Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[jotheonah]

Urgh. We are not punishing him for being active. We are punishing him for being scummy.

Galzria's "All people who are active are scummy" is the false premise in his otherwise solid argument. It's bullshit. There are plenty of active people I have town reads on.

I never said "all people who are active are scummy". Thanks for misrepresenting though. I said "All active people invariably do things that will be perceived as scummy to some people" - Please, name me one game, just one, with one person who went from D1 to the finish without being accused of saying or doing even a single thing suspicious.

That was my argument, and is completely valid.

You in M-II. Granted I was more naive then...

[Galzria]

Urgh. We are not punishing him for being active. We are punishing him for being scummy.

Galzria's "All people who are active are scummy" is the false premise in his otherwise solid argument. It's bullshit. There are plenty of active people I have town reads on.

I never said "all people who are active are scummy". Thanks for misrepresenting though. I said "All active people invariably do things that will be perceived as scummy to some people" - Please, name me one game, just one, with one person who went from D1 to the finish without being accused of saying or doing even a single thing suspicious.

That was my argument, and is completely valid.

You in M-II. Granted I was more naive then...

Volt still suspected me D3, and I did not go without scrutiny D2 from Kuildeous and Insomniac.

[Voltgloss]

I like TheMunch's thinking about "which wagon will be most informative with a flip," though I'm not sold on his choice of wagon to push.   

yuma, who out there (if anyone) has still failed to respond to your outstanding questions? 

And I'll vote: eHalcyon.  What?  Where did that come from?  Well... something eHalc said didn't ring right.  It's subtle, but I think it's there.  I need to reread in more detail to confirm that my recollection of past comments is correct.  Once I've done that I'll either explain further or move my vote elsewhere.  Due to RL commitments, that may not be until we get closer to the weekend.

[Watno]

shraeye, could you explain to me what you propose doing when I notice something potentially scummy? Should I just ignore it? (Note: That suggestion is sarcasm)

@Eevee I think when we lynch, we shouldn't consider wether it's fair or not, but how likely it is we will hit scum and how much information we can get from it.

[Voltaire]

I'm only to post #421 right now and already have strong reads (well, strong for D1) on lots of people. I'm expecting to have a read on everyone by the time this is through.

I encourage everyone to re-read if you have the time. This is wonderfully helpful.

[eHalcyon]

Urgh. We are not punishing him for being active. We are punishing him for being scummy.

Galzria's "All people who are active are scummy" is the false premise in his otherwise solid argument. It's bullshit. There are plenty of active people I have town reads on.

I never said "all people who are active are scummy". Thanks for misrepresenting though. I said "All active people invariably do things that will be perceived as scummy to some people" - Please, name me one game, just one, with one person who went from D1 to the finish without being accused of saying or doing even a single thing suspicious.

That was my argument, and is completely valid.

I may be misremembering, but I don't think anyone suspected me at in MIII.  Maybe during mylo/lylo, but that cleared up quick after claims.

[eHalcyon]

Shraeye's wagon shouldn't have been a thing.  However there were a few sketchy folks on it that had voted for Shraeye for reasons not his scumslip "I cant believe I got caught."  I believe these were Watno, Glooble and Grujah, but I could be mistaken.

The "scumslip" was not a good reason.  But other reasons may have been valid.  Why do you call out people who voted for other reasons?  Why do you describe them as sketchy?

The ehunt wagon, I forget who started it (Cayvie?) but I dont like it.  I was on it cause I thought ehunt was acting just as scummy as the next.  But after the misunderstanding of his one-post-a-day proposal blew over (I'm still not 100% convinced it was a misunderstanding but it really isn't that huge of an issue) everything seemed to die down.  I dont know how much information can be gained for ehunt dying but maybe someone else has more insight than me.

This looks super hedgy to me. 

"I don't like the wagon.  But I was on it.  I was on it because ehunt was acting scummy... yet I don't like the wagon.  Maybe I don't like it because it was based on a misunderstanding of ehunt's post-a-day intentions.  But maybe it wasn't really a misunderstanding.  So do I think ehunt should be lynched?  Maybe someone else can answer for me."

The yuma wagon was a mess.  Mistakes happen, thats cool.  The reason that I got on it was because of how Yuma was defending himself, which was much different than the others that jumped on him for "rolefishing."  This didn't get much attention but Yuma got, in my opinion, way too defensive way too fast.  People also jumped on him very quickly.  Maybe there is still something to be gained from that wagon.

So how was it a mess?  Do you think it was a good wagon or a bad wagon?  It sounds like you were saying it was no good ("it was a mess... mistakes happen...") but then you criticize yuma more for being too defensive... and then criticize people voting for him for "[jumping] on him very quickly".  And again, you end with a maybe.

The O wagon, I'll admit doesn't really have a whole lot of basis.  O might be O but the reason I've been voting for him and have continued to vote for him (facetiously, its not a post restriction, its just emphasis, maybe a little bit of copycatting of shraeye... I thought he was being amusing, maybe I was the only one) is more to do with the way hes been playing than whether or not I think hes scum.  I think this might be very similar from the people that are on the wagon.  While I still probably would like to see him dead, I dont think his death is the most valuable (yeah thats how lurking works, you dont say much, not much is said about you so you get away for being an invaluable first day kill, blah blah blah).  Unvote

I really don't like this.  OK, voting based on behaviour and not based on "who is scummy" is not terrible.  Policy lynches and all that, to try to get players to be more pro-town.  Sure.  But to still want to see him dead, even though you don't think he's scum?  What?  No, I want to see such players change their behaviour.  I don't want fellow townies to die.


Overall, this just looks like a giant pile of hedge.

[eHalcyon]

And I'll vote: eHalcyon.  What?  Where did that come from?  Well... something eHalc said didn't ring right.  It's subtle, but I think it's there.  I need to reread in more detail to confirm that my recollection of past comments is correct.  Once I've done that I'll either explain further or move my vote elsewhere.  Due to RL commitments, that may not be until we get closer to the weekend.

Looking forward to it.

[Glooble]

If we're trying to get the lynch going before deadline, don't forget that that lynchee might claim a power role we can't risk lynching, thereby forcing us to scramble for a new target. It's happened a few times before, and we should probably have a back-up wagon just in case.

I'll get to answering your question now, The Munch.

The shift in thinking from scum to town for me is largely one of self preservation. As scum, if I had the amount of suspicion I have on me now, I would be saying all kinds of things in defense of my behavior. But at the moment, I'm really not feeling the need to. I think a better focus for my energy would be finding a lynch target with a better chance of being scum.

I'm going to look back over the major candidates and post some things. For now, though, I will say I don't like shraeye or O as possibilities. Shraeye is just way too in-your-face for me to buy him being scum. O will be really helpful in subsequent days.

[Robz888]

Vote Count 1.14

shraeye (2) -- Axxle
ehunt (3) -- O, Eevee, Jotheonah
O (1) -- shraeye
Glooble (1) -- yuma
TheMunch (1) -- Captain_Frisk
Grujah (2) -- Glooble, Morgrim7
yuma (2) -- Voltaire, TheMunch
Voltaire (2) -- Insomniac, ehunt
cayvie (1) -- ftl
Axxle (1) -- cayvie
Captain_Frisk (1) -- Watno
eHalcyon (1) -- Voltgloss

Not Voting (8 ) -- Young Nick, eHalcyon, Cuzz, Dsell, Galzria, ashersky, Grujah, ibgtennis

With 25 alive it takes 13 to lynch. Day 1 deadline is Saturday, September 29th at 1:00 PM (EDT)

[Axxle]

Gah, it's MVI all over again.

Currently in the LaL discussions.  Let me add this simple bit: It's not nearly the rule in mafiascum.  I thought it was when I first brought it up all those games ago, but it's not followed by a majority of people on that forum.

That's all for now.

[Axxle]

Unvote

[O]

Gah, it's MVI all over again.

Currently in the LaL discussions.  Let me add this simple bit: It's not nearly the rule in mafiascum.  I thought it was when I first brought it up all those games ago, but it's not followed by a majority of people on that forum.

That's all for now.

Never mentioned this, but reading (mostly the end of) random Mafiascum games and finding an Axxle is always quite entertaining.

[TheMunch]

@eHalc:  I think the best way that I can address your arguments is that I'm not trying to hedge.  The spirit of my post was an attempt to evaluate each of the wagons to determine how much valuable information could be gained if the player in question was killed.  The problem with this kind of reasoning is that the reasons why or why not someones death might be valuable could be distinct from my reasons for participating in the wagons.  So in a way I feel like I was playing my own devil's advocate in each case.

In the case of Shraeye, I really didn't get any kind of scummy vibe and I felt people misinterpretted his "scumslip."  So the people that jumped on him for a hunch feel kind of scummy to me.  Here, I'm using the argument that scum would often jump on wagons of town to attempt to kill a town during the day.

For the Yuma wagon, I find it hard to evaluate the wagon as anything but a mess a posteriori.  This is not in conflict with the fact that I felt that Yuma was scummy.  Like I said, I participated in the wagon for a different reason than everyone else.  I didn't like the way he was defending himself.  Yet it was his defense that led everyone else to believe that Yuma's "rolefishing" was just an honest mistake.  Therefore I can both believe the wagon was a mess and still believe Yuma was scummy and participate in the wagon.

As for the O wagon, I think by now it is no surprise that I wasn't a fan of O at the time (notice how I have unvoted since then).  It is perfectly reasonable for me to not like the way that O is playing, and want him to not participate anymore regardless of his alignment.  My feelings were strong enough that I felt that he would not be a valuable asset to have regardless of whether or not I thought he was town and I wanted to get rid of him.  But my personal feelings about how he plays have no bearing.  What is important is what information we gain by whether or not O flips town.  I really dont think there is much to be gained by O's death at this time so I retracted my vote.

Lastly, on my reread, I still got scum vibes from ehunt but dont have much to back them up and I dont really want to commit to weak feelings and hunches.  However, what is important is what information is to be gained from ehunt dying, and I really dont see that much to be gained.  There weren't that many hop-ons and most peoples problems with ehunt were resolved by a clarification from ehunt, followed by his increased posting frequency.  I dont think there is much to be gained from his death D1.

So to sum up, there is a distinction between my opinions and the information there is to be gained from a D1 lynch from one of the wagons.  If there is any hedginess it is mearly the byproduct of me playing my own devil's advocate and using it as a means to facilitate discussion as to who the town most benefits from killing D1.  I hope this sparks more conversation and I like that you question my intentions; forces me to be more clear, something that I really want to work on.

[cayvie]

I know I've explained this twice, but I was working it out in my head as I was falling asleep yesterday, and I've got a clearer way to say it I hope.  Machine-gunning thin arguments around and seeing what people agree with and pick up on seems to either be a solid scum-play or poor town-play.  If you're scum, then you can just post lots of small errors from town-members, see what people agree with, and then drive home a mis-lynch.  If you're town, a post with this many people in it could hit scum, but is also bound to sling suspicion at town member.  Scum can start agreeing with your argument against that poor town player, and push you into driving home a mislynch.

I really feel like the problem here is that there just aren't going to be super strong cases day 1. There's so little concrete evidence.

Also, machine-gunning thin arguments around can be solid town play, if you do it convincingly enough and with the purpose of paying attention to the responses, not pushing the original argument.

[O]

I know I've explained this twice, but I was working it out in my head as I was falling asleep yesterday, and I've got a clearer way to say it I hope.  Machine-gunning thin arguments around and seeing what people agree with and pick up on seems to either be a solid scum-play or poor town-play.  If you're scum, then you can just post lots of small errors from town-members, see what people agree with, and then drive home a mis-lynch.  If you're town, a post with this many people in it could hit scum, but is also bound to sling suspicion at town member.  Scum can start agreeing with your argument against that poor town player, and push you into driving home a mislynch.

I really feel like the problem here is that there just aren't going to be super strong cases day 1. There's so little concrete evidence.

Also, machine-gunning thin arguments around can be solid town play, if you do it convincingly enough and with the purpose of paying attention to the responses, not pushing the original argument.

yes, lets push that meta so any time we do it they just know it's a reaction test and they don't have to seriously respond.

[TheMunch]

If we're trying to get the lynch going before deadline, don't forget that that lynchee might claim a power role we can't risk lynching, thereby forcing us to scramble for a new target. It's happened a few times before, and we should probably have a back-up wagon just in case.

I'll get to answering your question now, The Munch.

The shift in thinking from scum to town for me is largely one of self preservation. As scum, if I had the amount of suspicion I have on me now, I would be saying all kinds of things in defense of my behavior. But at the moment, I'm really not feeling the need to. I think a better focus for my energy would be finding a lynch target with a better chance of being scum.

I'm going to look back over the major candidates and post some things. For now, though, I will say I don't like shraeye or O as possibilities. Shraeye is just way too in-your-face for me to buy him being scum. O will be really helpful in subsequent days.

Why do you feel it necessary to compare you behavior to "what you would do if you were scum"?  In general, I dont like these arguments as I could say "Well right now i'm being very longposty, but if I was scum I would be trying to stay quiet, so clearly i'm not scum."  The argument is not valid unless we know for certain 2 things: 1) how I would actually act when I'm scum (and that this aligns with my claim) and that 2) if I was scum, that I wasn't acting different on purpose just to make this argument.  I know a lot of you disagree with me that part 2 is "harder than you'd think" but I would say that since the possibility exists, regardless of how unlikely you may think it is, it must be accounted for.

[Watno]

@TheMunch: So when others vote for someone who already has a wagon on him with a different reason its scummy, but when you do, it isnt?

[jotheonah]

If we're trying to get the lynch going before deadline, don't forget that that lynchee might claim a power role we can't risk lynching, thereby forcing us to scramble for a new target. It's happened a few times before, and we should probably have a back-up wagon just in case.

I'll get to answering your question now, The Munch.

The shift in thinking from scum to town for me is largely one of self preservation. As scum, if I had the amount of suspicion I have on me now, I would be saying all kinds of things in defense of my behavior. But at the moment, I'm really not feeling the need to. I think a better focus for my energy would be finding a lynch target with a better chance of being scum.

I'm going to look back over the major candidates and post some things. For now, though, I will say I don't like shraeye or O as possibilities. Shraeye is just way too in-your-face for me to buy him being scum. O will be really helpful in subsequent days.

Why do you feel it necessary to compare you behavior to "what you would do if you were scum"?  In general, I dont like these arguments as I could say "Well right now i'm being very longposty, but if I was scum I would be trying to stay quiet, so clearly i'm not scum."  The argument is not valid unless we know for certain 2 things: 1) how I would actually act when I'm scum (and that this aligns with my claim) and that 2) if I was scum, that I wasn't acting different on purpose just to make this argument.  I know a lot of you disagree with me that part 2 is "harder than you'd think" but I would say that since the possibility exists, regardless of how unlikely you may think it is, it must be accounted for.

But when Glooble says it we can check it against literally any other game he's been in.

[TheMunch]

@O:  The distinction I'm trying to make is between the people who get on a wagon for a different reason that they dont share and move around before it has been fleshed out, and myself, where I feel like I have been more than upfront with as specific as possible reasons for my participation in wagons when possible.

[shraeye]

I know I've explained this twice, but I was working it out in my head as I was falling asleep yesterday, and I've got a clearer way to say it I hope.  Machine-gunning thin arguments around and seeing what people agree with and pick up on seems to either be a solid scum-play or poor town-play.  If you're scum, then you can just post lots of small errors from town-members, see what people agree with, and then drive home a mis-lynch.  If you're town, a post with this many people in it could hit scum, but is also bound to sling suspicion at town member.  Scum can start agreeing with your argument against that poor town player, and push you into driving home a mislynch.

I really feel like the problem here is that there just aren't going to be super strong cases day 1. There's so little concrete evidence.

Also, machine-gunning thin arguments around can be solid town play, if you do it convincingly enough and with the purpose of paying attention to the responses, not pushing the original argument.

I buy this line of reasoning, I base a majority of my reads on peoples responses to different actions. 

But I haven't seen watno collecting responses or paying attention to more than 1 or 2 of them.  Maybe I missed some of these while I was focusing on other players, but I'm pretty sure many of the suspicions he had in #608 have gone unanswered.  And watno hasn't followed-up on those dropped threads.  This gives the impression that he wasn't really intending to send out that list in order to pay attention to the responses.

[Voltgloss]

Also, machine-gunning thin arguments around can be solid town play, if you do it convincingly enough and with the purpose of paying attention to the responses, not pushing the original argument.

yes, lets push that meta so any time we do it they just know it's a reaction test and they don't have to seriously respond.

If you choose not to respond, you still have made a response.  [/Rush]

[cayvie]

yes, lets push that meta so any time we do it they just know it's a reaction test and they don't have to seriously respond.

...really?

That only becomes a problem if machine-gunning cases is the only strategy used, or if it's immediately apparent when used as a strategy.

[TheMunch]

@watno:  The distinction I'm trying to make is between the people who get on a wagon for a different reason that they dont share and move around before it has been fleshed out, and myself, where I feel like I have been more than upfront with as specific as possible reasons for my participation in wagons when possible.

I misread who made the comment about me.  Sorry.

[TheMunch]

Another point on wagon hunting, I propose the following reasoning.  Lets say we kill a wagon and that person flips either town or scum.  Obviously there are more intricacies with the players power role, but lets keep it simple.  So if they flip town, we'd want to re-examine the wagon and look at the people who jumped on very quickly after the wagon formed.  If they flip scum, we would be looking for people that defended him. 

Open question: what wagons do people feel have both elements to them (people who jumped on quickly after the wagon formed, and a strong defense for them by a small number of people) so that regardless of whether or not they flip town, we can deduce good information?