Mafiascum.net

baby pancake tortoise.

Lynching

With 5 votes in play, it takes 3 to lynch.

Leucosticte

(1): Micc

Micc

(1): Leucosticte

Not Voting

(3): Farren, skitter30, Jamelia

Deadline:

(expired on 2019-09-17 21:45:00).

[/area]

In post 799, Micc wrote:

In post 797, skitter30 wrote:

In post 769, Micc wrote:It's like I'm being punished for not being online playing this game 24-7, which is stupid,

@micc i'm confused where you're getting this from

I reached the same conclusion about Leucosticte's vote in post 749 as Jamelia and you did. Jamelia happened to post about it first, then me, then eventually you but not until after I made this post. The situation resonated with me because the same logic being used to push a case against me could be applied to this too. Micc shares an opinion with someone else, but didn't post it first so he's being opportunistic/bandwagon/ect. In this instance I didn't post my opinion first because I was literally sleeping, and scum reading me for that is punishing me for not watching the game 24-7. That's really frustrating to me and my intent was to explain that feeling.

I feel like there's something very funky with the logic/conclusions you're drawing here, but i'm not sure how to articulate it

In post 801, skitter30 wrote:I feel like there's something very funky with the logic/conclusions you're drawing here, but i'm not sure how to articulate it

All right. I've seen two major arguments against Micc so far.

First revolves around Micc's progression on D1 - specifically, how Micc voted on D1, with his vote ending up on Norweiganboy - putting Norwegianboy at L-1, allowing Mr Oobsy to hammer him.

First: Leucosticte. RVS, no further comment needed.
Second: Chemist. Micc approves of Leucosticte's bad logic (while acknowledging that it's bad); says Leucosticte is "more likely to be town than someone like than chemist who hasn't expressed any reads or shown signs of trying to make reads." If Chemist hadn't flipped scum, I would find this mildly concerning; majorly so if Leucosticte had flipped scum in Chemist's place. As it stands, no issue here.
Third: Dyrenz. Two reasons given: per 100, Dyrenz appears to be concerned about optics; post 111 has Dyrenz stating a logical analysis that simply lays out the possibilities and doesn't reach any conclusions - making it look like a post for the sake of posting.

Pausing here. Looking at Chemist's posts up to now, Chemist hasn't expressed reads, but he has been asking questions. Those questions mostly center around people who voted for Chemist - with two points of note. First - Chemist also points out both of the Dyrenz posts that Micc references when Micc switches his vote. Second, Chemist does not ask any questions of Micc. Small minus here, but put an asterisk by it - anything based on what Chemist said and did could be WIFOM.

Additionally: in post 123, Micc points out: "chemist hasn't done a great job defending from the pressure being aimed at him for the L-2 RVS vote which catches eye because that's really not a hard stance to defend." Switching votes comes 35 minutes later.

Later, posts 422-424. I was initially thinking that 123 was inconsistent with 424, but on further reflection, I don't think so. "that's really not a hard stance to defend" implies that the case behind the stance is weak, which fits with 424.

I could say that Micc never followed up on the first half of 123, but the counterpoint here is that Micc started the wagon on Chemist D2.

Note - my availability today is lousy at best. Not going to declare V/LA, as it should be less than 24 hours of absence, but finishing this is going to take a while. Don't hold your breath.

Micc stays on Dyrenz until Dyrenz claims PR, at which point Micc unvotes, then votes for Leucosticte again, citing the votes for Chemist and Dyrenz.

Timeline here:

Post 303: Leucosticte votes for Chemist. Justification: partially Chemist's deflecting by asking questions, partially OMGUS.
Post 304: Leucosticte clarifies that maybe the questions are OK; it's more about Chemist suspecting him.
Post 310: Dyrenz posts his "Go ahead and mislynch me" post.
Post 311: Dyrenz claims Friendly Neighbor.
Post 312: Leucosticte switches vote to Dyrenz, citing post 310.
Post 326: Leucosticte addresses a post Dyrenz made after 311 - does not unvote.
Post 331: Micc votes Leucosticte, citing his votes for Chemist and Dyrenz.
Post 350: Leucosticte unvotes Dyrenz.

The vote for Chemist - I could kinda see the deflection logic. I don't know that it's logic I agree with, but I don't think it's inherently scummy or unreasonable, especially after Leucosticte walks it back. The OMGUS is a little more problematic.
The vote for Dyrenz - yeah, okay, P-edit is a thing. But I could give someone new to the site a pass on this - provided that the next post was either an unvote citing the claim, or alternately a counter-claim. Neither. Micc's vote is totally reasonable here, I think.

Last but not least: the switch to Norwegianboy.

Post 300: Micc says Norwegianboy is out of his lynch pool, no reason given.
Post 422: Micc calls for consolidation, endorsing a Leucosticte lynch, tolerating an Oobsy lynch, opposing Chemist.
Post 425: VC, with no votes between 422 and the count. Jamelia: 2, Leucosticte: 2, Oobsy 1, Chemist 1, Norwegian 1, Farren 1.
Post 475: Micc retracts post 300 - not sure why he said that; Norwegianboy's back in the pool.
Post 480: Micc clarifies that the D1 pool consists of people he wouldn't go out of his way to defend or work with - or people that he's willing to give space to.

From here on, the tide starts turning against Norwegian. skitter, Micc and I are all going after Norwegian in some sense or another.

I vote Norweigan in 505. Micc in 506. I announce L-1 in 507. Oobsy hammers at 508.

Still seems like a logical progression to me, both in terms of how Micc's votes changed over the course of D1 and how Micc's read on Norwegian changed over time.

I've placed my vote and am ready for the day to end. If those of you who aren't voting need more discussion, it's up to you to drive it.

micc have i ever played with u before ?
more specifically, town!you ?

ty for keeping your wiki up-to-date @micc; i need to do some research

I don't recall ever playing with you.

VOTE: Leucosticte

.

Everyone should know the drill by now, even if it's been botched twice.

In post 804, Farren wrote:P-edit

What's P-edit? (Didn't see it on the wiki)

In post 777, Farren wrote:That last line right there also shows attempt to claim credit from the flip.

It's such a non-issue, though. Anyway, whatever, you're just voting for me in an attempt to escape this death tunnel I've got you in, but it won't work.

In post 780, Micc wrote:It's scummy.

There's only one scum left. Why is he planning for there to be a tomorrow when he should be looking for the lynch that wins the game?

You hope for the best, and plan for the worst. I'm just saying, this death tunnel can accommodate two suspects if needed.

In post 784, skitter30 wrote:me, since that's a rather important factor in my read of you

Chemist was a suffering dog that needed to be put down. I happen to believe in euthanasia as an important civil liberty, and in this case, he seemed unable to make his own decision (as evidenced by his lethargy in response to questioning), so I had to decide for him. He was on life support, the veterinary bills were mounting, and it was time to pull the plug. To have done anything else would've been cruelly indifferent to the agony of a wounded beast.

In post 696, Farren wrote:While you're waiting for those, you can address post 624.

What is there to address? (1) There's a difference between a pressure vote, to get someone to talk, and other kinds of votes (like where you say, "I think he's guilty, so I'm ready to lynch whenever the rest of you are"). So if I vote for, say, Mr Oobsy to get him to talk, and then he talks, presumably I'll next switch my vote to someone else who's being quiet, or to whoever seems most sus. (2) Bad behavior is a matter of opinion/interpretation; some people think that anything that goes against their preferred meta is bad behavior. Okay, well, vote accordingly, if that's what you want to make your highest priority; that's what policy votes are for. Last game I was in, someone didn't like the meta people were going with, so he just said, "Lynch me, I want out" and after he got lynched, he turned out to be town; that's how far people take this stuff sometimes. (3) I regard you and Micc as equally sus, so it's pretty immaterial which of you I vote for; I don't see that as "having higher standards for others' RVS than my own".

At this point, it's just a mutual death tunnel where you and Micc regard me as sus over the Chemist vote and I regard the two of you as sus for giving it so much weight, and even for regarding it as a bad thing, so it's whatever.

In post 802, Farren wrote:Micc approves of Leucosticte's bad logic (while acknowledging that it's bad); says Leucosticte is "more likely to be town than someone like than chemist who hasn't expressed any reads or shown signs of trying to make reads." If Chemist hadn't flipped scum, I would find this mildly concerning; majorly so if Leucosticte had flipped scum in Chemist's place. As it stands, no issue here.

How do you know Micc isn't scumteam trying to bus Chemist for the sake of townpoints? Seems like in some situations, you read it that way, but not in others.

Anyway, are you talking about "bad" logic or bad logic? Because I don't think my logic in post #20 was ever refuted, really. It's the same issue with regard to what you mentioned, about how some people hold others' RVS votes to a higher standard than their own. Of course they will; town players will always hold others' behavior to a higher standard than their own because they know other people might not be town, but they know their own motives are pure.

OMGUS stands for "OMG you're sus" because if you're sus of me, then I'm sus of you. Why wouldn't I be, given the natural tendency of a townie to have a self-serving bias? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-serving_bias

In post 812, Leucosticte wrote:

In post 804, Farren wrote:P-edit

What's P-edit? (Didn't see it on the wiki)

Shorthand for preview edit. When someone posts while you’re writing a post the forum will notify you before your submission goes through. P-edit is a way to note that you tacked on to your original post after seeing another post in the preview.

Leucosticte wrote:OMGUS stands for "OMG you're sus" because if you're sus of me, then I'm sus of you. Why wouldn't I be, given the natural tendency of a townie to have a self-serving bias? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-serving_bias

That’s not quite right, or at least is a pretty decent shift from the definition used in this community. See OMGUS.

In post 812, Leucosticte wrote:

In post 804, Farren wrote:P-edit

What's P-edit? (Didn't see it on the wiki)

Micc did a better job of answering this than I could have. I'll just explain the context.

In a hypothetical world with no P-edit, it's entirely possible that while you're writing up a vote for Dyrenz based on logically suspicious behavior, Dyrenz makes his claim. You don't see the claim and vote for him anyway.

With P-edit, if Dyrenz claims while you're writing up your vote, you get a warning and get to see Dyrenz's post before your post goes through - and have the option of editing and/or deleting your post before it's submitted.

I was using the term "P-edit" to refer to that whole process - not sure if there's a better term to do so. "P-Edit" when attached to a post means that someone edited a post in progress due to additional posts coming through while they were writing it up.

It's not a thing where I come from either; I generally preview everything before I hit submit, or at least try to.

I’m going to hammer on Leuco in a few hours. If they or anyone else want to say anything before then go for it.

In post 813, Leucosticte wrote:It's such a non-issue, though. Anyway, whatever, you're just voting for me in an attempt to escape this death tunnel I've got you in, but it won't work.

Questionable motives are absolutely an issue. Evidence showing those motives are absolutely an issue. Scum lie about their motives because they have to. Town usually don't - except when there's a PR role involved, but we know that doesn't apply here. If you're lying about your motives, that is a strong indicator of scum. Trying to wave it off as unimportant rather than addressing the issue is also a strong indicator of scum.

I'm voting for you because I think you are scum. I think you are scum because you have engaged in scummy behavior over the course of the game.

And your death tunneling needs work. First rule: you should be voting for the person you're death tunneling. You're not even doing that. Death tunneling is irrational Town behavior, which scum try to imitate both for purposes of getting mislynches and to seem more townlike.

In post 814, Leucosticte wrote:You hope for the best, and plan for the worst. I'm just saying, this death tunnel can accommodate two suspects if needed.

Hope for the best and plan for the worst is understandable. Stating you're going to death-tunnel two people when there's only one scum left in the game is not, even within the bounds of the irrationality of death-tunneling.

In post 816, Leucosticte wrote:What is there to address? (1) There's a difference between a pressure vote, to get someone to talk, and other kinds of votes (like where you say, "I think he's guilty, so I'm ready to lynch whenever the rest of you are"). So if I vote for, say, Mr Oobsy to get him to talk, and then he talks, presumably I'll next switch my vote to someone else who's being quiet, or to whoever seems most sus. (2) Bad behavior is a matter of opinion/interpretation; some people think that anything that goes against their preferred meta is bad behavior. Okay, well, vote accordingly, if that's what you want to make your highest priority; that's what policy votes are for. Last game I was in, someone didn't like the meta people were going with, so he just said, "Lynch me, I want out" and after he got lynched, he turned out to be town; that's how far people take this stuff sometimes. (3) I regard you and Micc as equally sus, so it's pretty immaterial which of you I vote for; I don't see that as "having higher standards for others' RVS than my own".

At this point, it's just a mutual death tunnel where you and Micc regard me as sus over the Chemist vote and I regard the two of you as sus for giving it so much weight, and even for regarding it as a bad thing, so it's whatever.

Case 1 and Case 2: you engage in behavior that you yourself say is either scummy or vote-worthy. Case 2 is a bit of a stretch in that I'm equating "giving bad advice" with "justifying bad behavior", but those two concepts are close enough for me to be okay with it. This was based on your attempts to justify Mr Oobsy's hammer. If you want to argue that the case doesn't qualify because you genuinely think Mr Oobsy's hammer was pro-Town, feel free. It's going to be a hard point to argue, though, especially given the results - outed Tracker D2 with no useful information and a mislynch. If enough people believed in policy lynches, it could have resulted in a mislynched Tracker too. If you'd rather argue that "giving bad advice" and "justifying bad behavior" are not the same thing and shouldn't be treated as such, feel free.

Case 3: you advocate a particular type of behavior, but then don't abide by it yourself. You specifically say you'd rather have a BS explanation than no explanation at all, then turn around and don't give an explanation yourself for a vote. The only way this doesn't fit the description is if you are saying that RVS votes should be held to a higher standard than non-RVS votes, which is laughable.

A lot of reads are based on "I think scum do X; player A is doing X, therefore player A is scum." A better form of read is "player A says scum do X; player A is doing X, therefore player A is scum." Alternately, "player A says Town do Y; player A is not doing Y, therefore player A is not Town" works just as well.

My case against you is not based solely on the Chemist vote. Your attempts to portray it as such are further evidence against you.