Mini #367: Endgame'd

[Lowell]

Vote Elias_the_thief

I won't do a post-by-post, because that's far too much work for me and I want this post to be short and to the point.

Question: how many people do you think Elias has accused of being scum in this game?

Anyone? Anyone? Bueller?

The answer is ONLY ONE. The entirety of his posts are devoted to the attack of exactly one player: TheStatusQuo. And okay, we get it, they're brothers, so they fight, how cute. But something about how Elias continues to attack the same points over and over (even after TSQ has long ago tried to move on) strikes me as strange. My opinion? That Elias has found a "safe" target and wants to use him as much as he can. His only other quasi-accusations come briefly on Luna (a grammatically-challenged newbie AND an infrequent poster) and just now on Wuffles, after SV posted a PBPA. Both ridiculously easy (read: safe) targets at the time. Check out his most analytical post (#248) if you don't believe me. What are Elias' conclusions? That only TSQ looks scummy and that a few others should post more. Oooo, bold.

One final note. The original suspicion of TSQ, and the reasoning Elias latched onto while claiming to not latch onto, was that he cast the lynch-1 vote for Elias on page 2. In light of the fact that they are brothers, TSQ's explation that he didn't realize the vote count seems all the more plausible. Hell, who WOULDN'T vote for a bandwagon on one's sibling? Yet, AT NO POINT does Elias point out the possibility that this is what happened. Never does he even mention "hey, guys, we know each other in real life, he might have just been trying to mess with me" even when the theory that it could have been an accident was being thrown around.

@all, sorry I haven't been more active. I'll be back in full force by Monday, I promise.

[Wuffles_II]

About your first point, YOU think that the -1 vote isn't a reason. But that's irrelevant. CDB thinks that it is. That's CDB's reason for voting. So it's just wrong for you to say that CDB is scummy because he confirms a vote without a reason. He DID give a reason, it's just that you didn't agree with it. So you are misrepresenting CDB.

The reason why I was VOTING HIM was because I didn't think his reasons were valid. As I said, the reasons why I voted for him were because of his total unflinching belief that TSQ was scummy for -1 hammahing someone that early in the game.

It is not wrong to say that I believe CBD's reasoning behind his strong push for TSQ is false, therefore groundless. I really do not think it is that difficult to believe that no player would be stupid enough to do something like that on purpose.

I'm not going to repeat myself again; this is the third time I have explained it.

I saw CBD as having no logical grounds for voting TSQ; therefore I said he had no logical grounds for voting TSQ. I fail to see how that is in any way correct. He may believe that was a good enough reason - but I clearly do not. Thus, to me, HE HAD NO LOGICAL GROUNDS FOR HIS VOTE.

I am not misrepresenting anyone.

I think you misunderstood. I don't think you're scummy mainly because of the reasons for voting TSQ, it's your frequent change in attitude towards TSQ that ticks my scum radar.

Here's a summary w.r.t Wuffles/TSQ.

before point 6: you say TSQ made a stupid mistake

Okay, sure, thats true.

point 16: you say he's potentially scummy. Yes, you did say 'potential', but you also voted TSQ, which implies that you think he's scummy. Even if I buy your 'potential' thing, why did you vote for someone you don't think is scummy?

I voted TSQ there because his "read the thread, noob" comments were really annoying me. Not because of the damn -1 to hammah thing. I may have phrased it badly, but I feel I have almost unquestionably been clear about my thought to his -1 to hammah thing, and I'm tired of repeating myself.

point 18: you're undecided aobut TSQ.

point 20-24: you think TSQ is scummy.

point 26: you don't TSQ is scummy.

Yeah, I agree, the hardest part of this game for me has been to get a decent read upon TSQ. I knew that after placing he -1 hammah vote on him that a change of heart would look suspicious, but, hell, he unexpectedly defended himself well against the accusations. At that point, it would have been scummier if I had left my vote on him, I think.

rawr.

[Wuffles_II]

EBWODP - @ Lowell:

You bring up some interesting points. I will re-read to make sure you're not missing anything.

As fun as jumping on ANOTHER wagon without being SURE would be.

[Wuffles_II]

EBWODP 2: This chapter from my response to spectrum's post should be:

I saw CBD as having no logical grounds for voting TSQ; therefore I said he had no logical grounds for voting TSQ. I fail to see how this is in any way

IN

correct. He may believe that was a good enough reason - but I clearly do not. Thus, to me, HE HAD NO LOGICAL GROUNDS FOR HIS VOTE.

[Norinel]

Yes, well, as I have CLEARLY stated SEVERAL times, I do not believe that TSQ's -1 to hammah vote is a good enough reason to be voting him.

Do you only not believe this now, or did it apply earlier too? It's been a while since the post quoted, IIRC.

The fact that other people have pointed it out means nothing to me if I don't believe their points to be the case, correct?

TSQ being scum cuz he -1 to hammah'd Elias? No friggin way would any scum do that deliberately that early. It just placed suspicion on him for the entirety of the rest of the day.

I'll say this again: this argument is what WIFOM actually is, at least if TSQ were making it.

I saw CBD as having no logical grounds for voting TSQ; therefore I said he had no logical grounds for voting TSQ. I fail to see how this is in any way INcorrect. He may believe that was a good enough reason - but I clearly do not. Thus, to me, HE HAD NO LOGICAL GROUNDS FOR HIS VOTE.

But saying someone's action has no logical grounds because it has no logical grounds you personally agree with, even though that someone thinks the grounds are logical, doesn't mean all that much. Or does it?

Regarding elias, I think it's a decent argument, but not so much better than the ones regarding TSQ to merit a second bandwagon Day 1. I'd be interesting in seeing where it goes, at least.

[Arafax]

Wuffles posts come across "wierd"....I don't like how he's doing all of there PBPA's and not coming up with anything....It seems like he's saying a lot, but he really isn't IMO.

Vote - Wuffles

because he seems to post tons of times but doesn't give a solid opinion IMO.

[Elias_the_thief]

Lowell: where do you see me continually attacking TSQ? So far I have responded to his accusations against me twice, and accused him once.

also, I never mentioned we were related because I was once in a game where there were two brothers and the bastard mod found out and replaced them both. I'd rather that not happen to me. And as I mentioned before, my suspicion currently lies mainly on Wuffles. The PBPA revealed that he has often been hypocritical throughout the game.

[Elias_the_thief]

also, please state said points that I attack again and again.

[Wuffles_II]

Wuffles posts come across "wierd"....I don't like how he's doing all of there PBPA's and not coming up with anything....It seems like he's saying a lot, but he really isn't IMO.

Vote - Wuffles

because he seems to post tons of times but doesn't give a solid opinion IMO.

My opinions are flexible, that is for sure. I attack people when they logically are being incoherent (like I saw CDB as) or when htey are being too emo (as I saw TSQ as).

All I can say further in defence of my flip-flop opinions toward TSQ is, he's playing a great game here, as I am unable to consistently get a read on him.

[Wuffles_II]

EBWODP:

TSQ being scum cuz he -1 to hammah'd Elias? No friggin way would any scum do that deliberately that early. It just placed suspicion on him for the entirety of the rest of the day.

I'll say this again: this argument is what WIFOM actually is, at least if TSQ were making it.

But the thing is, there is nothing to be gained for TSQ by doing something so stupid deliberately.

You could say he is doing this deliberately to make himself seem stupid, but there's no reason for that, either. Stupid mistakes are seen as such, and have no effect on the relative alignment of the player.

I just don't see what TSQ has to gain by deliberately putting Elias -1 from lynch. Thus, I think it is illogical for anyone to think that he is "scummy" for doing so.

I don't believe this to be WIFOM at all, because if TSQ deliberately did this, then:

1. If TSQ is town, he's just put a whole lot of totally unneeded pressure on himself. No freaking way would he do that deliberately.
2. If TSQ is scum, then he just made himself public enemy #1 by doing something so retarded.
3. Therefore, whether TSQ is scum OR town, it is not in TSQ's interest to deliberately make a play such as that.
4. Therefore, there is no logical reason why he would do it, unless he is not playing in his best interest.

WIFOM logic can't be used here, because there just plainly is NO reason why anyone would do what TSQ did there deliberately. It is not a case of "No scum is stupid enough to do that deliberately" becuase, frankly, no PLAYER is that stupid. It reflects TSQ's intellect, not his alignment. Sorry to be beating on your brain capacity, TSQ, but I can't understand why people don't get this.

I fail to see how any of this is hard to understand. To me, voting someone because of this is just plain stupid bandwagonning. My logic here is NOT WIFOM, and I suggest you brush up on your game theory before mentioning that again. I'm really, really tired of repeating myself.

And Arafax, you'd better have some damn good evidence to show that I havent been saying anything of note, man. I think there is no way you can seriously make that claim.

At VERY least, there is no way you can justify voting me on these grounds - I feel I have contributed at least as much as any other player here, perhaps to the exception of spectrum, who's posts are always quite informative.

rawr.

[Thestatusquo]

Still think Arafax is the plan guys.


Also, wuffles, I love how you compliment my play in that post, and then say I'm stupid later on.

[Wuffles_II]

Well, it's either that or

"You're a neutral with an alternate win condition involving you getting lynched"

[spectrumvoid]

Here strikes Arafax the confused townie again. 'Fax, seriously... I totally disagree that Wuffles hasn't said anything. People who I think haven't said much are: you, luna and elias as lowell pointed out, and possibly lowell but at least he said he'll be back monday. You on the other hand, have posted non-content. I am starting to rethink my opinion of fax.

Wuffles's PBPA was on TSQ, and I think he made some decent points. My 2nd PBPA was on Wuffles and his posts on the previous and the top of this one was in response to that. Maybe you should try reading what he wrote before accusing him of not saying anything? *sacarsm*

I am satisfied with Wuffle's response to my point about CDB. But I still don't like the way he keeps changing his mind about TSQ. I think it's okay to change your mind about someone, but not when that someone hasn't really said anything different. However, I don't think Wuffle's should get my vote yet.

My opinion (once again) on TSQ's -1 vote: either he's stupid, or he's scummy and made a stupid mistake. I don't know which. Nope, not wifom.

[Thestatusquo]

Is it just me, or has Arafax been in too many games to be a 'confused townie?'

[Wuffles_II]

This is my second game on 'scum, so I'm not entirely sure of anyone's game history (except Primate/Spoon/Pod).

Could someone help me out here? I'm assuming Luna is a noob like me, but how many of you other players are actually experienced 'scum players?

[Thestatusquo]

Wuffles, go to profiles, and click show all posts or find all posts, or something like that. It will give you a good idea of how many games they've been in. Arafax has something like 500 posts.

Heres how I see it:

Relative noobs:
Elias
luna

Somewhat experienced:
Me
You
spectrum
Arafax

Veteran:
Norinel

[Elias_the_thief]

In response to Lowell: The definitive version.

The entirety of his posts are devoted to the attack of exactly one player: TheStatusQuo.

This is simply untrue. I dont think I have over five posts in which I express suspicion towards my TSQ.

But something about how Elias continues to attack the same points over and over (even after TSQ has long ago tried to move on) strikes me as strange.

What points have I been attacking over and over?

His only other quasi-accusations come briefly on Luna (a grammatically-challenged newbie AND an infrequent poster) and just now on Wuffles, after SV posted a PBPA.

Again. My accusations of TSQ were just as brief you claim my accusations for other players were.

Check out his most analytical post (#248) if you don't believe me. What are Elias' conclusions? That only TSQ looks scummy and that a few others should post more. Oooo, bold.

at that point in the game there wasn't much more to conlude. hence, my request for further participation from other players.

One final note. The original suspicion of TSQ, and the reasoning Elias latched onto while claiming to not latch onto, was that he cast the lynch-1 vote for Elias on page 2.

One final note. Where the hell do you see me attack him about the -1 vote?! At the very beginning of the game I fosed him for it, then dropped the thing entirely. Most of the arguments you posted were untrue. The one good argument you had was that I didnt conclude much in one of my posts in the early game. So youre voting me off of that, or what?

[Arafax]

I think that the way that Wuffles keeps going back and forth with his opinions and not doing anything about it is scummy...IMO it is scummy to be saying that A is scum, no I changed my mind; A is not scum....Wait A is scum; wait no I changed my mind again.

It's scummy to posting things without doing anything about it....Because after a lynch he can go back and say "Look, I did or did not find so and so scummy, look at these posts" and he will be able to back it up because he never really took a stand.

[Wuffles_II]

I agree, it is scummy.

However, you weren't talking about my "posting things without doing anything about it", you were talking about how "It seems like he's saying a lot, but he really isn't"

The very fact that I have been so flip-flop about TSQ shows, if anything, that I am OVERanalyzing. Every time I post about TSQ, a lack of content is not a factor.

I say again.

Attacking me because I "haven't posted content"...yeah, I don't see that working.

FOS Arafax

.

[Thestatusquo]

Elias, you mentioned it once with a FOS? That is simply put: A lie.

wow, i was gone for a day and i go all the way up to lynch -1. kind of scared you guys were just gonna keep rollin till i was dead after that quo vote. anyways,

fos the_status_quo

for putting someone at lynch -1. you should really be more careful before placing your vote. you could have at least asked for a vote count. ugh. im pretty tired, so ill post more tomorrow.

1 attack, including the original 'FOS'

perhaps you felt that i was lurking after a total absense of less than a day? what exactly was the reasoning behind joining that wagon in the first place.
(sorry i didnt put that in the first post)

2, Continues to attack it

i just think that you must have noticed i had plenty of votes on me already, definately enough to warrant a reaction. even if you didnt know exactly how many i had, there was no reason to put an additional vote on me at all.
my last two posts were not defensive, they were posing questions to you. how could you not see that? by yelling at me and calling me an idiot you seem to have gone around the main point which was i was already signifigantly pressured --even without knowing the exact number of votes-- before you voted.

Attack # 3.

my responses werent in my defense, they were to get you to explain your vote further. your vote didnt seem right to me, so i wanted to apply some pressure.

Attacks it again.

So 4. Not one.

Other posts where you attack me include 16, 17, 27 (granted, there is still some dissent that this is an attack, but I think it is)


Quite a bit more than 1.

To be fair, he quasi defends me in 29, and definitely defends me in 15, but this is rehashing things everyone else already said (most notably me.) and then he attacks me in 16...

Also. The view all posts is a wonderful function. In this game, Elias has thrown a lot of vague suspicion around, but he has exactly 1 vote, his first random one. And he has three FOS's. One on me for my random vote in the begining of the game one on luna for not posting odd, seeing as it was post 9..., and the thirdone for the -1 from lynch. Other than that, he has not once felt the need to show his suspicions by voting or FOS'ing

The lying is not a huge thing, because I'm not a huge fan of LAL, because I see many situations where towns lying might be necessary, but the fact that he has been completely vague, and avoided all confrontation that was not someone attacking him, I think Elias very well may be a better target than arafax.

Unvote, vote Elias

fos Arafax

[spectrumvoid]

Well, I'm relatively semi-inexperienced, but I'm playing in a lot of games, so my post count is unusually high.

I actually started working on Elias's PBPA before I gave up. There simply wasn't much to analyse. In summary, Elias attacked TSQ, says he's lurking, says he's scummy (this includes a combination of reasons), lurks/inactive for a while, attacks arafax, says he's partially satisfied with Arafax's responses, attacks TSQ, defends himself. (probably not in that order, but that's just a summary.)

I'm not sure what to think of Elias pushing TSQ. If a townie thinks person X is scum, there's nothing wrong with attacking him/pressuring him to see his reactions. But I don't like Elias lying about doing that.

I'm thinking Wuffles's over-analysis is actually pro-townish. I can't really explain why, but it's more of a kind of 'feeling' that I get from his posts. Also, while my PBPA on him showed him changing his mind way too many times, and I was suspicious of him because of that, I don't think scum would draw so much attention to himself. (I know this is slightly wifomish.)

As to Atafax's point whether it can be a 'scum accusing everybody to cover his own ass' tactic, I disagree, mainly because Wuffles has concentrated only on TSQ. So your argument on 'so and so' etc doesn't work.

[Wuffles_II]

Well, thats not exactly true, I DID jump on TDB over his confirm vote.

But yeah, TSQ has been my primary target.

[spectrumvoid]

I know... I was poking at you for doing that a couple of posts ago remember? *grins*

[Norinel]

WIFOM logic can't be used here, because there just plainly is NO reason why anyone would do what TSQ did there deliberately. It is not a case of "No scum is stupid enough to do that deliberately" becuase, frankly, no PLAYER is that stupid. It reflects TSQ's intellect, not his alignment. Sorry to be beating on your brain capacity, TSQ, but I can't understand why people don't get this.

I fail to see how any of this is hard to understand. To me, voting someone because of this is just plain stupid bandwagonning. My logic here is NOT WIFOM, and I suggest you brush up on your game theory before mentioning that again. I'm really, really tired of repeating myself.

I see where you're coming from now. You are arguing that he pulled off something that could've hurt the town and gotten off scott free for it, though.

The very fact that I have been so flip-flop about TSQ shows, if anything, that I am OVERanalyzing. Every time I post about TSQ, a lack of content is not a factor.

And it's quite easy to overanalyze the town into confusion and off any particular momentum, as I think you've demonstrated quite well with TSQ.

I'll be gone this weekend.

[Elias_the_thief]

perhaps you felt that i was lurking after a total absense of less than a day? what exactly was the reasoning behind joining that wagon in the first place.
(sorry i didnt put that in the first post)

2, Continues to attack it
[/quote]

misrepresentation. I was not attacking the -1 vote because of what it was, I was asking for the reasoning for joining a wagon on me in the first place, regardless of my vote count.

i just think that you must have noticed i had plenty of votes on me already, definately enough to warrant a reaction. even if you didnt know exactly how many i had, there was no reason to put an additional vote on me at all.
my last two posts were not defensive, they were posing questions to you. how could you not see that? by yelling at me and calling me an idiot you seem to have gone around the main point which was i was already signifigantly pressured --even without knowing the exact number of votes-- before you voted.

Attack # 3.
[/quote]
This was in response to you. It was not a further attack.

my responses werent in my defense, they were to get you to explain your vote further. your vote didnt seem right to me, so i wanted to apply some pressure.

Attacks it again.
[/quote]

actually no. once again asks reasons behinds joining wagon (once again regardless of my vote count) since you failed to answer the first time.

Other posts where you attack me include 16, 17, 27 (granted, there is still some dissent that this is an attack, but I think it is)

good job. none of these mentioned posts are actually from me.

To be fair, he quasi defends me in 29, and definitely defends me in 15, but this is rehashing things everyone else already said (most notably me.) and then he attacks me in 16...

where are you getting these post numbers from? I never do any of those things mentioned.

Also. The view all posts is a wonderful function. In this game, Elias has thrown a lot of vague suspicion around, but he has exactly 1 vote, his first random one. And he has three FOS's. One on me for my random vote in the begining of the game one on luna for not posting odd, seeing as it was post 9..., and the thirdone for the -1 from lynch. Other than that, he has not once felt the need to show his suspicions by voting or FOS'ing

I do not often broadcast my suspicions. Ive always played like this. Check my other games.