[M] Micro 237: Greatest Idea Mafia - (Hunger ENDGames)

[Bulbazak]

Vote Guyett

I'm a bloodhound. I investigated Guyett, and he's definitely not town.

[Bulbazak]

I'm also going to say that I hate it when Maestro rerolls. I get less interesting choices every single time he does so. I went from being a Lyncher Mason Lover to a Town 1-shot dayvig to bleh.

[Bulbazak]

If you have a Vanilla role in this game, you're either doing something wrong, or you had no choice.

[Bulbazak]

In the first roll, I had Werewolf Supersaint.

That happened to me in the last Greatest Idea, only it was Mafia Supersaint.

So lucky are you town again?

He wasn't town last time.

[Bulbazak]

There is no Pikachu.

[Bulbazak]

Bulba, thought on Lucky and the votes on him?

I thought something similar when he made that statement. However, it could be just a troll. I'd rather vote him based on something substantial.

@Bulbazak
Perhaps. It kills a pikachu if they are pikachu, and does nothing if they're not, so there is no harm in accusing people of being pikachu.

Except there's guaranteed to be no Pikachus in this game.

[Bulbazak]

I believe he meant scum since I'm not sure how much he's used to this setup where there are scum factions other than mafia.

He played in the last Greatest Idea with me. He knows how this works.

Looking at my question I didnt speficially ask if he wasn't scum, I asked if he was Town and he replied that he guaranteed that he's not mafia.

I was assuming he was just trolling, especially since he rolled Werewolf during the last Greatest Idea.

Hmm maybe I need to look over that.

@Bulb: And what is something substantial enough for you to use your vote in times of low information like this?

Something that may not be a troll or subtle nod to the last game. I'm especially not going to put him at L-2 on something as weak as that.

Now as for your comment...

Unvote

Vote Sakura Hana

[Bulbazak]

^
That is a bad vote.

You saying it's a bad vote makes me think it's a good vote.

[Bulbazak]

Still doesn't mean you're town IC, but I'll wait on the announcement from the mod.

[Bulbazak]

Look up the setup. We can have scum ICs in this game.

[Bulbazak]

That's why I'm just waiting for the mod confirmation.

[Bulbazak]

I took the blacklisted combination section in the wiki as those roles could be possible and players should know beforehand. Remind me to ask the mod what makes Mafia Masons and Werewolf Lovers different from any other anti-town Mason or Lover, because my first role was a Lyncher Mason Lover, and that was approved.

[Bulbazak]

This would make a good after game discussion.

Unvote

I would still like that mod confirmation.

[Bulbazak]

I see what you're getting at...

Vote Guyett

[Bulbazak]

Lucky is claiming mason, noted.

Where do you get that?

[Bulbazak]

Vote Guyett

I'm a bloodhound. I investigated Guyett, and he's definitely not town.

Is that a reference to an old game

[Bulbazak]

@Lucky: Why do you think that your fellow mason would not confirm you?

[Bulbazak]

@Lucky: Why do you think that your fellow mason would not confirm you?

I didn't ask them too, and day 1 it makes sense for them to stay quiet. Why would we show our hand this early? You aren't asking them to are you?

I'm just trying to piece things together. I find it odd that Masons would not have daytalk, as that tends to be the norm. The same goes with lovers. I would think that your partner would confirm you and you him. That way we'd have 2 "not mafia" reads.

@Mod: If there are Masons or Lovers in this game, would they have daytalk?

[Bulbazak]

I was assuming he was just trolling, especially since he rolled Werewolf during the last Greatest Idea.

Bulba here says he assumed Lucky was trolling. Alright, I'll buy it, except

I thought something similar when he made that statement. However, it could be just a troll. I'd rather vote him based on something substantial.

This isn't assuming it's trolling! This is saying it might be trolling.

In #35, I stated that I thought he might be trolling. In #40, I explained why I thought that. It's not that difficult to follow.

Why did you vote Sakura?

Her posturing in #36 was horrible.

Why did you vote Guyett?

I thought Lucky was soft claiming Lyncher, and I decided to help him along. Guyett hadn't said anything at the time, so it wasn't like I had a townread on him. Since then, I don't think that my vote has been a bad one, since he's not giving me town feels.

Why did you unvote Sakura before the mod confirmed?

She said that she had sent the PM in, and I wanted to pursue other suspects. If the mod didn't confirm her, then we would just lynch her.

Why do you want the other Mason(s) to claim so we can have not-Mafia reads when there are so many potential scum factions that a not-Mafia read is virtually useless?

You have a group of people who can confirm themselves "not Mafia". Sure, that could mean that they're Werewolves, Aliens, or the lone SK, but it still helps with PoE.

[Bulbazak]

Do we know if he even has a fellow mason?

He said he did, and I don't see why he'd lie about that. Heck, I even think I know who it is. Again, I think it would be in his best interest to claim, but if he doesn't want to, I'm not going to reveal his identity.

[Bulbazak]

I don't see why hide his mason partner, in the event of his death we get confirmation on his partner, otherwise any person could claim being his partner and he wouldnt be alive to confirm it.

Why do you think I want a claim? Otherwise, scum could use this as a gambit.

[Bulbazak]

Are you and Mitillos just not paying attention?

[Bulbazak]

@

Bulba

:

In #35, I stated that I thought he might be trolling. In #40, I explained why I thought that. It's not that difficult to follow.

There's a difference between "it might be trolling" and "I assumed it was trolling".

Not really. The intent is the same. Otherwise, you're just getting into semantics.

I thought Lucky was soft claiming Lyncher, and I decided to help him along. Guyett hadn't said anything at the time, so it wasn't like I had a townread on him. Since then, I don't think that my vote has been a bad one, since he's not giving me town feels.

Why would you want to help a Lyncher?!

Just because someone is a Lyncher in this game doesn't mean that their target isn't scum. Besides, once a Lyncher's target is lynched, they leave the game and are out of our hair. If the claimed Lyncher is still around the next day, we quicklynch them.

You have a group of people who can confirm themselves "not Mafia". Sure, that could mean that they're Werewolves, Aliens, or the lone SK, but it still helps with PoE.

Uh
Soooo many potential factions
how does it help

For 2 people, we eliminate 1 thing that they can possibly be. It may not seem like much, but it gives you a cross section that can be used to figure out more of the puzzle. Given that there are only 2-4 scum in the game, knowing that both players are not 1 faction helps us a little bit with understanding the bigger picture.

@

Bulba

:

Again, I think it would be in his best interest to claim

Why?

It confirms Disturbed as "not mafia". Haven't you been paying attention?

[Bulbazak]

Krew, I played in the last Greatest Idea and a similar question was asked. A Lyncher would leave the game after lynching their target and share the win at the end. The game would go on.

[Bulbazak]

See previous answers.

[Bulbazak]

There was no inconsistency.

Unvote

Vote SleepyKrew

I've actually been going back and forth on this for awhile. Your leap on Lucky was opportunistic. You're clearly not following the game. With others, I get the sense that it's not intentional. However, I don't get that with you. You are being deliberately obtuse, often asking questions about things that were either incredibly obvious or were already answered in the post you were just quoting. Your questions actually do nothing to further your actual knowledge of the game state. In fact, they only seemed designed to nitpick posts, rather than look for intent, and to look like you're actually scumhunting, when you're not. You don't want to understand the game state. If you did, you wouldn't be asking multiple times how knowing for sure someone is not of one alignment is helpful at all, when clearly knowing that someone is not X helps shed light on what could and could not be in the setup. You want to keep us in the dark, which was why you were adamant on Lucky's fellow mason not claiming. There's no town motivation in any of this. There is only scum motivation.

[Bulbazak]

Was my leap on Lucky opportunist too? We literally both jumped on him within less than a minute of each other.

No. I think you were genuinely confused. Krew was not.

@bulba was skrew adamant about Disturbed not claiming as my fellow mason? And why do you see that as scummy? I was against the mason claim too you know.

I wouldn't say adamant. He did want you to claim only the number of masons, which would suggest he didn't want Disturbed to claim, and he argued against the good of masons claiming. I'd say that Krew really didn't want your fellow mason to claim. And it's scummy, because for someone who is trying to "understand", he keeps trying to limit our ways of understanding the game and figuring things out. And if you do try to explain why understanding little details is important to the big picture, he gets lost about how difficult it could be, instead of narrowing down on using the details we know as a base to understand the game.

Bulba

stuff

Your leap on Lucky was opportunistic.

lol wrong

"lurk lurk lurk. 'Scumslip'! I can work with that!"

You're clearly not following the game.

lol wrong

The fact that you ask the same pointless questions over and over and not pay attention to what's going on in the thread suggests otherwise.

Why do you think I ask some things that seem like they've already been answered/should be obvious? Because that's how I look for intent.

You're not looking for intent. You're looking for any little chink that you can use to gain a mislynch. If you were looking for intent, you'd be paying attention to what's been going on, because sometimes, intent reveals itself, like how that post of Disturbed's that you called "stupid" was actually him soft-claiming mason with Lucky. Funny how you missed that, even though you addressed the post

after

Disturbed claimed.

If you did, you wouldn't be asking multiple times how knowing for sure someone is not of one alignment is helpful at all, when clearly knowing that someone is not X helps shed light on what could and could not be in the setup.

SO MANY POSSIBLE SCUM FACTIONS

And they are 1 less possible scum faction. We now have something to work with. I thought you were trying to understand the game?

Uh why should Disturbed have claimed (also where was I "adamant" about this? I don't recall pushing that too hard but I might be wrong)?

Not only does he confirm Lucky's role, but he puts Lucky and himself in a cross-section that eliminates one of the possibilities. They will be key to understanding what is going on later in the game.

The logical continuation of your argument is MASSCLAIM D1 ANYONE OPPOSED WANTS TO KEEP US IN THE DARK

This is

reductio ad absurdum

. Massclaim is not the same as having Masons confirm each other.

Cops are pretty useless in this setup.

Seriously, you can't be this stupid.

oh my god you seriously don't know how this game works do you

Neither do you, apparently.

everyone is scummy (EVEN YOU SAKURA)

You're playing this game wrong.

I'm asking everyone about everything

And getting absolutely nowhere...

What are your opinions on Mitillos, Bulbazak and Who?

I'm keeping my eye on him.

[Bulbazak]

These above posts are all him being reactive. aka answering questions but not adding anything new to the discussion

How did I not add anything new to the discussion? I think I brought up several things that you were straight up ignoring, and which have since become major discussions in this game.

WHOA an actual push! Too bad it was on Sakura.

What does that have to do with anything? We didn't know she was the IC at the time.

I see what you're getting at...

Vote Guyett

Let's look at the context surrounding this post.
The first part is addressed to this from Mit, meaning it also falls in the uselessnullnocontent pile:

@Bulba: You should vote him too, despite him being your partner, to get some town-cred. That way we "won't" lynch you because we will "think you're town". At least until we find out if Sakura is really an IC, anyway.

I was responding to this:

But I am not mafia this time, that much I can guarantee.

Not an accident, phrased this way on purpose. Atleast one of you already understands this %100. The rest of you... well you're big boys and girls, figure it out.

So what about the vote on Guyett? Well, Bulba had unvoted Sakura three posts before. So now he's voting Guyett. Why? NO REASONS WERE GIVEN

I actually already explained this, to you even:

Why did you vote Guyett?

I thought Lucky was soft claiming Lyncher, and I decided to help him along. Guyett hadn't said anything at the time, so it wasn't like I had a townread on him. Since then, I don't think that my vote has been a bad one, since he's not giving me town feels.

null mod question to go along with the above
Trying to scumhunt via mod is lazy and looks productive but rarely actually is

Disturbed hadn't claimed yet, which means that Lucky was not yet confirmed Mason. The fact that he claimed that Masons could only talk at night bugged me, as I'm only used to Masons with daytalk. I had also been in a True Love game that was modded by Maestro. Lovers had daytalk in that game. Asking if Masons and/or Lovers had daytalk not only sheds light on this game, but all future Greatest Idea games. If the answer came back that Masons did indeed have daytalk, I would have voted Lucky on the spot.

asks the other Mason to claim which is dumb but not necessarily scummy
manages to not actually contribute anything once again

How is asking the other Mason to claim and confirm Lucky not contributing anything?

I don't see why hide his mason partner, in the event of his death we get confirmation on his partner, otherwise any person could claim being his partner and he wouldnt be alive to confirm it.

Why do you think I want a claim? Otherwise, scum could use this as a gambit.

This is why I asked Lucky for the number of Masons
but yeah another thing on the masons
still no actual hunting or effort or contribution or anything

I'm trying to make sure that we're not dealing with a potential scum gambit, and you say I'm not contributing?! What is contributing to you, then, parting the Red Sea?

never once pressured Guyett or explained his vote or y'know CONTRIBUTED IN A PROTOWN MANNER

This is a lie, and you know it.

Have I been reactionary this game? Yes. Why? Because I'm in 9 other games (give or take), and I couldn't think of anything good to ask to get the game going (I'm not the best early game player.). As such, this game fell between the cracks at times. However, I now have something to work with. Krew is scum. He doesn't care much about the overall state of the game, only what weaknesses he can find, exploit, and push. There is only scum motivation in this. You can see this in the "everyone is scummy" comment, since he needs to keep his options open. Disturbed is town. Nati probably is too. No clue on Guyett. Lucky will probably be confirmed one way or another soon. I keep forgetting Who is playing in this game. Personally leaning scum on Mitillos, but don't know why. We lynch Krew today and use the flip and the night information to find the rest of the scum tomorrow.

P-edit: Guyett, if you think Krew is posting logically by straight up ignoring everything that is going on in the game, and everything everyone is telling him, then you need to take a course on logical reasoning and deduction.

[Bulbazak]

Why are myself and Nati town?

Your posts have strong town motivation. Nati is more gut, but I haven't seen anything scummy from him.

Cops are pretty useless in this setup.

Seriously, you can't be this stupid.

Cops only get Guilties on Mafia. There are several other scum factions besides Mafia. Plus, potential GF and Millers (though the latter is extremely unlikely).

And if a Cop gets a guilty, we know we have Mafia, and we lynch them. See, not useless.

How did I not add anything new to the discussion? I think I brought up several things that you were straight up ignoring, and which have since become major discussions in this game.

I did things! But I'm going to stop short of actually telling you or providing examples or quoting myself doing those things! But I did them! Honest!

Why would I quote examples that you yourself quoted when you misrepped me? Anybody with 2 eyes and a brain could see that what you said was false. But if you want an example, a prime one would be how knowing someone is "not X" helps us in understanding the setup and finding scum later on. We've spent a whole lot of time on that discussion, and you still have your head in the sand.

What does that have to do with anything? We didn't know she was the IC at the time.

So? The point is that Sakura stopped being a viable target, and you essentially shut down the hunting once she outed herself.

No, you accused me of being scum

because

I voted for Sakura, even though we didn't know that she was the IC at that point. You don't get to change your story later after I call you out on it.

So he was trying to help someone he thought was a Lyncher by voting someone that hadn't even posted because "lol lyncher target could be scum"

I didn't have any other suspects at the time. It seemed like a good vote.

This is a lie, and you know it.

and here is my proof oh wait

Let's see...

"Never once pressured Guyett." Given that votes are a sort of pressure, false. Did I have anything in particular to question or bring up? No, but unlike you, I'm just not going to make something up and nitpick. Once Guyett came in, he was somewhat active. There was no need to apply baseless pressure.

"Never explained his vote." False. I did. Several times. One of which was in the exact same post.

"Never contributed in a protown manner." False. I've sought to add as much clarity to the setup as possible, so that we can have an easier time of finding scum. You have sought to do the opposite. Have I spent time asking people baseless questions or nitpicking? No, but then again, I don't need to, as that is not scumhunting.

[Bulbazak]

@Mod: I'd still like my question answered. You can send me the answer via PM if you want.

@Mod: If there are Masons or Lovers in this game, would they have daytalk?

[Bulbazak]

Why would they have daytalk? Surely daytalk only happens in rightness games and with an encryptor

What are you talking about? Masons and Lovers normally always have daytalk.

[Bulbazak]

Is misrepping scummy?

Where did he say you were misrepping?

Are

you misrepping?

Lynching someone based off the fact they COULD be scum is equally idiotic, so what's your point brah? We don't know Lucky's scum, there is merely a possibility of that.

LOL, what?! That's the whole point we lynch. If we knew for sure someone was scum, there wouldn't be a game.

I think he's talking about people using possibilities as their only reason. Normally there is more to a case than "There is a possibility that he might be scum."

[Bulbazak]

Ok I am all caught up!

VOTE: skrew

Bulba makes a better case than Skrew.

And drumroll for worst-sounding vote of the thread!

Why is it the "worst-sounding vote of the thread"?

[Bulbazak]

Normally, I'm against massclaims, but a mass alignment claim actually makes sense in this setup. My alignment card was Vanilla Townie (I told you this reroll was boring...). Popcorn Nati.

*On a general note: My computer died last night. I'm currently leeching what time I can off other computers, but I can't guarantee all of that time will go towards Mafia. Consider me on limited access until further notice. Hopefully, I can get a new computer soon. I just may not be posting as much in the interim (I'll see if I can get on at least once a day.).*

[Bulbazak]

Do you think I like it?

[Bulbazak]

Popcorn Nati.

Why him?

Nati hasn't made much of an impression on me this game.

[Bulbazak]

And you'd rather have him go than a scumread?

The fact that Nati hadn't made an impression on me this game bothered me. He seems to be a background player. You know he's there, but you can't recall right off the bat what his stances are.

Alignment card was Vanilla Cop

Vanilla Cop?

[Bulbazak]

Okay I know this is really weird, but I kind of want Nati to full claim. Or at least specify if he has a night action.
Is this me crumbing? Possibly. Do I legitimately want Nati to do this? Yes.

Why would you want Nati to full claim? I don't see how any good can come of this.

Sure. I do have a night action.

Because Goons don't do anything cool? Just shoot people. I'd rather have interesting night actions.

UNVOTE:
VOTE: Nati
"The only reason I discarded Goon was because I want interesting night actions." doesn't fly in this setup.

I'm really not following here. Explain.

I'm liking it, in fact i think scum may be among Who, Nati and Bulb.

If you weren't town, I'd vote you for this level of wishy-washyness. Why do you think this? Is it because Krew or someone else has told you that this is what you need to think?

I think a few people#s card reveals are suspicious but Who is the worst for now.

What other reveals were suspicious, and why?

Nati is town to me and that's not changing.

Why is Nati town?

Currently ambivalent on the Who push. I've found he's very....schizophrenic...in his posting habits. The tentacled townie thing is curious, though.

Bulba I need to reread sometime(currently busy reading Steel Ball Run, though, so kinda distracted). I will maintain my previous statement that I have SleepyK as a strong town read, so extrapolate as you wish.

Mitlitos, I'm more unsure on, but I still don't like him per say.

I have a hard time believing town you would fencesit this bad.

Also, I expect intent to be given, as well as time for a claim/final reads before a hammer. Failure to do so will result in me PLing the crap out of the perpetrator.

[Bulbazak]

At the beginning of the game, Nati was asked why he discarded Goon. He said it was because he wants exciting night actions. However, this would be an acceptable reason to not take Goon as his role, but does not explain why he didn't take it for his alignment.

Why couldn't he have wanted to be town more than scum?

If you weren't town, I'd vote you for this level of wishy-washyness.

What was wishy washy about it?

Maybe wishy-washyness was the wrong phrase. Maybe it's hedging. Maybe it's fencesitting (It's probably fencesitting, now that I think about it.). Regardless, she says she could vote any of the 3 people who have had attention on them recently. And what's more annoying is that she's not basing it off of her own reasoning or conclusions. That by itself would be enough to vote her in another game. However, she is an Innocent Child, confirmed town, which means she's in the perfect position to argue her own stances and direct the flow of investigation. Instead, she's allowing herself to be a puppet of other players, most notably yourself. It's incredibly frustrating to see someone squander their role like that.

P-edit: Shut up, Disturbed.

[Bulbazak]

How the hell is saying "I'm willing to vote any of these three" fencesitting? She's clearly taken a stance on all three people, and you're ignoring the fact that she was the one that started the Who push.

That's the thing, Who aside, I haven't felt that her stances on anybody else has been original. She's essentially putting her trust in other players and hoping they don't lead her astray.

[Bulbazak]

What's your read on Who and why?

Leaning scum. The points against him are actually good, although I don't think they're strong enough for me to vote for him. I actually prefer my Krew wagon.

[Bulbazak]

@

Everyone

Do you agree that Guyett is suspicious for pandering to you Lucky and taking Who's claim as townie truth?

Yeah, I think that the unvote is suspicious, especially if he wasn't sure about his fakehammer results. I'm also not sure why he's so keen to take Who's claim in the way that he has. His reaction wasn't a town one, he beetlejuiced into the thread, and I can't see town Guyett giving him as much benefit of the doubt as he is.

Innocent until proven guilty.

If you think this, you're playing this game wrong.

Vote Who

Please don't tell me I was the only one that noticed he beetlejuiced into the thread shortly after he was "hammered". He's been avoiding us all this time and just chooses that point to come in? Come on. Even if he did, he would have surely seen that Guyett was already on him, making it an obvious fakehammer. Then he WIFOMs us a few posts later? His reaction is obviously fake.

[Bulbazak]

Bulbazak's Hierarchy of Reads (D2)

Town

Sakura Hana
Disturbed_One

Null/Town

Natirasha
Mitillos

Null

Lucky2u

Scum

Guyett
SleepyKrew

[Bulbazak]

What's your read on Who and why?

Leaning scum. The points against him are actually good, although I don't think they're strong enough for me to vote for him. I actually prefer my Krew wagon.

We went from this to this.

Vote Who

Please don't tell me I was the only one that noticed he beetlejuiced into the thread shortly after he was "hammered". He's been avoiding us all this time and just chooses that point to come in? Come on. Even if he did, he would have surely seen that Guyett was already on him, making it an obvious fakehammer. Then he WIFOMs us a few posts later? His reaction is obviously fake.

Tell me Bulba how we got here.

Did you even read what I said in #589?

I was the Psychomagnet. I was suspicious of Nati, so I decided to redirect everything to him. Even in the case where I was wrong, I was hoping there would be a protective role, so there would be no kill.

But if you thought Nati was scum, why were you hoping he'd be protected? What were you hoping to get out of such an action? Investigation results?

Role card mass claim anybody?

Not right now.

but I want to claim last

Trying to perfect your fake claim?

Vote Guyett

[Bulbazak]

@Sakura: Does it? I think the wiki doesn't say anything about it negating protection.

It doesn't. Unless there is an Alien Strongman, the 1-shot factional kill can be blocked like any other.

[Bulbazak]

I'd string you up before I would her.

[Bulbazak]

Did you even read what I said in #589?

Not right now.

Yeah, I did. What's your point? You weren't comfortable voting him despite leaning scum-read. And then all suddenly you were comfortable with lynching him. Why?

I said why in #589: The way he beetlejuiced into the thread and reacted to the fakehammer, when there was a vote count not far above the post itself, made me think that it was all fake.

Why not?

I think keeping certain roles secret atm benefits town more than outing them. If anybody had a result worth mentioning on Nati, they would have done so at the beginning of the day.

Also, explain your town read on me.

You are legitimately scumhunting, which leads me to believe you're town. Essentially, it's the type of scumhunting that comes from a town intent rather than a scum one.

[Bulbazak]

Something that I would like to bring up is that if a doctor did get redirected, I believe they only stop the FIRST kill...

It depends on the mod.

And talking about the mass claim.... 4 people out of 8 are already full claimed. Might as well finish it since the other 4 are half claimed.

Stop rolefishing.

The only possibility is if he is part of an alien faction and they didn't want to use their nk tonight

The odds that he drew 2 Alien cards are extremely unlikely.

Guyett - Town
Lucky2u - Quite possibly scum
Mitillos - Town for now.
SleepyKrew - probably town
Sakura Hana - conf town
Natirasha - possibly scum
Bulbazak - possibly scum
Disturbed_One - probably town


Based on that I think Lucky should go today. then one of NAT or Bulba tomorrow

Or we lynch your scummy butt and then let our investigative roles do their work and go from there.

[Bulbazak]

Why exactly would I be scum?

I didn't like your reaction surrounding the Who wagon. You were playing it pretty safe. I also think you are hiding behind that role table, making it look like you're contributing, when you're really not.

Lucky is a much better lynch anyway.... his mason buddy doesn't trust him ffs

That doesn't mean anything. Besides, we can have our investigative roles sort him out if we really want to.

[Bulbazak]

IIoA is a really antiquated scumtell, Bulba.

And you don't think his immediate trust of Who's claim, waffling on the wagon, voting and pushing the wagon when momentum was going that way, his reaction at the start of the day, or his wanting to go last in a massclaim (all the better for a fake claim) have anything to do with his alignment?

[Bulbazak]

There is a very good reason for my play and wanting to claim last

Yes. It's called you're scum.

[Bulbazak]

Nope. But I think you are.

[Bulbazak]

As it stands I can't see Miltos being scum having used that power. If he was scum him using that would have wasted his factions NK.
The only possibility is if he is part of an alien faction and they didn't want to use their nk tonight

Or he is a lyncher and didn't want his target to die.

Where in the world do you get this?

[Bulbazak]

It's not in Greatest Idea.

[Bulbazak]

Because it's in Great and Greater (I think). At the very least, it was in the live version when the game was first created.

[Bulbazak]

Maestro specifically put some limits on Greatest while adding a few tweaks. One of the things he always advertises is "No Pikachu.".

[Bulbazak]

If we are going to popcorn claim, with 4 people full claimed already we might as well have those with full claims decide who of the remaining should start.

Not claiming. Thanks.

[Bulbazak]

It could be thought of as buddying or pandering, but 1) that's a null-tell

Buddying

is

a scumtell. Town really has no use to do so, as they don't need to get on anyone's good side. Scum need to, though, in order to survive. If you think an action is buddying, and that person flips town, then it wasn't buddying.

Also, why is no one voting Guyett-scum?

[Bulbazak]

Role card mass claim anybody?

Not right now.

Why not?

I don't like massclaims, and for those that do, it would not give us very much information.

[Bulbazak]

It might open any useful PRs up for NK before they have a chance to get any useful results.

[Bulbazak]

Do you think I am the best person to be lynched right now?

Yes.

[Bulbazak]

Why?

IIoA is a really antiquated scumtell, Bulba.

And you don't think his immediate trust of Who's claim, waffling on the wagon, voting and pushing the wagon when momentum was going that way, his reaction at the start of the day, or his wanting to go last in a massclaim (all the better for a fake claim) have anything to do with his alignment?

[Bulbazak]

if I do have a PR that could help town what would the pro's and con's of pushing for my lynch so that I have to claim?

I like how you're trying to set this up to look like I'm trying to run you up to L-1 in order to claim. It's a nice bit of subtle manipulation.

When did I immediately trust Who's claim?

You immediately unvoted him after he claimed Lover.

What waffling did I do on the wagon?

After that unvote you were making statements talking about how you might or might not vote him. It was like you were waiting to see what the town consensus was before putting your vote back down or not.

I pushed the wagon as I didn't like the alignment claim and the role claim.. they seemed like something I would do as scum in a similar situation..

And yet you unvoted him immediately after he claimed. There's no reason to do that if you didn't believe the claim.

What about my reaction did you not like?

You mean the "Who was telling the truth..." comment? That reaction to events that happen. The commenting on things that are obvious in the thread. Heck, that's the same type of scumtell as commenting on NKs. Then you follow that up with "Lucky needs looking into, as does Nat.", which is you setting up lynches. There's no way that is town motivated.

Do you not think I have a good reason for wanting to claim last? use your head.

Yes, it's called a fake claim.

[Bulbazak]

if I do have a PR that could help town what would the pro's and con's of pushing for my lynch so that I have to claim?

I like how you're trying to set this up to look like I'm trying to run you up to L-1 in order to claim. It's a nice bit of subtle manipulation.

Are you not?

Am I not what?

When did I immediately trust Who's claim?

You immediately unvoted him after he claimed Lover.

I wanted to think things over.
I had also just fake hammered to get a reaction and I wanted to analyse the reactions

What reactions were you analyzing if you kept waffling on him and came back with not liking the Tentacled Townie claim, which was given before the fakehammer.

What waffling did I do on the wagon?

After that unvote you were making statements talking about how you might or might not vote him. It was like you were waiting to see what the town consensus was before putting your vote back down or not.

You're gonna have to provide quotes here

I suppose I could remove the vote for a while but I might put it back later

Anyway I still think the who wagon is good... More pressure will give us some more information on who. Deadline is getting very close and the who wagon will likely give us lots of information tomorrow. Obviously he could be telling the truth about his card choices but his choices are exactly the kind that I would use as a fake claim

I pushed the wagon as I didn't like the alignment claim and the role claim.. they seemed like something I would do as scum in a similar situation..

And yet you unvoted him immediately after he claimed. There's no reason to do that if you didn't believe the claim.

Eh I fake hammered to get a reaction and I wanted time to analyse it and not let someone else hammer him. Why are you blatantly misrepping me here.

You only unvoted because Lucky asked you to. You showed no evidence of actually analyzing Who's reactions, and you voted him based on his Tentacled Townie alignment claim, which existed

before

your test. Again, that doesn't add up to what you're saying.

That 'scumtell' that can be found in here at the bottom is obsolete at this stage... if strategy gets on the wiki its outdated (especially when its over 3 years old)

If strategy is on the wiki, that means that someone thought it was worthwhile to put it there. It has nothing with it being an outdated tell (In fact, someone is putting up Fferyllt's "trajectory" method of scumhunting, and that has proven to be very successful.). In fact, this is a tell that I still catch scum using. Nice attempt at a discredit, though. I don't think I've ever seen anybody use "Don't trust the wiki!" before.

Do you not think I have a good reason for wanting to claim last? use your head.

Yes, it's called a fake claim.

I refuse to believe you are this stupid. Ergo you must be scum

Ah, the "Dumb or scum" discredit. Classic.

[Bulbazak]

I am very sure you are scum. Why not go 1 v 1? lynch me and if I flip town people lynch you tomorrow. Or we lynch you now and if you flip town people can lynch me tomorrow.

I'm not going 1v1 with you. That has more of a chance of stifling scumhunting than promoting it. Now answer my questions.

[Bulbazak]

And yet you stop and don't say why.

[Bulbazak]

So you're not answering my questions and are squelching discussion. Gotcha. More votes on Guyett-scum!

[Bulbazak]

I don't think I've ever seen anybody use "Don't trust the wiki!"

http://forum.mafiascum.net/viewtopic.ph ... 8#p5134248

And now I've seen a second. That doesn't mean that I agree with that sentiment. Those tells are on the wiki for a reason, and you'd be surprised by how accurate they can be.

[Bulbazak]

Unvote

Vote SleepyKrew

I'd rather not vote Lucky today. He's sure to get at least 1 investigation tonight, and that information can save us a lot of time, since we know he's not mafia.

[Bulbazak]

why skrew? why not Nat?

Because Skrew is scum. Nat I'm not too sure about.

[Bulbazak]

Do you have any good reasons for skrew being scum?

She hasn't been looking for intent when calling people scum. She's been looking for ways that she can push other people as scum. Her questioning everyone on everything doesn't feel genuine, especially when she skips over a post during her compiling of the posts that would have answered her own question. It's just meant to make it look like she's scumhunting, rather than her actually scumhunting.

[Bulbazak]

except when Who claimed he was last to claim and he claimed a card that no-one in their right mind wound use as a role card. So it looked like a smart fake claim. Vanilla cop is a type of card that people would use as a role (I'd imagine scum would prefer it than town)

Then why did you trust him after he full claimed if you didn't believe his alignment card?

[Bulbazak]

You unvoted him though, and said that you had to think about his reaction, after which, you voted him for the alignment card, all while never mentioning what you thought of his reaction.

[Bulbazak]

I needed to think over it. I didn't quite trust his claim and his claim made him effectively a VT.

Like I've explained why I didn't like his alignment card claim and his role card claim was lover ( lover is commonly used as a safe fake claim in these games as there is 3 in the deck)
His claim was suspect but I think he got really unlucky with the cards he was dealt. VT is bad, lover is negative as you die if there is another lover in the game that dies... only positive of that is if the lover is scum. TT is just an awful card and is also really negative.

If you were so sure he was scum, you could have always kept your vote on him and left him at L-1 while you thought about it, instead of allowing yourself to be coaxed off by Lucky.

[Bulbazak]

Also not sure why you persist in putting a claimed doctor under pressure?

Because you are not guaranteed to be town.

[Bulbazak]

I just don't think your actions make sense. That doesn't mean that I'm willing to get rid of a town doctor on the off chance we have one. Skrew is still scummier than you by far.

[Bulbazak]

do you not think that I looked anti town on purpose to not draw scum attention before I full claimed? I tried to steer clear of the NK pool while trying to avoid the top of the lynch pool as I felt it would be best play as Doc

That's the dumbest excuse I've ever heard, and it contradicts what you just said.

[Bulbazak]

contradicts what?

You said originally that you unvoted Who so that you could think about his reaction, even though you never mention that reaction again and voted him based on his alignment card claim, which was out before your fakehammer. When I press you further, you said that you didn't want him to be quickhammered, even though there was no evidence that would be a problem, Who wasn't that great of a townread for you anyway, and a quickhammer would increase the odds that we would lynch scum the next day. Now you say that you were being anti-town on purpose in order to not get NK'd, even though everything you've said before completely contradicts that, since you were presenting them as town actions.

Anyone else noticing a pattern here?

[Bulbazak]

Bulba, can we deal with SleepyK and Guyett tomorrow and lynch this fuck finally?

I want us to hold off on Lucky today. Trust me. I have my reasons.

[Bulbazak]

It's the difference between conf. town or conf. scum. You'll have it on Lucky tomorrow.

[Bulbazak]

I would rather lynch SK, simply because Guyett could be useful if he's a town doctor.

[Bulbazak]

Also you can be sure that there is at least 2 scum Nat, Maestro won't run the game with less than 2 scum or more than 4 scum

Oh? Did I fail to read the guidelines more?

Read your PMs. I'm pretty sure he says so in there. Why do you think there were so many rerolls?

[Bulbazak]

We better lynch Skrew tomorrow. That was ridiculous.

[Bulbazak]

Lucky, what is your read on your fellow mason?

[Bulbazak]

Don't you dare misrepresent my statement, Skrew, and make it about Sakura. Don't you dare.

[Bulbazak]

Bulba are you voting me?

No, I'm voting Skrew. This is what your wagon looks like:

Lucky2u (5): Natirasha, Disturbed_One, Mitillos, Guyett, Sakura Hana

[Bulbazak]

Okay, I'm actually kind of glad Lucky was lynched today. What I had planned to do would have been useless.

[Bulbazak]

Okay, I'm actually kind of glad Lucky was lynched today. What I had planned to do would have been useless.

Do tell

Not yet. If the game is not over, I want to keep at least one thing close to my chest. I will tell all tomorrow.

[Bulbazak]

This post is filler.

[Bulbazak]

[Bulbazak]

Vote Sleepy Krew

Nati, I hope you did better with your investigation, because I got jack squat.

[Bulbazak]

@Bulba: What did you get and on whom?

I'll tell you after Skrew claim. I got a clear on Nati, though. I'm also ticked because I targeted Disturbed last night, and the kill made my result worthless.

I find it slightly suspicious that he was against mass claiming yesterday but he has immediately come out and basically outed himself as an investigative PR with no results.

Just because I don't like mass claims doesn't mean I won't claim ever. Stuff has gone so terribly awry at this point that I feel it's best to claim and use PoE to go from there.

[Bulbazak]

Bulba I would like you to claim first.

I was going to, but I agree with Nati's reasons for having Skrew claim first. I'll claim after that if you want.

I do not see any logic in your decision to investigate Disturbed. Why not investigate me who you obviously had issues with yesterday, or Skrew who you definitely have issues with?

I considered that, but Disturbed was part of an interesting cross-section that I felt I could get definitive results easier. I was actually hoping to produce evidence of another conf. town, rather than say, "Well X is or is not this...".

[Bulbazak]

Disturbed was a confirmed Mason. Did you think his claim of Cop Lover alignment card was fake?

I never said that. Disturbed was conf. not mafia. I was hoping to fully clear him.

P-edit: Why are you in such a big rush for me to claim? I fully intend to do so right after Skrew does.

[Bulbazak]

Why not investigate someone who was acting quite scummy. Why didn't you investigate Skrew?

I considered it, but I decided to use the cross-section we already had to our advantage and hope for another conf. townie. Confirmed is better than obvious.

[Bulbazak]

Hey Nat, you know who I investigated last night. Who did you investigate?

[Bulbazak]

Cool. So how much longer are we waiting on Skrew?

[Bulbazak]

I'm the town Seer. You're not a werewolf.

[Bulbazak]

@Bulba: What was your role card?

Seer.

[Bulbazak]

More specifically: Mafia Seer.

[Bulbazak]

So, does anybody else want to join me on the Skrew wagon?

[Bulbazak]

I know that. I've had a scumread on the slot since d1, and I want it to die.

[Bulbazak]

Do you realize we are in a potential MyLo tho?

Yes, and I have it narrowed down to Skrew and Guyett.

[Bulbazak]

VOTE: Nat

Not happy with the Skrew wagon at all. The mod is searching for a replacement so lets wait to hear from them.
I'm really unhappy with Nat's claims for alignment and role cards.
Both of his claims (VT and conspiracy theorist) are multiple cards.
Now CT is able to investigate if a person is an alien but also investigates as alien. Skrew hasn't claimed but in theory could have a PR that investigates if the person is alien so Nat's claim could be covering his arse as he could actually be an alien.

I love how you're trying to defend your buddy. It's not going to work.

The fact that you were so sure I was town on D1 as my "town tell was showing" and as you have said that my play has been consistent all game would indicate you still have a town read on me. That comment regarding the Robs bastard game would indicate you are only going against your earlier town read on me to push through an easy mislynch or set up an easy mislynch.

I always love this attack by scum. "But you called me town at the beginning of the game. You must call me town now!" It's hilarious.

The minus in his court is the odd DO targetting last night(which might have been a failsafe in case I was a tracker).

I considered investigating Guyett or Skrew, but I decided on DO, since Mason had already created enough of a cross-section that would allow for a definitive alignment result, making it more likely to clear him as a conf. townie. With anyone else, I'd only confirm them as werewolf or not werewolf. I liked the certainty better.

[Bulbazak]

Also I've a question.. does me being doctor explain my early play? Like I wanted to not stick out as PR but also not become lynch bait?

No, it doesn't explain your play at all, and it doesn't make you less likely to be scum.

[Bulbazak]

Bulba is pretty good scum so why chose town over alignment instead of mafia?

I felt like playing as town this game.

I don't buy 16. yes you might get VT but you also got a mafia role... why not pick it?

But I'm not a VT, am I?

I always find it suspicious when people claim something that is found multiple times in the card deck.

Okay, but last time when I was scum in one of these games, I proved that I would pick a unique fake claim, not a common one.

He kept pushing Sak as scum even after her IC claim... then said she could be scum IC 51 despite playing this game enough to know better.

I've played this setup once, and BBMolla never claimed his ICness. I had actually misread the setup and thought those combinations were possible.

His early argument with Skrew about whether a cop is useless in this game is kinda really weird now. Back then I fully agreed with skrew about it being useless in this game. Now that he has claimed Seer and said it was a pretty useless role this kinda goes against his early argument doesn't it? 272 contains his arguments.
In this game Seer is the same amount of uselessness as cop unless there is the factions present.

I never said Cop was useless. In fact, I argued the opposite.

The unwillingness to take part in the claim is very suspect.

I don't like massclaims. Anybody who has played with me any length of time knows this.

and once I said that I had crumbed my role I think he knew full well that I was the cop

I thought you said you were the doc?

he continued to push for me to claim.

Nope, I genuinely thought you were scummy. I still do.

At that stage with half of the people claimed it only gave advantage to scum... His reasons for not claiming were complete bullshit. Was he afraid of being night killed? There were 2 masons and an IC outed (followed by a doc) all of whom were much bigger targets for nk than a fucking seer.

I wanted one more night of complete anonymity to use a scan. If there are werewolves in this game, outing myself would be signing my own death warrant.

721 has all sorts of appalling reasons for why someone would be scum.

Nope. Those are pretty good reasons. Nice discredit.

I never immediately trusted Who's claim. I put his claim in the table and then had to think on it. Lots of misreps

Lucky asks why you're voting Who. You unvote. Sorry, that's not "putting his claim on the table". That's being appeasing.

His case on both myself and Skrew come across that he knows for a fact we are scum... not that he suspects but that he knows

So you both

are

scum. Cool.

867 "Because you are not guaranteed to be town." Fair enough... why not fucking investigate me then? investigating DO was either fake and you aren't actually what you say you are... or FUCKING STUPID as he was pretty much town in everyones eyes!!!

I considered it, but decided that confirmation on DO would be better.

1021
Your reason for claiming was "Stuff has gone so terribly awry at this point"..... Eh what? The only difference between now and then was that we had lynched a SK and what was effectively a Named townie died... so what exactly went so terribly awry that made you feel the need to claim right away?

My first investigation was redirected from Lucky to Nati. My second investigation target ended up getting killed. It felt like when I was Cop in the last game and kept getting role blocked. It was no longer useful to stay hidden, and it was time to claim.

Back to your choice of investigation target... you wanted to make an interesting cross section on DO???

We already knew he wasn't mafia and his play reeked of obv town.... so you investigate him on the off chance he might be a werewolf? Why not investigate myself or Skrew who were top of your shit list? in 1029 you say you wanted to "fully clear him".... do tell how you planned on doing that? Like sure he couldn't be mafia or scum but he could still be alien, SK or any other 3rd party.

DO was confirmed "not mafia". Unlike everybody else, that gives me an early start on PoE. Now imagine if I confirmed him "not werewolf" as well. He's essentially conf. town at that point. Sure, there are other things he

could

be, but those are not as likely in this setup, especially after Lucky flipped SK (seriously, do you think both were SK masons?). I felt that the likelihood of him being anything else was dramatically decreased after a seer-clear, and I felt that it was useful to have as many clears as we possibly could.

Why does he have a town read on Nat?

If he was scum, he wouldn't have been that open about being redirected d2. That kind of statement would have been likely to draw the attention of another faction.

P-edit: I'm not rushing a vote. I'm just pretty sure that Skrew's slot is scum.

[Bulbazak]

No hes not effictively conf town. Stop being stupud.

Mafia and Werewolf are the most abundant scum factions available, making their existence very likely. SK is unlikely because of Lucky, most people wouldn't choose Alien or Cult if given the choice (as evident by current site meta), and the rest are of no concern to the rest of the town, essentially making them town. So, yes, DO being found "not werewolf" would have effectively made him conf. town.

What are your reasons for skrew being scum?

Her scumhunting d1 was fake. She was essentially filling up space. This can be seen in the fact that she asked several questions multiple times, even though she had already been given the answer or the answer was apparent in the thread. She was essentially asking questions just to ask questions and look like she was town.

[Bulbazak]

That was sudden and uncalled for.

[Bulbazak]

1 person voted you. How can you get ticked off at that?

[Bulbazak]

Only Sakura is voting you, though. I don't think anyone is in a hurry to lynch you.

[Bulbazak]

I would think that scum submitted a kill last night, since Maestro asked if we would like to shorten the night.

[Bulbazak]

I'm getting deja vu from the last Greatest game... I investigated Guyett last night.

[Bulbazak]

Vote Mitillos

Did a brief ISO dive on both him and Nati. I'm pretty confident he's scum who used Psychomagnet to rolefish.

[Bulbazak]

Curious.

As to what?

[Bulbazak]

Nati, my reread of you left me with the conclusion that there was no way you'd do what you did if you were scum. I then looked back at Mitillos's explanation of his ability use, and I found that it didn't really click with me. I then looked back over his ISO and saw that he was mainly lying low the entire game. It seemed pretty obvious after that.

Why did you think you were low hanging fruit?

[Bulbazak]

I kinda felt the same way, especially after my investigation target was killed yet again.

[Bulbazak]

Maybe. The hang back at the beginning of the day was interesting.

[Bulbazak]

Also, how did I use my role to rolefish?

You focused all the night actions on one slot. That would be a great way to find out if there was a protective or blocking role in the mix.

[Bulbazak]

So, you're saying that I am scum and looked for a protective role, by wasting my kill?

But it wouldn't be a waste then, would it? If there was no protection, then your target, Nati, would die. If there was, then you would know that a protective role existed, thus allowing you to coordinate your targets better. It's a calculated maneuver, and one best left for the first night.

And then, when it was obvious that a protective role really existed, I insisted we don't have a roleclaim, because I didn't want scum to kill him? How does that even make sense?

Why would you force a claim as scum? You would know that might not help you in the long run. Scum have to play the long game. Pushing for a mass claim after that move would have been suicidal.

Why wouldn't I just shut up and let it happen? I had already made my claim, I'd have had nothing to lose.

Towncred.

And then, when he was eventually forced to claim, why would I not kill Guyett at night? Why would I bother killing Disturbed, instead?

Disturbed was seen as obv. town, and he was a strong player. Not to mention that there was plenty of suspicion on Guyett. Plus, you knew where his protection was likely to be. Why wouldn't you kill Disturbed in that scenario?

And then defend Guyett on D3, when he was accused of being scum for still being alive?

Towncred.

[Bulbazak]

1) Except that the best time to get a kill in, without knowledge, is early on, when a doctor would be unlikely to pick the right person to protect. Particularly with an IC, since that would be the likely protection target. And with potential multiball, it would mean I made sure that all the town kills were eliminated, or at least reduced to one. That would not be in my favour, if I were scum. As a calculated maneuver, it's a pretty terrible calculation.

You find out for sure if there is a protective role or not. That's valuable information for later nights. So, yes, n1 is the best night to use that ability as scum.

But I was against it, until it was in the town's favour to do a massclaim.

See, this is my point. You're yelling "But I was against massclaim! Therefore, I must be town!". You want that action to essentially make you seen as town, or, as it is called, towncred.

3) So, I am scum who did protown things for towncred?

Yes. Scum can do pro-town things as well. Again, it's all about the long game.

How exactly do you distinguish between that and a townie doing protown things?

You look at the motivation for doing so.

Were you also against the massclaim for towncred, then?

Yes, but I dislike massclaims in general. It's not alignment indicative, and I'm not going to use it to persuade people to call me town.

4) As scum, I wouldn't kill Disturbed, because he wasn't attacking me.

That's not the only reason to kill people as scum. In fact, I'd say that's the dumbest reason to NK someone.

I'd have gone for Guyett, because he was the doctor and was the only person who would have had any effect on my kills. And then I'd also be certain that Guyett would die, because he'd be unable to protect himself.

Except that Guyett was highly suspected, meaning that there was a chance that town would do your dirty work for you. You also knew where his protect was likely to be, which meant you could avoid it. Finally, Disturbed was widely seen as town, meaning that you couldn't get him lynched. All in all, Disturbed would have been the better kill.

You are saying that I am scum and didn't kill Guyett because there was suspicion on him, but then I defended him for towncred. Where exactly in that is anything that makes any sense whatever?

A common method to try to gain towncred is to defend town, hoping that when they're killed that town will remember your townread on that person and call you town as well. It's actually a very common method to gain towncred and sometimes falls under another name: white knighting.

You're basically saying that I'm really dumb scum who is intent on crippling his own chances at victory, by doing fairly idiotic things that work against each other.

No, I'm saying that you used common scum strategy to get ahead in the game, electing to view the game in the long term, rather than the short term. If it worked, you'd be able to coast to victory on the towncred you built.

[Bulbazak]

Here's the thing, Mitillos. You've been playing the game long enough that you should know all this. Yet, you're trying to argue that you wouldn't use the most practical strategies when scum, instead trying to get us to focus on thinking you'd be using poor or very basic and easily identifiable scum play.

[Bulbazak]

Except that you're the one claiming I am scum who used poor strategies. Every single thing you claimed I did is a pretty bad way of playing scum.

No, I said that your actions are

not

a bad way of playing scum. They're actually pretty good. However, that doesn't mean they're infallible.

1) For scum, knowing if a protective role exists early on isn't helpful if they don't have some way of finding out who it is. As a Psychomagnet, I clearly would have no such way, other than a rolecop ally or a massclaim. It'd be far more helpful to allow the other potential factions to also get their kill in and make the town panic by realising their numbers are dwindling faster than normal. There is no reason to not hold on to the 1-shot psychomagnet for 1 night.

Knowledge is power, especially as scum. Considering you're alone, how else would you use a psychomagnet ability if not to rolefish? And if you're going to rolefish, putting it off limits what you can learn. If you're going to use it effectively as scum, you have to use it n1. After all, it's not about finding out if there are other factions, as that's almost certain, but rather if there are blocking or protective roles.

Saying that my resistance to a massclaim was for towncred is a logical fallacy.

Nope. It's an inference. It's true that I suspected you were scum when I made such an inference, but that doesn't make it any less valid, especially when you repeatedly tried to use your resistance to a massclaim as proof that you were town.

Scum that opposes things that hurt town and advocates things that help town isn't playing a long game or going for towncred; it's being extremely cocky and potentially suicidal.

Sometimes you do something as scum just because people would think scum wouldn't do it. It's not cocky or suicidal. It's a gambit which has the possibility of paying off.

You say it's a dumb reason to NK someone. I'm glad we agree, because as I said that's the reason I wouldn't kill him.

I said a dumb reason to NK someone is because they suspect you. I said that you killed Disturbed, because he was obv. town and would never get lynched. That is a strategic decision on your part and is a good NK.

Like I said, as scum, my choice for a N2 kill would have been Guyett. Long, convoluted plans blow up in one's face and end up being written off as WIFOM anyway, so you may as well go for the maximum utility kills.

It's a matter of risk and reward. In this game, claims such as doctor are not immediate clears, which means that there is not as much reason to get rid of them immediately, especially if said doc is being heavily suspected. Again, it's looking at the game state, making a plan, and playing the long game for a win.

And if I expect town to "do my dirty work and lynch Guyett for me", but I also "defend him for more towncred", then I'm obviously working against myself.

No you're not. You defend the doc while town lynches him. Then after he flips town, they see that you told them they were wrong and assume you're town as well.

To show that someone is scum, you instead find contradictions (reductio ad absurdum, a term which you misused earlier in the game for something else)

Nope. I used

reductio ad absurdum

right. It literally means "reducing to an absurdity". Ergo, the fallacy is taking the argument to its most absurd conclusion in order to disprove it. And the best way to find scum is to find the motivation for their actions (i.e. is it more likely to come from town or scum). Believe it or not, town contradict themselves as well, and sometimes what appear to be contradictions actually aren't. Scum are more self-conscious, so they're going to try to keep their story straight, which will usually mean less contradictions.

and scumslips in their statements. For example, in 1223 I asked:
"Were you also against the massclaim for towncred, then?"

In 1224, you quoted this and replied:
"

Yes

, but

I dislike massclaims in general.

"
(Bolding is to emphasise the important bit. Italicised part is used below.)

That's a scumslip. Yes, (by your own words) you resisted the massclaim for towncred.

I've learned from experience that "scumslips" aren't as accurate as you'd like them to be. More often than not, those that "slipped" end up being town. Looking at motivation is much more reliable. Besides, it is clear that I was referring to not supporting the massclaim in general. I missed the towcred part of your quote.

In addition, in 696 you said:
"I think keeping certain roles secret atm benefits town more than outing them.", which contradicts the italics in the quote from 1224 above.

Either you were against it because it was a bad idea at the time, or because you are always against it. In 1224 you said nothing about a massclaim being anti-town. In 696 you said nothing about always being against massclaims. In fact, in 676 you said "Not right now." to a massclaim, suggesting that you would be alright with it at some point, which also contradicts 1224.

I've played Greatest Idea before. I knew that a massclaim of some sort would have to happen before long. I just wanted to delay it as long as possible, mostly so I could get another investigation off privately.

Unfortunately, I'm in a bit of a bad position, because if Nat is also scum (in a different faction from you, obviously), lynching you would mean that Nat wins (unless he's an alien and he wasted his kill already).

I doubt Nati is scum. He wouldn't have drawn attention to himself the way he did if that was the case.

[Bulbazak]

If Mitillos truly thought there were 2 scum of opposite teams left, he'd realize this is kingmaker, meaning he'd be forced to make a decision. I see no reason why he wouldn't put down a vote, especially if he concluded that you were an alien if scum.

[Bulbazak]

@Bulba: ...And I'm saying that those are bad ways of being scum. They're not merely infallible, they're downright self-destructive.

I've explained why they're not bad. You're just saying they're bad so that others assume you're right and not listen to what I'm saying. I have a pretty good scum game, so I know what I'm talking about.

As you said yourself, in this setup, a massclaim is inevitable.

At the end of the game, yes. But you don't want to wait to find that out as scum. That's leaving too many variables in play, and you need to be able to account for them.

Your towncred inference is an invalid way of asserting that I am scum, since you came about it by assuming that I am scum. You can't say "Mit is scum => his reason for doing this is towncred => he is scum".

Actually it's "Mit is scum, because of other reasons. Let me show you why X is a scum move as well and what the motivation for it is.". Looking for scum trying to get towncred is a valid form of scumhunting. Normally you try to judge how genuine the action is.

You use gambits when there are no better ways to do things, so the risk is outweighed by the relative gain.

No, you use gambits when the possible rewards outweigh the risks. Otherwise, you wouldn't do so in the first place.

In that scenario, I could just use my kill and if it didn't happen, I'd know there was a protective role, without wasting a 1-shot power like Psychomagnet. And if the kill went through, I'd have one less person to worry about.

True, but that's leaving too much to chance, as a protective role might be on another person. If you want to know for sure, the best thing to do would be to use the psychomagnet ability. Otherwise, there's no point in having it.

Again, if that was my worry about Disturbed, I'd have killed him after Guyett, because, being so obv-town, he may then get protected by Guyett.

Guyett was actually quite predictable in who he was protecting. I'm sure even you could see that. Why kill a role that's not going to be a problem?

Also, I don't really think Guyett was that suspected.

Really? With all the people saying "Guyett is scum." you didn't think he was suspected?

I certainly didn't suspect him much, after his claim.

Why not? Certainly you know that doctor could be a scum role in this game.

Defending a doc while town is lynching him, for towncred, requires that town is lynching him. I was telling Sakura to get off him. It wasn't a wagon that was already going, it was one vote. I wanted no wagon to happen, to begin with.

Again, it's defending someone who later flips town. You called him town while everyone else called him scum. The normal town response is to think that makes you town, AKA instant towncred.

Reductio ad absurdum is not a fallacy

Actually, it's a very common logical fallacy. A common form of it on the site is the Strawman Fallacy.

You can't tell what the motivation for an action is, when there are multiple possible motivations. You have to be able to show that only scum motivations are possible, to show that something is a scumtell. If town motivations are possible, then you're effectively saying "This is something scum and town do, but I made an ad hoc decision that in this case it was scum, for no better reason than because it's the only way it will fit my theory".

Well, since we never know for sure if something is the case as town, we might as well stop trying, right? After all, we can't

know for sure

if we caught scum or not, so why bother? (PS. That's

reductio ad absurdum

btw, but I hope I still made my point.)

And I never said I concluded that Nati is alien.

If he's scum, that's the only possible thing he could be.

He could be a werewolf.

No he can't. I got a "not werewolf" result.

He could be mafia.

Extremely unlikely. Picking conspiracy theorist as scum would be suicide.

He could be anything.

Unless he picked the other SK card, this shouldn't really matter. The other 3rd party roles (with the exception of Cult) don't interfere with town's wincon.

Seeing as how you're the only scum left, no lynch is just going to put us in the same situation, as you're going to NK Sakura. I'd rather end this today, rather than dragging it out and risking town apathy, which will only lead to you winning.

[Bulbazak]

But I told you why they are bad; they would mean that I am working against myself

No it wouldn't, actually. I've explained why they are all good moves. You're trying to use what people assume scum play like and ignore how scum actually play, especially if they are good at playing their role.

by reducing the number of kills

For information that you couldn't obtain until later? Well worth it.

wasting a 1-shot power pointlessly

When would you use it as scum? I'll answer that for you. You use the ability as soon as possible.

defending someone after deciding not to kill him, just to let the town lynch him

Yes, that keeps your hands clean. It's good play.

and trading useful information for less useful towncred.

What useful information? Towncred is gold as scum. If people think you are town, you're less likely to get lynched.

OK, so what are your actual reasons for me being scum, that aren't based on assuming that I am scum?

PoE led me to you. Looking back over your initial explanation for using your ability on Nati, I no longer buy it, as it doesn't ring true. You've also been coasting since that claim. Everybody else has put more time in this game than you. You've only stepped things up now, because I'm pushing you.

If there are two options a) take a small risk for a big reward and b) take no risk for a small reward, I'd say you should go with the maximin principle; don't take the risk. But maybe that's just me. Because the thing is, as you say, scum play a long game. A long game is based on small rewards over a long time. Not big rewards over a short time.

The long game is based on a series of calculated risks. All of these moves are well worth it, and will usually net you a win.

Actually, I thought that Guyett was not completely honest when he said whom he'd protect.

Why's that? He seemed pretty set on protecting Sakura.

Can you show me who was calling him scum on day 2, after his doc claim?

I was. I think Sakura may have chimed in a bit as well. It wasn't strong, but the suspicion was still there.

From Wikipedia: "Reductio ad absurdum (Latin: "reduction to absurdity"), also known as argumentum ad absurdum (Latin: argument to absurdity), is a common form of argument which seeks to demonstrate that a statement is true by showing that a false, untenable, or absurd result follows from its denial,[1] or in turn to demonstrate that a statement is false by showing that a false, untenable, or absurd result follows from its acceptance."
You will note there is no mention of RAA being a fallacy, because it is not. It is a proof technique. I don't know what more I can tell you about this, but being a mathematician, I can tell you that in proof theory, this is pretty much its definition. Again, RAA is where you assume the opposite of what you want to prove and show that a contradiction (absurdity) arises. It is not a fallacy. The Strawman Fallacy that you also brought up is actually where you attack a position which is different from the one that your interlocutor is in fact holding. It has very little to do with reduction to absurdity, of any kind.

It's funny that you quote from the Wikipedia page, yet leave out the parts later on about it being used in philosophy and logic, not to mention that the Strawman Fallacy is mentioned at the end of the very same article. If you go to the list of logical fallacies, you'll see RAA given a special mention in the "See also" section. Besides, we're talking about RAA as related to logical arguments, not mathematical proofs. I took a class on Logic and Reasoning for my degree, and I can assure you, not only is it a method of argumentation, but it is also considered a logical fallacy.

And I didn't say we should stop trying; you're committing the strawman fallacy there, by attacking something I didn't say.

I even stated that I was using RAA. I was making a point.

Otherwise, it's just conjecture and therefore useless.

Conjecture is not useless. Not in this game.

Whereas contradictions are tangible, since they indicate specific falsehoods.

The problem is that what we think are contradictions end up not being the case most of the time. In that sense, contradictions are relative.

I don't believe your investigation on him, because I think that you are scum.

Why would I lie? Because if I'm scum, then I'm probably scumhunting for other factions. Heck, last game I was an Alien Cop Lover, and I played the entire game as I would as town. If my motivations are in common with town on a certain point, why would I lie?

But, even if you're telling the truth, he could still potentially be mafia.

I doubt it. His actions d2 drew too much attention to him.

There is nothing preventing him from being a mafia conspiracy theorist

I guess there's not, but who in their right mind chooses a miller-like role as scum?

He could also be an alien.

This would be the only possible way he could be scum, but again, given his actions d2, it's unlikely.

[Bulbazak]

PoE - only if you're accepting unquestioningly that Nati is town, which is suspicious to say the least.

I looked through Nati's ISO, and I had a hard time seeing him as scum, so I looked at your ISO and was not impressed.

Explanation doesn't ring true - I guess you're still starting with the assumption that I am scum, to get to this. Because "doesn't ring true" is meaningless as a case. It's tantamount to "you're scum because you're scum".

Your explanation was quoted in Nati's ISO. I hadn't reached the PoE point yet, and rereading your explanation, I just didn't buy it. It rang false.

Coasting/Stepped things up - Naturally lazy. This is a matter of style, not alignment. Don't expect it to last, I get bored easily.

I thought it was odd and worth mentioning.

RAA is reducing an argument to its most absurd conclusion to show how ridiculous it is. It's an accepted form of arguing, but it can also lead to fallacious argumentation. Fallacies such as the Strawman fallacy and Slippery Slope fallacy naturally lead out of it. So, yes, I generally view it mainly as a fallacious way of thinking.

If it's not a contradiction, then it's not a contradiction. But if it is, it points to scum.

Town contradict themselves as well. In fact, I'd say more so.

[Bulbazak]

And why did it ring false? Because town wouldn't want to make sure that if anyone died, it would be one of their scumreads, instead of, say, the IC?

But you would also know about the possibility of other roles if you were town. The way you stated it, it almost sounds like you're ambivalent (If he dies, fine, but if he doesn't, that's good too.). I wouldn't expect that kind of ambivalence from town. And, as I've explained, psychomagnet makes a great role fishing tool. On a second glance, your explanation just didn't hold up.

Yeah, funny that. In an older game, Thor kind of did the opposite, accusing me of being too lazy, compared to some of my other games. This was also true and he also turned out to be scum. And I was town. Attacking style, as opposed to things that are alignment indicative is easier for scum.

It's funny that the activity and RAA points are the weakest part of my argument, yet they're the ones you're spending the most time on.

[Bulbazak]

Could anyone summarize their cases for me.

Mitillos is scum who used his psychomagnet ability to rolefish and then coasted through the game off of the towncred we gave him.

[Bulbazak]

Bulbazak is scum who scumslipped and contradicted himself.

No and no.

[Bulbazak]

Nati, why did you role a dice to decide? That's not something you want to do at this stage.

[Bulbazak]

Dice NEVER lie, Bulba.

[Bulbazak]

My response to that:

To show that someone is scum, you instead find contradictions (reductio ad absurdum, a term which you misused earlier in the game for something else)

Nope. I used

reductio ad absurdum

right. It literally means "reducing to an absurdity". Ergo, the fallacy is taking the argument to its most absurd conclusion in order to disprove it. And the best way to find scum is to find the motivation for their actions (i.e. is it more likely to come from town or scum). Believe it or not, town contradict themselves as well, and sometimes what appear to be contradictions actually aren't. Scum are more self-conscious, so they're going to try to keep their story straight, which will usually mean less contradictions.

and scumslips in their statements. For example, in 1223 I asked:
"Were you also against the massclaim for towncred, then?"

In 1224, you quoted this and replied:
"

Yes

, but

I dislike massclaims in general.

"
(Bolding is to emphasise the important bit. Italicised part is used below.)

That's a scumslip. Yes, (by your own words) you resisted the massclaim for towncred.

I've learned from experience that "scumslips" aren't as accurate as you'd like them to be. More often than not, those that "slipped" end up being town. Looking at motivation is much more reliable. Besides, it is clear that I was referring to not supporting the massclaim in general. I missed the towcred part of your quote.

In addition, in 696 you said:
"I think keeping certain roles secret atm benefits town more than outing them.", which contradicts the italics in the quote from 1224 above.

Either you were against it because it was a bad idea at the time, or because you are always against it. In 1224 you said nothing about a massclaim being anti-town. In 696 you said nothing about always being against massclaims. In fact, in 676 you said "Not right now." to a massclaim, suggesting that you would be alright with it at some point, which also contradicts 1224.

I've played Greatest Idea before. I knew that a massclaim of some sort would have to happen before long. I just wanted to delay it as long as possible, mostly so I could get another investigation off privately.

[Bulbazak]

edit: Should I post my response to your response, Bulba?

I was showing that those points are false. You're essentially misrepresenting the entire argument. Seriously, Sakura, it's something that you really need to read.

[Bulbazak]

"You scumslipped and also contradicted yourself."
"Scumslips and contradictions aren't what they're cracked out to be. Also, I missed the part of your quote that made my words a slip, even though I actually had to select it to quote it, like I did."
Not exactly an amazing defense there, to be honest.

Anyway, I was not misrepresenting anything. I was giving Sakura my side of the argument, like she asked. Your response is irrelevant to the recount of my accusation, unless I accept it as a valid defense, which I don't. Nice try, though.

Most of the time, though, scumslips and contradictions don't actually end up existing at all. "Slips" can appear because people aren't paying attention when they're writing. Contradictions can seem to exist, because either the person arguing their existence does not grasp what was being said, or a player's stance has evolved naturally and they aren't trying to keep track of what they previously said. In fact, a town player is more likely to contradict themselves than a scum player, mainly because the scum player is a lot more cautious about what they're saying and making sure they're consistent. Town does not care, since they are too busy trying to catch scum. You are trying to build a case on types of evidence that backfire all the time. I've been playing long enough to know this is the case. It all comes down to motivation and intent. Why is scum more likely to do X, rather than Y. You're trying to build a case on technicalities. I'm building a case on why you would do X, Y, and Z as scum.

[Bulbazak]

And when you find stuff that I did which has a clear town motivation, you automatically push it to the apparently bottomless bin marked "towncred".

Untrue. Everything that I stated as things that scum would do to gain towncred are things that scum

usually

do to gain towncred. And the fact that you continue trying to base your townieness off these same things cements my points, because you're trying to profit off of said actions. I used very specific actions, namely defending a town player (called white knighting) and being for mass claim (I actually have a very good example of town doing this, but I can't use it.). I didn't use every "townie" action as evidence of you trying to gain towncred, just the ones that are normally used for towncred, which happen to be the same ones that you tried to use to call yourself town. And then when I said that such actions mean nothing, you essentially yell, "Well, town can do them too." or "They mean nothing!" or something else of the like. Again, your case revolves around technicalities, which normally tend to be overblown, while mine revolves around what scum would be more likely to do. Guess what kind of cases scum tend to push more? That's right, the one's involving technicalities, or "slips" and contradictions.

[Bulbazak]

Except that a slip or a contradiction are not technicalities.

That's true. There are slips and contradictions that are somewhat reliable, but they're nothing like what you're using.

Town who pays attention (as you are) shouldn't accidentally appear to scumslip, nor should it cause a contradiction.

My point is that people tend to think contradictions when they don't really exist. Most "slips" are composed of something being put together really fast in response, and that person failing to catch the error. Real scumslips are not slips of words so much as slips of thought.

You're trying to prove all this by quantifying human beings, which are not quantifiable. Sure, you might actually appear to make progress, but they'll always tend to throw a wrench in your data somewhere down the line.

Claiming that "this action is one that scum usually takes for towncred is meaningless, when *town takes this action more often for the obvious reason of being town*.

There are actually certain things town does less often. If it was something town did all the time, I wouldn't even be bringing it up.

I am starting from "Bulba did these things that only scum does, therefore he is scum."

Except my point was scum are not the only ones to do what you're accusing me of, in fact, they do them less. The type of evidence you are gathering and using against me is the type that scum actually use to get mislynches, precisely because it looks like a logical reason, is easy to push, and has a less chance of backfiring against them.

So, to make the facts fit his theory, he has said of every clearly pro-town thing I did, that it was done for towncred.

Here's the thing, you keep going back to the same things and saying "Look, I did X. I must be town!" when that is not necessarily the case. You are trying to benefit from towncred supposedly earned, and I'm saying that's a scum tactic.

So, to show that someone is scum, you basically need to show that they took actions which are at least fairly likely to come from scum.

I am. I think the way the psychomagnet was used was way more likely to come from scum than town, and I've explained why.

Saying that I am scum, because I took pro-town actions ("for towncred") is ridiculous, when used as the main argument for why I'm supposed to be scum.

Nope. Not my main argument. Secondary supporting argument, tyvm. Nice try.

He misuses language, somewhat deceptively, to suggest something that is not true; that scum does pro-town things more often than town does them.

I'm saying that they do

certain

things more often than town do. Again, it all comes down to motivation, and there is very clear scum motivation for those actions.

[Bulbazak]

Name	Alignment Card	Role Card	Discarded Card	Final Combination
Guyett	Vanilla Cop	Doctor	Vanilla Townie	Town Doctor
Lucky2u	Serial Killer	Mason	Vanilla Townie	Serial Killer Mason
Mitillos	Lover	Alien psychomagnet	Mafia Reflexive Doctor	Town Psychomagnet
SleepyKrew	Gravedigger	1-Shot DayVig	Werewolf	Town 1-Shot DayVig
Sakura Hana	Weak Jailkeeper	Innocent Child	Mafia Roleblocker	Innocent Child
Natirasha	Vanilla Townie	Conspiracy theorist	Mafia Goon	Town Conspiracy Theorist
Bulbazak	Watchlisted Townie	Mafia Seer	Alpha Goon	Town Seer
Disturbed_One	Cop Lover	Mason	Mafia Goon	Town Mason
Who	Tentacled Townie	Lover	Vanilla Townie	Town Lover

Thought it needed updating...

[Bulbazak]

I remembered my second role PM, which had VT cards galore. I recently found my actual role PM when cleaning my inbox. I decided to keep it under wraps, since it really didn't matter, it being the same alignment and all. I thought I might use it to catch overeager scum (Mitillos), and if I'm wrong, I rub this in Mollie's face (She says that keeping it secret that you messed up your role is a bad move as town.).

[Bulbazak]

So you forgot something about your role... AGAIN?!

To be fair, I was only paying attention to what my overall role combination was, not the specifics. Also, my inbox was a nightmare when we first started playing this game, so I wasn't about to dive in just to verify exactly what cards I drew.

Nati, what do you agree with?

[Bulbazak]

Nati, how seriously you're taking all this truly amazes me...

[Bulbazak]

I think that Big Bang clip reflects my thoughts on the matter. This is just too big of a decision to treat so frivolously.

[Bulbazak]

In this game, yes. Especially so in Mylo/Lylo, where such a decision could mean the difference between winning and losing.

[Bulbazak]

Mitillos, there was a difference between your response and Nati's. Nati questioned it, yes, but you full on attacked. That was the response I was looking for, because I knew that scum wouldn't sit idly by when such an opportunity presented itself. As for the last part of your post, I had planned on not saying anything, since it really didn't matter, but I got the idea to use it as a reaction test when I went to bed last night. Nati passed. You failed.

[Bulbazak]

Wait, you were the second SK? Crap...

[Bulbazak]

Gg, Nat.

[Bulbazak]

If you wanted to convince me, you should have been pushing about the coin flips. That was the only red flag.

[Bulbazak]

To be fair, I have a history of flipping coins.

In Lylo?

[Bulbazak]

I love Greatest Idea, so I'm always going to sign up. How about you do Pirates of the Carribean next time. You already dipped your toe in with the last game.

[Bulbazak]

Yep. 1 year and over 20 games later...