Please read section addressed to you. You are welcome to read other sections if you choose. Please answer the questions posed to you (elaboration is very welcome). Also please confirm if the summary your stated suspicions is accurate/up to date. If it is not, please let me know so I can correct it. Thanks.
@Dry-Fit-
-I'm assuming your FOS on Plum indicates willingness to lynch her.
-Is your comment to LL also indicative of willingness to lynch him?
-Is there anyone you would be unwilling to lynch rather than a no lynch?
-Do you expect that your vote on Sigma will have any relevance for D1?
@Excedrin-
To be clear:
-You prefer a Kast lynch, then a Sigma lynch, followed by a Zito lynch.
-You are unwilling to vote for Porkens (or yourself).
-You are willing to vote for other players if that is required to prevent a no lynch.
@KRW-
-I haven't seen your promised post(s). Hope everything is going okay and looking forward to some response. Please do not disappoint; every vote is important.
To be clear:
-You are most suspicious of RC, followed by Plum.
-You plan to vote for someone who will guarantee a lynch instead of a no lynch but currently do not know which player among the vote leaders is the scummiest.
@KMD-
-What do you think of the case on Kast?
To be clear:
-You are most suspicious of Zito and would prefer his lynch.
-Your next suspect is Rising, but you do not feel that a Rising lynch will occur anytime soon.
-You are willing to vote for others to secure a lynch rather than a no lynch.
@LL-
-Do you have any suspects other than Zito?
-You have been gathering information on other players for the majority of the game. Do you have any analysis of this information available?
-You dislike the Dry-Fit wagon. Do you dislike it more than the Kast wagon?
To be clear:
-You would like to lynch Zito.
-Are you willing to lynch others to secure a lynch rather than no lynch?
@Zito-
-Your recent posts have answered my questions already. For completeness:
-You would prefer a lynch of Locke Lamora over all others.
-You prefer lynching Porkens or KMD next and equally to each other.
-You prefer a lynch of KRW, RC, Ex, or DF next and equally to each other.
-You prefer a lynch of Sigma after that.
-You prefer a lynch of the rest after that rather than a no lynch.
@Plum-
-I get that you think Rising is scummy, however, consider that you may be letting that influence you and bias you to dismiss Rising's case against Dry-Fit.
-I have the impression that you may equate agreement with towniness. Consider if that is affecting your thoughts/analysis.
To be clear:
-You prefer a lynch of Excedrin, then Zito, then Rising.
-You are willing to vote others to secure a lynch rather than no lynch.
@Pork-
-Do you think that your case/suspicion of me is strong?
-I get the impression that you don't really know or care if I am scum, but would happily lynch me just to remove a source of long/tedious posts. Is this accurate?
-Do you think Excedrin's reasons for wagonning are valid?
-I don't believe you ever answered whether you think it is generally scummy for one player to defend someone else. Do you think this?
To be clear:
-Your preference is currently Kast, then Plum, then Zito.
-Are you willing to change your vote to secure a lynch rather than no lynch?
@Rising-
-Please confirm if you plan to move your vote from Dry-Fit. Are you still unwilling to lynch Dry-Fit today?
-Have you found anyone that you prefer to lynch rather than Dry-Fit? Please share who you are moving it to and why.
-What do you think of the case against me?
-What do you think of the case on Zito?
To be clear:
-You suspect Dry-Fit, then Excedrin.
-You would like to vote for a stronger case than the one you have against Dry-Fit.
-Are you willing to change your vote to secure a lynch rather than no lynch?
@RC-
-Please confirm that you are only willing to hammer Kast and unwilling to vote in any other manner for D1.
@Sigma-
-Please confirm that you are considering Zito and Dry-Fit as lynch candidates (in particular that your post 23 states this).
-Have you made a decision yet?
-Are you adding Kast to the list of your candidates under consideration?
To be clear:
-You are willing to lynch either Dry-Fit OR Zito and cannot currently decide which you prefer.
-You are willing to vote for others to secure a lynch rather than no lynch.
Summary of who people are willing to vote for:
Compiled from above assumptions. Please correct above assumptions if anything is inaccurate.
(A) Player
(B) # 1st or 2nd pick
(C) # 3rd pick
(D) # Lynch rather than no lynch
(E) # Unknown (probably will add to previous column)
(F) # 1st, 2nd, and 3rd picks
Code: Select all
(A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F)
Zito 4 2 1 3 6
DF 3 1 3 3 4
Ex 2 2 3 3 4
Kast 3 0 5 2 3
Plum 3 0 5 2 3
RC 2 1 4 4 3
Sig 2 0 5 3 2
KMD 2 0 3 4 2
LL 1 1 4 4 2
Ris 1 1 4 4 2
Pork 1 1 4 3 2
KRW 0 1 5 4 1
------------------------------
@Excedrin-
In general you are being very inconsistent and exhibiting signs of confirmation bias. Immediately following are your points of inconsistency. Below that are answers to your post. Answers have been numbered to facilitate responding.
-You claim that you will return your vote to Zito if Kast wagon is not a viable lynch. You claim that the Dry-Fit wagon, which is equal to or stronger than the Kast wagon, is not a viable lynch. You fail to return your vote to Zito.
-You claim that discouraging discussion is very scummy. You admit that Rosso's posts can be seen as directly discouraging discussion (given that he directly stated that players should NOT share or discuss reasons and should JUST vote, that seems impossible to rationally deny), but claim that is okay. You inconsistently claim that Kast's large posts could potentially discourage discussion, and claim this potential is a valid reason to think Kast is scum.
-Inconsistently you also ignore other players who posted long posts.
-You are intentionally engaging behavior that you claim discourages other players from posting and is scummy.
-You request explanations from other players, but inconsistently say it is scummy when Kast provides explanations.
-You also inconsistently excuse Rosso Carne for giving no reasons/explanations.
(1)-Technically you are correct that Rosso did not directly state this. However, you can amend my point to "He will not place a vote that is not a hammer vote AND will not place it on anyone except for Kast". Do you have any objections to this longer form? I mistakenly assumed the shorter form was clear enough. From context it should have been clear that "He will hammer a player who he selected" is distinct from the voting in the previous post. The link is an example that he is not even willing to vote for Kast, his hammer target.
(2)-False. Sometimes players try to get squirrely and claim that saying a vote is because they think a player is scum is providing a reason for voting that player. It really is not; but leaving that debate for another time (but still noting it since I assume that if I do not, you will raise it as a straw man objection), a hammer is OBVIOUSLY made because you think a player is scum. That is NOT a reason for wanting to lynch the player. That is roughly equivalent to saying your "reason" for voting is because you wanted to vote. It does NOT answer the question.
(3)-You fail at parsing that phrase. In that post he refuses to share his reason(s). This is equivalent to and indistinguishable from having no reasons.
The parenthentical refers to the entire sentence and explains that a vote with no reasons is equivalent to and indistinguishable from an arbitrary vote. Colloquially, we call these arbitrary votes "random votes" and restrict their use to the RVS. They are generally restricted to RVS because a combination of game theory plus thousands of games of mafia have proved out that use of these arbitrary votes outside of the initial RVS is extremely anti-town.
(4)-The link is one example of Rosso refusing to do anything to get others to vote for his target. It is typical of his play. If you disagree, then instead of resorting to ad hom and insulting my post, try providing a counter example. It should be simple, yet Rosso has done nothing. Suggestion: scan through Rosso's posts in isolation, and you will see that he has done nothing to convince others to vote for his target.
He also makes it clear that he is willing to withhold information from the town to get revenge on a player who was rude to him. This behavior is anti-town and very childish.
(5)-False. I assume that since he DIRECTLY STATED that he will not share his thoughts/provide an explanation and that he thinks doing so is SCUMMY that he is telling the truth and refusing to try and determine if a player is scum. Instead, he is advocating JUST voting for suspects without discussing anything with them.
He made a decision from the beginning of the game and refuses to make any attempt to determine if that decision is true or false or otherwise have any effect on the rest of the game. As I've stated before, Rosso Carne is refusing to play and instead actively lurking (unfortunately, his meta makes it clear that this is not indicative of his alignment).
(6)-False. More confirmation bias. I have maintained that Zito is the only currently viable lynch. Dry-Fit and Kast are roughly equal runners up, though Dry-Fit's wagon is stronger. You are the one who keeps presenting an inconsistent false dilemma.
However, you are correct that I shouldn't say no reasons. I
should
say negative reasons or anti-reasons or something to indicate that you and Porkens are voting and justifying the vote by providing reasons why you both should not vote for me. Wherever you see no reasons, feel free to refer to this paragraph.
(7)-This is an inaccurate representation of our game. At least one person read all my posts (and others have indicated that they read all or the majority). I also disagree that I posted anything that isn't useful.
I have posted some things that were non-essential for catching scum. How is doing that scummy? You are inconsistent in claiming that this is scummy but only attacking me for this.
(8)-To be clear, we agree that discouraging discussion is anti-town. That said, please explain how you determined that my posts have discouraged discussion.
I strongly disagree and believe that the posting record reflects that I have generated a great deal of discussion, probably more than any other player. While there may be some players who dislike reading through long posts, and some players who are discouraged to see multiple pages of posts to go through, I think it is a huge misrepresentation to claim that this effect has been greater or even anywhere near the amount of game relevant discussion that I have generated by directly engaging other players, pushing other players to share their thoughts, sharing my thoughts, and providing information and analysis of all game related points thus far.
If you would like, and if you will actually read and respond instead of simply dismissing it, I can provide an analysis by player of posts that I encouraged, total posts, and posts indicating discouragement from posting as a result of my posts. Please don't make me waste time on that if you are going to just ignore it.
-Rosso Carne has discouraged discussion. Saying he is just terse does not mean he is not discouraging discussion. You are attempting to excuse him on basis of playstyle (which makes you inconsistent). However, his direct statement that players should not share thoughts and instead should just vote is completely independent of him being terse and IS a discouragement of discussion.
(9)-To be clear, no I am not intending to confuse. It looks like your confusion results from your attempt to avoid my point. Please address it now. If you have a reason FOR thinking I am scum, please share it.
(10)-I realize a lot of players on these boards don't have English as a native language or are unfamiliar with colloquial phrases. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume one of those two refers to you instead of assuming that you are intentionally not understanding the posts you quoted.
-The phrase "come around" means to change one's mind. Zito initially disagreed with KMD's argument, but changed his mind and now agrees with them. He confirms this by agreeing that the case on Zito is legitimate.
-The phrase "any takers?" is a question asking whether anyone is willing to do something. In this case, he is asking other people are willing to join the wagon on Dry-Fit. He begins by explicitly stating that he is suspicious of Dry-Fit, providing reasons, then asking if anyone else is similarly suspicious.
-These two differ from all others; Sigma has clarified that he no longer disagrees with KMD; he has clarified that the vote on Porkens was not due to suspicion but to get Porkens to answer his question; the vote on Locke was similarly to get Locke to post an opinion instead of only posting questions; and the vote for Keelie has also been clarified as not meant to lynch but meant to get Keelie to stop lurking and to post.
The cases on Dry-Fit and Zito, combined with his post directly stating that he agrees with KMD and is deciding between Dry-Fit and Zito (which you quoted previously but failed to include this time), show a clear difference between Dry-Fit/Zito and other players.
-This aside we can hear him confirm this himself.
(11)-Your response to my response fallaciously combines two independent and separate points as though they are the same.
You claimed that you have reasons for voting for me, but actually did not have any.
Independently of that, you have also misrepresented the current state of the game by claiming that Kast is a viable lynch target and not addressing that Zito is the only currently viable lynch target.
Instead of addressing this point, you (inadequately) attacked a minor point. It is nonsensical to combine your failure in this area with your failure in another area.
(A)-Player A claims Statement 1 proves Statement 2.
(B)-Player A claims Statement 3 is true.
(C)-Player B claims Statement 1 does not prove Statement 2.
(D)-Player B claims that Statement 3 is not true because of Statement 4.
(E)-Player B claims that Statement 3 is not true because of Statement 5.
(F)-Player A claims that Statement 5 is not true.
(G)-Player B claims that Statement 5 is true, but that Statement 3 would still not be true even if Statement 5 is false because of Statement 4.
(H)-Player A claims that the existence of Statement 4 as proof that Statement 3 is not true implies that Statement 1 must prove Statement 2.
(12)-Your position has been inconsistent. After switching to me you claimed that your vote would return if the Kast wagon was not viable. It is not viable but you are not returning. That is inconsistent.
(13)-Until Rising moves his vote and/or confirms that he is unwilling to lynch Dry-Fit, his vote is still on Dry-Fit's wagon. We will get a confirmation from him, but from context, he is suspicious of Dry-Fit. From recent posts, the post you quoted, and our game state, it appears that he has not found anyone who he would prefer to lynch over Dry-Fit, and he does not have much time to change that.
Excedrin wrote:Kast wrote:Excedrin wrote:Kast wrote:refusing to vote and insisting on only hammering a randomly selected player but refusing to do anything to get others to vote for that player or try to determine if that player is scum.
This is blatant misrepresentation.
Point out what is misrepresented.
He will not vote for anyone.
(1)You interpret this as "will not" vs actual meaning of "I'm currently not voting." I can be certain of Rosso's actual meaning here because, to hammer, he has to vote, and he has stated that he will vote for you. It's in scumKast's favor to plant this misconception, I'm not sure why townKast would do this.
(2)In that post he gave a reason.
(3)In this post he says he won't share his reason(s). That's not the same as random.
(4)Question asked was "Ready to reveal yet?" and his answer was "nah." How can you go from "nah" to the BS you said?
(5)You assume that because he hasn't responded with a HUGE POST like this one, that he's "refusing to try."
Kast wrote:Excedrin wrote:Kast wrote:Excedrin wrote:2. Kast has spent far too much time/energy/words arguing with Rising over a "who cares?" kind of point
-Has this been at expense of not participating in other capacities?
-How is this indicative of alignment?
Kast wrote:It is unfortunate that the town as a whole is not active enough that the Porkens/Excedrin duo has had undue control of discussion by virtue of placing weak/reasonless votes that they undoubtedly will not be held accountable for.
So, Porkens/Excedrin duo has had undue control of discussion and that's scummy. But Kast/Rising duo has posted huge pointless discussions that prevent and derail discussion and that's not scummy?
Porkens+Excedrin's votes determined Zito as a candidate to be lynched. Now you are attempting to make Kast another candidate immediately prior to deadline with
no reasons
. Two players determining both lynch candidates is undue control. You are blatantly misrepresenting when you claim that I labelled that as scummy. I labelled it as unfortunate; it is a bad idea for town to let that happen. It is much more a failing of the town than anything either of you did.
(6)Alright, it was unfortunate. I guess it was an unfortunate-tell. Fortunately, your reaction to my vote are to support the false dilemma that I originally objected to and to repeat "no reasons" which is absurd(ly scummy).
Kast wrote:Kast/Rising posting walls of text that other players chose to not read derails discussion how? Despite the walls of text, remind me which players have been actively engaging others and drawing them back into the game and while raising new points to consider and analyzing the information available and the responses of other players.
(7)Why would you knowingly post huge posts (that aren't useful anyway) that nobody's going to read? You definitely knew that some of your posts were "non-essential" (aka: does nothing to find scum).
Plum pointed this out in
#119 and you replied:
Kast wrote:#120
-Yes, I do get easily sidetracked in non-essential arguments. I don't think it detracts from me looking at other players.
Kast wrote:#135
I'm debating you because I enjoy arguing...
Both posts came before
#143 and
#147. which each inspired huge responses from Rising.
(8)Your discussion with Rising contributed to town's unfortunate lack of posting. You knew that your sidetrack in a non-essential argument would lead nowhere despite taking effort to attempt to wade thru (nevermind replying). That is how it's indicative of alignment.
You spent a lot of words to come up with "Rising is town."
Kast wrote:You can contrast with Rosso who says players should not discuss or give reasons for anything. Rosso actually discourages discussion.
I can see how you'd think that. But Rosso Carne is just terse. Your method of discouraging discussion is subtler and you can later point at it and say, "look at how active I've been."
Kast wrote:Excedrin wrote:Kast wrote:-Okay, then I'll move you from 1 bad reason to
no reason
at all. It is telling that instead of showing another reason, you just complain that your reason to not lynch me should be ignored.
What? Are you intentionally trying to confuse?
To be clear, does this mean you have
no reasons
to provide?
(9)Are you admitting that you intend to confuse?
Your "no reasons" mantra is relaxing.
Kast wrote:Excedrin wrote:sigma has voted for a lurker. He's stated that he will continue to research Papa Zito and Dry-fit. He has not stated willingness to vote beyond that.
False. Sigma has been a supporter of Zito AND Dry-Fit as lynch candidates for most of the day. In the post you quoted, he clearly states that he agrees with kmd and will vote pick between Zito and Dry-Fit. His research is to decide which of those two is better to lynch.
(10)Lets have a closer look at sigma, then you can elaborate how he's supported both Zito AND Dry-fit lynches today.
sigma's votes with reasons:
#21 Dry-fit: RVS
#33 Kmd4390: found scum on page 2, too early
#91 Porkens: didn't answer question/lurking
#93 Locke Lamora: questions / no opinions
#142 KeelieRavenWolf: lurking
sigma wrote:#130
After a few pages, I'm beginning to come around a little bit on KMD's argument on Zito.
sigma wrote:#144
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.
sigma wrote:#162
I'm a little concerned about dry-fit. Here's what he's done so far:
1. Scumhunting/attacking me.
2. Defend himself from Rising attacks.
3. Respond to Kast questioning.
I have an obvious bias because he's voting me, and I'd like to get others' reads on Dry-fit -- any takers?
I contend that sigma has also stated no strong opinions on anyone who's actually playing. I can't find any statement by sigma like, "I'm willing to lynch X" except for his statement to lynch KeelieRavenWolf for lurking.
Kast wrote:Excedrin wrote:Kast wrote:
-Why do you ignore my main counterpoint?
According to you, I have no reasons to vote you, so I'm not sure what your main counterpoint is.
It is not a counterpoint to a reason for voting me, so your argument is invalid. It is a counterpoint to your inaccurate representation of the game state with respect to which players are valid candidates for being lynched.
(11)My eyes glazed over long ago. I have no idea what you're saying here. Is anyone else reading this far?
Kast wrote:Altogether, there are 5(6 counting you but your position has been inconsistent) players willing to lynch Zito, 3 players willing to lynch Dry-Fit, and 3 players willing to lynch Kast. Everyone except for Rosso appears willing to lynch anyone rather than no lynch.
(12)My position hasn't been inconsistent. I voted Papa Zito pretty early and when I switched to you I stated that I'm still willing to change my vote in order to lynch Papa Zito (or sigma).
(13)Since Rising isn't willing to lynch Dry-fit, who else are you counting here?
