I'm scumhunting, please don't answer for him so he can wriggle away." ... Second point - I haven't seen Cyren push for a lynch yet. ... Cyren's just saying to pay attention to other conversations, even if you aren't involved in them. Your post is a blatant misrepresentation.

What we have here is Papa not only defending Cyren, but putting words in his mouth. That's quite scummy.

Papa further attacks Shotty in 220.

First, a quick observation: The two players applying pressure to Shotty are both high on his scum list. Coincidence?

Papa Zito - This is where things get interesting, and sticky.

lulz

I have to concede Corn did flake and some of his inactivity can be prescribed to that, but Zito still feels the need to defend lurking (post 186), why so up in arms about it if your predecessor flaked the whole time instead of lurking like you claim?

I laid out several reasons why going after lurkers early on Day 1 is a bad idea in that post. You've failed to address any of them here. This is an obvious attempt to deflect.

Reason 2 refuted above about his defending lurking and predecessor history.

lolwut? You haven't refuted anything. Here, let me recap for you:

1. Lurking, in and of itself, isn't a scumtell.
2. You need to see a pattern of lurking before going after lurkers with pressure votes. Early Day 1 is not enough time to establish a pattern.
3. Statistics make it more likely that you'll hit town instead of scum.

My last there was a parting shot that you failed to even address.

Reason 3 I gave useful advice not a list of acronyms, they aren't the same thing.

My list is useful. Unless you know all of them, I guess. Regardless, you've completely missed (intentionally?) the point - useful advice doesn't help us find scum. And useful advice, unfortunately, is all you've offered.

Reason 5 is just twisting my words, a strong read at this point is relative, not absolute.

A read is strong or it's not. I don't see how it can be relative. Also, here's what was said:

I haven't made any strong accusations because I don't have a strong read on everyone, especially with two replaces.

5. It's Day 1, I'd be amazed if you had a strong read on someone yet. The only way you'd have a strong read on someone at this stage is if they posted just tons and tons of content or if they majorly screwed up. You have to work with what's available and come to some kind of conclusion.

Again, you (intentionally?) missed the point - You haven't taken a stand on anyone until you were forced to. Even with this post you haven't fully committed to anything, because even after all this analysis you still aren't voting one of your chief suspects. To me it seems like you're throwing up a huge cloud of smoke, throwing out a couple names and hoping something sticks. If someone does bite then I'm guessing you'll happily hop onboard.

Cyren's posts about Gadget have much more meat however and they didn't opportunistically take advantage of a case being made against the person bringing their scummy intentions to the front of everyone's mind, like say Corp's case towards me. Also Zito has been encouraging Cyren's case towards Gadget as well. The fact that he joined second gave him the opportunity to piggy back his opener with Cyren's and mark Gadget as a suspect so he has 'reasons' to agree with Cyren.

Classic scum post. You completely fail to refute what's being said (probably because you can't) and instead try to attack the person. It doesn't matter if I joined first or fifth. What matters if what I say makes logical sense.

I'm convinced that if Gadget or myself is lynched (which seems likely at this point) and the lynchee flips town that one of the two replaces is scum, most likely Zito.

Logical fallacy. What someone flips doesn't determine anyone else's alignment. The intent of the voter does. Townies mislynch all the time.

I could be wrong about Zito, but I don't think so. [1]He showed up as town on my radar until [2]he proved his willingness to defend lurking [3]and conjured a case out of the air against [4]his biggest attacker rather then [5]defending himself with reason, [6]counting on the innocence halo of a replace to carry him through this day where he hopes I will be silenced.

This is a fantastic paragraph and deserves more breakdown.

1. Translation: He was fine until he started targeting me.
2. Refuted this 'point' above
3. Out of thin air? I examined what you said and found numerous scummy things, none of which you've refuted.
4. I had no idea you were even attacking me. When was this? PhilyEc has been applying the only pressure I've felt so far.
5. lolwut
6. bzzzt

So I agree that you can't just ignore what our predecessors did. Part of the burden of being a replacement is that you have to account for the actions of the one you replace. Cyren and I shouldn't be considered "innocent" just because we replaced in, so if you have an issue with something our previous selves said, feel free to question it.

I'll throw another acronym out there: FUD. Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt. That's what Shotty is trying to spread to the town by making a bunch of baseless accusations and ignoring cases against him. Shotty really needs more votes.

This post is deeply scummy.
1. He dismisses Shotty's arguments as OMGUS without examining their validity.
2. He attacks a strawman, claiming Shotty supported lynch all lurkers.
3. He attacks Shotty with rhetoric (e.g. huge cloud of smoke, FUD) rather than concrete points.
4. He refuses to engage Shotty's responses, then calls Shotty out for ignoring his points.

I honestly went into this analysis thinking I would vote Shotty, but a close look at Papa Zito's posts has changed my mind.

unvote, vote: Papa Zito

p.s. there's more to come on the other players

[qwints]

The Corporation:
Attacked philly pretty hard, then said he thought he was town after Phily explained himself.
Started the shotty wagon based on shotty's 'lack of content' - a theme zito picked up

Not much to go on or latch onto.


Phily- too passionate for me to get a read on right now

He's backed off his aggressiveness after being called out on it. That's pro-town, but not necessarily a tell on his alignment.

Giskard- has quietly built a pretty solid case on falko. He seems to have kept his head down. I can't put my finger on it, but something feels scummy about his posts. That said, he's not near my top suspect at this time.

Gadget- A mixed bag. He's a bit of an active lurker but has bursts of good content.

falko - I have a hard time understanding him. He certainly requires an in-depth re-read.

and I've already expressed my comments on Cyren.

OK, thematic analysis is next.

[qwints]

@Cyren, a strawman is a logical fallacy where you attribute a weak position to your opponent so you have an easy target.
e.g.,
A: I oppose the invasion of Iraq.
B: You must not support our troops. You ought to support our troops because they are heroes.
or
A: I oppose abortion.
B: You must hate women. Misogyny is wrong.

Sorry about getting your gender wrong.

[qwints]

Oh great, more lengthy analysis from Papa. That worked really well yesterday...

[qwints]

vote: zito

Minimalism is beautiful. Easy case today = fast lynch.

[qwints]

Apologies for not posting more.

I was clearly wrong about yesterday's lynch, but 4 other people voted for Papa as well. I had been suspicious of him on Day 1 and shotty flipping town made me quite confident Papa was scum.



*IC Hat*
There are two things to note about this situation - if I'm not hammered after everyone's had a chance to see the situation, then either I'm scum or both players on my wagon are scum.

Phily not being hammered is not as sure a sign. Scum might not be able to synchronize their actions sufficiently to get a quick lynch.

[qwints]

Well played town.

I should have been more active, but I had a lot going on in the week before I got lynched. Corp did an awesome job on day 1 and I was looking to coast to a victory with gadget being an easy day 4 lynch.

Gadget claiming doc threw a wrench in our plan and I needed to do something to change the equation, but I was too busy with real life to help out.