Actually, I think you’re right. I am guilty of trying to force the concept onto the situation. It might not fit very well. I’m just trying to give a shape to my vague but intense suspicions. I’m afraid if I don’t try to come up with an alternate case against someone I’m suspicious of, you all will just lynch me by default, and then we will be truly SOL.
Sorry, I must have missed this the first time…
Let me try to explain the strategy that I employ when I play aggressively. I see something that qualifies as suspicious to me, I pick it out and I drill the person, either looking for good explanation, which usually doesn’t come, or for additional tells which sometimes come and sometimes do not. In the case of OAOW and sachetorte, nothing changed. The explanations only got stranger, or I saw more (as I did with sachetorte), but I never saw any tells that told me I was going the wrong way.
As for the PIS accusation, we’ve had two Days, so the only person who has really gotten flack for it was sachetorte and I was hardly the only, or even the first I think, to think his defense of OAOW was odd in that way.
I have to say Shadow, I can kind of understand why Koldanar would ask Storyteller, since he is actually the one who was investigated, but I don’t understand the motivation behind asking Storyteller to explain why he investigated Koldanar. That is, at this point we pretty much have to provisionally accept his claim until he shows up dead (which confirms him) or we have some sort of other evidence or other reasoning that makes him look suspicious. We’re obviously not at the first, and I don’t believe we’re at the second.
Thus, if you’re pro-town, you know that if he’s telling the truth, while you may be curious, you know that his reasoning doesn’t change anything he’s done and potentially reveals potentially useful information to the scum. You know that if he’s lying, then it’s all made up and, thus, useless anyway, and was probably given consideration overnight, so it’s unlikely to reveal his scumminess.
OTOH, if you’re scum, this sort of question can look like innocent curiousity, but it could actually be fishing for information about how he’s investigating. If you can get him to talk about his reasoning, more than just a general strategy like wanting to confirm townies or find scum, you can potentially gain incite into whom he may investigate next so that scum can come up with a good counter-strategy.
IOW, I think these actions are, at best, neutral to the town, and I see a higher potential for scummy motivation as well. So, yeah… I’m going to have to go back and take a closer look at you.
:dubious: Are you essentially admitting that your case against me is pretty much OMGUS?
(bolding mine)
Look all you want, my friend.
As to your point, I’ll tell you exactly why I asked that question of storyteller: I wasn’t satisfied with his answer to Koldanar, which was “I investigated you because I found you suspicious, based on your vote for OaoW and the reasoning behind it.” Since storyteller also voted for OAOW, I was interested in what exactly it was about **Koldanar’s **vote that was suspicious, since he placed his vote on the same person. Additionally, I found it interesting that he was investigating someone for something that happened on Day One, and wanted to understand why. (For example, if I were the Constable, I would have investigated you last night, Blaster, no question.)
In short, while I do provisionally accept **storyteller’s **claim and have firmly advocated not lynching him yet, I am still looking for (as you say) “other evidence or other reasoning that makes him look suspicious,” as I am doing for everyone. Just because he has claimed, does not mean he gets a pass.
And BTW, the part that I bolded above is, I believe, the kind of reasoning that has led to two Townie lynches: you ascribing your own logic to other posters (in this case, me). The “you know” construction is particularly indicative. In actuality, you don’t know what I know, and I don’t know what you know. We don’t necessarily think alike, so please don’t tell me what I know.
Why do you think that?
Ok, it’s taken me too long to get back into the game but here I am.
Let me take a look at the current remaining roster :
Koldanar : All around - stand up kinda guy! (:D)
Hal Briston : VERY quiet still…has yet to post on day 3 by my count. Had an explanation for his quiet for the early days, but is still laying low.
Fretful Porpentine Pointed out on day 2 that she didn’t like Hockey’s reasoning for voting on Freudian…you thought it was a weak scum tell. Today, you’ve pointed out that Hockey died, and was continually suspicious of Freudian. Do you not think yesterdays’ vote was scummy seeming now that you know what Hockey is? You also point out that you think the scum were hiding in votes NOT for OAOW…whom you did vote for. Seems suspicious…I’m going to take a look at you again.
storyteller : I’m still wary, even with a confirmation of me. Scum know my alignment just as well as a constable would. He’s a very very good player, and could be manipulating this situation as a scum role. I’m about 50/50 with lynching today but…with only one mislynch left for us, I’m still a little too unsure to say lets go.
Nanook : You know…I don’t have many notes on you (only been keen on them since mid-day two). You always see BLAM as scummy, but you back off because thats how he always is. Could just be a convenient sidestep; I don’t know for sure. Will have to re-read and fill out a section on you better 
Pollux Oil : So far for most of the game I’ve been agreeing with your motivations and reasoning. Until your little bit about Darth…this one seems like a stretch for me, and could be reasoning around your suspicion of him rather than a good look at his motivation. Still, I don’t have any real suspicion about you at all.
Blaster Master : Definitely agressive today, and you always worry me a little too…but not in a scummy way. Had your reasons for both Sach and OAOW…I agreed with the former but not the latter. I can’t say that anything of yours was particularly irrational like others are accusing w/out backing. Scum doesn’t always have to be irrational, you could couch scum motivations in rationality. As of now though, I cannot say you are scummy.
Darth Sensitive : I really, really should just vote on you for the sheer odds of it; you always ALWAYS are scum! Seriously, though…you’ve been fairly quiet, and haven’t seemed the same as you were in past games. This could be a case of changing your play to not match others…but I"m not sure that isn’t a bit of a townie tell. Youve had votes with somewhat questionable motivations though. I have to come back to you.
WF Tomba : Your admission of trying to fit the motivation to the vote seems odd. I’m not sure what to make of it right now.
ShadowFacts : I’m inclined to believe he’s town, but that doesn’t mean I’m not a little suspicious. Not sure how you missed story’s previous dislike of my vote on OAOW, but I don’t really agree with BLAM calling you out for asking.
CatInARugger : Been fairly quiet for him since the subbing. I don’t recall any major contributions yet, but I could have missed them easily enough. Was investigated by story and declared town. I’m inclined to believe that investigation for now.
Freudian Slit : Today you’ve been bugging Tomba about randomly attacking. Have you mentioned before just how he’s been randomly attacking people? Hockey Monkey did have two votes on you, and has since died. That does look suspicious too, but admittedly it could be the scum picked that out to shift blame as well. You definitely ping me; this I will have to look into more.
DiggitCamara : Shadow and Pollux have both pointed fingers at you, and as yet your reasonings have seemed weak at best. Doesn’t absolutely mean scum, but you are definitely on my short list to focus on.
Well, I’ll also be intrigued to see if anyone else jumps on the Freudian Slit is scum bandwagon, like Hockey Monkey did.
I do want to bring one thing up–I know I’m not town. Hopefully storyteller will investigate me, and I’ll come up town at some point, but until then, I’m a good person for scum to leave alone because so many of you townies think that I’m bad. And Dracula also is leaving me alone, probably because he thinks I’m a wolfie. So, considering that we haven’t gotten ANY scum yet, if you leave me alone, there will be a good chance that you’ll have saved at least one townie.
(Bolding mine)
Um?
I think you missed the whole point of why I found it suspicious. If he’s telling the truth, getting his reasoning just gives information to the scum. If he’s lying, he already knew he would have to explain it and would have put as much thought into it as if he actually were investigating and thus probably wouldn’t provide any additional information. So, what I want to know is what you expected to hear from him that, A, was going to help you differentiate whether he was town or scum and, B, was going to be worth the risk of providing information about his reasoning for his investigations, if he is the detective, to the scum.
And why would you have investigated me? If you’re so suspicious, put your vote where your mouth is and make a straight up case rather than beating around the bush like this. Either way, storyteller may be suspicious of me, or he may not, but it’s hardly reasonable to be think he too must necessarily find me the most suspicious and, thus, must have investigated me. And, even if he did, there’s plenty of reasons why he may decide against it like the fact that I’ve been under scrutiny and may get lynched sooner rather than later anyway.
The bottom line is, getting involved in a discussion about the detective’s investigation tactics provides almost no useful information for determining his alignment but DOES provide potentially damaging information to the scum. Thus, you may or may not be scum, but this is certainly not in the town’s best interest.
No disagreement here. I don’t accept him as confirmed at all; however, I don’t think more than a very general strategy about his selection of investigation targets is fruitful in this endeavor. It’s easily faked by scum, and it’s potentially harmful. Not giving him a pass doesn’t mean risking his potential utility to the town if he’s honest, it means analyzing and holding him accountable for all the other actions he takes that don’t directly affect his capacity to be detective, in the event that he actually IS the detective.
IOW, I’m giving storyteller enough credit that he either has a reasonable strategy or can feign one reasonably well as scum. The only time I can really see where the risk might be worth it is if he chose a completely illogical target, like someone that is likely to be lynched soon or someone that is mostly confirmed through some other methods. Again, as town, I expect him to be doing his best to avoid those situations, and as scum, I give him enough credit to be able to pick a reasonable target.
Considering he’d already expressed some suspicion of him previously, is it really hard to imagine that he might see Koldanar as a reasonable target, given a brief review of his strategy?
Seriously, WTF!? The “you know” construction is indicative of me using the premise to make a logical step. I was making some pretty basic steps, and I don’t think it’s unreasonable to assume you’d know them. Is it that surprising to read them? “OMG, if he’s telling the truth, discussing his strategy provides useful information to scum!” or “OMG, if he’s scum, he’s making it up!” Quite frankly, if you don’t know that, I gave you too much credit.
Um, I know I am town. Fuck…you guys are going to hold this against me, aren’t you?
Underlining mine.
I know it’s pretty funny that I’m the one pointing this out, all things considered, but I’d like to see an explanation all the same. How do you know this, or why do you suspect this?
Y’ know, on second thought, screw it. These little “slip” tells are as likely to be nothing as not, and I don’t want to waste time I could be spending on behavior analysis hashing out glorified typos.
I guess now’s as good a time as any to get to work on the progression of votes against sachertorte. It is really unfun to do post histories on this board. Oh, well…
<loins girded>
Here goes. Back in a bit.
You know, I think I crossed games. I SWEAR there was discussion over this at the start of the game, and how good play by the doc and investigator could increase the number we would get. Consider my statement rescinded about mislynches. Ugh. Thats what you get from two games at once, even if you’re dead in the other already.
Well, considering your username, how could we not? 
I’m sorry, I don’t understand what you’re asking. Whose vote from yesterday am I supposed to find scummy?
I’m admitting exactly what I already admitted. You will, of course, read into my statements whatever meanings you arbitrarily choose to find there. That’s not my problem.
Let me try to explain how this strategy looks from my point of view. You see something that you think is suspicious, you concoct a tortuous and fallacious pseudo-logical argument to “prove” that there is “no pro-town motivation” possible for it (arbitrarily ignoring several possible pro-town motivations that don’t fit your arbitrarily selected criteria), and then you repeat this rickety argument over and over again, varying your tone between that of a professor in a lecture hall and that of Sam Waterston on Law & Order, looking either for a good explanation, which usually doesn’t come because you’ve already dismissed all the good explanations, or for the sky to fall on you. I give up. You are probably not scum. You are just a distraction. Although it might have been helpful to have lynched you Day One, we can no longer afford to get rid of people for such reasons. I guess we’re stuck with you.
Unvote Blaster Master
Why do I think what?
I’m not good with definitions of logical fallacies, I think this one might be ‘excluded middle’ or something. My point is: when you make the assumptions you have made above, of course it makes me look suspicious. You’ve presented two options: 1. if he’s telling the truth, it benefits scum only; 2. if he’s lying, he’s completely prepared and skilled enough to do it perfectly. See, either choice makes me look bad! Under these assumptions, I admit my request for additional information is not likely to yield anything tasty. But what if your assumptions are wrong? What if he lied and didn’t do it so perfectly? What if he’s busy and threw out a reason that, upon review, didn’t jive with earlier reasons? Scum slip up sometimes, you know, even good players like story - lying and keeping it all straight isn’t easy. On the other side, what if his explanation is reasonable, logical and consistent, and convinces some players who were on the fence about lynching him toDay (and there are some who have advocated this very thing) to focus on other people? Is that not a benefit to the town? It’s simply not as black and white as you make it out to be. (For the record, I buy his explanation of why he investigated Koldanar, and I note that he himself had no issue with answering my question nor did he seem concerned that his answer would help the scum.)
I would have investigated you because you’ve driven the lynches of two Townies, and you’re an experienced and effective player. So if you’re scum, I would want to get you out of the game ASAP. I never said storyteller must find you the most suspicious or that he must or should have investigated you. I just said what I would have done if I were Constable, so please don’t put words in my mouth.
And I will vote for you if and when I choose. I’m not beating about the bush - I have very explicitly said toDay that your behavior to date has been anti-town (and why). The jury is still out in my mind whether that is intentional or not.
Says you. See above.
And I’m giving him enough credit that if he thinks answering a question is detrimental to the Town, he will demur and say so.
Yes, I think his suspicion of Koldanar was reasonable as he explained it, but when I asked I didn’t remember him being suspicious of Koldanar previously - I can’t keep everyone’s suspicions in my head. This is how it went: Koldanar asked why, story answered, I followed up, story clarified. I didn’t have a grand plan or a major suspicion, but **story’**s initial answer essentially boiled down to “I found you suspicious.” That’s not particularly informative, so I followed up with “why.” End of story (no pun intended).
No, the “you know” construction is indicative of you applying your own thought processes to other people, and then using that to indict them. You did it with OAOW: “Well, he couldn’t have thought A or B, so that means his motivation must be scummy. QED. Vote.” But as it turns out, he actually might have thought A, or B, or something else that didn’t fit into your formula, since he turned up town.
Here’s the fact: when I asked that question of storyteller, I didn’t have a single thought about whether the answer would benefit scum. There was a vague answer I wanted clarified, so I asked. That’s it. Now, if that makes me stupid, then so be it, I guess you have given me too much credit. Sorry to disappoint.
Then put it in other words, because if that’s not what you meant, then I misunderstood. This statement, in and of itself, is not helpful at all.
What about exactly made my case against OAOW a “tortuous and fallacious pseudo-logical argument”? If you’re going to say that, you have to back it up. I’ve explained my case innumerable times, and all I’m getting back is that it’s irrational or illogical or whatever. Well, bloody-well tell me what about my case was so damn irrational and illogical.
What possible scenarios did I “arbitrarily ignore?” I presented two and explained why I didn’t buy those as pro-town motivations; sachetorte presented a third, and I also explained why I didn’t agree with that motivation. What part of any of those explanations was irrational or illogical? What other scenarios did I arbitrarily dismiss? I don’t recall anyone presenting any other scenarios. Saying I arbitrarily dismissed any of the scenarios is disingenuous.
As for my tone, that’s purely subjective and non-consequential to the substance of my posts. If you think I’m speaking in the pejorative, I post exactly what I think exactly how I think it, which means it may very well have some frustration or other emotional twinges to it. If it bothers you, well, I dunno what to say, but I still do see how it’s relevant.
As for my expectations, I AM looking for a good explanation, that’s what we’re all suppose to be looking for when we ask people questions. If it is the case that I misrepresented someones motivations in my accusation, then they should be able to explain why. OAOW never gave any sort of real response to what exactly his motivations were when I was questioning him. Did I incorrectly eliminate a possibility? Maybe I missed one entirely? He’s the one who did it, so he should know better than anyone WHY he did it, and if you can’t explain why you did something, it’s going to look damn suspicious to me.
I imagine you’re just being snarky with the last part, but really, what’s the point? Would you really advocate lynching someone you think is pro-town simply because they’re a distraction?
Sorry…Hockey’s vote yesterday; how do you feel about it today?