Mini 856 - Star Control: Zeta Sextantis - Over

[Plum]

ATM the scummiest thing about Zito is that you are defending him

Mayhap I have fallen prey to flattery. It's been known to happen. What with Kmd's early statements it's hard to gauge everyone's seriousness/how much everyone thinks whoever they're voting is scum.

[Rising]

Early game tells shouldn't be downplayed in importance

Exactly, and I've gotten an early tell from Excedrin.

Excedrin didn't say that if Zito came up with a good explanation for his actions it would reinforce his opinion, only that it would not necessarily decrease the likelyhood of Zito being scum based on his actions to that point.

Fair enough, "reinforce" might've been a strong word, but does this change anything about my post? No. This is exactly what I was talking about. "Even if you come up with a good explanation, I could still label it as a scumtell based on an earlier action of yours". This is how I define a trap. You might use that word differently, but whatever you wan't to call this type of reasoning, I think it is a pretty good scumtell and I'd like to hear Excedrin explain himself so that I could get a better read on him.

[Locke Lamora]

Keelie, I hear what you're saying. I generally avoid stuff like saying I'm Town and/or commenting on deaths at the start of a Day as any alignment simply because it's not worth the bother I'll get for that sort of thing as any alignment. I suppose I felt a little looser with that tendency than usual because it was the beginning of the game. I would say it's a personal nulltell - like slightly breaking out of my overall, town-scum-whatever meta in general - but consider it how you will.

If you don't think it's worth the bother, why the change of heart? Isn't this the stage of the game when people often pick up on looser comments as a way of getting discussion started?

Excedrin: what would your read on Papa Zito be if he entirely failed to stop looking scummy?

[Kast]

@Rising, 44-
-You may personally be incapable of catching scum tells without the benefit of hindsight. Please don't automatically assume that your limitations are true for everyone else.

-Excedrin never claimed that looking for a player who "does something really obvious at the start of a game and then gradually appears more and more town" is a valid strategy for scumhunting. You are setting up and maintaining your straw man when you repeat this falsehood. I find it extremely anti-town that you continue to perpetuate this falsehood despite multiple players pointing it out. Please stop engaging in anti-town behavior.

From context, the purpose of Excedrin's post was to counter the idea that townies should avoid placing "real" votes based on early game behavior. However, there is no advocacy for placing votes based on early game behavior. There definitely is no advocacy for placing votes based on early game behavior while ignoring future behavior.

-Your proposed "experiment" is pretty off topic. That said, if conducted in the manner you describe, then it would completely fail to test the hypothesis. The actual hypothesis (which you quoted in the same post) is "scum sometimes does something really obvious at the start of a game and then gradually appears more and more town". To test this, we would look at games (completed or ongoing with known scum) and find if there are times where scum make mistakes at the start of the game but appear more and more town as the game progresses.

As proposed, your straw man experiment makes a pretty petty and childish attempt to discredit both myself and Excedrin by attempting to point at irrelevant meta-statistics instead of addressing either of our actual posts.

@Sigma/Dry-fit-
I'd say the goal for generic townies right now is to find out which player is most likely to be scum and convince all others to lynch that player. Discussion is a great tool for helping us find out which player(s) is(are) most likely to be scum. A player who "generates discussion" is not necessarily a townie; practically any post or action has the capability to generate discussion.

I think Dry-fit is seriously misrepresenting Sigma's reason for voting kmd. This could in part be due to different understandings of the term "generate discussion". Sigma clearly contrasted posts which are intended to "generate discussion" from posts which are intended to "convince other players to vote your lynch target". In a literal sense, these obviously are not mutually exclusive since a post which attempts to convince other players to do anything is inherently intended to generate discussion. Despite the usage of that phrase, I don't think Sigma's post was unclear, and it looks like Dry-fit's attack is a veiled attempt to argue semantics.

@Plum, 48-
I like this post.

@Rising, 51-
-You manufactured a "tell" by creating a straw man.

-Your post is based on crap logic that assumes a fictional argument from Excedrin. If you substitute Excedrin's actual post for your fictional straw man, then your post becomes completely invalid.

This is not a semantics issue over how anyone defines the word trap. You are fallaciously claiming that others agree with your crap-logic. Nobody has done so. You may think it is a good scumtell, but it actually isn't.

Your adherence to your position and refusal to consider that you may be mistaken despite multiple players pointing out your mistake is anti-town. Worse still is that if you are a townie who genuinely believes that the players telling you that you are wrong are mistaken, then you have taken no steps to address and clarify things for them other than stubbornly insist that no matter what you are correct.

If you are a townie, re-read and realize that stubbornly holding to one idea without being open to discussion is very dangerous behavior that does not take advantage of the town's strengths and allows scum to better utilize their strengths.

[SpyreX]

Vote Count:

Kmd4390(2): Plum, sigma
Dry-fit (0):
Locke Lamora(1): Papa Zito

Papa Zito(3): Kmd4390,Porkens,Excedrin

Excedrin(1): Rising
Plum(1): KeelieRavenWolf

Deadline: Thursday, October 7th, 1030 PM PST

[Plum]

Keelie, I hear what you're saying. I generally avoid stuff like saying I'm Town and/or commenting on deaths at the start of a Day as any alignment simply because it's not worth the bother I'll get for that sort of thing as any alignment. I suppose I felt a little looser with that tendency than usual because it was the beginning of the game. I would say it's a personal nulltell - like slightly breaking out of my overall, town-scum-whatever meta in general - but consider it how you will.

If you don't think it's worth the bother, why the change of heart? Isn't this the stage of the game when people often pick up on looser comments as a way of getting discussion started?

I suppose I was feeling whimsical. The Kmd-is-always-scum-when-I-play-with-him-except-... pattern is one that's hung around in the back of my mind for a while and it's never appropriate to bring it up except in the very early game, and previously I've missed enough of the very early game that the opportunity never arises. In this case the satisfaction value of getting to mention it (which would be there regardless of what alignment I am) early in the game vs. the risk/bother it would cost me (or the scumhunt overall) made it worth it to me.

Porkens: If Zito is scummy because I'm defending (ish) him, wouldn't it follow that I'm scummier than he? Nu?

Rising: well yes, the "reinforces" statement was a pretty big misrep. Furthermore it was clear from Excedrin's statements that he was talking about no traps - just stating that he would not necessarily let go of what he considered a strong early-game scumtell even if an explanation was given. Your statement

Setting up "screwed if you do, screwed if you don't"-traps isn't pro-town.

is fallacious, because it's not about being screwed whether one who makes an early-game scumtell explains it or not - it's about being "screwed" if one makes what he considers a strong early-game scumtell period. Not a trap but a reasonably-explained way of approaching scumtells in general.

I'll be off most of tomorrow. See y'all.

[Rising]

To test this, we would look at games (completed or ongoing with known scum) and find if there are times where scum make mistakes at the start of the game but appear more and more town as the game progresses.

Of course they do. But townies do this

too

(as I've already explained, btw). And it only qualifies as a valid scumtell if it's something that scum does

more often

than town.

So: If this theory is valid, then it can be very easily tested by looking at earlier games you've played as town and checking whether or not your first non-random vote (=your first vote for someone who did something scummy) has been for actual

scum

or just regular townies.

You can't call this experiment "off-topic" and be debating with me at the same time. Either you adress what

I'm

talking about, or you're discussing something completely else, which is irrelevant to me.

As proposed, your straw man experiment makes a pretty petty and childish attempt

Petty, childish, stupid... Why do you have to be such a jerk?

KMD put a vote on a guy

for not voting in his first post

and said "Yep. You're scum. I'm sure of it." when that player responded sarcasticly (which I think is a completely natural reaction when being attacked with a ludicrous argument). Now; in my opinion, I believe that KMD was just instigating (it was definitely a reach, but it helped the game in my opinion, so I won't hold that against him), but Excedrin came and

justified and over-explained

(at least in my opinion, as I've explained) his vote on Papa Zito. That seemed a lot scummier than anything else going on in this game, so I put my vote on Excedrin and I'm still waiting for him to post a response.

[Dry-fit]

Sigma clearly contrasted posts which are intended to "generate discussion" from posts which are intended to "convince other players to vote your lynch target". In a literal sense, these obviously are not mutually exclusive since a post which attempts to convince other players to do anything is inherently intended to generate discussion.

The reason I disliked his vote is because I don't believe Kmd was seriously trying to "convince other players to vote your lynch target" at all, and I don't see how his post could have possibly been interpreted that way. I think sigma is misrepresenting him.

but Excedrin came and justified and over-explained (at least in my opinion, as I've explained) his vote on Papa Zito.

If there's anyone who's overexpaining here, it's you.

[Rising]

it's about being "screwed" if one makes what he considers a strong early-game scumtell period.

If this was a case of a really

strong

scumtell - an actual "mistake" - then of course I would've been fine with it. "Ouch. You did something really bad there, buddy. There's just no way for you to talk yourself out of this mess, I'm sorry. You're definitely the lynch for today." Nothing wrong with that. But when all you've got is a person that didn't post a vote in his first post, and responded with a sarcasm when attacked for it, then it's a completely different issue. I don't think what you just wrote applies to this case - or anything that I've written (or at least what I meant by it)

at all

.

There's a huge difference between:
1. "Hmm... I've noticed scum do this before." - Perfectly reasonable for a pro-town scumhunter.
and
2. "Hmm... I've noticed scum do this before, and they always come up with a good explanation afterwards, managing to explain away and fix their scummy behavior. " - why did this person add that last part? That wasn't necessary for pointing out the scumtell. This sets off my alarm, because scum have a tendency to go ahead of themselves, like proposing chain lynches (another scumtell I believe in).

It's obviously not a

strong

scumtell by any means (not even for day 1) but I would still like to hear Excedrin comment on it.

The reason I disliked his [Sigma's] vote

is because I don't believe Kmd was seriously trying to "convince other players

to vote your lynch target

" at all, and I don't see how his post could have possibly been interpreted that way.

O RLY? Because what Sigma said

when he voted

was "Don't you think it's a little early to start convincing players

that you've found scum?

" That is hardly a misinterpretation, since KMD said "Yep. You're scum. I'm sure of it."

Sigma didn't suggest that KMD was trying to convince other players to

vote his lynch target

until his

next

post, #38, so you're clearly not remembering things right. And if you thought this was such a misrepresentation, why didn't you

say

so in post #43? In post #43 you discussed a

completely different

(and quite silly) issue.

I think you're making this up in retrospect.

If there's anyone who's overexpaining here, it's you

Yeah, you've convinced me. My case against Excedrin was a bit too much of a stretch, I'm actually much happier with a vote on you.

Unvote.
Vote: Dry-fit

[Papa Zito]

unvote: Locke Lamora

We're well out of RVS.

KMD, how do you feel about the bandwagon you've started and the players on it?

[Porkens]

Oh do me first.

[Papa Zito]

BTW, Porkens, you need to tell me where you got that avatar.

[Locke Lamora]

If there's anyone who's overexpaining here, it's you

Yeah, you've convinced me. My case against Excedrin was a bit too much of a stretch, I'm actually much happier with a vote on you.

Unvote.
Vote: Dry-fit

So you think you were reaching with your tell on Excedrin?

[Excedrin]

I find that scum sometimes does something really obvious at the start of a game and then gradually appears more and more town as the game progresses because they explain away and fix their scummy behavior.

So if Papa comes up with a valid and sensible explanation, that would actually

reinforce

your opinion that he is scum?

It depends. This is a slightly confusing to answer because it's about the specific instance of Papa Zito and also future actions. I mean, is it a theory question or a specific "in this instance" question?

In theory, if someone's valid and sensible explanation made more sense if they're scum, then yea, maybe it would reinforce my opinion. Maybe that's a bad example, but the point is, I can think of situations where something like what you're objecting to could happen.

Setting up "screwed if you do, screwed if you don't"-traps isn't pro-town.

I think that others have explained this, I objected to the idea that scum can't be found based on an early post or that, upon finding something scummy, people shouldn't vote because of it and try to draw attention to it because it's early in the game.

I actually agree with Excedrin that "scum sometimes does something really obvious at the start of a game and then gradually appears more and more town", but you know what? So does regular townies. And this is just as rational and easily observed in the forums. Therefore, this isn't a reliable way to hunt scum.

Scum sometimes does something scummy early. Town sometimes does something scummy early. Both will gradually appear to be town. Conclusion, ignore early scumtells. Is that it?

Others have explained my post, but I'm not sure if anyone has said that I don't consider the pattern:
1. appear to be scum
2. later, appear to be town based on explanations and/or improved behavior

to be a scumtell, since as you said, both scum and town can follow that pattern. If I did think that was worth looking for, I wouldn't be voting based on it yet; page 3 doesn't really qualify as "later".

Also, I meant "fix" as in, lets say, X is accused of not scumhunting on day 1, then on day 2 they scumhunt more. They've fixed their anti-town behavior.

So: If this theory is valid, then it can be very easily tested by looking at earlier games you've played as town and checking whether or not your first non-random vote (=your first vote for someone who did something scummy) has been for actual scum or just regular townies.

Who said anything about "first non-random vote"? There are more reasons to vote than solely because a scumtell was spotted, right?
An experiment to test this would be more like:
1. there's some early behavior that seems scummy (to someone? to a big chunk of the town? to a few players?)
2. the target of suspicion explains it away or improves their behavior
3. suspicion dies down
Then compare scum to town ratio or whatever. But really, what's the point? Scum hunting is subjective and situational and probably impossible to reduce to pure math.

Rising, what do you think about Papa Zito's post #40?
Could you explain your vote for Dry-fit? Were there some stated reasons that I missed?

Anyone who says that they're sure that they've found scum on page 2 is lying -- or possibly scum trying to look like the stereotypical aggressive pro-town player.

Early bus never happens?

Or, explain, Excedrin, why the sarcasm indicates scumhood.

Sarcasm can be scummy in some cases, especially if it's used to dismiss a case against oneself. I'm not sure if I can justify anything beyond that.

Contrary to Kmd4390, I don't have a strong opinion that Papa Zito is scum (yet). I am looking forward to more from Kmd4390.

I'm not sure why sigma (and Rising?) assumed that Kmd4390's goal was to attract votes and lynch Papa Zito. I read it the same way that Dry-Fit did. Votes and justification in the early game are often not as solid as they are later on, I don't really have a problem with reading Kmd4390's initial vote and reason as that.

[Locke Lamora]

Excedrin: do you think KMD isn't that serious with his vote and accusation? If you do think he's serious, what do you mean by 'solid'?

[Rising]

So you think you were reaching with your tell on Excedrin?

Of course. It was my first post in the game. How could I be certain of anything that soon? (I don't like players like Porkens, who says things like "Oh wow, Zito, Plum, sigma scumteam" on day 1)

But it was good enough for me to want to put some pressure on Excedrin, and it was

without a doubt

the best scumtell at the time (every other vote was either completely random (like Papa's vote on you), ridiculous (like Porkens) or (in my opinion); wrong (I disagree with sigma's reason for voting KMD; instigating is rarely a scumtell)).

Scum sometimes does something scummy early. Town sometimes does something scummy early. Both will gradually appear to be town. Conclusion, ignore early scumtells. Is that it?

Heh. Good answer.

No, that wasn't my point. My point was that I didn't understand why a townplayer would want to point out that a player could still be scum even if he came up with good explanations later in the game. That is not a pro-town thing to do, and in no way necessary for pointing out a scumtell.

I thought a spotted a lynch-hungry behaviour, but I get a good vibe from your post here.

But really, what's the point? Scum hunting is subjective and situational and probably impossible to reduce to pure math.

Agree.

Rising, what do you think about Papa Zito's post #40?

Obviously he reeks of frustration, but I can't blame him. He brushed off a nonsense argument, and got bandwagoned for it - by people who said they were

sure

that they had found scum. They didn't ask him questions or anything! His reaction would be a natural reaction for

anyone

, especially someone who clearly is a Star Control fan and excited to be a part of this game.

He might still be scum, of course, but I can't get a clear tell from him at this point.

Could you explain your vote for Dry-fit?

I could try:

#33: Sigma votes for KMD, and asks him if it isn't too early to convince players that he'd found scum. This is not a misrepresentation of KMD's post in any way.

#38: Sigma responds to a question (from you), and explains that he thinks KMD was trying to convince other players to vote for his lynch target. This theory is certainly a stretch and up to debate (I personally don't believe in it).

#43: Dry-fit responds to Sigma, but his response has

nothing

to do with the issue above. Not for one bit.

#53: Kast writes a post where he says that he thinks Dry-fit has misrepresented Sigma, and quotes Sigma from #38.

#57: Dry-fit says "The reason I disliked his vote is because I don't believe Kmd was seriously trying to "convince other players to vote your lynch target" at all" which doesn't add up, for two reasons:
1. That is not what Sigma wrote when he cast his vote. Dry-fit just got that quote from Kast, just now. There was absolutely no misrepresentation going on when Sigma cast his vote, back in #33.
2. This is the first time Dry-fit brings this issue up. If this is the reason he disliked Sigma's vote, why didn't he say so in #43? Why discuss semantics if he had serious and valid reasons for mistrusting Sigma?

I'm not sure why sigma (and Rising?) assumed that Kmd4390's goal was to attract votes

Not me. I think Sigma is wrong. I believe KMD was instigating to get the game going, and in my opinion this did not only help the game, but he's also on top of my list of trusted players because of it.

[Rosso Carne]

I'd HAMMAH! Kast

Pretty sure he's scum

[sigma]

@Rosso: any particular reason you think Kast is scum?

@Porkens:

If I were vig, I'd shoot KMD.

Can you elaborate? Given that you're voting for Zito, do you believe that KMD and Zito are both scum who are engaging in early-game distancing?

@Excedrin:

Early bus never happens?

Early game distancing happens, certainly. Honestly, I hadn't considered that possibility -- I would think it unlikely that KMD-scum would attack Papa-scum right off the bat like that, personally.

[Rosso Carne]

@Rosso: any particular reason you think Kast is scum?

@Porkens:

If I were vig, I'd shoot KMD.

Can you elaborate? Given that you're voting for Zito, do you believe that KMD and Zito are both scum who are engaging in early-game distancing?

@Excedrin:

Early bus never happens?

Early game distancing happens, certainly. Honestly, I hadn't considered that possibility -- I would think it unlikely that KMD-scum would attack Papa-scum right off the bat like that, personally.

yeah, i dont just randomly pick people as scum, i have reasoning behind it.

[Kmd4390]

Don't you think it's a little early to start convincing players that you've found scum?

Pfffft. It's never too early. I usually do it in my first post. You're probably town though. Thanks for the reaction.

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

Not sure what to make of Plum's reaction. Yes, the original attack was weak. But Plum has been around long enough to know when someone is looking for a reaction. Hmm.

Porkens obviously saw what I was doing and went with it. Probably town.

Zito, tell me what you, Plum, and Sigma did that was "obvious" and why scum wouldn't do it.

Excedrin seemed too quick to jump without having anything to add. Scum if Zito is town. Then again, he's new and Zito is probably scum, so I can see newbtown. Depends on Zito's alignment though.

Sigma, why "scum trying to look like the stereotypical aggressive pro-town player." rather than "the stereotypical aggressive pro-town player"? What is the most notable difference there?

Excedrin's post 39 is bad. Meta isn't going to catch scum on Page 2 very often.

Zito's post 40 is pretty sarcastic and scummy.

Rising strawmans Excedrin. He didn't set a trap. Just made a theory statement, even if it was a bad one. Starting to see Excedrintown and a Zito/Rising scum team.

Kast is obvtown. And I see he noticed the strawman.

Dry-Fit noticed that I was looking for reactions. Hard to get anything from him that way.

Jelly (Keelie), I disagree with the logic behind your Plum vote, but you are probably town.

Porkens, you are voting Zito but would vig me? Do you think I am distancing from Zito right now?

Plum, the sarcasm looks more like scum who is annoyed because they are being wagoned and aren't even playing that badly. I had this happen to myself recently. Jelly could tell you all about that game. .

Rising's post 56 is actually a good argument, but it wasn't what he said at first.

Wow, Rising's switch to Dry-fit is terrible.

Zito, Porkens is probably town and Excedrin is probably town too. Who do you find scummy?

Rosso, I'm not seeing anything scummy from Kast.

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

Unvote, Vote Rising

. Zito is still scummy, but Rising is worse.

[Papa Zito]

Zito, tell me what you, Plum, and Sigma did that was "obvious" and why scum wouldn't do it.

I've never seen a scum team actively defend each other in thread.

Zito, Porkens is probably town and Excedrin is probably town too. Who do you find scummy?

I'm not terribly fond of either one. If sarcasm = scum then game over, the whole site just lost.

[Kmd4390]

A little sarcasm for fun isn't scummy. Sarcasm that shows you are annoyed at the attacks against you

is

scummy. Town would just say it's a bad argument, shrug it off, and scumhunt. Again, who do you think is scum?

[Papa Zito]

Again, who do you think is scum?

Again, one of Porkens or Excedrin is very likely scum due to opportunistic voting.

[Kmd4390]

So two of the three players voting you are your only two suspects? Ok.

[Papa Zito]

Opportunistic votes on a townie bandwagon are a much better tell than "sarcasm". So yes.

A few more pages and I'll probably ferret someone else out.