Mini 1625: Redemption (Game Over)

[AWA]

We don't know all of the roles in the game, do we? I don't remember seeing a list anywhere.

WhompingWillow: IGMEOY for supposedly joining the "joke" bandwagon way after it was funny.

[AWA]

Willow is actually starting to seriously annoy me. The only thing preventing me from voting him right now is the possibility of a Jester.

[AWA]

Sorry guys real life caught up with me for a while. Reading up and then I'm going to make a big post.

[AWA]

Wow I'm a lot more tired than I thought I was. I wanted to make a big post but I don't really want to do a point-by-point of the eight pages that happened since my last post, so I'll just give my general impressions here:

Whomping Willow:

I'm glad that he's decided to start contributing, and his contributions have some content. That said, I don't have any particular leaning either way: I don't necessarily gather a scum vibe from him, but I haven't gotten any clear town tells from him either. My stance: Neutral. (Side note: I explicitly didn't vote for you in RVS because I dislike RVS in general; especially in this forum format where people may vote and then be away for an extended period, a person may be mistakenly lynched due to an RVS vote that would otherwise have been prevented in a different format. IGMEOY does the same thing, perhaps slightly less strongly, without the chance of mislynch).

Originalchris:

My inclination here is scum. By 219 Willow had been posting several content posts, none of which I personally got a scum tell from. His entire case against Willow appears to be the "scumtell of the year" (commenting on the word "anyway"), and an apparent obsession with deflection, which is a convenient counter to almost any response and which can be both confusing and frustrating for the town. He also seems to be of an extremes mindset, by which I mean that if someone is accused to scum, then reasonable doubt is not enough to save, them, but rather we must go beyond a shadow of a doubt. This can be very dangerous later in the game, where a scum player can simply put a random town up for examination, and then cast doubt to create the lynch. My stance: Neutral.

Pedit: 370 is a great post. I don't necessarily agree with everything in it, but that he posted some more content is great, something that everyone should do, instead of posting fluff in order to look active.

crazypianist1116:

Despite him asking both myself and kuror0 to post more, he has almost no posts of content. The only one I could find is 170, but it is a very important post. I agree that if Munkir were not town, he would not have asked the question, though there are indeed some strange things with his post style (more on him later though). Not enough content here. My stance: Neutral.

Pedit: 373 is great, similar to 370 above. Again, I disagree with some of the points, but more content = good.

istott:

I'd say that the most important interaction here is Riddleton's fake dayvig (actually had to look up what that was, had no clue that that even existed), his reaction to it, and his reaction to the aftermath. In my opinion, his reaction was fairly normal for a town, though a properly skilled scum player could fake it fairly easily I suppose. In order to arrive at this conclusion, we have to look at what a scum would do:

Istott, having no knowledge of whether there was in fact a dayvig, has three options: Post a claim saying that he he's town, post a claim admitting to scum, or not posting at all and waiting to see if there was a mod announcement.

Iif he thinks there is indeed a dayvig, then:

-Claiming town as scum does nothing; he's already dead. Claiming town as town also does nothing.
-Claiming scum as scum does nothing; he's already dead. Claiming scum as town is stupid.
-Therefore posting nothing is the only sensible response. He did not post nothing, so he must have thought that there was not a dayvig. Therefore:

-Claiming town as scum could possibly save him. Claiming town as town could also save him.
-Claiming scum as scum would do nothing. Claiming scum as town is stupid.
-Posting nothing would lead to an accusation of dodging, although we don't know if the mod would immediately make an announcement of death, so it might lead to an examination to see if the dayvig actually existed based on mod response (or lack thereof).

The only conclusion that it is possible to draw is that istott did not think that there was a dayvig, but felt compelled to respond in the only logical manner, which was to claim town. This does not tell us anything about his role in and of itself, and I'm not experienced enough at reading forced tells to make a judgment on 192. That said, he seems rather chilly in ISO 29-33. I don't know whether to label this as a scum trying to imitate a town keeping their emotions down, or the genuine article. Basically, my read is that I have no clear reads, however IGMEOY. My stance: Neutral.

Naomi-Tan:

Her biggest post by far is 245, although 22 and 165 warrant consideration.

22: I agree somewhat that acting newbish and naive in the beginning seemed like a possible smokescreen, but in my opinion she has since shown enough caution and general competence to be disavowed of that defense. I also share her views toward RVS in general, so I'm glad that she wanted to move on as soon as possible.

165: There are lots of words here, but not much content. You say that 94 (you said 92 but meant 94) was a possibly-good, possibly-bad post, which is convenient waffling. You also state your ideas on how a point-by-point post should be structured, which doesn't really tell us anything at all. Moral of the story here is that lots of words does not mean lots of content.

245: Another big post with very little actual content. The most important things are right at the end: She lists several negative things about originalchris, yet also states that she doesn't see him as scummy, and then proceeds to vote GGG for not talking, where her vote still stands, despite him actually posting several comments, both before and after her vote, of meaningful content.

My big problem with Naomi is that she tends to talk a lot but say very little. This can be detrimental in the long run, but I don't really get a scum vibe from it, either. That said, I haven't seen any town tells. My stance: Neutral.

Munkir:

Almost entirely no content at all. The most curious thing that I see is that in 323, he uses the term WIFOM. Either Naomi is giving him coaching (which I'm not particularly fond of in principle) or he's more familiar with the game than would be expected of a true newbie (in which case he has been obfuscating stupidity). Either way, while I haven't seen any explicit scum tells, I'm uneasy about this player. My stance: Neutral, but IGMEOY.

droog:

The first thing I have to say is that I really dislike his posting style. It reminds me of Runescape, and there's really no point to it on a forum where posts can be typed out in their entirety and be made grammatically correct. However, that doesn't really have a bearing on the game, and since he seems to be consistent with using that style over his previous games, I don't believe that there is some kind of posting restriction associated with his role.

His "plan" to prod out Riddleton as his neighbor was kind of strained and his reaction was very disproportionate. Can someone clarify to me if neighbors necessarily know the other neighbor's role? If so, then I could see a scum's attempt at a fake bus backfiring. Other than this, he's posted almost nothing of any substance. His freakout gave me a very negative vibe. My stance: Scum.

GGG:

He brings up a good point about the isott-Riddleton dayvig exchange, which I hadn't considered. However, it would only be able to be staged if the scum were able to communicate outside of the thread. Is this possible? I'm not sure how the neighbor mechanic works (I had to look it up when analyzing droog above). I sort of agree with him about Riddleton bailing too easily on the fake dayvig. I don't know if it's enough to make me vote, since as I said such a ploy would only be possible if they were able to communicate, which we don't know is possible. So far, I get at least a neutral feeling, leaning toward town. My stance: Town.

AWA:

obvious scum pls lynch.

kuror0:

No content. I certainly understand the time problem, since I've been rather sparse myself, but with only one post so far it's very difficult to get any kind of read. My stance: Neutral.

Riddleton:

His dayvig test really unsettles me. It seems very forced, and he gives it up very quickly for something that is by nature only usable once per game. However, Like I said above, it's hard to see how this could be construed as scummy UNLESS he and istott were both scum, AND could have communicated outside of the thread. IGMEOY. My stance: Neutral, dependent on my views toward istott.

Flames682:

Just to address something that happened WAY back and has already been moved on from, I didn't IGMEOY Willow for bandwagoning GGG, but for bandwagoning Riddleton in the beginning. This sounds dumb, but I got to the bottom of the first page of posts and didn't realize that there were more pages before I replied (it's been a long time since I've post on any kind of message board).

What I really don't like about him is that ISO 28-65 is all fluff, there's absolutely zero content whatsoever. In addition, his only other useful substance relates to the istott-Riddleton exchange (which I've already gone over several time); he jumps on istott for reacting in the only possible way he could have reacted (see above) and puts a vote down on top of that. Combined with his general rude and aggressive attitude and posting style, I get a negative vibe from him. Perhaps lower on my list than others, but still suspicious. My stance: Scum.

Flubbernugget:

First things first: Your avatar creeps me out. A lot. I would appreciate it if you would change it, but if you don't I'll live.

In regards to his content, there is actually very little here to go off of. The only thing is a vote on droog for his overreaction to the "hammer" on Riddleton (where it still stands, by the way). The vote itself is innocuous, in my opinion; less so is the fact that it still stands, without any reasonable justification, and in fact an explicit refusal to justify it. All of his other posts have been fluff. My stance: Scum.

---

To sum up, I think that there are some people who lean further toward scum than others, and some people who are VERY tenuously on the fence, but who can easily fall one way or the other. For now, I think I will

Vote: droog

. His Riddleton hammer response and subsequent neighbor claim both seemed contrived. However, depending on how the next few pages of discussion go, I could easily see this vote switching to Riddleton/istott or Flubber.

Tag fixed
~Mod

[AWA]

EBWOP: 245 for convenience when reading my analysis of Naomi.

[AWA]

I'm unfamiliar with the neighbor role, but if I understand it correctly, it's basically a Mason but without the alignment?

Do we even know if there are neighbors in this game?

[AWA]

I'm very uneasy about Flubber's unwillingness to commit to reading large posts, which in my opinion are the kinds of posts that most often contain valuable information, on many levels. The arguments he is constructing are also very weak, and he seems to be very liberal with his vote, something that I am against philosophically. FoS: Flubber.

[AWA]

I'm not going to simplify my posts into a soundbite just because some people can't be bothered to take the time to read a post that I took the time to compile. I refuse to put on kid gloves because people want others to do their thinking for them. The whole "I don't want to read big posts" statement is also suspicious because it sets them up later for a "well I didn't catch [whatever] because it was part of a big post and I didn't read it", which could lead to a mislynch. Grow up people, this is an analytical game, do some analysis or get out.

[AWA]

Mod: I had voted for droog in 395.

[AWA]

Kuror: I don't think redact was the word you were going for.

Flames: Get stronger glasses, then. Reading a wall is no different than reading a book. You HAVE read a book, yes?

[AWA]

Flubber conveniently handwaves my entire post, without actually addressing anything in it, and then proceeds to make assertions with no backup, and THEN continues to use uncalled-for language and continues to spam post. These things may seem innocuous now, but over the course of a full game they become nonproductive at best, and anti-town at worst.

Vote: Flubbernugget

[AWA]

droog: Still under finger of suspicion for your apparent encouragement of posting styles that obfuscate actual information or content.

pianist: I'm not particularly pleased at your outburst of spam, but I get your point.

Naomi: I would highly encourage not drawing conclusions from raw data (i.e. number of words/posts) but rather attempt to look at the information contained within that data (actual content of the posts). 500 fluff posts are far less valuable than one content post.

[AWA]

Also, @flames and flubber: If you get bored reading or doing analysis during a game literally designed around the concepts of analytic game theory, then I suggest finding a different game to play, because this clearly isn't for you.

[AWA]

It's clear that Flubber is just trying to add chaos and confusion to the game, and I don't particularly care about the reason. That kind of posting style, behavior, and language serves only to distract from the true goal of the game, which is to eliminate the scum. Creating distractions OF ANY KIND supports the scum. That is why I am in favor of removing Flubber from the game.

[AWA]

In Day One, there is such little information to go off of that my vote is reserved for the one that I think will be most detrimental to scumhunting the future, after we have more than ad hominem to work with. The simple fact of the matter is that town players should try to find information that will lead to scum, and scum players will attempt to misdirect or confuse the town players so that they can't find that information. That Willow suddenly sees me as scum for the sole reason of calling out Flubber for making intentionally chaotic and confusing posts makes me very suspicious of his intentions. If you actually read my posts, while I personally disagree with his use of inflammatory language, I am MUCH more agitated at his insistence on causing general chaos and confusion, not "leveraging the slur rigamarole". If I was forced to say what my thought on the slur were, in the context of the game I would say that it is a carefully chosen tactic to elicit an emotional reaction out of the town, which serves to prevent the town from making cautious and rational analysis and judgment.

Additionally, Droog's 588 is questionable. I think Flubber is antitown, so that makes me scummy? I cannot conceive of what leap in logic you managed to make to arrive at that conclusion.

Right now, my two highest candiatess are Flubber and Droog, Flubber for causing anti-town chaos and Droog for not only encouraging that sort of chaos, but for pointing a finger at those who call it out. Flubber's 524 is exactly the kind of misdirection and poisoning the well that I'm talking about. Also notice the buddy-buddy with Droog; I could easily see a scumbuddy relationship there.

[AWA]

Mod: There are currently three votes for Flubbernugget.

[AWA]

It's clear that Flubber is just trying to add chaos and confusion to the game, and I don't particularly care about the reason. That kind of posting style, behavior, and language serves only to distract from the true goal of the game, which is to eliminate the scum. Creating distractions OF ANY KIND supports the scum. That is why I am in favor of removing Flubber from the game.

So basically you want a Policy Lynch is what you're saying here because of posting style. Not saying Flubber isn't scum because I think he is but your reasoning is flawed here.

I elaborate more on this in 603.

[AWA]

When it comes to this game, I see no significant difference between abetting scum by being flagrantly anti-town and true scum.

[AWA]

Droog, would you mind compiling a post that clearly and concisely states your reasons for not liking me? At the moment, all I'm getting from you is a vague sense of dislike, and that you seem to want everyone else to construct their own reasons for why that should be rather than coming out and stating it.

[AWA]

Oh my God.

Mod: Can you please delete the above two posts? This post is exactly the same, except with correct quotation and formatting.

-----
Except I've already addressed those points.

It's clear that Flubber is just trying to add chaos and confusion to the game, and I don't particularly care about the reason. That kind of posting style, behavior, and language serves only to distract from the true goal of the game, which is to eliminate the scum. Creating distractions OF ANY KIND supports the scum. That is why I am in favor of removing Flubber from the game.

This reeks of scum
Scum would be pretty happy with this "gay is a slur" nonsense
It gives them a chance to be genuine
Which scum will take for all it's worth

You're trying to justify a lynch as though flubber is making the ruckus
He's not.

How exactly does this "reek of scum"? I'm not happy with the "gay as slur nonsense", because as I stated, creating a controversy over something completely unrelated does nothing to actually help the town, and in fact is a detriment because it causes chaos and distraction. Which I said in the very post you quoted. Can you show me exactly how Flubber ISN'T making a ruckus? Because his insistence upon creating confusion, handwaving posts that don't necessarily conform to his own ideas, and posts such as 567 and 585 which directly demand specific players to state who they think are scum without providing any kind of context or rationalization don't help the town. The only possible reason that a player would make these kinds of moves are if they are scum or some other kind of anti-town role. Either way I am in favor of a lynch.

awa's post on flubber ("flubber's antitown, therefore scum") was scummy

I believe I address this above, (and in fact in several posts since you originally posted this), but again I fail to see how my opinion that Flubber is antitown leads to me being scum. Please show me your train of thought here.

[AWA]

I believe I address this above, (and in fact in several posts since you originally posted this), but again I fail to see how my opinion that Flubber is antitown leads to me being scum. Please show me your train of thought here.

Because we've said that anti-town doesn't always equal scum

And I've said that since I don't have any strong particular reads of actual scum, I'm more concerned about removing players that will be obstructions toward lynching scum in future days where we have more connections to work with. Day One is almost entirely ad hominem, the connections I'm drawing are more meta than that.

[AWA]

No one is anti-town enough to PL

Difference of opinion, then. I'll address everyone else later after class.

[AWA]

I'm not going to continue responding to droog until he actually provides some kind of case instead of just saying that you don't like what I'm saying. Flubber and droog remain my top two choices; all of their cases are haphazardly thrown together, and when challenged their only responses are "Well you disagree with me so you must be scum".

[AWA]

@AWA

A few things

What post exactly did you state that "creating a controversy over something completely unrelated does nothing to actually help the town"?

I also took note of posts 567 and 585 as it raised a flag with me and while I disagree that this proves he is scum as he could just be town trying to play a straight forward game style.

In 558 and 603 I outline my thoughts regarding controversy.

567 and 585 do nothing except to put unnecessary pressure on players to point fingers while worded in such a way as to seemingly preclude the possibility that a person might not have any strong scum reads. If the player

doesn't

have a strong scum read, then their honest response could easily be spun to be dodging the question, and therefore scummy.

[AWA]

And AWA has to be being deliberately dense at this point, he would be my firm 2nd choice for a lynch.

Elaborate? What do you mean by dense? Can you construct an argument or are you just point fingers because you don't like my writing style?

[AWA]

Cp/oc??/awa scumteam.

Elaborate?

[AWA]

I really don't like AWAs voting because he sees flubs as anti town and he keeps pushing it as a good tactic so he has gone from null to lean scum, this could just be misguided town though so I need more from him. Not a day 1 lynch for me.

Can you explain to me why voting for an anti-town player is worse than not voting, which is my only other option at the moment, since I don't have any definitive scum reads? To me, the order of danger to the town goes: Scum > Anti-town > Neutral > Town. If I can't be sure of someone being scum, then anti-town becomes my highest choice for removing danger to the town.

[AWA]

How exactly does this "reek of scum"? I'm not happy with the "gay as slur nonsense", because as I stated,

creating a controversy over something completely unrelated does nothing to actually help the town

, and in fact is a detriment because it causes chaos and distraction. Which I said in the very post you quoted. Can you show me exactly how Flubber ISN'T making a ruckus?

Because his insistence upon creating confusion, handwaving posts that don't necessarily conform to his own ideas, and posts such as 567 and 585 which directly demand specific players to state who they think are scum without providing any kind of context or rationalization don't help the town.

The only possible reason that a player would make these kinds of moves are if they are scum or some other kind of anti-town role. Either way I am in favor of a lynch.

1) we all create controversy.
flubber /started/ it but we each chose to continue it
you're not anti-town reading everyone else for it

2) this is a completely different argument
i do not scum read you for thinking flubber is handwaving
or calling 567 and 585 scummy
i scum read you for proposing an 'anti town = scum' lynch

you are conflating a reasonable argument i did not critique
with an unreasonable argument i did critique

I lied, I'm going to respond to this.

1.) While several other people responded, no one except for Flubber (and yourself, ironically) responded in a way that would propagate the discussion. Flubber continued to use the language in a future post after it was already demonstrated to elicit controversy, and you posted an almost vehement defense of using that sort of language. Regardless of my opinions on using that kind of language in general, when applied to this kind of situation where such a controversy is negative toward an atmosphere of cooperation toward finding scum the fact that Flubber and yourself continued to post inflammatory remarks told me that you were not interested in scumhunting as a priority.

2.) I never said anti-town is scum, look at my ISO. That you insist on pushing this point is suspicious, especially since you have outright called me scummy several times for no reason other than this. Projecting?

I never said that you were critiquing my argument of Flubber handwaving, I always knew you were someone attacking my (nonexistent) anti-town = scum construction.

I will be interested to see how you spin this into me being scum.

[AWA]

I believe I address this above, (and in fact in several posts since you originally posted this), but again I fail to see how

my opinion that Flubber is antitown

leads to me being scum. Please show me your train of thought here.

you moved the goalpost again

You use this term, but you don't know what it means. Asking you to provide your logic is not "moving the goalposts".

i am not calling you scum for 'flubber is antitown'
i am calling you scum for 'flubber is antitown and therefore scum'
which i already explained:

This reeks of scum
Scum would be pretty happy with this "gay is a slur" nonsense
It gives them a chance to be genuine
Which scum will take for all it's worth

Again, first of all I never said that anti-town = scum, that was a connection that you made when you accused me. Regarding 564, I literally addressed that exact post in 648. Can't help but notice that you conveniently ignore that post in 670.

in short
you were the only player to try to take advantage of the situation
not by suggesting a pl for trashy behavior
but by suggesting it actually effected your reads

Are you implying here that a distraction doesn't affect reads? Are you suggesting that I should have suggested a PL for the trashy behavior, as many other people did? Being an asshole in and of itself doesn't warrant a policy lynch to me, because it doesn't say anything about the person other than that they are an asshole. However, if being an asshole will cause people to have a skewed perspective when trying to analyze posts or if it will cause people to be in an unbalanced emotional state when they are trying to be rational, then I am for a policy lynch because causing an unsound mental state in other players is something that can only help the scum.

[AWA]

And AWA has to be being deliberately dense at this point, he would be my firm 2nd choice for a lynch.

Elaborate? What do you mean by dense? Can you construct an argument or are you just point fingers because you don't like my writing style?

Whenever you get challenged on your Flubber position you misrepresent what they've said, droog summed things up pretty well (Hi Oc)

PEdit: Both Oc and myself and made posts that propogated that discussion, in fact, Oc came back after promising content he still hasn't posted, in order to post 2 huge walls about it. Any opinions on our posts about the topic?

Can you provide an example of where I've made a misrepresentation? Don't just make a claim and then not back it up with evidence.

Regarding yourself and OC making inflammatory posts: I don't see anything in your ISO that could be construed as propagating that discussion except perhaps 581, and even that has a mostly level tone and doesn't provoke a response. OC's only post that could be construed as propagating that discussion would be 590, and even that is only inflammatory toward you (that is to say, toward an individual, not toward the group as a whole. Meanwhile, droog has 292, 542, and 556, jumping on BOTH instances of Flubber using "gay" in an inflammatory manner.

[AWA]

Away that is shite

Two facts belie you

1) I do not scum read you for calling flubber anti town
I scum read you for calling flubber scummy for being anti town

2) I ignored your defense in 648

because it came after your request for an elaboration in 641

Yet more proof that you don't actually read my posts. I'm not holding your hand and walking you through my posts when I very clearly state exactly why you are wrong. Literally every single thing you just said has been addressed in my recent posts.

[AWA]

I refuse to let you dictate the flow of my posts. You accuse me of moving the goalposts, yet you yourself are never satisfied by my responses, all of which have been backed up by quotes and evidence, while you do nothing except restate the same words over and over. It's like talking to a broken record. You're not going to drag me into an endless loop of explaining the same things over and over just to satisfy you because you are apparently incapable of critical thinking or basic reading comprehension. I'm done with you until you actually post some meaningful content. Don't think I don't take note of your pressure vote, either; you won't succeed at baiting me.

[AWA]

I really don't like AWAs voting because he sees flubs as anti town and he keeps pushing it as a good tactic so he has gone from null to lean scum, this could just be misguided town though so I need more from him. Not a day 1 lynch for me.

Can you explain to me why voting for an anti-town player is worse than not voting, which is my only other option at the moment, since I don't have any definitive scum reads? To me, the order of danger to the town goes: Scum > Anti-town > Neutral > Town. If I can't be sure of someone being scum, then anti-town becomes my highest choice for removing danger to the town.

People in this game have done scummy things.

That is an matter of opinion.

You should be voting for who you think is the scummiest. The problem with your logic is that you are never sure someone's scum so therefore will never vote for a scummy person.

Do you find anything scummy about flubs posting?

The person I think is scummiest is the person that I think is helping the scum the most, be they actual scum or not. This is completely in line with what I have been saying all along.

I really don't like AWAs voting because he sees flubs as anti town and he keeps pushing it as a good tactic so he has gone from null to lean scum, this could just be misguided town though so I need more from him. Not a day 1 lynch for me.

Can you explain to me why voting for an anti-town player is worse than not voting, which is my only other option at the moment, since I don't have any definitive scum reads? To me, the order of danger to the town goes: Scum > Anti-town > Neutral > Town. If I can't be sure of someone being scum, then anti-town becomes my highest choice for removing danger to the town.

People in this game have done scummy things. You should be voting for who you think is the scummiest. The problem with your logic is that you are never sure someone's scum so therefore will never vote for a scummy person.

Do you find anything scummy about flubs posting?

Cp/oc??/awa scumteam.

Elaborate?

This is a very brazen thing to ask from your "read the thread" high horse.

The difference here being that whenever I post a conclusion that I draw, I provide the steps of reasoning within that same post. You, on the other hand, simply state a conclusion(?) without any supporting evidence, leaving everyone to read your post and come to their own conclusions, which, since you poisoned the well with your own assertion, will likely be skewed toward your own stated conclusion. It's a classic example to psychological manipulation, which some people might not have recognized but which I won't fall for.

[AWA]

I really don't like AWAs voting because he sees flubs as anti town and he keeps pushing it as a good tactic so he has gone from null to lean scum, this could just be misguided town though so I need more from him. Not a day 1 lynch for me.

Can you explain to me why voting for an anti-town player is worse than not voting, which is my only other option at the moment, since I don't have any definitive scum reads? To me, the order of danger to the town goes: Scum > Anti-town > Neutral > Town. If I can't be sure of someone being scum, then anti-town becomes my highest choice for removing danger to the town.

People in this game have done scummy things. You should be voting for who you think is the scummiest. The problem with your logic is that you are never sure someone's scum so therefore will never vote for a scummy person.

Do you find anything scummy about flubs posting?

Cp/oc??/awa scumteam.

Elaborate?

This is a very brazen thing to ask from your "read the thread" high horse.

I really don't like AWAs voting because he sees flubs as anti town and he keeps pushing it as a good tactic so he has gone from null to lean scum, this could just be misguided town though so I need more from him. Not a day 1 lynch for me.

Can you explain to me why voting for an anti-town player is worse than not voting, which is my only other option at the moment, since I don't have any definitive scum reads? To me, the order of danger to the town goes: Scum > Anti-town > Neutral > Town. If I can't be sure of someone being scum, then anti-town becomes my highest choice for removing danger to the town.

People in this game have done scummy things.

That is an matter of opinion.

You should be voting for who you think is the scummiest. The problem with your logic is that you are never sure someone's scum so therefore will never vote for a scummy person.

Do you find anything scummy about flubs posting?

The person I think is scummiest is the person that I think is helping the scum the most, be they actual scum or not. This is completely in line with what I have been saying all along.

I really don't like AWAs voting because he sees flubs as anti town and he keeps pushing it as a good tactic so he has gone from null to lean scum, this could just be misguided town though so I need more from him. Not a day 1 lynch for me.

Can you explain to me why voting for an anti-town player is worse than not voting, which is my only other option at the moment, since I don't have any definitive scum reads? To me, the order of danger to the town goes: Scum > Anti-town > Neutral > Town. If I can't be sure of someone being scum, then anti-town becomes my highest choice for removing danger to the town.

People in this game have done scummy things. You should be voting for who you think is the scummiest. The problem with your logic is that you are never sure someone's scum so therefore will never vote for a scummy person.

Do you find anything scummy about flubs posting?

Cp/oc??/awa scumteam.

Elaborate?

This is a very brazen thing to ask from your "read the thread" high horse.

The difference here being that whenever I post a conclusion that I draw, I provide the steps of reasoning within that same post. You, on the other hand, simply state a conclusion(?) without any supporting evidence, leaving everyone to read your post and come to their own conclusions, which, since you poisoned the well with your own assertion, will likely be skewed toward your own stated conclusion. It's a classic example to psychological manipulation, which some people might not have recognized but which I won't fall for.

So AWA, you see nothing that would indicate mafia alignment with flubs. It is purely because he is a distraction to the town and allows town to hide.

The only person that I would consider having a strong scumread on right now is droog, but God forbid I switch my vote (BACK) to him since that would obviously be nothing more than OMGUS, even though I had my vote on him in the first place. As of this moment, behind droog, Flubber is the person who I believe is the most dangerous to the town, from a metagaming perspective, and so I am voting for him. To answer your question directly, yes, I see nothing that would outright scream to me that he is mafia, however there is nothing that screams to me that ANYONE currently playing is mafia, because it is day one. Again, the only person that I think is remotely beyond that is droog, but I am well aware of how it would seem to switch my vote back to him after our recent exchanges. I do note that droog managed to slip in a vote on me while attacking my read on another player. I also note that droog has been extremely tunnel-visioned on me for the past hundred posts or so.

[AWA]

When it comes to this game, I see no significant difference between abetting scum by being flagrantly anti-town and true scum.

reminder that ignoring cases
is flagrantly anti-town

Then you have committed the same crime I have, by ignoring my cases.

[AWA]

Literally the only thing you have ever said in my prosecution has been that since I apparently said that "anti-town = scum" that I was scum. That is your entire case. I have since shown that not only do I not believe that, but I have never said that. Yet you still continue to parrot the same accusations against me.

I'm interested to see what other people think of our interactions. I note that even the people who aren't on V/LA have been remarkable quiet.

[AWA]

Okay so Oc can lurk his way to day 2 for now

VOTE: AWA

Absolutely unbelievable. Does no one else see this kind of nonsense?

[AWA]

Cp/oc??/awa scumteam.

Elaborate?

This is a very brazen thing to ask from your "read the thread" high horse.

The difference here being that whenever I post a conclusion that I draw, I provide the steps of reasoning within that same post. You, on the other hand, simply state a conclusion(?) without any supporting evidence, leaving everyone to read your post and come to their own conclusions, which, since you poisoned the well with your own assertion, will likely be skewed toward your own stated conclusion. It's a classic example to psychological manipulation, which some people might not have recognized but which I won't fall for.

Prove to me you're reading the thread.

Which of my three scum reads have I not posted evidence on.

I'll give you a hint. It's only one.

You have posted no supporting evidence for your accusations on myself. The only times you ever address me at all are 524 (handwave of my wall which I suspect you didn't actually read), 528 (a response to my accusations of not reading posts, and essentially a confirmation that you did not read it), 620 (some kind of mild read where you say I'm more interested in metagame than actual playing (what does this even mean, this whole game is about metagame)), 705 (you refuse to actually elaborate on why you suspect me on your scumteam (not really sure why you seem to know that there would be exactly three scum in the first place) and accuse me of being hypocritcal), and 724 (you ask for this post). Note that I'm somehow on your scumread list without you ever having actually posted anything to support that.

Interestingly, you also don't really have a case on Originalchris, beyond one response to his deflection comment and one reference to another game.

Everyone else, note his refusal to give a straight answer when questioned to outline his suspicions, which upon further investigate have no basis in fact. I also urge everyone to look at Flubber's ISO; he likes to post questions and prods, making other people do analytical work for him, while he sits back and doesn't provide any substance of his own. This conveniently allows him to jump on whatever wagon is popular at the moment, while making it seem that he's been supporting it all along.

[AWA]

Flubbernugget:

First things first: Your avatar creeps me out. A lot. I would appreciate it if you would change it, but if you don't I'll live.

In regards to his content, there is actually very little here to go off of. The only thing is a vote on droog for his overreaction to the "hammer" on Riddleton (where it still stands, by the way). The vote itself is innocuous, in my opinion; less so is the fact that it still stands, without any reasonable justification, and in fact an explicit refusal to justify it. All of his other posts have been fluff. My stance: Scum.

---

To sum up, I think that there are some people who lean further toward scum than others, and some people who are VERY tenuously on the fence, but who can easily fall one way or the other. For now, I think I will

Vote: droog

. His Riddleton hammer response and subsequent neighbor claim both seemed contrived. However, depending on how the next few pages of discussion go, I could easily see this vote switching to Riddleton/istott or Flubber.

Tag fixed
~Mod

I am flip flopping back and forth on you. In your first reads post you have flubbs, flames and droog as scum. Now you are saying you have no scum read on flubbs and it is basically lynching someone anti town.

Why the change from scum reading flubs to him just being anti town.

When I made the original post, my mental scale was sliding from Town to Neutral to Scum. I have since revised that to include Antitown, since I have realized that a person's actions may be against the best interests of the town without them necessarily showing scumtells. It's not so much that my initial impression of Flubber was more severe than it is now, it's more that since my scale was revised, his placement on that scale now sits in a more accurate place.

[AWA]

And AWA has to be being deliberately dense at this point, he would be my firm 2nd choice for a lynch.

Elaborate? What do you mean by dense? Can you construct an argument or are you just point fingers because you don't like my writing style?

Whenever you get challenged on your Flubber position you misrepresent what they've said, droog summed things up pretty well (Hi Oc)

PEdit: Both Oc and myself and made posts that propogated that discussion, in fact, Oc came back after promising content he still hasn't posted, in order to post 2 huge walls about it. Any opinions on our posts about the topic?

Can you provide an example of where I've made a misrepresentation? Don't just make a claim and then not back it up with evidence.

Regarding yourself and OC making inflammatory posts: I don't see anything in your ISO that could be construed as propagating that discussion except perhaps 581, and even that has a mostly level tone and doesn't provoke a response. OC's only post that could be construed as propagating that discussion would be 590, and even that is only inflammatory toward you (that is to say, toward an individual, not toward the group as a whole. Meanwhile, droog has 292, 542, and 556, jumping on BOTH instances of Flubber using "gay" in an inflammatory manner.

Okay so Oc can lurk his way to day 2 for now

VOTE: AWA

To elaborate myself on why I find Willow's naked vote unbelievable, it's the fact that he accuses me of misrepresentation and ignoring other people who contributed to the "gay" discussion, I respond to him (SPECIFICALLY stating that he shouldn't post claims without backup), and then he goes and ignores my response AND tacks on a vote, STILL with no evidence to back it up. I was encouraged by his discussion lately, but it seems that we're back to square one here (remember the ISO-of-only-votes nonsense at the beginning?).

[AWA]

You're the only one making this hullabaloo about the votes against you, you might as well be saying "Prove to me I'm scum", it's a waste of time.

I'm responding this way because your votes have no substance, and we're way past RVS stage. Insisting on making posts with no substance provides no information to actually help the town; all it does is up your own post count, which, as has already been said numerous times, is a terrible metric for evaluating a player's contribution. Here, let's me give you an example of what I'm talking about:

------

Vote: Whomping Willow

-----

That's the entire post. Zero supporting evidence, zero postulations, zero argument, zero logical connection, simply a naked vote with no purpose other than to incite the target into a response. It's obvious how this is detrimental to the ultimate health of the town.

Unvote

Not sure whether to keep my vote on Flubber (I believe that if not outright scum, then at the very least very anti-town) or to move it to droog (insistence upon moving the goalposts, poisoning the well, and a high postcount with a low content saturation (which leads to unnecessarily difficult analysis and frustration for people like myself who want to analyze content instead of respond to the same accusations over and over)). Except for these last few posts, Willow doesn't strike me as particularly scummy, but these recent attacks smell like bandwagoning to me, especially when he has no real argument to back them up. I think I will keep my vote on Flubber for the time being, but it could VERY easily jump to droog if he continues to post the same things while pretending that he's constructing some kind of case.

Vote: Flubbernugget

[AWA]

And another thing, of course I'm saying "Prove to me I'm scum", you're voting for me, which means you think I'm scum, which means you must have had some kind of reason to thinking that. Either present your thinking to the town or don't vote, but casting a vote and not giving reasons is shady at best and scum at worst.

[AWA]

As a side observation, I find it interesting that my relatively rational and collected posting style doesn't garner as many friends as certain other people's wild, semi-articulate, often-vulgar posting styles. I wonder if I should adjust that, so that people will listen to what I have to say.

[AWA]

Right, it's a playstyle thing

holy shit
will you shut up already
and tell me why im scum
instead of talking about bullshit

[AWA]

let me just
pile up a big old pile of bullshit
ok im satisfied that my bullshit pile is big enough
lets lynch droog
this is a wagon im fine with

Vote: droog

[AWA]

wtf flubber you only post about cp
and now that hes gone
you dont say anything
bullshit
bullshit
lets lynch flubs

Vote: Flubbernugget

[AWA]

wow willow
you are so quick to jump on any old bandwagon that shows up
rvs included
what scum

Vote: Whomping Willow

[AWA]

kuror
say something
oh you didnt say something
must be scum

Vote: kuror0

[AWA]

ggg
you don't like droogs posting style either?
fuk u

Vote: GGG

[AWA]

istott on v/la?
bullshit
bullshit
bullshit
...

Vote: istott

[AWA]

munkir
you dont say anything
when you say something you dont do anything
seems scummy
[/b]Vote: Munkir[/b]

[AWA]

I just made several posts in droogs style. I wonder if that's enough to illustrate why it's so annoying.

[AWA]

I can keep going if you'd like.

[AWA]

One sentence posts are super easy, I see now why you guys like them so much.

[AWA]

You don't need to actually think about anything.

[AWA]

Just post post post and hope that something will catch.

[AWA]

sorry i used to much grammer in those last postd

[AWA]

God you people are so irritating to play with. I'm going to walk away and come back later. Say whatever you want, try and call up a bandwagon if you want, all I ask from everyone else is to look at the posts with an eye toward what the posts are actually saying, or in certain cases, not saying.

[AWA]

Dropping in quickly to address two small things, but I'm going out. I will come back later to contribute more:

1.) Droog stop intentionally using the incorrect pronoun to refer to me. There is no reason to assume I am a female, and it tell you what my gender is underneath my avatar. Yet more attempts at psychological warfare that I will neither fall for nor tolerate.

2.) I accidentally left my vote on Munkir after my posts earlier. For clarity:

Vote: droog

[AWA]

Several points:
---
Re: 786

1.) No, at the moment I simply find his actions to be anti-town.

2.) At the moment, droog and Willow are my two highest reads, for their insistence on misrepresenting my charges against Flubber and chainsawing anyone who comes to my defense.

You can be as philosophically against not making solid scum reads Day One as you want, but that will only lead you to influence your own play; my play will be dictated by my own philosophy. You may think that there are other cases where I can evaluate as scum or town; this is true, however the two cases which I mentioned above only struck me as scum

after

I made my case against Flubber. If you look at the timeline of when droog and Willow begin to make sparse cases focused on me, it's only after (and, importantly,

because

) I made my case on Flubber.

Also, and this tends to be a trend I've noticed with a few later posts, your comment that I could be bussing is something I'd like to address. You say that you find me scummy for pushing my case against Flubber. However, you say that if Flubber turns out to be scum, then I'm scummy for bussing. So there's literally no way to appease you here. I'm not going to dance in circles just to make you personally happy, I'm going to try to find the people I think are most detrimental to the town and get rid of them.
---
Re: GGG and Naomi's defense of me

I'm glad that at least a few other people in this thread are able to use critical thinking and reading comprehension to actually understand what I'm trying to say. GGG's 781 and Naomi's 773 perfectly encapsulate what I was trying to say. Droog and Willow's unwillingness to read what I'm saying and connect the dots that I lay out clearly are what strike me as scummy.
---
Re: 807

For something that is supposedly "glaringly obvious", very few other people appear to have jumped onto that particular bandwagon. Rather, it seems to me that you are trying to plant the idea in everyone's mind that I was being opportunistic with a wagon, when in reality I was calling out Flubber's general anti-town play.

You seem to either be of the mindset or want to force other people into the mindset that people can only think that others players a A.) Town or B.) Scum; this kind of black-and-white mentality is both iincorrect and hazardous. People lie on a sliding scale of Town-Scum, and the fact that you apparently want me to hold up a "neon sign with the words 'I am scumreading Flubber'" when I do not, in fact, hold that belief is indicative that you are trying to pressure people into rushing decisions and using the same kind of "100% good or 100% bad" mentality that you have, or want to project as having.

Further, your language is leading. "It was glaringly obvious...". "His attack... is pure desperation." You make assertions with strong language to attempt to influence other people into whatever agenda you want to push; I'm reminded of both politicians and lawyers, neither of whom I tend to trust. That you tend to use this kind of assertive language without first constructing an argument, forcing the reader to either search through the thread and construct the argument themselves (doing your work for you) or blindly believe you is something that I find to be detrimental to players who would be particularly susceptible to that kind of suggestion.
---
Re: 748
Holy shit you're like a dog with a bone with this fucking post. If this is your only cause for voting for me then that's sad. How about you stop spinning what I say into whatever agenda you want to push instead of looking at what I'm saying and doing your homework.

When I said in 648 that I had already explained, I was referring back to 603 where I make my initial explanations of why I'm against Flubber. In 648 I elaborated specifically upon the posts you asked for. Your entire argument here appears to be that I was inconsistent with my chain of events, but in reality you didn't bother to do your homework and even attempt to make the some connections I made, you simply saw what might be construed as a fallacy and jumped on it, and haven't let go since.
---
Re: 812

...what? Munkir your play is inconsistent. In 656 you ask me specific questions. I answer them in 683, but you don't acknowledge this. In 742, you say that you see my point of view, and in fact imply that you are leaning toward voting in my favor. Now in 812 you suddenly pull a complete 180, and join the wagon against me and pile a vote on for good measure. You say you were leaning more and more toward me being scum, but you don't say where or why. You say that if I were scum then I would have dropped my case on Flubber to save face, but then you say that since other people seem to think that since I didn't drop my case, that makes me scummy too (even though you admit that you wouldn't necessarily think that on your own; perhaps droog and Willow's leading diction is working by influencing the though processes of a newer player?). This is like with CP above; I'm damned if I do, damned if I don't, and I'm not going to do that dance for you, I'm going to go after the people I think will hurt the town. You then bring up 801 for some reason, saying that it was a "cave" and that you think it is basically an OMGUS vote. First of all, I didn't "cave", I was out (real life exists, what do you know), I had had a moment to check on the game, and wanted to drop in a few corrections. Secondly, unless you

also

haven't been reading what I've been posting, my vote on droog is

not

an OMGUS, which is characterized by voting for a person for the sole reason that they are voting for you, but rather a vote based on his insistence on misrepresenting my posts in order to push his agenda (seemingly to wagon me, although it has the added effect of protecting Flubber; I still see a buddy-buddy there). Overall, I don't necessarily think you're scum, but I think that you are dangerously naive at some of the ore complex situations that can arise from this game, and I think that you could be easily manipulated by the true scum. I'll be keeping a careful watch on you.
---
Re: 814

I agree completely; Flubber, as I have noted several times, hasn't actually posted any real content, preferring rather to poke and prod and make other people post content for him, while seeming to look like he's contributing. Droog and Willow's attack on me has had the serendipitous side effect of reducing the pressure on Flubber; more evidence of a buddying.
---
Re:818

What? You don't find Flubber town; I don't find Flubber town. Yet you attack me because I decided to actually push in that direction? Your play is inconsistent, which is something I guess I should expect from a self-admitted troll account.
---
Re 820

She's actually not. The characteristic of a chainsaw defense is that it is attacking an attacker solely because the initial attacker is attacking a different person (i.e. A is attacking B, so C attacks A). This is seemingly, but

not

similar to the situation where a person is attacking a different person, and then another person finds flaws in that person's arguments and decides to attack them (i.e. A is attacking B, but C notices issues with A's arguments, so C attacks A). While the end result is similar, the motives are different. Be careful not to fall victim to the fundamental attribution error.
---
Re: 825

Bringing up a player's meta is not indicative of anything. In this game, and this game alone, it is possible to analyze Flubber's ISO and discover that his posts do not tend to have any significant substance. Again you refuse to actually do any real work, preferring instead for other people to make your connections for you. Maybe instead of telling us to find examples where he doesn't post content, you can provide examples where he does post content? That would be more constructive.
---
Re828

This is a classic example, of which many more can be found in Flubber's ISO. He doesn't actually say anything himself, he just pokes another player to make a claim or answer a question, while he himself sits in the background and looks busy.
---
Re: 833

Generic defenses/hand waves are scummy.

Oh really? So your own generic defenses/handwaves are scummy? Meanwhile you conveniently ignore my consistent specific examples and constructed arguments, things that you are conspicuously lacking?

Playing inconsistently with one's town meta is scummy.

Playing inconsistently with one's town meta is indicative of a shift in playstyle, not indicative of scum. That you instantly jump straight to the only conclusion that incriminates me is indicative of your tunnel on the idea that I can only be scum.

I don't see the issue.

There is no issue, I included it for completeness.

But you did ask why you are scummy which I didn't answer.

And which you continue to not answer, except with vague statements like "This thing you've done is scummy, so you must be scum."

Policy lynches give town minimal information. Pushing a policy lynch deprives town of information and therefore is a tactic favored by scum.

There are many people who play Mafia that would disagree with you regarding policy lynches; nowhere is is written that policy lynches are a scum tactic and a scum tactic only. Again we have leading diction which will lead less experienced players to believe that only one perspective exists, and that perspective is coincidentally perfectly aligned with the agenda that I should be lynched. It is my opinion, as I have stated many times, that policy lynches are a tool that can and should be used when thinking in the long-term, since they will, over the course of the game, produce a healthier environment for finding and lynching scum.

And your ate over being scum read reeks the same scum stench of CP.

First of all, "ate"? I'm assume you meant "hate". But regardless, my posts continue to be misrepresented. I am not angry at being scumread, in fact if someone could actually come in and make a seriously analytical post with justified conclusions that state that I am scum, which could be defended rationally against cross-examination, then I would applaud them for their efforts. This has not been done. I have been ignored, misrepresented, and had words put in my mouth, and from these spurious "arguments" a wagon has formed for my lynch.

That

is why I am angry: not the fact that I am being called scum, but that I am being called scum on completely unjustified ground.

And through the massive walls of text you have, I just summarized your play in three sentences.

And through the massive clutter of non-content you have, I dissect yet another one of your non-posts. Which consisted of six sentences.

[AWA]

No... This... No... Just-No..

Hey look at this handwave.

It's okay. You're still better at mafia than me for posting graphs.

Hey look at this handwave.

It's okay. You're still better at mafia than me for posting lots of posts without actually saying anything.

[AWA]

GGG that's really cute that you can cherry pick a single game of mine to scum paint me.

You must have taken the same statistics class as naomi.

Flubbernugget that's really cute that you can cause disruption by intentionally using derogatory terms, multiple times (including once after it was already demonstrated to elicit a strong reaction) and post nothing but leading questions and non-content fluff while at the same time acting incredibly hypocritical by handwaving (something you claim is scummy) and selectively choosing which meta to look at (apparently yours is above analysis).

You must have taken the same misrepresentation and misdirection class as droog.

[AWA]

Flubbs what is your response to the argue,nets that you have little content, post fluff, and your only cast on CPs tone is not alignment indicative.

Pedit posting this before reading the last 3 posts

Throwing a fit, and being over defensive of a scum read on you, especially when it's in the form of a naked vote, is a fucking scum tell.

This isn't a defense, you're dodging the question. The question was,

What is your response to the accusations of you posting fluff with little to no content?

[AWA]

Don't any of you fucking dare say that you refuse to read 842, I will instantly pin you as scum if you don't.

[AWA]

1-I was under the impression that you where a scum just going for what they considered a weak player you pushed to hard gave to little and talked in circles with others. As in you would ask someone to explain they would "Answer" and ask you to explain and you would do the same in return.

How is this scummy? Also, if I wanted to go for a weak player, I would go for you or Naomi, two self-proclaimed newish players.

2- You had a target Flubbernugget , you gave a valid reason for voting him and kept loads of pressure on him all the while when others gave you shit you kept to your original target. This to means showed that you cared more about town itself rather than keeping your own hide alive viva being friends. But in post 801 you abandoned your quarry meaning that all that pressure and work was for a whole another reason other than town preservation. I feel as though your pursuit in ridding town of Flubber wasn't a bad one but your abandonment of the pursuit was.

You make it sound as if Flubber has completely dropped off of my radar, and I don't think that he's lynch-worthy at all anymore. This isn't true. First of all, you seem to be reading way too far into my courtesy post (801). I didn't drop the case on Flubbernugget, in fact if you read 842 I continue to grill him. I suspect you're only read the part of the post that applied to you, which I find disappointing.

3- You voted Droog and while i have been keeping my eye on him I don't particularly see any the major flags that you attempted to point out so my only logical conclusion is your ether mad at him so you voted or are scum and trying to rid yourself of a problem. Until you prove to me otherwise don't expect this opinion/vote "you would never vote someone out of anger" as I don't buy that.

All I was trying to say with the save face comment is to discuss theoretically the reasons for you dissensions and what I believe is the more likely reason. While commenting on how others who are the ones giving you the flack might potentially be effecting you reasons as with them on your case you have to be careful if not to draw out, backdown, or cave to eagerly. That said you seemed to have no intention of backing down until i read post 801 where you voted droog. This leads me to my final, weakest, and most unlikely flag a theory that might seem crazy but possibly could work and is exactly the move you as a scum player might attempt to pull off.

If you can't see that droog is purposefully being obstinate regarding my repeated clarifications about why I pressured Flubber, then I can't help you, because I'm not going to cater to three people now (droog, Willow, and you) who either can't or refuse to see what I'm saying, even after multiple clarifications. Naomi does a fine job of breaking it down, why don't you look at her post?

To address the second paragraph, what you're saying is that you would only not consider me scum if I pushed and pushed and pushed on Flubber until he or I was dead. That's stupid. It locks me into doing one thing and one thing only, and eliminates the possibility that, in lieu of pursuing someone that I found to be simply anti-town, I pursue someone that I think is scum. You seem to be hung up on the fact that I "caved", when I have done no such thing. If I had said "Sure Flubber, that's cool, you're off the hook" then yeah, that's a cave. What Riddleton did to istott earlier with the dayvig stunt, that was a cave. What I did was shift my focus from one player (who i think is anti-town) to another player (who I think is scum). Your line of thinking promotes tunnel-visioning, which is something that can blind you to other options.

4 - I believe that you could have attempted to play droog in a way that caused him to disfavor you but also allowed you to not only back back out of your vote for flubber but do so in a way that killed time created an illusion of content and on top of it all if played right get everyone in your pocket. Though this tactic is clever it is high risk and best preformed early on in the game.Your results seemed to backfire as you picked what you assumed to be the "weakest" player went for the set up and waited for someone to defend said player allowing you to ether lynch a town for "anti-policy" reasons or plant one if not all of your fellow scum on the "Defend Band Wagon" if one occurred setting up several potential town lynches of those who ether to sides with you or didn't take sides at all.

In simple Terms

Scum attacks weak player > Weak player gets defended (possible plant) > Band Wagon on a side occurs > Scum successfully implanted into Band Wagon/Hive Mind > Town lynching ensues.

If Side to lynch weak player is biggest side and wins that gives you a free lynch and covers scum tracks incredibly well if not trace-less.

If side that defends weak player wins then they lynch attacker (Who is scum) and assume all that agreed or stayed out of it as most likely scum.

-=-=-
Seems far fetched I know but I got scum readings for everyone involved in this Flubb/AWA/Droog debate and this tactic explains my reads. It is also one of the easiest and most readily available means to set up a win-win-win situation for scum.

-=-=-

I did not pick who i saw as the weakest player, as I said above, but rather the player that I thought would be the most harmful to future scumhunting. This has come up twice now, leading me to believe that it's a strong part of your mental case against me. Kindly strike that, as it is an analytical leap made purely on your end that has no basis in reality.

The only way that I could have played droog in the manner that you suggest is if I thought that he would react precisely the way that he did. Is it not clear from my responses to his posts that not only did I not expect that, but that I abhor that kind of posting in general? This point, as you admit, is very weak, and incredibly convoluted. At this point you're reaching for reasons to vote for me. You also seem to not take any notice of the hive mind that droog and Willow are planting against me. Or perhaps is this all Naomi's plot, since she can attack droog for attacking me for attacking Flubber? Maybe Originalchris will come out of the woodwork and attack Naomi for attacking droog for attacking me for attacking Flubber. You see how this line of reasoning doesn't work.

Ok back to dissecting your post AWA

When i said you caved i was talking about the fact that you switched targets.

See above. If you want me to stay on one single target until either or both of us is dead, then tough luck, that's just not going to happen.

I don't see droog trying to misrepresent your post as his post do nothing more then points out his own line of logic and how he went about obtaining his own opinion as he took apart your post and came to reasonable conclusions based on what he knows. Sure he might have taken your post apart to push his own agenda but when you think someone is scum that's what you do you try to prove why you think that person is scum using the content the person (you) have provided. I will admit his push is to hard and that is one of the reasons why i think its quite possible he is scum but i also think the same of you.

He doesn't point out his own line of logic past "you said Flubber was anti-town and therefore scum so therefore you are scum", which is false (I never said that Flubber being anti-town meant he was scum, in fact I have said the opposite) and fallacious (even if I did say that anti-town = scum, that isn't inherently scummy). He proceeds to say this

and only this

in his case against me, even though I respond to it many times. When you say he took my post apart to try to prove that I am scum, what he really did was take my post apart and spin it so that I looked like scum to outside observers. Spin is distinctly different from proof.

So if you think I'm a

dangerously

naive person does that mean I'm your next policy lynch after flubb? If so that's incredibly suspicious that you would consider me to be a "danger to town" after i happen to "Turn against you".

You continue to be mistaken that I think that policy lynches are the highest priority. To me, policy lynches occur AFTER there are no solid scum candidates. To answer your question directly, yes, you would be my next policy lynch after Flubber, IF I DID NOT HAVE ANY SCUMREADS. I currently have a strong scumread (droog) and a light scumread (Willow). That is why I am voting for droog, and not Flubber, and not you. And for the record, as you seem to be unclear about this, I am not suspicious of you because I turned against you (that is OMGUS). I am wary of you because you have faulty thinking regarding the mechanics of this game, and you seem to be easily suggested by the leading questions and directives of the people that I suspect to be scum (droog and Willow). AGAIN: I AM NOT SUPPORTING A POLICY LYNCH ON YOU BECAUSE YOU ARE SUSPICIOUS OF ME.

As to keeping a careful watch on me my only reply is

8=nm==D

TIT

Mature.

[AWA]

Some fuckups i spotted in post 851

Flag 3 "Until you prove to me otherwise don't expect this opinion/vote "you would never vote someone out of anger" as I don't buy that." I'm trying to say that until you give me a reason other than "I would never vote like this" that also has major clout as you abandoned a person you claim you know for a fact as "Anti-town" for someone you have yet to prove why you know for a fact is scum. (just wanted to clarify)

Also forgot to add that once bandwagon started to form you seemed to intentionally rub others the wrong way building up the "Band Wagon" and that's a major part of the Flag 4 tactic. (Just adding more evidence to the possible existence of this tactic as its most likely going to need all it can get)

Your demands are absurd. You want me to post something that beyond a shadow of a doubt vindicates me from your personal schema of justice. That's impossible, because A.) If you are scum and know that I am town you can arbitrarily move the goalposts, or B.) If you are town, and legitimately think I am scum, you can arbitrarily move the goalposts. The only way for me to meet your demands is for you to be town and think I am town, in which case you wouldn't be grilling me at all.

Do I know for a fact that droog is scum? No. I won't know for a fact that droog is scum until we lynch him and he flips scum. However, my read on him is scum, and more relevantly, more scum than Flubber, who I believe to be simply behaving in an anti-town manner (although I could shift my perspective and see him as scum). Droog's insistence on pushing a weak case that has already been addressed as wrong (several times by several different players), coupled with him chainsaw defense of Flubber, is what leads me to think he is scum.

Regarding your grand "Flag 4" plot, you have an image in your head of some convoluted scheme, and you're only looking at "evidence" which supports your theory. This is called confirmation bias, and it's a bad thing. That you readily admit that it will need "all the evidence it can get" is a gold mine for scum, because they will just feed you whatever you want to hear in order to solidify your mental image. Instead of trying to cram all of the evidence into an admittedly unnecessarily complex and unrealistic scheme, try to look at the evidence FIRST and come to the conclusion AFTER. Relevant logical fallacies are affirming the consequent (you think this "Flag 4" is the truth, so therefore whatever needed to happen for it to be true must have happened) and fallacy of the single cause ("Flag 4" is the only possible explanation).

[AWA]

Munk where is your vote. It's time for us to get votes on the table to move to a consensus.

That goes for all non voters right now.

His vote is on me. I believe that I currently have 4 votes; Flubber has 2 votes; droog has 2 votes; Willow, Riddleton, and CP have one vote each. Not voting are istott and flames; flames has requested replacement, and istott just came back from vacation and I presume will be reading up. Though I'm not sure where he's going with the flames thing. I'm curious to see what his read on this situation is, although if I had to guess I'd say he would agree with my analysis that Flubber intentionally fanned the flames of the "gay" discussion, knowing that it would cause a distraction. What he sees between me/droog/Willow/Munkir is up to him I guess.

[AWA]

To quickly address the people who are voting for me:

droog: I think he has done a really good job of starting this little wagon by posting things that would give analytical players like myself headaches, and then he gets to cherrypick whatever he wants out of their responses in order to further his own agenda. There is definitely some kind of buddy relationship between him and Flubber, no matter how much Flubber tried to distance himself.

Flubber: Very clear OMGUS vote on me, he didn't really post any kind of case against me (as is usual with his posts) other than 833 which I've already addressed and am waiting for a response (he's posted other responses since 842, so I'm curious as to why he hasn't responded to my direct response to his entire "case"). His trend in posting is very backseat-driver-ish; I don't like how he can just get away with posting tons of fluff and no content, ever, but still look like an active player. If Flubber would do even one wallpost stating his analysis of every player, that would be more useful to the town than the entirety of his posts to date. Assuming of course that his analysis was actual analysis.

Whomping Willow: My scumread here lies primarily with the fact that he jumped on the bandwagon with droog with very little prompting; droog managed to get a reaction out of me, and Willow pounced on that as a scumslip. His apparent case that my attack on Flubber was opportunistic has been addressed by myself several times (once AGAIN for those in the audience, Flubber's general posting style is detrimental to a healthy atmosphere of scumhunting, and in lieu of any strong scumreads, I was pressuring Flubber). His early "scumread" of me for not voting him in RVS is so absurd that it hardly bears mentioning, but it conveniently sets him for "having already had suspicions about me" (air quote there, I'm not saying you actually said that /preempting the misrep). After that he just hops onto droog's train AND has the gall to accuse me of misrep (himself misrepping me). He then proceeds to call my attack on droog "pure desperation", when someone who didn't have an agenda (GGG) could reach the conclusion that it was a genuine frustrated reaction. His sudden buddying up to droog, overlooking his misreps that other players have seemed to be able to see without any significant problems, and attacking me without being able to put up a case that stands to cross-examination are my suspicions for scum.

Munkir: I don't really know what to think about this guy. He claims he's not jumping on a wagon for no reason, but when he presents his reasoning, it's flawed, selective, victim to heavy confirmation bias, and involves a plan so convoluted that even he admits that it's weak. I guess I'll have to wait for his response to my response to him until I make a stronger read, either way.

[AWA]

AWA take a step back for a second. I'd prefer a scum lynch over anti-town lynch any day of the week. The fact that you continually tried to justify an anti-town lynch, especially when you've said you have scum reads is suspicious. The fact that you fought for this so hard just made it worse. I am glad you're voting a scum read now though.

Never did I say that I would prefer an anti-town lynch over a scum lynch. If you are trying to refer to my "scumreads" in 395, refer to 731 where I clarify what I was thinking. I never advocated lynching anti-town over lynching scum on principle, I was pushing on Flubber because in the absence of a strong scumread I wanted to pressure the person I thought would be most harmful to the town in the future.

In terms of the chainsaw, Droog is attacking you and consequently Naomi attacked Droog. If you think it's not because Naomi was attacking Droog's argument then I could just as easily say Droog was attacking your argument, nullifying the original chainsaw accusation.

The difference being that droog never addressed my claims, he only said that I was scummy because I was attacking Flubber. Naomi on the other hand made an analysis of droog's posts and came to the conclusion that he was acting scummy. You can't simply wave off every accusation as chainsawing, at some point everyone is going to be attacking someone else, does that make them immune to accusations because their attacker is simply chainsawing? No, you have to look at the specific behaviors and motivators behind the attack.

In terms of the whole Flubber bus thing, I pointed that out in the event that Flubber flips scum. My read on your argument was totally independent of that.

My problem with this is that if Flubber flips scum, and I was right, then you will automatically suspect me for bussing. However, if he flips town, and I was wrong, then you will automatically suspect me for pushing onto someone who turned out to be town, AND we will have lost a townie. Either way I lose.

[AWA]

Pre-emptively, I would like to say that I do NOT scumspect people simply for scumspecting me/voting for me. If you will look at my posts, I never scumread anyone because they have voted for me. I WILL scumread someone for using logical fallacies, ignoring arguments, misrepresenting words, or refusing to consider other people's reasoning, which is often the case when people are voting for me, since I post very analytically. However, be careful not to conflate this with OMGUS, which I do NOT partake in.

[AWA]

Mod: I am not voting for Munkir, I am voting for droog

Willow's existence as a troll account continues to make itself evident.

[AWA]

Just a heads up Tier, Willow is a self-acknowledged troll account, so take anything he says or does with a grain of salt.

Since droog and Flubber continue to make handwaves/vague dismissals of my posts, I'm going to continue to not be baited into discussing any more with them than is strictly necessary. Consider this a standing policy until they demonstrate that they are willing to put the time and effort into proper analysis that a person who is genuinely interested in scumhunting would.

[AWA]

Hooray an actual content-ful post from droog.

---
Re: GGG and Naomi's defense of me

I'm glad that at least a few other people in this thread are able to use critical thinking and reading comprehension to actually understand what I'm trying to say. GGG's 781 and Naomi's 773 perfectly encapsulate what I was trying to say. Droog and Willow's unwillingness to read what I'm saying and connect the dots that I lay out clearly are what strike me as scummy.

and this is the start of all our troubles
i have consistently explained why i suspect you
that it does not convince you is unsurprising
that you refuse to accept my case as a case is

discouranging other people from posting
by implying that only a select few 'are able to use critical thinking'
is scummy
and your walls have quite the effect of shutting down discussion


---

First paragraph: Incorrect. As of 842, the only thing you have consistently said is that since I "said" (remember that I never actually said this) that "Flubber is anti-town, and therefore scum" then it follows that I am scum. Not only did you not convince me, but I specifically addressed your case. It is you who have chosen to dismiss my refutation out of hand.

Second paragraph: Never have I discouraged anyone from posting. Show me where I say "X, don't post." Rather, I am trying to get everyone to use critical thinking, not saying that only the people who have displayed it until this point are allowed to post. Once again, you read into my words just enough to be able to twist them into a very narrow interpretation where I am scummy. Also, saying that my walls shut down discussion is fallacious; I can post whatever I want in whatever format I want, the onus is on everyone else to read it. Is this not dissimilar to how I have to read through your numerous posts devoid of capitalization, basic grammar, punctuation, or often content?

For something that is supposedly "glaringly obvious", very few other people appear to have jumped onto that particular bandwagon. Rather, it seems to me that you are trying to plant the idea in everyone's mind that I was being opportunistic with a wagon, when in reality I was calling out Flubber's general anti-town play.

((this was originally aimed at willow))
nobody denies you called out flubber as anti-town
however, here is a clear chain of events:

VOTE: Flubbernugget

If the mods don't replace flubbs

I am okay with a policy lynch on him.

Regardless of alignment I don't want to play with someone who is intentionally using homophobic slurs.

^^^^^^This.

right before your vote
three people came down hard on flubber
none of them felt the need to explain
they did not present themselves as pro-town for their stances
they did not present flubber as anti-town or scummy

Flubber conveniently handwaves my entire post, without actually addressing anything in it, and then proceeds to make assertions with no backup, and THEN continues to use uncalled-for language and continues to spam post. These things may seem innocuous now, but over the course of a full game they become nonproductive at best, and anti-town at worst.

Vote: Flubbernugget

you, uniquely
try to paint flubber as a villain who needs rope
the other opinions were made for the sake of the people speaking
yours was for the people listening

maybe there's nothing to that thought of mine
but i imagine town isnt so careful about always sounding logical

Correct, no one denies that I called Flubber anti-town, I even say that myself. In fact, THAT WAS THE WHOLE REASON I WAS VOTING FOR HIM IN THE FIRST PLACE. No more, no less. Somehow, you made the jump from "AWA thinks Flubber is anti-town" to "AWA thinks anti-town = scum, AWA thinks Flubber is anti-town, AWA thinks Flubber is scum, therefore AWA must be scum."

Addressing the "chain of events" argument: You seem to be of the mindset that if I hadn't explained my vote, you wouldn't have thought I was suspicious. Alternatively, if I had placed my vote earlier in the sequence, then I wouldn't be suspicious. However, if you aren't aware of it by now, or if you haven't gone through my meta,

I never place a vote without an explanation.

Also, your point that none of the other three people presented themselves as pro-town is irrelevant; I ALSO did not present myself as pro-town, any more than GGG did for saying he was okay with a policy lynch. I note that you are conspicuously NOT going after GGG at any point. To continue with that vein, I did not directly call Flubber anti-town, I said that his behavior may become anti-town in the future if he continued to stir up emotional responses. I specifically said that he would be "nonproductive" (not anti-town) at best, and "anti-town at worst". That you automatically assume that I only cared for the worst possible outcome is saying something about your own mentality.

Your insistence that my trait of providing an explanation whenever I take an action is somehow scummy is perplexing. It implies that if I were to not provide an explanation, then you would find me not scummy. In what way does less logic and reasoning help the town?

"the other opinions were made for the sake of the people speaking
yours was for the people listening"

So if I were to speak for the sake of speaking, while not caring at all about why I was saying what I was saying, that would be perfectly acceptable to you. I call this absolute hogwash. Behaving without thought or reason does nothing except add an element of unpredictability to people's reads, which ultimately serves to help the scum hide in the confusion.

You seem to either be of the mindset or want to force other people into the mindset that people can only think that others players a A.) Town or B.) Scum; this kind of black-and-white mentality is both iincorrect and hazardous. People lie on a sliding scale of Town-Scum, and the fact that you apparently want me to hold up a "neon sign with the words 'I am scumreading Flubber'" when I do not, in fact, hold that belief is indicative that you are trying to pressure people into rushing decisions and using the same kind of "100% good or 100% bad" mentality that you have, or want to project as having.

how do you write something like this
we're not jihadists or politicians
we understand the sliding scale of good and evil

this is why i say you're misrpenning
and overly defensive
if you were seriously in a right mind reading this gamestate
there would be no need to pretend that willow is too dogmatic to have a read that isnt 100%

I write like that because I graduated high school with a diploma saying that I could write basic English and construct a formal argument. Is this something you lack?

In 807, Willow says that I beat around the bush of calling Flubber anti-town and calling that a scumread, and that he would prefer that I simply outright claimed that Flubber was scum. However, he conveniently ignores the possibility that

I did not think that Flubber was guaranteed scum.

When I say that Willow didn't have the capacity to understand the sliding scale, it was in response to the apparent fact that he couldn't understand that I could possibly believe that Flubber was acting anti-town without being outright scum. Here's a thought: Maybe I didn't outright claim that Flubber was scum

because I had no concrete evidence that he was scum

. There's an idea, withholding judgment until evidence is provided.

Don't accuse me of pretending. I don't pretend when I make reasoned arguments.

Further, your language is leading. "It was glaringly obvious...". "His attack... is pure desperation." You make assertions with strong language to attempt to influence other people into whatever agenda you want to push; I'm reminded of both politicians and lawyers, neither of whom I tend to trust. That you tend to use this kind of assertive language without first constructing an argument, forcing the reader to either search through the thread and construct the argument themselves (doing your work for you) or blindly believe you is something that I find to be detrimental to players who would be particularly susceptible to that kind of suggestion.

and see
you never bring these admonitions against willow as part of a general point
"why are you manipulating these words"
"everyone else, i think willow's words here are manipulative"

instead you're trying to convince willow that he is scummy
as part of some long verbiage no one will read

wait, you are reading this post right guys
guys

I have literally no idea what you're trying to say here. Are you accusing me of saying that I think Willow is being verbally manipulative? Good, because that's what I'm saying. I'm not trying to convince Willow of anything regarding Willow himself, that would be stupid. I'm trying to convince the people whose opinion I can actually influence (i.e. everyone else) by pointing out Willow's manipulative language.

The last three lines of this section are a not-so-subtly veiled jab at my posting style. AKA, irrelevant.

Re: 748
Holy shit you're like a dog with a bone with this fucking post. If this is your only cause for voting for me then that's sad. How about you stop spinning what I say into whatever agenda you want to push instead of looking at what I'm saying and doing your homework.

yes i am
this is the crux of my case against you

if you believe i have no case against you
and that i am also 'like a dog with a bone with this fucking post'
and you do not see the contradiction there
why are you accusing me of being illogical?

Primarily because you are being illogical. You only see one possible combination of premises that lead to a single conclusion; I see several different relationships between premises that may lead to multiple different conclusions. Premise A: You have no case. Premise B: You are like a dog with a bone with the post. Your conclusion: There is a contradiction. My conclusion: Your insistence upon hanging on to that post is absurd because that post does not contain a case that has not been already addressed.

When I said in 648 that I had already explained, I was referring back to 603 where I make my initial explanations of why I'm against Flubber. In 648 I elaborated specifically upon the posts you asked for. Your entire argument here appears to be that I was inconsistent with my chain of events, but in reality you didn't bother to do your homework and even attempt to make the some connections I made, you simply saw what might be construed as a fallacy and jumped on it, and haven't let go since.

and this is where you lie
i already talked about 603

603 is only in response to 588
and most of 603 is about willow, not flubber

in a post where i very politely sumarized your posts
and asked you for elaboration

here is the snipped of 603 in question

Additionally, Droog's 588 is questionable. I think Flubber is antitown, so that makes me scummy? I cannot conceive of what leap in logic you managed to make to arrive at that conclusion.

here is what it was in response to

awa's post on flubber ("flubber's antitown, therefore scum") was scummy

I lie? Quite a bold statement, when you can't even take the time to read my posts with any kind of critical thinking.

You say that 603 was solely in response to 588. That is incorrect and yet another example of you taking whatever flimsy connection you can find that supports your already-confirmed-in-your-head conclusion and hanging on to it until it's beaten to death. The ONLY PART of 603 that was in response to 588 was the second paragraph. If you look at the points in question that I addressed (in post 645, the first selfquote), the primary accusation is that I capitalized on the "gay" nonsense in order to start a wagon of opportunity. If you read the first paragraph of 603, you will find that I address this accusation: Flubber's incitement of players who had already been demonstrated to be vulnerable to emotional appeals was an intentionally chaotic and confusing post, and I felt that that sort of behavior warranted a policy lynch. Your carefully chosen "snipping" of my post illustrates exactly how you cherrypick which parts of my posts to focus on, instead of taking all of the information I give and all of the analysis that I provide, and from there construct a strawman that is easy for you to burn down.

for those playing at home
i will summarize this in my next post

What? You don't find Flubber town; I don't find Flubber town. Yet you attack me because I decided to actually push in that direction? Your play is inconsistent, which is something I guess I should expect from a self-admitted troll account.

this is such a bad misrep of willow
and attacks in general
he doesnt like you for the

way you

pushed a flubber lynch

it is a ridiculous standard if willow is expected to
town read the people who have the same reads as him

First paragraph: So Willow doesn't like the way I pushed on Flubber? Great. I don't like the way you pushed on me. Is that grounds enough for a lynch? I don't like the way Willow pushed on me. Is that grounds for a lynch? The difference between the way I pushed on Flubber and the way you and Willow pushed on me is that I published a large quantity of information and analysis, and you two posted primarily cherrypicked strawmen of my arguments.

I never said that Willow should townread me, I was asking why Willow decided to scumread me for going after a person who we each felt was anti-town. If you are correct and Willow was going after me for my methodology instead of my attack in principle, then I can only agree with that. However, I find Willow's methodology also lacking.

Bringing up a player's meta is not indicative of anything. In this game, and this game alone, it is possible to analyze Flubber's ISO and discover that his posts do not tend to have any significant substance.

Again you refuse to actually do any real work, preferring instead for other people to make your connections for you.

Maybe instead of

telling us to find examples

where he doesn't post content, you can provide examples where he does post content? That would be more constructive.

i have no idea how you read my 825 and get that idea
i went through other flubber games and showed that his style is pretty consistent
across alignment

i do not understand what makes flubber in this game unique
yes of course i am "telling"
((asking? requesting? you frame the scene again))
you to come up with examples of how flubber's not contributing

because its your position

i dont ask you to come up with supporting evidence for my position
this is a ridiculous standard

Fine, that's fair, you shouldn't have to support my view. I do expect however that you at least entertain my perspectives when I give massive amounts of information and analysis.

Regarding meta, it's hypocritical that you took the time to go through Flubber's history to find that he's being "town-consistent" (which doesn't mean anything, a player can easily go against their own meta) but you won't go through my meta to find that I always post in a verbose, logical manner, even though that's apparently a scumread in this game.

If you can't see that droog is purposefully being obstinate regarding my repeated clarifications about why I pressured Flubber, then I can't help you, because I'm not going to cater to three people now (droog, Willow, and you) who either can't or refuse to see what I'm saying, even after multiple clarifications. Naomi does a fine job of breaking it down, why don't you look at her post?

im going to ask you directly:

1) do you think flubber is anti-town
2) do you think flubber is scummy
3) do you think flubber is scummy for being anti-town

1.) Yes
2.) As of this post, yes.
3.) No. As I have said many times.

To quickly address the people who are voting for me:

this whole post belies your distortion
by this post you have dominated the thread for 2 pages
of rapid-fire wallposts

there is nothing 'quick' about the discussion you are proposing
as shown by your recent behavior
you can post a huge amount of content
then demand that we respond
and refuse to cooperate if we dont

these are terrorist tactics

I find it interesting that you dislike my comparison to politicians, yet you turn around and call me a terrorist.

Is there a particular reason why me having many posts in a row makes me scummy? I post at a time when most other people aren't online. My demand that you read my posts was preemptive, as several people in the thread have already stated their dislike for reading walls (something that I continue to find ridiculous). That you seem to think that I require or am requesting an immediate response is only a reflection of your own mindset that responses need to occur as fast as possible, without necessarily taking the time to read and analyze personally. I'm perfectly okay with people taking as long as they need to respond to my posts, as long as they respond in a clear and rational manner.

I don't know why you are attacking my usage of the word "quick". I was referring to my own post, since it was an incredibly condensed analysis of my perspective on the four people currently voting for me. I had no intention of making it a "quick" discussion or request a "quick" response, I meant only that I was going to "quickly" say something that I wanted to say. Again you cherrypick my post and extrapolate them to fit your own meanings.

droog: I think he has done a really good job of starting this little wagon by

posting things that would give analytical players like myself headaches

, and then he gets to cherrypick whatever he wants out of their responses in order to further his own agenda. There is definitely some kind of buddy relationship between him and Flubber, no matter how much Flubber tried to distance himself.

1) you are not some special class of super pro-town player
2) you are not some special class of analytical player
3) you are not some special class of super pro-town player

you keep trying to paint all your detractors
as uniquely ignorant, or ill-willed

i will never convince you are scum but i hope to convince you of this
i am not voting for you because im too lazy to read
i am not voting for you because im dumb scum
i am not voting for you because im dumb town

i am voting for you because i

am reading what youre posting

and i dont ilke it

as to why: will report in later

1.) I'm not saying I am.
2.) I'm not saying I am.
3.) I... already said that I'm not saying I am (why did you feel the need to repeat this?).

All I'm saying is that I am an analytical player. I fall into the set of players who are analytical players. Analytical players will be driven mad by players like yourself who pick and choose what parts of their analytical posts to strawman into a easy target.

This post, at long last, has convinced me that you actually read my posts. I disagree

strongly

on your analysis of my posts, and I am very suspicious of your tendency to strawman them. I

cannot wait

to see what you post regarding why you don't like what you see.

[AWA]

Spoiler: holy mother of snip iioa post

Wow I'm a lot more tired than I thought I was. I wanted to make a big post but I don't really want to do a point-by-point of the eight pages that happened since my last post, so I'll just give my general impressions here:

Whomping Willow:

I'm glad that he's decided to start contributing, and his contributions have some content. That said, I don't have any particular leaning either way: I don't necessarily gather a scum vibe from him, but I haven't gotten any clear town tells from him either. My stance: Neutral. (Side note: I explicitly didn't vote for you in RVS because I dislike RVS in general; especially in this forum format where people may vote and then be away for an extended period, a person may be mistakenly lynched due to an RVS vote that would otherwise have been prevented in a different format. IGMEOY does the same thing, perhaps slightly less strongly, without the chance of mislynch).

Originalchris:

My inclination here is scum. By 219 Willow had been posting several content posts, none of which I personally got a scum tell from. His entire case against Willow appears to be the "scumtell of the year" (commenting on the word "anyway"), and an apparent obsession with deflection, which is a convenient counter to almost any response and which can be both confusing and frustrating for the town. He also seems to be of an extremes mindset, by which I mean that if someone is accused to scum, then reasonable doubt is not enough to save, them, but rather we must go beyond a shadow of a doubt. This can be very dangerous later in the game, where a scum player can simply put a random town up for examination, and then cast doubt to create the lynch. My stance: Neutral.

Pedit: 370 is a great post. I don't necessarily agree with everything in it, but that he posted some more content is great, something that everyone should do, instead of posting fluff in order to look active.

crazypianist1116:

Despite him asking both myself and kuror0 to post more, he has almost no posts of content. The only one I could find is 170, but it is a very important post. I agree that if Munkir were not town, he would not have asked the question, though there are indeed some strange things with his post style (more on him later though). Not enough content here. My stance: Neutral.

Pedit: 373 is great, similar to 370 above. Again, I disagree with some of the points, but more content = good.

istott:

I'd say that the most important interaction here is Riddleton's fake dayvig (actually had to look up what that was, had no clue that that even existed), his reaction to it, and his reaction to the aftermath. In my opinion, his reaction was fairly normal for a town, though a properly skilled scum player could fake it fairly easily I suppose. In order to arrive at this conclusion, we have to look at what a scum would do:

Istott, having no knowledge of whether there was in fact a dayvig, has three options: Post a claim saying that he he's town, post a claim admitting to scum, or not posting at all and waiting to see if there was a mod announcement.

Iif he thinks there is indeed a dayvig, then:

-Claiming town as scum does nothing; he's already dead. Claiming town as town also does nothing.
-Claiming scum as scum does nothing; he's already dead. Claiming scum as town is stupid.
-Therefore posting nothing is the only sensible response. He did not post nothing, so he must have thought that there was not a dayvig. Therefore:

-Claiming town as scum could possibly save him. Claiming town as town could also save him.
-Claiming scum as scum would do nothing. Claiming scum as town is stupid.
-Posting nothing would lead to an accusation of dodging, although we don't know if the mod would immediately make an announcement of death, so it might lead to an examination to see if the dayvig actually existed based on mod response (or lack thereof).

The only conclusion that it is possible to draw is that istott did not think that there was a dayvig, but felt compelled to respond in the only logical manner, which was to claim town. This does not tell us anything about his role in and of itself, and I'm not experienced enough at reading forced tells to make a judgment on 192. That said, he seems rather chilly in ISO 29-33. I don't know whether to label this as a scum trying to imitate a town keeping their emotions down, or the genuine article. Basically, my read is that I have no clear reads, however IGMEOY. My stance: Neutral.

Naomi-Tan:

Her biggest post by far is 245, although 22 and 165 warrant consideration.

22: I agree somewhat that acting newbish and naive in the beginning seemed like a possible smokescreen, but in my opinion she has since shown enough caution and general competence to be disavowed of that defense. I also share her views toward RVS in general, so I'm glad that she wanted to move on as soon as possible.

165: There are lots of words here, but not much content. You say that 94 (you said 92 but meant 94) was a possibly-good, possibly-bad post, which is convenient waffling. You also state your ideas on how a point-by-point post should be structured, which doesn't really tell us anything at all. Moral of the story here is that lots of words does not mean lots of content.

245: Another big post with very little actual content. The most important things are right at the end: She lists several negative things about originalchris, yet also states that she doesn't see him as scummy, and then proceeds to vote GGG for not talking, where her vote still stands, despite him actually posting several comments, both before and after her vote, of meaningful content.

My big problem with Naomi is that she tends to talk a lot but say very little. This can be detrimental in the long run, but I don't really get a scum vibe from it, either. That said, I haven't seen any town tells. My stance: Neutral.

Munkir:

Almost entirely no content at all. The most curious thing that I see is that in 323, he uses the term WIFOM. Either Naomi is giving him coaching (which I'm not particularly fond of in principle) or he's more familiar with the game than would be expected of a true newbie (in which case he has been obfuscating stupidity). Either way, while I haven't seen any explicit scum tells, I'm uneasy about this player. My stance: Neutral, but IGMEOY.

droog:

The first thing I have to say is that I really dislike his posting style. It reminds me of Runescape, and there's really no point to it on a forum where posts can be typed out in their entirety and be made grammatically correct. However, that doesn't really have a bearing on the game, and since he seems to be consistent with using that style over his previous games, I don't believe that there is some kind of posting restriction associated with his role.

His "plan" to prod out Riddleton as his neighbor was kind of strained and his reaction was very disproportionate. Can someone clarify to me if neighbors necessarily know the other neighbor's role? If so, then I could see a scum's attempt at a fake bus backfiring. Other than this, he's posted almost nothing of any substance. His freakout gave me a very negative vibe. My stance: Scum.

GGG:

He brings up a good point about the isott-Riddleton dayvig exchange, which I hadn't considered. However, it would only be able to be staged if the scum were able to communicate outside of the thread. Is this possible? I'm not sure how the neighbor mechanic works (I had to look it up when analyzing droog above). I sort of agree with him about Riddleton bailing too easily on the fake dayvig. I don't know if it's enough to make me vote, since as I said such a ploy would only be possible if they were able to communicate, which we don't know is possible. So far, I get at least a neutral feeling, leaning toward town. My stance: Town.

AWA:

obvious scum pls lynch.

kuror0:

No content. I certainly understand the time problem, since I've been rather sparse myself, but with only one post so far it's very difficult to get any kind of read. My stance: Neutral.

Riddleton:

His dayvig test really unsettles me. It seems very forced, and he gives it up very quickly for something that is by nature only usable once per game. However, Like I said above, it's hard to see how this could be construed as scummy UNLESS he and istott were both scum, AND could have communicated outside of the thread. IGMEOY. My stance: Neutral, dependent on my views toward istott.

Flames682:

Just to address something that happened WAY back and has already been moved on from, I didn't IGMEOY Willow for bandwagoning GGG, but for bandwagoning Riddleton in the beginning. This sounds dumb, but I got to the bottom of the first page of posts and didn't realize that there were more pages before I replied (it's been a long time since I've post on any kind of message board).

What I really don't like about him is that ISO 28-65 is all fluff, there's absolutely zero content whatsoever. In addition, his only other useful substance relates to the istott-Riddleton exchange (which I've already gone over several time); he jumps on istott for reacting in the only possible way he could have reacted (see above) and puts a vote down on top of that. Combined with his general rude and aggressive attitude and posting style, I get a negative vibe from him. Perhaps lower on my list than others, but still suspicious. My stance: Scum.

Flubbernugget:

First things first: Your avatar creeps me out. A lot. I would appreciate it if you would change it, but if you don't I'll live.

In regards to his content, there is actually very little here to go off of. The only thing is a vote on droog for his overreaction to the "hammer" on Riddleton (where it still stands, by the way). The vote itself is innocuous, in my opinion; less so is the fact that it still stands, without any reasonable justification, and in fact an explicit refusal to justify it. All of his other posts have been fluff. My stance: Scum.

---

To sum up, I think that there are some people who lean further toward scum than others, and some people who are VERY tenuously on the fence, but who can easily fall one way or the other. For now, I think I will

Vote: droog

. His Riddleton hammer response and subsequent neighbor claim both seemed contrived. However, depending on how the next few pages of discussion go, I could easily see this vote switching to Riddleton/istott or Flubber.

Tag fixed
~Mod

I could see myself ending up on this. Iioa is pretty much the only long-standing-but-golden scumtell I know. And I disagree with pretty much all his stances.

I am insulted that you call my posts IioA. I present a lot of information, this is true. I also provide a lot of analysis. To say that I post

only

information with

no

analysis (which is the actual tell of an IioA "scumtell") is false and unfair.

[AWA]

Wait a second.... how do you know he is town?

We've known Riddleton (now DGB) is neighbors with Droog since page 1. He just shared some information he had.

Slight correction, we've known that Droog has claimed to be neighbors with Riddleton since page 1. We haven't actually confirmed this information.

[AWA]

We know that...

Oh sorry, you said Droog I thought you said; Flubber

Now please explain how you know that Flubber is town

This is actually a very good observation, one which I missed initially. The droog mistake I could understand if we assume that droog's neighbor claim is authentic (and also that neighbors must be of the same alignment, and that Riddleton is also town... actually there are a lot of assumptions going on here). However, we have received no towntells from Flubber IIRC. How exactly do you know that Flubber is town, without having knowledge of who is scum? Outlined:

Town doesn't know who is also town. Town doesn't know who is scum.
Scum know who is also scum. Scum therefore know who is town.

I'll see her explanation before voting, but to me this looks like more of a scumtell than anything droog or Willow have done to this point (both of whose "tells" to me have simply been misrepresentation and logical fallacy).

[AWA]

Before someone accuses me of not reading her response to CP:

Cause no Scum could be so terrible.

I don't really get anything from this.

[AWA]

Before someone accuses me of not reading her response to CP:

Cause no Scum could be so terrible.

I don't really get anything from this.

Scum have to put in at least some effort to appear townie, Flubber puts in so little effort and says so little that you cant say he is pushing for anyones lynch, or sheeping, so he is too bad to be scum.

It is not correct that scum need to put in effort to appear town. All they need to do is play like town. If they feel that a town player might not contribute much, then they would not contribute much.

[AWA]

Sigh. It's clear to me that Tier is yet another person who isn't actually interested in reading what I'm saying, he just sees lots of words and thinks "hmm that's a lot of words, probably no content in there at all." I note that he only comments on my shorter posts, but handwaves my longer posts as either IioA (with no justification) or simply says "I disagree with all of this." I also note that he tends to agree with droog quite a lot, which is interesting considering that they are supposedly neighbors (of an unknown alignment) and that I've already addressed everything droog has had to say in my prosecution. Does anyone else see this trend?

[AWA]

I'm not even going to dignify Willow's latest ad hominem with a response. It's obvious that he just dislikes me personally, and the fact that he specifically said that he doesn't care about my alignment is reason enough for me to bump him up my scumlist.

Vote: Whomping Willow

[AWA]

I'm very uneasy about Flubber's unwillingness to commit to reading large posts, which in my opinion are the kinds of posts that most often contain valuable information, on many levels. The arguments he is constructing are also very weak, and he seems to be very liberal with his vote, something that I am against philosophically. FoS: Flubber.

Blleeeeeeeegh, awful post. Trying to justify himself too much. Also, is this the best you could comment on?

Flames: Get stronger glasses, then. Reading a wall is no different than reading a book. You HAVE read a book, yes?

False. A post on MS is supposed to have a purpose, while a book is supposed to enjoy the reader. If you're making a fluffy wall, you're not getting your point across and it's hard to read.

Spoiler:

So, Since my last post I been brewing, I went out to ISO people to try and find out if anyone had any suspicious activity, and I think I found a one (though by attacking them I may doom my self as i'm certain they are a better player and will do a good job convincing people to lynch me and given his disposition to attempt to attack me already once this may be a dumb idea) Now I was looking for a few Criteria.

> Lots of Vote Switching - This is scummy as train hoping, and flip-flop voting are generally a scum tatic to try and get more pressure on townies and hope the other lynch them.
> Lurking - This prevents town getting a good read on them, and if combined with dense attacking posts, or posts talking about stuff that is pretty much dead and burried can lead people to thinking they are actively contributing
> Content indicative of scum (High Offence, and Self Defence, not much defence of others) - Scum don't tend to defend as much as town, and instead stay on the offence as much as possible to spread malice and try to push for lynches, the more suttle put 1 or 2 good points and a vote on it and let town carry on the discussions.

Now Observe Chart 2; https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/ ... =489973392 Which from this point will be locked like chart 1.
First I decided to examine how many times people had voted, going down in alphabetical order (as the ISO system likes to do) and when I reached crazypianist1116 I had to stop. at the time I was using Find to look for any VOTE: and so I after finding he had voted 4 times. Next thing to work out was how often did he vote, See chart 1 (Votes Over days) I put the number of times he had voted accross an axis with the number of days the game had been running and saw a VERY sharp slope, all most 1 for 1 (days to votes) this would be an indicator of 1 of 3 things;1) Uncertain town. A town who is not really sure who is scummy and who is not, kinda bumbling about and wondering around, posts by these kinds of players sound all most unsure of themselves when they vote. 2) A long RVS - They happen, can last all most 7 days in extreme cases, however that is not applicable here. 3) Scum - Scum like suttlely pushing with votes here and there, unlike the unsure town, they are all most certain to know what they are doing. and it shows, there actions tend to be high aggression looking for a weaker target, and they tend to vote for people who are easy lynches.

So with point 1, Lots of vote Switching, Full filled I looked at point 2, Lurking (See the unlabled pie chart) I went and put all our names and the number of times we posted down and told google, put this into a pie chart, using this we can see that He makes up 4.4% of the total posts, given the post average of 7.5356% you could say that he has just over a half of average posts per a player. that was awkwardly phrased... anyway, yeah Lurking Check.

Then I took a look at the content See pie chart 4.

Below all the charts you can see my Post x Post ISO of the entirity of what he said, with little comments on anything major, but the majority of his posts have been either attacking others or Null reads, with only a single post where he talks about someone else being townish, now as a town player, you need to be looking for townish as much as Scumish, and with only 1 defence, of munkir who is pretty clueless (or was so) but even that was followed with a counter point to it (effectively balancing it to null (though i count that as 1 attack 1 defence) this was 1 of the 3 yellow posts. which are the ones I wanna talk about. As you can see, he isn't really looking for town reads or at least hasn't commented on any, which doesn't seem like a town mind set. but even with that I wasn't certain, until I reviewed the people he had voted for.

I Know i'm confirmed town, I have a slight feeling Whomping is town, and a fair feeling that Droog is town, so by combining my feelings on his vote count, and looking at the durations of the votes the stronger the player, the less the duration of the vote, which looks less like putting votes on who they think is scummy and more like pressuing to force lynches.

so, going back a step, to his post contents, everything don't look too bad, alot of posts are Nulls, either correcting what he said, or stating stuff that isn't one way or another. the vast majority though are pointing of things that are 'scummy' but im repeating myself moving onto the yellow posts. post 170 the first one I've already spoken about in the paragraph two above this.

[quote="In post 373 The second one I wanted to talk about was the post where he voted for me in it at first he Talks about the Willow O Chris thing, where he tried to pair Willow and Droog, At that point in the arguement though it had cooled off and it was obvious where most people stood it would been easy to join in right then taking a side to show that you was with the town majority, Then commented on the reaction test BS basicly saying its null like me. then proceeds to attack me, claiming I say i'm town too much. which is kinda a stupid argument

but in the next 2 posts he tries to defend his argument pretty much backing down on the second, less than 2 posts after he made his point, this doesn't seem like he either didn't believe or care about his views..

VOTE: crazypianist1116
For full filling all 3 suspicious thingys that I said above :3
Sorry about the wait, was doing alot of number games.

I don't like this. Backing your votes up with numbers is easy for scum as they don't have to justify their thought processes. The numbers can also be manipulated (putting focus on other criteria because on one criterium your scumbuddy is the most scummy)

This is one of the most ridiculous posts I have ever seen. You specifically denounce providing justification or explanation behind actions. This is a trend that I notice with you, droog, and Flubber. WHY ON EARTH is it considered a valid playstyle to NOT provide justification for your thoughts and actions? Tier is slowly creeping up my scumlist for the crime of behaving exactly like droog, who is also on my scumlist.

[AWA]

Spoiler: holy mother of snip iioa post

Wow I'm a lot more tired than I thought I was. I wanted to make a big post but I don't really want to do a point-by-point of the eight pages that happened since my last post, so I'll just give my general impressions here:

Whomping Willow:

I'm glad that he's decided to start contributing, and his contributions have some content. That said, I don't have any particular leaning either way: I don't necessarily gather a scum vibe from him, but I haven't gotten any clear town tells from him either. My stance: Neutral. (Side note: I explicitly didn't vote for you in RVS because I dislike RVS in general; especially in this forum format where people may vote and then be away for an extended period, a person may be mistakenly lynched due to an RVS vote that would otherwise have been prevented in a different format. IGMEOY does the same thing, perhaps slightly less strongly, without the chance of mislynch).

Originalchris:

My inclination here is scum. By 219 Willow had been posting several content posts, none of which I personally got a scum tell from. His entire case against Willow appears to be the "scumtell of the year" (commenting on the word "anyway"), and an apparent obsession with deflection, which is a convenient counter to almost any response and which can be both confusing and frustrating for the town. He also seems to be of an extremes mindset, by which I mean that if someone is accused to scum, then reasonable doubt is not enough to save, them, but rather we must go beyond a shadow of a doubt. This can be very dangerous later in the game, where a scum player can simply put a random town up for examination, and then cast doubt to create the lynch. My stance: Neutral.

Pedit: 370 is a great post. I don't necessarily agree with everything in it, but that he posted some more content is great, something that everyone should do, instead of posting fluff in order to look active.

crazypianist1116:

Despite him asking both myself and kuror0 to post more, he has almost no posts of content. The only one I could find is 170, but it is a very important post. I agree that if Munkir were not town, he would not have asked the question, though there are indeed some strange things with his post style (more on him later though). Not enough content here. My stance: Neutral.

Pedit: 373 is great, similar to 370 above. Again, I disagree with some of the points, but more content = good.

istott:

I'd say that the most important interaction here is Riddleton's fake dayvig (actually had to look up what that was, had no clue that that even existed), his reaction to it, and his reaction to the aftermath. In my opinion, his reaction was fairly normal for a town, though a properly skilled scum player could fake it fairly easily I suppose. In order to arrive at this conclusion, we have to look at what a scum would do:

Istott, having no knowledge of whether there was in fact a dayvig, has three options: Post a claim saying that he he's town, post a claim admitting to scum, or not posting at all and waiting to see if there was a mod announcement.

Iif he thinks there is indeed a dayvig, then:

-Claiming town as scum does nothing; he's already dead. Claiming town as town also does nothing.
-Claiming scum as scum does nothing; he's already dead. Claiming scum as town is stupid.
-Therefore posting nothing is the only sensible response. He did not post nothing, so he must have thought that there was not a dayvig. Therefore:

-Claiming town as scum could possibly save him. Claiming town as town could also save him.
-Claiming scum as scum would do nothing. Claiming scum as town is stupid.
-Posting nothing would lead to an accusation of dodging, although we don't know if the mod would immediately make an announcement of death, so it might lead to an examination to see if the dayvig actually existed based on mod response (or lack thereof).

The only conclusion that it is possible to draw is that istott did not think that there was a dayvig, but felt compelled to respond in the only logical manner, which was to claim town. This does not tell us anything about his role in and of itself, and I'm not experienced enough at reading forced tells to make a judgment on 192. That said, he seems rather chilly in ISO 29-33. I don't know whether to label this as a scum trying to imitate a town keeping their emotions down, or the genuine article. Basically, my read is that I have no clear reads, however IGMEOY. My stance: Neutral.

Naomi-Tan:

Her biggest post by far is 245, although 22 and 165 warrant consideration.

22: I agree somewhat that acting newbish and naive in the beginning seemed like a possible smokescreen, but in my opinion she has since shown enough caution and general competence to be disavowed of that defense. I also share her views toward RVS in general, so I'm glad that she wanted to move on as soon as possible.

165: There are lots of words here, but not much content. You say that 94 (you said 92 but meant 94) was a possibly-good, possibly-bad post, which is convenient waffling. You also state your ideas on how a point-by-point post should be structured, which doesn't really tell us anything at all. Moral of the story here is that lots of words does not mean lots of content.

245: Another big post with very little actual content. The most important things are right at the end: She lists several negative things about originalchris, yet also states that she doesn't see him as scummy, and then proceeds to vote GGG for not talking, where her vote still stands, despite him actually posting several comments, both before and after her vote, of meaningful content.

My big problem with Naomi is that she tends to talk a lot but say very little. This can be detrimental in the long run, but I don't really get a scum vibe from it, either. That said, I haven't seen any town tells. My stance: Neutral.

Munkir:

Almost entirely no content at all. The most curious thing that I see is that in 323, he uses the term WIFOM. Either Naomi is giving him coaching (which I'm not particularly fond of in principle) or he's more familiar with the game than would be expected of a true newbie (in which case he has been obfuscating stupidity). Either way, while I haven't seen any explicit scum tells, I'm uneasy about this player. My stance: Neutral, but IGMEOY.

droog:

The first thing I have to say is that I really dislike his posting style. It reminds me of Runescape, and there's really no point to it on a forum where posts can be typed out in their entirety and be made grammatically correct. However, that doesn't really have a bearing on the game, and since he seems to be consistent with using that style over his previous games, I don't believe that there is some kind of posting restriction associated with his role.

His "plan" to prod out Riddleton as his neighbor was kind of strained and his reaction was very disproportionate. Can someone clarify to me if neighbors necessarily know the other neighbor's role? If so, then I could see a scum's attempt at a fake bus backfiring. Other than this, he's posted almost nothing of any substance. His freakout gave me a very negative vibe. My stance: Scum.

GGG:

He brings up a good point about the isott-Riddleton dayvig exchange, which I hadn't considered. However, it would only be able to be staged if the scum were able to communicate outside of the thread. Is this possible? I'm not sure how the neighbor mechanic works (I had to look it up when analyzing droog above). I sort of agree with him about Riddleton bailing too easily on the fake dayvig. I don't know if it's enough to make me vote, since as I said such a ploy would only be possible if they were able to communicate, which we don't know is possible. So far, I get at least a neutral feeling, leaning toward town. My stance: Town.

AWA:

obvious scum pls lynch.

kuror0:

No content. I certainly understand the time problem, since I've been rather sparse myself, but with only one post so far it's very difficult to get any kind of read. My stance: Neutral.

Riddleton:

His dayvig test really unsettles me. It seems very forced, and he gives it up very quickly for something that is by nature only usable once per game. However, Like I said above, it's hard to see how this could be construed as scummy UNLESS he and istott were both scum, AND could have communicated outside of the thread. IGMEOY. My stance: Neutral, dependent on my views toward istott.

Flames682:

Just to address something that happened WAY back and has already been moved on from, I didn't IGMEOY Willow for bandwagoning GGG, but for bandwagoning Riddleton in the beginning. This sounds dumb, but I got to the bottom of the first page of posts and didn't realize that there were more pages before I replied (it's been a long time since I've post on any kind of message board).

What I really don't like about him is that ISO 28-65 is all fluff, there's absolutely zero content whatsoever. In addition, his only other useful substance relates to the istott-Riddleton exchange (which I've already gone over several time); he jumps on istott for reacting in the only possible way he could have reacted (see above) and puts a vote down on top of that. Combined with his general rude and aggressive attitude and posting style, I get a negative vibe from him. Perhaps lower on my list than others, but still suspicious. My stance: Scum.

Flubbernugget:

First things first: Your avatar creeps me out. A lot. I would appreciate it if you would change it, but if you don't I'll live.

In regards to his content, there is actually very little here to go off of. The only thing is a vote on droog for his overreaction to the "hammer" on Riddleton (where it still stands, by the way). The vote itself is innocuous, in my opinion; less so is the fact that it still stands, without any reasonable justification, and in fact an explicit refusal to justify it. All of his other posts have been fluff. My stance: Scum.

---

To sum up, I think that there are some people who lean further toward scum than others, and some people who are VERY tenuously on the fence, but who can easily fall one way or the other. For now, I think I will

Vote: droog

. His Riddleton hammer response and subsequent neighbor claim both seemed contrived. However, depending on how the next few pages of discussion go, I could easily see this vote switching to Riddleton/istott or Flubber.

Tag fixed
~Mod

I could see myself ending up on this. Iioa is pretty much the only long-standing-but-golden scumtell I know. And I disagree with pretty much all his stances.

I am insulted that you call my posts IioA. I present a lot of information, this is true. I also provide a lot of analysis. To say that I post

only

information with

no

analysis (which is the actual tell of an IioA "scumtell") is false and unfair.

I can show you scum saying these words. Do you want links to prove it?

Yes. I would also like you to prove that I only give information, with no analysis. The name of the fallacy is Information

Instead

of Analysis, not Information With Analysis, or Analysis, or Information. I get it, I post a lot of words, that doesn't mean you can automatically write it off as a scumtell that also happens to be one of the easiest ways to mislabel players like myself. And in case you feel like doing any real homework, go through my meta and realize that I post this way in every game I play.

[AWA]

Hi guys I'm here.

droog is town.

Even if your neighbours that does not prove allignment.

I made this statement after reading the page where I made my first post, and seeing his post.

Meaning what? That doesn't explain why you made your assertion in the first place. What makes you so sure that droog is town?

[AWA]

Okay so this is a 100% legit scum lynch now

[AWA]

Sigh. It's clear to me that Tier is yet another person who isn't actually interested in reading what I'm saying, he just sees lots of words and thinks "hmm that's a lot of words, probably no content in there at all." I note that he only comments on my shorter posts, but handwaves my longer posts as either IioA (with no justification) or simply says "I disagree with all of this." I also note that he tends to agree with droog quite a lot, which is interesting considering that they are supposedly neighbors (of an unknown alignment) and that I've already addressed everything droog has had to say in my prosecution. Does anyone else see this trend?

im neighbors with goofball
go on inventing scumreads for anyone who agrees with me
and townreads for anyone who agrees with you

((oh, that, word, 'inventing'!
is it too similar to 'pretending?'
is it psychological warfare?
darn this clarafication could have been its own post))

Once again you misrepresent me. I'm not scumreading him for agreeing with you, I haven't ever scumread anyone simply for agreeing with anyone. I am scumreading him because he is following the same "logic" (that is to say, non-logic) that you are. When one person makes faulty logic and I scumread them for it, would it not be inconsistent of my to not scumread someone else for using the same faulty logic? Or is inconsistency a townread to you?

[AWA]

Hooray I'm back from Thanksgiving weekend, holy shit there's a ton to read upon. I'll be back in a few hours with a post or nine. I'll try to keep walls to a minimum to please some of the less reading-inclined among us.

[AWA]

Initial impressions (no in-depth yet):

I am revising my opinion of Tier. I think that he has done an adequate job of being unbiased when reading through the arguments between myself and droog. That said, I don't really follow his thoughts on istott, though he may be recognizing things on a higher level than I currently play at.

I think that GGG is town. No scumtells, good discussion, good reasoning.

Naomi is kind of flying under my radar, the "Flubber is town" slipup is still on my mind, though I'm not sure what to make of it.

Munkir hasn't posted since his "flags" post, which is something I've been looking out for since I directly addressed it. That was on the Monday before Thanksgiving, so he should have had plenty of time to post before the holiday. Just reminding people that he exists, and although I can't technically scumread him for lack of posts, I do note that his AFK vote sits in the same place as the other people that I've scumread.

I don't understand the DGB wagon, I haven't seen anything from her that screams scum to me, yet she has rather quickly accrued three votes.

Flubber's ISO 94-95 are good, but he's been

awfully

fluffy all game, which doesn't seem to be getting a proportional response.

As Tier very correctly responded, droog doesn't really have a case on me. That said, I sort of kind of see the perspective that droog might have gotten caught up in the case and tunnel visioned.

Willow just keeps on mindlessly pushing for my lynch; I haven't seen a case out of him since 807 (200 posts ago!) and ever since then he's just been saying "just lynch AWA". I'm keeping my vote on him, he's just trying to herd the town into a lemming wagon without justification.

[AWA]

No Lynch is the default, though desirable, right? I just want to make sure because some people seem to think that it's a most votes auto lynch at the end of the day.

[AWA]

Whoops meant undesirable.

[AWA]

I really don't see the DGB wagon as holding water though. If we're dead set on simply finding an alternative to me, I think that Willow is a much better choice. You yourself slightly scum read him.

[AWA]

I mean look at Willow's ISO. Every post in the last 200 is scummy to me.

[AWA]

I don't like those posts either, but in terms of value to the town I think that DGB is more valuable than Willow. If we're talking about which scum to lynch (assuming that DGB is scum, which I'm not convinced of) then DGB is less obtuse than Willow, and if droog is telling the truth and is neighbors with DGB then the additional discussion may be useful, while we don't stand to lose any potential powers by lynching Willow.

[AWA]

I am very reluctant to hop on the DGB wagon for the sole purpose of saving my own skin, since A.) I don't think I'm in danger of dying today, and B.) I don't think DGB is scum at the moment. Willow, droog, and Flubber are all wagons I can get behind, and if one starts on any of them I will join it, but I just can't support the DGB lynch. I haven't seen enough evidence to warrant changing my vote.

[AWA]

I frankly don't believe that three other people think that I'm scummy enough to lynch me for the sake of having a lynch. With that in mind, the question is reduced from, "Is DGB a valid enough alternative for me to change my vote to save my own skin?" to "Is DGB a valid enough scum target that I feel confident in lynching him at the risk of losing a townie?" The answer to the second question, for me, is no.

[AWA]

The problem with that is that you can't make that analysis in a vacuum. The whole point of interactions and arguments like that is to gauge peoples' reactions and posts and to evaluate their scumminess based on that. In my opinion, the people who came out of those exchanges looking scummy were you, Willow, and Flubber. You can't just make a hypothetical situation where all of that didn't happen and then say "Well what do you think now?"

[AWA]

Right now my vote on Willow isn't even based on his awful case, it's based more on his last 20 or so posts in which he does no scumhunting at all, only pushing for my lynch with no further explanation. 938, 956, 990, 992, 994, 1015 (my OMGUS? I have specifically not OMGUS'd), and 1097 all illustrate what I'm talking about.

[AWA]

If we're talking scum motive Tier, can you explain my scum motive for not posting a case on AWA when it would be very easy for me to do so?

Ridiculous. If you can make a case, then make it. If you can't, then don't bullshit. That it's supposedly trivial for you to post a damning case on me, yet you refuse to do it and vote me anyway, is scummy: You're making an arbitrary vote and pushing it, and setting yourself up for future arbitrary votes (and consequently arbitrary lynches) and you don't have to do a damn thing to justify yourself.

I don't see how more people aren't voting you right now.

[AWA]

The person I think is scummiest is the person that I think is helping the scum the most, be they actual scum or not. This is completely in line with what I have been saying all along.

if that isnt basically what ive been saying
'anti-town = scum'
then i will eat my keyboard

I hope you have a good sauce, because you aren't reading what I said. Again.

be they actual scum or not

A person can act anti-town without being scum. I suppose if you want to make a HUGE leap in logic you could say that I used the word "scummiest" to refer to "anti-town" here, but if you read what was intended then you will realize that I mean on a scale from Town to Scum, "scummiest" is the person closest to "Scum", regardless of whether they are actual scum. If all of my reads are on the town side, for example, the scummiest player is the townie who is acting the most anti-town.

[AWA]

Since you apparently think like a pre-literate child, here is a nice picture to illustrate the point for you:

[AWA]

If you're town you're really not in a position to insult anyone's intelligence

What does this even mean? If I'm scum I am in a position to insult someone's intelligence? Is this supposed to be some kind of scumslip trap? Stop making veiled comments and cagey jabs and either post your case or shut up.

[AWA]

On page 39 so far. Gonna see if I can do a running diary before my mind changes on things.

Tier entered the game for flames and posts a lot of good analysis. Already had flames as town before, and Tier adds to it.

Flubber I was leaning scum on, due to basically no substance and defending it by saying "you're all just reading it as no substance" which doesn't make any sense as a counter-point, but then he posted post 868 After that, it's been more and more analysis from him. Hate his play style, but he's consistent with it.

I still think Naomi is Town.

AWA is flailing more and more every page. I honestly haven't read everything he's said, because the constant wall posts are getting ridiculous, but he's obviously flailing. That being said, I'm not sold on him being scum. I'd lean Droog being scummier than AWA, but there-in lies the problem.

Droog has pushed the hardest for an AWA lynch than anyone in the game. Like literally, he's pushed HARD for this lynch. He was my top scum read after Willow (although I didn't think both were scum), but I can't really see Scum Droog going this hard at AWA on Day 1, not to mention how much AWA has flailed. Him doing this shit as scum really doesn't make sense.

Willow hasn't changed his play style, just his focus. Little to no analysis, a lot of empty and troll votes, and I still say Droog and him agree far too much (actually, always). Will keep looking to see if they ever disagree, but won't hold my breath. Do these two know each other IRL or BBFs on MS? If not, I don't understand the consistency which one will sheep the other. Willow even jokes about this and self-references it.

Don't know what to think about these two anymore. They can't both be scum, because that would be too obvious. Droog being scum doesn't make sense with the way he's playing it against AWA, and if AWA flips scum, Willow agreeing/sheeping whatever Droog does doesn't make sense either as scum.

CrazyPianist hasn't contributed anything since Flubber called him out. If I remember right, he freaked the fuck out over Flubber saying he was scum and then basically disappeared. Reappeared saying he wants to see fresh analysis from others, while providing none of his own.

Istot hasn't done anything as far as I can tell in this game. No questions, a lot of sheeping and somehow gets away with it.

Munkir was a total newb earlier in the game, as it is apparently his first, but then he switched into wall-post analysis mode. Apologizes to players he thinks are scum when they find him scummy???? Posts a shit ton of reasons why AWA is scum though, so isn't sheeping.

GGG hasn't stood out whatsoever at any point in the game to me so far. I group his ass with Istot in that regard.

Kurok0 or whatever his name is hasn't been replaced yet.

Riddleton replaced by Goblin, who hasn't posted. DrippingGoofBall replaces Goblin. Nothing on him yet.

TL;DR

Scum list: GGG, Istot, CrazyPianist

Biggest Scum Read: CrazyPianist23421321

Rest are town or null.

Will keep reading, so reads may change.

If picking between DGB and AWA, will jump on AWA train.

Read my posts or don't call me flailing. Everyone other than droog, Willow, and Flubber (who are all people that I scumread) that has actually read my posts has come to the conclusion that what I say is valid.

[AWA]

If you truly can't bring yourself to read my posts, then as a substitute read GGG and Tier's analyses of my posts. But really you should read my posts and come to your own conclusion instead of sheeping Willow by saying I'm "flailing".

[AWA]

I can see that I'm not going to be successful in getting a Willow train started. The candidates that seem to be myself (4), DGB (4), istott (2), and Flubber (1). I'm clearly not going to vote for myself, but I'm not entirely sure about who else to vote; Willow is the person who is acting the most scummy, to me.

OC, there is no way that you actually read everything I posted and give it fair and thoughtful consideration, or else you wouldn't lump it all together and dismiss it as "flailing".

[AWA]

It's ridiculous that Willow's bullshit "mindless pushing" tactics managed to secure a lynch. That's all I really have to say. Look at people's ISOs. Y'all got lucky.

[AWA]

Honestly my heart wasn't really in this game anymore, it's way too frustrating and infuriating to play with droog/Flubber/Willow.