Newbie 982 - Shadows of Death, Game Over!

[zauper]

/confirm.

I bet Guybrush is scum. He's all pirate-y

[zauper]

Sorry about that, had a busy Sunday.

In any case -- I posted largely to get discussion going; I had no real 'purpose' in mind, as you could tell. Random voting (you'll note I didn't vote) doesn't get anywhere anyway.

I do agree that all liars are lynched.

Re: Guybrush; I'll get an avatar later today, haven't had a chance to do that yet.

AurorusVox: If you are questioning Bazz about his accusation, why are you supporting his accusation by voting for 2k3?

[zauper]

Zauper, please see my more detailed response to the very same question in the post just above yours.

TL;dr version:

I disagree with his reasons for suspecting 2k3. But I don't disagree with his suspicion of 2k3.


Now I have a question for you: why ask a question that has already been answered?

I don't believe you answered it very well. Largely, you said "I have other reasons to be suspicious of 2k3" without disclosing them. If you felt that 2k3 were scum, it doesn't make sense to me for you to be questioning folks that are questioning 2k3. Do you think that the scum would roll on each other this early?

Why do you think 2k3 is scum?

[zauper]

@Zaup; my own reasons were already stated earlier:

I need a good reason not to start an RVS and I need somon to persuade me not to start one.

At this stage, do you think that any vote you make will be random? Would your vote not be placed on the most scummy player that you can find at the moment? Seems to me like you want to place a vote down but don't want to look too attached to it. This is backed up by your later post (#33) where you say you want to vote with legitimate reasons for the scummiest player, but you have made no efforts to find said scummy player.

...

So I see 2k3 saying he wants to vote but then not scumhunting, and I see Bazz looking like he's scumhunting but with no bite behind his play. For now, I'll

vote: 2k3

, because Bazz could actually be scum-hunting rather than simply trying to look like he's scumhunting.

And just because someone is questioning the same person as me doesn't mean I can't question them. Otherwise, all scum would have to do to avoid questions from a certain player would be to question the same person that they were questioning.

So, the crux of your argument is --

You're voting for 2k3 because you think he's scum since he said he'd vote, and since then hasn't appeared to you to be actively looking for scum? I suppose that's reasonable. He has been active, but hasn't been talking about substance, largely.

Clearly you can still question multiple people, but at this stage of the game it's not like there's a lot of concrete evidence to go on, so it just seems off to me.

[zauper]

After reading through the arguments, I have to admit that I'm persuaded by AurorusVox. 2k3 hasn't been scumhunting after indicating that he preferred a random question stage to try and reveal who the scum are. He seemed to indicate that he would participate and then did not until prompted to by a vote, in spite of several comments about it.

Vote: 2003041 (2k3)

[zauper]

@Akira: That's a valid point. I'm not sure how to address it, honestly.

@2k3: I think it has less to do with you being gone over the weekend, and more to do with your behavior between post #33 and now. Post #33 seems to indicate that what you're looking for is proof that someone is scum before voting, but it doesn't seem (and perhaps I'm wrong -- if so, please enlighten me) as to what you've done since then.

[zauper]

@Zauper: If you re-read posts 66-67, 78, 80, and 82, I'm trying to hunt. Yes, it's with one person, but as I also stated in 84 I haven't seen anything I can add to others' interrogations and decided to try and have my own that others could follow.You could also just look at the post above you and see I'm trying to scum-hunt. I honestly just don't know what kind of questions are good to ask for scum-hunting, so I'm asking anything that might make someone slip. I really don't understand your vote for me in this regards and I think that you're just trying to cover up for AurorusVox by voting for me, making the two of you both scum. I need some concrete evidence from you as to why you're actually voting for me.

FoS: zauper

I just did re-read all of those.

How are you trying to hunt? The post above mine just says "I feel I've been trying to hunt". Have you been trying to hunt by not contributing to the conversation?

What questions have you been asking, and to who? Other than your back and forth with Aurorus, I don't see anything.

I'm voting for you because you say you're trying to scumhunt and I have seen 0 evidence of it.

[zauper]

I believe that Zauper is guilty of backtracking and trying to appear pro-town by agreeing with others.
I use the following example:
Quote 1

I bet Guybrush is scum. He's all pirate-y

Quote 2

Random voting (you'll note I didn't vote) doesn't get anywhere anyway.

Although in quote 2 he clarified that quote 1 wasn’t

technically

a random vote, it was clearly said in the style of the ‘random voting stage’ i.e. he still made a statement that was meant to be accusative but in a pointless and funny way, which is surely advocating the start of a RVS. When he therefore stated in quote 2 that RVS “doesn’t get anywhere anyway” he was going back on the initial intentions of quote 1. This backtracking came after others said how much they were against RVS, and I believe this contradiction indicates an eagerness to appear aligned with other players because he knows that he is infact against them (i.e. trying to appear aligned with town because he is not).
(to clarify: I’m not bringing up the value [or lack of value] in an RVS again, only using this as an example of his backtracking)

This is my first game here, and looking through the threads, they all start in that manner (which is why I posted like that). TBQH, I don't find it to be an instance of backtracking.

From this, I had the suspicion that he is trying too hard to align himself with others, and after re-reading his posts, found that much of what he says (including BWing 2k3) shows this same desire to align with town players.

I do agree that all liars are lynched.

I suppose that's reasonable.

After reading through the arguments, I have to admit that I'm persuaded by AurorusVox [... ] Vote: 2003041 (2k3)

@Akira: That's a valid point.

So reading and looking at what other people say, particularly in the context of discussions I'm engaged in, and responding to it is somehow unreasonable? Interesting.

The first quote was after 3 pages (and several walls of text) that I had missed due to the weekend, and I had thought that that was part of a set of general questions that folks had been asked. I'm not sure on the context of the 2nd quote. I'm pretty sure it has the same context as the third -- after a series of back and forth with Aurorus. I don't see why being convinced by another person's arguments is a 'scum' thing.

This recurring desire to show that he supports others views, I believe, is a scum-tell; he is worried about alienating himself and wants to look as if he supports the majority.

FoS: Zauper

(I will wait for his response before deciding whether to vote)

I think this answers most of the questions that I've been posed.

I still don't see what the justification that 2k3 posted for voting for me was; other than that I had been convinced by Aurorus. (I still don't particularly see 2k3's actions to dates as being scumhunting; rather they appear to me to be the attempt of a scum to throw off suspicion on themselves).

[zauper]

I'm going to try to address everyone's concerns; I'm sorry if I miss anyone in particular. [Note -- sometimes I abbreviate Aurorus as AV]
@ 2k3; I'm afraid I don't see how my strategy is to 'get on everyone's good side'. I've questioned multiple people. (yourself and AV, largley).
@ Bazz: I may not have made a ton of posts, but that's largely because I don't have the time to make several wall of text-ish posts a day. I do read on a regular basis and respond one or two times per day. I don't think that's an inappropriate approach; I'm not lurking, I'm actively participating when I have something to contribute and doing so on a regular basis.
I feel like you accusation about my not having had any dialogue with 2k3 is partially accurate, but when you consider my actual reasons for voting that's a null argument. It's true that I had not yet directly conversed with 2k3, however I did have an exchange with Aurorus relating to 2k3. It's not like it was a vote 'out of the blue' or similar -- my reason for voting paralleled an existing line of conversation with 2k3 between him and another.
@Aurorus:
No, I don't agree with others concerns. For example; you no longer share my feeling WRT 2k3, but I continue my stance. I feel like while I do use words like "agree" or "understand" in my posts, they are being pulled out of the context of the larger post in order to make a case with me. It's not like I'm posting "I agree with Aurorus" or "I agree with 2k3" in my posts with no content or unique expression.
As far as your question about the second scummiest player -- I'm still concerned about you, to be honest. Beyond that, I don't have a solid read on Akira or Valk. There is no one that I'm certain is town.
@2k3:
That seems like a poor understanding of strategy. A more intelligent play for a mafia player would be to wait until a BW forms or begins to form before jumping onto it. It wouldn't be wise to call attention to themselves by following up as a second vote in a stage of the game where no lynch is likely to form. I believe your case largely relies on your personal misgivings due to my voting for you.
I also find it's amusing that your vote for me was to "see if aurorus would defend me", and then when it's clear that he doesn't you come up with a fresh excuse for the vote. This reads of scum tactics to me.

@AV:
Who are the folks you think are most scum? Why do you think they're scum?

@Akira:
I think this is answered earlier. I'm still very suspicious of him as scum. I think that he started the game off very aggressively and since then has backed down his stance substantially, to the point where it's not really aggressive at all. I'm not sure why he would be doing that if he were a townie.

@Michel: Why did you go after Valk after only 12 hours? It's not really that long, in the grand scheme of things. Particularly when we have folks that aren't posting / haven't contributed thus far.

@Bazz: Who else do you think is scum? Why? What is your opinion on AV? 2k3? How do you feel about 2k3's changing story for his vote for me, regardless of your personal suspicions?

[zauper]

I feel like while I do use words like "agree" or "understand" in my posts, they are being pulled out of the context of the larger post in order to make a case with me. It's not like I'm posting "I agree with Aurorus" or "I agree with 2k3" in my posts with no content or unique expression.

I accept that some of your posts have been pulled out of context - Michel has also noted this. But prior to this post, what questions have you asked of 2k3 or myself that have been your own? I'll post your questions;

But I thought it was quite peculiar that you started by defending 2k3 against BAZZ's accusation and ended up voting for him. [...] I need an explanation.

AurorusVox: If you are questioning Bazz about his accusation, why are you supporting his accusation by voting for 2k3?

- Akira had already asked me about this

Do you think that the scum would roll on each other this early? Why do you think 2k3 is scum?

- Akira had already prompted me to answer this

(Most of my posts between #50 and #93 have been grilling 2k3 on not scumhunting...)

How are you trying to hunt? The post above mine just says "I feel I've been trying to hunt". Have you been trying to hunt by not contributing to the conversation? What questions have you been asking, and to who?

- Again, questions that I had already asked.

However, in (most) of those cases, they were questions that the person felt that they had already addressed (i.e. in #93, you had been satisfied with his response while I hadn't), and often are getting at something a little more nuanced or different from the original question. You can see it in several places -- perhaps most obviously in the continuing back and forth we had on the 2k3 / bazz / you around post 50.

Why did you feel there was no need to return questions at ooBAZZoo until this most recent post, after I had called you out on it? I'm not settled on my read of you yet, though, and because this new post does have unique questions that you have personally asked, I'll be watching other people's responses to them carefully...

Didn't have time. Yesterday I was in meetings for most of the day. I also don't particularly suspect BAZZ at present.

@AV:
Who are the folks you think are most scum? Why do you think they're scum?

I think that he started the game off very aggressively and since then has backed down his stance substantially, to the point where it's not really aggressive at all. I'm not sure why he would be doing that if he were a townie.

I'm still worried about LoakaMossi at the moment, but its difficult to get more out of him if he continues to lurk/seem like he's lurking. My vote is on him, though. I can't really get more aggressive with him until he posts again. I'm not sure what I think about you. I wonder if you might be townie, and either 2k3 is changing his reasons for his vote on you retroactively as scum, or ooBAZZoo is opportunistically voting for you; but you could also be scum, because I think both of their reasons for voting for you are believable enough.

I've got my eyes spread elsewhere too, but I've not really got the time at the moment to follow up all of it (which is why I'm focussing on a couple of people, LM and you). Come Sunday, and more free time on my part, you'll get more of that aggression that you feel has been missing. There's no point in me posting an aggressive battery of questions, if by the time I can follow up on the response, its a few days old, the pressure just drops out of it.

I feel like voting for a lurker isn't particularly aggressive -- it's about the most passive way of being aggressive there is, since they likely won't be around to defend themselves, though time limits are obviously constraining.

My read on BAZZ doesn't have him as scum right now. Though one could make the same argument on BAZZ that 2k3 is making against me -- largely that he's trying to BW.

[zauper]

AV:

No, if you think the lurker is scum, that's who your vote should be on, but there's more to scumhunting than just the vote -- largely coming in the form of questions.

Why I was referring to your aggression, largely I was referring to your concepts #3/4 (and your time point is fair), but also to the breadth of your questioning. In your earlier posts, I feel (and I may be wrong; I haven't had time to re-read and check) that you were questioning a multitude of people, but now I feel like you are only engaging with a limited number of people. There could be explanations for that -- time; thinking they were townies; whatever -- I just noticed a change in your posting style / pattern, and that's what I was commenting on.

@AV + Guybrush: Do either of you find anything else in Akira's posting history that makes you believe Akira is scum?

[zauper]

Ugh, typos. The word 'why' (first word 2nd paragraph) should be 'when'.

[zauper]

I'm low on time this morning, but believe there's only one question directed at me presently. My activity will be relatively low today and over the weekend.

AV:
Yes, there can be drawbacks to aggressive questioning. Any style of play ultimately has drawbacks. An aggressive style of questioning is likely to cause you to garner attention. It could also cause things you don't want to surface (i.e. power roles for non-mafia players). There's also the massive time sink associated with directing that many questions at everyone.

[zauper]

@AV - Actually, that sentence was leading into the following sentence. I meant both you could draw attention on yourself, which could be a negative if you were in a power role, and you could force others to reveal theirs.

p.s. congrats on the BA.

Has anyone seen Valk lately? Seems that Valk is being quiet.

[zauper]

@Guybrush:
I wouldn't accept that as an argument, because I hadn't seen it. If it were a trend, that would make me suspicious.

I am also now strongly suspicious of Akira. Going out of town for 4 days but voting as a BW vote before leaving gives me a scum feeling. To an extent, it's a way of letting him get away with voting and then lurking and being able to do so without risking anything.