WW37- For Whom the Bell Trolls

[novice]

Question to novice & zak

Your takes on dtay and Shadeun?

If I recall correctly dtay made pretty uninformed votes that were immediately refuted, on both days, and then relurked. So it's pretty bad. I don't think he can be said to be too lurking to be scum, after all he had announced he would be lurking, so as scum, why not do it.

So basically I'm willing to lynch Dtay if we run out of better ideas. But he can still redeem himself even while lurking, e.g. through power roles or well-placed votes.

Shadeun doesn't seem nervous nor newbscum. He seems to have accepted our prodding into how we like the game to be played, so let's give him some time and see how he fares.

As an aside I think his suggestion of staying more quiet, to minimize noise in the game thread, is also a valid approach to the game. At least for 20+ player games, the size of the game thread tends to become a real problem.

[pindicator]

I didn't like how Matt was posting some nothing posts when we know how much of a lurker crusader Mattimeo is: I won't post unless I have something to say, or something like that is what I've heard him say before in games.

You're slightly out of date on this; at some point I picked up that people with heaps of posts generally have fairly inconsequential or non-topical stuff peppered through, often comprising full (if very small) posts, so I started running with that somewhat to buff out post count so I'm not so blatantly lurking.
(This does, of course, necessitate spending sufficient time to inject such remarks in a timely manner, which really didn't eventuate last game)

So you're intentionally spamming your post count this game?

And right before that he had attacked zak on a pretty bad misread of what zak said. He attributed zak as being disingenuous and claiming he had taken a stance that zak hadn't actually taken. Like he was looking for things to jump on in order to make a case. Just in general, his tone is different this game.

Excuse me? The issue was that zak was attributing arguments to me that I wasn't making, and I was correcting that mistake (and throwing accusatory words he used back in his face).

You'll note the lack of a vote accompanying such, too. If all I was doing was 'looking for things to jump on', with what (little) else was on offer that would have been entirely sufficient to, you know, actually jump on.
Instead, what I pulled out of the whole things was a slight village lean on zak - more 'town arguing a point I disagreed with' than 'scum attempting to push a course of action I consider rather detrimental to town'.

Also, I didn't particularly want to bring it up in the argument at the time, but:

Being forced to claim first can still be uncomfortable for scum.

This is stated in a way that, at least to me, implies that it shouldn't be uncomfortable for town - I mean, if you're trying to pull a read off the fact that someone is uncomfortable to claim, you do kinda need to have in mind what read you should be pulling from it, and this implies it should be 'scum'.
[/quote]
No, that's not what it implies. Zak said it can still be uncomfortable, implying it can be uncomfortable for town. If anything it's implying it's by default uncomfortable for town and can still be uncomfortable for scum.

But that was not the part I said you were disingenuous about. That's from a completely different post. This:

Again, if I were scum and drawing heat on day one, I would prefer if "claims are bad" is the established meta.

This, on the other hand, is entirely disingenuous. Where is anyone saying that? At best, people are saying that in this particular instance, one which has been noted several times to be unique (and indeed using the fact that it *is* unique to push the point), mass claiming is more detrimental to town than otherwise.
You really don't get off saying people are pushing a general anti-claim meta when several of the main proponents of such being bad in this particular game take care to point out their reasoning is only valid for this game.

This is the post where you're stretching what zak is saying into completely different context. If you click the link to zak's post you find:

We're 56 posts in, there's not much for Jabbz to be aggressive and defensive about. 'Commodorian sockpuppet' is indeed Commodore, yes.

Zakalwe has only posted about role-claiming meta aside from initial joke vote. And I find his argument for a mass claim assumes that
A. Scum won't have towny roles to claim
B. Scum will be among the first to be chose for claiming on Day 1
which doesn't inspire confidence. The risks outweigh the potential rewards, and I (again) think It's Just Lame.

Maybe my last post clarifies a bit?

I said we should force someone to claim and take it from there. It was not really an argument for a mass claim, but it was immediately countered with some "claims are bad" rhetoric which I think is slightly suspect.

Again, if I were scum and drawing heat on day one, I would prefer if "claims are bad" is the established meta.

Also, your last post said that mass claiming would probably be the right move for town. Did you rethink?

So you're taking zak's point against Fenn's post here and completely turning it into claiming zak is arguing:

You really don't get off saying people are pushing a general anti-claim meta when several of the main proponents of such being bad in this particular game take care to point out their reasoning is only valid for this game.

That's such a bad reading of what zak is saying that it seems to be deliberately stretching. That is what I do not like.

So yeah Lewwyn, since he didn't address the issue I will vote for Mattimeo

Late for work, shit.

[pindicator]

Well this is fun! I accept your pressure, as it shall turn my faults to diamonds. Nobody else want to pile on? Fenn, you are talking the talk but not walking the walk, where is the red vote?

Would anybody on me like to explain for the class what, exactly, the case is? That I didn’t vote Goreripper, a player I didn’t want to vote? I was on through deadline, I would have jumped to Gore to save myself. I didn’t want to vote him, Agnes, because I was making a point that I thought it was a bad lynch. I think I made it clear I didn’t want to vote Mattimeo either.

At this time it looks like we'll have a no lynch, but it could still very easily have swung either way, or even onto you. With last-minute lynches being what they are, it was by no means guaranteed that you'd be able to vote Gore in time.

I only ever had three votes, and was always 2 votes behind the swing. I was hitting refresh, I assure you. If I had got another vote I would have defensive voted Goreripper.

Why didn't you want to get your hands dirty, though? Novice was an unbelievable lynch, even with Fenns vote. Why were you holding back? Why didn't you want to take a stand?

What were my other options? I was already taking heat from Pindicator for my vote jumps, I didn’t really want to add fuel to that fire by jumping onto another lynch that I didn’t believe in. If I voted Matt I would be spending today answering why I wanted to lynch our protection role. Voting Goreripper would be more obviously defensive, but I thought it was a crappy policy lynch and didn’t want to be part of it if I didn’t have to be.

Related, general question, would you have preferred no-lynch over Matt or Commodore being lynched?

In a perfect world, probably no-lynch, but the only way I could have tried for a no-lynch would by voting Matt and putting him in danger of anybody else switching. And the Mattwagon was stinky cheese.

Good post on novice, though...doesn't this at all remind you of last game? Or if you have long enough memories for it, WW27, when Zak/I used a non-engaging town novice to win?

I voted Novice twice last game too. But point taken, if Novice shows me towniness I would be willing to move off him. He hasn’t yet. Still no thoughts on –anybody- being scum, Novice?

I agree, the size of the train on Gazglum is quite disconcerting. Does no one have any other suspicions to bring forth? Any thoughts on his content - on the novice case, for example?

Sooo....disconcerting, but you'll hang around me anyway. And what are YOUR thoughts on the Novice case?

You hunt scum; that's your option. I'm not suspicious of you because you are voting people, it's how you were jumping from person to person day 1. And at least in one case you didn't even seem to understand what the other person was saying but moved your vote anyway.

The case you made on novice last night was good. That's the kind of reasoning that makes sense. Saying you were going to take heat for any kind of vote is less good: like you're trying to find an excuse rather than find scum.

You believe in your novice case, right? Last night you seemed to. But asking people about what they think of it instead of advocating for it doesn't give the impression you really believe in it.

[pindicator]

Matt, what's your take on Jabbz?

[Gazglum]

Yes, I believe in my Novice case. I was waiting for him to post before engaging with him again, but nothing I have seen from him today has made me think he is town. He’s not defending himself, just ignoring it.

He ignored it yesterday too. I accused him at the end of Day 1 and he just said nothing, and moved into interrogating Shadeun Night 1. And drawing out newbies is a fine and gentlemanly thing to do, but also a super easy way for scum to make posts without having to engage in the actual scumhunting at all. So I disagree with whoever (Matt?) said that was a town tell on Novice.

When I attacked him Night 1, Novice did respond, but I think its weak. He said he did look for alternatives to Goreripper, by which I guess he means he prodded Fenn once without voting. And this is important, Novice says

Agnes's posts gained credibility in light of her misreading the setup. And admitting the error of your ways is usually a town tells.

But I had already covered this – Novice wasn’t voting Agnes on content, he SAID he was voting her on tone. So how does misreading or not misreading the setup effect the scumminess of Agnes feigning nonchalance?

Novice’s backtrack on Agnes can be explained all sorts of ways, but the way he DOES explain it doesn’t make sense, and only came after I pushed him on it.

After the day rolled over, Novice lay low for a while then chimed in the current case going, which was Lewwyn’s on Fenn. And fair point, Novice has suspected Fenn already. But Novice has a good nose for scum, and I don’t find it credible that he couldn’t pull a single scum tell from rereading Day 1, except the scum lean he already had on Fenn. I think there is plenty to question in Day 1, as other people are doing right now.

Other than that, Novice has town leans on Rowain and me, is ok with Shadeun, and is willing to lynch Dtay. So it seems that you can fail to pass Novice’s very low scum bar, if you refuse to play at all. But even then maybe no.

And Novice is being very nice to me, which is lovely, but I suspect is trying to butter me up to make me move away.

Also, its a bit weird that people keep saying things like 'nice case on Novice', but the only person who'll vote him is Shadeun.

[Gazglum]

Speaking of things to pick up on Day 1,

Novice has sounded a bit off today, but not massively. I feel like these votes are OMGUS and unwarranted.

Agnes, it was Fenn and me voting Novice. Novice never voted Fenn, and I was a joke vote. So why did you say we were OMGUSing him after Fenn laid the second vote?

[novice]

Also, I didn't particularly want to bring it up in the argument at the time, but:

Being forced to claim first can still be uncomfortable for scum.

This is stated in a way that, at least to me, implies that it shouldn't be uncomfortable for town - I mean, if you're trying to pull a read off the fact that someone is uncomfortable to claim, you do kinda need to have in mind what read you should be pulling from it, and this implies it should be 'scum'.

No, that's not what it implies. Zak said it can still be uncomfortable, implying it can be uncomfortable for town. If anything it's implying it's by default uncomfortable for town and can still be uncomfortable for scum.

My reading of Zak's statement is that being forced to claim first can be uncomfortable for scum even if the meta says that scum can claim truthfully.

Again, if I were scum and drawing heat on day one, I would prefer if "claims are bad" is the established meta.

This, on the other hand, is entirely disingenuous. Where is anyone saying that? At best, people are saying that in this particular instance, one which has been noted several times to be unique (and indeed using the fact that it *is* unique to push the point), mass claiming is more detrimental to town than otherwise.
You really don't get off saying people are pushing a general anti-claim meta when several of the main proponents of such being bad in this particular game take care to point out their reasoning is only valid for this game.

This is the post where you're stretching what zak is saying into completely different context.

I agree that Matt is distorting Zak's statement here, though. The intent behind what Zak is saying is quite clear. Simply reading Zak's statement as "Again, if I were scum and drawing heat on day one, I would prefer if "claims are bad" is the established meta in this game " renders Matt's objection needless noise. There's no reason to read Zak's statements in a universal context while reading the other statements in a "this game only" context.

I wouldn't say that this is obvious nefariousness by Matt, but at the very least I disagree that Zak was being disingenious. At any rate I'm not in love with Matt's eagerness to discuss meta. It feels a bit like he jumped at the opportunity to show a presence. But of course, this is meta-Matt we're talking about.

[novice]

And this is important, Novice says

Agnes's posts gained credibility in light of her misreading the setup. And admitting the error of your ways is usually a town tells.

But I had already covered this – Novice wasn’t voting Agnes on content, he SAID he was voting her on tone. So how does misreading or not misreading the setup effect the scumminess of Agnes feigning nonchalance?

I SAID I was voting her for being insincere and overly nonchalant in her "scum won't fear claiming" arguments. Voting on tone is different in my book, that's voting due to a general posting style.

This is where Agnes says she's misread the setup:

Huh. You're correct. Somehow I thought it had said explicitly that they were randomized separately, which is not what it says at all. I guess I somehow parsed the '36 notes on top of these ones.

Apologies

Thinking roles and alignments are randomized separately explains the discrepancy. If Agnes had at this point instead started splitting hairs with regards to Bob's setup description, I would not have dropped the case. But to be honest, if Goreripper had still claimed survivor, I would probably have still lynched him instead, day 1 cases being what they are.

Go bark up a different tree, Gazglum.

[Agnes The Orphan]

Quickly:

Speaking of things to pick up on Day 1,

Novice has sounded a bit off today, but not massively. I feel like these votes are OMGUS and unwarranted.

Agnes, it was Fenn and me voting Novice. Novice never voted Fenn, and I was a joke vote. So why did you say we were OMGUSing him after Fenn laid the second vote?

I think I view OMGUS differently from you, here. I don't think of it as attacking one's accusers, I think of it as attacking people for perceived bad play.

Then again, that post was evaluating all the lynch options based on my impressions from reading the thread. I never actually hunted down why the individual participants were voting him, that was simply what I remembered about people's cases.

[Mattimeo]

Agnes:
OMGUS - lit. Oh My God, You Suck (for voting for me)

Only perceived 'bad play' involved is basing a vote entirely* on the fact that they voted for you.

*One of the main reasons to claim OMGUS is to ignore any actual reasons they had to (mis?)categorise the vote as stemming only from revenge.


Phone while travelling to work. Not going to full respond to things 'til after that.