Mini #1004 - Popularity Mafia (Over)

[Tazaro]

hmm. I'm gonna go and read through both Tazaro and vollkan.

Nonsequitor reaction to my post?

[vollkan]

He very clearly isn't responding to what you said and is simply announcing a read, so claiming that he has committed a non sequitur is just silly.

[NicolBolas]

All right. Just finished vollkan. He does not exactly seem aloof to me. He has been actively scumhunting and analyzing things on D1 and D2. Tazaro, could you specifically point out examples of vollkan's "aloofness"?

[NicolBolas]

Ok. Tazaro, you attack Parama early in the game, then back off, saying you believed what Parama was saying, then you go after Parama because of what xite said, then you drop it and start accusing vollkan for his aloofness.

Explain this, please.

[NicolBolas]

EBWOP: By "this" i mean why did you change your position on Parama?

[NicolBolas]

Another thing i saw was that you keep on citing Xite when asked about your votes. This strikes me oddly. It makes you look as though you want to be able to blame somebody else if things go badly.

[vollkan]

Ok. Tazaro, you attack Parama early in the game, then back off, saying you believed what Parama was saying, then you go after Parama because of what xite said, then you drop it and start accusing vollkan for his aloofness.

Explain this, please.

In which ISO posts does this change occur?

(Reason being is that I want to cross-check against the thread in general to see whether his shift coincided with other people attacking me for aloofness)

[NicolBolas]

Iso 41- his first attack vs parama.
Iso 52- said that he believed parama
does not think parama is scummy. Starts to suspect the v's of the game, along with andrius.
Then on the beginning of this day, he goes back to parama, without regard to previous suspicions.
When people started pointing out vollkan as possiblescum, tazaro unites, votes no lynch, then starts to attack you after I asked him about his other suspicions. I find it odd that he would jump between his suspects at end of the last day to parama and then back to you, part of his orginal suspect list.

If it wasn't MYLO, I would be willing to vote Tazaro for the above shifts in postion.

[NicolBolas]

Ebwop- unites= unvotes.

Damn iPhone.

[Andrius]

Correct me if I'm wrong vollkan, but I'm pretty sure you once told me that self-meta is useless and WIFOM-ridden.
Only when other players bend over backwards (and read Scum QTs in finished games) is it helpful.

[VasudeVa]

Actually, volkan has a very good explanation to his self-meta in relation to Taz's attacks. Although it's far too....'dirty politician' for my tastes. It's a good defense though, regardless of my perception of it's 'dirty'-ness.

[NicolBolas]

Vas- I'm not sure what you mean by "dirty politican", though.

[Xite91]

First, I want to say that self-meta is worthless, and it causes just a lot of noise that is unnecessary. Also, I try to play some ways some games and some others, regardless of alignment, just to confuse people with my meta. Yes, you could have multiple games that showed this as town, but you could ALSO have multiple games that show this as scum. I try to avoid meta in general unless people are very specific to how they play.
Honestly, to get this started, I'm willing to

Vote: Vollkan

I honestly feel it is a better choice than no-lynch because he seems way too much like scum for people to start second-guessing. Which WILL happen tonight, I'm sure.

[VasudeVa]

Maybe you guys would understand 'dirty lawyer' better.

From his defense, I get that feeling. It's like this: A murder case where in a lawyer constantly attempts to push it down a notch to 'manslaughter' by nit-picking the prosecution's choice of words. I mean, I know it's legit but it doesn't feel.... clean.

Volkan's 'It's not accusation of bad play, it's accusation of deliberate bad play' and then good logical defense afterwards rings to the tune of 'dirty

politician

lawyer' in my head at the very least.

Am I communicating this properly?

[NicolBolas]

I get it now.

Xite, you profess heavy suspicion of vollkan without exactly mentioning why. How come?

I personally think Tazaro's postiton shifts is worse than what I see from vollkan.

[Xite91]

I get it now.

Xite, you profess heavy suspicion of vollkan without exactly mentioning why. How come?

I personally think Tazaro's postiton shifts is worse than what I see from vollkan.

It has a lot to do with his reads, and how he comes to them. I remember reading them and going *facepalm* more than a couple times, for some things because it's already been discussed (in one case, by HIM no less), and for some things because it just looks like he's trying to add suspicion where it's not due. Also, why would he post on every player instead of just the scummiest players?

[vollkan]

Iso 41- his first attack vs parama.
Iso 52- said that he believed parama
does not think parama is scummy. Starts to suspect the v's of the game, along with andrius.
Then on the beginning of this day, he goes back to parama, without regard to previous suspicions.
When people started pointing out vollkan as possiblescum, tazaro unites, votes no lynch, then starts to attack you after I asked him about his other suspicions. I find it odd that he would jump between his suspects at end of the last day to parama and then back to you, part of his orginal suspect list.

If it wasn't MYLO, I would be willing to vote Tazaro for the above shifts in postion.

I've checked myself, and your account is accurate. @Taz: Why the inconsistency?

Correct me if I'm wrong vollkan, but I'm pretty sure you once told me that self-meta is useless and WIFOM-ridden.
Only when other players bend over backwards (and read Scum QTs in finished games) is it helpful.

I've had a good look through my posts our previous game and I can't see anywhere where I said that. Magnaofillusion did say that he hates meta-defence "with a passion", so you are probably getting me confused with him.

In any event, I was scum in that game, so anything I said can't be taken as an accurate representation of my position. I also doubt I would have said anything against meta because I'd not only be contradicting my established meta for considering meta important (irony...) but I'd also be contradicting myself in that very same game, because even there I indicated a few times that I considered meta important.

First, I want to say that self-meta is worthless, and it causes just a lot of noise that is unnecessary

How is it worthless? I've quoted objective evidence from another recently finished game.

Think about it: if any other player had gone to that game and found those quotes, the substance of the defence would be entirely the same. I cannot see at all how the mere fact that I am the person bringing up those quotes somehow deprives them of any value.

Also, I try to play some ways some games and some others, regardless of alignment, just to confuse people with my meta.

Which is fine. That's very different to deliberately playing

poorly

in a game.

Yes, you could have multiple games that showed this as town, but you could ALSO have multiple games that show this as scum.

If I do something in some games as town and in some games as scum then, by definition, it is a

null-tell

. The important thing is that people have been claiming my alleged aloofness was scummy. I've shown that I can be aloof as town. It follows that the attack is blunted.

I honestly feel it is a better choice than no-lynch because he seems way too much like scum for people to start second-guessing. Which WILL happen tonight, I'm sure.

Explain to me why you think a no lynch would be less beneficial than my lynch. No matter how strongly you suspected me, I can't see any reason why you wouldn't want to no lynch. Only scum benefit from us lynching today.

Maybe you guys would understand 'dirty lawyer' better.

From his defense, I get that feeling. It's like this: A murder case where in a lawyer constantly attempts to push it down a notch to 'manslaughter' by nit-picking the prosecution's choice of words. I mean, I know it's legit but it doesn't feel.... clean.

Volkan's 'It's not accusation of bad play, it's accusation of deliberate bad play' and then good logical defense afterwards rings to the tune of 'dirty politician lawyer' in my head at the very least.

Am I communicating this properly?

I am a law student

I can't see what you mean here. "Deliberate bad play" is a serious accusation of misconduct by me as a play. Whereas "bad play" is something that can establish meta. I understand that it 'looks' like semantic nit-picking, but it really isn't.

It has a lot to do with his reads, and how he comes to them. I remember reading them and going *facepalm* more than a couple times, for some things because it's already been discussed (in one case, by HIM no less), and for some things because it just looks like he's trying to add suspicion where it's not due.

This is just unfalsifiable guff. Either quote to me exactly which reads made you *facepalm* or DIAF

As for raising things that had already been discussed: for starters, you haven't even provided a semblance of an explanation as to why that is scummy. Moreover, my reads were based on me rereading people so OF COURSE they covered old ground. What are you suggesting - that I say "I suspect Mr X" but don't explain why because (shock!) some of the reasons for my suspicion have already been articulated.

Also, why would he post on every player instead of just the scummiest players?

Because it is good for a player to be clear on their positions? Because as a matter of policy it holds people accountable? Because some people may judge my alignment based on the consistency of my opinions with theirs?

On the flipside, why the hell is that objectionable?

[Xite91]

@Vollkan, I'll quote which ones and where tomorrow (hold me to this as I might forget) because I'm about to go to bed
I find most meta worthless, and self-meta to be the worst of it all. I don't find any point in using old games to explain actions in new ones.
I SAID why I didn't want a no-lynch. Because you are scum and if people wait another night to lynch you, you have more of a chance of swaying them, first, and second, they will second guess and WIFOM the hell outta themselves until they think you're town (I've seen it happen)
Fair enough with the null-tell argument, but that's not so much my reasoning for voting you.
And as for that last part, it's objectionable because you're throwing what you can out there and seeing what sticks? Not always in all cases, but that more was a question to see your reasoning for it.

[vollkan]

I find most meta worthless, and self-meta to be the worst of it all. I don't find any point in using old games to explain actions in new ones.

You've said that already.

I've explained amply why meta is valuable, and why the supposed distinction between "meta" and "self-meta" is crap.

You've failed entirely to justify your position.

I SAID why I didn't want a no-lynch. Because you are scum and if people wait another night to lynch you, you have more of a chance of swaying them, first, and second, they will second guess and WIFOM the hell outta themselves until they think you're town (I've seen it happen)

You're so confident that I am scum that you consider the risk of an instant loss from vollkan-town's lynch to be less serious than the risk that vollkan-scum could fool every other player?

And as for that last part, it's objectionable because you're throwing what you can out there and seeing what sticks? Not always in all cases, but that more was a question to see your reasoning for it.

"throwing what you can out there and seeing what sticks" is just a way to put the worst possible spin on having comprehensive opinions.

[Parama]

Oh my god. Thread explosion.

...
1137 - not good enough
1139 - stopped reading at "Okay, meta time."
1142 -

vote: Tazaro

1157 - :goodposting:

[NicolBolas]

Parama- you do realize this is MYLO? If so, why are you voting Tazaro? Are you 100 percent sure he is scum? If it wasnt MYLO, my vote would be joining yours, but...

[Parama]

Read 1142 a few times and you'll be voting him too soon enough.

[NicolBolas]

Tazaro's position shifts are already scummy enough, but scummy enough to lynch in MYLO?

Unless if you found a major scumslip i dont see.

[VasudeVa]

I'm just so lost because everyone is either a) Answering well; or b) Answering vaguely but not distinctly scummy enough to warrant a MyLo lynch.

I think at this point it's better to no lynch and (hopefully) wait for a PR report or something... I don't trust anyone nearly enough to help them lynch someone at this stage.

I've been watching people go back and forth in this game and it continues to confound me. I think I've had enough and I can safely drop this vote in hopes of a more eventful D4.

Vote: No Lynch

[vollkan]

Oh my god. Thread explosion.

...
1137 - not good enough
1139 - stopped reading at "Okay, meta time."
1142 -

vote: Tazaro

1157 - :goodposting:

*confused* Your refusal to read my 1139 suggests you are anti-meta, but you then vote Taz (in MYLO no less) after his stupid allegation that I would delibeately play badly in another game to influence my meta. The two aren't inconsistent per se, but it strikes me as odd because the main reason people tend to be anti-meta is because they are concerned about manipulation, the very thing you are atacking Tazaro for. So, other than prospect of manipulation, why are you dismissive of my meta?

And I'll ask you the same line of questioning I asked Xite: "Explain to me why you think a no lynch would be less beneficial than my lynch. No matter how strongly you suspected [Tazaro], I can't see any reason why you wouldn't want to no lynch. Only scum benefit from us lynching today."

Vote: No Lynch

That's NL-1 people