NY 174: Oldy Mafia 2 (Game Over)

[Bookitty]

Oh, yeah.

I have mad respect and love for a lot of the people on the playerlist and I'm now having to put that aside to try to find scum. I'm voting for PJ because I think his reasoning for voting LML looks manufactured and would logically lead to reduced contributions along the same line.

That doesn't clear LML, but it does make me suspicious of PJ, given his minimal approach to contributing to the game so far.

[Shanba]

Bookitty entering a game as a replacement really does give the game some of that oldies feel.

As far as the Seol vote goes, I didn't notice him the last time I looked through the thread because he hadn't done anything. That's due to lack of attention on my part. If it weren't for the replacement I'd agree that it's a more and more reasonable place to put a vote, but right now I'm tentatively chalking it up to an unimpressive start due to lack of interest in the game.

If the logic is that he's looking scummier because he's npt participating this makes sense, but I think he looked pretty scummy at a time when he

was

engaged in the game.

[Green Crayons]

@Glork:

But such action is certainly not mutually exclusive of scum alignment, as there are reasons why scum would choose to pursue such a vote.

I'll bite. What are some of the reasons scum-LML would make that vote here?

Once again, based solely off of voting a player who "hadn't had any attention whatsoever," and therefore wouldn't likely result in a lynch, a scum would pursue such a player because if there is no lynch then there is no alignment flip, and if there is no alignment flip then there is no analysis of who suspected that player, and if there is no analysis of who suspected that player, then the scum's suspicions are not scrutinized outside of in-the-moment reactions.

-----

@Zorblag:

@Zorblag:

@Green Crayons:

Would you say that you're following the game on the whole fairly closely? Who is the scummiest of the players that you haven't particularly talked about so far?

(1) Yes.
(2) This is a loaded question that would be asked by scum.

@Green Crayons, it's really more an attempt to get some evidence that you're paying attention to the game, but I guess thanks for calling an attempt to get a feel for your game scummy?

Your answer on it's own was particularly uninspiring, but the rest of that post and the posts that you've made since then actually do make me think that you are paying attention to the game and trying to determine alignments. The fact that you're now laying out some town reads and not quibbling about language in the posts that you make, but really examining what the motivation for the overall tactics used (for, say LoudmouthLee) does more to assuage my concerns than any direct answer to a question I might have asked would have. I'd still be happy to hear what you think of scummy play beyond what you've mentioned, but it's now more possible in my opinion that you actually care about figuring out alignments in this game.

I'm going to put you as a backup to my LML suspicious. You're not my number 1 non-LML suspicion, but keep making posts like this, and you'll rise quickly in the ranks!


(1) Mischaracterization. I said your question would be asked by scum, because it would be asked by scum: it was a loaded question that implied that I have found other players scummy but have refused to talk about their scumminess, which in turn is an anti-town thing to do. When I call out this question for what it is, you conflate that into calling out your "attempt to get a feel for <my> game" as scummy. No, buster. Your question was scummy. Feel free to try again with a non-scum question. I tend to answer most questions that are thrown my way.


(2) Your turnaround on how you feel about me feels manufactured. Like, you

should

think I'm town (because I am), but nothing in my post-Post 389 play has changed in a way that would change someone's read of me based on pre-Post 389 play. It's just the same ole me responding to the developing game.

(a) "The fact that you're now laying out some town reads": I've laid out town reads in the past (Post 179), and have explicitly referenced those previous town reads in my new posts (Post 425). This is not new behavior that should alter your opinion of me.

(b) "not quibbling about language":

First, if you're going to call my scumhunting worthless bullshit, please do me the favor of just calling my scumhunting worthless bullshit. I have pretty thick skin, so someone thinking my play isn't going to find scum isn't going to hurt my feelings. What you shouldn't do is make these passive aggressive characterizations of my play that undercut the validity of my suspicions. Or, rather, you

can

keep on doing it, but the more you do so the more I'm going to assume you're scum who is attempting to subtly undercut my positions without drawing too much attention to yourself.

Second, as should be inferred from my Post 425, I continue to embrace my LML suspicious that are based on his radical change in tone (Post 307). (You should also infer that my LML suspicions are not solely based on my Post 307 in light of post-Post 307 developments.) So I haven't abandoned my "quibbling about language" tactics/suspicions.

(c) "really examining what the motivation for the overall tactics used (for, say LoudmouthLee)": Until I find something that really clicks, I'm fine with people thinking my inquiries are surface-level bullshit. I don't need to explain the deeper suspicions underlying my posts unless if I think they're worth pursuing, which I usually gauge based off of responses. I already did this with LML pre-Post 389, so to the extent you think my "really examining what the motivation for the overall tactics used" is an example of this, that's not anything new that should change your opinion of my play.

But more problematic, I think you're actually being more charitable about my post-Post 389 play, because (1) you give as an example LML, but there's literally no other players that you could consider I put my Real Scumhunting Hat on to analyze and (2) my post-Post 389 LML observations are still pretty close-to-the-chest stuff which, based on your apparent criteria of play, doesn't strike me as "really examining" scum play.

[chamber]

Choo choo on the Boo Boo.

[Bookitty]

@SaveTheDragons

What did you think of LML's justification for taking his vote off you and putting it on UntrodTripod? Do you think that jumping from wagon to wagon is more scummy or not scummy?

[Green Crayons]

@Kublai:

But I've read the first four pages and lately I've had the belief that first impressions are far moar important then we generally give them credit.

<snip>

Scum

sotty7
LML
VitaminR
porochaz
Seol

I know you're still in your read through phase. But at some point, because you put a lot of emphasis on the first impressions, I would like to see you point out the first-impression posts of the players you find scummy, and then explain why your first impressions are of scum rather than town.

-----

@chamber:

because of Post 466?

[chamber]

I was voting the slot she replaced into, though 466 isn't exactly good.

[Glork]

GC, your argument heavily implies that UT won't be killed at some later point in time. Unless you posit that UT and LML somehow make it to LyLo together, or that nobody in this game is capable of reading back once UT *does* die, your argument is entirely invalid.

Also, because I'm feeling particularly nitpicky, you said there are reason

s

, plural. I want to hear something from you that's not already a reiteration. Of your "I think LML was trying to hide his tracks in the short term" argument.

[Green Crayons]

It's not invalid.

Scum, as a general rule, are going to play as if they are going to make it to the end. If scum picks a player who has not previously garnered much attention, either (1) people will join that suspicion and it will lead to a lynch, in which case the scum simply stated some (not very good) suspicion that a whole bunch of other people bandwagoned, putting the scum in a pretty good spot in terms of when everyone else reviews the town player's lynch, or (2) people will not join that suspicion, it fizzles out and the scum looks active without garnishing additional suspicion.

In the second scenario, the town player could make it to LYLO (something scum have better control over than town, obviously) or he might die in a subsequent lynch/night phase -- but if the player is either later lynched or night killed, the player's death will likely be removed from the scum's ineffectual suspicions from previous play. Which means the scum's suspicions would still be not as scrutinized (and maybe not even reviewed, depending upon the distance between the stated suspicions and the player's death) as they would be in scum suspecting a town player that immediately leads to that town player's lynch.

Is it a perfect scum play? No. But it is certainly a tactic that scum could take, and the fact that it isn't fool-proof doesn't make it invalid.


That was the only reason that immediately came to mind. Perhaps there are others! I'm not going to scratch my head and think of one that is sufficiently distinct just to satisfy your nitpickiness when I've already said that the mere fact that he's voting a player that hasn't received much attention isn't alignment indicative, just that it isn't mutually exclusive with scum play.

You seem to think this is a bigger deal than I do. Let me turn it around on you: how is voting a player who "hadn't had any attention whatsoever" mutually exclusive with scum play?

[chamber]

how is voting a player who "hadn't had any attention whatsoever" mutually exclusive with scum play?

Did you actually think through this question before asking it?

[petroleumjelly]

Going to separate LoudmouthLee things from other things. This is a LoudmouthLee post.

1.)

I responded to your 4 points. You a single point and completely misrepresented it. Let's take a step back and work our way through a few new points.

There is no need to respond to every response you make; back-and-forths of that nature get difficult / boring for others to follow.

Your view on Natirasha is simply incorrect -- purposefully unhelpful players do not turn helpful unless Towns actively do something about them (i.e., voting for them or doing a sort of "wisdom of the masses" behind the scenes to force Moderator action). If you truly believe "voting is for lynching"

only

, then your meta should uphold that. I will make a note to skim some of your previous games.

For your other three responses, though:

->

a.)

Using "random" to label everybody's first post is merely an additional indicator that you were not putting effort to put votes into actual context. While you

could

have labeled everybody's first vote an "initial" vote, you did

not

.
->

b.)

I do not believe that switching ones vote several times on Day One "helps scum" more than it helps Town, nor do I believe it is a scumtell.
->

c.)

Already responded.
->

d.)

A player not moving their vote is not the same as a "lurker tell."

2.)

I did not have real suspicion of you until your Vote Count Analysis.

I gave you a wide berth because I already know that I do not like your play and I do not like arguing with you. (You probably don't remember, but the last time we played and argued with each other, you pushed me into replacing out, followed by Glork pushing me to replace out. I ultimately replaced out.)

I have been putting special effort into trying to not fall into the trap of "I don't like his posts, therefore he is scummy." I have not liked much of your posting this game -- you are abrasive, argumentative, and your language is often condescending. But I did not actually suspect you of being scum until your Vote Count Analysis, hence the timing of my vote.

3.)

As for your points:

->

a.)

My suspicions on Glork is not bluster. He seems to be deliberately strawmanning. He acts like the suspicion on MafiaSSK is based solely on "theory" when it is not. He then acts like nobody considered that MafiaSSK went against his own theory when that was in fact a point

against

MafiaSSK. When discussing your Vote Count Analysis he tries to focus on "why would LoudmouthLee vote for Untrod Tripod?" instead of "why would LoudmouthLee provide largely contextless analysis to make his vote"? It is looking to me like he is purposefully mis-framing issues.

->

b.)

I did not hint at suspecting you because I did not suspect you until your Vote Count Analysis. See above.

->

c.)

I concede that I was pushing VitaminR overly strongly on the "weak" v "strong" division, especially given that he was not likely to give an answer. My "rationale" was that I was trying to make a point -- I presumed VitaminR would only find a couple players "weak" and most players to be "strong." And so his own logic would lead him to concede that if a "weak" player is scum they must necessarily be attacked by "strong" players in order to be lynched, and furthermore, that strong players all attacking a "weak" player should not be alignment indicative in either direction. It was basically an attempt at the Socratic Method to get VitaminR to understand my position by having him explain my position in his own words.

->

d.)

My vote on Albert B. Rampage has been discussed. "Trust me, give me more time" is a reliable scumtell, and I wanted to vote on it. What held me back was the strange timing / context of the post.

[Green Crayons]

Instead of being cryptic, chamber, you can just state why you think it's a bad question. Here's even a form response you can copy & paste. Just fill in the blank:

"This is a stupid question, GC, because ____."

I then promise to reply with what will be at least a monosyllabic response that either agrees or disagrees with your assessment. You can modify the form response to your liking, such as changing out "question" for "comment," "post," or even "play," as you see fit.

[Patrick]

Votecount

LoudmouthLee (3) -- Green Crayons, Yosarian2, petroleumjelly
Kublai Khan (1) -- MrBuddyLee
MafiaSSK (2) -- CrashTextDummie, undo
Bookitty (4) -- Sotty7, Shanba, Cogito Ergo Sum, chamber
Cogito Ergo Sum (1) -- MafiaSSK
petroleumjelly (5) -- Albert B. Rampage, Save the Dragons, VitaminR, LoudmouthLee, Bookitty
Porochaz (2) -- DrippingGoofball, Zorblag
Yosarian2 (1) -- Glork

Not voting: Kublai Khan, Porochaz, Untrod Tripod
22 alive, 12 to lynch.

[chamber]

how is voting a player who "hadn't had any attention whatsoever" mutually exclusive with scum play?

It's a stupid question because, short of single-handedly getting multiple scum lynched, no actions are mutually exclusive with scum play. Looking at the game from that perspective is just dumb.

[petroleumjelly]

Other stuff.

1.)

@PetroleumJelly: In a game this size with this many players, wouldn't it make more sense NOT to put in the effort to do that analysis if LML was scum? I think it would be pretty easy to blend in with the pack and not make too many waves. VCA data is verifiable by town and can be used throughout the game to catch scum, though I think it's really not that useful until later. Why would scum make an effort to tell the truth to town when they could generally just coast? This line of argument seems fabricated and could be used against anyone, town or scum, who put in effort to provide data. To paraphrase chamber's tagline, it's as if you're saying "content is scummy."

No.

Follow-up: do you think my play has been coasting? Do you think I have been making any waves? What makes you say I have "given a minimal approach to contributions to the game so far"?

2.)

MafiaSSK, where are you?

3.)

chamber, could I get an update on your thoughts on LoudmouthLee, please? I would prefer a few lines if your thoughts have changed since last time.

[Green Crayons]

So your problem isn't with my question. Good to know.

Your problem is with the fact that my question addresses Glork's mindset, which has equated voting a player who "hadn't had any attention whatsoever" with being mutually exclusive with scum play:

I am genuinely curious to know

why people think LML went through the VC analysis to try to frame/jump on someone who hadn't had any attention whatsoever

. Yeah, he lacked context as PJ indicated, but

I'm really really really not seeing the connect between what LML did and an actual scum motivation

.

[Green Crayons]

Rephrased: your problem is with Glork's mindset, which my question highlights.

[chamber]

I've been coasting since the week break ended, so my thoughts on him haven't developed much. I found his vote analysis odd in its lack of context, like most of you. But unlike most of you, it seemed very deliberate to me. I assumed it was a play quirk and intend to check his VCA history but have yet to do so.


preview edit: No, it doesn't. You aren't considering the implications of the way you are negating it, which is why I asked what I asked initially.

[chamber]

To phrase it in a way you'll understand, glork basically said 'This isn't evidence that he is scum', and you turned it into 'This is evidence that he is town'.

[Green Crayons]

So we disagree about what Glork basically said.

I think it's clear that Glork basically said that LML's vote of UT is an exception to the general rule that "no actions are mutually exclusive with scum play" -- that is, that Glork basically said that LML's vote of UT is town because scum would not have motivation for taking such action.

If Glork was saying "that isn't evidence that LML is scum," then he would have addressed the aspect of LML's play that people had highlighted as suspicious: using voting patterns out of context. That would be challenging the evidence of whether LML is scum. That is not what Glork did in Post 428.

On the other hand, if Glork was saying "this action is mutually exclusive with scum play," he would have set aside the suspicious aspect of the action particular to the circumstances (Glork did this by setting aside PJ's notation of LML's use of voting patterns without context), and he would have challenged there being any type of scum motivation for the action in the abstract (Glork did this). This would be defining the action, in and of itself, as town.

[Bookitty]

Other stuff.

1.)

@PetroleumJelly: In a game this size with this many players, wouldn't it make more sense NOT to put in the effort to do that analysis if LML was scum? I think it would be pretty easy to blend in with the pack and not make too many waves. VCA data is verifiable by town and can be used throughout the game to catch scum, though I think it's really not that useful until later. Why would scum make an effort to tell the truth to town when they could generally just coast? This line of argument seems fabricated and could be used against anyone, town or scum, who put in effort to provide data. To paraphrase chamber's tagline, it's as if you're saying "content is scummy."

No.

No, you're not saying content is scummy? No, you don't think that it would make more sense to fly under the radar? No to both? Scum coasting on minimal content was a pretty common thing the last time I was playing regularly and I haven't seen much to dissuade me of this yet.

Follow-up: do you think my play has been coasting? Do you think I have been making any waves? What makes you say I have "given a minimal approach to contributions to the game so far"?

At the point I posted that, you had posted eight times. Some of your posts were lists of questions; others were theory discussion regarding the value of bandwagoning and the question of weak players vs. stronger players. You asked Tigris some questions; what did you hope to derive from the answers? Did Tigris's answers sway you to the view that she was town or that she was scum?

I liked your move from MafiaSSK to LML because LML is far higher on my scumlist than MafiaSSK; however, I didn't like the timing and it seemed really suspicious since you said you had been "giving him a wide berth" and then suddenly you came up with all the reasons why your vote was totally and completely justified at the point you made it, i.e., right after he put up his VCA (good) and then exhibited craplogic in his conclusions (bad).

What do you think your main contributions have been so far? What do you feel you've learned from your questioning? Do you still think MafiaSSK is scum? Is it likely he is scum with LML?

Reading the game for the second and third time, I'm seeing a lot of heat and smoke from your posts, but I just don't see a lot of light.

[chamber]

So we disagree about what Glork basically said.

I think it's clear that Glork basically said that LML's vote of UT is an exception to the general rule that "no actions are mutually exclusive with scum play" -- that is, that Glork basically said that LML's vote of UT is town because scum would not have motivation for taking such action.

If Glork was saying "that isn't evidence that LML is scum," then he would have addressed the aspect of LML's play that people had highlighted as suspicious: using voting patterns out of context. That would be challenging the evidence of whether LML is scum. That is not what Glork did in Post 428.

On the other hand, if Glork was saying "this action is mutually exclusive with scum play," he would have set aside the suspicious aspect of the action particular to the circumstances (Glork did this by setting aside PJ's notation of LML's use of voting patterns without context), and he would have challenged there being any type of scum motivation for the action in the abstract (Glork did this). This would be defining the action, in and of itself, as town.

This is what I don't get about you. You recognize the fact that 'no actions are mutually exclusive with scum play', yet instead of assuming glork isn't a moron, you assume he is one. You've done that multiple times. You did it with me once, only to make the same point I was (the non stupid form of it, unlike you assumed of me) when you reread.

This is an oldy game, for the most part everyone in it is pretty competent, give them the benefit of the doubt when interpreting what they are saying.

[DrippingGoofball]

Still happy with my vote.

[Save The Dragons]

@MBL: Besides the fact that Sotty's ait, (I'm assume you mean that she seems pro-town, not ait at like cooking or shooting people or something), any thoughts?

----

(shrug) Not very often.

Yes! I got a (shrug) from Yos! All I need is a question from PJ and I get meta bingo!

----

I just have a pet peeve with people who think there's a "random vote phase" where you vote people for no reason and then you drop the vote later for no reason. If you're going to random vote, you should have a theory/strategy reason for why you're doing it, it shouldn't just be because it's what the cool kids do.

Pretty much exactly how I treat RVS. Usually the vote is dropped, imo, because a better target is found. Replace "it's what the cool kids do" with "nothing better to do" and you pretty much have my understanding of it.

I dunno. Like when MafiaSSK tried to convince me there was magic on the RVS glork wagon it looks like someone trying to attribute scumminess when it's not there. MafiaSSK's play this game has pretty much been exagerating everything. You, on the other hand, look like you're trying strawman an argument to put blame on undo.

----

Oh! That's cool, Yos! Find an inconsistency and call it protown? That's the weirdest thing you may have ever said.

To be perfectly honest, while we are both suspicious of undo for similar reasons, I couldn't look at yos's attack on him without my rusty, cobweb-infested scumdar going ping!. I am more perturbed by his ignoral of events. If I recall correctly, he spent most of the first part of the game not really voting anyone and has since spent a lot of time arguing with chamber, etc., not really doing much.

Yos, in my opinion, built a shoddy argument. I'm not really that satisfied with his response, so I'm willing to vote him if the tides turn that way, but I'm holding off for now because there are better targets and I'm worried I'm spending too much time debating theory with him.

Yos attacking undo doesn't clear undo but it does make me wonder.

----

I'm still pretty happy with PJ. The whole "weak" vs. "strong" doesn't sit well with me. The other problem is the whole ABR thing. I completely agree that "give me X days" or "trust me" is a scum tell. A lesser point is that there was more going on there, it wasn't just that. It was clear ABR was doing something weird (which turns out to be quoting Breaking Bad). If it were just that, I'd leave it alone. But the greater point is that he played chicken with his vote.

On the other hand, I'm not particularly enthused by LscumL's sudden decision that he wants to build cases on his targets when he targets PJ.

----

@SaveTheDragons

What did you think of LML's justification for taking his vote off you and putting it on UntrodTripod? Do you think that jumping from wagon to wagon is more scummy or not scummy?

I think jumping from wagon to wagon is jumping from wagon to wagon. I don't particularly think it's scummy when I do it because I'm town (please don't misread that, I'm making a point that the question appears obviously loaded, not that I think it's scummy otherwise).

As for his justification I strong suspect LML is scum but there's a wave of pro-town mania seeming to surround him. It's hard for me to be unbiased when I saw him attack me with shoddy logic, didn't rebut the holes I made in his arguments, and watched him claim his almighty VCA was the key to finding teh scums. The truth is I can see either PJ or UT as scum (UT for reasons entirely different than LML's magic crusade on wagoning, mind you).

I suppose you could look at it this way. If I'm town, and I think, ScummyMcScummerFace is scum, if I'm afraid I'm going to get targeted because ScummyMcScummerFace already has 6 votes, then ScummyMcScummerFace will never get lynched.

The reasoning is more important than the actual votes itself. I think LML has been kind of phoning it in, so to ultimately answer your question, well...he kind of just stated a fact (the sky is blue, the cake is a lie, UT was on X amount of wagons) and added a bit about voting for Nat. I don't really know how I feel about the Nat wagon, for me the towniness and scumminess kind of cancel and its a null tell.

I'd be remiss if I didn't point out that while Seol didn't really have much to say D1, your content thus far doesn't exactly instill me with confidence that you are innocent.

----

2.)

MafiaSSK, where are you?

I am very, very concerned about this. The first several pages MafiaSSK could barely keep his wackiness contained.

[VitaminR]

chamber, what is your issue with Bookitty? I feel like she's been pretty on the money with her posts about PJ (especially Post 495 is basically exactly why I'm voting PJ).