Mini #406, Animaniacs! Water Tower Explosion! [Over]

[petroleumjelly]

They're Ani-mani,
Totally insane-y,
Chicken Chow Mein-y:

ANIMANIACS!

These are the Facts:

mole – 2 – Thesp, Fritzler

Blake Judge – 1 – JDodge
Fuldu – 1 – VitaminR

With

10

alive, it takes

6

to lynch!

Not Voting – 6 – Blake Judge, chamber, Foolster41, Fuldu, HurriKaty, mole

Mod Note: Blake Judge, chamber, Fuldu, and mole have been prodded.

[Blake Judge]

Hooray, activity.

I still believe that Thesp is probably town simply because of his instrumental part in getting SJ lynched. It's possible that the scum are trying a ploy, but I can't really believe that deliberately losing one of three members on the first day would be sensible, and Thesp seems to be an experienced player, as SJ appeared likewise.

If we're talking about gut instincts, I've found JDodge's last few posts strange for some reason. I really need to catch up on the rest of the thread, however.

[JDodge]

If we're talking about gut instincts, I've found JDodge's last few posts strange for some reason. I really need to catch up on the rest of the thread, however.

Is it a coincidence that the only person you're suspicious of you is the only person voting for you?

[Thesp]

Thanks, mod!

If we're talking about gut instincts, I've found JDodge's last few posts strange for some reason. I really need to catch up on the rest of the thread, however.

Is it a coincidence that the only person you're suspicious of you is the only person voting for you?

How in the world would he be qualified to answer this question?

[JDodge]

Thanks, mod!

If we're talking about gut instincts, I've found JDodge's last few posts strange for some reason. I really need to catch up on the rest of the thread, however.

Is it a coincidence that the only person you're suspicious of you is the only person voting for you?

How in the world would he be qualified to answer this question?

Sorry. I meant "Is it a coincidence that the only person you're suspicious of is the only person voting for you?". If that isn't what you mean, then at least it'll be entertaining watching him grasp for an answer.

[VitaminR]

I think 'yes' would do.

[Foolster41]

I personaly do not trust Fritler's judgement here.

I've seen him play in other games where he does this every time, pushing for a bandwagon, basicly resulting in a random roleclaim. While information is good, it is better to not reveal roles to scum in doing so. I admit, at this point I have no ideas aobut wo might or might not be scum, even after a re-read.

Fritzler, if you have something specific that makes you think someone is scum, and it's big enough to come out (Sometimes it's best to let a scum get away with being scummy os they can hang themselves more) than please share, otherwise I beleive random bandwagoning is bad for the town.

The fact that Fritz has unvoted chamber since makes me thinkk he wasn't as sure as he sounded.

Right now Thesp seems the most scummy to me, I'm going to try varifying Vitamin's claim about thesp. Thesp seems a little bloodythirsty and if it is true it sounds like a good reason to suspect him.

Probibly more later with a possible vote.

[VitaminR]

The thing about Fritz is that I've never actually seen him come out with a first vote on someone. He always chooses a bandwagon.

That's why it stood out for me.

[Fuldu]

I have to say that I maintain mole's "Please explain why I shouldn't vote you" was an attempt to offer the benefit of the doubt rather than providing SJ with an out. If mole had said "Please explain why I shouldn't vote you. Did you have some other reason to be less suspicious of Blake Judge?" then I could see what Thesp is trying to get at. As it is, all I see is a neutral attempt to get SJ to provide more information about his views. Something which, by the by, could have resulted in less "we didn't get any information from the SJ lynch" babble from VitaminR.

And, frankly, that's the most suspicious thing I see going on right now. As the object of VitaminR's suspicion, it's hard to disengage such concerns entirely from the notion of OMGUS, but really. a) VitaminR has repeatedly suggested that we didn't get any useful information from yesterday's lynch. b) VitaminR has voted for me on the basis of an, ummm, unusual read of information from yesterday's lynch. c) VitaminR has acknowledged that he recognizes that these two facts are in competition and that the former undermines the latter.

[Thesp]

I have to say that I maintain mole's "Please explain why I shouldn't vote you" was an attempt to offer the benefit of the doubt rather than providing SJ with an out.

Why can't they be both? Certainly it could be the former under the benefit of the latter, correct? I'm also highly doubtful Sailor Jerry would have been so blatant as to phrase it in the manner you have suggested would have been obviously scummy.

[Fuldu]

I have to say that I maintain mole's "Please explain why I shouldn't vote you" was an attempt to offer the benefit of the doubt rather than providing SJ with an out.

Why can't they be both? Certainly it could be the former under the benefit of the latter, correct? I'm also highly doubtful Sailor Jerry would have been so blatant as to phrase it in the manner you have suggested would have been obviously scummy.

It

could

be that mole was doing both, but I don't think that doing the former is inherently scummy or even poor pro-town play, so barring evidence of the latter, I don't think it's reasonable to suggest that mole did anything worthy of suspicion. In a large game with multiple scum teams, trying to get scum lynched

could

indicate one scum team trying to gain an advantage over the other, but that shouldn't be the first conclusion you jump to without some evidence above and beyond the simple attempt to lynch scum.

And obviously mole (not SJ) wasn't going to phrase it as blatantly as I did, but I wanted to phrase it blatantly for the purposes of my example so that the distinction I was trying to make was obvious.

[Thesp]

It

could

be that mole was doing both, but I don't think that doing the former is inherently scummy or even poor pro-town play, so barring evidence of the latter, I don't think it's reasonable to suggest that mole did anything worthy of suspicion.

I agree with the premise, yet the fact that Sailor Jerry was indeed scum makes it more likely mole had ulterior motives. It is an inductive argument rather than a deductive one, but I think it merits consideration that it's more likely mole was doing bad things.

In a large game with multiple scum teams, trying to get scum lynched

could

indicate one scum team trying to gain an advantage over the other, but that shouldn't be the first conclusion you jump to without some evidence above and beyond the simple attempt to lynch scum.

I'm not sure I understand the significance of this part of your post.

[Fuldu]

The second part is a simple analogy:

Your argument is of the following form:

A is a behavior that might have either pro-town or scummy motivations.

Because of circumstance B, a player who exhibits behavior A is arguably more likely to be scum.

Player X exhibited behavior A and circumstance B pertains, so player X is arguably more likely to be scum.

For your argument, A="try to get a bandwagoned player to defend himself," B="said player turns out to be scum," and X="mole."

In my analogy, A="push for a lynch on a particular player," B="said lynch is successful and said player turns out to be scum," and X="whoever." B is more likely to pertain is whoever is scum because 1) in general, scum have more information than town, 2) scum can discuss amongst themselves who is likely to be scum, and 3) scum can work together to get the player in question lynched. But the proper conclusion is not that in large games with multiple scum groups it is a good idea to lynch successful scum hunters.

The problem with your line of reasoning is that the "arguably more likely" involved is a tenuous argument and of, in my opinion, little predictive power. From a meta standpoint, does this allow scum to "defend" their partners by suggesting that they attempt to defend themselves? Yes, but so what? mole, if he was actually behaving in the manner you've described, offered SJ nothing but the suggestion that maybe he should attempt to defend himself, a conclusion that anyone with even a modicum of Mafia experience or, frankly, common sense ought to have come to on their own. And scum without either of those things aren't going to talk their way out of the wagon.

And I think it would have been good for the town if SJ had taken the opportunity to defend himself. Is it possible that he'd have diverted our attention and avoided lynch? Yes, but on Day One that wouldn't have been the end of the world. But whether that happened or not, we would have had more to work with in the long run. Forcing scum (or players generally) to offer opinions benefits the town, and so mole was doing something that doesn't in any reasonable way say to me "arguably more likely to be scum." Think how much more we'd have to work with today if SJ had started pointing fingers and then we'd lynched him anyway.

[Foolster41]

I feel Thesp is shoehorning Mole in to a place of suspicion.

You yourself admited that it's not the thing he said in itself, but the timing more or less, yes?

I actually found that to be a sound argument against SJ. Giving players the opportunity to explain themselves, especially on Day One, is just common sense. I don't think that mole was providing Jerry with any particular foothold on which to build a defense, just pointing out that if he had one, everyone would like to hear it.

That's the thing - I agree it was a sound argument (even moreso given SJ's alignment now), and I think mole summed it up in an easy package for SJ to rebut so SJ wouldn't go all over the place. SJ certainly could explain himself without mole's help, why the prompt from mole? That's what gets me - it was fairly clear that SJ needed a defense, and mole is giving SJ the opportunity to not be voted. I don't think that's a throw-away statement, I think it's very deliberate.

You even say the argument is MORESO sound because of SJ's alignment. But later:

It could be that mole was doing both, but I don't think that doing the former is inherently scummy or even poor pro-town play, so barring evidence of the latter, I don't think it's reasonable to suggest that mole did anything worthy of suspicion.

I agree with the premise, yet the fact that Sailor Jerry was indeed scum makes it more likely mole had ulterior motives. It is an inductive argument rather than a deductive one, but I think it merits consideration that it's more likely mole was doing bad things.

So you say he is MORE likely because of SJ's revealed alignment. This sounds like a contradiction to me. I like irony, so I'll say it. Tell me why I shouldn't vote for you thesp?

[HurriKaty]

SJ got lynched so quickly that we don't have that much info, really.

Really? I think it gave us plenty.

FOS: VitaminR.

Why does that make me suspicious?

It hasn't stopped me voting or explaining my actions. I've mostly used it to undermine my own vote.

I don't think it makes you suspicious personally. I do think however its a pretty damn silly statement to say that we have little info when we managed to lynch mafia on day 1.

[Blake Judge]

If we're talking about gut instincts, I've found JDodge's last few posts strange for some reason. I really need to catch up on the rest of the thread, however.

Is it a coincidence that the only person you're suspicious of you is the only person voting for you?

It's not like I FOSed you three weeks ago, is it? Nothing's changed on that front.

And on reviewing the thread, I wonder why you

are

still voting for me? We went through the bandwagon/roleclaim/unvote procedure weeks ago and you expressed a belief in my claim, yet you haven't unvoted.

[JDodge]

I forget who I'm voting for sometimes. This was one of those situations. However, you only expressing suspicion of me when there are many other people who are acting suspiciously is a bit odd, so now I'm happy with my vote.

[Thesp]

The problem with your line of reasoning is that the "arguably more likely" involved is a tenuous argument and of, in my opinion, little predictive power.

Ah, I see what you're saying. I do, however, contend that in your argument/analogy, the actual likelihood of a person being more likely to be scum because "trying to get scum lynched

could

indicate one scum team trying to gain an advantage over the other" is significantly weaker. I agree my argument isn't slam-dunk by any means, but I think it's worth pursuing, and is somewhat stronger than you're giving credit for. I think you've correctly ascertained the form of the argument, and noted that the clause "Because of circumstance B, a player who exhibits behavior A is arguably more likely to be scum" is where the uncertainty creeps in. It's simply a matter of how arguably more likely that person is to be scum.

[VitaminR]

And, frankly, that's the most suspicious thing I see going on right now. As the object of VitaminR's suspicion, it's hard to disengage such concerns entirely from the notion of OMGUS, but really. a) VitaminR has repeatedly suggested that we didn't get any useful information from yesterday's lynch.

How is it OMGUS, exactly?

You didn't vote me, nor have you expressed suspicion of me.

b) VitaminR has voted for me on the basis of an, ummm, unusual read of information from yesterday's lynch.

This is nice and patronising. My gut feeling is that you're scum. Rather than attempting to construe a case against you around that, I think it's fairer that I just say that.

Also, you questioned my vote earlier. I explained what I meant then. You didn't get back to it. I think it is a bit unfair to ridicule it now without referring to that explanation.

c) VitaminR has acknowledged that he recognizes that these two facts are in competition and that the former undermines the latter.

I've said that you could see it that way. They don't for me.

Honestly, I feel that there is not much in Day 1's posts that allows me to get a read on the players in this game. Can we be done calling this 'silly' and 'babble' and move on?

[Foolster41]

Thanks for ignoring my post Fuldu. (Actually it seems everyone missed it)

Vot4e: Fuidu

got your attention? Please answer my questions. (Scrolll up to my last post)

I don't understand this whole argument about multiple scum groups. This is a mini game, so isn't it moot?

[Foolster41]

bah again.

vote: Fuldu

[Fuldu]

Thanks for ignoring my post Fuldu. (Actually it seems everyone missed it)

Vot4e: Fuidu

got your attention? Please answer my questions. (Scrolll up to my last post)

I don't understand this whole argument about multiple scum groups. This is a mini game, so isn't it moot?

I did read the post, and I've just now read it again, and unless I'm missing something, all the questions in it are directed at Thesp. You even end with "Tell me why I shouldn't vote for you thesp?"

-----

You didn't vote me, nor have you expressed suspicion of me.

I didn't vote, but you have the other part right at the beginning of what you quoted.

And, frankly, that's the most suspicious thing I see going on right now.

Except that, in rereading the post in question, I can see how the word "that's" lacks clarity and might be seen as referring to Thesp. But it wasn't, that was me expressing suspicion of VitaminR.

As for the comments about the non-gut pieces of the basis for your vote, yeah that was a little patronizing. Sorry. I find the argument difficult to respond to, but not because I believe it has any merit, so I was left without anything constructive to say about it.

[Foolster41]

Oh crap. How did I do that? [/b]unvote

Sorry about that.

Vote: Thesp

[Thesp]

Oh crap. How did I do that? unvote Sorry about that. Vote: Thesp

Why? I really don't understand how you're playing this game.

On the flipside, at least you're

playing

this game, which is a step up form almost everyone else.

[Foolster41]

Why am I voting you? Did you bother looking back at my post? I'll repeat the question one more time, but if you avoid this for the THIRD TIME I strongly urge people to vote for Thesp.

I feel Thesp is shoehorning Mole in to a place of suspicion.

You yourself admited that it's not the thing he said in itself, but the timing more or less, yes?

I actually found that to be a sound argument against SJ. Giving players the opportunity to explain themselves, especially on Day One, is just common sense. I don't think that mole was providing Jerry with any particular foothold on which to build a defense, just pointing out that if he had one, everyone would like to hear it.

That's the thing - I agree it was a sound argument (even moreso given SJ's alignment now), and I think mole summed it up in an easy package for SJ to rebut so SJ wouldn't go all over the place. SJ certainly could explain himself without mole's help, why the prompt from mole? That's what gets me - it was fairly clear that SJ needed a defense, and mole is giving SJ the opportunity to not be voted. I don't think that's a throw-away statement, I think it's very deliberate.

You even say the argument is MORESO sound because of SJ's alignment. But later:

It could be that mole was doing both, but I don't think that doing the former is inherently scummy or even poor pro-town play, so barring evidence of the latter, I don't think it's reasonable to suggest that mole did anything worthy of suspicion.

I agree with the premise, yet the fact that Sailor Jerry was indeed scum makes it more likely mole had ulterior motives. It is an inductive argument rather than a deductive one, but I think it merits consideration that it's more likely mole was doing bad things.

So you say he is MORE likely because of SJ's revealed alignment. This sounds like a contradiction to me. I like irony, so I'll say it. Tell me why I shouldn't vote for you thesp?