Newbie 922: Day 3

[Acosmist]

1. I have not played a game on mafiascum with anyone here.

2. Two games finished in the last...three+ years. Not both here.

3. Strawberries

4. I am dismissive of mafia strategies that I don't understand. I had a hard time, in my last game, understanding why I should bother random voting. I am trying to at least accept that things can be useful without my specifically understanding why they are useful.

Vote: havingfitz

because the name caught my eye.

[Acosmist]

I must confess, not having played with Panacea before, that I don't know how to interpret this behavior. Can you provide links to your completed games, Panacea?

[Acosmist]

Can you provide links to your completed games, Panacea?

But of course:

My first game was Newbie #863, as Vanilla Townie (fun stuff- four Doc claims)
My second was Newbie #890, as Vanilla Town. More fun; just ended less than an hour ago.
Third was Newbie # 868, as Mafia Roleblocker. I replaced into that one on the last Day as a favor with deadline a few days away. If you're going to judge my scumplay, I'd prefer you not hold that one against me.
My fourth was Newbie #879, as Roleblocker. I'm rather proud of that one.

Acostmist:

Did you learn anything about panacea from looking at these games? Does her behavior seem to be more like her scum-persona or her townie-persona?

I spent far more time reading those than I wanted to, or expected to have to.

Panacea: you spam. A lot.

But I did learn something. Panacea is very deferential as town, and scattershot as mafia. She posts a lot no matter what. She can be a bit frivolous, whether town or mafia. As town, she tries to post game-relevant things, sometimes trying to get blood from a stone. As mafia, she throws up a smokescreen of dadaist ramblings.

I thus interpret this post by havingfitz:

You just seem to be tip-toeing and appeasing people too much.

to actually be latching onto a

town

tell, in Panacea.

What did the rest of you find, when you read through her old games? I may be giving some people too much credit, but when I see posts about undisclosed tells and reasons, I imagine there's something more than generic, one-size-fits-all scumhunting at work. So, for those of you who think you've found something scummy in Panacea's posts, did you compare her behavior here to her on-the-record behavior in previous games, or not? If not, what criteria did you use to judge her?

I have moderate confidence in coming out in support of Panacea here, for the record.

I agree we have lurker trouble, and I'm unhappy that the conversation is being dominated by the Panacea issue.

[Acosmist]

However, you cannot say my tells have been exaggerated to the point of hilarity, as I have yet to reveal my tells.

I wanted to draw attention to this. FYI, I don't count that as a point in your favor.

[Acosmist]

Did someone ask you to get an avatar?

See below.

Cojin and Edprada: Would y'all mind getting avis? It will help keep track of you both.

Moving on...

Boiled down case: helpfulness without committing to definite action, overly careful.

My read on Panacea's previous games was that she's very obliging as town. When she sticks her neck out and gets chastised by a more experienced player, she retreats pretty quickly. It might be the natural lack of confidence that comes from being in the uninformed majority. I don't know what it is, but the precise things you're pointing out as

scum

tells are things I made a note of when reading her

town

games.

Note: As those games progressed, I skimmed with a lower degree of precision. Therefore, more precisely, I would say that obsequiousness is an

early-game

town tell for Panacea. No offense, Fräulein Panacea, but I don't look forward to having to wade through the morass of your previous late-game posts to evaluate you later in this game.

Prediction: Panacea responds to my gentle insults by being apologetic and cheerful.

Request: people who make cases on other people try to base those cases on player-specific tells rather than working from a template.

[Acosmist]

Oh, no worries! Trust me, I know I've had a habit of being chatty. Scum from my last Townie game told me in post-game that it was part of the reason I was Nk'ed N1; I'm still working on game theory, but I know I'm useful in keeping us rolling.

There's something about this section of your post that brought an idea to my head. I'm going to take a page out of your book and ask a semi-irrelevant (semi-relevant? Fun fact: the negation of a sentence with a truth-value of .5 in fuzzy logic has a truth-value of .5) question:

Is your chattiness in this game, right now, a conscious game strategy or the simple continuation of an established posting pattern?

I may have to follow up on that idea, depending on your answer.

... Wow, you are really good..! But I'll raise you one semi-irrelevant question: you wouldn't be some type of writer now, would you?

I'd

like

to be engaged in a profession where writing is an essential part of the job, but right now, I am not a writer of any type.

Acosmist

: Do you find happiness in receiving role PMs? Were you happy when you got your role PM for this game?

I generally have not been happy to receive a role PM. This is probably an artifact of the types of games I've played and the roles I've been assigned.

I was happy to get my role this time insofar as it meant the game was starting, but not otherwise.

As for withholding reasons, I find it generates more interesting reactions to give votes without reasons early game.

I want to take this chance to trot out an analogy that I've had brewing in my head for a while. Have you ever played contract bridge? If not, I'll explain how it's relevant. Before you get to the stage where tricks are won or lost, there's an auction phase. All four players, in order, get a chance to bid, double (if the last bid was by an opponent), redouble (if the last action was a double by an opponent), or pass. Each bid must be a higher bid than the last one. The conversation at this phase is strictly limited to the words relevant to bidding. Thus, while trying to communicate with their partners, the players have a very small vocabulary from which to draw. It would be easy to say "I have the ace of hearts, the ten of hearts, and four lowers hearts, good strength in clubs, a void in spades, and scattered low cards in diamonds" and develop a good bidding strategy from that. That's against the rules, though. Further, it would reveal information to the opponents at the same time, so it might not be optimal even if it were allowed.

What has this to do with mafia? Well, by posting in this thread, you're broadcasting certain information to the public. Some of those in this public are allies, some are opponents. There has to be some agreed-upon method of communicating information if it's to be of any use. In bridge, these methods are called conventions. If my partner opens "Two hearts" and we're using the strong two-bid convention, I know he has enough in his hand, with particular strength in hearts, to win the game on his own. If I don't know what my partner means by his bids, we'll be hopelessly confused. And here I come to the point. I don't doubt you have reasons for your vote. Concealing those reasons offers the opposing side a chance to trip up trying to interpret the vote, but, just as importantly, it offers

your own teammates

a dangerous opportunity to make a play error. Consider that. If you try to box clever, you may do more harm to your win condition than to the opponents'.

Specifically, I've played with havingfitz and panacea before, not including ongoing games.

What do you think of Panacea's play, then?

Panacea, what do you think of RayFrost's?

thinking that people with a similar mindset (more likelihood of same alignment) won't need an explanation

That's an unwarranted assumption. I've seen this go awry before. In a game I read, someone nearly got lynched for speculating in a way that seemed at odds with the town's win condition. Someone called him on the error but said "No townie should explain to him why this is wrong." A bandwagon formed around an illegitimate inference and caused further play mistakes, all on the town side. This is an example of my point above.

Moving on to other things...

Panacea looks town to me, though I don't claim it as strongly as RayFrost does. In fact, Panacea strikes me as just the type of person to be taken in by a flattering "You're obv town, let's not fight" judgment. I don't have the intellect to develop this fully, but, in the interest of making the thought concrete, there it is.

[Acosmist]

Rayfrost I thought you can only be in one game at a time, aren't you in game 909 also?

It bothers me that this is the one post you chose to make today.

[Acosmist]

Acosmist: In his first post he comes off a bit scummy imo, in saying that he dismisses mafia strategies in which he does not understand.

Let's go to the videotape on this one, so to speak.

I am dismissive of mafia strategies that I don't understand. I had a hard time, in my last game, understanding why I should bother random voting. I am trying to at least accept that things can be useful without my specifically understanding why they are useful.

I identified a flaw in my mafia style and relayed my attempt to improve my play in the future.

Well what happens if these strategies can make or break the game, will you not try at least to learn them?

Yes, I will try at least to learn them. That's why I said I was "trying to at least accept [them]." It's remarkable how similar the language in your post is to that in mine, which makes me think you did actually read the whole thing. Somehow, though, you came to precisely the wrong conclusion about it.

The points on Pancea are valid and seem to make sense.

Which points and what made sense about them? Why did they only "seem" to make sense?

In one of his posts he mentions that he doesn’t like receiving role pm’s, but this time was happy to receive it as the game meaning the game had started.

We have to go back to the record for this one as well.

I generally have not been happy to receive a role PM. This is probably an artifact of the types of games I've played and the roles I've been assigned.

I was happy to get my role this time insofar as it meant the game was starting, but not otherwise.

Notice that I say nothing about which roles I've been assigned in the past, so, while I point out a connection between those roles and my attitude toward role PMs, you have no basis for drawing a correlation between a certain type of role and a certain reaction. So this assumption:

We can only assume he is telling the truth or that he has a role that is not of just a townie.

is troublesome.

Last thing I picked up on he seems bothered by my post’s which is understandable

You mentioned earlier that one post a day was going to be de rigueur, then you used up that one post without commenting on relevant things. You're posting more, which is good, because, even if your interpretations are mistaken, you're engaging the thread. I look forward to the post where you make more sense and demonstrate literacy, though.

It also bothers me that you can't keep track of who is still in the game.

What i dont understand is how he blatently ignored how much lawls was lurking yet attacked him for less.

This is just false but I think havingfitz responded well to it.

My chattiness is inherent to my personality. Boiled down, I feel the

need

to post with equal frequency regardless of my allignment, becasue either way, I feel it furthers my team's goal. I suppose in my town experience I post frequently with the goal of controlling activity. As scum, I post frequently in hopes of controlling the actual conversation. As either, I post frequently because that's just my disposition. Does this help? I'm not overly sure I've answered satisfactorily.

You said your chattiness got you nightkilled early in a previous game. Does that bother you?

Your answer has helped. You're very conscious of your chattiness.

@ Acosmist, re Contract Bridge: Wow... Complex. If I've understood correctly, then I think I see where you're coming from, and I definitely agree with the boxing clever statement.

What types of roles were those?

Vanilla townie and mafia goon.

It's been my experience that many players here begin to develop a similar playstyle. But as far as my experience here extends, you will probably never find a player with RayFrost's style. He jokes around a lot (I admire the priority he assigns to all players having fun in the game), but at the same time he's actually thoroughly analyzing everything in the background. You'll see what I'm talking about if you watch. In both of our games together he identified scum within the first Day (one of them being

the

Thesp!). He's frank, doesn't care who's toes he steps on, and he notes minute details. The only problem with this is that his candor makes him an easier mislynch candidate for scum.

The Thesp? How long has he been playing here? I've recently been reading games of his on another site from...5 years ago.

Have you only played with RayFrost when he was town? Your post seems to analyze him as largely a town asset, his only flaw being that scum mislynch him. Can you envision him as mafia, and what problems this would cause? I'd like to know how you'd evaluate him in that role.

The only thing keeping me from taking offense is the fact that I know you're incorrect.

The truth value of that statement will be apparent in the fullness of time.

About Lawls's post. I don't like it for it's noncomittment. There's a disconcerting amount of agreement in it, and a lack of real stance on anyone. It seems like he's tuning into the undercurrent of our opinions, rather than offering his own.

This expresses well much of my reaction to that post.

The post itself feels more like a tool for scumplay to me: as if should an arguement arise and a wagon form on one of the players, he could play it off as his having been on board the whole time.

Disagree. He just sounds overwhelmed by the game. You pointed out how he isn't paying enough attention to know who's in it or not; is there a pro-scum angle to that move?

These just feel so forced, as well as deliciously unhelpful.

"Could be" and "can be" are some of the weakest qualifiers on claims, and he went and weakened them further by applying them to disjunctions. I definitely agree that the statements are nearly trivial in their unhelpfulness.

Onto other things...

Lawls: How is Panacea's play in this game consistent with her play in other games?

[Acosmist]

Notice that I say nothing about which roles I've been assigned in the past, so, while I point out a connection between those roles and my attitude toward role PMs, you have no basis for drawing a correlation between a certain type of role and a certain reaction.

~How many games have you played on mafia?
~How many times were you town and scum?
Which do you prefer playing?

I have played once before here, as a mafia goon. (Is that what you meant by "on mafia"?)

I haven't played enough to develop a real preference. My biggest weakness is probably scumhunting, so being town is probably the most instructive at this stage of my development.

[Acosmist]

I haven't read other games that she has been in so I wouldn't know.

I'm going to multiply your opinion by the "relevance coefficient" then. Currently it's equal to the limit of 1/x as x -> infinity.

Panacea I don't see how my post isn't helping town, you tell me to post more I do, most my thoughts on players I do. Yet you still criticize me for not being helpful enough.

Your thoughts on players were the recycled, reworded, and logic-deprived thoughts of other players on those players.

Oh,

definitely

not. It may seem simple-minded, but I was honored. It made me really happy to be the N1 NK, because there was a chance it meant I was a threat to scum. It was being NK'ed in that game that first woke me up to the thought that my talkative nature could actually be used to help.

Actually, I sort of understand. In my first game, a theme game, the mafia discussion (opened postgame) revealed that the mafia nightkilled me because they thought I was a cop. As I was a vanilla townie, this was a pretty good thing. And the town eventually won, so I did my part!

Oh, very. How could I not be? It's mentioned as scummy in every game I play. -.-

Well, some people don't have the time like I do to look through your games and find the patterns to the chattiness. So, they notice you've been scum fairly often, and they see a loose correlation between

your

chattiness and scuminess. Then they judge you via the general rule that spammy posting is hiding something, and the scuminess judgment is solidified. For what it's worth, I don't see it that way.

And these were unsatisfying? Why, if you don't mind my asking?

My first game was at a location infamous for clever, original roles and lots of flavor. I'd spent considerable time reading old games there before finally signing up. And then I was just a vanilla townie. It wasn't a huge disappointment, and, to be fair, I would have felt overwhelmed if I had had the responsibility of playing a town power role, but it began inculcating a sense of indifference to role PMs in me.

My first game here was as a mafia goon. Perhaps being in the know is less exciting because there's less mystery, but I don't recall being particularly thrilled about that role either.

At this point, I think I'd like to see what the vigilante fuss is all about, though obviously that can't happen in Newbie games. I'd like the chance to go directly from problem (scum detected) to solution (scum eliminated). You might ask why I'm playing a Newbie game...well, I still feel pretty lost trying to work through games, so I wanted to continue getting my feet wet before diving in.

I've only played with him as town, yes. I've read two of his scum games before, but it was for entertainment purposes. I intend to run a Ray-meta over the next two days. I can definitely tell you then.

I think that would be useful for several purposes. Some people have brought up the theory that you two might be working together...since I

have

read some of your and RayFrost's games, I'd be in a position to spot misrepresentations if they pop up.

Excellent! Oh, and I'd like to add to the prospect of my being swayed by flattery, or whatever: Ray said I was obv town here. He's told me that before, when both of us were townies.

Good to know.

Mm, that's a good point... Maybe not. But it's not overly pro-town, either.

Fair enough.

@ Bridges: I don't think I ever addressed this, but it's been bothering me. When Acosmist had mentioned meta-ing me, you promptly asked him what were his conclusions. It's odd to me that you never did so yourself, or offered your own.

My gentle prods to people were apparently too subtle. I don't think anyone else is reading your games, which is fine, but making judgments about your quirky posting style without seeing how it's reflected your alignment in previous games is fruitless.

I made this post long to annoy Elementary Fermion.

Unvote; Vote: Lawls

. It looks like you're unhappy someone called you on your spammy, recycled "analysis" post.

[Acosmist]

And people say my posts and worthy

??????

[Acosmist]

I actually intend to do a light meta of you myself later on.

This pleases me. I am making a note of your intentions, so I can hold you to them.

Everyone should set aside a few dozen uninterrupted hours and read the Panacea corpus.

[Acosmist]

What are your thoughts on Acomist's play so far

A tour de force.

What are your thoughts on my play so far

Soporific.

You need to get in the game, so to speak. You're posting more, but that posting needs to have more content. You need to do some original analysis. I don't expect everyone to put in an hour analyzing each player's current and historical play, but you need to come up with at least one original insight. When people call you on this flaw, you need to avoid petulant

tu quoque

counterattacks.

Say something of substance, and when it gets torn to shreds (as it will), cowboy up and defend yourself.

[Acosmist]

Everyone should set aside a few dozen uninterrupted hours and read the Panacea corpus.

Look, I'm really sorry!! I didn't even know what meta WAS when I started playing, or I might've made some effort to forcibly regulate my posting habits. I know none but two of you can take what I say at face value, but I recommend Newbie 890 for my best townplay and Newbie #879 for my best scumplay. Logically, they're my two most recent, too, so you can get a sense of how I am outside newbie waters.

Seriously, I'm sorry!

I get more confident in your towniness the more you post. Thanks. I think I've asked what I wanted and your answers need no follow-up at present.

Someone else out there should probably offer an informed opinion on Panacea.

Acomist seems to have more of a defencive stance then offencive i cant quite figure out what it means though

I'm here if you need answers to any questions. I can't reassure you if I am ignorant of the basis for your confusion.

your play= Active lurking and filler. scummy at the least

Hey, I have a barnacle! Glad someone is on the same page re: Lawls, though.

Acomist would you mind translating those words in other languages to English please?

tour de force

tu quoque

"Acosmist" is the name, by the way.

[Acosmist]

Acomist

Lawls: It's hard for me to develop a read on Lawls, but I do like his aggressive playstyle.

Can you direct me to examples of aggressiveness on his part?

Anything come of this yet? Or are you still convinced?

What RayFrost has said about Panacea's historical posting style is consistent with what I read. Panacea has yet to do a "meta" (I'm learning ever new uses of that prefix lately!) on RayFrost, so I can't confirm or deny her honesty about his history.

There has been an awful lot of meta analysis this Day. Any suggestions for scum-hunting when a person has no (or few) other games? (Like this should have been?) Is it possible for someone to have radically different play styles, even for the same roles, to defeat this kind of analysis? In other words, just how useful is this type of play, as opposed to play based solely on in-game content?

I feel much more comfortable looking at patterns of quirks rather than comparing a single person's posts against the General Scumhunting Theory. I've seen "scum tells" used rather severely to railroad townies, and, to be fair, the very first person I lynched in a mafia game was a vanilla townie (same as I was). I'm not as comfortable with those general rules as other people seem to be, but that may be my fault and not the rules'.

Meta is only effective when the person you're meta'ing isn't aware of it.

Quoted for truthery. This is why I held off revealing my thoughts on Panacea until she had posted a steaming pile of record evidence in this thread.

He sort of stood back on the Panacea debate, not really commenting on the wagon, just observing. Then he did a meta, declared his read "pro-town."

And someone apparently noticed. That worked out well, then.

This makes me think he's pro-town.

I confess that I can't see why that improved my townie cred; explain.

One thing I've noticed about scum is that they're less motivated to sniff out the tendencies of other players. I know that to meta me (particularly in my early games) requires much time and effort. At this stage, I see Acosmist as town-invested. (Do fully expect it, though, after I've mentioned this scum-tactic, to be less likely for anyone to neglect meta-attention for much longer. Oh yes. I'm awesome. )

Scum have so many chances to screw this up that I'd feel pretty awesome if meta-attention were a bigger part of this game.

Thanks for spelling my name right; I knew you were good for something.

So far, not overly helpful (no offense. ). I feel that you weren't overly willing to contribute much early on, and when you did (via responses few and far between), the points you brought were somewhat weak and regurgitated. This nature so far has not been indicative of town-interest. Then it seemed as though your posting picked up, but only when pinched by a few other players. Currently I cannot decide if I think you're scum, or if you're an uncoordinated townie acting scummishly enough to provide an easier mislynch for the real scum. Quick! Do something to make up my mind for me! Also, is English your primary language, by chance?

My reaction has been similar. I'm vacillating between interpretations of his posting. On the one hand, he's made errors that seem to have no pro-scum import (forgetting who's still in the game). On the other, the copy-paste-paraphrase analysis post seemed designed to deflect lurker concerns without actually putting any effort in, something that seems scummy to me.

My vote on him stands while I gather more information.

If we find out you're scum and this is a ploy for Pan-points, I will be most displeased.

Sometimes you worry me.

Acosmist says I'm scattershot scum with Dadaist ramblings

Happy to help.

Yes my first language is of course English. Even though it may now show at times ;D

Res ipsa loquitur.

Nacho: I am glad you are here and dissecting that Panacea bandwagon debacle.

[Acosmist]

Well there aren't a whole lot of examples, but ISOs 0, 1, and 9 are good places to look. I find it odd to see this aggression couple with his ISO 4, where he gives himself a 3/10 at MafiaScum. Normally, aggressive players are anything but modest.

All right, I'm going to go find those and offer my thoughts on them in light of all the content we have by and about Lawls ITT.

1) Have you played with anyone on this list before?
2) What is your prior mafia game experience?
3) What is your favorite fruit?
4) Self-identify an aspect of your personality or mafia-playstyle.

1. No don't think so
2. Played around 30-40 games on another site and one on this site.
3. Grapes
4. Like to play laid back and just observe the game

Vote Panacea

Is it the unjustified vote that you deem aggressive? It stands in stark contrast to the "laid-back" self-evaluation just before that.

You seem to be worried Panacea, are you worried?

I'll give you this one. In fact, I can see this retroactively making the bare vote aggressive.

And people say my posts and worthy

IIRC, I deemed this "tu quoque petulance." It completely avoids engaging with the discussions in the thread and tries to divert attention.

"Passive-aggressive" is how I'd describe his play, actually.

At the moment, how are you gathering information?

I've encouraged Lawls to make some definitive judgments, I've called him on his lack of content, and I'm asking other people for their opinions on his posting. I even asked you to explain your "aggressiveness" comment further!

You're not really interacting with Lawls a whole lot, at the moment.

My last three posts address Lawls directly. In fact, since the decline of the Panacea issue, exchanges with and discussions of Lawls have dominated my posting.

Are you expecting others to do your scumhunting for you?

No; have you stopped beating your wife?

Overall Lawls has been playing true to the play style "observe the game" he described early on. He has provided pretty much no content (other than one big post with his thoughts on all the players) to the game and definitely has lurked through.

It feels almost like cheating to agree with this; it's an obvious truth that could be reached simply by reading the posts in this thread. What's remarkable is that this opinion is not universal.

The manner in which you said that me not revealing my reasons was scummy seemed pro-town to me. It didn't seem like you were planting suspicion on someone just to do so, it felt like you really genuinely were looking at who could be scum, and saw this as a possible reason to think I'm scummy. A lot of times withholding reasons is seen as scummy (which I disagree with, but whatever) and I'm used to getting flack from it. However, I have found a lot of success in using the tactics I do.

Did you understand my contract bridge point?

Why do you want our thoughts on Acosmist? To validate your vote on him? But ok...

I'm going to dredge up the context of that vote.

Acosmist: In his first post he comes off a bit scummy imo, in saying that he dismisses mafia strategies in which he does not understand. Well what happens if these strategies can make or break the game, will you not try at least to learn them? I just find this a bit weird to start off with. The points on Pancea are valid and seem to make sense. In one of his posts he mentions that he doesn’t like receiving role pm’s, but this time was happy to receive it as the game meaning the game had started. We can only assume he is telling the truth or that he has a role that is not of just a townie. Last thing I picked up on he seems bothered by my post’s which is understandable

...

So to conclude

FOS on Rayfrost, Panacea and Havingfitz
Unvote Vote Acosmist

There's such a gap between the comments on me and the vote that I confess to having thought it was a random vote or a reaction vote.

Lawls: what was the nature of that vote?

I eagerly await Panacea's contribution to this stage of the game.

[Acosmist]

But seriously, I appreciate the effort other people, especially Acosmist, have put into this strategy for this game, but I personally find it meta-tiring. (You know it's right!)

Well, when I'm faced with a 16-hour block of free time (i.e., any day of the week), I have to budget it carefully. How many hours should I spend polishing the frame my JD is in? How many hours looking for work? How many hours proving modal logic system K sound and complete? No matter what I do, it seems to leave several hours to play mafia! So I pour a porter, crack my knuckles, and plumb the dark depths of Terra Panacea.

For what it is worth, I could have sworn that Lawls was up to 3 votes (Cojin voted for him in Post 63, and I haven't found a retraction though I may have missed it).

This seems correct to me.

Mod: Can you check the votecount?

Did you understand my contract bridge point?

Not really, but to be honest, this is strategy-talk, and you're not going to convince me that my strategies (of sometimes withholding reasons) don't help me find scum.

Well, in game theoretic terms, we can regard finding scum as some sort of positive value. This being a Newbie game, though, you can't have the sort of synergy with another ability that magnifies that value until it becomes decisive. If you were good at discovering scum and a vigilante, well, uncork the champagne. What you have to do in a Newbie game is convince the rest of the town to throw support behind your scumhunting results. The strategy of concealing your suspicions thwarts the cultivation of trust you need to convert the potential gain of scum detected into the actual gain of scum lynched.

I'll become more active when I'm being asked questions and when I feel the need to point out or say something.

I am glad to hear you will be changing your playing style in response to this pressure. That comforts me.

No I will not stay this passive the whole game.

No, I imagine not.

I want thoughts on Acosmist just to see what people think of his play not to validate my vote on him as you say.

Are you utterly convinced, then?

I voted you because I think you are scum and I stating reasons in the post you quoted me on.

I recently quoted those reasons, so I won't do that again. I will, however, direct you to this post, where I refute your contrived reasons. I had some questions in that post you still haven't answered. Why?

If you don't think they are strong enough reasons to vote you fine then, I can't make up your mind.

My mind as to my alignment was actually made up when I received my role PM, so, yeah, trying to convince me otherwise about myself would likely come to nothing.

In my opinion, when Ray reads a Townie-role pm, he sees an opportunity to speak without the necessary filter of scumplay, and I feel his objective is to point out who scum is early on, make us laugh while he figures it out, and then get lynched for his candor or Killed for the threat he poses scum.

Tally the number of people he's cleared or semi-cleared as town in this game versus the number of people he's pointed out as scum.

Then tell me what that means to you.

unvote, FoS: cojin

because I'm way too lazy to check the vote count

Calling someone out post-Panacea...hm....thoughts, Ms. Panacea?

Also, I really like these questions of Nacho's, and think we'd all benefit if everyone answered them:

What do you think of a Cojin lynch? Would you be on the lynchwagon? Why/why not?
Which of the players in this game would you not want to be in LyLo with?
What player do you find yourself agreeing with the most?
Why shouldn't we lynch you right now?

All right.

Cojin is about in the middle of the pack for me. I wouldn't lynch him. I'd be displeased to see him lynched. He hasn't posted much and it'd be nice if he took the hint to stop lurking, but, unlike Lawls, he posts dead-on content when he does post.

RayFrost and Panacea. I know who's getting the rope in that situation.

Panacea until recently. I hope her RayFrost fangirlism can be purged; I'm hoping my questions here help do that.

Don't lynch me until you've had the chance to push me over the edge into a drunken collapse. It's fun to watch.

Use

to sure like to talk a lot between yourselves don't you ;D

MY EYES THE GOGGLES DO NOTHING

Yeh I know about the rule of no outside communication, all good ;D

RayFrost just a quick quesiton.

Do you see my game different from game 909? if so in which ways?

If that game is still ongoing I'd be all sorts of happy if it didn't get discussed.

I see havingfitz has said something while I constructed this, but that's all I can manage before breakfast.

[Acosmist]

I still don't see your reasoning for voting Acosmist based on your assessment of him. You think his first post is scummy and you give a reason but I do not understand it...perhaps you could elaborate? Then you say you agree with his points on Panacea...and follow that up with an assessment of Panacea where you say you thought she was scummy in the beginning...and you still do think she is scummy...though leaning towards town. WTH does that mean? Then you say she is the one you probably agree with the most. I find your uncertainty (vote-unvote, FoS, most likely to agree with) on Panacea to be very odd and coupled with your complete (sans one post) lack of content in the game very suspicious. I still maintain my suspicions towards Cojin and would be fine with a lynch on him...but after looking things over a bit closer you have passed Cojin on my list.

Unvote; Vote Lawls

Lawls, you need to answer all those questions. Explain the contradictory analysis post, explain the trends that work in two directions, explain exactly what you think of me and Panacea. I've posted questions as well, and I'd like them answered.

Two things I don't want to see from Lawls: one-liner deflection posts and posts that dodge the questions outstanding.

unvote, FoS: cojin

because I'm way too lazy to check the vote count

Calling someone out post-Panacea...hm....thoughts, Ms. Panacea?

You mean it

isn't

obvious that I was going "WATCH ME ATTEMPT TO PERFECTLY MATCH THE META THAT PANACEA PUT FORTH IN SUCH AN OBVIOUS AND DELIBERATE FASHION THAT IT IS RIDICULOUS" in those posts?

Calm down, Cochise. Panacea's logic seemed to be as follows:

If RayFrost is town, he points out scum early on.

(missing premises)

RayFrost is town.

What

I

noticed was that RayFrost wasn't calling out scum at all. So, the negation of the consequent is true. Modus tollens, RayFrost is not town.

I don't accept Panacea's initial premise, but she must, because she posted it, so I'm deriving the conclusions her reasoning would lead to. The entire point of getting each of you to meta the other was so that I, a person who made himself familiar with the play styles of both of you, could point out any discrepancies. Well, Panacea's premises don't match her conclusion. I want her to explain that further so I can see whether it makes one or both of you suspicious.

Whether you did try to call out scum in order to support her logic is another matter, and I want her opinion on it as well.

Also, if you are going to ask somebody else their thoughts, you better be prepared to share your own.

k

What do

you

think about it, bub?

History of alignment judgments ITT:

pan is obv town to me.

Positive on Panacea.

I would like one answer from everybody at this stage.

What are your thoughts on Acomist's play so far
What are your thoughts on my play so far

Thankyou

Acomist seems slightly towny, but nothing solid yet. His posting style is consistent.

You are being only slightly more helpful than before. Slightly townigh because of that.

Positive on Acosmist, Lawls.

I've played with pan-town and seen pan-scum, so I can tell the difference between pan-scum carefulness and pan-town carefulness. For one, she's self-conscious as town. She's worried about every little mistake as if it would cause her to be struck down by a modkill... >.>"

Positive on Panacea again.

words

Wellp, this guy is town, you can earn stars for seeing it just like in elementary school math. If not, feel free to ask yourself why I may think this and then ask me.

Positive on Elementary Fermion.

I would also like to point out that cojin has a shiny metal object that he hides in his house in order to 'deal with' people he doesn't like.

I have this based off of the fact I

am batman

have a scum read on him due to no other reason than that my gut says that he's prob scum.

If you guys have a problem with this, you'll have to

get an appointment with my secretary

bug me to come up with reasoning.

unvote, FoS: cojin

because I'm way too lazy to check the vote count

Negative on Cojin.

Panacea has a skewed judgment of you because she's played with you, and she's magnifying the importance of your particular play patterns in those games. I'm not as concerned that you haven't been calling out scum, because I don't expect that from town RayFrost. I am slightly bothered by the fact that you've been clearing so many people, because that's an easy thing for scum to do, with their insider knowledge.

Panacea, time to offer your thoughts on this.

[Acosmist]

Which points and what made sense about them? Why did they only "seem" to make sense?

Your point about her spaming a lot is valid. Most of her posts contribute to the game but some just are here and there sorta posts. And I agree with the way she plays after reading a game of her's

That's it? You choose one question every time you post, and ignore all the others? Well, oops on me for breaking out the question mark so much in this post, because I'll only get an answer to one of these.

So, what are "here and there sorta posts"? Which game of hers did you read? What do you think of the way she plays?

You have four votes on you, whatever the mod's count says. Cojin voted and never unvoted. How does that make you feel?

'seems slightly towny' isn't exactly clearing you.

It sure isn't finding scum, though, right?

so... two positives, one negative in a nine player game.

A positive judgment doesn't have to be "this person is completely, utterly town." You gave weak positive judgments on me and Lawls, and strong positive judgments on Panacea and Elementary Fermion.

amazing that I'm clearing so many people.

I just posted your history and showed that it was at odds with what Panacea was saying. Not much room for arguing here.

Lawls seems to be saying more

I sometimes wonder if I am reading the same game. Lawls is saying more?

but i cant tell if its because of the accusations of active lurking or because they are legitimitly doing something

Not the latter.

but they are still on my radar

And your vote is still on him!

(and i would much prefer them placing a sex so i can stop using ambigous terms)

Where is your avatar?

also asking for people to refrence play from previous games im having trouble seperating if it is A) lawls generaly wanting to Improve or B) laws trying to pull of a false town meta.

Yeah I am not sure how much help his saying "I suck hardcore as town all the time" is going to be.

the vote count conveniently shows that cojin says lawls is scum yet isn't voting

The votecount is wrong.

and overall very little content, probably related to the fact he doesn't really post much.

He nailed Lawls when he did post, though, so he gets points for that.

I don't see a great difference between Cojin and Lawls. Both are borderline lurkers and have brought very little (aka nothing) to the game. I would be surprised if they were both scum but shocked if at least one wasn't. And townCojin or townLawls aren't much better than their scum alternatives.

I agree Cojin have posted little, but he's actually added some content and was calling out Lawls very early. I wouldn't lump him in with Lawls. Lawls has been called out for his meaningless posts and contradictory analysis, and he's still doing it. Cojin is, in theory, teachable with some well-applied pressure.

I find cojin slightly scummier since his attack on lawls was opportunistic (lawls has been a focus), and I have played with both of them as town with lawls actually being more pro-town this game and cojin being less pro-town.

He was the second vote on Lawls. He was on Lawls early, before Lawls became the whipping boy of the thread.

[Acosmist]

so... two positives, one negative in a nine player game.

A positive judgment doesn't have to be "this person is completely, utterly town." You gave weak positive judgments on me and Lawls, and strong positive judgments on Panacea and Elementary Fermion.

I am slightly bothered by the fact that you've been

clearing so many people,

because that's an easy thing for scum to do, with their insider knowledge.

Thank you, thank you, thank you very much. You totally didn't say I was clearing people.

You: Two positive, one negative

Acosmist: Actually, that's four positive, one negative.

You: Well, you said I was clearing people.

You never actually, and can't, deny that you gave positive judgments on four people. Why the misdirection?

Also, finding townies is as good as finding scum (and in some ways better), as you can do it

for process of elimination to find scum

.

You're preaching to the choir, so to speak. Did I deny that finding townies was a Good Thing? You forget the context of the discussion.

I feel his objective is to point out who scum is early on

Panacea said it was a town tell for you to "point out who scum is early on." Early on, all your alignment judgments had the modality of pointing out town.

Do you realize that you are arguing against Panacea? I'm not the one who called these things out as town tells. In fact, I doubted that Panacea had correctly identified a distinguishing mark of your town play.

If you figure out all of the townies, you have also figured out all of the scum.

So... town reads is beneficial.

Town hunting is as useful as scumhunting.

So yeah.

All this above is either directed at Panacea or misunderstands what I've been doing.

You saying it isn't finding scum would be an inaccurate statement.

The road from pointing me out as seeming slightly towny to finding scum is pretty twisted. But, again, this entire theory of RayFrost-as-scumhunter is Panacea's baby, not mine. What do I say, now? "I agree, Ray, the theory that I said was wrong is wrong." +1 Acosmist!

[Acosmist]

'seems slightly towny' isn't exactly clearing you.

It sure isn't finding scum, though, right?

my comment there (about finding townies finding scum) was in response to this.

Uh huh, and saying that I seem slightly towny is pretty far from finding scum. It doesn't even count as finding town. It expresses a slight increase in your confidence that one person is town.

So, taking that to be "finding scum" is a stretch. There are intermediate links in the chain that you're taking for granted and that I think you have to fill in before that counts as "finding scum" credit.

It also counts

not at all

as pointing out scum, which is what Panacea thinks you do as town.

I am glad we derailed the thread with a discussion of the game theory of identifying townies as a scumhunting technique, in the middle of a discussion of a third person's opinion on your play that we apparently both think is wrong.

[Acosmist]

I will attempt to start each post with a Nachomamma8 Executive Summary, so the general outline of my thoughts and conclusions can be read easily. Also, with one exception, my quote policy has been not to add a name if the next quote is from the same source as the previous one. I may have added names that this policy would make superfluous, and I know that, last post, I failed to add necessary attribution in a couple instances. My bad.

Executive summary of this post: I am happy with my vote on Lawls. Panacea holds the key to a number of things, especially RayFrost. We need her posting. Cojin isn't as scummy as havingfitz thinks. RayFrost's lies, damned lies, and statistics bothered me. I have a question about EF at the very bottom I'd like everyone to answer.

The long version of this post:

Dead on content? Huh?

I'm basing that mostly on his pointed comments about Lawls.

Cojin ISO (questions to Cojin in bold):
ISO 0 - Unvotes, gives IC credentials, asks Panacea a good question about her freaking out over the early L-3 votes.

Good post by Cojin, as you recognize.

ISO 1 - Freaks out himself over Pan being put at L-3

<--so why was it enough of an issue to question Pan about it?

That's completely unfair. Cojin's first post is calling Panacea out for an inconsistency in her early posting - she didn't want to place a second vote on someone, so, when she realized she had, she switched to another person...who already had a vote on him. Cojin never said L-3 wasn't a big deal.

ISO 2 - Admits to being bad IC, urges discussion, tells others (sans Pan) to flop to a different L-3 and asks why Pan should go.

He made a grammatical error - he meant "Everybody, besides her flop, why do you think we should lynch her?" He explains that in the next post.

ISO 3 - Apologizes for grammer fail. Tries to explain his ISO 2 post and makes these two [sarcasm]excellent comments:[/sarcasm]

• "overall its quite a good thing to have her at l-2 at this stage"
  <---If L-3 is so bad....why are you a proponent of an early L-2?
  
  
  
  "her lack of panic makes me feel she is comfortable that she wont be quicklynched (as she may be scum and thus a quicklynch at l-2 impossible)"
  <--so are you saying you think Pan is scum? BTW...your vote is on your fellow lurker.

His thoughts are a bit muddled here, I agree. I think Cojin should answer these questions. There are non-scummy possible reasons, though, so I wouldn't jump all over him for that...yet.

ISO 4 - Explains ISO 3 post and says he is going to go get an avatar.

Yep, contentless and a broken promise to boot. I expect that avatar to be pretty awesome when it finally comes.

ISO 5 - Answers question (says he prefers being town) and gives his interpretation of Lawls timezone excuse post...and then votes Lawls for active lurking.

Lawls has been lurking, and Cojin was on him early for it. Point: Cojin.

ISO 6 - Makes this observation re: me,

"What i dont understand is how he blatently ignored how much lawls was lurking yet attacked him for less."

which I later show to be completely inaccurate.

Yep, that post was inaccurate. No way to defend that.

ISO 7 - Answers question re: his opinion of Acosmist and Lawls.

Continues to press Lawls.

ISO 8 - Asks something about his momma and makes a completely gibberish coment on metas.

"Nachomamma", get it?

Gibberish? He's saying that a person can't defend his behavior in a game by calling back to his town meta, as awareness of one's town meta means one is aware enough to fake it. I agree his grammar is unfortunate (here and in pretty much every post), but his point is valid and relevant to the discussion.

ISO 9 - Apologizes for his play (I think), elaborates on his Lawls opinion (more gibberish) and asks RF why he (RF) think Cojin is scum (amongst an odd secretary/batman joke).

That's not gibberish. At all. He's elaborating on his Lawls opinion and bringing up valid points. I don't like the direction your criticism is taking, dismissing Cojin's valid points as "gibberish."

RayFrost brought up the context of that joke.

I think Lawls is scummier at the moment...but I really don't see anything redeeming about Cojin's game unless you consider his initial questions to Panacea enough to consider the reast of his posts dead-on

He provided non-trivial help in defusing the Panacea situation, and he's been on Lawls consistently. His game's been a bit uneven, but I don't see him in the same scuminess class as Lawls.

Can everyone give their top two suspects?

Lawls - voting him, would be pleased as punch to lynch him

RayFrost - I need Panacea's thoughts on him before I make a more definitive judgment; well below Lawls in my scumdar but higher than anyone else

There are really only 2 problems I have with the TownPan case. 1) You cleared her mostly based on either past experiences with her (which we have to take your word for)

Panacea's history is a matter of public record, and at least one person has actually checked that record and found it generally to point to her towniness.

or based on the weakness of a case so early in the game

The case was as weak as all very early cases are. It was useful because Panacea's reaction to it, stated before I had done any meta-analysis (before her history was even at issue, actually), was perfectly consistent with her historical town behavior.

2) You offered no new suspects as replacements. You haven't even voted anyone this whole game; you've only unvoted. You've been far more aggressive in derailing a wagon than you have creating one, and everyone knows it's easier for scum to defend than attack...

This is fair enough and feeds into the clarification I am eagerly awaiting from Panacea...

As for my second choice, it is a tie between. . . Acosmist and RayFrost. The sudden hostility is. . . odd. You were both doing what you were doing, and then doing it with anger.

RayFrost was wrong on the Internet and I couldn't let it stand. I am going to try to take fifteen minutes before posting when I get that worked up. It also bothers me that Panacea is now busy when her opinions are vital to the resolution of this RayFrost business.

I am also willing to put lawls at l-1 by tommorow depending on what people think

People have said this but, uh: 1. your vote is on him, 2. if that's not a bandwagon justification, what is it? I honestly want to know; I'm not going to jump to the conclusion that you meant that as scumliciously as it sounded.

Where did Pan go? Someone check Ray's basement.

Epic win.

Regarding Elementary Fermion: he's lurking, to be sure. Do people see that lurking as scummy or just as a bad habit to be discouraged with pressure? I want thoughts on paper about this.

I don't see the scumtastic motivation for his behavior and thus will have simply to say, yeah, I wish he'd post more.

[Acosmist]

Executive summary: havingfitz not a fan of Cojin, Acosmist reluctantly comes to Cojin's defense. EF's lurking is a source of disagreement, but the consensus is that he's not a good topic today. Panacea misspoke? Or not? Lawls is not even answering questions directed at him. My vote hasn't changed, gets more solid with each nonresponsive Lawls post.

Forgive any quote failures; this was...a project.

Just to clarify here, this havingfitz discussion has me quoting myself a lot, with his comments in bold right after my quotes...so if it looks like I'm quoting him, I'm usually quoting both of us. Try to keep up.

My comments in bold:

Cojin isn't as scummy as havingfitz thinks.

He may very well be town…but his play so far has him right up there with Lawls in my opinion. It’s just as accurate a statement to say, “Cojin is scummier than Acosmist thinks.”

That line of the summary was a conclusion supported by the rest of the post. You disagree with the conclusion, and you disagree with the logic I used to get there. That's fine; grabbing the conclusion out of the summary paragraph and criticizing it in isolation seems futile.

ISO 0 - Good post by Cojin, as you recognize.

Even the blind pig finds an occasional acorn.

Sometimes the scummy whole will have a townie part. I disagree that the whole is scummy, but I think you should at least concede something to the dude.

That's completely unfair. Cojin's first post is calling Panacea out for an inconsistency in her early posting - she didn't want to place a second vote on someone, so, when she realized she had, she switched to another person...who already had a vote on him. Cojin never said L-3 wasn't a big deal.

I disagree…Pan was freaking a bit at putting someone at L-3, tried to make amends and oops, put someone else at L-3. Despite his shocked next post lamenting Pan being put at L-3 herself (which was inaccurate as she was actually at L-2 and exhibited his lack of game awareness)…he never felt the need to display L-3 shock over Lawls or EF being put at L-3 by Pan. Instead he questions her on why EF at L-3 is an issue and Lawls isn’t (but according to Pan…both her L-3’s were inadvertent [and therefore IMO equivalent to each other])

His omission to express shock at a certain instance of a class of behaviors doesn't estop him from bringing it up later. You're inferring a certain attitude from his silence. You can pour whatever meaning you want into that empty vessel, but you're the source of it, not Cojin.

ISO 2 - He made a grammatical error - he meant "Everybody, besides her flop, why do you think we should lynch her?" He explains that in the next post.

Using his “muddled” thoughts?

You weren't paying enough attention to see the connection between that post and the next one, which would explain your misinterpretation. Note: that's not Cojin's fault.

ISO 3 - His thoughts are a bit muddled here, I agree. I think Cojin should answer these questions. There are non-scummy possible reasons, though, so I wouldn't jump all over him for that...yet.

Muddled = gibberish IMO. Cojin brings out the pessimist in me.

The dismissiveness isn't helping.

ISO 4 - Yep, contentless and a broken promise to boot. I expect that avatar to be pretty awesome when it finally comes.

Agreed

For completeness, let's high-five each other over this again.

ISO 5 - Lawls has been lurking, and Cojin was on him early for it. Point: Cojin.

Uh…ok

Do you disagree?

ISO 6 - Yep, that post was inaccurate. No way to defend that.

Point removed: Cojin

No, that's not how it works. The point would be removed if something about his subsequent post

negated

the value of the previous post. Say Cojin called someone out as being scum, got him lynched, and - mirabile dictu! - that person was scum. We'd give Cojin a point for the analysis leading to the lynch. But suppose Cojin himself bites it at a future time, and we found out he was scum with the original guy - well, remove that point, because correctly identifying your scumbuddy is not an achievement of any kind. The situation here isn't like that. If he screws up, it doesn't negate the fact that he got something right previously.

ISO 7 - Continues to press Lawls.

Press Lawls? He answered a question...there was no pressing IMO…just reiterating what he had already said.

He calls Lawls on what Lawls is doing wrong. It's not a well fleshed-out case, but it's something.

ISO 8 - "Nachomamma", get it?

Ahhhhh…I see…

; Gibberish? He's saying that a person can't defend his behavior in a game by calling back to his town meta, as awareness of one's town meta means one is aware enough to fake it. I agree his grammar is unfortunate (here and in pretty much every post), but his point is valid and relevant to the discussion.

Grammar matters…your explanation makes sense…his is just babbling IMO.

Grammar matters because it facilitates the communication of ideas. But it's just syntax. Semantics matter more. As long as someone here can interpret what Cojin rather unfortunately barely seems able to express, I think his grammarfail is tolerable. I do wish he'd explain in his own words when there's confusion, though, as I don't relish the idea that perhaps other people are unintentionally covering for him when they explain what they think he meant. That's why I've been trying to get him to explain himself rather than assuming the non-scummy reasons he might have.

ISO 9 - That's not gibberish. At all. He's elaborating on his Lawls opinion and bringing up valid points. I don't like the direction your criticism is taking, dismissing Cojin's valid points as "gibberish."

The direction I’m taking is pretty clear…Cojin’s posts are lacking IMO and he is not playing attention to the game…which he has demonstrated numerous times.

The direction you were taking was dismissive of the content of his posts because of the grammar. That's not an acceptable line of attack. I know you have substantive criticisms of him too, and you made some good points, but the repeated "gibberish" dismissals were flat wrong. And I'll call you on that.

Regarding Elementary Fermion: he's lurking, to be sure. Do people see that lurking as scummy or just as a bad habit to be discouraged with pressure? I want thoughts on paper about this.

He is a bit lurky but I can excuse lurking a bit if the posts when they are made make sense. I need to look at EF’s posts a bit closer but he would not be someone I would focus on today. Cojin and Lawls are today’s focus for me.

Thanks, that's probably wise. EF's lurking just seems less malicious than anyone else's, though I can't put my finger on it. Your input is helpful.

He's another pretty bad lurker, and while it does appear mostly habit, I get a slight sense that he doesn't care who is lynched... more so than disinterested town would feel. So yeah, lurker leaning-anti town.

Another good opinion to have.

Sorry, I didn't know the # of votes on cojin, so I didn't vote him.

But the Cojin case didn't arrive until waaay after you killed the Pan wagon, and you didn't really do a whole lot to offer any substitute suspects before then.

Someone else noticed! We'll see what Panacea thinks of that...

@Acosmist: I'm not sure you understand me when I say the TownPan case. I'm referring to Ray's specific case in ISO 5, not the case for Pan being town in general.

The essentials of his case for her towniness are all public information, though. We don't have to take his word for Panacea's alignment in the games where she behaved in the ways he identified. Whatever motivation RayFrost had to make that case, it's based on facts out in the open, so there's no sense in which we have to take his word for it.

Depends on the type of lurking. EF's doesn't bother me at all because he's posting consistently, and he's posting content when he posts (usually). Later in the game, my mind may change about that but I hope that when there is more to talk about, he'll have more to say.

Everyone answer this, the varying opinions are good (diversity is strength! War is peace, etc.).

You and Ray debated this to death enough shortly thereafter, so I feel it unnecessary to re-visit. I do, however, agree with Ray about how mentioning that someone is leaning town isn't clearing them, and it's a mite extreme to accuse him of doing so.

Expressions like "a mite extreme" don't express much. I agree that Ray didn't clear all of the people he picked out as more or less townie, but the point is valid - 4 positive judgments, 2 of them strong, before the first negative judgment was rendered.

Oh, guys, come on. I'm not a total imbecile! I saved a couple of Ray's other scumtells for later. So far this was my first intensive meta, and I don't really think I like the practice much. But I can guess enough to know that inclusion of

all

of my observations can easily result in a meta-match. Give me some credit, guys.

Reading that little gem of his again, I was struck by how defensive it sounds. What do you think? Note that I originally wanted to have your thoughts on it, and that was all I wanted - I saw a blip on the radar, thought I might be making a mountain out of a molehill, and wanted your opinion to correct a possible mistake.

And then Ray freaked out.

. A little bit. A slight freak-out. A mite extreme, isn't it?

But maybe I wasn't clear enough. I said he tends to

locate

scum early on, but he does it pretty privately (remember, entertaining everyone while he figures it out?). But nowhere did I say he finds scum in a handful of posts and calls them out the instant he does so. Better?

I should patent a Method for Calling Back to Previous Posts to Highlight Apparent Inconsistencies, comprising...

In my opinion, when Ray reads a Townie-role pm, he sees an opportunity to speak without the necessary filter of scumplay, and I feel his objective is to point out who scum is early on, make us laugh while he figures it out, and then get lynched for his candor or Killed for the threat he poses scum.

"his objective is to point out who scum is early on" - your words

How is locating scum privately the same as pointing out who scum is? Pointing out is an outward-directed, communicative activity.

Now, if you weren't clear enough, as you seem to think, then you must realize that this entire discussion was caused by the lack of clarity in your expression. These aren't my standards for recognizing a townie RayFrost, they're yours; I'm simply pointing out that your standard as stated does not speak well of RayFrost. Are you now saying you misspoke?

My judgment though isn't based solely on our previous play; I did spend quite a bit of time meta-ing the hell out of him. I feel that he is Town in this game. That's subject to change, of course. But your request that I meta him and report my findings

opened up the door

to calling him out for a meta-match (this, by the way, is part of the reason I'm developing a low opinion of meta). So Acosmist, I'm curious. You asked my findings. What were yours?

The way you stated your findings did not jibe with what's gone on in this thread. As we're finding out, that may be an artifact of a certain infelicity in your expression of your findings. Still, as you can imagine, I'm not going to let it just drop at that, and I want to press this to the hilt. If the rot extends beyond the words, I'd like to unearth it.

My findings: There is more than meets the eye about RayFrost in his games. He's Salvador Dali with a keen scumdar. It's easy to dismiss what he says, and, to be fair, he seems to have trouble building a coherent case, but he seems to have a decent hitrate. That's RayFrost as town. As scum, he plays up to the chaotic posting style. Where town RayFrost conceals insight behind madness, scum RayFrost uses misdirection merely to confuse. It's hard to tell the difference. It's certainly not such a profound difference that I thought your comments about his town behavior were accurate.

I concur here. I also perceived this as town-on-town. I know you both had good points, but while the argument became the center of the game, I think the beating of the dead horse threw us a bit off track.

I want very much to absolve myself of responsibility for any derailing, but, as I said before, it was a derail. The energy expended was not commensurate with the progress it produced. But certainly no one can use that argument as an excuse to lurk.

Lawls, that means you. :shakes fist:

Please let me know of anything at all that I missed?

If I think of anything I certainly will. I do have a question: do you understand how your meta of RayFrost led to quite a bit of this?

Shall I include the number for the DTV help desk? Honestly, though. You meta'd me. Town OR scum, you have to know I'd have at least told y'all I would be back if I could get online at all.

Yeah, welcome back! Here are a few hundred words for you to read.

I really like this. I might incorporate this, but I think Acosmist would have a stroke.

I really despise multiple posting beyond the triple. I remember reading a game where a certain very annoying person would just post every ADHD-addled thought in his brain in a separate post. I'm pretty sure some entire pages of the thread were just his posts, so, at least 15 in a row. He was town and I couldn't help but think that his buffoonish rambling was a major cause of the mafia victory. I know I was tired of reading it...

Bridges is not that bad but he needs to stop giving me flashbacks.

I'll become more active when I'm being asked questions and when I feel the need to point out or say something.

I suppose the second conjunct just hasn't been true? Because questions have definitely been directed your way and you haven't answered them, so I know the first conjunct is true...

No I'm not waiting for something.

Could you elaborate on this?

You asked him if he was waiting for something...

Where are you going with this?

The game has since finished with an uber awesome town win where scum were lynched D2 and then D3.

Thank you; I know if we had asked Lawls to tell us we'd be waiting for weeks.

[Acosmist]

Physician, heal thyself.

[Acosmist]

Executive summary: I have a remarkable proof that havingfitz is wrong which this margin is too small to contain. Both Acosmist and Panacea now disagree with Panacea's meta of RayFrost, which bodes ill for the continued relevance of the discussion (and yet I continue it). Elementary Fermion becomes one of us and starts throwing unfounded (?) accusations around. Panacea manages to come out of the fray looking rather less pure than before. Nachomamma8 wins the Opportunist bonus, gets a Stale Moves penalty to go along with it. RayFrost calls him on it, then disappears (yay). Panacea's tear ducts empty; scandal ensues.

Havingfitz, would you care to explain a little more why this single reason you gave justified this switch?

While he's doing that, what do you think of his case against Cojin, my replies, his replies, etc. in light of this vote switch?

First off, let me say that currently I am about dead-even between Lawls and Cojin. On one hand, I feel the Cojin case to have quite a bit of substance for maliciousness.

I disagree, as you've noticed in my back-and-forth with havingfitz.

On the other, Lawls

has

been acting in a manner harmful to town.

Do you infer that he's mafia from that, or do you infer that he has to go anyway? I don't think the math favors lynching a townie unless the harm he does is pretty severe.

Sigh. Panacea finds it questionable. I'll give you that. I'll await his explanation before reading too terribly much much into it, but I will do so.

Did he ever explain that?

Elaborated as such, I can accept this point. I was questioning it as a potential tactic to discredit him, which is why I visited it.

Note that this line of inquiry is just as much about you as it is about RayFrost. I wanted mutual metas not only to get reads on those meta'd, but on those doing the meta'ing (I am loving meta! Loving it!). While I think tallying his judgments has little value to discredit RayFrost, it did serve to discredit your meta on him

as stated

. Now, from there, I have to evaluate whether you misspoke due to a poor choice of words or due to some more sinister motivation.

Given his history, no, I wouldn't say it was overly defensive. Mainly because I can see his point on meta-ing, and how it's too easy to match a meta (or a meta-newb player's notation of a meta). Where as I've learned in this game it works if you do it correctly, it's a delicate art. If you fail, you fail hard. I don't particularly like the risks of doing it incorrectly.

What I didn't like about his defensiveness was how it was directed at me when I was just pushing the logic of your meta to its natural extension. If, as some have theorized (what seems like ages ago now!), you and RayFrost are too friendly to calibrate your scumdar on each other properly, the fact that he railed at

me

instead of at

you

feeds the narrative that RayFrost doesn't have the heart to go after you.

I think I have an idea of the communication breakdown (Led Zep fans at the table? ) here, and if I'm correct here, I can see where this would be my fault. I should have had more insight here, and I apologize: What is your idea of "early on" as I've stated it? (I hope you'll forgive me for hearing your answer first? Gotta be careful, y'see.)

I get the sense that you strongly disagree with me here, but you're still being apologetic about what you think is largely my mistake. I also think it is highly unlikely you intentionally did that to match a meta, as it's very subtle how tolerant you're being. Interesting.

Onto the substance: "Early on" is a vague predicate. I don't think you meant that RayFrost would call out scum in his first post, but I do think that the number of positive judgments that occurred before a negative judgment tells in favor of denying that RayFrost was pointing out scum early on. If he'd made helpful but non-alignment-related posts, then came out with the judgment against Cojin (I think Cojin was the one he called out first?), I'd give more him more leeway. I think that the time that had passed since RayFrost entered the game was sufficient for it to be past the initial stages; then, the first few content-filled posts of his made innocent judgments or no judgments at all; that having been done, RayFrost's "early on" content was locked-in. And that early content was not supportive of a positive judgment using your logic.

(First, LOVE the bolded; it's perfect!) Maybe I should try to be less concise in my metas in future, and follow more of this guideline. I just feel that the way I did it gives too much away. If that is the case, Ray, I apologize. Meta-ing Ray (since, as I've said, I feel that if I was 5784974 times better at MS and wittier, I'd play like RayFrost), I would see his avatar and try to imagine what I'd say in his position as scum and what I'd say as town. The amount of times it'd hit correctly was enough to lead me to conclude that in this very delicate situation, I'd have a decent gut-feel for Ray's alignment. Maybe that was a bad idea, I don't know. But the way we play lends itself to this meta-tactic, I believe.

So your gut says he's town, and your gut has a good hitrate (at least with RayFrost)? I just want that clarified.

I'll need that answer first, but in the meantime, have I mentioned that I'm rapidly losing respect for meta?

You're losing respect already? We have no dead players yet.

I totally think I know who you're talking about, if it was an MS player. Should I ever receive him in a modlist for a game, I will modkill him. No lie.

This was a different site, but it's not impossible that it's the same guy. I sort of doubt it, though. Anyway, I can't stand that kind of behavior.

I don't like it at all. He's reminded us a few times that he's a newbie, which don't like as a rule, and it always seems he posts just enough to be trailing along without committing too far and then skipping away. It sets off my scumdar, but I'll check him out more after the Night's events.

I know this opinion has changed a bit because of recent events...but it's good to have an opinion on paper before it becomes such a hot topic.

Let me see what I can do with this. When I made newbie references, the following is what I was trying to articulate:

[Lots of points]

So, there that is. I apologize for my being previously inarticulate. I will try to correct the same in the future.

It's not impossible that things will make more sense as the game progresses. As for my part in making the content runneth over, I am intolerant of badly-argued cases, and I am calling people on them.

But if (and, I am willing to bet, when) we lynch a townie this first Day, I fear it will be because we were essentially bludgeoned into doing so by one of the players who talks and talks and talks without saying anything. It could happen innocently, to be sure, but I predict that is how it plays out. And, should I be shown to be wrong, I will gladly eat my words. Winning is better than being a correct pessimist.

Numbers say we will lynch a townie, sure. The road to the day 1 lynch is going to be strewn with clues, though, and it'll be our task in day 2 to see what can be made of what happened. If things go wrong (we lynch a townie), we'll investigate why they did. If they go right, we'll hold off celebrating until we get the second scum. Whatever happens, that colossal fog of ignorance that wraps day 1 will thin as the days progress, as more becomes public, and eventually, if we try hard enough, we will be able to see through to victory. Right now, the blind stumbling and the false leads are overwhelming, and I know it's a pain to keep up sometimes. Things will improve!

I did not enter this game believing that it should take 500 posts to lynch someone the first day; obviously some of you did. If your experience has conclusively shown that your way is correct and mine is naïve at best, please enlighten me.

As inexperienced as I am, I will say that the more posting, the better for the town. There will always be a lot of chaff to sift, but each post increases the odds that necessary evidence will be out there.

This post will be the last time that I will mention these topics, however. I will do my best to abandon my idea of contributing when there is something to be said, and start posting, frequently (to make everyone happy!), whenever I think someone else took the time to type something unhelpful.

Wooooooooo~

most likely after the first night if im still alive

That is just not acceptable at all.

No I don't anticipate being nk'd. There are no real reasons why I should be nk'd.
I do think that I will be lynched this day. The case against me is pretty strong, but its just the way I play

The case is strong? I thought so, too, but you agree! All...right.

Damb Acosmist...that was was a painfully long post. I’ll refrain from the embedded bold responses since that would really make this reply confusing.

I appreciate it.

I am not a fan is correct. How does your defense of Cojin exhibit reluctance?

There you go again, arguing with the summary.

I said why my defense is reluctant. There are non-scummy reasons for Cojin to be posting as he does. There are scummy reasons as well. I don't want to ride to his defense and posit all the non-scummy reasons, because he may not be innocent. Further, it's really a person's task to defend himself. Cojin should tell us what he meant by things and defuse the attacks on him himself. Even so, those attacks have not been argued well and I'm ready to dissect them. So, I see attacks on Cojin that are wrongheaded, so I defend him, but it'd be ideal for him to provide some explanatory notes and defenses himself, so my defense is reluctant.

Where I got it from makes no difference. It was at the beginning of your post and was criticized where it stood. Regardless of where your “isn’t as scummy as havingfitz thinks” was in your post my reply would still be the same.

You seem to have trouble understanding the summary. I'm going to back away from caring.

I am in agreement with Cojin that Lawls is scummy.

Detente! Excellent.

I’m the source of the meaning?

Yes, you are, because Cojin never exhibited the contradiction you seem to think he did. Panacea expressed an opinion about L-3 that was belied by her subsequent actions. Cojin called her on this anomaly. Cojin never took a stand on whether Panacea's opinion was good or bad; he took a stand against the contradiction between her statement and her action. What Cojin actually thought about L-3 or L-2 was not revealed

until he expressed shock that so many votes accumulated on Panacea

. Nothing he did before or has done since has contradicted that attitude.

WTF? Would you say a large part of this game is to interpret the actions and comment’s of other players? For me the answer is yes and that is what I am doing with Cojin. So yes I am the source of the meaning as it is my interpretation of Cojin’s words and actions.

Your interpretation depends on reading Cojin's mind.

He didn’t exclaim when people (Lawls and EF) were put at L-3 by Pan but did when she was put at L-3 (actually L-2) by Edprata.

As I said, he's not estopped from ever expressing shock at L-3 or L-2 situations just because he didn't before.

I see an inconsistency with the way he treated both situation. He called Pan out for her behavior and then basically did the same thing he called her out on.

No, he certainly did not. Panacea made a categorical statement about L-3, then acted in a way contrary to that statement. Here's what Cojin said (emphasis mine):

Wow have we seriously put

her

at l3 already?

Cojin did not express shock that we put anyone at L-3, but that we put Panacea at L-3. That should warn you against leaping to the conclusion that Cojin thinks all L-3 situations at that point are bad. Maybe it was something about the Panacea case that shocked him. That'd be a pretty common opinion - more than one of us has pointed out that the case against her was garbage.

Is my interpretation of Cojin correct? I don't know. But it's at least as plausible as yours. The doubt I retain in my mind is something I don't see in your case, although the attitudes you ascribe to him are just as doubtful.

Uh...I read Cojin’s posts fine. His ISO 2 and 3 posts were cr@p and he still hasn’t answered my questions.

Nope. You misread the grammar, which he corrected in the next post. You haven't been reading carefully. You accused him of not paying attention; well, tu quoque.

I’m not dismissing anything. If anything I am doing the opposite of dismiss in regards to Cojin’s gameplay so far. Are you dismissing his play?

You're dismissing his points when they aren't expressed in the more coherent way. I decoded the gibberish; now you can't ignore his points. Continuing to dismiss them because he's not the best writer is wrong.

Well...considering Cojin quotes me and paraphrases me in his assessment/vote of Lawls...no, I don’t disagree. I’m just not as impressed with his scumhunting efforts towards Lawls as you are.

I am not nominating him for the Scumhunting Navy Cross or anything.

So in summary...if Cojin does something positive he gets a point, but if he does something scummy like spread a misconception...just gloss over it?

Uh, no. If he does something positive, he gets a point. If he does something scummy, we don't put our fingers in our ears and pretend the positive thing never happened.

Don't misrepresent me. That's a massive, massive warning sign for me.

I disagree...him responding to a question by reiterating minor accusations he took from someone else is not applying pressure. It’s weak participation.

Pretty sure Cojin had original thoughts about Lawls.

Call away. My opinion is that if he isn’t making sense (and his ISO post is...once again...cr @p) he’s talking gibberish and not bringing anything to the game.

I translated what he said. It's time to stop hiding behind the gibberish canard.

Elementary, your post gives me a feeling you're frustrated town. Would you agree?

I got that impression too...

I will agree with you here. I'm usually not one for such immense walls of text; the occasional, sure, but I'm alarmed by how they seem to keep getting longer and longer with no way of cutting out what I've got. You'll notice that a lot of it's an ongoing discussion between two players. I will ask that in D2, we all try to avoid this.

I have a few issues with this.

You, RayFrost, havingfitz, and I have been the ones most deeply involved in the "walls of text." You and I have gone back and forth, RayFrost and I have gone back and forth, and havingfitz and I have gone back and forth. There are more than two people doing this. Further, the walls of text have addressed other players as well. Havingfitz and I pressed Lawls for a while. He's on Cojin. I've questioned Cojin. Even before this post of yours, where you and EF start going at it, you've carried on extended discussions.

I am not going to stop putting a lot of effort into analyzing the game. I am trying to get all my points into the executive summary so that a person can quickly read what are my conclusions. If a person wants to take issue with a conclusion, he can browse the "immense wall of text" and find my supporting arguments. I don't think the long posts are a per se barrier to active participation.

It's disrespectful as hell, and I would shed no tears if he modkilled you for the way you just said that.

No tears? None at all?

I think too much of this discussion is public. EF may have started it by posting a public complaint, but we really didn't have to perpetuate the ugliness, and "He did it first!" is not a valid excuse. Mutual respect, guys?

If he is scum (and I don't like that you're so adamant that our D1 lynch won't be), the interaction will possibly grant insight to his scumbuddy.

I think "Elementary Fermion" has a math background.

But since scum havena't had but a short amount of time to plan things in pre-game (oh, wait. This pre-game was a bit long...), this is a good place to come back to later once one scummy is dead and we're trying to find a buddy. Does that make sense?

How many people have been replaced? That's sort of relevant. And may work against this kind of pattern detection.

This here is killer to me. No townie who embraces any sort of a desire to win this game would wish for the arbitrary modkilling of a fellow townie--especially for nothing more than the raising of a serious, and well documented, concern about the mechanics of the game in the genuine hope of correcting it. What if you yourself had put your vote on Lawls (instead of being

still

uncommitted after so long) believing you were only putting him at L-1, based on the published vote count, when in fact you ended up bring about his lynching and the end of the Day?

There are really two points here. The possible motivation of Panacea to see someone modkilled is one; I guess that becomes an issue, so I'll come back to it. The problems with the vote leading to uninformed voting, and perhaps lynching, are legit - and EF was the guy who pointed this out. I had no idea until he said something, and then asked the mod if the count was correct. So, EF's been paying attention better than any of us to

something

.

I think what Acosmist is saying is that getting something wrong (innocently) does not change the fact you got something right earlier.

[many words]

If Cojin leads us to a correct lynch, but only because it was his partner and not because of his analysis, then his point in retrospect was not deserved at all. This I believe to be the point Acosmist was making.

Yes. You get it! Perhaps havingfitz thought my explanation was gibberish, and thus of no relevance.

Unvote, Vote: Elementary Fermion

Vote first, pretext later, right?

Whoa, Elementary, you need to calm yourself down. NO WHERE did I say I wanted a townie dead.

You did say you would shed no tears. Total indifference?

Personally, I'm reading Elementary's meltdown as (again) frustrated town, albeit postal, irritable town. Nacho, what makes you think it's not?

Postal? :/

Anyway, I read it as frustrated town as well. And what pretext did Nacho come up with...

First off, that huge post when real suspicion was put on him. No pressure had been put on him beforehand, and the post seemed way out of character for him.

Not all of us can be Lawls and stay snugly out of sight when suspicion descends on us.

Second of all, this.

Woah. EF gives me the vibe that he's cautious with his voting, so when he says he's bored in the same post he believes he's pegged a scum, that sets my scumdar a-dinging. Also, it's inconsistent with the tone of his post; if he was town, he would be angry at you for trying to get him, an innocent townie, killed. He would be angry, but definitely not "bored stiff".

Angry like:

This all as it may be, the embracing what could be an opportunistic death of a townie for no justifiable reason is far beyond the scum vibes that Lawls puts out. I said I wouldn't change my vote on Lawls until I had a reason, and since I now do, I hereby

Unvote

and

Vote: Panacea

That?

Sweet...4 bandwagons. If Pan or Bridges votes for the other we can get up to 5. Thats a convoy!

*sings*

I am sorry that I didn't make my anger even clearer. Although, since Panacea referred to it is a "meltdown" I think that at least some people figured it out.

Some of us did!

I

would

shed no tears

if

he modkilled you." I didn't say "Hey, mod, you should kill him!!" I said if he did (which, by the way, he has the right to do as mod of a player in violation of the listed rules), I wouldn't be too upset. Elementary's made it abundantly clear that he's not enjoying himself here. When he has posted (I'll not get into his activity), he's pretty much just complained about having to read and about being bored the whole time.

Would you shed no tears because it wouldn't be a loss to EF, as he's bored? What about the impact on your win condition?

naive realism

:/ "I do not think it means what you think it means."

But you didn't

have

a good reason. You pounced on an obvious misunderstanding (obvious because it's so exaggerated as to not even suit my words) in a manner that had me laughing more than the comedy I was watching when I read it.

In legal writing, they teach people to avoid using words like "clearly" because they just conceal an inability to argue the point. If something really is clear, it doesn't need to be pointed out that it's clear. We get that the sky is blue. That's clear. What an attorney usually means when he says that something is "clear" is that it's not clear and an entire week of searching Westlaw didn't find him the right case to prove his point.

That's my reaction to your "obvious".

Follow along:
1.) Town would be upset if they just lost one of their members in a manner which was not at all necessary.
2.) My being modkilled because I mentioned a documented problem and followed up in a non-diplomatic fashion would be not at all necessary. ("Justified under the rules" is different than "necessary" in this context; this type of death would have been easily avoidable and a waste of a role.)
3.) Panacea admits she

would

NOT however be upset

if

this were to happen.

Therefore. . . Panacea must not be town. QED.

This.

I find any votes on EF to be rather opportunistic (lookin' at you nacho), as I don't find disliking mafia / being obscenely rude to be a scumtell.

EF, if you don't find yourself enjoying the game, please replace out so we can have people that enjoy the game benefit from experiencing it (though you'll hopefully not be replaced by somebody that is IC/SE level... >.> otherwise this would be the newbie game that wasn't). As it is, your attitude is poor, which lessens the quantity of fun in the game.

oh, and before I forget,

FoS: Nacho

Much like Frampton, RayFrost comes alive!

Opportunistic in that it gives a rather easy smokescreen to attack somebody without actually having solid backing behind it. smoke and mirrors, nacho, smoke and mirrors.

I agree that this is too easy a time to attack EF, and more justification than "Vote" and later "Oh yeah, here are some pretexts" is needed.

Forgive me if my win condition is being threatened by a definite longing to be short one player who's

clearly

unhappy with the game.

...you said "clearly"

;_;

Note that EF actually seems to be posting with gusto now, so your criticism is untimely.

Ummm... This is one of those moments where I wonder if I'm reading the same game. Your vote is based on misrepresentation.

He just outlined the logic, and it checks out.

Yes, I disagree with your points.

No I can't say why right now.

That's cuz I have to go do some stuff.

Eagerly awaiting this.

Where are the other 5 of you?

The mod's offered his insight before over half our players.

Where are Lawls and Cojin?

[Acosmist]

I am going to double-post. We are four days from a deadline. Lawls is...what he is, and any points addressed to him will probably have to be expressed now in order to get an answer from him.

Experienced players can correct me if I'm wrong, but I really think we need to add discussion of lynch finalizations to all the other discussions going on. With varying timezones and such, it's best we get this stuff going now rather than tomorrow, or Friday.

[Acosmist]

Oh my... dear God... I have forty-five minutes. Can I do this..? Forgive me if I cut off about halfway through?

I demand all my points be answered! Now!

Naw, take your time.

No offense, but I really don't like the flavor of this particular game. Just a side note. We need to lighten up.

How about this:

Ladies and gentlemen, boys and girls... Dyin' time's here.

Listen all! This is the truth of it. Fighting leads to killing, and killing gets to warring. And that was damn near the death of us all. Look at us now! Busted up, and everyone talking about hard rain! But we've learned, by the dust of them all... Bartertown learned. Now, when men get to fighting, it happens here! And it finishes here! Two men enter; one man leaves.

Except for the tentative RV's of which I've taken part, I tend to play my votes close to my chest. If, one day from deadline we have some sort of a breakeven between the two primary candidates (well, at the time I said that), those would be the justifications for giving a vote of which I'm not particularly confident. The pro-Lawls-lynch says he's not being too terribly helpful, and we might all just regret not lynching him later. If it's got to be

somebody

, I might choose that route. I don't know yet.

Well, you said Lawls had been acting contrary to the town's interests. Do you infer he's mafia from that? That's what I want cleared up.

Well, just a sec. In my last game, Thesp argued that a player with a vote left by the end of the Day would do best to cast it somewhere to move the game. He had some pretty good points. Later I learned he was scum... I should ask him about that.

Is this comment directed at anyone in particular? It reads as if you're thinking out loud.

Did he, though? His first post after my observations of his play was a joke about how he could easily match his meta. I mean, I think he addressed it, but just a little less strongly, because he (correctly) judged that I could already figure out as much on my own. You were more vocal, so he was more vocal, boiled down. That's how I see it, anyway.

Here is the post I was referencing:

unvote, FoS: cojin

because I'm way too lazy to check the vote count

Calling someone out post-Panacea...hm....thoughts, Ms. Panacea?

You mean it

isn't

obvious that I was going "WATCH ME ATTEMPT TO PERFECTLY MATCH THE META THAT PANACEA PUT FORTH IN SUCH AN OBVIOUS AND DELIBERATE FASHION THAT IT IS RIDICULOUS" in those posts?

Also, if you are going to ask somebody else their thoughts, you better be prepared to share your own.

What do

you

think about it, bub?

Just askin'.

No, I just think I see what the problem is now. I'm sorry: I'm just (annoyingly, as I've been told) polite to a fault. I do think the mistake was mine. "Early on" in my context had a broader meaning: D1, to be exact. Let's say Ray is lynched Today/ NK'ed Tonight. I would not be surprised if later in the game it was revealed that one or both of the scum were outed by Ray Today. It just happens that way.

"Day 1" is a precise predicate! You could have just said that. All right.

Grr.

Yes,

I suppose that's a correct statement. (

DISLIKE

meta!)

What do you dislike about it? Like I said, there are two sides to it...

No, for the problems it can present. I've stated I believe Ray is town; I feel like if he had a scumhunting strategy, I could have jeopardized it.

Not sure what the danger is - scum will avoid being called out by RayFrost?

[Acosmist]

Frampton comes alive? No one? Are you all kids or something?

[Acosmist]

Anthropology midterm was today. From my textbook, wherein the traveling anthropologist can be compared to the wandering Mafia player:

"

Naive realism

is the belief that people everywhere see the world the same way... If an ethnographer fails to control his or her own naive realism, inside cultural meanings will certainly be overlooked."

Oh, anthropologists didn't understand what that term meant, then. Not your fault.

Whoever stole that concept from philosophy completely misunderstood what it meant...that's...infuriating.

[Acosmist]

You know what I can't play games on this site big step up from where I usually play.

Unvote Vote Lawls

Answering one or two questions every 48 hours was too much of a burden?

[Acosmist]

Stop arguing about it; he's right.

This will pretty much apply to my next reply to havingfitz.

[Acosmist]

Executive summary: [part about havingfitz redacted so he doesn't argue with this] Panacea continues to apologize for not speaking well. Elementary Fermion understands me; I am disturbed. Nachomamma8 just says things, damn the consequences! Lawls...is still Lawls. Cojin is a good guy every four days or so. My hope that we could start the lynch process on Wednesday is finally getting going...on Friday.

vote: nacho

MORE to come later including an explanation of my vote. Still not entirely caught up to thread, life is busy but spring break starts Friday and I will have lots of time then.

I'd like to see this explanation.

Side note: Did anyone else have to seriously fight the urge to quote Acosmist's

entire

first post..? Just to be a prat?

Maybe

I

should quote it. Just so we all remember where I'm coming from. No? All right.

As long as we're turning over new leaves, I promise to hereafter devote a lot more time to making sure the messages I'm sending can be received with no trouble.

Yes, precision in expression is helpful. I'd hate for a wall of text to come to nothing. And in the spirit of apologizing for everything, ever, here's my side of things:

Basically, the problem is this. Philosophers are, in a manner of speaking, in a certain rarefied sense of the term I am about to use, boring. - No, really, we are. Philosophers, clumped together in any group where the ratio of philosophers to non-philosophers is 1:1 or greater, excluding the limit case where there are only two people in toto and only one of them is a philosopher, will actually talk about philosophy. They will automatically correct each other's use of quantifiers and disambiguate statements where the intended meaning was perfectly plain. At any rate this is what I do.

Furthermore, I think text WALLS should be kept at a lower number; if only because I think our lurkers are getting by quite easily between them.

Definitely the lurkers' fault. How much of my walls addressed Lawls anyway? Very little, and a little find command on his name would have disclosed to him the questions and issues surrounding him. I quite honestly do not regard it as my fault if people get lost among the walls. The relevance of all this discussion to any one person is manageable, and there are ways to find the relevant parts that don't involve reading the entire post.

And, well, if lurkers use the walls as an excuse, we should investigate sinister motivations for that.

Meh, okay, so a little... Once my Defend-MS.net-at-All-Costs reflex faded a bit, I realized I lost my temper and was a bit harsh. Sorry, Elementary.

Good concession. Your position was untenable, so it's a natural concession, but you made it! havingfitz does not follow the same maxim.

No, not total indifference. I've mentioned before that I put a large value on enjoying the game. Why would anyone want to play if it was all serious? Ha ha, when I was scum last game, I convinced my buddy to keep a player around on the pretext of how much fun he was.

Heck, I enjoy the game too. If the expected value of continuing to play were negative, I'd get myself replaced. But I enjoy winning quite a bit, so winning and the tools used to achieve victory are pretty important to my enjoyment of the game. Same with Diplomacy...but I won't derail this further.

I'm one of those "If you can't respect what the Romans do, get yer scrawny tail out of Rome" people. Elementary's previous attitude, in my opinion, was threatening my win condition.

I don't see how, but all right.

(For the record, I'm not sold on Nacho's points. I stand by my aggravated town sentiment from earlier. I think that question was asked somewhere in the... well, in Acosmist's post. )

Nacho's points don't amount to much in my eyes.

Noted, with the understanding that I rebel at the notion of word taboo.

Clearly you do.

I fail to see his point. If I'd expressed a

desire

to see him killed before Phate caught on, maybe. But I was expressing a potential response to the situation

after the fact

, should he be modkilled. I anticipated the Mod's leniency (owing to the fact nicety to newbies seems to trump mod rights in the newbie threads). But I wouldn't take it to the list mod if he hadn't granted a pardon. *shrug*

I fail to see how that negates his point. Say someone asks me whether I like him. I insist, "Yes, of course I like you. You're a great person." And then that person follows up: "What if I fell into a well? How would you feel?" And I reply, "I just wouldn't give a damn. I hope you don't fall into a well, and I sure won't push you into one, but please do not expect me to care one bit if you do."

You think that person might doubt my insistence that I like him?

Whew. I need a break. Acosmist, please please please do not reply before I finish?

Events conspired to give you your break. I hope you enjoyed it!

No, not yet. I kind of think he may be sincerely just... erm... let's say scummy by nature? Whoa, I need to check out that finished game!

So it occurs to me when I realize I've totally forgotten about Lawls in all this (and he's not helped me remember by not being present *cough cough*) that that could very well have been the point. Hmm...

All right. I never know precisely what "anti-town" means until I have a fuller explanation. I've seen too many rationalizations for votes because "Well, his behavior hurts the town!" You're not falling into that fallacy, apparently. I'm satisfied with that issue now.

(See? Closure is possible.)

Open, my apologies: is that accurate? I need to ask him that, or if it was a scum tactic...

When deadlines approach without a consensus in the games I read, several people would assert that everyone had to vote someone, to avoid the dreaded No Lynch. I don't think I ever attempted a correlation between those opinions and alignment. So, I don't know. If that was a "truth" beaten into my head by scum, I suppose I'd really like to know and correct my error.

I think it could be something scummy as much as it could not be. Yes, he could have been matching the meta I laid out, or he could be acting on his own play patterns. I'd give you more than that, but I think it's far too delicate to judge standalone, you know?

All right...it's just good to make sure that kind of thing isn't lost in the hundreds of posts.

Have you considered the thought (ha ha, I'm so sure you have) that setting up townies to meta each other could be a decent scum tactic? For instance, let's say everyone lynches me tonight, and I flip scum. You meta'd me, with the conclusion of a more-likely-town-than-scum feel. It wouldn't be too hard to lead a mislynch on you D2 if you're town. Paranoia? Probably. This thought leads me back to Bridges, who first mentioned meta, but never applied it. Small point, but at least it's in black and white (pixels).

I think we can rely on a good-faith, but mistaken, meta as a town tell. I see the danger you're identifying, but it doesn't seem qualitatively different from all sorts of things that can go wrong. If a townie votes a townie and the second townie gets lynched, we'll be looking askance at the first townie. That a meta was done doesn't change the risk, and I think the useful discussion it produces outweighs any additional risk...which I consider negligible anyway.

Not trying to argue with the summary again (see comment below)...but what is the remarkable proof I am wrong...and what am I wrong about? The points I am making towards Cojin? If your remarkable proof is your comments quoted in the post below...I would say your proof is anything but remarkable.

Yes, Google Fermat, as EF pointed out.

And in honor of Acosmist (and Nacho)...a summary: Acosmist and I disagree in regards to Cojin’s scumminess.

Now you're getting into the spirit!

I did not argue with the summary...I asked you to explain a comment you made within it. How is asking for clarification arguing?

It's the most futile thing you could do.

How do you derive your interpretations...assuming you use interpretation in mafia to begin with.

Well, first, I read what's posted. If I don't understand it, I try to make sense of it. If a future post makes sense of it, I read that future post. I take the words as written, and try to understand what they are meant to express. Then I expand the context. Then I hypothesize reasonable motives to make the post. Everything beyond the words themselves are things I add in interpretation. I don't lose sight of that fact. If I think, "This guy had such a scummy motivation to this post, no matter what he think he's saying," I don't collapse my interpretation into the post and make my interpretation as concrete as the post itself. You don't seem to follow this strategy. Once you've hypothesized a scummy interpretation to something, you regard your supposition as fact, and you are unable to see what's in the post itself, apart from your interpretation. And that ends up leading you astray.

We disagree.

You think that a person is prevented from ever raising a point in a one context if he failed to raise it in a superficially similar context. I prefer that we don't restrict conversation. Why do you like restricting conversation?

What? You say he did not express shock that we put anyone at L-3....but that we put Pan at L-3. What? Pan falls under the category of anyone for me. As do Lawls and EF whose placement at L-3 did not get the same response.

You don't get quantification, and you don't get bound variables. EF explained it, so I won't.

Fitz, “No he didn’t.” Acosmist, “Yes he did.” Fitz, “No he didn’t.” Acosmist, “Yes he did.” Fitz, “No he didn’t.” Acosmist, “Yes he did.”

Please stop -->

Really?

I'm going to go back to this to draw more attention to your reading comprehension failure.

Ugg im a horrible ic.

ok lets start discussion

Everybody besides her flop to another L-3 Why do you think we should lynch panacea right now?

Cojin's post on the matter.

ISO 2 - Admits to being bad IC, urges discussion, tells others (sans Pan) to flop to a different L-3 and asks why Pan should go.

Your faulty reading of his post...which was long after he corrected the grammar with:

Grammer issue sorry

Everybody, besides her flop to another l-3

as in what other reason do we have to increase the pressure on her.

His correction of the grammar.

The first post looks like it has Cojin commanding "Everyone (except Panacea): please move to another L-3." That's what you took it to mean. What he meant, as he clarifies in the next post (still long before your criticism!) was "This is a question to everyone: besides her switching her vote from one L-3 to another L-3, what do we have against Panacea?"

Given that he corrected that grammar long before your post, you were not reading his posts carefully. You voted for Cojin because he wasn't paying attention enough to know his vote was already on Lawls. You are not paying attention enough to understand the person you're doing a post-by-post on. Should we vote you?

This dead horse is entirely your doing. You failed to read. Get over it.

Actually...your ‘decoding’ doesn’t really help his comment any and he has still avoided answering my questions from the post where he ‘explained’ (unsuccessfully IMO) his previous comments. But at least you agree it is gibberish that required an effort to decode.

The decoding hasn't helped because you're locked into a certain view of Cojin, and you don't want to admit that your mistakes have contributed a lot to misunderstanding him, and that it's not all his fault.

A massive, massive warning sign? That sounds ominous.

Misrepresentation is a scum tell, or haven't you heard?

I’ll explain again and hope it catches this time.

When I'm right and you're wrong, you're not going to have much luck getting your false views to "catch" with me. Sorry?

You felt the need to give Cojin a point for making a good comment.

I think that if someone makes a good point, it's a good point. Tautology detected! I hope you don't think that someone shouldn't get credit for making good points.

I pointed out in his next comment that he should have a point removed for making a bad comment. Totally unrelated to the good comment point you awarded. You gave him a point for good. I took a point away for bad.

And now Cojin has zero points! But, wait, he made a good point. Yet he has zero points as if he's Lawls, and hasn't said anything of substance? That can't be.

How would you know? His first mention of lawls is in the post he votes for Lawls...in which he derives his suspicions from comments I made...which he quotes within that same post. So once again...how would you know Cojin had original thoughts on Lawls? Your comment would require “reading Cojin's mind.”

Because Cojin posts. Posts are in public, havingfitz! So I don't have to read Cojin's mind to see that he said something no one had said before.

That's how that works!

There is nothing misleading about my opinion.

Yes there is. Imagine if someone spoke in an unfamiliar accent. You might have such trouble understanding him that you'd call it "gibberish." Then imagine I came along and pointed out differences in pronunciation and slang, and made some sense of that accent. And then when that person spoke in that accent again, you said "Stop talking gibberish!" That's what's going on here.

Your translation made more sense than his comments but does not remove the fact that Cojin’s posting is often gibberish, IMO.

Protip: your opinion is false. Opinions can be like that!

I’m not a fan of reading what someone says and trying to piece together what they intend to say. I don’t seem to have the same issue with the other 7 players in the game.

Everything everyone else posts is pellucid? I don't know if you know this, but two people here are trying to kill us all! I imagine what they say is not exactly what they mean.

Didn't you...like interpretations, earlier in this post? Now you're throwing a fit at having to interpret Cojin's posts!

It’s enough we have to wade through multiple screens worth of your long winded, bombastic posts without you adding a dash of smartass.

This from the guy posting the dead horse image repeatedly.

All I can say is: sorry, Internet Tough Guy, I won't stop posting game-relevant things.

You know what I can't play games on this site big step up from where I usually play.

Unvote Vote Lawls

I am inclined to think this self-vote is more town throwing in the towel than it is scum throwing it in.

Still happy with my Cojin vote.

Oh yeah?

My top two suspects remain Cojin and Lawls...though Lawls has dropped a bit down my list with his recent play. In fact..I would would group Lawls and Pan fairly close to each other a bit behind Cojin.

Town throwing in the towel is your second suspect?

Your NFL analogy doesn't work because fans of teams are just that...fans of teams and they don't feel the same way towards other teams. Other than Panacea towards Ray...I don't think anyone in here is a fan of another member (except perhaps scum for their partner). I've made my opinion known regarding Cojin's shock and it isn't going to change. As I doubt either of your is so it's not worth thrahsin out longer (though I have a feeling someone will want to).

You're fighting the analogy rather than the abstracted elements of the analogy that analogize what's going on in this discussion. It's as if EF made a football analogy, and then you said "But there are 9 people in this game and 11 people on the field for each team! So the analogy is totally false!"

There is no right or wrong here.

Sure there is. Do you want me to construct a closed semantic tableau to prove that "For all x, Px" is not a semantic consequence of "There exists an x such that Px"?

Cojin's actions are suspicious to me.

Is it gut-based? If it was gut-based, you could have said that and spared the arguing.

<shudder> Is Cojin really worth this much debate?

He's your

top suspect

. I...I figured you thought that meant he was worth the debate.

I think a single exchange between us on this matter has exclipsed his entire input to the game.

It would be nice to get Cojin posting, yep.

Do you have an objective in this debate? To clear Cojin?

My objective is to shoot to pieces any trumped-up case against anyone. Your case on Cojin is based on misrepresentation, so I'm shooting it to pieces. That's...standard mafia strategy, to force the railroaders to get their railroading thoughts on paper.

To make the horse deader? Let's agree to not agree.

I agree with Frege, Russell, Kripke, etc. I don't know who's on your side. But all right, if you want to drop this, we can drop it. I have experience with how frustrating internet arguments can be. It took me seven posts once to prove that, indeed, contraposition preserves the validity of a valid material conditional! That's not the kind of thing that should be hard to prove. The things here should not be hard to prove.

I can certainly drop this, but I'm surprised you want to. Your Cojin case is in tatters. You cool leaving your vote on him in those circumstances?

Oh...and

FoS on Panacea

for piggy-backing on the town feel some have towards Lawls self vote.

When people agree with you, you call them out. Yikes.

Partially, somewhat because this is the most decidedly unenjoyable game of which I've ever taken part (despite valiant efforts to the contrary, lest I neglect credit).

I'm having loads of fun! I can see where you're coming from - it's as if I'm eating haggis and saying "MAN THIS IS DELICIOUS" and you're gagging on the other side of the table.

If you need clarification, I can provide it.

Waiting eagerly for some Ray/B

"My pretextual vote was a scumhunting strategy!"

Yeah.

EF was angry and his post showed that. Boredom and anger are not mutually exclusive emotions.

Why don't you try explaining what you meant to say again and not leave it up to others to make sense of it for you.

Everything he said made sense.

I don't know what to do about Lawls. This is the worst time he could possibly be replaced. I still think he's scum - top suspect.

Far below Lawls, there's Nachomamma8. Playing private games to try to fool scum runs afoul of my contract bridge comments long, long ago (in this galaxy). His case against EF was trumped-up nonsense. I'm pretty sure he threw suspicion at RayFrost and wasn't even entirely clear why he was doing that.

Third choice, close to Nacho: havingfitz. His hard-on for Cojin is making less and less sense.

Thoughts on others: I'm not as sold on Panacea as before, but she's an open book and will screw up if she's scum. I don't think she's scum. Cojin needs to post more. It's intolerable how little he's posted. He also needs to explain himself better. I said I wouldn't vote for him today, and I stand by that. When he does post, I usually find myself agreeing with it, and it's helpful stuff. EF is on fire lately. He was a bored and indifferent townie, now he's an angry, bored, posting-machine townie. Any argument that "If he's not having fun he should be replaced/modkilled" is moot, as he's definitely into the game now. If you think what he's done is scummy, all right, that's something different. I am happy to have him in the game. Where the hell is Bridges? RayFrost...he's not very active either, is he?

[Acosmist]

Never have so many said so much to accomplish so little for so few.

Thank you, Winston.

I am glad to have at my disposal the tools of the philosopher's trade, without deigning to practice the profession. Critical thinking is something both vastly underutilized and underappreciated.

Have you seen academic hiring? I'm not sure there is a profession left. ;_;

What did you think of my delineation of four possible scenarios and their respective likelihoods? Do you see another possible explanation or just weigh the facts differently?

I regard any theory that supposes Lawls to be brilliant to be...something of a stretch. The second and third theories require more of Lawls than he seems capable. If he's a mastermind after all, I think we all owe him a beer.

The other two scenarios have him frustrated at how things have turned out. His desire to be replaced and bemoaning the high demands of play in this game are not alignment tells to me at all. Lawls is not subtle, so I think he is honestly frustrated. I think that town or scum in his shoes would be just as frustrated and react in just that way.

Because his most recent behavior does not make one alignment more likely than another, I'm still concentrating on his previous play. This day has been going on for weeks. The pressure on Lawls, even before it was a "case" against him, has been building slowly throughout that time. Lawls never came up with adequate responses to the issues that were raised. We know he's capable of typing a lot (even if not a lot of substance), because he did it - once! If Lawls skipped everything in this thread except the stuff addressed to him, came up with a coherent explanation of his actions, and contributed that way every 48 hours, he'd still not have to spend more than perhaps 15 minutes on the game...every 48 hours. The posting he did shows at least a recognition that he was under pressure, but he deflected all the time. So he read the thread...which, after all, is the hard part...but didn't take 5-10 minutes to come up with a paragraph or two of reaction?

I don't view this game as

that

overwhelming. It may have become worse, but it didn't start out badly, but Lawls has been playing that way since the beginning.

Lawls took the time to read enough to know he was under fire. He didn't follow up by offering an explanation. My theory: constructing plausible lies is more time-consuming that offering honest analysis. Where an honest person would find responding relatively easy, a deceitful person would have to take the extra, and sometimes exhausting, step of checking for consistency in his "story". Lawls didn't want to put in the effort. He did, however, check the thread at least enough to know what sort of charges were leveled at him.

That is my theory. And that is why I am still voting Lawls. And time is running out on this day without well-developed secondary cases. :/

Well, Acosmist, I am going to agree that, perhaps, your mega-posts could be broken into smaller consecutive posts. I do not think they so need be, but certainly could.

Does that make it any better, though? I am going to say what I think needs said, whether in one gigapost (I am one-upping your prefix) or in several smaller posts.

Is there a bright line difference between not really having anything of substance to say and "lurking"? As this game began, I felt as if I had nothing of consequence to offer, and was accused of lurking. Attempts at posting to discount the lurking accusation were then characterized as having nothing of substance.

Lurking is a neutral activity. It is, though, supposed to be good cover for scum. So lurkers are being profiled, even though lurking is not inherently scummy. Please do not 1983 me.

[Acosmist]

If everyone in this game is replaced, is it the same game?

[Acosmist]

It'll be extremely hard to find replacements for this game because of how long your posts are, and as a townie, that isn't playing to your win condition.

Wow that's not an argument at all.

[Acosmist]

This is an extremely scummy post. It doesn't matter whose fault it is that it's being made easier to lurk; the simple fact are that walls of text promote lurking and make it a lot easier for scum to lurk and make it a lot more difficult to determine the difference between town and scum lurkers. Honestly? It'll be extremely hard to find replacements for this game because of how long your posts are, and as a townie, that isn't playing to your win condition.

Following up right now because this is so pathetic (Panacea please read this and see if you still agree with him) - the biggest lurkers in this thread have been Cojin and Lawls...and they're the subject of most of the attention!

So, the walls of text definitely haven't covered for the lurkers. Your argument is bunk.

Interesting that a while back you wanted me to tone down the walls of text, and I added the summaries to facilitate easier understanding, and to guide the compartmentalization of my multifaceted posts. Why do you hate when I post?

[Acosmist]

oh hey im dead lawls is scum

You are not dead unless I miscounted. I am working on a large post. While you're here, please reply to havingfitz's concerns.

[Acosmist]

more so im messaging mith, i think lawls essently avoided his lynch by going awol ill claim that you killed a usefull ally and you will find out on my death scene this game pisses me off to much now.

I am sure we can get the 72-hour extension for YOUR replacement, if you need one. Come on. Don't pull a Lawls.

Votecount
Cojin - 4 (RayFrost, havingfitz, Nachomamma8, Lawls)
Lawls - 2 (Cojin, Acosmist
Panacea - 1 (ElementaryFermion)
Nachomamma8 - 1 (BridgesAndBaloons)

Not Voting - 1 (Panacea)

With 9 alive, it's 5 to lynch

[Acosmist]

No summary. Your tears are delicious.

I have no idea what this means.

http://www.mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopi ... 27#2150427

Pay attention to the game you are playing.

Attacking something you don't understand? Not something I'd expect from a philosopher.

I'll try to make this easier to understand. When you do something scummy, you don't get to absolve yourself of responsibility by saying "I meant to do that."

See, here's where we disagree. I can't recall a time where I've been both angry and bored at the same time; anger puts adrenaline through the body and thus makes you... not bored. Also, I've never been bored when I've believed I've pegged scum. But then again, this really isn't a point I can convince you of, it seems. But then again, these are my experiences and feelings being transferred onto EF...

I can recall such a time. Categorical statement refuted!

Actually, I looked back and saw how petty the argument was getting, so I dropped it. The case is looking good to my eyes, but there's no one here to defend it.

All right, I guess I have to take your word for it, because I can't honestly know whether you think you have a good case or not. At least in public, you admitted you weren't sure what you had against him.

The difference would be, however, that Elementary would have hopped headfirst into the hole, not fallen. And I didn't say I wouldn't help him up; I'd hope the headache taught him to avoid hole-diving.

Those differences are accidental rather than essential.

Perhaps. But isn't it a sign that I have hope for him that I expressed a hope he'd learned the lesson?

See, this is the problem. I think you reacted out of pride for mafiascum and you spoke rather rashly. So, sure, when you retreated, I think it was a good-faith retreat, but EF was also right to call you out on an anti-town sentiment.

I'm happy with the way that issue's been resolved, though.

You know what? That's a really good point. Havingfitz?

Thank you.

It's especially relevant we discuss Cojin since he's apparently the most popular bandwagon.

... Ouch..!

I just don't think chattiness and scum-alignment work well together.

If a tree falls in a forest and there's no one there to hear it..? It would be, because all the roles would be passing to predecessors. Lawls's replacement will be an extension of Lawls's slot.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/mater ... stitution/

Lawls is no longer a lurker; he's being replaced.

Lurking is scummy.
Lawls was lurking.
Therefore, etc.

His being replaced does nothing to change that argument, man.

He's not being replaced now (I guess? Who knows...), so this is sort of moot...but you were still wrong when you wrote that.

RayFrost and BaB have also been lurking lately, but they've barely been the subject of any attention whatsoever that hasn't been supplied by me.

Yeah, but they had lots of content earlier, so they have something of a paper trail for us. And, man, I've called upon them to post more, too.

And saying that Cojin and Lawls have been the subject of most of the attention is... laughable.

Clearly

it is.

Cojin's attention consists of someone who hasn't posted about him since last week and a giant wall-battle that should've been dropped a long time ago.

You really do hate when I discuss things in this game, don't you? As Cojin's been one of the more popular bandwagons (only recently the most popular, to be fair), "dropping" the discussion of havingfitz's case against him is the last thing we should do.

The attention on Lawls consists of himself, a lurker, and someone whose walls generally have nothing to do with him anyways.

You haven't been reading my posts.

The town is spread so thin because of walls of texts and people generally ignoring any case that isn't there own that the people under the most attention are under no pressure whatsoever.

The town needs to get the sand out of its vagina, then.

I don't hate when you post; you present some good points when you're more worried about who's scum as opposed to who's right.

I don't know if you know this, but scum generally try to drum up fallacious cases. The premise "The guy I am trying to lynch is scum" is not true when scum try to railroad a townie, so they're deprived of at least that advantage. They sometimes have to make up for that by saying false things. Investigating why people say false things is a useful tactic.

Look at havingfitz vs. Cojin. You think there might be a scummy motive for him to put his fingers in his ears and dismiss Cojin's points as "gibberish"? If arguing with havingfitz helps me determine that, I'm gonna continue to do it.

You just need to cut out some of the useless stuff and stop nitpicking over every little point; focus on major aspects of the case and present them to the public; note down tiny scumtells and keep them to thyself.

I have no idea what possible pro-town reason there could be to keep scumtells to oneself.

In fact, Panacea, didn't you say something about having one's case survive one's death? That that was part of the point of posting?

I was referring only to the presentation, not the overall quantity. Perhaps you could break up your teraposts (ball's in your court!) using headings to coincide with your executive summaries?

I strongly suspect there's more at work with the criticism of me than "Man, that's hard to read, jerky mcjerkface." So, as much as I'd like to make stylistic changes to accommodate comprehension, I'm concerned that I will leave out points that might be able to nail people later.

I am not going to one-up you now because this post is a lot shorter ;_;

If Cojin wants to claim mafia, I'll vote him. I don't see any other scenario where I will do it today. And, wow, Cojin is sort of right that this little "Replace me, wait don't" episode with Lawls has defused the Lawlswagon. Of course, I maintain he's no mastermind...

Absent some really convincing new revelations, the only lynch that'd get me off Lawls would be Nacho's. Any takers for that?

[Acosmist]

Votes should probably be pulled off Cojin now.

[Acosmist]

Oh ha ha ha ha we killed someone? Wait did we? This game is utter craziness to me lol! Heh ha hai huh ha heh human.

I don't think we did.

I think we have 12 hours and nothing is happening :/

Did you just post drunk? That reads different than anything of yours I've ever read before.

[Acosmist]

I think we have 12 hours and nothing is happening :/

Deadline is the 24th.

Did the mod PM that to you?

[Acosmist]

Mod, can we have a 72-hour deadline extension while we look for a Lawls replacement, since he DOES have one of the largest bandwagons on him right now?

This is reasonable. Deadline is extended to March 24.

No, but he did say this...

I wasn't 100% confident that he was going to maintain the extended deadline now that things with Lawls changed. So you didn't get any special word from him, and you're just basing it on that?

Same to EF. Why are people just assuming day won't end in an hour? That's ballsy, I guess.

[Acosmist]

Mod, can we have a 72-hour deadline extension while we look for a Lawls replacement, since he DOES have one of the largest bandwagons on him right now?

This is reasonable. Deadline is extended to March 24.

No, but he did say this...

I wasn't 100% confident that he was going to maintain the extended deadline now that things with Lawls changed. So you didn't get any special word from him, and you're just basing it on that?

Same to EF. Why are people just assuming day won't end in an hour? That's ballsy, I guess.

Because the mod never told us otherwise? He didn't say "Deadline extension revoked, Lawls is back"...

Anyways,

Mod: can we get a prod on BaB?

Just give it up when you're wrong. Saves us all time.

[Acosmist]

Pardon the absence...not prod worthy but longer than normal for me. RL had me occupied this weekend. Will catch up (reading Acosmists novelettes may take awhile if I can stay awake through them) and post tomorrow.

People are starting to notice how much you're complaining about discussing the guy you want to lynch. PS might wanna change that vote.

[Acosmist]

Acosmist, it seems like you're quite gung-ho, not necessarily for a Lawls lynch, but for the diffusion of a Cojin one. All things aside, Lawls's "Oh, wait, never mind" return to the game strikes me as a

whole

helluva lot scummier than a cookie-cut request for replacement. I have to wonder if his intention might have been to buy some time all along?

Lawls, how do you feel about that?

Acosmist, what exactly makes you think, not necessarily that Lawls is scum, but that Cojin isn't? Is it primarily Havingfitz's responses, and if so shouldn't your vote then be on Havingfitz..?

Cojin said something about soft-claiming. I took that to mean (and it looks like Nacho did too, once upon a time) that he was claiming a power role. If he was doing that to draw out a town power role counterclaim, then I can see his still being the correct lynch, but in the absence of that, he's lying about his claim or telling the truth about his claim. If he's lying, he's locked into a certain lie and we'll have him eventually - the truth will out. If he's telling the truth, uh, obv I don't want to lynch him.

Thus, if his "soft claim" was some sort of scum gambit, it was going to go wrong anyway, so taking him out now is not vital. If he was town, then, yeah, don't lynch him. So I consider the risk of lynching him high (if he's town, that's a big loss), and the risk of not lynching him immediately low (he couldn't sustain the charade very long).

It's weird how Nacho immediately unvoted him, some time around the "soft claim" language, but then put his vote back on him?

I'll check on things more in a bit here.

I just want to clarify, I was never 100% sold on Cojin's towniness, but the "soft claim" thing locked him into a certain channel that would be impossible to maintain as scum. I was middle-of-the-pack on him before all this, now I think he's a horrible, horrible lynch. Like, I'm shocked there are votes on him.

[Acosmist]

That will tend to make tomorrow's lynch easier, thank you for your thoughtful action.

[Acosmist]

havingfitz, can you ask me in a separate post? Things are a little busy.

I'll say what I think needs to be said before the deadline here, and try to address questions over the next...whatever hours we have.

I think Cojin is probably telling the truth. If he is not, we'll find him out eventually. Therefore, failing to lynch him now is not a big deal. Lynching him not if he is a doctor is a big, horrible deal.

I don't like havingfitz's attempt to cast the Cojin lynch as a policy lynch.

When Nacho originally unvoted Cojin, I didn't see what he saw. Then Cojin said something about "soft claiming." Then I thought Cojin must have meant he was a power role in his cryptic remarks from earlier. Not sure why Nacho would immediately jump to that conclusion; not sure he did, but it seemed that way to me.

Ray and Bridges seem gone; that sucks.

I still like Panacea as town.

I like EF as town.

I really don't think Lawls can be judged by his shenanigans with being replaced, because, as EF and I have discussed before, he doesn't seem like a mastermind. You have to impute some considerable cunning to him to call that a plan. I think he's scum for what he did before, avoiding questions, recycling analysis, etc. I think the pressure of keeping up his facade when he was faced with the kind of play here broke him, and he threw in the towel.

Did Panacea call me a good player? I'm a good BSer. I have two degrees, one in philosophy, one in law. I know how to write long, boring columns of text with more style than substance. I think that's what's happening here. Sorry to disappoint.

My vote's staying on Lawls. I can't believe we're going to lynch Cojin/no lynch. That's crazy.

[Acosmist]

I gave plenty of reason for my suspicions towards Cojin and I have never tried to get any policy lynched.

Welcome to being wrong:

For those who want to use wrong votecounts as an excuse for hammering....

Cojin is currently at L-1

. I'm keeping my vote on him because his game is rubbish. He has lurked, provide cr@p responses to question when he's bothered to answer them, and sought approval for his actions from the rest of the players. Could he be town? Sure. But if he is a doc as he claims to be.....I'm not even sure scum would bother killing him at night since surviving would make his claim even more doubtful.

His play just warrants a lynch.

Then maybe scum would have mercy and NK one of the town wallposters.

BTW...Ray and Bridges are doing a great job of making Cojin and Lawls look like active participants.

Emphasis added, happy to help.

I try to get people for scummy actions/accusations....such as accusing others of pushing for policy lynches.

Not so much, apparently.

What were your reasons again for suspecting Lawls? I ask because you never really made much of a case on Lawls when you voted him.

It's still on this page; your mouse wheel not scrolling properly?

I think he's scum for what he did before, avoiding questions, recycling analysis, etc. I think the pressure of keeping up his facade when he was faced with the kind of play here broke him, and he threw in the towel.

If we can get Ray and Bab involved that would be a bonus.

We agree completely on that...I'm not saying it's scummy they weren't around, because, at least in Ray's case, Panacea actually found him missing from the other games he's in...but, their absence did prevent us from getting a read on them at a crucial time.

I really don't like this post. At the time this was made Lawls was at L-1 and Pan had not voted yet. You dig for a last second Cop claim and basically switch from from one L-1 wagon to another. I like the *sigh* though...it adds that extra feeling touch.

I don't like it either. I didn't like what he did with Cojin, either...I mentioned it before. Why jump off quickly and then be willing to jump back on?

Coming out of D/N1 I'm leaning against Acosmist being scum.

That's...surprising.

Did anyone else realize how little of a (rl) social life they have over this Night Phase..?

You're in college, live a little, kid.

Well, that tells me absolutely nothing about Acosmist.

What did you expect?

First, any sort of leaning toward D1 claims sets off warning bells in my head. I don't really get why he'd be "digging" for the Cop when so little time was left before deadline, though. Nacho, was your intention actually to encourage the claim?

I second this concern. Sup, Nacho?

I'm trying not to assign blame solely for willingness to see townies killed, but Nacho and havingfitz are looking the worst to me here. Problem is, fitz is already on Nacho like Oprah on a baked ham. BaB and RayFrost skated by at the most important time in day 1 and I'd like to avoid coloring my perception of anyone's scuminess until I see some new activity from them. EF and Panacea just keep doing things that make me think, "Yeah, that's a townie thing to do," so I feel pretty good about them.

I am not going to vote until some questions get answered. If anyone has anything lingering from day 1 they want to hear from me, repeat it and I'll respond.

[Acosmist]

You and Bridges

[Acosmist]

I also feel sorry to say this, but I miss your long posts .

Yeah, early last week was sort of a crazy time...things I'll talk about postgame. I'll get you answers to all this, don't worry.

[Acosmist]

Cases on each?

My case on you rests largely on my interpretation of a certain sequence of events...here...

more so im messaging mith, i think lawls essently avoided his lynch by going awol ill claim that you killed a usefull ally and you will find out on my death scene this game pisses me off to much now.

Here's Cojin being Cojin (for the record, that's a full step above being Lawls). He flipped out because he thought he was lynched. As I've said before, I

did not

think Lawls masterminded the replacement shenanigans to avoid a lynch; as we've seen, it didn't help and he was town anyway, so it's definitely not a scum gambit. Because Cojin was thinking along lines (Lawls-as-mastermind) that I thought were dead ends, I didn't pay much attention to this post. I also thought going to mith about the Lawls situation was an overreaction.

So I really did not think much of that. Then this post from you:

Unvote

While there is the off chance that Cojin is being sneaky and incredibly manipulative, I'm not buying it.

Vote: BridgesAndBalloons

I'll give my reasoning when you give yours. We need a good lynch wagon on scum to start, and you're my top suspect. <3

I did not see what you saw. If I had thought Cojin was a good lynch, his actions would not have brought my vote off. Perhaps that's just how my personality works; in any case, it seemed weird that you seemed to "buy" his defense. I couldn't see the defense.

Then Cojin said this:

seems im not dead :/ well now that i soft claimed im dead tonight. eather way laws should be lynched now.

As far as I can tell, I was in the middle of a huge post at the time (I seem to have posted shortly after) so I did not immediately make the connection, but my next post after my wall was:

Votes should probably be pulled off Cojin now.

The "soft claim" made me think Cojin was claiming some sort of town power role, so my reaction was to suggest that we pull votes off him (as I noted later, not because we could trust him but because a fake power role claim in a Newbie game would be a crushing burden to maintain, so he's caught if lying and a bad lynch if honest. The cost-benefit analysis favors not lynching such a claimant on day 1.).

It took me until Cojin's bringing attention to his "soft claim" to make the connection. You seemed to unvote right quick, though. Because you knew he was town, and, given the regulative principle against lying as town, you knew he was almost certainly being honest? That's what I figured was going on. When doubts about the honesty of his claim got some traction (probably from havingfitz), you were willing to lynch him...as long as you could fall back on the "He was acting scummy!" defense, you were perfectly ok being on a townie lynchwagon.

That's my case. There is some conjecture there, as you see.

I don't know how to reconcile the fact that you and havingfitz are my top suspects with his aggressive attack on you. I do remember leading a day 2 campaign against my scumbuddy in a recent off-site game, so it's not as if that clears one of you...but the way you two have interacted, I just don't know how to make sense of it.

Against Bridges: He and RayFrost avoided the end-of-day issues surrounding Lawls and Cojin. Before someone goes off half-cocked, I didn't say they intentionally avoided posting; they just weren't here at that important time. I have had almost no read on Bridges the entire game. My back-and-forth with RayFrost ended up with me thinking that Panacea's misspeaking led to a whole big useless argument with RayFrost. I don't have a read from Bridges OR RayFrost on the end-of-day issues, but I have earlier reads on RayFrost that give me slightly good vibes. I have no such earlier reads on Bridges to fill me with confidence. Thus, Bridges loses out.

Do you find BaB's ISO 22 scummy?

No. If he were scum wanting to suggest a nightkill strategy based on gaming lynch-or-lose situations, he could 1. do it himself; 2. suggest it to his buddy at night.

If BaB gets replaced, will you still see him as scum?

No, because my leaning scum on him is more about what he hasn't done than what he has done. At this point, he's, say, a 0 for scuminess. Other people have done enough good things that they are above 0, even if not by much. You and havingfitz are in the negative numbers.

If I flip scum, does BaB look better or worse in your eyes?

I think slightly better. You seemed to be on him to post - if you wanted him to keep quiet, you would have just let that go, I think. I think he also threw a vote on you that did not look like it was scum-on-scum.

If better, would you no lynch over lynching him?

No, he'd still be in the range where I'd consider him a lynch target. Most people are in that range. Yesterday, I did not see anything that put Cojin in that range, so, as I said, I would not be voting for him absent something really strong. The situation you and Panacea seemed to be in, where you didn't want to lynch Lawls but were more afraid of No Lynch? Yeah, if you make that a Cojin lynch and make me the one with the decision to make, I probably would not have voted Cojin even then. (Of course, his claiming and my interpretation of it colored that whole deal even further...but this is a hypo. Deal.) Bridges after your lynch would still be in the range where my vote could go to him; I wouldn't have such an aversion to it that I'd No Lynch instead.

Who is most likely to be BaB's scumpartner?

You or havingfitz, because you two are scummiest...hm...havingfitz.

Crap, I saw something in my re-read that bothers me...interactions with Elementary Fermion. I don't like them. First attacking, then trying to guide with a gentle hand through the game...almost like he's guiding a newb? I mean, that's his job, right (everyone here seems to be one of those ICs or SEs or whatever)? But there could be more to it...all right, I'm making a note of that.

Who is least likely?

Panacea.

What has BaB done to make him more likely scum than RayFrost?

Again, more the non-doing. I even did a review of his posts just now, and, man, some of it just reads like a Lawls post with infinitely better grammar. There's some stuff that's just bland, unresponsive, just...contentless, thin gruel. It's not as if all his posts are like that, but it's enough to make me wonder...

Also, I really feel cheated out of content at the end of the day...that sucked and distorted my perception. And Bridges and RayFrost should set about correcting that...now!

Is my ISO 14 scummy?

Yes, it bothered me that you were trying to get me to stop posting and accusing my posts of having a roundabout effect on my win condition by making it harder to get replacements. The rest of your post is just being incorrect; that's not a scum tell, don't worry.

In your eyes, who has the highest chance of being my scumbuddy?

havingfitz

Why?

You've both done scummy things, and you've both commented negatively on my posting style (which I think is helpful whether you think I'm scum or town). His attack on you confuses the issue, but there are reasons for it (I guess you people call it "bussing" on this site).

Was my position on Lawls scummy?

Did you have a position on Lawls?

Why/Why not?

Can't answer that; don't know what you thought of him.

Do you agree with havingfitz's ISO 54?

I did want to know about calling for a cop claim, yeah. I don't get why Panacea gets different treatment from doing the same thing as you.

Why?

You voted town and tried to distance yourself from it in the same post. I don't buy "But we can't No Lynch!!!!!!!!!" as a universally valid justification for lynching someone you think will be town, just to get information.

Whose scumflip would incriminate me the most?

I don't think the sole fact of anyone's being scum would make me think you two were buddies together...I am capable of reading a lot of things that have happened as scum interactions, but none of them jumps out at me as incapable of any other interpretation.

What is the scummiest position I have taken?

Pan, stop sucking up to the mod >.>

Cojin, you're acting... weird. Freaking out and claiming PR when you're at L-2 and no one really wants to lynch you isn't TownCojin play...

I mean, I just read Newbie 908, where you pegged two scum in two days after a successful Doc protect; the only thing that messed up your game was vanilla fakeclaiming cop... The Cojin that's playing in this game definitely isn't the Cojin that's playing in that one...

Unvote, [L-1]Vote: Cojin

That one. Let's lynch a claimed doctor? Hey, let's not.

Who has seemed the towniest from interactions with me?

Elementary Fermion. Your reasons on him were bunk. Your attack just made me feel better about his towniness; if he's town, thank you!

[Acosmist]

This is the way the world ends
This is the way the world ends
This is the way the world ends
Not with a bang but a whimper.

[Acosmist]

Read???? Nah.
I'll look at a random post here and there from the tunnel of the past and follow from here on out. Should be enough.
I will also be skipping any massive quote walls like 402.

Anyway, Who's Scum?

402 is on the small side, chump.

Welcome to the game, please do more than Bridges.

[Acosmist]

402 is on the small side

skipping

Anyway, Who's Scum?

Still Nacho and havingfitz.

If I had the energy, I would make this post very long to annoy you. I don't. Sorry.

[Acosmist]

Glad we're all keeping it objective here.

[Acosmist]

Correlation between these numbers and alignment, go.

[Acosmist]

Correlation between these numbers and alignment, go.

Scum are very likely 2 out of {Nacho, Fermion, Ray}.
The interaction raises the chance of {Fermion, Ray} due to the lowness of it, especially since I recall Ray had specifically done the low-contact thing in a game which he played with Yos2 as scum (too lazy to look for it now).
I'll be moving away from concrete information to look into their direct player interactions shortly.

Well, Numbers, what's the strength of correlation between mentioning each other rarely and scummitude? 1? .5? Whip out Excel and tell me, since that seems to be your thing.

[Acosmist]

Correlation between these numbers and alignment, go.

Scum are very likely 2 out of {Nacho, Fermion, Ray}.
The interaction raises the chance of {Fermion, Ray} due to the lowness of it, especially since I recall Ray had specifically done the low-contact thing in a game which he played with Yos2 as scum (too lazy to look for it now).
I'll be moving away from concrete information to look into their direct player interactions shortly.

Well, Numbers, what's the strength of correlation between mentioning each other rarely and scummitude? 1? .5? Whip out Excel and tell me, since that seems to be your thing.

Pretty Damn High.
Anyway, Wagon Analysis has netted Fermion. Wagon gogogo.

"Pretty damn high" it not the same as, say, ".4192".

It's also not an objective fact. I thought that's what we were doing here, talkin' 'bout objective facts. Is it possible you weren't? If you are throwing numbers around without regard for their meaning, this is the worst possible set of players to have replaced into.

[Acosmist]

Hm? The numbers I posted are all facts. The Votecounts I posted are facts. That's the purest level of the information that can't be argued.

Then when I asked for a number to model the correlation, you didn't give me a number! You used a vague adjective phrase.

Then we enter the realm of things that

may

be argued but statistical analysis can be used to support them.

No, we have not yet entered that realm.

The things here may also have exceptions, so most of them are "in general". For example:
There is almost always scum on a town wagon.
In general, town post more than scum.
In general, and especially amongst newer players, scum partners interact with each other less.

How important are the exceptions? How often do these things hold? I'm asking for nothing more than an analysis of the data, something with which you were forthcoming just recently. We don't need to start judging things in this game yet; we can get an exact number that expresses the correlation between those behaviors and alignment, and

then

we can start adjusting for the differences between this game and all the games comprising the set that established the general rules.

You have too much data here and too little. Too much because these counts don't tell me anything about who's scummy. They tell me how many times a certain string of characters appeared in a certain subset of posts in this thread.

Too little because, after attempting to ground yourself with hard data, you didn't take the extra step of doing some simple statistical manipulation of those data to show possible correlations. If the numbers mean anything, then you need to follow the norms of statistical analysis and express the data in a manner that will make inferences from those data easy to make.

You're doing a whole lot of nothing. The rest of us are gonna try to find scum now.

[Acosmist]

Ellibereth: I thought the misuse of data was a tactic to elicit a reaction from EF. Why is that continuing?

PS you owe us a complete statistical work-up on that stuff you posted. Get crackin', boy.

[Acosmist]

Ellibereth: I thought the misuse of data was a tactic to elicit a reaction from EF. Why is that continuing?

PS you owe us a complete statistical work-up on that stuff you posted. Get crackin', boy.

The misuse was to get a reaction.
The accuracy of the data still stands and can be used as a supplement in the future. The vote patterns is to make it easier for me to look at the progression of the game through D1.

OK, you are unteachable.

[Acosmist]

1) There's a great chance for a Ray-Fitz scumpair, and I'm curious if you see what I see.

I thought Ellibereth was scum?

2) The only way I'm going to counter a lazy response such as that is with rebuttals that are 1000+ words long, and I don't feel like typing it up. But if your reading through the game produces nothing, I'll craft a post to put Acosmist to shame.

Don't you owe me a reply or something? I know I owe fitz a big one; I've been slow-cooking that for a while now. I hope he replies to this by wondering why I'm not posting more, as if no one else has heard of Easter. That'd make me happy, because he is so transparent when he gets tweaked.

[Acosmist]

Which holiday was Thursday?

Maundy Thursday. Then Good Friday. Then Holy Saturday. Now Easter. All real holidays in the world's largest religion.

[Acosmist]

Wouldn't Lawls have been taken over a no-lynch, Nacho, since he was the highest voted? The rules seem to say so...

Meh, good point. I guess I'm just used to games where deadline = no lynch. Anyways, I certainly wouldn't have changed my actions. I certainly wasn't going to lynch a claimed doctor, and Lawls was the closest to a lynch...

Ummmmmmmmmm...

...where does it say this?!

[Acosmist]

Days will have a deadline of three weeks. If the deadline is reached, the day will end without a lynch.

Welp, Pan was wrong instead of me.

Doubly wrong, if you look at the voting history.

[Acosmist]

Meh.

I have no reason to agree on points that are incorrect

You failed at reading comprehension for many pages. In fact, if you'd not posted like a moron, the walls of text wouldn't have been quite so large.

‘tunnelling’ efforts by Acosmist

Bull.

Show me where I ignored anyone else in discussing Lawls. If it's "tunnelling" to try to get someone to post in the mafia game he joined, then it's time to get myself replaced.

You had a hard-on for Cojin that was

nothing like

my pressure on Lawls.

I have explained my reasons for not wholeheartedly subscribing to his claim (post 368).

So did I, but I didn't vote to lynch him, because it's game theoretically retarded to risk taking out a doctor to defuse a potential charade that is impossible to maintain.

Similarly, Acosmist tunnelled Lawls.

Moral equivalence fallacy.

Is the Lawls tunnelling only acceptable because you choose to join the Lawls wagon last minute?

Loaded question.

I did share a bit of my suspicions with Lawls, Pan, and BaB on D1 so I was not entirely tunnelling. And the lack of analysis accusation is bullshit...especially given the level of effort you put into your Pan and Lawl votes on D1.

So now you weren't entirely tunnelling, but, presumably, I was (you never qualified your accusation of me). Reading this post of yours, one would think I tunnelled more than you did! Thankfully we have the day 1 record to review.

It wasn’t much prior (EF ISO 27) to your vote on Lawls that you had said your top two suspects were Pan and Nacho and that you were, “finding Lawls less and less scummy with each passing hour.”

And then, in the course of discussion about Lawls, he changed his mind. He posted about it.

And you made no comment of suspicion towards me (at least not in your top 3) despite the fact all your current suspicions were relevant by the end of D1 as well (sans the knowledge of who was/n’t town).

You have a unique sense of estoppel. I don't think people should keep quiet about their suspicions because they didn't raise them immediately. This was part of your pathetic case against Cojin. Is EF your new Cojin?

What are you hoping to illustrate with your added emphasis? Mentioning Cojin was a L-1....so?

That was your bold, champ. Try to keep up with the game you are in!

The play warrants a lynch line is preceded with reasons...to which only the lurk comment could be construed as supporting a policy lynch but which is not the lone reason for my suspicions towards his play.

This:

But if he is a doc as he claims to be.....I'm not even sure scum would bother killing him at night since surviving would make his claim even more doubtful. His play just warrants a lynch. Then maybe scum would have mercy and NK one of the town wallposters.

is not calling for a policy lynch?

I don't even get what that's supposed to mean; if we don't lynch the doc, the scum might outwit us and not nightkill the doc, giving us, what, at least one night of protections? Oh no!

The only policy type situations I have had exposure to that I would support a lynch on are lynching liars and active lurkers....neither of which Lawls or Cojin were guilty of iirc.

Then why did you want to lynch a claimed doc that you thought the mafia would cleverly keep alive, earning us an extra night of protection?

Apparently yes....unless you can concoct a better example.

Oh? You're voting me? Since when?

I saw your reasoning prior to the lynch. By the end of the day I would hope you'd have had a few reasons for voting Lawls. I was commenting on the fact you gave no reassoning for voting Lawls when you initially voted him.

Except for the sentence right after the vote.

It was almost two weeks after your vote on Lawls before you gave any insight into your reasoning (Acos ISO 32), and again in ISO 47. It's interesting to note that once you did provide some reasons they were just as applicable to Cojin.

No, that's just false. That I took so long to give reasons for my vote and that the reasons were just as applicable to Cojin. We've been through this.

Why is it a surprise? I don’t recall casting suspicions your way on D1. I don’t consider lack the of social skills a scumtell.

You said it was scummy for me to accuse you of pushing a policy lynch. Not day 1, but, again, we don't share your pathological view of estoppel, so I'm looking at what you've done today, which is try to discredit me without meeting me head-on. How can I be scummy and not scummy at the same time? Are you a dialetheist?

So I hear people who try to get doctors lynched are not cool.

Vote: havingfitz

Nacho: if you're not the second scum, who is?

Votecount
Nachomamma8 - 2 (havingfitz, Ellibereth)
havingfitz - 1 (Acosmist)

Not Voting - 4 (Furry, Nachomamma8, Panacea, Elementary Fermion)

With 7 alive, it's 4 to lynch.

[Acosmist]

I didn't see the soft claim as you did; I saw a townie reaction based on another game (Ellibereth knows which one). So, the vote came off.

Is it ongoing? Can I look into it?

No, never willing to lynch. Willing to pressure, but not willing to lynch.

Pan, stop sucking up to the mod >.>

Cojin, you're acting... weird. Freaking out and claiming PR when you're at L-2 and no one really wants to lynch you isn't TownCojin play...

I mean, I just read Newbie 908, where you pegged two scum in two days after a successful Doc protect; the only thing that messed up your game was vanilla fakeclaiming cop... The Cojin that's playing in this game definitely isn't the Cojin that's playing in that one...

Unvote, [L-1]Vote: Cojin

That's not willing to lynch? You even helpfully note that he's one vote from getting the rope...

Mhm. I was on the lynchwagon, wasn't I?

You liked Lawls for being aggressive, you thought I was focusing too much on him, and...you had nothing against him. Then you voted him. That's your position?

[Acosmist]

Ellibereth, having claimed that his magic numbers mean one thing, and then later mean another thing wholly inconsistent with said first thing, and with no explanation for either conclusion (sic), is stupid and scumtastic.

And then he started using the numbers again. So he flip-flopped twice. He's on track to lose the 2004 presidential election at this rate.

It seemed like he thought he could get away with BSing using numbers, and then there were a couple people in this thread who could easily call him on it (sup, us!), so he backed off. Then, because his general strategy is to use numbers to BS, he fell back on it when he thought the smoke had cleared.

My only problem is that that makes 3 scummy people (havingfitz, Nacho, Ellibereth) with 2 mafia left. And our margin for error is getting small.

Welcome, Furry!! Your avi is adorable..!

Oh how naive you are...

[Acosmist]

Nonono, gut to Mathmania, back to gut in 4 seconds.
Tis be my meta.

So your shtick is to be inconsistent.

Can the replacements do us all a favor and actually read the game before commenting? Between Furry wanting to vote Cojin (good luck with that!) and you making reads based on two pages of posts there is a whole lot of useless stuff being said.

[Acosmist]

So havingfitz and who else?

[Acosmist]

Lynch all liars; time to put the rope around your neck, fitzy.

[Acosmist]

Funfact:

Havingfitz thinks than Pan and I are scum together.
I think that Pan and Havingfitz are scum together.
Pan thinks that Havingfitz and I are scum together.

Find the townie and win the game?

Panacea is the townie :teach:

[Acosmist]

If you are town your crap play is only unrivaled by mine if you are scum.

what

[Acosmist]

Fact => if you didn’t post like such a pompous ass with an obsession to prove yourself right when you are wrong, the walls of text wouldn't have been quite so large.

This is a psychological phenomenon known as "projecting." As I don't expect to get any coherent response from you about this issue, I'm just going to back away from it. I don't think it's game-relevant whether you like me or not, so...yep. Gonna drop it and ignore you when you pompously accuse me of being pompous.

Seriously...do you talk like you post when in conversation with

friends

other people?

I use the mot juste in conversation, sure. I'm not showing off here; I've used words and images that were relevant. I think Panacea was entertained by it, at least. It seemed to grow on Nacho, too.

<I’m torn between Niles and Frasier but I’m leaning towards Niles>

Daphne was easy on the eyes, so I'll take it.

You conveniently left out the part of my quote where I include myself in that sentence (added in bold by me!!!!). I was responding to an accusation of tunnel vision from EF in a post that he mentioned you in comparison w/ me. I assume EF inferred I had tunnel vision due to the fact I had my vote on Cojin a good portion of D1....though I did assess other people critically D1 as well. I did not say you ignored other player, I basically pulled you in to the tunnelling conversation after EF brought you up as I would say our levels of ‘tunnelling’ or tunnel vision, or leading a bandwagon were basically equal.

In the course of refuting your accusation of tunneling (I'm spelling it this way now because Firefox is bugging me about it), I ignored your admission of tunneling...well, yeah. Your saying "You and me both, man" did not seem relevant; I didn't care if you labeled yourself a tunneler in that part.

Why are we debating an exchange between EF and I.

I'm allowed to do that! You and EF are not on a private channel.

I also did not wholeheartedly subscribe to Lawls’ being scum and that was right. Some we get right...some we don’t.

No, you don't get to shrug your shoulders and say "oops!; I guess he was the doc after all." A person claiming doc is so restricted in his future play that a liar can be discovered easily enough. The correct game theoretic move was not to lynch him. You tried your best to lynch him. Oops!

Once Cojin claimed Doc his fate was most likely sealed, so not being the D1 lynch was a moot point that ended up being the best outcome for town (though I am somewhat surprised he survived N1).

what

If Cojin had been the D1 lynch I’m certain Lawls would have been kept around to distract town on D2. Now we have a clean slate with the top two D1 bandwagons gone.

You're pretty sanguine about having dropped those two townies. As if we should just move on and be glad we lost them. Well, what part did you play in losing them? That's...relevant.

Is that you EF?

I can see what you post! You're not shielded from collateral attack!

The fact remains he did join the Lawls’ wagon (again) at the last minute.

This really is Cojin all over again. What EF did, just like the things Cojin did, had several possible interpretations. EF stated his reason, and you apparently missed it - like you missed what Cojin was trying to say. When someone called you on missing it, you do...all this.

I think the Lawls and Cojin wagons were very similar...with certain characteristics of tunnelling included...and EF does not seem to have a problem with the Lawls ~tunnelling.

You think they were similar but that's a self-serving equivalence. And that's what I've been trying to say!

Is that because he was on the Lawls’ wagon? Not loaded. It’s a simple yes or no question.

"Have you stopped beating your wife?" - a simple yes or no question

This is still from the same post where you are brought up in the tunnelling discussion. It’s not like I brought you into the fray (EF did) and called you out or compared your play to mine only to change my level of tunnelling later in the game...it’s the same post.

Just because you vote was on Lawls the entire game after you took your random vote off me does not mean you ~tunnelled more than me.

If anyone is taking my post that way...it is not intentional.

Emphasis added. It amounts to saying "I'm not saying you tunneled more just because you totally tunneled this guy all day." Well, geez, I must be paranoid for taking your post that way.

I think it’s sweet how you answer for EF.

I think it's funny that you thought you could get away with scummy attacks on one person without being called on it by a third party.

Where was ‘this’ part of my case on Cojin? Is my vote on EF? Am I your new Lawls? And estop being so pomp-ass.

You made a big deal out of him having supposedly contradictory views on early bandwagons. That was a huge part of your argument, am I seriously paying more attention to your posts than you are?

You're just saying things now, aren't you?

Comprehension fails even the biggest heads sometimes. I was responding to a post by you that mentioned "Emphasis added..." Why are you pointing out the text I bolded for

your

benefit instead of answering the question I asked that pertained to the bolded text?

You really aren't reading your posts. You were wondering why I bolded something that I didn't! You did! And the part that I bolded - "[Cojin's] play just warrants a lynch." - is something you say was preceded by reasons. Well, here's the sentence right before it:

But if he is a doc as he claims to be.....I'm not even sure scum would bother killing him at night since surviving would make his claim even more doubtful.

So your reason to lynch Cojin then was to avoid having to lynch him tomorrow when the mafia, in their infinite wisdom, kept him alive in order to cast more suspicion on him.

You were bloodthirsty for the doctor and you seem to spend every new post reminding us of it rather than manning up and admitting you epic-failed.

How is it? I thought Cojin’s play was scummy. I vote people I think are scummy. Scummy play warrants lynching. Do you consider that a policy lynch....voting people you think are scummy? I don’t think so.

You say his play warrants a lynch after you hypothesize that he is actually the doc. :boggle:

You’re obviously not perfect.

You were serious about the dangers posed by keeping our doctor alive and using his ability at night? Oh.

Vote: havingfitz

Because I thought he was scum. The claim meant nothing to me as there was no way to confirm it (short of his flip). The rest is/was all WIFOM hypothesizing.

You can't see any other way to validate that claim?

When your hypo include "If he really is a doc..." then lynching him should probably not occur in that hypo. You might think the antecedent is extremely unlikely to be true, but in the possible worlds where it is, lynching him is bad. Do you get that?

You really want to claim that as the reasoning you used to back up your Lawls vote when you made it

Yep, I'm happy as a clam doing that.

If you think it’s important to the game, prove it. I stand by my comments.

No, your argument against me is that I didn't give any insight into my reasoning until ISO 32.

This is your argument

. I am not trying to assert a claim, you are. And you are insisting that I provide evidence to negate that claim. That's not how the burden of proof works!

Given that I explained myself throughout my posts before that, I'm calling you on just lying. You know what happens to liars?

Other than your continued focus on me (and the inaccurate policy lynch accusation) I don’t find anything you’ve done particularly scummy. At least not enough at this time to divert my attention from Nacho and Pan.

Yeah, you're not going to be able to avoid this fight. If you thought not actually casting suspicion on me would get me to leave you alone, you were wrong.

The exchange is doing no good to town that I can see and is only distracting other town from scumhunting and allowing scum to hide behind it.

Then why are you doing it? Why are you doing something that doesn't help the town?

I mean, I have a good reason why, but I want to see what you come up with. I bet it'll be angry and hypocritical.

Acosmist, though I do appreciate your help, it unsettles me that you've been so quick to clear me all game. I've been told before that I play obvtown (our very own RayFrost, actually), but I'm starting to get concerned here.

My top suspects are havingfitz and Nacho. Nacho posited a list of suspects limited to those two and you. Well, which one am I supposed to pick out as the townie?

Whoever the scum is has to be absolutely loving the Acosmist/havingfitz diversion.

Are you loving it? You don't seem to be loving it.

Show me where you think I have lied and I'll clarify whatever point it is you are getting wrong.

Yes, you're just so good at that. I think you honestly still don't understand what Cojin was saying, and you think we all will just throw up our hands and admit that it's great the doctor is dead, because, after all, his posts were

so hard to read

.

Anyway, you said I provided no insight into my Lawls vote until ISO 32. False. ISO 9, 15, 16, 17, 18, 21, 22, 24, 29. Welcome to being scum.

If you are town your crap play is only

un

rivaled by mine if you are scum.

Still incoherent. (I am town) -> ((my crap play is rivaled by yours) -> (I am scum)).

Sure... It's called Glitch in Time, modded by Haylen, in the New York Forum. I'll link you to it if you'd like, but I'd rather not open another window just yet.

Cojin wasn't in that game

Exactly. By putting right next to my vote, in bold, that he's at L-1, I force whoever was going to hammer to think up of actual reasoning to hammer a claimed doc. No accidental hammers were going to result; it'd take an idiot scum will balls of steel to hammer Cojin at that point.

That's bizarre. You don't get to put the penultimate vote on someone and say "Not willing to lynch!" It's self-serving to interpret that action as putting all of the responsibility for the lynch on the final voter.

Then you voted him

because deadline was approaching and you didn't want to lynch the claimed doctor

. That's your position?

Mhm.

There are a bunch of other ways not to lynch the claimed doctor! Like lynching no one. The deadline is not an excuse, and you had no reasoning at all for voting Lawls. My point stands.

Panacea or Furry. I'll explain Pan later when I'm in a more case-making mood.

Earlier:

Ellibereth, you replaced a scum spot, and I already know you're scum.

You're all over the place.

Votecount
Nachomamma8 - 2 (havingfitz, Ellibereth)
havingfitz - 1 (Acosmist)

Not Voting - 4 (Furry, Nachomamma8, Panacea, Elementary Fermion)

With 7 alive, it's 4 to lynch.

[Acosmist]

And joy...Acosmist has posted another wall, and bonus joy, it's full of misconceptions and inaccuracies.

Yeah how dare I quote your words to show the things you said!

How does it feel to be schooled by an MS n00b? Pretty bad, right?

[Acosmist]

Agreed!

You can stop replying.

I don't want to stop having this argument, because I'm tearing you to shreds. You had no case against Cojin, you have no case against anyone. There's value in having people read how badly you're misrepresenting.

Does this question apply to Acosmist as well? Win condition of course.

Why would it? Pointing out that you are scum is 31 flavors of awesome for my win condition.

What does the fact he’s voting me matter? Scum still have to be loving the exchange (whether Acosmist is among them or not).

You're saying "Look, over there, the scum who are loving this attention on me!" Well, hey, my point is that you are the scum, and your attempt to cast yourself as a martyr who is a distraction from the true scumhunting is utterly unconvincing.

The question above was for Elli. The debate may prove useful, but that remains to be seen. And no...I don’t have a problem with scum being outted....do

you

Mafia is a game where the players post in public during the day in order to determine who among them is a member of the sinister mafia group. Your questions to players are public, and you don't get to whine that someone you weren't addressing is calling you on something scummy in your question. Seriously, do you know how to play this game?

If anyone is really interested in another wallpost by me then let me know...otherwise I'll try to hold back.

I love when you make wallposts. You claimed that they are not helping the town, so every time you make one,

by your own admission

, you are doing something anti-town. That makes this very pleasant to do.

vote: havingfitz

[Acosmist]

Acos, could you do me a favor and just bullet point a quick list of why fitz is scum without all the quotes and stuff?

He is on the record wanting to lynch Cojin even if Cojin really was the doctor.

He willfully misinterpreted what Cojin was saying in his attacks.

He is doing the same thing with Elementary Fermion now.

His continuing an argument he thinks only helps scum makes him anti-town by his own standard.

He has spent most of the game trying to stifle discussion.

His next post will take issue with these summaries even though the points are argued fully in my other posts.

Where are those stats you owe me?

[Acosmist]

Hmm... How to explain... OOH

If a person is scum, then they will typically go silent/calm and nonreactive when they believe they've been lynched.
Cojin responded in a loud and angry way, therefore: Cojin is not scum.

I learned this lesson from the game I pointed you to.

Oh, you're generalizing from a single instance that didn't even involve Cojin. :muh: That explains why it was useless. There's no "typically" in one game, man.

If you still don't understand, I'll have to break out the crayons and construction paper.

Did you and havingfitz plan this at night? I don't know why you would it's just getting you both lynched

Ever heard of putting pressure on people? It's like... putting scum to L-1 and seeing if someone you suspect to be their buddy hammer, or putting a lurker to L-1 and seeing if the LaL trolls will have the guts to cast the final vote.

Nah:

Pan, stop sucking up to the mod >.>

Cojin, you're acting... weird. Freaking out and claiming PR when you're at L-2 and no one really wants to lynch you isn't TownCojin play...

I mean, I just read Newbie 908, where you pegged two scum in two days after a successful Doc protect; the only thing that messed up your game was vanilla fakeclaiming cop... The Cojin that's playing in this game definitely isn't the Cojin that's playing in that one...

Unvote, [L-1]Vote: Cojin

You're saying he's not playing like TownCojin.

NONONONONOBADBADBADHERESYBLASPHEMYNONONONONONONONO

k

Go on...

Your suspects keep changing and that negates something I thought I saw last week.

[Acosmist]

If you saw anything but a confused/lazy townie who has virtually nothing but a town read on himself, you're probably wrong.

That's why I asked who else was scum ;_;

[Acosmist]

I'd be especially interested to know if Furry still wants to lynch Cojin (no one spoil the ending for him!) and if Ellibereth has any plans to...post at all. Is there something about those player slots that makes you post a lot at first and then fade away into the background?

[Acosmist]

This comment is not true. If I knew “Cojin really was the doctor” I would not have voted for him.

The

very post

you quote shortly includes a conditional with antecedent "If Cojin is a doc." If this antecedent is true at any world accessible from this world, the conditional "If Cojin is a doc, we should lynch him" is not necessarily true at that world. (If the antecedent were true at no possible worlds accessible from this world, then the antecedent is necessarily false at this world, so that the conditional is necessarily true at this world.) I think we'd all agree that if the antecedent can possibly be true, we should not necessarily lynch Cojin, as he is possibly the doctor. So the bizarre conditional you formed could be true

if you knew he was not the doctor

. Then his being the doctor would be impossible, and this perfectly vacuous conditional would be true (as would "If havingfitz is the serial killer, I will win a billion dollars" and any other conditional with an impossible antecedent.) You say you didn't know whether he was the doctor, but you certainly didn't (and couldn't) know he wasn't the doctor, which is what your strange logic requires for "let's lynch him" to be the correct result. I'm taking the correct semantics to be K with the reflexivity constraint, so each world access itself. So, from this possible world, where Cojin was actually the doctor, "Cojin is the doctor" was possible. In those possible worlds where he is the doctor, his play still warrants a lynch?

You're doing a clumsy job of covering your tracks.

As I had no way of definitively knowing that Cojin was town/Doc I merely acknowledged it was a possibility he was town (see below)...

Exactly! You acknowledged that there was a world accessible from this one where he is the doctor! Well, then, it is not true that we should lynch him, right? Or...otherwise, apparently, in your view.

I'm keeping my vote on him because his game is rubbish. He has lurked, provide cr@p responses to question when he's bothered to answer them, and sought approval for his actions from the rest of the players. Could he be town? Sure. But if he is a doc as he claims to be.....I'm not even sure scum would bother killing him at night since surviving would make his claim even more doubtful. His play just warrants a lynch.

"If he is a doc as he claims to be, I am not sure the scum would bother to kill him." So, if he's really a doc, the scum might target someone else, and one of those someone elses will be doc protected. But for giving us a chance to avoid a kill in this manner, "His play just warrants a lynch."

Everyone else gets what's wrong with this. Why don't you?

...and hypothesized on one possible outcome if he was in fact the doctor. I never said I would lynch him even if he was really the doctor.

You hypothesize he is the doctor and immediately after say his play warrants a lynch! Read your OWN POSTS.

As I did not believe that to be the case and as he was my top suspect I voted him.

No, for your logic to work, it had to be impossible for him to be the doctor, not merely possible for him not to be the doctor.

Some of you may find this hard to believe, but when scum are cornered or threatened with elimination they will sometimes resort to making fakeclaims.

You epic-fail at game theory if you think there was any danger of a fake doctor claim giving Cojin a free ride. We had him committed to a certain course of action, and no scum could keep the charade up forever. I get it, EF gets it. We are n00bs.

You

are supposed to teaching

us

.

That is what I believed to be the case with Cojin...my read on Lawls had started to shift, and there was no other strong scum suspect in my opinion at the end of D1 to push for a lynch of.

You have to believe pretty hard that Cojin was lying to think lynching him was the correct result. Not just that it was possible he was lying, but that he was so likely to be lying that risking lynching the doctor was ok with you.

Two of your points are that I willfully misinterpret things?

Gold star!

I have misinterpreted things or needed clarification on points people have made but for you to say any of it is willful is insinuating something you have no way of knowing as a fact...which is scummy.

I am saying it is willful because you willfully did it! When Cojin made a comment about the Panacea bandwagon, he spoke rather unclearly. He corrected himself immediately after. Long after that, as we argued back and forth day 1, you completely failed to comprehend what he was saying even after he and I explained to you what he meant. You kept up this misinterpretation of his words even after I explained very carefully what was going on, and you kept smearing him as incoherent. I told you what he meant, and you ignored it. Willful.

You keep saying I'm scummy, but you're not voting me? Uh...

The fact I dislike wallpost exchanges and think they cloud legitimate scumhunting does not eliminate the need to engage in them on occasion.

The exchange is doing no good to town that I can see and is only distracting other town from scumhunting and allowing scum to hide behind it.

"The exchange is doing no good to town" - your words, champ.

Wrong. I assume you are commenting on the fact that when I engage someone in a conversation or ask them a question I like to get their response...not have other people respond for them.

No, I am talking about your spending all of day 1 telling me to stop criticizing your case on Cojin, and your constant comments about the size of my posts.

And you have a weird view of mafia if you think only the person addressed can talk about a point. Seriously, this might not be the game for you.

Iirc correctly, when I have made comments to that affect I have still responded to the comments/questions posed by the person not originally being conversed with.

This is all in public. There is no such thing as "the person originally being conversed with," except at night. What do you know about

that

?

This comment is meant to discredit my comments in the minds of the rest of the town before the comments have even been made. For shame.

Actually, we all remember day 1 and your fetish for arguing with the summary rather than the substance of my posts. And you're doing it again. I'm discrediting your comments by pointing out how you engage in misdirection to avoid my points. You did it again. You responded to the summary instead of the substance. It seems like whenever anyone asks for a shorter version of my points, you take that opportunity to pounce on the softer target (the summary). All this is doing, you realize, is getting me never to summarize my points, ever. Ever. I'm done with it. It's all going to be drawn out from now on.

Also, points argued fully ≠ points argued accurately.

Yes, in general that is true. How about saying something about this game, right here, where a refutation of my points is not in evidence?

[Acosmist]

"It is true that Abbot

Terrasson

tells us that if the size of a book were measured not by the number of its pages but by the time required to understand it, then we could say about many books

that they would be much shorter if they were not so short

."

-

Critique of Pure Reason

A xix

[Acosmist]

Go look at most 100+ page large themes. Almost every one of them went to whatever alignement the loudest player was.

Maybe here, other sites can handle it. Star Wars Mafia at MiseTings was awesome. The quietest player (the serial killer) won!

[Acosmist]

Which there seems to be a significant lack of (ie consideration of the mislynch bandwagon) with respect to the townie that actually got lynched D1.

Yeah what was with your half-hearted attacks on Lawls and then jumping off just when his wagon got dangerous?

It's funny how you keep pushing people to concentrate on the Lawls voters, even saying that you think scum has to be on the wagon - convenient when you jumped off the way you did (to get on the doctor's wagon, good show that!). I mean, I'm awesome with talking about Lawls, too, because your interactions with him were scummy - not "hey dudes let's lynch a doctor" scummy, but up there!

So, by all means, let's talk Lawls.

[Acosmist]

My change of vote from Lawls to Cojin was no more “convenient” than any other player’s change of vote throughout the game.

No more convenient? OK, champ.

I voted Cojin (for the last time) over a week prior to his claim so at the time it wasn’t “the doctor’s wagon”...it was “the cr@p player who was my top suspect” wagon.

We don't lynch players for playing like crap, we lynch them for being scum. But you'll deny up and down that it was a policy lynch.

And you don't get any points for having your vote on Cojin before he claimed doctor if you subsequently failed to get off him when it was the manifestly town-optimal thing to do.

How were my interactions with Lawls scummy or half hearted?

Lawls was going down (four votes on him before you got off the wagon) and you didn't want to be on the town wagon. You keep saying scum had to be on that wagon, so it's easy to infer a conscious strategy to leave Lawls alone, but let others lynch him, so you can bolster your townie cred. It's clumsy, but you didn't expect this much backlash in a newbie game. Either you really thought you could get away with lynching Cojin instead (you really think your pretexts were solid, and you regarded me as a lone voice in dissent who could be taken care of at any time) or you just thought getting rid of the doctor day 1 was too tempting to pass up.

It’s easy to throw a comment like that out without supporting it.

hey in that vein (not supporting things), don't you owe me a reply to my actual post rather than the strawman you aimed at (the summary)?

Was the fact I didn’t lynch a townie scummy?

Yes.

I think you asked that question thinking it was absurd, but

of course

not lynching a townie can be scummy.

Are the people who did vote out the townie scummy?

Not all of them, and certainly not merely because they did it. Five votes to lynch, and only two scum in this game. Do the math.

[Acosmist]

I guess the one good thing about my suspicions against Cojin not resulting in his lynch D1 is that I don’t have a townie mislynch to my credit like you do.

Oh, it

was

a conscious strategy.

vote: havingfitz

[Acosmist]

Oh and ~72 hours to deadline, will get up key points tonight or after classes tomorrow, will likely lay pseudo-vote claim dependent. We need that claim ASAP

Dude he's not at L-1

Votecount
Nachomamma8 - 2 (havingfitz, Ellibereth)
havingfitz - 2 (Acosmist, Nachomamma8)

Not Voting - 3 (Furry, Panacea, Elementary Fermion)

With 7 alive, it's 4 to lynch.

[Acosmist]

Oh and ~72 hours to deadline, will get up key points tonight or after classes tomorrow, will likely lay pseudo-vote claim dependent. We need that claim ASAP

Dude he's not at L-1

Then you should stop voting people you are already voting, it confuses me quite a bit. I still want him to claim because im going to be voting him by this time tomorrow unless something drastic happens. A claim can only speed things up.

72 hours still applies though

Your avatar terrifies me.

Let's call it even.

[Acosmist]

This sort of response is below you. But as your point was invalid, I guess it’s the best you could do.

Actually, you were begging the question. As the burden of production is on you, I'm satisfied leaving it there. I'm surprised

you're

satisfied, though.

You are dense.

Now do the trick where you deny you are using argumentum ad hominem!

Voting a player and providing multiple reasons for finding the player suspicious, above and beyond points which were initially unclear, is not a policy lynch.

He was playing like crap and his play deserved a lynch; I know, man!

HF ISOs 54, 58, 69 have already explained this.

54:

I gave plenty of reason for my suspicions towards Cojin

A mere statement that you already gave reasons, and no explanation of the supposed reasons.

58:

The play warrants a lynch line is preceded with reasons

No explanation there either.

69:

How is it? I thought Cojin’s play was scummy.

Assertion that his play was scummy without any explanation of what was scummy about it.

You start out saying you already explained yourself, then constantly point back to that bald assertion; did you hope people would not go all the way back along the chain of self-reference and notice that there wasn't actually anything there?

You claimed I conveniently jumped off Lawls to get on a doc wagon. That is a lie. There was no doc wagon, or claimed doc wagon at the time.

Cojin was the doctor. Did you read the morning scene?

Scum fakeclaim. Cojin wasn't even in a position to need a fakeclaim iirc...L-2?

Well if he wasn't in a position to need to do it...then, somehow, it follows he must have been doing it?

Logicfail.

At that point the benefit to scumCojin fakeclaiming far outweighed the benefit to townCojin claiming.

You're not Cojin, though, so why would you judge your actions from his point of view? The stench of WIFOM is wafting from this argument already.

There is no way to prove a Doc claim (other than in death) so scum do it.

If there is no way to prove a doc claim, then it's not an ironclad claim...so scum will do it? You're arguing two contradictory things here. You want to emphasize how unreliable the claim is, but you want the claim to seem like an insurmountable barrier to being lynched.

How would fakeclaiming doc scum be uncovered?

"I got this guilty result on this guy who claimed doc, what's up with that?"

One example.

You infer it was manifestly bad to not believe the doc claim but I disagree for the points I just brought up.

No, you are failing at reading comprehension again. I said nothing about believing the claim; I said it was the town-optimal thing to do not to lynch Cojin under the circumstances.

And Nacho's persistence on the Cojin wagon after the claim followed by his very opportunistic switch...without any mention of the doc claim as a reason... is by far more scummy.

You think we should lynch Nacho and then you rather than you and then Nacho? OK, I'm open to that, seeing as how

he's my second suspect

.

What reasoning would scumHF have to continue pushing the Cojin wagon when Lawls had momentum at various points of the game and with a doc claim....that is an option for a PR-NK.

Pure WIFOM. Nothing but WIFOM.

You make a lot of assumptions in this comment and yes....they are all inaccurate.

It's speculative. Deal with it.

And you again make a bald assertion that my comments were inaccurate when the very thing at issue is the purity of your motivations. That doesn't work in mafia.

You are scum’s best friend (or scum).

Bleating about how what I am doing is helping scum is not refuting my case.

And your either/or example conveniently leaves out the option where I am town and thought I was voting fakeclaiming scum.

My speculation that you are scum leaves out a situation where you are not scum? Yeah, that's how hypos work.

If it wasn’t answered above ask it again.

The one thing replying here has reminded me of is your complete lie about my Lawls reasoning, which I pointed out and you completely ignored. That was sort of a big deal in your wallreplies, and you seem to have dropped it. Sup?

It wasn’t absurd. The situations where not lynching a townie is scummy are far outweighed by them not being scummy.

Awesome; if I am doing a general commentary on all mafia games, I will include that tidbit. But, hey, right now, can we talk about this specific instance of a mafia game?

But some of them.

No, none of them are scummy merely for having voted a townie.

And town getting it wrong (soon to be a trend).

Hello, fellow medium-sized creature!

Ummm...3 townies on the Lawls wagon? Sounds good to me.

No fewer than 3 townies != exactly 3 townies

If anyone whose primary point against me revolves around my maintaining my suspicions towards Cojin after he made his Doc claim...answer me this: how was Cojin’s claim supposed to do town or him any good...if he was town?

He apparently thought we would not have psychotic doc-murderers in this game. I also did not think a person's first reaction would be to lynch the claimed doc, so I guess Cojin and I both learned a lesson.

He was one of the top suspects D1, he made a PR claim when it wasn’t even necessary (L-2), and once he claimed Doc...if there was a RB, he would have signalled a cops existence to the scum as well.

He was one of the top suspects because of your pathetic anti-case on him.

If he hadn't claimed, but had been lynched, the scum would be just as alert. What you are saying makes no sense.

His claim did no good and made no sense.

It got us you, so it did some good.

I can see a lot of benefit to him claiming doc as scum (ie making it to D2 and simply saying he protected one of the townies scum decided not to kill....or by drawing out other PRs through counterclaims).

If it was such a terrible claim as town, then it was just as bad for him as scum, because all the doubts you are casting on him now would be just as valid (not valid at all in my opinion, but this is your hypo!).

A one-for-one trade is insanely good for town. It's stunning that you think this was the danger

to the town

of a scum fakeclaim.

Several people talked about how lynching Cojin on D1 would prevent the town from a protect (which odds were 88+% against).

88 < 100

An 88% chance he would get his protect wrong to begin with is a good excuse to fall back on for fakeDoc.

"Wellp, I didn't successfully protect, but the odds were against me anyway, right?" -not dangerous to us

And what would town have done if Cojin had lived through N1? Lynched him because there was no way he would have been spared?

I don't think everyone shares your hatred of docs, man.

This would support the scenario I hypothesized where there was no guarantee scum would even kill him to earn another mislynch (since odds are he would screw up their NK per the odds shown above).

All of which assumes we autolynch Cojin day 2.

My continued interest in the Cojin lynch was not as scummy as some are making it out to be.

Then I ram my ovipositor down your throat and lay my eggs in your chest. But I'm not an alien!

I'm merely point them out to show the people who thought the Doc would be of use that the Doc's value was limited (before a claim) and virtually nil after a claim.

That is not what "nil" means.

This post wasn't necesaarily directed at you since you are untrainable and obtuse.

ad hom BS, I'm through with you

Tell us who your buddy is and then go get lynched. Don't let the door hit you on the way out.

[Acosmist]

All I can get in for now. Will likely hammer around this time tomorrow without any epiphanies

Panacea and Ellibereth should definitely post before any hammering occurs.

[Acosmist]

All I can get in for now. Will likely hammer around this time tomorrow without any epiphanies

Panacea and Ellibereth should definitely post before any hammering occurs.

Well deadline is just "saturday" and I usually dont get my hungover self out of bed untill noon-ish my time (early afternoon EST). I would rather end the day tomorrow night then risk no lynch

I don't like any course of action that allows players to avoid this critical phase.

[Acosmist]

vanilla

guess Ellibereth is up

[Acosmist]

Someone explain to me how Ellibereth has helped with anything

[Acosmist]

So is this an accusation?

No.

Someone, perhaps even Ellibereth himself, should explain his behavior. Then the accusations can start.

[Acosmist]

I already thought a combo of PoE and VC's like ten million times. I'll be redoing the latter again when I have time.
Furry: Fermion blow-up made him look pretty town to me.

I don't know what you are trying to say here. Write clearly.

If you intend to throw statistics out there again (I fear this is what you're saying), bring the relevance this time.

Well I had the same basic thought process yesterday, but at this point im a bit confused, had a very strong town read on you and Asc yesterday, EF was very scummy untill that snap, nacho seemed to hinge on there being a cop.

Hm...

Since there isnt a cop, the biggest problem most had with nacho no longer exists so im thinking that was a mislynch target that scum failed to get through yesterday when they should have.

I really don't get this. Can you explain what the problem was with Nacho? And how, with no one claiming cop, that problem doesn't exist?

If nacho though is a mislynch at least one of my strong town reads is wrong which I dont think is the case, but at least a medium one is wrong.

How do you know that he's a mislynch ex ante?

And if he's a mislynch, we lose.

EF was for whatever reason calling you scum yesterday for reasons unknown (or just confusing) which makes me default back to him for first scum.

I am pretty sure EF and I see the same things, but sure, let him explain. His reasons seemed fine to me.

Either way, there are only six possible pairings to consider and we can strike a few on interactions (nacho/asc, nacho/eli, EF/eli)

Why not Nacho/Ellibereth?

im not going to bother with the eli/asc pairing since I think both are likely town, which leaves nach-EF or EF-asc.

Ellibereth is likely town?

I guess nacho lynch isnt bad, but there are better spots to be looking.

Not sure how that jibes with the preceding. Aren't you worried he's a mislynch ftl?

I'm not; pretty sure it's Ellibereth and Nacho. The whole havingfitz debacle (yeah, yeah...) ended up strengthening the case against Nacho - I thought it odd that my top two suspects were going at each other as much as they were early day 2, but it's not as difficult to explain now.

Ellibereth is just...well, I'd like to see what he produces today before calling back to all the awful, unresponsive numerical gibberish he spewed yesterday.

Also updated VC analysis Eli?

[Acosmist]

So, Acosmist. Are you going to post a case against me, or...?

Another one? Will you read it this time?

[Acosmist]

Sure, if it actually holds compressed and convincing points put in a non-quote stripe form...

Succinctness is pro-town, you know.

Oh, you're back on this kick again. OK.

That's part of the case, actually.

[Acosmist]

Don't do dumb shit before I return.

Ellibereth, please do not take this as an injunction against posting.

[Acosmist]

Nacho case:

The copfishing by Nacho came before the mafia could be sure Cojin was actually a doc. Getting a cop to out himself does several things, including potentially falsify Cojin's claim.

Day 1, I posted too much. Day 2, he misses the wallposts. Day 3, succinctness is pro-town. Flip-flop-flip. Get an opinion on how mafia should be played. Ask your scumbuddy at night if you need to!

Ridiculous jumping on EF day 1 that had no basis. Seemed peeved someone called him on it.

Limited access for the next two days or so... I look up and I see wallposts, so no post today.

Guess he forgot he missed the wallposts. Oops!

At least he was absent when the havingfitz lynched was finalized. Wait. That's a bad thing.

Ellibereth:

Ellibereth is stonewalling requests for anything.

There. As I am the only person putting any effort into this, that's all you get. Deal, I guess.

[Acosmist]

Really would like to hear what Ellibereth has to say.

And nothing EF had said has seemed scummy. Make a better case if you think he's mafia.

[Acosmist]

And what reason did I have to doubt Cojin? Because of how close Cojin got to a lynch

after

his claim, it was obvious that he would make an easy mislynch anyways. So why the hell would I care whether he was vanilla townie OR doc at that point?

It's definitely been speculated that he could have been fakeclaiming.

And as easy a mislynch as he was...he wasn't lynched.

Posts like the one I'm making annoy me when I see eight of them to a page. When it gets to the point where I'm not seeing a quarter of the content you produced before, then I'd rather be flooded by wallposts as opposed to not seeing any posts. And succinctness is pro-town. I'll wall battle with the best of them if it's a confirmed town I'm protecting, but if the rest of the town isn't even going to read it, then what's the use?

OK, it annoys you and you're just restating, rather than providing any defense of, your claim that succinctness is now pro-town.

Though I guess that could change at any time.

Gonna go ahead and stop caring.

Erm, how? I was obviously in support of the lynch. What else did you need me to say?

Anything? Participate in the game.

So Ellibereth or Nacho first? Has Ellibereth been gone almost a week?

[Acosmist]

Anything? Participate in the game.

So Ellibereth or Nacho first? Has Ellibereth been gone almost a week?

Game does need prods. Although you are fairly guilty of tunneling at this point, which in lylo is pretty dangerous.

Finals for me start next week, last one is the 11th. Untill then im going to be much quieter then normal since passing classes > MS.

Oh the tunneling canard

we're back to that :/

Must be like Hogan's Heroes in here, with all the

separate

tunnels I'm making.

[Acosmist]

Well given that it seems that there is zero way you dont vote one of nach/elli which is almost an impossible pairing... yeah you are tunneling.

That's because I prefer not to lose :teach:

[Acosmist]

Hell week of test ends next week. Will be back then.

Um...when?

The deadline is Tuesday, May 11.

Votecount

Not Voting - 5 (Acosmist, Furry, Elementary Fermion, Nachomamma8, Ellibereth)

With 5 alive, it's 3 to lynch.

[Acosmist]

Seriously, deadline extend get

plz

[Acosmist]

lol

[Acosmist]

Well given that it seems that there is zero way you dont vote one of nach/elli which is almost an impossible pairing... yeah you are tunneling.

How is that pair not possible? (Is one of them a pair with you?)

Remember Eli laying into nacho yesterday? That makes no sense if they are partners since its going to quickly bring WIFOM to Eli before endgame, there was an easy town lynch to push through first, he wasnt stuck on the wagon... there is no good reason for someone as good as Eli is to bus a partner like that. I see it as actually the least likely existing pairing out there right now.

Ummmmm I looked over the history and never saw the wagon gain any steam or create any danger of lynching Nacho. If I'm wrong go ahead and point out what I missed.

I also don't understand your WIFOM point. Explain what that means.

Your argument seems to be that scum will not even tepidly go after each other, because it's either laying off entirely or busing. That doesn't make sense, especially when you say that Ellibereth is so good (looooool).

Seriously, Ellibereth should, maybe, post?

[Acosmist]

In a newbie game, I tend to have a waaay different philosophy than I would in a normal game. For example, reaction hunting by voting without an explanation tagged on with it is generally a bad idea when you're the only person who knows wtf is happening.

Also, why woulld you request a deadline extension? There are two scums to get, you know. So why don't you, you know, actually do some scumhunting and make a case on me that doesn't, you know, suck? After I shoot that down, maybe we can get somethin productive done! ^.^

Sup lurking scum, how are you this evening?

It's funny how you promise to shoot down a case when you haven't shot down the case

I just made.

And I'm the only one

not lurking.

I seconded the deadline request because everyone else was lurking and Ellibereth said flat-out he'd be gone over a span that might have included the entire remainder of the day.

So, why do you think it's cool for people to miss the entire last week of a three-week deadline?

You need to swing. We can find out if the second one's Ellibereth in discussions tomorrow.

[Acosmist]

I've been prodded. Apparently we went crazy with posting today. I am happy about that!

I am happier about the pints of lager in my bloodstream. I will post more tomorrow. Thanks for replying, Nacho, and thanks for posting ever, Elliiiiiiiiiibereth.

[Acosmist]

Okay, lemme address your "case".

Scare quotes for maximum condescension.

Awesome!

Re: Copfishing:
Okay. Let me put that into perspective for you.

Please, dumb it down.

Because I am just such an idiot.

First of all, I had special reason to believe Cojin's doctor claim because of my reading of his previous games, where a VT claimed doc and screwed over their chances of winning. So, after seeing Cojin saw firsthand the reasons why VT claiming powerrole is an idiot manuever, wouldn't it make sense to you if I realized that he wouldn't do that himself?

I had no inkling that a townie, especially in one of these games, would intentionally fakeclaim a power role to try to fool the mafia. It seems to me like a terrible idea. I've already said, with my contract bridge comments from forever ago, how trying to box clever has a much better chance of fooling the town than the mafia. So I really just didn't consider the possibility. I wondered why anyone did think this guy could be fakeclaiming doctor. And when it was brought up (Cojin himself found it necessary to laugh off the insinuation that he was fakeclaiming doc) I went back over that day...and what you said became sinister rather than just dumb. Because, I mean, no townie really wants the cop to claim right after the doc has claimed, so, at BEST, it's dumb.

Secondly, check again (just for shits and giggles), how long we had before deadline. If I was going to copfish as scum, why would I do it when no one had a freaking chance to respond?

I want to care about this but it's all WIFOM, so, you know, no.

WIFOM is classic scumtellicious stuff.

I am shocked you even tried it. Scumlor.

Re: Inconsistencies:
Okay. The secret's out. People aren't inconsistent.

Typo much?

Sometimes I look up and I don't want to read your wallposts, otherwise I realize that the content in this thread is 0% and your wallposts are nice to see.

OK, but if you get that you have all the caprice of a woman, then you must also get how horrible it is to rely on the "well I'm just absurdly moody" card.

Now, it's your turn to explain why the hell that's scummy.

Being capricious is not scummy. But I've noticed that your shtick this game has been to complain about how much content I am bringing, then to complain how tiny my wallposts are, then to complain about my content again. Content is good. Assuming, arguendo, that my wallposts are not entirely useful, they at least express my opinion and offer chances for others to react to my opinion. In some sense, they pin me down to something. If someone replies, he may express an opinion to which he can be pinned down. If someone ignores the wallposts, that might be a scummy attempt to evade the topic of discussion. On the whole, I think my wallposts were a good thing. They got me on the record and they forced other people to take a stand.

Why would anyone want to suppress that?

Re: EF attack:
It's scummy to misunderstand someone?

what

Let's see... I thought that people weren't both angry and bored at the same time.

Yeah, that was dumb of you.

EF thought that people wouldn't be as loyal to the site as Panacea was.

Oh, you're trying the moral equivalence fallacy.

Cool. :/

So... it's scummy when I incorrectly assume, but it isn't when EF does? Congratulations, that doesn't make any sense whatsoever.

Yeah your behavior was totally comparable to what EF did

protip: no

Happy, Acosmist? If not, feel free to respond buddy. We got six whole days.

Do we? I dunno, hopefully you don't epic-lurk and have to get prodded between now and the deadline.

You're not lurking? That's news to me.

You are grasping at straws. The noose is tightening. I know how that feels. It's all right. Maybe your scumbuddy will trick us tomorrow.

You haven't really provided anything close to useful in a while.

I'm ok with what I've provided.

NACHO AND ELLI ARE OBVSCUM LYNCH THEM LOL is pretty much all I've gotten out of you today.

That's all you've gotten. But aren't you scum anyway?

I can see why you'd be flailing.

Can you do something less predicatable and more productive, please?

Did you predict I would post too much and then too little and then too much?

You're flailing again.

I think it's okay for people to miss the entire last week of a three week deadline because Reality > Mafia.

If that were true, wouldn't you want an extension so that reality and mafia could coexist in peace and harmony?

In addition, we would've got the extension if we were more active so it's most definitely our faults for being screwed by deadline, not just Elli's.

So if we just spammed uselessly while we waited for him, we would get an extension.

All right. Way to cover for your buddy, there.

Trying to paint it any other way denotes a problem with accepting responsibility or a role pm that says "I win when the town is dead".

LOL

That's how weakening works, logically. Like, I could say "Either I am Acosmist or Obama was born in Kenya." You can introduce any disjunct together with an obviously true one, and the resulting disjunction will be true.

But why would you say it? There's a general principle in human conversation: Assert the strongest information. Your disjunction introduction tries to get us seriously to consider that I am scum...because you dearly wish people seriously considered that. More flailing.

Nice try, though. I am sorry I am so good at logic and swatted that attempt down.

Hmm... your last line sounds strangely overconfident, but it lacks a vote. Why is this?

Do you really not know?

Are you not as confident as you say you are? Or are you scum afraid of attracting all the attention to just the two of us...?

whaaaaaaaaat

I am afraid of attracting attention to you?

That is why I am attacking you?

wwwwwwwhaaaaaaaaat

[Acosmist]

Prod Acosmist please.

In Magic: the Gathering, we call this rules-lawyering.

[Acosmist]

Are you gonna start playing to your town meta now...? Or should I just start looking for your partner?

I don't think I'm playing to either meta right now.
And ARE YOU GOING TO START PLAYING TO YOUR TOWN META OR SHOULD I BE LOOKING FOR YOUR PARTNER.

OH SCHNAP.

It is so weird that you ignore everything I say.

Like, just, totally ignore it.

[Acosmist]

Ridiculous Activity

+ Overaggressiveness + Being an Asshole = My Town Meta

Seriously? A confession?

No, I'm pointing out that I didn't have a scum motive there. That's not WIFOM... Although, cheaply deflecting my point is noted.

"Why would I, as scum, do that?" is what WIFOM is. You try to get townie cred for doing something so ballsy, "no scum would ever do that!"

I don't think WIFOM is a huge scumtell, but it definitely invalidates your hope for townie cred entirely. That is why I pointed it out, and why I'm ignoring it.

I think you might be a bad enough player to think that argument would fly. It doesn't. Logically, it can't. Then scum would be able to make bad scum moves on purpose with impunity.

This is so basic, man.

Because there is a such thing as too many wallposts.

In the abstract, yes, there is a wallpost limit beyond which the game becomes unreasonable. Before that, though, the relevance of the posts to the game controls whether there are too many.

Sure, they do offer the chance for people to react to your opinion, but they also offer the chance not to react. Seriously, look back at all your wallposts, and look who responded when the wallposts weren't directed at them...

You sure are blaming me for what other people did.

Also, it puts you in a blatant tunneling mode where you simply won't see when you're wrong, as soon to be demonstrated by my lynch.

Yes, my wallposts against Furry earlier and my continued mention of Ellibereth, all while calling for Furry to make any case on EF (who has never seemed scummy to me) make this argument with you tunneling!

Explain.

EF was a soft target when you attacked him. Even Panacea was on him. You had plausible deniability. EF jumped on Panacea because she favored a policy lynch on him, and he got no traction with that.

Moral equivalence fallacy FAIL

Never said I didn't want an extension. I'm just saying that I agree the mod's decision.

Pan, stop sucking up to the mod >.>

Why else would I ask...?

you do not know what lynch or lose is

ok

what is this i dont even

An analogy :teach:

At this point, I am going to go over Ellibereth's posts and see if there is some chance your fight with him was genuine, which would tell in your favor.

[Acosmist]

I'll respond later.

And look, no scum quickhammer from me!

haha

wait EF has one vote on him

are you really unable to count to three

[Acosmist]

OK, the Nacho/Ellibereth fight never really got anywhere. With a DAY to go, neither votes the other. Calling it fake.

Furry, I simply cannot get behind an EF lynch. Your vote is wasted.

Ellibereth, reaaaaaaaaaal quick, why aren't you scum?

[Acosmist]

Or, you know, not.

Hopefully we don't lose due to no lynch.

Vote: Nachomamma8

[Acosmist]

kekekekeke

[Acosmist]

Thank you for modding, Phate.

[Acosmist]

Fudge.

Good job, you two.

Thanks.

Ready to hear advice if you have any.

[Acosmist]

Congrats Acosmist and Furry.

Thanks.

Can’t believe the game ended in a no lynch. Town just rolled over.

Yep, we made the right nightkills. You think Panacea would have done that?

Furry's idea, btw. I wanted to relieve EF of the burden of playing.

Acos was totally brilliant and had me foooled.

Well, cool. I wasn't about to argue with the laundry list of people who had a strong town read on me.