Mini 878: Nouns Mafia - Da game is ovah!

[Seol]

/confirm

[Seol]

Lurker

vote: mathcam

.

[Seol]

Wee. Not much going on is there?

Unvote: MacavityLock
Vote: Boxman

for stating the obvious. Why sit on the sidelines when there's lot of opportunity to start the ball rolling?

unvote, vote Boxman

. I don't like passive contributions either.

[Seol]

Because it's customary on this site to start a bandwagon against someone for no reason during the first few pages of the game to put pressure on them then watch their reaction. It doesn't make a whole lot of sense, but there are certain players who will defend it rather vehemently, so I usually just go with it now.

There's a difference between a vote cast for no reason and a vote cast

citing

no reason. Interesting that you imply Sensfan's vote was just random bandwagonning (discrediting the wagon in the process), especially as it was the only wagon thusfar with reasons cited (albeit not by Sensfan). It's reactions like that which make not citing reasons useful.

[Seol]

Stranger: Honestly, I think that the whole "vote for pressure" thing, along with the "vote for reaction" thing is rather weak. It only works on new players who don't know what's going on...Anyone who's been through at least a few games, though, should see right through it.

What would you suggest, then?

[Seol]

Generally, I find that posing questions and discussions like this about theme and method are more effective...

About the theme? You mean the theme of the game? On day 1, to get things started?

Seriously?

[Seol]

Scumteam = elvis_knits, Netopalis, Boxman?

[Seol]

Sorry, I meant to say setup, not theme.

The reason I reacted badly to you mentioning theme is because it relates directly to the setup: discussing setup on day 1 is a

terrible, terrible

idea!

[Seol]

He doesn't like the fact that I'm going against the common practice of pressure and reaction votes, nor the fact that I suggested setup discussion as a potentially better method of early scumhunting.

There are things I don't like, such as your going against the practice of random wagonning and your tendency to answer for others - but those are playstyle objections, which don't really reflect on your alignment.

The relevant stuff, however, is

how

you objected to the wagonning: discounting reasoned votes as random, which looked like an attempt to discredit the wagon.

Oh, and suggesting setup discussion is relevant too, because it's

highly

scum-favouring at this point in the game.

[Seol]

Fair enough, I retract the statement. I only intended it as a general replacement anyway.

So, just to be clear, you are calling the Boxman vote reasoned? I'll have to reevaluate it, then. I think that the reasoning may be a bit shaky.

Of course it's reasoned. That should be evident from my giving a reason.

[Seol]

He doesn't like the fact that I'm going against the common practice of pressure and reaction votes, nor the fact that I suggested setup discussion as a potentially better method of early scumhunting.

Well, I know why he doesn't like you, that's obvious. I actually meant to ask seol why he is connecting you to me. I can see him connecting you to boxman since you poo-pooed his boxman wagon. But why you and me are together, or why boxman and me are together, not sure why.

Your attack on Sensfan didn't ring true at all, and this in particular:

However, don't try to tell me you didn't know what you were doing. There was a vote count at the top of the page. I assume you can count to three seeing as all the boxman votes were on the same page.

felt unreasonably aggressive. Basically, it came across to me as an engineered argument; finding a reason to attack as opposed to genuine suspicion.

I also wanted to see how you reacted to mimicking your scum-team suggestion postings. The unexpected response: you took it seriously.

PPE: This:

So are you going to explain your vote or are you just going to hide behind seol?

also has that quality of feeling unreasonably aggressive; attacking for the sake of attacking, and notably different in tone to how you're talking to anyone else.

[Seol]

He doesn't like the fact that I'm going against the common practice of pressure and reaction votes, nor the fact that I suggested setup discussion as a potentially better method of early scumhunting.

Well, I know why he doesn't like you, that's obvious. I actually meant to ask seol why he is connecting you to me. I can see him connecting you to boxman since you poo-pooed his boxman wagon. But why you and me are together, or why boxman and me are together, not sure why.

Your attack on Sensfan didn't ring true at all, and this in particular:

However, don't try to tell me you didn't know what you were doing. There was a vote count at the top of the page. I assume you can count to three seeing as all the boxman votes were on the same page.

felt unreasonably aggressive. Basically, it came across to me as an engineered argument; finding a reason to attack as opposed to genuine suspicion.

Why do you think it wasn't genuine?

Because I don't think most people pay that much attention to the vote count at this stage in the game: you're coming across as if it was irresponsible of Sensfan not to know the precise votecount, and furthermore as if he had heightened responsibility for it because he was an alternative wagon. Particularly the use of the phrase "you had to know what you were doing" is highly accusative on something which isn't a reasonable expectation of a typical player at this point.

I also wanted to see how you reacted to mimicking your scum-team suggestion postings. The unexpected response: you took it seriously.

My suggestions were serious. Yours weren't?

Well, that depends what you mean by serious. It was reasoned, but not intended to carry much weight.

Did you have reasoning behind yours? If so, please elaborate.

How much weight did you intend them to carry?

PPE: This:

So are you going to explain your vote or are you just going to hide behind seol?

also has that quality of feeling unreasonably aggressive; attacking for the sake of attacking, and notably different in tone to how you're talking to anyone else.

How do you measure "reasonable aggression?" Of course I'm going to be more aggressive to someone that I am voting and think might be scum.

I don't

measure

it, that was the impression I took. It seems odd to be so accusative the first time you asked Sensfan for his reasoning, he'd only been asked once up to that point by

anyone

, and your previous exchange had an entirely different subject - so it's not unreasonable for Sensfan to think that's what you were interested in. I also don't get where the "hide behind Seol" comment comes from.

[Seol]

I'm busy at the moment, and don't have time to reply to everything, but I wanted to just talk about this point briefly:

What do you think about sensfan not explaining his boxman vote? I think that's anti-informational.

The problem with Boxman's statement is that he's looking for discussion without contributing himself - he's avoiding involvement

at all

. Sensfan isn't doing that, he's perfectly involved in the discussion, he just hasn't answered one specific question. That is not, in and of itself, a bad thing.

Take, for example, if I asked you to make a full roleclaim now. I wouldn't expect you to do so, even though by not being forthcoming with an answer, you're being "anti-informational". Full disclosure is as naive and dangerous as non-disclosure. Sometimes by not disclosing certain information, you protect it for more productive use later; sometims by not disclosing information, you elicit interesting reactions from other players.

You said you didn't understand the big deal about him not explaining his vote: I don't see him making a big deal about it, but I do see you doing that. It's similar to my surprise at you for asking for justification of my scumteam speculation, you've got a bug up your ass about anything not being fully explained. Why?

[Seol]

This is not the same thing, but I just think that asking for explanation is good. Do you disagree? Why?

I think there's very little in the way of behaviour that is essentially good or bad: it's not what you do, it's how you do it. I didn't object to the questions you were asking Sensfan, I was objecting to

how

you asked them.

Also, it's not so much that I mind things not being explained right away every moment. Sometimes people don't for whatever reason (time, wanting to see reactions, I do it too).

But I mind people not explaining when asked.

Seems like bad faith.

So you believe that everyone has a

responsibility

to explain their entire thought process on demand? I guess that's something we disagree on, then.

So when I saw sensfan fail to explain his vote and instead ask a question of SC, I felt he was deflecting the question.

The question he asked of SC was directly related to the reason behind his vote: hardly deflecting from the issue at hand. In fact, I thought he made it nicely clear that part of the intent of voting like that was to see how people reacted to an unexplained vote. If it wasn't clear then, it should have been here:

If I see fit to explain the vote, I will. It should be pretty obvious, though.

And I asked you for explanation so that I could address any concerns you have.

And the process has definitely given me a greater insight into your thought process than I expected, so thank you for that.

[Seol]

I also think that 3 votes is enough to expect him to show up.

Then why hasn't he? He has been active over the last couple of days.

[Seol]

Just checking in - I've had a lot of coursework the last few days, and have had enough time to read but not get stuck in properly. I should have plenty of time tomorrow.

I know, I hate it when people post to say they're posting too.

[Seol]

Still busy, but wanted to pop in to clarify that I'm still happy with my vote on Boxman.

[Seol]

To summarise my feelings so far:

I'm disappointed in Boxman. I felt his "return" post was minimalistic, almost designed to be so. The way he ended it:

For now, I believe these were the two most major issues?

I don't like this at all. Feels like he

knows

he's trying to skate by with minimal contributions, and get our approval for his level of participation. I don't like lurker lynches day 1, but I'm not letting him off the hook unless he turns things around dramatically.

I'm

very

uncomfortable with Netopalis. Whilst his position on random wagons is consistent with other games, he's coming across as far too concerned about the Boxman wagon. Bits like:

Well, I was watching Boxman's sig, and it didn't include this game until he posted on here, which lends credibility to the "Forgot about the game" thing.

show that he was paying way more attention to Boxman than I'd expect. Over-reacting and over-defensive, and tunnelling in on frankly irrelevant issues. I agree with elvis in that most of his behaviour is only demonstrably scummy, as opposed to anomalous, if Boxman is scum too, but I have to say I'm uneasy about him regardless.

Neto's eventual vote on Boxman will prove interesting if Boxman turns up scum.

That it will. Flipping from arguing against the wagon to being on it on the basis of just a little more lurking feels contrived.

A lot of what's been happening recently is people arguing with Neto, and generally I don't have much to add to it: where I disagree, it's on generalised theory of play basis, rather than anything I find suspicious, and I don't think we need much more deconstruction of disclosure policy etc. But right now, we need to resolve the Boxman situation, one way or the other.

[Seol]

Trying to not look scummy doesn't make you not look scummy. Not trying to not look scummy doesn't make you look scummy.

Doing things with too much focus on how it makes you look is questionable in itself.

[Seol]

Well, while I'm here, I might as well claim Vanilla Townie with the noun Stethoscope. Not a doc, as the noun would imply, oddly enough.

Bah @ unsolicited claim. Day 1 claims are

bad

(except when they're good). But now it's out there, we have a nice case of BWCS.

If a replacement is coming for Boxman, I'm happier with a Neto lynch than a Boxman one, especially given the claim.

unvote, vote: Netopalis

.

[Seol]

EBWOP: As tempting as it may be to discuss the particulars and plausibility of Neto's claim, I would strongly urge against it. We almost certainly won't learn anything useful from it, but scum may well.

[Seol]

Best worst case scenario - ie, in the worst case (he's town), lynching causes minimal damage. It's only an incremental argument, of course.

[Seol]

I was really riding the fence for a while there on Neto, but I think the claim is fake. I don't know how to say

why

without potentially giving something away.

If anyone thinks the claim is good, I want them to say so. They don't have to say why. Actually, saying why may be bad.

This is why I was saying it's a bad idea to discuss claims, unless there's a really compelling reason. People always underestimate the collateral damage of getting this sort of conversation in the open.

I don't think that discussing our opinions of the claim,

even while withholding reasoning

, is a good idea. Discussing them whilst citing reasoning is worse.

[Seol]

Okay, so a quick overview of exactly who's playing and their positions on the Boxman/Neto divide yesterday:

BK (replacing Parhelic): Not sure here, there isn't much to go on. Didn't really take positions on anything (either of them) - wasn't anti- or pro- anything, which whilst scummy in itself doesn't reflect particularly on the Box/Neto revelations.

elvis: Unlikely to be scum with Boxman: was arguing strongly that Neto only made sense in the context of Box being scum, and therefore the Box wagon should be pushed first - only switched to Neto after the claim.

Iecerint: I'm not sure I buy elvis' argument against Iecerint here. I agree that he was supporting the Boxman wagon in everything except vote: I differ in that I don't think that ties him to Boxman. Arguments are as meaningful as votes in determining wagon momentum, and supporting the Boxwagon with arguments doesn't really help protect Box, which is the motivation behind avoiding voting him.

Konowa: I like much of what Konowa is saying. Was early on Neto based on his response to the Boxwagon, but was supporting the Boxwagon in this time, and switched to Box after he failed to return as (Boxman) promised.

Macavitylock: Never voted Box, and for that matter never supported the Boxwagon other than this:

The topic now is Boxman's continued absense. He has no excuse and he's a perfectly valid lynch. But I worry that we'd be passing up someone who is more clearly scum in my mind. I don't think that Elvis's point that Neto can't be scum if Box is town is valid, so I see no reason to lynch Box first.

Which is only supporting Box in a couched manner.

Percy: Only one real substantive post to examine, but it makes his position quite clear:

I think those voting Neto need to provide me with reasons as to why Boxman shouldn't go first.

Strangercoug: First vote on Boxman. I'm a little uncomfortable with:

It's kind of hard to call my vote on Boxman a second random vote, though I was aware of the unlikelihood that he'd be lynched on that alone. Seol's vote is clearly serious, and

I am led to believe he interpreted mine as so

.

That strikes me as awfully careful word choice - why not just say his vote was serious, that implies that my impression it was serious was

just

my impression, and not the intent. That said, although he switched to Neto at 252, he then switched back to Box in 307 putting Box on L-1. Can't say there's any avoiding the wagon there.

So, at the moment I think that BK and Macavitylock are most likely to be associated with Box, with elvis and Percy least likely. It's worth pointing out that experienced players would have no hesitation in supporting bussing an absent player (plus with the kill pattern it's likely there's scum not associated with Box), so I'm not dismissing anyone; furthermore, this is only one basis for comparison.

But right now, I'm comfortable with a

vote: MacavityLock

. SC's flipping from Box to Neto is kinda nullified by his later putting Box on L-1, and coming from someone who

never

had a vote on Boxman that feels... stretching.

[Seol]

I miss Seol.

I'm not surprised, I am awesome after all.

I'm not sure where this overnight kill discussion is going, and am slightly uncomfortable with it. SC, do you have a point here which is relevant to our decisions today?

I'm sorry, whose role other than Net's was being discussed between his claim and his lynch? If nobody's, what can scum deduce from a vanilla PM other than that person isn't a power role? I'm STILL not making heads or tails out of this.

If you're assessing how plausible a claim is on day 1, then you have two points of reference: the claim, and the roles you know (for Mafia, that's all the Mafia roles, most likely). The only way you can justify whether or not that claim is plausible is by comparing it to your own, so therefore the arguments any player gives about that player's claim contain information about their own role. Information which may make it easier for scum to effectively fake-claim.

That's particularly true when the role has a specific role-related aspect, as in Neto's claim. If someone, for example, had reason to think that function and flavour were or were not linked and said so, then making that argument makes it easier for scum to fake-claim plausible (and durable) power-roles.

I fail to see how the role can be discussed without some other point of reference coming into it.

[Seol]

I will. I'm reviewing everything, posting as I find things worth commenting on. I'm very undecided about StrangerCoug at the moment - much of the reason I don't like him is due to his approach to play, which is consistent and not necessarily indicative of alignment. There are a few things which sit outside that, though - it's just the stuff that's getting the most discussion is, IMO, not helpful.

I'm also cautious about reading too much into yesterday's Boxman wagons, after thinking about it for a while. There was never a case on him other than lurking/flaking, which there isn't much to say about. All yesterday, I didn't want to lynch Boxman - I wanted him to return and participate in the game. Sure, in hindsight you can say that voting Neto instead of Box is vastly favourable for scum: but it's also perfectly understandable town play, because it's likely to get some results.

Re Konowa today: I think elvis' attack in 352 is an example of the Boxman trap: once there's a healthy wagon on Boxman, the question then is what do further votes achieve? There comes a point where lynching a lurker is necessary, and it's not got a terrible EV, but it's worse, generally, than an informed lynch. I don't see anything in what Konowa said that seems unreasonable.

@Seol: There's more to the Iecerint argument than you present in 343.

In terms of his position iro Boxman/Neto? Honestly, I don't see it: can you give some examples?

[Seol]

Okay, so who else is SC's buddy?

I'm thinking he is mafia for ties to BM, and I am thinking there is another member of his team. 3 person mafia team is normal.

There's been a lot of back-and-forth between you and SC, on a range of topics. For my benefit, could you please clarify the ties between SC and Boxman?

[Seol]

The ties, as I see it are:

His early boxman vote was not really serious or intended to lynch. Increases the liklihood that a scum would vote their buddy if they thought they weren't going to have to lynch said buddy

It's kind of hard to call my vote on Boxman a second random vote, though I was aware of the unlikelihood that he'd be lynched on that alone.

I thought it had been established that Boxman's not very likely to be lynched on just opting to sit out, as much as I like the tell.

On the one hand, I think any page 2 vote that was intended to lynch is highly anomalous. Reading too much into that in hindsight is dangerous. On the other hand, I can see an odd pattern to SC's speech about it, as if he's carefully constructing his sentences to say one thing but imply something else, to sit on the fence as long as possible. I also noticed that earlier, and it's got me slightly uncomfortable about him.

Also, the way SC got off the boxman wagon yesterday is very scummy, IMO. His reasoning for voting Neto is bad.

Unvote: Boxman and demote him to a Major HoS
Vote: Netopalis

The end of page 10 looks a lot like he's trying too hard to look town. #247 is awful.

So first we have the part where he unvotes scum and votes town,

Yeah, quite a few of us did that. I did. You did. mathcam and Sensfan, both known town, did. Unlike us though, Stranger was back on the scum by the end of the day (before Neto's claim, which is what crystallised the wagon into a lynch), and didn't hammer - which could be described as trying to keep a clean record, but is just as likely to be that he preferred to vote Box, as he said.

followed by the part ML doesn't like, where he gives a "major" HoS to Boxman. MAJOR! I find Foses basically useless and I don't bother to use them like 99% of the time. Maybe SC likes them. Some people do. But drawing a distinction between FoS, HoS and Major Hos... that seems forced, like he's trying to prove he REALLY is suspicious of Boxman while he votes someone else. I see it as weaselly garbage.

Whilst SC has said a few things which feel... forced, engineered, that's not one that stands out to me. I can see where you're coming from, but it feels like you're taking a God's eye view of the situation.

Then the part which I consider the scummiest reason in the universe to vote someone, "trying too hard to look townie."

I actually like SC's explanation of that: it's not the looking townie that's the problem - it's that he's

trying

too hard, which makes it look forced and artificial. I think that's a perfectly valid basis for suspicion. Honestly, I don't agree with your argument here that there's that a strong tie between Box and SC, and feel that much of your case is as much about preferred playstyle as anything solid.

That's not to say I'm totally comfortable with SC, there were other things that caught my attention - for example:

Fair enough, I guess....

Am I the only person reading this as Net going with the flow?

That's all fine and dandy. Maybe there's nothing wrong with the last post I quoted.

I don't like this, smells of fishing for approval before pursuing a line.

But really, there isn't much against SC that I think has much merit, and I get the impression much of your case is personal antagonism leading to confirmation bias.

As for Macavity's concerns, I'd like to hear SC's reply to those too - I think it will be helpful in my assessment of both SC and Macavity.

[Seol]

Iecerint:

Percy's 293 is, I think, using hindsight too freely - not wanting to push the wagon isn't, IMO, suspicious, especially if someone's keen to clarify their exact position. Iecerint

did

acknowledge the substantive issues - he

wasn't

strong on the wagon, and that's only evasive if you believe a player has a responsibility to be either hard on or hard off a given position. Here, Iecerint was arguing that he was neither, and if anything I find that encouraging.

Wait... that's not using hindsight, that was posted day 1. That puts a different complexion on it.

As for Iecerint's 211, yes, I'm with you there.

One Iecerint thing which caught my attention:

Do you just disagree with EK's attack, or do you find it scummy?

This I don't like much at all. Feels like he's trying to rustle up an attack on elvis.

I'm not keen on elvis, but that's one for when I've got time to investigate further and work out why: I know a lot of my impression is due to her playing somewhat abrasively here, I'm not sure if that accounts for all of it or not. That said, if Iecerint thinks it's scummy, he should say so: if not, he shouldn't go round fishing for someone else to make the argument.

elvis: What say you about my argument in 408 about reading too much into positions on the Boxwagon yesterday?

[Seol]

big_kahunia: Oh dear. I didn't like him before, and I really don't like him now.

Check that. Hoopla was mafia, not Sensfan. My bad. I skimmed Drake’s post.

This really rings false for me. Particularly the 4-minute gap between the posts: it feels engineered, intentional. This is particularly true given that much of the discussion to that point was centred on Box being scum and the consequences thereon.

Of course, if it

was

intentional, that puts BK as scum feigning ignorance of the NK situation. I'm still interested in the Macavity situation, but that's enough for an

unvote, vote: big_kahunia

- especially on top of bk's noncommittal play.

I'm also very annoyed that the replacer replaced out himself - that's really not a good show - but that's a separate issue.

[Seol]

This is misrep of SC:

2town4town is literally the lamest, laziest "scumtell" ever, especially in the absence of meta. Hell, it's probably true of literally almost all town players. Town should almost always play town; being "too town" is not scummy. By that logic, I should start playing scummier to help the town rule me out as a possible scum player. Doesn't make any sense, right?

I found SC's point was clear - it wasn't that he was just too town, that is, looks suspiciously

good

, but that he was trying to look like town and failing. I think the previous post of Iecerint's is an attempt to buddy to EK and get a rival wagon going.

I'd like to point out that Percy conveniently forgot to include the rest of my Post 359. Here's the rest of it:

If you meant something else -- like, "Neto did X thinking it would seem town, but town players wouldn't really do X; town players would do Y. So Neto is scummy." -- it may be a valid tell, but that's not how your post reads IMO.

Look familiar? The rest of my post literally spells out Percy's criticism of my post. He took out my caveat, then criticized me for ignoring the caveat. It's POSSIBLE that he would pull this sort of thing as town for rhetorical effect, but it's pretty remote, and it's kinda a lazy move either way; did he think I wouldn't notice?

That's actually kind of a big deal. Percy, what say you about this?

[Seol]

Seol, I asked you that because given the flip I would consider any attack on EK to be highly, highly scummy at this point. I've already pointed this out once just after SC voted EK, so I thought my intent would be pretty transparent. I was trying to see whether you were trying to discredit EK in preparation for an attack later on without openly saying that you find her argument. In other words, having that very thought about

your

post is what led me to post that.

Really? I would caution you not to put too much faith in the flip - elvis is most certainly not cleared, not by any stretch of the imagination. For the record, my position on elvis at the moment is:

I don't like how aggressive she's playing, I feel she's tunnelling badly and her reasoning isn't as strong as it could be. I feel she's overplaying the importance of people's positions on the Box wagon, am concerned that there's a possibility she's trying to establish that as a primary metric on the basis that it puts her in the clear, and thinking back to yesterday she seems almost

too

strongly on Box, moreso than I would expect an uninformed player to be.

This is all impressions at the moment, not a researched and supported position, and I don't think it's as strong as either BK or Macavity, but there's a lot about elvis which I'm uncomfortable about. It may be that she's just coming on too strong, but it doesn't feel right.

If you find that scummy, so be it - at least you know my position now.

IRO the Konowa attack specifically - that's not really any worse than what else she's been saying. I don't think it's particularly remarkable - only reason I talked about that specific post was because you asked me to.

[Seol]

SC: It's not a case on elvis, it's an unresearched compilation of gut feelings. I'd put it not much higher than "healthy suspicion".

I don't like how aggressive she's playing, I feel she's tunnelling badly and her reasoning isn't as strong as it could be.

I am not tunneling. It should be perfectly apparent that I am pressuring for information and evaluating responses carefully. I have not been on SC all day. I went after Iecerint first, and have actually changed my mind very much on him. I am stating my opinions forcefully, but I am always open to responses from my suspected player and even from the rest of you. I have asked if I was way off base on some of my points -- in my effort to be fair. I am being perfectly reasonable.

Maybe tunnelling wasn't the best word for it - I mean I think you're focussing too much on too trivial a set of details.

As for pressuring - well, maybe I'm just not used to you yet, it still feels like you're coming on very strong as your default mode, which might well be a big part of why I'm not comfortable with you.

I feel she's overplaying the importance of people's positions on the Box wagon, am concerned that there's a possibility she's trying to establish that as a primary metric on the basis that it puts her in the clear, and thinking back to yesterday she seems almost

too

strongly on Box, moreso than I would expect an uninformed player to be.

How am I overplaying? I am not seeing things as black and white, like saying "X is scum for being on neto! DIE NOW!" I am looking it on individual basis on when they got onto what wagon and for what reason.[/quote]I didn't say you were overplaying, I said you were overplaying the importance of positions on the wagon.

I am also surprised that you are downplaying ties to boxman, when looking for ties to known scum is a huge deal! This is a huge tool for us to use, and you are criticising me for trying to use it?

I'm not criticising you for trying to use it, just in

how

you're applying it. If there are compelling ties to Boxman, of

course

that's a big deal. It appears we disagree substantially on what constitutes a compelling tie to Boxman.

So long as we're taking sides, I dispute that the case on SC is weak and I especially dispute the notion that EK is tunneling.

SC is also getting my back up. I'm not sure how I feel about him in general, I just feel the ties to Boxman aspect of the case is weak. I need to review the rest of SC.

[Seol]

.....

Well, huh. I guess that's awesome.

Good thing I didn't vote for SC then.

That's not something you were expecting?

[Seol]

OMGSPOOKY. Pending information to the contrary, I guess that probably explains why BK never voted.

There's our information to the contrary - if Spyre didn't know about the double-vote, then it can't have been part of his motivation - unless the mod told BK but not Spyre. Spyre, would you mind double-checking this with the mod?

It's also possible that this isn't a permanent double-vote, but a private vote or a one-off effect. Spyre, would you mind unvoting and voting someone else (obviously not SC) to test? It's not going to prove it is a double-vote, but it might prove it's not.

Vote Count Cenq

StrangerCoug:

3 (elvis_knits, Iecerint, MacavityLock)

Konowa:

2 (SpyreX)

Iecerint:

2 (Percy, Konowa)

elvis_knits:

1 StrangerCoug)

SpyreX:

1 (Seol)

8

alive,

5

to lynch.

Deadline:

Wednesday, December 2nd, 12:00 Noon EST

[Seol]

As for pressuring - well, maybe I'm just not used to you yet, it still feels like you're coming on very strong as your default mode, which might well be a big part of why I'm not comfortable with you.

Why does it bother you that I am aggressive?

I'm not sure. It's a feeling, not an argument. It may be something substantial, or it may be colouring my judgment.

I'm not criticising you for trying to use it, just in

how

you're applying it. If there are compelling ties to Boxman, of

course

that's a big deal. It appears we disagree substantially on what constitutes a compelling tie to Boxman.

You may think I'm being too agressive, but I think you're being too wimpy.

You are splitting hairs to find a reason not to pay too much attention to player's ties to dead scum. Having a dead scum is a huge advantage to us. Even if you think the ties are not that great, I still think it's a huge clue to us. I'm not advocating we go off and kill all the early netopalis pushers and don't look at anything else. I'm just saying we should not forget about boxman, and we should use player's interaction with him, to question and evaluate. It should be part of our cases, but not all.

Have you read my 408 and 422? They address the reasons why I'm cautious in general and where I think the arguments against SC are lacking. I don't think I'm splitting hairs - I think I'm arguing that your interpretation of events is not the most natural interpretation, and certainly isn't the only compelling one.

When are you going to review SC?

When I can sit down and dedicate time to it. Ongoing discussions I can do off the top of my head: research and review takes time, cross-referencing etc. I do have priorities outside Mafia for my spare time, after all. Hopefully this evening.

I noticed something very odd in Seol moving his vote to BigK/spyrex.

Seol posts from Saturday before voting BigK: 406, 408, 415, 422, 423 (no mention of BigK anywhere)

That's two separate sessions of play - one on Saturday when I was addressing some of the currently-being-discussed issues (plus a quick evening-post), and one long session on Sunday when I was catching up and consolidating. If you look at the times, they're quite clearly clumped. In that Sunday session, the BK vote was part of my consolidation.

The way I felt about the situation was that BigK looked like scum, but that if we were getting a replacement who is willing to participate, that gives us a much better chance of being more sure of his allignment. So I would have never moved my vote to BigK before hearing from the replacement.

That's one perspective, sure. I'm of the opinion that if I find a compelling reason to vote, then it's not going to stop being a compelling reason to vote simply because the player got replaced. It can't be explored, sure, but that doesn't mean it evaporates. I felt the BK case was the most compelling at the time, and will continue to assess SpyreX as he settles in.

The fact that spyrex replaced in and looks lots more town, makes Seol look even worse here.

Well, I'd say that SpyreX looks a lot more town than big_kahunia, but I don't see anything particularly encouraging in his post - it just isn't as bad as BK's posts. I'm not keen on the Mafia kill discussion, and "voting Net for NOT voting Boxman" is a misrepresentation of Konowa's play. Regardless, that happened after my post, so obviously it didn't affect it.

Also, this reasoning from Seol is crapola. The whole thing about BigK saying he thought sens was scum, then reread and realized sens was town. The way I see it is this: it could either mean he has no idea who is/was mafia because he isn't mafia (meaning he's town or SK), or it could mean he was faking. No real reason for me to assume either way, so I'm just going to ignore it and put my time into things that are not as WIFOM.

That assumes both possibilities are both equally likely. I don't think that's the case: Boxman's status was

the

highest-profile issue of the day, and I don't buy anyone not twigging that the guy we were debating over lynching yesterday and were looking at wagons on today was the scum as opposed to anyone else. I can understand BK not knowing who was Mafia as eminently plausible in general: not in this instance. That whole exchange reeks of fakery to me.

And he's not even giving spyrex a chance to post at all and possibly give him a better read! This seems super weasely to me.

How am I not giving him a chance to post? He's perfectly capable of posting with votes on him.

I don't mind him commenting that I am aggresive. I do mind that he seems to mean it as a criticism.

It's something I'm uncomfortable with. I will freely admit I haven't decided whether that's my problem or yours yet.

All along he has been "spinning" things. Saying he doesn't mind that I did "X," but how I did it.

That was true about the comments on the attacks on Sensfan day 1, but that's not what I meant in 444: that's not a playstyle comment, but rather that you're exploring a valid basis for suspicion (ties to known scum) with flawed reasoning (see my 422 for why I think it's flawed).

[Seol]

Seol, I will respond to more later.

For now I just want to know:

Are you the SK?

No. Are you?

[Seol]

A lot here to go through. I'll get as far as I can.

I do not care for page count arguments. People should stand by their votes whenever they make them.

I disagree strongly with this. Context and perspective are important.

I often see odd scum interactions early in the game, so I do not discount early game at all. I do not agree with people who think there's nothing to be learned from the so-called random voting period, or early game.

I wasn't arguing that. I just disagree with your conclusions.

Yeah, quite a few of us did that. I did. You did. mathcam and Sensfan, both known town, did. Unlike us though, Stranger was back on the scum by the end of the day (before Neto's claim, which is what crystallised the wagon into a lynch), and didn't hammer - which could be described as trying to keep a clean record, but is just as likely to be that he preferred to vote Box, as he said.

This is very sneaky, Seol! You are not taking into account the circumstances in which SC changed his vote and the circumstances when me, you, mathcam switched our votes.

Me, you, mathcam changed our votes after neto had claimed vanilla. Claimed vanilla made him a good lynch (as he's either vanilla or scum), and we were trying to stop any role info being discussed. Those are pro-town reasons for switching to Neto.

SC, however, changed his vote from Boxman to Neto on shaky reasoning -- Neto was trying too hard to look town.

Circumstances totally different. Don't compare the two.

It seems we fundamentally disagree on what constitutes a good reason. At this point, I would emphasise that what's important here isn't whether you agree with SC's reasoning, or even whether SC was right or not: what's important is whether SC was making an excuse for a switch, or it was something he genuinely believed. If he thought it was a valid tell, then his vote change is not indicative of alignment.

So if you establish that

SC believed

it was a bad reason, then yes, it's opportunistic and scummy. If not, then it's exactly as informative as any of ours.

Okay, I still think this is crap.

How can you tell the difference between someone being town and someone trying to be town? What about Neto looked forced and artificial? I think there is no quantifiable way to tell the difference, and that saying that you can tell the difference is unprovable and therefore highly open to manipulation and therefor likely to be used by scum.

I think I can tell the difference between genuine and artificial statements. That's my whole point about big_kahunia. It's not quantifiable, true, and it's not perfectly reliable. It's subtle, and I can't prove my argument one way or the other. But it's those sorts of tells that are the most powerful, if you can catch them, because those relate directly to inconsistencies and lies.

I do not think much of my case is about playstyle. The only part I can see about playstyle is the Major HOS part.

I think you think anyone who disagrees with you, who uses an approach you don't understand or think effective, is scummy. That's the playstyle clash I was talking about.

[Seol]

I don't buy this argument because of the replacement.

Boxman was replaced by hoopla, and hoopla was listed as the NK victim. I could see someone getting confused. It does say above that post that hoopla replaces boxman, but I still think someone could have been confused and not immediately remembered that hoopla had replaced boxman. And if they didn't remember that, they might not have looked as closely as you think they should have.

And they also failed to read all the discussion at the beginning of the day, which focused on Boxman flipping scum, whilst replying to direct questions from that discussion?

I just think there's no way to know on this. And that you're basically putting together a conspiracy theory based on WIFOM. For someone who seems logical and cautious, this behavior does not make sense.

There's no way to know on

anything

, that's what this game's about. Finding the clues that are meaningful, and acting on them.

[Seol]

So, that said, With them being so close AND it shifting to town off scum in this list:

E_K, Seol, MacavityLock, Icerint

There is a scum.

Why?

Icerint & MacavityLock were stuck on Net

before

the jump. Which means of the scum I'm looking for I'll take them out of the equation.

Why?

Leaving: Seol and E_K.

Which, again, raises some eyes. Both of them contributed to the lynch in odd ways (e_k's statement that Net's claim didn't look right AND Seol's BWCS business).

As for the BWCS - it's just a fancy way of saying "Lynch vanilla claims, save PR's" which loses sight of scumminess and is a flag for "SCUM CLAIM PR'S PLOX"

So, yea, the addition of of the BWCS doesn't do a whole lot for me.

BWCS doesn't say "lynch vanilla claims", it says "vanilla claims are not a reason not to lynch". Claims aren't a defence unless they provide a new perspective on your actions; sometimes claims provide a reason not to lynch. It's most useful in comparative situations: when you have two candidates who appear equally scummy, consider not just the relative upsides of lynching (EV on scum), but also the relative downsides. It doesn't just apply to claims, either - I'd rather lynch an inactive player than an active one, all other things being equal, as an inactive townie is less of a loss to the town than an active townie.

Of those two (and as a function of greater play) one stands out as scum motivated versus town motivated:

Unvote, Vote: Seol

Sorry, what's the scum motivation? Or are you simply assuming one of us is town, the other scum?

Lets look at the other end of this little pickle: the scum that stayed off that wagon:

SC, Konowa, Percy

So you think Iecerint and MacavityLock are clear of being Mafia? Why do you think there is one (and only one) scum that stayed off the wagon?

So, once again, the real question is: would scum stick on their PR like glue or not?

I thought you thought the scum were likely to have other power; that Box's being vigged indicated the scum

didn't

consider him particularly valuable?

[Seol]

Soel is IIOA out the wazoo.

IIOA?

[Seol]

A wagon, by nature, is a solicitation of a claim when it is at the L-2 or L-1 mark

Net was at L-3. The claim was premature. And a wagon shouldn't be a solicitation of a claim, ever: it's expected that before a player's lynched, they defend themselves as appropriate and provide reasoning why they shouldn't be lynched. Sometimes, a claim is relevant to that, and then it should be provided.

That's the way things should happen. Usually, someone demands a claim, and then - well, at least when I last played properly (which is a while ago now), there was usually a repeated wagon to claim pattern. This is bad: it exposes more roles than you need to (exposing town PRs is bad, and exposing multiple vanillas is bad because that also exposes town PRs).

We don't wagon for claims. We wagon until we have a suitable lynch, then we lynch unless given reason not to.

(note: what would have happened had he opted NOT to claim).

Exactly the same thing as should happen when someone claims vanilla. But there's a huge difference between claiming at L-3, claiming at L-1, and refusing to claim when asked to at L-1.

[Seol]

Soel is IIOA out the wazoo.

IIOA?

Maybe I didn't used the abbreviation right, since I can't think of words for all the letters. (I have had two beers).

I think that's a metric which has appeared since I last paid much attention to the game - my ignorance, not your mistake.

I meant Information over Analysis.

How am I doing that? Sure, I'm talking theory, but that theory directly ties into explaining my position and analysis.

[Seol]

Talk about getting into symantics! Now I have to argue what constitutes a good reason with you? Very IIOA. This totally threatens to send us down the rabbit hole, and distracts very much from scumhunting arguments.

That IS the argument, isn't it? Did SC have a reasonable reason for his play, or was it an excuse to cover opportunity? That's what scum-hunting IS, trying to extract motivation from analysis of people's behaviour.

I also think that it is much more difficult, if not impossible, to know/prove whether or not SC believed his reason for voting Neto.

Yes, it is, but that's the only relevant question. If he did, then it wasn't scummy. If he didn't, then it was. So we have to make our best assessment, given the information available.

The best I can do is compare his thinking to my own as well as other town players I have seen over the years. Do I reasonably think that a town player could honestly believe that? Or do I think I have seen that reasoning more from players who are scum? That is how I judge things.

Exactly. I think that it's a reasonble thought process for town. I suppose you don't. The whole argument is reminiscent of your attack on Sensfan day 1: your argument was predicated on him having the same approach to the game as you did. I'm getting a very similar vibe here.

[Seol]

Why?

1.) A scum lynch getting moved to a town lynch doesn't accidentally happen. There is direct scum involvement.

So, were I to flip town, you would then argue that elvis is therefore scum?

If you say that's true, that's the classic false dilemma: present two options as a binary choice, usually in an attempt to set up back-to-back bad lynches.

If you say it isn't true, then you're conceding that a scum lynch getting moved town lynch

can

happen accidentally (ie, without scum input), and the chain of reasoning fails.

If you say you think that won't happen, because you think I'm scum, that's a circular argument.

2.) See 1, additionally I'm betting on the JUMP being scum pushing one to the other.

The jump was Net's claim. That's what pushed the wagon over the edge.

And the fact Box wasn't even put in a position to weigh the two? BWCS sure would have lost its gumption if Box also claimed vanilla.

Why would Box also have claimed vanilla? After one vanilla claim we lynch, we don't press for another claim. That's why prematurely claiming is such a bad idea. One of the worse case scenarios avoided is getting additional claims out there.

Ultimately, town is town. An inactive town is still of more benefit than an active scum.

Of course I advocate lynching scum over town. If we have good reason to suspect one player over another, BWCS doesn't come into it.

And, of course, in this case the WCS was not lynching scum and lynching town instead.

Hindsight is 20/20.

"This claim doesn't match mine" - fairly town in its approach.
"Well, the WORST CASE is that he's vanilla" - not so town.

The former is much more dangerous than the latter. Neither is a good basis for lynch by itself on day 1.

I thought you thought the scum were likely to have other power; that Box's being vigged indicated the scum didn't consider him particularly valuable?

Not sure what this has to do with anything but yes I'm assuming another PR if not two.

It's just that your thought process was:

So, once again, the real question is: would scum stick on their PR like glue or not?

Which is internally inconsistent with the idea that Boxman was not "their PR" (implying special value).

[Seol]

Seol, I think elvis's IIOA accusation is compelling. Some of the theory you're discussing is only tangentially related to this game as far as I can tell. For example, "lynching inactive town is better than lynching active town" from this page is a big one,

I was attacked for BWCS. That was pretty much SpyreX's argument, so the defence is to defend BWCS, which has been part of my playbook for

years

. If you'd prefer cites, I can do cites.

as is the combination of both pointing out that Neto's claim was way early

Directly relates to both Spyre's assertion that the claim was solicited, and my suspicion of him - it fed into the overly paranoid, defensive pattern of behaviour which we'd been seeing all day.

and hinting that there may have been more than two scum on BM's wagon (i.e. contrary to SX's view that there were exactly two).

My point there was simply that we

don't know

how many scum were on the wagon, and at what point, so SX can only say with surety that there were two scum on the wagon - and then reason from that - if he knows who the scum are. He's presenting speculation as knowledge, and then reasoning from it.

All of this is directly related to the strength of Spyre's argument. I accept that sometimes I go into more depth than necessary here, and will try to keep that in check - I can always explain in more detail if requested.

[Seol]

BWCS doesn't say "lynch vanilla claims", it says

"vanilla claims are not a reason not to lynch". Claims aren't a defence unless they provide a new perspective on your actions; sometimes claims provide a reason not to lynch.

It's most useful in comparative situations: when you have two candidates who appear equally scummy, consider not just the relative upsides of lynching (EV on scum), but also the relative downsides.

The jump was Net's claim.

That's what pushed the wagon over the edge.

Why would Box also have claimed vanilla? After one vanilla claim we lynch, we don't press for another claim. That's why prematurely claiming is such a bad idea.

One of the worse case scenarios avoided is getting additional claims out there.

I'm not even gonna say much about this. Just bold it and let it be there too look at.

Rebolded for a different emphasis. You can use BWCS to compare two claims (eg lynching claimed vanilla v claimed cop), or you can use it to compare lynching vanilla with pushing another player to claim, which could be vanilla or PR - both of which, in the worst case (ie when that player is town), would be worse than the worst case of lynching your claimed vanilla.

If a wagon progresses to the point where a player claims, that claim is either a reason not to lynch, or the player gets lynched. That's why we don't assume Box would claim.

The jump wasn't

what

Neto claimed, it was

that

he claimed.

The former is much more dangerous than the latter. Neither is a good basis for lynch by itself on day 1.

The former is more dangerous FOR THE PERSON SAYING IT.
The latter is an excuse for a mislynch.

The former is more dangerous FOR THE TOWN, see my 406 for why. The latter is a defensive strategy which provides a level of loss mitigation.

Which is internally inconsistent with the idea that Boxman was not "their PR" (implying special value).

Their PR implies that boxman was a PR that was aligned with the scum. Hence, "their" PR.

So the emphasis was meant to be on "their", not PR? That makes no sense in context.

You think I'm scum? That sure reads like one of those delicious little questions designed to get someone to jump on and go "GASP YOU HAVE CAUGHT HIM IN THE MASTERSTROKE" and thus create a wagon.

My argument doesn't come from the question. It's not huge, but:

I'd put money on there being another fairly strong scum PR

and

would scum stick on their PR like glue or not?

show inconsistency in your thinking. I don't get how you can go from your first real contribution to the game being "the Mafia probably have more power" to "how would Boxman's particular value over other Mafia affect their thought process?". That's what I read from each quote, and I'm not sure what the point of that second quote is at all unless it's referring to his PR status.

[Seol]

SX is now L-1 (Seol, SX, Percy for 4 votes). I believe the VC on this page is incorrect with respect to SX's vote. Do not lynch SX.

The VC is correct. Spyre's self-vote was 473: he voted me in 479.

[Seol]

so

@Seol

: Do you still think MacavityLock is the most likely scum?

No. I had suspicions earlier: his reaction to SC's Major HOS felt bizarre, but his 431 does make sense as a basis for suspicion, so I'm more comfortable about him now. I was hoping SC would address that point, but he ignored it, which leaves me less comfortable with SC. That said, and I know he's LA at the moment, he really needs to step up and post more.

I currently feel SpyreX is the most likely scum: have done since I voted BK and his latest attack (which I read as "let's make some ridiculous assumptions, narrow it down to two possibilities, and choose from one of them to justify an OMGUS attack") is only making me more confident in my position. I don't like his attacks on you either: all his attacks feel engineered and weakly reasoned.

[Seol]

Okay. I'm here and doing a catch-up. There's a hell of a lot to read, but firstly elvis is right: I'm not lynched.

Iecerint: why were you voting me? All the noise I've seen from you is that you disagree with Spyre's case - what were your reasons?

I have no intention of claiming when there are only three people who have expressed a preference to vote me, on the basis of what is quite frankly nonsense.

I'm going to start by going through the posts over the last two or three pages and responding to all direct questions: that's my next post. Then I'll come up with some general position update posts. If anyone has any additional points they want me to address, or they feel I've missed something important, please just say so.

[Seol]

Not that much by the way of direct questions, so I'll get this one out of the way quickly.

@Seol: Are you arguing that one of your motivations for switching to Netopalis was to prevent Boxman from being forced to claim too?

I suppose that follows, but it wasn't part of my thought process. I'm very much opposed to wagon-to-claim as an information-gathering approach day 1, so when someone claims, I view that as a decision point: lynch or no. But more than that, I saw the claim as making me much more comfortable with a Neto lynch, partly because of the reduced exposure.

[Seol]

Its obvious I'm a doublevoter. Now, OHH HELL MORE SETUP SPECULATION, but I'd love to see a mini with a scum doublevoter. Now, yea, yea I sure could be a third party but unless someone is gonna go "Yea I totally gave a doublevote to the guy who was in the process of being replaced" well...

(Note, I'm NOT saying this IS what my role is, just that I'm pretty sure it is MY role doing it).

Not so much. Its bedtime now but yea I sure didn't expect BAM DOUBLEVOTE HOO

You've already said it

isn't

your role, at least not knowingly. Why are you now pretty sure it's your role doing it? Why are you calling for a counterclaim?

Oh, and b_k wasn't in the process of being replaced: he had been replaced yesterday and contributed a couple of decent-sized posts. No reason at that point to expect a re-flake.

[Seol]

The case on me, as I understand it:

Spyre is voting me because of my position on the Neto wagon yesterday, and for citing BWCS. The wagon position argument is nonsense; however, I can see why someone who hasn't seen BWCS used before could be suspicious of it. So I explain it the best way I know how: talk theory. I talk a lot of theory, that's part of my approach. Part of that involves SpyreX mischaracterising my position: possibly deliberately, possibly because he misunderstood. So I clarify.

elvis then votes me for talking theory - both on the BWCS issue and the SC issue (which relates to an old misconception that leads to a shit-ton of mislynches, the old "being wrong is scummy" issue) - and for spending too long getting into semantics on it - there, my intent was never to confuse, but to clarify.

Have I misunderstood? Am I missing anything? Because if the case on me is a combination of being 4th on the wagon, citing BWCS, and being me - well, that's not something I'm going to bother defending against any more.

[Seol]

Clarification re 657: I was 5th on Neto, not 4th.

[Seol]

You actually did miss something, I didn't like the vote you threw on bigk/spyrex after he was replaced but before he had a chance to post. I think it's anti-town to switch your vote to a replacement before you read their posts and make a more informed decision. When a replacement is coming in, that is your chance to refine your read. I wouldn't expect a player to UNvote the replacement just out of policy, but if you're not already voting the replaced player, I would not expect you to pick that chance to vote. It makes me think you are not interested in hearing what the replacement has to say.

I think you addressed this at one point, but I still have a problem with it.

Okay, well for the record I'll restate my position: I had reason to suspect b_k was scum (I know you didn't agree with it), so I thought that, based on the information currently out there, he was the best place for my vote. It's always good to hear more, but that doesn't mean that what people said before they were replaced should be disregarded, or that you need a watertight case before putting that vote on - especially when it is, after all, only a first vote.

It's not something Spyre can address, so talking to him about

that

won't really help (he's no more informed than anyone else) - it's a point which, one way or the other, is on the record and nothing will alter. That's not to say I wasn't interested in hearing lots more from Spyre, but my vote wasn't going to interfere with that. As I recall, you didn't like my position much: I'm mostly restating it for the benefit of everyone else.

[Seol]

I think people are drastically misinterpreting SpyreX's post.

What do you think he was saying?

[Seol]

What in the hells?

Yea, I know I'm not hammering. I was making it clear I knew I wasn't.

Why did you cite Iecerint's unvote? How many did you think I was on?

Considering the fact they voted the first day AND the fact that I've made it pretty clear that my role doesn't spell out I was a doublevoter I'm assuming it was a function of activity.

Neither Parhelic or big_kahunia ever voted.

[Seol]

EBWOP: Simulpost.

[Seol]

When Ice said *L-1* I assumed that was *'d because my vote would be the hammer. When I saw that he unvoted while I was typing I made sure to note that it was not some sly attempt to hammer that was undermined by unvoting while I was posting.

That's the only reason I did it to try and stop what happened the last page.

So you assumed that by *L-1*, he meant L-2, and it was only effectively L-1 for you? And therefore that when he unvoted, I was three off?

[Seol]

Seol, can you tell me who you think is scummy at this point with maybe a little short reasoning. (Be as long as you want -- I just mean for my sake I don't need you to do a lot of work for it if you don't have time or motivation).

I'm sure spyrex is up there, but who else are you suspicious of?

SpyreX is of course out in front by quite a way.

Iecerint is tripping some alarms: I don't like how he's buddying up to you, and there have been a few times where I've felt he's trying to engineer arguments between two parties. That could be him just trying to clarify people's positions, but there's been a slight vibe of puppeteering.

My position on you has mellowed: I worked out exactly what it was about your approach that was getting my back up. It wasn't so much the aggression as much as the feel of needing to assert control over proceedings. Looking back, I can see that it's something that's happened (ie, it's given me that impression) consistently in the game when you get into an involved one-on-one argument, and I'm inclined to put it as null, and a clash of personalities thing.

SC: I'm less defensive of him now than before, due in no small part to Iecerint's 500. I still think the reason SC gave is not in and of itself scummy, but looking back he did shirk away from it quite quickly (I remember him defending his position, but on review that was mostly d2 not d1). I don't like his parrot-like repetition of "anti-information" d1 and early d2, trying to get us speculating on the setup, and his reasons for attacking you are mostly baloney. I think I'd put SC as my #2 suspect: I still don't agree that your ties-to-Boxman argument carries much weight, but there's enough other stuff out there that I'm uncomfortable with, prinicipally his position iro you.

Macavity is bad at logic, and I'm unconvinced by his thought process overall. Could go either way.

Konowa I don't have an impression of at all. Need to hear more from him: nothing he's said strikes me as objectionable, but he's not been nearly active enough.

Percy gives me good vibes, my personal top town.

Seol, the main reason you gave for voting bigK was that you thought his mix-up about the night actions was a fabrication. This is a WIFOM reason, one that I don't think is very good from ANYONE, and one that I see as particularly out of character for you. You seem very logical, so this does not seem like a reason you would put much weight on. I cannot see why that was compelling enough for you to put your vote there, especially when you were about to get a better read on the player slot by reading posts by spyrex.

I know we've talked on this issue, but I don't think you've defended why this was a compelling reason to vote bigK. Do you disagree that it's WIFOM?

WIFOM has two definitions I see used regularly: one where people defend actions using reasoning along the lines of "were I scum, I would not do X, therefore as I did X I am not scum", and one where one compares two equal likelihood outcomes and reasons into it far further than makes logical sense. I'm assuming you're referring to the second: I don't think it's WIFOM there, because I don't think they're equal probabilities; far from it. Given his posting history, the focus of the day up to that point, and a very-difficult-to-quantify

feel

to his posts, I don't believe it being a mistake is plausible. And of course, if it's deliberate, b_k is scum.

I disagree with your contention it is only responsible to hold off on action until the replacement posts, so there's no "especially" as far as I'm concerned.

[Seol]

So you assumed that by *L-1*, he meant L-2, and it was only effectively L-1 for you? And therefore that when he unvoted, I was three off?

Since I hadn't seen a wave of votes, yea.

You assumed that L-1 meant L-2 (instead of, I dunno,

what it said

), on the basis that the comment was aimed exclusively at you, and holding a double-vote you didn't think to check the vote-count just to make sure?

My role is very ambiguous - hence the think, but not know.

Y'know, it really feels like you're making this up as you go along.

PPE:

You know, I did think BK was scummy for not contributing and such. But spyrex has seemed town to me.

Seol, if bigK had never existed, and you were only looking at spyrex, would you still feel the same way? I mean, I'm sure it's a bit hard to say since he's voting you and you don't agree with his reasoning, but I'd just like to know what you think.

Yes, I'd still feel the same way. The vote on b_k was reasonable strength for early day 2 but it's not the main reason I suspect Spyre. It's possible OMGUS factors into it slightly, but he's using some hella sketchy reasoning here (for that matter though, his attack on me has no more substance than a contrived series of dubious assumptions to support a counter-attack) and his posts over the last two or three pages are - well, I'm surprised nobody else finds them as ridiculous as me.

[Seol]

Okay.

Lots to reply to here, and it's

really

late now. I'll start looking up history on BWCS and being anti-wagon-to-claim (my old games are

old

, and I don't remember where and when it's come up in the past) tomorrow, along with everything else.

However, I have no intention of claiming. You're going to have to make your mind up on me based on the cases as presented.