Open 480 - C9++ Game Over!

[pieceofpecanpie]

And your point being...?

Multiple scum alive means...? (they pretty much do whatever they want and are flexible to any given situation?)

[pieceofpecanpie]

EBWOP: That was directed at Cheery Dog's previous post.

[pieceofpecanpie]

@HD

Sooo, you canned the post-by-post summary walls. That's fine. But I'd like to see a summary of your thoughts on everyone. Is that possible?

[Cheery Dog]

And your point being...?

Multiple scum alive means...? (they pretty much do whatever they want and are flexible to any given situation?)

That the theory that most major wagon have at least one scum but not all of them is just someone's idea of what should happen, or used to happen. The site's meta really doesn't support it currently.

Multiple scum as it more than 1 still alive in all the wagons I just copied from the completed games.

[pieceofpecanpie]

Why are your sentences hard to read?

But nevertheless, I understand what you're saying. And I disagree. I also disagree with HD's initial comment about scum on wagons.

Both are sweeping generalisations, unless you can actually show me how the site meta doesn't support scum being on or off wagons as they see fit then I much prefer to think of scum as perfectly adaptable and flexible in most situations.

I'd be inclined to call both equally useless things to say, since they aren't particularly insightful and especially when they're not being used to move the game forward for town. Perhaps if you applied your theory to yesterdays wagon and your scum reads then it'd actually be productive. I'm not quite sure what you think replacing one generalisation by HD with your own is achieving? If you think this is paving the way for you to switch your vote back onto HD then I don't like it one bit.

[Cheery Dog]

I'm not saying anything about how wagons are constructed, just that you can't use HD's theory.

I don't like wagon analyse until there's been a scum flip anyway.

[pieceofpecanpie]

...And who do you think will flip scum?

[SafetyDance]

I used Wagon Analysis without a scumflip and found the SK and a Maf in my first town game. \o/ SK won though /o\ I concur about your (CD) thought on HD's view though. Day 2 its rather pointless with a small sample size. Look at it to notice trends but I don't think you can use it effectively without anymore flips. Also helps to read the thread rather than just relying on the mod's iso.

Very annoyed about Ed's V/LA. I mean, if you're going to be away and you're the (equal) biggest wagon at the moment 2-3 days from deadline, as town why would you not give a final set of reads for the day (however brief/simple) or at least try and defend yourself against a potential lynch?

If it's "blatantly wrong" then you have a weird definition of "generally."

True, but it's an obvious example of you making it and not being confirmed-town. Plus it was on the front of my mind. Oh and I never linked that game before (I think?) which I thought I had, so at least people know where I'm coming from. 2 stones with one bird.

HD, NS claims to have read the thread and now thinks your town read is scum. Why aren't you even talking about him?

He's NS, I doubt he's reading the thread despite what he says

And that clears him?

[Cheery Dog]

I guess it's because I don't actually know what I'm looking for in a wagon, but I'm never confident in analysing wagons, a scumflip makes me slightly more confident in attempting to use it though.
I guess I could look since after the night I now know four people's alignments (this is myself, the dead townies and the confirmed mason for those who can't add up), but I agree that that's not enough to do it probably, especially when we don't even know how many scum are in this game. (at a guess from the setup, it's approximately 2/3rds chance of there being 3)

...And who do you think will flip scum?

My votes on Beli atm, that should be a hint to you.

and yes I also think HD might be scum, not convinced on anybody else at this stage.

[Zaicon]

Due to Spring Break next week, I'm going to have very limited access. I'll try to post every few days, but I can't guarantee anything.

I will, however, spend an hour or two today or early tomorrow dedicated to this game before I leave.

[implosion]

Both are sweeping generalisations, unless you can actually show me how the site meta doesn't support scum being on or off wagons as they see fit then I much prefer to think of scum as perfectly adaptable and flexible in most situations.

See, this is why i keep saying that you're misrepping people :\. Cheery Dog made it, I thought, very clear that he wasn't advocating for any wagon analysis method in particular, just that HD's was wrong. And when he corrected your misinterpretation in 730, you didn't kindly apologize for misrepresenting what he had said, you just went off on another tangent and made him look like he was in the wrong by asking him a question that sounds like it should have been answered a long time ago, when in fact it was.

I have used wagon analysis before, but i absolutely agree with popc that generalizations are useless. Wagon analysis needs to be tailored to the wagons and game in which it's being used. If you see a flipped scum, for instance, who you think is personality-wise likely to vote with their scumbuddies, you can use that to your advantage.

[Human Destroyer]

@HD

Sooo, you canned the post-by-post summary walls. That's fine. But I'd like to see a summary of your thoughts on everyone. Is that possible?

Unlikely. It's easier (for me at least) if I just post things as I'm asked about it and/or I deem them important to state immediately. I'm literally taking the opposite extreme to the walls now, so.

[Human Destroyer]

And that clears him?

No, I just don't try to get NS to do shit because it doesn't work. Lost cause etc etc

[Nobody Special]

Hmph.

[pieceofpecanpie]

@implosion

Oh no, not another telling off from the arbiter of making-sure-this-guy-doesn't-misrep-people. You're interpretation doesn't gel with me at all, so I would like to set the record straight.

Cheery Dog made it, I thought, very clear that he wasn't advocating for any wagon analysis method in particular, just that HD's was wrong.

I disagree, I certainly interpreted Cheery as forming the beginnings of his own wagon theories to contrast HD's generalisations. You see if he'd said the first bit, then yeah he's refuting HD's statement and not advocating any wagon analysis. But instead he follows it up with, what to me, reads like a broad statement with no backing and is perfectly open to wagon analysis (see how that's exactly the same as what HD did?) which I've put in bold.

That the theory that most major wagon have at least one scum but not all of them is just someone's idea of what should happen, or used to happen.

The site's meta really doesn't support it currently.

So on that note, how I consider the following

actually

took place...

And when he corrected your misinterpretation in 730, you didn't kindly apologize for misrepresenting what he had said, you just went off on another tangent and made him look like he was in the wrong by asking him a question that sounds like it should have been answered a long time ago, when in fact it was.

...is that Cheery didn't correct my misinterpretation at all. He just completely ignored a section of what he had said and what I had addressed with the following line of questioning.

Both are sweeping generalisations, unless you can actually show me how the site meta doesn't support scum being on or off wagons as they see fit then I much prefer to think of scum as perfectly adaptable and flexible in most situations.

I'd be inclined to call both equally useless things to say, since they aren't particularly insightful and especially when they're not being used to move the game forward for town. Perhaps if you applied your theory to yesterdays wagon and your scum reads then it'd actually be productive. I'm not quite sure what you think replacing one generalisation by HD with your own is achieving? If you think this is paving the way for you to switch your vote back onto HD then I don't like it one bit.

I don't feel that was thoroughly addressed by his #730 at all, it felt more swept aside since it didn't suit his purposes to add clarity or detail to the situation. So I was still left without any insight into what his current thoughts on HD were (ie. why was he being vaguely critical) and where they were going and who else he may be suspicious of. So I followed it up with a more simple and direct question. It wasn't a tangent, and it wasn't put there to look like Cheery should've addressed it ages ago and hadn't (oh and you'll have to clarify what you mean by "

when in fact it was

"), I wasn't using some sort of backdoor scum-tell technique, it was a straight-up direct question after a line of questioning hadn't been met with a satisfactory response.

I'm finding Cheery somewhat passive in his commitment to reads and wagons, and I'm doing my best to suss it out. He seems intent on not rocking the boat too much, just nudging it a little from time to time, which I'm picking up as a survival technique and one that has me questioning his alignment. And in doing so, I'm all about listening, reading and processing (as Safety would put it) and I don't count misrepping or making

infantile, asinine accusations

as part of my schtick or method.

Since you're nit-picking me so much, implosion, do you feel like sharing your thoughts on myself? And it'd also be nice to hear if there are alternative wagons that you consider viable.

[implosion]

I disagree, I certainly interpreted Cheery as forming the beginnings of his own wagon theories to contrast HD's generalisations. You see if he'd said the first bit, then yeah he's refuting HD's statement and not advocating any wagon analysis. But instead he follows it up with, what to me, reads like a broad statement with no backing and is perfectly open to wagon analysis (see how that's exactly the same as what HD did?) which I've put in bold.

The bolded quote was "The site's meta really doesn't support it currently."

...so you're interpreting "the site's meta doesn't support this" as "the site's meta does support other things." Right, right. That's about as legitimate as interpreting "we do not want to nuke china" as "we want to nuke every country other than china."

Saying "the site's meta does not support this currently" in

no way whatsoever

implies that current site meta supports any given wagon analysis theory, and to imply it does is an exercise in fantasy. In fact you *AGREED* that HD's theory was not supportable, which is the ONLY thing that the bolded sentence was saying. Please, explain to me how the bolded sentence in any way implies that cheery dog was advocating for using his own brand of wagon analysis.

...is that Cheery didn't correct my misinterpretation at all. He just completely ignored a section of what he had said and what I had addressed with the following line of questioning.

To make this ABSOLUTELY clear.

your 729 implies that you think CD is proposing his own wagon analysis theory.
I don't want to speak for him but i'm not speaking for him when i say

he's never said anything like that

and has in fact explicitly said that he is not proposing his own wagon analysis theory. That's what he said in 730. 730 replies to 729 in its entirety by explaining that it was a bad interpretation of what CD had previously said. Post 729 was, in fact, swept aside

because that was the appropriate response to you talking about something he never said

.

Since you're nit-picking me so much, implosion, do you feel like sharing your thoughts on myself? And it'd also be nice to hear if there are alternative wagons that you consider viable.

I still find you scummy, and i have serious problems believing that you have genuinely misinterpreted the number of things that i see you as having severely misinterpreted or misrepresented. At this point, I'm not sure whether or not i'm suspicious of you because of actual scumminess or just because you see things that were never said (i'm ambivalent on your alignment), but if a wagon formed on you i would not hesitate to jump on it.

I see NS as a possible alternative, in that enough people have expressed willingness to vote him (even if no one is) that a wagon could pop out of thin air. You'll note that i've actually already answered this to an extent as well, seeing as i listed people i'd be willing to lynch in 610. I haven't gained any significant scumreads since then. I would say at this point that Edosurist is the only person for whom i have some semblance of confidence in a scumflip.

[pieceofpecanpie]

Hmph.

Just replace out already.

It's pathetic having to actually describe the attributes of

lurking, unhelpful, vague, scummy etc. etc.

as your "meta".

It's not meta at all. It's called being lazy and half-arsed, and making it incredibly difficult for people who want to involve themselves and commit to a game to stay motivated.

The constant flow of excuses about how play will improve or some reads will come in a while or going off to think about something while everyone is left to supposedly tap their fingers for a week is grossly unfair. It shouldn't become a hindrance to scum cases, that we need to distract our attention with a discussion about your inevitable policy lynch. We shouldn't have to bet on a coin toss whether your flip will be beneficial or not for town, and comfort ourselves with the thought that it may be beneficial since it'll reveal nothing beyond that.

I say, let's do this. Before it continues to be the elephant in the room, we should lynch NS and regather to fight another day.

UNVOTE:

VOTE: Nobody Special

[pieceofpecanpie]

@implosion

Well, we'll never really know on the Cheery situation as you've more or less "cleared" it all up for him. I was wrong - as usual- and my opponent was inevitably right.

Your example is preposterous, as it is not only grossly slanted towards your side of the argument (naturally), but doesn't represent an equivalent of what was said or what element of the interpretation we're debating. If forced to use your example to illustrate my interpretation I'd say that the mood I'd picked up from Cheery regarding both his

"The site's meta really doesn't support it currently."

and his quoting of scum wagons from former games was that he was angling towards an alternative theory. In other words "we don't want to nuke China" becomes "we may want to nuke countries other than China".

If he says that's not what he did, then yeah sure, fair enough. But I don't have to take that at face value do I?

While you continue to hammer away at my continued terrible reign of fabricating and misrepresenting every word thus typed by another player you might want to think about what statements you're applying this critique towards. I can pull sentences like

"unless you can actually show me how"

,

"I'd be inclined to [..]"

,

"I'm not quite sure what you think [...]"

"If you think [...]"

, which certainly don't seem to represent someone who is talking in absolutes or putting words into other peoples mouths. It kind of actually sounds like someone is reading things, interpreting them in a particular way and asking questions about it. Perhaps for clarification and/or informative purposes. Or whatever... Could just be how I see it.

[Cheery Dog]

You do realise if I was going with wagon analyse, I'd actually have posted my thoughts on the wagons from this game, I haven't quoted any of them, so whatever my "new theory" was meant to be must be pretty good if I was using it.

The whole purpose of it is that HD is still looking for slips and generic scum behaviour rather than motivations.

[Apozzle]

Okay, NS. Is this really what you are doing now? I feel like you are not even trying to do

anything

anymore. You promised more today, but you were honestly providing more content during day one. I do not understand how you have grown worse.

[Belisarius]

At this point, I'm not sure whether or not i'm suspicious of you because of actual scumminess or just because you see things that were never said (i'm ambivalent on your alignment), but if a wagon formed on you i would not hesitate to jump on it.

What?

If someone's worth voting, they're worth voting regardless of whether there's a wagon already there or not. Why would a wagon suddenly make PPP look more scummy than whoever it is you're voting now?

Sidenote: My objection to lynching NS is withdrawn; looks like a vig isn't going to happen. I'd still rather ice Cheery at this point though.

[pieceofpecanpie]

You do realise if I was going with wagon analyse, I'd actually have posted my thoughts on the wagons from this game, I haven't quoted any of them, so whatever my "new theory" was meant to be must be pretty good if I was using it.

The whole purpose of it is that HD is still looking for slips and generic scum behaviour rather than motivations.

You do realise that I don't have the benefit of knowing your alignment, so am I to take everything you do as completely town-sided? Perhaps you merely want to keep suspicion on HD without explicitly being clear about it. Perhaps you want to limit the amount of analysis - wagon or otherwise - you provide and remain obscure by

"not [being] convinced on anybody else at this stage."

You do realise I have no idea what you actually will and will not do, or what you may

choose

to do or not to do.

But thanks for clearing that up. I'll read your purpose as literally as possible and make sure I stop doing whatever it is I'm doing with what you, or anyone else, says since there's something so intrinsically wrong about it.

[pieceofpecanpie]

With so many people V/LA, or just passive in general I think NS makes for the only satisfactory lynch for today.

With other potential lynch candidates I'd prefer a lot more commentary and discussion, but that's give or take with NS as I don't believe it'll result in alignment tells.

[SafetyDance]

Done.

Vote: Nobody Special

[SafetyDance]

I'd save them for our final mislynch (by my count, we have at least 2 more left)

. A cop could clear the lurker/doc could save/claim mason/vig, maf, or SK could NK them, get them our of the way for us. Killing them now when they could be clear town later would be pointless and only harm us.

I remembered this as coming out of the mouth of pie >.< No wonder I couldn't find it in his iso. So pretty much all this here:

Spoiler:

It is illogical to say, oh hey this person is acting scummy (because that's what this lurking is) but let's not lynch him, lets get those pushing his lynch. That doesn't make sense!!!! You're defending the elephant in the room and letting him get away with it! THAT.DOES.NOT.MAKE.SENSE. If he was an easy lynch then there wouldn't be this discussion on Day fucking two.

There is no reason to keep someone in the game who is being unhelpful, barely says a word, is clearly not himself scumhunting and is massively lurking. There is no logic for keeping him in the game until the last mislynch . That does not make sense. I would rather have someone like GM still in the game than NS, she talks and has opinions of her own. I would rather have YOU in the game than NS because posting and giving out reads, even bad ones, are IMPORTANT parts of the game.

Applies to you too.