Mini 1505: N is for Normal (game over)

[Thor665]

"Garmr is the easy baitwagon." Please, don't insult us.

How would you describe the wagon on him?

[Albert B. Rampage]

#147 is literally a piece of crap.

"X Provides reasoning to his votes. Neutral-Town."

What the hell are you talking about? Do you think only town can make up a half-baked reason to justify a vote? Have you seriously been playing since 2007? Show me your town games, I want to read your meta.

Also, Slandaar-Thor is simply annoying to read. I can't follow this back-and-forth.

"Garmr is the easy baitwagon." Please, don't insult us.

How would you describe the wagon on him?

It's not how I would describe it. It's the disrespect that IceNinja has for everyone voting for Garmr. He boasts like he knows a scum trap when he sees one. I have great doubts about the inferences that can be made from the Garmr wagon.

[toolenduso]

You might as well be honest like me and say you've got nothing and vote where your heart tells you.

My heart, gut and head happen to agree on this one. I could've voted for Slandaar too (my second strongest scum read), but I believe that if I'm going to do something, I need to be able to back it up. That's why I laid out my reasoning for both of you and decided that you were the better option.

In day one there's not much to go on, so isn't it best to go with what little you have? That way, evidence builds up on various people and can complement later accusations or fade away into irrelevance after we have records of who voted to lynch who, who died in the night, what people's alignments were, etc.

My question for you is this -- what led to your gut feeling that it was worth it to put Garmr at L-2?

[Thor665]

Are you saying Iec is scum or are you saying he's annoying to you on a personal levl?

Because if it's the first then your current vote makes no sense.
If it's the latter, I'm not sure the value in bringing it up if you don't care to defend the wagon and/or your vote instead of just tossing back annoyance at him.

[toolenduso]

#147 is literally a piece of crap.

Why thank you.

"X Provides reasoning to his votes. Neutral-Town."

What the hell are you talking about? Do you think only town can make up a half-baked reason to justify a vote?

No I don't. But it's as good a tell as any at this point in the game. Later in the game they will be more developed. You can disagree with my reads.

Have you seriously been playing since 2007? Show me your town games, I want to read your meta.

My history has already been discussed -- my last game was in 2007, and I mostly played newbie games. All the threads I've posted in are in my profile if you want to look at them.

[Albert B. Rampage]

Are you saying Iec is scum or are you saying he's annoying to you on a personal levl?

Because if it's the first then your current vote makes no sense.
If it's the latter, I'm not sure the value in bringing it up if you don't care to defend the wagon and/or your vote instead of just tossing back annoyance at him.

I'm not saying that IceNinja is scum at all. He isn't even annoying. He's simply insulting my intelligence, and everyone on the Garmr wagon.

Of course the Garmr wagon is a scum setup.

He doesn't know that. Regardless of alignment, he knows that the Garmr wagon has a fickle logical reasoning, and the wagon will fall apart, so he opts to place his vote elsewhere. This isn't alignment-indicative. I'd do the same thing to hedge our odds. Competing wagons provide evidence in future days, as tool accutely remarked.

#147 is literally a piece of crap.

Why thank you.

You're welcome I only offer criticism when it's appreciated. I don't understand your reason for suspecting Slandaar that you describe in #147. Could you be so kind as to explain it, with the appropriate quotes from him?

[Albert B. Rampage]

My question for you is this -- what led to your gut feeling that it was worth it to put Garmr at L-2?

He's not part of my town list, and that's good enough reason. The list will remain undisclosed. As I said, I'm functioning by process of elmination and picking off whoever doesn't make the list.

[toolenduso]

@ABR: I don't get how saying who you think is town benefits the mafia. Could you explain?

As for Slandaar, here's my reasoning:

Slandaar: started by voting based on a flimsy argument, reacted a little defensively when pressed on it, then got all Sextus Empiricus on us by saying there's no value in argument -- neutral-scum read.

1. Started by voting based on a flimsy argument.

Anyways sorry for showing up late everyone I have been really really busy, I just didn't have a chance to post yet, don't hold it against me please I am just a little late that's all and I am very very sorry but you know how it is; can't post at work and then when you get home gotta make a cup of tea but then realise there are no biscuits left and can't have tea without biscuits so you have to run out to buy some. So, yeah, sorry I missed the opening of this game please don't think I am scum because I didn't show up immediately I really truly am sorry for not getting here first.

VOTE: toolenduso

Continued to argue that point by saying I was overexplaining things, ignoring most of the rest of the players. The argument is flimsy because my tendency to reason things out isn't as good of evidence as other things happening in the game.

2. Reacted a little defensively when pressed about his arguments.

Do a line by line breakdown of what is wrong with my post in regards to overexplaining.

Now let us figure this out; You know we don't agree on anything so instead of letting me do what I do and catch the scum you are trying to come after me for posting something you think is wrong well that is what you should expect to happen when I am town.

...

In short: You are being very superficial.

Asserts his ability (which is apparently very good, as he said in the quotes I pulled for my fourth point) to scum hunt is being hindered, asserts he is town (which has no value) and calls Thor superficial. It's a little defensive, but it's not like he's blowing up about it. Just a little hint, not the main part of my argument.

3. Goes all Sextus Empiricus on us by saying there's no value in argument.

I could bring up everything you have posted I don't agree with but I don't; why? because its pointless to argue it as I know I won't agree with you it's just how it is.

Simple version;
Before a game even begins you know we will not agree on logic especially if we are both town and you know that actually all that will happen is wall wars where we just don't come to agreement and want to lynch the other.

During game Thor tries to argue my logic is scummy.

Doesn't make sense, I expect if you were town you would have tried alternative methods like seeing if I lurk hard or not, but instead you went the superficial way of arguing logic which is ultimately pointless and not actually going to get you a read that is useful because it always ends the same way.

tl;dr -- arguing logic is pointless. Except the function of voting in this game is based on logic. You vote for people because you have a reason to. This argument against argument is, I believe, his support for his next claim, which I go over in my fourth point.

4. Something I just noticed after reading some more is that Slandaar is basically just asking us to trust him because he's never wrong. Asking people to basically just follow on faith without reasoning it out themselves.

Add to that the fact I have ALWAYS (when town) been correct and it is just a ridiculous strategy from a TownThor plus its always to do with how things are worded so at a minimum a TownThor should have at least tweaked a little.

[Albert B. Rampage]

@ABR: I don't get how saying who you think is town benefits the mafia. Could you explain?

On day 1, explaining this makes scum play better, and makes it easier for other players to meta me. I don't want to dwell on this. I'll explain a town read if I have to.

[ICEninja]

Now how much I will do 3 and 4 depends on my energy in the game.

Energy is looking low right now.

I contribute with my vote and my gut reads, and you will wait until the game gets serious for me to take a proactive approach.

15 minutes later...

Show me your town games, I want to read your meta.

Funny.

Also, I never said it was a scum trap, it's the easy wagon. Scum jump on the easiest person to lynch day 1, which you've done. I haven't insulted anyone, it can even be good scum play if you can do it without being caught. But you got caught.

Also:

On day 1, explaining this makes scum play better, and

makes it easier for other players to meta me.

Isn't this a good thing when you're town?

[Albert B. Rampage]

Meta me from different games. No, that's not good. It messes with my reads.

My mental energy gets consumed when I have to lie about my suspicions. Reading, observing, comparing, that doesn't take energy.

Thor, don't call IceNinja Iec. It's an insult to Iecerint.

[toolenduso]

On day 1, explaining this makes scum play better ... I don't want to dwell on this.

Sorry to dwell on it, but what I'm asking is how does this make scum play better? Doesn't it give scum just as much as a vote, an FoS or an argument by a player?

[Albert B. Rampage]

Tool: "X Provides reasoning to his votes. Neutral-Town."
Scum: "Let's provide more and better reasoning to our votes so we can get through the day without getting lynched."

[ICEninja]

Thor, don't call IceNinja Iec. It's an insult to Iecerint.

Now you're just being rude.

[Albert B. Rampage]

Thor, don't call IceNinja Iec. It's an insult to Iecerint.

Now you're just being rude.

You caught me

Also, I never said it was a scum trap, it's the easy wagon. Scum jump on the easiest person to lynch day 1, which you've done.

Are you on crack? Because you clearly don't know who you're dealing with.

[toolenduso]

ABR: "I vote for X"
Scum: "Let's avoid X's style of playing so we can avoid being lynched."
or
Scum: "Let's try to build support for lynching X so the town will mislynch."
or
Scum: "Let's vote for someone other than X so we can distance ourselves from looking like bandwagoners."

Thanks for providing your reasoning, but I just disagree. What you're arguing against is saying very much in general -- so you're being consistent with your philosophy, I just don't think there would be a game without us giving our opinions. And I think saying townreads gives away about as much as any other opinion.

[Albert B. Rampage]

That's too vague. You can't just adopt someone else's entire playstyle, and even if you did, you wouldn't catch the subtleties that hint at their alignment the same way I would. It's a useless exercise.

IceNinja, explain to us why you think Garmr is an easy wagon. I feel like this is something the town should hear from you.

[Slandaar]

How did I misrep that you agreed with him? Because that is what your point said there.

What I'm saying is, at this stage in the game there's very little logical reasoning a mafia could give to bus their partner.

OK? I don't see what this has to do with anything at all. This is technically true but it doesn't mean bussing doesn't happen.

This is technically true means; yes its hard for scum to give a logical reason to bus early because most of the time it would just be on the back of an RVS vote etc.

However

This does not mean scum do not bus during this period of the game so, it is technically true because he is focusing only on logical reasoning. Logical is not the entire spectrum and as such in reality it is not true.

So, no I did not agree with what he said. The point to all of it was its a pointless thing to post in the first place as it means nothing.

Because you're working hard to have something to say about nothing, and that's why I think you twisted it.

Huh? You said I overexplained it this has nothing to do with that.

You point was still complaining that he wasn't succinct enough when the points you said should be cut were explanation of why he had his belief;

basically he did this;

The fruit is round, red, has white pulp, seeds inside, came from a tree, and has a sweet flavor with some tartness.
I believe it is an apple.

Uh no. My example was more accurate because yours ends with a conclusion and his posts did not.

And you then said 'he's *overexplaining*, why not just say he thinks it's an apple, scummy!'
And my counter there is - why didn't you just say 'he's overexplaining' and vote him instead of doing a line by line breakdown of his post (over)explaining how his post is overexplaining?

I didn't overexplain anything. I showed why his post is terrible.

To understand your thought process.
We also haven't had this exact debate unless the word exact has a different meaning than I know of. We may have had a similar one, but only insomuch as I have doubtless questioned your logic in the past - other than that I doubt there is any connection to a past debate.
Feel free to prove me wrong.

Remind me later.

How do you define the difference?

nothing I said was pointless for one.

Then I didn't get the point of the question.
Now that you have my answer anyway...what are you doing with it?

I was looking for you to say lurking which I know you know for the below but you avoided the question is some weird way.

Only if you want to claim that I believe it is impossible to scum read you through analyzing of logic.

No, you have never actually townread me. So, the point was not I think you will never be able to scumread me by arguing logic quite the opposite.

Since I believe that is the way to read everyone and is the only type of scumhunting I do, whether or not I have received a bad read on you in the past I am unsure why I would reinvent my entire method just for you in the present.

Because it does not work and so if you were town and wanted to get a genuine read you would actually try different methods at least for a day or two instead of beginning the wall wars straight away which as you can see are now in full swing so good job with that.

Thank you.

You're welcome.

[Sir Bastion]

See now this is why I like to hold onto my vote, bandwagon fever two days in.

huh...

You dont like that a wagon has jumped to L-2 very quickly due in part to your own vote.

yet doesnt unvote


why?

[Maxous]

I find one on one the best way to get information as it's what I excel

at when I get bombarded by lots of different players I get confused and I try to handle one at a time and I lose pace.

and yet you have'nt tried to enage anybody 'one on one'

Before I vote, I'd like to point out that I think there's a difference between inactivity and lurking.

What is this.
Why did you call me out for not posting in 17 hours if you understand the difference??

Then there's this kind of pseudo-lurking where you post enough to not be called a lurker, but you don't say much of substance -- just like a lurker, you're not contributing to the conversation, but you get to escape from the label.

And for the record, this is why you should be voting slandaar.

Regarding Garmr, I would lynch him, but not with great confidence.

[toolenduso]

@Maxous -- I'm kind of teetering between the two right now. If the end of the day were now, I'd be comfortable voting for either.

And I apologize for calling you out earlier for not posting for a bit. After more time has passed, it's become clear that there are people in this game much more inactive than you. And work/sleep/real life is certainly a valid reason for not posting in a while.

[Garmr]

This is probably going to sound rich but I think there's scum on my wagon.

@Albert I noticed you didn't really list a reason there why.

@Maxous I have You post 121 and when macross wouldn't vote me yet clearly wanted to. It wouldn't put me at L1 or even L2 I found that suspicious. Also post 137 wasn't a dare it was a legit question. Why wouldn't you want someone a L-3

[Maxous]

Prolly TCold.

And we apparently have different ideas of what "'one on one' is so.

[Garmr]

I'm trying to engage in one on one this round but i'm kinda failing. I'm not the best at defending myself from multiple people either as I tend to break down even as town Albert and T-cold know this from past experience with me.

[toolenduso]

Slandaar -- this is the post of mine where you think I'm overexplaining, correct?

EDBWOP (thanks Garmr for the definition)

I guess what stage of the game it is would matter a little bit.

What I'm saying is, at this stage in the game there's very little logical reasoning a mafia could give to bus their partner. So I think you'd have to see something pretty convincing at this stage in the game to think something is bussing. Otherwise, you could say any post of one person voting for another was bussing.

Unless I'm missing something. Why did you think it looked like bussing, outside of the fact that one voted for the other?

Then, you say this

You point was still complaining that he wasn't succinct enough when the points you said should be cut were explanation of why he had his belief;

basically he did this;

The fruit is round, red, has white pulp, seeds inside, came from a tree, and has a sweet flavor with some tartness.
I believe it is an apple.

Uh no. My example was more accurate because yours ends with a conclusion and his posts did not.

If you're asking for a conclusion in my post, then what you're really saying is that I was underexplaining my argument by leaving out a point.

Anyway, here's the point of my post:

So I think you'd have to see something pretty convincing at this stage in the game to think something is bussing.

I was explaining that I didn't think anybody could have a very good reason for claiming that somebody was bussing somebody else at that stage of the game, and

thus casting doubt via my argument on Sir Bastion's vote.

That was the point of my post. I don't understand why this is the most important thing in the game to you.