Micro 181: Everyone's being watched (Game Over)

[Grimgroove]

/confirm

[Grimgroove]

VOTE: Horus

You're overreacting.

And what does this imply? That I am scum?

VOTE: Wisdom

For overreacting.

@Zionite: I don't like your vote on me and would appreciate it if you remove it.

[Grimgroove]

So, I'm back. I see I'm being accused of lurking? I obviously forgot to state it here, which is my fault, but during the weekends it will always be very difficult for me to come online. I hope this is fine. I always try to make up for that in the weekdays.

As far as Zionite's question is concerned about Horus, two things:
Firstly: I don't see the connection between my apparent lack on opinion on Horus and the vote for me. Why are opinions on Horus so important to you, and why mine specifically?
Secondly: I'll humour you and answer your question though. In my eyes, Horus makes a lot of sense, his post 33 was already quite robust, but for some reason it's called "flailing" and an "overreaction", something I can't agree with. I see a rational response to some half-baked allegations. I don't mind the allegations per sé, in the beginning they will always be half-baked and you have to start somewhere, but I don't agree with how Horus was treated on page 2. His "SLOOOOWWWW"-post shows the kind of commitment I like in a player. It's a null read affiliation-wise, true, but someone who obiously want things to move forward in a reasonable pace is 1. not lynch-material on D1 because of the activity this will provide. 2. not lynch-material on D1 because active people should be easier to get a firm read on.

@Zionite: And how was my reaction to your vote bad? It was a vote before I had even posted anything, so obviously without a real reason. How could anyone react badly to such a vote? I didn't take it seriously, so I just asked you to remove it in a simplistic manner, not ever seriously thinking that this alone would convince you. How do you see this as an overreaction?

I think my vote on Wisdom is also still in a good place. I think it's a very defensive interpretation of 35, and I don't see any reason for this kind of defensiveness, especially from someone who obviously is very sensitive to supposed overreactions himself.

[Grimgroove]

lol Horus, you said something? Lol. Sorry. :S

This topic is 3 pages long. Why not just look for the question he asked you and answer it, instead of this fluff?

[Grimgroove]

Ok fluffyflufferfluff, I don't really see how that works but whatever floats your boat. I think the exact opposite, the game keeps the game interesting to read. If I want fluff I'll go check out the other subforums you have, where people talk about movies and stuff. That's all good, fun and interesting in itself, but I don't see the added value for a game. I'm assuming you were joking, but also your last reaction is still fluff and if fluff is all I can expect than I don't see any reason to keep you around.
The main reason I asked is because I'd also like to see you reply to Horus' questions.

[Grimgroove]

That's one hell of a way to ask me to answer a question, guy.

Seriously? So if someone would say "Why haven't you washed your hair?", you would not take that as a hint to wash your hair? I guess I'll be communicating very straightforwardly with your from now on.

Your last answer was pretty bad. Something along these lines would have been better:

"Indeed, I had one post before my RVS. Therefore, this question is valid. Here is my answer to it: ... "

Could you fill in the dots?

[Grimgroove]

So, I'm back. I see I'm being accused of lurking? I obviously forgot to state it here, which is my fault, but during the weekends it will always be very difficult for me to come online. I hope this is fine. I always try to make up for that in the weekdays.

Well, you were lurking. But I'm glad to see it's only on weekends.

As far as Zionite's question is concerned about Horus, two things:
Firstly: I don't see the connection between my apparent lack on opinion on Horus and the vote for me. Why are opinions on Horus so important to you, and why mine specifically?

I felt that it was the biggest event of the game so far and it was odd for you to ignore it while fixating on my vote.

I don't agree this actually constitued as a big event, but given the other activity in this topic so far, I guess you could call it the biggest. However, I was only popping my head in, too time-constrained to contribute anything of real value or to read the Horus-Wisdom-Zionite-discussion in depth. If I had to react to anything, I'd only think it logical to respond to any vote on me, even if the vote was only half-serious and my reaction to it as well. As it was my first and only post, I think it's quite a stretch to already start talking about "fixations". From my point of view ignoring a vote, hoping it simply passes, is scummier than anything else. Is your post 48 a fixation on someone voting for you? Saying you'll ignore something is just as much of a reaction as my nonsensical request to remove your vote.

Secondly: I'll humour you and answer your question though. In my eyes, Horus makes a lot of sense, his post 33 was already quite robust, but for some reason it's called "flailing" and an "overreaction", something I can't agree with. I see a rational response to some half-baked allegations. I don't mind the allegations per sé, in the beginning they will always be half-baked and you have to start somewhere, but I don't agree with how Horus was treated on page 2. His "SLOOOOWWWW"-post shows the kind of commitment I like in a player. It's a null read affiliation-wise, true, but someone who obiously want things to move forward in a reasonable pace is 1. not lynch-material on D1 because of the activity this will provide. 2. not lynch-material on D1 because active people should be easier to get a firm read on.

So you don't think explaining himself after he caught flak for his vote is scummy, just normal behavior?

Flak? Wisdom's assertion that he was votehopping is flak? Anyway, I'd say yes, it's pretty normal. In fact, I find people willing to explain themselves more worthy of my trust in general. It gives you something to judge them on. Only when the explanation is bad, it's scummy. If the explanation is good, I see no reason at all why it would be scummy. We all are driven by certain reasons, and I think it's very townish to make yours clear.

@Zionite: And how was my reaction to your vote bad? It was a vote before I had even posted anything, so obviously without a real reason. How could anyone react badly to such a vote? I didn't take it seriously, so I just asked you to remove it in a simplistic manner, not ever seriously thinking that this alone would convince you. How do you see this as an overreaction?

It wasn't really an overreaction, but I expected that if you really didn't take it seriously then you'd simply ignore it. I didn't like that comments on the game state were replaced by a self-conscious fixation. Again, this was the only post of yours that I had to go off of for a read.

You called it an overreaction in post 63. Why call it that if it wasn't really?

I think my vote on Wisdom is also still in a good place. I think it's a very defensive interpretation of 35, and I don't see any reason for this kind of defensiveness, especially from someone who obviously is very sensitive to supposed overreactions himself.

Seems fair. I'm not confident enough to follow you though.

Do you have any other leads that you see? What do you think of Fuzzy's behaviour?

You guys do claims at L-2 right?[/quote]

No. I do the same as Wisdom.

Not that I think this discussion will bring us very far, I realize I've reiterated the majority of what I said before. But I would very much like more activity. When I see the Bingo-game already has 13 pages and started the same day, my heart cries a little bit for this game.

@Wisdom: What do you think of my vote on you? What do you think of Zionite's cases so far?

Not much to go on right now, but both Zionite and Horus are ok in my book, basically because of their high and meaningful activity.
Wisdom and fuzzybutternut I don't like very much.
All the others have left no impression on me whatsoever.

[Grimgroove]

Oh, I forgot to respond to the first green bit. I wasn't lurking. I was simply not there. There's a difference.

[Grimgroove]

basically because of their high and meaningful activity.

Activity = town?

No.
I'm not saying inactive people are scum or that active people are town. The important word is "meaningful".

Meaningful

activity =

leaning

town.
Anyway, call it a policy of mine, but on the first day I'm not inclined to lynch those standing up and trying to make cases. I realize activity by itself is mainly a null-tell, but if you're dealing with active people at least you know they'll give you the chance to read them, enabling you to take more informed conclusions in the future. In the case of Zionite and Horus I expect I'll be getting enough activity from them during later stages in the game, and if they would be scum after all, I think I'd be able to tell after a certain amount of posts, pages and flips, simply because as scum it's difficult to keep your activity in the topic

meaningful

. If not, it's just good play from scum taking the game in both hands. So far it's not just their amount of posts, it's also the amount of sense they make. While Zionite is a bit more lacking in that department when compared to Horus, I do see merit in what he's trying to do, and I think it's only fair to give him the chance to make more cases, now and later.

[Grimgroove]

I'm not hammering Zionite, he's one of my main townreads together with Horus.

Actually, I don't know why you're bothered, so let me ask this:

Why does it matter if I rushed to vote you without detailing my reads yet?

Because for all we know you don't have any reads and you're hoping a derphammer will fall? For someone who supposedly just "skimmed" through the topic you seem awfully quick to put someone on the border of a ravine , or it must be that you have very compelling arguments. But seeing how you didn't share those, I guess you don't have any.

I think it's the scummiest thing to happen so far in this topic (closely followed by Wisdom ignoring my questions).

Therefore:
VOTE: Does Bo Know

[Grimgroove]

@Fuzzybuttrernut: Considering you didn't change your vote despite the L-1 and thus keeping the risky situation intact, could you reiterate your case on Zionite? I've ISO'd you, but apart from his pressure vote on a supposed lurker you don't really seem to have got much on him.

[Grimgroove]

Rach and Grim, thoughts on fuzzy?

Edit: Ninja'd

I find the contrast between the vagueness of his argumentation and the resolve to stick to his vote very striking.

Fuzzy, Wisdom and Does Bo Know are all leaning scum for me.
I'd really like to see more activity from RachMArie, Malakittens and Miss Destroyer. No read is to be had from them if they keep this kind of activity up.
Horus and Zionite are leaning town.

[Grimgroove]

fuzzy is being considered active and giving out reads in this game? Makes me wonder what he must be like in other games.

@Malakittens: If you don't like DBK's L-1 vote, why not make it an L-2 vote by removing your own?

@Anyone on his train: What is your case on Zionite, apart from the "freaking out"? Could you point to where he's "freaking out"? I don't see it.

[Grimgroove]

.

@Wisdom: What do you think of my vote on you? What do you think of Zionite's cases so far?

(even though my vote no longer is on you)
Why did you ignore these questions?

[Grimgroove]

Because I agree where my vote is. As previously stated Zion was coming off forced/fake as hell and he's currently freaking out about the wagon. Which just screams gut-scum to me.

I just don't like DKB hopping onto the wagon with no reason and making it an L-1 with less than 4 pages.

So the two arguments are:
"he was acting forced/fake"
"he's freaking out"

I don't think those are particlarly strong arguments, they depend very little on what Zionite says and very much on how you choose to interpret it. The same was the case when Zionite and Wisdom attacked Horus a couple of pages earlier, where they said he was "flailing" and "overreacting". It's the exact same argument and it makes just as little sense. Only Horus is being put on top of the town pile, and the opposite happens to Zionite.

With these kinds of "interpretive" arguments you can never prove your point, but as scum I guess you'd be more comfortable using those, with the added bonus that they're almost impossible to defend yourself against. Horus summarized it very aptly in post 35. "Fakeness" and "freakishness" is mostly in the eye of the beholder.

My take on this game is that we should be looking at those using it as an argument. These also happen to be the three people I said were leaning scum for me: fuzzybutternut, Does Bo Know and Wisdom. Malakittens can now be added to that pile.

@Does Bo Know's latest catch-up post: a lot is to be said about what you said. Props to you for giving us something to work with, but expect more in depth questions and comments later today or tomorrow. I'm not entirely liking it.

[Grimgroove]

So

I'm using fakeness and freakishness as a scum tell? Can you tell me where I did that?

Also, mind summarizing what you don't like about it? Considering you got irritated when I didn't deliver details immediately (oh look more hypocrisy), I think I get the right to ask this question.

More hypocrisy? Where was I hypocritical before?
And I disagree with it being hypocritical, because I'm not guilty of the charges that I used against you: seemingly rushing towards an L-1 with no real arguments to back that up. What I did was place a promise I would respond to your catch-up post. As I had little time, and obviously needed time to respond to it in an exhaustive manner (given all the references it's also difficult to reply within the reply box, and instead I have to go re-check what exactly you're referring to following the links in another tab, you're not making this very player-friendly), I just thought you'd like the placeholder promise as a token of appreciation for your efforts.

Also note that at the time of this post:

Actually, I don't know why you're bothered, so let me ask this:

Why does it matter if I rushed to vote you without detailing my reads yet?

Because for all we know you don't have any reads and you're hoping a derphammer will fall? For someone who supposedly just "skimmed" through the topic you seem awfully quick to put someone on the border of a ravine , or it must be that you have very compelling arguments. But seeing how you didn't share those, I guess you don't have any.

I think it's the scummiest thing to happen so far in this topic (closely followed by Wisdom ignoring my questions).

Therefore:
VOTE: Does Bo Know

you already had ample time to actually provide reasons or, as you would put it, a summary of them. You posted several times between your L-1-vote and my accusation and didn't hint at any reasons once. (posts 90, 92 and 93) I did not have this opportunity in time nor in amount of posts when you made your little snide comment. Couple this to the fact that you stated yourself that you only "skimmed" through the topic (illustrating how lightly you went over it at the time of placing your vote, in essence making your catch-up post a justification after the fact that might as well not have been present at the Original posting time) and the promise to add details but didn't up until and beyond the time I put my vote on you, and I'd say the instances are not comparable at all.

As far as your first question is concerned, allow me to go into further detail here below. But I must admit that given your initial lack of arguments, it was an assumption of mine that while "skimming" through the topic you simply agreed with what had been said by others instead of developing your own, possibly not giving enough credit to arguments you put forward later on.

Soooo I lied. I’m doing this catch-up post style, with reads at the end. Feel free to ask questions about those reads if you don’t understand them.


Fuzzy’s 24 right after Horus’s 22 seems off.

Agreed. Note this is negative statement 1 about Fuzzy (will be keeping count).

26...that doesn’t look like scum hopping on a wagon yet but okay.

"But okay" meaning you condone votes for false reasons? Miss Destroyer Negative 1

32 is bad. Horus is asking the first serious question of the game and Zionite tries to shoot it down. Horus’s vote doesn’t look over-justified at all.

Zionite Negative 1

34 also disagree. Horus doesn’t look like he’s overreacting.

Why do you think fuzzy chooses to interpret it this way? Assuming this is a negative statement, this puts Fuzzy at 2

38: He’s not flailing. Jesus.

Zionite: 2

45: Wow, that was really quick.

Zionite: 3

49: Eh. Wisdom normally asks questions like that, so I don’t agree with the vote.

Don't see how I could know what Wisdom normally asks, but the main point of that mainly RVS vote (at the time) was to show how easily his own argument can be used against him. Post 35 postulates a universal wisdom, yet Wisdom decided to take it personally (despite the funny name coincidence). If there's any overreaction that can be demonstrated in this topic, it's this one. Grimgroove negative 1

53 and 54 I agree with.

1 positive for fuzzybutternut (putting fuzzy at 1 negative) and 1 positive for Malakittens

Zionite misses Fuzzy’s point on this page. Fuzzy’s point is, that Zionite’s sole vote on a lurker will not make the lurker post more, as a sole vote isn’t very good pressure.

Is missing that point scummy? Is making the point townish? I also disagree with your synopsis of the discussion, post 56clearly shows fuzzybutternut turning a "vote on a lurker" into an "easy lynch". In my experience, they are not easy lynches. This entire discussion and the allegations contained in it are based on a false assumption. As far as the "vote a lurker" is concerned, the only thing actually taking place, I think that trying to activate people is a townish thing to do, no matter which method or whether or not it works. A vote is one of the most intuitive methods to do so within the set-up of maffia games.

59 looks like subtly accusing Fuzzy of being scum. Ugh.

Why is it a bad thing to accuse fuzzy? Negative for Zionite 4

Yeah, but 64 is wrong actually. You can get more votes on a wagon without getting a lynch. Granted, a

sole

vote on a player will not apply the pressure he’s looking for, so I think it is a useless vote, but wagons =/= lynches.

Fail to see your point here. You're referring to a quote with a couple of dots under it, and I don't see how your comment relates to the quote. I'm assuming another negative for Zionite 5

65: ^^^

Horus positive 1. But this is one of the instances where I don't necessarily agree. Nobody (except for RachMarie) knew me, and everyone reacts differently, even to single votes. A single vote tells you someone is noticing you, and this kind of attention does manage to garner reactions from time to time. If not immediately, defintely on the longer term. Zionite's priority was not to garner support for a wagon, but to get a reaction from me.

71 is a good catch-up. Pretty much follows my thought process.

Putting Grimgroove at 0 again.

76: Dammit Fuzzy, you’re being stubborn. And I thought I had some sort of townread on you.

Despite fuzzy already being at minus 1 at this point, you claim to have a townread on him. Based on what? Anyway, this puts him at 2 negatives.

79 is more scummy scum-scum posting. He legitimately thinks that his vote on Grimgroove helped pressure him, when it didn’t. Literally, Grim’s posting wasn’t very affected by Zionite’s vote, and Grim got over the vote once he saw it was just because he was lurking. Then he unvotes when given an answer. Which is what I predicted would happen, but then he doesn’t place a vote anywhere, after thinking a sole vote on a player provides pressure? Ugh.

Zionite 6. Why is him thinking that his vote made a difference scummy? As town it's basically the only pressure tool you have, so it's quite a depressing thing to automatically assume it doesn't. In this case, you're right, it didn't, but I don't see the point of blaming him for trying and for believing in what he was trying to do.

80: I don’t like this either. He ignores the vote on him, and instead posts something to Zionite. I feel like Wisdom could be ignoring it because he doesn’t want to “overreact” to Grim.

Wisdom negative 1. I agree and am still waiting for a response to all of my questions to Wisdom. He did not respond to any of them.

85: Except Zionite is probably just pretending his activity is meaningful. So apparently that’s working to appease you, Grim.

How do you "pretend" meaningfulness? It is one of the things that is unpretendable, or if it is only on the short term. He's got me convinced with his constructive activity, just like you did yourself with your catch-up post. As long as he keeps it meaningful I see no point in lynching him, and if he's pretending we'll notice soon enough. I'd call this an interpretive opinion. Zionite 7

89: Not going after Fuzzy because he feels it’ll draw more attention to him? Doing it after the wagon blows over? Scum scum.

That's not what that says. What do you think of the argument that he puts forward about leads not getting any traction when the main suspect is advertising it? Zionite 8

And again, don’t see why the rush with the vote is bad. It’s not like I hammered.

Why was it good?

95: To prevent accidental quickhammers, I either

bold a statement

saying it’s L-1, or make an individual post that clearly states it’s L-1. Soooo if someone still does, it means they aren’t paying that close attention to the game. It’s also telling depending on whether the wagoned player flips scum or not.

Is someone not paying close attention to the game a neglectable risk? And how does the last sentence add up with the rest? What would be telling? Your L-1 vote? Or the hammer? Telling in what way? If the hammerer didn't pay attention as you assume it wouldn't be telling in his case.

99 UUUGGGHHHH I wanna call this a scum post but it’s Rach, and I can’t read her in any game well ever.

RachMarie 1

100: Bad vote. Normally I’d be fine with that reason from a player that’s active (I was actually looking to draw attention with my L-1 vote), but from Grim, who’s first real game-related post also didn’t contain much explanation

because he was away

...I just don’t like that.

Grimgroove minus 1. How was I not active? You just complemented my first real-game related post 71 in this very list.
Also, just for the sake of it, let's assume I was the perfect player in your eyes, obvtown and all that. Let's just pretend. Could you respond to the arguments instead of making false statements about the person making them?

Anyway, here’s why 110 was bad to me: I was going to make details about it, but Mala didn’t think I was. Third player to say something about it, so it gives Mala an option to switch to me. When he says he likes where his vote is already, my gut tells me it could be scum staying on the bigger wagon, hoping a lynch could occur, and if Zionite’s lynch doesn’t happen, he can switch to me. And if the lynch does happen, and Zionite flips town, he can assume I’m scum based on that.

Mala back to 0. I agree with this statement.

That’s all gut, though. In fact, I’m more confident Mala is town if Zionite flips scum, and I am confident Mala is scum if Zionite flips town.

Why single them out as an evident "non-pair"?

114: Fuzzy’s still VI here, but not scum to me yet. His town play usually consists of thinking he’s scumhunting. And here, he could be thinking he’s scumhunting, but it’s too early to tell. I feel like pursuing Fuzzy won’t be helpful right now.

When will it be? Fuzzy minus 3

I still like my Zionite vote.

Given this whole list is mainly a tunnel interspersed with occasional unconclusive comments on any other players I guess this doesn't come as a surprise to anyone.

In my next post after dinner (if Does Bo Know allows me), I'll do the math and show the arguments above and the list below doesn't really add up for everyone.

Town

Horus (actually attempts to get the game going quickly with questions)

Null

(haven’t posted enough for me to read them yet)
RachMarie
Miss Destroyer

Neutral

(have posted enough, but can’t determine alignment yet)
Mala (for the aforementioned 110 theory, would depend on Zionite’s flip.)
Fuzzy (from what I can tell, he isn’t scum right now. And that’s saying something, considering I read him as scum, like, all the time.)
Wisdom (his questions are Wisdom-like, but I can’t determine alignment based on his statements alone.)

Scum

Zionite (pretty sure I outlined this in my catch-up)
Grimgroove (only leaning, but still mentioning him in this pile)

Feel free to ask questions. I’m caught up now, so I should be more active for quite a while.

[Grimgroove]

The scores based on DBK's comments. I realize this method is not water-tight in order to prove certain inconsistencies (for instance: positive posts not being commented on by DBK but still counting in his assessment), but some things do strike me as odd enough to comment on:

Horus: +1
Malakittens: 0
Miss Destroyer: -1
RachMarie: -1
Grimgroove: -1
Fuzzybutternut: -3
Zionite: -8

Good thing: he commented on everyone.
Bad thing: The amount of attention was mainly directed towards Zionite (tunnel) and fuzzy (where something strange is going on). Some have not posted very often, in which case limited attention is justified (RachMArie and Miss Destroyer notably)

Town

Horus (actually attempts to get the game going quickly with questions)

What makes his question different from other people's questions? I actually, like most people, agree that Horus is obvtowning his slot so far, but I'd like to see you state why exactly his contributions are more townie than others. It's not very clear from your post.

Null

(haven’t posted enough for me to read them yet)

Yet, for some people you seem to have based your opinion on them with only one post (eg: Wisdom's post 36, Mala's post 110 and my post 100. Both RachMArie and Miss Destroyer made at least one controversial post according to you. Why not call them out on it?

RachMarie
Miss Destroyer

Neutral

(have posted enough, but can’t determine alignment yet)

In what sense have they posted enough then? If you can't get a read from them I guess they're somewhat lacking in content. What do you think of the fact they have posted a decent quantity, yet no substance to give you any read? Doesn't that strike you as odd? Why not?

Mala (for the aforementioned 110 theory, would depend on Zionite’s flip.)
Fuzzy (from what I can tell, he isn’t scum right now. And that’s saying something, considering I read him as scum, like, all the time.)

Based on what? He's on minus 3 according to your overview, why all the slack?

Wisdom (his questions are Wisdom-like, but I can’t determine alignment based on his statements alone.)

"on his statements alone"??? What else is there?

Scum

Zionite (pretty sure I outlined this in my catch-up)

As you can see I don't agree with any of the reasons, apart from his bad form towards Horus on page 2 (or was it 3?) in tandem with Wisdom, who is not in your scumreads despite only appearing negatively in your overview, and one null ("typical Wisdom questions", unless wisdom is typically town, this doesn't mean anything)

Grimgroove (only leaning, but still mentioning him in this pile)

I'll call it how I see it: OMGUS

Feel free to ask questions. I’m caught up now, so I should be more active for quite a while.

[Grimgroove]

That said, I'm moving my vote.

VOTE: Wisdom

You're both equally big scumreads for me at the moment, but somehow I feel that by your active nature you will be digging your own grave eventually in case I'm right. In case I'm not at least I wouldn't have to feel bad about contributing to a lynch of someone who's actually trying to contribute. Just curious how your arguments will evolve.
Wisdom obviously needs to be called out if we want anything from him of substance.

[Grimgroove]

But I'm just gonna say that using "points" to determine alignment in a point of view

that isn't yours

insults me.

What do you mean?

[Grimgroove]

That's a fair point and I aplogize if you were in fact insulted, but the point-system does mainly serve as an illustration and method to make it easier to get an overview, and is not the backbone of my remarks. Also, the fact that you mentioned the posts that you mention already hints at the fact that you deem them important enough to grant them at least the value of one point, so I'd say it's not entirely without value illustration-wise.

[Grimgroove]

Wisdom, seriously?

[Grimgroove]

I like this wagon, but I'm wary because I've heard a lot of quiet agreement that fuzzybutternut is suspicious, but there's been no movement on that front - which is rather odd.

How are the Zionite-wagon and people's responses to fuzzybutternut's suspicious behavior interrelated? What effect does your wariness have on your intentions with regards to the Zionite wagon?

[Grimgroove]

Going to refer to bits and pieces of the wall later.

Oh wait, I thought I had posted this before 137. It's a good thing I still had it in a Word document:

More hypocrisy? Where was I hypocritical before?

Actually, it wasn’t more hypocrisy, but the point came up again: I hadn’t had time to make an efficient catch-up post. Yes, I had time to ask questions about recent events, but I did not have time to comment on everything like I had wanted, and if you

seriously

think it’s alignment-indicative, you’re not gonna do well here, pal.

What I think is alignment-indicative is hidden motives, and since there were no apparent ones at the time of the L-1 vote, hidden motives is all I got from you.
You called it more hypocrisy but just now say it wasn't. Why call it that then? Does everything behind the

but

somehow make your hypocrisy claim more valid somehow? Like, after the fact? You were gazing into the future when saying it?

You didn't have to comment on everything, like you did in your catch-up post. Don't get me wrong, I'm liking it a lot that you did, but all I was looking for at the time of my vote, but wasn't getting, for you was a mere indication of why you were putting Zionite on L-1. Let me ask you this: Do you disagree with me that, looking at your first posts after the L-1, you gave the impression of being intentionally vague?

And the way that I do catch-up posts, is laptop-friendly, not phone-friendly. And if you’re complaining because you can’t catch up properly on a phone because of how I post,

why am I not allowed to post less content from my phone

because it’s the same hassle that you fucking have with posting from your phone?

No need to get your panties in a twist. I'm not posting from a phone. I was posting from a laptop, and right now I am posting from my work computer. My work computer has a technical problem tied to it (cfr. topic I started in Help-thread). It's just a very time-consuming process to reply to opinions on posts, where you have to click a link to get to the post in order to see what you're referring to. You do see that, right? I was appealing for your understanding in this regard.

Also, I was not aware you were posting from your phone. Unlike you, this is not the first assumption I make of people posting here.

If you guys would’ve wanted a summary of things, I

might’ve

given them to you, depending on if I

for sure

had the time. But again, people jump to conclusions, assume that if I would’ve had a case on people, I would’ve said it, or some of it, at the time of my vote, but the truth is, I’m going to say this again, that

I voted L-1 early because I was confident Zionite was scum, the pressure could've helped in others' questioning of Zionite, and that it was exactly what I needed to do to make my presence more known.

That's been clarified now, but you do see why people, like me, would think otherwise without blaming them for "jumping to conclusions"? Unexplained confidence is always very fishy at this stage. And I'm not just talking about confidence in your read, but also confidence over the fact no derphammer would fall.

Mod: Bold tag fixed

[Grimgroove]

Sorry for screwing up the editing, need to make more of a habit out of previewing my posts. Not used to this no-editing policy.

[Grimgroove]

Spoilered, in the midst of it I started realizing this is becoming a futile exercise in the scumhunt, but a promise is a promise.

Spoiler:

Fuzzy’s 24 right after Horus’s 22 seems off.

Agreed. Note this is negative statement 1 about Fuzzy (will be keeping count).

Wouldn't put a negative there. Also, Fuzzy does state later that a "town response" would be to ignore...something. I don't know exactly where, but it's in his ISO, and ignoring Horus's 22 could be his own interpretation of a "town response."

Do you agree with this take on a town response? Also, don't you find it odd that fuzzy's action would stem from an interpretation on "how to act as town", rather than from a natural reaction to things being discussed?[/color

26...that doesn’t look like scum hopping on a wagon yet but okay.

"But okay" meaning you condone votes for false reasons? Miss Destroyer Negative 1

I disagreed with the vote, but again, wouldn't put a negative there just because I disagreed

So the mere disagreement was enough to single out this post? Are we to assume you agreed with everything you did not mention? Duly noted though.

32 is bad. Horus is asking the first serious question of the game and Zionite tries to shoot it down. Horus’s vote doesn’t look over-justified at all.

Zionite Negative 1

This is one of Horus's questions that I liked because it got the game out of RVS, and it looked like it could give Fuzzy some pressure. Zionite looked scummy for it because it was indeed the only serious comment about the game thus far.

What do you make of fuzzy not answering these questions?

34 also disagree. Horus doesn’t look like he’s overreacting.

Why do you think fuzzy chooses to interpret it this way? Assuming this is a negative statement, this puts Fuzzy at 2

Note: Grim likes assuming I think people look scummy because I disagree with them.

Note: you didn't answer the question. My assumption is explained above: the fact you picked out these posts to comment on, made me assume you felt strongly enough about them. A mere disagreement doesn't really compute with that. If you claim Horus doesn't look like he's overreacting, what does that make fuzzy's comment? Untruthful? Unsincere? Or just wrong, without bad intentions? Could you see why he made the mistake?

38: He’s not flailing. Jesus.

Zionite: 2

Refer to above

The addition of he who died for our sins does hint at a certain difficulty to understand Zionite's stance. Same question as above: Do you think it's scummy that he's trying to construe Horus' reaction as flailing? Or do you see it as an honest interpretation that you happen not to agree with?

45: Wow, that was really quick.

Zionite: 3

Meh, I guess this is sorta scummy, but not enough to give Zionite another scum point.

So, Zionite's reaction to Horus out-of-RVS-questions to fuzzybutternut are the only real argument we should remember from this segment. What do you think of other people's reactions to these questions?

49: Eh. Wisdom normally asks questions like that, so I don’t agree with the vote.

Don't see how I could know what Wisdom normally asks, but the main point of that mainly RVS vote (at the time) was to show how easily his own argument can be used against him. Post 35 postulates a universal wisdom, yet Wisdom decided to take it personally (despite the funny name coincidence). If there's any overreaction that can be demonstrated in this topic, it's this one. Grimgroove negative 1

It's called a meta search. Wisdom literally has links to his meta in his signature. I'd also like to disagree because your vote shouldn't have been RVS if there was a reason for it, and it's certainly pretty late for you to come in with an RVS vote when so much had happened already. Also didn't think you were scummy for this.

Did you meta search every player here? do you seriously expect other players to do this for the others?

53 and 54 I agree with.

1 positive for fuzzybutternut (putting fuzzy at 1 negative) and 1 positive for Malakittens

It's some more positive points for agreeing with players? lolno.

Zionite misses Fuzzy’s point on this page. Fuzzy’s point is, that Zionite’s sole vote on a lurker will not make the lurker post more, as a sole vote isn’t very good pressure.

Is missing that point scummy? Is making the point townish? I also disagree with your synopsis of the discussion, post 56clearly shows fuzzybutternut turning a "vote on a lurker" into an "easy lynch". In my experience, they are not easy lynches. This entire discussion and the allegations contained in it are based on a false assumption. As far as the "vote a lurker" is concerned, the only thing actually taking place, I think that trying to activate people is a townish thing to do, no matter which method or whether or not it works. A vote is one of the most intuitive methods to do so within the set-up of maffia games.

THANK GOD you're actually realizing that

you don't know

whether things I say mean I call it townish or scummish. That also wasn't a synopsis of the entire discussion. I was just saying, that Zionite was misunderstanding something Fuzzy said. And I still agree that sole votes aren't that great of pressure. Sole votes have to happen of course, but Zionite was giving himself much more credit than he should have for voting you.

How do you feel about post 56?

59 looks like subtly accusing Fuzzy of being scum. Ugh.

Why is it a bad thing to accuse fuzzy? Negative for Zionite 4

NO that's clearly not my point. He's

subtly

doing it, as opposed to

outright

doing it. Something I frown upon on players: if you clearly think someone is scummy, say it, instead of trying to beat around the bush. And it's also a problem because I haven't seen where Zionite could possibly consider Fuzzy scummy for scum in any of his posts thus far.

Yeah, but 64 is wrong actually. You can get more votes on a wagon without getting a lynch. Granted, a

sole

vote on a player will not apply the pressure he’s looking for, so I think it is a useless vote, but wagons =/= lynches.

Fail to see your point here. You're referring to a quote with a couple of dots under it, and I don't see how your comment relates to the quote. I'm assuming another negative for Zionite 5

It wasn't just the post, but the argument about wagons not being the same as lynches. Just because someone has a wagon, doesn't mean that everyone on the wagon wants a lynch at that time. Wagons give more pressure (which is another reason why I put Zionite at L-1, but apparently Zionite hadn't reacted to that, so whatevs). But basically, this does

not

mean Zionite is scummy just because they disagree on game theory.

65: ^^^

Horus positive 1. But this is one of the instances where I don't necessarily agree. Nobody (except for RachMarie) knew me, and everyone reacts differently, even to single votes. A single vote tells you someone is noticing you, and this kind of attention does manage to garner reactions from time to time. If not immediately, defintely on the longer term. Zionite's priority was not to garner support for a wagon, but to get a reaction from me.

My point here was that voting for a lurker will, most likely, not pressure the lurker to post any faster. Did Zionite's vote on you make you want to post what you wanted to say any faster? If not, then that's exactly my point: Zionite's vote on you wouldn't have made a difference, yet Zionite believes that he made a much bigger difference.

I see your point, but I don't see how that's scummy. Maybe a bit self-involved.

71 is a good catch-up. Pretty much follows my thought process.

Putting Grimgroove at 0 again.

Normally, yeah, I slightly town read people that follow my processes.

Normally, but?

76: Dammit Fuzzy, you’re being stubborn. And I thought I had some sort of townread on you.

Despite fuzzy already being at minus 1 at this point, you claim to have a townread on him. Based on what? Anyway, this puts him at 2 negatives.

Townread on Fuzzy because of his activity early in the game: Fuzzy is generally the type to try to scumhunt, no matter how stupid it looks. Later in the game, though, his scumhunting looks less and less prominent. This is exactly why points are stupid in the first place.

79 is more scummy scum-scum posting. He legitimately thinks that his vote on Grimgroove helped pressure him, when it didn’t. Literally, Grim’s posting wasn’t very affected by Zionite’s vote, and Grim got over the vote once he saw it was just because he was lurking. Then he unvotes when given an answer. Which is what I predicted would happen, but then he doesn’t place a vote anywhere, after thinking a sole vote on a player provides pressure? Ugh.

Zionite 6. Why is him thinking that his vote made a difference scummy? As town it's basically the only pressure tool you have, so it's quite a depressing thing to automatically assume it doesn't. In this case, you're right, it didn't, but I don't see the point of blaming him for trying and for believing in what he was trying to do.

It's scummy because he's saying it made a difference multiple times, as to make sure people know he's being a townie by being useful. I thought he was overstating his useful vote on you (which, IMO, wasn't useful) too

seem

townie to everyone. Also, townies have

words

besides votes to pressure people.

80: I don’t like this either. He ignores the vote on him, and instead posts something to Zionite. I feel like Wisdom could be ignoring it because he doesn’t want to “overreact” to Grim.

Wisdom negative 1. I agree and am still waiting for a response to all of my questions to Wisdom. He did not respond to any of them.

Yeah, I guess this would be sort of a scum point. My most recent question is an attempt to see if he only responds to questions that require little effort to answer.

How did that work out?

85: Except Zionite is probably just pretending his activity is meaningful. So apparently that’s working to appease you, Grim.

How do you "pretend" meaningfulness? It is one of the things that is unpretendable, or if it is only on the short term. He's got me convinced with his constructive activity, just like you did yourself with your catch-up post. As long as he keeps it meaningful I see no point in lynching him, and if he's pretending we'll notice soon enough. I'd call this an interpretive opinion. Zionite 7

Firstly, you put Zionite at 7 even though it's the same exact fucking point I made for you to put him at 6, so that's stupid. He's overplaying his meaningfulness. If you could point out 2 good examples of useful things he's done this game, post them and I'll try to look at them again. I'm pretty confident I won't be swayed though.

Fair question, will do.

89: Not going after Fuzzy because he feels it’ll draw more attention to him? Doing it after the wagon blows over? Scum scum.

That's not what that says. What do you think of the argument that he puts forward about leads not getting any traction when the main suspect is advertising it? Zionite 8

I don't understand the question. But I was focusing on the last green section of text in this post; not only was he asking me a question, but he responded to your points as well in that post, remember? The way I see it: a good townie shouldn't have to make decisions to make sure that he/she himself/herself looks townie. The townie should just do what he/she can to hunt scum, and that if it's a real townie, he/she can easily explain the reasons if the town is humble enough. So yeah, this is another reason I like Zionite for scum.

And again, don’t see why the rush with the vote is bad. It’s not like I hammered.

Why was it good?

Added pressure, made my presence known, confidence that Zionite was scum at the time.

95: To prevent accidental quickhammers, I either

bold a statement

saying it’s L-1, or make an individual post that clearly states it’s L-1. Soooo if someone still does, it means they aren’t paying that close attention to the game. It’s also telling depending on whether the wagoned player flips scum or not.

Is someone not paying close attention to the game a neglectable risk? And how does the last sentence add up with the rest? What would be telling? Your L-1 vote? Or the hammer? Telling in what way? If the hammerer didn't pay attention as you assume it wouldn't be telling in his case.

Some people vote other players at L-1, and don't count the votes and realize that they hammered. The last sentence adds up, because some derphammers are useful depending on what the lynched person flips. If they flip scum, it's highly unlikely that the accidental derphammer-er is scum, since scum would usually be more likely to make sure the partner stays alive. If they flip town, then yeah the derphammer-er would be heavily looked at, maybe scum, but not for sure. I still feel like I didn't answer your question correctly, though, and if I didn't I'm sorry, try asking it again. :embarrassed:

It's a good answer, you're obviously not risk-averse. It's sometyhing I wouldn't do but ok.

99 UUUGGGHHHH I wanna call this a scum post but it’s Rach, and I can’t read her in any game well ever.

RachMarie 1

At the time I made this comment, yeah, it was pretty fluffy to say something like this, but it was also a small warning that Rach shouldn't be read as scum simply because her playstyle may not strike well with others (including myself). However, shouldn't have been a point for Rach.

100: Bad vote. Normally I’d be fine with that reason from a player that’s active (I was actually looking to draw attention with my L-1 vote), but from Grim, who’s first real game-related post also didn’t contain much explanation

because he was away

...I just don’t like that.

Grimgroove minus 1. How was I not active? You just complemented my first real-game related post 71 in this very list.
Also, just for the sake of it, let's assume I was the perfect player in your eyes, obvtown and all that. Let's just pretend. Could you respond to the arguments instead of making false statements about the person making them?

It's not that you weren't active. It's that your first post barely had any content in it because of limited time, yes? But even though I voted L-1 without explaining (with my first post having barely any content), it was because I liked the idea of putting Zionite at L-1, but I didn't have the resources to say why. You assumed I didn't have any reasons because I hadn't shared them yet, and

that's literally the only scummy thing you had against me at this point.

It irritates me that you pride yourself on thinking people that interpret "fakeness" and such incorrectly are scum, yet when you interpret my posts as "lack of a case against Zionite" when that's exactly what it

wasn't

, it's okay.

The reason for me not thinking you have a case (you not positing it), is clearly demopnstratable.

Anyway, here’s why 110 was bad to me: I was going to make details about it, but Mala didn’t think I was. Third player to say something about it, so it gives Mala an option to switch to me. When he says he likes where his vote is already, my gut tells me it could be scum staying on the bigger wagon, hoping a lynch could occur, and if Zionite’s lynch doesn’t happen, he can switch to me. And if the lynch does happen, and Zionite flips town, he can assume I’m scum based on that.

Mala back to 0. I agree with this statement.

That’s all gut, though. In fact, I’m more confident Mala is town if Zionite flips scum, and I am confident Mala is scum if Zionite flips town.

Why single them out as an evident "non-pair"?

Why not? What's the problem?

Why would there be a problem. I don't see any reason to call them a "non-pair", and I am curious as to what your reasons to do so are. Why not just answer the question?

114: Fuzzy’s still VI here, but not scum to me yet. His town play usually consists of thinking he’s scumhunting. And here, he could be thinking he’s scumhunting, but it’s too early to tell. I feel like pursuing Fuzzy won’t be helpful right now.

When will it be? Fuzzy minus 3

Who knows? But here's the thing: like you, who assumes some players are scummy but keep them around because they'd normally dig their own grave later, I do the same thing to VI's. Fuzzy is a VI to me. See, again, another reason you putting points on people based on my viewpoints is stupid: you don't know my viewpoints.

I still like my Zionite vote.

Given this whole list is mainly a tunnel interspersed with occasional unconclusive comments on any other players I guess this doesn't come as a surprise to anyone.

I don't really see myself as tunneling, but the truth is, I don't have a lot of town reads so far, or a lot of reads at all. So it may look like I'm tunneling Zionite, when in truth no one else had been excessively scummy.

Mod: fixed spoiler tag's

Use the spoiler='s tags not the spoilers tags for that one.

[Grimgroove]

Now time to get some distance from this timeconsuming discussion and see what else has been going on here.

PEdit: I guess not, but I feel I owe it to DBK to answer some of his comments. I meant to put it in a spoiler tag but screwed it up yet again. I previewed it this time,b ut thought the spoiler wouldn't show in the preview to permit spotting mistakes within the spoiler.

Why don't

you

give us something to read Wisdom? My vote's been on you for a while now, but you're not responding to it in any way? What gives, don't you like me?

[Grimgroove]

I'm not sure about Zionite, I have to reread all those walls that have been posted. I don't really like the wagon though.

Why don't you like the wagon?

[Grimgroove]

So what are your reads, Rach?

What are yours?

[Grimgroove]

I can't see any town-reason not to give reads.
Can you, Wisdom?

[Grimgroove]

So, I meta'd Wisdom in the end. What is obvious from that exercise is that he's living up to his meta: if he can say it in just one sentence he will, both as scum and as town.
This efficiency with words makes him very hard to read his motivations in any game I imagine, as well as in this one.
I see people find him leaning town because of the questions he asks, but what about the questions he fails to answer?
I find his reasoning not to share his reads circular: he says he doesn't want scum to copy his. But who's to say he's not scum just waiting to copy reads by others?

Going to catch up with the Mala-Miss D thing, seems like I missed out on some activity here.

Also @RachMarie: Thank you for the compliment (I think?) but if you're implying that my join date is a ruse and this is simply a double-account you are mistaking.

[Grimgroove]

I'm slowly losing touch with this baby. Reading through the topic tonight and posting thoughts tomorrow.

[Grimgroove]

I'm slowly losing touch with this baby. Reading through the topic tonight and posting thoughts tomorrow.

Really? How? You were posting a decent amount prior. I'm not sure how you are losing touch...

There's been a lot of talk about meta that makes it harder for me to follow. For most people (apart from RachMarie) I only have this game to base certain conclusions on.

Just figuring out who "Mara" was, was already challenging, at first I thought it was a typo referring to Malakittens, then I thought it was a typo referring to Marie, and it's only today I realize we're talking about "Miss Destroyer", after reading back from the start of the thread and seeing her confirm under that name. (maybe it would be a good idea to sign the posts with "Mara" instead of the female symbol?)

But yes, a lot of meta-stuff going on.

When just looking at this game both fuzzybutternut and Wisdom would be pinging my radar as leaning scum, Wisdom less so. I find them both too concise when putting forward arguments. Wisdom is definitely providing townie-input by asking relevant and direct questions, but he remains an impenetrable box himself. I'm wary of him becoming some "voice in the sky" that gets taken for granted, without being questioned himself once in a while.

Fuzzybutternut has similar behavior, very short and very careful with giving too much information, completely ignoring cases raised against him. I completely agree with Zionite that this is scummy as hell, yet for some strange reason he's being cleared by his meta as well. Is there anything besides that that is in his favor? I have a hard time seeing arguments within this topic to conlude he's anything but scum.

If I have to clear both of them based on meta (which I'm very reluctant to do), I first would like to here what their meta tells are when they're scummy then. Some of you obviously have quite a few games under your belt with each other, so it's easier to just ask. Or give me pointers on how to do a meta-search on people in a time-efficient way because I can imagine it's better if I do it myself, but it just seems to take so long.

I don't like Mala"s post 122 at all. She admits to the argument not being strong, yet she finds it enough to keep Zionite at L-1. Granted, maybe it's true that at that stage of the game you don't have any better arguments than that, but then why keep the L-1 situation intact at that stage of the game then?
The thing with MIss Destroyer was obviously some misunderstanding. I don't see why Malakittens read it as she did because I don't see how one could come to such an interpretation, but I don't find her interpretation nor her reaction scummy in this instance.
But her 122 really burns my eyes.

I also don't like RachMarie defensiveness in post 221, and her reads staying on the surface. In her "defense" she has referred more to other games than this one, which I don't feel is a good sign. As she's the only one I know from another game, I have to tell you it's the first time I see her being this "emotional" in her defense. I find it very dodgy. This also burns my eyes. She's taking her discussion with Wisdom to the emotional plane for no reason at all, so I'm guessing it's an appeal to emtion, and scummy.

Miss Destroyer I really can't get a read on, she does provide reads but with very little facts/impressions to back those up. Her also using a lot of meta-tells in her argumentation isn't making this easier.

Does Bo Know I think is town. I still find his L-1-move quite risky, but he's one of the few who is scumhunting and providing the whole deal: arguments, questions, motivations, references, follow-ups and answers (a department where Wisdom is a bit lacking I think). I think the same holds for Zionite as for Does Bo Know (who, judging from his join-date, might be facing the same difficulties I have with all this meta-stuff). While Wisdom is also scumhunting, he's mainly activbe in the questioning department. I feel that in general there's not enough scumhunting and too many people acting as if being stepped on their toes, going into a stubborn shell of self-denfence and defiance.

And Horus, all of his arguments are objectively very smart and thought-out. He's obviously someone very clever, but being logical and good at explaining yourself doesn't necessarily make you town. I found his take on the connection between the Zionite wagon and fuzzybutternut rather strange, and when he said he was tempted to hammer Zionite (but wouldn't do it) it seemed like a strangely emotional argument that made me wonder what was brewing behind all this objective wisdom. Still got a townread on him though (his 96 screamed town.), though I'd like to see more of his opinions on other players. He's only talked about fuzzybutternut and Zionite so far.

UNVOTE:

I am not disinclined to put fuzzybutternut at L-1, but I feel it's a better idea to get a clearer picture of all this meta first.

[Grimgroove]

Some I suspect more than others

Please specify, because as far as I can tell, you didn't.

[Grimgroove]

Just a heads up to everyone that, like last week, I won't be able to be online much (or possibly not at all) during the weekend.

[Grimgroove]

Back from my V/LA, will catch up with this thing. I also missed the last part of the previous dayphase so I've got the feeling I'll have a lot to comment on despite the low activity (considering the prod I got). More tomorrow though, completely wrecked right now.

[Grimgroove]

This game seems to be on its ass for some reason. What happened?

On the Zionite-lynch as a whole I don't have much to say. I've always had a town-read on him, and though it's easier to say in retrospect, I don't understand the push that went on on him at the end of the previous stage. The problem is that this is all in hindsight now, and I don't want to sound like the prick who "told you so" or rubbing your nose in a lynch that I wasn't online for to give my input on.. But I can't help but feel that some people do feel "off" in this lynch so I hope my criticism won't be taken in a way that would further demotivate activity in this topic.

After reading through the lynch I mainly don't like Wisdom's role in it and the way he responded to the hammer. He seems like a different person during the build-up of the pressure against Zionite and the post-hammer/pre-flip game. In 390 Wisdom states his vote won't go anywhere, two pages later he's acting all bothered over the lynch.

The DBK-hammer I don't consider as scummy. I think the general mood at that stage was clear: Zionite was going to be lynched. All the most active participants (fuzzy and Wisdom most notably) were behind it, and according to me, rather pushing it. The way I understand it is that the "intent to hammer" is mainly there to provide the "soon-to-be-lynched" with an opportunity to claim. But Zionite already did claim at the point of DBK's hammer, and Miss Destroyer even said that claim was reason enough "to kill it with fire" (post 437). Also fuzzy was asking for a prompt lynch in post 432, which if he hadn't flipped town tonight, I would have considered the scummiest post during the lynch-process because it came even before the claim.
It's true that I would have liked to put in my two cents and I would have appreciated the chance to do so before the lynch, but I wouldn't want to presume that I'd be able to turn that wagon around and I wouldn't presume DBK expecting that I could change his mind. I already gave my read on Zionite before, and the last discussion didn't change that (though you couldn't know that, granted, but aside from the associative tell with Malakittens I also don't see any new elements).

Some quotes that stood out for me:

Scumtells keep dropping.
Now we have "why would I do this as scum" WIFOM too.
And no, this whole thing sounded like you know he's town and you're trying to tell him how to play. Not like you think he's scum.
All while you were refusing to consider the possibility of him being bad town and not scum earlier.
Just no.

VOTE: Zionite

I think the entire string of posts 380, 381, 384 and 390 all sound very very agressive and like someone who smells blood. The 384 I quoted above shows how Wisdom seems to choose to interpret Zionite as scummy no matter what he says, post 390 is more of the same. Note how often Wisdom uses the string "this sounds like" in his argumentation, clearly indicating this is all interpretation. But nonetheless these arguments manage to create a certain mood wherein Zuionite appears obvscum.
I personally believe that Zionite made some pertintent arguments in post 388 for instance, but isntead Wisdom chose to ignore the largest part of that and just hand-picked one little segment in post 390 that he could turn around as a scummy sign of omgus.

Wisdom, what do you think of this string of posts in retrospect and how do you justify the pick-and-choose from post 388?

I HAD AN EPIPHANY WHILE I WAS READING THE EARLY GAME AGAIN

VOTE: Zionite

Hey guys, remember when Zionite had an L-1 wagon on him?
Remember when he reacted strongly to everyone's vote?
There's...someone he didn't react to.

I'll give you a hint: their name starts with Mala, and ends with Kittens.

I don't see how a mere "associative tell" is enough for such conviction in voting for someone. Same for Horus.
Question to both Horus and Miss Destroyer: What do you make of the supposed connection now that Zionite flipped town?

Can we lynch Zio now?

I don't like DBK's hammer at all.
For one, he didn't let Grimgroove catch up and give his opinion on everything that happened.
Second, it looks like he tried to post reasons and justify the reasons he's hammering, like he felt it was bad doing so.
Third, said reasons look like rehashes of what others have posted.
Finally, saying he thinks there's scum in {Zionite, fuzzy} is likely laying down groundwork to push fuzzy after Zionite. Lining up lynches.

With the first one I'd agree from a personal standpoint, but how do you think I could have influenced this debate given the general mood? None of my earlier posts on Zionite seemed to have had a big effect.
Second, I don't see justification as a bad thing. Again, "it looks like" is simply your choice of how to interpret this, and I can't say I like your choice.
Third, you formulated some of these reasons yourself I'm sure. If the reasons are compelling enough according to you to make you state you're not moving your vote, why can't they be convincing enough for someone else as well?
And finally, I think this is exactly what you are trying to do with DBK/swordofomens.

wait I had not yet caught up jeez why did you hammer already DBK? I cant wait til I have my own computer again grrr...


Ok some quick points before the thread is locked up....

My town reading of DBK has gone down somewhat with that hammer...

Wis I feel is towny. He is pushing on peeps and his reasons for thinking peeps are scummy are sound and have merit. He is wrong about me but still he had a good case so it does not feel like hes just trying to get get mislynches going.

Zio on the other hand..... bah I think he is scumz. I was going to declare intent to hammer (something DBK SHOULD have done )

I do not see Zio and Fuzzy being scum budz though it does not feel like scum distancing. So if we are right about Zio being scumz, and I think we are, then Fuzzy is probably Town, the inverse though is not necessarily so (if Zio flps Town that does not mean for sure that Fuzzy is scumz). This does not feel like the scum Fuzzy I met in Greater Idea Mafia. (Where he fake claimed Seer).

Horus is probably town. His posts feel very much like a Town PoV.

Need to take a good look at Mara and Miss D.

I don't like all the fuss you're making about the hammer. I see a link with Wisdom's behavior towards this hammer.
I also don't like the repetiion of RachMarie thinknig Zionite is the correct lynch. There's no objective reason for this kind of conviction, so I'm assuming this conviction was an act. A scummy act at that.

Zion..

Did you just rolefish towards Fuzzy.

>_>

I also don't like the way Malakittens is trying to sound holier than the pope with this PR-fishing-business. What was the pioint of that Malakittens? Do you think that was a reasonable argument to get another wagon/case going? Why do you think others did not consider it as rolefishing and why did you? Making a fuss over nothing like that doesn't seem pro-town to me, but more like an act to sound like a good boy telling everyone to be good but stealing candy himself later that day.

VOTE: sword
hi

Still being wary of "the voice in the sky", I get the feeling you're lining up another lynchvictim. Somehow I don't feel you're actually scumhunting, but putting people in traps with questions and answers you choose to interpret in the scummiest possible way. What kind of answer do you expect to this vote from sword of omens? DBK already explained his hammer, no? What makes his explanation unsatisfactory?

So yes, I feel Wisdom has had the ugliest role in the lynch, but I'm not exclusing misguided town who somehow ended up in a leading position. But mainly his pre-hammer conviction and his post-hammer indignation don't add up in my book. RachMarie I'm also not quite liking, she seems like the tourist in the Zionite wagon.
A general question to everyone: Do you think scum was involved in Zionite's lynch-wagon? Why/Why not?

Going to provide reads on everyone later on, maybe today, maybe Wednesday. Going to wait with my vote until then but

FoS: Wisdom

[Grimgroove]

My town reading of DBK has gone down somewhat with that hammer...


Zio on the other hand..... bah I think he is scumz. I was going to declare intent to hammer (something DBK SHOULD have done )

RachMArie, according to you, what would the added value have been of "intent to hammer" over the hammer itself? Zionite already claimed. Why this fuss?

[Grimgroove]

Question 1 - You said you want to know what the heck was up with the hammer. How will you know that when DBK, who did the hammer, left the game?

But luckily DBK did offer an explanation with his hammer. An explanation that was an "unneeded justification" (483) in your eyes, but an explanation nonetheless.

RachMarie, what do you think has been left unanswered when it comes to DBK's hammer? What concrete questions do you have concerning this hammer?

The hammer and its reasons are no mystery. Why treat it as such?

[Grimgroove]

UNVOTE:
VOTE: sword

How did RachMarie merit the unvote?

[Grimgroove]

The activity is indeed abysmal. I wish it were a scumtell and we could simply get vote wagons on the inactive bunch, but it isn't. Maybe replacements are in order? Horus seems to have vansihed into thin air, didn't say a single thing ever since day 2 started..

I'd provide a reads list tomorrow, but with this kind of activity and from what I read, I don't think much has changed since my last ISO's on people so I'm not sure what good it'll do discussionwise.

For now I will join with the Miss Destroyer-trajectory. I find her involvement lacking, and the only post she's made during this dayphase about sword being town sounds like some weird form of going back to some kind of RVS-stage where reactions are gauged with completely random remarks. Not very helpful or constructive when there's other element to be used.

VOTE: Miss Destroyer

[Grimgroove]

Null-town, her call out to me early game looked pretty town as fuck in that, she was actually trying to get me to interact with her. alot of her posts today makes me second guess my read on her, and it's a whole lot better than yesterday so I think she might have been struggling to follow along with the game though she may actually be trying to find scum

This post doesnt make much sense. In post 233 you said you liked Mala scum, but here you seem tos ay MAla has been looking town ever since the beginning where she called you out and tried to itneract with you. Then you say her posts of today make you "second-guess" this townread, so I assume you think her posts today are scummier, but then you say "it's a whole lot better than yesterday" (how?) and you're now thinking she's struggling town.

Unless I misunderstand the phrase "town as fuck" and you actually mean she's scum through this analogy.

@mod

Horus hasn't been online for a week, and his alternate Master Mew has been replaced out of a newbie game due to inactivity. I think it's time to consider doing the same here.

[Grimgroove]

Ok, so by "early game" you meant the early day 2 phase then? Am I to read it that way?

[Grimgroove]

How is the last stage this game had up to this point "early game"? Could you explain this choice of words?

[Grimgroove]

Well, by now Miss D claimed she's not the global watcher. Assmuming she's not going to claim scum inhere I guess this is the same as a VT-claim.
But after page 23 I'm not really sure whether or not to believe that claim. What the hell was that all about?

[Grimgroove]

@RachMarie
I know, I wasn't talking about that, I was referring to the "hemming and hawing" by Miss Destroyer. In 555 I see a pretty straightforward VT-claim, but then at 561, 562 and 563 she starts acting all bizarre. I really don't see the point of those three posts.
And her read on Malakittens is very dodgy. It seems inconsistent with what happened before in this topic, and inconsistent in itself.
And vice versa as well, Malakittens' read on Miss Destroyer is also not very convincing. Both are very "on the fence" about each other.

Going to check out their interactions from D1 again.
I remember Miss Destroyer having an EPIPHANY about Malakittens and Zionite being scum together, but neither this epiphany, nor the scumread on Malakittens, has been touched upon in her latest thoughts on Malakittens in post 537. There is no mentioning of a scumread in that. It's all arguments of Malakittens being town. Rather weak arguments at that. The supposed calling out by Mala in "early game' (which is apparantly "early day 2") is rather weak in retrospect, I don't see how this could alter your read on her even in the slightest.

I would also like to wait for Horus' replacement, hoping it won't take forever, but I see no reason to change my vote for now.

[Grimgroove]

No no-one has attempted to replace in.

@mod:

Maybe it's because your signature is sending a mixed message? :p

[Grimgroove]

if you look at the sign, you would see that the epiphany came from HD, not me.
~Mara

I'm not very familiar with this hydra-business, but given you guys are playing under the same name, isn't there some form of coordination among the two of you? It sounds easy to me to blame any inconsistency in your postings on the other head having a different opinion on the matter.
What did you both agree on so far?

[Grimgroove]

561, 562, 563 was me playing around with idea of what I would do as scum

What's the point of this exercise?

[Grimgroove]

Rach, strategic lurking and inadvertant lurking have different feels to them. It's pretty easy to tell the difference once you learn how to differentiate.

Wisdom, there's our problem then. We are looking at meta from opposite heads of the hydra.

Could you explain your differentiation process when it comes to the forms of lurking? I'm not sure if I should call it lurking since Miss Destroyer has not been entirely inactive, but definitely in the beginning she was a non-presence, and considering she's actually a "they", being two players, how do you add that up with "inadvertant" lurking? Both players are normally very active (from what I hear in this topic, but it's also a general impression of mine because I've seen the names of both players pop-up quite a few times by now during my browsings on this forum), so wouldn't you expect this hydra to be active²?

What do you think of Miss Destroyer's scumhunting so far? The main thing that irks me is that it's limited, and the little that does happen is all through supposed associative tells, first Zionite-Malakittens, then RachMarie-Malakittens. I don't think associative tells provide a good basis for a scumhunt, I think it's quite easy to see an association between any two people one way or another if you just try hard enough. There's not much being said about "inherent" scumminess of people.

Also too much is blamed on the both of them not agreeing with each other. Inconsistent reads, strange word choices, hell, even the latest bout of inactivity was blamed on Mara by HD for her not warning him. It feels very much like a play to me. I assume HD has independent access to the Miss Destroyer account, why would he need Mara to inform him of this new daystart?



Also, could you clarify your reads from post 613? The only clarification I saw so far was your read on Miss Destroyer (meta), but given you apparently only looked at one side of the meta I don't find that very convincing. I also believe MAra was the most active head so far in this hydra, so could you explain your choice for looking at Destroyer's meta first?

[Grimgroove]

UNVOTE:

Going to provide a full reads-list later. I'm still behind the arguments put forward against Miss Destroyer, but I've been struck and stricken by a sudden sense of discomfort. There's still some time and there's something I don't quite like about Wisdom's insistance on the hammer, and RachMarie's presence on the Miss Destroyer wagon. I'll try to explain my dilemma in my readslist later.

[Grimgroove]

Euh, why the hell are you claiming?

[Grimgroove]

What just happened?

[Grimgroove]

Miss Destroyer is at L-1. You are at L-2. Wisdom asked, like he has been doing for most of this daystage, to hammer Miss Destroyer.
Then you burst in saying you visited fuzzybutternuts (while nobody claimed to see you there) and how you understand we'd lynch you over that.
If I ever saw scum panicking, it is now.

HoS: RachMarie

But I still want to do my reads list, if only to spot possible scumbuds- Half way through it.
I'd like to see everyone's reads at this stage.

[Grimgroove]

You're not making much sense RachMarie, and I think it's because you scumslipped over a misunderstanding.

Figures youd vote the counterwagon
soo hammer her, we heard from Egg

umm that did not sound like he was talking about Miss D esp since in the next post he said he thought they had voted me.

He said that in the next vote because he "accused" Miss Destroyer of voting the counterwagon, being your wagon.

Anyway, I believe you when you say you misunderstood, explaining why you claimed already,b ut your reaction is very striking.

It is better that I be outted at this point even lynched over outting our watcher. duh

Yes, I don't see the logic in that. Where was there ever a risk in the watcher being outed? The way I see it:
1/ You think you see serious suspicion building up against you, culminating in a possible hammer.
2/ You panic, and you think of what the reasons could be. Your first thought: your nightly visit at fuzzybutternut's has been exposed.
3/ Assuming it has already been exposed, you admit to the visit, but simultanuously claim that someone else must have visited him as well, because you're not the killer.
4/ I pop in, pointing to the fact that nobody claimed toh ave seen you at fuzzy's, and that nobody was talking about hammering you.
5/ You realize your mistake, and try to twist your admission of visiting fuzzybutternut into some kind of move to cover for our watcher, someone of whom you thought at the time of your admission had already exposed himself (how else, would the information of you visitng fuzzybutternut have reached us?)

Which is why I shared that info

Which is why this is a lie. This is not the reason you shared that info. Post 636 clearly shows you assumed this information was already out ("I can see why someone would think that"), and thus also the global watcher's identity. Now claiming you shared this info in order to protect his identity is BS.

After I went back and realized why someone might think I am scumz.

But you thought you had an L-1-wagon on you. This is more than just "someone" thinking you're scum. This is "someone" thinking you're scum and exposing this information to the others. Hence enforcing the fallacy I explained above.

[Grimgroove]

Damn typo's and bad word choices. I hope my explanation above can be followed despite of this, because I think we are dealing with a 100% scumslip here.

[Grimgroove]

Ok, so I can keep my readslist short (and I must admit I'm very itchy to vote for RachMarie now), because of most of my reads are still fairly intact, I'll just stick to giving my latest thoughts on the different players.

My earlier reads list you can find in post 357.
My comments in post 482 are to be read in addition to that, with mainly points on Wisdom, RachMarie and Malakittens.
My points here are a further addition.

It's these points on Wisdom (his role in the lynch on Zionite vs. his attitude towards DBK's hammer) and RachMarie (her attitude towards DBK's hammer plus other people's point about RachMarie focussing on voting lurkers) that made me second-guess my vote on Miss Destroyer, despite the arguments against her that seem quite robust in themselves as well.

My dilemma is that there are very good reasons not to trust Wisdom and RachMarie, who were the two who were with me on the wagon. If you don't trust the people on the wagon, it's only natural to start wondering about the wagon itself, despite some objective arguments.

My dilemma is that I have too few people I can trust at this stage of the game:

Wisdom, already somewhat on my radar in my first reads-post, brushed off my question about his attitude towards Zionite rather easily in post 483 by possible overconfidence. Maybe he is, but in that case he's not really learning from his mistake because now again he seems extremely confident about the Miss Destroyer lynch. I also don't like how in this same post 483 he calls the justification of the hammer unnecessary, yet later pretends no such justification exists by pretending the hammer and its reasons to be a mystery forever in post 501. He's using this blatantly false information to cast some suspicion on both RachMarie and sword_of_omen's slot.

RachMarie, who made an enormous fuss about the hammer for minor reasons, a fuss she later dropped with surprising ease considering the importance she seemed to grant to this topic. She then proceeds to go after Miss Destroyer, mainly based on meta and lurking. While I agree that Miss Destroyer's slot is not without its severe question marks (more on that later), I don't find RachMarie's role in this hunt very "kosher". As it happens I happen to have encountered RachMarie in other games (an ongoing one and a cancelled one), and if anyone should know "activity" can fluctuate regardless of alignment, it's her. She refers to RL-situations quite often herself to explain certain lack of activity.

There's an additional confusing fact about the above: I cannot imagine both of the above being in the same team. There's been quite some friction between them I believe cannot be faked. Therefore I think at least one of my suspicions is wrong, and given the latest developments, I'm inclined to put Wisdom in my town-pile and RachMarie in my scumpile through disassociation.

Malakittens, also on my radar earlier for her role in an earlier L-1 on Zionite, I found scummier during the first daystage than right now, though I'd like to see much more activity from her at this stage. She's very much on the fence about RachMarie, which, again given recent developments, makes her my second scumread now despite her stronger start in day 2. Het post 575 is extremely wiffywoffy, which I know is not a word but still aptly describes how I feel about it.

I think Miss Destroyer's case has been aptly covered through my questions to Egg in post 632, which I think illustrate clearly how I feel about MIss Destroyer. In summary: page 23 and meta point in the direction of Miss Destroyer being scum.

sword_of_omens hasn't done anything that made me change my townread on DBK. I'm liking his attitude and critical stance, and the way he filled in the role felt very natural. I think replacing in a scum makes it much more difficult to replace in naturally under the pressure of having to explain a hammer, yet he did it with such apparent ease I can't help but call him my main townread.

Egg is a worthy replacement of Horus when it comes to eloquence, but is still a nullread leaning town, though I guess given all the scumreads I already have, I should just put him in my townpile through process of elimination. I'd like him to respond to my questions to get a firmer read on how he thinks and what his motives are, because I do think both Horus (jumping on the Zionite-Malakittens associative tell with ease) and Egg (meta-reading HD) have made some strange decisions. But in general i have a feeling he can be trusted.

And now, without further ado,

VOTE: RachMarie

[Grimgroove]

THIS IS L-1 FOR RachMarie!!!!

[Grimgroove]

UNVOTE:

@RachMarie: No, that was not a hammer. Have you not seen JasonWazza's votecount on this very page? It's very hard to miss.

Egg, still rather convinced on RachMarie, but I'll hear you out.
But please don't ignore me. A kind reminder:

Rach, strategic lurking and inadvertant lurking have different feels to them. It's pretty easy to tell the difference once you learn how to differentiate.

Wisdom, there's our problem then. We are looking at meta from opposite heads of the hydra.

Could you explain your differentiation process when it comes to the forms of lurking? I'm not sure if I should call it lurking since Miss Destroyer has not been entirely inactive, but definitely in the beginning she was a non-presence, and considering she's actually a "they", being two players, how do you add that up with "inadvertant" lurking? Both players are normally very active (from what I hear in this topic, but it's also a general impression of mine because I've seen the names of both players pop-up quite a few times by now during my browsings on this forum), so wouldn't you expect this hydra to be active²?

What do you think of Miss Destroyer's scumhunting so far? The main thing that irks me is that it's limited, and the little that does happen is all through supposed associative tells, first Zionite-Malakittens, then RachMarie-Malakittens. I don't think associative tells provide a good basis for a scumhunt, I think it's quite easy to see an association between any two people one way or another if you just try hard enough. There's not much being said about "inherent" scumminess of people.

Also too much is blamed on the both of them not agreeing with each other. Inconsistent reads, strange word choices, hell, even the latest bout of inactivity was blamed on Mara by HD for her not warning him. It feels very much like a play to me. I assume HD has independent access to the Miss Destroyer account, why would he need Mara to inform him of this new daystart?



Also, could you clarify your reads from post 613? The only clarification I saw so far was your read on Miss Destroyer (meta), but given you apparently only looked at one side of the meta I don't find that very convincing. I also believe MAra was the most active head so far in this hydra, so could you explain your choice for looking at Destroyer's meta first?

[Grimgroove]

GET YOUR VOTES OFF RACH!!!

How the fuck is that a scum slip? It's the exact opposite. She's now obvtown. Look at the confidence she has in the fact that SOMEONE ELSE also visited! Scum wouldn't take the gamble that the watcher comes out and says "uh, no. It was only you". I mean crafty scum would but this is Rach. Look how genuine she is in saying she breifly forgot she visited someone. She is town and should never be lynched.

Looking beyond the caps warning and looking at this statement I'm actually inclined to simply put my vote back, since the logic is flawed here.

There are I think, two assumptions we can make:

1. RachMarie thought she was caught by the watcher, who exposed the information.
2. RachMarie thought she was caught by the watcher, who didn't expose the information yet.

I am a firm believer of 1, and refer to 644 for further clarification of the implications of this assumption. To reply to Egg's statement in this context: What other defense would there possibly be for scum who got caught by the global watcher? RachMarie could simply be hoping the global watcher was reaction testing to see if RachMarie would simply give up and say: "Yes, you were right, I'm the scum, the one and only who was there." Rule number 1 when you're scum: always keep denying, even when there's only a remote chance of succeeding in convincing anyone. What makes you exclude this possibility?

But let's assume scenario 2. The global watcher didn't expose the information yet. I don't really believe RachMarie was operating under this assumption (again, see post 644), but if she was, then her statement would have to draw the global watcher out of his hole in case he did use his ability succesfully tonight. It could just as easily be a ploy to drag down the power role with her in her fall.

So in both assumptions your obvtown conclusion is faulty at best.

Are there other elements that make you convinced RachMarie is town?

I for one find her inability to count votes and apparent conviction that she has been lynched a very poor act, I'm sorry to say.

[Grimgroove]

Additionaly, let me ask you this:
Is there any reason why town would, with little provocation, share information that is damaging to themselves, like RachMarie did in this case by saying she visited fuzzybutternut?
I can only see scum in order to get us into WIFOM, but as town it only creates unnecessary discussion about your person. Why would someone, as town, provide ammunition to others to get lynched?

[Grimgroove]

In the post above I actually meant to refer to post 642 and not 644. Sorry for the confusion.

[Grimgroove]

@Egg:

So let's see. You come into the thread chainsaw defend the largest wagon (MD) and then chainsaw the second largest wagon (Rach). Now you're trying to deflect the wagons onto me without really giving a read on Grim, Wisdom or Swords.
Although your first post gave out how you feel about them Grim/Wisdom, but not in depth. You didn't mention Swords/Bo.

You say you have meta to defend HD, but he's barely posting and for Mara I'm just not seeing her town play. (I have played with both alignments and I'm starting to figure out how to read her correctly)
So link me to your meta defense of HD, What shows us he's town rather not scum? Where's the similarities or differences between his play? Have you done an analysis on Mara too?

So question is have you read up on anyone else's meta other than HD's? Such as have you done a meta analysis of me?

Why are you so sure someone other than Rach did visit Fuzzy. You are so blinded thinking she's being truthful when there's a chance she could be lying.

@Rach you were at L-2 and this isn't the first time you panicked and claimed early like this. You did this in HB and due to this it gives off a semi-town tell, but the difference is between this game and that game you are more passive in my opinion. Which doesn't jibe with your town-meta.

True as all of that may be, why did you not reply to Egg's assertions incapsulated in the following quote?

Quote from Egg

Now look at Mala. Sure, she's posting. She's active. But she's doing what is popular and won't stick out. Even from the very beginning of the game. She "likes" my slot at the very beginning. At that point, so does everyone else. And her language doesn't suggest a firm stance that will stick. She votes zionite early on and gives reasons, but the vote is because he's willing to unvote for a "compromise". Go back and look at zi's post. It's not that serious. Then she goes after the first thing to stick out. Bo's L-1 vote. Come on, he obviously just wanted reactions. Mala is smart enough to know this. She's also smart enough to know that it could gain traction if she shows issue with it. Same idea as the Bo thing when she points out that fuzzy seems "different". More active and giving opinions. Yes, he's gaining experience. That's why he's different. Should be easy to pick up when you've played a newbie game or two and can spot a newbie from a player who is transitioning out of newbiness. Then there's the thing where she votes miss destroyer for something dumb and then when it's pointed out that it's dumb, "oops, I misread". She's just muddying the waters wherever she can on anyone that might be a lynch target. This isn't genuine scumhunting. And this is a player who knows how to scumhunt so I don't buy this play at all.

Please do.

[Grimgroove]

Grim, sorry I was rushing. Made that post on my 15 min break at work. Thought my second paragraph addressed that but looking back I didn't really say all I wanted to about that. Basically, intentional lurking comes with pord dodges, empty promises to catch up, active lurking through throwaway comments or fluff, etc. I don't see that in his posts. Also, any player can be hit with periods of inactivity. It depends on their free time and the pace of the game. I've been the most active player in some games and unable to keep up in others as both alignments. This is also true for most people who have been on site for any somewhat lengthy amount of time. I also don't normally consider lurking a tell without evidence in the player's meta. That or if they beetlejuice but that's another thing entirely.

Why are you only referring to the lurking argument brought up against Miss Destroyer?
What do you think of the scumhunting that's been done by Miss Destroyer? You're saying you don't see fluff, so I assume you see scumhunting. Where? What do you think of it?

I'm gonna need you to explain Rach's confidence that someone else visited Fuzzy if she's scum. Do you think her buddy roleblocked him and she's using watcher results to bus? Because that's the only way that makes sense and even that is a gamble she wouldn't take. There is no way that she, as scum, makes that comment that someone else visited fuzzy without knowing already. I feel like her reaction as scum would be more waiting to see if someone else visited fuzzy. Like she'd be more careful instead of blurting it out like she did.

But I did explain. It's the only possible way out in case she did get caught, and I don't see how "waiting it out" as scum is a superior tactic in any case. About the blurting it out

How is an inability to count votes a scum tell? As town you suddenly can notice votes better? No. It's not a tell at all. There's no way it can even be painted as one. It just doesn't make sense.

To 652, um. What else would she say? If she's a VT who visited fuzzy and thought a watcher had that result on her, what other way can she possibly respond? She's not going to lie. She's not going to ignore it. She's going to be honest and have a mentality of (oh shit, this looks bad). This is Rach we are talking about. That reaction is exactly what he honest reaction looks like. Are you really implying that town should be more worried about a lynch than scum? That she'd be worried to volunteer seemingly incriminating information as scum but would hide it as town? That is the most backwards logic I have ever heard.

Mala, if I'm chainsawing destroyer AND rach, the Mod lied and there are three scum, not two. So there goes that argument right there. Nice use of buzzwords though with that and "deflect". Also, my lack of a read on grim you are referring to is the fact that I called him "town as fuck". Sorry about the lack of a read there. "Town as fuck" is really fencesitty isn't it? No read on wisdom either, right? Oh wait. I called him scum. That's right. Sword is the only player I don't have a strong read on and that's because he replaced Bo, who I'm not quite sure how to read. So your counterpoints of chainsawing and lack of reads are 0 for 2. Let's see what else you have. You disagree with my destroyer read. That's fine. Your opinion is corrupted by the shit that's been spewed in this thread. Well, that or you are the one spewing it. I don't do meta "analysis" by the way. I just take what I remember from past games.

If it comes out that Rach was the only one to visit fuzzy, we'll lynch her. But it's HER CONFIDENCE in that, not mine, that has me so sure she is town. She said someone else visited fuzzy without thinking twice that could be wrong. That's because he died and she visited him as a VT. She wouldn't know someone else visited him if she killed him. It's a genuine confidence that I can't see Rach faking.

I agree with your assessment that Wisdom is rushing to lynch. That's a good distancing comment. Are you willing to bus him today? If so, I'll gladly switch. Otherwise, I want you lynched first.[/quote]

[Grimgroove]

Grim, sorry I was rushing. Made that post on my 15 min break at work. Thought my second paragraph addressed that but looking back I didn't really say all I wanted to about that. Basically, intentional lurking comes with pord dodges, empty promises to catch up, active lurking through throwaway comments or fluff, etc. I don't see that in his posts. Also, any player can be hit with periods of inactivity. It depends on their free time and the pace of the game. I've been the most active player in some games and unable to keep up in others as both alignments. This is also true for most people who have been on site for any somewhat lengthy amount of time. I also don't normally consider lurking a tell without evidence in the player's meta. That or if they beetlejuice but that's another thing entirely.

Why are you only referring to the lurking argument brought up against Miss Destroyer?
What do you think of the scumhunting that's been done by Miss Destroyer? You're saying you don't see fluff, so I assume you see scumhunting. Where? What do you think of it?

I'm gonna need you to explain Rach's confidence that someone else visited Fuzzy if she's scum. Do you think her buddy roleblocked him and she's using watcher results to bus? Because that's the only way that makes sense and even that is a gamble she wouldn't take. There is no way that she, as scum, makes that comment that someone else visited fuzzy without knowing already. I feel like her reaction as scum would be more waiting to see if someone else visited fuzzy. Like she'd be more careful instead of blurting it out like she did.

But I did explain. It's the only possible way out in case she did get caught, and I don't see how "waiting it out" as scum is a superior tactic in any case. About the blurting it out

How is an inability to count votes a scum tell? As town you suddenly can notice votes better? No. It's not a tell at all. There's no way it can even be painted as one. It just doesn't make sense.

To 652, um. What else would she say? If she's a VT who visited fuzzy and thought a watcher had that result on her, what other way can she possibly respond? She's not going to lie. She's not going to ignore it. She's going to be honest and have a mentality of (oh shit, this looks bad). This is Rach we are talking about. That reaction is exactly what he honest reaction looks like. Are you really implying that town should be more worried about a lynch than scum? That she'd be worried to volunteer seemingly incriminating information as scum but would hide it as town? That is the most backwards logic I have ever heard.

Mala, if I'm chainsawing destroyer AND rach, the Mod lied and there are three scum, not two. So there goes that argument right there. Nice use of buzzwords though with that and "deflect". Also, my lack of a read on grim you are referring to is the fact that I called him "town as fuck". Sorry about the lack of a read there. "Town as fuck" is really fencesitty isn't it? No read on wisdom either, right? Oh wait. I called him scum. That's right. Sword is the only player I don't have a strong read on and that's because he replaced Bo, who I'm not quite sure how to read. So your counterpoints of chainsawing and lack of reads are 0 for 2. Let's see what else you have. You disagree with my destroyer read. That's fine. Your opinion is corrupted by the shit that's been spewed in this thread. Well, that or you are the one spewing it. I don't do meta "analysis" by the way. I just take what I remember from past games.

If it comes out that Rach was the only one to visit fuzzy, we'll lynch her. But it's HER CONFIDENCE in that, not mine, that has me so sure she is town. She said someone else visited fuzzy without thinking twice that could be wrong. That's because he died and she visited him as a VT. She wouldn't know someone else visited him if she killed him. It's a genuine confidence that I can't see Rach faking.

I agree with your assessment that Wisdom is rushing to lynch. That's a good distancing comment. Are you willing to bus him today? If so, I'll gladly switch. Otherwise, I want you lynched first.[/quote]

[Grimgroove]

Grim, sorry I was rushing. Made that post on my 15 min break at work. Thought my second paragraph addressed that but looking back I didn't really say all I wanted to about that. Basically, intentional lurking comes with pord dodges, empty promises to catch up, active lurking through throwaway comments or fluff, etc. I don't see that in his posts. Also, any player can be hit with periods of inactivity. It depends on their free time and the pace of the game. I've been the most active player in some games and unable to keep up in others as both alignments. This is also true for most people who have been on site for any somewhat lengthy amount of time. I also don't normally consider lurking a tell without evidence in the player's meta. That or if they beetlejuice but that's another thing entirely.

Why are you only referring to the lurking argument brought up against Miss Destroyer?
What do you think of the scumhunting that's been done by Miss Destroyer? You're saying you don't see fluff, so I assume you see scumhunting. Where? What do you think of it?

I'm gonna need you to explain Rach's confidence that someone else visited Fuzzy if she's scum. Do you think her buddy roleblocked him and she's using watcher results to bus? Because that's the only way that makes sense and even that is a gamble she wouldn't take. There is no way that she, as scum, makes that comment that someone else visited fuzzy without knowing already. I feel like her reaction as scum would be more waiting to see if someone else visited fuzzy. Like she'd be more careful instead of blurting it out like she did.

But I did explain. It's the only possible way out in case she did get caught, and I don't see how "waiting it out" as scum is a superior tactic in any case. About the blurting it out, I also explained. I think she thought she already got caught, so she blurted that out in a moment of despair, where there's no more time nor motive for being careful.

How is an inability to count votes a scum tell? As town you suddenly can notice votes better? No. It's not a tell at all. There's no way it can even be painted as one. It just doesn't make sense.

Well, as opposed to you I think RachMarie can count perfectly well, so I don't believe this act of "oh, I thought I was lynched, so my post-hammer post was genuine" for a second. Acting as if you didn't see a bright orange mod votecount, acting as if you don't know how many votes are on you, that's scummy in my book. Math and reading skills are not alignment indicative, pretending you don't have any is.

To 652, um. What else would she say? If she's a VT who visited fuzzy and thought a watcher had that result on her, what other way can she possibly respond? She's not going to lie. She's not going to ignore it. She's going to be honest and have a mentality of (oh shit, this looks bad). This is Rach we are talking about. That reaction is exactly what he honest reaction looks like.

Are you really implying that town should be more worried about a lynch than scum?

That she'd be worried to volunteer seemingly incriminating information as scum but would hide it as town?

That is the most backwards logic I have ever heard.

The question in bold I don't understand and I don't know where it's coming from.
The answer to the question in italic: yes. I feel I already explained why this isn't backward logic. As town there's no point in bringing forward incriminating material about someone you know is town (yourself). What good does that do? Give me one possible benefit of such a course of action. As scum, there isn't a lot of reason to do that either, aside from WIFOM, where people might think "Well, he mentioned it himself, so I guess it's not really an argument we can use against him anymore...".

*snipping out your thing with Mala*
@Mala: you still did not reply do Egg's comments on you specifically. Why not?

If it comes out that Rach was the only one to visit fuzzy, we'll lynch her. But it's HER CONFIDENCE in that, not mine, that has me so sure she is town. She said someone else visited fuzzy without thinking twice that could be wrong. That's because he died and she visited him as a VT. She wouldn't know someone else visited him if she killed him. It's a genuine confidence that I can't see Rach faking.

We obviously have a very different interpretation of Rach's behavior then. Where you see confidence I see scum twisting and grasping at the last possible straw after a slip. I'm having a hard time interpreting it as confidence given her earlier game behavior, as well as the way this confession bof her fuzzy-visit was evoked.

[Grimgroove]

Sorry, 663 was an unfinished post, didn't realize I posted that. Feel free to ignore the resulting duplicate questions.

[Grimgroove]

See 657.
All you did was attack the attack based on some design flaws (meta, not treating everyone the same,...), but you didn't really defend yourself against the content of the allegations brought against you.

[Grimgroove]

I have to say I'm flabbergasted (I choose my words carefully, though I do not know their spelling).
How is it possible to get such diametrical reads on Rach's latest postings? Whereas I thought this was obvscum, some of you think this is actually conftown. I feel I'm clearly missing something here, so please explain this Rach=town-thing to me step by step and/or show me where I'm wrong.

[Grimgroove]

Ok, still not getting it, help me through this one.

We all know fuzzy got killed.
RachMarie knows this. The watcher knows this. Rach knows the watcher knows this.

What nobody but the watcher knows is whether or not he used his ability.

The way I see it now: RachMarie is in a position where she doesn't know what the watcher did, but fears this watcher is on the wagon because of her visit to fuzzybutternut. This is not a certainty, she could still assume the watcher did not use his ability, but by looking at her defense it's clear what her assumption is: the watcher caught her at fuzzy's.

In this case (RachMArie assumes the watcher used his ability), there is only fooling the watcher in case someone else visited fuzzybutternut, the argument which I call "the last possible straw", and which you guys call confidence. If the watcher has seen only her at fuzzy's, she had no case to begin with so it would be a lost cause anyway, so she'd have no other choice but to try this route. Given that the global watcher did not come out and expose his identity, clearly hints to this uncertainty that RachMarie could well be aware of: If the watcher had only seen RachMarie at fuzzy's, there'd be no reason at all to withhold this information: the watcher used his one-shot and has crucial information. The fact this didn't happen allows RachMArie to know that either the watcher didn't use his ability, or saw her at fuzzy's along with at least one other person. This makes "the last possible straw" still a very acceptable and riskless move.

How is RachMarie taking a gamble in any way in this scenario? How is she taking a risk? Add to that there's still the possibility the watcher didn't use his ability at all, not being able to deny/confirm anything being said here.

Yes, I'm sorry, I really don't see it.

Aside from this: what do you think about the post-supposed-hammer post by RachMarie? Do you really believe that she thought she got lynched?

[Grimgroove]

I'll have to sleep on it, can't seem to wrap my head around this issue in my current state.

[Grimgroove]

I agree with the plan, let's get to it asap.

@RachMarie: Sorry to hear about your impediments, I didn't mean any disrespect but I assumed knowing how many votes are behind your own name is just one of those things players should always be aware of.

[Grimgroove]

I would think that if Rachel was the only person to visit Fuzzy, then the Watcher would have called her out on it..
There’s really no reason not to unless multiple people visited Fuzzy, or the watcher was blocked…
Rach is smart enough to know this, and could have easily gambitted…
If you are scum, saying that some else had to have visited Fuzzy as well has a much better chance of working against the watcher than lying outright…

This is what I've been trying to say all along by the way. Thank you for explaining it better.

[Grimgroove]

Grim have you ever even read any of my scum games? I would start with the one that was the predecessor to this game where I was scum with tne and I got caught making the NK on Syr who was the global watcher.

Could you link me to it please?
How could you get caught killing the global watcher though? If he's dead he's no longer there to catch you.

[Grimgroove]

So, how do we do this? In the order of the participants list?

[Grimgroove]

Ok, understanding this popcorn business now.
Doesn't mean all other forms of discussion should die down now, does it? In attendance of Miss Destroyer:
@Wisdom and Egg: Do you still have such a firm townread on RachMarie after sword_of_omens explanation that exceeded mine in clarity?
@RachMarie: Not a big fan of meta-arguments, but thank you for the reference.

Also, just throwing it out there, because I haven't thought it through myself yet as there are probably ways around it that I don't see, but wouldn't it also be wise to somehow coordinate our visits for the upcoming night as well, for instance all VTs visiting the same person? That would constrict the scum in their actions severely, because if they'd visit someone else they'd stand out in the Watcher's results. But it would at the same time put the person we agree on visiting in a possible position of danger, so I guess it should be one of the general scumreads.

[Grimgroove]

@Wisdom and Egg: Do you still have such a firm townread on RachMarie after sword_of_omens explanation that exceeded mine in clarity?

The way sword put it makes more sense, but I still don't see Rach taking this risk. Maybe I'm just underestimating her.

But that's the whole point: there is no risk.

[Grimgroove]

Am I going to get picked last again? This is like gym class all over again

[Grimgroove]

I visited Horus.

I guess Egg can't answer in Horus' place so I think this concludes this popcorn round? Unless Egg got this info from the mod.

[Grimgroove]

If Egg didn't get the info I think it's only fair if the mod would give it to him in any case. So far RachMarie is the only one claiming to have visited fuzzy.

[Grimgroove]

How could he PoE before anyone said where they have been? That argument doesn't make much sense.

I think it's clear: either RachMarie is lying, either Egg was the scum who killed fuzzy (but this seems unlikely given his defense of (RachMarie) or someone else lied during the popcorn-round.

Now I guess it's up to the global watcher to clarifiy this situation (if he can), and if not, we're basically back to where we started.

[Grimgroove]

For me it confirms what I thought about RachMarie earlier, scum grasping at last straws by falsely claiming someone else visited fuzzy as well.
Obviously I wouldn't put it past scum to lie, it's what they do, but taking everything account I think RachMarie is our (or at least my) strongest scumlead.

We still have a bit less than four days of course. Going to re-read some stuff during that time.

[Grimgroove]

I didn't put that much thought in my nightly visit. I got back from a V/LA when the day was over and picked Horus because he stood out for me the most. Not because he was the scummiest, but because he felt the "most mysterious" to me. Somehow it was the most intuitive thing to do to visit the person that looks the hardest to read.

[Grimgroove]

@Egg: see 665, I'd like your thoughts on that. You replied only to a portion of it due to a technical error from my side and time-constraint on yours (cfr. 664 and my own unfinished posts before that)

[Grimgroove]

I was worried that somehow the watcher would inadvertently out himself or herself.

And I ask: why?

If the watcher outs himself it means he already used his shot and has got some information to share. Why wait with this? He already used his shot in this case, essentailly making him a VT with 1/ a claim making him conftown, 2/ information possibly clarifying things. So why worry about him outing himself in this case?
If he didn't use his shot, he'd have no reason to out himself anyway and there's no reason to worry either.

This is why I find your story and motives very difficult to believe. I think the only thing that had you worried was that you were caught, culminating in a stream of events described in 642.

[Grimgroove]

I completely agree with Wisdom's 750.
I don't see all that much of scumhunting from Miss Destroyer. There have been no cases to speak of. Her last vote on Wisdom actually reminded me of what I didn't like about her vote on Zionite (and also don't like about het vote on Wisdom): instead of compiling a case, she thinks one reason is enough for a vote. In Zionite's case his supposed connection with Malakittens was enough for an epiphany, now in Wisdom's case his shift of opinion on RachMArie is enough reason for completely nullifying the townread she's been having on him pretty much all game long. Feels like a certain "laziness" to me when it comes to actual scumhunting, and like windowdressing around votes that aren't as tought out as she tries to make them out to be.

I'm not going to get too involved in the meta-discussion, because I realized it's close to pointless (and time-intensive) to try to meta people you haven't played with yet. It's something that buildsup naturally through playing games together, not re-reading old games you weren't in (at least for me). Trying to find differences in playstyle between past games is like trying to find Waldo without actually knowing for sure he's present in the picture. So don't expect any input from me on that front.

I'll compile cases on the three "usual suspects" of this game (RachMarie, Miss Destroyer, Malakittens) later today, see where that gets me.

[Grimgroove]

You're not all waiting for me are you? Didn't get around to do it yesterday, trying to get it done today.

By the way, the deadline is in a little more than one day. Quite surprising to see activity drop so close to the deadline.

[Grimgroove]

Who are you asking? And why are you asking?
If you think Rach is probably a better lynch, I'm sure you know what to do with your vote.
My vote is in all probablility going to go to RachMarie. I just want to compile the three cases for future reference before this day ends.

[Grimgroove]

Ok, in order to make this easier for myself, I just went back to my own reads lists and extracted my reads on RachMarie, Malakittens and Miss Destroyer from there, adding some elements from the last couple of pages.

The reason why I single out these three is because, 1. they are my three main scumreads right now, 2. all three of them feature on plenty of people's scumlists, making this a possibly relevant exercise for everyone.

The first conclusion I can already make for myself: despite my reads on all three of them being quite strong, I'm obviously wrong in the case of (at least) one of them, since there's only two scumheads in this game and not three. This, coupled with the fact that all three of them at some stage of the game have been pressuring each other (RachMarie on Miss D, Malakittens on RachMarie, Miss D on Malakittens) in such a way it's difficult to imagine either duo within those three being in a scumteam together, leaves me a bit uneasy, just like how it did when I removed my vote from Miss Destroyer earlier during this stage. I can't shake the uneasy feeling there might be scum outside of these three, rubbing himself in the hands over this mess I'm about to post.

Be that as it may, I'll already let the cat out of the bag when it comes to my vote:

VOTE: RachMarie

and will try to explain why this is my choice.

I have the impression not much further info is coming our way during this stage, so for the sake of clarity and road to consensus (cfr. Wisdom's comment) I want to insist on this vote being final. The global watcher coming out of the closet at this stage is becoming ever more unlikely, and I do not see anything else that could dramatically sway my opinion in another direction.

So now for the cases, or at least an overview thereof (some of it are copy pastes from my earlier reads):

RachMarie

- I don't like RachMarie defensiveness in post 221
- Her reads stay on the surface, she does not express clear thoughts on anyone (a lot of on the fence sitting), let alone reasons for these thoughts. Has anyone seen any scumhunting from her side? She has voted the grand total of 1 time (RVS) during D1.
- In her "defense" against earlier call-outs she has referred more to other games than this one, which I don't feel is a good sign. She's taking her discussion with Wisdom to the emotional plane for no reason at all, so I'm guessing it's an appeal to emtion, and scummy (eg. 320 and 328.
- I didn't like her post443. I don't like all the fuss she's making about the hammer.
I also don't like the repetition of RachMarie thinking Zionite is the correct lynch. There's no objective reason for this kind of conviction, so I'm assuming this conviction was an act. A scummy act at that. Also check her D1 ISO. I think there may have been one subtle reference to Zionite possibly being scum, yet after the hammer she suddenly acts as if she's convinced that he is. Simply does not add up. She even repeats this conviction in 502.
- RachMarie, who made an enormous fuss about the hammer for minor reasons, a fuss she later dropped with surprising ease considering the importance she seemed to grant to this hammer-business. She then proceeds to go after Miss Destroyer, mainly based on meta and lurking. While I agree that Miss Destroyer's slot is not without its severe question marks, I don't find RachMarie's role in this hunt very "kosher". As it happens I happen to have encountered RachMarie in other games (an ongoing one and a cancelled one), and if anyone should know "activity" can fluctuate regardless of alignment, it's her. She refers to RL-situations quite often herself to explain a certain lack of activity.
- Her (apparently lone) visit to fuzzybutternut.
- The way this visit to fuzzybutternut was admitted to, and the circumstances in which it happened. I think my theory on that is clear by now.
- The only thing that throws me off a bit, I have to admit, is her supposed "twilight"-post (post 646) where she supposedly believed to have been hammered. I think it's a very silly thing to do as scum, but then again, scum could keep up the lying even after having been hammered just to mess with us, or she never thought she got lynched in the first place. I believe it to be the latter, as she asked for clarifications on the vote situation in 639 and I gave her this clarification in 640. If she read that she'd have no reason to think she was lynched after my vote at all.

All of this together, but especially the last points, make me the most confident in a lynch on RachMarie.

Of course there are still things to be said about the other two, but all in all I don't find those as compelling as the points above. They are however to be remembered for future reference I think.

Miss Destroyer

- I didn't have a read on her by page 15, making her a non-presence during the first half of this game. Considering Mrs MArangal and Human Destroyer are both active players, it is worrysome to say the least that their hydra, for a long time,e xcelled in lurking.
- Despite of what Egg said, I don't see any real scumhunting from Miss Destroyer. The example that was shown (the associative tell-epiphany) cana rguably be called scumhunting. I'd call it oil on an already burning fire. If there's any scumhunting at all, it's usually limited to a "one reason - one vote"-pattern, which is rather lazy I'd say. One reason is rarely enough to vote someone (unless it's something really compelling like a scumslip or a confcop-check), and definitely not the kind of reasons Miss Destroyer put forward with some of her votes (Zionite and her last vote on Wisdom in particular).
- Page 23, claiming, soft-claiming PR, claiming VT...
- The main thing that irks me is that the scumhunting limited, and the little that does happen is all through supposed associative tells, first Zionite-Malakittens, then RachMarie-Malakittens. I don't think associative tells provide a good basis for a scumhunt, I think it's quite easy to see an association between any two people one way or another if you just try hard enough. There's not much being said about "inherent" scumminess of people.
- Also too much is blamed on the both of them not agreeing with each other. Inconsistent reads, strange word choices, hell, even the latest bout of inactivity was blamed on Mara by HD for her not warning him. It feels very much like a play to me. I assume HD has independent access to the Miss Destroyer account, why would he need Mara to inform him of this new daystart?

Malakittens

- I don't like Mala"s post 122 at all. She admits to the argument not being strong, yet she finds it enough to keep Zionite at L-1. Granted, maybe it's true that at that stage of the game you don't have any better arguments than that, but then why keep the L-1 situation intact at that stage of the game then?
I know this dates from a long time ago, but I always thought that keeping someone at an L-1 with reasons you don't find very convincing yourself is very telling when it comes to the way you approach this game. The impression of attitude that follows from this 122 is that she doesn't care much about who gets lynched and for which reasons. I know it's only one post, but I found it so striking I'm inclined to calling it a scumslip.
- I don't like her 395 either. I don't like the way Malakittens is trying to sound holier than the pope with this PR-fishing-business, and not only because there was no PR-fishing going on. Someone just mentioned "PR3, this does not make it the same as fishing. Making a fuss over nothing like that doesn't seem pro-town to me, but more like an act to sound like a good boy telling everyone to be good but stealing candy himself later that day.
- I don't like the way she responded to Egg's case against her. She never really adressed what he said, but just attacked formalities and nitpicked on some circumstancial remarks. Just the way a lawyer would do it when he knows his client is guilty.
Egg actually summarized it pretty well in this quote:

Quote from Egg

Now look at Mala. Sure, she's posting. She's active. But she's doing what is popular and won't stick out. Even from the very beginning of the game. She "likes" my slot at the very beginning. At that point, so does everyone else. And her language doesn't suggest a firm stance that will stick. She votes zionite early on and gives reasons, but the vote is because he's willing to unvote for a "compromise". Go back and look at zi's post. It's not that serious. Then she goes after the first thing to stick out. Bo's L-1 vote. Come on, he obviously just wanted reactions. Mala is smart enough to know this. She's also smart enough to know that it could gain traction if she shows issue with it. Same idea as the Bo thing when she points out that fuzzy seems "different". More active and giving opinions. Yes, he's gaining experience. That's why he's different. Should be easy to pick up when you've played a newbie game or two and can spot a newbie from a player who is transitioning out of newbiness. Then there's the thing where she votes miss destroyer for something dumb and then when it's pointed out that it's dumb, "oops, I misread". She's just muddying the waters wherever she can on anyone that might be a lynch target. This isn't genuine scumhunting. And this is a player who knows how to scumhunt so I don't buy this play at all.

- She's very much on the fence about RachMarie, which, again given recent developments, makes her my second scumread now despite her stronger start in day 2. Het post 575 is extremely wiffywoffy, which I know is not a word but still aptly describes how I feel about it. Regardless of this, Mala does have her vote on RachMarie even before this wishiwoshy post, which brings me back to the first point I have against Malakittens.



Oh and on one last note: please come back everyone. I don't know where you all ran off to, but with one day to go for lynch, the last thing we need is flakers. Please feel free to add to these reads or to counter anything said in them in a way that makes it as readable and concise as possible for everyone.

[Grimgroove]

RachMarie is now at L-1

[Grimgroove]

But check 640. She posted after that and before my supposed hammer, so she saw the confirmation that she was not at L-1. This actually only makes me more certain than anything, because her thinking she was lynched is a lie, simple as that. The response to her own question was right there.

[Grimgroove]

Hmpf, I don't know, I'd see her capable of lying about this, but I'm assuming you know her better.

I guess my vote is not as final as I thought, but I'm following my own gut for the moment and will leave my vote where it is until I hear further objections.

[Grimgroove]

But in a case where one asked the question herself, surely she'd be interested enuogh in actually reading the answer. 640 wasn't that long.

[Grimgroove]

But that's a comment on how you made it sound like she was at L-1 (tbh I don't think you did).
First of all: when wondering if you're at L-1, it suffices to look at the mod votecounts in bright orange. There was a count in 631 on the same page of this whole discussion.
Even assuming she missed that, somehow, surely my reassurance that she's not at L-1 in 640 should have convinced her of this?
Her 641 is difficult to read when it comes to her being convinced or not, but I find the whole thing too bizarre to actually believe there's nothing fishy behind it.

[Grimgroove]

Also she began typing 646 before you posted 645, as proven by her answer to 645 in 647.

Actually I missed this bit, but this proves my gut is right further.
There are 7 minutes between my L-1 warning and her twilight post. I don't know how long it takes people to post, but surely an "offhand" twilight post like the one she made shouldn't take that long?
And even if it did, before one posts there is a notification that someone else posted in the meantime. She clearly already saw my "hammervote", so the only thing she saw in that notification was my L-1 warning, bloded and neatly packed into one short and easily readable sentence put in bold.

Don't you think RachMarie, conventiently I might add, missed a whole lot of things here?

[Grimgroove]

I'm having a déjà vu, this feels like the start of page 28 all over again. Damn this game is confusing.

I can't say you've convinced me this time either. There's just too many things that would have to have been missed or misunderstood by RachMarie to make it even remotely believable that her twilight-post was not an act.

[Grimgroove]

Ok, just arrived at work, so back. Going to catch up on the latest developments.

[Grimgroove]

Grim jeez I am not some master manipulator. In general when I play scumz I try to lie as little as possible. I was telling the truth. Even with the page zoomed in like 500 % to help me see, that orange barely shows up on sepia background that the site uses.

Well, if that is the case this adresses one of the things you missed, the votecount. But what about my statement you were not at L-1? What about my bolded warning that my vote put you at L-1?
You say you're not a manipulator, but obviously that's also something a manipulator would say, so I'm sure you understand how this doesn't convince me.

I'm going to get into the other discussions after I see this post and see what is up there, but from what I've seen I also don't like your role in these discussions.

You're at L-1 right now Rach.

And what do you do? You simply state you can't see orange very well, and then join the discussion by talking about Thor and about Absta and about Bacde... who the hell are these people? Why do they matter here? You're looking active, hoping the heat on you will die down, but I for one hope it doesn't until you properly explain how it is possible you think you were at L-1 despite all the signs pointing to the contrary. I really don't understand why you're being given so much slack.

And if it were the only thing against you, but no, in fact, this "twilight-post" is the only thing you have going for you. But what about the other points raised against you? What about this visit to fuzzy? What about the strange way this all came into the light?
I'm not going to talk percentages here of how certain I am, but I'll say I'm flabbergasted (yes, again) to see such a lack of consensus on your case.

[Grimgroove]

To make one thing clear from the start:
I'm not going to vote Wisdom. I don't like the cases brought against him, and I don't like the people doing it.
I could change my vote to Miss Destroyer, because of reasons stated earlier, but only if a RachMarie-lynch is completely out of the question and if a Miss Destroyer-lynch is somehow viable. That is to say, I prefer a lynch on RachMarie over a lynch on Miss Destroyer, but I prefer a lynch on Miss Destroyer over a no-lynch.

I'm also not liking Egg anymore.
He puts a vote on Wisdom, adding "let's make this happen", suggesting he has very compelling arguments against Wisdom. I have ISO'd Egg, and I don't see any of those arguments.

I see disagreement with Wisdom over how to read RachMarie and Miss Destroyer. This is not really an argument, and Egg acknowledges this because he doesn't consider me scum, despite a similar disagreement.
I see that Egg is trying to get a read on a possible Malakittens-Wisdom connection. This is an associative tell which I don't really consider an argument, as I've stated earlier.
The only other thing I found is this:

Wisdom seems to want the day to progress and see blood. I feel like he'd be ok with any lynch that isn't him. That's scum thinking.

This is obviously not true, otherwise RachMarie would have been lynched by now.

Egg definitely has got some explaining to do when it comes to this vote on Wisdom, hopefully before this Day ends.

Going to look more deeply into the back and forth between Miss Destroyer and Wisdom now.

[Grimgroove]

Not sure what to make of that hammer, but it certainly came as a surprise given the discussion that was going on.
Let's await the flip and go from there next.

[Grimgroove]

Going to go over the entire topic again, at times of LyLo I think it's something everyone should be doing. I'm not sure how useful my 764 still is considering the circumstances. After RachMarie's flip I personally have the feeling I have to start all over again. My townread on Wisdom has solidified though. I think that as scum, one would more easily have hopped on the RachMarie-wagon. Not only did he not hop on it, he also tried people to move away from it. I don't say this to wash my own hands in innocence, I realize I was wrong, but I still think there were plenty of elements pointing towards RachMarie being scum and I can't imagine scum not taking advantage of that. In this sense my attention is directed to Malakittens and Miss Destroyer who were both also on the wagon.

Egg, there's still an open question for you in 856.

Wisdom, I realize Miss Destroyer is currently still your preferred lynchee, but I don't think tunneling will do us any good at this stage of the game. I'd definitely stay careful when it comes to placing that vote. At the same time I think that vote shows the sincerity of Wisdom's conviction that Miss Destroyer is scum, something that can't be easily faked by scum, pointing yet again to Wisdom being town. Could you maybe provide a reads list of all players and see where we go from there?

Miss Destroyer: Could you go over your thought processes in more detail when you were placing that hammer? It seemed very sudden to me.

Malakittens: You were on the RachMarie train from the very beginning. Did you ever consider moving your vote away from there? If so, when and why? If not: What was so compelling for you that made you decide to leave it there?

I don't mean to be hypocritical in asking people about their motivations for voting RachMarie, so obviously I'm open for any questions to my role in her lynch.

[Grimgroove]

See the thing we don't know if Horus sent in an action prior to flaking. If he didn't then its likely randomized which could be likely Horus/egg visited Fuzzy due to that.

What I don't get is how Egg defended Rach hardcore. If Egg was scum and did that it would be a ballsy move and we would be moving into the 'too bold to be scum' category type gambit.

There's the chance that Egg could be town and went and visited Fuzzy, but it wouldn't make sense to clear Rach off that because he would know that PoE he could have been the only one other than Rach who visited Fuzzy.

So
Let's think of this scenario (disclaimer: it's only my speculation):
Mala-Horus
Horus killed fuzzy, and Mala blocked DBK.
Until the above post, everyone has claimed their targets, with Mala having claimed that she did visit DBK.
And in this post, Mala is trying to give reasons for Egg being town and visiting Fuzzy. Because she knows that Horus/Egg visited Fuzzy, and that he will have to claim it.
Ofc Egg realized that the DBK block was a good call, as the watcher would have outted now after all this discussion. So he lied about who he visited.

Does this make sense, or am I conf-biasing?

The main problem is I see no reason why Egg would realise the DBK-block was a good call, and why would Malakittens fail to see that?

I also don't see this as a defense for Egg visiting Fuzzy (it's quite on the fence in this regard, both the "Egg visited Fuzzy as scum" and the "Egg visitied Fuzzy as town"-scenarios aren't really worked out and inconclusive. Scenario 1 is seemingly ruled out because of the ballsyness, scenario 2 is seemingly ruled out because of the little sense it would make.), but more as a thought process trying to make sense of why Egg would defend RachMarie like that.

I'm still in the process of re-reading everthing so not ready for conclusions yet. Going to check up on the interactions in the Miss Destroyer-Malakittens-Egg-triangle.

[Grimgroove]

@Wisdom:
Looking at just that conversation, I guess it could make sense, though I personally don't consider "pre-emptively defending your scumbuddy" a very common, nor smart, tactic.

Also hold into account Egg has had Malakittens as his main scumread pretty much since he replaced in, making that connection less probable in my eyes. One could assume bussing, but if that's the case Egg would've taken it quite far I think.

His vote right now, this early in LyLo, I'm not liking at all.

My re-reading is taking longer than expected, work is getting a bit in the way.

[Grimgroove]

Do you think that in the stage of a LyLo scum would prefer building up towncred, or just go for the win?
Somehow I don't believe Egg and Malakittens are in the same team simply because I don't see why Egg would opt for lynching his partner, while he might as well try to lynch somebody else and get an insta-win with both scum intact. He was pushing on you during the end of Day 2, why wouldn't he just try to continue doing that and try to go for the win?

Given this assumption:
What I see now (still without having re-read everything) is two possibilities:

* Malakittens is indeed scum, along with Miss Destroyer or Wisdom, the latter of which seems less likely because of how town he seems to me. Egg is on to Malakittens and votes her.
* Malakittens is not scum, and Egg is, basing himself on his earlier behavior/cases against Mala, going for a final push on the road to scum victory, along with his partner Miss Destroyer or Wisdom, and votes her.

I think the second option is more likely. An early vote in LyLo as town is just plain risky, no matter how certain you feel you are. If Egg is town and thinks Malakittens is scum, I still think he should wait with voting rashly like that. He doesn't seem concerned with quickhammering scum (which, in LyLo, is a distinct possibility), and that in itself I find worrysome.

As given the above, I find it very likely Miss Destroyer is scum in both scenarios, I'll be focussing on her interactions with people to see if I can see anything there in a first stage.

[Grimgroove]

What the hell is up with all these votes? What is the sudden rush? At least one of these votes is mighty dangerous and could lose us the game, if not both. Please remove it ASAP.

@Wisdom: I don't really believe DBK was blocked night 1. That would mean that already on N1, scum would know both power roles, going for a kill and a roleblock without even bothering to rolecop someone.
Also, the blocker has as much reasons to lie about who he visited as the killer does, because the watcher would also see who didn't visit anyone that night, and thus who was blocked. I don't think the assumption that one of the scum didn't lie about who they visited should be taken for granted.

Miss Destroyer's vote has gotten me convinced she's scum, what an awful tunnel at this stage of the game.

Today I'll be able to re-read in depth, alone in the office, definitely going for checking the interactions with Miss Destroyer thing now.

[Grimgroove]

LEt's do it then.

VOTE: Wisdom

[Grimgroove]

Come on Mala! Now!

[Grimgroove]

*high fives Mala*

Good game! Quicklynching may not be the prettiest win but it counts

Thanks Wisdom!

[Grimgroove]

I also stayed up for your timezone Grim. I'm glad you came when you did. I was starting to get a bit sleepy. I had well timing with my League game ending when it did.

That's some commitment right there! I feared I missed you by thirty minutes

[Grimgroove]

fuzzybutternut ending up being the doctor was lucky, I hadn't seen any crumbs or anything special about him. Malakittens did kind of suspect him being a PR though, me thinking he could be a dangerous player and that combined with the idea that other people would visit him as well (thank you RachMarie) made him the ideal target. During N1 I thought about RachMarie or Horus being PR's, being wrong in both instances.

After Day 2 it was easier to find the global watcher, with everyone claming and all. This is why I faked to be doubting in 633, because we just needed one more person to claim in order to do the block+kill thing. I did make it unnecessarily difficult by becoming paranoid and thinking Miss Destroyer might have fakeclaimed.

RachMarie's confused behavior and Miss Destroyer and Wisdom being in each others hairs did help the scum-cause. As well as Zionite's lynch, which as town I would have fought against more heavily. Probably it was because of my pre-knowledge, but I really thought Zionite was obvtowning during D1.

Sorry about that lynch RachMarie, I realized at the time they were honest mistakes, but I had to make it look like they weren't as much as possible so that my vote on you would not be considered suspicious and so that other people would agree.

Egg being on Malakittens tail so soon after he got in worried me, as well as his diffusion of both the RachMarie and Miss Destroyer wagons. They would have been easier lynches if he hadn't shown up, so props for that to Egg.
Wisdom played really well as well I think, in the end he was completely on to Malakittens and the way he dropped the tunnel on Miss Destroyer was impressive. But he gave me too much confidence that if I were town I would have questioned. Me repeating that I considered him town was my idea of buddying to him, I was kind of fearing someone would notice but nobody did.
I also really liked how Malakittens always stayed very calm under considerable pressure, not flinching. My scumgame relied on avoiding such pressure, because I think I'd crack much more easily. That's why I wanted to win this during D3, because an obvtown in a 3 player LyLo suddenly becomes more of obvscum for simply still being alive.

These are just specific mentions, I thought everyone played a good and active game. Really enjoyed it!
Thanks for modding and setting this up Jason! Really liked the set-up.

[Grimgroove]

Grimgroove played a decent scum game, although he didn't seem to do as much as the other players.

Wha-?
Well, not much point in arguing about that, but I do kind of wonder what makes you say that? I don't think I've been lurking in any way or something.

And yeah, til very close to the N1 deadline we were actually planning to no kill precisely because we assumed the Global Watcher would waste their shot, but then through further cyclical reasoning we got to thinking the GW might also think we would be waiting, and thus wait himself, and thus we went for the kill anyway.
Guesswork, but it worked out

[Grimgroove]

I was already thinking about who to kill if Malakittens would end up being lynched, but a lot would have depended on how D3 played out (Miss D maintaining her tunnel, Wisdom keeping the assumption of Egg bussing his partner, your reads on me, etc.), so I guess we'll never know. Let's just say I'm glad it played out like it did