[M-1,7,15,18] PikMafia - The End! Scum Wins!

[Swiss]

Also I'm not seeing anything much from anyone, save the brief spat between me and Kat/Vanz.

Can we get some go****ed votes please?

@kat - don't forget my previous question

 

[M.K]

@ mod does our oxygen run out GMT or EST? I'd hate to be stuck on the wrong side of the planet when night falls

June 23rd, 2010. The last moments of that day according to EST time.

 

[Dark_Ermac]

I know that.

I doubt I'll miss much over the next four days. It is Day 1, after all.

If I do miss anything I'll just have to sift through ~3 pages. No big deal.

I find it funny how shortly after I posted this, a mass of walls of text appeared.
I guess 4 pages' worth of walls still isn't too bad...

 

[vanderzant]

The argument was humdrum.

I don't want to lynch an inactive this game. Main reason being, there has been considerable contempt shown to inactivity this game. I don't want this to stop however. I just don't want scum to have a safe ground in either camp.

I want to lynch an active player.

Green, I'm going to have to completely disagree here. We definitely should NOT lynch an active player on Day 1 (unless there is INCREDIBLY strong evidence suggesting that they are scum) when there are numerous inactives who have yet to post any kind of substance.

Firstly, you lynch players who you judge most likely to be scum. If no one is deemed scummy enough, you lynch inactives because you can't possibly judge whether or not they are scum.

I want to lynch an active player. If I wanted to answer with a name I would have. For now, it'll suffice to let scum know that they can't just post their way out of being lynched.

I don't want anyone to be safe.

If anything, you're discouraging inactive players from posting, and giving scum a 'safe barrier' in which they can hide. This is contrary to your supposed intention of letting players know that you "don't want anyone to be safe."

We lynch people who are either scum or anti-town.

Unvote

Vote: Greenstreet

 

[Greenstreet]

One person, me, wants to lynch an active player. At least two people have heaped hate on inactives. You and Swiss. I'm discouraging people from posting, maybe, but two others are encouraging them to post. This way, they have no safe ground either way.

Being inactive? Vanderzant and Swiss want your head.
Being active? You're not excluded from Greenstreets list.

This way we aren't deciding a scums play either way, there is players who are suspect of both approaches, inactivity and activity.

There is little infomation Day 1 and if every player was keen to lynch inactives then all scum has to do post their way ("I'm contributing blah blah being protown blah lynch inactives instead blah") to surviving Day 1. I want to avoid this happening.

 

[vanderzant]

Fair point. Still, we need lynch who we think is scummy first (if at all), before we lynch players based on activity.

If your reason for wanting to lynch someone is that they are "active" (as opposed to lurking), and you agree that there is little information other than activity on Day 1, then there is something incredibly wrong with your logic.

How is going against the majority opinion,

Spoiler

(Yes, Swiss and my own opinions are basically a majority atm lol)

for no real reason other than for the sake of it, Pro-Town?

Seriously, I can see this as some sort of distancing attempt.

 

[Xivii]

One person, me, wants to lynch an active player. At least two people have heaped hate on inactives. You and Swiss. I'm discouraging people from posting, maybe, but two others are encouraging them to post. This way, they have no safe ground either way.

Being inactive? Vanderzant and Swiss want your head.
Being active? You're not excluded from Greenstreets list.

This way we aren't deciding a scums play either way, there is players who are suspect of both approaches, inactivity and activity.

There is little infomation Day 1 and if every player was keen to lynch inactives then all scum has to do post their way ("I'm contributing blah blah being protown blah lynch inactives instead blah") to surviving Day 1. I want to avoid this happening.

By pressuring inactives to be active you're basically setting up conditions that are anti-scum. With active people, more reads can be made, more connections can be made, and more discussion is made. With inactive people there is little to nothing to work with. I can see the point you're trying to make, but excusing inactives doesn't necessarily make it less safe for someone who is active. Besides, it's not about making it less safe for someone who is inactive/active, it's about making it less safe for someone who is scum, and that's what you're doing by promoting activity.

Of course we shouldn't just automatically lynch an inactive, we need to be looking at everyone. No one should be excused especially this early. All that is the obvious. Inactives, however, are just going to be more of a problem as the game goes on. It's best to get rid of that early.

 

[Greenstreet]

I'm not saying we should all lynch actives, that would defeat the purpose. If everyone wanted to lynch an active, I would go after the inactives. I just want a cross section of suspicion.

@Vander - the logic for my actions here is that scum can have varying levels of activity, therefore we should be suspect of both.

I'm not going against the grain for the sake of it, I'm doing it so scum can't stick to one direction and get a free ride.

 

[vanderzant]

we need to be looking at everyone. No one should be excused especially this early

Basically this. You should be suspect of people who are scummy. Active players obviously aren't going to get a free ride to Day 2 if they play scummy. You don't need to single out a particular group of players to target.

 

[vanderzant]

EBWOP: Green I think you get what I'm saying.

It's good to make it a point of yours to stop town tunnelling on inactives, but at the same time be looking for scum in everyone.

 

[Xivii]

You're missing the point. Scum can't hide through activity. Scum CAN hide by not contributing/being inactive.. The more activity, the greater possibility of catching scum... and the less distraction there is from inactives we know nothing about.

 

[vanderzant]

Exn, while you're here, any thoughts on the Swiss/Kat/Me/Jungle thing?

 

[Xivii]

Like I said, I thought there was way too much focus over that single question Jungle asked and I didn't really see why Swiss thought he was scum from that. Looking back though, the whole situation does give some general reads on people.

 

[Tandora]

For my two cents, I generally go after inactives for two reasons. 1) Scum won the first game I was in b/c of an inactive player. Lurking is a good scum tactic b/c they reduce the change of making a contradiction or tripping themselves up with lies. 2) Inactive players make it much harder for town to get a lynch. If you leave inactive players in, by later days only scum is voting which makes their vote block even stronger.

 

[Swiss]

@ (can't remember who) I was a bit unreasonable going after Jungle, but it was imo the only case out there, so I wanted to push it and try and get a read.



Calling for a bandwagon on any of the following (post counts)

Riddle 5
Tandora 5
Kirbyoshi 2



Tandora, you think we should lynch inactives?

'Kay.

Unvote Vote Tandora

 

[Riddle]

I'm much more down for a Kirby bandwagon out of those. I don't see why you would pick tandora. She had JUST posted so it seems like shes the most active out of the three of us tbh.

 

[vanderzant]

Come on guys, the Greenstreet wagon is where it's at.

 

[Greenstreet]

But.. Vander, if you did that... you'd be going after .. an active.

Yes, I'm aware that wasn't the conclusion of your argument.​

 

[Swiss]

I'm much more down for a Kirby bandwagon out of those. I don't see why you would pick tandora. She had JUST posted so it seems like shes the most active out of the three of us tbh.

One post in about 24 hrs doesn't equal an active player, imo. If a vote on them makes them active, I'm gonna make that vote.

@ Vanz - Why should I jump on the Green wagon?

 

[Kataefi]

I've been a bit bizzy. sorry. Anyway!:

@SwisS:- the assumption matters to me at this point because in conjunction with the reasoning of your vote, I didn't think you were in a position, (RVS at that), to seriously distinguish X as scum so Y is town with no consideration of alternative possibilities as Greenstreet touched on... and then pursue that... which is one third of my point in saying you are overcertain and as such... possibly publicly potential scummy =D It's more the fact you made a surefire distinction of "omg you said this to a townie you are scummy", which says to me that, well, perhaps you know Vanz' (or for your sake player Y's) alignment as town... because you are scum?

Two thirds of my point concentrate on the reasoning you used btw. Curiously, now that you've unvoted, what specifically caused you to find the reasoning of your vote... unreasonable? Was it something someone else said in-thread? Or did you come to your own conclusions? tell tell!
_

@Greenstreet:- "I want everyone to be treated fairly suspiciously and keep scum on their toes" are what your recent posts are telling me for some odd obscure reason. Is this your disclaimer for not wanting to bus your [active] scumbuddies? =D Though in seriousness, would you have taken the opposite stance if Vanz/Swiss were vocal about active players instead? What do you then vaguely make of the current block of active players right about now?

Like I said, I thought there was way too much focus over that single question Jungle asked and I didn't really see why Swiss thought he was scum from that. Looking back though, the whole situation does give some general reads on people.

So you agree with my line of thinking? Join me. In the process tell me what your general reads on people consist of plz.

 

[Swiss]

I've been a bit bizzy. sorry. Anyway!:

@SwisS:- the assumption matters to me at this point because in conjunction with the reasoning of your vote, I didn't think you were in a position, (RVS at that), to seriously distinguish X as scum so Y is town with no consideration of alternative possibilities as Greenstreet touched on... and then pursue that... which is one third of my point in saying you are overcertain and as such... possibly publicly potential scummy =D It's more the fact you made a surefire distinction of "omg you said this to a townie you are scummy", which says to me that, well, perhaps you know Vanz' (or for your sake player Y's) alignment as town... because you are scum?

Two thirds of my point concentrate on the reasoning you used btw. Curiously, now that you've unvoted, what specifically caused you to find the reasoning of your vote... unreasonable? Was it something someone else said in-thread? Or did you come to your own conclusions? tell tell!

The point that it WAS in RVS made me re-consider, it'd be way scummy under normal circumstances but not ALWAYS in RVS. Jungle's post explaining seemed entirely reasonable to me and I have said I only went like I did as we had no other cases, no reason NOT to pressure him 2bh.

 

[Swiss]

@SwisS:- the assumption matters to me at this point because in conjunction with the reasoning of your vote, I didn't think you were in a position, (RVS at that), to seriously distinguish X as scum so Y is town with no consideration of alternative possibilities

Whoa whoa whoa... I've seen where we're going wrong here.

I said that the post would HAVE TO HAVE BEEN ASKED AT A TOWNIE, it is not a case of x is scum thus y is town, it was a case of this post is scummy and as a pre-requisite of being useful to scum would have to have been asked at a town player.

I didn't 'assume' Vanz was town (well, non scum actually, just realised we don't know the set-up..actually non affiliated with Jungle to be precise) like you seem to think, it was simply necessary for the case on Jungle to have any merit. I in no way said Vanz had to be town in the 'overall' game, simply that IF Jungle was scum hunting for info, he'd have to be - it was not and has not changed my opinion of him in any large way (I try not to give too much benefit to players if I can - it's good to be sceptical).


Does this clarify our clash?

 

[Greenstreet]

Though in seriousness, would you have taken the opposite stance if Vanz/Swiss were vocal about active players instead?

I'm not saying we should all lynch actives, that would defeat the purpose. If everyone wanted to lynch an active, I would go after the inactives. I just want a cross section of suspicion.

Pay attention Kat, I've already answered that question.

 

[Kataefi]

^: ah yes but have you answered my last question? =( or have I missed that?

@Swiss - I'm confused about what the 'overall game' means. What specifically about jungle's posts made you feel unreasonable?

@Greenstreet - given a popular wagon, possibly with good cases made against the wagonee, would you hop on it or would you actively try to bring someone else into the fray to fulfil your cross-section of suspicion? If so... would you force suspicion on someone this way to achieve the cross-section? Also (See ^: )

 

[Nicholas1024]

I'm not in this game, but Kirbyoshi asked me to let you guys know that due to comp troubles, he'll be V/LA until Saturday.

 

[Swiss]

@Swiss - I'm confused about what the 'overall game' means. What specifically about jungle's posts made you feel unreasonable?

Taking into account all cases, evidence, hunches and relations with other players.


Nothing about his posts made me feel unreasonable. I can only assume you mean why did I say I was unreasonable... I said I went a bit hard on him, but with no other cases to push, I feel it was more than acceptable to apply some pressure to get a better read. I have already answered this question - so either way I fail to see the actual question you asked me.

Can we be more concise please?

 

[vanderzant]

But.. Vander, if you did that... you'd be going after .. an active.

Obviously, I'm going after who I see as scummy. I don't take activity into full consideration unless we are close to the deadline with no better option.

Also, why this question NOW? Why not when I voted you initially?

@ Vanz - Why should I jump on the Green wagon?

Read above. Lynching active players (note: green never said scummy players, just active) is an anti-town thing to do, no matter what way you slice it.

Also Swiss, why did you vote Tanny out of all of the 3 inactives you listed? I agree with Riddle and would of gone with Kirbyyosh or Ermac personally.

Also, how did you manage to leave Ermac off that list? (I'd even consider Tom to be a lurker at this stage). He's just as bad as the rest!

FOS: Swiss

 

[Tandora]

I think Swiss went after me b/c he thought I was being hypocritical. I advocated going after inactives, yet I am one of the three least posted players. Not sure if his conclusion is correct since I've made pretty substantial posts with the ones I've made. My first post was RVS, but the rest have not really been fluff.

I think this does lead to the question, "Is Swiss simply trying to provoke Tandora into being more active (town) or is he trying to go for a weak player for an easy lynch? (scum)"

I'm incline to believe the first. My statement was weak since I haven't been on here as much as I should be. Inactivity is more than simply number of posts. It is also quality of posts. If someone is only posting occasionally and adding absolutely no content, then they're not contributing. I highly suggest everyone look over the posts and see who actually is participating in scum hunting and who's just posting to be here.

 

[vanderzant]

Tanny, let Swiss answer the question himself please.

 

[Xivii]

So you agree with my line of thinking? Join me. In the process tell me what your general reads on people consist of plz.

Not quite. I'd like for you and Swiss to keep talking though.

I think Swiss went after me b/c he thought I was being hypocritical. I advocated going after inactives, yet I am one of the three least posted players. Not sure if his conclusion is correct since I've made pretty substantial posts with the ones I've made. My first post was RVS, but the rest have not really been fluff.

I think this does lead to the question, "Is Swiss simply trying to provoke Tandora into being more active (town) or is he trying to go for a weak player for an easy lynch? (scum)"

I'm incline to believe the first. My statement was weak since I haven't been on here as much as I should be. Inactivity is more than simply number of posts. It is also quality of posts. If someone is only posting occasionally and adding absolutely no content, then they're not contributing. I highly suggest everyone look over the posts and see who actually is participating in scum hunting and who's just posting to be here.

What specifically do you believe has given your posts quality? Looking over them, I haven't seen much of anything that has really contributed other than your post about inactivity/activity which had already been covered.

 

[Xivii]

There is way too much inactivity in this. tbh I expected a lot more from Jungle and Tom. They both started out the game like the were gonna be in this, but all the sudden disappeared.

Jungle, why did you ask all those questions, and then not follow up on them? So far all I have seen you post are defenses posts after being voted for.

Tom, I just seen you lurking about so I know you're there. You started out like you were trying to get things going, yet I haven't seen anything from you once things got rolling. Why haven't you posted since RVS?

What are both of your thoughts on everything that has happened so far?

 

[Swiss]

Also Swiss, why did you vote Tanny out of all of the 3 inactives you listed? I agree with Riddle and would of gone with Kirbyyosh or Ermac personally.

Also, how did you manage to leave Ermac off that list? (I'd even consider Tom to be a lurker at this stage). He's just as bad as the rest!

FOS: Swiss

Question 1) Chose him (her?) purely because he'd just posted (you [Tan] were a bit hypocritical but not vote worthy) thus I knew he wasn't an inactive lurker at that point and was reading the thread, posting a vote on him then left us with a much higher chance of maintaining that activity. Tan did post again shortly after on a point directly relating to my vote, so I'm happy.

Question 2) I just copy/pasted the lowest three post counts of players in the game. Could have done four, could have done two. I in no way tried to say they were the ONLY inactive players, merely that they had the lowest post counts.

I'm perfectly happy to go with an Ermac lynch, don't want Kirb now we know the reason for his inactivity.

 

[Swiss]

I think Swiss went after me b/c he thought I was being hypocritical. I advocated going after inactives, yet I am one of the three least posted players. Not sure if his conclusion is correct since I've made pretty substantial posts with the ones I've made. My first post was RVS, but the rest have not really been fluff.

I think this does lead to the question, "Is Swiss simply trying to provoke Tandora into being more active (town) or is he trying to go for a weak player for an easy lynch? (scum)"

I'm incline to believe the first. My statement was weak since I haven't been on here as much as I should be. Inactivity is more than simply number of posts. It is also quality of posts. If someone is only posting occasionally and adding absolutely no content, then they're not contributing. I highly suggest everyone look over the posts and see who actually is participating in scum hunting and who's just posting to be here.

unvote vote Ermac

 

[Greenstreet]

@Greenstreet - given a popular wagon, possibly with good cases made against the wagonee, would you hop on it or would you actively try to bring someone else into the fray to fulfil your cross-section of suspicion? If so... would you force suspicion on someone this way to achieve the cross-section? Also (See ^: )

I want suspicion across the board. That's not to say that I won't wagon on a player when a good case is made, that would be stupid. I'm not here to oppose every lynch suspect people suggest, but just to remind everyone that anyone can be scum.

What do you then vaguely make of the current block of active players right about now?

They're active and just as likely scum as you, me or inactives. Can't get vaguer than that.

 

[Swiss]

@Greenstreet:- "I want everyone to be treated fairly suspiciously and keep scum on their toes" are what your recent posts are telling me for some odd obscure reason. Is this your disclaimer for not wanting to bus your [active] scumbuddies?

This is interesting...You said he wouldn't want to bus his [active] scum buddies. Why then, would he be the one player trying to take the fight TO the active players, and not simply lynch an inactive? Could you clarify what you mean, as that makes no sense.


@ Everyone, (apart from Vanz) who do you want to lynch and why? Really want to see some votes flying around.

 

[M.K]

Tom has been prodded.

Please take this as a warning for individuals who are inactive.​

 

[Tandora]

I admit I've had a hard time really getting into this game. Part of it is I usually am slow to start but once I'm in a game, I'm really into a game. Also, I have the johns of getting my house ready for my dad to visit this weekend and I only see him about four times a year.

As far as how substantial my posts are:
First post, confirmed
Second, RVS vote
Third, asked Jungle about his RQS selection, answered about scumdar, warned players to be pro-town b/c anti-town behavior loses games.
Fourth post, reminded junglefever we've played together and put a case together on why I didn't like his RQS.
Fifth post, stated my opinion about lynching inactives since that was the current topic.
Sixth post, addressing Swiss' case against me. May not have been as good of a move as I had intended in retrospect.


To add some actual scum hunting to this post, I decided to do an ISO on Dark Ermac.
Post 19 - Confirmed
Post 31 - Silly vote
Post 40 - Unvote, asking if anyone thought someone was scum yet
Post 64 - Answers Jungle's question about his V L/A, jokes about making a case soon
Post 72 - Readdresses Jungle's question about his V L/A with no additional info.
Post 88 - Paraphrase "Oh I doubt I'll miss much, I'll just read it when I get back"
Post 123 - Addresses his last post about how many responses since his last comment. No other information.

Dark is an excellent example of fluff posts. He does have the excuse of V L/A, but I expect him to have something solid for us by his next post on the off chance he really is unable to sit down and read the posts but doesn't want to go completely inactive.


Dark, why did you feel there wouldn't be much text on Day 1? Isn't Day 1 usually the most post heavy day simply b/c everyone is trying to get into the groove of the game? Why would you feel it would be no big deal?

 

[Kirbyoshi]

Ugh, I'm back, sorry for my probz. I should be ok from now on though.

Vote: Greenstreet
You TOTALLY set Vandy up on the active/inactive thing, and I don't like it.

 

[Deleted member]

I doubt I'm making anyone happy with my inactivity, and 'm not into the game anyway

Request Replacement

sorry for not contributing

 

[Swiss]

Shall we just give scum the win through inactivity and call it a day then?