Mini 1560 - Reck's Walk of Shame (GAME OVER)

[~Jordan`]

who is announcing your town reads supposed to help besides scum trying to shepherd a consensus-based mislynch?

[~Jordan`]

Natirasha -

Spoiler:

VOTE: Natirasha

The most curious of player lists.

I feel me and reck are kindred spirits stuck in mini normal modding hell.

Both of them.

This is simply the least synergistic playerlist I've seen in a long time. I mean, it's absurd when the only person I've played with before is Titus(btw Titus, I'm relying on you to have my back)! Well, no, I might have played with CDB sometime in the long-long past, I don't remember.

how do you know that the playerlist is not synergistic?
is it really so curious that there are games with people you don't know?
why did you post this?

As to the second comment, reck and I are in the similar situation of having been banned from moderating and reduced to zero experience, forced to run a mini normal.

why did you post this?

Speaking of trying too hard
VOTE: undo

Objectively worst vote of the game right now.

Objectively most useful post of the game right now.

Doc Holiday CDB Jordan undo all town 85%

still just totally useless

Freak -

Spoiler:

VOTE: undo

cause I'm lazy and he has a four letter name

Fine.

VOTE: Freak

Real-ish vote.

Why?

The lazy/four-letter comment felt like it was trying to hard.

Pareidolia

yeah it's not my best comment. I could have made a better one, but then again...

VOTE: Freak

Real-ish vote.

Why?

The lazy/four-letter comment felt like it was trying to hard.

I see.

and...?

yeah it's not my best comment. I could have made a better one, but then again...

Really? You acknowledged Aegor's argument? Now that's a bit suspicious.

and..?

yeah it's not my best comment. I could have made a better one, but then again...

Really? You acknowledged Aegor's argument? Now that's a bit suspicious.

now that's an interesting view. what's suspicious about aknowledging my comedy limits?

guys, this dude is trying to tell a joke.

unvote

yeah it's not my best comment. I could have made a better one, but then again...

Really? You acknowledged Aegor's argument? Now that's a bit suspicious.

now that's an interesting view. what's suspicious about aknowledging my comedy limits?

The way I see it: you random voted as is costumary in this stage of the game, presenting a silly - if entirely logical, in my opinion - reason for that (you were lazy and my name is only four letters). That's perfectly normal.

Then Aegor finds you're 'trying too hard' and votes you. But instead of shrugging and pointing out the obvious normality of your action, you actually acknowledged it was not your 'best comment', a comment that was supposed to be silly in the first place. In other words, instead of ignoring Aegor for trying to make a point on a seemingly contentless comment, you felt the need to recant.

Why would you do that, unless you were nervous and attempting to brush off the sudden attention you got (or could potentially get) because of Aegor's vote?

why would you say this without voting unless you were only pretending to think this is the first suspicious behavior of of the game

undo, how about this: I agree with him.

I was

trying too hard to come up with something to say. And I like to keep my one-liners to a higher standard, so any feedback is appreciated.

And even if I didn't appreciate the comment, I don't see why I should've ignored him as you suggest. He addressed me, and we're trying to build discussion here. Anything now is good discussion in my book (yes, even your wall).

pretty much the most town response possible here

CBD -

Spoiler:

Aegor, your first post did not contain a vote.

Your next post, an hour later, saw you vote for Slandaar (who hadn't yet posted).

The post after that, you made your first 'real-ish' vote.

What happened in between your first and second posts that made you want to vote? Why didn't you vote in your first post? Why, when you did vote, did you vote for Slandaar rather than anyone else?

Vote: Aegor

The hell? "Aegor, you didn't vote in the first post of the game, but you voted an hour later. VOTE AEGOR."

^goodposting

CDB is probTown

The hell??

you're really flippant with reads, huh?

Who? Neither of the reads posted since your last were flippant, they both pretty clearly stated their reasoning.

patently incorrect

you're really flippant with reads, huh?

Who? Neither of the reads posted since your last were flippant, they both pretty clearly stated their reasoning.

Oh, you're referring to me calling CDB probTown. That was more obvious than I thought.

CDB is putting clear effort into sorting the good from the bad, and right away spotted a cognitive dissonance that I missed. That is not how scum tend to think, their cases tend to be built slowly and carefully, because they have to think about it more.

Doc Holliday. Can you please explain to me what seems "effortful" about CDB's post. What is the cognitive dissonance located? Where do you get your theory of how scum tend to think?

- Doc Holliday

Spoiler:

I thought Jordan was kidding at first, or maybe newTown, but votehopping like that and feigning forced outrage? Newscum.

Out of RVS on page 2!

Unvote
Vote: Jordan

dat buzzwording
my decision to move from my RVS vote to the maker of the first suspicious post? Votehopping!
I'm not just feigning outrage or forcing outrage, I'm

feigning forced outrage

. Double whammy!
Of course, I wonder where I expressed any outrage beyond "justifying" my RVS vote, but hey.

Meant to add reasoning - 416 posts is too many to not have a clue what RVS is, but new enough not to have a solid handle on scum strategy. Going out on a limb, first scum game?

Why not: "This person

must

know what RVS is; I bet it's more likely that he's joking."

Nah, ridiculous. Certainly not worth thinking about but in passing and not critically.

Obviously not feigned.

That's really just too bad.

1.Natirasha is producing only a mockery of substantive content.

2. Freak's awkward behavior stems from his rather innocuously abnormal posting priorities.

3. undo is relatively scummy based on dissonance between
- the fact that he clearly endorsed the idea that Freak was the most suspicious player around, and
- the fact that he failed to ever vote for or build any suspicion on Freak despite this endorsement
- fact that it

took so long

for him to finally put into words any reasoned-out attitude about Freak
These imply that his professed interest in finding and lynching scum is disingenuous.

4. CDB's justification for voting Aegor, contrary to what has been said, is not just weak but wtf-how-can-something-be-this-weak

I think Doc Holliday's the scummiest person here and plan to push for his lynch for the rest of the day unless I change my mind.

- the narrative he's constructed around his vote for me suggests a clear pattern of opportunism;
==he isn't trying to find scum but instead

a case

- a way, any way, he can seem like a townie actively searching for scum
==this is evinced by
1) the shoddy reasoning behind his vote,
2) specifically how

self-aware

this shoddy-reasoning is, and
3) the profligate buzzwording he exercises to convey it

- his endorsement of CDB's Aegor vote was thoughtless and inattentive;
== I think that instances of these reflect a http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belief_bias - a tendency to judge the strength of arguments based on the plausibility of their conclusion rather than how strongly they support that conclusion

My theory is that in endorsing a case, players usually first read and appraise the post's logical strength, deciding that it is solid and convincing;
Town and scum are both inclined to mis-endorse (ie, endorse an evidently logically flawed post) a case if it concludes using an assertion they believe is true. Scum, however, know precisely who is town and scum (even while they pretend that they don't) and because of the Belief Bias, are more likely to endorse cases that confirm this knowledge, regardless of the quality of those cases. Holliday's endorsement of CDB's post is scummy.

vote Holliday

[ChannelDelibird]

Jordan, posting townreads as well as scumreads is useful because it gives people more opportunities to take concrete stances on each other, which is always a good thing. For me, the difference between scum townreading a buddy and scum simply 'not scumreading' a buddy is large enough that it should not be discouraged. Openness and readability are pro-town.

At this point, I have mild-to-reasonably-strong townreads on Doc, Jordan, Cooldog and Freak. I also like Aegor's response to me here as a contrast to his demeanour when I last saw him as scum, so I'll look elsewhere for the time being. I think his scumread on me is pretty silly, given our recent experience, but he'll get over that.

Unvote: Aegor

Vote: JKMatthews

[undo]

undo, how about this: I agree with him.

I was

trying too hard to come up with something to say. And I like to keep my one-liners to a higher standard, so any feedback is appreciated.

And even if I didn't appreciate the comment, I don't see why I should've ignored him as you suggest. He addressed me, and we're trying to build discussion here. Anything now is good discussion in my book (yes, even your wall).

Freak, does your strategy consist on weak argumentation and slight provocations?

We’re trying to build

serious

discussion. Building discussion on contentless, random comments isn’t useful.

VOTE: Doc

>50% chance scum.

Spoiler: Why I voted in my second post

Spoiler: Why Slandaar

CDB probably scum too.

Aegor, you said you had voted Freak because he was "trying too hard", and you claimed it to be a "real-ish" vote. What exactly did you mean by "trying too hard"? Was it really a serious vote, or were you still imbued with the spirit of random voting? Can you please elaborate on this preferrably without audiovisual aids?

Can you also provide actual reasons for voting Doc and thinking CDB is "probably scum"?

While we’re at it, can you please provide reasoning on your posts henceforth?

Won't have time for truly looking at all this until after the weekend, but Nat is town so far...

JKMatthews, the first post you make is to vote me with little to no reasoning. After 13 simple posts by other people (the longest one had four single lines of text), your second post is to say "Won't have time for truly looking at all this until after the weekend, but Nat is town so far..." ? It’s not like there’s a lot to look at. How exactly are you contributing to the discussion by saying "player X is town so far after a dozen posts, but I don’t really have time to elaborate on it"? Or, do you usually use this 'just-posting-to-tell-I'm-here-but-not-actually-contributing' strategy when playing as scum?

Also, may we hear your reasons for voting JKMatthews, ChannelDelibird?

Oh, and ~Jordan`, please keep those post-by-post comments to yourself. Your synthesis is interesting enough, but empty laconisms like "?" "and…?" "and…?" "The hell?" "The hell??" are not helpful.

[absta101]

Guys, don't be posting them god damned walls already.

^goodposting

CDB is probTown

This is bullshit. I don't see how CDBs post makes him town. Post #40 doesn't really help explain it.
---

VOTE: Doc

>50% chance scum.
CDB probably scum too.

Do you think Doc and CDB are scum together? Explain this.
Also, stop using percentages as if they mean anything.
---

Speaking of trying too hard
VOTE: undo

This is pretty bad but i'm going to go ahead and:
VOTE: Nat

[~Jordan`]

*throws hands up*

[absta101]

if you wasn't a town read you'd get PL'd for that wall.

[~Jordan`]

Oh, and ~Jordan`, please keep those post-by-post comments to yourself. Your synthesis is interesting enough, but empty laconisms like "?" "and…?" "and…?" "The hell?" "The hell??" are not helpful.

Maybe i wasn't clear about what these "empty laconisms" meant. When I read your posts, I get confused. I express this confusion so that maybe you'll clear it up later by answering my questions. For example, "why don't you vote for the people you find suspicious, undo?" "why are you avoiding taking any positions on anything, undo?"

[~Jordan`]

if you wasn't a town read you'd get PL'd for that wall.

absta
no one gets PL'd for walls

[~Jordan`]

why are you voting for Nat and not Doc or JK, absta

[ChannelDelibird]

if you wasn't a town read you'd get PL'd for that wall.

The whole point of a policy lynch is that you do it regardless of alignment. [/pedantry]

Absta, why are you voting Nat?

Undo, I voted for JKMatthews because, of those who had posted at the time, only he and Natirasha had not given me any particular townvibes yet. It's not very interesting, hence why I didn't say anything about it, but it's also better than unvoting without revoting.

[absta101]

Mainly because she isn't scumhunting and this shit right here.

Speaking of trying too hard
VOTE: undo

Objectively worst vote of the game right now.

Apparently she thinks a vote on herself is more useful than a vote on JK.

[absta101]

why are you voting for Nat and not Doc or JK, absta

Nat has had more chances to redeem herself with her posts than JK, yet she still hasn't come up with anything remotely close to scumhunting. Doc's read on CDB isn't as bad as Nat's play.

So more votes on Nat please. We need to speed lynch this shit.

[absta101]

@Nat - Obviously when you get back explain why you didn't vote in #32.

[absta101]

if you wasn't a town read you'd get PL'd for that wall.

The whole point of a policy lynch is that you do it regardless of alignment. [/pedantry]

I'm liking you less.

[ChannelDelibird]

Nat always self-votes for far longer (even more so than 'any time at all') than is sensible. I don't expect an interesting answer to #63.

PEDIT: That's fine. You're allowed to dislike me, unless you actually think pedantry is alignment-indicative.

[Natirasha]

@Nat - Obviously when you get back explain why you didn't vote in #32.

I vote when I find it convenient.

I already feel like its 2008 again.

[Freak]

Freak, does your strategy consist on weak argumentation and slight provocations?

Show me the weak argumentation. And what is wrong with the slight provocation anyway?

We’re trying to build serious discussion. Building discussion on contentless, random comments isn’t useful.

Then why are you doing it?



***



Natirasha, I don't get what you're saying here:

undo is typical oldbie going through culture shock.

Jordan too, but under emotional scrutiny comes up true. Less faithful in this read.

What has an oldbie to be culturally shocked about, and how it apples to undo and Jordan game?

[absta101]

@Nat - Obviously when you get back explain why you didn't vote in #32.

I vote when I find it convenient.

I already feel like its 2008 again.

Epic.

[Natirasha]

I exist to vex the logical, yes.

[absta101]

I don't even know what to say. You wanna vote Doc at least?

[absta101]

VOTE: Doc

[~Jordan`]

why are you voting for Nat and not Doc or JK, absta

Nat has had more chances to redeem herself with her posts than JK, yet she still hasn't come up with anything remotely close to scumhunting. Doc's read on CDB isn't as bad as Nat's play.

So more votes on Nat please. We need to speed lynch this shit.

why are you declaring this in this post and not sooner?

[Natirasha]

I don't even know what to say. You wanna vote Doc at least?

Nah.

VOTE: JKMatthews

[absta101]

@Jordan - My way is cooler and grabs more attention.
--

@Nat - I'm starting to like you.