Mini 391 - Fairytale Mafia, Game Over

[LuckayLuck]

2.

FoS:LuckayLuck

never assume automatically that someone is town or scum. You need to look at everyone objectively. Even if you are protown, you could be choosing someone to look on as a townie, who is scum, and completely ignore them.

I find it funny that we're having the same argument across two games that we're both in. If it bothers you that much, you can take my words to mean "I believe that Green Crayons and Seol are slightly townie." However, trust me that there is method to my madness. I don't have any finished games yet to point at as examples, but you might be surprised at just how objective my methodolgy turns out to be. Watch for future developments!

[chaotic_diablo]

Vote Count

IH (2) : yellowbounder, LuckayLuck
Rathyr (3) : bird111, Echo419, Green Crayons
Dodgy (2) : wolfsbane, Rathyr
Green Crayons (1) : IH
LuckayLuck (2) : Ripley, Seol
Seol (1) : Dodgy

Not Voting: jl2704

I will be checking for activity. Anyone who seemingly disappear for 2-4 days will receive a prod.

[wolfsbane]

Firstly

Unvote

Right, having read all and being an old man at this game, I noticed two things that alarm me.
1) GC wrote

seems like he's reaching for something to post simply so he can post something, which is what I've done a few times while scum.

This can be true but it can also apply to someone that has a mere vanilla town role that doesn't have the enthusiasm of a player with a night choice role.

2) I am always in two minds when a player that hasn't posted much, suddenly gives us all a break down/ run down of the game so far. More often than not, I have found that this type of post is there to sway the town that they are on the towns side, as subconsciously, when you read such a post, you feel it helpful, therefor catorgarising that player as town (Seol).
And to answer your question honestly Seol, yes, if I had spotted it but as it were on me and I obviously noted it, definately yes.
At this point, I have to

Vote: Seol

I know this is from way back, but you still haven't answered the allegations about your strange FOS on Rathyr which myself, Seol and maybe others have pointed out. It was a small point, but you avoided it and now jump back in and slap a vote on Seol for a post which you say "seems" helpful. Is it helpful or not and why?

Green Crayon's recent vote switch to Rathyr seems out of place. GC says Rathyr was fishing for opinions, but it looked more to me like he was poking GC a bit to see what kind of reaction he would get. The reaction didn't look too good.

[Seol]

Being suitably alarmed is not a scum tell.

That was sarcasm in my post. Hence the "999/1000th" comment, as simple math would add up to 1000/1000th of a scum tell, ie: he must be scum. Obviously, I didn't vote him because it was sarcasm/a stupid joke. The whole post was.

Interesting you felt the need to say it, when you consider that in context:

Being suitably alarmed is

not

a scum tell. Being inappropriately alarmed, however,

is.

LL is being inappropriately alarmed.

I thought it was fairly clear the first comment was being flip, leading up to the serious point. Not sure what that means, I might come back to it later.

See beginning of post.

Your excuse is convenient... but plausible. Reserving judgment on that one.

Also, if there's one thing that is constant in all of my games, is that I love arguing. It's a personal flaw, as you can ask any of my friends (well, you can't seeing as how you don't know them, but whatever; it's the principle).

I can tell.

I love arguing,

even if I don't believe the side that I'm on

, just because I like it - it probably stems from a desire to have everyone at least see my point of view. Therefore, I will argue and respond to points

regardless of my alignment

, I can promise you.

That's twice you seem to draw attention to the fact you'd be playing this way as scum in as many sentences.

If I ever miss anything that needs to be addressed, point it out to me and you can be sure that I'll get to it.

Oh, I will do. However in this case it wasn't that the point needed to be addressed so much as that you neglected to address it that I found noteworthy. Of course, you have your explanation.

But feel free to chalk up suspicious points under my name.

"Go ahead, find me suspicious" comments always ring alarm bells with me. Not in an "ok, I was wrong, fair enough" but "you're wrong, this is why, but go ahead and find me suspicious if you like". If I'm wrong, then I

shouldn't

be finding you suspicious - saying it's OK to find you suspicious for the behaviour is tacitly acknowledging it

was

suspicious.

Making a point, it's what I was attempting to do. Obviously there's a division of thought between Luckay and myself, be it from confusion, misunderstanding, different play styles or whathaveyou. Regardless, I don't feel like putting a further division between Luckay and myself by out and out claiming that what he thinks is completely wrong; after all, it is merely opinion. Maybe there are town tells.

There aren't. There are power-role tells, sure, but there's no such thing as a townie tell, because of what a tell

is

. Townies have nothing

to

tell. There's pro-town behaviour... but everyone plays (or tries to play) pro-town as much as possible.

However, the only thing accomplished by saying that "oh, what you think is wrong and what I think is right" when arguing about an opinion is an instinctive rift based off of difference of opinions. I didn't feel like being a cause of a greater rift between Luck and myself when he may very well see something that I missed, or I might catch something that he failed to see - which, if we're needlessly at each other's throats, could be dismissed since it's coming from an "absolutely wrong" opinion/perspective.

It was quite clearly a matter of interpretation, not fact. The vast majority of day 1 is. That you felt the need to draw attention to it indicates that you lack confidence in your own position.

I always try to post, even if I have nothing significant to say, to maintain a presence in the game.
It appears to me that LL and GC are still attacking each other for relatively small reasons. Punctuation, who said what and what they meant by it, etc. It isn't those reasons in themselves, just that they don't have much backing. I suspect big fights from small reasons.
Sorry Seol. Wrong name.

So... you read my post, but you still have no opinions whatsoever? You have to work hard to be that noncommittal!

Seol, that's a really good analysis of what happened if I were to look at it from the outside.

Another example of "go ahead, find me suspicious"! Good stuff.

Amazing what one can do with "3 pages of spam" [disclaimer: this is what I meant as "spam" - 3 pages of pointing fingers around at small things to reveal intentions and such].

OK, I think you'll find most people wouldn't categorise that as "spam", but there you go.

Honestly, I throw up the word honestly at the beginning of the sentence way too often, and I think I only do it as townie upon quick reflection. Obviously, you're not going to believe me here but I'll be eliminating that townie tell about myself in future games. Thanks.

Obviously I'm not going to believe you? Not if you tell me not to.

My default game is one of complete disclaimature. I get all the information I have out on the board, unless I think I can use it to my advantage later on by tripping somebody up. I was telling the truth - I didn't think anybody else was more guilty than that statement. And in saying that, I was fishing for responses. Somebody has to fire the first gunshot, I chose to do so, it's my style. I usually start off with a controversial claim such as "I think this guy is townie" (with Echo) or "I think this guy is mafia" (with Ripley). And it worked, here we are into the land of discussion. Great!

Are you confusing disclaimature (distancing yourself from your own position) with disclosure (stating everything you're thinking)? Disclosure isn't scummy, although it's sometimes inadvisable (eg "Hey guys I think Meme's the doc!"), but disclaimature is a different kettle of fish.

If you're saying the disclaimature was part of the disclosure, then my point stands.

I don't believe third votes on a bandwagon on a game of this size are telling (in fact, I think that too many townies jump on that and get a townie lynched). I certainly don't think that using a random dice generator to generate a random vote is divestment of accoutnibility, it's a random vote. I don't think that saying OMGUS FOS is a tell to each side, I actually sort of think it's townie because it's a glaring neon capital letter OMGUS OMGUS LOOK AT ME I'M TYPING OMGUS AND DRAWING ATTENTION TO MYSELF FOR NO APPARENT REASON. Call that a 1/100th townie tell.

Dodgy didn't use OMGUS, that was my characterisation of the FOS. Typing OMGUS actually counteracts the OMGUS status of a vote/FOS because, as you so elegantly put it, it draws attention to it. My point was stuff had happened, accusations had been made, and you weren't commenting on it. If you didn't think it had merit, you could have said so.

Anyways, my game has been extremely straightforward thus far; attacking the 1/1000th scum tell with a FOS. I don't bother switching my vote for people on a 1/1000th scum tell.

That's fair, though.

Oh, and good post Seol. You're moderately townie in my books.

Considering that this all started with the post where you suggested Ripley was buddying up to me, it seems like a) your behaviour is much more like buddying-up than Ripley's was (note the implied trusat) and b) you're not in the best position to criticise people suggesting that you're buddying up. Smacks a little of hypocrisy.

You didn't respond to this point. Seems like a good time to remind you of it.

I think that "CONTRARY to what you think actually GC." does not feel like a sentence, and so one instinctively looks to attach it with a comma to what went before or what comes after, and as one is reading forward that's the natural direction to go. Especially with the word following being "I", and therefore still capitalised after a comma, the natural place to mentally substitute the comma for a full stop is there, rather than before CONTRARY. Not saying you'd do this consciously at all, but this could easily lead you to the reading GC gave it.

Mmm, perhaps. It still doesn't seem like a natural or plausible read to me, but I suppose if you think it makes sense to read it that way it's more likely that GC did too.

Is there really no such thing as a townie tell? Are there not power role tells, which by extension would be townie tells?

There are power role tells, but there aren't generic "pro-town" tells.

If there were, scum would be mimicing them to the point they would become scum tells.

That's why a lot of the key cop/doc tells are also scum tells. Scum also use them to hunt power roles.

2) I am always in two minds when a player that hasn't posted much, suddenly gives us all a break down/ run down of the game so far. More often than not, I have found that this type of post is there to sway the town that they are on the towns side, as subconsciously, when you read such a post, you feel it helpful, therefor catorgarising that player as town (Seol).

Have you ever played with me before? Or read one of my games? Get used to the "big post".

And to answer your question

honestly

Seol, yes, if I had spotted it but as it were on me and I obviously noted it, definately yes.

Were you considering answering it dishonestly?

Also, this may or may not seem crazy to you, but I am going to now make a weird statement (believe me, this is well thought out and may or may not be used for a greater purpose). For the rest of day1, (barring something ridiculous, of course), I am going to assume that Green Crayons and Seol are townies.

Why?

I find it funny that we're having the same argument across two games that we're both in. If it bothers you that much, you can take my words to mean "I believe that Green Crayons and Seol are slightly townie."

There's a

world

of difference between "assuming [we're] town" and "believing [we're] slightly townie".

However, trust me that there is method to my madness. I don't have any finished games yet to point at as examples, but you might be surprised at just how objective my methodolgy turns out to be. Watch for future developments!

There may be madness in your method. If you're going to take a position, especially one which looks highly unjustified, and then say you have a justification,

give

that justification. Otherwise, all you're going to succeed in doing is attracting attacks - and whilst this does occasionally seem like a good tactic, trust me, it isn't.

[LuckayLuck]

Oh, and good post Seol. You're moderately townie in my books.

Considering that this all started with the post where you suggested Ripley was buddying up to me, it seems like a) your behaviour is much more like buddying-up than Ripley's was (note the implied trusat) and b) you're not in the best position to criticise people suggesting that you're buddying up. Smacks a little of hypocrisy.

You didn't respond to this point. Seems like a good time to remind you of it.

I play drastically differently from other people, as you're soon going to find out. When I buddy up, it means that I've found you to be townieish enough under whatever crazy criteria I have and I am looking to form an open masonry with you. Let me expand on this...

I find it funny that we're having the same argument across two games that we're both in. If it bothers you that much, you can take my words to mean "I believe that Green Crayons and Seol are slightly townie."

There's a

world

of difference between "assuming [we're] town" and "believing [we're] slightly townie".

That world of difference is non-existant the way I'm going to play. I am going to state my plan very clearly right now: I think that you are a townie. I will now treat you as a mason and assume that you are a townie. Now then Seol, now that I'm treating you as a mason, let me give you my views about GC:

Hey, you're trying to find scum / townie tells too! Cool! However, everything you've quoted about GC - it's not scum tell. It's townie tell. Really. I'm not going to tell you exactly what that townie is, because then people can fools me, but re-read it and think in your head "is this what a townie says?" and your answer will hopefully be yes.

GreenCrayons, I am extending my masonry offer to you as well.

Seol and GreenCrayons, if we can form a three-way-masonry here, we are going to be golden since you two are both pretty active posters which have given off townieish vibes to me. We can death star the mafia!

[Seol]

Luckay, I've got a newsflash for you. You're not Pooky.

Are you playing to win, or to dick around?

[LuckayLuck]

Are you playing to win?

Yes, I'm playing to win.
And I believe I've nailed you down as a townie. If you are indeed a townie, as I'm 95% sure of now, you should recognize that this is valuable information that can only be good.

And if I hadn't conducted this entire crazy shenanigans, I couldn't be as convinced of you being a townie as I am now. Now, at the very least, you have this benefit: anything you say I will take as being solid pro-townie advice. I'm looking at your posts from a mason point of view, not as a townie-trying-to-identify mafia point of view. Can you see how valuable that is?

[Seol]

Are you playing to win?

Yes, I'm playing to win.
And I believe I've nailed you down as a townie. If you are indeed a townie, as I'm 95% sure of now, you should recognize that this is valuable information that can only be good.

Except

there's no information!

Blind trust is

dangerous

, informed trust is fine but I don't see any evidence of that. I don't want you to trust

anyone

without reason, including myself.

And if I hadn't conducted this entire crazy shenanigans, I couldn't be as convinced of you being a townie as I am now. Now, at the very least, you have this benefit: anything you say I will take as being solid pro-townie advice.

OK, let's assume for a moment you do trust me completely. Even still, you don't know I'm

right

.

I'm looking at your posts from a mason point of view, not as a townie-trying-to-identify mafia point of view. Can you see how valuable that is?

And what about GreenCrayons? You were saying you saw him in a similar light. I don't agree, and I don't see why you'd say what you're saying. If you have good reasons, then I would find it very useful if you could tell me, so I can either agree with you or point out possible flaws in your reasoning. After all, that kind of complete trust, when misplaced, is

incredibly

dangerous.

Furthermore, statements like this don't make me feel any better about

you

, particularly the way you're saying you implicitly trust the two people who have attacked you hardest. There's one obvious way I can think of that you could know two people are innocent, or at least not Mafia - and I can't really think of any others. Therefore, I'm thinking one of these is true:

1) You're talking complete crap.
2) You're Mafia.
3) You've seen something of actual merit that hasn't occurred to me, and are not sharing that with the town.

If it's 1), stop it. It's not helpful, and it'll just attract bad attention your way. If it's 3), share it, this is useful information for us,

especially

from someone who just a few posts ago was saying they were in favour of complete disclosure in the early game.

Otherwise, I'm forced to assume 2) is true. Note I'm already voting you, which should give an indication how comfortable I am in the idea of an "open masonry" with you.

[Ripley]

My goodness. "1/1000th of a scum tell Ripley-buddy-basher LuckayLuck coldly rebuffed in shock dual-best-friend proposal". How much pathos and irony am I supposed to be able to take on a Monday morning?

[LuckayLuck]

My goodness. "1/1000th of a scum tell Ripley-buddy-basher LuckayLuck coldly rebuffed in shock dual-best-friend proposal". How much pathos and irony am I supposed to be able to take on a Monday morning?

When I do it, it's not a scum tell.
When other people do it, it's a scum tell.
This is because I play differently.

3) You've seen something of actual merit that hasn't occurred to me, and are not sharing that with the town.

[...]

If it's 3), share it, this is useful information for us, especially from someone who just a few posts ago was saying they were in favour of complete disclosure in the early game.

Complete disclosure...hmm...okay, I guess I lied. See, here's the thing: I disclosed that I think that you and Green Crayons are townies and will trust both of you. That is disclosing a lot, it's also somewhat controversial. I cannot disclose why I think this, because people can start jamming my townie radar with "fake tells."

Blind trust is dangerous

I know this. Though it may look like blind trust, you have to trust me that it isn't, and that this trust can change. I can't really disclose more than this because my ploy is still in progress, is already netting me useful information, just know that I'm not blindly putting my trust in people.

[Green Crayons]

Interesting you felt the need to say it, when you consider that in context:

Being suitably alarmed is

not

a scum tell. Being inappropriately alarmed, however,

is.

LL is being inappropriately alarmed.

I thought it was fairly clear the first comment was being flip

, leading up to the serious point. Not sure what that means, I might come back to it later.

It wasn't.

Also, if there's one thing that is constant in all of my games, is that I love arguing. It's a personal flaw, as you can ask any of my friends (well, you can't seeing as how you don't know them, but whatever; it's the principle).

I can tell.

Good, then you'll realize that I don't shy away from arguments. Therefore, when I don't address something, it's because I missed it.

That's twice you seem to draw attention to the fact you'd be playing this way as scum in as many sentences.

Since I don't have a plethora of games under my belt (15-20 max with a liberal recollection), and what games I have played have been over an extended period of time, I don't remember much on how other people play as scum. What I do remember, however, is how I have played as scum. Therefore, I base a lot of my suspicions - at least initial ones that form in Day One/Day Two - off of how I have acted as scum. I reference my own actions while scum in other games in pretty much every game I play.

If I ever miss anything that needs to be addressed, point it out to me and you can be sure that I'll get to it.

Oh, I will do.

Thanks, I like addressing all questions that come my way.

"Go ahead, find me suspicious" comments always ring alarm bells with me. Not in an "ok, I was wrong, fair enough" but "you're wrong, this is why, but go ahead and find me suspicious if you like". If I'm wrong, then I

shouldn't

be finding you suspicious - saying it's OK to find you suspicious for the behaviour is tacitly acknowledging it

was

suspicious.

Just because you're wrong doesn't mean you'll agree with me. And of course it's suspicious - I did, after all, neglect to respond to another player's direct inquiries, regardless of whatever the cause of that neglect may be. You said so yourself, that failing to respond to an inquiry is suspicious. I gave you my reason, but that's really up to you to decide whether or not you truly want to believe it.

Frankly, I don't care if you think I'm suspicious for not initially responding to IH's inquiry (which is where the comment you quoted stemmed from) because I personally don't think that much suspicion can be gained from it - namely because IH's analysis of my actions is complete crap. You said that it wasn't IH's specific inquiry that I ignored, just simply the fact that I ignored him that caused you to be suspicious. Sure, suspicion can be derived from simply ignoring a point being made by another player, but I think a lot of that suspicion's weight depends upon what was being brought into question. It would be different if IH really had a zinger of a point and I was trying to sneak my way around it, but he doesn't. It wouldn't make sense for me to try to ignore his post simply because of how easy it was to respond to, but that - once again - simply boils down to whether or not you want to believe that I did it on purpose. After telling you my reason, it's truly out of my hands.

As to why I don't care if you find my actions suspicious is because 1. I don't think much suspicion

can

be gleaned from it, and 2. there are plenty of more suspicious people than myself. Town players can't help but acquire suspicion, so I consider it a good thing when these two conditions occur.

There aren't. There are power-role tells, sure, but there's no such thing as a townie tell, because of what a tell

is

. Townies have nothing

to

tell. There's pro-town behaviour... but everyone plays (or tries to play) pro-town as much as possible.

Townie tell, pro-town behavior... I'm pretty sure he meant them to be the same way. If he didn't, that's how I interpreted his vocabulary.

It was quite clearly a matter of interpretation, not fact. The vast majority of day 1 is. That you felt the need to draw attention to it

indicates that you lack confidence in your own position

.

But, the thing is, is that it doesn't. I already explained why I posted it. If you want to attribute it to some sort of uncomfortable stance that I have with my own opinions, feel free to do so, but I'm telling you now that I am quite confident with the opinions that I voice. I just don't want us getting hung up on an irrevelant piece of conversation because I'm yelling how completely wrong someone else is until I'm blue in the face about an opinion. It doesn't help anything, and, in my opinion, can be quite detrimental to the town.

GreenCrayons, I am extending my masonry offer to you as well.

No. Your mason-reasoning lacks the reasoning.

[IH]

Just letting people know I'm here after the crash. Later this afternoon I'll post something. Also....

My goodness. "1/1000th of a scum tell Ripley-buddy-basher LuckayLuck coldly rebuffed in shock dual-best-friend proposal". How much pathos and irony am I supposed to be able to take on a Monday morning

The forums crashed just a few hours after you posted this XD

[Seol]

My goodness. "1/1000th of a scum tell Ripley-buddy-basher LuckayLuck coldly rebuffed in shock dual-best-friend proposal". How much pathos and irony am I supposed to be able to take on a Monday morning?

When I do it, it's not a scum tell.
When other people do it, it's a scum tell.
This is because I play differently.

1) Why is it not a scum tell for you?
2) How are we supposed to accept that - just because you said so?
3) Why does your "playing differently" involve actions

that you recognise are generally considered scum tells

, which surely you expect to be attacked for?

3) You've seen something of actual merit that hasn't occurred to me, and are not sharing that with the town.

[...]

If it's 3), share it, this is useful information for us, especially from someone who just a few posts ago was saying they were in favour of complete disclosure in the early game.

Complete disclosure...hmm...okay, I guess I lied.

Have you heard of the principle "lynch all liars"?

See, here's the thing: I disclosed that I think that you and Green Crayons are townies and will trust both of you. That is disclosing a lot, it's also somewhat controversial. I cannot disclose why I think this, because people can start jamming my townie radar with "fake tells."

I don't care about your "townie radar", I care about my scumdar. And it's blipping, hard.

Blind trust is dangerous

I know this. Though it may look like blind trust, you have to trust me that it isn't, and that this trust can change. I can't really disclose more than this because my ploy is still in progress, is already netting me useful information, just know that I'm not blindly putting my trust in people.

You've declared that you think the two people who were attacking you hardest are pro-town with inconsistent levels of certainty and providing absolutely no reasoning to explain why. This looks very much like you are trying to get us off your back. Your saying you can't explain why you're doing what you're doing because it would undermine your ploy

also

looks like you're trying to get us off your back.

I will not get off your back until you offer a satisfactory explanation.

Whatever your gambit was, it has backfired - you started by making a scummy statement (and I will consider it scummy until you give me good reason to think otherwise), and you have continued since in a manner which is

entirely consistent

with scum trying their hardest to get out of the argument.

[Seol]

Re: GC's post - much of this is descending into positional posturing. I will respond to the points I feel need addressing, if there is anything anyone wants me to address that is not covered here let me know.

Also, if there's one thing that is constant in all of my games, is that I love arguing. It's a personal flaw, as you can ask any of my friends (well, you can't seeing as how you don't know them, but whatever; it's the principle).

I can tell.

Good, then you'll realize that I don't shy away from arguments. Therefore, when I don't address something, it's because I missed it.

Doesn't follow. I'm also getting the impression you care about winning. Sometimes arguments will be put forward which you realise will hurt your chances of winning to draw attention to, and then there will be conflict between your love of arguing and your desire to win. The convenient omission has proven to be a much stronger tell with those who love arguing and rarely back away from arguments than those who have less of a debating style.

I love arguing,

even if I don't believe the side that I'm on

, just because I like it - it probably stems from a desire to have everyone at least see my point of view. Therefore, I will argue and respond to points

regardless of my alignment

, I can promise you.

That's twice you seem to draw attention to the fact you'd be playing this way as scum in as many sentences.

Since I don't have a plethora of games under my belt (15-20 max with a liberal recollection), and what games I have played have been over an extended period of time, I don't remember much on how other people play as scum. What I do remember, however, is how I have played as scum. Therefore, I base a lot of my suspicions - at least initial ones that form in Day One/Day Two - off of how I have acted as scum.

You weren't talking about your suspicions. You weren't even talking about anyone else - you were talking specifically about how

you

are playing, right

now

.

"Go ahead, find me suspicious" comments always ring alarm bells with me. Not in an "ok, I was wrong, fair enough" but "you're wrong, this is why, but go ahead and find me suspicious if you like". If I'm wrong, then I

shouldn't

be finding you suspicious - saying it's OK to find you suspicious for the behaviour is tacitly acknowledging it

was

suspicious.

Just because you're wrong doesn't mean you'll agree with me. And of course it's suspicious - I did, after all, neglect to respond to another player's direct inquiries, regardless of whatever the cause of that neglect may be. You said so yourself, that failing to respond to an inquiry is suspicious. I gave you my reason, but that's really up to you to decide whether or not you truly want to believe it.

Good answer.

Frankly, I don't care if you think I'm suspicious for not initially responding to IH's inquiry (which is where the comment you quoted stemmed from) because I personally don't think that much suspicion can be gained from it - namely because IH's analysis of my actions is complete crap. You said that it wasn't IH's specific inquiry that I ignored, just simply the fact that I ignored him that caused you to be suspicious.

Not quite - I wasn't suspicious of you as a result of IH's points (because I could see it was flawed), but the conclusion he came to was one that required a response, and I thought it was suspicious you didn't respond.

Sure, suspicion can be derived from simply ignoring a point being made by another player, but I think a lot of that suspicion's weight depends upon what was being brought into question. It would be different if IH really had a zinger of a point and I was trying to sneak my way around it, but he doesn't.

That's my point - he

did

have a zinger of a point. Contradictory behaviour like he accused you of

is

significant, at least for day 1. That it was easily demonstrated to be flawed does not diminish the importance of responding to it. At that point I didn't know how capable you would be at rebutting the accusation.

It wouldn't make sense for me to try to ignore his post simply because of how easy it was to respond to, but that - once again - simply boils down to whether or not you want to believe that I did it on purpose. After telling you my reason, it's truly out of my hands.

This however I am inclined to accept. I don't really believe you'd have any difficulty responding to his accusation, which means your avoiding it is a much less likely explanation than having missed it.

As to why I don't care if you find my actions suspicious is because 1. I don't think much suspicion

can

be gleaned from it,

Really? With some people, it's my single most reliable tell.

and 2. there are plenty of more suspicious people than myself.

I'll make my own mind up about that, thanks - although you're definitely not top of my list at the moment.

There aren't. There are power-role tells, sure, but there's no such thing as a townie tell, because of what a tell

is

. Townies have nothing

to

tell. There's pro-town behaviour... but everyone plays (or tries to play) pro-town as much as possible.

Townie tell, pro-town behavior... I'm pretty sure he meant them to be the same way. If he didn't, that's how I interpreted his vocabulary.

Yes, but the point is that pro-town behaviour is

not an indicator

that that player is town, not if he's halfway competent and especially not on day 1. Or in other words, it's not a reason to trust them.

I just don't want us getting hung up on an irrevelant piece of conversation because I'm yelling how completely wrong someone else is until I'm blue in the face about an opinion. It doesn't help anything, and, in my opinion, can be quite detrimental to the town.

This is why I am not responding to every point in your post.

[IH]

As to why I don't care if you find my actions suspicious is because 1. I don't think much suspicion can be gleaned from it, and 2. there are plenty of more suspicious people than myself. Town players can't help but acquire suspicion, so I consider it a good thing when these two conditions occur.

This jumped out to me after Seoul's post. I wouldn't have even noticed probably.

How else are we going to find if ANYONE is suspicious, other than by their actions/posts? Blind guessing? Doing as LuckayLuck is doing and assuming people are town openly?

Also, there are more suspicious people than you? IMO that says "there are other people scummier than me, why don't you say something about them?"

I will not get off your back until you offer a satisfactory explanation. Whatever your gambit was, it has backfired - you started by making a scummy statement (and I will consider it scummy until you give me good reason to think otherwise), and you have continued since in a manner which is entirely consistent with scum trying their hardest to get out of the argument.

I actually believe LL is being serious . He's doing this in another game, but unfortunately that's just a tad WIFOM. I feel like it's a bad play on LL's part but.... eh, I'm not exactly sure as to his alignment at all from it, since it'd a bad play for scum and town.

I wouldn't call it a Gambit though, more of a style of play, as I don't believe he was intending it as a risk. There were some things that did strike me though.

When I do it, it's not a scum tell.
When other people do it, it's a scum tell.
This is because I play differently.

(Seems like scum trying for a 'scum tells don't apply to me because my playstyle is so different')

FoS:LuckayLuck

my vote is comfortable on Green Crayons

[Green Crayons]

I'm also getting the impression you care about winning. Sometimes arguments will be put forward which you realise will hurt your chances of winning to draw attention to, and then there will be conflict between your love of arguing and your desire to win. The convenient omission has proven to be a much stronger tell with those who love arguing and rarely back away from arguments than those who have less of a debating style.

Ah. Well, now I understand why you put so much emphasis on IH's question. Subsequent points in this most recent post of yours that are merely clarifying your reasoning/position in related matters are omitted as the response would be a resounding "Ah, now I see."

You weren't talking about your suspicions. You weren't even talking about anyone else - you were talking specifically about how

you

are playing, right

now

.

This is true, so I must have skimmed or skipped or mixed up a referenced quotation somewhere. My mistake. So let me respond once again to your original assertion:

I love arguing,

even if I don't believe the side that I'm on

, just because I like it - it probably stems from a desire to have everyone at least see my point of view. Therefore, I will argue and respond to points

regardless of my alignment

, I can promise you.

That's twice you seem to draw attention to the fact you'd be playing this way as scum in as many sentences.

The first highlight was referencing to my attitude towards argument in my actual life, not specifically mafia. Therefore, I wasn't referencing directly to any alignment that I may be, though I can understand how you could interpret it in such a fashion. That point, however, led to the second highlight which was merely attempting to explain to you that I won't actively avoid any points made against me; the fact it makes reference to it'd be my play style regardless of alignment is of no consequence in my opinion - this is how I play mafia, no matter what role I am.

How else are we going to find if ANYONE is suspicious, other than by their actions/posts? Blind guessing? Doing as LuckayLuck is doing and assuming people are town openly?

If you were actually paying attention to the conversation between Seol and I in regards to what specifically he was finding suspicious about me, I fail to see how my quotation says that, in general, we shouldn't find people suspicious by their actions and posts. I was making a specific reference to the fact that I didn't think much suspicion could be gleaned from me ignoring an accusation (which was yours) when that accusation was trash. Now, thanks to

your

posts and actions, I have to come to some sort of conclusions as to whether or not you're ignoring the context of my comments on accident because you're skimming, or you're ignoring the context of my comments on purpose in order to reach for reasons to continue some sembalance of support for your otherwise weak vote.

Also, there are more suspicious people than you? IMO that says "there are other people scummier than me, why don't you say something about them?"

I don't need Seol to speak for me in terms of finding people who are suspicious (I'm still convinced Raythr is a fine play for Day One), nor do I need him to "get off my case," which is what you seem to be insinuating that I was attempting to have him do. In his first post regarding myself he already had not only openly dictated his suspicions for someone else were stronger (Luck), but also put his money where his mouth was and followed up with a vote for someone else. If I wanted to divert his attention to someone else, I wouldn't have made lengthy posts arguing a lot of his points.

Now, I know you really,

really

want to twist my words around, so to preempt your undoubted response, I will say, no, me engaging in lengthy arguments with him does not make me innocent. What it does mean, however, is that if I wanted attention to pass over me - which is what you're implying I was hinting at with my comment - I wouldn't have gone about employing such a tactic by pretty much becoming a central figure of discussion, much less one who is insistantly discussing himself.

[IH]

Now, I know you really, really want to twist my words around, so to preempt your undoubted response, I will say, no, me engaging in lengthy arguments with him does not make me innocent. What it does mean, however, is that if I wanted attention to pass over me - which is what you're implying I was hinting at with my comment - I wouldn't have gone about employing such a tactic by pretty much becoming a central figure of discussion, much less one who is insistantly discussing himself.

I'm not twisting. I'm just saying how it comes off to me. It's what it looks like to me. Not to mention this is complete WIFOM.

Also, I did read the whole conversation. You said I don't care if you find my actions suspicious. If you don't care about your actions, I took that to mean you don't care about others either.

You can't glean much suspicion from your actions. Those were all but your exact words.

Then you go on to say surely there are others scummier than you, which I took to mean "Why are you grilling me, there are others worse than I."

Perhaps I misunderstood you though.

[bird1111]

Unvote

, no point in keeping a random vote as there is plenty of info to make a at least somewhat reasoned vote

In other news, I think that Echo419 demonstrated a 1/100th townie tell. CONTRARY to what you think actually GC. I think the more posts that happens, the clearer a pitcure and story is painted for townie observation.

the "CONTRARY to what you think actually GC" could have applied to the first or last sentence. When originally reading through, I mistakingly applied it to the third sentence rather than the first, which you apparently were meaning for it to reference. Therefore, I thought you were saing contrary to what I believe, more posts are a good thing. Yay, confusion, etc., etc.

I don't buy this. It's totally clear to me that the "CONTRARY to what you think actually GC" applies to the first sentence, and GC's clearly got a good grasp of English. Feels to me like GC was looking for something to argue with LL about.

I disagree that its clear to which part it belongs to, I see it the same way as GC does, it could fit in either of the first or third sentence.

Rather, I meant this to say "Just because he says that he hopes there is more spam in no way equates him to a townie "tell"

in my opinion,

which I agre with IH in their nonexistance." Don't want to get overzealous in my convictions, after all.

Now this seems totally unnecessary and just a little over-defensive - of

course

it was your opinion. Back to the whole point about disclaiming your own position.

What Echo's statement did (along with bird's, which didn't escape my notice) was, was simply say "Hey, look guys! I'm here, I'm not a lurker; ie: I'm a productive townie!" To me, that looks suspicious; apparently, to Luck, it looks good. Regardless, all it did was add no substance, it did nothing productive in and of itself. In other words, it was reaching to simply post something

How many of those posts on page 2 have substance? Are they all suspicious?

Also, responding to the rest of that post, you admitted that it was a weak suspicion.

I took it as you were using circular reasoning. He had posted something small, and you had, in turn, posted something small. Is yours supposed to make you look even MORE townie because you pointed out something slightly suspicious?

I wasn't accusing you of anything, I was just saying how flawed a statement that was.

Now, IMO, it seems like you're trying to turn a page 2 post with no substance into a something majorly suspicious. That is something I will accuse you of.

I fail to see how GC's reasoning was circular at all; the way your're post is worded makes me think that you think he's being hypocritical.

You said he was accusing someone on a weak suspicion, which could be suspicious.
You then say that this in itself is a weak suspicion.
Therefore, wouldn't you just have called yourself suspicious?

It's such a circular argument which really goes nowhere. And if you come back and call me suspicious for calling your argument suspicious...


Also, this may or may not seem crazy to you, but I am going to now make a weird statement (believe me, this is well thought out and may or may not be used for a greater purpose). For the rest of day1, (barring something ridiculous, of course), I am going to assume that Green Crayons and Seol are townies.

1.That looks like a circular argument, because that's how I interpreted Green Crayons post.

In other words, that's how it looked to me, and thats the whole reason I brought it up.

2.FoS:LuckayLuck never assume automatically that someone is town or scum. You need to look at everyone objectively. Even if you are protown, you could be choosing someone to look on as a townie, who is scum, and completely ignore them.

That's like what Dodgy said in post 68.

How did what you quoted/posted have anything to do with 68?

Firstly Unvote
Right, having read all and being an old man at this game, I noticed two things that alarm me.
1) GC wrote

seems like he's reaching for something to post simply so he can post something, which is what I've done a few times while scum.

This can be true but it can also apply to someone that has a mere vanilla town role that doesn't have the enthusiasm of a player with a night choice role.

2) I am always in two minds when a player that hasn't posted much, suddenly gives us all a break down/ run down of the game so far. More often than not, I have found that this type of post is there to sway the town that they are on the towns side, as subconsciously, when you read such a post, you feel it helpful, therefor catorgarising that player as town (Seol).
And to answer your question honestly Seol, yes, if I had spotted it but as it were on me and I obviously noted it, definately yes.
At this point, I have to
Vote: Seol

Don't see any connection between what you posted/quoted and what Dodgy posted

Also, I did read the whole conversation. You said I don't care if you find my actions suspicious. If you don't care about your actions, I took that to mean you don't care about others either.

By others, I'm guessing you mean others actions, in which case, I don't see how you would take GC saying that he didn't care about his own actions to also mean that he didn't care about others actions.

Disregard that if I was wrong about what you meant by others.

Vote: IH

, as has already been pointed out, his logic has been poor

[Green Crayons]

I'm not twisting. I'm just saying how it comes off to me. It's what it looks like to me. Not to mention this is complete WIFOM.

It's just interesting that a lot of how you interpret what I do is off base. And while I agree all "If I were scum/If I wanted to do this/If such and such/If... If... If..." comments are reduced to WIFOM, but almost

everything

can be reduced to WIFOM when it comes to interpreting actions. Therefore, with some situations you can acknowledge that while WIFOM can be applied to the situation, you also can reasonably accept or reject a notion. I'm saying that it would have been the smarter, stronger play that, if I wanted to keep attention off of me, I wouldn't have done the exact opposite and brought more attention to myself. That's just a logic argument, but you could easily say (and apparently are) "WIFOM! WIFOM! But because that's the

logical

thing to do, you did the opposite because guilty would never do it!" The only problem is that it doesn't really add up - the two actions (wanting to divert attention from myself and drawing attention to myself) are completely incompatiable and

just don't make sense

. Why would I employ one tactic when up until that point I had been acting in a completely reverse manner? However, instead of acknowledging this logical incompatibility, you're sidestepping the point by simply shrugging it off by crying WIFOM.

You said I don't care if you find my actions suspicious.

You're ignoring the reasons why I said I didn't care if he found my actions suspicious.

If you don't care about your actions, I took that to mean you don't care about others either.

Keeping in mind those reasons that you apparently missed/ignored/forgot (take your pick), how in the world did you make that jump?

Then you go on to say surely there are others scummier than you, which I took to mean "Why are you grilling me, there are others worse than I."

Why would you take it to mean that when I already explained the meaning behind it with why it was one of my reasons (that though I, as town, cannot help but acquire some amount of suspicion, that's fine with me because there are others out there who are more suspicious, as indicated by both my and Seol's own opinion - even prior to post 88 ). The "Why are you grilling me" assumption contradicts me putting myself in the thick of conversation (suspicion often goes to those who talk more than those who don't), not to mention the fact that not conceeding directly to another player's point only incites them to respond in kind - a "grilling," if you will. If I didn't want to continue having a lengthy discussion with Seol, surely you can give me credit for not attempting to employ two contradictory tactics (subtly telling him to look elsewhere while simultaneously trying to keep his attention on me with discussion). Or you can just shout WIFOM again, whatever works for you.

[Dodgy]

Ok, for obvious site probs, I have a lot to read, but to answer your question Wolf, as you said

Holy OMGUS Batman! Dodgy gets a third vote from Rathyr and slaps an FOS on him while convienently leaving his vote somewhere else. Who's trying to start the bandwagon here?

Firstly, my vote at that time was the usual starting random vote.
I didn't vote for Rathyr because it really didn't warrant it, I just

FOS'd

him to point out that he had given me a third vote for using my mother tongue, even if it was spelt in a slang way. Like I said, I'm English, everyone writes "cos" instead of "cause" when emiling friends and texting. Its hardly a reason to give me a third vote!
Question answered? I think so. And it was hardly a question anyway, I feel you are just picking on something very small so you can contribute to the game mate.
P.S. I really don't like people that don't have the initiative to use their own abreviations, but instead have to call on the wikki for help.
Try using your own brain mate, afterall, I invented a few of the wikki abreviations when we got this all going.

[Dodgy]

Unvote

I forgot that Seol always gives it large when reviewing the situation.

[chaotic_diablo]

Have no fear! The mod is here!
That's for anyone who have concerns of a mod abandonment.

I will prod anyone with who hasn't posted by my next vote count.

[LuckayLuck]

1) Why is it not a scum tell for you?
2) How are we supposed to accept that - just because you said so?
3) Why does your "playing differently" involve actions

that you recognise are generally considered scum tells

, which surely you expect to be attacked for?

1) It's not a scum tell because I will be using this methodology as both townie and scum. I don't have a history for it here yet, but I will have the base for it soon.
2) These are my first games here, so unfortunately, you have to accept it on blind faith...IH has confirmed that I do play this strategy in another game I am in with him.
3) To be explained on your next quote

I will not get off your back until you offer a satisfactory explanation.

Whatever your gambit was, it has backfired - you started by making a scummy statement (and I will consider it scummy until you give me good reason to think otherwise), and you have continued since in a manner which is

entirely consistent

with scum trying their hardest to get out of the argument.

Lucky's strategy:
1. Make possibly controversial, but often correct (imo) predictions that may or may not go against the crowd.
2. Strongly believe in these predictions. Call me crazy, but believing strongly in these predictions and then looking at what your target does in response is an extreme tell.


I don't have any complete games on this site yet, but all the current games I have will follow this strategy. Even the newbie game. The newbie game is the one currently furthest through but not over yet, is it kosher to link it as "proof"?

[Seol]

1) Why is it not a scum tell for you?
2) How are we supposed to accept that - just because you said so?
3) Why does your "playing differently" involve actions

that you recognise are generally considered scum tells

, which surely you expect to be attacked for?

1) It's not a scum tell because I will be using this methodology as both townie and scum.

Not once I'm done with you, you won't be. This is not a useful methodology.

I don't have a history for it here yet, but I will have the base for it soon.
2) These are my first games here, so unfortunately, you have to accept it on blind faith...IH has confirmed that I do play this strategy in another game I am in with him.

Please provide links to games where you used this "strategy" on other forums.

I will not get off your back until you offer a satisfactory explanation.

Whatever your gambit was, it has backfired - you started by making a scummy statement (and I will consider it scummy until you give me good reason to think otherwise), and you have continued since in a manner which is

entirely consistent

with scum trying their hardest to get out of the argument.

Lucky's strategy:
1. Make possibly controversial, but often correct (imo) predictions that may or may not go against the crowd.

Are you saying that the comment was

intended

to be read as inflammatory and unjustified? Did you have any reasons to pick myself and GC? If so, what were they?

2. Strongly believe in these predictions. Call me crazy, but believing strongly in these predictions and then looking at what your target does in response is an extreme tell.

It generates extreme responses, proves an extreme distraction, but generates virtually zero

useful

reactions (everyone attacks you for acting scummy). It's also an example of the troll defence ("I didn't believe what I said, I was just trying to generate reactions") which allows scum a get-out from pretty much any situation, which is why the troll defence should be given very short shrift. Playing "strategies" like this

undermines the whole town

.

Baiting strategies can work - can be very effective, in fact, but not if you're baiting with scummy behaviour. How are we supposed to catch scum other than looking for scummy behaviour? Can you see how acting contrary undermines everyone

else's

search for scum? Why should you be allowed a free pass to act scummy?

I don't have any complete games on this site yet, but all the current games I have will follow this strategy. Even the newbie game. The newbie game is the one currently furthest through but not over yet, is it kosher to link it as "proof"?

It's bad form to refer to ongoing games, as any comments made about them could influence that game.

[wolfsbane]

Ok, for obvious site probs, I have a lot to read, but to answer your question Wolf, as you said

Holy OMGUS Batman! Dodgy gets a third vote from Rathyr and slaps an FOS on him while convienently leaving his vote somewhere else. Who's trying to start the bandwagon here?

Firstly, my vote at that time was the usual starting random vote.
I didn't vote for Rathyr because it really didn't warrant it, I just

FOS'd

him to point out that he had given me a third vote for using my mother tongue, even if it was spelt in a slang way. Like I said, I'm English, everyone writes "cos" instead of "cause" when emiling friends and texting. Its hardly a reason to give me a third vote!
Question answered? I think so. And it was hardly a question anyway, I feel you are just picking on something very small so you can contribute to the game mate.
P.S. I really don't like people that don't have the initiative to use their own abreviations, but instead have to call on the wikki for help.
Try using your own brain mate, afterall, I invented a few of the wikki abreviations when we got this all going.

I wasn't the one giving you a hard time about "cos". I left my vote on you because you didn't answer my accusation about attempting to push a Rathyr bandwagon but not putting a vote on when the voting was still random anyway. It was a small point, but you still haven't answered it. Instead you are attacking me for voting you for voting for someone who was voting for you. Also, you're using the 'cos' thing to throw suspicion on me, even though I had nothing to do with it. I think a pro-town player would be more careful about flinging incorrect accusations around.
I like the abbreviation OMGUS and I think it described the situation well. Why are these abbreviations there in the wiki if I'm not allowed to use them? You inventing the abbreviations has nothing to do with my argument. I think they call that a red herring. The "use your own brain" I think is known as ad hominem.