Mini 277 - Webcomic Mafia - Game Over!

[VitaminR]

He doesn't say it's circumstantial anywhere. These are the posts I based my thinking on:

I'm going to go out on a bit of a limb and say this:

Based on my role, I have a little bit of a reason to suspect Thok. I'd like to get a claim from him.

The evidence is not 100% conclusive, but it's pretty incriminating.

My knowledge of his actions so far has been consistant with my knowledge of a scum's actions so far, and that's about all I can say on the subject without giving too much away. Also, I have a chance of catching him in a lie if he claims wrong.

Is it so difficult to comprehend I followed him on that?

[Coron]

Is it difficult to comprehend that the terminology you used as your "logic" was very scummy.

[VitaminR]

Well fine, but that doesn't make me a sheep. That doesn't make it low-content. I can't defend myself if you're just going to revert back to the terminology I used, indiscrimate of the reasoning indicated.

Either accept the justification I've given (which you haven't contested) or cling to your interpretation of two lines. I'm not going to defend something I can't defend.

If anyone else wants me to address anything, I'm up for it. I still believe somewhere that the town will respond to logic and is not just waiting for the unvote-reflex after I claim.

[Coron]

you say like 5 words and make a vote based on limited info, saying perhaps the easiest thing possible...
low content yes.
sheeplike, yes.

[VitaminR]

Limited info? Look at the quotes! It's pretty clear. I didn't say like 5 words. I asked him two questions and then decided to follow based on the response.

I'm tired of arguing this, you're too determined to see scum where there isn't. Cling to it if you want.

[Fuldu]

Btw, did anyone else notice Fuldu build a case against me earlier yet join this wagon purely on deadline rush? He's distancing himself already. I haven't seen him come back on his strong earlier suspicions of me anywhere.

You're accusing me of voting on bandwagon rush because I didn't feel like retyping the rationale for voting you before? No one paid any attention to me the first time, so I was content to let that die and pursue someone else I found suspicious (Adele, at the time). But if a bandwagon starts on you via other methods, I'm happy to rejoin it.

[VitaminR]

I just found it interesting to note that you didn't cite that. I felt like you were the only one who had some justification to vote me and I was surprised by the fact that you didn't bring it up. If you do believe in my scumminess, it helps build the wagon against me and it gives you justification. It would have you set you apart from the deadline-sheep crowd.

[Thok]

Coron, are you more suspicious of VitaminR or the people joining you on his bandwagon? It seems like you are trying to have things both ways.

[Nemesis]

Deadline: Next Monday, 1 pm GMT

It can be retracted if conversation picks up.

How much does it have to pick up?

[Aelyn]

Deadline retracted

It can and will be reinstated if necessary, and if I reinstate it it will be unretractable.

[Coron]

Coron, are you more suspicious of VitaminR or the people joining you on his bandwagon? It seems like you are trying to have things both ways.

More suspicious, I'd still say vitR but the people on his bandwagon are a close second.

[VitaminR]

Glad to see we got the deadline retracted. Nemesis, I know you're pretty much cleared for the moment, but can we see some comments on the game from you?

Coron, can you explain to me why my vote was a bad thing in the first place? It was pressure to get Thok to claim. Where was the harm?

This is the case I see against me, btw:

- A "sheep-like" pressure vote on Thok.
- Assuming that there are 3 scum.

Anything I've missed in this cavalcade of scummy debauchery?

[Adele]

Coron, either VitaminR is suspicious or he's not (I say he is, obviously).

If he is, then the people on his bandwagon are doing the right thing and are suspicious.

If he's not, then the people on the bandwagon are suspicious but you should back off VitaminR.

How can you logically cast doubt on both? Like Thok says, you're trying to have it both ways but, more to the point, I think there's a true dilemma here between the two.

[Fuldu]

Well, let me clarify the difference between why I think you're scummy and why you think I think you're scummy, again.

You keep saying that it's because you assumed there are three scum. And that's not the problem, exactly. The scummy behavior was in talking about the game as if you

knew

that there were exactly three scum. It's certainly possible for town to make such a mistake, but someone who

does

know the precise number of scum is far more likely to make the mistake of talking about it with certainty.

[VitaminR]

Okay.

- A "sheep-like" pressure vote on Thok.
- Apparent certainty about the number of scum in the game in one comment.

That better?

I don't think Coron is scum. He's misguided, but the way he's clinging to this and continuously arguing it comes across more pro-town than anti-town to me.

[VitaminR]

Coron, I am going to attempt to make you see logic one more time. Sorry.

Let's look at the progression in your case against me:

First it's:

He's been rather jumpy with votes with not much in terms of reasons all the time. Not to mention the way he's posting rubs me wrong.

Slightly vague, but it makes sense in principle.

Let's see the evidence against me:

Well let's see where this leads us.

Unvote: TSAGod

Vote: Thok

One vote? So in the progression from claim to evidence the scope is already narrowed significantly. Where first it is a posting pattern, it is now one vote. Quoted without the questions I asked first, I might add.

Interpretation of evidence:

1) those people could be scum
2) those people could be sheep like you BAAA!! BAAA!
ok, maybe I missed something here, but as far as I can tell pie's "information" was just a little, "he's acting too worried about cult"

Aside from the fact that you show no knowledge of what actually happened by completely misquoting pie, there is not much to this. 1) I assume was in response to my argument that it was a majority decision and is therefore pretty much irrelevant. 2) remains as the "salient" point. Presented in a nice ad hominem fashion, but there is a point here. My vote was "sheep-like."

More interpretation when questioned:

You followed someone who claimed to have "inconclusive evidence from their role", without even making them claim it.

Very sheeplike.

Another misquote of Pie and the situation, it's 12 posts and 3 days later and you still aren't properly aware of the context of your evidence. But that doesn't matter, it's "sheep-like" again. This time based on the fact that I didn't make him claim it.

Pie specifically indicated his information would be useless if he claimed it.

When pushed on this:

Claiming it would have invalidated Thok's claim. It was obvious from the way he presented it Thok needed to claim first. He came forward unpressured asking the town to trust him. I did. That's not sheep-like. I considered what I knew and decided to trust him. Sheep-like is following without asking questions and without giving it thought.

How do I know if you think if you don't post anything about it in the thread?

I refute the reason behind your central point, the fact that I didn't make Pie claim before following, and you move on to outlining thought processes? Where does that come in?

The next bit:

Then how do you catch scum for sheeping(which is very easy and good for them).

That's stupid.

Moving on to general strategy? What about the specific case we're talking about here?

But

you seem aware of this and bring it back to:

Could you expand on that a little bit? More precisely, how solid is this evidence?

Well let's see where this leads us.

Unvote: TSAGod

Vote: Thok

when they said cirumstantial after the first(well, what would have been worse than that) you vote anyway, saying only, let's see where this goes. Seems a lot like sheeping with a bit of cover up.

Now Pie had "circumstantial" evidence! The third misquote! It's now 21 posts and 3 days later and the context still eludes you.

Anyway, your point here is that I did ask questions first, but because I did not explicitly acknowledge the response I was merely following it. Why did you think I asked the questions? Because I was going to follow anyway?

The next comment:

Is it difficult to comprehend that

the terminology

you used as your "logic" was very scummy?

Now it's terminology? First it was a posting pattern, then it was one vote, now it's the terminology in that one vote? Evidence abounds!

To sum it all up we get this masterful recap:

you say like 5 words and make a vote based on limited info, saying perhaps the easiest thing possible...
low content yes.
sheeplike, yes.

5 words is incorrect. I asked 2 questions before it. Essentially this boils down to terminology again.
Limited info? The easiest thing possible? Show me! Show me how Pie would have ever got away with saying that without claiming relevant information.

Okay, so what do we have? Terminology? This essentially equals one line.
You haven't given any proper arguments as to why context or reasoning was scummy.

That means this is your case:

Well let's see where this leads us.

[VitaminR]

That was probably overly bitter. Sorry about that.

[Coron]

Coron, either VitaminR is suspicious or he's not (I say he is, obviously).

If he is, then the people on his bandwagon are doing the right thing and are suspicious.

If he's not, then the people on the bandwagon are suspicious but you should back off VitaminR.

How can you logically cast doubt on both? Like Thok says, you're trying to have it both ways but, more to the point, I think there's a true dilemma here between the two.

Allow me to use pretty percentages even assuming that there is no overlap between him being scum and the people voting him being scum

We have nine alive.. let's say 3 of them are scum (making the avg % chance for a person to be scum 33 1/3 %

say(only in theory) I think there's a 52% chance vitR is scum
then, the people accusing him could have as much as a 48%

This is still much much greater than the average of 33 1/3% and could be the second highest.

But of course remember, that the people voting him AREN'T nessisarily town if he is. Even if they are doing the "right thing" voting him, they can still be scum trying to distance themselves some and be seen on the lynch of a scum to try to make them seem protown, and their little content votes still make me suspicious either way.

This isn't even mentioning the possibility of multiple scum groups.


So yes, yes I can have it both ways.

[Coron]

Coron, I am going to attempt to make you see logic one more time. Sorry.

lost cause

First it's:

He's been rather jumpy with votes with not much in terms of reasons all the time. Not to mention

the way he's posting rubs me wrong.

Slightly vague, but it makes sense in principle.

bolding mine, note in recent posts I come back to that point in the "terminology" you talk about later.

Let's see the evidence against me:

Well let's see where this leads us.

Unvote: TSAGod

Vote: Thok

One vote? So in the progression from claim to evidence the scope is already narrowed significantly. Where first it is a posting pattern, it is now one vote. Quoted without the questions I asked first, I might add.

Let me add that your numerous votes day 1 did exist, most of them with at least some rationale I admit, but that doesn't keep it from being being jumpy also note the ALL THE TIME in my initial "find you scummy" post

Interpretation of evidence:

1) those people could be scum
2) those people could be sheep like you BAAA!! BAAA!
ok, maybe I missed something here, but as far as I can tell pie's "information" was just a little, "he's acting too worried about cult"

Aside from the fact that you show no knowledge of what actually happened by completely misquoting pie, there is not much to this. 1) I assume was in response to my argument that it was a majority decision and is therefore pretty much irrelevant. 2) remains as the "salient" point. Presented in a nice ad hominem fashion, but there is a point here. My vote was "sheep-like."

Yeah I admit I messed up on this one. I've stated that somewhere already I think though. Point stands though, even if something is "decided apon" by "the town" that doesn't mean you get to blindly follow it, which is what you were trying to use as evidence that I shouldn't be suspicious of you. Also note I wasn't trying to quote pie but rather some other person, can't seem to recall who at this point though.

More interpretation when questioned:

You followed someone who claimed to have "inconclusive evidence from their role", without even making them claim it.

Very sheeplike.

Another misquote of Pie and the situation, it's 12 posts and 3 days later and you still aren't properly aware of the context of your evidence. But that doesn't matter, it's "sheep-like" again. This time based on the fact that I didn't make him claim it.

Pie specifically indicated his information would be useless if he claimed it.

I admit the second part you have a point but yes, he did basically say he had circumstantial or inconclusive evidence, it's not a direct quote, but a quote of ideas. You could easily have asked for a claim without voting(omg! I never thought of that one!).

When pushed on this:

Claiming it would have invalidated Thok's claim. It was obvious from the way he presented it Thok needed to claim first. He came forward unpressured asking the town to trust him. I did. That's not sheep-like.

I considered what I knew and decided to trust him. Sheep-like is following without asking questions and without giving it thought.

How do I know if you think if you don't post anything about it in the thread?

I refute the reason behind your

central point

, the fact that I didn't make Pie claim before following, and you move on to outlining thought processes? Where does that come in?

you misinterpret my central point my central point is inside of the quote at the top in bold. That's usually my central point about all of the time... also one that's very hard to argue for or against, this is but a very very minor branch of my arguement. Which was I admit proven somewhat wrong. Bolded is where I got the thought processes thing from

The next bit:

Then how do you catch scum for sheeping(which is very easy and good for them).

That's stupid.

Moving on to general strategy? What about the specific case we're talking about here?

You were saying

Generally though, I think you can assume people think before posting.

and I was saying, "NO YOU'RE FULL OF BS"

But

you seem aware of this and bring it back to:

Could you expand on that a little bit? More precisely, how solid is this evidence?

Well let's see where this leads us.

Unvote: TSAGod

Vote: Thok

when they said cirumstantial after the first(well, what would have been worse than that) you vote anyway, saying only, let's see where this goes. Seems a lot like sheeping with a bit of cover up.

Now Pie had "circumstantial" evidence! The third misquote! It's now 21 posts and 3 days later and the context still eludes you.

his actions so far being the same as scum's seems like he has circumstantial evidence but not proof to me I'm confused on your point, not to mention the whole "catching him in a false claim" thing means he certainly still has some doubt as to whether he's scum.

Anyway, your point here is that I did ask questions first, but because I did not explicitly acknowledge the response I was merely following it. Why did you think I asked the questions? Because I was going to follow anyway?

to not look too scummy ofc. when you got the least confidence-inspiring answer ever you still followed.

The next comment:

Is it difficult to comprehend that

the terminology

you used as your "logic" was very scummy?

Now it's terminology? First it was a posting pattern, then it was one vote, now it's the terminology in that one vote? Evidence abounds!

see first quote.

To sum it all up we get this masterful recap:

you say like 5 words and make a vote based on limited info, saying perhaps the easiest thing possible...
low content yes.
sheeplike, yes.

5 words is incorrect. I asked 2 questions before it. Essentially this boils down to terminology again.

questions are not reasons, and my bad, it's 7 words not 5.

Limited info? The easiest thing possible? Show me! Show me how Pie would have ever got away with saying that without claiming relevant information.

for instance, once thok claimed he could have easily claimed tracker and gotten away without any trouble at all.

Okay, so what do we have? Terminology? This essentially equals one line.
You haven't given any proper arguments as to why context or reasoning was scummy.

You oversimlify again. This is an example not my case.

That means this is your case:

Well let's see where this leads us.

See above.

[VitaminR]

Well then state your case. You've only given me one example. That leads me to think that is your case.

[Coron]

You've non-randomly voted for 7 players this game, 1 ended up nuetral 1 ended up protown.

As I said before, throughout reading your posts things have rubbed me the wrong way, last time I tried to list those things(this was a long time ago) it was like a huge thing where I quoted every post by the person and pointed out 1-4 things per posts and then got lynched.

It's more of a death by a million papercuts than one big slash that cuts you in two.

[VitaminR]

Yeah I admit I messed up on this one. I've stated that somewhere already I think though. Point stands though, even if something is "decided apon" by "the town" that doesn't mean you get to blindly follow it, which is what you were trying to use as evidence that I shouldn't be suspicious of you. Also note I wasn't trying to quote pie but rather some other person, can't seem to recall who at this point though.

I am not trying to use it as evidence that you shouldn't find me as suspicious. I'm using it to point out that all it did was apply pressure to get there quicker.

I admit the second part you have a point but yes, he did basically say he had circumstantial or inconclusive evidence, it's not a direct quote, but a quote of ideas. You could easily have asked for a claim without voting(omg! I never thought of that one!).

I've admitted the vote was mostly superfluous. Just pressure to get things moving.

for instance, once thok claimed he could have easily claimed tracker and gotten away without any trouble at all.

Really? How easy do you think fake tracker claims are to keep up?
I thought Pie was going to claim Tracker. As I've said before, Roleblocker doesn't bring conclusive evidence at this point. His response to my questions fit a Tracker. That's how I read "his actions so far are consistent with scum."

[Fuldu]

Coron, either VitaminR is suspicious or he's not (I say he is, obviously).

If he is, then the people on his bandwagon are doing the right thing and are suspicious.

If he's not, then the people on the bandwagon are suspicious but you should back off VitaminR.

How can you logically cast doubt on both? Like Thok says, you're trying to have it both ways but, more to the point, I think there's a true dilemma here between the two.

Allow me to use pretty percentages even assuming that there is no overlap between him being scum and the people voting him being scum

We have nine alive.. let's say 3 of them are scum (making the avg % chance for a person to be scum 33 1/3 %

say(only in theory) I think there's a 52% chance vitR is scum
then, the people accusing him could have as much as a 48%

This is still much much greater than the average of 33 1/3% and could be the second highest.

But of course remember, that the people voting him AREN'T nessisarily town if he is. Even if they are doing the "right thing" voting him, they can still be scum trying to distance themselves some and be seen on the lynch of a scum to try to make them seem protown, and their little content votes still make me suspicious either way.

This isn't even mentioning the possibility of multiple scum groups.


So yes, yes I can have it both ways.

The premise you're promoting here is an accurate one. Since you're not 100% certain that VitaminR is scum, watching the reactions (among other things) of those who join the bandwagon can be useful in gauging their relative likelihoods of being scum. And in this case the way that the bandwagon formed might lead a person to be suspicious of the people on it.

But the math you're using to further that point is wrong in more ways than I care to point out. If you're going to push this argument in the future, I'd try doing it in a slightly less statistics-oriented way, because you've got that part so far wrong that it makes me wince.

[Coron]

I admit the second part you have a point but yes, he did basically say he had circumstantial or inconclusive evidence, it's not a direct quote, but a quote of ideas. You could easily have asked for a claim without voting(omg! I never thought of that one!).

I've admitted the vote was mostly superfluous. Just pressure to get things moving.

I find that scummy.

for instance, once thok claimed he could have easily claimed tracker and gotten away without any trouble at all.

Really? How easy do you think fake tracker claims are to keep up?
I thought Pie was going to claim Tracker. As I've said before, Roleblocker doesn't bring conclusive evidence at this point. His response to my questions fit a Tracker. That's how I read "his actions so far are consistent with scum."

[/quote] actually, it's not that hard to keep up for three days as I see it, especially if day after day you have people claim before you do. But even excluding that, first night: get someone to claim before you second night: you "track" one of your scumbuddies "confirming" you as tracker(especially good if you have investigation immune GF). supsequent nights you can have the other person claim first or for that matter you could, at a point where it's lynch or lose incriminate someone.

Sure, there are easier claims to keep up(like townie or doc) but neither of those have the power of the tracker.

anyway we're getting bogged down in details.

[VitaminR]

Okay, let's look at those votes.

Day 1
I voted twice in this day. Jumpy!

Adele and Akonas for easy bandwagoning. First vote on Adele, second vote or something on Akonas after FOS'ing him earlier when he had none.

Day 2

Voted Nemesis because one of his comments struck me as odd. First vote. I admit this was not a good vote, but I don't think there was much to go on at the time. Day 1 did not bring much information.

Fourth vote on bertrand on cop-claimed information. He did basically claim SK after, though I suppose he's technically neutral.

Day 3

First vote on TSAGod. I stand by this one. His defence for fishing was based on nothing and he didn't answer when called upon it. I'd still like to lynch him.

Second vote on Thok. I admit this was a useless vote, but it didn't do much harm either.

First vote on Stevie. I stand by this one too.

Okay, so I use my vote and I am an active player. I've voted about twice every day, three times once. Why is that so scummy? Only the Nemesis and Thok votes are not that well-reasoned, but I haven't bandwagoned. Two second votes and one fourth vote. Four of them were first votes. Is it scummy to use your vote to judge reactions? Yeah, I've voted 7 players. So what?

I'm going to pull up some stats to compare in the following post.