Messages

126

Forum Games / Re: Composer Battle Is Go! THE TREBLE CLEF IS YOUR DOOM!

« on: March 31, 2008, 07:12:07 AM »

Quite a lot has happened. I'll start with a couple points about Ryogo and OK I was going to make as I was ninja'd by the hammer.

Ryogo: http://www.rpgdl.com/forums/index.php?topic=673.msg13824#msg13824

Keeshi: Her roleclaim is a shock, and early, and unless someone else comes forwards that can disprove her of her role, then I've got no choice but to believe her.

Retarded to the extreme, and would be suspicious if Ryogo weren't new to the game. A counter cop claim day 2, which is in many ways the same as day 1 since we didn't have a lynch?

Another worry though. How can we tell you're sane? I remember Cid saying in the last game that the mod almost never tells which kind of cop you are. I'm assuming he would follow the same logic.

By lynching Tom, naturally. It's not foolproof, but it's the best we can get here. I must ask, what else would you like to do in the face of a cop claim? Ignore it? The only other option is to go "I don't believe the claim" and lynch the 'cop'. That would verify the results one way of the other.

I found these parts of Ryogo's reaction to Keeshi's roleclaim puzzling, and I'm hoping he'd explain what he was thinking when he typed them up.

OK: http://www.rpgdl.com/forums/index.php?topic=673.msg13826#msg13826

The early claim makes sense as she's gotten close to hammer, and she (claims) to have actually hit scum. I don't know if I would've acted the same way -- the vote is sufficient breadcrumbing if she did get lynched, and if the lynch went on Excal, the only other candidate at the time, she would be able to investigate again. Eh.

But just because Keeshi's logic was suspect (the choice of the target, not hanging in there longer before a claim) I see it as no explanation for this:

Another post of Doom coming soon.  I just want to get this sorted first.  Keeping my vote where it is, since I still find Excal scummiest with the logic, and want to see Keeshi's answers.

OK, please explain to me why, in a matter where someone roleclaims cop and calls another player scum, you are voting... for a third player. This is-- I can't wrap my mind around it! Either it's a horribly unfair setup (miller/cop, some kind of insane cop, framing, even far less likely scenarios) or ONE OF THEM, AT LEAST, MUST BE SCUM. We are in this to LYNCH SCUM. We cannot SUFFER SCUM TO LIVE.

So since we've dipped into a discussion of horrible logic, please explain yours. And no, I wasn't moving my vote back on you for this, because we actually have to kill scum before scummy-seeming people.

[Edit: I'd like Otter (http://www.rpgdl.com/forums/index.php?topic=673.msg13876#msg13876) to respond to this as well, for much the same reasons; ditto Shale. How can people who were actually around still talk about favoring a third person over a cop claim and the person the claimed cop fingered as scum?! It's horrible, horrible play at best to just ignore that mess altogether and vote elsewhere.]

These were what I wanted to hear about the most, since reactions are important, and those were what caught my attention.

Now, to Tom.

http://www.rpgdl.com/forums/index.php?topic=673.msg13874#msg13874

What jumps at me is how much Tom assosiates himself with Alex, which makes me think Alex is actually on town's side. Or it's all horrible wifom, whatever. I likewise find it telling he takes great pains not to actually mention Excal in any form. Tom talks about potential lynch candidates quite a bit, and Excal is nowhere among them, tellingly; it's as if he had forgotten Excal exists, even needing a fresh post to unvote him before he votes Keeshi.

Okay, fully caught up to the beginning of today. I'll post more over lunch break; I intend to go over Tom's previous posts and respond to a few things I really didn't like when I skimmed up to the present.

127

Forum Games / Re: Composer Battle Is Go! THE TREBLE CLEF IS YOUR DOOM!

« on: March 29, 2008, 06:54:09 PM »

Well then. Let's hear from Tom!

##Unvote: OK
##Vote: Tom

A vote to make him realize the seriousness of his situation. We're in this to hunt scum. I cannot support any lynch today that is not Tom or Keeshi.

128

Forum Games / Re: Composer Battle Is Go! THE TREBLE CLEF IS YOUR DOOM!

« on: March 29, 2008, 05:14:44 PM »

I believe I've detailed my case already, Alex. I agree that in a lot of ways, we're still in a 'day 1' situation. I did append my case on OK today as whom I consider the most prominent lurker in the game thus far, with the most suspect content out of the lurker crowd. This may well change if he produces the content I want to see from him and he promised to do that. In that case, I would consider going for Excal. I had the same request of Keeshi that I have of OK, to provide content on people and not just spend the time in defense and debating minutae such as her pre-deadline actions which have been debated to death by now. If we entirely dismiss gut feelings, then I agree that she looks much worse, but still not as much as Excal does.

I'm not sure how much I need to repeat this until it sinks, but scum lurk by their nature, and it's happened in most if not all games here, and by catching actual scum any conclusions we make will be all the more productive. Therefore, LAL while the person in question is questionable consistently is superior.

129

Forum Games / Re: Composer Battle Is Go! THE TREBLE CLEF IS YOUR DOOM!

« on: March 29, 2008, 02:51:14 PM »

A clarification. I didn't say that you voting the other guy in the lead was suspicious, and if it came off that way, that was my mistake in phrasing. My intent was to note that it happened and that it's neither a scummy or townish move, but a fairly neutral one.

Anyhow, since you say you have net access back, I'd like to hear more detailed analysis from you, and not just on Excal even if you're voting for him. Unless he's the only one in the game you feel is suspicious. To avoid any potential smokescreening here, I'm content to focus on that and leave semantics and such alone.

130

Forum Games / Re: Composer Battle Is Go! THE TREBLE CLEF IS YOUR DOOM!

« on: March 29, 2008, 09:17:13 AM »

A response to OK for this post (http://www.rpgdl.com/forums/index.php?topic=673.msg13743#msg13743):

1) I never said you and Rat specifically jumping on me.  I said I had made a suspicious drop, though unintended: 
"Ok, going after me for inactivity is good.  However, Shale makes the good point that I haven't been anywhere.  While yes, it was a suspicious drop, unfortunately, the fact remains it looked like people were jumping on it to jump on something."
Please don't throw in a personal attack there when there isn't one.

This is not a personal attack. Also, while anyone sane would agree with your interpretation of your quote... I was speaking of the other post you've made at that time.

http://www.rpgdl.com/forums/index.php?topic=673.msg13576#msg13576

Carth and Corwin...I don't know.  I haven't had time to look at them in more detail, and the only thing going through my head at the moment is amounting to them jumping on me as an easy target with what happened, so I'd like to look over that some more.

You only had the two posts made at the time. I referred to them both. If you can't remember what you've said and where, or can't be bothered to look through the specific arguments, that shows a lack of attention. That, in turn, is a scumtell.

2) I apologize for being vanilla, but how do you get the "can't help find scum, no solution in sight" thing from my post?

Well.

First post:

6) I will read through things and try to get something out before deadline as best I can.  If I get killed, good luck town, and I apologize for any issues I've provided you. 

Second post:

As I said, I haven't had a huge amount of time to look over everything.

You go for the other lynch candidate present at the time, though you may well actually find him suspicious. As for the 'no solution in sight' part, I was referring to your complaints about Comcast. If I misread and your net access is now fixed, allowing you a steady presence from home, do say so and I'll concede this point. However, your posts after that one, including the one I'm replying to, have all complained of your limited availability due to reading/posting from work. The vibe I talked about was your defeatist-seeming attitude. "Here, I'll lay a vote on the guy who isn't me, can't be too sure on people but some of them might be town (here are names) even though I haven't really read everything, good luck". If you were town, I'd expect you to fight more.

A little overdone?  Perhaps, but as I said, all I got was a confusing vibe (From Excal - Andrew noted that I should be less playful - where do you get the annoyingness?) before.  It struck me as a bit overblown from what it originally was, especially since, you know...I don't find the annoying vibe anyway being said by anyone.  Where is it, Corwin?  It almost seems like YOU inflated the point against me from what it originally was.

Okay, then!

http://www.rpgdl.com/forums/index.php?topic=673.msg13312#msg13312

Excal:

Also, OK.  Can you please not refer to Rat by all kinds of wierd names?  I'm sure it's fun, but this isn't the place to add that kind of unnecessary confusion, and I hate having to stop my train of thought for a minute or so each time you do that so I can figure out who you're talking about?

http://www.rpgdl.com/forums/index.php?topic=673.msg13330#msg13330

Shale, in a generic way:

Let's see...as far as OK goes, the little dissertation on LYLO does seem pretty random, and many of his posts have gone on at length about either the obvious (No Lynch is bad, "accidental" lynching is a thing to be avoided) or nothing in particular (most of the metagaming talk, which could boil down to a few sentences).

http://www.rpgdl.com/forums/index.php?topic=673.msg13342#msg13342

Andrew:

On OK: The whole obvious advice and what have you thing is a neutral tell to me. The most troubling thing to me, looking back, is that note that...

Quote
As for meta-gaming...well, I've only ever been town...ever.  I am the most awesome townie there is, afterall OKIATUHIIAHWPIWCHTIA.

I realize it is playful, but playful talk can often mean just as much as real talk. We've seen this happen before in games, and all this does is plant little seeds of doubt. Not sure I feel strongly enough to swing a vote his direction because of it, but it really does bother me.

http://www.rpgdl.com/forums/index.php?topic=673.msg13522#msg13522

Finally, there's myself:

Quote
##Vote: OblivionKnight. Okay, who remembered OK was playing, bad pun unintended? He came, he placed a oneliner jokevote, he left. Content, please.

That's what I said when I voted OK originally. He showed up after I did so, voted Keeshi for 'lurking', kept on referring to the post restriction game to the point of annoyance (not only my own, as I gathered from the responses in the thread), unvoted Keeshi quickly and said he was 'waiting' on smodge without a lurker vote this time around. His next (and last) post are about lynching, essentially coming down to game mechanics.

Is this enough, or do you want me to comb the thread? Still get this strange feeling that I'm inflating things for mysteriously nefarious reasons? All I'm doing is going by your actions and others' (including my own) reactions to them. I've actually presented both links and quotes in context, so if I'm the one mischaraterising them I'd like to hear from people on this.

Anyway. I'll wait on a clarification of OK's availability. I'd also like him to present the content I've been prodding him for the other day. It's a good start to rate us all in order of towniness, but cases + evidence would be a lot better.

On other issues: Keeshi's looking worse to me, today. Really, the above line to OK is something that I hope she takes to heart as well. While I can see differences between mafia played in different places, it's hard to see a group that would put all emphasis on personal defense in lieu of making cases on those one considers scummy, and she'd better be considering some people here scummy by now. I need to see her do a decent effort convincing us that her targets are scum and should get lynched.

On Excal: Wouldn't oppose that lynch due to what happened last time, with the no lynch. Still hoping people actually go for the sensible LAL strategy as we gather more info. Remember, scum usually hide as lurkers, and once we've hit scum, we have a lot more information available to us!

131

Forum Games / Re: Composer Battle Is Go! THE TREBLE CLEF IS YOUR DOOM!

« on: March 28, 2008, 09:08:51 PM »

What Shale said. How the hell did this happen with the deadline falling at the time pretty much everyone in US should be awake and around? Wasn't Alex said to be around? Why didn't he move his vote from Keeshi to make it count?

And why the hell didn't Keeshi move to Excal?

If we CAN lynch Excal, that would be my preference over OK.  I don't really feel either lynch, but I feel less sure about OK's than I do about Excal's.

We have this. And then, we have the following:

Yes, but if I switch, we'd still be at 6, no lynch.  if no one is around but those of us voting for Excal, our only hope to get ANY lynch would seem to be you and Otter moving here.

Yeah, except that if you'd moved your vote and stuck around, Otter appearing to comment and move his would allow you to switch your vote back. Or, alternately, Cid might've given us an extention in that case. Now we don't get a flip. (EDIT for Keeshi's last post: I see she addressed this in her response to Ryogo, but I'm not convinced. Keeshi, since you stayed around till deadline, what would have prevented you from moving back had Otter showed up?)

Let's aim for a decision within 48 hours today, shall we? Waiting until the last minutes hasn't exactly worked out for us here. And I still see OK as my prime candidate. On top of the previous reasons for voting OK, we now also have this:

http://www.rpgdl.com/forums/index.php?topic=673.msg13571#msg13571

6) I will read through things and try to get something out before deadline as best I can.  If I get killed, good luck town, and I apologize for any issues I've provided you.

OK showed up and made two posts, which amount at their core to 'I'm vanilla, sorry dudes, can't help you find scum; no solution in sight'. His second post chose Excal, which is understandable since no one would vote for themselves, but I don't find it particularly useful. He calls Rat and I jumping on him for being an 'easy target'. That's strange. I can't speak for Rat, but I thought I went for him based on my 'eliminate lurkers, where lurkers = people with low or no content' policy. He says he doesn't have time to read the entire topic, but one should hope he'd read at least the cases brought up against him. In the previous post, OK also inflates the way people complained about his reference to post restriction mafia. "However, I didn't notice anyone outright say "This is offensive and I hate you". " -- this obviously never happened that way; no one was claiming it did. That OK would address some of the case against him (the parts regarding obfuscation and smokescreening) by obfuscating said case as well doesn't exactly clear him in my eyes.

##Vote: OK

Again, let's try to have all the debate done at the 48 hour mark and have a lynch candidate agreed on? We don't even have to take that long if people don't have any new arguments to bring to the table.

132

Forum Games / Re: Composer Battle Is Go! THE TREBLE CLEF IS YOUR DOOM!

« on: March 27, 2008, 06:35:04 PM »

To Otter: No, though perhaps I wasn't being clear enough. I chose to comment only on part of your argument against Excal. I wasn't insinuating that what I inquired about was the only thing you had against him. As I've said before, I think there are puzzling things about Excal and he should be watched closely, but I don't think there's enough evidence against him. I see the contradictions and the 'handwaving' he's doing, but I feel it's too early and he could've just gotten too defensive for his own good.

And it's so frustrating, because I happen to believe Keeshi, especially with her latest couple of posts, so it's tempting to just vote the unknown that is Excal instead. Sigh. All the talk about LAL, and nothing happens with it. But I'm not willing to throw in the towel just yet on a sound policy that has worked time and time again, and would have given town the win if only we had used it more. I reiterate that there are people (Sopko and OK) whose content is lacking and, in the latter's case, disturbing.

In fact, my desire to do something about the above lead me to go over the thread from the beginning of the game. It reveals that OK has not posted in over 20 hours! Comparing the posts of the two, OK's participation is even more suspect than Sopko's. In fact, this leads me to change my vote, and I hope others do so as well.

##Vote: OblivionKnight. Okay, who remembered OK was playing, bad pun unintended? He came, he placed a oneliner jokevote, he left. Content, please.

That's what I said when I voted OK originally. He showed up after I did so, voted Keeshi for 'lurking', kept on referring to the post restriction game to the point of annoyance (not only my own, as I gathered from the responses in the thread), unvoted Keeshi quickly and said he was 'waiting' on smodge without a lurker vote this time around. His next (and last) post are about lynching, essentially coming down to game mechanics.

##Unvote: Sopko
##Vote: OK

I don't like that he needs votes on him to show up with content. I don't like that his content is slim, being marginally passable. I see a similar hypocrisy in OK that Otter and others do in Excal. Did I mention already that he hasn't been around in almost a full day? Modkill, content without prodding or lynch, I want one of these to happen here.

Those voting for Keeshi (or considering doing so) and who haven't yet commented on whether you consider her actions truly scummy or just bad play. Is the Keeshi case more compelling than this?

Those voting Excal or thinking of switching to him: of the two, who is participating more, thus giving us more clues to their alignment? Does Excal's behavior look scummier than OK's?

We don't have much time, so let's do this right rather than fall prey to what could well be the regular day 1 townie-vs-townie fights.

133

Forum Games / Re: Composer Battle Is Go! THE TREBLE CLEF IS YOUR DOOM!

« on: March 27, 2008, 02:12:36 PM »

Rat, I recall you talk about the horrors of teamliquid mafia (that's the forum, yeah?) so that doesn't really say much. Ryogo claimed to have read our past games and then committed a faux pas similar to what was prominently attacked the previous game. Tom and smodge played before joining Tsukihime, too, and yet I don't see how it gave them any incredible experience or insight that game.

Bottom line, I'm still seeing Keeshi as new, regardless of any mafia she might've played elsewhere. It did help to hear you say that you actually are voting based on a decision that she's scum, rather than a form of bad play. I would still like to hear from others who are voting Keeshi on this, of course.

On metagaming and analyzing Alex's words and actions. I disagree with you there, Rat. Things may change, yes, but even key beliefs? What about Alex's own admitted major scumtell of looking for what he doesn't say? Am I to just treat him like another newbie rather than draw upon my experience in games I've played with him?

Re: OK, if he dips too far into lurker territory he'll be an acceptable target for me today. He is one of the people I suspect, so joint with lack of content that would be enough. May this summon him to post and provide content.

134

Forum Games / Re: Composer Battle Is Go! THE TREBLE CLEF IS YOUR DOOM!

« on: March 27, 2008, 12:42:34 PM »

Alex: http://www.rpgdl.com/forums/index.php?topic=673.msg13398#msg13398

No one as of yet is really pinging at me for low content.

I find it interesting that one of the people with low content is saying this. Then again, it does make sense, since if you acknowledge the presence of low-content people, you can't avoid the label yourself.

It'll be hard to look for that this game since we seem to have a much larger than average number of people with restricted posting.

And... since when do you care about this, Alex? Some people could have issues that prevent them from posting much. As long as they provide content, it's all good. If they don't, why should we give them leeway there? Ironically, I find myself paraphrasing Andrew, who said that scum can have these issues just as well as town.


http://www.rpgdl.com/forums/index.php?topic=673.msg13400#msg13400

Keeshi responds to Alex. I really don't like this line:

The fact that I chose low posting availability over a true LAL is personal preference, admittedly.

I could, under certain circumstances, see the benefits of pruning bad players/players incapable of contributing to town. However, if nothing else, the previous game showed me that just because I can't think of a way to contribute effectively in their situation does not make it so. Also, just because in some conceivable situation such pruning could take place, it should never happen before actual LAL -- Cid was contributing, while Tonfa and LD were lurking, and we all know how that worked out. How could you ever have a 'preference', much less follow on, that overrides this common sense? LAL is a conscious choice made by a player; inability to post enough is not, and thus is far more neutral!

Mmm, what else about the Alex/Keeshi bout? Semantics over 'attacking' threaten to overwhelm the real issue for a while, there. Smokescreen? Let's move past it.

No lynch is not a good strategy, but random lynch or lynch disregarding town/scumminess is in fact worse.  Much worse.

Yeah, no. Just no. There is, in fact, one concrete case where lynching disregarding town/scumminess is not only better, but the best option, and I refuse to believe Alex merely forgot about it. When we're getting close to hammer and there are not enough votes, with town losing its only reliable weapon (a lynch), people SHOULD vote for the lynch and have it happen. In fact, Alex has argued for this point himself in previous games. Likewise, when there's deadlock, I certainly don't want to leave things to Hat. A human player will always be preferable when voting! Even if they can't tell which choice is 'scummier', there is always the oft-maligned 'gut feeling' that could guide the player and lead them to place the vote on the right target. Just because someone can't put well into words what about a person about to be lynched feels scummy to them doesn't mean they are choosing entirely blind.

And even let's say that they do. After the flip, we still see who brought up the lynch, who made the case, and we can analyze it all, even if we ended up hitting town and mislynching.

Anyway, just because something is a bad option doesn't mean you go to the worse alternative.

http://www.rpgdl.com/forums/index.php?topic=673.msg13416#msg13416

Sopko comments, incidentally providing content. Not enough for an unvote on my part, but a start. He seems to see the same point I do on voting always benefitting us more than inaction.

http://www.rpgdl.com/forums/index.php?topic=673.msg13422#msg13422

The stupid banter over No Lynch is moronic (gogo redundancy), why are we still discussing it or bringing it up?

The answer to Rat, here, is that I find it extremely puzzling and thus suspect that Alex is playing the devil's advocate for this stance. I remember my first game, where even an innocent mention of possible No Lynch brought on the wrath of the other players, Alex chief among them, upon me. People may change their stances, but I don't think Alex has, where this is concerned.

http://www.rpgdl.com/forums/index.php?topic=673.msg13424#msg13424

Back to Alex.

I was pointing out that Keeshi's own logic should lead to a No Lynch vote.  Therefore, Keeshi's logic is bad.

No, Alex. What you were doing was applying your own logic to Keeshi's words, as if you were in his situation, and then rejecting it out of hand as bad. That's pretty arrogant, but pot/kettle so yeah.

Also, Keeshi's following this logic to a vote that isn't No Lynch and doesn't logically follow.  Therefore, Keeshi's actions are worse.

I find it the height of irony that I agree with your conclusions, but disagree very strongly with how you got there. Yes, I think Keeshi's logic is horrible -- it should have gone for the less town-seeming player or the most lurkerish one. However, deciding that since no one rings as 100% SCUM => Must Vote No Lynch is horribly flawed! Just how certain are you that Keeshi is scum? Can you put that into numbers, into a percentage? Keeshi's call is bad, and the grounds of her vote for vote for Andrew is something I disagree with, but I don't see it as the horrible scumtell you claim it is.

I am not seriously advocating no lynch and I don't see how anyone could get that from anything but a very cursory reading of my posts.

Well. I think I said this to smodge or Tom before, can't remember which or in what game. Reread your posts, look at all the people, myself included, who read them the way you 'don't see how anyone could'. I, personally, don't see how you can decide for others which logic they must use, which conclusions they must get to, and how we are to read your own posts and parse them.


http://www.rpgdl.com/forums/index.php?topic=673.msg13437#msg13437

What I am saying is that you should at all times past the jokevote phase be more than "passingly suspicious" of people's alignments.  We are four pages into this game now, serious discussion is proceeding at a very nice clip, and you still aren't suspicious enough of anyone to lay a vote on them?  Seriously?  That is one of the things I currently find scummy about you. 

I do have issues with Alex beyond the (apparent) no lynch thing, and telling people how they should play. Here is one of them.

Alex, I am not suspicious enough of anyone in the game at this stage to lay a fully serious vote against them. Not 100% serious. I have suspicions, yes, and there are people I see as better than others, but if it were, say, LYLO I wouldn't even be proposing a case on anyone, much less voting. Because it's day 1 our standards may be lower, but are you seriously claiming there is sufficient evidence to lynch someone with reasonable confidence that they're scum? And more over, that it is visible to everyone?

Let's take a look at the vote count, shall we? (http://www.rpgdl.com/forums/index.php?topic=673.msg13430#msg13430) The highest anyone has on them is 2 votes (to be fair, Excal and Rat placed two more votes on Keeshi, but that's happened well after the time Keeshi's and your posts were made, in an arguably different situation), and some of them are pressure or 'lurker' votes. Some people are more jumpy, others need more evidence before proceeding. How is that sign of being scum or, hell, even wrong or bad play?

The point on side-tracking the discussion is valid. However, Keeshi is, after all, new here. I'm inclined to see it as a result of that rather than some nefarious scum plot. Also, it must be pointed out, how you attacked Keeshi before for not using no lynch over her bad choice of reason to vote is not entirely irrelevant to the discussion and to her defense.

WHICH WE SHOULDN'T, caps since people keep (deliberately?) misreading me on this

Yes, because caps make everything better. It can't be the person who wrote things vaguely, or who is (possibly?) backpedaling from a bad claim. No, it must be the unwashed masses of readers who are all secretely scum and want Alex killed who keep on misattributing things to him.

Anyway, I don't see anything new in the other Alex post, just a repeat of the same. I must say that Alex has joined the other list of suspects I had previously, and that if I didn't believe strongly that LAL would win us the game, I would be voting for him right now. However, while he moved up to a more prominent spot for me (not convinced he is, but he looks the scummiest _on day 1_), he's actually done this by posting more, and there is solid content. Just because I disagree with the content and think a considerable part of it looks scummy is no reason to dismiss it. As with Excal, I want to observe Alex more.

To Rat. I feel the same way you do about OK with my attempt to move us to LAL. People seem to say they wouldn't mind it, and yet, it happens not.

http://www.rpgdl.com/forums/index.php?topic=673.msg13489#msg13489

Otter. I'm a bit confused. You restate what amounts to a case against Keeshi (a case I think is misplaced since quite a lot of it relies on ignoring her newbie status), but end up using it as evidence against Excal. Am I right in taking that part of your argument as 'Keeshi is new but Excal isn't, so he should know better or be scum'?

Andrew. I still find it puzzling that what you say essentially boils down to "we don't have enough to go on to call anyone a lurker, but we have enough to go on to find someone scummy (!!!) and thus should go for the latter option". It is logic I cannot get behind no matter how I try.

Tom (and others who agree here): Other than Alex, which of you actually finds Keeshi's actions scummy, rather than bad play?

And voting based on something other than scummyness? Definately bad.

Your own words, and I've seen variations on the theme from others, such as 'town must hunt scum, anything else is bad play'. Which is horribly misleading, there is more than one strategy of scum-hunting. Not everything is about 'person a is uber-scummy, agree with me and let's lynch them!'. 'Scum have usually acted this way in the past, that's just the way scum inevitably act, let's take out the lurkers; their lack of content doesn't allow us to study them indepth' should be just as valid, if not more.

Yes, in case it isn't clear, I disagree with the Keeshi lynch and the reasons for it, since unlike Rat I don't have such a high tolerance for what I see as hypocrisy in mafia.

135

Forum Games / Re: Composer Battle Is Go! THE TREBLE CLEF IS YOUR DOOM!

« on: March 26, 2008, 08:03:06 PM »

Okay, caught up, board is up, posting again at last.

http://www.rpgdl.com/forums/index.php?topic=673.msg13337#msg13337

Otter's hitting mostly the same points on Tom (technically, I'm echoing him, since he posted first, but....). On Rat... man, this is so ridiculous and overblown. The point on Andrew, though, is one I'd like to revisit in more depth. I understand Otter's Andrew vote and the reasoning behind it. Andrew's post (http://www.rpgdl.com/forums/index.php?topic=673.msg13342#msg13342) had the following passage in response to Otter's points on him:

I do have to ask though. Why do you quote that particular Corwin line about me? You do realize that that post was made before I'd had the chance to post again? Your diction (specifically your use of the term of "tellingly") seems designed to misrepresent Cor's comment on me. Of course that was all he had to say about me. I hadn't posted again yet!

Ironically, my opinion of Andrew worsened after he posted again. However, just because I don't like the way he looks, the point does seem valid in part. Andrew is right to say that there's certain scrutiny in his direction (mind, I still don't but an Andrew day 1 lynch as something that'd happen, but he's certainly not getting a free pass). Also, Andrew's also right that there was literally nothing else for me to say about him; building a case upon a jokepost/vote without waiting for at least a second post from Andrew seems a bit overzealous.

Question for Andrew. You referred to LAL as a good strategy in a post (and I noted you do it). Can you please explain why you're not going with it for your voting pattern here? I find it difficult to believe that you have some kind of superior radar of day 1 scum-catching, and statistically a lynch based on a day 1 'case' is usually likely to get a townie, perhaps due to townie-on-townie spats. Normally I'd spend ages extolling the virtues of LAL and how it would at least let us prune away those who don't contribute much and don't let us see enough of them to make an informed decision later on in the game, or how scum usually lurks-- but you already agree, don't you? Anyway, while I ranted a bit here, there's still a question buried within and I'd like to hear your rationalization for avoiding LAL so far.

http://www.rpgdl.com/forums/index.php?topic=673.msg13339#msg13339
http://www.rpgdl.com/forums/index.php?topic=673.msg13367#msg13367

Two Tom posts. He comes off pretty strongly about his theory in the first, then reclassifies it as a gut feeling in the second after being challenged. I don't see his logic, in any case. Tom, are you trying to justify for yourself a way to latch onto Rat's reasoning? Though he might be a cool person in real life (I dunno, you'd know better), how can you even consider taking someone else's theories for your own? Or is it something else?

I'll move on to Excal's post. (http://www.rpgdl.com/forums/index.php?topic=673.msg13384#msg13384)

Excal defends several strange things observed about him by not really defending them. As valid a stance as any, since what could he possibly say that we'll accept? I'm inclined to keep them in mind and observe him, but not vote for him at this point. A mention of Keeshi I found strange -- of all the people involved, she is the one you're having trouble remembering? Even if you discount smodge, I'm actually having difficulty keeping in mind Alex is around, given what I'm accustomed of seeing from him. Keeshi's presence feels quite stable.

Of note is that he votes Andrew, and Keeshi follows up with a post throwing on another vote Andrew's way half an hour later.

http://www.rpgdl.com/forums/index.php?topic=673.msg13393#msg13393

Andrew's post. I'm not sure I agree with his characterization of his participation as on par with mine, but it could be vanity speaking. Just because my post count is low holds no relevance over my actual content. Andrew, if you think mine is lacking, please provide an example or, alternately, ask me to expand on areas you believe I've neglected addressing.

I'm obviously not aware of how close you guys are.

Haha. Okay, we all laughed. Can we now get past this?

What it did do is place the two of you in a seemingly oppositional position with just enough strength to stand out.

This requires, of course, that I know in advance how Rat would react there. Which is, erm, a bit difficult without coordination even though we're friends. Are you then saying the two of us are talking outside the thread, Andrew?

I really wish people would quit acting like I'm attempting to use some "invincibility armor" though.

I never said that you were using it or trying to. I said you had it. I'd add 'whether you like it or not' there, but come on, who wouldn't like it?

Excal: I'll say this one more time, since I'm tired of clearing it up. What I feel is wrong with that part of Carth's argumentation has NOTHING to do with OK himself. What it has to do with is that it seems to be encouraging poor play by putting the concept of advising newbies into the "scummy" category. It feels like an anti-good play stance, and I heartily disapprove of it. The spat thing is as I've said. Carth's response felt uncharacteristic and stood out just enough for me to feel the possibility of some scum-scum antics. Since he also had the "advising" line of argumentation, it was enough for me to press against him instead of Cor.

You're listing as your main reason for voting something you thought was anti-good play on Rat's side. You mention the 'spat' as an aside. And yet, you also mention I was a viable option, just not as high as Rat. You don't mention anyone else.

Now, a quiz! If you're voting based on bad/scummy/anti-town play, where did I commit such an offense? What made me qualify above everyone else but Rat?

http://www.rpgdl.com/forums/index.php?topic=673.msg13308#msg13308

LAL is generally good policy and, even with excuses, should never be wholly evaded. Remember, scum can have real life issues to.

And back to my original question to you, as appears earlier in this post: why weren't you going with LAL to begin with?

136

Forum Games / Re: Composer Battle Is Go! THE TREBLE CLEF IS YOUR DOOM!

« on: March 26, 2008, 01:10:30 PM »

Thoughts and impressions. OK's insistence to refer to people with a mention of the previous mafia game is puzzling. I know I was distracted from his content by trying to puzzle out why he addressed me the way he had, and it's obviously not just the way he referred to me. What bothers me here is that in this post (http://www.rpgdl.com/forums/index.php?topic=673.msg13259#msg13259), to use an example, he also refers to how things in mafia could be misinterpreted and seems to wish for greater clarity. It just feels weird that he would do it in the same post where he also pointlessly calls me "Mr. stars and analysis".

Moving on to how OK talks of scum hammering someone, potentially killing a power role without the chance of a roleclaim. Frankly, the chances of this are slight. Also, if we're going for unlikely but possible scenarios, what about the one where we wait too long and second-guess ourselves while scum move the lynch away from them and to someone innocent? Unlike with your scenario, this one happened quite a bit and I could bring several examples of it easily if you can't remember it happening yourself. In summary, waiting for roleclaims = sure. Holding on to our votes so as to not place someone oh no -4 to hammer = no. Bending over backwards to give someone just one more chance in a long line of one more chances = no.

Usually, this isn't an issue - if there's a big screw-up, usually, I've noticed the person dug themselves in deeper (Super, Tom in previous games).

I do indeed remember Super imploding as scum, most memorably in NR mafia. But... strange that you would mention Tom in this context, whom I believe is a contender to Ciato's record, if not her disposition. Do you know something we don't, OK?

And now it's all on smodge.  I'll be waiting for him to get back when I return around...god knows when. 

And just in case anyone wonders why I bothered arguing about what essentially comes down to style in the paragraph above, here's a handy self-explanatory quote. If everyone did this and unvoted their 'pressure votes' and then just sat around on their votes 'waiting for X to get back' then smodge would still be at 0 votes right now and, in fact, under no real pressure to show up.

On the whole Ryogo/No Lynch thing. Ah, nostalgia. I remember being curious about the No Lynch option my first game and almost being buried for it. It still amuses me to see it called a 'scum tactic' since even though there's no argument that it favors scum quite a bit, I have yet to see scum actually employ it. Ever. So yeah.

http://www.rpgdl.com/forums/index.php?topic=673.msg13276#msg13276

A Tom post I can only characterize as 'smug' throughout.

"Well spotted! Thumbs up for Keeshi."
"You're not doing too bad for a newb!"

Just a couple of the most grating examples. What exactly possessed you to act superior to a new player in this way? (EDIT: glancing at the votecount below reveals that Keeshi has a vote against you at the time of your post; could this be the reason? Your post could be read either as a condescending attack or hamhanded praise, both of which would fit if you were trying to make that vote go away. Suspicious.)

Also. "Talking = shows you're town." WHAT.

On Ryogo being defensive/Tom commenting on it being a scumtell. Eh. My opinion is that you must have solid content, and that additionally this content is measured up against your overall contribution. Thus, even if there is some original content out there, if it ends up being buried in constant self-defense, that doesn't actually help town. It's not the defense itself that's suspect, heavy though it may be, but lack of content on other people. And having said that, I'm expecting to hear from Ryogo on this front. Let's hear what you think about all the other players and why.

http://www.rpgdl.com/forums/index.php?topic=673.msg13298#msg13298

'cos hasty hammers are *really dumb* and leave a pretty clear paper trail, I'd say. In theory, anyhow. (They certainly give more to work with than a nice, orderly lynch where everyone calmly and rationally agrees.)

That question was really to OK. And yes, I agree, which makes it a rhetorical question, I suppose. I just really don't see how scum hammering suddenly before a chance to roleclaim anywhere outside of LYLO would not only happen but be 'convenient' for them, as OK alluded earlier.

Moving on down Rat's post. I obviously disagree on his reading of Tom's post to Keeshi. On smodge....

Well, now. We actually have a post from the mod that states smodge is about to get modkilled if he doesn't show up within a given timeframe. This was not the case when OK posted, with intent to go after smodge but not laying a vote. In this case, however, I believe that this is enough for me to unvote him at this time. ##Unvote: Smodge.

Who do I find suspicious? Let's see. I'll answer once I've caught up.

Moving on again. Andrew puzzles me with his 'Cor/Rat spat'. Say what? It's just a bit of banter, Rat's a friend, I'm allowed to have them. I used to auto-jokevote Rat lots on day 1 in old games for much the same reason. As you've noticed yourself, it never actually took front stage to anything or obscured any issues, so what's the deal? That you even use it as part of any vote on Rat is suspicious as hell, especially when paired with the immunity I cited you had going for the game's opening stage at least. Let's be frank, there's not much you can do besides going "scum lol don't wanna play anymore" that could get your lynched this day. Yeah, no, that's not a reason to use suspect arguments for when you vote outside the joke phase. Particularly egrerious since he agrees that LAL is a good policy. Rat is anything but a lurker so far by any definition of the word.

The other part of Andrew's reason to vote Rat doesn't really fly for me, either.

http://www.rpgdl.com/forums/index.php?topic=673.msg13326#msg13326

You haven't been completely lurking Otter, but your content is lacking. What's your stand on things now?

Back at'cha, Sopko.

Pausing here: http://www.rpgdl.com/forums/index.php?topic=673.msg13337#msg13337

I don't have the time to keep on going, and already over half the workday has passed. Lunch break is ending, etc. On skimming below nothing alters my perceptions on how scummy people look, though it might actually change the 'neutral' reads I have, so I'll comment properly later.

Now, however, to revisit Rat's question of where my vote should go, in my opinion.

I went over OK, Tom, Sopko and Andrew and either of them raises enough bells for a day 1 vote, especially the former. Alex should get an honorary mention for having a far diminished presence compared to other games, but I don't think it quite warrants a vote. Ryogo and Keeshi are new here, and haven't done anything I view as particularly scummy. No read on Otter, Excal, Shale or yourself to matter. Ironically, to me, since I ended up defending you.

So which one actually gets the vote? Sopko, whom I feel is lurking (content-wise). There's simply not enough this early into the game for me to seriously vote on 'evidence', so LAL it is to pressure people to participate more fully. If this lack of content is unintentional, Sopko, you know how to make me change my vote.

##Vote: Sopko

137

Forum Games / Re: Composer Battle Is Go! THE TREBLE CLEF IS YOUR DOOM!

« on: March 25, 2008, 07:23:20 PM »

OK posts. OK posts more than the token. ##Unvote: OK.

And Ryogo remembered I was playing.  So someone did remember I was playing, just to answer your question.

To OK: That was pretty much a figure of speech to illustrate my point, so don't take it too literally.

To Rat: I disagree on the timezones and time to partitipate and your life (until I see proof of one), but there's little point in effectively derailing conversation to go back and forth on this. Aside from that... I find myself in agreement with what you and Excal say about OK.

OK's justification for voting Keeshi as 'same as I did for OK' feels off to me (Keeshi's contribution to the game at the time of OK's vote seems higher than OK's at the time of mine, though that could be subjective), and so does what reads as a warning about being careful with your vote. You call scum hammering outside LYLO before someone is able to make a compelling defense 'convenient'? How?

Ryogo makes me frown. He alternates between going 'sorry guys I don't know how this is played, newbie misses, don't kill plz' and 'I noticed the following from reading your past games....'. So, like, which is it? Aren't these two stances incompatible to a large degree? Just doesn't sit well with me.

Keeshi posts. Interesting theory, no real comments otherwise. Feels a bit farfetched, but that someone considered that angle is good.

Finally. Smodge posts nothing despite ample chances to, so barring a modkill/mod post about some consequences out of smodge's control, here's another vote for him. ##Vote: smodge.

138

Forum Games / Re: Composer Battle Is Go! THE TREBLE CLEF IS YOUR DOOM!

« on: March 25, 2008, 08:44:32 AM »

Mmm. I'd like to take issues with Rat's claim of posting regularly with no problem despite being a vile Oz person. First, Rat has no life and even he would not contest this. Second, his lack of life actually overlaps with the US quite a lot, certainly more than Europe+dreaded barbarian lands nearby do, for the times that matter here.

Next, seconding Otter's words on how targetting low content is town's best strategy. If only people did that more-- but yeah. Not like there's anything to be done about past mistakes.

http://www.rpgdl.com/forums/index.php?topic=673.msg13173#msg13173

Don't really like how Rat warns Otter not to talk about how to play the game... and continues talking about how to play the game. Day 1, etc, but yeah.

On Excal's third vote/Alex taking issue with it/everyone letting it slide. I think I'll join the latter group, since Excal's offered an explanation for his vote that I agree with by the time I've started reading the thread. I've done the same thing myself before to start discussion early on day 1, though I've tried to mark it clearly as such then. Of course, it could be just an after-the-fact justification once Alex said something. Eh. Doesn't really feel like it to me.

http://www.rpgdl.com/forums/index.php?topic=673.msg13208#msg13208

Excal -
Ryogo didn't do anything especially scummy. Not that I can see anyway. Then you blame Rat, Shale, Otter and Sopko for not picking up on what you said? What? So basically they're scummy for not pointing out that you were scummy first? Can you please explain what happened there, I'm confused and concerned.

I'm not Excal, but allow me to comment anyway, Tom? Yes, that's exactly it. If someone uses bad or suspect logic, and people agree with him or don't point it out, it's suspicious. If the person himself later realizes his logic was bad, he is fully entitled to call them out on this.

That said, I don't think this issue, on either side, is particularly scummy. If it weren't day 1, it probably wouldn't even be debated beyond a minor point in someone's case.

Well, then. A lurker vote would be my strategy, where lurker is defined by not being present within a reasonable timeframe and/or not contributing meaningful content. Followed properly, this strategy will not fail.

Smodge gets his chance to post something, plus he already has a vote. Andrew has his excuse/reason/invincibility armor that I believe will get him through day 1 at least, whether justly or not. BUT. ##Vote: OblivionKnight. Okay, who remembered OK was playing, bad pun unintended? He came, he placed a oneliner jokevote, he left. Content, please.

139

Forum Games / Re: Composer Battle Is Go! THE TREBLE CLEF IS YOUR DOOM!

« on: March 25, 2008, 07:48:48 AM »

Post of 'it's morning for me, I'm around'. Will actually comment once I've gone through the thread beyond skimming is briefly.

140

Forum Games / Re: Classical Composer Mafia: Early signups

« on: March 21, 2008, 11:10:32 AM »

Where? On the previous page, of course.  >_>

http://www.rpgdl.com/forums/index.php?topic=373.msg9374#msg9374

141

Forum Games / Re: Post Restriction Mafia - Game Thread - Day 1

« on: March 19, 2008, 09:56:49 AM »

Yes, pretty much. When do you think of running your game?

142

Forum Games / Re: Post Restriction Mafia - Game Thread - Day 1

« on: March 19, 2008, 09:39:18 AM »

Other than having headaches and all and going off too much on a limb, Cid? I thought that people who claim restrictions that allow them to lurk if they rely on them should get a special look of interest, since a bit of creativeness would allow them to get more content out there despite their restrictions. Thus, if they didn't actually do this, it would be scummy. This... was actually pretty accurate, though sadly innocent Andrew would've gotten grouped together with Tonfa and LD.

Adding you was... a stupid idea, going on an extreme of eliminating players for bad town play. If you see that as acceptable, then what use is someone who can't reliably and originally participate? Unlike bad play it wouldn't be because of anything you did, but because your role just wouldn't allow you to be a good player for town. Or so I thought. It's extremely shaky as it is as an argument, and had I actually considered providing you with lines/words/phrases/letters or seen it work, that would've instantly shown me it was wrong. Oh well.

It's a shame you didn't actually breadcrumb your investigations. Had you shown some sign of trusting Andrew....

143

Forum Games / Re: Post Restriction Mafia - Game Thread - Day 1

« on: March 19, 2008, 07:51:09 AM »

Yeah, a time limit on lylo was sadness. I certainly wasn't going to vote first this early in lylo, though, even if I were scum.

144

Forum Games / Re: Post Restriction Mafia - Game Thread - Day 1

« on: March 19, 2008, 07:31:47 AM »

A shame, I would've been for an LD lynch, obviously.  >_>

145

Forum Games / Re: Post Restriction Mafia - Game Thread - Day 1

« on: March 19, 2008, 07:18:29 AM »

How is lurking something beyond people's control? There were two players who basically went 'we can only post so much in a single post' and yet never responded to my queries of why not just make a second post or done so themselves.

Not really a defense of a couple quite bad (and badly phrased, in particular) arguments I've made, no, but I still can't see why we would consistently lynch people who, you know, participate over those who don't.

146

Forum Games / Re: Post Restriction Mafia - Game Thread - Day 1

« on: March 19, 2008, 06:54:10 AM »

YES it was.

147

Forum Games / Re: Post Restriction Mafia - Game Thread - Day 1

« on: March 19, 2008, 05:07:31 AM »

Man. All I can say for my defense that I was ill day 2. 

Anyway, I can understand scum jumping on the bad and dimissing the rest, but why did the rest of you? Tonfa and LD lurked hardcore and the former had zero content. Zero. Also, despite having no claimed problem with posting twice in a row to compensate, they still weren't doing it.

Heh, and Yakumo slipped? I went over LD's, Andrew's and Tonfa's posts, but not his. Go figure.

148

Forum Games / Re: Post Restriction Mafia - Game Thread - Day 1

« on: March 18, 2008, 11:01:39 PM »

http://www.rpgdl.com/forums/index.php?topic=572.msg12536#msg12536

Your response to my question doesn't convince me in the slightest. Here's someone town's going to lynch. Look, he's already there at -1 to hammer. You also think he's scummy-seeming, just not as much as other people… why leads you to, what, leave a scum around? That's some of the worst mafia logic I've ever seen. What exactly did you need, there? A cop roleclaim and a specific statement that someone was 100% certified scum before you dropped your own vote where it should've belonged?

Well, we don't have the cop investigation claim, sadly, so I'll have to make do with what's available. This has hardly been my best game, but it's been rife with bad and downright stupid townie play from the start, so it's hardly news-or-vote worthy. Hell, when our MVP is a MUTE something's gone terribly wrong for town.

Well, then. You lay a vote early in LYLO, before everyone has even commented on the recent arguments, despite having ample time. Town loses if even one townie votes another. This means one of two things: we have already lost with your vote, or you're scum. I tend to believe the latter, so here is my own vote.

##Vote: Excal

As for why Mr. Cid wouldn't vote for you if he thought you were so bad?  That's easy!  He's not able to let a vote sit on anyone who hasn't already had a vote left on them by someone else!

Yeah, except this argument is bullshit. Cid could've used the quoted text to type up this missing requirement and then requested someone vote for me so he could join me. Or, you know, he could've voted for me after you had, if he had been so inclined. Or, once again, he could've just abstained from voting alongside Tonfa for Tom.

You've been doing this dance for three days now.  I can't let it go on any longer.  I can't help but feel that Tonfa is like our friends Tom and Smodge. Someone not so good at defending themselves, that's about to be picked off with not a thing he could do, despite his quirk being oddly helpful to our friend Mr. Mime.

This is an outright lie, and I invite people to reread the previous days or ask me for citations if they feel exceptionally lazy to do so. I was DEFENDING smodge, someone 'not so good at defending themselves', and I was defending him from YOU among others. To twist this around is truly amazing boldness.

But, it's time to bring this day down to the two of us, Mrs. Corwin.

This, I must admit, is the most suspicious line I've seen out of you so far. I was hardly focusing on Tonfa today, and at the same time, I kept on mentioning that I was waiting on answers to my questions and comments on my points, not building a particular case.

Yet, you have decided that the day must come either to me or you. That hardly shows a pro-town attitude, and for the life of me I can't see why you'd employ such tunnel vision as town. Even though I still suspect LD, for example, and I haven't exactly been a stellar player here, I still took a step back to look at the big picture, to examine it from another angle. You, however, have kept on me for the same old argument, while dismissing those anyone made against yourself. And conveniently helped mislynch the first two times, it must be noted as an aside.

5 stars on your game-deciding post, definitely.

149

Forum Games / Re: Post Restriction Mafia - Game Thread - Day 1

« on: March 18, 2008, 09:54:17 PM »

##Vote: Excal
##Unvote: Excal

150

Forum Games / Re: Post Restriction Mafia - Game Thread - Day 1

« on: March 18, 2008, 08:27:37 PM »

http://www.rpgdl.com/forums/index.php?topic=572.msg11749#msg11749

-Considering his restriction though.
-I'd rather err with him than with someone else or a no lynch.

Aren't these basically two parts of one sentence you'd normally have to separate with a comma? The 'comma and such' you said you were not allowed to use in any form? I found this early day 1 post very informative, earning it 4 stars.

It also reminded me of your inattention that day, forgetting smodge had posted and being confused about lack of restrictions being a scumtell and where it was stated by Rat (which is in the rules and during sign-up).

http://www.rpgdl.com/forums/index.php?topic=572.msg12520#msg12520

Tonfa could well be scum, yes. But I strongly disagree that Cid copped him and came up with scum. Also, consider what you're saying. If you believe this, then you're claiming Cid had spotted TWO out of THREE scum as cop before LYLO. And then, rather than voting for one of them or roleclaiming… he voted for someone he didn't investigate and thus started a train? Does that even make sense to anyone? Copping two scum would leave a trail so great for us we'll be sure to catch scum #3. Also, if we happen to have a doc, a roleclaim by Cid that day was likely to have saved him from the NK. No, I insist that had he actually investigated scum successfully up to that time, he would have said so decisively, or at least acted upon it with a real vote (even if, perhaps, reluctantly later joining a train to hammer so we won't lose the lynch and its information altogether). 2 stars is the most I can give this bad reasoning.