Mini 856 - Star Control: Zeta Sextantis - Over

[Porkens]

Ok guys, TOO MANY WORDS. All of the megaposting should stop now. It is detrimental to the town's motivation and ability. I beg you to keep things concise and easy to follow.

unvote

You know, I wouldn't be TOO surprised to see the scum budding up right away. A town-plum shouldn't have defended Zito at all. I can't seem to let that go, despite all the other noise in the thread.

Vote: Plum

[Kmd4390]

Rising, I trapped him by saying he is town?

No, that's not what Excedrin said. Read it again.

I said I think he is town because newbtown tend to be opportunistic like Excedrin was there. He took out of that the fact that I said he was a newb and thought I was trapping him expecting him to say "I'm not a newb". You agreed with him. I clarified that my read on him was town. And you still think I was trying to trap him. How?

[Locke Lamora]

If Papa Zito

doesn't

come up with a valid and sensible explanation, he will of course remain looking like scum. But if he

does

come up with a valid and sensible explanation, he fits right into Excedrins proposed scenario of a likely scum-behaviour.

This is exactly why I asked Excedrin what he'd make of a player who failed in his attempts to look less scummy.

Thanks. I'm very proud of it.

I'm dubious of KMD. I know that his confident "Zito's scum" stance was probably to get a rise out of Zito as much as anything but I think he's then used whatever he can get from Zito's reaction to make him look scummy. That's why I challenged him on the sarcasm comment; it just looked like point-scoring to make Zito look bad, dropping one of his earlier points against Zito in the process which indicates to me that he never really thought it was scummy in the first place. Now that I think about it, I'm going to go ahead and:

Vote: KMD

Do you stand by your statement that Zito's "Me?!? Nooo" style reaction is scummy?

His sarcastic response was scummy. Not as scummy as Rising though. Doing "whatever I can" to make Zito look scummy is a misrep. Hell, I'm not even voting the guy right now.

Ok, "whatever I can" was perhaps too much. Nevertheless, what basically happened was that he said the sarcasm argument was stupid, and you came back with "well, so is your voting argument". If you'd had any conviction in thinking his sarcasm is scummy, I would have thought you'd work a little harder to refute it. Also:

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?

Do town players generally react less to bad arguments than scum players?

[Kmd4390]

I wouldn't say react less. Just.. I don't think it bothers town as much as scum, so it doesn't distract them from scumhunting. TownZito is better than this. In Boost 2, he was actively scumhunting and recieved one of three boosts (mechanic where players vote to boost protown appearing players) for it. Here, he's managed to suspect two players on his wagon for their votes on him and that's it.

[Locke Lamora]

So essentially you think Zito is scummy because he's not playing very well?

[sigma]

I'm not sure what to think about the Rising/Kast wall o' text war. In my very limited experience, arguments that wordy tend to be between town and town. I agree with Porkens that the arguments getting way too dense -- I stopped following it about 3 pages ago, to be honest.

After a few pages, I'm beginning to come around a little bit on KMD's argument on Zito.

@Dry-fit:

Why aren't you voting? Do you have a list of suspects yet?

[Kmd4390]

Locke, no. Because he isn't scumhunting and I know he is capable of doing so.

[Kmd4390]

Oh, and Sigma? Walls being town vs town is NOT always true. See Boost 2 for an example of Scum vs Scum walls. ConsM/Mastin vs myself on Day 1.

[sigma]

I'm sure you're right -- I have limited experience, as I said.

Do you still have a pro-town feeling about Kast?

[Kmd4390]

Well, my gut said town originally, but he made me realize I always think that about him. Consider it a neutral read for now I guess, as much as I hate those.

[Kast]

@Excedrin-
-Missed your previous post about disliking my lack of vote and claiming that Rosso's behavior is better than my own. Strongly disagree.

I've been sharing thoughts with explanations on multiple players throughout my posts. Nobody has jumped out as probably scum, so at this point I don't see any reason to place a vote yet.

Rosso has neither placed a vote nor offered any thoughts. I can't fathom how saying he would like to hammer a player for absolutely no reason can possibly be better than actually sharing thoughts and participating in the game.

-Dunno about an easy way to just see a list. You can click the player's profile and find all posts by that player, then jump around to different pages to find completed games.

-From personal experience, I find walls are indicative of personal play style and not alignment.

@Kmd-

Plum, I think Rising realized he had a bad vote out and was looking for somewhere to put it and found Dry-fit.

Somewhat agree. I think Rising is probably stubborn town who realized his vote on Excedrin was terrible but doesn't want to admit it. I think he was probably looking for anywhere else to park his vote.

However, I think the point against Dry-fit is valid (though not damning). I think Dry-fit did misrepresent sigma's post, and his attack is based on different meanings of the phrase "generate discussion" (semantics argument) instead of addressing content.

@Rising-
-It is not equivalent to your playground argument. If you were planning to drop it, I don't see the point in mentioning a false analogy. I guess we'll see if you really drop it

-Mostly agree that KMD, Porkens, and Excedrin all voted for Zito for the same reasons.
--Random vote in second post (Excedrin may not have used this one).
--Sarcasm.
-You and I, and others, agree that sarcasm is not inherently a scum tell, and in this case it was either not a tell or at best a very weak one.
-Initially, you had no objection to these two tells.
-Initially, you objected to Excedrin using a "trap"
-You claim the trap is that Excedrin claimed that if Zito explains his behavior, that would damn Zito.
--Excedrin did not say this despite your claim. You have not shown that he said this.

"that's when you take what would otherwise be a natural and helpful reaction for a townplayer and make it look like something suspicious, in advance."
This is where your argument fails. Excedrin's post does NOT take a natural and helpful reaction for a townplayer and make it look like something suspicious, in advance. You still have not shown or even attempted to show how it does this.

-I'm debating you because I enjoy arguing especially with people who are capable of rational thought but are not engaging in it. I think there is a possibility that you will admit your mistake like a good townie instead of stubbornly clinging to crap logic and developing a sub-optimal play style.

-Statement 2 is EXACTLY your statement. That is REQUIRED for your argument to make sense.

"If Papa Zito

doesn't

come up with a valid and sensible explanation, he will of course remain looking like scum. But if he

does

come up with a valid and sensible explanation, he fits right into Excedrins proposed scenario of a likely scum-behaviour."
If Zito did come up with a valid and sensible explanation and fit into Excedrin's proposed scenario, it would not make him any more suspicious than he already was.

Your use of likely is slightly ambiguous.
-If by "likely scum-behavior" you mean behavior that is indicative of being scum, then you are repeating Statement 2.
-If by "likely scum-behavior" you mean behavior that scum would probably engage in, then the situation does not say anything about Zito's affiliation.

Would the following situation hold with your usage of the term "likely scum-behavior"?
(1)-Statement 3 "Scum are likely to post if someone votes for them".
(2)-Player C says Statement 3.
(3)-Player C votes for Player D.
If Player D

does

post, he fits right into Player C's proposed scenario of a likely scum-behaviour.

Player D is not screwed if he posts, despite fitting into the scenario. Likewise Zito is not screwed if he posts, despite fitting into Excedrin's proposed scenario.

IF Excedrin had stated Statement 2, then fitting into his scenario would be a trap. Since he did not and you agree that he did not, then there is no trap.

[Rising]

I said I think he is town because newbtown tend to be opportunistic like Excedrin was there.

No. According to you; being opportunistic is only a tell that he's a

newbie

, and could just as well be a towntell as a scumtell: "I said that newer players are expected to be a bit opportunistic regardless."

In fact, your stated reason for thinking that Excedrin is town is this:

1. Either Zito or Excedrin is scum.
2. Zito is probably scum.
Therefore Excedrin is likely town.

Or, as expressed with your own words: "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"'

"Scum if Zito is town" is a pretty bold statement. And what have you built this case on? Nothing at all, really. Excedrin was too quick, was he? What about Porkens? He was even quicker. And you're saying that Excedrin didn't have anything to add? That's not true. Excedrin

did

have something to add - it was

Porkens

who didn't.

So you just esentially just picked Excedrin out of the blue, and said that he must be scum if Zito pings town.

[Kast]

Scanned through everything again.

@Dry-fit-
-You posted an attack on Sigma. Does this imply that he is your top suspect?
-Do you think anyone else has been suspicious?
-You felt that KMD's vote on Zito was not intended to lynch, but rather to generate discussion. The wagon on Zito is still there; what do you think about each of the other players and their reasons?
-Do you believe that any action that generates discussion is pro-town?
-If KMD (or anyone else) pushed strongly for the lynch of another player early in the game with poor reasons; would you find that behavior suspicious?

@KeelieRavenWolf-
Please post something. You had a reasonable post early and nothing to follow that.
-Do you think sarcasm is a valid tell?
-Have any players stuck out so far as appearing opportunistic? (and is that good, bad or neutral?)

@Locke Lamora-
You seem to dislike the wagon on Zito.
-What do you think about Excedrin's, Plum's, or Porken's votes and reasons at the time they voted?

@Porkens-
You haven't been posting much recently and even older posts I'm not seeing much in terms of non-RVS or game irrelevant thoughts. Please post more.
-Do you think the case against Zito is/was reasonable?
-What was wrong with Plum's defense of Zito?
-Do you think it is generally (always/sometimes/never?) a scum tell and/or anti-town for one player to defend another player?

@Rosso-
Do you have any thoughts to share?
-If you are unable to hammer Kast, are you willing to vote/hammer other players to avoid a no lynch?

@Sigma-
-Your question to Porkens still was not answered. However, it seems like Porkens was just joking/messing around. If his comment that you asked about has any in game relevance, does it help to draw attention and/or press him for a response?
-Please elaborate on what you meant when you said you were coming around to KMD's argument on Zito. Do you think KMD's vote on Zito was serious? Do you think his reasons were valid?

[Kmd4390]

Kast, you agree but see it as a town tell? Why?

Rising, ok, I guess that makes sense too (about Excedrin). Porkens only jumped on to get reactions.

[Kast]

And you're saying that Excedrin didn't have anything to add? That's

true

. Excedrin

didn't

have something to add -

and

Porkens

also

didn't.

Fixed.

[Kast]

@KMD-
I'm not following what you're referring to. I think Rising is probably a stubborn townie. The Excedrin case itself is terrible, but that doesn't mean he is scum. Townies are just as likely to use crap-logic as scum, that's far more about personal play style than about affiliation.

I think he's pushed a terrible case against Excedrin and a much better one against Dry-fit. I think he probably jumped for Dry-fit to put distance between himself and his crap-logic driven Excedrin case, but I think he also could genuinely think Dry-fit is suspicious. The two are not mutually exclusive and there is nothing wrong with having multiple reasons for doing something.

[Kmd4390]

It's not about "crap-logic. It's about the strawmanning and stretching. It's not only a bad case, but a forced one. Scum is more likely to force cases than town.

[sigma]

@Sigma-
-Your question to Porkens still was not answered. However, it seems like Porkens was just joking/messing around. If his comment that you asked about has any in game relevance, does it help to draw attention and/or press him for a response?
-Please elaborate on what you meant when you said you were coming around to KMD's argument on Zito. Do you think KMD's vote on Zito was serious? Do you think his reasons were valid?

Yes, it's relevant, and yes, it helps.

@Porkens: were you serious about vigging KMD?

@KeelieRavenWolf-
Please post something.

I knew there was someone else that I was forgetting about. With no replacements, lurkers should be lynched.

Unvote

Vote: KeelieRavenWolf

[Kast]

@KMD-
Straw men and a long reach are both tools in the crap logistician's toolbox. Regardless what you call it, I've seen plenty of townies use straw men and stretch things pretty far (especially on D1).

I'm not saying those things are town tells on Rising. I'm saying that despite engaging in anti-town behavior, Rising's posts read as stubborn town instead of scum trying to drive the town to confusion/mislynch.

I think Rising genuinely believed his terrible case when he initially proposed it. He has indirectly and inadvertently admitted his mistakes through the course of discussion, although I think by now that he knows he was mistaken and just doesn't want to admit it.

That he is still stubbornly clinging to it after his attempt to let it disappear quietly failed strikes me more as something stubborn town would do than scum. If he were scum, his intentions in switching to Dry-Fit would seem to be to remove attention from the bad argument. When he was called on it, Scum would be much better off admitting and dropping instead of stubbornly picking it up again.

@Sigma-
-No comment about coming around on KMD's argument for Zito?
-Porkens was probably joking. If he were seriously saying something about his role, please explain how that helps the town to be revealed. If he was being serious and reveals anything about his role, that could very easily help scum with targetting and not help town much at all.

[sigma]

Sorry, I seem to be missing stuff today.

-Please elaborate on what you meant when you said you were coming around to KMD's argument on Zito. Do you think KMD's vote on Zito was serious? Do you think his reasons were valid?

KMD has made a valid point about Zito's lack of scum-hunting which I agree with. His earlier arguments were instigating. I've already said I disagreed with that somewhat, and that's as good a reason as any to vote that early. So, 'I'm coming around' mainly refers to the lack of scumhunting pointed out by KMD.

-Porkens was probably joking. If he were seriously saying something about his role, please explain how that helps the town to be revealed. If he was being serious and reveals anything about his role, that could very easily help scum with targetting and not help town much at all.

Why do you think he was joking? He said "if i was vig". The if makes a big difference. I interpreted this as meaning that he found KMD scummy in some way, or felt that he'd shoot KMD N1 in a hypothetical porkens-vig scenario. I don't think, however, that he's seriously saying anything about his role at all.

[Rising]

Initially, you had no objection to these two tells.

As I've said, I thought KMD was just instigating to get the game going and to provoke a reaction from Papa Zito. That's why I didn't object in my first post. And unlike Sigma, I don't think it's particularly scummy to use a bogus reason to provoke and pressure another players. I didn't think KMD's case was scummy in the beginning.

---

If Zito did come up with a valid and sensible explanation and fit into Excedrin's proposed scenario, it would not make him any more suspicious than he already was.

Ugh. Semantics. I can't tell you how disapointed I was to see this.

No, you're right: it would not make him any "more" suspicious. But it wouldn't make him

any less

suspicious neither. And

usually

- when you come up with sensible explanations - it

does

.

Therefore, Zito would not have any incitement to explain himself. If he remained silent, he would be a lurking scum, and if he managed to come up with some really good and valid explanations, he would fit right into Excedrins scenario of the scum that fixes his early mistake and manages to appear more and more town as the game progresses.

Screwed if you do, screwed if you don't. That's a trap.

I've explained this numerous times, and you object with semantics, saying things like a trap must mean a person becomes "more" suspicious and not only "not less"; or that "screwed" and "screwed if you don't" must mean certain things (that I have never said). And then you tell me that I've never explained my case.

But I have. You just don't

accept

or

agree

with my explanation. And that's fine.

If by "likely scum-behavior" you mean behavior that scum would probably engage in, then the situation does not say anything about Zito's affiliation.

That's true. In a pure logical sense, it doesn't say anything about your affiliation if I were to say "You could be scum", "you're possibly scum", "I've seen scum do what you're doing" etc in every one of my posts. Aristotles would've been proud over you and your fine grasp of logic.

I think that pure logic is a pretty blunt tool for playing mafia, however, and therefore I disagree completely with this argument.

I enjoy arguing especially with people who are capable of rational thought but are not engaging in it.

I enjoy playing mafia, except with people who are capable of playing but are not engaging in it.

[Kmd4390]

Sigma, I'm not so sure a lurker lynch is the best way to go.

Kast, I'm still not seeing how being stubborn is a town tell. Hell, I don't see how Rising has been stubborn in the first place.

[Kast]

@Rising-
I think it's anti-town to intentionally use bad arguments to pressure other players. I agree that there are enough players who use bad arguments when pressuring other players seeing a player who is using a bad argument is more likely null than a tell. Individual situations may be different.

No, you're right: it would not make him any "more" suspicious. But it wouldn't make him any less suspicious neither. And usually - when you come up with sensible explanations - it does.

(1)-Player F does something suspicious.
(2)-If Player F provides a plausible explanation, then all other players will be (should be) less suspicious of Player F by some amount S.

You appear to believe that Excedrin's post supports eliminating (2). At most, I could see that it would decrease amount S proportionally with how likely a given player already thinks Player F is scum. This is normal and reasonable; it would be a mistake to assume that an explanation and subsequent pro-town behavior should automatically remove suspicion that was a result of a scummy action. Excedrin's thought merely verbalizes a concept that most of us apply naturally.

Further, in our specific case, the explanation was made in response to the charge that it was too early in the day to have a strong/valid suspicion of another player. It was a counter-example from anecdotal evidence.

-Show with quotes. Explaining that a situation in which a player is screwed if they do one action or screwed if they don't does not show that EXCEDRIN set up that situation. You discuss and repeat your conclusion. Nobody is arguing about that. *IF EXCEDRIN SETUP A TRAP, THEN IT WOULD BE A SCUMMY MOVE*. What has been pointed out to you repeatedly is that Excedrin did not setup a trap. You have never once posted any evidence that he setup a trap. You jump A>B>D>E skipping C. You can repeat A, B, D, and E as many times as you want, but it does not mean you have shown C.

Your last post at least makes an attempt to explain how Excedrin's post could be interpreted. It falls short of the mark in showing that Excedrin's post does what you claim.

In a pure logical sense, it doesn't say anything about your affiliation if I were to say "You could be scum", "you're possibly scum", "I've seen scum do what you're doing" etc in every one of my posts.

False. It would say that my affiliation is not confirmed (or at least not confirmed to you).

Mafia is a logical game. Sound logic is a strong tool for town to catch scum. Unfortunately, most of us make mistakes and not all of us have the same reasoning capabilities.

@KMD-
-I don't think stubbornness itself is a town tell. I think the tone and content of Rising's posts convey that he genuinely believed the bad argument he was pushing against Excedrin. I think his overall posting content and style reveal that he is being honest for the most part, though I think he has realized the argument was bad and is being dishonest in not admitting it due to stubbornness.

I don't think any of the potentially scummy tactics that Rising has used are indicative of him being scum. I think his behavior in general makes more sense as a stubborn townie than as scum. As scum, he would be playing pretty badly and somewhat nonsensically.

[Excedrin]

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

If he persists in looking scummy my read would be scum.

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'?

I thought that his initial reasons and vote were intended to provoke and not totally serious. Solid in terms of backed by greater evidence and stronger reasoning etc. Kmd4390's reasoning since then is a bit stronger, Papa Zito doesn't seem to be scumhunting (but he's V/LA) and he's still sarcastic (except for when he talks about SC2).

His post #74 has the same thing that KeelieRavenWolf objected to in Plum's 1st post.

-Missed your previous post about disliking my lack of vote and claiming that Rosso's behavior is better than my own. Strongly disagree.

I've been sharing thoughts with explanations on multiple players throughout my posts. Nobody has jumped out as probably scum, so at this point I don't see any reason to place a vote yet.

Rosso has neither placed a vote

nor offered any thoughts

. I can't fathom how saying he would like to hammer a player for

absolutely no reason

can possibly be better than actually sharing thoughts and participating in the game.

Later everyone will be able to read day 1 and see that Rosso stated willing to hammer Kast, whereas Kast is generally suspicious of a number of players for a variety of reasons, none of them strong enough to vote or even state, "X is my top suspect." The contrast is between strong directed suspicion and a weak blanket of suspicion.

Bold parts are untrue. RC has stated: Kast is scum, Papa Zito is unhelpful/scummy but probably because he's noob. He also has a reason but has refused to share it.

I see what you're saying here, but there are more playstyles than a sort of constant-mental-dump of the current tally of who is scum and who is town.

-Dunno about an easy way to just see a list. You can click the player's profile and find all posts by that player, then jump around to different pages to find completed games.

Seems like search is disabled.

re: Kmd4390

I wasn't a fan of the way in which he generated discussion

Is there something scummy about Kmd4390's method of starting discussion?

I knew there was someone else that I was forgetting about. With no replacements, lurkers should be lynched.

Does a modkill end the day?

What do you think about KeelieRavenWolf's reason for voting Plum? (guilty conscience based on Plum's 1st post)

KeelieRavenWolf's post #46 (only post aside from confirmation) seems to have been missed (Kmd4390 has commented on it), but it's a bad post. It's fluffy, says that despite early game being about "causing a scattered reaction to judge town or scum," treats Kmd4390's post as serious, then ignores it and votes Plum for joking randomvote.

[Excedrin]

EBWOP: votes Plum for something she mentioned in her RVS vote (that Plum said she's town).