Newbie game 806: Game over (the scums win)

[HowardRoark]

Response to d3x's post 182 from (game day) yesterday . . .

On the somerand0mguy vote reasoning: I was mostly following JamesBond's catch in post 136 and the fact that I wanted to get more information from him since there wasn't much to go on (as I stated in 179).

On the mention of chain lynch: It was a question based on the fact that you were asking people to determine the other scum without knowing who one scum is. It's not chain lynching by definition. It was part of my point that looking for linkage on D1 is usually not worthwhile. Both are poor play, IMHO.

Requesting your first game: I am not a big fan of meta gaming, but since you have only had one game I thought I might find the time to read it over. So far, I have not. I have also asked Toledo88 because he is an SE and doesn't seem to be playing as I would expect. I'll let you know when/if I can get to reviewing those. (BTW, this was also covered in 179.)

Yes, sometimes I join a wagon without adding to the argument. Sometimes, that's all it takes. By increasing the wagon and pressuring a player, more information can be generated and then a case can be furthered. Adding a vote to someone without adding more to the case isn't necessarily scummy. A pattern of constantly doing it would be.

The scum/null/town tell of somerand0mguy's exit: Once again a misread on my part. I was in a rush and confused it with your Rashilul's exit interpretation.

HTH.

Vote count

(7 players alive = 4 to lynch before deadline)

(1) d3x - HowardRoark
(1) HowardRoark - d3x

Not voting:

Dizzle, facebook, sigma, Toledo88, Zachrulez

:arrow:

Deadline: 10 August (click this to see cowntdown)

[Zachrulez]

@Zachrulez: You've been a part of discussion today, but haven't really pressured (or really questioned) anyone . . . where's your hunt beginning today?

I'm hoping that I'll have some free time over the weekend to do some iso reads on everyone to see how everyone sizes up in the game as a whole. That's as good a place as any to start.

[d3x]

What does my vote and the NK have to do with your true question?!?!? It's irrelevant.

Incorrect. It has

everything

to do with my true question. The fact of the matter is that sigma was voting you. You have done nothing to diminish that Scum read and we just found out that you were going after a Townie. If someone had asked me who I was going to look into, I'd sure as hell not say Toledo. I would say HR. Why? You were and still are a top suspect. That is

directly

relevent to the question. {sidebar- sigma, I am not going after you for this again. I am illustrating my thoughts at the time. I am satisfied with the outcome of our discussion.} As to me introducing the information? Yes I did. I find it interesting that you consistantly put in shots like this and then refute them with your later statements. I introduced the idea for 2 reasons. 1- to question sigma on what I thought at the time to be a rather curious statement and 2- to further bring evidence to the table against you. I believe the concept is called scrutinizing voting patterns, or some such thing.

This is a game of trying to put enough evidence together to convince others that the player(s) who we believe to be scum need a rope necktie.

I agree. And you must consider the source. Example. You think I'm Scum. If I come out with a case against someone, you will think I'm trying to shift the focus off of myself. Only once I deliver an airtight case {which never truly happens in these games} will you accept my opinion as anything more than Scum misdirection. If someone you think is Town starts to make a case, you will be infinitely more inclined to accept that information and subjectively look into it. It is our job to Hunt Scum

and

to put ourselves in a position that we can lead the Town to a win.

How about asking some questions?

How about allowing another player a different playstyle? What I did worked. Both Dizzle and Toledo have posted. I am genuinely concerned that both of these guys were under 15 posts in a game of 286 {at the time}. You claim to love Lurker lynches, yet every time teh topic arrises, you downplay it. Both of these guys have been prodded D1 and they both started out D2 on the verge of another. You say that lurking is not a Scum tell, but an antiTown play. Well, I didn't call it a Scum Tell and I'm not ok with antiTown play.

Rant done.

@Dizzle- I completely understand that RL issues happen. I also understand that MS isn't a huge deal in the grand scheme of things. It's just a game. With that said, it is also a committment to the players you've signed up with. I'm not lecturing you, but if you have RL issues, just pop in for a sec and say so. I won't go after you, I promise.

Speaking of...

voting without any significant reasons

...I'd like to switch back to HR for just a tick.

@HR- You voted for me in p292. I would like you to break down your case against me just as you asked me to do earlier in the game. I'm also going to ask that your breakdown only include information that you had before the vote. Frankly, I'm not seeing a solid basis for the vote. As far as I can tell, you voted me because 1. in your estimation, sigma wasn't being defensive, 2. you don't think sigma needs to prove himself Town, 3. a playstyle difference, and 4. I want the lurkers to post. Oh let's not forget this gem...

you came very close to having me lynched yesterday

If you have additional reasons, I'd love to hear them, they weren't in your Vote Post. If you would like to include information that you have since gained, please feel free to include it in a seperate post.

[sigma]

As far as my current suspicions go, I'm focusing on either d3x or HR. They went at it pretty good and they have started D2 by doing the same and voting for each other. Even after a successful D1, it is unlikely that two scum would draw so much attention to themselves and possibly votes. At the moment, I'm currently leaning towards HR as scum.

@Dizzle: You're leaving out an option -- they could both be town. It's not exactly unusual for two townies to get into it. I don't like that you're not taking this into account, especially since there are players in this game who are borderline active lurking.

I find this very interesting. Aside from me not "pushing" anything {I gave an example and Zach and sigma were asking me what I was trying to say}, just above this quote you said that we should review the play made during the day and not focus on potential WIFOM created from NKs. So, I followed your *soap box* advise before you gave it and you find it scummy?

I introduced the idea for 2 reasons. 1- to question sigma on what I thought at the time to be a rather curious statement and 2- to further bring evidence to the table against you. I believe the concept is called scrutinizing voting patterns, or some such thing.

Both of these quotes reference HR finding d3x scummy for bringing up iP's death.

@d3x: This is probably beating a dead horse, but I want to let you know that I absolutely agree with HR about bringing iP's death into this. IMO, it's one big WIFOM that was originated by you. You've just said that the fact that HR atttacked a confirmed townie is evidence. Here's my problem with that: it's not escaping my attention that you went after a townie yesterday. Whether or not Bond was acting scummy, he was not scum. Bottom line, that means you failed, along with everyone else who lynched Bond. Being a townie means failing more often than not, but there's almost certainly at least 1 scum on that day 1 Bond lynch. My question to you, d3x: if HR has 'evidence' against him from his attacking a confirmed townie, doesn't the same point apply to you? My apologies if I'm making you reiterate anything.

@HR: I agree with d3x that your reasons for voting him are unclear, especially as you were voting someone else at the end of the day. I'm seconding his request for a summary of your case against him.

I'm more focus on reading the post where d3x changed his vote to JamesBond as HR and Jbond were both his lynching picks. First I don't think they were playing the same cards at all. To me, Bond was more like a boring townie, while HR has been actively participating in the game.

@facebook: Can you please elaborate on this? I read this as finding d3x slightly suspicious for wanting to lynch HR and Bond. Is that right? Have you found anything else interesting about the day's events so far?

July 31 - August 4 is going to be pretty quite with two players V/LA.

[sigma]

Spelling FAIL

July 31 - August 4 is going to be pretty

quiet

with two players V/LA.

[Dizzle]

As far as my current suspicions go, I'm focusing on either d3x or HR. They went at it pretty good and they have started D2 by doing the same and voting for each other. Even after a successful D1, it is unlikely that two scum would draw so much attention to themselves and possibly votes. At the moment, I'm currently leaning towards HR as scum.

@Dizzle: You're leaving out an option -- they could both be town. It's not exactly unusual for two townies to get into it. I don't like that you're not taking this into account

@sigma - I definitely am taking that into account. My point is that they are my top two suspects, but it is unlikely that both of them are scum. This is all assuming that my suspicions are correct. It's certainly possible that I am wrong about them, I have been before.

especially since there are players in this game who are borderline active lurking.

I'd like to take this opportunity to remind everyone that scum come in all shapes and sizes; lurkers, active lurkers, and full-blown post whores. As I've said before, posting generally benefits the Town, but I have never subscribed to the LAL strategy.

[sigma]

I should probably clarify a bit -- what I meant was that, IMO, active lurking is likely scum behavior when they see two townies going at it, and that it should be especially noted in those situations. You're correct that scum can be anywhere.

[Zachrulez]

A few questions while I'm going through the game.

@Dizzle: What are your current thoughts on d3x?

@Howard: Can you clarify your case on d3x a little? I'm having trouble understanding the reasons for your vote.

[d3x]

This is probably beating a dead horse

That's perfectly fine. If you are Town and you aren't understanding a point, then you should ask for clarification.

The difference is

completely

in how those confirmed Townies acted yesterday. Bond acted scummy. Period. If you act scummy, you will draw votes. I'm not saying that the people on the Bond lynch have clean hands, I pushed really hard for his lynch and that sucks. Going over the case and the swiftly approaching deadline, I think we made the right choice, though.

Now look at the posts where HR votes iP and how he justifies his vote. As far as I can tell, the strongest point HR has is that iP is "actively lurking". Forget the fact that like 3 or 4 people were under suspicion for that

and

being scummy at that point. To me, this feels like one of two things. Either it's a really weak shot at getting the attention pulled off of himself, or it's to setup the WIFOM that we're facing now. It doesn't make sense any other way. HR had a stronger case against rand0m/facebook and me, but he chose to vote iP? It doesn't make sense. Coupled with the fact that I don't think he even

mentioned

the Bond case, I think he was setting up this WIFOM. He has no part of the innocent Bond blood on his hands and even to the last he's trying to "Scum Hunt". [sarcasm]How noble.[/sarcasm]

My question to you, d3x: if HR has 'evidence' against him from his attacking a confirmed townie, doesn't the same point apply to you?

I would also like to say that if the only thing HR had done was this, I'd have no right to bring it up. The fact of the matter is, it's not the only thing he's done. He's been acting scummy for a while now and I've built multiple strong cases against him. You may point out that I'm not above reproach, and that's fine. If you would like to use this arguement against me, then so be it. But I will then ask you why you have a problem with it in the first place.

[sigma]

Wouldn't say that I have a problem with it or that I'm trying to make an argument against you, but making a point against HR for something that applies to you as well can be dangerous. If it's scummy when Jack does it then it's scummy when Bob does it. You know that -- just clarifying my intent in bringing this up.

[Toledo25]

I'm back from NYC. Long car ride, and on the way back a tropical storm hit...

I'm working on a post now, but I need to go so I'll probably finish later tonight.

Also, check out my avi

[facebook]

Okay I am kind of thinking that HR might be a good lynch right now...hmm

Yesterdays lynch was pretty much between HR and JB, and imo JB seemed more innocent to me because of his behaviour. And as I have said, he seemed to have replaced a bored townie (which imo is more likely than a maf being replaced). Of course, I don't have the extensive games research to back this up, but I think people would feel a greater sense of dedication to the game if they were a Mafia and not townie. Flimsy logic, but sensible I think you'll agree.

I find it interesting that HR calls iPeanut a "smart NK choice" (292). Of course, not much can really be drawn from it, but idk wasn't a smart one imo. After all, he did go along with the JB vote and was no more cleared than anyone else. But you think his lack of FoS's has left us with less information..hmm, k.

d3x: You swapped initially to JB because you felt that you wouldn't manage a lynch on HR (so you had your sights on one of these two, I suppose) and decided that we would get more info from a lynch on JB because of your thoughts on the possibility of them being on the same team. You mention them playing similar cards, but JB was not particularly active up until that point and HR was providing much more substantial posts, whereas it took the looming guillotine to provoke JB into speaking.

I'm not sure whether d3x is scum, but JB said himself to keep an eye on him, so that's what I am going to do. Aside from that, d3x is imo giving nice contribution and I often feel I'm on a similar wavelength when readin his posts.

Sigma's post about Toledo (287) brought a few things to my attention, and I think currently he is probably a good candidate for mafia. He just doesn't seem too helpful overall, I'm sure I'm not the only one viewing his behaviour in this way. HR seems to be on the attack of d3x, and well, looking at today and yesterday (post 292 in particular) it seems obvious to me they're unlikely to be a scum-team. And if I had to choose one of those two to be scum, I would be leaning on Howard.

So currently my FoS is lingering on HR and Toledo. I think Zachs posts are a lil small, but then I wont whine about lurkers =P

[Toledo25]

So I just did a quick run through of Dizzle and Zach (like I said, I'm pretty sure at least 1 scum was on yesterday's bandwagon), and I noticed a huge lack of interaction between them. The only times I saw a mention of either of them in their posts were 2 short blips of Dizzle agreeing with Zach in D1. That's it. Not sure if I missed something bigger, but it's pretty large from what I read. Also, it's rather interesting that Zach didn't get NK'd last night. If I was scum, I'd probably go for the IC who is scumhunting and playing townie. So, a question for each:
Zach, do you have any thoughts/opinions on Dizzle?
Dizzle, do you have any thoughts/opinions on Zach? (if he gets to read this)

Perhaps I need to pose more of my writings in the form of a question. Can you please respond to the fact that I pointed out that facebook has not really had much content today?

Sorry, I read that but I wasn't intending on just saying I would be out (the other 2 things were quick and easy.) I was more of leaning towards they weren't doing bad/scummily rather than great.

Bleh, I'm losing focus. Probably cuz I'm tired.

Also, happy scumday facebook!

[HowardRoark]

Okay . . . d3x . . . take this as you like . . .

unvote

For now, I feel that you are probably just an overeager town-aligned player and I am done allowing our disagreements to flood the thread. The tunneling needs to cease.

FWIW: My vote was mostly based off of your actions yesterday, your argument concerning my iPeanut vote and his death, and your misplaced burden of proof for townies to prove their alignment.


@Toledo88: Now that we've established that facebook hasn't really said anything today . . . any questions for her?


I am awaiting some comments from facebook and Zachrulez. Then I will proceed with the voting.


BTW, my V/LA is mostly LA. I will be able to check the thread at least once each day, but I will be limited due to traveling 6 hours each day.

_______________
V/LA 03-04 AUG 09
_______________

[Zachrulez]

So I just did a quick run through of Dizzle and Zach (like I said, I'm pretty sure at least 1 scum was on yesterday's bandwagon), and I noticed a huge lack of interaction between them. The only times I saw a mention of either of them in their posts were 2 short blips of Dizzle agreeing with Zach in D1. That's it. Not sure if I missed something bigger, but it's pretty large from what I read. Also, it's rather interesting that Zach didn't get NK'd last night. If I was scum, I'd probably go for the IC who is scumhunting and playing townie. So, a question for each:
Zach, do you have any thoughts/opinions on Dizzle?
Dizzle, do you have any thoughts/opinions on Zach? (if he gets to read this)

I also haven't interacted heavily with you or Sigma on day 1 if I am recalling correctly.

With the available time I have I'm making an effort to try to get better reads on the 3 of you.

Over why I wasn't nked overnight, I'm not sure what I can say on the matter. It's all WIFOM anyway.

[d3x]

Ok. My mind just broke. I'm logged in at work and it just deleted the post I had been working on for a while. I'm going to try and recreate it to the best of my abilities.

@HR- I'm not 100% sure of the concept of this term, but I looked it up and believe it applies. If I am correct in the definition, this is the single biggest Strawman in the world. To say that the last few weeks have been caused by 'disagreements' blows my mind. I have multiple legitimate cases built against you. While there have been a few conflicts of playstyle, that's just a drop in the bucket. This is not a scenario where we aren't reading each other, it is a scenario where you're being scummy.

You also say that there is tunneling going on. Unless you're refering to yourself, I disagree. D1 I made arguments against you, rand0m, and Bond. Today I have questioned you and sigma and will start in on facebook soon {I'm really not liking this piggybacking, it makes me

very

nervous}. So unless I'm completely off on that definition as well, there's no tunneling going on here.

Ultimately, I feel that this is a case of a more experienced player trying to get a Newb Town player off of his case with a weak confirmation of said Townie. The timing of this is also impecible. You drop your vote as soon as multiple players start to question your 'mostly' OMGUS vote? How convenient.

Let's do this instead. Why the sudden change of heart over my alignment? I'm

very

curious.

Oh, and 'over-eager'? Please. It's called Scum Hunting.

Confirm Vote:HR

[HowardRoark]

@d3x: Perhaps a better choice of words would have been "communication difficulties." As I was going to reply to your case, I just keep seeing quotes from my posts and responses that aren't exactly to my points. The tunneling comment was mostly on me. I felt that I had you pegged as scum. As I re-read D1, I saw your play as more misguided townie and the fact that my focus on you was allowing others to slip through the cracks. As far as my vote being the OMGUS . . . I disagree; you voted me after I voted you. I debated the unvote and taking this route, but as I said, "take this as you like."

[Zachrulez]

Okay . . . d3x . . . take this as you like . . .

unvote

For now, I feel that you are probably just an overeager town-aligned player and I am done allowing our disagreements to flood the thread. The tunneling needs to cease.

FWIW: My vote was mostly based off of your actions yesterday, your argument concerning my iPeanut vote and his death, and your misplaced burden of proof for townies to prove their alignment.


@Toledo88: Now that we've established that facebook hasn't really said anything today . . . any questions for her?


I am awaiting some comments from facebook and Zachrulez. Then I will proceed with the voting.


BTW, my V/LA is mostly LA. I will be able to check the thread at least once each day, but I will be limited due to traveling 6 hours each day.

_______________
V/LA 03-04 AUG 09
_______________

When I read this, it looked something like this to me:

"Well my case against d3x sucked and went nowhere, so I will unvote and take another shot at this."

I'd still like a response to 307 HR.

Same goes to Dizzle.

[Zachrulez]

I've still got some reading left to do. I've got some decent thoughts together though, I'm just waiting for some responses from Dizzle and HR on 307 as I detailed in the previous post.

[HowardRoark]

FWIW: My vote was mostly based off of your actions yesterday, your argument concerning my iPeanut vote and his death, and your misplaced burden of proof for townies to prove their alignment.

Part of the entire post of mine that you quoted. (WTF . . . RTFT)

[d3x]

As far as my vote being the OMGUS . . . I disagree; you voted me after I voted you.

When the first point in your case against me is...

you came very close to having me lynched yesterday...

...it's very clearly OMGUS.

[Zachrulez]

"Your actions yesterday" is very specific. (As in it's not.)

I'm not sure what's wrong with d3x being interested in your interaction and reaction to Ipeanut, even though the conclusion he drew was based on WIFOM.

As far as his burden of proof thing, isn't that more based on a fallacy then it is scummy?

So what, you found him scummy at the start of the day and now you don't?

[Zachrulez]

And when I ask for clarification, linking to the posts where d3x committed said actions might help a little.

[HowardRoark]

Let's look at the full context . . .

seeing as how you came very close to having me lynched yesterday and pushing this theory of my vote on iPeanut doesn't leave a good taste in my mouth. It could be a well planned scum move.

Ergo not OMGUS. You also broke that sentence apart in 294. That's a form of misrepresentation.

"Your actions yesterday" means "my case against you yesterday." I am not going to go through and link to the posts. I am done pursuing d3x for now. Please look at my post 92 for the misrepresentation of sigma. More long posting in my post 94 concerning d3x.

(bold added by me)

I'm not sure what's wrong with d3x being interested in your interaction and reaction to Ipeanut, even though

the conclusion he drew was based on WIFOM

.

See my added bold . . . you answered it with my already stated issue with it.

How is a misplaced burden of proof a fallacy and not scummy?
Fallacy--an often plausible argument using false or invalid inference.

I felt that I had you pegged as scum. As I re-read D1, I saw your play as more misguided townie

[Zachrulez]

So he's scummy, but you think he's town?

Ok then...