Mini 1042 - Skillville - GAME OVER!

[Alduskkel]

Vote: Socrates

.

I want to know

what

reactions you got, and what they tell you. If you have nothing to show for it, then your L-1 vote on me was just bandwagoning with the possibility of a quicklynch (and it can happen, people are dumb). Same goes for Zachrulez, what did you get out of it?

@Scott Brosius: So, were you looking for reactions?

It's usually the first one that cracks and leaves the wagon that looks the best. What better way to gain town points than to do that?

Asking for an explanation doesn't sit right with me either.

Asking for an explanation is scummy? I don't have to explain why that is wrong, do I? Plus, I think that if a wagon hits L-1 on page 2 then you're going to see that who unvotes first is purely dependent on who logs on first. Townies unvote because they don't want a quick lynch, Mafia unvote because they want to look like Townies (although potentially they can just lurk around, leave their vote on and hope for the best). In fact all that said I think a Townie would be more likely to unvote than a Mafia.

Quick note, I like to use Townie as a catch-all term for pro-Town players and if I want to be specific about non-PRs I'll say Vanilla Townies.

@Socrates: Why are you voting for DemonHybrid? Because you disagree with him?

DH completely forgot to consider the possibility that Scott was scum. I would be extremely shocked if those two turned out to be scum buddies.

Elaborate.

@YoshiX: How can you just pop in and confirm when a large wagon had already formed? Can't you even be bothered to throw in a random vote?

Finally, having an overly cute avatar might make you less likely to be lynched so Reckamonic is the scummiest by that definition.

[Socrates]

Your press on me is awkward, Al.

I want to know what reactions you got, and what they tell you. If you have nothing to show for it, then your L-1 vote on me was just bandwagoning with the possibility of a quicklynch (and it can happen, people are dumb). Same goes for Zachrulez, what did you get out of it?

I already did this:

Scott is probtown.

Zack displays a conservative attitude towards the game and smart scum in his position would have lurked and hoped for the accidental quickhammer (His unvote indicates that he thinks such a thing is possible). Why would scum unvote there? Furthermore he didn't take the easy out and attack me for such a reckless action.

DH completely forgot to consider the possibility that Scott was scum. I would be extremely shocked if those two turned out to be scum buddies.

I would say that exactly one of {DH, q21} is scum, but I am not that sure of my predictive abilities.

Nobody else had posted yet.

You even quoted this post, proving that you read it, here:

@Socrates: Why are you voting for DemonHybrid? Because you disagree with him?

DH completely forgot to consider the possibility that Scott was scum. I would be extremely shocked if those two turned out to be scum buddies.

Elaborate.

So I am dubious as to the honesty of your attack.

To answer that part of the post: I am voting Demon hybrid for the part that you quoted. He FOS'ed me on the presumption that Scott's vote was "obviously" for reactions which he can only make of he knows that Scott is town, forgetting that even if we presume Scott to be intelligent, he might be scum going for the easy vote on the controversial player, which imply's that Demon has inside knowledge. I seriously doubt scum would be so quick to assume a protown motivation to something their scumbuddy did, so that makes them unlikely scumbuddies.

Furthermore, he did exactly what I expected a scumbag to do when Zack unvoted, which was to attack the first player to blink in the face of a risky maneuver. Notice he never explained why Zack's unvote made him scum.

[DemonHybrid]

@Soc: Except for the fact that I don't really take stuff at face value. That's how you scumhunt effectively. I also don't remember Scott disagreeing with me on the fact that I thought he was looking for a reaction. As far as me "forgetting" that Scott could be scum, I haven't forgotten, but I had a good inkling on what he was trying to do, and trying to hunt for info like that plays off as purely town to me. Scott is town to me at the moment, but he could do something that I don't like. -You-'re forgetting that you can have reads instead of inside knowledge.

@Aldusk: The beauty of my vote without a reason (Soc, you might want to read this part, too) is to see what he would do. Of course I know both town and scum can do that, but it's how they react afterwards that really test their alignment. Zach soft-asking for a reason on why I'm voting for him shows off a great paranoia at that stage of the game and rubs off as scummy to me. Asking for explanations are fine and all, but it all depends on the context, and I think you know that and forgot the context part of it.

[DemonHybrid]

@DH: He voted me for one.

You still haven't answered on what this means, as well. I'm quite curious. Please do so.

Soccy, you're making me sad here

[vollkan]

Unvote

Unvote, Vote: Aldusskel

I'm down. Like I said before...

L-2 vote. I find this scummy because you referred to what you had said ealrier, but that was only: "I prefer to end my RVS early" - which has absolutely nothing to do with the justifiability a) of you voting Ald or b) of you voting him to L-2.

+4

vote: Aldusskel

L-1!

No claim. Somebody hammer.

Did you think I was serious? Did you think a hammer would actually happen?

That's not the point at all. If somebody is at L-1 it is trivially easy for a player to accidentally hammer through forgetfulness, cross-posting and not seeing that it is L-1 (even with the shiny new preview thing) - and it's likewise trivially easy for scum to exploit that. Second, if it doesn't go to a lynch, a L-1 RVS wagon is invariably going to break down because people will jump off it like a sinking ship.

+4

It's usually the first one that cracks and leaves the wagon that looks the best. What better way to gain town points than to do that?

Ahem...Read, absorb, read again:

The working definition of a scumtell is an action that is more likely to be taken by a scum player than a town player. This relies on motivations, as most things in mafia do. When a player takes an action, evaluating it on the basis of "would this action more likely come from a town player, or a scum player" should be the way that players determine the scumminess of that action. It is worthwhile to note here that subjectivity plays little to no role in this distinction. POSSIBLE motivations for scum to take a given action are not sufficient to call an action a scum tell. An action is scummy if and only if it can be deemed more likely to come from scum than from town, A perfect example of this occurs in mini 636: Gangland mafia. Kuribo asserts that an action is a scumtell to him, because he can think of A justification for scum to do it, but neglects, as vollkan points out, to show that this reason is likely.

Zach left an L-1 wagon. Two possible explanations:
a) He is scum who wants to appear pro-town
b) He is town who doesn't want a premature lynch

But possible scum motivations do not suffice to make something a scumtell. You need to explain why it is more likely to come from scum-Zach than town-Zach?

Has Zach been apparently inconsistent (my reason for suspecting you)? Has he shown recklessness (my reason for suspecting Socrates)? Has he done something else that warrants you favouring the scum explanation? If not, your attack is flawed.

@Zack: The only person I could see as a liability to hammer is Horror dude since everyone else had already thrown out a random vote, and I don't think that guy is illiterate, and I had every faith that some good Samaritan would immediately come in and unvote.

What do you think about DemonHybrid's attack on Zach then?

You would think Scott is a smart enough guy to know that the person putting the RVS wagon at L-1 knows what he's doing...so, stop and think about it for a second.

No. This is a risk v reward thing.

Every player with half a brain can see the strategy behind putting somebody at L-1 to see how others react. The point is that the risks inherent in doing so are huge, for the reasons I outlined above.

3. Forgetting where your vote is, is scummy.

Why?

(And if you say "Scum don't pay attention" or any variation thereon I am going to headdesk)

Anyway, Alduskkel's posts thus far have seemed to do nothing but promote RVS. The fact that he made an RVS vote, and then continued to crack jokes in a short time span in response to other posts is something that I find slightly scummy. (But not scummy enough to lynch off an RVS wagon.)

First, why did you want to keep this reasoning secret in post 61?
Second, what changed that made you reveal it?
Third, what exactly made Ald's play "slightly scummy?

[DemonHybrid]

Unvote

Unvote, Vote: Aldusskel

I'm down. Like I said before...

L-2 vote. I find this scummy because you referred to what you had said ealrier, but that was only: "I prefer to end my RVS early" - which has absolutely nothing to do with the justifiability a) of you voting Ald or b) of you voting him to L-2. +4

Except for the fact that RVS bandwagons help to end RVS early, so I don't see the broken correlation here. You, of all people, should know this, so it confuses me that you don't.

vote: Aldusskel

L-1!

No claim. Somebody hammer.

Did you think I was serious? Did you think a hammer would actually happen?

That's not the point at all. If somebody is at L-1 it is trivially easy for a player to accidentally hammer through forgetfulness, cross-posting and not seeing that it is L-1 (even with the shiny new preview thing) - and it's likewise trivially easy for scum to exploit that. Second, if it doesn't go to a lynch, a L-1 RVS wagon is invariably going to break down because people will jump off it like a sinking ship.

+4

It's usually the first one that cracks and leaves the wagon that looks the best. What better way to gain town points than to do that?

Ahem...Read, absorb, read again:

The working definition of a scumtell is an action that is more likely to be taken by a scum player than a town player. This relies on motivations, as most things in mafia do. When a player takes an action, evaluating it on the basis of "would this action more likely come from a town player, or a scum player" should be the way that players determine the scumminess of that action. It is worthwhile to note here that subjectivity plays little to no role in this distinction. POSSIBLE motivations for scum to take a given action are not sufficient to call an action a scum tell. An action is scummy if and only if it can be deemed more likely to come from scum than from town, A perfect example of this occurs in mini 636: Gangland mafia. Kuribo asserts that an action is a scumtell to him, because he can think of A justification for scum to do it, but neglects, as vollkan points out, to show that this reason is likely.

Zach left an L-1 wagon. Two possible explanations:
a) He is scum who wants to appear pro-town
b) He is town who doesn't want a premature lynch

But possible scum motivations do not suffice to make something a scumtell. You need to explain why it is more likely to come from scum-Zach than town-Zach?

Has Zach been apparently inconsistent (my reason for suspecting you)? Has he shown recklessness (my reason for suspecting Socrates)? Has he done something else that warrants you favouring the scum explanation? If not, your attack is flawed.

I didn't like Zach's reaction to my vote. My read on him didn't come until AFTER my vote. This is probably something I should have said before. And yes, I would find that

asking explanations

to voting on him for backing away from an L-1 RVS wagon scummy, because it's too serious for the situation. Him saying that he has info on Al that he won't share is anti-town as well and is a good supplement to my desire to lynch him.

@Zack: The only person I could see as a liability to hammer is Horror dude since everyone else had already thrown out a random vote, and I don't think that guy is illiterate, and I had every faith that some good Samaritan would immediately come in and unvote.

What do you think about DemonHybrid's attack on Zach then?

You would think Scott is a smart enough guy to know that the person putting the RVS wagon at L-1 knows what he's doing...so, stop and think about it for a second.

No. This is a risk v reward thing.

Every player with half a brain can see the strategy behind putting somebody at L-1 to see how others react. The point is that the risks inherent in doing so are huge, for the reasons I outlined above.

And you don't think Scott had a plan (which was my point all along)?

3. Forgetting where your vote is, is scummy.

Why?

(And if you say "Scum don't pay attention" or any variation thereon I am going to headdesk)

I want to comment on this, because it's usually TOWN that forgets where their vote is. Scum seems to pay much more attention to the votecount in my personal experience, but I may be wrong. Just my 2 cents.

Anyway, Alduskkel's posts thus far have seemed to do nothing but promote RVS. The fact that he made an RVS vote, and then continued to crack jokes in a short time span in response to other posts is something that I find slightly scummy. (But not scummy enough to lynch off an RVS wagon.)

First, why did you want to keep this reasoning secret in post 61?
Second, what changed that made you reveal it?
Third, what exactly made Ald's play "slightly scummy?

So, vollkan, try not to twist my arguments around next time

[DemonHybrid]

Untrod, you have something to say? You've been in and out of Little Italy all day today and hadn't said a word since your first post.

[vollkan]

Except for the fact that RVS bandwagons help to end RVS early, so I don't see the broken correlation here. You, of all people, should know this, so it confuses me that you don't

I didn't miss that correlation. My point, since it may not have been clear, was that "ending RVS" in and of itself cannot jusitfy the specific means that you choose to do it. For instance, to take an extreme example, if X is a dayvig, it would hardly be legitimate for X to dayvig somebody on the basis that they wanted to "end RVS". Similarly, wagonning a particular player to L-2, whilst by no means that extreme, also goes beyond a normal RVS wagon. Referring back to a previous reason like you did creates a perception of consistency, but your reason didn't actually specifically justify what you did here.

I didn't like Zach's reaction to my vote. My read on him didn't come until AFTER my vote. This is probably something I should have said before. And yes, I would find that asking explanations to voting on him for backing away from an L-1 RVS wagon scummy, because it's too serious for the situation. Him saying that he has info on Al that he won't share is anti-town as well and is a good supplement to my desire to lynch him.

First, nothing in the above explains why you favoured the scum interpretation of his actions.

Second, could you rephrase your second sentence "And yes..." because I can't understand it

Third, I agree with you on his comments about Al - if you were referring to his "I'm not telling why I voted Al" that I attacked above

[horrordude0215]

Going through the thread, commenting on what I think as I go.

YoshiX, you had the 29th post in the thread... surely you saw it was open. Why not make a random vote or something of the sort?

Socrates puts Ald at L-1 on page 2... Meh, nulltell at best. *BTW, could you get an avatar? Thanks!*

Scott goes all opportunistic and votes for the person that places the L-1 vote.

Demon, if he really IS reaction fishing, then surely you know that it becomes null when you bring it up, so why do it? Reactions can be a way to get a really good read on people sometimes.

Zach 32 - Your reasons for voting? You didn't give any IIRC. Explanation would be nice.

Zach, this is response to your post 38. Sure it's a possibility... but odds are that even scum wouldn't be stupid enough to quickhammer, don't you think?

Socrates, thank you for the confidence in post 43

Zach, your post 47 seems a bit like OMGUS to me. We shouldn't try and pressure our vibes? Huh?

Socrates 54 - There's a bit of flawed logic here... You can't always take a vote at face value, and it's risky to do so most of the time.

Zach 62 - I'm very confused here, and I hope you can explain this for me. You're withholding your explanation because Ald isn't here? From what I can tell, you just hopped on the BW and then said "well he's not here, so I don't have to explain myself yet". I hadn't even made a post since then, so I don't see why you were picking on HIM. Not to mention, the game was barely 12 hours old. Maybe he had school or something and couldn't get on then... did you think of that?

I sort of skimmed the rest of the posts so far... I'm tired and will read them a bit more indepth later. I mainly wanted this to be a "Hey I'm here and playing" post so you don't all forget about me xD

VOTE: Zach... you're my strongest scumread at the moment, and I'd appreciate it if you would answer the questions and reply to my comments.

FoS: Scott

I still think your vote was opportunistic.

[vollkan]

Scott goes all opportunistic and votes for the person that places the L-1 vote.

Opportunistic how?

[Socrates]

@Soc: Except for the fact that I don't really take stuff at face value. That's how you scumhunt effectively. I also don't remember Scott disagreeing with me on the fact that I thought he was looking for a reaction. As far as me "forgetting" that Scott could be scum, I haven't forgotten, but I had a good inkling on what he was trying to do, and trying to hunt for info like that plays off as purely town to me. Scott is town to me at the moment, but he could do something that I don't like. -You-'re forgetting that you can have reads instead of inside knowledge.

@Aldusk: The beauty of my vote without a reason (Soc, you might want to read this part, too) is to see what he would do. Of course I know both town and scum can do that, but it's how they react afterwards that really test their alignment. Zach soft-asking for a reason on why I'm voting for him shows off a great paranoia at that stage of the game and rubs off as scummy to me. Asking for explanations are fine and all, but it all depends on the context, and I think you know that and forgot the context part of it.

You are completely missing the point. If we don't want to make any assumptions about what a person is thinking, do you know what the best way to find out is? Pay very close attention to this, DH, because it is important, YOU TALK TO THEM.

Bollocks on your "vote without a reason to see what he would do". You need solid explanations for when you call someone scum, otherwise anytime your arguments aren't going the way you want them to, you can just claim "I was voting him for reactions".

@DH: He voted me for one.

You still haven't answered on what this means, as well. I'm quite curious. Please do so.

Soccy, you're making me sad here

I already answered this question.

That's not the point at all. If somebody is at L-1 it is trivially easy for a player to accidentally hammer through forgetfulness, cross-posting and not seeing that it is L-1 (even with the shiny new preview thing) - and it's likewise trivially easy for scum to exploit that. Second, if it doesn't go to a lynch, a L-1 RVS wagon is invariably going to break down because people will jump off it like a sinking ship.

+4

You are over-inflating the risk, if you ask me. There is only one player that could feasibly get away with accidentally hammering (as I said before), and as I also said before, I was 99% sure that somebody would immediately rush into the thread and unvote.

@Zack: The only person I could see as a liability to hammer is Horror dude since everyone else had already thrown out a random vote, and I don't think that guy is illiterate, and I had every faith that some good Samaritan would immediately come in and unvote.

What do you think about DemonHybrid's attack on Zach then?

Furthermore, he did exactly what I expected a scumbag to do when Zack unvoted, which was to attack the first player to blink in the face of a risky maneuver. Notice he never explained why Zack's unvote made him scum.

[DemonHybrid]

@Mod: V/LA until Saturday Night.

I'm going to reply to everyone tomorrow before I leave though.

[q21]

vote: Aldusskel

L-1!

No claim. Somebody hammer.

Did you think I was serious? Did you think a hammer would actually happen?

That's not the point at all. If somebody is at L-1 it is trivially easy for a player to accidentally hammer through forgetfulness, cross-posting and not seeing that it is L-1 (even with the shiny new preview thing) - and it's likewise trivially easy for scum to exploit that. Second, if it doesn't go to a lynch, a L-1 RVS wagon is invariably going to break down because people will jump off it like a sinking ship.

+4

Your last sentence raises an interesting point here: Could Socrates' vote here have been made for the express purpose of getting the wagon to break down? It's a possibility that would make Al and Socrates scum together - worth pointing out, but not worth pursuing at this moment.

3. Forgetting where your vote is, is scummy.

Why?

(And if you say "Scum don't pay attention" or any variation thereon I am going to headdesk)

In the end scum don't actually care which townie is lynched, just that a townie is lynched. As such a scum is always willing to change back to a previous vote on a townie, simply because they know that person is a townie. This leads to a blurring of the distinction between votes because exactly who you're voting becomes less important. I know as scum I have to pay special attention to where I'm voting or I tend to fall prey to this.

[Zachrulez]

First, why did you want to keep this reasoning secret in post 61?

I wanted to see a reaction to why he thought I voted for him.

Second, what changed that made you reveal it?

The focus turned onto my not explaining the vote and pretty much ensured that Aldusskel would react to that rather than to the vote itself.

Third, what exactly made Ald's play "slightly scummy?

A vote over an avatar and two posts following in quick succession serving to promote RVS rather than game discussion. None of this serves to do much of anything to promote game discussion. RVS is a pretty safe place for scum, so the longer discussion remains RVS related, the longer they can be comfortable not having to try to contribute and blend in with the town. (Basically I saw his posts as a possible attempt to extend RVS.)

[Zachrulez]

Zach 32 - Your reasons for voting? You didn't give any IIRC. Explanation would be nice.

Read the thread.

Zach, this is response to your post 38. Sure it's a possibility... but odds are that even scum wouldn't be stupid enough to quickhammer, don't you think?

Assuming optimal play is a dangerous assumption to make. Quickhammers can and have happened, and they can be done by either alignment. The main concern is the threat of having a day end that quickly more than anything else as little information is gained. (Even if the flip is scum.)

Zach, your post 47 seems a bit like OMGUS to me. We shouldn't try and pressure our vibes? Huh?

Did I say that? Pressuring your vibes doesn't make your play immune to scrutiny.

Zach 62 - I'm very confused here, and I hope you can explain this for me. You're withholding your explanation because Ald isn't here? From what I can tell, you just hopped on the BW and then said "well he's not here, so I don't have to explain myself yet". I hadn't even made a post since then, so I don't see why you were picking on HIM. Not to mention, the game was barely 12 hours old. Maybe he had school or something and couldn't get on then... did you think of that?

The entire point of the vote, (Which was the 2nd one cast on him btw.) was to get a reaction from him. In followup posts I pointed out that the whole point of that vote was to get a reaction from him. Where did I accuse him of lurking? Where did I say lurking had anything to do with my vote? That's misrep at it's finest there.

I sort of skimmed the rest of the posts so far... I'm tired and will read them a bit more indepth later. I mainly wanted this to be a "Hey I'm here and playing" post so you don't all forget about me xD

Really? You apparently missed or "missed" the post where I explained the alduskkel vote then.

FoS: Scott

I still think your vote was opportunistic.

How was it opportunistic?

[Scott Brosius]

FoS: Scott

I still think your vote was opportunistic.

As others have asked, how?

[vollkan]

Your last sentence raises an interesting point here: Could Socrates' vote here have been made for the express purpose of getting the wagon to break down? It's a possibility that would make Al and Socrates scum together - worth pointing out, but not worth pursuing at this moment.

You make a valid point, but it's definitely not, as you say,worth pursuing right now.

In the end scum don't actually care which townie is lynched, just that a townie is lynched. As such a scum is always willing to change back to a previous vote on a townie, simply because they know that person is a townie. This leads to a blurring of the distinction between votes because exactly who you're voting becomes less important. I know as scum I have to pay special attention to where I'm voting or I tend to fall prey to this.

I don't agree with you. I stress that I don't think your argument is

scummy

, but I do disagree. I don't want to labour this point, since I think Zach has shown that it is really a moot issue (in that this relates to his first vote). But briefly - as scum you still have to pay attention to who it is that you are voting and, indeed, the nature of your role is such that you have good reason to be hypersensitive to criticism (I always find it ironic that the same people who push the "scum don't pay attention" line also tend to push the "scum overreact line"). Basically, I think it comes down to an individual playstyle point, such that carelessness, within reason (ie. excluding where a person says "oops, carelessness" but it seems manifestly unreasonable), is, without meta, a nulltell.

A vote over an avatar and two posts following in quick succession serving to promote RVS rather than game discussion. None of this serves to do much of anything to promote game discussion. RVS is a pretty safe place for scum, so the longer discussion remains RVS related, the longer they can be comfortable not having to try to contribute and blend in with the town. (Basically I saw his posts as a possible attempt to extend RVS.)

1) I think you are dodging the issue by saying that you saw his actions as a "possible" attempt to extent RVS. Every action in this game is "possibly" scummy if you use your imagination enough.
2) His actions are equall consistent with somebody just joking around in RVS, as people are prone to do. Why then are his actions "slightly scummy"?

[Zachrulez]

A vote over an avatar and two posts following in quick succession serving to promote RVS rather than game discussion. None of this serves to do much of anything to promote game discussion. RVS is a pretty safe place for scum, so the longer discussion remains RVS related, the longer they can be comfortable not having to try to contribute and blend in with the town. (Basically I saw his posts as a possible attempt to extend RVS.)

1) I think you are dodging the issue by saying that you saw his actions as a "possible" attempt to extent RVS. Every action in this game is "possibly" scummy if you use your imagination enough.
2) His actions are equall consistent with somebody just joking around in RVS, as people are prone to do. Why then are his actions "slightly scummy"?

Point 1, agreed. His reaction was more important to me in trying to get a read than the action itself. (Not sure how I'm dodging however.)

As to point 2. It is consistent. But multiple rvs posts is something that I don't commonly see (in that timeframe.) so it raises my eyebrow a bit. I tend to pursue things based on feel (As to the opinion I have of Aduskkel's early play.) moreso than things that will necessarily hold up logically. I care about reactions, reading people, and jump starting discussion.

It was an action I felt was worthy of a little bit of pressure, but not one that gives me a high degree of certainty without reactions from the player and followup. (Something that's moot now because of the way things developed, so ultimately I'm going to have to find a different way to get a read on him.) It was not an action that I would ever want to push a serious lynching wagon on.

[vollkan]

Point 1, agreed. His reaction was more important to me in trying to get a read than the action itself. (Not sure how I'm dodging however.)

What did you find meaningful in his reaction?

As to point 2. It is consistent. But multiple rvs posts is something that I don't commonly see (in that timeframe.) so it raises my eyebrow a bit. I tend to pursue things based on feel (As to the opinion I have of Aduskkel's early play.) moreso than things that will necessarily hold up logically. I care about reactions, reading people, and jump starting discussion.

It isn't something that everybody does, by any means, so I agree that you don't "commonly see it". However, that has no bearing on my initial point - which was that his actions are equally consistent with somebody (town or scum) simply joking around in RVS.

How things "feel" (which is just another word for "gut") is inherently unreliable. It's subject to all sorts of emotional factors - eg avatars, tone, your mood, confirmation bias, etc.

It was an action I felt was worthy of a little bit of pressure, but not one that gives me a high degree of certainty without reactions from the player and followup. (Something that's moot now because of the way things developed, so ultimately I'm going to have to find a different way to get a read on him.) It was not an action that I would ever want to push a serious lynching wagon on.

And I understand that. I know this is just an early-game attack, so I am not being as narky as I would normally be, but I think my criticisms of your logic are still valid (if only as conversation-starters/springboards).

[DemonHybrid]

Except for the fact that RVS bandwagons help to end RVS early, so I don't see the broken correlation here. You, of all people, should know this, so it confuses me that you don't

I didn't miss that correlation. My point, since it may not have been clear, was that "ending RVS" in and of itself cannot jusitfy the specific means that you choose to do it. For instance, to take an extreme example, if X is a dayvig, it would hardly be legitimate for X to dayvig somebody on the basis that they wanted to "end RVS". Similarly, wagonning a particular player to L-2, whilst by no means that extreme, also goes beyond a normal RVS wagon. Referring back to a previous reason like you did creates a perception of consistency, but your reason didn't actually specifically justify what you did here.

I just have to comment: From what I've noticed, L-1 wagons in RVS are no different than L-4 or L-5 wagons, even if they are more intense; it's still as valid. I'm not sure if you're arguing against the "extreme"ness of L-1 RVS wagons or not, but L-1 wagons actually produce more intense and panicked results. I have no problem pushing someone that close to the edge. I know Soc hates this word, but I'm sure everyone was assuming that someone was going to crack. I just feel that it was scum that did it based on his reaction to my vote.

I didn't like Zach's reaction to my vote. My read on him didn't come until AFTER my vote. This is probably something I should have said before. And yes, I would find that asking explanations to voting on him for backing away from an L-1 RVS wagon scummy, because it's too serious for the situation. Him saying that he has info on Al that he won't share is anti-town as well and is a good supplement to my desire to lynch him.

First, nothing in the above explains why you favoured the scum interpretation of his actions.

"I would find that asking explanations to voting on him for backing away from an L-1 RVS wagon scummy, because it's too serious for the situation." I think that's a good enough answer.

Second, could you rephrase your second sentence "And yes..." because I can't understand it

That was in response to you asking why I leaned more towards him being scum than town. Sorry for not being clear.

Third, I agree with you on his comments about Al - if you were referring to his "I'm not telling why I voted Al" that I attacked above

Answer to Soc later, I'm at the school comp lab.

[Reckamonic]

Well Volkann is town, so is Zach.

Unlike DemonHybrid.

Unvote: Whoever
Vote: DemonHybrid

[DemonHybrid]

@Soc: Except for the fact that I don't really take stuff at face value. That's how you scumhunt effectively. I also don't remember Scott disagreeing with me on the fact that I thought he was looking for a reaction. As far as me "forgetting" that Scott could be scum, I haven't forgotten, but I had a good inkling on what he was trying to do, and trying to hunt for info like that plays off as purely town to me. Scott is town to me at the moment, but he could do something that I don't like. -You-'re forgetting that you can have reads instead of inside knowledge.

@Aldusk: The beauty of my vote without a reason (Soc, you might want to read this part, too) is to see what he would do. Of course I know both town and scum can do that, but it's how they react afterwards that really test their alignment. Zach soft-asking for a reason on why I'm voting for him shows off a great paranoia at that stage of the game and rubs off as scummy to me. Asking for explanations are fine and all, but it all depends on the context, and I think you know that and forgot the context part of it.

You are completely missing the point. If we don't want to make any assumptions about what a person is thinking, do you know what the best way to find out is? Pay very close attention to this, DH, because it is important, YOU TALK TO THEM.

You're acting as if assumptions in RVS are a terrible thing. Seriously, whatever happened to the validity of reads? By your logic, gambits shouldn't exist; I at least never lied about my intentions, instead, I just wasn't clear at first to see what he'd do, so I don't see how that's such a bad thing.

Bollocks on your "vote without a reason to see what he would do". You need solid explanations for when you call someone scum, otherwise anytime your arguments aren't going the way you want them to, you can just claim "I was voting him for reactions".

So says you. Again, by your logic, having a read or a feeling of someone being scum is completely invalid. What evidence can you have during RVS of someone being scum? Also, I'm pretty sure that "I didn't like the way he reacted to my vote" is a solid explanation. My vote was a test; At the time, it was the scummiest thing that I've found (no one else really did anything that scummy at the time), and to be honest, I would have voted you instead if Zach didn't react the way that he did to my vote. It was the reaction that set it in stone; you guys are still assuming

oh damn, did I use that word?

assuming that my vote was because I found his unvote the scummiest thing in the world, instead of the scummiest thing in this game by that point.

@DH: He voted me for one.

You still haven't answered on what this means, as well. I'm quite curious. Please do so.

Soccy, you're making me sad here

I already answered this question.

If you did, you weren't very clear. Cite it please. If you can't, then re-answer it. I don't like your vagueness.

[DemonHybrid]

Demon, if he really IS reaction fishing, then surely you know that it becomes null when you bring it up, so why do it? Reactions can be a way to get a really good read on people sometimes.

Soc asking for reasons (post #36: http://mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopic.ph ... 2#p2488822) is already the reaction that I felt he wanted.

I hardly read things at face value; you guys should follow suit. Banking on face value intentions will gain us nothing but mislynches, so do some actual analysis and logical thinking, I know you can.

[DemonHybrid]

Untrod, you have something to say? You've been in and out of Little Italy all day today and hadn't said a word since your first post.

You're visiting Little Italy again...

[Untrod Tripod]

Wagons are good and all when there is a chance for someone to react. Wagons that build up quickly to L-1 serve no purpose as a. someone will undoubtedly unvote and remove pressure and b. there usually is not enough time for the person to react. I find people are more honest in their reactions to a slow building wagon rather than an L-1 and forms in 5 posts. So rather than be close to an accidental/scummy hammer. Clearly we are both looking for reactions.

QFT

Untrod, you have something to say? You've been in and out of Little Italy all day today and hadn't said a word since your first post.

You're visiting Little Italy again...

this game has been moving kinda fast...if you hadn't noticed... Every time I come back to respond to something I read earlier, there are four more walls of text. That being said, your play is twitching my scumdar, DH. I'm suspicious of your willingness to jump on/create bandwagons and by your rapidly switching votes around on page two.

It's usually the first one that cracks and leaves the wagon that looks the best. What better way to gain town points than to do that?

Asking for an explanation doesn't sit right with me either.

Yes, everyone knows that the person who wants the most said about what happens in the game is the scum. The only person who should be averse to explanation is the person whose motivations are not those that benefit the town. Saying that you don't like someone “asking for an explanation” is anti-town, imo.

@Soc: Except for the fact that I don't really take stuff at face value. That's how you scumhunt effectively. I also don't remember Scott disagreeing with me on the fact that I thought he was looking for a reaction. As far as me "forgetting" that Scott could be scum, I haven't forgotten, but I had a good inkling on what he was trying to do, and trying to hunt for info like that plays off as purely town to me. Scott is town to me at the moment, but he could do something that I don't like. -You-'re forgetting that you can have reads instead of inside knowledge.

@Aldusk: The beauty of my vote without a reason (Soc, you might want to read this part, too) is to see what he would do. Of course I know both town and scum can do that, but it's how they react afterwards that really test their alignment. Zach soft-asking for a reason on why I'm voting for him shows off a great paranoia at that stage of the game and rubs off as scummy to me. Asking for explanations are fine and all, but it all depends on the context, and I think you know that and forgot the context part of it.

I don't think votes without a reason are ever good. I'm the kind of player who thinks that some kind of explanation is always good. It doesn't have to be honest, but I really don't like just smacking a couple votes around without any kind of decent explanation why. If you don't give an explanation, then the town doesn't have any way to judge your actions later in the game and it just looks like you want to be able to vote without recourse or review. Sorry, that's not how the game works. Also, I don't think you should be telling us “how you scumhunt effectively”. Trying to look the expert is smarmy and a good scum tactic to look “too valuable to lynch”, which is the other reason why I really dislike the “I have my secret reasons!” vote.

I'm also really bugged by posts 80, 94 and 97. Quoting a really long post just so you can give a one sentence response, or worse yet, only bold some things in the post is NOT productive contribution. It's the appearance of activity.