Newbie 1289 - Game Over!

[buldermar]

Hello everyone! Let's get this show on the road.

So, a random vote for BT from Deltabacon? Hmm... I don't know about a random lynch. Going no lynch right now until we get more clues.

##VOTE: No Lynch

Just to clarify: If you have the option of either having a random person lynched or having no person lynched on day 1, and assuming no available information, the former is superior to the latter. However, I think the difference between not random voting and random voting in the early part of day 1 is negligible.

[buldermar]

In my opinion, voting no lynch in Day 1 would put you under the spotlight as doing that really isn't beneficial to the town. Thus, it's a scummy move. Vendetta acknowledges that and voted for you. I just want to chulk it up as a point brought up by a new player and nothing more. I think Vendetta is jumping the gun a bit.

You seem to insinuate that Vendettas vote wasn't random. Is this solely based on post 11?

[buldermar]

In my opinion, voting no lynch in Day 1 would put you under the spotlight as doing that really isn't beneficial to the town. Thus, it's a scummy move. Vendetta acknowledges that and voted for you. I just want to chulk it up as a point brought up by a new player and nothing more. I think Vendetta is jumping the gun a bit.

You seem to insinuate that Vendettas vote wasn't random. Is this solely based on post 11?

It wasn't random. And there is no jumping the gun when we have 3 weeks to move along -- we do RVS (Random Voting Stage) to try to find something and run with it.

This is an oxymoron (a non-random RVS).

[buldermar]

A final note about me, not directly related to the game: English is not my first language. I should be able to understand you just fine, but I want to write better. I would welcome notes/corrections on my spelling and grammar, either as they occur or at the end of the game. In the same manner, please try to be understanding if I ask you to clarify a sentence for me.

This goes for me as well.

Lynching a townie on D1 is better for the town than no lynching, because if nothing else, it already reduces the pool of scum suspects by one and we have better odds tomorrow. Make sense?

This is incorrect. Lynching a person at random on D1 is better for the town than no lynching, but lynching a confirmed town is worse than no lynching. If this was correct, there would also be a time for self-voting - namely a scenario where you're on L1 with limited time left of the day. I know that I'm putting my head on the block by correcting the IC, but I'm certain about this and therefore willing to put my credibility on the line. I'd also like to underline that I think this is simply a misconception as opposed to Tierce being intentionally misleading.

I have a concert tonight, will probably only be back tomorrow.

Enjoy the concert =)

[buldermar]

A confirmed town should never be the only possible lynch anyway. Or a possible lynch at all.

Logically, the game would be over if a confirmed town was the only possible lynch. Strictly speaking, a confirmed town

is

possible insofar you're one or both of a) a cop and b) talking about yourself. The former is because you

can

confirm town roles, in which case you could potentially lynch a confirmed town on L1. The latter is because you always know your own alignment, in which case you could potentially lynch yourself on L1 if you're town.

[buldermar]

buldermar, why so much corner case theory talk and no vote?

Your statement entails self-voting being optimal under certain circumstances. Since this is wrong for this setup, me neglecting pointing it out would lead to a net utility loss from the town perspective relative to if I do point it out. I sincerely disagree that pointing something out that would lead to a decreasement in the odds of town winning if omitted qualifies as corner case theory talk.

As for the lack of vote, that's a simple one: I'm convinced that I can obtain more information during this day and thus make a more qualified estimate of peoples alignment before voting. The difference between voting person A before voting person B who gets lynched

and

not voting person A before voting person B who gets lynched is negligible when voting person A is unreasoned (as is the case with random votes). In other words, I simply prefer to postpone voting until I have preferences regarding who to lynch (i.e. until I have some information to base my vote on).

You might object that the random votes themselves is a valid method to obtain such information, and that's in my opinion reasonable. However, I think that discussion without the random votes is an equally valid and viable method.

FWIW I'd like to be proven wrong as the general consensus seems to be that RVS is a necessity.

[buldermar]

It's not, but how do you think the game is going to start moving *without* random or otherwise premature votes? If everyone played like you suggested, we wouldn't have a game.

I don't think it takes 24 hours to respond to my #26. I'm not liking this lazy start.

I think people are encouraged to create content regardless. I disagree with the premise that playing like me means there wouldn't be a game.

[buldermar]

RVS is not a necessity; I prefer to do away with it ASAP and my ovyo is not random. However, you are implying that you have no viable reads yet. I find that hard to believe.

You are talking about extreme corner cases. I don't support a cop accepting the lynch of his confirmed innocents, for example, even to avoid a no-lynch. Self-hammering minutes before the deadline MAY be acceptable, but again, this is a very corner case and better approached if the situation ever rises up. It was quite obvious that I was not talking about those corner cases, and your focus on it instead of actual events in this game is off.

I have no issues with being corrected, and the fact that I have my own opinions in theory does not make them Absolute Truth, but your correction is reading as an avoidance of matters that actually have to do with the game to focus on a theory discussion that does not relate to the current events. That is scummy.

I'm unfamiliar with the expression/term ovyo. I'm merely implying that the extent of my current reads is insufficient to warrant a vote.

I am talking about the case you used as an example (that a confirmed town lynch is superior to no lynch). It was never quite obvious for me why you would make such (in my opinion outrageous) claim, which is part of the reason I corrected it. You were talking about the misconception that lynching a confirmed town is superior to lynching no town, and insofar you define this as a corner case you were by definition talking about such.

I disagree with your separation of this discussion from the game. For instance, based on your persona I could interpret it as deliberate misguidance of town (i.e. scummy behavior). The way I think, this discussion

is

an event in this game and

does

to some extent reflect alignment. Whether I can make proper use of it or not is a different matter.

I think you're misinterpreting my correction as an avoidance of matters that actually have to do with the game. To me, this is more relevant than anything else going on currently. If you think otherwise, I recommend you point out something I should comment on (and I shall do so).

A final note (and this is something I could definitely omit): truth in 2-valued statements cannot be depicted as a continuum. It can only have one of two values: true or false (the principle of bivalence). In other words, this is not a matter of opinion.

[buldermar]

I just realized that you were referring to your vote on Sylvant who is now replaced by ovyo - sorry.

[buldermar]

Absolutely it wasn't random. In my view, it's a tad pre-mature. He is making a simple point and voting.

Would you say that it is more reasonable of someone to make a random vote than make a vote based on a very limited amount of information?

[buldermar]

Tierce, what is your ovyo vote based on?

[buldermar]

You are discussing a theory point that you dismissed as a situation in which I wasn't intentionally leading anyone astray. If you can't use it for scumhunting (i.e. you're not finding scum motivation in doing so), what is the point in focusing on that instead of addressing the rest of the game?

The way I think, this discussion

is

an event in this game and

does

to some extent reflect alignment. Whether I can make proper use of it or not is a different matter.

There

are

plenty of things you could be addressing already or showing your opinion about, yet you haven't yet done anything that reveals interest in finding scum.

I think you're misinterpreting my correction as an avoidance of matters that actually have to do with the game. To me, this is more relevant than anything else going on currently. If you think otherwise, I recommend you point out something I should comment on (and I shall do so).

There is a difference between content and arguing for argument's sake, and my impression is that you are more interested in correcting people than in figuring out the intent behind their words and moving on. That makes little sense from a Town perspective.

What make little sense from a Town perspective is continuing a discussion by asking questions that has already been answered and repeating statements that has already been made. 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

[buldermar]

Would you say that it is more reasonable of someone to make a random vote than make a vote based on a very limited amount of information?

A random vote is just that. A random vote. Usually the purpose behind it can be a conversation starter to get the game rolling along. Many reasons exist for voting for somebody, but I personally don't take a random vote all that serious.

A random vote is by definition not based on information, else it wouldn't be random. Anyway, thanks for clarifying that you are not making this distinction.

[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.

I'm trying to understand why you would keep yourself apart from the game and assume content will be generated regardless with a low signal:noise ratio, and I'm not just going to drop it and let you continue to do so--when scumhunting a player, I need to understand why they're doing what you're doing.

Your claim that I keep myself apart from the game is an allegation. I've communicated with Airick10, PaperSpirit, Vendetta21 and BT. I've also responded to every question in my direction.

Your claim that I assume content will be generated regardless cannot be commented on because it relies on the premise of above allegation (that I keep myself apart from the game), which is false.

I don't think you're scumhunting me, because you're barely paying attention to what I'm writing (as shown in post 75).

In clipping our posts the way you have, you are giving an incorrect representation of the matters addressed--for example, your lack of proactivity was something I brought up in Post 58.

I was merely showing that you were repeating yourself, as if you wanted to have this discussion go on and blame it on me (which is scummy).

Theory talk, by itself, isn't scummy. Theory talk

to the detriment of addressing the present game

is

scummy, because you are willingly avoiding discussing this game.

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).

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.

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.

[/quote]
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.

I think Tierces townread on flawed and weird, but not scummy; I think PaperSpirit is a new player and I think his initial posts merely reflects this (i.e. null).

I think Airick10 is being a bit inconsistent. He seems to be advocating random votes to get conversations going, but in post 24 it appears that he considers a vote based on a limited amount of information pre-mature (which is odd when he advocates votes based on no information at all). I tried to dig a bit in post 56. Based on post 73 I concluded that the inconsistency is most likely a coincidence (or at least not deliberate).

Let me know if there is something else you'd like my comment on.

[buldermar]

Buldemar:

Took the thread off on a tangent re game theory by 'correcting' Tierce that lynching a confirmed town is not preferable to town on D1. Tierce, as far as I can tell, never made this claim. He seems to operate, both here and in his previous game , on a 'logic trumps all' platform, but this 'error' seems deliberate. I feel he is pushing a lynch based on unsound reasoning. One to watch for me.

In reference to that tangent, I also think Buldemar is wrong. A lynch is

always

preferable on day 1 even if the hammer vote comes from a confirmed town (i.e. self-voting).

My towndar is leaning towards Airick10, PaperSpirit and BT. The rest are in the nullzone.

Lynching a townie on D1 is better for the town than no lynching, because if nothing else, it already reduces the pool of scum suspects by one and we have better odds tomorrow. Make sense?

Could you elaborate on your "logic trumps all" interpretation and what this entails?

[buldermar]

Buldermar, what Tierce means by addressing the current game is talking about the current players (instead of general lynch talk, which you seemed to be doing for a while).

I think Airick10 is being a bit inconsistent. He seems to be advocating random votes to get conversations going, but in post 24 it appears that he considers a vote based on a limited amount of information pre-mature (which is odd when he advocates votes based on no information at all). I tried to dig a bit in post 56. Based on post 73 I concluded that the inconsistency is most likely a coincidence (or at least not deliberate)

Is Airick's inconsistency scummy? I don't understand what your aim was with this part.

Thanks for the sincere question! Initially I thought that Airick's inconsistency was scummy because he seemed to attempt to justify voting Vendetta on this basis. My aim was to allow him to attempt to justify his inconsistency further (which is something I thought he would be likely to do if it was a deliberate inconsistency). He seemed so unconcerned with the matter that I concluded it was unrelated to his read on Vendetta altogether. I know this may seem a bit backwards, I hope you can follow my thought process.

[buldermar]

I'd like to request a prod on PaperSpirit.

[buldermar]

So this tells you nothing about Airick? Why mention it in the first place?

I didn't say it tells me nothing about Airick, I said it is null with respect to his alignment. Why do you twist my words in this manner?

[buldermar]

Buldemar:

Took the thread off on a tangent re game theory by 'correcting' Tierce that lynching a confirmed town is not preferable to town on D1. Tierce, as far as I can tell, never made this claim. He seems to operate, both here and in his previous game , on a 'logic trumps all' platform, but this 'error' seems deliberate. I feel he is pushing a lynch based on unsound reasoning. One to watch for me.

In reference to that tangent, I also think Buldemar is wrong. A lynch is

always

preferable on day 1 even if the hammer vote comes from a confirmed town (i.e. self-voting).

My towndar is leaning towards Airick10, PaperSpirit and BT. The rest are in the nullzone.

Lynching a townie on D1 is better for the town than no lynching, because if nothing else, it already reduces the pool of scum suspects by one and we have better odds tomorrow. Make sense?

Could you elaborate on your "logic trumps all" interpretation and what this entails?

That you prefer using reason and logic above 'gut feeling'. Logically.

This is just the way I'm reading you as a player.

The quotes above show that Tierce never mentioned lynching a confirmed townie would benefit town, but that is what you later accused her of.

This is where your discussion starts:

This is incorrect. Lynching a person at random on D1 is better for the town than no lynching, but lynching a

confirmed

town is worse than no lynching. If this was correct, there would also be a time for self-voting - namely a scenario where you're on L1 with limited time left of the day.

She made no reference to this, but you pulled her on it anyway.

Then you said this:

I am talking about the case you used as an example (that a confirmed town lynch is superior to no lynch).

It was never quite obvious for me why you would make such (in my opinion outrageous) claim, which is part of the reason I corrected it. You were talking about the misconception that lynching a confirmed town is superior to lynching no town, and insofar you define this as a corner case you were by definition talking about such.

Could you quote me where she says this before you pulled her on it, because I can't find it? She clarified her position in post #40 but you still thought it was worth voting for her after that.

I've read your last game, and from what I'm reading in this one, you do seem to like taking a logical and deliberate approach to playing the game. The best way I can put it is that, to me, you seem to have a very methodical outlook. That you missed where she didn't use the word "confirmed" when saying it's better to lynch D1 is a little off on my initial reading of you.

I don't think logic and gut feeling can be compared in this manner.

Lynching a townie relies on the premise that someone is confirmed townie, else you'd be lynching a player whose alignment is unknown, which is a entirely different matter. Furthermore, if this

is

a misunderstanding on my behalf, I'm left wondering why she never simply pointed this out.

If anything she confirms it in post 40, claiming that self-hammering minutes before deadline may be acceptable.

I'm voting her for different reasons that I have already pointed out.

[buldermar]

So this tells you nothing about Airick? Why mention it in the first place?

I didn't say it tells me nothing about Airick, I said it is null with respect to his alignment. Why do you twist my words in this manner?

Null with respect to his alignment is exactly what I meant by "it tells you nothing". I'm not twisting your words because you never said it - rather, I'm stating a fact. No one was arguing that it

wasn't

null, so there was no need to point it out. Why did you point it out?

As a general note, 72hr prods suck. 4 posts and 1 votecount in 24 hours.

Yes, you're obviously twisting my words because it tells me something despite being a null with respect to alignment. For instance, it affects how I estimate his alignment based on his future actions. Generally speaking, any sort of profile/information about the players has the potential to become advantageous at a later point despite currently being null. I pointed it out for these reasons.

[buldermar]

<snipped>
Lynching a townie relies on the premise that someone is confirmed townie, else you'd be lynching a player whose alignment is unknown, which is a entirely different matter. Furthermore, if this

is

a misunderstanding on my behalf, I'm left wondering why she never simply pointed this out.

If anything she confirms it in post 40, claiming that self-hammering minutes before deadline may be acceptable.

I'm voting her for different reasons that I have already pointed out.

Well that's the way I read it. That a

confirmed

townie can only exist when that townie flips town. Trying to lynch day one is preferable to hit scum, but if you hit town that is also preferable to not lynching at all. The difference between a townie and a confirmed townie can't exist before the lynch, in my view, except if it is yourself that is self-lynching and even that is preferable to a no lynch. My read on you would have lead me to believe you'd spot that. That you didn't seem to have as much to do with my read of you as it has to do with your actions.

As I've pointed out earlier and as Deltabacon has, sort of, alluded to in the post above this, I'd like a bit more info re the Sylvant vote by Tierce. So to add pressure:

vote Tierce.

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.

[buldermar]

@Airick10: Why do you think that Sylvant voted me was odd, when yourself said that voting no lynch in day 1 would put you under the spotlight, aka odd? Besides, voting on someone just adds some pressure and creates a conversation

As I've stated, your no-lynch proposal is a scummy move and it is easy for others to immediately vote you on that alone. It is justifiable at the time. I did not look at that as scummy, rather than you just being a new player putting a proposal on the table. That is why I asked how many games you've played. I find it odd how Sylvant's vote, which I'm pretty sure was random, just happened to be on you after your no-lynch proposal. Vendetta's vote was not random.

If you think he is a new player and that's why he made a no-lynch proposal (null-read), why would it be odd of any one random player to think alike and randomly pick him among the pool of people to vote?

[buldermar]

Yes, you're obviously twisting my words because it tells me something despite being a null with respect to alignment. For instance, it affects how I estimate his alignment based on his future actions. Generally speaking, any sort of profile/information about the players has the potential to become advantageous at a later point despite currently being null. I pointed it out for these reasons.

Fair enough. "Twisting words" is an antagonizing word choice, though.

"to restate someone's words inaccurately" http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/twist+words. How is this antagonizing? To me this is exactly what you did.

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.

No, when it's either your lynch or No Lynch, you DO want to allow the hammer (self-hammer if you must) because your presence will keep town off track. Can we please

please

drop this theory convo now? It is literally derailing at this point.

You've got to be kidding me.

[buldermar]

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.

Yes, you're obviously twisting my words because it tells me something despite being a null with respect to alignment. For instance, it affects how I estimate his alignment based on his future actions. Generally speaking, any sort of profile/information about the players has the potential to become advantageous at a later point despite currently being null. I pointed it out for these reasons.

You are getting so caught up in little details of logic that are unimportant. You are arguing about whether or not

a thing both of you take the effort to define

is twisting words. Coming to a resolution on a matter like this shouldn't take a back and forth of more than 2 posts unless you are trying to catch BT in a scum-logic-trap, which you don't appear to be. 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.

I do not believe you can write off Tierce for being on your case about this simply because you have played in a game previous to this with a similar meta. I don't care about your meta, I don't care about whether hammering yourself is inferior to not hammering yourself because

we aren't in that situation

. You are making this game difficult to play, which is in turn making it harder for the town to win, and the bulk of your posts appear to be this silly logic bullshit where you feel the need to get into the nuanced semiotics of "twisting words." And above all this is a

newbie

game, a game that by definition has new players.

I think your sesquipedalian posts are probably a smokescreen. But mostly, I feel like you are focusing on inane topics that have almost nothing to do with the hunt.

VOTE: Buldermar

Here is a writing tip: you want to be careful about ironic incongruities. As you may not yet have noticed, the word "sesquipedalian" is self-descriptive, i.e., it is sesquipedalian. Much of the same can be said for "obtuse", a word the majority probably don't understand. So it is somewhat absurd, isn't it, to pose as a champion of "common language" while explicitly deploring "sesquipedalian posts" and "arcane and obtuse posts [that] is a litmus test for being town"? That's a bit like deploring obesity between commercials for soap opera while eating chocolate bonbons as your exercise videos gather dust atop your television.

[buldermar]

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.

Yes, you're obviously twisting my words because it tells me something despite being a null with respect to alignment. For instance, it affects how I estimate his alignment based on his future actions. Generally speaking, any sort of profile/information about the players has the potential to become advantageous at a later point despite currently being null. I pointed it out for these reasons.

You are getting so caught up in little details of logic that are unimportant. You are arguing about whether or not

a thing both of you take the effort to define

is twisting words. Coming to a resolution on a matter like this shouldn't take a back and forth of more than 2 posts unless you are trying to catch BT in a scum-logic-trap, which you don't appear to be. 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.

I do not believe you can write off Tierce for being on your case about this simply because you have played in a game previous to this with a similar meta. I don't care about your meta, I don't care about whether hammering yourself is inferior to not hammering yourself because

we aren't in that situation

. You are making this game difficult to play, which is in turn making it harder for the town to win, and the bulk of your posts appear to be this silly logic bullshit where you feel the need to get into the nuanced semiotics of "twisting words." And above all this is a

newbie

game, a game that by definition has new players.

I think your sesquipedalian posts are probably a smokescreen. But mostly, I feel like you are focusing on inane topics that have almost nothing to do with the hunt.

VOTE: Buldermar

Here is a writing tip: you want to be careful about ironic incongruities. As you may not yet have noticed, the word "sesquipedalian" is self-descriptive, i.e., it is sesquipedalian. Much of the same can be said for "obtuse", a word the majority probably don't understand. So it is somewhat absurd, isn't it, to pose as a champion of "common language" while explicitly deploring "sesquipedalian posts" and "arcane and obtuse posts [that] is a litmus test for being town"? That's a bit like deploring obesity between commercials for soap opera while eating chocolate bonbons as your exercise videos gather dust atop your television.

I was making a display to show that it isn't hard to shit out a thesaurus, to make your posts more complicated than they need to be. My supposed hypocrisy here is not for the major content of my posts, but instead is about word choice. Why is this scummy? You continue to focus on inane topics, completely ignoring the fact that it's what I called you out for. That post isn't a call from the champion of common language, it's a post written and directed intimately towards you.

So let's draw back to the original example: what does a person's opinion on self-hammering tell you about their alignment? I agree with Tierce and RedRabbit on this issue. What does knowing this information about me tell you that you feel the need to discuss it in more than ten posts?

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

[buldermar]

This game needs so much more activity. If no-one contributes, then scum can safely hide amongst the lurkers, which sucks because then we're scuppered.

Basically guys, start posting.

I don't know that this is of any help, but I think your case against Tierce avoidance of explaining her read on PaperSpirit is reasonable. I especially think the tone and message of post 65 is uncalled for, and suboptimal from a theoretical perspective (I'm not going to elaborate on the last part for reasons that should be obvious). If there is anything you want my opinion on, let me know.

[buldermar]

Oh, and vendetta21 is L1, so ask for claim before voting.

[buldermar]

Fair enough. "Twisting words" is an antagonizing word choice, though.

"to restate someone's words inaccurately" http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/twist+words. How is this antagonizing? To me this is exactly what you did.

This is twisting your words:

buldermar said that it tells him nothing

This is not:

it tells buldermar nothing

It happens that what I did was the

latter

, not the former, so I was stating MY opinion, not twisting YOUR words. Any questions?

No, when it's either your lynch or No Lynch, you DO want to allow the hammer (self-hammer if you must) because your presence will keep town off track. Can we please

please

drop this theory convo now? It is literally derailing at this point.

You've got to be kidding me.

If you No Lynch, chances are you will STILL be a likely lynch target tomorrow and the result is that the former day pretty much didn't happen at all. So, no, I kid you not.

So this tells you nothing about Airick? Why mention it in the first place?

This is

restating my words inaccurately

. The accurate way of restating my words would be "so this tells you nothing about the alignment of Airick". In the distinction you made, both are cases of twisting my words, assuming that the latter is not presented as a subjective point of view (which you did not).

I said you've got to be kidding me because you asked me to drop this theory convo and in the very same sentence continued it yourself. And now you progress it

despite

the fact that i met your request of stopping it? Seriously, fuck off. Either let me explain why self-hammering is always suboptimal in this setup or stfu.

[buldermar]

No one is going to hammer.

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

[buldermar]

You're making no sense to me. I'm not just saying that - I genuinely don't understand your sentences. It might be a culture thing, will you try rephrasing your intended message?

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[buldermar]

Natural_river replaces BT.

Paper never responded to your prod and it has now been over 3 days since his last post. I also requested a prod on ovyo after 48 hours of inactivity. Would it be unreasonable of me to ask for Paper to get replaced? I'm not familiar with the general consensus regarding inactivity.

[buldermar]

Okay, I have taken some hours to read these posts, now this is a LOT of information and fingerpointing.
The names that pop in my head after reading all these posts, (some of them so long my mind busts, with words that the devil himself couldn't understand)
are buldermar, tierce and vendetta21.

I've tried to get a clear image in my head of who is who, but to me it seems like a bunch of bickering that started somewhere with correcting each other about gameplay.
I'm afraid the real mafia is lurking in the shadows.

For some reason ovyo seems most suspicious to me.
Ever since the focus has been directed at buldermar, ovyo stayed perfectly silent and is conveniently "bogged down with coursework".
Now I am not saying that buldermar is not mafia or so, but I'm only seeing two names, whilst the rest kind of silently follows every now and then joining and agreeing/disagreeing
with what those two have to say.

Maybe the real mafia lurks in the dark crevasse, and is waiting to pop out unexpectedly like diarrhea in an old lady's bowels who has had constipation problems for weeks and had just ingested large amounts of laxative.

Sorry for the disturbing image, but I found such an image appropriate for mafia scum.

to contribute I will UNVOTE: (if BT has voted at least)
and put my vote to VOTE: ovyo until I have been convinced that my vote has been placed incorrectly.

Would I be correct in interpreting this as a policy vote or am I missing something?

[buldermar]

Would I be correct in interpreting this as a policy vote or am I missing something?

I don't know what a "policy vote" is, please explain.

It is a vote based on a policy. For instance, a policy could be "vote the lurkers/inactive players" and a policy vote would thus be a vote placed on a lurker/inactive player solely due to this. I'm basically asking if you're voting him exclusively due to his lack of activity and/or timing of activity.

[buldermar]

Could you elaborate on your reasons for voting ovyo? What is it that you find suspicious?

[buldermar]

I'd like to request a prod on Airick10.

I'm aware that I'm being the bad guy asking for prods all the time, but I'm dissapointed with the level of activity in this game and would rather see replacements now than later.

[buldermar]

@Natural_river

Yes, he's being very unclear, but that isn't too strange if he actually

is

new. The way he constructs his sentences reminds me of dialogues from bad movies. I think he may simply be a new player who doesn't know the terminology, wants to be a part of the game and thus tries to state reads like they do on them movies. It becomes tricky with new players because you can't expect them to think in a certain way about the game or have a specific approach to it.

ovyo, could you comment on some of this?

[buldermar]

Are we all going to wait till the game unfolds itself?
Mafia will win that way, this is wasting time....
Anyone have any thoughts on my vote on ovyo?
What do you guys think?
Have any other suspicions? why?
please post...

I follow your reasoning for voting ovyo, but I don't agree with it. I'm most suspicious of vendetta21 for reasons already pointed out.

What is it specifically you want me to do? I'm not waiting for the game to unfold itself, but in order to generate useful content people must engage in conversations.

Tierce, will you consider replacing out? I request this not because of your role as the IC (although I think that too would be sufficient reason), but because you're being active in other games while deliberately neglecting this. If you were temporarily preoccupied with something else I'd look at it differently, but this seems like a more permanent issue. Initially I wanted to refrain from making this request because you're currently voting me and it could look as if that is my motive, but with the current level of activity in this game, some of the inactive players simply has to be replaced, and I'd much rather have it done now than on a later day. If you will not replace out, at least consider prioritizing this game equally to other games.

[buldermar]

So far, reading half the posts, Buldermar, what's with you & you're unnecessary long words in every sentence? you're very anoying to me to be honest just reading only half the posts. doesin't make you look any smarter, just so you know. You're acting soo suspicious to everyone here, acting all as if you have something to hide. That's what it looks like to me. No offence though.
I must agree more with Natual_river here, indeed, Ovyo seems more likey to be mafia. but I'm not gonna vote for now. I stil have to read the other half of all you guys posts.
And then I'll explain my thoughts throughout this "Investigation" XD haha

Could you examplify my supposed use of unnecessary long words? I'm sure we can agree that it's not the case for every sentence, so I'll leave out that part.

It is fortunate that it doesn't make me look any smarter; I wouldn't want that to happen.

[buldermar]

Tierce, will you consider replacing out? I request this not because of your role as the IC (although I think that too would be sufficient reason), but because you're being active in other games while deliberately neglecting this. If you were temporarily preoccupied with something else I'd look at it differently, but this seems like a more permanent issue.

Initially I wanted to refrain from making this request because you're currently voting me and it could look as if that is my motive

, but with the current level of activity in this game, some of the inactive players simply has to be replaced, and I'd much rather have it done now than on a later day. If you will not replace out, at least consider prioritizing this game equally to other games.

In response to the quote in bold - Yes, absolutely it does.

In response to this whole quote, I find it incredibly scummy (and very OMGUS) to ask an active player who has posted more then half the players in this game to consider flat out leaving.

Is Tierce just not playing the game you want to play? Are you intimidated by Tierce? Much of this game theory talk has been initiated and continued by you. It adds nothing to the game outside of distracting us with posts that we don't care about. Why have you not voted Tierce? Do you find vendetta scummier? I count 8 posts by vendetta and 18 posts by Tierce. Why are you not asking vendetta to leave the game?

Vote: buldermar

I'd much rather have someone else make the request, but I seem to be the only one prodding and actively trying to get the level of activity increased (at least recently), so I found that unlikely to happen.

I think I can see why you'd find it incredibly scummy, but there is a difference between the inactivity of, for instance, you, and her. While you notified the rest of us that you'd be on vacation, she continually promised to post content

and

continually did not do so (her most recent message is the 3rd promise of doing so). Add to that the fact that she has been active in other games, and you'll perhaps be able to understand my frustration. I also didn't expect her to meet the request and actually replace out, but I thought that requesting it for (in my opinion) legitime reasons would encourage her to get more active.

I'm not sure what you insinuate with asking if Tierce is just not playing the game I want to play. I'd be happy to have the "active version of Tierce" in the game, and I think I can learn much from being in a game with her. I'm not intimidated by her - did you get that impression from somewhere else, or solely from the post you quoted?

I understand that you're frustrated about the theory talk. I still disagree with your assessment that it adds nothing to the game, but I'll try to refrain from continuing it out of respect for the opinions of others.

I did initially vote Tierce, but found Vendetta's sudden attack on me scummy for reasons I've already stated.

The last time Tierce produced a post with actual content (I'm convinced that she'll agree with this) was Oct 04. In comparison, Vendetta produced a post with content 3 times since (and including) that date. I wasn't as concerned with the absolute values of post amounts as you seem to be.

Actually, that request isn't scummy at all. He is asking me to increase my activity level--how on earth does that read like scum to you, when a town IC that isn't pulling their full weight is one of the best gifts scum could hope for?

UNVOTE: buldermar

I have to reconsider things tonight, but rest assured, buldermar, I have full intentions of posting before bed (whenever that is >.>). I understand you're frustrated, but I'm not going to replace out, as I am capable and will be picking up my activity level with actual content.

Thank you for your understanding.

[buldermar]

I actually asked you for reads. I can be explicit and list the names of all players, but I wouldn't think that is necessary when I don't expect you to have reads on absolutely everyone. You claim not to avoid answering questions, but what you're doing is obtrusive all the same, buldermar--you're sticking to the letter of the law. Please don't do that. Pro-activeness is protown, as I'm sure you're aware, and having to cajole specific things out of certain players defeats a lot of the purpose in asking open-ended questions.

I already answered the open-ended question when I said I've commented on everything I found relevant to comment on.

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.

That is certainly not what I'm doing. My job as an IC means that I will not lie about theory. However, when discussing it gets to a level of pointlessness, it's no longer about a theory point that is

relevant to the present context of the game

; it becomes a discussion fit for the Mafia Discussion forum. I have already given my IC input on the matter and, as a player, continuing that line of discussion is not beneficial for the town. So: my IC job is done, and my player job is not to continue it from my end; I can't keep you from talking about it, but I can choose not to respond (which is what I meant from "my end" in the post in question). There is no advantage-taking anywhere and I feel somewhat insulted that you would think so. Heck, if you think I am abusing my position, PM izak and/or singersigner, but I will not continuing debating a theory point that I see as irrelevant in the present game state.

Whether deliberate or not, I stand by my claim that what you did gave you an unfair advantage for the reasons I've already specified. I think you could easily see why if you'd trust that I'm being sincere instead of feeling insulted. I don't think either of the people you suggested that I contact will take a neutral stance in this debate, as they're likely people with whom you have previously communicated. Besides, I was merely hoping to have you see why what you did gave you an unfair advantage. I'm not going to pursue this any futher.

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.

I already explained, multiple times IIRC, why I would rather not explain that townread. It gets to a point in which the only thing I can do is shrug and say "tough luck, you're not going to get it from me". I know the concept of towntells is something important in the context of the game, and I am not hiding the reasoning behind this one to spite you nor to show you that people sometimes hide the reasons for their reads (which they do), as I will explain it post-game. I'm hiding that reasoning because, as I have said, revealing it at this stage is not, in my opinion, beneficial for town and I, like many other players you will find in MS, will not be easily intimidated into taking an action that I consider unhelpful for town (i.e. reveal the reasoning for my townread on PaperSpirit).

I was arguing about your tone, not the fact that you did not want to explain the read. You don't have to explain why it can be best sometimes to hide the reasons for a read, as I am already aware of this. If you want to explain why you'd tell other players "get used to it" or "get over yourself" rather than what you just told me, I'm all ears.

This game needs so much more activity. If no-one contributes, then scum can safely hide amongst the lurkers, which sucks because then we're scuppered.

Basically guys, start posting.

"People need to post!

*crickets*

Really, people need to post!"

Compare to buldermar and Natural_river, who are actually trying to generate content even as they cajole others to post. This is grandstanding scum trying to look like he's doing something to improve the activity, when in truth he did nothing with that post.

VOTE: Deltabacon

Hi scum.

Is this to be understood as a level of certainty similar to that previously expressed in your townread of Paper?

[buldermar]

So far, reading half the posts, Buldermar, what's with you & you're unnecessary long words in every sentence? you're very anoying to me to be honest just reading only half the posts. doesin't make you look any smarter, just so you know. You're acting soo suspicious to everyone here, acting all as if you have something to hide. That's what it looks like to me. No offence though.
I must agree more with Natual_river here, indeed, Ovyo seems more likey to be mafia. but I'm not gonna vote for now. I stil have to read the other half of all you guys posts.
And then I'll explain my thoughts throughout this "Investigation" XD haha

Could you examplify my supposed use of unnecessary long words? I'm sure we can agree that it's not the case for every sentence, so I'll leave out that part.

It is fortunate that it doesn't make me look any smarter; I wouldn't want that to happen.

Okay,
To start with, pardon my future horrible spelling & such, I'm horribley deslexic. so don't bother trying to correct me. You'll only waste you're time doing so.
damn, so far I'v red all of you're posts to try to keep up with you guys. it's nothing but just pinpointing.

@Buldemar, yea, there's nothing wrong useing long words & I know it was not you're intention of trying to sound smarter or anything. Just sometimes i really couldin't follow you where you where gettin at. Like what Tierce said a while back, you're just making Loud noise or dance was it? you know what I mean, but like no results. But whatever.

@Tierce, I must say I like you more & more every time you post. just had to say that. I don't find you suspiscious so far, but you are indeed a very exspierianced player, who knows, you are very good in this game. so i'm keeping my eye's on you

@RedRabbit, you seem like a pretty cool dude, you know what you're talking about every post you make, yet latey there's been too less of yours, eventhough you did warned us of that due to you're work. just saying would be handy if you also wer more involved here. could use you're help

Okay, enough sucking up here!

Yea, there's alot of pinpointing here & there. but between buldemar & vendetta21 earlier, you both must remember that this is just a game, not to get too personal here with each other, don't pull that shit torwards me man. I'm not up for that, just saying, I'm not in to get all personal & such with each other, let's keep this fun & interesting for everyone

I first thought Ovyo might be mafia, but the looks of it, it seem so that she is just new to this game but also very insecure with voting. Mabe the whole playing innocent & such could be a trick to us. but still not as suspisous as Deltabacon.
Why I think he might be mafia, cuz in the beginning he did introduced himself suspisous in a way how he said he is going to kick all of our asses on mafia, seemed too excited, not like a townie who would think of working together sayin "let's do this!" or something eles simulair instead. but i don't know & the rest is just gutt feeling, but ugh, too much to explain. so far i'm just gonna vote for Deltabacon. just so he will post more.

VOTE: Deltabacon

ps. i'm i voting right?

I don't have any issues understanding what you're saying.

Please keep in mind that many of my posts were from before you replaced into this game. I will try to speak in a more simple language to allow for better communication of what I have to say from now on.

Do you have a nickname? fish-riding-a-bike-2000 is tedious to write.

[buldermar]

By the way, yes, fish-riding-a-bike-2000, you are voting correctly.

[buldermar]

Buldermar, this huge wall of text has got to stop man, when you wish to quote somebody, cut off all the other text you don't need.
So, only keep the sentences you're replying to.
This is something I noticed a lot when checking out other games, I notice that mafia members often post HUGE quote walls man, it's to distract the reader,
and it'll make you miss vital information.

Pro-town is to make sure information is easily read.
Please stop making this game harder than it already is.

While you generally speaking might be right, I think there is merit to including the conversation in its entirety here. It would be much more difficult for people who just placed in to understand what I'm commenting on if I did not include the initial posts of Tierce and I.

[buldermar]

FWIW I don't have anything in addition to what has already been noted regarding Delta, and I want to postpone asking questions until the slot becomes active or is replaced.

[buldermar]

@ Buldemar: Is your vote now on vendetta purely because he challenged you re theory and the tone he used? That's what I'm getting from it. I don't see why you shifted your vote from Tierce. If I challenge you should I expect a vote for my troubles?

This contains the most significant reasons:

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.

Yes, you're obviously twisting my words because it tells me something despite being a null with respect to alignment. For instance, it affects how I estimate his alignment based on his future actions. Generally speaking, any sort of profile/information about the players has the potential to become advantageous at a later point despite currently being null. I pointed it out for these reasons.

You are getting so caught up in little details of logic that are unimportant. You are arguing about whether or not

a thing both of you take the effort to define

is twisting words. Coming to a resolution on a matter like this shouldn't take a back and forth of more than 2 posts unless you are trying to catch BT in a scum-logic-trap, which you don't appear to be. 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.

I do not believe you can write off Tierce for being on your case about this simply because you have played in a game previous to this with a similar meta. I don't care about your meta, I don't care about whether hammering yourself is inferior to not hammering yourself because

we aren't in that situation

. You are making this game difficult to play, which is in turn making it harder for the town to win, and the bulk of your posts appear to be this silly logic bullshit where you feel the need to get into the nuanced semiotics of "twisting words." And above all this is a

newbie

game, a game that by definition has new players.

I think your sesquipedalian posts are probably a smokescreen. But mostly, I feel like you are focusing on inane topics that have almost nothing to do with the hunt.

VOTE: Buldermar

Here is a writing tip: you want to be careful about ironic incongruities. As you may not yet have noticed, the word "sesquipedalian" is self-descriptive, i.e., it is sesquipedalian. Much of the same can be said for "obtuse", a word the majority probably don't understand. So it is somewhat absurd, isn't it, to pose as a champion of "common language" while explicitly deploring "sesquipedalian posts" and "arcane and obtuse posts [that] is a litmus test for being town"? That's a bit like deploring obesity between commercials for soap opera while eating chocolate bonbons as your exercise videos gather dust atop your television.

I was making a display to show that it isn't hard to shit out a thesaurus, to make your posts more complicated than they need to be. My supposed hypocrisy here is not for the major content of my posts, but instead is about word choice. Why is this scummy? You continue to focus on inane topics, completely ignoring the fact that it's what I called you out for. That post isn't a call from the champion of common language, it's a post written and directed intimately towards you.

So let's draw back to the original example: what does a person's opinion on self-hammering tell you about their alignment? I agree with Tierce and RedRabbit on this issue. What does knowing this information about me tell you that you feel the need to discuss it in more than ten posts?

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

If it is still unclear just let me know and I'll try to rephrase.

[buldermar]

Hey,Natural_river--quick post.

Please don't mention other ongoing games.

This is a forum rule and you can be hewed out for it--and rightfully so, as while some references can be harmless enough, drawing a line as to what can influence other games is a very subjective matter.

Oopsee, didn't think this would be against the rules...
But will not do anymore

And Buldermar... for F's sake.
We're not trying to build the great wall of China.

The graphical presentation of quotes allows for the reader to quickly identify them as being such and adjust accordingly by skipping them if desired. In other words, the great wall of China merely takes one scrolling to overcome. Why is it an issue for you?

[buldermar]

Consider the case of the informed minority. Tierce knew that Paperspirit's slot was town, because she's scum. How, in any other way, could she know he was 'obvtown'? You have to ask yourself if you're following the right person, ladies and gentlemen, because Tierce's unwillingness to co-operate with such a menial and unharmful issue shows that she clearly did not deduce Paper's 'obvtowniness' from tells, otherwise as an IC she surely would have put forward methods to help people learn. No, I surmise that Tierce is scum, who slipped in letting it loose that Paper was (from her informed viewpoint) town.

I've considered this, and it's a legit point. In a game that just finished (I'm allowed to talk about finished games, right?), one of the winning scum players insisted on a read in a similar way. I don't have any reason to believe that Tierce wouldn't be capable of doing this. There also is the possiblity that she actually does have a townread and is withholding it. However, the only way to rule out the first option is to have her reveal what it is and I'd much rather have that happen than blindly trusting it's sincere. I'd still rather lynch Vendetta, but I can settle for Tierce (at least on the premise that the townread in question remains a secret).

[buldermar]

@Buldemar: I won't quote it all again as I might upset N_R , but thanks for the quote. I still feel it's a bit of a petty vote but I can see how you came to go with it. It looks like a lot of effort just to get there. He called you on your style and voted, you continued to use that style, he called you on it again, you ignored the question and voted him. Amirite?

You're not entirely wrong, but I think you're missing some of the crucial points. When he first made an inquiry, it was in a harsh tone, using an abundance of uncommon words despite deploring my use thereof (this is the ironic incongruity part). When I pointed this out, he blamed me for not ignoring incongruities made by him, for not responding to the small part of his post that wasn't mud throwing and asked questions specifically related to the discussion the ongoing of which he deplored.

[buldermar]

I think I'm actually starting to see how Tierce came up with the "obvtown" on Paper/Fish.

The way I'm seeing it is: If Paper was newb and town and didn't really know how to play the game then it is more likely than not that he would have voted no lynch/waited to vote. It's a rookie mistake when playing this format.
If Paper was newb and scum and didn't really know how to play the game he would have voted randomly just to try and get a lynch of a townie or would have been instructed by his scum buddy to do so (i.e. not vote no lynch).

That he wasn't informed by someone else leads me to think that he was on his own, therefore town.

I don't think scum partners are allowed conversation until night 1, but I'm not entirely sure. Tierce, can you confirm/disconfirm?

[buldermar]

(Also, don't expect scum to 'slip' in such way. It doesn't really happen unless we're talking about a really really really bad scum player.)

FWIW you could do it intentionally as scum too - it wouldn't have to be a slip.

Buldermar, I wish for you to take an example of tierce's latest post.

Ok.

Very handy to read, she cut out the pieces she was replying to.

Yes, but if you actually read the posts I was quoting you'd know that there was no optimal pieces to cut out in this fashion.

I think quotes are very handy, use quotes, but is it so hard to cut out pieces?

No, but it is not always adequate to do.

I don't know what you're replying to if you have a huge wall,
I don't even want to know cause it's way too much work to read on entire conversation of 6 posts, just to see what you're saying next.

If I'm not cutting out anything, it either means that I think the difference between cutting out something or cutting out nothing is negligible, or that I nothing can be cut out without skewing the content that I'm replying to. You don't have to read the entire conversation of 6 posts every time, you can read it once and afterwards simply read the latest response.

Just a simple request.

I'm not going to change my posting style unless I see a good reason to, and I don't consider either of your reasons thus far good. Sorry, but repeatance and persistence will not work.

I seriously can't understand how any information might be harmful for town.

Here is an example (it may not be the most optimal example though). Suppose her read was triggered by a little mistake that most people wouldn't think about, like phrasing something in a certain way. If she discloses this, other people that she would otherwise get a good read on could adjust accordingly and either stop unintentionally doing the mistake, or start intentionally doing it. If she instead waits, she has the potential to make more such read on other players, or even getting an even better read on the player in question.

[buldermar]

What I keep wondering about is why is this townread more important in several players' minds than the others I have given since.

I just want to make it perfectly clear that I am not in support of the current level of attention your read on Papers slot is getting. You not stating your reason does not definitely skew your alignment in either direction, and it is of no use without reason, because you're not a confirmed role. In short, the optimal thing to do is to ignore it until you're a candidate for being lynched, in which case the reasons could influence whether or not to lynch you (and, as such, can be expected to be given by you).

[buldermar]

All you have caused is chaos, I guess in a way it starts discussion, but I don't think you're getting the right guy.
Buldermar hasn't contributed much either, not much reasons why he thinks who is who, just lots of theory talk...

These are two strange accusations to make at this point.

Tierce has not been contributing to the ongoing of the discussion after initially stating that she wasn't going to reveal the read. In fact, she's several times made it clear that she'd prefer it stopped. You, on the other hand,

did

contribute to its ongoing:

Tierce, you mentioning that you had information about town that might be harmful for town is something I wouldn't recommend doing again, it only causes confusion.
I seriously can't understand how any information might be harmful for town.
I also can't understand your "obvtown" read, what else can make you so certain someone is town, other than going against the rules of the game?

What does this accomplish?

It seems you feel the right to vote and call obvtown without further explanation calling it necessary for town that we don't know.

What about this?

I clearly stated

several times

that I have a scumread on vendetta. I've informed that I am fine with lynching Tierce on the premise that she does not reveal her read once she's at L1 and in danger of being lynched. I have a townread on Airick, despite his most recent read on me being misguided. He has not been opportunistic the way some others in this thread has, and he has thoroughly explained each of his votes.

I didn't have much of a read on your slot, but recently you've been acting in a suspicious way. You've tried to blame Tierce for your own vote on Delta:

No.
UNVOTE: Deltabacon

Tierce, you give me the heebiddygeebies.

And I'm starting to get my doubts about Deltabacon,
I don't know how you managed to get everyone to face Deltabacon, but you did.

And you've been preoccupied with seemingly unimportant things, such as my way of quoting (this in isolation might be a null, but in conjunction with the other things it becomes suspicious to me).

[buldermar]

In short, the optimal thing to do is to ignore it until you're a candidate for being lynched, in which case the reasons could influence whether or not to lynch you (and, as such, can be expected to be given by you).

I should add to this that the same applies if Papers slot is about to be lynched.

[buldermar]

I knew it...
oh, I have this feeling about you buldermar... and it keeps growing.
You can't handle any pressure, at all.
Whenever any attention is focused your way, you get freaked.
I purposely talked about your quoting style, for one, it IS annoying, even the new guy noticed this first thing he joined.
And for second, I needed something to link to you being mafia.
To see how you would react.
Your reaction to a potential threat is attack.
You haven't fully attacked me yet, but you're building it up.
You want to vote people you don't like, not people you suspect.

Look at the points I've made. What about them is inaccurate? Why are you not answering

any

of my questions? There is nothing in your post to defend myself against (if there is, tell me what).

You changed your quoting style, and then your suspicions face N_R because of the quoting talk?

Go check my other games. It should be fairly obvious that I did not change my quoting style.

Hey buldermar--you should be voting Deltabacon. We can get his buddy tomorrow. I'm a huge not-a-fan of how Natural_river jumped off Deltabacon to make a larger wagon on you just now, and how he's trying to paint a personality quirk/posting style as something bad, so cooperate with me now and we can get two birds with

one stone

two nooses.

I'm going to do just this.

UNVOTE:
VOTE: Deltabacon

[buldermar]

I know this is a rather uncommon request to make, but is there a way to verify that MrJamesWatson and Natural_river are not the same person? They share much with respect to posting style and are both new players. Please think about it before you interpret this as panic on my part.

[buldermar]

Thank you, Tierce.

[buldermar]

I'm sorry that I havn't been on after the game resumed. I'm going to bed now, but I'll catch up tomorrow.

UNVOTE:
Need to catch up before voting.

[buldermar]

Some crucial points has been omitted regarding the impact of the recent replacements in this game.

Sorry for the wait, guys - we're having to replace several players for reasons I cannot go into currently. I'll get the thread open again ASAP.

Cheery Dog will be replacing Natural_river
JasonWazza will be replacing fish-riding-a-bike-2000
Leonshade will be replacing MrJamesWatson

(speaking to the players) I understand this decision of not revealing the reasons for each of these replacements, as this information will influence the relative distribution of alignments in this game. However, that does not mean we shouldn't talk about it.

Starting with the obvious,

MrJamesWatson and Natural_river were alias used by the same person

. I think we can all agree on this, but if you can't, tell me, and I'll show why this with a high amount of certainty is the case.
fish-riding-a-bike-2000 replaced out, either forcefully or voluntarily. From reading his posts, I initially found it unlikely that he'd take his time asking the mod to get replaced out. He seemed young and he was a new player. However, seaching for his name I found some useful information. On Sat Oct 06 he wrote "/in for the next game" in "Topic: Mini Normal List (Players & Moderators)". On Mon Oct 08 he wrote "/i'm out" in the same topic. He wrote his first post in this game on Tue Oct 09, suggesting that he wanted to be removed from the game queue because he had just been placed in this game. Most importantly, on Sun Oct 14 he wrote "/in for the next game" in "Topic: Newbie Game Queue (Players and Mods)", suggesting that he has not been banned from the site.

From this I conclude that he had nothing to do with the MrJamesWatson and Natural_river incident!

This is important because it does not challenge this point. However, I still think "obvtown" is stretching it, but I don't have your history of games to base it on.

MrJamesWatson never wrote a message after Thu Oct 11, suggesting that he was banned.
Natural_river never wrote a message after Fri Oct 12, suggesting that he was banned.

Given the opportunistic nature of how they voted me, I'm inclined to think at least one of them is scum (i.e. one or both of Cheery Dog and Leonshade is scum).

So. We're lynching Deltabacon, and if he flips scum, tomorrow we're going for one of Cheery Dog/Leonshade. Should

that

one flip town, we lynch the other. Sorry for that, replacement folks--it's not your fault at all, but it's pretty evident that one of you is scum and it's not JasonWazza.

Let's make this as painless as possible. This is pretty much assured a town win, so we should get that out of the way and on to other games.

Tierce, I know you're feel certain about Delta flipping scum, as do I, but do you have a plan too if he flips town? Why do you advocate lynching him before either of Cheery Dog and Leonshade?

I like to look for scum one by one. I do not like to group them together, because scum typically won't like to be seen tied to each other. It's too obvious. If buldermar is lynched, you are correct in saying at least one of those who votes buldermar is indeed scum (majority vote).

Which is why I don't think Natural_river/Cheery Dog and MrJamesWatson/Leonshade are

both

scum. But jumping off Deltabacon's wagon and trying to push buldermar's wagon makes perfect sense if one is paired with Deltabacon and the player did not want to bus on D1.
Relationship tells on D1 are hard to analyze, and you should very rarely use them to judge a lynch's full worth. However, don't shy away from noting them down (not necessarily in the thread), because what feels like town/town, scum/town and scum/scum interactions on D1 may become important for analyzing the game later once there are flips and known alignments.

I agree with this, but I'm also convinced that one or both of Cheery Dog and Leonshade is scum. Why can you not see MrJamesWatson and Natural_river do as they did without Delta being scum? I can see them switch target like they did even if Delta is town, but maybe I'm giving them too much credit.

To conclude: I currently tend to agree that Delta is the best lynch today, but I don't see an advantage in not debating the consequences of a town-flip a bit more first, so I'm going to postpone voting for now.

[buldermar]

That was the kind of post I was trying to avoid. It's not your fault, and no one (mod included) will blame you for posting it, as you are only using information that is freely available to you. However, I would really not like this discussion to take place during the game since it affects the experience you should be getting. I am open to discuss it with everyone post-game (and I believe we will be informed of what happened to some measure or another), but during the game it becomes somewhat of a distraction. This is not how games are meant to go, and I am so sorry for all of you, for izak and for singersigner. People breaking the rules is never fun, and I'd hate to be in Cheery Dog/Leonshade's position because I know how that feels--in one of izak's previous games, a player broke the rules and pretty much outed me as scum. Anyway, that's for later.

I'm aware that you wanted to avoid this - you neatly omitted pointing to the fact that the rule breaking affects alignments. Neglecting taking into account information obtained this way in my eyes boils down to not playing to ones win condition and instead attempt to imitate a "normal" game (to the extent that this isn't one, or what you refer to as "the experience you should be getting"), because the information

does

influence alignments. I don't see how that's conducive to a healthy game experience relative to simply "face facts" and adjusting accordingly, nor do I see how it becomes somewhat of a distraction aside from what you define as "how the game should have been".

I too am sorry about what happened and how this affects the experience of this game, but I'd rather face the elephant in the room now and then play it out with this information taken into consideration. A part of me was hoping that the game would simply be cancelled, because it's never going to resemble methodology of a conventional game anyway, but now that it has not, the appropriate action to take in my opinion is to simply continue playing to ones win condition, which means taking into account information that affects alignments.

Tierce, I know that you don't share my opinion on this matter, but I'm not going to deviate from playing to my win condition for the sake of artificially tweaking the game experience so it resembles that of a conventional game. I'm sorry that we disagree, but I don't think you'll easily be able to change my mind, so please save yourself the trouble of trying to (feel free to blame me, though).

I find it very unlikely that Natural_river would jump off from a L-2 wagon to build a L-1 wagon on you (buldermar) if Deltabacon was town, because he could have created a L-1 wagon on Deltabacon with only half the effort: by simply having MrJamesWatson vote Deltabacon. That would mean there was a L-1 (on Deltabacon) AND a L-3 (on buldermar) wagon on town (in this hypothesis, Deltabacon AND buldermar are both town). It is simply a matter of effort applied to it--why bother to move two votes to create the same situation (or equivalent, since the wagons are both on town in this hypothesis) when you can create it with a single vote move? It's far more elaborate than necessary when you are already juggling two accounts.

Based on the fact that the Natural_river/MrJamesWatson-person wasn't elegantly adjusting his posting style to resemble two distinct and different personalities, I tend to agree that he'd most likely go with the easy solution. However, it still boils down to a WIFOM scenario, and I don't feel comfortable ruling out the possibility that only one of Natural_river and MrJamesWatson is scum whilst Deltabacon is not for this reason. All this is obviously going with the assumption that Natural_river/MrJamesWatson-person did not intentionally try to get banned, which seems like a reasonable assumption to go with.

In the unlikely situation that Deltabacon flips Town, I'd rather explain my plan Tomorrow, not Today. (If I die, lynch one of Cheery Dog/Leonshade; should that one flip Town, lynch the other on D3; then you're on your own to find the last scum.)

I'm still not sure I fully understand why you'd rather lynch Delta first when you advocate lynching Cheery Dog/Leonshade

regardless

of the alignment of Delta.

and for the others, seriously, rest assured this is a huge abnormality, please don't assume this happens all the time, our players are usually quite good re: the honor system and general ethics

I don't have much experience, but based on the people I've played with thus far (with this one exception, obviously) I'm under this impression as well.

[buldermar]

Yeah, to be honest the strategy doesn't lend itself to forum mafia. I won't be using it again in a hurry.

Announcing intent to Self-Hammer.

As much as I'd get much satisfaction from having you prove that discussing self-hammering isn't just corner case theory talk, I'd hate to see it actually happen, because it

is

suboptimal regardless of your alignment. You don't even have to look outside this game to figure out why.

[buldermar]

Ninja'd twice: I truly, truly cannot describe just how certain I am of Leon's and Dog's scumhood. I realise that a self-hammer is suboptimal, however I see it as bringing a mafia lynch that much closer, and since there is two mafiosos in this setup, I think trading 2 townies for a mafioso (barring a doc save) is acceptable.

Only closer in terms of real life time, which is irrelevant. What is it that you fear will happen if you don't self-hammer, and why will this not happen if you do?

[buldermar]

Announcing intent to Self-Hammer.

DOn't do that. Well, if you're Town anyway, feel free to self-hammer if you're scum.

Tierce, I know that you don't share my opinion on this matter, but I'm not going to deviate from playing to my win condition for the sake of artificially tweaking the game experience so it resembles that of a conventional game. I'm sorry that we disagree, but I don't think you'll easily be able to change my mind, so please save yourself the trouble of trying to (feel free to blame me, though).

I'm perfectly fine with you making that post, I don't blame you, and neither does anyone involved in the game, I believe. My point is that it was the kind of post

I

, in particular, was trying to avoid writing, because I'm not just a player here, and that kind of approach to the gamepretty much defeats the whole idea of teaching how to play "normally". Do you see the difference?

Totally, and I am sorry for the misunderstanding. I misread that you wanted to avoid that kind of post from anyone. I can see how you're in a more awkward position than me.

[buldermar]

So... nothing new on the horizon?

As a note, http://forum.mafiascum.net/viewtopic.ph ... 5#p4411825
This does not change the townread I had on the slot to begin with,no matter if it's the same guy playing all three accounts.

Leonshade/buldermar, please hammer this. Airick is not going to vote Deltabacon, he will not hammer himself, vendetta is MIA.

I can't make sense of this. Is it possible that fish-riding was a 2nd person playing on the same IP/computer? A friend or a brother? The posting style of fish-riding is so dissimilar.

[buldermar]

The alternative explanation is that the guy holding both slots was an idiot. Considering he was a cheater, I do not feel the least bad thinking unflattering thoughts about the way his mind works.

I don't see why this explanation is alternative.

The RedRabbit kill is interesting, taking into account that I was eyeing him as a potential suspect for the way he was (without checking, this is from memory) too eagerly following me around with a strong voice. This means I have to review things in full.

Could you provide quotes of his supposed following you around?

[buldermar]

I think there's a lot of merit to the idea of our cheater being an idiot. I'm not sure how to analyze his actions. This game is a mess.

Isn't cheating idiotic in the first place? I'd be more surprised if someone argued that he is a genius.

[buldermar]

You all should feel bad about your early pages and bullshit theory discussion.

You should feel bad for your bullshit attitude as a replacement in this game.

[buldermar]

But i'm kinda confused with the kill, Tierce is leading the charge mostly in this game so most scum would have likely killed her (not to mention she is the IC that is like newb kill central) yet she is still alive, which makes me concerned for 3 reasons
1) The obv-town read on my slot may not be from experience but a mix of experience and prior knowledge
2) That she lead a lynch on Delta, even though she said it was more likely to be scum in CD/Leon
3) Is steering as far away from a CD/Leon lynch in her recent posting.

All this makes me think that the scum are in CD/Leon/Tierce, cause Tierce would then have reason to steer lynches away from the 2 slots.

I think you're missing the fact that if we have a doc, Tierce is an ideal target, making her a less ideal target to hit as scum (essentially it becomes WIFOM). Other than that, I tend to agree that it 1) could be indicate of a priori knowledge, 2) is worrying that her main focus was on Delta when it could have been on either of CD/Leon instead (I blame myself, though, for not following up on this before the Delta lynch), 3) is odd with the recent steering away from a CD/Leon lynch in recent posts when she explicitly stated that "if I'm lynched and should Delta flip town, lynch either of CD/Leon next". Tierce, I'd like your comment on 3) please.

[buldermar]

I think there's a lot of merit to the idea of our cheater being an idiot. I'm not sure how to analyze his actions. This game is a mess.

Isn't cheating idiotic in the first place? I'd be more surprised if someone argued that he is a genius.

There's a difference between cheating in an attempt to win and... whatever he did. I'm not sure we can know what he was trying to do. Was he going for a town win or a scum win? Was he just doing stuff for kicks?

I'm having a hard time getting a read on anyone simply due to the nature of this game. It's like D1 except we can afford one mislynch less.

No there is not, because all three slots that he controlled can never win. Knowing that at least one slot must lose, which do you find most likely: him trying to win with 0 slots (e.g. trying to lose with all 3), 1 slot or 2 slots?

[buldermar]

^^ That is, he always loses with at least one slot and, as such, can never truely be playing to win.

[buldermar]

buldermar--I'll address your stuff asap, I'm exhausted today. Mostly, from memory, it was about RebRabbit's vote patterns; he seemed incisive about the people I was already being incisive about. It felt somewhat like overkill. Regarding Leonshade/Cheery Dog, I did say I'd have to reassess things Today should Deltabacon flip Town.

Alright, sleep well.

[buldermar]

^^ That is, he always loses with at least one slot and, as such, can never truely be playing to win.

...He was cheating, I think the play to win concept went out the window ages ago. What I was trying to do was get the reasoning for acting a certain manner and push a certain alignment's chances over the other. ...I think this isn't English anymore, I'm past semi-poetic stream of consciousness onto inane rambling. See you tomorrow.

Alright =)

[buldermar]

Xalxe, could you elaborate on either of your reads?

[buldermar]

Xalxe, could you elaborate on either of your reads?

You have used the word either. I do not understand your usage of this word, as I have provided some form of read on every player in this game, save myself.

tl;dr be more specific?

Ok.

Regarding JamesWatson/fishriding/whoever else, it is literally impossible to analyze the viewpoint of this absolute fucking retard. Let's keep that wine out of the game and focus on what we've got.

Why?

Tierce is town as always until I say otherwise

Why?

Buldermar is town

Why?

JasonWazza is probably town.

Why?

I had a town read on BT

Why?

then Nat_river (yeah yeah) came in and fucked it up, so Cheery can go to the Null pile.

How did Nat_river fuck it up, and why does it make Cheery can go to the "Null pile"?

Airick falls into the lurktastic pile.

Wh... oh wait, nvm.

[buldermar]

2) Tierce, well I'm realizing I misread your posts but I'll ask the question. Can you explain your shift from Post 243 to Post 325?

Deltabacon flipped Town. Post 243

made it very clear

that that plan was to take place pending a

scum

flip from his slot:

If Deltabacon flips

scum

and I die tonight, you lynch Cheery Dog and Leonshade until one of them flips scum. No questions asked, just do it. I guarantee that Deltabacon's scum flip will turn this into a town victory if you go along with this.

Question #2: Why am I here and not in bed. >.>

Going, going...

To be fair you did also make a similar statement for a Delta town flip.

[buldermar]

Tierce - Tierce is always town, except when she isn't. We have a history. I don't flatter myself that I can read her perfectly, but she's by no means today's lynch.
Re: Retards: Wine, wine everyfuckingwhere.
Bul - Town because not scum. POE bitches.
Jason is town because PaperSpirit was and he hasn't done anything to fuck up that read.
BT was :goodposting: all over this game and was a nice voice of sanity. Cheery decided to not do that. Plus river boy was dumb.

If you were expecting :motherfucking walls: like you're fond of, be aware that Tierce and I are from the same school of thought. 'Cept she's better at it.

Let's go over your arguments:
1) Tierce is town because the two of you have history and you read her well (still refusing to declare reasoning your reads)
2) I'm town because I'm not scum (circular reasoning)
3) Jason is town because PaperSpirit was (devoid of reasons)
4) BT was goodpost (devoid of examples)
5) An insulting remark about my posts

If you were expecting ad hominem remarks like you're fond of I wouldn't want to disappoint you; you're not permitted insulting others by virtue of being an established player, so you can take my motherfucking wall and stick it up where the sun doesn't shine.

[buldermar]

Your superiority complex is really quite irksome.

This is my final response to a post of yours or anything that resembles your opinion on any matter related directly or indirectly to this game in any shape or form, including but not limited to quotes of your posts, paraphrases and the like. I will not tolerate your insults, no matter the amount of posts or friends you've made on this forum. Goodbye and good night.

[buldermar]

Your superiority complex is really quite irksome.

This is my final response to a post of yours or anything that resembles your opinion on any matter related directly or indirectly to this game in any shape or form, including but not limited to quotes of your posts, paraphrases and the like. I will not tolerate your insults, no matter the amount of posts or friends you've made on this forum. Goodbye and good night.

While I understand what you're doing, I don't think this is going to be possible while still trying to play to your win condition.

Don't even try to go there.

[buldermar]

Tierce, when can we be expecting your comments?

[buldermar]

Thanks for the answers.

RedRabbit's focus was on Delta's alignment theory. According to Delta's read, vendetta, myself, CD, and Leonshade were scum since they never came to defend him due to our votes on buldermar. Delta showed his hand.

RedRabbit's take in post #312 says because of Delta's announcement, scum will jump over to the Delta bandwagon. More specifically one scum will jump, one will stay.

The final results read that CD and Leonshade switched to Delta and voted him. vendetta stayed on buldermar and I unvoted. According to Delta's theory, scum would split one voting for Delta and one voting (or was voting) for buldermar. That leaves CD or Leonshade as scum and vendetta or myself as scum.

To answer your question on why I think RedRabbit was killed, he already had a bigger scumread on Leonshade. Perhaps your theory of Leonshade killing him as a result of this is correct. But because scum would know we are asking this question (why was RedRabbit killed), we would easily look to the Leonshade read RedRabbit had and lynch another townie. Since CD and Leonshade both moved over to the Delta lynch, that would leave CD as scum. You can read into that, or it can be looked at as a WIFOM argument.

Since Delta turned town, I will go along with his theory and try to find one scum. Since I am town, I will vote for the other half of the buldermar/unvote group.

Vote: Xalxe

I will have to assume vendetta did not perform any night action, but his partner obviously is in tune to the Delta & RedRabbit alignment discussion.

Thank you for taking your time writing this post. I have a few comments, if you don't mind.

Nightkills often boils down to "hardcore" WIFOM. When someone does something during daytime, you have meta of that player to rely on to determine whether it is more likely to mean A than B. However, when someone is killed during nighttime, you have to take into consideration the meta of each and every possible scum-permutation and how that affects what should be interpreted from the nightkill. In other words: a question such as "why was RedRabbit killed?" makes no sense, because the reason for RedRabbit being killed very well could depend on who is scum. Some might kill him because he was on to something; others might kill him because he wasn't anywhere near the truth. I'd be surprised if there is a tendency of either.

I don't mean to discourage you altogether, I just wanted to point this out so that you can take it into consideration.

Also, when you analyse, you always want to do it from the perspective of you being town. If you are town, analysing it from that perspective resembles the true distribution of roles better (i.e. a more accurate analysis). If you are scum, you don't want to do the work for town and in worst case prove why you're the optimal lynch, for instance. Tierce can correct me if this is wrong, btw.

[buldermar]

It's funny because you ignored me.

I believe that just shows he is true to his word... but it's not something that needs to be happening, although he has said he is doing this, it's still extremely anti-town to be ignoring people.

I am true to my word, yes. Xalxe is free to step forward and apologize for his insulting one liners. I may reconsider my position, should he choose to do so. I don't care

what

you think it is - I'm not going to be a doormat for a random person just because he's an established player who happens to know the mod and some of the players of this game.

[buldermar]

You are correct and I eluded to it being a WIFOM argument.

Xalxe's answer to the RedRabbit question is the one half of the WIFOM argument. I presented the other half as a potential answer. The question of "Why RedRabbit was killed?" does hold some barring logically as it is one of three bits of concrete information that we have on this game. 1) DeltaBacon was town. 2) RedRabbit was town. 3) Scum chose to kill RedRabbit. So it's a reasonable and logical question to ask why. Scum knows (or should know) that we will dissect why RedRabbit was killed. You're saying it doesn't make any sense because it could vary on who is scum. That's true, but perhaps there is a clue out there that can help us find that scum. In my view, it's not a one way thing but I certainly understand your position.

Alright, that's a good point about it being one of three concrete bits of information. I've always just thought of it as pure WIFOM, but perhaps that's not optimal because it

does

resemble a non-random decision from a particular scum-permutation. However, I want answers from Tierce before I'll personally speculate in this.

[buldermar]

Buldermar i think you need to get over the Xalxe stuff for the good of the town.

He is free to apologize for the good of the town.

[buldermar]

- I do not see any other scum reads during this day so far to say who is scum or not. I agree with JasonWazza's take on Tierce, but hasn't really gotten any legs, especially while Tierce is hibernating.

This is a good point. We don't have much to go on, so we need to go with what little we have. I don't really buy Delta's theory, but were it true, I would have to vote for CD, knowing that I'm town. Jason's case, which is still better than anything I have, indicates Tierce and either me or CD. CD is the common denominator in both of these cases.

VOTE: CheeryDog

Some of the points made by Jason are yet to be refuted by Tierce. Do you have reason to refute these points or, alternatively, why do you think CD is a better choice than Tierce?

[buldermar]

Here and reading.

[buldermar]

Alright, let's tackle this:

But i'm kinda confused with the kill, Tierce is leading the charge mostly in this game so most scum would have likely killed her (not to mention she is the IC that is like newb kill central) yet she is still alive, which makes me concerned for 3 reasons
1) The obv-town read on my slot may not be from experience but a mix of experience and prior knowledge
2) That she lead a lynch on Delta, even though she said it was more likely to be scum in CD/Leon
3) Is steering as far away from a CD/Leon lynch in her recent posting.

All this makes me think that the scum are in CD/Leon/Tierce, cause Tierce would then have reason to steer lynches away from the 2 slots.

With all that crap out, i am somewhat confident in this vote

VOTE: Tierce

1) Not much I can tell you on that one except that you are wrong, and that while I have remarked on such newbie Towntells before as scum, being aware that they exist also helps me spot them as

Town

.

2) Cheery Dog/Leonshade + Deltabacon team was dependent on Deltabacon's flip, as he was the keystone. If my mind goes that the scumteam is either {Deltabacon, Cheery Dog} or {Deltabacon, Leonshade}, I will lynch Deltabacon. Makes perfect sense as a decision in such circumstances.

3) Deltabacon flipped Town and I am not convinced BT/Cheery Dog or ovyo/Leonshade are scum.

In the unlikely situation that Deltabacon flips Town, I'd rather explain my plan Tomorrow, not Today. (If I die, lynch one of Cheery Dog/Leonshade; should that one flip Town, lynch the other on D3; then you're on your own to find the last scum.)

Could you try to explain how these two posts are in accordance? I still don't understand.

As for the Xalxe and buldermar debacle: please, buldermar. This is a game, and tempers may flare. I am quite certain that Xalxe didn't mean anything personally, and denying us valuable interactions hurts the Town. Save it for post-game. As for you, Xalxe, you should know better. Newbies aren't necessarily thick-skinned and they are trying to learn. Please be kind.

This is indeed a game, and tempers may indeed flare, which is why I gave him an opportunity to apologize. I am quite convinced myself that he deliberately made is personal. I am not denying town valuable interactions, if that's what you're insinuating. I also have no plans of interacting with him post-game.

You must have misunderstood the situation if you got the impression that it is a matter of me being new, or me not being thick-skinned, or me trying to learn. I want to make it perfectly clear that I am not asking for any kind of differentiation with respect to experience level, skill level, tolerance level, learning methods, level of kindness and the like. I don't and will not tolerate personal insults.

[buldermar]

I know you aren't asking for differentiation, I was simply explaining that Newbie games are usually handled quite differently in what is expected behavior from experienced players. The goal is the same (win the game), but putting off people who are not used to the site (and some egos) on their first games is something that we do not want to do.

Alright.

[buldermar]

@Mod I'm V/LA until saturday.

[buldermar]

I'm sorry. I have to V/LA in all my games until satuday. I'll dedicate any spare time to this game specifically due to deadline.

[buldermar]

CD, what do you want my comment on? I think one but not both of Airick and Xalxe is scum (in accordance with the theory of Delta). This makes either of them a good lynch relative to lynching someone else, statistically speaking. Airicks analysis seemed sincere to me and he's been thinking more logically about the game than Xalxe, so I'd rather have Xalxe lynched, but I may be biased in my assessment because I personally dislike Xalxe.

[buldermar]

@buldermar; nothing specific, I guess I was just seeing how you reacted to me placing my vote on you

Fair enough.

[buldermar]

In either case, we're looking at either a) Leonshade being town or b) at least one of Leonshade and Cheery Dog being town. I havn't thoroughly read all of her posts yet, but I'm only going to consider voting Cheery Dog if there are strong indicatives of her investigating Leonshade specifically (post 325 isn't strong enough imo).

Based on this I currently consider Xalxe or Jason the best options. I'm going to look into the possibility of a Jason-scum Cheery Dog+Leonshade-town scenario now.

[buldermar]

That is, Jason+Xalxe-scum.

---

Scum permutations on the conditions {50% of Leonshade being town} and {at least one of Leonshade and Cheery Dog being town}:

{Jason, Xalxe}
{Jason, Cheery Dog}
{Jason, ½Leonshade}
{Xalxe, Cheery Dog}
{Xalxe, ½Leonshade}

Weighted probabilities of being scum on the conditions {50% of Leonshade being town} and {at least one of Leonshade and Cheery Dog being town}:

Jason: 3
Xalxe: 3
Cheery Dog: 2
Leonshade: 1

[buldermar]

Looking at the all the games on the first page in the completed newbie games section (only page 1 of each), I found the following games where somebody to vote no-lynch was mafia, so that 'obvtown' tell is now worthless to me.
newbie 1137, newbie 1127 & Newbie 1107

otherwise there was a game where no-lyncher was town
one I don't know the alignment of the no-lyncher because of the march crash
another where town voted no-lynch and mafia followed also voting it. (which is the same as the 1273 game I mentioned earlier)
I'd link these as well but I closed the tabs after I looked through them expecting it to be a possible true 'obvtown' tell. (they were all higher numbers than the three I just linked above)

And since that no-lynch=obvtown theory is disproven, it can explain why someone who had been called obvtown by the IC survived being nightkilled.
Although it doesn't explain why the cheater wanted too town slots - I'm going to assume that fish-riding-a-bike was actually a sibling of natural_river, which would explain the posting differentiations.

In Newbie 1137, the guy voting no lynch played 1-2 games before.
Newbie 1127 is a good example.
Newbie 1107 is a good example.

I don't follow what you deduce from your assumption of them being siblings.

[buldermar]

Only a JK claim has the potential of being beneficial for town.

I'm pretty sure that I'm going to vote Xalxe if nothing new comes up. Him and Jason are statistically the most likely persons to be scum and of the two of them I think Jason's slot has been most pro-town.

[buldermar]

I don't forsee waiting any further being useful.

VOTE: Xalxe

[buldermar]

This is rather obvious, but I'm going to clarify for the sake of avoiding misunderstandings. Since both of Cheery Dog and Leonshade has commented after Xalxe was put on L1, he (Xalxe) is now a confirmed scum.

[buldermar]

That only works when there's one scum left, bulder. Otherwise it could be the scumpartner who's holding out on voting.

This is incorrect, because given the premise that Xalxe is town, there must be at least one scum in you and CD. Scum would have won by hammering a town-Xalxe. Therefore Xalxe cannot be town. I can obviously only deduce this because I know that I'm town. What I can deduce from my local vantage point may not correspond to what you can deduce from your local vantage point because our available information is dissimilar. I'm not going to disregard part of my information just because it's not available to you.

[buldermar]

I'm tempted to put a vote on Bulder to let Leon decide, but then it could be Xalxe/Jason awho may be tying to trick me into doing that.

This is bad even if you're 95% sure that Leonshade is town, because you know your own true alignment 100% of the time.

[buldermar]

Leon, CD and Jason: if you want me to respond to Xalxe, I will.

[buldermar]

This is rather obvious, but I'm going to clarify for the sake of avoiding misunderstandings. Since both of Cheery Dog and Leonshade has commented after Xalxe was put on L1, he (Xalxe) is now a confirmed scum.

Ah, yes, logic. Because it couldn't be that you and Jason are both scum, that's impossible.

(Hint: it is not)

(Hint2: this is actually what's going on)

Yes, that is impossible when I'm town.

[buldermar]

I'm not going to disregard part of my information just because it's not available to you.

This is because the bit you have is that you are scum, there's literally no other way about it.

No, this is because not taking into account my available information leads to an inaccurate analysis of the game. I know you're scum, I know I'm town, and I know you know that I'm town.

[buldermar]

Leon, CD and Jason: if you want me to respond to Xalxe, I will.

Fuck's sake, could you please be more anti-town? Do you not understand how this

literally isn't helping?

This literally is the only thing that can potentially help. Discussing with you is absurd, because you'll only discuss from a vantage point in which I'm scum, and I'll only discuss from a vantage point in which you're scum. Our perspectives on this game are not compatible. Everything we say at this point will boil down to WIFOM. If they are interested in having me talk to you, I'll do it to allow for them to make reads, but I'm honestly completely uninterested in everything you have to say at this point because I already have concluded that you're scum.

[buldermar]

This is literally he-said he-said at this point.

Stop acting surprised - I'm not going to pretend that there is a chance for you to not be scum when there isn't one. With your supposed experience, you should know that.

[buldermar]

This is literally he-said he-said at this point.

Stop acting surprised - I'm not going to pretend that there is a chance for you to not be scum when there isn't one. With your

supposed

experience, you should know that.

And I'm not going to pretend you're not either, so we're stuck. And I don't appreciate the bolded, though it's an excellent attempt to undermine me.

It's still

supposed

to me - an experienced player should know that it's suboptimal to create unnecessary WIFOM this way. If I didn't already know that you're scum I'd make a case of you talking to me when you should be talking to them. Until I actually see a display of experience, I'm inclined to consider you inexperienced - deal with it.

[buldermar]

This argument is boring and is making me think you to are still partners.

This is silly.

@bulder, Xalxe is only confirmed scum to you (and probably Jason), the rest of us don't actually know your alignment.

Obviously - what's your point? I still have to analyse the game from what I know.

Also I as a townie announced that I would be putting a vote down soon, which buldermar responded with by a vote down on Xalxe. Now the question I'm mostly asking myself is if scum would be benefit by voting a partner when he knows a town member has just offered to place down a vote in lylo (although not knowing who I was going to vote for), or putting it on a town to try and convince me that was the place I wanted to be voting. If buldermar is town, does he benefit by stealing the first vote in LYLO from what he posted earlier as the third most likely scum and risk making the town lose by a carelessly placed vote?

The order of the votes is irrelevant. I fail to understand the point you're trying to make. Could you explain why the order would not be irrelevant?

Though I do think it is most likely Xalxe/bulermar currently, out of the two and based on research I have just done, buldermar is the more likely scum out of the two.

What research led to this conclusion?

[buldermar]

@bulder, Xalxe is only confirmed scum to you (and probably Jason), the rest of us don't actually know your alignment.

Obviously - what's your point? I still have to analyse the game from what I know.

I stating why you having a confirmed scum doesn't mean it's not confirmed scum to everyone else.

Yes - why would you state this? I never claimed it would.

The order of the votes is irrelevant. I fail to understand the point you're trying to make. Could you explain why the order would not be irrelevant?

If you are scum, you would know that I am town. You would not know who I was going to vote (could have been any of Jason/you/Xalxe at that time), if I picked the one that was town, you would be able to quickhammer with the other.

In that case there would be incentive only as scum to wait with the vote, and incentive only as town to place the vote immediately, right? Sorry, but I'm still not following.

Though I do think it is most likely Xalxe/bulermar currently, out of the two and based on research I have just done, buldermar is the more likely scum out of the two.

What research led to this conclusion?

Researching my memory of Jason's play in 1276.
If he is not scum with Xalxe by why of Jason's meta (which he has also just proved by not hammering you), therefore since that both scum are within you/Xalxe/Jason, you're now confirmed scum to me. (for those not me, there's a still a small possibly I'm scum with Xalxe)
Leon is now doubly confirmed town for not hammering either of the wagons as well as the cop breadcrumb already pointed out.

I don't mean to completely undermine your meta, but comparing to just one game seems unreliable.

[buldermar]

I stating why you having a confirmed scum doesn't mean it's not confirmed scum to everyone else.

That's fair. I don't have reason to point this out myself, though.

[buldermar]

Eh I misquoted. I wanted to quote this:

Because the way you said it was referring to him being confirmed scum for everyone. (while I realise there are no newbies here that are likely to be fooled, it's still something I felt needed pointed out)

[buldermar]

I don't feel entirely good about my post 281, buldermar"], because it allowed me to tweak the attention in a way that could have never happened had it not been for the cheaters. I think this gave us as scum an unfair advantage in this game. I don't even feel like we rightfully deserve this win. Anyway, I'm glad the game at least wasn't entirely decided at that point.

The decision of not talking to Xalxe wasn't any deliberate plan and I'd like to think it would have happened regardless of my alignment.

Looking forward to reading Tierce's analysis of this game.

[buldermar]

Well played scum.

Now could you please tell me why you'd kill a newbie in their first game on the first night? That was just downright cruel.

I personally thought I could manipulate Tierce well and if she were a powerrole she wouldn't be much of a threat to Jason and I given her reads on us.

[buldermar]

Sure go ahead, I don't think it's particularly interesting though. We didn't use it as much as we perhaps should have.

[buldermar]

Tierce (and Bulermar, I think?)

Actually it was just me, but that's okay =)

[buldermar]

These events also indirectly lead to me making the error/concession of allowing Buldermar to function as the mafia rolecop; I continued this practice in Night 2 for consistency.

I actually didn't know that I under normal circumstances would not have been allowed to. I'm sorry about that if it affected the game in any way.

[buldermar]

The only possible teams were Jason/me and Xalxe/me once Jason neglected hammering me. Therefore, I was a confirmed scum. As such, not lynching me today was a fundamental mistake. That's the only definite mistake I can find.

[buldermar]

The only possible teams were Jason/me and Xalxe/me once Jason neglected hammering me. Therefore, I was a confirmed scum. As such, not lynching me today was a fundamental mistake. That's the only definite mistake I can find.

also xalxe/me. Well not to me, but would have been to Leon

I was talking about your perspective as you were the one to hammer Xalxe, which was a mistake on your part.

[buldermar]

Assuming Buldermar remained just as detrimental to the game later on, I'm surprised he wasn't lynched. Then again, I haven't been following the game, so I don't know if that stance would have changed had I stuck around.

Your impression of me does not reflect that of others or any global truth.

[buldermar]

Assuming Buldermar remained just as detrimental to the game later on, I'm surprised he wasn't lynched. Then again, I haven't been following the game, so I don't know if that stance would have changed had I stuck around.

Your impression of me does not reflect that of others or any global truth.

True, but I had a feeling it was the global impression at the time (when Tierce pushed in that direction, in particular).

I don't.

[buldermar]

I'll try and post some detailed analysis later.

I was wondering if this will still happen?