Micro 89 ~ Mafia Rarefaction Segunda (Game Over!)

[Leafsnail]

VOTE: Parama why are you hiding your online status hmm? It's because you're a mafia member right?

[Leafsnail]

Because I've hidden my online status for the last 6-7 years on every site I join

That just makes you mafia IRL. I guess that doesn't matter to me this game though.

VOTE: Tierce going for an L-1 push?

[Leafsnail]

5 to lynch. Mine was L-2.

Yeah but that's what your partner is for

[Leafsnail]

And then... what, exactly? Hope for a derpy Town player to hammer? I'd like to think no one here is that stupid. Why are you against L-2 and L-1 this early?

I voted Parama because I could. I see no need to stick to 1- or 2-player wagons, and you are experienced enough to know that pushing early wagons is not a scumtell.

L-1 is often claim time so it can be bad in itself, but yeah it's not much of a scumtell. Not sure what relevance pushing early wagons has though considering that's clearly not what you were doing?

[Leafsnail]

Parama I think you should start explaining what you're doing.

...L-1 on RVS is claim time? Oh please. And what are people going to claim in this game? There are only VTs and a triggered Innocent Child, so what do you think scum will claim on D1? (Hint: not Town Roleblocker.)

...Huh? I acknowledge it's a weak accusation but the way you're attacking it doesn't make sense. Townies would claim their role in this game, which is bad because it could allow scum to find the IC more easily. Scum would work tactically go with one or the other depending on whether they wanted to find the IC or have a go at not being lynched. I'm not sure what your point is.

The point is that your vote on me was trying to paint adding to a wagon as a scumtell, when you're admitting it's not. So what exactly are you doing here?

I prefer to make weak accusations during RVS than just jokes or non-accusations. That way you at least get something out of it.

Like when people start introducing weird arguments to defend an action that was clearly taken without much thought.

[Leafsnail]

Leafsnail - why call put tierce for going for an l-1 push and not parama for actually putting tug at l-1?

It's not that strong an accusation (more a semi-RVS thing) and I think Parama has the bigger problem of not making any sense at all right now. But why ask a question about this if you're going to support my approach in your next post?

That 'fear' of claims at RVS L-whatever is silly and I don't shape my play out of fear of anything, up to and including causing Town claims.

Yeah this is the kind of response I was initially expecting.

...what the hell, this game is a mess.
Ehh Leaf is town never mind what I said
Also Aeris is probtown but also obv newbie
This game is already a mess, woo

VOTE: Parama none of this follows from your reasoning at all. You also have a town read on the guy you're voting

what are you doing

.

[Leafsnail]

I am voting Fighting
And?

Missed that. Your provided reasoning seems to have nothing to do with your conclusions though (and in my case is contradictory). I'm not sure if this is some kind of wacky RIA strategy but it sure as hell doesn't look town.

I dont follow your question. My approving of your line of questioning doesnt really matter to the question i asked. Two people committed a similar action, why would you only question one of them about their motives?

Fair enough. I think we've established that just because I try making an allegation at RVS doesn't mean I'll be reflexively making that same allegation throughout the entire game.

None yet.

Read on any other player at all?

[Leafsnail]

Nothing that I care to share at the moment.

So you're going to just keep your options open and hop on any bandwagon as it comes. That really isn't acceptable.

I think I don't need to explain that lack of commitment is a scumtell, right? Especially in a game where scum may suddenly need to change their suspicions at lylo.

Okay, so please tell me why I'd do these things I'm doing as scum?

So that you are able to ask this question

[Leafsnail]

I have everything but lack of commitment. I am, however, not particularly interesting in sharing some of my reads right now. Being unpredictable can be a Town asset.

It's a much bigger scum asset, and unpredictability isn't much help for town if it comes at the cost of expressing your viewpoint.

[Leafsnail]

Except unless you state them you can't be held to them later. That's the thing that makes evasiveness over your reads so useful for scum.

[Leafsnail]

you're okay with the reads I voice through votes going unexplained?

No I am not. That is obviously part of what I am criticizing. The fact that I didn't quote a particular thing you said doesn't mean I approve of it.

I guess you're ok with giving reads and explaining yourself when under attack though! That's good to know.

[Leafsnail]

So when I don't mention things I approve of/disapprove (i.e. things that would be visible reads) it's scummy, but when you do it it's perfectly fine?

Oh so it's a twisted GOTCHA! argument. I didn't realize.

There's a pretty obvious difference. In your case you can later say that the votes you made were as a joke/RVS thing in TUG's case or a policyvote in Ace's case. Or you can say you were voting them as scum. Because you didn't make it remotely clear at the time (or even up till now really) your options are open. This is the problem, not that you "don't mention things you approve/ disapprove of".

In my case... what, I didn't specifically point at your votes and say "these are bad" and instead said "your play [implication: of which your votes are a subset] is bad"? The same criticism doesn't apply at all and there's no comparison unless you use really vague words as you've done here.

You may want to check your hypocrisy. Hypocrisy isn't a scumtell, but coming from Town, it is a sign of deficient scumhunting technique, as you are not putting yourself in my place and trying to think as I do.

I really don't like this method of defense. The two problems are

1 you've danced around the "Not committing to reads is scummy because it allows scum to change their opinions on a dime to match the current situation" issue completely, and instead reinterpreted my argument in a weird way to try and make me a hypocrite. Scummy because you should be able to explain the reasoning behind your own play, and the hypocrisy attack looks like an attempt to dodge having to do so.

2 you've only started using actual vote reasoning and commitment now that someone has made an attack on you. Scummy because it suggests you know commitment and reasoning is needed in a decent vote (IE, one that other plays are going to care about and which will actually forward the game), but you're only deploying them defensively.

[Leafsnail]

Not revealing reads isn't the same as hedging bets, which is what your 1 is saying, Leaf.

But my point is that revealing reads allows you to hedge bets? I don't think I understand your objection here.

*looks at wagon*

Wow, scum really love me.

Oh so you've identified all four mafia members at once? That sure is impressive.

Your play is ridiculously useless and evasive. The only way I can rationalize it is that you're hoping people will think you're acting in too anti-town a way to be scum. It sure as hell won't find scum.

Aceofspades for being useless.

Also, this parama wagon is stupid.

Most of this stuff is good but I don't get your position on Parama. Can you elaborate please?

...except you had no issues whatsoever with my unexplained votes. You wanted me to voice OTHER reads on OTHER players, instead of digging at the reads I did state through votes and seeing whether they make any sense. You are now saying that my unexplained votes left me with open options--yes they did. So why did you choose to focus on "she's not giving any other reads!" and didn't mention it? Wouldn't that be FAR MORE important, and 'lock me' into reads far better than tossing another number of reads I could change at the drop of a hat? That excuse of "I didn't mention it but it doesn't mean I agreed with giving unexplained votes" holds no water, because for someone with the mindset that I'm leaving myself a wide net of options, THAT should have been your first priority. Understand what I

am

doing, not railing against what I am

not

doing.

You can be snippy and sarcastic all you want, but that has nothing to do with the matter at hand. I'm saying that your hypocrisy is at best flawed Town behavior and you should check the way you get your reads.

You didn't state or even really imply

any

reads at all, is the problem. What I wanted is for you to voice a read on ANY player at all, and that's what I asked. Votes are not necessarily an expressed read because they can be for RVS, pressure to help gain a read or policylynching. So what I'm focusing on is not "she's not giving any other reads" but rather "she's not giving any reads", which obviously includes your votes as part of the package. I don't think I have been at all ambiguous on this issue and I'm not sure why you're still arguing against a position I am not taking.

Unless you can provide me with evidence that I was referring to "other" reads rather than your reads in general (I wasn't) I have nothing else to say on this matter.

Tierce and Leafsnail are both town. Not going to hammer Parama.

Why?

[Leafsnail]

Unless you can provide me with evidence that I was referring to "other" reads rather than your reads in general (I wasn't) I have nothing else to say on this matter.

Read on any other player at all?

...Oh. By "other" I meant "other than Aeris" (who TUG had just asked you for a read on which you didn't give) and I thought that'd be obvious since that was the thing the quote referred back to. Looking at it now that is misinterpretable though so I retract the allegation of intentionally twisting my argument. Sorry.

I still don't like how you haven't expressed reads other than on me but the rest seems to be a result of talking past each other.

[Leafsnail]

I'd settle for a lynch on Ace considering that he's not playing at all.

I think the point you're missing is that if I was scum why would I admit to being serious :V

So that you can say this.

So that you can say this and vote whoever you want without any reasons

.

(also applies to Aeris' post).

[Leafsnail]

So vote him then - the people not voting Parama besides me have him as a town read, so unless you have something exciting to add that wagon is going nowhere.

Not true, Konawa and Tierce have expressed no opinion on the matter as far as I can tell, and only Aeris has come out with a hard town-read on him. Actually come to think of it Konawa is active-lurking like hell and wouldn't be a bad alterative.

Konawa: why are you active lurking? In particular why is your vote still on someone you seemed to be pressuring rather than actually building a case again? Please vote Parama instead, thanks.

And ace is being replaced so a policy lynch on him doesn't make much sense anymore.

No, it's because that question was so blatant in what you meant by it that I didn't bother addressing it. I hardly care what scum asks me anyways.

Yeah and whoever's asking the question at any given point in time is scum, so you never have to answer anything at all, am I right? Just dodge everything.

[Leafsnail]

F16 is looking increasingly town to me, his play over page 10 looks pretty genuine and consistent (I have no idea what Parama means by self-righteous either).

Analysis: F-16 is scum because he puts random bullshit like "not promoting discussion" or "avoiding the thread", or "being passive". Every read is based on participating in discussion and is extremely fake and easy to do, see his Parama or Aeris votes for proof.

I don't get why this is meant to be scummy, you've pretty much labelled something he's said as "random bullshit" without any explanation. Not to mention it looks pretty true in your case considering you buried a vote on him then proceeded to do almost nothing except offer a few limp townreads.

This is silly. Anyone can vote anyone at any time and any halfway competent player can explain even a change in mind from town to scum.

You can, but if you're doing it with scum motivation it's extremely hard to do it without looking scummy. Wheras if you're just sortof hopping around in trollspace and voting people without any real reasoning it's easy to follow your scum motivations without logical contradiction.

Why does it seem like your predetermining "scummy" actions but not looking for motivation? Also, why give tierce a hard time for not giving reads when you haven't given much yourself?

I guess I haven't explicitly laid out the motivation argument, but essentially it boils down to Parama's play having absolutely zero helpfulness in finding scum (acting like this means his words and vote carries little weight). A townie wants to find scum, therefore his play does not make sense from a town perspective, only from either a scum perspective (seems more likely to me) or a troll perspective (possible I guess, although I wouldn't want to keep him around in that case).

The argument can be extended: his play would help him as scum, because a) people are prepared to give him a free ride because "well, no-one would be that stupid as scum", b) he can avoid answering difficult questions because lol trolling and c) he can take whatever bandwagon is going. So in other words a scum motivation exists for his actions, while a town motivation does not.

I don't require a tonne of reads, I was attacking Tierce for having none at all. The scumreads I've had earlier are Parama, Konawa, Tierce (although due to the mistake I made that one is mostly invalidated now, and I'd have to see her post again to re-evaluate it).

Aeris: Who do you want to be lynched? Time is running out and your lack of vote is bothering me more and more in spite of your fairly decent analysis.

[Leafsnail]

"I want to lynch someone who is either the sole town power role or doomed scum because I don't like his reads" - Parama, an experienced player who is claiming to be town

[Leafsnail]

Actually I want every player who is not voting Parama at the moment to complete the sentence "I think trying to lynch a claimed IC is something a townie would do because..."

[Leafsnail]

Leaving F-16 alive is best play. If he is scum, it could possibly break game for us in Rarefaction pending cell setup.

Yeah. Why aren't you voting Parama?

[Leafsnail]

The mouseover text for the table tag seems to explain it.

[Leafsnail]

This is really fake and screams "Hey look, a good player is going against the unspoken rule that you should never lynch an uncced power role! Vote him without actually reading him!"

Vote: Leafsnail

Also interested in lynching: Konowa

Actually I want every player who is not voting Parama at the moment to complete the sentence "I think trying to lynch a claimed IC is something a townie would do because..."

I haven't had any answers yet. Least of all from Parama.

And yeah, I guess that is what I'm screaming? Except for the "don't read him" part, because he's obvious scum as well. There is no town justification for any of his actions, and this is just the most extreme example. Your constant defense of Parama is idiotic and I would say scummy if there were a third mafia member in this game

VOTE: TwoUpstandingGentlemen

gyaaaah hahahaha. I really don't have time for all this meta back and forth, but just

look

at this vote everybody. Look at it. Page after page of back and forth with someone who isn't getting lynched today, zero words about the bandwagon vote.

VOTE: Tierce.

Tell me this isn't exactly what I was saying scum could do with concealed reads earlier.

[Leafsnail]

Holy shit that was well hidden. I guess it's not scummy but if you've made multiple wallposts in the 24 hours between your reason for voting (which is in turn hidden between a bunch of quotes from other people and a massive back and forth with someone else) and your vote would you mind requoting it? I also don't get why any of that stuff is meant to be scummy but at least you had something of a reason

@Konawa I can't see any link at all between those two things. One of them is Parama performing a scum action and one of them is me not seeing a reason buried in the middle of a wallpost talking about other people.

Also can you explain what you were trying to do with those past three questions? In particular the first two that were aimed at your townreads.

VOTE: Trevor. Can you finish the sentence please and also explain your obvtown read on Parama. Maybe then you can explain why what you're accusing me of is scummy in any way.

[Leafsnail]

Ctrl+F? I don't even use TUG when referring to them, IIRC, so anything from "TwoUpstandingGentlemen" to "Thor" to "Majiffy" to "Thorjiffy" should hit results.

I didn't ctrl+F because I wasn't sure how you'd refer to them, instead I checked all the sections and filed that paragraph as a Konawa one since it was under a Konawa quote with no obvious marking.

And yes, I think that kind of hydra dissonance is scummy because it shows that Majiffy apparently isn't interested in scumhunting

and

is not interested in Thor's scumhunting. If they were both scumhunting in different directions, it would be one thing, but Majiffy was doing nothing while ignoring his hydra partner.

That makes sense I guess. They've also both vanished off the face of the earth or forgotten the account password too which is strange.

What I'm saying is that in 315 you note that Parama's actions have no town justification. While in the same post you assume that Tierce's actions are scummy on a predetermined behavior of "hiding reads" and don't try to determine if her actions are town or not.

I was mistaken in thinking Tierce didn't have past reasoning, but would you not agree that making a vote like that with no prior reading would've been very scummy? I'm really not sure what you're getting at. It's not to do with predetermined behaviour so much as bandwagonning without reason (bandwagonning -> Gondwanaland in Chrome spellcheck incidentally, I might start using that).

For the Tierce question, I've seen her make breaking questions as town, and want to know if she's done it as town. I thought that one was pretty straight forward.
I don't understand why I can't question people despite being a town read?

What value would the answer to that question have though?

[Leafsnail]

VOTE: Trevor
Leafsnail has been spot-on all game so I reckon this is probably the way to go.

-Majiffy

Yeah this is a pretty poor vote. You'll vote someone "unsettling but not very noteworthy" because I, a person who agreed with you on some other reads, did?

VOTE: TwoUpstandingGentlemen

A lot of Tierce's allegations seem to be reaching but the ones about self-contradiction and having no real justification for your vote do stick, and are damning.

Leaf: I am not voting Parama, because even if it is strange, I understand that and well have used the same kind of argument (even if town, we don't loose much with the lynch, that was another kind of game though) and lynched a very powerful PR claim on day 1. Both were scum.

Wait, both of who? I'm not sure what your anecdote means.

In any case, there is obviously a case for lynching a claimed PR in most games. However, in this game falseclaiming scum has literally zero chance of survival. If we get to Rarefaction he would become confirmed scum, and in turn that would confirm two townies (if we don't get to rarefaction then that means town has won). So it's somewhat different here, and there's really no reason at all to try and lynch a claimed IC.

[Leafsnail]

Tierce says it in #379. Basically

#353 - "You didn't ask for detailed analysis, so I didn't give it."
#361 - "I was actually going to give my detailed analysis, but I decided not to because I don't like your play."
#374 - "Much like you I'm not giving out my detailed analysis due to tactical considerations."

None of these answers would've been so bad on their own, but giving out all of them at once suggests he's wildly searching for a way to defend himself rather than answering honestly.

[Leafsnail]

Voting someone you don't think is scum without explaining why is "unhelpful". Changing your story as to why you did it repeatedly is scummy. I can't see how you could contradict yourself twice as a result of being unhelpful.

[Leafsnail]

Twice in a short space of time, and in such a way as to retroactively justify past actions?

[Leafsnail]

#361 contradicts #353, #374 contradicts both.

[Leafsnail]

But they can all be true and they can all be different reasons for why he isn't giving detailed analysis.

I... guess. Just about. I don't get why you'd release those three things one by one though and it doesn't help explain the Trevor vote

Congratulations on your fantastic sheep of a terribad case.

-Majiffy

But... you're still sheeping my Trevor vote? Onto a guy who apparently has "occasionally troublesome" posts?

Those three reasons provided don't seem particularly pro-town to me. I mean fair enough if you want to annoy a player but you shouldn't do it at the expense of everyone else (also you still haven't provided the detailed reads).

[Leafsnail]

The why not is that it's shameless Gondwanaland onto a guy with votes without adding any reasoning, suggesting you are voting him without caring about his alignment.

As for the detailed question, why not post what you were intending to post before Tierce gave you a headache?

[Leafsnail]

We could do worse than a Konawa lynch, but TUG's recent behaviour is bad and I like the fact that Parama is refusing to hammer him.

>looks at Konowa wagon
Hmm. I think I'm going to wait and see how this pans out.

We are lynching this guy tomorrow, right? I mean goddamn is this non-commital.

I'm *_* close to hammering as a public service to the town and not care if they flip town at all.

Do you think TUG is scum or are you intending to vote him on policy

[Leafsnail]

Leaf I have reasons

great


It doesn't really matter if Aeris hammers or not considering there's plurality lynching. Given that I'm not sure why Aeris is prevaricating over it so much when she thinks TUG is probably scum and wouldn't mind lynching them even if they were town.

[Leafsnail]

Leaf: It is normal to hesitate before a lynch and question if it is the right one.

Yeah but it was odd considering Aeris' comments on the matter. What Trevor just did is way worse and pretty much unjustifiable though

[Leafsnail]

With TUG flipping town my reads at the moment are left somewhat contradictory. The player I'm reading as most scummy individually is Trevor. However, on re-read I really don't like the interaction between Parama and Tierce, nor do I like their play invidually a huge amount. Konowa isn't great but I'll wait for a non-drunk post before questioning him.

Trevor

: Did you think that TUG was probably going to be lynched without your hammer? If so, why hammer? If not, was it because of ignorance of the rules or a belief that you would be lynched? Who do you think was likely to lynch you?

Parama

: What is your read on Tierce? Why do you keep coming out of the woodwork to attack anyone who attacks her?

Tierce

: Why are you reading Parama as town, and has the read changed now that the guy you thought was mislynching him flipped town? Do you think Parama heeded your call in #256 to start playing?

Also the point being. Scum randomly quickhammering scum who would be lynched anyways? That's just fishing for towncred right there.

Yes. Although the fact that TUG was actually town kindof kills this tell and puts Trevor's hammer into "WTF" territory. Like, why the hell would you do that as either alignment. Speaking of which why have you only decided to start posting useful content now

Sorry, but no. Scum-Tierce really doesn't devote the inane amount of effort and frustration I've poured into this game. I'm practical as either alignment, and that practicality wouldn't have had me railing against Falcon so much if I wasn't truly convinced he was scum (i.e. if I was scum and knew he was for real). I'm incredibly paranoid as either alignment, but that paranoia only fits Town-Tierce here.

If you're fully aware that an action will make you look town then you can perform that same action as scum (in fact you were even talking about how attacking an IC would make you town before he died, so you can't say it only occured to you now). I don't get why you're bringing all this up against Konowa considering he has no reasoning at all to back up his vote.

Leaf - I do tend to hesitate before lynches to make sure I have the right one. I forgot we didn't need majority for this one, yes I know it was discussed on page one. I said I wouldn't care if they were mislynched, and I don't. Majiffy was playing horribly, but that still doesn't mean that I wouldn't prefer a scum lynch over someone I wouldn't lose tears over not having. I unvoted konowa before I went to bed on the off chance tug was scum, logged and and got a konowa lynch instead of themselves. What I was thinking might happen to konowa actually ended up happening to tug. But again, why arent you trying to assess motives? You're still doing what you've been doing since early day one - trying to make things look scummy wihtout assessing motives.

I expressed that I was still unclear as to your motives though? This clarification on Konowa makes more sense at least.

[Leafsnail]

VOTE: Trevor.

Actually, no, I can't. I'd love to say that being very aware of my scum/Town meta would make me a good scum player, but this is not what happens. It kind of sucks when I'm scum--read my games and you'll see what I mean about my inability to look Town as scum for an extended period of time. I'm like Regfan and Empire in that regard--we give it our all as Town, but damn, playing scum is boring and keeping up that fake scumhunting motivation is a bitch (sadly, even in multiball)..

Because I think Konowa is Town and I don't want Town to vote me, I want Town to vote people who have a chance of being scum. Even if Konowa has no reasoning, I am not the kind to go "you have no case!" like Thor is fond of doing--before moving on, I like to show that my play is very indicative of Tierce-Town.

It's not so much fake scumhunting motivation here though? It's more like the motivation to keep arguing with people. I feel like you could gather that if you're trying to turn around your poor scumgame, especially if you think it would give you an iron self-meta argument.

My gut says that it's bad to start explaining why you're town (as opposed to defending specific actions of yours as town after they've been attacked) in most cases, but I can't really explain that so I'll drop it for now.

I'm also interested in hearing about the Parama question but don't push yourself to answer if you're busy.

The Konowa lynch had no support and wasn't going to get through. Yes, I didn't want TUG lynched, but there was a possibility of him being scum. I thought he was likely to get lynched, but I was unsure about my own safety as no one has really given a true read on me yet.

So why did your safety come before lynching someone you thought was scum? Surely the vote was more likely to swing towards Konowa than it was to your (although both were pretty unlikely).

[Leafsnail]

unvote, vote: Trevor

Call me next time i get prodded, there's no point doing anything else.

VOTE: Parama.

I am not letting you do this. You are either scum or not playing to your alignment and either way we can't let you live.

[Leafsnail]

If you're second on my list and decide to not answer questions or do anything else then yes I will generally vote you. Good to see you're actually reading the thread though!

[Leafsnail]

i've decided who I want to lynch today. there's not much to say on the matter.
also I never answer questions so good luck with that

Cool.

Do you think Trevor/Parama make sense as a team? I don't see Parama coming out and essentially parking his vote on his buddy D2.

I agree that they don't make much sense as a team. I prefer Parama/Tierce which I talked about in #538 and I'd still like to hear Tierce's response to the stuff about Parama (I'd like to hear Parama's responses too but...). That's dependent on Parama being scum though, when he could just be town who refuses to do anything at all

[Leafsnail]

If you prefer that team, why vote Trevor in the first place?

If you had a problem with it you should have brought it up after I did it and explained it, rather than after I voted you. Not sure why you're expecting other people to answer your questions.

Like, you name Trevor the most scummy by himself, and name a Tierce/Parama, but don't try to find a possible partner for Trevor.

Is that a problem? I stated the reads that I had.

If Trevor is scum his most likely partner would be the next most scummy person excluding Parama (you or Tierce).

Oh right, also

I'll refuse to answer what I'm doing with the Parama question till he responds.

Now that it's obvious Parama will never respond would you mind telling me what you were doing? Also what the value of asking people questions is if you'll let them get away with not responding.

[Leafsnail]

The most common denominator isn't necessarily the most scummy. Also if a suspect doesn't answer questions then you vote them, otherwise you might as well not bother asking anyone anything.

[Leafsnail]

PFP also at party. May get decent post later.

I have been good with a Parama lynch for a long time. I can't distinguish scum from town-playing-scum but I do think there's no town justfication for his behaviour.

@Tierce please talk about Parama

[Leafsnail]

To clarify my 4am post somewhat

I have been good with a Parama lynch for a long time.

"Good with a Parama lynch" = supported it since mid day-one. Ultimately it became clear a Parama lynch wasn't happening yesterday though (multiple inexplicable townreads) so I had to settle for finding a second best option. This morning I voted Trevor for the self-preservation hammer vote but Parama's new play is unforgivable so I went back to him (if someone won't answer questions there isn't really any option other than to vote them).

I had a dream about this game last night. Tierce and parama were scum and falcon was yelling at me in the dead qt for still having them as town reads..

See? Your subconscious can see that their interactions are suspicious. QED, lynch Parama.

[Leafsnail]

I'm pretty disappointed with everyone, really. I don't normally post except when there's actually something to say, and basically nothing interesting has happened since my catchup posts.

I agree but it is Christmas Eve.

Incidentally

i've decided who I want to lynch today. there's not much to say on the matter.
also I never answer questions so good luck with that

Lynch Parama.

[Leafsnail]

VOTE: Leafsnail based on 602. Pushing someone based on an earlier post saying that they wouldn't answer questions is one thing; pushing someone based on an earlier post saying that they wouldn't answer questions

when they answered a question in the preceding post, 601

is quite another. It's like you're trying to push a relatively easy lynch on Parama without really thinking about the gamestate.

I was pointing out that Parama was contradicting himself because he answered a question in the previous post (without even acknowledging his previous "I will never answer questions!" post). In other words he lied. He's answering questions that are convenient to himself (in order to keep himself in your good books presumably) and ignoring the ones that would be bad for him. There is literally no reason for a townie to do that.

I find it ironic that you're calling this a "relatively easy lynch" considering how many people have labeled Parama as obvtown

[Leafsnail]

Well, you wouldn't be pushing it on such little evidence if you didn't think the evidence was very strong. In newbie games, perhaps you

could

get someone lynched on that evidence. In this game, too much apathy to really get anyone lynched for anything, but it's nice to have a start.

I don't understand the relevance of any of this.

Also, I don't like your explanation. Partly because it feels like you made the explanation up after the fact (which, from me at least, is a very strong scumtell). And partly because you're basically saying "Parama said he'd be anti-town, so now because he's being pro-town it means he's being anti-town because he was lying!". This is the sort of logic that people use to push people all the time (even I do when I think I'll get away with it, especially as scum), but it's completely faulty.

I didn't make it up after the fact. I thought it was pretty obvious and people would think "Oh, Leafsnail is pointing out a contradiction in Parama's play" rather than "Leafsnail has suddenly forgotten how to read and that makes him scum for some reason". I wouldn't requote it if I didn't think it had suddenly taken on new relevance.

Your reduction of my argument misses the point. The actual logic is "He used the excuse 'I never answer questions' in order to dodge awkward questions, but then suddenly decided to answer (easier) questions again without explaining why his previous policy no longer applied or answering the aforementioned awkward questions". Can you honestly not see the problem with that?

[Leafsnail]

Oh if he's partially trolling then he

must

be town. The fact that he dodges some questions and not others while lying about the reason why can't mean anything.

You didn't actually ask those questions before so I'm not sure how I could've dodged them but I'll answer anyway.

No, it would not have been more "pro-town" to not answer the question. However, there is a difference between "pro-town" (taking an action which is good for the town, or the town's discussion in this case) and "town-aligned" (taking an action which suggests you are a town aligned player). These are the definitions as I understand them - if by "pro-town" you meant "town-aligned" then the answer to the first question is "Yes" with the caveat detailed below.

Parama not answering the question would be more "anti-town" (opposite of pro-town as defined above), but it would at least be consistent with his previously stated policy. This would make him more likely to actually be town compared to what he actually did (although not hugely more considering how anti-town and scum-aligned the thing he was doing in the first place was).

Parama answering the question was more pro-town than the previous option, but it contradicts his previously stated policy and actions and suggests he is lying about them in order to protect himself. Thus this is a more scum-aligned action.

The thing to do that would be both pro-town

and

town-aligned is to explain why he's making an exception to the policy for that question, or to at least also answer the question he previously refused to answer due to the now broken policy.

[Leafsnail]

The take home message if you're not quibbling over the words used in that question is:

A thing that Parama is doing = Lying to dodge difficult questions = A thing that scum does

[Leafsnail]

Wow Leaf is taking my "never answer questions" thing literally
Holy hell, he might actually be scum

So why the fuck aren't you answering my questions

I guess moving onto a bit of a different tack: why did you push for more information regarding Parama's read on Tierce, but not my read on Konowa?

Parama has had suspicious interactions with Tierce throughout the game. He refers to Tierce a few times without even a passing reference to her alignment, while Tierce does something similar, indirectly defending Parama by criticizing cases against him and appealing to him to start playing (although not following up this plea). Thus I want to force him to give an explicit statement on the thing he's been avoiding all game.

I don't see a similar interaction between your playerslot and Konowa, and I can see reserving judgment on a lurker as something that can be town motivated. I'm kindof waiting on Konowa to start posting more too afterall

[Leafsnail]

So you either managed to respond to something you missed, or are selectively lazy in a very interesting way

[Leafsnail]

yep

unvote, vote: Leafsnail

to prevent him from making Konowa the top plurality lynch
~reasons~

I still want Trevor hung from every tree though

How the

fuck

could anyone possibly see this as a town player? Admitting to being selectively lazy to ignore my questions and bandwagoning onto a guy he doesn't think is scum.

But I guess I am the one going for an easy mislynch

I still am of the belief that a Tierce/Leafsnail scum team is entirely possible given their early game interactions that came across as forced to me. I believe given conversation and timing of Leafs’ vote in 554, as I discussed in 572, and how he has for the most part ignored Tierce while pushing what I still believe to be a policy vote on Parama, while ignoring Trevor (will get to this in a minute), is perfect scum play.

I have not in any way ignored Tierce. I have repeatedly pushed her for answers to my questions while she has stalled claiming she doesn't have enough time. Since she's made quite a few substantive posts without addressing that it's becoming clear she's avoiding me though - I would support a lynch against her.

I thought Trevor looked scummy before but Parama is now 100% obvious scum (please somebody try and justify his behaviour from a town perspective if you disagree) and Trevor/Parama does not make much sense. It is not a policy vote unless the policy in question is "lynch mafia members".

Your argument seems to assume I'm scum and draw from it the conclusion that I am scum

[Leafsnail]

I thought that didn't really need explaining since it's so obvious in each case, but I guess I can spell it out.

- Avoid any explicit word on Tierce's alignment, thus allowing you to avoid potentially suspicious interactions with her and the possibility of getting your partner mislynched
- Try to get the IC lynched because a guaranteed townie is a bad thing for scum and it would be nice to have the nightkill for someone else
- Avoid answering questions in order to prevent people from effectively identifying your alignment and lynching you
- Attempt to stop playing altogether in order to have no play at all to analyse, thus preventing people from lynching you
- Switch your vote without rhyme or reason to make sure you and your buddies are not lynched
Addendum: mafia members win if they are not lynched. Town players need to find scum, something you are clearly not doing. Thus your play which all seems to be aimed at avoiding your own lynch (and possibly Tierce's lynch) is mafia play.

Self meta is literally never convincing because if you're aware of it you can manipulate it. This is even worse than Tierce's argument earlier because it's easy to not put effort into something.

I think that given Parama's townread on me and what he said, to prevent me from topping out at plurality, that it is very town motivated. If you disagree, why?

Why do you no longer think Trevor is scum?

He doesn't seem to think I'm scum, so a more logical town response from him would be to form an actual argument against Trevor to try and get a guy he thinks is scum lynched. But he isn't doing that. He's just changing to a guy he apparently doesn't really think is scum in order to try and seal today's lynch on me.

I don't think Trevor is scum because Parama is now obviously scum, and has been pushing Trevor hard all day. Parama's random logicless play means that he could easily have avoided doing this if Trevor was his buddy, and considering I was also accusing Trevor at the start of the day Parama adding his own vote would have been risky. Thus they do not make sense as a team.

[Leafsnail]

Seriously??

[Leafsnail]

hahaha

[Leafsnail]

#648 makes sense to me.

Quick warning: LA, I'll only have phoneposts for the next few days. I should still be able to make posts though.

Trevor all game:
Nah, not gonna scumhunt
Oh, TUG is going to be deadline lynched, but I might possibly be lynched instead of him, so hammer just in case
Hey look, Konowa has a person voting him and isn't my scumbuddy, let's vote him so I don't get lynched

This is a fairly decent post, why did you wait until switching to someone who isn't Trevor to make it.

Also this stuff all applies to you.

I very rarely vote to make a point/get reactions/whatever. I vote to lynch (like in that case); if my mind is changed afterwards, I make adjustments accordingly. "Making my opinion known" seems to be pretty pointless if it isn't "I think this person is Town/scum and shouldn't/should get lynched Today".

Parama. Please talk about him.

In fact please do anything that isn't "wait for someone to get lynched".

[Leafsnail]

Not scumhunting = all your posts, mainly the part where you wouldn't be posting at all today if I didn't vote you for saying you wouldn't.

"Hey look, Leafsnail has two people voting him and isn't my scumbuddy, let's vote him so we don't get lynched"

The only thing I'm torn over is whether your buddy is Konowa or Tierce. Both of them make so much sense.

Speaking of which

Tierce should totally hammer Leaf in her next post.

Konowa: why did you say this?

[Leafsnail]

Your only argument against me is literally "You didn't get my (not actually a) joke". I only became scum when it became convenient for you to vote me and you know it.

[Leafsnail]

Why did the lynch have to happen immediately though?

PFP

[Leafsnail]

Konowa: what I'm getting at is that your comment wadn't really "see if Tierce will hammer". It's more "pressure Tierrce into hammering early". Would you agree?

[Leafsnail]

Konowa: what I'm getting at is that your comment wadn't really "see if Tierce will hammer". It's more "pressure Tierrce into hammering early". Would you agree?

No, I don't. If I'm trying to get a reaction out of Tierce, I'm not going to be forthcoming with my intentions in said post. The sentence was loaded on purpose.

Again, I fail to see what you are trying to gain from this line of questioning. It looks like you are trying to incriminate me "pressuring Tierce to hammer early" than rather than figure out my motivation.

Yeah you were trying to get a reaction. That reaction was an early hammervote. What I am trying to do is get you to come clean about your actual motivation, because at the moment you seem to be lying about it.

[Leafsnail]

@Tierce why do you once again only have the motivation to defend yourself and attack your attacker

@Aeris it's a mild coincidence re RVS votes, I'm also on Konowa in any case so it doesn't fully work.

[Leafsnail]

@Konowa the issue is you not being honest with your motive. Your story on your reasoning has changed.

Alsi if no swing is likely then why would we need an early hammer

[Leafsnail]

VOTE: Tierce.

You have enough motivation and time to defend yourself and Parama, and to attack people attacking one of those two people, but other than the TUG vote you haven't been doing anythimg else. According to your own self-meta, you have trouble keeping up motivation to provide fake reads as mafia, and I think that's what we're seeing here - instead you're just foxusing on protecting your team and

not talking about Parama

PFP

[Leafsnail]

@cfj: good luck getting Parama to answer that, I've been pressing the same question all day

Parama is still scum for doing that

[Leafsnail]

@Tierce: talking about game as a whole, you violently gunned down F16's arguments against Parama yesterday for instance.

Not sure what's up with Parama's unvote but thanks I guess

[Leafsnail]

Yeah if only we'd lynched F16 instead.

[Leafsnail]

Konowa.
Would you be opposed to a fitz push?
It's not like he's done a damn thing either.

vote: fitz

I like how you're keeping up this "don't talk about Tierce's alignment" thing to the very end. It puts me in mind of a metaphorical elephant.

[Leafsnail]

And this is after you've said that Tierce reads as scum to you

[Leafsnail]

Seriously, wow at this crap.

You can't be anything but scum. Quickhammering when Aeris is ready to go to bed and I'm already the plurality lynch. There was absolutely no reason to do it as Town.

Yes. There is also clear scum motivation - after the events of the night I would have changed my vote to Konowa (and considering Konowa was also on my list and acting scummy as hell fitz must have realized this), but I was denied the chance to by fitz cutting the day short. I guess that makes Parama horrible, horrible town but that doesn't matter as long as he can vote fitz, who is scum.

Tierce's reasoning for a Konowa/Trevorfitz team is solid. Also Konowa's vote on Tierce is horrible on multiple levels:
a) His reasoning is bizarre - as far as I can tell he's voting Tierce for misreading him. I can't see the analysis of motivation he seems to expect from everyone else.
b) This comes after he insists that Leafsnail/fitz is his preferred team, but he doesn't explain what his new team idea is when he switches to Tierce. If one assumes that his new team is "Leafsnail/Tierce" like he said in previous posts then it's strange that he wouldn't try and explain why I would vote for Tierce over him.
c) He called Tierce scum while unvoting me, but didn't vote Tierce until later with no explanation as to why. He also said that Leaf/fitz was his favourite combination afterwards in spite of the fact that he was now voting neither
These three inconsistencies in thinking lead me to think that his vote on Tierce was motivated by self-preservation - he was concerned that I might switch to him before the end of the day.

Aeris is also pretty town so this doesn't seem like a hard decision but I'd at least like to hear Konowa's reasoning and reread a bit before voting.

[Leafsnail]

@Leaf...you are by no means clear so to encourage a "horrible horrible town" player (or scum) to vote me would be as beneficial to you if you were scum as you getting a mislynch in your owgron up.

This logic makes the assumption that you are town.

This is not a valid assumption.

The motivation on my vote was I did not want to be lynched and it looked like it was going to be me (????) or Tierce. What is hard to understand about that?

There's nothing hard to understand about your explanation, it's just that it's something scum would do.

[Leafsnail]

Even though fitz just quickhammered to save Konowa?

[Leafsnail]

I think I stated quite clearly that it was havingfitz? It's havingfitz. Your vote is fine.

If I had a chance to get back I would've voted Konowa, and since Tierce also thinks he's scum he would likely be lynched. Although yeah I guess fitz was the other candidate so either way he's saving his own team's ass.

What's wrong with a fitz/Konowa team.

[Leafsnail]

@Konowa: Please address the points I made about your Tierce vote.

I'd like all fitz, Parama, Leafsnail, and Konowa all to focus on determining who is scum in the other 3-man pod, for a while; they know who's scum in their own pod, but that just means it's hard to distinguish town from scum because everyone has the same aims. And I'd like reasoning, rather than just names.

Sure, although I'm not sure what else there is to say about fitz. He performed a quickhammer on Tierce, which he has expressly stated was for self-preservation. It was even worse than Trevor's hammer day one - here there were several pages of discussion (in which Konowa floundered pretty badly) which he arbitrarily decided to deny me and Parama the chance to read before the end of the day.

His hammer makes sense as and is possibly the correct move for scum (getting to 6p rarefaction is preferable to going to 4v1 with you/your partner the most likely lynch), but makes no sense at all from a town perspective since a townie should put hitting scum above self-preservation, and also not do something that will make them a likely mislynch at lylo. I can't even see how you could make a blunder like that as a townie, and his "I don't bother to read the rules of the game" excuse doesn't seem likely.

Parama is still a godawful player but that action from fitz (and his subsequent "clearly from a scum viewpoint" explanation) outweighs that. We got lucky in that Parama landed in the cell with obvscum, otherwise the game would likely be lost already.

[Leafsnail]

Yeah that VCA kindof just assumes you're correct fitz. And out of all of it what you got was that Konowa has a "slight edge in scumminess".

Honestly though, if Parama had been on both wagons wouldn't you have given him shit for that too? This VCA just seems like a way to confirm whatever you originally thought. I'd agree that him voting F16 was stupid and terrible but you wouldn't need to launch into a full VCA for that.

[Leafsnail]

I'll address everything tomorrow. Not really in a serious posting mood today. Dealine isn't for six days, so no need to rush this.

[Leafsnail]

Oh boy if there's one thing I love it's late lylo replacements.

[Leafsnail]

As far as my Tierce vote, I know she is a meta queen, and as such thought she was selectively using meta and applying it. So no, it wasn't that I thought she was misreading me.
I would hammer Leaf in this cell.

That is definitely not the impression I got from reading your posts at the time. And how about your thoughts on teams at the time?

Liking the way you're waiting for a hammer chance but not prepared to place the initial vote. Real town motivation right there

VOTE: Konowa

[Leafsnail]

Note: that was sarcasm, I don't actually like the way he's doing it or think it's town motivated

[Leafsnail]

And yes, this is me not voting because if anything I am paranoid.

You said in your previous post that you would hammer me. How could you be prepared to end the game based on the idea that I am scum but not make a vote based on the same idea?

I still want to hear about why you didn't comment on teams after votimg Tierce

[Leafsnail]

Okay nvm don't unvote Leaf
Well then Aeris is conftown alright

Who even thought Aeris was scum anyway

I think the havingfitz/Konowa connection, the Tierce vote and his refusal to vote a guy he would hammer should be enough to let you decide, but feel free to ask questions.

[Leafsnail]

I don't see the problem with using another player's argument if it's valid. Especially if you failed to answer it and instead shut that player up.

[Leafsnail]

[Leafsnail]

Vote: Leafsnail

No need to drag this out. Leafs play has been more to incriminate people all game instead of trying to figure out alignments or motivations (example of this is his bad push on Parama all game and his leading line of questioning of me earlier, I'll find the pages if needed). In short, he has been trying to paint people as scum rather than attempt to figure out their alignment.

You keep using this as an excuse to ignore questions and it's getting kindof tiresome. At the very least you should go back and answer the stuff from Tierce that you brushed aside like this.

[Leafsnail]

Can someone ask a question or make a case or something

Please respond to me in some way Konowa

[Leafsnail]

:\

[Leafsnail]

OK, so here's a question. Leafsnail, Konowa, I'd like you to explain, from your point of view, the circumstances leading up to Tierce's lynch, especially in terms of what you think people's motivations were.

Sure.

Post #670 (CFJ): You vote Tierce, for being overly reactive and concerned with self-image while at the same time refusing to engage in the game properly due to time constraints. I don't see any reason for there to be ulterior motives on this one

Post #707 (Leafsnail): I vote Tierce, partly for selectively using the "I don't have enough time" excuse (which I felt actually fitted her self described "I lose motivation as scum" meta), but also due to what I saw as an attempt to defend Parama by ignoring the question I put to her many days prior. Yes Konowa, the fact that nobody was voting Parama was also a factor considering there's no point in pushing a lynch that can't happen

Post #710 (Parama): Parama says Tierce reads as scum but doesn't vote her. At the time I saw this as suspicious - as Parama trying to distance himself from Tierce but not actually push her lynch if it was avoidable. This thus made me more sure of my Tierce/Parama suspicion. I now know this was actually Parama trolling for no reason

#723 & #724 (Konowa): Konowa says he doesn't like the push against Tierce, implying he disagrees with it. He complains that Tierce is stalling, but states that he believes the scumteam to be me and fitz. I think the motivation here is simple - at this point he and fitz are both sitting pretty tight, so he can just continue stating the same read as before so as not to rock the boat, while also not trying too hard to derail the Tierce wagon.

#725 (Parama): At the time I saw this as Parama trying to start a wagon on someone who wasn't his buddy (even though he'd said Tierce read as scum). Now I know he was joking about his Tierce read or something? Whatever. The important thing is that this takes on an interesting significance now I look back due to...

#727 (Konowa): Konowa appears to refuse an offer from Parama to lynch someone he thinks is scum, bouncing a question back to Parama instead (which he never follows up). There's nothing particularly wrong with the question, but if he were a townie believing fitz were scum you'd expect him to either take Parama's offer or explain why he's not taking it. As it is he just kindof ignores it. The scum motivation for this is clear: to not risk making his partner the lynch, since going to Rarefaction would be far preferable.

I then make two posts getting angry at Parama and go to bed.

#744, #747 and so on (Tierce): Tierce names Konowa and fitz as partners due to spotting an odd interaction.

At this point Konowa suddenly seems to wake up. #746 tries to pre-emptively discredit Tierce's pairing (the way he does it is odd considering he did something similar to come to the fitz/Leaf team he supposedly favoured), but in #752 he changes tack and begins attacking Tierce (although he doesn't vote yet. His stated motivation is bizarre - apparently Tierce was wrongly accusing him of bussing? It really didn't seem like she was. And if she is scum why not vote her in #752?

I'd also like to point out he does not explain who Tierce is scum with, something he's been asking everyone else all game. If we assume it's Tierce/Leaf then it seems odd he wouldn't at least comment on me voting her.

In my opinion this makes a lot more sense when viewed from a "Konowa is scum" perspective: he had to prepare to place another vote on Tierce due to the fact that a) Tierce had called his team and b) Aeris seemed to be reading scum more on fitz following #751. This meant that a 3 person wagon on fitz was a very real possibility so he had to ditch his fitz suspicion and find an excuse to grow the Tierce wagon to three if needed.

#758 (Konowa): Leaf/fitz is still Konowa's favourite pair apparently. Even though he called Tierce scum in the previous post? He's probably hoping he can avoid jumping on the wagon at this point and thus keeping his options open. Not sure why he doesn't mention the fact I'm voting Tierce here

Many Konowa vs Tierce posts: I honestly don't understand what most of Konowa's posts are saying here. Konowa's stated intention (he finally votes Tierce because she's being dishonest in some way?) here really does not make a lot of sense - I definitely don't see him coming up with a coherent scum motivation for her. I think his actual reason for finally voting is that Tierce is ripping holes in him and he now really needs her to die today. He still doesn't explain what team he favours now.

Tierce switches to fitz since she can likely pressure him harder than Konowa due to Aeris' possibility of switching. Incidentally

The timing of my shift from Konowa to havingfitz was definitely deliberate. He's not voting; he'll probably vote me in self-defense

This is quite amusing in retrospect

CFJ and Tierce clash again briefly - CFJ's reasoning is kind of valid (and town) but I think he misses Konowa's extremely suspicious behaviour here.

Aeris and Tierce talk a bit, nothing particularly hard to explain here.

#797: fitz hammers. We know he's scum, and I think this is a perfectly logical move for him to make as scum considering

a) Tierce has called his team.
b) Aeris has narrowed his team down to two of three (me, Konowa, fitz), and is questioning his partner Konowa heavily.
c) Parama is already voting him.
d) I had previously expressed suspicions of Konowa, and Tierce had mostly fixed the things that caused me to vote for her while pointing out all kinds of flaws in Konowa's play and appealing to me to change my vote. Thus it would not be outside the realm of possibility for me to vote Konowa (or at least unvote Tierce) once I woke up.

Thus it seemed highly likely that the Tierce lynch would fall apart, and the only likely alternatives were him and Konowa. If one of them got lynched it would be extremely unlikely that the other could survive two more lynches with all these people gunning at or almost gunning at their specific team.

Thus fitz decided that, even if it outed him as scum, he had to take Tierce down since that was better than the alternative. There was a better chance of them scoring one mislynch at Rarefaction (probably me) than two mislynches following a scum lynch day 2.

One line summary: The situation got bad which made Konowa vote Tierce for self-defense, then the situation got terrible which made fitz hammer Tierce as a last ditch move.

[Leafsnail]

Trevor is PFFT. Don't like how he makes sure to say that he's also interested in voting konowa but doesn't vote him. And konowa has not only been missing from this thread but has really put in next to nothing here.

I like Leafsnail more. However, in the interest of time:

Vote: Konowa

Leafsnail is scumread #1, Konowa scumread #2. This is important.

To save the trouble.

Also, trying to qualify anyone's interactions with Trevor is awful.

[Leafsnail]

Leafsnail - do you realize that both days when you voted for Trevor, you unvoted him and voted the person who followed you onto Trevor?

Yes. I believe I made my reasoning for doing so clear both times.

[Leafsnail]

Why are you doing this to me.

[Leafsnail]

Do what

Everyone falling silent, in particular Konowa but I guess that one isn't so hard to explain.

[Leafsnail]

thanks

[Leafsnail]

A few specific responses for now:

- Re: 315. I think I was probably born from anger more than anything else.
- I have used "leading questions" in this game, but I think they are a valid town strategy. They help add more pressure to questions than a bland "yes/no" structure would, and indicate that if the other person disagrees they have to justify their position against whatever reasoning preceded it (it's something that happens a lot in debating for this reason).
- There was only one vote on Konowa yesterday, but from the situation it was plausible that Tierce or I could switch to him, and that would be enough for a swing.
- Re: meta. The only other game I've played recently on this site is 20th Century Philosophy Mafia, in which I was scum. Otherwise there's only 2 year old games and offsite stuff. I could link you to some of those if you want but I'm not entirely sure of their validity.

[Leafsnail]

Bleh...leafsnails scum game isn't radically different from here. There area some aspects that are really similar. He did interact with one partner a lot and bussed and didn't talk about the other partner much.

Yeah - generally I'm not averse to bussing if my partner's acting scummy. I think the bigger difference is that in my scumgame I try to avoid provoking stronger players (day one in that game was mostly me trying to avoid MoI's suspicion), but that isn't really provable with only one game's worth of meta.

[Leafsnail]

Okay so I res through a couple of konowa's games and he is more involved as town. I'm disappoint.

More involved than he is this game or more involved than he was in his scum games?

I'd say Konowa has been mostly pretty passive this game, and only really got "involved" when Tierce suggested a Konowa/Trevorfitz team. I'd argue that was out of necessity - when Tierce called that team Konowa had no choice but to make sure the lynch on her went through. I think that's compatible with a usually passive scum meta (stays passive when he isn't required to do anything, but jumps into action when threatened).

[Leafsnail]

Parama: I think it's also your responsibility to clearly lay out your reasoning and motivations in a way that makes sense. Guessing scum correctly is only one part of playing town well.

As town than he was as scum. I'm trying to figure out in relation to his game here. I do agree his day one play was largely passive and the issue with tierce was one instance when he broke out of that.

I saw this comment earlier and I've been trying to figure out what I think about the first question. Theres something that is bugging me about it but I can't quite put it into words.

It shouldn't be too hard to put into words - from my perspective it shouldn't be a necessary question since I already know the two are one and the same. But what I was interested is in what you thought since the sentence was ambiguous (it could equally be talking about this game or the games you read earlier).

I'd like to point out that Konowa has just kindof stopped posting even though he's been around after his prod

[Leafsnail]

And that last sentence is why I justified being gone.

Huh?

[Leafsnail]

The hammer thing is because you were evading the question and changing your response (it's still not clear to me whether you had an academic curiosity in whether Tierce would hammer me or if you were trying to get her to hammer). The leading question was trying to get you to settle on a response and you still didn't do it.

The Parama push was for going beyond useless into "actively obstructive", ie explicitly saying he wouldn't play the game and not answering questions in any way.

Your over-reaction to me pointing out your inactivity and your rush to paint me as scum because of it is kindof funny

[Leafsnail]

There is no WIFOM discussion for a mod-confirmed innocent, this line of argument is ridiculous

[Leafsnail]

For what it's worth I would have killed Vi night one and TUG night two

[Leafsnail]

To be honest I think the best explanation is that Trevor wasn't thinking about the game very hard.

[Leafsnail]

I can kindof see a "realness" to those posts, but that might be more to do with his genuine panic and need to see Tierce lynched. I don't see genuine

town

motivation behind them, since I still can't follow the reasoning that Konowa claims led him to vote Tierce.

I don't like this. It makes an assumption, and it wasn't definite it would have changed to konowa, but I did think the original was to save konowa, so meh.

It wasn't definite it would change to Konowa, but I thought it was likely enough that the possibility would be high in fitz' mind.

[Leafsnail]

I disagree - your town reads were spot on all game and I had to do a hell of a lot of squirming to avoid having them ruin me at the end, not to mention literally no-one suspected you. In fact the town as a whole was worryingly correct by day two (in particular there was enough support for a fitz lynch, and then it would be me vs Konowa only town would have two lynched), so I can see why fitz hammered - we really needed to squeeze a second mislynch out of somewhere.

[Leafsnail]

People also got lynched due to an outrageously hammer-hammer goon >.>

Oh right, one point of interest about the setup: If you are mafia, and
a) Neither goon was lynched day one
b) The child has not been revealed
c) You are confident neither of you will get lynched day two

Then no-killing is a good option (gives you another shot at the child N2 with fewer people and possibly a claim). Of course if you're wrong about c) then you'd given the town an extra lynch...

[Leafsnail]

Yeah, I think if Parama had played more seriously he could probably have gotten Trevor/fitz lynched day two (although I find it odd that Aeris never switched and Konowa explicitly refused to, something of a stroke of luck).

[Leafsnail]

Yeah, I can't say anything about Leaf's play being bad. It was noticeably forced in places but solid overall.
Trevor/fitz though, just awful d(''d)

Can't argue with it being forced, I was spending like 10 minutes checking over every post I made by the end. I'm not used to having such a scummy looking partner really!