Open 54 - Basic 12 Player (over) before 529

[Glork]

Oh, just looking for some insight into your play philosophies. I figured if I have the opportunity to grill you, I'd best take advantage.

[Ether]

4 JDodge (Sikario8, Ripley, Glork, Elmo)
2 Elmo (Crub, JDodge)
2 wank (Andycyca, IH)
1 Andycyca (Patrick)
1 IH (Jonny Appleseed)
1 Patrick (Shanba)

1 Unvote (wank)

12 alive; 7 to lynch.

[Crub]

Wow 3 pages overnight? Holy posting batman!

I'd be a whole lot happier about a JDodge lynch if I didn't feel as though the bandwagon materialised out of thin air, very quickly with less than stellar wagoners.

[wank]

First of all, you just dislike that I mildly insulted you, and second of all I wasn't talking about that game, since first of all you did nail one of the scums, but not the other. I just disliked your attitude from both games, and decided to try and do something about it.

Besides, even if I was, why would that be scummy, and not just playing around?



Why can't you mix the two? Silly Wank.

This is a senseless argument. I've had it before with Jathan aka ShadowLurker of all people a LONG time ago. We ended up both being wrong, but I digress. Answer the question, divulging why something is scummy is when you say why you think it's scummy.

If not, then you were obviously just trying to make the person look bad and don't have a reason why posting too much is scummy. Just trying to make a productive player look scummy, without comitting.



Semantics have very little to do with finding scum, usually they get a townie lynched while keeping the town confused. See Open 20 for more info. = )


You would have fooled us by thinking you WEREN'T lying, but we would have assumed you claimed townie, and that does nothing. Now we'd lynch you. Shut up.


I will testify you aren't playing at all like you did in your last game. You actually made an attempt to find scum. Here you're just arguing semantics. Pointless ones at that. You're attempting to make the game alot more complicated. Town wins when things get simpler, not complicated.

Sometimes they try harder but I guess not all scums are created equal.

Vote: ih

.

[wank]

No I'm not Elmo but I agree that you could be seen as an easy lynch.

How often do you find yourself under lynch pressure on day 1 when you're town? I assume it's fairly often.

That could be an indicator that your play-style needs improving

You imply getting lynched on day 1 is a bad thing. Why?

[wank]

I really have no idea if wank is scum, but I don't feel good about lynching anyone else. Sorry.

Unvote

:

Patrick

;

vote

:

wank

.

If I remember correctly, you vote based on mere opinions of aother and now you vote when you "really have no idea". Good thing we are not voting for the president here.

[Crub]

"when you're town"

it usually put's the town down 2 people. Considering your playstyle will distract the town enough to give us very little information from your bandwagon. I'd call 2 less people with no information a bad thing.

[Elmo]

I'd be a whole lot happier about a JDodge lynch if I didn't feel as though the bandwagon materialised out of thin air, very quickly with less than stellar wagoners.

This is a legitimate concern in principle, but apart from Sikario, I don't see anything wrong with the wagoners. Glork = obvgood, I don't see any problem with Ripley (I don't think you've mentioned him) and I'm still not sure what your problem with me is. As far as I can tell, you're voting me for giving a long answer to Glork and for something I didn't say, this "targetted" = "defensiveness" business.

Why're you still voting for me, anyway? I can think of a reason, but if it's that, then it's fairly obviously not working.

wank: Put it this way, I have 8 people in mind who I don't want to be the president, and you were the least objectionable president to my mind. Also, if you're a townie, then getting lynched on day 1 is a townie lynch, which is bad. Unless you do something to counter the loss of a townie, which I don't see you doing, then it's a bad idea, no?

[Shanba]

Urk. Got prodded. As you might be able to tell, haven't had a whole lot of time to post recently + I've been sick.

@Patrick: You say my statement is not true. I say it is. When you vote for appleof88, Ripley had been grilling him and Elmo had his vote on him. It wasn't a bandwagon yet, but it definitely had the potential to become one. Then, when questioned on it, you just back off, but you don't unvote. You sort of defer to Glork adn say that your vote was weak, but you don't go anywhere with it. Then, on Andy: Andy had had a little wagon against him earlier, but you don't vote him (despite you admitting your apple vote was weak). Then, when there's a slight resurgence, with wank and crub indicating they don't like Andy's last post and then you vote for him. You say that there was only one vote and a few drabs of suspicion on him - yes, that's true, but there had been a wagon against him before and it's not inconceivable that it would pick up again. Basically, I just hate the timing of your two votes. Also, you never mention the apple vote.

Ripley - you accuse me of following Glork. I think thjat's quite difficult when Glork is completely failing to make any assertive statements. But that's beside the point. Glork mentions that he migh move back to Patrick, but he also mentions that he was satisfied with Patrick's response to his probing earlier and he also mentions that he finds Andy scummy (Andy would be a much easier target at that point anyway). Not to mention, the post I voted Patrick for happened after the post where Glork mentions he might move back to Patrick. Finally, you seem to be assuming I am voting him for the reasons Glork outlines... which is clearly not true.

Glork - I mean what I said there. You aren't being as definitive as I would expect. I'm as yet unsure whether this is a town sign or a scum sign. Is there a reason you're being... well, noncomittal, frankly. Also, you state that you think JD is not a good wagon, but then you move onto him a couple of pages later.

FoS: Glork

Andy - why do you believe Patrick and I are distancing? That seems to come out of nowhere.

[IH]

Sorry for messing up quote tags. I had hit the quote button, copy'd and pasted it, and then must have messed it up = (

Note-IH doesn't do previews Ripley.

Interesting. Which game?

THe last newbie game I modded. Not 515, and not 440.... 505 mebe?

Now it sounds like you don't think he's been helpful at all. Like Patrick I'd like to take a look at this other game you mention where he was playing differently and attempting to find scum. Especially since we have Crub's opinion that his play here is consistent with his play as protown elsewhere.

Well, I thought he had started back, but he doesn't seem to. His play is slightly

similar

but contrasting the two games, in one he found people he thought were scum, and tenaciously tried to get them lynched. Here he's arguing pointless things.

Don't understand the question. At the time you ask it, I'm voting wank. At the time I said what you quoted, I'd switched my vote to Patrick, because that's the place it stands the highest chance of making something interesting happen, which is basically what you're quoting. Lynching wank gives us very little info, ya?

At the time you said what I quoted you voted Patrick, and that's exactly what I meant.

Question, would you rather have an info lynch, or a scum lynch? (What I mean is, a lynch to get information, or a lynch to get scum?)

vote IH

I've played with IH in a few games before on a different board. He's seemed uncharacteristically quiet compared to his usual townie self. This is something that Ripley has noticed as well.

Do you have anything to say in reply IH?

I've been sick and lurky, as I confirmed in thread numerous times.

Look at Wank! Still avoiding the question AND Omgus voting! Woo!

[Andycyca]

@Shanba: OK, I admit I'm awful at scumhunting on D1, I always move at a slow pace in the beginning. But you said Patrick moves "on a wagon just as it's taking off" Unless my memory, my english or my maths are wrong, you were in my wagon earlier. Several people unvoted and when Patrick voted, my "wagon" was (oh my!) 2 votes long, (see votecount on 255) I don't think that's jumping on a wagon just as it's taking off. Besides, he gave a somewhat reasonable reason (duh) behind his vote. Also Patrick strikes me as more protown than you, as he's encouraging good discussion (and before I knew you were sick, I thought you might've been lurking)

Also, I never said you and patrick are distancing, I commented that you might be trying to frame him on a "distancing" scene. Now I admit that suspicion is wearing off, but still IGMEOY

Again, I'm not very good on D1, many of my thoughts are gut-based, that's why I prefer to be extra-careful with my votes.

[Sikario8]

I'd be a whole lot happier about a JDodge lynch if I didn't feel as though the bandwagon materialised out of thin air, very quickly with less than stellar wagoners.

This is a legitimate concern in principle, but

apart from Sikario

, I don't see anything wrong with the wagoners. Glork = obvgood, I don't see any problem with Ripley (I don't think you've mentioned him) and I'm still not sure what your problem with me is. As far as I can tell, you're voting me for giving a long answer to Glork and for something I didn't say, this "targetted" = "defensiveness" business.

Why're you still voting for me, anyway? I can think of a reason, but if it's that, then it's fairly obviously not working.

wank: Put it this way, I have 8 people in mind who I don't want to be the president, and you were the least objectionable president to my mind. Also, if you're a townie, then getting lynched on day 1 is a townie lynch, which is bad. Unless you do something to counter the loss of a townie, which I don't see you doing, then it's a bad idea, no?

I had no idea my vote would metamorphisize into such a catastrophe; however, JDodge doesn't seem to care, so...

[Elmo]

Don't understand the question.

At the time you said what I quoted you voted Patrick, and that's exactly what I meant.

Oh, I think I get it now. My reason for voting Patrick is basically the paragraph a lil' above what you quoted in 256 ("This bit makes me feel very ungood for some reason"), that Patrick seemed to be jumping onto Andy's wagon suddenly after not finding him suspicious for a good while. If that isn't what you're asking, you're gonna hafta spell it out for me.

Question, would you rather have an info lynch, or a scum lynch? (What I mean is, a lynch to get information, or a lynch to get scum?)

Varies. No-one has any idea about wank's alignment, and lynching him gives us virtually no info. So it's bad any way you look at it. The only reason I'd vote him is because it's the safe play; if we lose a townie, best lose one that's not doing any good.

Where am I defending wank, anyway?

I want to

FoS Shanba

since thats what I figured all three of them had done, just leaped on someone for proclaiming it odd.

I'd like to go back to this. Why the FoS here? Hum, reading down, you remove it, but it's still interesting to me.

That's the second time Patrick has done that.

Done what?

Jumped on a wagon just as it's taking off.

It wasn't a bandwagon yet, but it definitely had the potential to become one.

Would you like to admit you got it wrong anytime soon? 358 is full of lose. What do you hate about the timing of his votes?

Sikario: Catastrophe?

[Sikario8]

I misread. At first, it appeared as if you implied that the JDodge wagon was wrong or negative, but I think i get it now. You aren't fond of reasonless bandwagoning. I agree, reasonless bandwagoning is wrong.

@Jdodge: Don't you think reasonless bandwagoning is wrong?

[Glork]

Shanba, I'd

REALLY

like you to explain how labeling half of the players as definitively protown is "noncomittal."

Pending your explanation, I will assume that you mean the fact that I've been cautious with my vote indicates noncommitance. As I stated earlier, no clear lynch candidate stood out to me, and I've simply chosen to be a little less headstrong in this game. My boldness has gotten me in trouble recently, so I'm trying to tone it down just a notch or two.

Also, I did not say that I thought the JD wagon was not a good wagon. I said I was apathetic towards it, meaning that I did not lean one way or another. Obviously, the discussion since then has convinced me otherwise.

What do

you

think of JD, Shanz?

[JDodge]

I misread. At first, it appeared as if you implied that the JDodge wagon was wrong or negative, but I think i get it now. You aren't fond of reasonless bandwagoning. I agree, reasonless bandwagoning is wrong.

@Jdodge: Don't you think reasonless bandwagoning is wrong?

If you think the bandwagon is reasonless, a bandwagon that you

know

could possibly lead to a lynch, why are you just letting it go and riding it?

[wank]

I always demand the reason for my lynch. Or is that not considered information? I am setting myself up as bait and no one wants to take advantage of it. You guys are soooo boring.

[IH]

Wank you demand info before you are lynched....

but you won't give info on people you want to lynch?

[Ripley]

Glork: are you still as confident of all those people being protown as you were when you made the list?

[Glork]

As confident? Yes and no.

Confident enough? Sure, why not.

[Patrick]

Hmm. Stuff happened. Welcome to the game Jonny.

I've gotten more suspicious of JDodge these past few pages. I could see him actually having that inconsistency as town, from what experience I have with him, but don't really like where he took it after that. The vote on Elmo seems a bit OMGUSy, and I don't see how Elmo was obsessing over the possible scumtell. With that said, Elmo: You pointed out his inconsistency in Post 323, but didn't vote him. Then when Glork voted him, you followed him. Were you waiting to see what he'd do first?

Both of the IH votes strike me as pretty weak.

@Patrick: You say my statement is not true. I say it is. When you vote for appleof88, Ripley had been grilling him and Elmo had his vote on him. It wasn't a bandwagon yet, but it definitely had the potential to become one. Then, when questioned on it, you just back off, but you don't unvote. You sort of defer to Glork adn say that your vote was weak, but you don't go anywhere with it. Then, on Andy: Andy had had a little wagon against him earlier, but you don't vote him (despite you admitting your apple vote was weak). Then, when there's a slight resurgence, with wank and crub indicating they don't like Andy's last post and then you vote for him. You say that there was only one vote and a few drabs of suspicion on him - yes, that's true, but there had been a wagon against him before and it's not inconceivable that it would pick up again. Basically, I just hate the timing of your two votes. Also, you never mention the apple vote.

I recognise that apple could have become a bandwagon, although I don't think that's a big deal early on. I did not back off from it, I just found myself having to explain it several times. Also, I don't think it was any more likely than usual that a bandwagon was going to form on Andy at the time I voted him. I think your "resurgence" thing is exagerated; wank and Crub only expressed disdain at worst, and didn't FoS or vote him. Weaksauce here.

I can sort of see the point about Glork. He's been noncommital in places, though he did make that large town list. I'm undecided on his alignment right now. I don't get any great protown vibes like I have done in the past, but nothing has really pinged the scumdar either. I think I liked his Post 245, though I'd still like him to explain how I've been inconsistent, if he's still maintaining that.

[Ether]

Apparently Jonny Appleseed is having troubles accessing the forum. A similar problem is mentioned on the Help! boards, so I'm gonna wait and see if this'll smooth over quickly first. Sorry.

[Shanba]

Shanba, I'd

REALLY

like you to explain how labeling half of the players as definitively protown is "noncomittal."

Pending your explanation, I will assume that you mean the fact that I've been cautious with my vote indicates noncommitance. As I stated earlier, no clear lynch candidate stood out to me, and I've simply chosen to be a little less headstrong in this game. My boldness has gotten me in trouble recently, so I'm trying to tone it down just a notch or two.

Also, I did not say that I thought the JD wagon was not a good wagon. I said I was apathetic towards it, meaning that I did not lean one way or another. Obviously, the discussion since then has convinced me otherwise.

What do

you

think of JD, Shanz?

There are two things. First, you called them pro-town, yes I agree with that. However, since then you've said:

Apple's play strikes me as being fairly protown, and the reactions (i.e., bandwagon) in response to his play have further led me to believe that he's probably protown.

Will I be wrong in some of my opinions? Certainly.

Eh, when I list the protown players, there's always a chance that one scumbag sneaks onto the list.

So uhm yah. You called them pro-town, but since then there's been a current of comments undermining that position. On top of that, I know you like to seem more sure than you are (in fact you've said that in this very thread), so I'd expect you to be more vocal than that about finding them town. Or something like that. I strongly suspect that didn't make as much sense as I wanted it too.

But that's not all. While you've stated who you think is pro-town, you haven't actually said who you think is scum - to be sure, you've pushed Patrick somewhat, you've voted Jdodge, you've said you would lynch me, you've voted Ripley, but there's been nothing like what I've come to expect from you.

My boldness has gotten me in trouble recently, so I'm trying to tone it down just a notch or two.

Hrm. I suppose that makes some sort of sense. I don't see why it would be a scum behaviour especially, it just feels so weird from someone I've come to expect to be definitive about everything that it needed an answer. But how does that fit with this:

Regarding my confidence level: That's just how I think the game should be played. I feel that, as early as possible, you should try to get definitive reads on as many players as possible. Present your findings with confidence and assurance, be prepared to defend them as necessary, and investigate where you find yourself lacking in information. It's an excellent way to begin and to promote meaningful discussion, and as players respond to you, it forces more interactions and opinion-forming. All of these things are good for the town, because it means that players' actions are highly traceble (which, in turn, means one can find patterns among scums' play much more easily).

?

On Jdodge: TBH, I have no clue. I haven't been paying attention to him.

Would you like to admit you got it wrong anytime soon? 358 is full of lose. What do you hate about the timing of his votes?

If you'd read 358, that would be pretty clear. He voted for apple after apple received two votes. He voted for Andy after two people expressed suspicion on Andy. It stinks of opportunism. I don't think I'm wrong about this. My gut is agreeing with m head for once that Patrick is scum. That doesn't happen too often.

Patrick: How are bandwagons started? To be sure, no one was calling for his head. But what if Andy had reacted badly to your vote? The residual suspicion on him was such that it could very eagerly have become a decent wagon. Hrm, how to explain. Imagine a forest. Imagine that you have just flown in from somewhere far away and you don't know what the weather has been like recently. However, a few of the branches on the outside look fairly dry. Now imagine that you want to burn down the forest, but you want to do it in a discreet way and you're with lots of friends. As such, you light a cigarette and discreetly throw the burning match on the ground. It might catch, it might not, but it's still a decent indication that you wanted the thing to go up in smoke.

Now obviously there are flaws here, and obviously there could be other reasons for you to throw the match. But the fact you'd done it before was what made it more interesting. Fool me once...

@Shanba: OK, I admit I'm awful at scumhunting on D1, I always move at a slow pace in the beginning. But you said Patrick moves "on a wagon just as it's taking off" Unless my memory, my english or my maths are wrong, you were in my wagon earlier. Several people unvoted and when Patrick voted, my "wagon" was (oh my!) 2 votes long, (see votecount on 255) I don't think that's jumping on a wagon just as it's taking off. Besides, he gave a somewhat reasonable reason (duh) behind his vote. Also Patrick strikes me as more protown than you, as he's encouraging good discussion (and before I knew you were sick, I thought you might've been lurking)

So, lessee. Because people had jumped off your wagon, there was no hope of a resurgence, despite the fact that the main pusher (IH) had returned and a couple of people had just expressed suspicion of you? Oh, and also, you agree with Patrick then that you were copying people a lot, and you're not looking for scum. Because of that, Patrick is pro-town because of this and I am therefore scum who is trying to make it look like I'm distancing. Honestly, I can only hope I've misunderstood something, because that logic is insane.

Also, I never said you and patrick are distancing, I commented that you might be trying to frame him on a "distancing" scene. Now I admit that suspicion is wearing off, but still IGMEOY

I cannot believe you honestly think this. I'm seriously wondering whether you are Patrick's scumbuddy or something. Of course, that would invalidate my whole argument against Patrick. Bleh. You make little sense to me.

Again, I'm not very good on D1, many of my thoughts are gut-based, that's why I prefer to be extra-careful with my votes.

I'm not sure what this has to do with anything, but take it as noted that I dislike your disclaimer about not being very good.

As confident? Yes and no.

Confident enough? Sure, why not.

What the heck is this supposed to mean?

This post is a mess.

[Glork]

Shanz, you're cute when you poke the bear.


I'll respond sometime Thursday when I've had more than 4.5 hours of sleep among the past 42 hours or so.

[Glork]

Actually, since I'm up and still can't sleep, I'm just going to go for it.


I stated six people whom I believed were likely to be protown (as in, significantly higher than a 3/11 chance). Objectively speaking... at the end of the day, I am going to be wrong in some of my opinions in some of my games. I'm not perfect. You know this as well as I do. If a player were perfect at labeling others as town or scum, they would have no reason to play the game.

My confidence when I made the protown assertions stems from the fact that, as I said before, I think people need to force themselves to make decisions and just stick to them one way or another until/unless something arises to convince them to change their opinion.

Right now, I still firmly believe that my protown reads are likely accurate. I realize there is a chance I may be wrong -- such an approach is critical to weeding through the muck and finding scum if your initial reads aren't perfect (which, as I established earlier, happens as surprising as that may seem to some).

The impression I get from your complaints is that you want to accuse me of being noncommittal because I'm not exhibiting 100% confidence in my reads. Such a notion is beyond ridiculous. I am not going to lock those six players as "Protown" for the rest of the game. I am not going to close myself to the possibility that I was wrong about my initial read on somebody. But

until I am given reason to change my opinion

, I am perfectly happy calling the likes of Crub, Apple, IH, Andy, Elmo, and Glork protown.

I guess my point is.... I'm not really sure what you're complaining about. I don't see an inconsistency in my take on things, and if your gripe is as I'm interpreting, I think you're being far too extremist.



Now, regarding the "boldness" comment. Perhaps I should have used aggressive, deliberately controversial, stubborn, reckless, and excessively vocal as descriptors. Point is, lately I've been very RAWR a lot, and it's turned heads in bad ways. I wanted to avoid that, but apparently me toning things down is just as alarming to people. This is what sucks about being a "high profile" player -- scrutiny from all angles.

And finally, regarding the last quote -- it means exactly what it says.