[Jalan]

Fanderay, on 01 November 2013 - 01:28 PM, said:

Jalan, on 01 November 2013 - 01:21 PM, said:

Fanderay, on 01 November 2013 - 01:05 PM, said:

oh, an if we lynch today, an NK will leave it 1 v 1, which is a town loss. There's only 4 of us left

Obviously we are going to vote night today, but right now we can discuss tomorrow's lynch with 75% town instead of only discussing it tomorrow with 67% town, so it's better to get discussion in today, even though we won't vote on the results until tomorrow.

are you dense? there's FOUR people left. ONE scum

we lynch: 3 left

scum kills: 2 left ONE Scum.
come morning, scum win.

How on earth did you get "we lynch" from "we are going to vote night today" ???


Today: 3 inno, 1 scum

We vote night

Tomorrow: 2 inno, 1 scum

We lynch the scum - win
We lynch a townie - lose

[Trake]

I should actually clarify that. I don't think the no NK thing holds much weight, but not leaving a vote when he seemed to know it was at least a distinct possibility he wouldn't be back is poor.

[Jalan]

Trake, on 01 November 2013 - 01:31 PM, said:

Meh, seems a bit of a stretch, relies on scum not putting in a provisional etc etc.

Also Fanderay your D-day calculation assumes we lynch today, while Jalan is assuming we don't.

It does, yes, which is usually territory we don't tread. But in this case we have a clear incongruous behaviour - Fanderay passing out without proper sign-off or a vote - that matches an incongruous result - no NK. I believe that's enough basis to not dismiss the idea out of hand, especially considering

a - both you and Ghennan were on right to the very end of the day
b - there's no advantage and much potential disadvantage to scum simply choosing to skip the NK

[Trake]

Jalan, on 01 November 2013 - 01:37 PM, said:

Trake, on 01 November 2013 - 01:31 PM, said:

Meh, seems a bit of a stretch, relies on scum not putting in a provisional etc etc.

Also Fanderay your D-day calculation assumes we lynch today, while Jalan is assuming we don't.

It does, yes, which is usually territory we don't tread. But in this case we have a clear incongruous behaviour - Fanderay passing out without proper sign-off or a vote - that matches an incongruous result - no NK. I believe that's enough basis to not dismiss the idea out of hand, especially considering

a - both you and Ghennan were on right to the very end of the day
b - there's no advantage and much potential disadvantage to scum simply choosing to skip the NK

B is more debatable though. Scum might hope we'd try and lynch at 4-1 instead of 3-1, might be for WIFOM reasons etc. I wouldn't say it's just cut and dried.

[Fanderay]

Trake, on 01 November 2013 - 01:33 PM, said:

I should actually clarify that. I don't think the no NK thing holds much weight, but not leaving a vote when he seemed to know it was at least a distinct possibility he wouldn't be back is poor.

I did not know that, in fact. I'm not used to going to bet earlier than midnight, and I had the thread open on my phone. But that's neither here nor there.

[Fanderay]

Jalan, on 01 November 2013 - 01:28 PM, said:

Fanderay, on 01 November 2013 - 01:25 PM, said:

Jalan, on 01 November 2013 - 01:24 PM, said:

Ghennan, on 01 November 2013 - 04:44 AM, said:

Jalan, on 01 November 2013 - 12:31 AM, said:

Trake, on 31 October 2013 - 04:17 PM, said:

Probably not gonna be around so much today, got work for tomorrow that needs done.

It's possible we started with killer and symp, not that this makes much difference to how we play it from assuming a modkilled player was scum.

Partner cases for today, as pointed out, are out the window (I would defend their use yesterday on the basis that we should be playing WCS). It's more down to individual scumminess, though someone being symped heavily does still contribute to this to some extent, it's a question of how much weight t put on it.

On a speculative note, if it's killer and symp it's possible that the Sean Connery fellow from the start is the killer, game flavour wise. Not that this helps us or anything.

I don't get the Sean Connery reference.

Anyways, we've got time now to discuss thoughts on other players and try and get more of a consensus with 3 town than with 2 tomorrow. Let's try and make the most of it.

Fanderay is really pinging my gut with that potential slip. Trake, Ghennan, what do you think of the idea?

I can't say I see much merit in this suggestion. The first time I read it I assumed it meant he was annoyed with himself for not voting, rather than not getting an action in. It could easily have been either, but Fanderay has made a point of voting every day up until this one.

I suspect the Sean Connery reference is about the Master William character in the first scene. The one who pronounces all his 's' sounds as 'sh'.

But that's just it, Fanderay has always been around most of the day and every day has either been around until the end of the day or made an "I'm heading out so I'll leave these thoughts/vote/etc" post. The one time that he suddenly disappears, doesn't leave a vote, and claims he passed out the next day (which I totally believe) there's no NK?

I can turn the same argument on you. YOU weren't around for the lynch either.

True, but I had a proper sign-off post and put a vote down because I would be asleep still at time-out. Clearly I was thinking about time-out, so if I was scum it'd be pretty incongruous for me to think about putting a vote down because I'll miss time-out and not think to also put a NK target down at the same time.

You're assuming that as scum I would wait until the end of a 36-hour day to put an NK, and also not make a contingency (in case you'd argue that I may have picked Hanas as my NK).

Which is just insulting at this point.

I'll agree with Trake here, trying to make this cut and dry, where a killer may have simply withheld to fuck with us (especially if he didn't feel he had much heat coming his way) is equally likely.

I've been a target most of this fucking game, for one BS reason or another. for a killer to withold would launch us into a nice big, pot of WIFOM--which you've obligingly done right now.

[Jalan]

Fanderay, on 01 November 2013 - 01:57 PM, said:

You're assuming that as scum I would wait until the end of a 36-hour day to put an NK, and also not make a contingency (in case you'd argue that I may have picked Hanas as my NK).

Which is just insulting at this point.

You had the benefit of my doubt until you completely failed to do anything on seeming-D-Day yesterday. Now I could absolutely see you doing that.

Fanderay, on 01 November 2013 - 01:57 PM, said:

I'll agree with Trake here, trying to make this cut and dry, where a killer may have simply withheld to fuck with us (especially if he didn't feel he had much heat coming his way) is equally likely.

I've been a target most of this fucking game, for one BS reason or another. for a killer to withold would launch us into a nice big, pot of WIFOM--which you've obligingly done right now.

You know WIFOM isn't just a magic word you can throw at things to make them disappear right? You're starting to sound like Ultama - "if I say WIFOM (for him it was scum) about this a lot it'll go away, I don't need to actually explain it."

The way you're using WIFOM, if we had ever lynched a killer you'd have to believe that the person who started a train on the killer was his partner. Because WIFOM!

Yeah, a killer throwing his partner under the bus creates a great WIFOM situation for the surviving killer, but it's not usually worth the price so it's hardly ever done. Likewise, here, you want me to believe that there's a good chance the killer chose to extend the game by a night, not knowing if there are town roles alive or not AND leave us another townie alive today to discuss who could cast suspicions on him just because it would give the killer a poor WIFOM situation?

That you actually believe that is almost even more suspicious...

[Jalan]

Anyways, Fanderay, how about we put this aside for now and you tell us who you think is scum and why? You didn't say much of anything in your 4 posts yesterday before disappearing, we're a bit overdue for some meaningful D-Day contributions from you other than WIFOM-spatting.

[Fanderay]

Jalan, on 01 November 2013 - 02:15 PM, said:

Fanderay, on 01 November 2013 - 01:57 PM, said:

You're assuming that as scum I would wait until the end of a 36-hour day to put an NK, and also not make a contingency (in case you'd argue that I may have picked Hanas as my NK).

Which is just insulting at this point.

You had the benefit of my doubt until you completely failed to do anything on seeming-D-Day yesterday. Now I could absolutely see you doing that.

Fanderay, on 01 November 2013 - 01:57 PM, said:

I'll agree with Trake here, trying to make this cut and dry, where a killer may have simply withheld to fuck with us (especially if he didn't feel he had much heat coming his way) is equally likely.

I've been a target most of this fucking game, for one BS reason or another. for a killer to withold would launch us into a nice big, pot of WIFOM--which you've obligingly done right now.

You know WIFOM isn't just a magic word you can throw at things to make them disappear right? You're starting to sound like Ultama - "if I say WIFOM (for him it was scum) about this a lot it'll go away, I don't need to actually explain it."

The way you're using WIFOM, if we had ever lynched a killer you'd have to believe that the person who started a train on the killer was his partner. Because WIFOM!

Yeah, a killer throwing his partner under the bus creates a great WIFOM situation for the surviving killer, but it's not usually worth the price so it's hardly ever done. Likewise, here, you want me to believe that there's a good chance the killer chose to extend the game by a night, not knowing if there are town roles alive or not AND leave us another townie alive today to discuss who could cast suspicions on him just because it would give the killer a poor WIFOM situation?

That you actually believe that is almost even more suspicious...

No, I'm not using WIFOM as a magic word. I'm using WIFOM the way it's supposed to be used--it is used to highlight uncertainty. Which is to say, you can't be certain about how scum will act, so trying to say "oh, this is perfectly obvious, because no one would do X" is not in the least bit helpful. And if you try to act certain of something, that is suspicious in and of itself.

We don't know why there was no NK. we can't know, so there's no point in discussing it. THAT is what WIFOM is for.

moving on from that, my suspect remains Ghennan. Though I must say, with all the pushing and stretching you've been doing to try to turn the thread against me, I'm having to reconsider.
And your accusations of me "not doing much on D-day".... well, yes, I've had a bad week. In addition to that, there's the fact that several people continue to link everything in the game to me, and that makes it quite difficult to get any point across.

[Jalan]

Fanderay, on 01 November 2013 - 02:32 PM, said:

No, I'm not using WIFOM as a magic word. I'm using WIFOM the way it's supposed to be used--it is used to highlight uncertainty. Which is to say, you can't be certain about how scum will act, so trying to say "oh, this is perfectly obvious, because no one would do X" is not in the least bit helpful. And if you try to act certain of something, that is suspicious in and of itself.

Seems to me like you are.

This:

Fanderay, on 01 November 2013 - 02:32 PM, said:

We don't know why there was no NK. we can't know, so there's no point in discussing it. THAT is what WIFOM is for.

taking it to the absurd logical extension...

We don't know who scum is. we can't know, so there's no point in discussing it. THAT is what WIFOM is for?

Fanderay, on 01 November 2013 - 02:32 PM, said:

moving on from that, my suspect remains Ghennan. Though I must say, with all the pushing and stretching you've been doing to try to turn the thread against me, I'm having to reconsider.

I can't recall you ever putting much of a case on Ghennan other than criticizing his case on day 3, and criticizing his case is not the same as saying he is scum. What makes you suspect him more than Trake and more (or equal now I guess) to me?

Fanderay, on 01 November 2013 - 02:32 PM, said:

In addition to that, there's the fact that several people continue to link everything in the game to me, and that makes it quite difficult to get any point across.

I'm prompting and listening now. Try me.

[Jalan]

Clarifying my thoughts on the WIFOM bit above further - IMO wifom is not an excuse to completely stop talking about something. If that's how you treat it, there is nothing you can talk about.

WIFOM is something you acknowledge as being possible in any circumstance, you consider being more probable in particular circumstances, and you try to determine where you think it is being used deliberately in specific circumstances.

The whole basis of most cases is like that. You show where someone is acting in a certain way you think is scum-like, arguing there that they are not using WIFOM. You show where that person is acting town-like, arguing that there they are using WIFOM. ie: I think Blah and Nue are the killers, here they're saying this stupid unhelpful thing - not WIFOM - and here they're having fake banter - WIFOM.

[Fanderay]

Jalan, on 01 November 2013 - 02:44 PM, said:

Clarifying my thoughts on the WIFOM bit above further - IMO wifom is not an excuse to completely stop talking about something. If that's how you treat it, there is nothing you can talk about.

WIFOM is something you acknowledge as being possible in any circumstance, you consider being more probable in particular circumstances, and you try to determine where you think it is being used deliberately in specific circumstances.

The whole basis of most cases is like that. You show where someone is acting in a certain way you think is scum-like, arguing there that they are not using WIFOM. You show where that person is acting town-like, arguing that there they are using WIFOM. ie: I think Blah and Nue are the killers, here they're saying this stupid unhelpful thing - not WIFOM - and here they're having fake banter - WIFOM.

Certain things, such as NAs, are never a good thing for town to talk about. So yes, I dismiss them, because I don't see any talk about them as productive.

When I talk about "scummy" play, I talk about play that is (in my opinion), not helpful (or even plain hurtful) to town. You'll notice I usually include a caveat that ofc the player under scrutiny could just be an idiot town player. The other occasion of "scummy" play is when people use reasoning that suggests they know something an ordinary uninformed town player shouldn't know. At its core, the search for scum is search for abnormal behaviour.

[Fanderay]

Re: Trake: he has been very cautious with his lynches. I'll need to reread just how the Hanas lynch went down, but atm I'd say if he's scum he's played town flawlessly.

My suspicions of Ghennan were rooted in his misinterpretation of a lot of what I've said to fit his "case" on me and Hanas. Once again, I would need a re-read, because he also started playing much more cautiosly.

You, otoh, have gotten much more aggressive.

[Fanderay]

And I direct you to post 773, btw. I repeat my question: how do you expect me to defend the undefendable?

[Trake]

Fanderay, on 01 November 2013 - 01:49 PM, said:

Trake, on 01 November 2013 - 01:33 PM, said:

I should actually clarify that. I don't think the no NK thing holds much weight, but not leaving a vote when he seemed to know it was at least a distinct possibility he wouldn't be back is poor.

I did not know that, in fact. I'm not used to going to bet earlier than midnight, and I had the thread open on my phone. But that's neither here nor there.

Fanderay, on 31 October 2013 - 01:52 AM, said:

Path-Shaper, on 30 October 2013 - 09:41 PM, said:

It is Day 4. 13 hours and 6 minutes remaining.


5 players alive: Fanderay, Ghennan, Hanas, Jalan, Trake

3 votes to lynch, 3 votes to go to night.


Players not votes: Fanderay, Ghennan, Hanas, Jalan, Trake

Judgin from this, day will time out b/w 6 and 7 AM. Not good, I'll deffo still be sleeping

My point was you knew you wouldn't be around at the end.

Regardless, I take RL excuses at face value on principle, so it's not really here or there.

[Fanderay]

Trake, on 01 November 2013 - 03:12 PM, said:

Fanderay, on 01 November 2013 - 01:49 PM, said:

Trake, on 01 November 2013 - 01:33 PM, said:

I should actually clarify that. I don't think the no NK thing holds much weight, but not leaving a vote when he seemed to know it was at least a distinct possibility he wouldn't be back is poor.

I did not know that, in fact. I'm not used to going to bet earlier than midnight, and I had the thread open on my phone. But that's neither here nor there.

Fanderay, on 31 October 2013 - 01:52 AM, said:

Path-Shaper, on 30 October 2013 - 09:41 PM, said:

It is Day 4. 13 hours and 6 minutes remaining.


5 players alive: Fanderay, Ghennan, Hanas, Jalan, Trake

3 votes to lynch, 3 votes to go to night.


Players not votes: Fanderay, Ghennan, Hanas, Jalan, Trake

Judgin from this, day will time out b/w 6 and 7 AM. Not good, I'll deffo still be sleeping

My point was you knew you wouldn't be around at the end.

Regardless, I take RL excuses at face value on principle, so it's not really here or there.

What is your opinion, Trake?
I'll take lunch in about an hour and do a proper reread of the past 2 days. Right now I've got Ghennan and jalan at about same level of suspicion, with you trailing fairly far behind.

Who are your suspects?

[Trake]

Fanderay, on 01 November 2013 - 03:21 PM, said:

What is your opinion, Trake?
I'll take lunch in about an hour and do a proper reread of the past 2 days. Right now I've got Ghennan and jalan at about same level of suspicion, with you trailing fairly far behind.

Who are your suspects?

I would be voting you. Simply put, narrowly avoiding lynch so much (particularly Hanas essentially choosing himself as the lynch over Fanderay, in terms of what was possible), just rings alarm bells. Now I don't really like speculating about symps because it's not reliable, but still. That's just hard to overlook. This is also combined with the fact that neither Ghennan nor Jalan have seemed that scummy to me over extended periods.

Really with Ghennan it's just his second vote, and I've thought some of his cases have been a bit flimsy. Unsure on Jalan, he's been hard to read all game, not been very confrontational, though he's definitely turned it on now a bit. Even so, I'm not sure that's exactly scummy, and it's hard to really point at anything else he's done as being scummy either, so really the only thing is general stuff.

[Fanderay]

Trake, on 01 November 2013 - 03:50 PM, said:

Fanderay, on 01 November 2013 - 03:21 PM, said:

What is your opinion, Trake?
I'll take lunch in about an hour and do a proper reread of the past 2 days. Right now I've got Ghennan and jalan at about same level of suspicion, with you trailing fairly far behind.

Who are your suspects?

I would be voting you. Simply put, narrowly avoiding lynch so much (particularly Hanas essentially choosing himself as the lynch over Fanderay, in terms of what was possible), just rings alarm bells. Now I don't really like speculating about symps because it's not reliable, but still. That's just hard to overlook. This is also combined with the fact that neither Ghennan nor Jalan have seemed that scummy to me over extended periods.

Really with Ghennan it's just his second vote, and I've thought some of his cases have been a bit flimsy. Unsure on Jalan, he's been hard to read all game, not been very confrontational, though he's definitely turned it on now a bit. Even so, I'm not sure that's exactly scummy, and it's hard to really point at anything else he's done as being scummy either, so really the only thing is general stuff.

Fair enough, despite the fact that it'll lose us the game, I can see the logic in it.

[Trake]

Well, I'm glad you think I'm being fair at least

[Path-Shaper]

It is Day 5. 7 hours and 50 minutes remaining.

Players still alive: Fanderay, Ghennan, Jalan, Trake

3 votes to lynch, 2 to go to night.



Players not voted: Fanderay, Ghennan, Jalan, Trake