No the problem is why kill me Today instead of Yesterday? If Town was going to kill me regardless of OAOW’s alignment (if he’s was scum, do you think they would be less hard on me? I don’t think so) then they should have killed me Yesterday. That’s the whole point. I wanted to die Yesterday to prove my points on OAOW were Town motivated. By killing OAOW first, scum get to kill BOTH of us.
Gah!
This “perfect knowledge” as a scum tell idea is very popular, but it seems to me that it is easily abused. It can essentially be turned on anyone who states an opinion, and it seems to be used against those who are said to be “defending” someone else. “How can they know X is town?” is the cry. Well, couldn’t the same thing be said for the opposite case, particularly with votes? For example, Fretful just voted for me. Let’s assume for a moment that she is Vanilla Town. How can Fretful know I’m scum?!? The answer, of course, is that she can’t. She has (incorrect 
) suspicious, which is enough for her to vote. The same thing can apply to defending someone as it does to attacking, and voting for, someone. But for some reason, defending another player, even when that defense is against badly-reasoned votes/attacks, is seen as inherently suspicious. The reason I have been “defending” sach today is not because I am sure he is Town - I am anything but (although I’m getting more and more convinced). It’s because I read the reasons that people were voting for him and they looked like crap to me. I pointed out precisely why I thought those arguments were crap, and to be egotistic, I think I did a pretty damn good job showing their crapitude. And yet, those players who threw out crap charges don’t get suspected, I do. It’s very similar to what happened with sach and OAOW yesterDay.
You want to vote for me, go ahead. I’m not going to whine. But I think if you go back and honestly read my (substantial) contributions toDay, there’s no way in hell I’ve been behaving anti-Town or scummy or whatever you want to call it.
PS. Fretful, in regard to my Day One vote for lurkers strategy, please go back and read the complete exchange I had with CIAS about it, including a post-count analysis of Simpletown that objectively backs up my strategy.
STrike one? Nah…lazy or bad logic isn’t a scum tell, but it sure does hurt the town. I would say more of a /slap wake up Darth here.
This on the other hand, is very confusing. I do agree, and looking at darth’s vote post :
Kinda appears he’s ignoring WF Tomba there now, doesn’t it? And before anyone says well, Kold, you looked at and voted for OAOW in the same post, I didn’t have another person I was poking at and FOSing all game. He did.
(BTW, what time do we end again? I want to squeeze in a little more analysis before the deadline, and place a vote…but I am at work at the moment too)
I’m not 100% certain, but I believe it’s at 4:00 Eastern – about 90 minutes from now.
It wasn’t in green, but I saw it so I will answer it.
1pm pacific 4pm eastern. Or in 1 hour and 33 minutes.
I’ve got meetings the rest of the day, so won’t be around for the lynch. This has been a terrible week for me to play mafia, and I apologize to everyone for my absence. I usually don’t have much to do at work except surf the internet (lucky me!), but this week we have training so I’ve been tied up. I have my vote in, and I’m happy with it.
Another comment about Fretful Porpentine:
Last Thursday Fretful was absent from discussion yet chimes in with a “sorry OAOW” a minute after NAF posted the results. I can’t say for certainty that constitutes something scummy, but it bothered me at the time. Why be absent for the day and then pop in immediately when Night starts? To me it looks like Fretful was avoiding the end of Day discussion.
Okay, looking to catch up
Eh, I’ve been insulted in much worse ways. Either way, any statement of someone being a good player or a bad player, however you justify it, is a straight up null tell. You may think my logic was screwed up, you may not even follow it at all, hell, it may have been a terrible move on my part and I suppose that makes it a bad play; however, a bad player is just as likely to be scum (or town) as anyone else.
Saying I couldn’t possibly make a play so badly is one thing, that’s a judgment of playstyle and risktaking; I take no offense at that. But, assuming I could only make such a mistake, by your estimation, if I were scum, is, in fact, insulting because it implies that my competence as a player depends upon my alignment.
Or, maybe I saw him as the scummiest player out there, and I pursued him. This is my style, it’s how I’ve played for some time, and I don’t see how it’s necessarily more scummy in this case than in any other. I see something that draws my suspicion and I drill into that person. I never claimed “man, I’m 100% sure this guy is scum”, but I put forth my logic. In fact, I may have been a bit narrow-sighted, I’ll give you that, but I was as transparent as I could possibly be with my thought process the whole time.
And, the part I really hate about that quote is this how could I have missed how “obviously Town OAOW was.” Really? If it was that bloody obvious, then how come he was lynched? It’s easy to say I was wrong in hindsight, but that’s just plain… silly.
You’re right, implicit is a poor word choice for the action I’m trying to describe. I see a distinct difference between the “so-and-so is town because…” and “that attack against so-and-so is invalid because…”. My perception of your behavior Yesterday was decidedly one of the latter. This, in and of itself, is meaningless. I’m plenty happy to have the voice of reason there saying my arguments are bad; I may or may not agree with that voice, but that’s fine.
But here’s my issue, I didn’t really see you take a strong stance on anything Yesterday, you act all worried for defending OAOW, and then Today you open up with attacking me for making a bad play because I couldn’t possibly be that bad of a player?
This is SO overdone. You played the voice of reason, and now you classify that as a pro-town action? How many times in how many games have I said that pro-town or anti-town actions mean precisely nothing and that it’s all about motivation? Are scum, generally, going to engage in obviously anti-town actions? Of course not, because it’s obviously anti-town and they’ll get pulled out. Sometimes pro-town players make bad moves, that doesn’t mean their heart was in the wrong place. Now you’re essentially going, paraphrased, look he must be scum because he wants to lynch the person who spoke out against the lynch of our a townie.
This is just plain opportunism. At first you say the whole argument was BS, but now you’re essentially taking credit for being the only voice of reason against the OAOW wagon. On top of that, you’re calling for the head of the one person who went to the greatest length to explain the logic behind his vote.
Essentially, this sort of action is saying to trust you because you were right, and to distrust me because I was wrong. This is FAR worse logic than anything I may be guilty of.
Again, it was “blatantly obvious”? So obvious that he got the most votes anyway, right? And yet, I’m the only one being blamed for it?
What do you want me to admit about the case against him? Obviously, I was wrong, there’s nothing TO admit. I still think the case against him was entirely reasonable, particularly for a Day One lynch vote.
Your actions may have ultimately been in the town’s best interest, but that doesn’t mean you weren’t doing it for malicious reasoning. Pro-town action does not necessarily equal pro-town alignment.
That last one… huh? I made no assumptions, and the fact that you’re making the case I made against OAOW out like that is very suspicious. In fact, if you remember, I specifically defended him until he FOSed me and I thought I saw a case of motivational transference. Obviously, I was incorrect, but I don’t think it’s hard to see how I could have seen that.
Seriously, if you insult me as town for playing poorly; you’d also be insulting me for playing scum just as poorly. Bad play is bad play no matter what. Still, your entire argument against me rests on your assessment that OAOW was “obviously town”, which you completely fail to substantiate.
4- sachertorte: Blaster Master, DiggitCamara, Freudian Slit, storyteller
1- Hal Briston: Nanook
1- WF Tomba: Darth Sensitive
1- Blaster Master: sachertorte
1- DiggitCamara: ShadowFacts
1- Freudian Slit: Hockey Monkey
2- ShadowFacts: Hal Briston, Fretful Porpentine
2- Darth Sensitive: Pollux Oil, WF Tomba
You deserve to lose.
I did read it. I’m not saying that voting for lurkers is an inherently bad strategy; I just think it’s an inherently evasive strategy, particularly if the player announces ahead of time that it’s what they’re going to do. I read the posts of all the non-OAOW voters with an eye to “is this something that would be a useful strategy for scum?” and in your case, I’m afraid it struck me as a strategy that would be very useful.
Well, I didn’t think I had anything new or useful to add to the discussion, and why post just for the sake of posting?
Well, I was just going to post a vote count, but that’s a lot of work and Sach count looks like mine (not in quite the same order, but the numbers are all the same). So let’s call that one official.
I am going to lunch, I will be back in time for a lynch. Due to some personal issues my time has been a tad limited the last couple of Days, so you all are going to get on the fly color instead of the carefully pre-written color you have gotten in the past.
See if you notice the difference.
Being proven right or wrong with your assessment of someone else’s alignment is meaningless in and of itself. What matters is the motivation behind the argument. This is even more clear in the switch from “the attacks on OAOW are BS” to “OAOW is obviously town”. IF an argument is bad, it’s bad; but that speaks nothing of whether it’s conclusion is right or wrong. That is, even a bad and illogical argument can still reach a correct answer, it’s just not supported. What bothered me about his behavior was how far out of left field it was. I simply could see how anyone would have that view as the evidence stands. The fact that he was ultimately proven right is, in and of itself irrelevant.
And yes, I carry on with my promised lynch vote, and it got precisely the kind of response I was hoping for. He’s changing his tune ever so slightly. The switch now is particularly interesting, because he’s actually gone and started to color the arguments. It’s no longer “I think the arguments are flawed, but so he could be either” to “he was obviously town”. It appears to be motivated by trying to capitalize on the fact that he spoke out against the lynch.
Yes, I explained in the above post, it was a poor word choice on my part. I was trying to describe the behavior of attacking the argument rather than directly countering it. That is, he wasn’t directly going “no, OAOW is town” he was going “the arguments against him are bad” which doesn’t directly say he was town or anything.
Dude, it was Day One. The town didn’t really have more than one pice of data. Day One lynches tend to use spurious reasoning. Nature of the beast and all that…
Yeah, scum would never do THAT! Like I outlined in my post, I think you started the defense to try for some creed, and then the wagon just got away from you, and you had to stay on it.
I think when Hockey Monkey said you weren’t being your usual self, she meant you haven’t exhibited the behavior of a self important pretentious prick in the past. Even minus the attitude, this is poor logic, and you know it.
Um. Yes - the fact that OAOW’s bandwagon was bullshit was obvious. I stated the reasons many many times yesterday and no one bothered to
I mean, I get it. No one likes to be wrong, and I’m sure its much nicer to think that figuring out OAOW’s alignment was unknowable rather than patently obvious, but sheesh, the evidence was there not only staring you in the face, but I was quite happily singing their praises. But I’m sure you’re not crying about OAOW, you got exactly what you wanted.
Ohh, on the fly color! ::sigh::
Because there were questions specifically addressed to you?
I admit that I’ve crossed over into dick territory pretty badly, but the frustration warrants it in my opinion.
Oops. I meant to quote this part.
Well, with less than an hour to go, it looks like sach is dead meat. sigh I think this is a terrible lynch choice. I would love to try to get someone I think is scummier lynched instead, like Diggit or Hal, but the brief Hal interest is gone and no on else seems to see the giant “scum” sign Diggit hung over his own head 
And the votes are spread so thin right now, there’s little chance of any consensus second choice.
I could switch my vote to Darth (or myself! 
) to try to get things closer, but I honestly have no read on him at this point, and I don’t like to vote for people if I don’t have some inkling that they are scum. Even if sach is Town, I could just be switching from one Town to another.
Bleh. This is very disheartening.
This is at least the third post with regard to an “implicit” defense of sachetorte. I’m not sure what to think of this, since this is much the same sort of behavior that he was doing Yesterday. Just… 