Composer Battle Is Go! THE TREBLE CLEF IS YOUR DOOM!

[EvilTom]

Argh, accidentally slept in. I've only had time to glance over the thread no time to post now, but I'll be back in a few hours to a judgment on this Keeshi/Alex thing.

First: ##Unvote: Shale

Ok, I'd like to hear more explanation from Keeshi.

Quick question to Alex - are you saying Keeshi should vote for no-lynch in this circumstance where he doesn't find anyone scummy?

Ahh Mum is yelling at me, gotta go. Back soon.

[Carthrat]

Keeshi: So you're not actually attacking Andrew for what he's done, but you're hitting him for a statement to the effect that he won't have much time to post, possibly. Right. Fact is, it seems more like you're ignoring his contributions in favour of latching on to a detail that gives no clue either way.

All this talk about 'voting history' seems to echo previous stuff we've seen, such as the theory that Excal is saying stuff to provoke discussion (but won't tolerate it being used against him, as it isn't 'serious') and the like. They're similar in that these viewpoints are designed to promote opinions without their holder being truly accountable for them; meta-ish excuses, essentially. These actions may be eclipsed later in the game by more telling viewpoints and such,  but passing them off in day one does not feel viable to me.

I feel compelled to change my vote, anyhow. Time's running out, and out of the candidates people seem to be gravitating towards, she's the one that stands out most to me and the one with the strongest case put against her so far. ##Unvote, ##Vote: Keeshi.

Other People-

Excal: Latest post: I sort of handle hypocrisy very loosely in games of Mafia and on a case-by-case scenario. Let's suppose that Keeshi is town for a sec; if he knows he's going to be lurking somewhat, that might not necessarily absolve him of a responsibility to go after other lurkers. In this case I wouldn't hold this against him... if Andy was actually lurking.

Sopko: Eh. Seems to have been voted for low content, and I don't really agree with that; he's been concise, if anything. Would not support his lynch.

Corwin: For all that he talks a great deal about how overblown the apparent connection between us is, I can't help but think he's actually forging it himself, too. He does spend quite a fair bit of time talking about it (and could really have annihilated concerns with one paragraph or some such.) He's right with his questions on Andy, though.

[Ranmilia]

Alex, I think the more interesting thing we're discovering here is that you feel that we should all think like you think. 

Caught my interest here.  Yes, absolutely, that is the underlying assumption behind making arguments to sway people towards a given viewpoint.  It is what the persuasion part of the game is all about.  Obviously not everyone's going to agree with me on everything, but it would be utopia and instant win if you did!  Really it would!  And you'd say the same back to me and try to get me thinking the way you do... I hope. 

I get very suspicious when there seems to be a disconnect between what a person thinks for themselves and what they try (or don't try) to convince other people of.  This is because scum are naturally arguing from such a disconnect - they have to attack and call scummy players they know for a fact are not, and often try to hedge or ply multiple viewpoints.  ]

Quick question to Alex - are you saying Keeshi should vote for no-lynch in this circumstance where he doesn't find anyone scummy?

Why would you even ask this? (except to try and entrap me and go "Aha, Alex advocates no lynch!")  This has been covered.  You're missing my point.  Go back and read my posts carefully.  The only thing no lynch is preferable to is random lynch.

[Excal]

Alex, I think the more interesting thing we're discovering here is that you feel that we should all think like you think. 

Caught my interest here.  Yes, absolutely, that is the underlying assumption behind making arguments to sway people towards a given viewpoint.  It is what the persuasion part of the game is all about.  Obviously not everyone's going to agree with me on everything, but it would be utopia and instant win if you did!  Really it would!  And you'd say the same back to me and try to get me thinking the way you do... I hope. 

I get very suspicious when there seems to be a disconnect between what a person thinks for themselves and what they try (or don't try) to convince other people of.  This is because scum are naturally arguing from such a disconnect - they have to attack and call scummy players they know for a fact are not, and often try to hedge or ply multiple viewpoints.  ]

Nice bit of philosophy and a interesting tip that is worth keeping in mind, though your response also suggests that I didn't speak clearly enough.  What I meant was it seems like you want our thought process, the how we think, to mesh with yours.  And not the given that you also want our end result, the decision we make based on our thoughts, to be the same as yours.

ie. That we should all have a list of suspects by now, when it is entirely possible that some of us may not actually have something pinging our radars.  I know I have no strong feelings at the moment, though I do at least have one or two targets I'd put above the rest, as the vote should indicate.

Rat: I agree with your thoughts there pretty much word for word, which is why I joined up with Alex's argument.

OK?  Where are you?  You showed up, helped Ryogo which is neutral, make a lot of funny claims and referred to people in odd ways, and then you dissappeared.  You have to admit, that's pretty bloody unsettling, and it does nothing to help us.  So come on down and join the chat, please.

[Otter]

Alex, I think the more interesting thing we're discovering here is that you feel that we should all think like you think.  I can understand where Keeshi is coming from, given that I don't find anyone overly scummy at the moment either, and the decision to go with lynching the lurkers when nothing else concrete is at hand is a sensable and acceptable alternative.

That said...

##Unvote: Andy, ##Vote: Keeshi

I don't like the fact that Andy's response was the same thing that I was already calling bunk on, but I get the impression he's not going to budge from there.  So, while it leaves a bad taste in my mouth, it's not something to move on right now.

However, Keeshi, Alex has raised an excellent point in his first post against you, and it is one which you haven't addressed to any length yet.  Why do you suggest letting Andy swing in the same post where you admit that you will indefinatly share the same flaw he has until Saturday?

Okay!  So Excal starts by calling Keeshi's decision here sensible and acceptable, when Alex has demonstrated that it amounts to random lynch insofar as likelihood of actually nailing scum is concerned, and random lynch is an absolute death sentence for town.  To be clear here, this isn't Lynch All Lurkers, this is "Lynch Andrew because he revealed even before the game started that he'd have limited availability."  In fact, let's let Keeshi put that in her own words:

I agree.  Which is why I've been saying that it is not due to his current 'low quantity'.  He has found the time today to make a substantive amount of posts.  This is, of course, all to the good.  What I based my vote off of, again, is his statement that he believes himself able to make a single post every 24 hours usually  (until his time eases up when the weekend arrives).

So, I reiterate: this isn't LAL, she even admits he's been substantive today.  It's voting on somebody for a factor totally unrelated to whether or not they might actually be scum, which is the same as a random lynch.  Mathematically, town opting for random lynch is not a "strategy," it doesn't have its ups and downs, it's just surrender pure and simple.  Suggesting that we choose to lynch based on these factors (rather than actually hunt scum) is easily as bad or worse than advocating for no lynch, and Excal is calling this sensible and acceptable, while misrepresenting it as "lynching the lurkers" (which isn't what it is at all).

Let's pretend for a second, though, that this wasn't already incredibly anti-town!  Excal's called this reason for voting for people legitimate, already.  Now, he votes for Keeshi for voting for Andrew on this reasoning, citing the fact that Keeshi has the same (apparently vote-worthy, given Excal's agreement earlier in the same post) flaw herself.  This would be ludicrous even if the reason for voting made any town sense originally: obviously you're not going to vote for yourself whether you're townie or not, because if you really are a townie, that gives you absolutely no chance of hitting scum regardless of what tells you may have of your own.  If I've got some potentially voteworthy flaw and someone else does too, is it really so surprising that I'd vote for the other guy?

So, recap: Excal's supporting Keeshi's anti-town essentially random-lynch policy (which is -not- to be confused with LAL, because she clearly states that a lack of content from Andrew in-game so far is not her reason), but saying she shouldn't be voting for other people on this reason, because she has that problem herself and indefinitely.

Now.

http://www.rpgdl.com/forums/index.php?topic=673.msg13357#msg13357

That's a post I made attacking Excal for his two-faced attitude, which was essentially him contradicting himself at will and revising which posts of his that he actually meant compared to which ones were "just to start discussion" and then calling people suspicious for not understanding that his words shouldn't be taken seriously when he's said afterwards that he wasn't serious.  His entire defense against that whole post was as follows:

Otter, I'm not going to defend my duality.  I've said my piece, and it is either enough or not.  As for why I did take steps to ensure that there was no miscommunication after the purpose of the two-face argument was done, that was mostly so that Ryogo didn't get too antsy.  After all, you might like increasing the pressure on people until they break, but I don't generally believe that posters here are akin to trylobytes and thrive under vast amounts of pressure, and would rather not start a campaign of driving off the new guys.  At least, not yet.

It's a "I'm not going to stoop to defending myself here" followed by a tangent into "Hey, unlike you, I don't hate all the new players" while avoiding addressing anything I brought up with any specificity.

The only reason I'm not capping this post off with a vote for Excal is that my vote's already on him.

[Excal]

Actually, Otter.  It's less a question of you hating the new players, and more a belief that your style of play, especially as scum, is one of the main reasons why Mafia is dying off here.  But that's an argument for a different thread.

As for your argument.  You're either putting words into my mouth, or are so sure of yourself that you're deluding yourself.  I'm not sure which it is you're actually doing, but it is fascinating to watch.

First off, resorting to LAL when I don't have anything scummy to go off of has always been something I've done.  Secondly, there is more than two mindsets, and it is possible to agree with a statement being argued over without having to agree to the whole proposition.  In this case, I agree that it is possible to not find anyone scummy at a given point in time, especially on Day 1, but I disagree wholly with the argument for why Keeshi is voting for Andy.

Finally, Otter.  No, I'm not going to defend myself against that post of yours.  There's nothing I can say regarding any of that that will make it look better, and the only thing it will do is lead to me talking a lot about myself, which helps no one.  Now, I'm not planning to do any posturing in order to make a point besides what I did to start off with, but I do find your utter opposition to it entrancing given how often you've mentioned the viability of the tactic of over stating your position in order to put pressure on people.

[Shale]

Okay, deadline's over, thank God. I'll have more focus when I'm not shaking off sleep deprivation, but order of the day would be Keeshi and her position on Andrew, which is...not good. Not being able to post much isn't a tell one way or the other, and hasn't stopped him from putting a good amount of content out there, which is more than enough reason for voting based purely on that to rankle. But it also raises the question: If you really think a player with significant time restrictions is so useless to town that you'd vote for them regardless of the quality of their contributions, and you have a similar availability problem, why'd you sign up for the game at all? It just doesn't seem consistent.

(And let's be clear: This isn't Lynch All Lurkers. Lurking is about low content, not low post counts; while the one often does follow the other, you've made no case that it's happening with Andrew.)

[Otter]

Excak, you're being intentionally misleading.  Keeshi is not talking about LAL, and when you agree with her reasoning, you are not agreeing to LAL.

I can understand where Keeshi is coming from, given that I don't find anyone overly scummy at the moment either, and the decision to go with lynching the lurkers when nothing else concrete is at hand is a sensable and acceptable alternative.

You say that as if Keeshi is talking about lynching people for actually lurking, which she isn't.  Then!

I disagree wholly with the argument for why Keeshi is voting for Andy.

I'm not twisting this around somehow.  This is simply Excal continuing to contradict himself blatantly.

You're either putting words into my mouth, or are so sure of yourself that you're deluding yourself.

Oh yeah?  Which is it then?  I've been quoting you directly this whole time.  If I'm deluding myself into thinking something about you that isn't correct, point that part out.

I'm not sure which it is you're actually doing, but it is fascinating to watch.

I do find your utter opposition to it entrancing given how often you've mentioned the viability of the tactic of over stating your position in order to put pressure on people.

The funny thing about calling my attacks "fascinating" and "entrancing" is that it's not a defense.  It's just you trying to handwave everything I say.  Then you make something up about my supposed stance on "over stating your position," which I've never heard anything about.  Are you implying that I've advocated town lying and contradicting itself in the past?  Because I haven't.  I'm pressuring you right now, simply by observing all the contradictions in your posts and demanding explanations from you, and your response is basically to go "Oh that's very interesting."

[Otter]

Another quick thing from Excal's most recent post.

Actually, Otter.  It's less a question of you hating the new players, and more a belief that your style of play, especially as scum, is one of the main reasons why Mafia is dying off here.  But that's an argument for a different thread.

Is there some point to this jab?  "Your personal style of play is, itself, one of the main reasons why Mafia is dying off here.  Oh, especially when you're -scum.-"  As Alex has pointed out, styles of play change, intentionally or unintentionally, from game to game, which is why metagaming is so unreliable and untrustworthy.  By referring to my "style of play" at all, you're acting as if there is a consistent one to begin with, while somehow holding me personally responsible for a decline in Mafia (a decline I haven't noticed; in this game alone we've got two new players).  This isn't a defense.

[AndrewRogue]

Corwin: Generally speaking, I do indeed support lynching lurkers. I'm actually not quite convinced of it being the best day one choice (feels about as hit/miss as day one cases). I will say that consistent lurking is definitely a negative tell to me. I suppose what it boils down to is not so much feeling it on day one as, like everything else, it is still a bit vague. Essentially, I feel day one lurking tends to be about as meaningful as day one mistakes/argumentation, and thus try to weight them equally.

I have also, admittedly, shown a bit of a blindspot to lurkers in other games (Post Restriction mafia, I'm looking at you) as well, because I'm... problematically sympathetic with time plights. I don't advocate lurking obviously, and do think it is a bad thing but, ironically, I get wrapped up in other arguments and miss the lurkers.

So. TL;DR version on that: While I believe LAL is a fantastic policy that should be followed, Day 1 presents a variety of problems that makes me a little more inclined to weight it about equal with first day cases. Furthermore, although I'm keen enough to catch onto it at times, I tend to be overly sympathetic to time restricted players and lose track of lurkers while pursuing other cases.

As far as my comment about your participation. I didn't actually intend that as a negative comment. I am generally satisfied with your presence. I was just attempting to illustrate that I wasn't the only individual who had limited posting times or a specific level of participation.

On this

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?

Yeah. My general implication was that, potentially, the two of you could be scum and set something up like that. I'm not OMG SPAT MUST BE SCUM, it just stood out to me at that juncture.

On this

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?

Ah. No. You misunderstand there. That is simply in reference to the earlier questions of why I went for Carth, who responded to you, instead of you, who initiated the deal. I wasn't attempting to say "Cor is guilty above all others, except Carth!" I was trying to say "This is why I'm pressing the spat case on Carth instead of Cor."

To Excal: Could you possibly clarify what you were looking for out of me as far as an answer? I think perhaps we're not quite seeing eye to eye as far as questions and answers go.

At the moment... mrm. Tom still bothers me, but I'm not sure it is enough to keep my vote on him. My stance on Carth remains the same (although I have been happy with his posting since). OK seriously needs to post again. Excal is starting to make me uncomfortable. I'll mull this over, see what develops in the early morning and vote after I get up tomorrow.

##Unvote: Tom

[EvilTom]

Argh, I've been typing this post for a while now, and I keep getting ninja'd/distracted/etc

Corwin: I already answered that. I never tried to take credit for Rat's theory; I was agreeing with the points against OK, which gave Rat town cred in my books. Andrew seems to think they're scum bussing each other. That's the gut part: that I don't believe they're bussing. Please read my posts properly instead of misrepresenting my intentions.

Ryogo, I could say the same of you. Please show me where I said that, because I never said x + y = scum. If you think I did, show me, but you'll only find that I said I didn't believe both Rat and OK were scum. But... where the hell did he go? It's been ages since he last posted, not since before all this. If this keeps up, I'll be willing to reconsider. Where'd you go OK?

Anyway, now that I've answered the questions asked of me, time to move onto the pressing issues at hand.

<->

You're missing my point.  Go back and read my posts carefully.  The only thing no lynch is preferable to is random lynch.

Sorry Alex, you're right. When I skimmed over it briefly the first time, it really did sound like you were advocating a no-lynch. Mainly because of:

If you honestly do not think anyone is scummy, vote no lynch.

But then I read:
http://www.rpgdl.com/forums/index.php?topic=673.msg13437#msg13437
And after carefully re-reading your arguments, I realise what you're driving at.
Keeshi's sidetracking is definately not a good town strategy and doesn't benefit town. And voting based on something other than scummyness? Definately bad.
I think there's a further problem with Keeshi's Andrew vote though; Voting for his posting restriction will give us nothing about Keeshi's motivations on flip. It's an easy way to slide on a vote without any backlash. It's the kind of thing Rat slammed Excal for because it lacks accountability. Also, Andrew has been putting out some very decent attempts at content even though his access is restricted, so... I'm not really seeing Keeshi's reasoning here.

<->

Ugh, now to try and make something of this Otter/Excal thing. From what I can see on a first read-through, Otter is jumping on Excal's flip-flopping, saying that he's contradicting himself (again) and Excal is saying Otter scares away new players (?) and is misrepresenting him, and then refusing to defend himself from Otter's accusations. I'm going to have to read through this some more first to make sense of it.


So far though, Excal and Keeshi are topping my list for day 1 vote options, and I'll probably be laying one down in my next post.

[Corwin]

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.

[Carthrat]

Cor: Reason that I find Keeshi's actions more scummy than just bad is partially because of her presentation before the game; that she'd played mafia before and such. Maybe so. But I do think a townie with that point of view would recognize quickly the danger of voting for insubstantial reasons, such as hers for Andy.

On the other hand, it's not that unlikely she was searching for an excuse to lay down a vote and didn't want to raise a ruckus, so to speak.

Anything scummy can probably be attributed to bad play if you parse it as such, and I oft find that when comparisions between the two come up, I'm stuck on a matter of perception with the other person.

<->

Why are we focusing so much on the minutae of the no lynch issue? Both no lynch and random lynch are bad, and almost next to useless. It hardly needs exposition or debate over which is worse (what would you rather jump in, the acid or the fire?) Alex is a lunatic for phrasing his sentences as he did, and has an astonishing habit of contradicting advice he's given out in previous games (which is yet another reason why metagaming just doesn't work, especially when people deliberately mix up their play like that.)

In fact, a lot of arguments feel like they're going to dumb places this game. There's Excal as well, who was talking about how it's strange that Alex wants people to think like him or something. Does that go anywhere? Would it be a tell one way or the other regardless of what Alex's response was? It was... incredulous, as far as I could see, and I learnt nothing about him from it and only felt that Excal is digging a hole for himself.

<->

Andy's happy with me since but his stance on me is the same? I'll take that to mean he thinks my position on newbie-related advice is bad, but he doesn't think I'm terribly scummy?

Concerned over the lack of OK. Concerned over EvilTom a bit, I think he's putting off voting far too long.

[Corwin]

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.

[Carthrat]

Corwin: I no longer wish to buy in to Alex's own admitted scumtells. In retrospect I was pretty stupid in the first place for doing so (if he tells US a flaw in his play, he sure as shit won't forget himself). Just by looking at his past games you can tell he's clearly modulating his play between them. Alignment doesn't factor as heavily into that as one might think.

Fact is, Keeshi said she's played mafia before, and her attitude in the first few posts of the game certainly showed that she was at least somewhat familiar with the general way the game plays. Although the mistake she made could be attributed to being too newbish to know what's proper, I don't feel she gets that sort of protective cushion to fall back on thanks to her early conduct.

[Ryogo]

So basically, you've got a couple of options. I'm fairly sure that OblivionKnight AND Carthrat can't both be scum. Carthrat has been making some useful observations for town  so far, and especially has made some great points against OK and I can't imagine scum doing that to fellow scum. Not even for a bus. They could both be town, but not both scum. If OK is town, the theory about Ryogo being scum falls apart. If Carthrat is town, the spat with Corwin idea falls apart and just becomes town infighting. I'd like to hear your opinions and the reasoning for your vote, Andrew.

Man, I have a lot of crap to wade through. Alright! Here goes nothing!

To quickly answer your response Tom, it was here you started mentioning if one wasn't scum, another couldn't be scum, and etc. Just "x + y = scum" was a helluva lot easier to type, and I thought you'd get what I was talking about. Rereading, yeah, its a little different in your post than I remembered. But its the same principle. I just don't think the first day is the best time for that.

Rat: I'm starting to agree with you about Sopko. They are more concise, and get his points across. I still don't like it, and I still see it as more of lurking, but will remove the vote for now. That's not enough evidence for day 1, and the focus seems to be Alex/Keeshi and Excal/Everyone. Sorry Corwin, I don't think we're going to get enough pull on this one get Sopko for our reasoning, not with what's going on now.

##Unvote: Sopko

The disappearance of OK worries me as well. He is one of the people I'm suspect of, but I'm also suspect of Excal too. I hope OK posts soon... Its been over a day since his last post, and its coming onto 48 hours now.

Alex/Keeshi:

(This sounds a little hypocritical, me having used this cushion earlier) But I don't think Keeshi gets the newb cushion for the exact same reasons Carthrat said. She hyped up that she had played before, and wasn't new to Mafia at all. It came off to me as, "Hey, this person sounds like they mean serious business. They know what they're doing" I highly agree that I'm against voting for Andrew for her reasons. They're foolish. At least vote for someone that has a little bit of pond scum on their shoes, or smells faintly like they might be kinda scummy. Not because they can't post as much as others until day 2 rolls around. Very strange that someone would do this.

However, I'm also cautious of Alex as well. He was like a snake before, staying hidden until ready to strike. Basically, there was nothing from him until he saw that reasoning by Keeshi for the vote, and then he went to town on her. And it's mostly all his posts have been about since. I don't like that. At all. I dunno, maybe its just cause I'm newb, but that just seems... scummy to me? Either way, I'm cautious of this kind of thing, and still very suspicious of him.

Excal: So many contradictions that have been pointed out. I honestly don't know. I don't think we've caught him in a lie, but these wishy-washy back-and-forth thoughts aren't helping much either. I'm very worried about this. There's no reason to suddenly change views like that and hope no one notices. At least without admitting you were wrong in the case, and then moving on. Just flopping to another viewpoint like that doesn't put a good spin on your townie-ness.

I've got class, so I'm done for now. Those are my main issues, and all I have time to bring up. Nothing else really catches my eye right now. I'll post again in like, 2 hours when I'm back.
So to reiterate my scum line-up (In order brought up in the post): Sopko, OK (-6 hours until its been two full days from him, post man!), Keeshi, SirAlex, Excal

[Ghen]

In previous games I've played in, voting for lack of time was considered as viable of a lynch as LAL.  I can see that the case is not the same here and I will make a note of that should I be in future games.  I'm not going to beleagure the point, though, since most people have weighed in on the matter now.

-------------------------------

I have a meeting for about an hour in almost an hour from now, but then should be free most of the day.  I wanted to get something in this morning, though, seeing as I'm at the halfway point to a lynch.  The day is starting to wrap up, and I know full well we need a majority or else no lynch will occur.  So no matter what, votes need to come in hard and fast at this point.  There are a lot of people sitting on votes and they need to start laying them down.

-------------------------------

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 would like to address this line first.  Please note that I have only played on mafiascum and an internal board of another group.  In both cases days usually last a week or so at the very least.  It's much easier to form opinions when you have the time to get a lot of interaction with people and learn about how they think over that sort of space.  The way that you all do it with the days so much shorter is very different for me, and yes, I am not finding it easy to suddenly gain an epiphany and know a person’s alignment. 

There are people who have made comments that I find noteworthy and should I live until tomorrow I intend to watch their comments closely and use the day’s lynch and night kill to garner more evidence against them.  But frankly, they do not seem ‘scummy’.  If the inability to know within a couple days that someone is more than likely scum is disqualification, then I can see why you’re having such a hard time holding onto players on this board.  But as was said earlier, this is a topic more suited to a game style discussion than an in game one.

By the way, as a suggestion, you all might benefit from such a thread.  Debating what constitutes ‘scummy’ and ‘townie’ behavior is a necessary part of setting established parameters for comparison.

To the rest of Alex’ post, though:

To your second concern, I am not sidetracking anything.  The way I’ve played has always been that if you JUST answer the statements made to you, you are providing no new content.  This was always considered scummy behavior in my previous games.  Is it different here?  I can hardly see where only answering the questions given to me and not elaborating and providing something new can be considered harmful to town.  SO, yes, I answered your questions and provided new content as well so that town has more to review from me.  I certainly don’t intend to stop that either.

And to your third point, I find it dreadfully misleading to say that I have not provided near the content that Andrew has had.  Your conversations with me alone have provided numerous posts with information for town to sift through.  ALL of which (save my jokevote) contain true content.  Andrew has 4 posts to date (excluding his jokevote).  Now, they are ALL full of content as well.  I am not even debating that point.  But  to say that my 8 posts provide less content is not true.

Just because you do not agree with my logic does not make it wrong.  LAL is picking the person who has provided the least content and then lynching them even though usually they have done nothing to be considered scummy outside of a lack of content.  You don’t have any read on them whatsoever.  Why is LAL a good choice?  It is because a person who lacks content is an easy place for scum to hide.  They are not providing enough content for people to review and make an informed decision.  And the logic behind removing those with restricted times to post (and being advised that usually he will only be able to post once in a given 24 hour period is what I am referring to here, not the fact that yesterday he was actually able to post considerably more) is also a viable voting option for the same reason.  You are around less, able to contribute less when the serious conversations begin and give less in the way of content.

This does include me and if someone were voting me based on that, I would not argue the point.  I have already said that.  This has been the norm in other games I play and I see no scumminess to it.  If you do, then that is a difference of playstyle not of logic.  You really need to be able to see the difference there.  Not everyone will play exactly as you do.  If we all did, the game would be boring and easily won.  We all play with our own styles which is what makes it fun to play mafia.  If you stifle it too much and insist that your way is the only way, you will continue to lose players. 

-------------------------------

Breaking this one up here as I want to further read the thread before the 10am meeting and I think I can do that if I break here.  I think devoting that much to Alex post alone was more than sufficient.  Reading further and post again in a few minutes.

[Otter]

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'?

No, not at all, I encourage you to read my post again (was it too long and people just skimmed or skipped it? be honest with me here, please).  The case against Keeshi is that she's voting based on a factor that is wholly divorced from whether or not someone might be scum (a predetermined availability issue, which we learned about before any of us knew our roles) which means that as far as actually hitting scum goes, it's a random vote.  Random votes in this sense are bad for town; if we're all voting on disconnected factors like this, we're relying on simple chance to hit scum and relying on simple chance is not a winning gamble for town, ever.  Lynching randomly like that simply isn't viable for us.  It's not "a matter of personal preference" to vote randomly like this versus going after lurkers; actual lurkers are more likely than highly participative players to be scum!  But Keeshi's explicitly said that Andrew's content is fine by her and she's voting purely off the other factor instead, so this isn't LAL, this is a random vote, and she should know enough to know that's anti-town.  This is a pretty decent case against her, but I don't have a vote to spare for it, because the case I have against Excal is much larger.

I've been bringing up what I think have been important points about Excal and have gotten no reaction whatsoever, either from him (since he calls my attacks "fascinating" and otherwise won't answer anything I say about his scummy behavior) or from about anyone else.  I could summarize all over again, but nothing's stopping anyone from going back and reading my other posts instead; not one of them is excessively long, and I admit I'm discouraged by the total apathy they've inspired.  If people actually disagreed with me, I'd at least be seeing arguments, but instead there's been zero reaction and that just makes me think nobody bothered to read any of it.

[Ghen]

However, Keeshi, Alex has raised an excellent point in his first post against you, and it is one which you haven't addressed to any length yet.  Why do you suggest letting Andy swing in the same post where you admit that you will indefinatly share the same flaw he has until Saturday?

I believe I answered this in my last post.  Please advise if I have not and I will elaborate further.

So, I reiterate: this isn't LAL, she even admits he's been substantive today.  It's voting on somebody for a factor totally unrelated to whether or not they might actually be scum, which is the same as a random lynch. Mathematically, town opting for random lynch is not a "strategy," it doesn't have its ups and downs, it's just surrender pure and simple.  Suggesting that we choose to lynch based on these factors (rather than actually hunt scum) is easily as bad or worse than advocating for no lynch, and Excal is calling this sensible and acceptable, while misrepresenting it as "lynching the lurkers" (which isn't what it is at all).

Per bolded above: Otter, could you explain why voting for someone for posting low content but with no other scum indicators would be considered NOT random, while voting for someone with time to provide content is seriously curtailed IS random.  Both of them require picking someone for a posting reason.  I am not able to see much of a difference.  I think I would just like to see the reasoning laid out between the two so that I understand it better.  Thanks!

If you really think a player with significant time restrictions is so useless to town that you'd vote for them regardless of the quality of their contributions, and you have a similar availability problem, why'd you sign up for the game at all? It just doesn't seem consistent.

Again, perhaps this is due to the fact that I come from a different gaming environment.  Usually when you have two weeks or even more to converse with people, you ARE able to form a solid opinion on someone as to who you think the scum might be in the game even on Day 1.  Devolving to LAL or voting on post time restrictions is not normal.  Here it seems to be almost guaranteed with the days are this short.  So signing up for a game even when the hours you are available to post are restricted isn’t considered odd where I normally game because you will have ample time to talk to people.

If having limited hours is a true restriction to participating in these games here, though, then I would certainly sit them out.  I have not decided if that is the case yet.  I am still forming an opinion on that.

In regards to Carthrat’s comments about my ‘mistake’ being ‘newb-ish’.   Every board, after they’ve played a game or two of mafia, begins to establish what they perceive as ‘scum’ or ‘town’ behavior.  My ‘mistake’ if you will, was in using logic and alignment decisions that other boards use and applying it here where you all have not come to the same conclusions.  I will remember this and try to keep the reasoning you all have come to adapt here in mind for any possible future games I play here.  But the reverse is true and just because something had not even been spoken of before (and I find no mention of voting based on post time restrictions in any thread so far that I’ve read), does not automatically mean that it must be a mistake and bad logic.  It is simply something new that has not been discussed.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now, to provide new content now that I’ve responded to everything about me to date.  Oh, if I missed anything, please let me know.  There was a lot to sift through and I would like to make sure I address everything.

Thoughts:
Votes matter.  I can see that the prevalent thinking here is that voting for those with limited time to provide content would not be considered, so my vote on Andrew does not good.  The only one who has enough votes on him to be close to me is Excal.  I can see the arguments against him, although I don’t know that I really consider him to be scum.  He is the best option since we’re down to considerably less than a day left.

##Unvote Andrew
##Vote Excal

Others I consider worrisome and will be watching should I be here tomorrow (or advise others to watch should I not be):
Tom: has been very flip-floppy in his reactions.  He hasn’t really added new content, just agreed or disagreed with stated positions.

Ryogo: His comment about being the only female composer is still in my mind.  Again, this can EASILY just be a simple comment based on a mod’s PM.  I wouldn’t advocate anyone using it now to base a vote, but if future things do lead people to consider his alignment, I would feel that the line might have been more of a scum slip at that point.  Right now, too WIFOMy to be useful, but later days may change this.

And my time is up.  I’ll be back in a little over an hour to see what replies are up.

[Corwin]

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.

[Ryogo]

Corwin, its actually been nearly two full days since he last posted. I'm GMT-3 right now. It says he last posted on March 25th, at 6 PM. Its now March 27th, 2:47 PM He he doesn't post, modkill should happen, like it did for smodge (he went two days without a post too, granted he hadn't posted ANYTHING though). I agree with the views on OK, as I said before in my last post, and some action needs to be done. Until I see the modkill, or reasoning behind his absence...

##Vote: OblivionKnight

And that's the way it's going to stay.

On a side note, if we reach the end of the day, the one with the most votes is lynched, right? Even if we don't make it to the 50%+1 vote mark?
I'm pretty sure that's how it works, but I just wanna make sure.

[Ryogo]

Also, I missed Keeshi's note on me, and my being Hildegard. Once again, I'll reiterate. I was told by El-Cid in my PM I was to be the token female character. There's no bearing on names/characters on roles/alighnment whatsoever, whether it be townie, scum, cop, godfather, serial killer, jester, etc. It's the last time I'm going to say it, I'm sick of having to throw that out there. It just frustrates me after having been told that this kinda thing (flavor text) has no bearing on roles by the mod that people keep pushing it XP

[Ghen]

On a side note, if we reach the end of the day, the one with the most votes is lynched, right? Even if we don't make it to the 50%+1 vote mark?
I'm pretty sure that's how it works, but I just wanna make sure.

I think that I would like an answer to this as well.  I took the rule at the start of the game: "If there is a deadlock at the deadline, the day will end without a lynch." to mean that even Day 1 if no majority is reached then there would be no lynch.  Was this meant only on future days or all days?

For the comments about OK, I do agree that it has been a very long time since his last post.  I think it's rather close to deadline, though, so a modkill for inactivity seems unlikely to me.

EDIT FOR RYOGO'S POST.

Ryogo, please note again that it was NOT that you said you were Hildegarde.  No one thinks that your nameclaim was anything extraordinary.  What we are commenting on is that you said you were the only female here.  And while you say that it comes from your role PM, as no one is assured of your alignment, stating that it came from the mod doesn't help you.  Nor does it hinder you, to be honest, either.  Right now, it is possible that two things happened:

A)If you'e town, you actually have that in your role PM.
B)If you're scum, the mod has stated that he gave out cover identities to the scum to protect them from a mass nameclaim.  It is perfectly plausible that he could have given no one a female composer so any female composer would be free game to choose as a cover identity.

Right now, your statement is nothing that should influence anyone as to your alignment.  It is equally likely to be either one.  It is good to note it, though, because if you are scum and you start showing your true colors later, that comment takes on a new meaning.  It is not something to get frustrated about as I am sure everyone will agree that no one is considering it to be an indicator of scum behavior in and of itself. 

[AndrewRogue]

At this point... taking into mind the fairly general nature of OK's posts, his disappearence and a sinking feeling I have in my gut because of his "I'm a townie" comment...

##Vote: OK

I should vaguely be around today, so come on man! We need some new material from you!

[Excal]

Excak, you're being intentionally misleading.  Keeshi is not talking about LAL, and when you agree with her reasoning, you are not agreeing to LAL.

Otter, I aplogise for being vague, but there was only one part of her post that I was agreeing with.  Let me quote someone else who has apparently stated the exact same thing except apparently far more concisely than I.

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.

Different wording, same ideas, Otter.  Where you seem to be tripping up is that you're taking my acceptance of one part, the agreeing with our not needing to always have a scum read on someone, and reading into that a blanket acceptance for Keeshi's reasoning, even as I vote for Keeshi because I disagree with that reasoning.

You then use this to argue that I'm continueing to argue with myself, despite the fact that when I initially did it, I did so to spur conversation even with the risk that in a quiet day 1 that would turn on me.  I haven't played fast and loose with my arguments like that since I did it on page 1, and I've no intentions of doing so again.

Now, Corwin.  Honestly, I am in agreement with Rat.  Keeshi isn't getting the same grace period that I'm extending to Ryogo, as well as others when they first showed up, just like Quiet Rain also didn't get that benefit.  Her first few posts suggested a competance with the game that showed she could handle herself, and while she may not know the intricacies of this group, she would know enough to generally handle herself.  This makes her fair game.

Now...  Given that I don't buy the whole scope of Alex's arguments against her, and am voting based on the fact that she's going against someone who 'has limited time to post, for now' despite still posting content on a regular basis despite that.  Honestly, it feels more bad than scummy, but I still don't have anyone reading too strongly as scum right now anyways.  So, a default to a bad idea that would off a useful member of town for something outside of his control seemed like a good idea.

That said, there's been someone else pointed out a fair bit who also has that bad logic argument, paired up with low appearance and low content, which does sound like the winning ticket for this point in the day.  So, without further ado.

##Unvote: Keeshi, ##Vote: OK