I find it ironic that you are willing to call my case dishonest when you’ve stated directly that you’ve only reviewed a portion of it, and in fact have responded to very little of it.
In any long case, there is the capacity for error. Anyone can nitpick one little bit of one post. I tried to at least give Story the decency of a comprehensive look at his posts, and his arguments, but apparently that is wrong (since a wall of text this early means I’m scum, somehow, according to ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies).
Do you honestly feel it is better for people to make – without quoting, without linking – blanket ‘summaries’ of what others have said and that’s a good motivation for voting? So far, today, the vast majority of votes have been largely undefended, and I take exception to that. I’ll give you credit, Rysto, that yours is probably the best defended of criticisms of me, but I truly and honestly hope that Town ups its game in this regard or we are bound to lose.
I strongly encourage you to revisit what I’ve said once my alignment is confirmed.
Existence proofs are important tools. I don’t get your problem at all. I didn’t buy drain bead’s case at first. I looked up some stuff and concluded that the case has merit. In that “one instance” that you so deride, 3 of 4 scum joined in the PIS accusation. ZERO Town. What is so difficult to understand? I’m not saying that this is definitive proof that Rysto is scum, but it’s hardly unfounded.
What’s bizarre about it? What’s twisting and turning? I’ve outlined what was going through my head step-by-step. I’ve been upfront about my thought process and what made me change them. Is it clear cut definitive proof that Rysto is scum? No. Is it sufficient to support a lynch? I think so. Why are you placing the lynch burden of proof bar so high for me and only me?
(1) My Lord. Do you really not get it? It’s basic stuff. You seem to think that a single data point is useless. Perhaps if this were my dissertation I would agree with you, but mafia is not a scientific paper submitted for peer review. You are putting the burden of proof for me much higher than anyone else or yourself. Furthermore, an existence proof is a very powerful thing. It brought drain bead’s assertion from WTF to plausible.
(2) No. I’m pointing out that you are a hypocrite. You said you aren’t going to bother looking up past games, then accuse me of not being diligent in looking up every single instance of past games. I looked up one relevant instance. You looked up zero. Zero does not equal one.
(3) What is this supposed to mean? I’m arguing against you, yes, but I’m also offering a different take on the fluiddruid situation. I’m allowed to do that.
(4) Just because you keep screaming that I’m not looking for scum motivation, doesn’t mean I’m not looking for it. The more you scream this the more I feel you are manipulating. Did it ever occur to you that part of my suspicion is the very fact that you keep relying on scum motivation as your ‘get out of jail free’ card? Once made me think twice about my thoughts on you. Now? I’m back to thinking you are doing it all on purpose. What’s your scum motivation? I’ll give you scum motivation. You KNOW I look for scum motivation, so you deliberately took a path that left none.
Shitty? Maybe. Plausible? Sure.
I’m not even sure if “scum motivation” is an accurate moniker for what I do. More often than not “cost-benefit analysis” is what I do to demonstrate that someone is more likely to be Town. That is, I look at the situation and show that the risks of the action far outweigh the rewards. Quite frankly, I’m not sure if I’ve ever used it to show someone is Scum nor do I think it is even possible.
First peekercpa for comparison:
I was very much against peekercpa’s wagon because his non-sensical play was high-risk no reward. My reasoning (I’ve stated this before somewhere on Day One) was that the costs far outweighed the benefits. For benefits, I had trouble coming up with any. Presumably getting storyteller lynched or some other townie… it’s pretty fuzzy stuff I think you have to admit. As for the risks, first there is peekercpa’s lynch. His reckless actions carried the very high risk of getting himself lynched. Even if we assume that peekercpa didn’t get lynched, his behavior and position put him in position to be Vigged that first Night. As scum he would not know about the existence or non-existence of a Vigilante, so the risk of getting night killed was actually quite high. Finally, even if peekercpa survived the night, he would still be in danger. Very few would trust him. In other words he would have bought a whole slew of suspicion for nothing.
Conclusion: Peeker’s bizarre behavior was not an indication of scumness.
So what about storyteller:
Costs: I don’t know. I guess the fact that I’m hounding him, but I’m not hounding him for his idea, but for his poor defense of the idea. We do have a history of lynching people for unpopular ideas, so maybe we can give storyteller that. But does anyone here really think we would lynch storyteller simply for pushing a double player lyse? I think we’ve evolved past lynching for unpopular ideas. Quite frankly, if the rest of the town pounced on storyteller for his idea, I’d be shocked. I might have even ended up defending him.
Benefits: Look Townie. I’ve mentioned this before but I’ll repeat it. I’ve found the way storyteller brought up double-lyse to be strange. He poo-pooed the “knee-jerk” reaction of voting for spawn, set up the idea that scum can easily vote spawn to blend in with town, then takes the other path and does not vote spawn. In other words, by taking another road he projects townness. I’m reminded of a previous game where there was some discussion about extending the day since town wasn’t getting its shit together. This was early in the continuum of games. Scum didn’t want to oppose such a plan. storyteller(Town) spoke out against this rule change saying it wasn’t fair to scum. That brought storyteller a lot of Town cred. I feel that storyteller might be trying to manufacture the same type of situation here.
Thought experiment for other Town Players:
Think back to the very beginning of the game when you first read the rules. What was your initial reaction to the double lyse option? Did you think “Hey, cool we can double lyse?” Or did you think “Whoa, we gotta lyse spawn every day?” My reaction was “Cool double lyse option.” It wasn’t until I thought about it more that I concluded, “oh, not so cool, we gotta keep those spawn in check.” storyteller implies that the ‘knee-jerk’ reaction was the opposite. What was your perception? Did anyone else here immediately think “need to lyse spawn every day?”
Anyway, the point is, on a cost-benefit analysis I don’t feel storyteller has engaged in high-risk low reward behavior that demonstrates townness. **Note: this does not prove scumness.
The point: my “scum motivation” analysis technique never proves that someone is scum. It can only show likelihood of Townness or nothing.
I’m also left wondering why storyteller is too close to the argument and involved with Alka Seltzer to make an assessment of him, but is perfectly okay with assessing fluiddruid and voting for her.
One last thing in my own defense. I’m not sure what else to say about my Peeker vote, but if people want to read my actual posts rather than the summaries of them (which, falsely, imply that somehow I have a personal problem with Peeker or personally insulted him), they are here:
Upon review, Special Ed posted a good post which showed the context of what I said with what Peeker said. I think that’s a good summary to show I wasn’t intentionally goading him, so I’ll leave it at that.
I’ll be happy to answer questions but I’m honestly not sure what else to say. I won’t say it was my greatest vote ever but saying it was just a personal slam is not true.
I’m not liking this sudden bandwagon on Fluid. I’m a bit pushed for time this afternoon, I’ll try and give you my thoughts later.
On Story, there are pros and cons to the “trial by vig” idea. I think whether or not he is scum is much more important than his claimed role. My vote stays on him for now.
Actually, my gut feeling was “We have to lyse spawn every day so they won’t build up”, but I have since changed my position to be "the double lynch is a powerful option and we shouldn’t cut ourselves off from it as a matter of policy.
Also, fluiddruid’s impassioned speech about not double-voting even to save herself has me feeling pretty iffy about her lynch.
Meanwhile,
This is a damn fine point, and bears repeating. Basically–and I know he can do the math–Story is essentially asserting that the penalty for using his powers is worse than keeping an extra spawn around, which affects the LyLo date. As he’s advocated utilizing our double-lyse in certain situations to gain extra information, one wonders why he’s not willing to put his money where his mouth is.
Secondly, it seems somewhat gastardly to have a single player have a power that the use of it costs town something. That’s just a gut feeling, that story’s power is more likely to have a personal cost than a town one.
Also, story’s a good player and that means he knows that there are points where sacrificing himself for the good of the town is appropriate. He however said he’s not likely to vig anyone all game due to the drawback of his power.
Gut feeling vote: unvote spawn vote storyteller1911. I think you’re a PFK trying to conduct things so that you don’t ever have to really prove your claim.
I still think KellyCriterion is acting inconsistenly, and I still don’t think that using both of my votes is scummy in the slightest–the votes themselves might be, and you can certainly analyze that, but IMHO voting for two separate players with the spawn far and away in the lead is unscummy. Those of you who are worried about me having “more say” because I do this–you do it too, then. If you don’t think killing spawn is the best play, then don’t, regardless of how “level” it makes the town playing field.
I’m just saying, and I still believe this, we will understand Story’s previous posts a LOT better, if he would reveal the drawback. I would go so far as to say, if he had brought forth “I am a Town power role, but if I use my power _______________________________ will happen.” INSTEAD of saying he was a Vig, it would have gone a LOT better.
At a certain point in time, it does become Anti-town to maintain your stance here, Story.
**
I’m on the hook for something that Story won’t do? How is that now? **
If story will not Vig, there is no reason why we cannot know the Drawback. Not telling us only Helps Scum.
And you know, the smudge there is so great, I just talked myself into something ::
**
Unvote Fluid**
**
Vote TexCat**
Attack me for something that Story won’t do, and imply that it will impair my judgement for the rest of the game? Yeah. No. OMGUS or whatever, there is too much here to ignore.
You are like a certain “News” Channel that loves to use the Question mark to get their impression across.
I’m still going to give Story the benefit of doubt toDay.
I went back once again to look at the early peeker votes yesterDay. Zeriel (#204) made the first vote citing peeker’s unsupported vote on a strong player. Mahaloth (#209) was next with a me too.
Then peeker starts reacting and Freudian (#282) votes for:
Fluid (#296) was next voting for peekers “tone”. Then Ed stepped into the fray.
I generally think that early day one votes don’t need good reasons. They help spur discussion along. And so I was OK with peeker’s vote for Story(I think?) and I was OK with Zeriel’s vote. I really don’t like Mahaloth’s fairly immediate me too vote. It smacks of scum trying to start a bandwagon. His insistence otherwise seems strained.
OK, this is getting frustrating. Is anyone actually reading my posts, in their zeal to try to identify magical inconsistencies?
The difference between a double-lynch and a Night One Vig kill, I think should be pretty easy to identify. The one is a lynch and the other is a Vig kill. This makes the former preferable to the latter for two reasons:
The former represents the collective judgment of a bunch of people working together. The latter represents a single player substituting his/her judgment for that of the group as a whole, and gives no chance for a role claim (it thus risks killing a Town power role without giving the power role a chance to claim).
The former involves the creation of a vote record, the latter doesn’t. The entire reason that an early Scum kill is of value is because it gives us more clarity as we analyze what has happened. A Vig kill doesn’t give us this. It takes accountability away from multiple players and puts it on one, which is more straightforward to analyze but also less useful.
Thus an early Scum death is especially valuable *if it an early Scum lynch. Which is what I said in the first place.
Again, is this really a question that needs answering? It’s such an obvious answer that I feel stupid saying it: Because I don’t think the drawback to the double-lynch is particularly significant, and I do think the drawback to my kill is.
Know what? I’m done. Go ahead and lynch the Vig. When it’s over, for the love of God, will someone please look at the ridiculous votes I’m getting, the votes that are coming for no reason? And please look at sach.
You are wrong for not disclosing your ““Vig”” power drawback even if you have one.
At this point, you are no longer signal at all.
This game has offered very little in terms of Progress, IHMO. We need information. We don’t need to rehash the same things over and over again.
Hopefully next Summer will not mention Double-lyse and PIS. There is no better camoflauge for scum, than speaking in hypotheticals of previous games, and continually arguing things because people aren’t willing to take a stance on something - and leave it at that.
**
Unvote TexCat**
**
Vote Story**
This has to be the most congested game I have ever played. Story may not be Scum but the Anti-town behavior he is offering more than makes up for it.
Im not done. I’m replying to Meeko’s post. Then I’m going outside to shovel snow and enjoy this lovely (if cold and snowy) Day, because the Town is playing so badly now and I’m getting so upset over it that it’s no longer worth wasting my energy on it.
BECAUSE THERE MIGHT EVENTUALLY COME A TIME WHEN I WANT TO KILL, AND I DON’T WANT TO HELP SCUM KNOW HOW TO HANDLE ME IF AND WHEN I DO. Seriously, since when did a power role become required to reveal everything? This boggles my mind.
You are wrong. My posts have been independent of my role.
Look, if you’re Town, just look at this case. Seriously. Look at it a minute. It’s terrible. It’s a manufactured haze of paranoia and bad logic.
I disagree with sach, Alka Seltzer, and others regarding double-lynching. This is not a Scum tell. This is me disagreeing. It’s been spun into something else by a lot of players, but Scum in my place would have no motivation to do anything I’ve done. Think past what’s being sold here. sachertorte has always asked, “what’s the Scum motivation?” Always. It’s been his guiding principle. And here he is, gleefully facilitating a lynch that is everything he has always objected to - based on strategy disagreements, absent any plausible Scum motivation.
I role claimed a role that, if I’m lying, I stand an excellent chance of getting killed. If I’m not lying, I may come in handy somewhere down the line. And I may not. But the fact that my role has a wrinkle that I don’t want to disclose is not a Scum tell. For fuck’s sake, if I were lying, I’d have just fucking said, “Hey, I’m a normal Vig” and then just said “whoops, got blocked,” or “hey, got redirected,” or what the hell ever.
Reveal the drawback now. If it is as you say, hold off on firing untill we get Scum to a number where we can take care of that for you.
And further, if Scum can handle you in a particular way, then you have information that town needs.
You see how hard you are making this game? You are making up a brand new side-quest;
**
Hunt the scum, and gather the 3 golden [and triangle shaped] pieces of Story’s tainted power. **
I don’t know about you, but my internal ““game gear”” is about to run out of batteries on this.