Mini 1390: Game Over

[nhammen]

Vote Count 1.10

TheTrollie(4): Idiotking, Deltabacon, Cheery Dog, Abaddon
Kinetic(3): _Sherlock_, toxictaipan, Tommy
Abaddon(2): Slandaar, TheTrollie
kwll(2): JacobSavage, absta101

not voting (2): kwll, Kinetic

With 13 players alive, it takes 7 votes to lynch.
Deadline is in

(expired on 2012-11-17 17:30:00)

[_Sherlock_]

Welp, we have two days.

UNVOTE:

I'm not willing to join the Trollie wagon. I'm not willing to lynch Kinetic without giving him a chance to post and others a chance to respond.

I'll read up once more either tonight or tomorrow, but unless something major comes up, I'll most likely be forced to join the Abaddon wagon.

[TheTrollie]

Eh. "It was a trap!" is a piss-poor way to walk back your on-a-limb positions. Granted, it's entirely possible that Toxic's for real here.

Try producing some actual content and we'll see which side you land on, Toxic.

Which, at present, does not include you. It's very easy to make a statement, then sit in judgment as others make your case for you.

I'm calling your bluff. I disagree with your premise, and want you to prove it.

I haven't had a lot of time cause of papers but I've been ISOing here and there while procrastinating. I think there is one scum in {Abaddon/Toxic} but need more time to clarify which scum read is stronger. I'm willing to put my votes on either of those until then.

[TheTrollie]

i must have pressed quote on those a while ago, they have no relevance to my post. I was considering making an Abaddon wall earlier in the day but then got distracted lol

[TheTrollie]

this thread needs more action. very close to deadline (of the day and my paper) and i need something to procrastinate with

[kwll]

this is getting scary guys...deadline is 2 days...

[kwll]

I isoed Abaddon earlier and I would vote for him. But trollie...I am trying to get a better bead on you. My vote on you still stands till I think it through. This is my first game on day one so I am not used to people changing their mind a lot.

[toxictaipan]

@_Sherlock_: Does it not bother you that no one currently on that wagon has provided a good, solid case for why Abaddon is scummy? Why are you willing to abandon a scum read you feel pretty strongly about in favor of lynching someone you view as slightly leaning town? Before you hop on that wagon for no reason, take a while to really analyze it and make sure that's what you want to do.

I agree that it would be best if we could see a post from Kinetic before deciding on a lynch, but when it comes down to lynching scum reads vs. town reads, I think you have to take what you can get.

[Tommy]

Kwll, you don't have a vote on anyone.

[kwll]

Your right....have a question...lynch all lurkers?

[nhammen]

Prodding Abaddon. This is his second prod.

[Deltabacon]

I'm not seeing why we should lynch all lurkers when we have viable scumreads to lynch. Trollie is the one we should be.going for, for reasons that I really shouldn't have to explain a third or fourh time. We can get to Radelle's slot tommorow, when Kinetic is more familiar with the game and his/her scumreads, but I don't want a wagon on either a lurker or a recent replacement when we have someone who is already acting consistently scummy to lynch.

Tl;dr: Don't waste a lynch on a lurker or a recent replacement - use it on someone who has consistently acted scummy, or start solidifying your case on the other two with some legitamate points.

[JacobSavage]

this is getting scary guys...deadline is 2 days...

No really its not. 2 days is not scary at all. there's still time, you tend to get more poare closer to the end of the day. Also as it approaches people tend to hop off smaller wagons onto the larger ones because in most cases everyone wants to see a lynch.

Also I'm happy where I am now, tthat just post especially sounds like scum trying yo hard to be viewed as town. that and I tend to view people posting multiple posts on multiple occasions as more of a scum tell as to me it smacks of scum trying to look more active than they are. x

[Cheery Dog]

Your right....have a question...lynch all lurkers?

If lurking is the only thing against them, no.

If you have a high level of belief they are scum because of what they have done when they have posted, yes.

(active lurkers are a different story though)

[absta101]

VOTE: Trollie

[_Sherlock_]

@_Sherlock_: Does it not bother you that no one currently on that wagon has provided a good, solid case for why Abaddon is scummy? Why are you willing to abandon a scum read you feel pretty strongly about in favor of lynching someone you view as slightly leaning town? Before you hop on that wagon for no reason, take a while to really analyze it and make sure that's what you want to do.

I agree that it would be best if we could see a post from Kinetic before deciding on a lynch, but when it comes down to lynching scum reads vs. town reads, I think you have to take what you can get.

As for the first question, that doesn't bother me at all. I don't have a problem with a two-person wagon having no solid evidence.

Leaving Kinetic alive could be a good thing because we could get a better read on the slot. We could also establish better connections if the slot flips scum. I also have absolutely no concrete feeling of Abaddon-town, so with a deadline approaching, you have to make the best possible choice. A good, promising replacement of a currently scummy slot that could provide a lot of information for later is a worse choice than a player that you only slightly feel is town and shows no signs of increasing activity.

However, you have a point that there's no reasonable chance of an Abaddon wagon happening over a Trollie wagon at this point. I guess a Kinetic wagon will have to do.

VOTE: Kinetic

Make your post soon.

Would anyone like me to rehash my case on Radelle?

[Deltabacon]

I wouldn't mind a concise summary, since it seems spread over a couple of posts. I'm sorry to be lazy about this, however I do get the general gist of it.

[Slandaar]

Kwll: derpy scum; here he is derpy; conclusion; arguments saying this looks different to his scum meta are terrible. Is he scum though? Probably. He is throwing the same lurker arguments about as he did as scum along with the complete not paying attention with his initial post.

The argument; But Scum would pay more attention! I say; no, town would because they genuinely want to find scum where scum are just inventing stuff and do not care.

Trollie wagon is ok he forgot his previous reads which most likely comes from scum.

Radelle was town/Kinetic is

UNVOTE:
VOTE: Kwll

[absta101]

VOTE: Kwll
Lynch this please.

[_Sherlock_]

Nope.

In truth, I would probably be making a case on absta if I had more time to make one.

[absta101]

Nope.

In truth, I would probably be making a case on absta if I had more time to make one.

Town don't just 'make cases', it should come naturally. If you're running low on time, sum up your thoughts and we'll talk.

[TheTrollie]

I am willing to join a kwll wagon only if pressed by deadline.

Need kinetic action...and abaddon

[TheTrollie]

@slandaar, I never forgot any reads, I have changed them, the only thing i forgot was that i called CD town and that was cause i had called him town way before i had put time into this game...look at the difference in my activity on pages 1-5 v. the rest of the game. THAT is why i forgot i had said CD was town.

[TheTrollie]

Ok, now I have a bit of time I am going to work my way through Toxic & Abaddon to take a closer look at my “one of them is scum” theory

Toxic:

VOTE: Tommy
What a plain username.

I hear taipans are some of the deadliest snakes in the world.

Trufax.

@Cheery Dog: Are you going to participate in RVS?

(1) something about this post reads nervous to me, but only very slightly
(2) the Cheery Dog thing is very aggressive

UNVOTE: Tommy
VOTE: Idiotking
RVS is pretty much over, dude. Why the seemingly random vote instead of something a little more substantial?

This is a stretch to find a reason to vote. Idiot’s vote was on P1 there is no reason to give him flack for randomly voting.

First two posts = slightly leaning scum not much though

ISO #2 /Post #36

(http://forum.mafiascum.net/viewtopic.ph ... 0#p4440450)

Pretty null, if anything maybe a bit town because he is very straightforward, same thing with ISO #3

UNVOTE: Idiotking
VOTE: Sable Tip

Does anyone else have a serious problem with Sable Tip's post, or is it just me?

This post has gotten a lot of discussion, I don’t find there to be much scum motivation from this post alone. I think I’d be more likely to say something like this as town than as scum.

Toxic & Abaddon have an substantial interaction here about Toxic’s post above. It is this interaction that bugs me the most and makes me think one is scum. I will go back to it and ISO the two of them together.

ISO #7/post #73

( http://forum.mafiascum.net/viewtopic.ph ... 7#p4442897)
+town points

ISO #8/post #78 he calls to let us wait for parama to explain stuff

ISO#9: hyper defensive post about CD vote, null, something off about it though

This next post of his is long, and my response is long too so im gonna add spoilers to help

Alright, I was hoping to hear from Parama, but apparently that's not going to happen.

Spoiler: part1

I didn't want anyone to make my case for me, or to simply answer with a, "Yes/No", answer. I didn't want anyone to do anything specific. I do see some issues with Sable Tip's post, but I was trying to gather information with mine. I forced the players to go back over his post and look for something they may have missed, and to take a stance on it, as well. This helps us see how players are generally reacting to the game, who's paying attention and catching the little things, etc.

This I follow

Spoiler: part2

I was expecting smart/cautious townies to react much like Abaddon did, saying something along the lines of, "Yeah, I think I see what you're saying. However, I want to see if our thoughts corroborate. What are you seeing?" or perhaps, "I've went back over his post and I still don't see anything. I'm calling your bluff." (Though I have a feeling the general reaction from the town was less, "I've went back over his post," and more, "I'm calling your bluff anyway.") I expected some comments about having my case made for me, but I thought a reasonable town would try to work with me a little bit without handing me a case -- especially from those who had a town read on me. It was well within reason to put the burden of proof on me and still have this work, but I digress.

I figured scum would be more apt to just blurt out what they saw wrong with the post, looking for approval and hoping to get easy town points. Alternatively, I was expecting scum to be critical of my approach without much consideration of what Sable Tip's post actually says. Why pretend to go scum hunting when you can just attack a player for his strange approach to the situation and get away with it? The drawback is that you have to take this with a grain of salt because a townie that doesn't know any better could easily do these same things, but nothing is ever concrete in scum hunting. Still worth it to see who does what, though. I was trying to get everyone's reaction to both Sable Tip's post and my own, though I mostly got the latter. Regardless, I still think there's a bit of good information here we'll be able to use.

I do not buy this though, there is NO WAY that post was a reaction test. Maybe it was retrospectively one, but there are so many better ways to reaction test than this. The question “does anybody else see…” means either (1) that he wants us to say, “no, show us” or (2) that he has a good reason to refrain info, or (3) that he isn’t actually sure there is something off. SO I have a few problems with this. First, if this was a reaction test, as he claims, then why is he able to so perfectly explain what is wrong below? If what he says below is true, then why would he find it scummy for someone to say “yes, blab la bla” Second, If Toxic wants to reaction test based on sable tip’s post, the way to do it would be to get sable tip to say something showing that he did not consider the issue that Toxic is bringing up. Something about his parama read, or even telling Sable tip what is wrong and seeing if Sable tip has a bad response to that.

Spoiler: part3

As for Sable Tip... Doesn't anyone find it odd that his 3 suspicions (Cheery Dog, Abaddon, and Parama) are all suspicious of Radelle (to varying degrees), but he lists Radelle as a neutral read? If I had any confidence whatsoever in my reads, and all 3 of my suspicions were expressing doubt over the same player, that player would be pretty far up my town reads list. I'd expect him to list Radelle as leaning town at the very least. He's not being consistent with his reads, and that's scummy. Also, he hasn't really provided

why

Parama and Abaddon are scummy, unless I am to take it that being aggressive and harsh is somehow scummy.

Another thing that bothered me was his reference to Parama's Post 47. I can't tell if Sable Tip is trying to buddy me here or what. That part of his post altogether doesn't make much sense to me. It seems like he’s trying to use it as a lame excuse to vote Parama, but at the same time it reads sort of like a defense so I’m wary of buddying. Maybe I'm biased here because it's something concerning me, but it really rubbed me the wrong way.

K, I kept reading the ISO: Toxic reads fairly town except for this one issue (the reaction test). So I don’t really know what to do with him. Time to take a look at Abaddon.

tl;dr

Look at my comments in the last post of Toxic’s that I quoted. That is the scummiest thing in his play so far. Leaning town on his recent posts but not declaring him anything past null because of the reaction test thing.

[TheTrollie]

HAPPY BIRTHDAY TO IDIOTKING. here is that wall you've been asking for. kinda glad u made me do this actually:
Abaddon Time:

VOTE: Toxictaipan

For randomly voting when he could have put down a more serious vote when questioning Cheery Dog.

^Fake. Overdoing it.

^Scum #1.

unvote, vote: Radelle

2 more to go. Who are your buddies, Radelle?

^Yep.

CD says “you think they are scum but ur not voting them”

Unvote
Vote: Radelle

Actually, thought I did. Oversight corrected.

WOW!!! MAJOR + Scum points. NOT for failing to vote at first as everyone else has said, but for IMMEDIATELY giving in when being accused of a misstep. There is NO REASON he had to vote radelle right away. He certainly can vote her after that post if he wants, but Its fine to support someone else’s argument and then keep ur RVS vote to see if that goes anywhere, especially since Toxic had posted since being voted by Abaddon AND Radelle. Immediately giving into CD is scummy, especially the way he did it.

Eh, not convinced on that count. The chainsawing is TOO obvious to be real. More likely he's just an idiot.

So I'm an idiot for calling you out for doing something idiotic like leaving your vote in rvs while attacking someone?

So idiotic, whether I'm scum or Town, that the only plausible explanation is that it was a simple error, rather than intention. I practically said "I'm going to vote you for that, right now," then failed to bold my vote.

He is hyping up his claim now, he was NOWHERE NEAR failing to bold his vote. He just didn’t say anything about being worth voting at all.

Just you. In fact, instead of prompting other people to explain what you found so bad about it, how about you man up and explain it yourself?

Yeah, don’t like the instant jump on Toxic here, nor do I like him answering for everyone by saying “just you”

So he can estimate when people are failing to answer because they're likely asleep, and when they're failing to answer because they're intentionally dodging the question.

Made up my mind. Cheery Dog is probably new Town, making obvious inquiries he thinks are incisive. New scum probably would not be going this far out of their way to put their foot in their mouth, they'd probably be laying low at this point.

JEEZE…look at that CD read. It’s bubbling with qualifiers and shit.

Radelle, I don't need to be unfair to find you scummy. Attacks on scum that are just plain bad only give you ways to worm your way out of it by calling foul.

You're still scummy, but I won't abide no-logic attacks just because they're aimed in the right direction. That's hypocrisy of the worst sort, and I won't put up with that.

Is the second part of this post not EXACTLY what people think is scummy about me? That I defended someone I did not have a town read on? That means (1) Town-Abaddon understands that it is pro-town to prevent bad arguments from substantiating reads, but is voting someone for doing the same thing and (2) that if you find me to be scum for this reason, you should also find Abaddon scum for the same reason.

Then there are posts about the reaction test, these are fairly null. I will say that I can see scum motivation and null motivation for those posts but cannot see them as being pro-town.

Like I said, you're completely missing the point. The reaction test, as stated, has very little to do with Sable Tip's alignment, or with which alignment Toxic assigned to him. Toxic took a thoroughly neutral post and made a bold declarative statement, then refused to back it up. The reaction test was for peoples' reactions to Toxic's actions, not Sable Tip's post. He could have emphatically declared Sable Tip Town while refusing to explain why for a near-identical effect. The slight variance of whether Sable Tip was scum or not utterly pales in comparison to the far more distinct question of how people would react to Toxic's actions.

Now he’s on the side of toxic for the reaction test?
Also, side note: sable tips alignment is SUPER important. Either way, town will either see it and take a stab, see it and ask toxic to clarify, or say no, wha. If sable is town, toxic is right that scum MIGHT feel like they are being given the opportunity to attack someone, but honestly I don’t think they would because they don’t know specifically what toxic is talking about and pulling something out of their ass is a bad idea. If sable is SCUM, then now SCUM will likely say “no, what” or “I think, but I want to hear what you have to say”

in conclusion

The reaction test is worthless, at the very best its worthless till a sable slot flip.

^This absolutely reeks of opportunism.

Seriously rethinking my NewTown position on Cheery Dog.

Bah, this thread has way too many scummy players and far too few Townie ones.

^this absolutely reeks of opportunism.

If Ab thinks CD is newb town who is bad at scumhunting but trying then there is nothing wrong with CDs post.

The “bah” comment is sooooo overdone.

I'm really disliking a lot of what Trollie's had to say lately. It's coming off as really disingenuous. The two-faced hedging about CD (particularly 266) and the blithe manner in which he takes things that are not conclusive and makes definitive statements about them (such and such makes this person Town or scum, 283 & 285 contain good examples).

Unvote
Vote: Trollie

I’m biased cause this post is also where he votes me, but OMG this post is fucking laughable. Look at how much he does to try to justify him jumping on this wagon. His last reason is basically that I give reads.

tl;dr

Pretty content with my vote on Abaddon. I believe this clears Toxic slightly, so I am going to go with slight town on toxic.