Mini #1007 (Game Over)

[Espeonage]

VOTECOUNT

3 -

Hoopla

- Vel-Rahn Koon, AlmasterGM, Elleran (L-4)
3 -

AlmasterGM

- Agar, redtail896, Zachrulez (L-4)
2 -

AGar

- gonanno, drmyshottyizsik (L-5)
1 -

Vel-Rahn Koon

- Hoopla (L-6)
1 -

gonanno

- ConfidAnon (L-6)

Not Voting - Good and Honest, Kid Know Nothing

With 12 alive it takes 7 to lynch.

[Kid Know Nothing]

If Hoopla wants to convince me that she's really a PGO and not fake-claiming I want to see an abnormally large amount of scumhunting. So far all I've seen is defensiveness and a weak poke at shotty for his poor play.

Why would you flat out tell someone what needs to happen in order for you to think they are Town?

This bothers me.

So... it bothers you that Vel-Rahn Koon told someone that they would have to scum hunt in order to back up their claim?

ConfidAnon, can you explain how telling someone to scum hunt is a bad idea or scummy? I get where you are coming from, that telling someone what would make them town in your eyes is troublesome and really a bad play, but telling someone to scum hunt isn't exactly telling them what they need to do to be town, scum hunting is a natural part of the town. Scum know this. As a claimed role that supposedly can't be killed, why shouldn't Hoopla be hunting extraordinarily? I get your point but it's hardly strong at all, attacking someone for pointing out the obvious as a supplement to why they think someone is scum comes off as well. Active lurking-ish. It's not completely because I can see some hint of suspicion but it just... well. Bothers me. Two sentences to explain suspicion? I don't like it.

It almost seems like you are trying to discredit Vel while adding nothing to the claim.

@ConfidAnon - any particular reason for voting me?

Wanted to see what would happen, to be honest. Discussion so far has focused on two players. While not neccessarily bad, I wanted to potentially bring someone else into the fray to see how people would react. You struck me as a little under the radar (I know it's not very far into the game), so I thought it would be interesting to see how others would react.

Also, I was getting a little bored of discussing the PGO claim, and if shotty is in fact a VI, things wouldn't be pretty.

And speaking of the PGO

claim

gambit . . . clever.

And then you go on to say that you wanted to sway discussion from the hot topic at hand, the PGO claim? Again, I'm really missing the reasoning behind this. I mean, I can see some veiled thought of hunting but the logic behind it isn't sound. Why have the town focus on three people at a time if there was a claim like that? And honestly, three or four pages into the game and you're voting someone for being under the radar? That's some pretty weak reasoning. G&H hadn't even posted yet. There were plenty of players who were "under the radar." I'm just not buying it.

This to me seems like a very very weak attempt to pull some focus away from the claim discussion, either to save the town from having a "cleared" or to potentially take a little bit of heat off of a scum buddy. (I use quotations for a reason, to me no one is ever cleared unless completely proven; dead or other mechanic. Lost a game pretty badly because of that once. The first part of that sentence assumes that Hoopla is town, the second assumes scum). I just don't like this weak reasoning.

@ gonnano and Shotty; "He (AGar) pushed REALLY hard against someone who he'd seen pull a gambit in the same vein as this before, obviously he's scum." That's what I got from your argument. That's pretty lofty. Plus, voting someone because they placed suspicion on you and defended themselves? OMGUS?

And Shotty, I fail to see what you are agreeing to in that post, would you care to explain?

@ gonnano/Elleran; Part of being town is taking a stand for a case you believe in. If you think someone is scum, you better come armed to the teeth with every suspicion, every word that has struck you the wrong way. You can still keep an open mind while doing this but normally if you think someone is scum, you'll attack them. Build a case. So on.

Scum can be less likely to do this, especially when dealing with something like a claim. Going with a middle of the road approach on everything can be indicative of scum. Adding tiny supplements to cases, jumping on wagons that others have created. Participating enough to make it seem like they've contributed plenty without making a very firm stand.

I agree that can situational though.

@ AGar/ Elleran; No offense but I find policy lynches repulsive. LALiars, LALurkers, LA Anythings. Punishing someone for attempting a different play style seems unfair. If you can show how the lie would be absolutely beneficial for scum, okay. Build a case. I think that Hoopla explained herself well, although I've never played a game with her before and plan to read the game you posted later tomorrow. So I have absolutely no meta on her.

The others are other discussions and don't really add anything here. The point is that I'd like not to see a policy lynch, especially when there is enough going on to have firm suspicions of others.
----

Will be reading and commenting more on the claim tomorrow.

[Hoopla]

First, your explanation sounds like it exempts AGar from your suspicions. Because you and AGar have played a game (or more) together before, you guys can easily read each other's meta and understand each other's strategy without direct PM or communication.

It doesn't explicitely exempt AGar from my suspicions, but he is a town read at the moment, and I have no interest in following it up now. The point of this game is reading people and try to figure out their alignment, and though I don't understand his 'meta and strategy' well, it is a general enough tell to clear him today. As we receive further information in the game, ie; card flips, more bandwagons for vote analysis and role information, this of course is subject to change. Why exactly are you complaining about my claim of figuring out AGar's alignment? If you want to challenge my declaration, go ahead.

The rest of your post is flimsy, and Kid Know Nothing does a good job of summarising my theory in a simpler way. This following quote is particularly daft, though;

Second, I support lynching liars. I cannot disagree on your point that your claim/unclaim has brought many valuable discussion into place. However, I do not want to risk having a suspicious character in any LyLo situation. I understand this is a far-in-the-future argument, but lynching early poses less risk than later.

Each individual player here will have varying opinions on who is suspicious, and if they can't get that person lynched, they are suffering the same risk as you point out - leaving a suspicious player alive in lylo. Your argument basically means this; you're suspicious, and I don't want to leave suspicious characters alive. Well, duh.

Explain why I am suspicious, rather than the risks, because I can safely apply that argument to anyone in the game. Also, I debate whether I was lying or not in the first place, as I breadcrumbed my motivations in my post. If I claimed it wasn't a real claim WITHOUT leaving crumbs, surely then I would be caught in a contradiction or lie, or making something up after it had happened. But I have proved what I was doing was a plan to draw information out, and the only qualm you can have with this, is if you think it was a negative influence on the game. And you yourself, in the very same paragraph stated it generated valuable discussion.

I'd likely be voting you now, but I want to hear from Vel first, before I consider shifting my vote.

[AGar]

@gonnano - Your humor never ceases to amuse me.

---

Because you and AGar have played a game (or more) together before, you guys can easily read each other's meta and understand each other's strategy without direct PM or communication.

One game. And no. I barely understand Hoopla's meta at all. I remembered the miller claim from that game, but (as I even said) I practically flaked out of that game. I got skinned N2 if I remember the flavor correctly (it stands out because it was one of my more interesting death scenes), but I had stopped participating somewhere during D2.

Unless Hoopla has read some of my games in depth, I doubt she understands my meta. Especially because it has probably changed since that game.

Understanding one player's strategy isn't a result of playing games with them. It's just a result of playing games period. The more you play, the more you pick up on tactics for each alignment. Simple logic.

Re: Policy Lynches.

Not going to start a huge MD debate here. Simple points:

Elleran, trying to push the Lynch-All-Liars PL is scummy right now. Really. He has breadcrumbing to back it up, and while it's not the most attractive way of getting reads, I will admit it's getting the job done.

KKN, usually when I push a policy lynch of LALiars, it's because the lie that was told is going to cause confusion for the town. Confusion for the town is basically pro-scum. It puts townies in a frenzied state and has them all messed up and not thinking straight, allowing scum to get by with slips that they might not normally get away with. Whether the player's motivation was scummy or not, it can often cause problems regardless. Read Newbie 863 if you get the chance. We had not 1, not 2, but 3 players claim doctor. 2 were townies, 1 was the doc. While the scum had no hand in any of the 3 claims, they greatly benefited from the confusion surrounding all three players.

I want to vote Elleran, as his push for the policy lynch is really screaming "HI GUYS I'M SCUM!"

But I like my Almaster vote better.

[gonnano]

@gonnano - Your humor never ceases to amuse me.

I'm glad you appreciated it. Shotty's reaction was the best part.

@ gonnano and Shotty; "He (AGar) pushed REALLY hard against someone who he'd seen pull a gambit in the same vein as this before, obviously he's scum."

I have never been on board with the idea that Hoopla's claim was

most likely

a gambit. I was aware of the possibility, but it seemed like PGO wouldn't be the best claim for that situation, simply because it can be disproved by a cop or doctor willing to take a risk. If Hoopla were pulling the same trick, the roleclaim probably would have been something that was more watertight (like the miller claim in that other game). AGar's response seemed excessively enthusiastic based on the information that we had, and that's why I voted for him.

I'm finding it really hard to not suggest Lynch All Liars.

Elleran, trying to push the Lynch-All-Liars PL is scummy right now.

@AGar - why mention Lynch All Liars if you don't want to suggest it? Is it possible that you DO want to suggest it, but without committing yourself to anything? I also noticed that you were very quick to turn on someone who followed the suggestion that you were extremely careful to not make.

[ConfidAnon]

So... it bothers you that Vel-Rahn Koon told someone that they would have to scum hunt in order to back up their claim?

ConfidAnon, can you explain how telling someone to scum hunt is a bad idea or scummy? I get where you are coming from, that telling someone what would make them town in your eyes is troublesome and really a bad play, but telling someone to scum hunt isn't exactly telling them what they need to do to be town, scum hunting is a natural part of the town. Scum know this. As a claimed role that supposedly can't be killed, why shouldn't Hoopla be hunting extraordinarily? I get your point but it's hardly strong at all, attacking someone for pointing out the obvious as a supplement to why they think someone is scum comes off as well. Active lurking-ish. It's not completely because I can see some hint of suspicion but it just... well. Bothers me. Two sentences to explain suspicion? I don't like it.

It almost seems like you are trying to discredit Vel while adding nothing to the claim.

To be honest . . . I saw Vel-Rahn Koon instructing Hoopla, which jumped out at me, and I didn't take time to sit back and think through what I was saying. Now with what VRK and yourself have said, I realize it wasn't really the best of accusations.

And then you go on to say that you wanted to sway discussion from the hot topic at hand, the PGO claim? Again, I'm really missing the reasoning behind this. I mean, I can see some veiled thought of hunting but the logic behind it isn't sound. Why have the town focus on three people at a time if there was a claim like that? And honestly, three or four pages into the game and you're voting someone for being under the radar? That's some pretty weak reasoning. G&H hadn't even posted yet. There were plenty of players who were "under the radar." I'm just not buying it.

This to me seems like a very very weak attempt to pull some focus away from the claim discussion, either to save the town from having a "cleared" or to potentially take a little bit of heat off of a scum buddy. (I use quotations for a reason, to me no one is ever cleared unless completely proven; dead or other mechanic. Lost a game pretty badly because of that once. The first part of that sentence assumes that Hoopla is town, the second assumes scum). I just don't like this weak reasoning.

The intention wasn't to end PGO discussion. The intention was to add another name to what was being discussed. I saw the arguments for both sides on Hoopla's PGO claim, and I honestly didn't know which to think. I figured that if discussion moved to something a little more familiar, I could get reads on both Hoopla and those involved in the discussion. I mentioned that it wasn't very far into the game when I posted . . . I was just trying to add another topic to the current discussion because like I said, I was kind of lost on the PGO debate.

[drmyshottyizsik]

I'll buy the PGO tactic.

Vote AGar

because of the REALLY strong push against Hoopla, and because when I expressed the viewpoint that Hoopla might not be scum, his response was to call my post a "weak chainsaw defense" (is that possible?) and to accuse me of being Hoopla's scumbuddy.
UNVOTE:
VOTE: Agar

And Shotty, I fail to see what you are agreeing to in that post, would you care to explain?

I find it VERYYY scumy to be so quick to, at any opportunity to pass the buck, especially when not that much heat is being put on you. Also I find it scummy that when someone is stuck on one idea and one push and blows up when someone says other wise.

[Vel-Rahn Koon]

This is post 86 from Hoopla. I've cut out the non-relevant stuff:

It's far likelier in my view, that scum have taken a mostly middling view of this event, and players like redtail, ConfidAnon and Elleran are those that tick that box mostly, for me.

Almaster and Vel take neutral positions on the claim, but attack the meta arguments I debated with early on, and it feels strange how similar both their attacks were. Even though it is far too early to hunt scumpairs,

I feel confident they aren't scum together

, as it would be an odd scum play to espouse a shared view on something that has such a scope for varied opinions.

Though I will be accused of probabilistic reasoning, I think it is a reasonable guess to think I've one scum on my wagon, and it seems a tough pick to guess who, if any. The Shotty, late random vote on me was just bizarre, and reeks of VI, and usually I think I'm good at figuring out these characters, but I don't know. I think one of Vel/Almaster is likelier to be scum, and it's an avenue I want to pursue,

because I've derived associative tells between them which gives more information if one flips scum.

And bolded the important points. I don't seem to recall taking a neutral position on the claim. In fact I believe I said that "I don't really consider [it] to be particularly bad", meaning I'm ok with the claim itself.

My problem has

always

been with the way in which you attempted to "prove" that you were not scum fake-claiming. The only proof we're going to get is if you get lynched or killed and we see an alignment reveal. You don't get to paint yourself as pro-town with your "proof" statements (see post 102 for an example).

My issue with the above quotes is that in one sentence you're saying that Alamaster and I are not scum together, yet in the very next paragraph you're voting for one of us so that you can clear up any "associative tells" that you're seeing. If we're not scum together, then how are you getting associative tells? Do you expect there to be 2 scum groups in a mini normal game?

Given this inconsistency, it makes MUCH more sense for you to vote for the people that you explicitly state are scummy - redtail, ConfidAnon and Elleran. But you're not doing that. You're voting for someone with a VERY weak reason because it's riddled with inconsistencies and then subtly nudging the town with your "I'd really like support for this" statement.

Several people have expressed the opinion that they don't think I'm scummy, and your latest post hedges your vote by saying "I'd likely be voting you now, but I want to hear from Vel first, before I consider shifting my vote.". Sorry, but that's too opportunistic for me - it makes your vote on me sound like you're testing the waters to see how far you can push things.

I'm glad you're scumhunting, but I don't like the inconsistencies in your play. My vote stands for now.

As for Alamaster: I don't understand AGar's post 89 that started it - not saying I disagree yet, I just need clarification on a few points.

I completely agree that he should develop his own ideas and not ride coattails. But the commentary about the vig killing the potential VI I don't understand. Sorry for this guys, I don't get out of the Newbie queue much. I thought that vigs taking out the troublesome Townies Day 1 was exactly the correct play.

If it is correct play, then am I right in assuming that the vote from Agar is only because AGM is riding a vote? If it's not the correct play please enlighten me.

[Zachrulez]

Vigging a troublesome player whose alignment is unclear is the correct vig play for night 1.

Vigging a troublesome player who you have a strong town read is not.

Honestly, his stance on Hoopla bothers me more.

[Hoopla]

Unvote, vote: Elleran

[AlmasterGM]

I don't particularly like Almaster much at this point. Like I said, he latched onto my argument for his vote. Also, I dislike the notion of him directing a vig to waste their shot on drmyshottyizsik, when I feel the shot could be better used. I'd much rather use him as lynch-bait on an appropriate day, as I've seen the case come that there are appropriate days, and we'll probably have at least one day where it's ideal to lynch him pre-LYLO.

This reduces to

1) I latched.
2) You disagree with my theories on Vigging.

Disagreeing on Vig theory is a terrible reason to vote for me. For one, there's no reason why difference of opinions = scum. Second, you aren't even theoretically correct. Shotty doesn't "scream" town to me, he screams unreadable VI. Which seems like the PERFECT Vig shot in my book.

So the only actual vote justification is latching. Which is completely unsubstantiated because

1) I gave very clear reasons in my post why I was voting Hoopla. You can go re-read them if you want, but to say I just agreed with you is rather self-centered. My argument focused more on why I thought claiming PGO was a bad idea, not you. In other words, I didn't just say, "lol I agree with AGar. No no, the people doing that are redtail

In short, I agree with AGar.

And Zach.

Plus this.

I can get behind this wagon.

This is a MUCH more clear cut case of latching. Why aren't you voting for either of these two?

2) You give no reason as to why you prefer me as scum over VRK or shotty, even though we all voted the same way.

This is what gets me. In essence, he's saying that we should lynch shotty regardless of what we think of his alignment, simply because of this one incident and his inability to properly explain it. To that, I say no. If I think shotty is town, then **** it, I'm not voting for shotty, and as Vig I'm not shooting shotty. As for the initial Hoopla vote, basically your argument against Hoopla rests on the meta argument. Plus, there's this gem:

Misrep. I said, "you can't really tell." That means you don't have a read on them. Having a no-read VI in lylo is dangerous. Thus, shoot. If shotty ends up SCREAMING town, then fine, he lives.

The declarative statement, "The claim was illogical" has 2 problems: first of all, this is a very arguable point, and many would think it was logical. 2nd, why do you know think it was illogical, when earlier you said that you could understand the reasoning behind it.

1) The first point is an appeal to nonexistant authority, who are these "many people" and what are there reasons? You can't cite stats without the stats.

2) I very clearly stated my argument before. I said, I could SEE WHY somebody would do it (e.g., understanding why it is a bad claim is slightly complex, so somebody could have just not thought it all the way out and thought making the claim was a good move), but I thought it was a bad move overall and was surprised Hoopla made the play (because she usually does think things out all the way through). If you want to know precisely why I thought it was illogical, go read my previous post. I explained that it is worth the risk of hitting the doctor in order to nab scum.

Illogical does not necessarily equal scummy.

Contrdictory vote. You say illogical != scummy, but you're voting for me based on a supposed logical inconsistency.

Also, you're wrong. Being illogical alone isn't sufficient for a scumtell, but illogical combined with scum motiviation FOR being illogical supercharges the tell.

Right now,

Unvote. Vote: Zach

redtail's "declarative statement" (LOL at use of fancy labels to enhance otherwise silly content) argument is bad, but Zach looks the worse because he should know better than to endorse it. Also, his posts bite all the AGar analysis about "latching," and his vote is contradictory.

[Zachrulez]

No see, the issue is you said that you could see the reasoning behind her claim at first. (Which indicates it's logical.) After she rescinded the claim, you said it was illogical in an attempt to backtrack and rationalize your initial stance after the fact. The action you committed that was picked up on was quite clear.

As far as why I'm voting you over shotty and VRK. I can see where VRK is coming from. (Even though I don't feel the same way.) Also as I said before, he's giving me a town vibe.

As for Shotty, he still bothers me... however, as scum, why tell such a noticeable lie about a delayed post? Feeling less confident there and more confident in what I'm seeing with you.

[Elleran]

Elleran, trying to push the Lynch-All-Liars PL is scummy right now. Really. He has breadcrumbing to back it up, and while it's not the most attractive way of getting reads, I will admit it's getting the job done.

I don't think ALL liars are deserving of being lynched. I have already admitted that there were clear merits and successes that Hoopla's fake-claim have brought. I support lynching Hoopla because of the reason that she has clarified for me. I basically find Hoopla the most dangerous/suspicious character right now.

Actually, I rethought my ideas while I was typing. I was going to accuse Hoopla further, but I realized something.

Unvote

[AGar]

@AGar - why mention Lynch All Liars if you don't want to suggest it? Is it possible that you DO want to suggest it, but without committing yourself to anything? I also noticed that you were very quick to turn on someone who followed the suggestion that you were extremely careful to not make.

First nature of my play-style is very aggressive towards lynch all liars. Trying to reign it in. Mentioned it just because I was posting as I thought things.

I don't want LALiars, because I see the effectiveness of Hoopla's claim.

I turned on Elleran because I just discussed with Hoopla why I think certain policy lynches are appropriate and others are not. We discussed the anti-town nature of most policy lynches, and why they often can benefit scum heavily.

---

@Almaster:
Mmm. The vigging thing should likely be scratched - I had read into that too strongly. Not familiar with vig play, so I wasn't actually sure what vig theory was. Attempting to direct the NK at a player I felt was better lynch bait later on pinged me, but again - don't know vig play.

Besides, I'm not going to vote Zach (who isn't coattailing as far as I can see) and redtail when you're starting to crumble already:

1) I gave very clear reasons in my post why I was voting Hoopla. You can go re-read them if you want, but to say I just agreed with you is rather self-centered. My argument focused more on why I thought claiming PGO was a bad idea, not you.

However, I can see the justification for claiming, so I don't think the claim in and of itself is scummy. It is the meta argument that makes it relevant - poor logic plus scum motivation for using that logic plus evidence that you used the same tactic before ....

So, care to backtrack again?

As for VRK or Shotty - VRK has produced original thoughts and input into the game that makes sense. Why would I find him scummy? Shotty is playing VI like right now, and there are better lynches for D1. Primarily, you or Elleran.

EBWOPreview:
Elleran's unvote is intriguing.

What the hell is with the super-sized votes everyone?

[Elleran]

EBWOPreview:
Elleran's unvote is intriguing.

There are reasons for my unvote. I do not want to specify yet. I will reveal my reasoning (which isn't very exciting) next day, assuming that I survive, of course. Well, one of the reason it because that I realized that my case wasn't well organized. I bit Hoopla, but didn't quite get a good bite as I had hoped, so I let go.

What the hell is with the super-sized votes everyone?

It makes it more noticeable and confident.

[Good and Honest]

Hoopla, did you actually know that I knew about Mini 973? If I hadn't mentioned it, would you have unclaimed and if so, when?

It's difficult for me to investigate the other players' reactions to Hoopla's claim because, unlike them, I wasn't taking it into consideration at all. I knew from Mini 973 that Hoopla was interested in what would happen in future games that also have someone claim "Paranoid Gun Owner" right from the start; so when Hoopla did this in our current game, I knew that the idea was to get reactions from the other players as well as test that experiment. I think that Hoopla would have done this regardless of role in the game.

The dialogue between Hoopla and AGar in the beginning seemed somewhat strange to me - especially the last few posts where AGar was claiming not to have read that post by Amished (about Hoopla's "Miller" claim in Mini 909), in spite of having replied to it. I'm not sure what the purpose of AGar's actions was.

As I have already said, I'm also playing in another game with drmyshottyizsik. From what I have seen here, this is typical drmyshottyizsik behaviour. I must admit I don't approve of people discussing drmyshottyizsik's fate like that. It must be very discouraging for a player to read how the other players are planning to get rid of them... I think drmyshottyizsik must be given a chance - there is still enough time to interact with drmyshottyzsik and hopefully receive more information this way.

ConfidAnon, I agree with your idea that people shouldn't focus on just one or two players. However, like Kid Know Nothing pointed out, at the time you voted for gonnano, I hadn't even posted once yet. Were there other players apart from gonnano who you considered were "under the radar" and if so, why did you choose exactly gonnano? Also, you say you wanted to add another name to the discussion - was it gonnano's name that you had in mind? Because I have the feeling that by what you did you actually added your name to the discussion, not gonnano's...

About keeping an open mind and considering all possibilities - I guess it depends on personality and preferences but I don't see anything wrong with it.

Elleran, I'm confused by your statement that Hoopla and AGar can easily understand each other's strategies. What conclusion have you reached from this?

AlmasterGM, I have read your posts a few times and I can't seem to understand what exactly you found illogical - was it Hoopla's claim itself or this justification for it: "Knowing me, I'd be likelier to attract doctors and investigation roles if I didn't claim, though"? From your first post it sounds like it's the latter while your following posts seem to suggest it's the former...

Regarding liars - while it's completely opposite to my playstyle, I realize that sometimes a player might be dishonest with the idea to help the town. Two examples of this are the already mentioned: in Mini 973 Hoopla claimed to be a "Paranoid Gun Owner" while actually being a "Vengeful Townie"; and in Mini 992 gonnano claimed to have a special doctor role while actually being a "One-Shot Bulletproof Townie"...

[drmyshottyizsik]

Claim:

scum

[Elleran]

Elleran, I'm confused by your statement that Hoopla and AGar can easily understand each other's strategies. What conclusion have you reached from this?

That was my thoughts on Hoopla and AGar interaction from the beginning of the game. They almost seemed like they had prearranged this argument. I don't know.. They were almost

too

prepared, if that makes sense. But that's beside the point. That was just an observation in my part; not something that I plan to build a case around.

[Elleran]

Claim:

scum

I don't know what to make of this.

[Zachrulez]

Unvote: Vote: drmyshottyizsik

Die

[redtail896]

Claim:

scum

I feel like this is some meta-joke about the whole "early claims and their impact" thing. Or somebody hacked his account. Or he's tired of this game already. In short: I have no idea what to make of this.

]1) I gave very clear reasons in my post why I was voting Hoopla. You can go re-read them if you want, but to say I just agreed with you is rather self-centered. My argument focused more on why I thought claiming PGO was a bad idea, not you. In other words, I didn't just say, "lol I agree with AGar. No no, the people doing that are redtail

In short, I agree with AGar.

And Zach.

Plus this.

I can get behind this wagon.

This is a MUCH more clear cut case of latching. Why aren't you voting for either of these two?

First of all, to the claim that I am latching: yeah, I suppose I am. And it will, of course, do no good to claim that I had independently come up with many of these points, and AGar simply beat me to the punch. I tried to differentiate my case as much as possible, but there's no getting around the fact that we had many of the same points. Such is life. You can't expect every single person on a wagon to come up with a unique, different case. That's neither reasonable or possible. At least I tried: Zach just copied my case and went with it.

Second, AGar already pointed out that your case

was

primarily meta-driven. And once again you complain that the claim was "poor logic," which brings us to the next part:

1) The first point is an appeal to nonexistant authority, who are these "many people" and what are there reasons? You can't cite stats without the stats.

2) I very clearly stated my argument before. I said, I could SEE WHY somebody would do it (e.g., understanding why it is a bad claim is slightly complex, so somebody could have just not thought it all the way out and thought making the claim was a good move), but I thought it was a bad move overall and was surprised Hoopla made the play (because she usually does think things out all the way through). If you want to know precisely why I thought it was illogical, go read my previous post. I explained that it is worth the risk of hitting the doctor in order to nab scum.

1. 2 people that I'm happy to name: myself and Hoopla. I would bet others here would agree, but I don't want to speak for anybody. And there are any number of reasons to think it might be a logical move (as noted by Hoopla, a PGO claim that the town generally believes is rather bad for scum).

2. If you see the pros and cons of such a play, why are you saying that it's definitely illogical? There are logical reasons to do it. It got rid of RVS, and it gave us plenty of material to work with. Even without the unclaim, you don't get to just state that it was an illogical play. That's what I was objecting to.

As for the shotty situation: Surely a strong scumread is better for the Vig to shoot? Maybe we're differing in Vig theory, and likely differing in our shotty reads. What I was really objecting to was this post:

VI's are vigbait. Or D2/3 if there's no Vig.

From what I understand, what you really mean is, "VI's that are unreadable are Vigbait." Is that accurate.

Anyway, the real theme of this post was: there's more to our suspicions that just, "Almaster is latching."

[drmyshottyizsik]

@ everyone I was trying to prove how stupid this claim= scum thing is. Yes it's stupid but its not scummy. Why would i claim scum if i was scum? And if i get lynch now oh well.

[Kid Know Nothing]

So... it bothers you that Vel-Rahn Koon told someone that they would have to scum hunt in order to back up their claim?

ConfidAnon, can you explain how telling someone to scum hunt is a bad idea or scummy? I get where you are coming from, that telling someone what would make them town in your eyes is troublesome and really a bad play, but telling someone to scum hunt isn't exactly telling them what they need to do to be town, scum hunting is a natural part of the town. Scum know this. As a claimed role that supposedly can't be killed, why shouldn't Hoopla be hunting extraordinarily? I get your point but it's hardly strong at all, attacking someone for pointing out the obvious as a supplement to why they think someone is scum comes off as well. Active lurking-ish. It's not completely because I can see some hint of suspicion but it just... well. Bothers me. Two sentences to explain suspicion? I don't like it.

It almost seems like you are trying to discredit Vel while adding nothing to the claim.

To be honest . . . I saw Vel-Rahn Koon instructing Hoopla, which jumped out at me, and I didn't take time to sit back and think through what I was saying. Now with what VRK and yourself have said, I realize it wasn't really the best of accusations.

And then you go on to say that you wanted to sway discussion from the hot topic at hand, the PGO claim? Again, I'm really missing the reasoning behind this. I mean, I can see some veiled thought of hunting but the logic behind it isn't sound. Why have the town focus on three people at a time if there was a claim like that? And honestly, three or four pages into the game and you're voting someone for being under the radar? That's some pretty weak reasoning. G&H hadn't even posted yet. There were plenty of players who were "under the radar." I'm just not buying it.

This to me seems like a very very weak attempt to pull some focus away from the claim discussion, either to save the town from having a "cleared" or to potentially take a little bit of heat off of a scum buddy. (I use quotations for a reason, to me no one is ever cleared unless completely proven; dead or other mechanic. Lost a game pretty badly because of that once. The first part of that sentence assumes that Hoopla is town, the second assumes scum). I just don't like this weak reasoning.

The intention wasn't to end PGO discussion. The intention was to add another name to what was being discussed. I saw the arguments for both sides on Hoopla's PGO claim, and I honestly didn't know which to think. I figured that if discussion moved to something a little more familiar, I could get reads on both Hoopla and those involved in the discussion. I mentioned that it wasn't very far into the game when I posted . . . I was just trying to add another topic to the current discussion because like I said, I was kind of lost on the PGO debate.

The first bit is acceptable, I think. Not really scummy so much as jumping the gun, so to speak.

The second response? I still don't understand. The intention wasn't to add another name to what was being discussed, the PGO claim was what was being discussed and you went in another direction, going after a player who hadn't even posted more than two or three times because they were "under the radar." It just really puts a bad taste in my mouth.

[ConfidAnon]

ConfidAnon, I agree with your idea that people shouldn't focus on just one or two players. However, like Kid Know Nothing pointed out, at the time you voted for gonnano, I hadn't even posted once yet. Were there other players apart from gonnano who you considered were "under the radar" and if so, why did you choose exactly gonnano? Also, you say you wanted to add another name to the discussion - was it gonnano's name that you had in mind? Because I have the feeling that by what you did you actually added your name to the discussion, not gonnano's...

I skimmed through the thread, and in between a bunch of longer posts there was a short gonnano post or two. The purpose wasn't to get gonnano's name discussed, it was to get someone's name discussed . . . and if that's my name, so be it.

Claim:scum

Oh gee . . .

The second response? I still don't understand.

The intention wasn't to add another name to what was being discussed

, the PGO claim was what was being discussed and you went in another direction, going after a player who hadn't even posted more than two or three times because they were "under the radar." It just really puts a bad taste in my mouth.

The intention

was

to add another name, but not to detract from what was already being discussed. Under the radar was not not anything that I planned on pursuing as a huge scumtell. It was just something to wrap the vote up with. I could have voted AlmasterGM for directing the vig to try to accomplish the same goal.

[AlmasterGM]

No see, the issue is you said that you could see the reasoning behind her claim at first. (Which indicates it's logical.) After she rescinded the claim, you said it was illogical in an attempt to backtrack and rationalize your initial stance after the fact. The action you committed that was picked up on was quite clear.

It doesn't indicate that. If somebody murders somebody, I can say "that's illogical, but I can see why they did it," emotions, thought it was the right thing, etc. I thought Hoopla claiming PGO was a BAD logical move, but the logic was a bit complex, so I thought it was possible she just thought it was a good idea when it wasn't.

Besides, I'm not going to vote Zach (who isn't coattailing as far as I can see) and redtail when you're starting to crumble already:

The only thing crumbling around here is your vote. The initial vote was a paragraph that read like this:

First he latched. *insert a lot of stuff about Vigging*

Except now you say the vigging isn't relevant, so the argument was

"He latched."

Real compelling.

In response to backtracking, there isn't any. I used part of your argument, part of my argument. Both were nessecary but not sufficent for the vote.

Or, if you insist there was backtracking, fine. My advocacy now is: both parts of the argument were necessary but not sufficient for the vote.

AlmasterGM, I have read your posts a few times and I can't seem to understand what exactly you found illogical - was it Hoopla's claim itself or this justification for it: "Knowing me, I'd be likelier to attract doctors and investigation roles if I didn't claim, though"? From your first post it sounds like it's the latter while your following posts seem to suggest it's the former...

It was that if she's likely to bite doctors, she's also likely to bite scumkill, and the risk-reward was worth it.

redtail later.