Newbie 1289 - Game Over!

[RedRabbit]

No one is going to hammer.

I can only imagine how you could possibly make such conclusion.

Maybe he thinks that no town would hammer so early in the day because that would make them look really scummy and get themselves top of the lynch list tomorrow or/and he thinks that the 2 scum are already on the wagon so they can't.

[buldermar]

No one is going to hammer.

I can only imagine how you could possibly make such conclusion.

Maybe he thinks that no town would hammer so early in the day because that would make them look really scummy and get themselves top of the lynch list tomorrow or/and he thinks that the 2 scum are already on the wagon so they can't.

I'm going with option C.

[BT]

Nah, I don't think both scum are on the wagon, I'm just making the simple assumptions that players are smart enough to not hammer so early as any alignment.

[RedRabbit]

No one is going to hammer.

I can only imagine how you could possibly make such conclusion.

Maybe he thinks that no town would hammer so early in the day because that would make them look really scummy and get themselves top of the lynch list tomorrow or/and he thinks that the 2 scum are already on the wagon so they can't.

I'm going with option C.

I thought you might be.

I have to say I don't see it. I know this possibly nudges me in his direction for you but I doubt scum would make such an *obvious* mistake.

[Tierce]

Tierce:

Thinks that PaperSpirit is obvtown based on four posts. The only thing that is revealed in these posts, besides that PaperSpirit is obv

new

, is that PaperSpirit thinks that a no lynch is preferable to town on D1, something that Tierce herself doesn't agree with. Bases her vote on Sylvant/Ovyo because of his vote for this "obvtown" while conviently ignoring Vendetta21's vote. The more obvious target on this basis should have been Vendetta21 afaics. Refusal/reluctance to remove the vote after Sylvant had been replaced is suspect as Ovyo can't know why Sylvant placed the vote. The only reason I can think of that this would be reasonable is because

if

Sylvant was scum, he gave it away by voting second on a newbie and tried to pass it off as random. That's a loose read imo. Unless she knows he was scum!

Tierce:

Thinks that PaperSpirit is obvtown based on four posts.

Is this something you find odd? I don't think it's difficult to see how she got to that conclusion.

I don't find it excessively odd, no. I can see how she might have come to that conclusion. That he's

obvious

town is a bit of a stretch I feel, but what perplexes me more is that she voted Sylvant and not Vendetta based on her assesment of PaperSpirit's townieness. I would think that Vendettas scumminess was more revealing based on some of his subsequent posts, the fact he voted second and that Sylvant's seemed random/jokey when Vendetta's was not at all random. Why not vote for Vendetta if the reason for voting Sylvant was because he voted PaperSpirit who is 'obviously town'? Is what I'm getting at here.

vendetta at least seemed to want to pressure PaperSpirit. A second vote on a townread doesn't mean that the player is scum, and I think Sylvant's seemingly random vote was worse because he ignored PaperSpirit's opinion on no-lynching and yet voted him anyway. In addition, your view on removing a vote because a slot has been replaced makes little sense. Your slot does not change alignment if you replace out, and while ovyo cannot explain Sylvant's actions, what makes me suspicious of ovyo continues being valid.

buldermar: you are acting like that is all I'm doing, which is an invalid reduction of my actions.

No, you're misinterpreting me. I claimed that you're equally responsible for the ongoing of our discussion.

The alternative is ignoring you, which I will not do--my goal is to get a read on you.

Reads, please. Your claim at 'communicating' with other players does not satisfy me, because you are still in this low signal:noise dance. There is little evidence that you are looking for scum as of this point.

Again, this is an allegation. I've not avoided discussing this game. I've responded to every question and commented on every post I found relevant to comment on. Once again, I encourage you to prove me wrong by providing me an example of something I missed (this is the 3rd time I request it btw).

And as I've said before, it's not up to me to guarantee you are proactive and discuss other things instead of just what is directed at you. I am under no obligation to point and say "discussing This and That would be town-action coming from you". I want to see you discussing This and That without being nudged in that direction. I want you to act in a way that isn't simply sitting on your comfort zone arguing theory and throwing buzzwords about.

In addition, you seem to expect someone with an initial scumread on you to jump up and read your other game(s).

Here you're utilizing a straw man tecnique. I assume it is based on this:

The same goes for your insistence that talking theory is a scumtell in conjunction with (I assume) the fact that you did not read my only other game.

I point out that your interpretation of me talking theory being a scumtell would be challenged by the fact that I talked theory in my other game where I was a cop. I never asked of you to read an entire game,

I found it peculiar and scummy that you wouldn't open the game and falsify the assumption that my theory talk is something unique for this game

.

You are saying that I would 'know' your theory talk isn't scummy if I bothered to look at your other game. This is false for several reasons: one, good scum play emulates town play. Two: while I read many other games, you cannot reasonably expect me to immediately read your other game and change my mind about you, especially since I'm not even voting you. The

bolded

(emphasis mine) is an outright lie. "Falsify the assumption that my theory talk is something unique for this game"? I did not do this. You are accusing me of something that never happened.

I read lots of other games, but I don't have neither the time nor the patience to meta everyone I have scumreads on, regardless of how many games they have. Those are unreasonable expectations to have of someone who isn't even voting you.

Once again, you're taking things out of context. I'm not expecting of everyone who votes me to read up on things. My point was made in lights of your claim that talking theory is a scumtell. In other words, it is due to the nature of your claim.

Though I don't find it scummy, your reasons are flawed as well. Townies aren't prompted to immediately read past games of people they're voting (although that would be nice), and her 'insistence' on her view of you doesn't strike me as scummy either. Don't forget to reply to this with your opinion on others.

As you probably can deduce from my response to Tierce, I have no such expectations.

Bzzt. You're backtracking. I made very clear that talking theory in detriment of the rest of the game (which you so 'nicely' dismissed as an "allegation") is scummy. You used the following as reasons to vote me:

[...]

It also doesn't add up why you'd think my behavior is scummy. Firstly, as BT already pointed out, theory talk is a null more often than not. Secondly, assuming that you actually do think I'm scum, I'd think you'd at least take the time reading my only other game. If you did so, you'd realize how flawed your reasoning is.

Repeatance of previously posed questions and made statements in conjunction with your claim that

I'm

responsible for the ongoing of this discussion appears scummy to me. The same goes for your insistence that talking theory is a scumtell in conjunction with (I assume) the fact that you did not read my only other game.

VOTE: Tierce

You used the fact that I did not meta you to see 'how wrong I am' as a justification to call me scum.

UNVOTE: ovyo
VOTE: buldermar

Let's see you eat rope.

Airick has the right idea, but I prefer this one:

VOTE: Sylvant

Here, you do not justify your vote with anything, you only state that it heightens the odds of hitting scum D2. But surely it's preferable to at least hunt for scum D1 rather than get someone out of the way?

What? No, I said that even mislynching town is better than no-lynch on D1. I did not imply, in any manner, that not hunting scum in D1 is a good idea. You are twisting my words.

You then proceed to say:

RVS is not a necessity; I prefer to do away with it ASAP and

my ovyo is not random.

But without explaining why it is not random. Is it because of the RVS

(That random vote that was pretty much his only contribution to the entire game)

? I'm pretty sure that nothing else could be derived from his other two posts that could possibly amount to anything, they were a request for help and a post to cancel the request because he figured it out. If he wasn't scummy, why did you vote him? To pressure him? If so, what about Oyvo is scummy? You said that I join them in the scum bin in your post 67, yet you say that you only push on Ovyo to get a better read on them. Is Ovyo scum until you get a better read on her? What about Sylvant's slot was scummy, and what about Ovyo has prompted you to label her as scum?

I've said, several times now, that Sylvant's vote was, in my opinion, the worst vote on a slot that I consider clearly town. THAT is what I consider scummy from the slot. Calling his vote 'RVS' does nothing for me--it was my best read at the time and the only way we get out of RVS is by analyzing so-called RVS behaviors.

I genuinely cannot see why you are being so obstructive to my probing, I'm asking you for your reads, but you're holding your cards close to your chest. I accept that you have a townread on Paper, I just don't see why? Has your position on him been reaffirmed or shaken by their most recent contribution however succinct it was? I need to know why you are doing what you are doing.

I've said that there is no town gain in revealing why I think PaperSpirit is obvtown. I don't have to appease you, and I'll be as obstrusive as I need to be for the sake of the Town, not for YOUR sake. I don't care how stubborn you are: pressuring me will not make me explain my read on PaperSpirit. If and when that read changes, you'll be he first to know. Until then, carry on.

Thats all I want to know: Why you have a townread on Paper (Other than not having any votes on him, which is an awful argument.) Why you have a scumread on Ovyo and if it has wavered any due to her recent posts.

"Not having votes on him" was never an argument for a townread on PaperSpirit, it was an argument for "he's not going to get lynched at this stage, I am not going to explain a townread since it's not necessary--due to the simple fact that he is in no danger of getting lynched". As BT said, that still stands, so you're not going to know the reason for that townread right now. Deal with it. My scumread on ovyo is due to that Sylvant vote on PaperSpirit, but it has been supplanted by my scumread on buldermar.

buldermar: You're doing a lot of empty posturing. What

were

your thoughts on Airick around Post 83-Post 86?

when scumhunting a player, I need to understand why they're doing what you're doing.

What I don't understand is how Tierce can say something like this, but then go about telling people point-blank the dispositions of others and expecting them to accept that. In this instance we are talking about telling DB that PaperSpirit is obvtown, and telling AirWick that I am null. I would like some clarification here.

I can be

somewhat

blunt. What clarification are you looking for?

Tierce's unwillingness to even contribute to other reads in any serious way serves only to reaffirm this.

How am I refusing to contribute to other reads? I've shared my opinions on players' alignments where I have them.

And while we're at that:
vendetta and BT are likely town.
PaperSpirit: Please vote someone. No Lynch will give us literally no information on this day phase. Who do you suspect? Vote them. Isn't there anything that is rubbing you the wrong way from anyone?
The pile of votes on vendetta should move to buldermar.

A few IC notes that I'd like to make at this point:

So to add pressure:

vote Tierce.

Pressure votes rarely work, and moreso when you deliberately call them pressure.

Obviously on day 1 the only confirmed town when you're town yourself

is

yourself. Hammering yourself (confirmed town lynch) is inferior to not hammering yourself (no lynch) in this setup.

This is actually statistically incorrect, as you can win without being alive. If you are the ONLY viable lynch with minutes to deadline and no one else is available to vote you, self-hammering may be a good practice to ensure the town has the information that yes, you ARE town. Flips are necessary to get better reads among the living players. Flips are important for scumhunting. That said, self-hammering is only a good idea in very extreme circumstances. We are not in such a situation. If we ever get to one while I'm alive, I'll wax as much theory as you want. Until then, I'm closing this line of discussion from my end.

I especially think the tone and message of Post 65 is uncalled for

I don't have any comfortable way of putting this: get used to it. Players in MS will not be kind when they are convinced you are scum or not pulling your weight. This is a community that is centered about people arguing with each other. I have a sweet and gentle side and I'm trying to contribute to an enjoyable experience for each of you, but I'm not here to coddle you: I'm here to teach you about some theory points and to show you what a typical MS game can be like. I don't resort to personal insults, but neither will I bow to your demands that I do something if I don't think it's beneficial to the town.
You need a tough skin to deal with some players here. It's not my intention to offend anyone. You're going to find players with big egos, players who are convinced their ridiculous views on theory are the One True Way of playing, players who are incredibly obvious scum even though they did not draw a scum PM. People will not easily bow to your demands if they are convinced it's detrimental to them or their faction; that's simply the nature of the community we are.
This message brought to you by someone who has had an amazing experience here so far. Don't expect coddling, don't expect kindness. People expect you to step up and pull your weight; accept this for what it is and don't be intimidated, it's just how we work.

No one is going to hammer.

They shouldn't, but you'd be surprised at how many times troll-hammers or mistaken hammers happen. Even when players really didn't mean to hammer, it happens.

[vendetta21]

This is exactly how I thought you'd attempt to rationalize your ironic incongruity. You've not previously expressed your dislike of the ongoing discussion between Tierce and I, or your dislike of my way of playing. Out of nowhere, in a rabbit-out-of-the-hat sort of way, you compile a bunch of bullshit accusations and deliver them wrapped in fine words to (in my opinion) compensate for the fact that it's bullshit. And now you're asking me questions related specifically to the discussion, the ongoing of which was one of your main reasons for voting me? This is almost exactly what BT did in post 101. Yes, I think it's scummy to contribute to the ongoing of a discussion you pretend to want stopped, and I think it's incredible scummy to come out firering with red herrings the way you did without previously having requested anything or expressed anything related to the matter. I think you saw me as an easy target and took the opportunity to attempt to justify a vote.

UNVOTE:
VOTE: vendetta21

So I asked a simple question that was about steering the discourse you were having from where it was to where I wanted it to be. I redirected my aims towards a specific instance of your play and asked you to articulate. Rather than respond to that question, you are saying my accusations are bullshit. We can point fingers back and forth at stylistic points of play, and you can say that I'm pulling these accusations out of nowhere, but I still asked a simple question that you failed to address. This question intended to cut through the morass of literary analysis on our differing styles and get right down to the meat-and-bones of what I was addressing.

You acknowledge you have had an ongoing dialogue about hammering, what have you learned about players alignments through this dialogue? Do my specific feelings that self-hammering is a viable option if there are no others tell you something meaningful about me? This is not continuing to contribute to the discussion I see as pointless, it is asking you why the hell you thought the discussion was contributing in the first place.

[buldermar]

Nah, I don't think both scum are on the wagon, I'm just making the simple assumptions that players are smart enough to not hammer so early as any alignment.

In my two other games, someone was hammered on day 1 without getting a chance to claim.

[buldermar]

buldermar: you are acting like that is all I'm doing, which is an invalid reduction of my actions.

No, you're misinterpreting me. I claimed that you're equally responsible for the ongoing of our discussion.

The alternative is ignoring you, which I will not do--my goal is to get a read on you.

Reads, please. Your claim at 'communicating' with other players does not satisfy me, because you are still in this low signal:noise dance. There is little evidence that you are looking for scum as of this point.

You're asking me to comment or make reads on something picked at random that just-so-happens to fit your need. This is not going to happen - if you want something from me, ask for it. I've posted my opinion on various events throughout the game and, as opposed to you, actually not avoided answering questions. I don't give a flying fuck about the ratio of the content of my posts. If I had limited time to answer, I'd be more selective, but I don't have to when I have the time to answer anything I find remotedly relevant.

Again, this is an allegation. I've not avoided discussing this game. I've responded to every question and commented on every post I found relevant to comment on. Once again, I encourage you to prove me wrong by providing me an example of something I missed (this is the 3rd time I request it btw).

And as I've said before, it's not up to me to guarantee you are proactive and discuss other things instead of just what is directed at you. I am under no obligation to point and say "discussing This and That would be town-action coming from you". I want to see you discussing This and That without being nudged in that direction. I want you to act in a way that isn't simply sitting on your comfort zone arguing theory and throwing buzzwords about.

And as I'll say again, it's not my responsibility to guess what you want me to comment on. I've not "simply sat on my comfort zone arguing theory", as you put it. I've until recently discussed theory

while

responding to everything else I found relevant. Now I'm merely doing the latter.

In addition, you seem to expect someone with an initial scumread on you to jump up and read your other game(s).

Here you're utilizing a straw man tecnique. I assume it is based on this:

The same goes for your insistence that talking theory is a scumtell in conjunction with (I assume) the fact that you did not read my only other game.

I point out that your interpretation of me talking theory being a scumtell would be challenged by the fact that I talked theory in my other game where I was a cop. I never asked of you to read an entire game,

I found it peculiar and scummy that you wouldn't open the game and falsify the assumption that my theory talk is something unique for this game

.

You are saying that I would 'know' your theory talk isn't scummy if I bothered to look at your other game. This is false for several reasons: one, good scum play emulates town play. Two: while I read many other games, you cannot reasonably expect me to immediately read your other game and change my mind about you, especially since I'm not even voting you. The

bolded

(emphasis mine) is an outright lie. "Falsify the assumption that my theory talk is something unique for this game"? I did not do this. You are accusing me of something that never happened.

No, I am not saying that you would 'know' that my theory talk isn't scummy, I'm saying that you'd know that it's not something unique for this game. The difference should be apparent. I also did not expect you to "immediately change your mind about me". How the hell is the bolded an outright lie? I'm stating that I found it perculiar (odd) and scummy that you wouldn't (in my assumption) open the game (my other game) and falsify (invalidate) the assumption (your assumption) that my theory talk is something unique for this game (that my theory talk is only happening in this game). I'm accusing you of NOT doing this, which (to my knowledge) did happen (i.e. you still did not check my other game).

I read lots of other games, but I don't have neither the time nor the patience to meta everyone I have scumreads on, regardless of how many games they have. Those are unreasonable expectations to have of someone who isn't even voting you.

Once again, you're taking things out of context. I'm not expecting of everyone who votes me to read up on things. My point was made in lights of your claim that talking theory is a scumtell. In other words, it is due to the nature of your claim.

Though I don't find it scummy, your reasons are flawed as well. Townies aren't prompted to immediately read past games of people they're voting (although that would be nice), and her 'insistence' on her view of you doesn't strike me as scummy either. Don't forget to reply to this with your opinion on others.

As you probably can deduce from my response to Tierce, I have no such expectations.

Bzzt. You're backtracking. I made very clear that talking theory in detriment of the rest of the game (which you so 'nicely' dismissed as an "allegation") is scummy.

No, I am not backtracking. I disagree with your assesment of talking theory. I correctly classified your allegation as being such. In that sense, yes, I dismissed it.

You used the following as reasons to vote me:

[...]

It also doesn't add up why you'd think my behavior is scummy. Firstly, as BT already pointed out, theory talk is a null more often than not. Secondly, assuming that you actually do think I'm scum, I'd think you'd at least take the time reading my only other game. If you did so, you'd realize how flawed your reasoning is.

Repeatance of previously posed questions and made statements in conjunction with your claim that

I'm

responsible for the ongoing of this discussion appears scummy to me. The same goes for your insistence that talking theory is a scumtell in conjunction with (I assume) the fact that you did not read my only other game.

VOTE: Tierce

You used the fact that I did not meta you to see 'how wrong I am' as a justification to call me scum.

UNVOTE: ovyo
VOTE: buldermar

Let's see you eat rope.

Yes, I think the fact that you did not meta me skews your alignment towards scum, and even more so taking in conjunction with the other points I made. For the sake of clarification, I still think your alignment is skewed towards scum.

A few IC notes that I'd like to make at this point:

Obviously on day 1 the only confirmed town when you're town yourself

is

yourself. Hammering yourself (confirmed town lynch) is inferior to not hammering yourself (no lynch) in this setup.

This is actually statistically incorrect, as you can win without being alive. If you are the ONLY viable lynch with minutes to deadline and no one else is available to vote you, self-hammering may be a good practice to ensure the town has the information that yes, you ARE town. Flips are necessary to get better reads among the living players. Flips are important for scumhunting. That said, self-hammering is only a good idea in very extreme circumstances. We are not in such a situation. If we ever get to one while I'm alive, I'll wax as much theory as you want. Until then, I'm closing this line of discussion from my end.

I think this is low of you, Tierce. I say that out of the context of this game, I genuinely think this is abusing your role as an IC. One thing is your opinion of theory talk

within

the frame of the game, but to constantly be dissenting theory talk and then throw

this

from the position of an IC? And to make matters worse, you're immediately "closing this line of discussion"? Really? It can be proven mathematically that self-hammering is suboptimal in this setup for

anyones

alignment at the equilibrium state of the game, but you're effectively saying "I'm IC so I can state my opinion without it being classified as theory-talk

ingame

, but you can't answer me because

that would be ingame theory talk thus scummy

. On the other hand, if I don't answer, people will see this as weakness and perhaps conclude that you voting me must be on reasonable grounds. This means that you're effectively giving yourself an unfair advantage ingame by abusing your role as an IC.

I especially think the tone and message of Post 65 is uncalled for

I don't have any comfortable way of putting this: get used to it. Players in MS will not be kind when they are convinced you are scum or not pulling your weight. This is a community that is centered about people arguing with each other. I have a sweet and gentle side and I'm trying to contribute to an enjoyable experience for each of you, but I'm not here to coddle you: I'm here to teach you about some theory points and to show you what a typical MS game can be like. I don't resort to personal insults, but neither will I bow to your demands that I do something if I don't think it's beneficial to the town.
You need a tough skin to deal with some players here. It's not my intention to offend anyone. You're going to find players with big egos, players who are convinced their ridiculous views on theory are the One True Way of playing, players who are incredibly obvious scum even though they did not draw a scum PM. People will not easily bow to your demands if they are convinced it's detrimental to them or their faction; that's simply the nature of the community we are.
This message brought to you by someone who has had an amazing experience here so far. Don't expect coddling, don't expect kindness. People expect you to step up and pull your weight; accept this for what it is and don't be intimidated, it's just how we work.

I'm used to it, but I reserve my opinion. This applies to your current post as well where you're supposedly responding from the role of an IC. Stating "get used to it" is hardly conducive to a healthy learning environment. I'm not asking for everyone to be wonderful and kind to one another, nor am I asking for you to contribute to an enjoyable experience for each of us. As human beings, personal insults hurt whether they are within the context of a game or not. When someone asks you why you refrain from explaining a town read, stating "get over yourself" is just one of many ways to go about explaining it, and I thought that particular way of explaining it was uncalled for. I'm not saying that in the context of your role as IC btw. I think you got the wrong impression of what I called you out for.

[buldermar]

This is exactly how I thought you'd attempt to rationalize your ironic incongruity. You've not previously expressed your dislike of the ongoing discussion between Tierce and I, or your dislike of my way of playing. Out of nowhere, in a rabbit-out-of-the-hat sort of way, you compile a bunch of bullshit accusations and deliver them wrapped in fine words to (in my opinion) compensate for the fact that it's bullshit. And now you're asking me questions related specifically to the discussion, the ongoing of which was one of your main reasons for voting me? This is almost exactly what BT did in post 101. Yes, I think it's scummy to contribute to the ongoing of a discussion you pretend to want stopped, and I think it's incredible scummy to come out firering with red herrings the way you did without previously having requested anything or expressed anything related to the matter. I think you saw me as an easy target and took the opportunity to attempt to justify a vote.

UNVOTE:
VOTE: vendetta21

So I asked a simple question that was about steering the discourse you were having from where it was to where I wanted it to be. I redirected my aims towards a specific instance of your play and asked you to articulate. Rather than respond to that question, you are saying my accusations are bullshit. We can point fingers back and forth at stylistic points of play, and you can say that I'm pulling these accusations out of nowhere, but I still asked a simple question that you failed to address. This question intended to cut through the morass of literary analysis on our differing styles and get right down to the meat-and-bones of what I was addressing.

You acknowledge you have had an ongoing dialogue about hammering, what have you learned about players alignments through this dialogue? Do my specific feelings that self-hammering is a viable option if there are no others tell you something meaningful about me? This is not continuing to contribute to the discussion I see as pointless, it is asking you why the hell you thought the discussion was contributing in the first place.

If you were merely interested in answers, the majority of your post becomes extraneous. You're expecting me to simply accept your pile of bullshit (my opinion) and answer a question that, in its isolated form, is reasonable?

I'll get back to your questions later when I have the appropriate time - it took most of what I had available responding to the post of Tierce.

[ovyo]

Hi guys, got bogged down with coursework this week, I'll be back to comment later.

[Airick10]

I'm going to be on vacation starting today through this upcoming Monday. FYI

[buldermar]

You acknowledge you have had an ongoing dialogue about hammering, what have you learned about players alignments through this dialogue? Do my specific feelings that self-hammering is a viable option if there are no others tell you something meaningful about me? This is not continuing to contribute to the discussion I see as pointless, it is asking you why the hell you thought the discussion was contributing in the first place.

As explained in post 113, I think it skews your alignment towards scum. More generally, anyone holding that theory talk and actual scumhunting can't coexist without explicitly explaining why, and all other things equal, has their alignment skewed towards scum (this is a matter of opinion ofc). This is part of the reason that I think the ongoing dialogue about hammering skewed Tierce's alignment towards scum (she never gave me examples of what I supposedly should have, but didn't, comment on).

The fact that you prefer trusting your feelings about self-hammering over asking for an explanation as to why it is not a viable option tells me something meaningful about you. I don't think that you're interested in understanding the underlying mathematical paradigm of this game, for instance. I also don't trust that you'll take a logical approach later on, which means that you're in my opinion most inclined to base day 2 and day 3 votes on something external to actual voting pattherns.

More generally, I don't think much can be deduced

right now

from talk (and statistically, town does worse than chance on lynching scums on day 1, which means that trying to "figure out" alignment is on avarage inferior to tossing a coin). However, this doesn't mean I'm not interested in discussing reads, I just think that many of the reads expressed are way too extreme considering the very limited amount of information available (Tierce reading Paper as "obv town" is an example of a read I consider too extreme). I don't approve to this method of exaggeration, which is why I'm more hesitant of expressing definite reads myself. Theory talk gives me a good impression of what level of competence I can expect from the various players in the game. For instance, general consensus is that Paper is a new player (fwiw I agree with this). If he does some crazy gambit later on, that's going to look incredible scummy.

[buldermar]

Prod request on Delta and Paper.

[izakthegoomba]

PaperSpirit and Deltabacon have been prodded.

Votecount 1.04

vendetta21 (3) - BT, ovyo, buldermar
Tierce (2) - Deltabacon, RedRabbit
buldermar (2) - vendetta21, Tierce
ovyo (0) -

none

Airick10 (0) -

none

BT (0) -

none

PaperSpirit (0) -

none

Deltabacon (0) -

none

RedRabbit (0) -

none

No Lynch (1) - PaperSpirit

Not voting (1) - Airick10

With 9 alive, it takes 5 to lynch. Deadline: (expired on 2012-10-18 11:36:09)

[RedRabbit]

A few IC notes that I'd like to make at this point:

So to add pressure:

vote Tierce.

Pressure votes rarely work, and moreso when you deliberately call them pressure.

I beg to differ:

vendetta at least seemed to want to pressure PaperSpirit. A second vote on a townread doesn't mean that the player is scum, and I think Sylvant's seemingly random vote was worse because he ignored PaperSpirit's opinion on no-lynching and yet voted him anyway. In addition, your view on removing a vote because a slot has been replaced makes little sense. Your slot does not change alignment if you replace out, and while ovyo cannot explain Sylvant's actions, what makes me suspicious of ovyo continues being valid.

I got what I wanted.

UNVOTE: Tierce

[Deltabacon]

I'm still around, but have had a tonne of homework to plough through. I'll be able to post next late on Sunday, but unfortunately I have to go

V/LA

until then.

[vendetta21]

You acknowledge you have had an ongoing dialogue about hammering, what have you learned about players alignments through this dialogue? Do my specific feelings that self-hammering is a viable option if there are no others tell you something meaningful about me? This is not continuing to contribute to the discussion I see as pointless, it is asking you why the hell you thought the discussion was contributing in the first place.

As explained in post 113, I think it skews your alignment towards scum. More generally, anyone holding that theory talk and actual scumhunting can't coexist without explicitly explaining why, and all other things equal, has their alignment skewed towards scum (this is a matter of opinion ofc). This is part of the reason that I think the ongoing dialogue about hammering skewed Tierce's alignment towards scum (she never gave me examples of what I supposedly should have, but didn't, comment on).

The fact that you prefer trusting your feelings about self-hammering over asking for an explanation as to why it is not a viable option tells me something meaningful about you. I don't think that you're interested in understanding the underlying mathematical paradigm of this game, for instance. I also don't trust that you'll take a logical approach later on, which means that you're in my opinion most inclined to base day 2 and day 3 votes on something external to actual voting pattherns.

More generally, I don't think much can be deduced

right now

from talk (and statistically, town does worse than chance on lynching scums on day 1, which means that trying to "figure out" alignment is on avarage inferior to tossing a coin). However, this doesn't mean I'm not interested in discussing reads, I just think that many of the reads expressed are way too extreme considering the very limited amount of information available (Tierce reading Paper as "obv town" is an example of a read I consider too extreme). I don't approve to this method of exaggeration, which is why I'm more hesitant of expressing definite reads myself. Theory talk gives me a good impression of what level of competence I can expect from the various players in the game. For instance, general consensus is that Paper is a new player (fwiw I agree with this). If he does some crazy gambit later on, that's going to look incredible scummy.

This is riddled with dumb shit. You state a matter of opinion then call me out for holding an opinion that "doesn't understand the mathematical paradigm underlying the game." Well here you go Professor Smart-Ass: http://projecteuclid.org/DPubS/Reposito ... 1211819786

Even if a town does vote randomly they are at a 25% chance of hitting scum, given the day phases and the fact that we get information from lynches, voting randomly is a superior option to not voting because we gain information from votes. We can adjust in either direction that 25% chance by looking for indicators of wolfish behavior. Self-hammering is superior to no lynch because we glean information from the hammer that helps corroborate analysis of behaviors. We have multiple phases to hit wolves and we are not trying to get 50% chance (which would be ungodly good) but more like 33 to 40%, which is a slight improvement over the 25%ish that exists if players vote randomly.

I am getting into this discussion because you are saying you have gleaned something meaningful from a gut instinct read that is wrong based on this method of information gathering, and I believe it is important to remind people we are currently in the business of investigating.

[buldermar]

You acknowledge you have had an ongoing dialogue about hammering, what have you learned about players alignments through this dialogue? Do my specific feelings that self-hammering is a viable option if there are no others tell you something meaningful about me? This is not continuing to contribute to the discussion I see as pointless, it is asking you why the hell you thought the discussion was contributing in the first place.

As explained in post 113, I think it skews your alignment towards scum. More generally, anyone holding that theory talk and actual scumhunting can't coexist without explicitly explaining why, and all other things equal, has their alignment skewed towards scum (this is a matter of opinion ofc). This is part of the reason that I think the ongoing dialogue about hammering skewed Tierce's alignment towards scum (she never gave me examples of what I supposedly should have, but didn't, comment on).

The fact that you prefer trusting your feelings about self-hammering over asking for an explanation as to why it is not a viable option tells me something meaningful about you. I don't think that you're interested in understanding the underlying mathematical paradigm of this game, for instance. I also don't trust that you'll take a logical approach later on, which means that you're in my opinion most inclined to base day 2 and day 3 votes on something external to actual voting pattherns.

More generally, I don't think much can be deduced

right now

from talk (and statistically, town does worse than chance on lynching scums on day 1, which means that trying to "figure out" alignment is on avarage inferior to tossing a coin). However, this doesn't mean I'm not interested in discussing reads, I just think that many of the reads expressed are way too extreme considering the very limited amount of information available (Tierce reading Paper as "obv town" is an example of a read I consider too extreme). I don't approve to this method of exaggeration, which is why I'm more hesitant of expressing definite reads myself. Theory talk gives me a good impression of what level of competence I can expect from the various players in the game. For instance, general consensus is that Paper is a new player (fwiw I agree with this). If he does some crazy gambit later on, that's going to look incredible scummy.

This is riddled with dumb shit. You state a matter of opinion then call me out for holding an opinion that "doesn't understand the mathematical paradigm underlying the game." Well here you go Professor Smart-Ass: http://projecteuclid.org/DPubS/Reposito ... 1211819786

Even if a town does vote randomly they are at a 25% chance of hitting scum, given the day phases and the fact that we get information from lynches, voting randomly is a superior option to not voting because we gain information from votes. We can adjust in either direction that 25% chance by looking for indicators of wolfish behavior. Self-hammering is superior to no lynch because we glean information from the hammer that helps corroborate analysis of behaviors. We have multiple phases to hit wolves and we are not trying to get 50% chance (which would be ungodly good) but more like 33 to 40%, which is a slight improvement over the 25%ish that exists if players vote randomly.

I am getting into this discussion because you are saying you have gleaned something meaningful from a gut instinct read that is wrong based on this method of information gathering, and I believe it is important to remind people we are currently in the business of investigating.

Obviously voting randomly is superior to not voting. We

can

adjust in both directions, but statistically we are more inclined to adjust in the wrong direction on day 1. Self-hammering is not going to magically turn superior to no lynch by you repeating yourself. The situation of a self-hammer is vastly inferior to not self-hammering and simply voting a random person the following day. Only if you make up absurd non-equilibria scenarios such as the town

insisting

on lynching a non self-hammering person the following day will you be able to create a situation in which self-hammering is optimal, but that's all on the premise that town is going to play suboptimally (relative to equilibrium). As previously stated, theory talk should always be measured against an equilibrium scale in any game with incomplete information (such as Mafia). If you don't do this, you're arguing over a local (as opposed to a global) theoretical standpoint.

Also, the fact that you estimate an 8% to 15% edge on equilibrium reassures me of the fact that you're delusional with respect to game theory.

[buldermar]

Thank you for the link, I'll definitely read into that later.

[vendetta21]

Also, the fact that you estimate an 8% to 15% edge on equilibrium reassures me of the fact that you're delusional with respect to game theory.

I decided to check because you called me delusional, and it appears you are right on this one: http://forum.mafiascum.net/viewtopic.ph ... 2of4+stats.

Anyways, just look at the past two days of activity. I have gotten sucked into an argument with you because of it's implications, and that's a bad on my part I should have been focusing on what I was espousing. Really this sort of discussion is

driving people away

. It's hard to read (in both senses), and it doesn't engage in the sort of analysis that tells us anything. It also has a way of commanding center stage. I believe it's worth toning down and trying to do the sorts of things that generate more useful information. You made the claim that people will be encouraged to generate content regardless of whether or not you discuss what has been broadly termed "corner case theory." Do you still believe that to be true?

Furthermore, how do you explain your marked change in tone when I confronted you abrasively? You used your meta to defend your behavior before, but reciprocating my tone doesn't seem like it gels with the type of style you are trying to engage in. I got the sense that it was a nervous lashback because the way I confronted you hit a nerve.

I was also curious about how you voted to put me at L-1, but wanted to wait for a claim. This sort of behavior shows a reservation in the belief that I am scum (which would make sense if you already knew), which doesn't gel with putting me at L-1 when I've already got plenty of "pressure votes" on me and you weren't really generating any new arguments. If you're putting me at L-1 already, and you believe someone could hammer me, you must have a great deal of conviction about your decision amongst all other possible leads. Why would you jump back? It reads out to me as both hoping that I WOULD claim if I had a PR and covering your ass if I did die.

[buldermar]

I decided to check because you called me delusional, and it appears you are right on this one: viewtopic.php?f=5&t=22564&hilit=2of4+stats.

I'm thankful that you're looking things up (e.g. the study and these statistics) rather than insisting that I'm wrong.

Anyways, just look at the past two days of activity. I have gotten sucked into an argument with you because of it's implications, and that's a bad on my part I should have been focusing on what I was espousing.

I'll think you came out swinging, starting with post 102. I could have gone about it in different ways. For instance, I could have merely responded to the questions and ignored the accusations. However, when placing a vote I think it's most productive to write your reasoning along with it, which is why I decided to explain why I interpreted your "attack" (feel free to disagree with this term) on me the way I did.

Really this sort of discussion is driving people away. It's hard to read (in both senses), and it doesn't engage in the sort of analysis that tells us anything. It also has a way of commanding center stage. I believe it's worth toning down and trying to do the sorts of things that generate more useful information.

This is far from how you initially put it:

I think you might be scum simply because you are making it so playing this game is incredibly tedious and you are acting as though fully reading and following your arcane and obtuse posts is a litmus test for being town, which it isn't. I don't want to read your crap and I don't see what all your words have accomplished.

Would you agree that the intended message is the same, but phrased much more intelligently in post 144? I don't fully agree with the perspective, but since the level of activity has been low, I'll do my best to meet your request.

You made the claim that people will be encouraged to generate content regardless of whether or not you discuss what has been broadly termed "corner case theory." Do you still believe that to be true?

I think it should be, and I think people are playing suboptimally whenever they deviate from generating content for whatever reason (including an ongoing discussion of theory). If all town generate content, scum will be enforced to do so too or they will naturally give away their alignment. Especially later on, this become advantageous for town because the more content generated, the more constraints are present in the late game for what opinions and reasons can be formed (for this reason, you also want to try to avoid incongruities as town for such to be a reliable scum tell).

It always becomes a bit tricky when new players deviate from what I would call optimal play. For instance, if the posts of Paper were from Tierce I would interpret them as incredible scummy, but since Paper is a new player it's tricky to read into his low level of activity and seemingly suboptimal opinions (such as voting no lynch on day 1). Still, I think it's beneficial to request more content from him. He's not less likely to be scum because he's town.

Furthermore, how do you explain your marked change in tone when I confronted you abrasively? You used your meta to defend your behavior before, but reciprocating my tone doesn't seem like it gels with the type of style you are trying to engage in. I got the sense that it was a nervous lashback because the way I confronted you hit a nerve.

I think my meta was being ignored at a time where it shouldn't have been. I changed my tone because of the manner in which you presented your accusations. You're right that this isn't the type of style I am generally trying to engage in. I think it is more optimal not to throw mud, twist words and otherwise use sophisticated rhetorical techniques to win arguments that would have been lost when the winner is chosen based on factual content. I can see why you'd see my response as a nervous lashback. I can only try to assure you that it was deliberate and that I still think it was the optimal way of responding.

I was also curious about how you voted to put me at L-1, but wanted to wait for a claim. This sort of behavior shows a reservation in the belief that I am scum (which would make sense if you already knew), which doesn't gel with putting me at L-1 when I've already got plenty of "pressure votes" on me and you weren't really generating any new arguments. If you're putting me at L-1 already, and you believe someone could hammer me, you must have a great deal of conviction about your decision amongst all other possible leads. Why would you jump back? It reads out to me as both hoping that I WOULD claim if I had a PR and covering your ass if I did die.

It would be suboptimal to not ask for a claim since some roles can be confirmed. For instance, if you claim cop, I would not want to lynch you. Your night investigation can be confirmed/disconfirmed based on day action (e.g. if you investigate a person whose alignment you claim to be scum, we can lynch that person the following day. If that person indeed is scum, it means that you're almost guaranteed not to be (if you were scum it would be suboptimal to pick the only other scum as your supposed investigation target).

From a global vantage point, this means that I should ask for claim regardless of my own alignment. This is especially true because I am to be expected to know this based on previous theory talk in this game. This means that asking you to claim becomes a default play regardless of my alignment.

Also note that I do want you lynched assuming you claim one of the roles that can't be confirmed. I'm not sure if this answers your questions, because I didn't entirely follow your line of thought.

[BT]

After some consideration,

@Mod, I'll have to replace out.

No way I can properly play this with my upcoming schedule. Sorry, everyone.

[buldermar]

After some consideration,

@Mod, I'll have to replace out.

No way I can properly play this with my upcoming schedule. Sorry, everyone.

No worries and thank you for considering your options rather than delaying it unnecessarily.

[buldermar]

Prod request on ovyo, Tierce and Paper.

[Tierce]

No need for that. My vote is already in the right place, but will be posting tonight after errands.