Newbie 991 - Newbieville! (Game Over)

[Thor665]

tl:dr - this entire commentary block is all about introducing myself as the IC, blathering about my duties, and offering a basic idea of some of the strategy of the RVS. If this interests you, please read on (especially if this is your first time playing here) if not, feel free to skip - my second post will be game oriented.

===========================================================================================

Greetings,

I am Thor665 and I am the Inexperienced Challenged (IC) of this group. What this means is first and foremost - I am here to play this game with you in a way that will show you what it is like to play on Mafiascum.net. I am here to win and should be treated as such.

My goals and the rules governing my actions are covered in this handy article: Being a good IC
That article is part of our amazing MafiaWiki System. I *highly* recommend this system as a good way to get your feet wet and to find out what a lot of the common abbreviations mean. There is a lot of play strategy discussed in there too. A lot of players consider that advice almost all outdated now. I don't recommend trying to run verbatim, but a lot of the basic advice is very good to at least be aware of as it can help you avoid blatant pitfalls as you become familiar with the game play here.

Now, as an IC I am here as a resource for you to ask questions of concerning game theory. I WILL NOT lie about game theory answers and will answer them to the best of my ability. I will also offer you the following quick pieces of advice;

1. Don't self vote. (there are really no points during a Newbie setup where this is a good idea, please avoid it however logical you may think it is)
2. This site frowns on lying if you are a vanilla town role. I strongly advise against lying if you have this role as usually it will only hurt town in the end.
3. It's a game - have fun.

We are now starting what is known as the RVS (random voting stage). We are in a low information period because scum already know who they are, and even have a rough idea of what power roles may or may not be in the game. It is now town's job to root them out. Because the start of the game leaves us with no information to start with generally the way to start is to begin voting and questioning other people to see i you can catch them doing something scummy (scummy actions being acts that a scum player is more likely to do then a town player).

[Thor665]

Vote: scapegoat

He seems very suspicious for some reason. Also, bandwagon for the win!

Strategy Note: I did the above vote not because I actually believe that scapegoat is any more or less likely to be scum, but rather because bandwagons get conversation started and conversation tends to end the RVS sooner rather then later - and I hate RVS.

Okay, so something else I'm working on in my new style of play= Questioning!
1. Which is the best Mafia gambit for scum: Claim Doc or Cop in a standard set up at a time when they are in the hotseat
2. What do you think of the consistency of oatmeal
3. What are your thoughts on sharing the scum buddy Quick Topic with the entire MS community at end game?

1. Depends on what scum already know about the setup. Each claim has a different effect on the game depending on other roles that are out there, how the scum's actions have been thus far, and what point in the game it is.

2. This question won't help anyone learn anything about whether I am scum or town.

3. This question won't help anyone learn anything about whether I am scum or town.

[Thor665]

tl:dr

I think it's odd that reluctant calls one player scummy and puts out an FoS while random voting a different player.
I answer Mrs Sak's questions and concerns.

====================================================================================================================

Are there ever any useful answers on day 1? You can never assume anything is truthful and the town doesn't have anything to go on expect for hunches related to a players statements, demeanor, defensiveness, activity, etc... It might just be my naivety but I think the 3 questions are as good a way as any to get things rolling.

Yes, otherwise Day 2 would be identical to Day 1. Reactions of players plus information of flips begins to provide town the framework for seeing the bigger picture.

While I appreciate your humor (especially post #3) and your argument I find your unwillingness to offer any alternative scum hunting mechanism as scummy

FoS: Aranneas

.

Unvote: scapegoat
Vote: reluctant

You voted for Anton "just to be different" which suggests you had no real reason to vote for him.
You then actually pointed out things that Aranneas said that you called scummy, but only chose to FoS him. Why wouldn't you vote someone who has done something scummy? Do you consider Anton still more likely to be scum then Aranneas? If yes, why? If no, why are you still voting Anton?

Sry, thought I sent the confirmation pm yesterday but I guess I didn't.

Question:
1.The players chosen by the cop/ doc find out that they were pinged/ guarded during the night ?
2. Since players cannot pm each other, the cop can't pm the pinged players either? So basically, only the mafia can get in contact with each other but it's forbidden for the townies to form an alliance outside of the thread- which means any townie alliance will be known by the mafia.
3. Do we find out the role of the dead players at the start of the next day ?

Also, although I see what you guys are saying here when you're randmly voting against each other, the probability that today's lynch would kill a scum is very low. Looking at how the roles and abilities are distributed, I say the townies are at a huge disadvantage even withour a random townie kill. Just saying.
Oh, and about the reactions that you might be able to get from people. I might be wrong but forcing players to give reasons of why they shouldn't be lynched might make some give out their role (aka the doc, cop etc), which leads to certain mafia win.

I will note that normally I might have voted you simply because the entirety of your post did nothing to scumhunt or help town. But I like my reluctant vote and this being a Newbie game I do have to play slightly modified from normal. I certainly encourage you to try a random vote and/or some probing questions at someone. There are lots of different scumhunting methods but they all rely on getting some sort of reaction out of other players, and you need to start doing that to get your scum reads on people.

1. No.
2. Yes, all town alliances will be formed in thread and Mafia will be able to read of them.
3. When we lynch someone we get their flip (role reveal) at the end of Day. The scum kills are revealed with flip at the start of day.

RE: low chance of scum lynch

- It is less likely that we lynch scum today then town (even random odds work out to basically only 25% chance we lynch scum), but we still need to lynch because otherwise we have a 0% chance to lynch scum.

RE: Town at disadvantage

- I think the win ratio is that scum win roughly 55-57% of games on site. They have the advantage, but it is hardly overwhelming.

RE: Giving out roles

- Town win is not based on the power roles, this is a *very* important concept to get in your head. Town win is about being smart and being able to constantly assess new information. It is the heart of the fun of the game that one side should feel disadvantaged. Trust me, if we lynch scum today then suddenly scum will be the one feeling helpless and with no chance of winning - the two sides are pretty well balanced in the Newbie setup.

[Thor665]

Also it looks like rvs is over. Unvote: scapegoat

If RVS is over (for you) then that means you believe that you can start putting out serious votes.

I read your post twice. Didn't see any serious votes...
Didn't see any scumhunting on anyone...

Wat up wit dat?

[Thor665]

Do you think I'm trying to bait you? If you believe this then theoretically you see my play in a negative light and should react as such. If you don't, then why bring it up?

If you don't have any particular strong reads why not bandwagon on something? RVS is a subjective thing, and until you personally leave it by making your own first serious post it's more helpful to town to have you voting in some way to at least generate more content rather then unvoting and waiting for some mystical insight. (basically if you're not actively doing something to create insights into players I fail to see what you're waiting and hoping for). At the very least, since you see my reluctant vote as serious - why not react to it? Do you think it makes sense or not. Would you support a reluctant lynch? Et al.

[Thor665]

While you never advocated a quick lynch I felt as though declaring a premature end to RVS (before everyone had even posted!?) was headed in that direction. Maybe it was an observation more than a declaration? I'm not sure, but in either case it rubbed me the wrong way and gave me a bad feeling, which I stand by.

First off, the length of the RVS is subjective. Someone saying it is over has no actual control on the RVS being over for anybody. It also seems a bit of a logical leap to translate someone saying the RVS is over to someone wanting a quicklynch.

Certain mafia win, however? I disagree, strongly.

yes, certain mafia win. unless you're talking about pure luck.

So you actually think 1/4 of all newbie games equals near certain mafia win?
I presume you must believe the same in a doc only build, since the doc is a weak as sin role and is basically as useful in finding scum as a vanilla townie. So you believe 50% of all Newbie games end in near certain scum victory?

The numbers do not support your belief. As I said, scum win over 50% of games, but it is not a runaway margin.

information always beats numbers. that's first rule.

Information is not an effect found only in power roles. That's the second rule.

I believe you are mistaking when you think that the scums have a playing pattern; there is no such thing.

If you believe this then 100% of all votes should just be done via coin flips or dice, and this game would only be about PR actions and doing random rolls to determine who to lynch each turn. Why would you play a game where you believe your actions are so meaningless? Why are you bothering to present any thoughts at all if you believe this?

okay, I might be getting what you're saying tho. correct me if wrong: you want to lynch someone today because else there's a 0% chance of killing a scum because no one would get lynched? is that it? well then, I want to remind you that it also means 0% chance of not killing a townie. and since statistically it is proven that it's more likely to kill a townie rather then a mafia, I rest my case.

Simply because we are more likely to lynch town does not mean we shouldn't lynch in the hope of lynching mafia. The conclusion does not draw from the evidence you presented. I've played as cop, and been nightkilled Night 1 before I could investigate anyone, and town has won. I've played as vanilla town in a game with no cop and a Doc who died without protecting anyone and town won. I've played as scum in a game where every single town player was a PR and scum won.

Trust me, the most powerful pro town powers are, by far, the powers that vanilla townies have. The vote to lynch, and the application of brain power.

Town has to lynch, by definition, to win the game. Scum can only be killed in a Newbie setup via a lynch action. If we never lynch, scum will never die. We have no assurances of the PRs (if there even are any) magically swooping in to save us, so again, we must try to lynch scum.

This is the advantage of the numbers game. Town can afford to lynch three times and only needs to be correct once. That gives us 3 shots to hit scum, which is actually pretty good odds. Yes, if we don't lynch we have 0% chance of killing town and 0% chance of killing scum. But where exactly will that get us? No lynching has some strategic advantages, but not on Day 1 in this setup.

[Thor665]

@ scapegoat OMGUS is often considered scummy around here. I'm fairly indifferent on it as a tell, but I am surprised that it's all you could find to target Aranneas about.

What is your read on willows_weep?

[Thor665]

I'll also add, for the newbies, that Coach Travis just gave us an example of an excellent post. He's commenting on multiple players, he's letting us know what he's thinking, and he's scumhunting via the addition of a vote (he could have also asked questions or done some other scumhunting thing, of course). It's a pretty solid example of how to do a good post (the length has nothing to do with it, just in case any of you prefer making smaller posts - the value is in the opinions and standpoints made, and the scumhunting work)

[Thor665]

My "Not really any reason" vote was because we don't have any strong information to go off of yet.

Though I'll reasonably agree that we don't have strong information yet, you seem to be admiting that there is information now. Surely you have a reason for voting Aranneas over, say, me or willows_weep who are also "experienced" players. Why vote him and not one of us?

On Mrs Sak: I think the implication is that Mrs Sak has migrated from somewhere that plays mafia differently than it's done here; with some sort of communication system allowed outside of the game. This makes me see her reasoning as closer to a null tell - it would, to me, appear suspiciously defeatist on anyone who's experienced mafia the way I know it to be played.

I'm more in line with Coach Travis' take on it. She sounds like she's legitimately grumping about the way the game is set up and feels like she's at a loss on how to proceed. I think if she was scum she'd be reveling more in the belief we couldn't catch her and would probably play a less antagonistic game with the IC and would try to lay low more. I would not want to lynch her today as currently stands.

[Thor665]

Thor, I'd like to hear more opinions from you. You've asked a lot of questions but you're keeping us in the dark as to what is going on in your head. Perhaps this is just your style but play like this tends to draw a bit of suspicion from me.

I'm voting one player and want them lynched.
I've specifically noted reasons I wouldn't want to lynch another.
Not all players (*cough*Jupiter*cough*) have posted yet.

I actually think I've given out a fair number of reads thus far considering we're on page 2.

[Thor665]

^^^ Well, page 3 now, dorf!

[Thor665]

@scapegoat - should I also take that as an answer to my Post 37?

[Thor665]

Jumping on to Sak's perceived defeatism trying to scare the other players and her call not to lynch today, I wouldn't necessarily interpret it as a scummy move like Thor and Travis pointed out

We actually both noted how we thought it *wasn't* scummy.

@Thor; going back to the probability argument, you mentioned the percentage on mafia wins being 55-57%. I gotta say that it first strucked me as a faulty statistic since a fairly higher number of finished newbie games I clicked on had Mafia wins as results(this was by no means the entire sample population of the statistic but was still somewhat of an indicator), and well, I didn't see anything on this matter in the wiki page....Was that number just a rough estimate you threw in or an actual percentage "hidden" somewhere in the wiki page(if so, I'd like to see the link please)?

I'll spare you my knee jerk response of you looking at some games and deciding you had a feel for the average.
The statistics can be found in the forum Mafia Discussion and were posted by the user AGar. I'm too lazy to bother going on a search in order to provide a link.

[Thor665]

Roughly 60/40 mafia/town win percentage for those who care not for clicking through and reading. Thanks for the link, reluctant.

For Mrs Sak's benefit I do note the statistics regarding the 'No Lynch' on Day 1.

[Thor665]

That's because doctor is a weak as sin role and also serves as both a distraction and a good role for scum to hide behind. It's hard to convince people how useless it is sometimes, and I think that misleads town.

Though the above is mostly my personal opinion on the role and the percentage might just be a random flux in chance, take what grains of sodium you choose to.

We're kind of stalled out at the moment because we need all the people not voting to start voting. With roughly 25% of players not voting everyone's waiting to see if maybe their current vote will garner more support or not.

[Thor665]

@Anton - I'd love to see a vote from you soon, are you still considering reluctant the scummiest option out there?

@willows_weep - you're still voting me for random reasons. Have these reasons become more serious? Please tell us why, if they have. If they're still not serious do you really have no scummy reads at all on anyone else in the game?

[Thor665]

Hm, remember SE only means that I've played a few games. Also, I'm not aggressive. I ask questions when I need to, I don't overstate my thoughts/feelings with votes or demands for first born, etc. So, if someone wants to think I'm being scummy...try to find more substantial reasons to do so. I mean, you can do what you want of course, but I'm really not lying to you when I say that's pretty much my style.

As a bit of general strategic advice - players who are quieter and don't often comment on their reads and thoughts are often considered to be scummy since they're not taking sides and are keeping their options open.

If you're most suspicious of reluctant why are you not voting him? Do you expect him to do something more scummy? Do you not think putting a vote on him will force him and others to react to that vote and provide you more of an ability to get reads?

[Thor665]

@Duke Jupiter

Welcome to your first game then. For starters I recommend reading up on the thread and everything that's been said (paying attention to the mod's posts on the rules is pretty important as well)

If you're town; after you're read up you'll want to consider whose actions seem most likely to have been coming from a scummy mindset and whose actions seem more town oriented. You'll want to vote for the scummiest seeming player.
If you're scum; pretend to do the above, and then vote for someone who is town you think you can mislynch.

[Thor665]

Reluctant is now at L-1 (that is lynch minus one vote, meaning ONE more vote and he will be lynched)

I do not want anyone hammering (hammering means putting the final vote on a lynch) just yet.

Unvote: reluctant

<---normally I wouldn't do this, but newbies are all insane and love quick hammering.

Reluctant - please consider yourself still at L-1 because it's only fear of newbies that has me currently unvoting.

Also, generally being at L-1 means it's a good time to disclose your role (also called claiming). If you don't want to disclose your role for some reason you should, at the very least, address your attackers and explain how their case on you isn't good and why they should be voting for someone else.

[Thor665]

@Reluctant - you know what, don't claim for my benefit, I don't want to lynch you anymore just yet. I went to relook at the case on you and the case is my RVS reasoning and then other people following my play. That's not strong enough for a claim just yet.

Vote: scapegoat

@scapegoat - why'd you vote reluctant, say it was just to get the ball rolling, and then admit what you're doing looks scummy? If it looks scummy it probably is scummy, so why do it?

[Thor665]

@scapegoat - if you really believe all lynches to be townie, why the earlier "scumhunting" efforts, why not just always vote whoever had the most votes? You did your odd dance with Araneas, then unvoted because we hadn't heard from people and then bandwagoned reluctant.

Why do you think you're a bad vote, considering you admit you did something scummy?

Also, if you're really town, I really wish you hadn't claimed.

[Thor665]

@scapegoat - if you really believe all lynches to be townie

*most likely townie
*likely townie
*random
blaargh, brain did not engage fingers on that sentence.

As to the reasons for claiming, the big A pretty much summed up the gist of the issue I have with it. Also, it's not like scapegoat was a raging wagon of win that everyone wanted lynched at that point.

@Travis - how many games have you played of Mafia on this or other boards?

EDIT - and thanks to Aranneas my error no longer looks like the worst of the night, win!

[Thor665]

Things are looking interesting, here;s where I roughly stand on the players;

Anton - Slight scum vibe off of opportunism feeling from posts. Not much to read here.
Mrs Sak - As noted earlier, most likely town.
Aranneas - Want him to be town, generally think he is.
scapegoat - The uber early claim and oddness of his opinion on scumhunting makes me suspicious of him. Also, his vote onto reluctant seems the most suspicious.
reluctant - I'm going town here now. The scapegoat unvote feels a little forced, but his other play while under suspicion feels town.
DukeJupiter - five will get you twenty, I bet this player is going to replace out.
Coach Travis - is playing follow the IC a bit much for my taste. I don't feel he's applying his own thoughts. I'm not sure if it's scummy unapplication or no.
willows_weep - Is fencesitting, trying to keep to the middle on issues is scummy, overall scummy read.

I'd like to hear more from Anton and Jupiter - especially Anton.

[Thor665]

Also, as a basic strategy note, I'll comment that the list above would annoy/upset some players - the belief being that it's dangerous to comment on who you think is most town because that will make scum's job of picking who to kill at night easier.

I personally disagree with this because of the simple axiom another player once noted to me; 'If you don't think scum know who the most townie players are, you're stupid' ...this player was a little ruder then I tend to play, but then so are most players. The heart of the idea holds true though, and consequently I feel comfortable saying i have town reads on people just as much as I note scum ones.

[Thor665]

Request Prod: Anton

By my (questionable) math calculations he hasn't posted in over 80 hours.

Jupiter is pretty close as well, and considering the nature of his last post I'd like to have him prodded since my money is on him being a flake out at this stage.

I am pretty content with the reluctant lynch as currently stands, and I would be willing to consider the Anton lynch. I prefer the reluctant one because with his claim he's either scum or is already narrowing down scum's kill options and is pretty good to get rid of either way in my opinion.

@Everyone else - I understand that with the multiple lurkers this game it's bogging down and your initial reaction is to wait for some "action" to respond to. I certainly encourage you to at least comment on my above lynch preference list as that will not only give us something to talk about but theoretically you should have an opinion about my attitude in this regard.

We've still got a lot of official game time left in the day, but if we aren't going to use it then all it will serve is as an anchor around our necks. I'd rather have a week of solid discussion and a lynch right then, then about three weeks of 'meh' discussion with a muddled into lynch because of deadline.

[Thor665]

You are correct, scapegoat is who I meant.

How do you feel about Anton?

[Thor665]

Scapegoat is the only one I'd be willing to consider right now, but I'd still prefer holding off a bit if possible. I'd still like to hear more from Jupiter (or his replacement) and Anton.

If scapegoat were magically removed from the game and we were suddenly at deadline - who would you vote for?

[Thor665]

In this crazy hypothetical situation If we were at deadline in 15 minutes, I'd bandwagon on whoever had the most votes to try to get a lynch before day 1 ended, this would include myself.

You shouldn't vote for town - voting for yourself is (let us presume) a vote for town - why would you vote for town?

I judge by this answer that you have no real clear feel for a second scummiest player - what are you intending to do to get a better read off of the other players? Just answering my questions doesn't seem like th emost proactive way, does it?

If there wasn't a clear target to bandwagon on I'd vote either you or Anton, whichever I felt would get more support for a lynch, so probably Anton.

What have I and Anton done to make us worthy of a vote?

I'm curious as to your response to this hypothetical question as well.

I already answered it.

I am pretty content with the reluctant lynch as currently stands, and I would be willing to consider the Anton lynch.

[Thor665]

*thoguh again - change reluctant to scapegoat in that last quote sentence, as previously noted

[Thor665]

@reluctant - Coach Travis gave a decent answer, and the quick summation is - lurking is a null tell. (active lurking, however, should be considered scummy - active lurking is posting enough not to be called a lurker while having all of your posts be on 'neutral' stuff and not really making real opinions known.

@Mrs Sak - would really like to hear you restate your thoughts on Aranneas and why he should be lynched. My read there is town and I think you're wrong.

@scapegoat - *really* want to hear your thoughts on why you are still voting reluctant.

@Coach Travis - what is your take on active lurking as a scumtell?

@willows_weep - are you still alive, or have the zombies gotten to you? I'd like you to weigh in on your current thoughts on at least two of the people with votes on them.

My current lynch desire list is;
scapegoat (or reluctant, who can tell them apart )
Anton
Coach Travis

[Thor665]

I will first off note, that sometimes it is best not to say things too much in order to see the reactions they create.

For starters look at how he's responding to my question. He's certainly not dumb and he understands I see his current actions as active lurking to some degree or other. That's why his first response includes commentary in addition to answering my question - he's offering more reads so as to show he's doing more then just active lurking. He then follows shortly thereafter with another post suggesting he believes active lurking isn't even that good of a scum tell to begin with, and certainly not as worthwhile as considering those who have been lurking. At the very least this shows he agrees that active lurking is a charge that can be applied to him.

Also, thus far this game I've felt his play is a little 'follow the IC' which suggests one of two possibilities. 1. He thinks I'm a brilliant player and am town, and is following me because either he's not sure what else to do and chooses to follow the towniest player he sees and/or he agrees with pretty much everything I've done thus far *or* he's scum, and he figures by playing nice nice with me he'll avoid suspicion from me and hopefully I'll lead town on a charge away from him.

I certainly consider him a person of interest right now. Depending on what I can/cannot get out of Anton and scapegoat will probably help shape my opinions as regards Travis.

[Thor665]

We've had two bandwagons, actually. Both you and reluctant have been taken to L-1.

I'm sorry to hear you don't like the play environment here at mafiascum, we are slower paced here then at some boards. Thanks for trying us out.

[Thor665]

@willows_weep - I noted the lack of desire to have scapegoat claim due to my IC role of wanting to inform players of general mafia strategy. It is odd how often players think claiming as soon as a few vote is on them is a good strategy. I wanted him to know it was not.

Also, me being buddies with scapegoat? Is that why, right when reluctant was at L-1 and about to claim that I actually told him not to claim, and shifted my vote to scapegoat? Why would I do that if scapegoat was my partner? It would make a reasonable amount of sense if you wanted to claim reluctant was my partner - but scapegoat? I don't grok.

[Thor665]

Feel free to sub me out.

@Mod

It's times like this that mods earn their danger pay.

[Thor665]

What is with these long ass posts. Can someone give me an unbiased synopsis of everything so far? And a vote count?

Vote Count Vote counts are best found via mods.

And an "unbiased" synopsis? No, probably not.

Basically my quick synopsis would go like this;
Everyone is being newbie, as is to be expected.
An initial wagon was run on reluctant off of my RVS.
When it got to L-1 I realized it was still all off of my RVS and shifted to the most suspicious of the reluctant voters, scapegoat.
Votes changed quickly to scapegoat and put him at L-1, though he's not at that currently, which makes me realize something...

@mod -I believe the votecount is incorrect, reluctant unvoted in Post #94 and has not revoted

Your slot has been a lurky mclurker and has provided no reads on anything whatsoever - so I'd love to hear your thoughts on what has gone before.

[Thor665]

^^^

Oh yeah, and scapegoat claimed at L-3 and also requested replacement.

[Thor665]

I'm leaning scapegoat scum with possible doubts as regards Coach Travis. scapegoat did indeed leave me with a giant plate of WIFOM with his last post, but I do believe his earlier scumhunting posts when considered with his later 'we just need a lynch' ideas suggests some lack of truth within his play thus far. Of course it may all just be newbie jitters, but that's part of the adventure of playing a Newbie game.

I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on which two players you think are most likely scum. We're only 6 pages in so it really shouldn't be too hard to catch up and offer some views.

[Thor665]

Aw crud, Cirno is here, now I have to find some tunnelvision visors and break out my bloomers

@willows - I'm not quite sure what you're getting at with the mix and nix stuff, I know you're struggling with your connection and are probably typing still on a Blackberry or somesuch, but I'm not really following the question, sorry, could you restate? Maybe my reply to Arraneas will shed some further light on my thought process, so if that answers you - win for me.

@Arraneas - as far as his oddity in that regard, also note some of his first posts. He unvoted one time because he wanted to hear from everybody - that doesn't gel in my mind with a player who felt we needed a bandwagon (which we had) or a lynch (which unvoting wouldn't help) in order to get real info. He also had posts suggesting he was against rushed votes or wagons focused on newbie players and chose to focus on experienced players...and then he goes and hops on the tail end of reluctant because we "need" a lynch? Meh, something is weird there, I wouldn't mind a flip to see what's what.

[Thor665]

tl:dr - all of this is basically responding to scapegoat/EarthIntruder and MMA geeking out at Cirno/Mrs Sak. The hot points I tag EarthIntruder/scapegoat with are below, details after the line break

I unvoted reluctant because everyone was voting him on my RVS reasons, whether or not you (EarthIntruder) found him scummy for more is irrelevant because they didn't.
EarthIntruder apparently finds being suspicious of lurkers scummy
He says it makes sense for Travis to perhaps follow me since he is an SE and maybe he agrees with me.
He says it's scummy that willows_weep (an SE) is following me...

=======================================================================================

you know what, don't claim for my benefit, I don't want to lynch you anymore just yet. I went to relook at the case on you and the case is my RVS reasoning and then other people following my play. That's not strong enough for a claim just yet.

I disagree with this. I found reluctant scummy as anything coming into the game fresh, and it was for reasons besides things that happened in RVS. Can you elaborate on why you didn't think scapegoat was scummier anymore?

See, I told you that no one can tell scapegoat and reluctant apart

I already explained why I didn't find him so scummy. Everyone on the wagon (besides Arraneas who at least noted misrepping as well) was basically voting him for no really stated reasons - hence they were voting based off of previous reasons, which were mine and were RVS. That's a pretty classic scum push on townie wagon right there.

-Aaand scapegoat's at L-1. I understand it, but you guys. Putting someone at L-1, claiming when not at L-1, AtE arguments... this is the classic easy newbie mislynch.

Claiming when not at L-1 and Appeal to Emotion are indeed tells for newbie, but they are hardly townie actions (in fact most believe AtE is scummy). There is a difference. Other then replacing into his slot and reading his role PM - why should we believe it is Newb town as opposed to Newb scum?

-I'm not a fan of Thor's pushing suspicion on Anton. I do think that spurring discussion about other players is a good thing, especially when scapegoat's at L-1 since mislynch this early=BAD BAD BAD, but discussion about a lurker is not helping town. Lurking is a null read, people, especially bored newbies that change their minds, do it regardless of their role.

If you don't see the strategic value in pushing attention and suspicion onto a lurker I'm not sure what to say. If you don't push suspicion on lurkers they keep lurking, suspicion requires defense and defense requires posts and posts let you read the slot.

Are you legitimately claiming that finding lurkers suspicious and saying so is scummy?

Thor: I don't like his sudden switch from reluctant to scapegoat.

Um, so then you're saying that the scum team is Thor/reluctant - because that's the only way this is a scumtell.

It also bothers me that Travis is the only person he's calling out for 'following the IC', because a few of the newbies were playing the same game and newbies are a lot more likely not to stop unless you point out what they're doing. Not to mention, Travis, unless I'm mistaken, is a bit more experienced than the newbies here, so it's also possible that he just agrees with you.

Him being more experienced makes the 'follow the IC' *more* suspicious, not less suspicious. I would think that would be obvious.
This is the second time you've said more people then Travis have been following me - name them please, I'd love to know your thoughts here. The only one you peg is willows_weep, and I disagree that he's doing it as much as Travis, and you're clearing Travis for being an SE but so is willows, so what's your issue with him following me when you don't have an issue with Travis doing it? None of this makes sense to me.

Also... never bet on MMA, guys.

The only upset I saw was probably Hughes winning (though honestly I expected Silva to lose, and would have lost money there)

[Thor665]

@Travis - you say you "mostly" agree with EarthIntruder/scapegoat on willows_weep. Could you please be more specific as to what parts you agree with and what parts you don't?

[Thor665]

This is a quick bullet point style response to this post and this post by EarthIntruder/scapegoat

tl:dr - I disagree with him Also I can't figure out why he's so annoyed that I dismantled the reluctant wagon and why that makes me scummy

@EarthIntruder - you disagree with my top three and find them bad lynches. Who are your top three?

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
======
POST 1
======
Again - you are commenting about how *you* find the scumtell I raised on reluctant to be worthwhile and how *you* think everyone else came in with solid reasons and cases of their own. I disagree, I said so at the time. Also, if we accept all of them as not following me I'll be curious to see who all the people following the IC are (edit: and later you list no one else but willows, so I guess "all" the people I didn't call out was just him then?)

======
POST 2
======
1. First off, you "answer" my question of whether we should read AtE as Newb scum or Newb town by telling me again that it's a newbie tell. I agree with you, that it's a newb tell. Now, why is it Newb town as opposed to a Newb scum tell?

2. You go into a speech on how active lurking is scummier then regular lurking. I am aware of this distinction. You then pretty much act like I wanted Anton lynched right now You've missed my point, I already explained it. Address it or don't, but don't expect me to defend a standpoint I never took.

3.

Um, so then you're saying that the scum team is Thor/reluctant - because that's the only way this is a scumtell.

That's a possibility, but not necessarily. It could be you just found a much easier target to lynch.

Much easier then the guy I took to L-1 without having to push him and had everyone else agreeing how scummy he was for their own individual reasons? And I decided to dismantle that vote why? <---this REALLY requires an answer if you plan to stick to this current theory of yours.

4. I called out Travis for the 'follow the IC' stuff because I found the way he was doing it more suspicious then anyone else. I've said this before. I never said he was the only one, only that I found his actions in that regard suspicious. willows followed my suspicions pretty tightly, but he at least occasionally came in and offered scum tells that were his own, I never felt Travis did and that's why I called him out on it. Also, even as you're chiding me for not calling willows to task on this stuff, you're admitting that I did;

Post 108, reluctant says Anton is his second choice for a lynch right after you bring him up for discussion. You say yourself that it doesn't seem like he actually has a good idea of his second choice.

Oh, and I have another question for Thor.

Um, so then you're saying that the scum team is Thor/reluctant - because that's the only way this is a scumtell.

It would make a reasonable amount of sense if you wanted to claim reluctant was my partner - but scapegoat?

So, in your response to me you seem to be implying that a Thor/reluctant scumteam doesn't make sense, but in the other post I've quoted you say it does. So do you think that it's reasonable to suspect or not?

Both posts are saying that the only way my actions make sense, if you believe what you're saying, is for me to be scum partners with reluctant if I'm scum. There is no contradiction between the two sentences - they say the same thing.

[Thor665]

Much easier then the guy I took to L-1 without having to push him and had everyone else agreeing how scummy he was for their own individual reasons? And I decided to dismantle that vote why?

Maybe you're scumpartners and you hadn't intended to bus him to the point of lynch (if you are, then reluctant's vote on me despite most of my suspicion being on you makes sense). Or, more likely, maybe you were afraid of a quicklynch occurring from a wagon you led, you wanted to gain town points by ending it, and scapegoat putting reluctant at L-1 was an easy reason to.

Seriously? You actually believe that I'm not reluctant's partner and that I was scared that he would be lynched on a wagon I led...so I stopped the wagon and started one on scapegoat so I could...what?...not be found suspicious by having a wagon I led flip town?

Does this actually make sense to you? Since I'm scum and you're town what was my scum plan when I got you lynched and you flipped town? How would I have been leading your wagon any more or less then the reluctant one? What was the difference and why was it advantageous to me to lynch you like that?

Also, if reluctant is one of your top suspects, why is it more likely that he and I are *not* buddies?

[Thor665]

@EarthIntruder

Also, if reluctant is one of your top suspects, why is it more likely that he and I are *not* buddies?

[Thor665]

@EarthIntruder - is you folding up on your case on me really predicated on Travis and *me* not liking it or agreeing with the logic? Why should you give a flying fudge if I don't like your case on me? Scum or town I'm not likely to. I'm surprised I factor into your opinion unless you're changing your view on me, what's up there? You've also been a little dodgy around some of my return fire (like when I asked why it's more likely that reluctant and I aren't partners and you quickly just went with 'oops, typo error - pay no mind!' as the response) that pings my scumdar a bit more.

What are your thoughts on Post 171 and how Travis is giving me the bro-hug of buddiness?

[Thor665]

Whether you're scum or town, you can tell if a case makes any sense or not.

Except when I look at the reluctant wagon, amirite!?!

Also, why are people giving me all my wishes wrapped up in chocolate bubble wrap??? I need to figure out how to wagon Travis and EarthIntruder at the same time.

@Cirno - what's your read on EarthIntruder and his shifting beliefs and anger at the death of the reluctant wagon? I know what I think of it, but you don't even seem to want to vote him while now pushing Travis off of 'gut'. I loves me my gut, but I want to make sure you've sampled the other dishes on the menu first.

[Thor665]

I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on which two players you think are most likely scum. We're only 6 pages in so it really shouldn't be too hard to catch up and offer some views.

@seth - still hoping to hear something about this. I'll go out on a limb and guess Travis is one of them, I'd love to hear a second name added to the list. Including reasons would be the whipped cream upon this milkshake of awesome I'm requesting.


@EarthIntruder - Guuuh? I understand you are frustrated, but I feel my question, though phrased in a joking manner, is valid and needs a solid response. I'll break it down so you can see what I'm getting at;

1. I say reluctant wagon is fail because it is on a weak case and unvote.
2. You say this is scummy (amongst other things) and that the case is strong, you vote for me. (scummy Thor misreps strength of case - grrrr, I shall lynch him!)
3. I say your case on me is fail
4. You unvote me because you believe that I and Travis are able to spot a good or bad case. (scummy Thor tells it like it is, better work on my reluctant case, thanks Thor!)



It seems to me that we have some built in contradictions to these actions by you and I really don't understand them. Can you explain your thought process to me better, what am I missing here?

[Thor665]

I realize that I've been needing to stretch a bit for it all to make sense.

I'll also note that your issue with my top three is that two are newbies and one of them you don't understand.

I don't know how you expect me to make a top three list that doesn't contain newbie players in this game, and will note that lack of understanding of a case is not inherently scummy.

I'm going to need to sleep on you - but jeez you are not making this one easy.

[Thor665]

No, my issue is that one is a newbie that's easy to lynch because he's had a newbie meltdown that can be easily misinterpreted

Not when I called him scummy and voted for him though - unless you're saying I'm smart enough to see a meltdown coming before it happens.

So you think my top three suspect list is suspicious because someone I listed eventually had a meltdown...or do you think it's suspicious I didn't immediately unvote him after the meltdown?

@seth - who do you find the second most scummy person here in general?

[Thor665]

@seth - are there any particular reasons you can describe for those two suspicions?

[Thor665]

What is your weak reasoning? You're not pushing them, I'm asking for the information.

[Thor665]

I see no reason to dismantle a wagon because of AtE - your opinion may differ but last I checked sometimes it was legitimate town meltdown and sometimes it was scum meltdown and sometimes it was scum fake meltdown. Unless you can show me evidence that it's more likely for a townie to have a meltdown then a scum I see no reason to act like your opinion is any more valid then mine. I'm still not sure how to take you, I'm getting some town energy off you but your presented thoughts are so muddled and elastic they are screaming scum to me - do you have any links to completed games of yours I can look at?

I'm redefining my scum list to;

EarthIntruder
Coach Travis
seth

@seth - you ding Arraneas for being "over cautious" in his first post. What part do you think he was being cautious on exactly - I'm not sure I see it.

Also, what's your call on this post by Coach Travis - do you see it as less cautious then Arraneas' post?

[Thor665]

@seth - Gah, forget the second part of the above question, I forgot you were already voting Travis, that makes the whole 'cautious' tell you're using make more sense. I think I'll leave you on my scum list for the nonce though, and would still like the first part of the question responded to.

[Thor665]

Is there some problem with not wishing to vote EarthIntruder?

The only problem I have is trying to follow your logic. When you first replaced in he was a high contender (tied with Travis and arguably at some points higher then Travis).

Now he's off the table.

Why?

[Thor665]

Previously in the other game we played together you were all about long and blaring cases (occasionally with graphical support) why the more abdominal driven methodology here?

[Thor665]

@seth - please quote the part of any of my posts where I claim the reason I consider you scum has anything to do with your "musings"

Who has the hurt posterior, again?

As far as having you and Travis on a scumlist - I see no problem with that. My list has three names and there's only two scum - I am absolutely certain I am at least 33% wrong on my list, that doesn't worry me nor do I think it's a problem.

[Thor665]

Please attribute quotes when you make them (for the record to everyone else, EI is quoting seth).

Here's my game with Cirno

I don't recall ever claiming to have played a game with her and seth and don't think I have. I have an ongoing with seth and may or may not have had another game with him - but if I have I don't know which one, feel free to search my Wiki, it is complete and is there as a resource if you wish it.

@Cirno - you said there were 'points' on EI. What are points if not a case? Why do you not like the cas-er, I mean 'points' on EI and why go for 'gut' instead of that?

@EarthIntruder - I shall now accuse you of making less logical leaps and errors in your completed town game then you have in this game - what's your response to that?

[Thor665]

Unvote: EarthIntruder

Eugh. I'm no longer in support of this lynch for today. He's still very scummy but I'm thinking there's enough potential town energy mixed in to buy him some more time. He's a little too appeasing for my tastes but I actually think his reactions under pressure were mostly town and his open admission of the poor logic on me is either a clever scum gambit that tends to preclude certain of his antics or a relatively honest reaction to having logic slapped in his face.

I need to re-read to gather my thoughts. Will probably have another thought provoking and sexily witty commentary sometime late tomorrow or early Thursday.

[Thor665]

Yeah, don't sweat your little pasty face over it - if I'm thinking clearly about EI then your role comes into better clarity as well. If I'm wrong about EI...well, same thing.

You are starting to tunnel slightly again though, you should be able and willing to discuss your reads, however thin they are, unless you have something very clever going on that I'm too dumb to see.

[Thor665]

Gut.
Process of elimination.
Playstyle meta.
Unwillingness to take a stand on issues.

[Thor665]

I inherently distrust those types of meta - if that's all I was clearing you on well...I wouldn't clear you on only that (and for everyone else I think that particular comment came from a different ongoing game). Paired with everything else I've listed I consider it a reasonable addition to the list.

Why the focus on my gut and meta listings - process of elimination and unwillingness to take a stand seem more reasonable to you I guess?
How do you feel about your eruption in post 25 where you're being defensive about me calling your reads on 2 players scummy when I hadn't done anything of the sort...why so convinced those reads could be called scummy?

[Thor665]

post 205, not post 25, natch.

[Thor665]

Where do you think I made you look dumb for your answers?

My questions did have something to do with my read on you, as did the method of your answers. The specific answers you gave had nothing to do with it. There is a difference between the way you answer and the answers you give.

[Thor665]

Seeing as you've been asking others to explain their gut reads, surely you are going to explain yours?

Actually I asked you to explain why you were choosing gut over going with something you said had a case. That's different then asking you to explain your gut read. If you really want me to try to explain my gut then simply consider the other three things I noted and figure I'm getting my gut from a combination thereof.

Why do you choose to eliminate Willow, Anton, Cirno, Reluctant, and Aranneas?

I've already explained in thread why I eliminate Cirno, reluctant, and Arranneas. Willow and Anton are not eliminated but other activities by seth listed in the post you're quoting currently puts him higher then them.

Can you give me a link to a game in which seth's play as town contrasts to his play in this game.

Ongoing.

What exactly do you mean by take a stand?

Look at his reactions around when I asked him to tell me his 2nd top suspect. He hemmed, he hawed, he painted it with about three coats of 'gosh, I really don't want to make a case on this', he even actually gave me two suspects when all I'd asked for was one even though he acted like it was so hard to say, and then as soon as I note him as scummy it's 'You're calling me scummy for having weak reasons to suspect people, that's scummy!!!' when I hadn't even made comment one on my thoughts of his reasoning for suspecting those people. He's *really* nervous about giving those reads and is already acting like somehow they are suspicious of him to have given. That's a guilty conscience if ever I saw one.

[Thor665]

I've already explained in thread why I eliminate Cirno, reluctant, and Aranneas.

I can't seem to find an explanation of why you would eliminate Cirno. Can you link me to a post or explain it for me?

Search my posts for Mrs Sak - in short, her entrance to the game and the woe is me feel I got made me suspect her to be less likely scum then sad town.

I am fine with you disagreeing with me on seth - I'm not actively selling a seth case at the moment. Is there any reason you desire me not to see him as scummy?

And concerning Seth's meta: You are saying that there is an ongoing game in which Seth's alignment has been confirmed as town, correct?

His alignment has not been confirmed in the other game. I'm not sure how to clarify my thoughts on this question appropriately while staying within the rules of the site.

[Thor665]

That's a pretty weak reasoning behind a defense of seth, if you don't see him as town why would you want to tie yourself to him by defending him?

[Thor665]

@Cirno - why was it important for you to know when/how I'd cleared your slot? Also, how would you feel about an Anton lynch today?

[Thor665]

Sadly enough this is still less replacements then I had in my very first Newbie game (not that I desire to go for a record, mind).

Welcome Sunday, please catch up - then I can lynch you

[Thor665]

1. Because I only have one vote.
2. By giving me evidence.

[Thor665]

Do you think I should be more aggressive about Anton then I have been? Why is that?

If you think I should be less aggressive, please tell me why as well.

Also, how do you think I'm "setting up lynches"?

[Thor665]

"Why is it important to know why I have cleared players after I mention that seth is a suspect by process of elimination?"

"Why do you accept the others I said I cleared/didn't clear and ask for specific information about my clearing of you?"

[Thor665]

::rubs temples and chants 'this is a Newbie game' over and over::

him catching up shouldn't affect you pushing him.

This pretty much sums up the part of your post I have issue with. You're saying to me to either be more or less aggressive then my current stance because either I should let him catch up or I shouldn't. That's what I read when I see this. If you don't feel this way then maybe you should simply let me pressure him in the way I feel is appropriate.

I dramatically disagree that I'm setting up a Policy Lynch and would challenge you to explain how I am.

@Cirno...bwuh? I gave opinions on Mrs Sak - Mrs Sak equates to you. If you have an issue with me clearing your slot because of a previous player then say so and explain how it's a scummy/bad play. If not, please answer the original question.

YOUR MOVE, SIS

[Thor665]

I challenge you to quote me where I said "Be more/less aggressive."

I quoted exactly where I believe you said it and explained why in my last post. Address it or don't, but at least read and acknowledge my posts before challenging me on them.

Anton wasn't on your list a few pages back. But you want to push him over me and CT, why?

You need to understand the difference between implied and stated stances.

You avoided/missed the policy lynch question.

[Thor665]

Left out of your narrative
^^^
Reason given.

So your answer to my question is you asked because you only did a search for Cirno and not a search for Mrs Sak and you're confused by me referring to you as Cirno as opposed to Cirno/Mrs Sak?

[Thor665]

tl:dr

Explain my stance to seth some more
Link Cirno to Sak clearing by Thor
Ask her why she wants me to put her in the crucible

==================================================
==================================================

You need to explain your answer.

You asked me why I need to wait for him to "catch up" that implies that you're wondering why am I not voting him now (i.e. be more aggressive, or why are you being aggressive without a vote?)
And say it shouldn't effect me pushing him (and since I have been pushing him this then also means you want me to either do more (vote) or do less (not be pushing him in the way I am)

My answer, in short, was telling you that I am pushing him exactly as much as I think I should be and I asked you to explain why I should do more or do less then what I was and have been doing.

Does that help you understand my position now? If so, please answer the initial question, if not, explain where I'm losing you.

Why should I explain my answers if you aren't going to explain yours? The hell does 'implied and stated stances' have to do with anything?

When did I refuse to explain an answer?

For implied and stated I'm not sure how much more clear I can get. If you let me know specifically what's confusing you about the answer I'll try to zero in - I think you have difficulty telling the difference between stances of the two types.

@Thor: That reason was given after I asked the question. It has nothing to do with why the question was asked.

I'm just surprised you were so standoffish if that was the extent of the reason.

Can you point me to the exact post in which you 'eliminate' her.

viewtopic.php?p=2414979#p2414979

Do you think it is a good idea to base your read of the Cirno/Sak slot on Mrs Sak though Cirno has more than 3 times as many posts as Mrs Sak?

On Day 1, yeah, why not?

Should

I be suspicious of you?

[Thor665]

@Cirno - If I wanted to make a case on you I would. You're town, get over it.

@seth - I answered that question, you just don't understand the answer. Ask me again after Sunday/Anton catches up and I'll go more in depth. Until then, draw your own conclusions - all the information is there already.

[Thor665]

@zipperflesh - Does your logic for scumThor distancing from scumTravis include an explanation for me calling him out while everyone else thought he was town?

At the very least I'll be fascinated to watch you and EarthIntruder duel over my potential buddies.

What are your thoughts on EI's claims that willows_weep/zipperflesh was following me as much, if not more, then Travis (and both of these followings being towards lynches if that's how you'd like to phrase the discussion)?

[Thor665]

@Cirno - there is actually no real need for me to explain a town read on Cirno (especially to *you* of all people). That said you're clearly overworking this in your head (as usual) so I'll humor you on this.

1. You enter the game and express suspicion of Travis and scapegoat/EarthIntruder (both of my top suspects at the time - this is a null tell and actually a slight ding on you, but hey, you agree with my logic, you're probably just being smart)
2. You then avoid getting on the easy wagon of EarthIntruder, why? Gut. You say it's gut and basically spit on the case on EI (only way this is scummy is if you're EI's buddy - I'd want to lynch EI first in this case, so this is town points currently)
3. After spitting on the most popular wagon of the moment you try to start up the Travis one on gut. (null with town leanings)
4. I consider your playstyle to be consistent with what I know your town playstyle to be (null with town leanings)

The worst I can say about you is that you're still a bit too heavy of an OMGUS style player (very reactionary in sometimes bad ways) and you have your usual sense of absolute assurance you're right - which still makes me worried about you being at lylo. However neither of those things are inherent scumtells.

Ergo - you are town enough that I have zero desire to lynch you today and consequently you are ruled out in order to make my Day One lynch hopefully more accurate.

Now, a question for you - what has this exchange gotten us as far as finding scum? (because I'm not smart enough to see it)

[Thor665]

^^^

Oh, yeah, also I thought Mrs Sak was town for reasons already noted - that helps.

[Thor665]

and you have your usual sense of absolute assurance you're right

Though not all of my reads are off, amirite

Thus far you have established that you disagree with my scumtells - this is not an earth shattering revelation in the game of Mafia. What have you actually deduced?

[Thor665]

and you have your usual sense of absolute assurance you're right

Though not all of my reads are off, amirite

Thus far you have established that you disagree with my scumtells - this is not an earth shattering revelation in the game of Mafia. What have you actually deduced?

Er... why are you so upset that I asked you to give a read on a player you hadn't given a read on yet?

Also, you changed your mind on EarthIntruder, so presumably your preferred lynch is Coach Travis?

I'm actually not upset. Even if I was/wasn't upset you're missing the thrust of the joke/anger comment since it was directed at your commentary on the seth case I made and not on you asking me my opinion about you.

You also actually didn't answer my question. It's quoted above. 2nd line of my post. Please answer.

I'm conflicted on Travis, but consider him a viable lynch today. I'm also considering willows/fleshzipper and Anton/Sunday as well as seth. Travis is currently probably the best info lynch, but buddying is an awfully weak tell to actually lynch someone on Day 1 that I'd love to have a serious lynch talk about someone else - the problem is most of their cases look about the same and/or are lurking cases which isn't much better then buddying ones.

[Thor665]

@Everyone - Actually, as a serious question in connection with the last thought of my last post - why has nobody noticed any buddying coaching that

isn't

connected to my slot? I want that considered as everyone makes these claims as viable lynch reasons.

[Thor665]

First Thor posts the typical "I'm governed by IC rules!," and then his second post for why Scapegoat was

definitely not scum

didn't seem quite so squeaky clean.

??? My second post was a vote for scapegoat - I didn't claim him to either be scum nor to be town, I claimed him as a bandwagon.

Maybe I misunderstand the concept of OMGUS, but personally I don't think it's that bad of a reason to vote for someone. If someone votes me and I know I'm good, then that makes me think they're not following townie logic, and that makes me suspicious.

Voting someone simply because they're voting you isn't generally smart play - look at their reasons for voting you, is there a logic to it at all? Town can (and will) pick up on and call stuff scummy that you do while playing town - it's your job to decide whether they are voting you as town or as scum - OMGUS is poor play.

And unfortunately I agree with Thor as opposed to Seth/Cirno re: his recommending that I be lynched, based on other posts Thor has made in the game.[/quote]
Two questions here;

1. Which points have I made that you agree with as far as lynching you?
2. "Here's another discomforting post from

Reluctant

Sunday, where he says he'd lynch himself" <--- thoughts on this as regards quote above

@Cirno

You also actually didn't answer my question. It's quoted above. 2nd line of my post. Please answer.

If you're not intending to answer, at least say that (and maybe add why if it's not too much difficulty)

[Thor665]

@seth (as promised) - I won't go into it too much just yet (As I'm still getting the read), but I will point out - I presume you can see how my comments generated something for us to consider as regards Sunday. He's reacted to the pressure I put on him, and did so in a way we can now question. If you're still in the dark let me know and I'll try to clarify more.

[Thor665]

@Cirno - which player?

[Thor665]

No, I thought you were trolling me.

[Thor665]

I made an entire post discussing why I cleared you, at your request.
I've had many interactions with you.

How is this "ignoring you" and even if it is how does that, paired with what I've done listed above become suspect?

I'm legitimately puzzled - you seem to be angry at me for considering your slot (both players), not finding it scummy, and then scumhunting elsewhere - I am boggled, madame.

[Thor665]

^^^

Frankly I thought you were going to say willows_weep - if I was going to accuse myself of "ignoring" any slot that would be the one I'd pick (I'd still disagree, natch)

[Thor665]

@Cirno - You are correct, it's pretty suspect of me to not have been investigating a slot I thought was town. My bad.

[Thor665]

Oh, and for completeness sake.

1. Because I thought the slot was town and you asked me why I was clearing people.2. Because Mrs Sak and you are both relevant to reads of that slot. A player switch doesn't clear suspicion, neither should it clear town reads.

[Thor665]

My name is Sundy.

I'll attempt to remember your hatred of certain vowels in the future.

The different tone in my posts was because in the first one I was doing the boring "Hiya guys, I'mma IC I do stuff" post - everything else was me getting to play the game.

RE: Mrs Sak & Cirno: I thought it was interesting that Mrs Sak clarified her intentions. 2 players thought she was acting in one way, and 1 player thought she was acting in another way, and Mrs Sak sided with the player who thought she was scummy. Her replacement is also proving extremely

reluctant

to accept the argument that clears her. An interesting similarity between the two...

Do you have a conclusion about it yet? (I'd honestly love to hear it, cause I'm just leaning batsmurf insane for both of them, and I'm suspicious I'm wrong) Thing is I don't see either a pro town or pro scum angle (except really insane reverse psychology play) so I am thinking it's all null.

RE: Bandwagon falling apart: You're right in that I don't understand why everyone jumped off ship after Thor changed his vote.

*cough*following me*cough*

I don't think that ScumThor would benefit from leading the bandwagon that takes an innocent civvie down, nor do I think that he would benefit from lynching his scum-partner. So if Thor is scum, he acted logically.

So my logical scum plan was to keep shifting till nobody followed me? Eh - the one time I played as scum in a Newbie style game (different board) I just played the 'gosh, sorry I'm wrong, everyone should follow me to *this* lynch next' card. Not to say I'd do it that way again, but I am pointing out it is a perfectly viable game plan.

Sundy, the anti-A-Team, is off my lynch list for the day. He's intelligent enough I want him to combat newbie thought for Day 2, and if he's scum I still think we can catch him. I do disagree with his Reluctant/EI pushings but even I admit my anti-EI angle is perhaps thin. I still really don't support the Reluctant lynch.

@Sundy - what do you think of EI admitting he was wrong on something (the case he made on me)? I might be playing this one up in my own head, but that seems a helpful pro-town thought to have and as a Newbie it's dangerous to push for a lynch on someone due to questionable logic they are using.

I'll have to reconsider amongst the remaining, then I should get a vote out again.

[Thor665]

tl:dr

I explain why EI is town, and what my town calls mean as far as me being scum.
Sundy needs to reexamine his concept of whether I am leading lynches or not - he's a little muddy.
Want to hear how Travis is scummy without it being "because he's partners with Thor - and here's how" If you believe that then you really need to reevaluate how you scumhunt.
Try to start a zipper wagon.

===================================================
===================================================
===================================================

Proclaiming innocence too loudly seems to me like careless town, or worse, like mafia who knows who all is who.

So you postulate either I'm dumb town (possible) or I'm scum openly clearing townies and cutting off my opportunities...okay...
I'll also note there's a BIG difference between me calling them town and saying I don't want them lynched today and me calling them cleared. Town reads, like scum reads, are mutable.

I'm leaning more towards the over-confidence scenario of theory #1.

Just to clarify - scenario #1 was me scum, and scenario #2 was Cirno scum for being overconfident - which do you mean?

I'm leaning #4 currently, but I have inside information on one of the roles.

I don't know how many people would follow you to a 2nd lynch, if the first one had ended up w/Reluctant turning up clean, when over 80% of Day 1 should have elapsed. I certainly wouldn't.

"What were you newbies thinking quickhammering like that!?! I wanted to pressure reluctant - not lynch him, but one of you just decided his claim was a lie and quicklynched him before we had discussed it over? That is either terrible town play or blatant scum play. Man, now we have to figure out what to do today with less info then we should have..."

I disagree with this logic, if I was scum I'd be perfectly happy to have a quicklynch, even if I led it (and why did I lead the Reluctant wagon and not lead the scapegoat one? Either people are following me because I'm leading, or I'm not leading and no one is following me). In any case, I encourage you to reevaluate this tell - I don't think it's valid.

He didn't admit that the entire case he made on you was wrong. In fact he expresses suspicion of you in his most recent post, does he not? I say you're putting words in his mouth.

He expressly stated he was "stretching" the case to make it work on me. Why would scum admit that unless they felt trapped? EI wasn't trapped - he is either STUPID scum, or he's town. I'm betting the latter. Why do you disagree?

In retrospect Thor's play would have probably gained him some town pants

I request pleats - a man needs his room down there.

Since I know Travis isn't my scumbuddy - what is the case on him *other* then him being partners with me? That is a terrible reason to lynch him on if it's what people are advancing. (I'd like to see 1-3 sentences just summing up why Travis is scum - if Cirno wants to say 'gut' then she can provide a list of 1-3 players we'll get more info on no matter which way Travis flips)

I'm going to keep my vote where it is for now, but I'm willing to switch it if I have to when I get back - I also should be around most of tonight, so there's that.

Are we to presume you're down with any lynch whatsoever?

Also, five days? Meh.

Vote: zipperflesh

I don't know about the rest of you, but I'm not comfortable with my read of that slot. Who's with me to run this one up to L-2 or -1 so we have a choice about the Travis wagon? If you against me I'd love to hear some commentary for why Travis is guilty as expressed above to zipperflesh.

[Thor665]

if Cirno wants to say 'gut' then she can provide a list of 1-3 players we'll get more info on no matter which way Travis flips)

Are you asking me something or not?

Actually I asked a question to everyone on the Travis wagon (which includes you - so short answer; yes) and included an alternate addendum question directed at you depending on how you chose to answer the first question since I was predicting that one ahead of time.

You answered neither.

Please answer the first and, if needed, the second.

I am now willing to lynch Thor.

I presume there's more to the case then "Thor is trying to protect his scumbuddy Travis" yes? Because if that's your reasoning everyone voting seth might as well be willing to lynch you. Neither set of suspicions is worth spit unless the "partner" is lynched and flipped scum. I am not particularly of the belief Travis will flip scum - if you lynch him and he flips scum then I'll understand why I need to be lynched, but otherwise this is silly talk.

Buddying and partner talk is not a good scum suspicion before one half of the equation has been proved.

[Thor665]

Ugh... just tell me what the questions are, dude.

Ugh...
1. What is the case on Travis?
2. If 'gut' is your answer - what 1-3 players will Travis' flip provide us info on?

I've never made that accusation. Please take that up with those who have.

Neither you nor EI had made a case on me, I was giving you the benefit of the doubt that there was more to it then that.

Now, the reason I am willing to lynch you is because you just suggested putting a player with no case against them at L-1 a week before the deadline for the sole purpose of derailing another wagon.

Excellent.

How is this scummy?[/quote]

@EI - I'm certain the vast case against Travis has been well made throughout this thread, I have probably just missed it. Could you please, in 1-3 sentences, sum it up for me in your own words?

[Thor665]

What is your read on zipperflesh? If it's null that concerns me, especially if you don't then see the inherent value in running a wagon and suspicion at him.

I'm now less sold on the Travis wagon because, despite claims to the contrary, the reasons for his lynch appear no better then the reasons for me wanting to lynch zipperflesh. Your case is gut and 'voting pattern' (you never explain what about his voting pattern is suspicious). That means your case is gut and unexplained other stuff...wait, what's your issue with my seth suspicion again? (btw - I actually *don't* have an issue with your case specifically on Travis (except I do wonder why you consider it so much better then my case on seth - this is mostly something we'll have to debate endgame methinks), but looking at the way other people are moving around it and joining it concerns me. Have you seen anyone else present the case on Travis?

I said following me.
You said voting patterns
zipper says following the lynches

We're all saying the same thing, using different words, and acting like we're clever and unique snowflakes. I personally think Travis is being lynched because for some reason people think he and I are buddying and/or distancing and that's a *terribad* reason to lynch on Day 1 over.

The reason I asked about potential info gained is that a lynch is indeed more then just about who votes and who doesn't (that's why scum invented bussing - to make those reads less valuable0 but also the *interaction* of a player slot with other player slots and the information gained about those slots from those lynch flips is important <---and sweet dear gawd if you disagree with me on this, as you seem to most game theory, then go read more of the Mafia Discussion forum.

[Thor665]

@EI - I'm certain the vast case against Travis has been well made throughout this thread, I have probably just missed it. Could you please, in 1-3 sentences, sum it up for me in your own words?

What does this have to do with anything I've said? Was this even supposed to be directed at me? O_o

I presume there's more to the case then "Thor is trying to protect his scumbuddy Travis" yes? Because if that's your reasoning everyone voting seth might as well be willing to lynch you. Neither set of suspicions is worth spit unless the "partner" is lynched and flipped scum. I am not particularly of the belief Travis will flip scum - if you lynch him and he flips scum then I'll understand why I need to be lynched, but otherwise this is silly talk.

There are plenty of reasons people have listed that don't have to do with buddying. And even if there weren't, I see no reason why we couldn't lynch you first and then lynch the other suspected partner depending on

your

flip.

Reasoning provided.

Now - why is Travis scummy again?

Also, seriously, I'm scum because my super scummy plan is to arrange a 'no lynch'...yeah...why do all the cases on me require me to be one of the worst scum players of all time? I'm actually pretty intelligent and handsome - can't we have a few scum cases on me where I'm actually clever and can slightly hide my scummy actions?

[Thor665]

Yeah - and your case requires me to be stupid or to be pretending I'm stupid - which do you believe is true?

You did say there was plenty to the Travis case other then connection to me - could you explain that please, name 1-3 points briefly just so I can get back up to speed. I seriously believe town is accelerating towards fail lynch here and I'd love to be proved wrong.

[Thor665]

Good point on the case issue, my bad. You have actually advocated a Coach Travis lynch though - for what reasons do you think he's a good lynch option?

Smart play for scum not to have a lynch?...woosh. Scum want a lynch - they just want a

mis

lynch. Big difference. Reexamine that - it doesn't make sense.

[Thor665]

-My read on Zipper is null

...you don't see this as an issue?

-The reasons for voting Coach Travis are better because they have actually been given, even if they are just gut. You've not listed even gut as a reason for suspecting Zipper.

This site needs a facepalm emoticon.

By the sheer fact I've voted him I've put out an equal value case to saying 'gut'. You're just struggling for reasons to disagree/suspect me on at this point. De-tunnel thyself and take a step back to actually look at the cases again.

@EI you listed me as Coach Travis at one point - that's all I noticed.

[Thor665]

@Thor: Just confirming, but your suspicions of Zipper are entirely gut based?

I can't believe I have to discuss this twice with multiple players in one game.

I'll also note that 'gut' is either laziness or uncertainty about what someone finds suspicious - no more, no less.

My case is for the reasons already expressed in the post when I voted for him.

Also, what was your plan about dealing with your null read on fleshzipper? Were you planning to wait till Day 2 or were you planning to get a read on him sometime today, if so, how?

[Thor665]

So you have a null read on someone and your plan is to wait around until they do something for you to get a read on them? Another thing to remember to perhaps discuss in postgame - I submit this is not optimal play. Someone I played with once told me "I'm arguing with you in order to see how you respond and form an opinion." I remember thinking it was a succinct explanation of how to scumhunt and get a read on someone.

'I'm not comfortable with my read' is too vague, but saying 'gut' is somehow clearer? Okay - gut.

As for the rest, I blame him for his username, I think we're all victims here.

[Thor665]

Actually, just to be a bit of a weasel I will note that in the game linked above you argued me out of my 'kyle is town' read because my reasoning was so weak and nonsensical. There is a method to my madness - I certainly am wrong a fair shake, but I'm correct a fair shake too. [/self indulgent neener-neener post]

[Thor665]

Well, you do argue past the point it's useful (going back and looking I realized that game had me spending a lot of time going 'what's the point here?' - which I've already done again in this game with you). That said, if you agree with their assessment you're [a player who needs improvement] then maybe you should indeed be modifying your playstyle - but I don't think you should modify it to decide you don't need to assess a slot during Day 1 and don't need a plan in that regard (and while we're at it - believing that doing so = scummy, but I'm fine with baby steps)

[Thor665]

I've really got no answer on the cleared/town read thing. Probably I started using 'cleared' there because Cirno did.

I am amazed you don't consider town reads to be cutting off scum options whether or not they are mutable - how would you feel about a player who had a scum read on someone suddenly saying they have a town read? They would need to be able to point out the progression of their thoughts and their logic - wouldn't they? You don't see how that limits options? Look at games and note what sort of reads scum prefer to have on their partners - you don't think there's an advantageous strategy there?

I'm not sure if we can say that Reluctant led that bandwagon, when he was clearly trying to save his own Smurf. I don't think there would have been a switch from Reluctant to Scapegoat without your influence. So yes, I think you're leading. Did I imply anywhere that I thought you were not leading and no one was following you? I'm confused about where I'm "muddy," as you say.

I mentally combined you with EI who was arguing that I never led anything and feel you were attaching yourself to EI's logic.

"And despite these suspicions, I completely agree with EI here. I was quite surprised to see Thor begin to claim that everyone was only bandwagoning Reluctant because of his RVS vote. First off, it seems a bit... self-impressed to me. And also wrong. Reluctant was way suspicious. And not because of Thor. Secondly, Thor's vote for Reluctant (unlike his Scapegoat vote) did not seem RVS to me. "

You also wondered why the Reluctant wagon fell apart after I left it.

Neither of those comments seemed to me to say "Thor is leading the wagons" Then in the post I responded to you had clear opinion about how I led the wagons - hence, muddy.

He expressly stated he was "stretching" the case to make it work on me. Why would scum admit that unless they felt trapped? EI wasn't trapped - he is either STUPID scum, or he's town. I'm betting the latter. Why do you disagree?

Once again, I'm not convinced by the absoluteness of your reads. If EI was scum, he got you off his trail by backing off, so how is that stupid? Though I will say I'm liking EI's posts ... so he is definitely a better player than Scapegoat, whichever side he's on.

But why would scum admit they were stretching a case unless they were caught in a corner? Stretching a case is generally considered scummy, why admit to it? Do you think he doesn't consider it scummy? If he considers it scummy it would be a weird time to claim a scummy action, yes?

I agree that Zipperflesh needs a read, especially because I STILL can't tell what Willow is thinking in his/her ISO, but I don't know if you're going to get it by trying to convince everyone to follow you to the fourth wagon of the game. Perhaps you could try to get your read by asking some questions of Zipperflesh?

I am being internally consistent in my methods and at this stage refuse to try to explain the same thing for the third time to a third player. You may scumhunt in your way, let me scumhunt in mine. Also, I don't like the Travis wagon - as a result it behooves me to try to at least get a second option out there and Cirno has me uncertain on the seth wagon.

[Thor665]

They're both attempts to discern roles.
They both use both types of reasoning.
Shifts within reads are both equally scummy/not scummy regardless of which way the shift is going - you need to be able to explain shifts.

[Thor665]

How did I shift on Arraneas? To use the list you provided;

ISO #3 you said he wasn't scum-hunting (this might be interpreted as me calling him scummy - I submit it's more me trying to get a read on him)
ISO #6 you said you were surprised scapegoat could only vote him because of OMGUS (this is me being suspicious of someone for how they are acting towards Arraneas - it's not a read on Arraneas except insomuch as maybe I don't consider him scapegoat's buddy)
ISO #20 you said Scapegoat did an odd dance with him (a read on scapegoat, same as above, probably if I suspect scapegoat I am less likely to suspect targets he has)
ISO #22 "Want him to be town, generally think he is" (call him town)
ISO #29 "My read there is town" (call him town)
ISO #62 I've already explained in thread why I eliminate Cirno, reluctant, and Arranneas (because I've called him town - though I'll admit I didn't make a case on it as I did with the other two)

Where's the shift exactly? You say I "seemed to shift" between/during what posts do you feel this shift happened?

RE: reluctant bandwagon shift and suspecting Travis and not Arraneas: I didn't like the wagon - I shifted away from it, I considered Travis to be following me and suspected him and not Arraneas because I had a town read on Arraneas so I didn't suspect him. As I asked Cirno earlier - why is it strange that I wouldn't suspect and scumhunt someone I had a town read on?

As far as my pointing out why I had a muddied read on your beliefs as to my bandwagon leading - I did so. I don't care to debate about your actual intent with what you said since I'm not making a case on the point.

Hmm... you seemed to be making a bigger deal about the difference between the two concepts here:

What exactly do you find scummy here again? I think I've lost the train of thought. I was clarifying between two thoughts that I believed you were either misunderstanding/misrepresenting.

[Thor665]

with only a zipperflash

Is intentional pun intentional?

I'm actually insulted he couldn't even fos me or something for wanting to lynch him. I'll just announce his quick duck in and soft sell on Arran for lurking as suspicious (when, y'know, zipperflesh is doing nothing of the sort, and also, y'know, when lurking isn't actually scummy) and further proof that I am brilliant and his wagon needs another vote or two.

[Thor665]

If lurking is so obvobv scummy, why do you get a town read on Aran?

lurking isn't actually scummy

Do you have any thoughts on anything that has happened *besides* a jab at Arran for lurking - I'm pretty sure some other stuff has gone on.

[Thor665]

@zipperflesh - what is your read on Arraneas and reluctant.

Also, specifically what points do you agree with Cirno on?

[Thor665]

I've already stated that I find Aran's lurkiness suspicious.

In general, how is lurking suspicious?
And specifically how is his lurking suspicious?
Do you think you have lurked this game or not?

I like Cirno's post #322

This is the post where she explains she's voting for Travis for gut and 'voting patterns' (the scumminess of the patterns is not explained).
Says she doesn't worry about connections with lynches.
Thinks me voting you is scummy.

Since you thought she had good points "especially against Thor" that means that really what you're excited about is no part of her issue with me other then the fact I'm voting you, yes?

Why haven't you listed issues with how I'm voting you? Why just stand behind Cirno?

[Thor665]

Cirno is doing a fine job, why should I say what has already been said?

Seriously? I'm wrong for calling you scum (and more then that - I'm scummy for it) and you're going to let someone else say so and actually need me to ask you about it to even get you to admit you agree with them?

Honestly, I think you're upset that I didn't OMGUS you back when you attacked me.

Upset is too strong a word. I will admit a direct response to me would have been easier to assess. I don't often recall seeing this total ignore tactic, but now that it's become total ignore plus support of the other player who is assaulting the case for you it looks more scummy to me then just the total ignore. I certainly found the total ignore weird since you'd already expressed issues with me - when I turned around and attacked you I expected...something.

That would have certainly helped your campaign to get me lynched...

Ending sentences with ellipses is scummy If you want to say I'm scum who is trying to get you lynched feel free to unzip yourself to find two round objects and say so directly.

Do you really think I'm scum? Or are you just trying to save CT?

The "case" connecting me to CT is so nonexistent, weak, and poorly thought out that it defies description.

I openly admitted I was trying to run up an alternate wagon to CT, so...brilliant observation on your part, I guess? YES, I am trying to save CT, I have admitted to such in the very post I voted you, and have taken actions to accomplish this task - what of it?

[Thor665]

Dorf - and to answer zipperflesh's lurking question; I think he's active lurked. I think Arraneas has just lurked and maybe even flaked.

[Thor665]

You're avoiding part of the question again...

You admit to attempting to save CT, but do you think I'll flip mafia in the event of my lynch? If not, then why are you wasting your time trying to lynch me?

You seriously think I need to answer this?

...gosh, okay, you caught me. I actually seriously think you're town and that when lynched you'll flip town. Man, and it would have worked too except for those darn kids.

And in my previous post I didn't admit anything I did was scummy - I noted that you believed Cirno's issues (remember that post you totally agree with) where she said I was scummy for voting you. If you're going to take her stances - then at least accept what she says as something you said.

Finally - tunneling? Thor, the guy who is running soooo many bandwagons on soooo many players is the one tunneling? Egads, sir, egads.

@Cirno - how do you feel about being plugged into zipperflesh's mind and saying what he wants to say so he doesn't need to say it?

[Thor665]

In that case let's say my issue with him is 'gut' and my gut says it's strange that instead of defending himself he says 'oh yeah, Cirno covered it' - what does your gut say about my gut?

[Thor665]

Well, actually I think you're shutting down and only seeing one track at the moment, and I wish you'd shake out of it. But, fine, proceed as you will.

Has anything interesting happened in the thread since last you posted substantively? I've discovered you consider my opinion of zipperflesh following you to be pointless; has anything else occurred to you be it judging something pointless or judging it worthwhile?

[Thor665]

Any particular reason?

Really I was null on most of it with an odd glaring twinge of weirdness towards him feeling a need to mention being against a Cirno lynch (y'know, because *everyone* has been talking about lynching Cirno...). Other then that I stick with my basic read of him - town with sloppy scum tendencies.

[Thor665]

Meh, actually remove that Cirno note - reluctant asked that during her little splurge last page and it was just EI responding to that. So I'm back to it all being null to me.

[Thor665]

I would like to point out for everyone's consideration.

zipperflesh says he agrees with Cirno (specifically that she called me scummy for voting zipper)
He lets her say this and feels no need to mention that he thinks I'm scummy for voting him (also notes that maybe if he'd said so it would have made him look scummy and make it easier for me to lynch him)
So he finds me scummy for the vote, but doesn't think he needs to mention that I'm scummy because Cirno already did, and apparently he thinks that if he'd attacked me back it would make him look scummy.
He later sort of soft evades from it by suggesting that he doesn't think I'm scummy, maybe just misguided and maybe just tunneling (tunneling is a town tell in zippers world, fyi)
Says he doesn't want to lose the IC because the IC is tunneling (tunneling being a town tell and mentioning the value of the IC being mostly just random pandering for purposes I'm unsure of)

Would anyone like to hazard a guess why he's being so lukewarm and uncertain in his reads on me?

Does anyone have a read on zipperflesh yet that isn't null?

[Thor665]

I'm still trying to discern if you agree with Cirno that I am scummy for how I am voting you?
Or you think that I am tunneling and/or misguided?

You've claimed both. Are you settling on the fence and deciding the only way to discern is to lynch Travis?

Why do you think the way Travis 'followed the lynch' is scummy? By dint of this do you believe both EI and reluctant are obv. town, or are they only town if Travis flips scum? If they're not obv. town then isn't it just as/more likely that Travis voted them because he suspected them? What about his shiftings around those two was more suspicious then my shifting and Arraneas' shifting? I don't think i understand why CT is the poster child who needs the vote in your mind.

[Thor665]

Yes, voting me was scummy. Yes, you are tunneling on me. Yes, you are misguided.

So I'm both scummy *and* misguided? I personally don't tend to call anyone misguided unless I think they're dumb/foolish town. If someone is scum I tend to just say 'you're scum'. What do you see as the logic of joining these two beliefs together?

Travis flip would greatly help matters, IMO.

I doubt [Travis'] flip will reveal anything about those he was voting for

How exactly does Travis' flip 'greatly help matters' since you don't seem to think it gives info on at least a couple of the players in game?

[Thor665]

Not circles, just trying to get a feel for the space. I was curious to see if 'greatly helping matters' meant you saw his flip as useful for anything but getting a read on me. Apparently the answer is no.

I can grok that scummy doesn't always mean scum. I do think misguided tends to always mean town - you don't often call someone you're suspicious of 'misguided', thoughts?

[Thor665]

@Sundy - what's your read on fleshzipper?

@EarhIntruder - what's your read on fleshzipper?

I really hope you're both still not in null territory, like Cirno.

[Thor665]

Uffda! Remind me to get a little inebriated before reading it so I don't go into an emotional barrel roll of despair at the case

[Thor665]

A barrel role is something you do to make certain anthropomorphic wingmen shut their pie-holes cause you're trying to fly through some giant rings.

I have actually already presented a more substantial case on Zipper. Read moar. Is your read on him still 'null'/

[Thor665]

Yes, I do believe the behavior exhibited by zipperflesh is scummy.

Trying to fencesit, letting others fight your battles, being murky on reads, and avoiding doing something "because it would look scummy" are all things that scum are more likely to do then town. I also, personally, find them much more relevant then the CT case of 'he's voted for two players and brought them close to lynch' Remember the last game we played together? Remember me commenting about how Valk/Me=Weird was sort of following opinion and letting other players say things for them (I also used neutral opinions as a tell as well as active lurking - I was town in that game)? Yeah, I believe my case to be one of scumtells.

[Thor665]

Thor did not bother even to address a question to Zipper until two days after his vote

, and so we can assume that pressuring Zipper was not Thor's top priority. And thirdly, it is incredibly scummy (or, alternatively, stupid) to suggest a pressure wagon with 5 days to deadline

I didn't address him a question because when I put a vote on him I expected a response to my vote - I did start questioning him basically immediately after he reappeared in thread and didn't comment on my vote.
Also...5 days is unreasonable to get a wagon going??? You must love slooooooow games. It's five days, that's a LOT of time (five days from the start of this game we ran two different players up as wagons.

Ugh.

Needless to say I'm vastly underwhelmed by the "case" on me. I'm afraid to say I feel that I'm being run up partly because certain players are being bull headed and not opening their eyes (I'm almost hoping I'm wrong and Cirno is scum because it would justify her play to me), and partly because some of you are being a little silly in deciding what is or is not scummy or town play (certainly *I've* made no mistakes - he said with nary a touch of hubris). Alas, that is the nature of Newbie games sometimes.

As a bit of advice - wagons and starting them is not scummy, and leading them can be - but not that often in my experience. For day 2 I think you really need to learn that town should be able to assess and reassess their reads and should also not dismiss someone's thoughts simply because you disagree with them. At least listen and try to understand where they're coming from - otherwise you're cutting off information resources.

My personal suspect list is back to seth for his opportunism on my wagon. I'm still suspicious of zipperflesh for reasons already stated (and misaligned and misunderstood, woe unto town). Sundy is trying to creep back in with just the horribleness of his case on me, I'm not sure if he's just obtuse by nature or if I missed in my assessment of his experience level - that's something town will need to examine tomorrow. If Anton gets a good player replacing in I advise you to listen to that player, as a fresh set of eyes often offers good insights - just remember that the slot could still be scum and we might have been running around looking at connections while there was only one active scum playing.

@Mod - Anton?

@Cirno - No pictures in your case on me - shame!

also -

Tomorrow is deadline. Thor has a cases against him from three different players. Further, Thor's lynch will provide information on his wagon, Travis, and perhaps Zipperflesh and Seth. Thor is the best lynch. If you do not wish to vote Thor, then at least make sure that you do all that you can to prevent a no lynch tomorrow.

What do you think you "perhaps" learn about Zipperflesh and seth after my lynch? If my cases are so terrible (and in your opinion - scummy) even if I'm town you shouldn't trust them, yes? Also - none of you people know about bussing? For shame.

@Claim Requests - I'll claim when someone says they desire to hammer.

Unvote: Zipperflesh
Vote: seth

Opportunistic on me helps overwrite Cirno's anti-seth case. Plus I see more support for his lynch then I do for Zipper (for reasons I don't fully understand) and I'm at least more likely to lynch scum here then by trying to lynch someone who isn't being lynched today.

[Thor665]

I didn't address him a question because when I put a vote on him I expected a response to my vote

What would be the town response and what would be the scum response to someone suggesting a wagon on you and giving no reasons?

I was opposing this as a "tell" in your case on me wherein you suggested it was scummy I didn't ask him questions till I did. I couldn't very well ask him questions till he showed up, now could I?

Whether or not I found his chosen response scummy or not is meaningless to the point you were making. Respond to the point I made on your point wherein I showed it to be meaningless.

Also...5 days is unreasonable to get a wagon going??? You must love slooooooow games. It's five days, that's a LOT of time (five days from the start of this game we ran two different players up as wagons.

keywords:

pressure wagon

, 5 days

before deadline

...yeah, and? I don't see how this is scummy. Is a pressure wagon "town" at 6 days prior? What about 7? Certainly at some point pressure wagons are town because town does them, so at that point all you're doing is applying a subjective opinion as to when they are no longer acceptable (I find them to be acceptable throughout the game, personally - the point of them is to help you get reads on people - I openly announced I wasn't happy with my read on Zipper, hence a pressure wagon. This all seems very obvious and logical to me.)

Ugh.

Ugh...
The circle is now complete.

You win this round, but we shall meet again. Oh yes, we shall meet again.

[Thor665]

I was opposing this as a "tell" in your case on me wherein you suggested it was scummy I didn't ask him questions till I did. I couldn't very well ask him questions till he showed up, now could I?

Whether or not I found his chosen response scummy or not is meaningless to the point you were making. Respond to the point I made on your point wherein I showed it to be meaningless.

Well, this is a forum so you certainly could have questioned him. You are saying that you didn't pressure Zipper because you were waiting for him to respond to your vote.

Actually I said I didn't QUESTION him till he showed up.
You and I both said I was trying to PRESSURE him with the vote.
You suggested it was scummy I didn't question him earlier then I did, and I was explaining how I questioned him after my vote on him innediately after he showed up in thread again and wondered why that was a scummy pause.

My implication was that this is nonsense because you wouldn't learn anything from someone calling you out on voting them for no reason. To put it another way, waiting for Zipper's response would not help you to pressure him in any way. There was no reason to wait for his response before attempting to pressure him.

My point is that it is stupid to start a pressure wagon on a player whom you don't have a read on at a time when people are especially likely to go along with it without reason.

...um...that's actually the optimal time to start a pressure wagon - consider how the RVS works.

You are essentially putting a player with no case against them into danger of being lynched. And not because you think they are scum... but because 'lol i want to pressure him'. In my opinion that is either scummy play or extremely stupid play.

I thought there was a chance that he was scum. I said as much. I clarified it later when I thought he had a highly likely chance to be scum.

Why are you refusing to claim at L-1?

For reasons already stated in thread.

So you're definitely down with hammering me? (good job making it a policy lynch by the way - scummy)

[Thor665]

Just add a dayvig power to my role and I won't care who saw what

[Thor665]

@Mod - Arraneas, prod or replace?

@Everyone else - so how about that seth or Thor lynch? I support the seth one - for personal reasons. I would still accept an early Christmas present if people would kindly agree that we could lynch zipperflesh.

[Thor665]

You said you didn't question him because you were expecting a response to your vote.

Yes, and... What's this have to do with you thinking it's scummy I didn't question him before voting him?

I wonder if you are being purposefully dense. This is not rvs. I specifically have a problem with starting the pressure wagon solely for pressure that close to the deadline.

That's fine. I don't believe it's scummy to want to get a read on every player before the end of Day 1 even if it means starting a pressure wagon at some mystical point where it becomes scummy, you do. Ce' la vie.

Serious question: How many days prior to deadline would it have not been scummy to start the wagon?

What you said was that you weren't comfortable with your read and wanted an alternative to the Travis wagon. You voted Zipper without reason, sat on your vote for two days, and when nobody chose to use the deadline as an excuse as you had done, you tried to incriminate Zipper and validate your vote by making a case out of nothing.

I gave reasons when I voted Zipper. You deciding those reasons aren't good enough is a subjective matter - but at least be honest with yourself and be able to admit that reasoning was provided. If you're having to twist to make the "case" on me look scummy that should tell you something about the validity of the case.

(good job making it a policy lynch by the way - scummy)

Also, I want to point out just how ridiculous this line is. There is nothing scummy about a player saying they are willing to hammer the player with the most votes on the day of the Smurfing deadline.

I disagree with you. If he thought I was scummy I would agree, but he hasn't said that, has he? In fact, he's twisted and worked hard to go out of his way to AVOID giving a read on me and then wants to hammer me for a policy decision. That is scummy.

Reluctant died for your sins. You should repent by hammering yourself.

Well, to be frank he probably died for Reckoner's sins, so this is an obvious misrep . Also, self-hammering is for the weak and the scummy - I am neither.

I agree with you about Reluctant's slot being town. I figured out that slot was town a while ago. Why did scumThor disable that wagon again and even specifically ask for no claim? I really feel like if you just opened your eyes a bit you'd notice a few branching paths in that tunnel you're accelerating down.

EBOWP: Oh hell, *another* player refusing to be cleared of being scum? There is some new meta out there that I am woefully unaware of. I do think his quick assessment of my wagon is wrong though.

I'm being lynched because, as far as I can tell, I want to not lynch Travis. It doesn't make the case much better, but at least there's a vague concept of strategy there.

[Thor665]

Allow me to just say 'bah'

And also a preemptive 'bah' to Cirno's 'bah'

I'll still follow the game and shalt have notes and amusing anctedotes for you all in the post game.

Yay town.
Boo scum.
Hope you all have fun.

[Thor665]

Greetings,

Good game all, I'm a little sad I turned away from my gut as far as Travis was concerned - but everyone running him up for being buddies with me was such a weak case I inherently rebelled at it.

Sunday

- you had okay play but I think you were pushing the boundaries of logic in order to advance your cases. That's what had me twigging on you Day 1...of course you got me dead-ified fairly effectively anyway, so maybe you were on top of that. Overall a solid scum game that just needs a bit of polish, you probably have the best strength in being willing to be wordy, as that gets people town points around here. Your weakness is a willingness to advance the shady logic, but I suspect that will sharpen up quickly over time. And no worries about the lynch, though I will point out that the best cases for scum to use are ones they'd use as town players as well - makes it easier to lie about it.

Coach Travis

- Be a little mindful about sheeping after people when scum. A certain degree of sheeping is valuable even as a town game, but something about the way you did it made me slightly uneasy. Thankfully (or accursedly, depending on your alignment) I was then turned against wanting to lynch you because of the nature of the case. I'm surprised you got away with the lurking late game, that strategy won't work quite so well in non-newbie games here on the site, just as a warning. Overall I think your biggest strength is good basic logic, your area to work on is how you construct cases - your scumhunting efforts were slightly suspect throughout.

Cirno

- The tunnel, get out of it. As usual I find your play overall solid but with a danger that as soon as someone disagrees with you about anything you glom onto them and refuse to lift your head and look around. You'll *always* have playstyle disagreements with people on site, but remember that playstyle differences doesn't equate to scumminess. Also, seriously, what was up with the scumtell over me considering your slot town? I still don't understand that.

Thor

- I liked that I allowed myself to listen to Cirno re: seth. I should have stuck more to my gut on Travis instead of going into wagon analysis. Need to learn that I should go after players I find questionable instead of going after lurkers Day 1 - removing lurkers is less valuable then removing scum and I think i just need to accept the lurker meta in the newbie queue.

Robbnva

- I was a little surprised you got lynched since people were even quoting me to imply I supported your lynch, and that's not what I said. Probably what you need to consider is that gut based play, though equally as effective as more methodical types in my opinion, requires you to be even more mindful of trying to explain where you're coming from. Note that pretty much 90% of what blathered out of my mouth Day 1 was gut, but I still took pains to at least point out posts and little niggles that were tweaking me as well as I was able. If you work that in you'll freak out the rest of town a *lot* less. You had some good pickups during your run, I think you'll have a lot of promise as a player once you get some more experience.

EarthIntruder

- You were fairly painfully obv. town, but there is still a lot of newbie energy to you. Really the only advice I have is to stick with what you're doing, and as you gain experience you'll learn to avoid some of the pitfalls you had this game. I wish more Newbies were like you instead of filthy, filthy lurkers

Zipperflesh

- Change the username. But, seriously, I wanted you lynched Day 1 and had my reasons and you did the appropriate town thing of sticking to your guns on Travis your legitimate scum suspect. I remember having what I considered a solid tell on you but honestly forget what it is now. The only advice I can offer (because you really did play a solid game) is that you needed to expand more on the Travis as scum concept. You seemed to rest on the laurels of your case a bit too much - if you suspect someone you have to work to keep them as a top conversation topic for everyone in the game. Hope I get another game with you sometime in the future.

Arraneas

- You had an awesome early game. Thank you for being a pro-town townie.

mistergreen

- I actually thought you should have been a bit more aggressive...then again I got lynched for that so what do I know? As with a lot of newbies your biggest weakness is case making - sharp, sweet, and to the point is usually the best method. Your gut reactions to stuff seems pretty solid, with some experience garnishing you'll be looking better.

reluctant

- you were the most townie player in the entire game and I'm honestly a bit surprised scum let you live. You sort of remind me near the beginning of my career - you have th etown energy down, now you need to work to make yourself a more credible threat to scum. It will take a couple games to figure out the right aggressive mix and also to find your own scumhunting style. Remember to keep this sort of style in mind when playing as scum, you'll be deadly.

Reck

- I'll say again, no worries for the modkill, it happens. Besides, now I can have a slightly more exciting Wiki I'd play in one of your games again with no reservations.

[Thor665]

You're new, it's a common problem and I see it all the time. Next you'll get to experience the joy that is "This guy seems scummy, but he's voting for me, am I just OMGUSing him?" Which is a really horrible time to be in. Eventually you'll get a bit better at deciding *why* you want to vote someone, and then it will get easier.