Newbie 1497 (Game Over)

[Thor665]

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

Spoiler: IC Intro

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

Greetings,

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

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 A lot of players consider that advice almost all outdated now.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

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

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

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

1. You probably are about to vote for some random person you've never voted for before. Why? Why that person in particular?

2. Have you ever played mafia before? IRL or on a forum? Where?

3. What can you give to this game, why are you important here? What role do you think you'll play as the game develops? Do you tend to post in short bursts or in long paragraphs? A mixture?

4. How often can you visit the thread?

Hurm...these are actually less offensive to me than most RQS lists. Okay, let's dance;

1. I am about to vote Not_Mafia because he is playing an an anti-town and wuss manner and it would amuse me to see him dead or active.

2. Yes. Here and there.

3. My thoughts. I am important because I am a player. A snarky one. Dunno. Dunno.

4. More often than I will.

That would compromise the integrity of my vote, duh. So unless you guys want to start scumreading random.org then I suggest you look elsewhere

But...as far as I can tell you agree with random.org that you are scummy...?

Sweet!

Vote: Not_Mafia

That's L-1

, which means if anyone else wants to vote him you should request a claim instead, and give people time to discuss the claim

prior

to voting him.

Wazza
Thor

Tynn
Hemp

Those guys

Oh, you need people to post before you can provide a valid post?
What if they're like you, and need you to post before they can provide a valid post?
Seems like either you're a bad player or you're trying to avoid saying things for no clear reason. I'd like to lynch you know.
I guess I'll wait for other people to post 'Hello' before you're allowed to talk to me. Shame. I'll try to get you lynched first so we don't need to wait, how's that sound?

[Thor665]

Best vote*

That was the best vote of the game so far.

Well...besides the sloppy hammer that will happen from some overeager newb - then that will be the best vote.

[Thor665]

Also, just as an IC opinion; http://wiki.mafiascum.net/index.php?tit ... ng_as_Town

[Thor665]

@Thor665

I agree with your opinion on self-voting... But I'm far from ready for a lynch. We have two weeks. Why would we end D1 in 24 hours?

I don't like how you're ready for a lynch already...

UNVOTE:
VOTE: Thor

So...should I take that to mean you're not ready to lynch me and that I shouldn't even care about this vote because you'll unvote me immediately if I look to be in danger?

Also, look at Not_Mafia - please list all the pro-town reasons he has to self vote.
Here - I'll help and do it for you;

1. None.
2. Though, if you *really* squint, you could argue 'for reactions'

He has been put to L-1 *twice*
He still hasn't assessed his reactions.
I call that scum - what do you call it?

[Thor665]

>.< Gimme another good reason to lynch him early and I'll change my vote.

So an early lynch now isn't scummy?

[Thor665]

Obviously, this reason is not great. But you're an IC. You've played plenty of games. You seem to think an early lynch isn't scummy. So I'm asking you to explain to me why it's not a bad idea to lynch early. Past the reason I just gave you.. because that's not enough of a reason for me to lynch him. Only enough for me to reconsider.

I think it is a bad idea to lynch 'too early' which is a little different than 'early' but for the purposes of this conversation is not. You're the one who talked about early lynches being scummy or not scummy - I haven't applied any alignment tell to them. I *have* asked about why yours keeps changing though, and you haven't managed to give a clear answer. Why is that?

So I did actually RNG and I did roll a 6, I was going to re-roll but then I thought I'd try it out as a reaction test, I was either looking for people who were eager to jump on my wagon or people who whiteknighted me out of the blue. It wasn't very successful.

Shock of shocks.

6) Not_Mafia - Scum

Total learned thus far - not much.

7) Thor665 - Not a fan of the way he jumped on my wagon

Why not? Specifically - what's the issue?

Thor, if you flip scum will you edit your wiki page?

Edit what? I don't keep track of my win/loss records anymore, and I'm not lying about any of the theory (as even a minor edit time check would inform you) so...what do you think I would edit and why do you think I would?

I really, really don't like how quickly Thor jumped on the NM wagon. You seemed to be OK with an early D1 lynch, which is obviously bad for town. However, you're an IC and I don't believe you would be silly enough to do this as scum. Why did you feel the need to do this? Was it purely down to NM's self-vote?

Is it obviously bad for town? Why? Also, do you think an early L-1 wagon is also obviously bad?

I felt the need to do it to try to educate Not_Mafia that he was playing provably badly, and also to see if he might be scum. I still lean that it was a slightly scummy reaction to my vote but don't feel strongly about it.

Why do you find my vote the only one worth questioning on his wagon? I didn't put him in lynch range alone, but I was the only one moving 'too fast' in your mind?

Also... I would shy away from reads lists for now ... especially this early in the game. They can help scum figure out who to NK that night by telling you who you're willing to lynch tomorrow, among other things.

I pretty strongly disagree with this. Though I will admit I don't do reads lists - that's more a personal foible, I am quite comfortable stating town and scum reads and think it's pro-town to do so.

[Thor665]

I think it is a bad idea to lynch 'too early' which is a little different than 'early' but for the purposes of this conversation is not. You're the one who talked about early lynches being scummy or not scummy - I haven't applied any alignment tell to them. I *have* asked about why yours keeps changing though, and you haven't managed to give a clear answer. Why is that?

My what keeps changing? I've always thought lynching too early was scummy. I unvoted and reconsidered because something occured to me and I posted it in the thread. I noticed that you're an IC. Surely you wouldn't do something as scummy as early in the game as lynch someone early with barely any information or interaction from anyone? Surely there must be good reasons behind lynching someone this early if you plan to do it... Well... there must be good reasons behind it if you're town. The fact that you refuse to give good reasons... or any reasons whatsoever makes me strongly doubt that, however.

Are you seriously debating with me that your thoughts didn't change but that you simply reconsidered and that confuses you as to what I was saying?

I did give reasons already - do you need me to quote them again? Ask for it when you answer my original question and I'll do so.

I pretty strongly disagree with this. Though I will admit I don't do reads lists - that's more a personal foible, I am quite comfortable stating town and scum reads and think it's pro-town to do so.

Why?

When you are scum do you have a hard time figuring out a player that is pro-town and that town won't mislynch?

[Thor665]

What are you saying here? Could you rephrase?

I am saying two things;

1. That I already provided the evidence you wanted - and if you wish I can quote it, but want you to answer my question first.

2. That I find you wanting to debate the difference between "changed mind" and "reconsidered" to be pretty silly. They are practically synonyms, and it's not a valid reason to duck answering my question to debate with me.

Hm. Please explain to me why it was a good idea to lynch him then.

I haven't said it would be. Why do you think I have?

The way you phrased this confuses me. Are you saying that it's a good idea to give reads lists when you're scum?

I didn't say that, but, yes, I would say it's probably a good idea to do anything that looks pro-town when you're scum.
What I did say was - when you play scum, do you need other people to give reads lists in order to help you figure out who looks really town?

You seem to have a lot of trouble understanding me. I'm not trying to be difficult, and I'm not sure where the hangup is. Is English your first language?

Thor, what do you think of Hemp right now?

I have no particularly strong opinion on him. I find the case weak but quite acceptable for this stage of the game.

[1]It's bad for town because 2 weeks worth of discussion can go down the pan, that could be a lot of potential information that isn't only useful for D1 but can also be used later in the game. To an IC, I thought this would have been fairly obvious. If someone had come in, and not paid attention to what was going on so far, and voted for NM, we would have lost a lot of information.

[2]I don't really have much experience of L-1 wagons. However, trying to make somebody claim this early seems really bad, and only good for scum. If NM had to claim a power role to save his life, he could lie of course but let's just assume he doesn't, town are at a huge disadvantage with a power role exposed. Again, I'm not sure why I have to explain this to an IC. L-1 wagons are good for applying pressure and increasing activity for sure, but that was really early and I'm sure it was warranted.

[3]I had a problem with your vote because a) you're an IC who looked super happy to lynch straight away and b) you voted for him in your very first post knowing he already had 3 votes and there was a chance somebody could lynch him by mistake.

1. Is that obvious? I've been in exactly one Newbie game that had an early speed lynch - Town won that game. What is your evidence supporting that speed lynches tend to lead to town losses? I mean, if it's silly that I, as an IC, wouldn't agree with that - clearly it's a well known fact with supporting evidence...right?

2. I do not understand how you think a claim is bad. A claim is good. If people don't want a claim early then they shouldn't vote people. Claims, and L-1 wagons with hammer intent create trackable evidence of who people are willing to lynch and also provide information. If you agree that after two weeks a claim is "good" then I don't see the issue with having a claim at one week, or two days, or one day. If it happening is good (and I presume you're not arguing that there shouldn't be a claim) then the time it happens is merely one of preference, not an absolute.

3a. I was looking super happy to lynch right away. Is that scummy? Why?

3b. Yes, I did vote him...so did a number of other people. Why am I the only one who would be guilty if he was lynched? I'm pretty sure I can't lynch people on my own.

This places you at L-2.

Like take this - here you are pushing for a lynch. You're making an aggressive and early move...something you seem to find questionable when others do it. But...I guess since you're not L-1 and not an IC it isn't scummy when you do it? Is that right?

Unvote: Not_Mafia
Vote: BlueBloodedToffee

Serious vote.

*takes notes*

Are you actually taking notes? Or is this to make it appear like you're working on stuff? Or is it a mild intimidation attempt?

I'm also pretty sure Madonna and tynn are town.

[Thor665]

I don't believe I have stated that early lynches lead to town losses - if I have, please provide evidence to correct me. Do you disagree that losing 2 weeks/1 week/5 days worth more discussion is a bad thing?

I do disagree that loss of time is a bad thing. It is not. Is that the full extent of your reasoning that an early lynch is bad for town?

I'm arguing about the timing of the claim. You were looking for a claim when we hadn't even had everyone post in the thread at that point and the game had barely started.

So when am I allowed to want a claim? Only after everyone has posted at least once? What difference would that make?

I thought I explained why it looks scummy to want a lynch straight away. I'm pretty sure I did. You're repeating your questions for some reason.

I'm repeating it because the answers you've provided don't actually show scum intent. At most they show 'a playstyle you disagree with'.
I can explain the difference if needed, but I'm curious why you think it's a scum plan.

I'm applying pressure for information, I'm not looking for an instant lynch. I also got a quick reaction from Hemp, which is exactly what I was looking for. There are also more reasons to start applying pressure to Hemp, as opposed to your rant on NM's self-vote and proceeding vote to L-1. I hope you can see the difference between the two.

Oh, so when you do it it's "pressure for info"
But when I do it it's "rushing and forcing a claim"

Yes, I need you to explain the difference between the two - they appear identical.

[Thor665]

That was pretty much it yeah. A couple of days worth of discussion does not help town later in the game. The more posts/information you have, the better chance you have of making informed decisions further down the line. There is also a chance for people to make mistakes as the day goes on. Do you disagree with this?

I do on the first, and the second doesn't matter. No, more posts does not = more info. Posts can be empty and meaningless or, worse, will grind down town, in many games, as scum, I intentionally try to keep days going in order to create this exact situation. Second, a slip is useful, but there's no reason to believe a slip will or will not happen due to any amount of time. It is situations that tend to create them in my experience, not time. Now, maybe time will create more situations...but, meh, a situation of lessening time might do just as well.

You're being facetious. You can want a claim whenever you like, it makes more sense however to wait until you can give some valid reasons for why you want a claim from a specific player, not just OMG he self-voted. Claim now.

I find self voting to be scummy - apparently so do other people. if enough people suspect a player to put him at L-1 why *shouldn't* we then discuss if he needs to claim?
Maybe I am being facetious.
You are certainly being pedantic.

The less information there is in the thread, the better that is for scum. The less information there is in a thread, the harder it is to make reads on people. The less information there is in a thread, the better the scum have of surviving an extra day without getting lynched.

I agree. But, again, I don't agree that time=posts=info. Entire games of Mafia have been played in less time than this game has been open - town has won those games and had good info to do so.

OK, at the time of your vote to push NM to L-1, he hadn't actually done anything worthy of all his votes, and one of them was a RVS vote. I agree he was being difficult, with his short, pointless posts, but worthy of a claim/accidental lynch, I don't think so.

So we disagree - that doesn't prove my stance to be wrong, and certainly doesn't prove it to be scummy.

When I voted for Hemp, he was posting the same thing over and over. He was not contributing, he hadn't joined in any of the discussions, he wouldn't answer questions, he wouldn't elaborate on his posts. These are reasons more worthy of trying to apply pressure to someone, not just a self-vote.

Ah, so...when Not_Mafia had self-voted, and been asked for reads and refused to give them, and had been asked by people why he had self voted and said "but the RNG" all of that was being totally helpful and not at all like what Hemp is doing...right?

I feel like that's *exactly* what Not_Mafia was doing. How am I wrong here?

[Thor665]

OK, I feel like we're about to start going round in circles. Until next time.

No - you don't get to do that. Address this point please;

When I voted for Hemp, he was posting the same thing over and over. He was not contributing, he hadn't joined in any of the discussions, he wouldn't answer questions, he wouldn't elaborate on his posts. These are reasons more worthy of trying to apply pressure to someone, not just a self-vote.

Ah, so...when Not_Mafia had self-voted, and been asked for reads and refused to give them, and had been asked by people why he had self voted and said "but the RNG" all of that was being totally helpful and not at all like what Hemp is doing...right?

I feel like that's *exactly* what Not_Mafia was doing. How am I wrong here?

I slightly pull back on my Madonna town read.
I endorse an Aquanim town read.
I might be tending town on Trickster too - shock, i know.

Can we please lynch BlueBloodedToffee now? I see a lot of people not voting him at this juncture - I feel the above quote from 120 should really be a fairly self-contained scum case for him. If people don't get it they could at least ask - and if people get it and disagree they should say why.

[Thor665]

I agreed with you that NM was being difficult and probably downright stupid with the self-vote and the nonsense that followed, although I don't believe he refused to provide reads?

He did.

My point was, you wanted to lynch him in your very first post. I explained that this was a problem for me because if he accidentally got lynched, I believed (and still do) that losing two weeks worth of discussion when hardly anybody knew anybody else due to only having 4 pages or whatever it was at the time, was a bad thing for town. This was the main point from my side of the discussion, which you disagreed with.

So...you draw that big of a distinction between L-1 and L-2? I have a hard time believing that. You *don't* think your vote has any risk of causing a short day?

Now, NM explained his behaviour, a bad explanation but an explanation nonetheless. Hemp has done nothing to change my opinion, and other people's opinions from the looks of it, of him through his posting. I also explained that I had a lot more information available to me at the time of my Hemp vote, than you did at the time of your NM vote.

This doesn't address how both sets of actions remain almost identical.
I disagree that you have "more info" on their relative poor play. I agree both are playing poorly, I'm not sure how Hemp is playing 'more poorly'

I have to admit I was not paying attention enough to this game

Do you expect that to change?

If so - when?
If not - why not, and why did you even sign up if this is the case?

[Thor665]

I mean I will still play and be on this forum, I will still play in this game, of course I might be lynched, but this is a lesson for me for the future

If it's a lesson why not try to learn it now and get involved with this game?

[Thor665]

I made a mistake. I didn't fully read into his meaningful comment, that is obviously in reference to his other posts. I still stand by the fact the main reason for his vote was because of the self-vote though.

Even if the main reason was exactly that - so what?

My issue remains that Not_Mafia was being anti town and avoiding providing info. You didn't vote him. Then you voted Hemp for an identical situation.

I'm far more concerned about Not_Mafia and HempHH's contribution to the game.

I find Not_Mafia's contribution to be weak at this stage, but superior by a solid margin to Hemp's - you didn't find a playstyle shift from him after he took off his self vote?

[Thor665]

So you moved off one L-1 useless voter and then put a different useless voter to L-2 while also indicating that my L-1 was scummy. Can you walk me through your thoughts on that?

[Thor665]

I don't believe I said your L-1 was scummy. I said I didn't like it.

How do you define the difference?

[Thor665]

So what do you mean when you say you like/don't like something if not that you find it town/scum? Do you just mean, generically? Like, I like you avatar - but that has no bearing on anything - something like that?

[Thor665]

Why do you mention this to the town if it has no bearing on your reads?

[Thor665]

Why do you mention things you do or don't like if it has no bearing on reading someone as town or scum?

What town benefit are you attempting to generate by mentioning and pointing out "something I don't like but don't find scummy"?

[Thor665]

You are answering something I'm not asking, i suppose I could be theatrical about it too.

*Sigh*

To re-state the question you didn't answer; What town benefit are you attempting to generate by mentioning and pointing out "something I don't like but don't find scummy"?

That shows that I am aware that when you say 'I don't like' you do not intend 'I find scummy'. Now...answer the question.

[Thor665]

Who said anything about generating town benefit? I was giving my opinion on various things in my post, nothing more, nothing less.

Does it help you get town/scum reads? Why am I reading this information from you if it doesn't affect your reads and isn't meant to tell me anything?

I wish there were more responses to my vote, so as to get another's perspective, but perhaps no answers are indicative enough of my stance.

If you want something, you should ask for it - not be sad no one is doing something they haven't been asked to do.

[Thor665]

It provides other people with some information that may help/advance their own reads.

How will it help me though? Because as far as I can tell all you mean by it, at best, is "I disagree with this play but have no opinion on the alignment of the person who committed it - I'm just saying in a theoretical sense that this play seems less than the best play possible" which...is a pretty null and pointless as comments go. Did I miss something?

[Thor665]

Like, I could do twenty things you "don't like" and one you do like, and I might still be a town read. Meanwhile Hemp could do 20 things you "like" but if he is still otherwise unhelpful he could be a scum read, right? So...what's the point of the likes and dislikes? They appear to be meaningless noise, yeah?

[Thor665]

Nope. It's more like 'I don't like that, and I have noted it. I don't like that either, I have noted it. 'That's three things that I dislike now...time to do something about it'.

More along those lines.

Do what about it? It's not a scum read.

[Thor665]

Happy with my vote.

[Thor665]

My likes and dislikes are not completely divorced from my reads. What I was trying to say was that just because I dislike one incident, it doesn't mean I think that person is scum. However, if the same person repeats said incident, or does something else that I don't agree with or doesn't sit right with me, then I take note and start paying particular attention to that person.

So you moved off one L-1 useless voter and then put a different useless voter to L-2 while also indicating that my L-1 was scummy. Can you walk me through your thoughts on that?

I don't believe I said your L-1 was scummy. I said I didn't like it.

[Thor665]

I'm sorry, are you still struggling to follow?

Your L-1 vote, I didn't like it. However, it's the only thing you have done that I have disliked so far. Therefore, I do not scum-read you, I just dislike how you entered the game with an L-1 vote. Just one dislike, call it strike one if you will.

I'm sorry, are you still struggling to follow?

I asked you why you found my L-1 vote scummy, you quickly clarified hat you didn't, and said you disliked it, and that disliked does not equate to scummy. Then, when pressed about your dislikes - you clarify that what you mean is...well, that something you dislike equates to possibly reading someone as scum, ergo, it's an action you find scummy. Thus making me wonder why you ever tried to fend off my original question in the first place since it should have made perfect sense to you what I meant.

[Thor665]

I'll fix this for you. Here is your quote with changes;

I asked you why you found my L-1 vote scummy, you quickly clarified hat you didn't, and said you disliked it, and that disliked does not equate to scummy. Then, when pressed about your dislikes - you clarify that what you mean is...well, that

when you find a number of things

you dislike

this

equates to possibly reading someone as scum, ergo, it's

the numerous actions

you find scummy. Thus making me wonder why you ever tried to fend off my original question in the first place since it should have made perfect sense to you what I meant.

[/quote]
That changes nothing of my point.

Whether or not it's two, four, of fourteen "dislikes" that equate to changing your read on someone - each dislike is something you find scummy.
I accept that not every townish action makes you read someone as town, and I can accept that not every scummy actions makes you read someone as scum. That is fine, normal, and not at all unusual. What I do not accept is the word dance you used to avoid answering something when, in the end, it was shown that your word dance meant the exact thing I had originally stated; that you found the action scummy.

[Thor665]

I don't really understand this BBT scumread, he left his RVS on me and I do recall him calling me out for my behaviour, so he was at least implicitly voting me for my behaviour, so I don't really see the hipocrisy angle on him.

Look at his presented case on Hemp.
Look at his attitude towards me for putting you to L-1
Ask yourself how much of the Hemp case = the you case (I submit - all of it...he has even basically agreed that this is true)
Now notice that he put Hemp to L-2.
Look back at his attitude towards me for L-1.
So he thinks L-1 is bad, and potentially scummy, but he wants to get off voting you in order to vote Hemp for the same reasons and considers that fine.
That's the hypocrisy.

Which part am I losing you at?

[Thor665]

And I have explained my behaviour, whereas at the time of BBT's vote Hemp hadn't and arguably still really hasn't, so I don't agree.

At the time of my vote and his complaint about my vote you hadn't - thus defeating this whole stance unless I'm missing something.

[Thor665]

@Trickster - No, I want to get him lynched, you should sheep me.

I'm talking about his Hemp vote

I understand - I'm talking about the comparison.

And that isn't true either, I explained myself in #72, BBT complained about your vote on me in #83.

That doesn't change when I voted you, nor his stated reasons for why he thought the vote was bad - unless you think he was holding me accountable for things said afterwards (which is impossible, because then my vote would be an L-2, and should be even more in line with him being fine with it.

I find Not_Mafia's contribution to be weak at this stage, but superior by a solid margin to Hemp's - you didn't find a playstyle shift from him after he took off his self vote?

He did start participating more after he took off his self vote - but only with a small margin.

Please compare/contrast his play to Hemp's in your opinion.

As to Thor, I don't like his tunneling very much at all. However, he did something similar last time I played with him, too, and he was town. That can be easily discounted by the fact that it was one game and he might be counting on that fact... but due to the fact that I'm currently reading his ploy with NM's self-vote as an attempt to catch scum, I think I'll keep a slight town-read on him.

However, it should be noted that his play this game can easily be seen either way and my read on him is probably the shakiest of them all.

http://wiki.mafiascum.net/index.php?tit ... arently.29

Also - since when is what I'm doing tunneling? I feel like you're complainging that people can't focus and are mistaking focus for tunneling - please define how you understand tunneling. Because unless it contains the phrase "to the exclusion of all else" then I think you have a bad definition. And if it does contain that, then I'm curious how you think I'm doing it.

[Thor665]

My issue is - I can fully understand him having an issue and being scared about someone going to L-1. That makes sense to me and though I find it a silly fear I understand it is highly normal for a Newbie to have it.

That said...

It is pretty unusual for those newbies to then be all like, well, now I'mma wagon this other guy...L-2!

He should either be nervous of a lynch, or he shouldn't, and if he's nervous about people being close to lynch to the point he needs to call it out and suggest someone is scummy (oh, sorry 'dislikeable) when they do it...and then wants to also put someone at L-2 and act like that's pro-town? Something doesn't seem to add up there.

It's especially compounded because the case on both of you is practically identical.

[Thor665]

Thank you for that wonderful piece of WIFOM.

I don't think you know what WIFOM is.
Here; http://wiki.mafiascum.net/index.php?tit ... g_is_WIFOM

Ok. Let's make it a little more clear.

Replace "tunnel" with "obsession over a single incident that may or may not be important"

Okay...

Replace "obsession over a single incident that may or may not be important" with "analyzing a situation in order to learn alingments - also known as 'scumhunting'"

Your move?

[Thor665]

what I see as a house of cards built on nonsense that has snowballed and I can see the frustration from that leading to a lot of your contradictions and what not.

You find the omnipresent and overly powerful two votes to be likely to be overwhelming his senses from the pressure?

[Thor665]

You know the answer to that question.

Too bad I'm underage... I'd have more than my fill of alcohol by now if it weren't for that.

Anyone want a keg of wine? I've got an infinite supply right from Thor's brewery.

You are incorrect in your understanding of what WIFOM is.

Replace "analyzing a situation in order to learn alignments -also known as 'scumhunting'" with "focusing on a single incident and ignoring the situation- also known as "tunneling""

Your move.

You are incorrect in your understanding of what Tunneling is.


WIFOM - means that you are being asked if Player A would do something, but only because they know Player B would expect them to do that thing, but then they would know that Player B would expect that, and so don't/do do it because - ad infinitum.

What it means is refusing to make a value call on something, or over analyzing something to the point you cannot reach a conclusion. It can also mean being faced with two decisions and needing to base your decision off of actions another person may have done that affects that decision (and trying to avoid mental lockdown) Nothing more, and nothing less. Nothing I have done involves that. If you think it does, please explain. If you agree it doesn't but find my actions objectionable for some other reason - then use different words and explain your issue.

Tunneling - is not focusing on something. It is also not focusing on something that may or may not be important (heck, if it may be important then it *should* be focused on. Tunneling is becoming so focused and sure of a belief that you refuse to consider other possibilities and/or fail to pay attention to anything else. If you think I've been doing this I would be fascinated to see any evidence at all - since I know I haven't and there isn't any evidence that I have.

Does all of this make sense?
If not, it's your move again.

[Thor665]

@Not Mafia - forgot to add my response to the above quote.

I'm serious in the question, you're implying that the pressure on him is so great from two votes (one that came after he was hypocritical...so one vote) that it caused him to make the slips that appear hypocritical? Like, that's your serious stance? I feel like that begs to be backed up, because it sounds silly.

[Thor665]

@ Thor - I can see him going back on himself when he's been backed in to a corner by the IC in something that stemmed from a misrepresentation.

What?

Look, even if I were to accept that I misrepped anything - the stuff he said that has hypocrisy around it has nothing to do with that theoretical misrep.

Here's a pop quiz for you - describe his hypocrisy. As in, describe what he did that was hypocritical and why it was hypocritical.
Then, describe my misrep and how it relates to the hypocrisy in your mind.

Here, you seem to want me to give up on my read of you on D1.

Actually I was making fun of how wishy washy and weak the read was. "Thor looks town...but he might be scum!"
There's a reason that part of my Wiki exists, every one of those things has bee said or done to me multiple times. I'm quite used to it - but I reserve the right to make fun of it. If you really think I was trying to get you to give up on a read that...well, didn't even have a conclusion yet, I'm not sure what that would even entail. Give up on not having a conclusion about me! Give up now!

This link is therefore no help at all, because if you are scum, you should be lynched right now, and if you are town, you should not be lynched on D3.

Shocking and true - tell other people that.

I have a problem with your earlier play, [1]because you argued a single point that may or may not be important for far longer than it should have been argued, cluttering the thread, [2]distracting players from scumhunting other players, and [3]making it harder for players to keep up with the thread.

1. Just because you don't see the value in something doesn't mean it's your job to whine bout it. I see no value in what you're doing now, but I'm responding to you because I generically believe it is scumhunting. Also, you keep saying it *may* be unimportant and *may* be important...at that point you aren't even saying it's worthless, just that it obviouslly doens't have worth...which means...shut it, silly-face. I mean, seriously, this is bizzare. You accept that there might be value to the line of questioning...so, let the questions happen. It apparently had value for me, NM, and Aquanim (and Hemp) all of whom are currently expressing stances based off it. So why do you wish it to be shut down?

2. Name the players who were distracted. nothing else was happening - I made something happen.

3. That is potentially true, but Hemp was being evasive enough that I needed that many questions to get some clear answers out of him. I had no interest in stopping until I got a clear answer, and at that point the conversation will go long. It has negatives and positives to the scumhunting effort, and I believe the positives outweigh the negatives.

Also, you seemed to refuse to bring in any other point, and you claimed he was scum because of that single point that may or may not have been scummy.

What points did I refuse to "bring in"?
Okay, you don't find the scumtell scummy. I do. Such is life. Such is scumhunting.

You requested that he be

lynched

over this miniscule point.

You have not proven that it is miniscule.
Yes, I requested he be lynched. I rarely request that people I vote not be lynched...that would seem stupid.

Thor, why are you ignoring the fact that at least two other players have expressed a possible intent to vote for BBT? I do believe that is quite a bit of pressure indeed.

Do you think that pressure ahppened before or after his slip? If before (which I don't think it happened) then it is immaterial to the issue of being pressure that caused his slip, and should be ignored for the point we were discussing. How do you find it relevant?

[Thor665]

@ Thor - I can see him going back on himself when he's been backed in to a corner by the IC in something that stemmed from a misrepresentation.

What?

Look, even if I were to accept that I misrepped anything - the stuff he said that has hypocrisy around it has nothing to do with that theoretical misrep.

Here's a pop quiz for you - describe his hypocrisy. As in, describe what he did that was hypocritical and why it was hypocritical.
Then, describe my misrep and how it relates to the hypocrisy in your mind.

Here, you seem to want me to give up on my read of you on D1.

Actually I was making fun of how wishy washy and weak the read was. "Thor looks town...but he might be scum!"
There's a reason that part of my Wiki exists, every one of those things has bee said or done to me multiple times. I'm quite used to it - but I reserve the right to make fun of it. If you really think I was trying to get you to give up on a read that...well, didn't even have a conclusion yet, I'm not sure what that would even entail. Give up on not having a conclusion about me! Give up now!

This link is therefore no help at all, because if you are scum, you should be lynched right now, and if you are town, you should not be lynched on D3.

Shocking and true - tell other people that.

I have a problem with your earlier play, [1]because you argued a single point that may or may not be important for far longer than it should have been argued, cluttering the thread, [2]distracting players from scumhunting other players, and [3]making it harder for players to keep up with the thread.

1. Just because you don't see the value in something doesn't mean it's your job to whine bout it. I see no value in what you're doing now, but I'm responding to you because I generically believe it is scumhunting. Also, you keep saying it *may* be unimportant and *may* be important...at that point you aren't even saying it's worthless, just that it obviouslly doens't have worth...which means...shut it, silly-face. I mean, seriously, this is bizzare. You accept that there might be value to the line of questioning...so, let the questions happen. It apparently had value for me, NM, and Aquanim (and Hemp) all of whom are currently expressing stances based off it. So why do you wish it to be shut down?

2. Name the players who were distracted. nothing else was happening - I made something happen.

3. That is potentially true, but Hemp was being evasive enough that I needed that many questions to get some clear answers out of him. I had no interest in stopping until I got a clear answer, and at that point the conversation will go long. It has negatives and positives to the scumhunting effort, and I believe the positives outweigh the negatives.

Also, you seemed to refuse to bring in any other point, and you claimed he was scum because of that single point that may or may not have been scummy.

What points did I refuse to "bring in"?
Okay, you don't find the scumtell scummy. I do. Such is life. Such is scumhunting.

You requested that he be

lynched

over this miniscule point.

You have not proven that it is miniscule.
Yes, I requested he be lynched. I rarely request that people I vote not be lynched...that would seem stupid.

Thor, why are you ignoring the fact that at least two other players have expressed a possible intent to vote for BBT? I do believe that is quite a bit of pressure indeed.

[/quote]
Do you think that pressure ahppened before or after his slip? If before (which I don't think it happened) then it is immaterial to the issue of being pressure that caused his slip, and should be ignored for the point we were discussing. How do you find it relevant?

[Thor665]

This link is therefore no help at all, because if you are scum, you should be lynched right now, and if you are town, you should not be lynched on D3.

Shocking and true - tell other people that.

You truly believe thise? Explain.

Yes...I believe that if I am scum I should be lynched as soon as possible and if I am town I should not be lynched if the goal is achieving a town win.
I'm not sure what needs explanation there...?

1. I feel the argument at this point is getting rather.. well.. nowhere. And it can be distracting. It is scumhunting... to a point. But you don't seem to be gaining momentum, I think stepping back for a bit and returning later would yield far better results if his lynch is your goal. Also, it would give him space for him to respond and interact with other players.. which, if he's scum, helps us track down his buddy D2. I know he can do this anyways.. but why should he, if he's scum? You give him a perfect excuse not to interact with anyone but you and/or Aqua.

2. I agree that you made something happen. I'm also happy you did. But maybe you should have let other people have a chance to respond to it and made it open conversation rather than driving hard at him and making it harder for other people to join in. I can't name the players who were distracted. O_o What kind of demand is that?

3. Ok, agreed here.

1. How am I not doing what you're saying would be my best thing to do? I am talking with other people and discussing other things and didn't even really quote or respond to his last few posts. I seem to be doing *exactly* what you're saying I should be doing...so...?

2. Maybe if other people wanted to do something they should do it. I'm in this game to win it, not to stand back and trust Newbies to scumhunt.

Ok, so I worded this weird.. I'm sorry. I meant to say you focused too hard on one point. It's not necessarily a scumtell, though. Or please explain to me how it is? It could indicate scum, but especially in a game of newbies, it's very easy for it not to.

You keep saying this, and I'll keep rebutting - I DON'T CARE WHETHER OR NOT YOU THINK IT IS OR ISN'T A SCUMTELL - YOU ARE NOT THE MASTER OF KNOWLEDGE ON ALL THINGS THAT ARE OR ARE NOT SCUMTELLS.

Stop acting like your opinion of a scumtell means anything beyond what it is. I will answer questions I don't understand as scumhunting because I'm willing to see if they are. Plus, I've literally already proven the point had merit because people are getting reads off it.

Please explain how it's a slip? I only saw an argument for a contradiction.. something newb town has done before.
It happened afterwards when Madonna and myself showed interest in a BBT lynch.

If you don't understand the slip, I don't think you can answer this question validly.
The slip was when he backtracked on what "disliked" meant after arguing that it didn't mean scummy, but simply 'disliked' then he was like..."oh, wait, yeah, dislike = scummy, mah bad!"


@BlueBlood - AtE = Appeal to Emotion. Basically it's trying to make people side with your arguments due to emotional reasons rather than logical ones. What you just did was presented a situation where you were town and people should feel sorry for you. It is a not uncommon scum tactic and Trickster was reacting to it in a negative way, basically asking you to explain logically why you are town rather than to try to use sadness and pity for the attempt.

[Thor665]

Do you plan to do anything about it? Or are you still asking us to believe that you are town who wants to hurt town's wincon by asking to be lynched?

[Thor665]

@Thor what do you think of Madonna right now?

She was a strong town lean, now she's down to a mild one. I don't really see the logic of the wagon on her at this stage, but am fine with it happening.

[Thor665]

Can you explain to me why you're fine with a wagon you don't understand the argument/logic for?

I think you're confusing 'fine with wagon' with 'fine with lynch'.

[Thor665]

"Something off" reads:
- Madonna. Her attitude to me throughout the game has been... incomprehensible as far as I'm concerned, I've not been impressed with her cases, and her reluctance to push wagons or jump on them is weird too. As far as I can see there's two explanations for the above:
1) I don't understand Madonna or her reasons for doing things at all
2) Madonna is scum and making it up as she goes along, hence why so much about her play defies my understanding
I've so far been unable to eliminate either of these possibilities.
(If you'd prefer a different pronoun, I'm ok with that.)

Have you considered the language barrier or not? Because it looks pretty clear to me that English is not the first language there.

[Thor665]

VOTE: Tr1ckster

Wait - what happened to the slip?

[Thor665]

How did that change the value of believing it was a town slip or in believing he wasn't a player who would fake such a slip?

[Thor665]

Thor, why are you reading tynn as town?

Basically she hasn't said much, but everything she has said has been arguing *against* the logic of people being scum. I find that to be poor play, but it also strikes me as a town mindset - she's not looking for excuses to vote people and is challenging people's conclusions in a search for the truth.

Why, what's your take on her that makes her scummy?.

[Thor665]

Did you develop any other reads?

[Thor665]

@Aqua

Beli just didn't read the thread. The two points he made against me I had already addressed. Which is why I'm not thinking he's scum. He's looking for valid things, he just didn't pay too much attention trying to catch up.

Why do you think he's scum when the only evidence you appear to have is that he didn't read the thread/skimmed it - is that a town tell now, or am I missing something?

[Thor665]

@Knell - I think Belli is the only one calling him town, a number of other people have called him scum but voted elsewhere and/or not expressed an opinion of him while voting elsewhere. You would be amongst the latter half of that grouping. I'm actually of the opinion that this is a fairly gun shy town, so I haven't drawn any clear conclusions from that phenomena thus far.

@Trickster - Methinks you missed that me saying scum there doesn't make sense with your stance...nor with even the rest of my question wherein it is clear that I understand you are calling him town since I ask why you consider that a town tell.

You still haven't answered the question, but I'll re-state i if you need me to do that with the appropriate word changes bolded;

Why do you think he's

town

when the only evidence you appear to have is that he didn't read the thread/skimmed it - is that a town tell now, or am I missing something?

[Thor665]

@Mod - considering the replacement time and game length, could an extension be considered?

@Rest of players - I hate that I'm asking for an extension, so let's kick this into high gear.

No Vote (3): BlueBloodedToffee, Knell, Madonna

The above players are terrible, bad human beings, who are hurting town and shaming the game of Mafia.

Seriously, we're 19 pages in...are you telling me that you STILL haven't figured out who you'd like to see lynched? PICK SOMEONE! Pisck someone NOW, right now, immediately - vote that person. I'd like to at least have two days to discuss a claim.

Ruddy Yynn the lurksack who is being replaced is currently helping the town effort more than you guys.


@Aquanim - I have never played with Trickster to my recollection. His reaction to Madonna was not something I even particularly recall as interesting, do you mean his reaction to Knell? That interaction left me with townish on Knell, but no good read on Trickster. My issue there is I think Trickster considers himself quite clever, so the wordplay felt/feels like he was being coy, yes, but a *lot* of his posting gives me that same feeling. I haven't seen any of his underlying thoughts come up to the surface and do anything pro-town so I fully understand and agree that it can be seen as skeevy. I'm just not sure it's anything more than unoptimal play at this stage. I'd probably be happier lynching Madonna, frankly, though I think BBT is a far superior choice to either.

[Thor665]

@Aquanim - I have never played with Trickster to my recollection.

Your memory is short, Mr. Goldfish.

Yeah, I suppose so, though here is part of my commentary about that slot;

I think there wasn't enough of you to see for me to really offer many thoughts on you, plus I was already tunneled on you by the time you showed up so everything you said pretty much sounded scummy to me.

So I'm hardly surprised I don't recall him.

Um... I'm not sure what you're replying to here. I don't recall asking you or anyone about Tr1ckster's reaction to Madonna, even after Ctrl-F'ing "Madonna" in my filter. Are you replying to someone else, or starting from something I said and going further?

Maybe it was Belli? He seems to be responding to it now, so we'll just go with that as the answer.

I think I'd prefer to lynch Belisarius or the Tynn slot over Madonna but I'm not vehemently against any of those three. BBT is still my first choice, though.

I don't feel Belli - and though I guess I could lynch Tynn I'd probably be happier lynching Madonna or something - Tynn is too much of a non-entity to be anything but a 'meh, why not?' lynch at this stage.

urgh this BBT wagon is baaaaaaaaaad

How come?

Also I'm not ruling out Trickster whiteknighting the BBT slot

Naturally.
I'm not ruling you doing it out either though

@Trickster - White Knighting is basically a scum player defending a town player who is about to be lynched. If the lynch goes through then the scum player picks up some nice town points for their effort. If it doesn't, then maybe the scum player gets the town in question to think favorably of them. It's a pretty decent basic scum tactic. Did you really never hear of it before?

[Thor665]

@ Thor, it's largely a gut thing, as in, this is not a "I don't think they're scum but I understand the wagon and can see it from town" this is a "this a scum driven wagon thing" and I'm getting major bad juju from it.

So you think scum is voting him...I'm guessing you don't think it's scum bussing scum though.

Talk me through this some more - because if you want to affect the wagon you need to do more than just scream that it's generically bad. WHo do you feel is the more likely scum(s) pushing the wagon?

Can you clarify why?

Do you think the logic behind the wagon is bad, or just the reasons people are voting it.

Also, why do you think your preferred lynch (Madonna) is superior?

[Thor665]

I find it a perfectly fine stance...except it is rather silly. Basically you're accussing both players of poor play and calling one "ah-ha! Sucumhunting at work!" and the other "Oh! Just a foolish newb!"

Both are underperforming.
Both are making not brilliant moves.
Both have reacted in scummy ways to pushes on them, cases presented, and questions asked.

I don't see why that is supposed to convince me that one case is bunk and the other is worth lynching...and if it is, I certainly can't figure out why it should propel Madonna to the forefront of that discussion.
Clarify?

[Thor665]

My above answer had me thinking you were quoting both your town case for BBT and your scum case for Madonna, and was answered with that in mind.

[Thor665]

Pressure is a highly subjective thing - can you show me her scummy actions under little to no pressure and explain why they're scummy?

[Thor665]

Anyways. This is far from an exhaustive analysis.

But this is why I think Madonna is probably the best D1 lynch:

1. She's not posting now that she's under suspicion.

2. She's used a whole lot of AtE words such as "appease" and "humor" among other things.

3. She's contradicted herself in several places, including the Aquanim Affair at Day Start.

4. She made several crummy arguments against me.

5. She unvoted and refused to vote, even though there's a better place for her vote.

6. She hasn't really interacted with anyone but myself since Day Start.

7. She's called BBT scum several times but refuses to vote for him unless it puts him at L-1.

And I'm going to point out why I ask this, even though you posted the above;

1. I'd need to do some research to even begin to call this scummy, but unless she's posting in other places I don't find this scummy.
2. I don't consider AtE a particularly good scumtell, and actually disagree that this example even shows AtE.
3. Maybe she has - I'd like to see this expanded on.
4. Welcome to the game of mafia. Oddly, people who can argue well and people who can argue badly aren't always town and scum respectively.
5. So? I see that as a poor play tell, it's very minorly scummy, but hardly a runaway.
6. I agree that she is tunneling there. This could be applied to a handful of players though. i accept this as a minor scumtell.
7. I consider this a minor town tell, and the only way it seems like a scumtell is if BBT is also scum...in which case, let's lynch BBT

[Thor665]

Pressure is a highly subjective thing - can you show me her scummy actions under little to no pressure and explain why they're scummy?

Pretty much the entire game she's had little to no pressure. The only one going after her has been me.

Once people started changing their read on her she stopped posting. So.. pretty much all her posts have been under little to no pressure

Okay, give me the home run example.

[Thor665]

Everything Trickster posts is starting to feel massively fake to me right now. I'm not a fan of it.

[Thor665]

While I do want to see BBT lynched at the end of the day, I agree that there's no immediate rush to hammer. We still have some things to sort out today.

One of the things we should sort out? That's an alternate lynch if BBT claims something that makes people not want to lynch him - and then you want time for that lynch to be able to claim also, right? How much time do you think that would take? In a perfect world we would have had the first claim a few days ago.

[Thor665]

Would he be capable of making all of this up though as scum?

You said a lot of other things, but this is really the core of your comment.

For me...I dunno. He was able to manage spastic in that other game we were in together. And, I'll admit, half of his posts I read them and I'm like 'there is good town energy here' but then he rolls off on this tangents that I feel are like... well, they feel like set pieces. Like a thing he's showing me for 'look at how much I'm considering/paranoid!' and then he just brushes it away. I just find myself wondering the timeline and his thought process during those moments and it ends up feeling forced to me. I don't like the vibe.

[Thor665]

Given how much he's been lurking while his professed townread BBT is headed for the lynch... can anyone tell me a good reason they think Belisarius is town?

Does he normally defend his town reads in some manner?
Also, has he been active elsewhere thus proving he's avoiding posting here?

@Thor

I wrote you a post about why I think Madonna's scum yesterday and responded to your concerns. Would you explain, if you disagree, what exactly from it you disagree with, and if you agree, what is holding you back from a Madonna vote?

Yes, I could easily go into a post by post and dismiss your case - I just don't see a value to it and the idea of the conversation bores me. I have things I'd rather do than set myself up as a defender of a slot I'm not actually town reading. Let's just leave it at "I am still unimpressed by the Madonna case", okay?

[Thor665]

I'd like to ask the mod for the extension that I'm allowed to

When talking to the mod, it is general decorum to make the communication in bold and otherwise make it stick out. Like so;

@Mod - a request has been made in this quoted text, thanks.

[Thor665]

Knell is still up for debate; his predecessor did a lot of shady but pathetic posts and the speed at which HempHHH got vote-loving was bad, and his too-bad-to-be-true situation was what made me feel he was town, but I do not want to extend that cred to Knell, who is clearly a different beast.

Do you think they got different role PMs?

@Thor and Knell

: Is this in any way an accurate appraisal of your position?

Pretty obviously not - but then I also think BBT is a very likely lynch right at this juncture no matter what Belli claims to read the thread as.

[Thor665]

@Belli
@Trickster

Both of you are here, both of you are talking, neither of you have a vote in play. Whassup?

[Thor665]

@BBT - what do you think of the current vote situation in general and the Madonna wagon in particular?

[Thor665]

Thor - [1]You've been on quite a few wagons, including two that hit L-1 without a claim. [2]You've also been one of the players pushing hardest for an immediate lynch at almost every point in time. [3]Do you feel that a large number of D1 claims is inherently protown, despite the risk of outing any PRs? [4]How does the impending deadline change your aggressive wagoning, if at all? [5]Are you wary of a deadline-induced hammer without claim, or more willing to add a vote to force a faster claim?

1. Yes.
2. Yes.
3. Define 'large' I feel 1-2 is inherently protown and feel 3 is perfectly fine. i would oppose 4+ in this particular setup.
4. It increases my aggression.
5. I would prefer to have had 1-2 claims already at this stage and be deciding on final vote. I would advocate getting a claim asap, I would prefer a hammer with no claim to no lynch at this stage of this game.

[Thor665]

@Thor

, what is your read on Belisarius?

Null scummish.

@Trickster - have you ever been scum on Mafiascum before? Specifically in a Newbie game?

[Thor665]

Consider this intent then - and claim next time you're here.

A final reads post would be nice also.

[Thor665]

It's more 'bored and frustrated Thor' really.

I really don't see Tricks as scum right now, he's being terrible but it's a very generic and undirected terrible - I would tend to expect a scum him to have a goal. He doesn't seem to know which way he's going, so why do you think he's scum? Especially with some of the other options out there? Like, i think Not_Mafia looks worse, and frankly probably so does BBT and maybe even Madonna. What am i missing here?

[Thor665]

In this topic a lot of people aren't paying attention to the guy I'm likely to hammer when I'm done questioning him.

So I hope and trust all of you are 100% happy with all the info on him at this juncture.

[Thor665]

Well duh.

[Thor665]

All good reasons to lynch you in preference to him - I agree.

[Thor665]

[Thor665]

Thor, care to explain why you're "bored and frustrated"? I'd think a 32 page D1 is exciting with lots of chances for town to get reads, not boring unless you're an impatient scum eager for a quick mislynch.

Are you serious?

Look....um, it's not necessarily a good thing we have 32 pages. Frankly, from my side, it's a bad thing. i also think that 32 pages took us from a decent lynch to a 'meh' lynch that is now enforced by deadline and people being...I dunno, really happy with lynching a 'meh' lynch. We also have people scumming up the thread five ways to Sunday by either being scum or really awkward Newbs and I'm left the job of trying to sort that, and that bores me sometimes because I've done it a dozen times before, and it never gets easier but is still all the same old motions and half the time the newbs fight you regardless of their alignment because they don't even understand what's going on.

Then you also have the people like you, and I probably toss Aquanim in to this group as well, who are *oh so excited* that we've "used all the time" never even paying attention to how town reads are eroding and it's just making the thread a longer soup for people to search through for any posts of valid purpose.

That's why I'm bored and frustrated.

So apparently I'm not going to be here at deadline. Which means... I'm extending deadline by 5 hours.

Too bad, i came on to hammer because I wouldn't be - and though I might be back prior to deadline, I'm an impatient guy.

STOP!















Mjolnir time!

Vote: Bellisarius

I feel slightly good about it because of how wimp sack his final reads went. But, frankly, I give him better odds of flipping town than flipping scum.

Okay, I'll admit tomorrow I'd like to see possibly one of my bigger scumspects flipped, but let's walk through this really quick in case I'm not around even though I hate to provide these thoughts to scum.

If Belli does flip scum then pay attention to the first few people who talked him up (I'm far too lazy to look) the first two have a higher than average chance to be town. I'd also say that in that situation BBT is also probably town as is Madonna if neither of them were the two initial pushers. Lynch/investigate from the remainder.

If Belli flips town, then the question becomes 'is BBT or Madonna also town' Both of them were alternate wagon choices, so it begs the question of why scum would fire up a wagon on Belli. The suspects in this instance are actually not so much the wagon starters (since scum have debatable reason to start a new wagon) but people who were voting a big wagon, and then as the Belli one grew moved off it to support the Belli one. Some of this is affected by timing - pay attention to which wagon started first (again, too lazy t look) between Madonna and Belli, and who moved their votes around between which wagons. If Belli is town and is the first counterwagon, then the wagon starters are more suspect and BBT is a more reasonable lynch option - if he was the third counterwagon (which is my recollection) then the people who started the push are probably town, but scum was happy enough to hop on later.

That's my quick blurb.
Pay attention to the death and who said what when picking any night actions.
Docs should aim for strong town reads.
Trackers should aim for scummy reads and remember if Belli is scum and your target goes nowhere then the target is confirmed town.
Cops should aim for hard to read reads.
Jailkeepers should aim for strong town in my opinion, there's an argument for aiming for scum, but I think it's a dumb move at this juncture unless Belli flips scum in which case you become a Cop too.
Bullet Proof players should have aimed to look hyper townie.

[Thor665]

Why haven't we heard from Thor yet?

Because I'm interested in seeing where all of you flop first.

Thor looks worse to me for his disappearance late day 1

What disappearance late Day 1?

[Thor665]

I don't like this. You and NM are both pinging. Why do you care what everyone else thinks before you share your own thoughts?

You seem to be aware that I'm "influential" yet you cannot think of a reason why, for scumhunting purposes, I'd like to see people state their beliefs before I state mine? I mean, you can't think of any valid reasoning at all here? Really?

So, you waited for a day and until the thread was 3 pages long before you posted on D1. You're now waiting on D2 to see where everyone else is at first. What could be the possible advantage of doing this..?

To get a feel for what people are or are not willing to push.

Much like D1, when you decided to join the discussion, you will already have pinpointed somebody that you want to question/go after because of something they have done (In this case, it was NM). Then you'll barge into the thread firing question after question after question and throwing suspicion in the direction of selected person.

So you agree that I'm likely to show up with strong opinions of my own and push them regardless of if I'm quiet early on...so where's the fire here?

Because of the way that you do this, it makes it difficult for anybody to actually read anything that you do; everything you do basically looks like pro-town actions and it's difficult for anyone to argue against this, but I'm beginning to wonder now. I assume you're going to wait until you see something that you can jump on for D2 as well, and repeat the same process.

Yeah, it's really weird that everything I do bascially looks pro-town - I must be scum.

[Thor665]

I feel your first 2 statements contradict each other. You try to get a feel for what people are/are not willing to push...then you come in with strong opinions of your own and push them regardless. What is the point in seeing where everyone else stands if you're going to force your own opinion anyway?

The first two statements do not contradict each other at all, and, yes, I am aware that I will use the info to form my own opinion and push it - that's because I'm not looking for cases to sheep but am looking for scum. Congratulations, you have noted that my actions are not scummy.

Did I say that? Don't claim I said something I didn't say.

Yes, you did say it - and then you got dodgy about assessing your own opinion. :shrug:

Right. This is why you're pinging. Now give me pro-town reasoning and I'll back off. Until then:

So you're saying you, personally, can see no pro-town reason to avoid expressing my opinion immediately? That is very weak play if true. Let me know.

What questions do you think I feel I haven't answered?

How about this one;

Thor looks worse to me for his disappearance late day 1

What disappearance late Day 1?

Weak suggestion of hypocrisy

There is a big difference in saying "I can't do this until" and "I choose not to do this until".

If anyone needs to see my opinion before forming theirs - feel free to speak up and we'll assess the situation.

[Thor665]

@Thor You were posting a lot less frequently at the end of d1

How much was a "lot less frequently" and how does that equate to "disappeared at the end of Day 1" and how does it then equate to finding me questionable for said act - since I commented on everything of import that happened multiple times and can't think of anything I might have been trying to avoid. Talk me through this.

Yes, you did say it - and then you got dodgy about assessing your own opinion. :shrug:

Really? I must have missed that. Could you quote me?/quote]

Here;

Although.. this is only an assumption that Thor is influential scum.. based on the fact that he's an IC.. has anyone played with Thor as scum before?

You're assessing me as influential - yet you are confused why I also might consider my influence when I am trying to figure out other people's reads.
Why is that?

[Thor665]

Hm. I think that counts as a pro-town reason. I'm not satisfied, though. Why didn't you answer me directly when I first asked you?

I answered with bewilderment - because I honestly didn't think anyone could say everything you were saying and still not get it. Aren't you supposed to be the gambit guy? Do you not grok subtext...or even overt text - because I wasn't subtle. How'd you miss it?

@Thor, because it allows you to disassociate yourself from the Beli lynch as you can say ""I just hammered to avoid a no lynch" or something similar. I might just be conf. biasing though so I'll reread late day 1

Whut?

Okay, let's just go with this as a theory - I lurked at the end of Day 1 (I actually dispute this and don't think you've even *remotely* shown it to be true, indeed, you haven't even tried, but let's run with it)

Okay, so I am slightly less present to some degree.

How does that change my relationship with the lynch? Are you saying I didn't make clear who I'd rather lynch or press for them to be the lynch hard enough? Is that the point? What is the plot?

[Thor665]

I answered with bewilderment - because I honestly didn't think anyone could say everything you were saying and still not get it. Aren't you supposed to be the gambit guy? Do you not grok subtext...or even overt text - because I wasn't subtle. How'd you miss it?

No. I don't ever pick up on hints or subtext. It's why my reads suck a lot of the time... I miss the little details and implications.. >.<

Stop gambiting then.

Are you still pressing me as scum over this - because your actions say 'yes' and your words say 'no'.

[Thor665]

I'm still fascinated by the number of people taking umbrage with my current stance, while most of the players appear paralyzed with fear of voting or stating anything themselves.
At least I'm highly open about not doing it.

[Thor665]

after rereading late day 1 I was greatly exaggerating Thor's "disappearance", it was just less frequent longer posts, so I retract that criticsm.

[Thor665]

Scummy. I've expressed that before and have never changed my view. It remains unchanged which is why I've been attacking him...like, all game.

[Thor665]

I mean, literally every post exchange I've had with him this Day phase has been an investigation/attack.

Have you tried 'reading m0ar' yet? I do advocate that for you still.

[Thor665]

Yes, yes, I know. I was asking the question because I was getting to my point...

Why aren't you voting?

I have explained this already also - which part of my explanation confuses you?

You have indeed. However, apart from very early in D1 you haven't really explained why you're scum-reading him. NM's play/attitude has changed significantly since his early D1 play, how has your read developed/changed in light of this?

I see little value in writing up that sort of explanation at this stage. What value do you expect to get from it?

How about I just toss up a quick answer that pertains to my current read - please look at his interaction with me just this Day Phase and see if you can spot why I might find him scummy.

[Thor665]

I already read through your interactions before I posted the question, I don't see why you're reading him as scummy based on his D2 play.

Really? Allow me to do a quick timeline;

NM - Thor is scummy because he did 'X'
Thor - What? When did I do 'X'?
NM - Doesn't Answer.
Thor - Seriously, answer this.
NM - Well, you basically did 'X'
Thor - I think it's pretty wonky to even begin to suggest I did 'X' and even if I did, what possible scum gain was there for me?
NM - Avoiding giving opinions.
Thor - Like on what? What did I avoid giving opinions on?
NM - ...I looked back, Thor actually probably didn't do X - moving on!

You see *nothing* that I might find scummy in that exchange?

I don't understand why you wouldn't pursue a lynch on one of your scum-reads.

I have already answered why I'm doing what I'm doing - which part confuses you?

[Thor665]

OK, so a mistake makes him scummy? You're activity levels did drop towards the end of D1 which I assume is what he was referring to. How this links into you being scummy though, I have no idea.

Mistake or misrepresentation? It's a matter of perspective - but, yes, i think that makes him look scummy. You don't?

My activity levels did not drop in any particular way - please tell me why you think they did.

Even he doesn't know that - isn't that sort of curious to you...like...at all?

I'm assuming your second point is referring to the 'I like to see what everyone else does'. If so, I think everybody has contributed something since the beginning of D2, is there someone/something that you're not particularly happy about or that you're waiting for?

Yes.

So, I ask again. Now that everyone has contributed, why are you not pursuing a scum-read?

You still don't understand what I'm doing...so...meh.

@Everyone except Elk

: Explain why you are not voting elk. If you have a townread on him, explain it. If you think he's scummy but someone else is scummier, make an argument for why I should agree with you.

Because you haven't made a concise and easy case on him that you're willing to repeat. I, personally, have him as mild town.

I regard the fact that he hammered the Beli wagon as null.

Regardless of his alignment, Thor could not do anything besides hammering Belisarius in that situation.

Actually I had a few other options.


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


I'm going to point out something for any and everyone who complained about me being so aggressive yesterday.
Let's look at today.
Look at them wagons.
Super exciting stuff, right?
Yeah, not exactly.

Vote: BlueBloodedToffee

Still scum - needs death.

My other vibes are NM and Tricks. Tricks has burned up a lot of his earlier town cred, and honestly his interaction with Knell looked massively fake to me and pretty much killed my town read on him. I found Knell's response honest and reasonable, and found Trick's to basically be an admission he's lying about taking notes. He's now in my scum pool.

@Knell - Your current vote is kinda useless and is also almost assuredly on town. Vote your secondary scumspect please.

@Trickster - same message to you...but I think you're scum so your vote makes sense. Keep up the good work.

@Aqua - you need to sell that wagon hard if you want it to go somewhere. As an alternative, we can lynch BBT today, yes?

That's me.

[Thor665]

@Mod - my first quote tag used the incorrect closing mark - if you could fix the above for legibility I'd appreciate.

[Thor665]

No, I don't think it makes him look scummy.

So you think that's an honest mistake (even though you are also arguing that he was correct...so I guess his mistake was in agreeing with me that he was wrong)

If you're trying to suggest you were as active at the end of D1 as you were at the beginning, I cannot add anything further as this is clearly false. I don't really want to keep banging on about this because as I said, I'm not sure how it's indicative that you're scum.

How is it false - since you're calling it such?

Umm, you explain your reads on everyone you haven't voted for (except NM). Am I to ascertain that your vote is a PoE vote?

Certainly PoE is part of my process, as are other things, I have no issue with you thinking there was PoE involved in my choice - there doubtless was.

@Thor

: Could you restate your BBT case in the light of his more recent play? I'm particularly interested in your opinion of his play in day 2.

I find his play today to be like clinging to the back of any discussion so that if it goes under he shall remain afloat.
Seriously - besides his awkward one of calling my issue with NM one of a mistake, while arguing that there was no mistake (so I guess he thinks I just brow beat NM into believing insanity) what actual stance has he taken this day?

About the notes thing: My impression was that Tr1ckster didn't think there were only two scum in the other game; therefore, to find that his notes say he thought there were only two is... odd. It would, however, surprise me to find that a player who takes extensive notes as town does not try to mimic that approach as scum. I think that obsessing over the accuracy of Tr1ckster's notes or the veracity of his "townslip" is probably less useful than considering the rest of his play, but I'll give this some more thought.

So you believe the notes exist?

[Thor665]

That looks like a really forced excuse to wagon hop to me

I agree.

@Thor - I am glad you explained your vote, it's good to know it's based on nothing concrete, just PoE. Umm, your reads are wrong.

PoE is as concrete as any other tell anyone uses.

Conversely, what exactly have you done on D2 other than sit back and observe? What have you contributed? How are you trying to help town?

Are you making the claim that I have not?

[Thor665]

No Vote (1):

Thor665

Vote: BlueBloodedToffee

[Thor665]

Vote: BlueBloodedToffee

The vote so nice, I had to do it twice.

[Thor665]

Are you making the claim that I have not?

Nah, wrote it to enhance my typing skills.

This is now the second thing I've asked you to back up, just today, that you have failed to.

I am very agreeable to your lynch.

[Thor665]

I think if the notes existed that Trickster would have just posted them.

[Thor665]

I don't, because I wouldn't post my notes in his situation.

Why not? I mean, what's the pro-town advantage to not doing so if it was asked of you? Because I don't see any. Especially if you're willing to eventually paraphrase them to post them, as Trickster has claimed he is.

Can you explain to me why you don't classify BBT's pressure of Elk throughout today as a "stance" he's taken?

Okay, well, this question already comes from an awkward position. Let's first off clarify my stance, and that is "what actual stance has he taken" you appear to be interpreting that as "he has taken no stances" when what I inteded for it to be taken as is "he has taken no strong stances" which is supported by my commentary about how he clings to the rear of issues - I am admiting he touches and interacts with the issues, but my point is that he appears to do so gingerly. With this in mind, let's look at the stance in question then, shall we?

All of this makes me feel uneasy. You were clearly happy to lynch pretty much anybody for D1. I mean, if you were town you might do this, but would you sheep your votes so easily? I'm not sure, this looks more like scum behaviour to me

Feel uneasy.
If you were town you might do this.
I'm not sure.

Do you really find it strange that I don't find his position here to be loud and proud?

Or why BBT's opinion that your reluctance to give reads at the start of the day is counterproductive to town (post #830, besides others) isn't a "stance"?

Again, a misunderstanding of my issue - to put it in context with my clarified position - note that BBT says nothing about me until two other players have attacked me over the same issue. Then and only then is it an issue for BBT - this is in line with my stated point about clinging to the rear of issues.

As for the claim made by several people that you weren't active towards the end of day 1... I don't know how many posts you made in that time window, I don't know how it compares to earlier in the day, and I don't really care. What I do think is that after the BBT wagon hit L-1 and then receded, I did not detect any interest from you to try to restart the pressure on BBT and get him lynched. Repeatedly denying that isn't going to change it.

Do you even know what you're accussing me of here, if anything? Because I do not.
Also - I have never denied anything about my pressure constants on BBT Day 1 because, up until this very second, I am unaware of anyone asking me to defend any action about it.
What are you talking about?

[Thor665]

What I'm saying is that when I read your ISO from the point at which BBT was no longer at L-1, to the eventual hammer of Belisarius, I see no evidence that you cared about who we lynched or went to any effort to alter the course of the lynch.

Do you think my stance on BBT wasn't clear? Do you think I had failed to push him. There were, literally, two alternate wagons that sprang up in that time. People didn't want to lynch BBT - I don't need to waste my time banging my head against a brick wall for no gain.

Can you show me a post you made in that time window which you made with the intention of trying to persuade people to vote for BlueBloodedToffee over the other wagons which were running?

Can you show me any point in which it seemed there was a point to trying to do so as opposed to the effort I had already put in?

Besides, if you think that's a case worth the pursuing - vote him now.

Any notes I take are mostly cases, which are either posted to the thread immediately or soon thereafter if it's not immediately appropriate. Any other notes I take are private, possibly offensive to other people, and none of anybody else's business.

I'm of the opinion that anything from Tr1ckster's notes he was willing for us to see is already posted in the thread.

I've even had a conversation with him near the start of the game where he said he wasn't necessarily taking notes. Are you serious?

So BBT has doubts about whether his reads are right. Despite this, he pressured Elk pretty aggressively as the day went on; while his read was cautious ("ginger") his activity in the thread was not. I agree it's not a paragon of towny attitude but I don't think it's definitively scummy, either.

I feel like this agrees with my point more than disproves it. I'll admit I've been drinking a lot of moonshine this evening - but...whut? At worst you seem to be suggesting that his inability to take a stance is null. But that doesn't disagree with my base stance that he has an inability to take a stance. Yeah?

Actually, the only other person who had commented on your reluctance to give reads at the time of #830 was Tr1ckster - and he'd been very vague.

That;s not true. Read NM. Two people called me out and then and only then did BBT wade in. I don't think I'm crazy here. Double check and get back to me.

Only Thor, and that's largely been an exercise in futility so far. I'll go take a look at some N_M games.

I should hope so - the point of my scum game is to emulate my town game. Huzzah!

[Thor665]

Let me get this straight. You're telling me, as an IC, that when other people in the thread don't want to lynch your greatest scumread, the correct and towny response to that is to sit around, do nothing about it, and hope they change their mind? As opposed to improving your case on him, or reading some more to see if the people who disagree with you have a point? Or at least pushing the less bad of the wagons on offer?

Let me get this straight, you, as, whatever silly game count title you have, fail to understand that *prior* to this I had aggressively and wholeheartedly been pushing the BBT wagon, and had failed to acheive it - then, I was supposed to, while BBT was lurking and doing nothing new, create, somehow, a better case out of wholecloth and present that to people, and failure to do so makes me a bad player and says nothing about how people were ignoring a perfectly already functional case or that people, for reasons beyond me, prefered to try to lynch Madonna or Belli - nd *on top of that* you're not going to wonder why scum bothered to shift gears if BBT was town? Maybe you should read some more to see if I have a point? Or tell me which wagon was the less bad one on offer? Because as far as I can tell the other offer was Madonna, who I called town and was correct on, so...?

So that's a no then, I take it. And believe me, I'm considering it.

Yes, you have successfully shown that I didn't constantly push a case during a very small window of time. Whoop-de-flip. I never denied that, all I'm denying is that there was 'any point at all in doing so' Even what you're quoting from me has me admitting I didn't...but it ignores that I had already done massive efforts to make that lynch happen and town and scum wandered off. Now - use that info.

Let me rephrase then. I don't care about whether Tr1ckster takes notes or not. I don't care about whether his notes in this or some other game got mixed up. I think that reads of Tr1ckster based on his thoughts about other players in this game and what he chooses to do about those thoughts will be far more reliable than speculating about his notes. It's a view I hold about this kind of speculation in general.

It very much matters if he takes notes, because unless he takes notes there was nothing to get confused over between the two theory sets of notes. And if no theory set of notes were mixed up then he is a proven liar which would (wait for it) confirm him as scum. Therefore, the question of if he has actual notes matters a great deal. Why are you so obstructionist on this point for no apparent reason? (that is an invitation to explain the reasoning more)

I'm saying that he has taken a firm stance with his approach to Elk, despite the fact that his original read on Elk with which he started the conversation was fairly weak.

A firm stance of soft poking with no vote - sure.

Not_Mafia hadn't said anything about your day 2 play before #830. Why not go look yourself?

I did.
I found post 824.
Your move?

What I don't understand is why a townie in your position would choose not to vote for anybody for a whole week, in which the discussion was not particularly productive. As I understand it, you are generally happy if an entire game day is concluded inside a week.

What did you learn by sitting back without voting and watching for a week?

I didn't learn as much as I hoped. What I was hoping to see was a player taking a lead and advancing some tells. What I got was a lot of mush. I have decided the mush implicated BBT a bit in pairing with how the wagons went yesterday - but I was hoping someone would lead a charge on him themselves or do something else interesting.

[Thor665]

I don't see any comment on your d2 play

I'm saying that fading into the background while the wagon you were responsible for fades away, meaning that you looked dynamic day 1 but didn't have to wear the consequences of a mislynch (if BBT is such), would fit a scum agenda very nicely.

How does that make any sense if my goal Day 2 is to...y'know, lynch BBT? Almost as though I feel it's the right choice and maybe a new day will help make it happen? I don't even understand where you're coming from here - look at all of the play, you're taking miniscule slices and then applying weird paranoia to them and then asking me to respond. It's weird.

I'm not sure that I understand what you mean by "scum bothering to shift gears if BBT was town". Can you explain this? Who do you think the scum are if BBT is town?

Okay, let's just go with something;

BlueBloodedToffee (3): Thor665, Knell, Aquanim
Madonna (3): Not_Mafia, BlueBloodedToffee, Tr1ckster

Competing wagons.
Elk eventually does the tiebreaker by voting Madonna (who is town) Knell seals it away by voting Trick and leaving the BBT wagon.
How many scum do you think are on the BBT wagon? I've got it at 0, personally.
With Elk in the mix, what's your take on the Madonna (confirmed town) wagon? I've got BBT, Not_Mafia, and Trickster all as questionable.
Why do I have one wagon with a lot of scumspects on it and one with none?
Hint: I think there's a reason one of them grew and stayed in activity and the other died.

Like I said, I find it hard to believe that Tr1ckster would not take notes of some kind as scum, if he does as town. His reluctance to post them has multiple possible explanations, some town and some scum.

I am dubious (or "obstructionist", as you put it) on this point because I've seen townies get caught on not-reads-related "scumslips" like this before. It's more of a "on general principles" thing.

Nice.
So just stay quiet and stop defending him so strongly then. At least wait to see if he can produce gak and if a wagon forms before random defending a guy because "once upon a time I've seen this" Because, y'know "once upon a time scum have lied and been caught" so we have equal value at the moment and that he's gone so long without showing the notes is rather skeevy - he hasn't even managed his paraphrase. I don't get this defense and I am not a fan of it.

Post 824 was only talking about your day 1 play, not your day 2 play. Your move?

Are you serious? I said two people had attacked me and that he had held off doing so until after that fact - you even agree this is happening but are debating as to whether I need to show it's about my Day 2 play or not. This is an amazing hair-splitting quibble. Please justify its purpose.

Next question: If you want my vote for BBT today, start by convincing me that Elk is likely enough town that he's not worth my vote. In particular I'd like to see an argument that isn't based on BBT's alignment.

I'd like to see the Elk case suggesting he's scum - give me something to disprove, don't ask me to prove a negative.

[Thor665]

Post 824 was only talking about your day 1 play, not your day 2 play. Your move?

Are you serious?

I said two people had attacked me

and that he had held off doing so until after that fact - you even agree this is happening but are debating as to whether I need to show it's about my Day 2 play or not. This is an amazing hair-splitting quibble. Please justify its purpose.

Actually, your original statement was:

note that BBT says nothing about me until

two other players have attacked me

over the same issue

Which is incorrect, since Not_Mafia attacked you over a different issue. Why am I making such a hair-splitting quibble? well, you started it.[/quote]
I started nothing.
I'll agree I was wrong that both of the two players had attacked me for the same reason - change it to "he waited till two other players ahd attacked me for different reasons" and then my issue remains intact with nothing else needing to be changed and it still remains confusing why you're splitting this hair. Is this going somewhere other than pointing out that the two people who attacked me did so for different reasons? How does that change my take on what BBT is doing?

I find it hard to believe that he sheeped [Knell] and me, his scum reads, onto the Belisarius wagon. If his actual leading hypothesis was that Madonna and I were a scumteam, why would he get off the Madonna wagon and onto a counterwagon I had started? Lack of confidence in his reads is a possibility... but not one I find convincing at this point. He basically threw all his reads out the window. As for his possible motivation for doing it as scum... a possibility is that when Tr1ckster got off the Madonna wagon, if Elk and his partner were both on the Madonna wagon he might have felt uncomfortable with that state of affairs. Obviously, without knowing the identity of the other scum this is conjecture. Or maybe he wasn't comfortable on the Madonna wagon for some other reason.

This is the only part of your case that looks remotely like a thing. It's not bad, it's not brilliant.
I like the BBT case better and think there's more evidence there.

That's certainly a possibility. But then again, returning to a BBT lynch would be your logical play as scum, too.

If I would do the same actions regardless of alignment then all you've established is that your case is based on a null tell and doesn't show scum motivation for me.

My problem here is that I view those last 24-48 hours as the critical part of the day - given that no lynch had been accomplished up to that point, that "miniscule slice" is where the outcome of the entire day is determined. It's the point in the day when maybe you could convince people to vote for BBT as a compromise lynch, for instance - Knell, Madonna and Belisarius might have been receptive to a "not Madonna" lynch if they couldn't get a Tr1ckster one. I just don't get the "well my lynch isn't happening so I'll just sit around and wait" mentality at such a critical time.

Ah, so basically you expect me to play like you do, and i I don't I'm scummy? Because that's what I get here.
You know what I did in that "critical part of the day"?

I didn't chase a vanity wagon that had already failed (At L-2...it's not like it even got to L-1) and I got town a lynch and a flip. Personally I think that was more productive of me - apparently you disagree. But the facts are the facts, and here's my defense of my actions "Yes, I did exactly what you're saying I did" I, personally, think what I did is pro-town. i personally think what you're saying I should have done would have been immensely anti-town.

[Thor665]

It makes your point on BBT considerably weaker. Of the two people who'd attacked you on Day 2 at that point, one of them was talking about something completely different. Neither of them went into as much depth, or committed as hard to their point of view, as BBT had at that point in time.

I disagree with your point and think you're being obtuse in understanding that there was a flow of attack on me that BBT hopped on - the only reason he got into it (as you seem to believe) is I demanded he back up his stance. His back up of his stance was, if you'll note, to defend NM's point...a point I even got NM to agree was not really correct...but somehow BBT is still all about it. You are apparently blind to this, and I'm not sure what I need to do to make you understand it. If his actions come across to you as a paragon of scumhunting brilliance than that is that, but I think you should get better reading skills.

I'm not asking you for your unsubstantiated opinion on how good the case is, I'm asking you to tell me

why

.

Are you kidding me?

Okay, let's try to do this. For the first part, your case has two points - I'm going to make them simple and discuss each. For the record, I don't give a hang of your reply to these.

1. He is hand wringing and overplaying his inability to develop town reads/has too many scumreads.
2. He followed a case of scum reads onto another scum read.

1. This point is ....dumb. You are kinda weird for being excited about it. New players literally do this all the time right along with the ol' "I don't know how to scumhunt" tell. There is no evidence to suggest that Elk should be some sort of town hunter. Also, besides the very generic "has options left open" there is no particular gain to bother doing this as scum. It's not even that important of a strategy. He could have four scumspects only and probably have enough for the entire game.

2. Well...first off, if he has nothing but scumreads, as noted in #1, well...by definition he's always going to be voting along with scumreads. Now, don't get me too wrong, this point isn't as dumb as the first one. In fact, as I said, I kinda liked it. That said, I've seen town do this quite a lot. I agree it's bad logic and I agree that town who do it are bad. That's probably why I indicated I was oka with this as a case on him. That said, since I've seen town do that I am not going to scream "omigawd, bezt case evah!" either. At that point, you can kind of whine about wanting me to break down the case for you....but, the case is paper thin anyway and is based on an action I know town do - but that is the extent of me being able to address it. I might as well challenge you to find scum doing the same, I'm sure they have, it makes sense they would, but it's simply an awkward reference that will be hard to find to prove your case right. Also, I'm not sure what you want me to discuss about it - I was actually pretty clear in my thoughts already.

No, I've established that there is both a possible town motivation and a possible scum motivation. If I decide that the scum motivation is significantly more likely, then I'll try to convince other people of that with a view to lynching you. Having now heard your alternative explanation for your actions I don't need anything more from you on this point for now.

I expect you to play towards achieving the best lynch

I believe was theoretically possible, even though I am ignoring that all the support for the wagon, myself included, was chasing other targets, making it an incredibly difficult wagon to acheive, and then I'll whine that you didn't try anyway with no actual backing to suggest town Thor would see that as a good play, and then I'll demand that Thor needs to defend himself for not doing a play that Thor doesn't think is that good

, yes. Which is the standard I hold myself to.

I fixed this for you.

Uh... the BBT wagon did get to L-1, if only briefly. Madonna put it there.

Do you think she was coming back? Were you? This is a silly conversation.

And no, you didn't get town a lynch and a flip. I got town a lynch and a flip, on someone I was happy to lynch, by pushing the Belisarius wagon. You didn't contribute to that wagon, you came in and hammered it at the end having put no work into it and not even being accountable for it, since it was Beli or a no-lynch at that point.

Ah, right, so at the stage it was Belli or no lynch...what are you saying I should have done? And who do you think was going to make the Belli thing happen if not I? ANd which is preferable, Belli or no lynch?

I also still want you to reconcile these two statements:

I did call Madonna town and was correct.
I did go through multiple shifts with her wherein I noted that she was becoming less town or that I supported a lynch on her.
I did express a "not calling her town" which you are apparently deciding equates to "calling her scum" which is the only way this has any issue at that stage of the game.
I am aware that I chose supporting Belli ovr her at the final hour.

[Thor665]

@Aquanim - I think what's really frustrating me about my interactions with you at the moment is basically you're fact checking my memories...and then being pissy about my wording as opposed to my intent. You have caught me, like, 2-4 times saying things that, when you go back and fact check you are able to point out minor issues with it (stuff like, did I outright claim a townish read on Madonna, or were the two attackers I noted specifically doing the same attack or different ones) and you then get excited and hop around and demand that I defend myself...all while ignoring that the point I was making (that BBT attacked me only after two people had attacked me, that I didn't particularly support a Madonna lynch and, indeed, was defending her from the case on her) all specifically and fully are backed up.

You then waste my and town's time, with these debates...that aren't even calling into question the meaning and intent of my actions, but simply how specifically I recall them.

You have shown, and proven, that Thor is not fact checking himself.
That proves that all my answers are coming off the top of my head without fear.
You have shown I have gotten facts skewed.
You have not shown any issue with what I'm saying vs. what I was and am doing - indeed, those all line up perfectly.
And yet...you're still doing it.

What is going on here, what is the point of this, and what is your actual issue here?
As far as I can tell you've found evidence for me being town and are too silly to notice it.

[Thor665]

I mean, like, say I was scum, and wanted to misrepresent BBT's attack on me, because I'm scum and evil.

Okay, so two people attacked me first - I'll claim that.
They attacked me for different reasons - I''ll lie and claim the reasons are identical...because...y'know, that will look better somehow for me.
BBT will then sheep and attack me for one of their reasons.

Huzzah, brilliant scum lie!

I don't get it.

[Thor665]

Except that my point was that you clung to the back of issues. Not that you lacked reasoning. Sheeping multiple identical cases supports one of those more than the other, and it doesn't support the one that I'm making the case on you over. Now, if my case was that you lacked original thought - then me lying about that might make some sense. My point of you clinging to the back of cases is supported by you not coming at me until 2 other people had done so first - it doesn't matter what their reasoning, or yours was, it matters that you didn't express an issue with me today till after two others did the same. If I'd lied and said 3, that would, again, be in support of my case - but I didn't do that either.

[Thor665]

If there had been insufficient interest in a Belisarius lynch I was coming back. If there had been insufficint interest in a Belisarius or Tr1ckster lynch, I think Madonna would have come back.

By the time I made my move there was no time for much change at all - and neither of you had shown any initiative in moving anywhere. I stand by my read of the situation. If you were going to wait till there was no activity before moving back - you were comfortable waiting to a point I considered non-functional.

I'm not saying you shouldn't have hammered Belisarius. I'm saying I don't give you any town credit (nor a scumread) for it since I think you'd have done that whatever your alignment

So what is the purpose of this conversation? Because I'm only doing it because I think you're town and want you to understand that I am - but apparently I'm spinning my wheels because you have no purpose. Yes/no?

As for who else would have made it happen? Madonna springs to mind, she was voting Beli before. But that's beside the point.

You do realize that she, as town, made the comment that se wasn't thrilled by the Belli vote but didn't support trying to switch stuff around. Crazy concept coming from a town player, really.

Or that you're scum and you're not reading the thread or remembering what your professed attitude at certain points in the thread was. So that proves nothing.

Well, except for the parts that line up imperfectly. But if I decide you're scummy enough to be lynched it won't be because of those; it will be because I believe that your activity during the game, what cases you chose to push and when, reflect a scum mentality. Clarifying discrepancies between what you state in your defence and actual events is a necessary part for me in making that decision.

The parts that line up imperfectly are stupid quibbling - you need to look past fine details and notice the point and the purpose of a post.

Also, Thor: Let me make something perfectly clear to you. If I was convinced you were the most likely person to roll scum this game, I'd be voting for you already. I'm not. I'm asking you questions like this because I don't understand why you would do and say some of these things as a townie; that being said,

I'm prepared to consider the explanations you do make. But I do need those explanations to make that judgement.

Aquanim, let me make something perfectly clear to you - if you don't need my explanations stop wasting my time and filling the thread with walls. It is anti-town on both fronts.

I'm also doing this because, based on my knowledge of you as a player, nothing less than this would give me any basis on which to read you accurately at all, short of associative cases with flipped scum.

And yet we appear to be going nowhere still.

So - if I'm hurting your feelings by ensuring that you are held to only accurate statements, rather than whatever half- or mostly-truths you remember which are more consistent with your arguments, then I apologise; but if you're scum I won't let you win a game by defending yourself with only half-true arguments.

I have not defended myself with any half-truths. You have attacked me with half truths that ignore that, regardless of the factual accuracy, my point still holds firm, meaning I had no reason to lie to make my point, meaning the lies are not alignment based.

I'm not really interested at this point in debating what you think of my style and methods as a townie; save it for the postgame. In fact, I'm not really interested in discussing any of this last part - you asked what I'm doing and I've answered, but I don't think discussing it further gets anyone any closer to finding scum.

Agreed - vote BBT now. Or advance your Elk case.

[Thor665]

So, the case I presented on Elk was clinging onto the back of what issues exactly?

To no issues at all - I never said it was. It *was* clinging to the back of their attack on me. Frankly, look at how long it took you to chime in on this one - you're clinging to Aqua's back now.

[Thor665]

I find his play today to be like clinging to the back of any discussion so that if it goes under he shall remain afloat.

I dunno - *is* that what I said?

[Thor665]

My point has nothing to do with what issues you are or are not expressing agreement to - it's the *method* of how you are doing so.
Is that clear now?

@Aquanim - what Bullsmurf? Specificaly?

[Thor665]

Vote BBT - maybe it will reset Aquanim to normal mode off of aggro mode.

[Thor665]

My rebuttal to the case;

1. Thor had interest in the Day 1 lynch, until we went for a lynch he wasn't excited about - I think he 'gave up' in the last 48 hours...clearly he shouldn't have done so till some other near deadline moment.
2. I will accuse him both of stopping tunneling on BBT at the end of Day 1 and also of tunneling on BBT too much, this makes sense.
3. I have not held you accountable for any lies - I would e curious to see where you think I have.

@Aqua - vote BBT now?
@Knell - thanks.

[Thor665]

The purpose of this conversation was a DIFFERENT read, which in the end Thor didn't contest (namely that he did nothing besides hammer Belisarius), but he dragged the discussion off into "whether or not he should have hammered Belisarius" and then blames ME for bringing up irrelevancies. Piss off.

I find this an objectionable and whiny complaint, here is how I saw the conversation;

A: You did nothing to advance lynching BBT.
T: Yes I did, I did a lot.
A: Not in the final 48 hours.
T: I will agree with that, but at that stage it would have been anti-town to try.
A: I disagree.
T: I disagree with you and fail to see how that makes me look scummy.
A: You should have tried regardless, you are scummy for failing to try.
T: Is this going somewhere?
A: Don't complain about this being irrelevant!

That's my perception of the conversation. Where do you think I'm losing the flow and making stuff up?

[Thor665]

So when Thor makes up something that didn't happen to defend himself, and then I call bullshit, that's not him defending himself with lies. What a joke.

Explain the justification of why I needed to lie, and show the lie. If it's the "two people, same case" as opposed to "two people, different case" when the point wasn't "same case" but "Two people" then I am unimpressed. If it was the "called Madonna town" and your issue is "you did, but at an earlier point, and though you defended her near the end of the day you demurred from expressly calling her a town read...even though the reason you brought it up was justification of choosing Belli to lynch over her...which you clearly did, and at no point really pushed the Madonna lynch...and I'm not even sure why it's an issue that Thor is arguing that he preferred not to lynch Madonna over Belli when that is a debate of a t vs. t lynch" then...I don't know what your issue is at all, regardless of thinking whether I was lying or not.

Edit:Oh, and now asking for backup annoys you...but you are angered when I get annoyed. Look, I'm trying to talk to you about the reasoning behind your case - I'm not even debating semantics with you. Take a chill pill, and come back later. The point of these questions is to ask you about motive. You have a piece of evidence, evidence that I'm not even denying (and never have...despite your odd claims to the contrary) but what I'm debating with you is that there's no valid reason to think I would bother to do that as scum. Seriously.

Edit Edit: Oooh, did the reset work?

[Thor665]

Thor: Stop asking, 'cos I'm not discussing this with you any more. If you're town it's a complete waste of your time and mine, and if you're scum it's a complete waste of my time to try to prove it to you.

Later he will call me the anti-town one hurting ton's wincon...all without putting 2 + 2 together...

How is this a logical progression of a conversation at all?

How is it not?

Thor overstates his role in the Beli lynch,

I did not.

Aqua points this out and then Thor makes it a conversation about what he should have done?

Actually, he didn't point that out - he complained that I came in and jumped that wagon with no purpose, arguing that I had no purpose in getting a flip. I countered with 'what should I have done?' and his answer became 'you should have kept hard tunneling the dead wagon you prefered' which I disagreed with as a smart play move.

@Thor, What was the purpose of this?

You already quoted me explaining my purpose in Post 1027. What part of my answer confuses you?

Irrespective of him being at L-1 or you knoeing this or not knowing this? What were you trying to do with this?

Get BBT lynched.

Or that you're scum and you're not reading the thread or remembering what your professed attitude at certain points in the thread was. So that proves nothing.

And why did this warrant that emoticon?

He is deciding that I'm getting facts wrong because I'm not reading the thread...ignoring that I'm getting other facts dead on correct. For that to happen *and* for me to not be reading the thread, I'd have to somehow magically know stuff happened. So, at that point his issue with me is "you don't have perfect recall and don't go back to fact check yourself when you say things" which...doesn't actually suggest scum. He agreed with this, though disagreed with me that it was a town tell. Make sense?

@Thor

: I know you found the argument with Aqua frustrating and unproductive; the real question is, was Aqua persisting in the argument out of a scummy desire to hold back town, or was this argument made with town-intentions?

I have repeatedly called Aqua town. Me thinking he is being highly obtuse changes nothing in that regard. The only stronger read I have is Knell.

Thor's read on Elk is weird, remembers his game with her, but not his game with Tr1ckster.

I do what in the where now?

I am amazed with BBt at L-1 NM is hard pushing for a compromise on the basis that we somehow need to get a wagon together...while ignoring the wagon that is already together.
If BBT flips scum and I don't make it to tomorrow - please lynch him next prior to Elk barring anything exciting.

[Thor665]

Where in his response is what you've said in bold?

He said it multiple times. here's one of them;

My problem here is that I view those last 24-48 hours as the critical part of the day - given that no lynch had been accomplished up to that point, that "miniscule slice" is where the outcome of the entire day is determined. It's the point in the day when maybe you could convince people to vote for BBT as a compromise lynch, for instance - Knell, Madonna and Belisarius might have been receptive to a "not Madonna" lynch if they couldn't get a Tr1ckster one. I just don't get the "well my lynch isn't happening so I'll just sit around and wait" mentality at such a critical time.

Or you're scum. Like he said.

...you're the one who asked me to explain it to you...I'm guessing you didn't care? I don't get this.

[Thor665]

his seeming self-fulfilling prophecy when it comes to liking dead line lynches as scum. [snip] and the general insanity of waiting 5 days as an IC before jumping in. But, that's partially our fault too.

So close to grokking reality there. So close.

[Thor665]

Sorry, not partially, It's entirely everyone's fault.

And edit saved reality!

[Thor665]

I'll also note that my wait still didn't prevent me from getting the wagon I wanted to L-1 again...though now people are being shady about it *again* and are going to pick a substandard alternate choice *again* and if I get bored by it and try to speed it up then I feed Aquanim's paranoia despite being on the record that going till deadline hurts town. Derpa-dee!

[Thor665]

Everyone alwas does - because people get dumb about L-1 "too early".

[Thor665]

This is actually why I like an L-1 or two on Day 1-3. In games with more vets you'll see that happen more often.

[Thor665]

Why would Elk's lynch be substandard?

Because I have a much better read on BBT and if Elk is scum, it's not because of the case currently being presented on him.

Thor claiming that him choosing not to do anything for a week is all our faults is ludicrous.

I have not claimed that.

If we're not playing the game right, is it not the responsibility of an IC (or in fact, any townie) to guide us into playing better?

It is not the IC's job.
It is a townie's job.
I have repeatedly attempted to discuss your case and way of looking at the game - you found it to be me lying and misrepping everything.
I have also repeatedly noted that people should be more aggressive with their votes, and no one does.

[Thor665]

I sort of had stuff I was going to respond to, but I will admit watching the little dance was interesting, and the mental strain on me to bother to respond to the issues pointed at me seems less fun and more of a bore.

Not enough people here understand the difference between motive and action, and strongly confuse the two.

Here is my short rebuttal of the wagon on me: It is laughable and is made of scum, and players confusing personal dislike with scum intent.

Aqua is town.
Knell is town.
N_M...is probably town
Trickster...is terrible, and if he's town needs to work on that. I wanted to rule him out but though certain people remember to get offende and bothered by me not being here, they've already written off Trickster for poor reasons.
BBT remains scum.
I am willing to entertain Elk as his scumbuddy partly because it makes sense with the votes that just happened because they make N_M look better, which was a niggling issue with me, and partly because it's a beneficial wagon for me to push right now whether it goes over or not.

If you do lynch me, if you then do not consider lynching either BBT or Elk tomorrow - then I will be making fun of you all in the Dead QT.

Vote: Elk

Dance, worms, dance.

[Thor665]

::insert rage::

I'm a touch busy in RL at this second, I will do my usual post game writeup no later than the end of this coming weekend though.

[Thor665]

It's going to be hilarious if we should've just sheeped Thor the whole game XD.

And, yeah, "hilarious" by way of "unending rage"

[Thor665]

Unending rage.

[Thor665]

@Josh - I would agree that would have been a better kill. I was more correct than Knell in my reads, but town was not only ignoring me, they were calling me scum at that point. I was quite surprised that I got night killed.

[Thor665]

An alt slip, but, yes, same deal ^^^

[Thor665]

That's rough, I think it's exceedingly hard to play decent scum until you know how you play your town game. You'll get there soon enough, the RNG gawds are a fickle bunch.

[Thor665]

It was intentional that way.

Also, I had not been happy with the reactions I had been getting from my stronger playstyle, and wanted to try a softer sell approach - but knew if I just did it directly I'd be lynched for not playing like I always do. It was mostly magical to, once again, be called obv. town simply because people were not weighed down by paranoia about my scumplay.

[Thor665]

The funniest thing was the amount of people guessing at the alt - some of the guesses were hilariously off.

[Thor665]

In truth, I'm a little glad to see the alt come out. Thor, I have some things I'm going to want to talk to you about in a couple of weeks or so.

Not sure if ominous or bemusing...

But, sure!

[Thor665]

I also don't think you ever quite understood why I was scumreading you. It was partly the incredible difficulty I had in getting you to admit that you'd made any logical or memory errors when they seemed patently obvious to me.

I cannot speak about me letting you down. I guess I'm flattered I was an emulatable player for you, which is nice to hear. but I can't speak to your own reactions to playing with me. (other than to say you didn't sheep me enough )

Also, Hemp offered three reads - 2 of which were incorrect. He was accurate on Trickster, and wrong on BBT and Not_Mafia. His presented case on Trickster was "I'm just guessing"
If you honestly feel that's the same as what I did in this game. I just have to shrug.

Now, as far as the "not agreeing with you or admitting I committed a memory error" thing I quoted here. That I *can* discuss with you.

Here is you pointing out the memory error for, functionally the first time (we had a few backs and forth about it, but this was the first quote were you called my memory wrong.

Actually, your original statement was:

note that BBT says nothing about me until two other players have attacked me over the same issue

Which is incorrect, since Not_Mafia attacked you over a different issue.

Here is my reply. I would like to call attention to my first words.

I'll agree I was wrong that both of the two players had attacked me for the same reason

- change it to "he waited till two other players ahd attacked me for different reasons" and then my issue remains intact with nothing else needing to be changed and it still remains confusing why you're splitting this hair. Is this going somewhere other than pointing out that the two people who attacked me did so for different reasons? How does that change my take on what BBT is doing?

That was my immediate first reaction - I said you were correct. I then pointed out that what you were correct about didn't change the point of my read, nor how I was using the tell.
After that the conversation continued in pretty much that vein - with me agreeing with you, but pointing out your issue didn't matter.

So, I disagree that I didn't discuss it, and I disagree that I denied I did it. If that was your perception then the failure was in the way I phrased my agreement or in your reading comprehension, or both.

[Thor665]

The point of these questions is to ask you about motive. You have a piece of evidence, evidence that I'm not even denying (and never have...despite your odd claims to the contrary) but what I'm debating with you is that there's no valid reason to think I would bother to do that as scum. Seriously.

Yeah, reading it over again - you did seem weirdly lost on that, and I was even aware of it then. i have no idea how I could have agreed that I did what you said I did more though. i literally kept repeating myself.

[Thor665]

My perception is you got peeved at me and stopped reading my posts.

[Thor665]

My goal is not to assign blame. My goal is to understand the breakdown to avoid doing it in the future - if the failure was on my side I'd love to hear thoughts as to why.

[Thor665]

But, let's walk through this - why did I lie about that if I was scum? What was my gain in the lie to the mislynch I was attempting?

[Thor665]

Actually, the only other person who had commented on your reluctance to give reads at the time of #830 was Tr1ckster - and he'd been very vague.

That;s not true. Read NM. Two people called me out and then and only then did BBT wade in. I don't think I'm crazy here. Double check and get back to me.

Here's the first one, where I make it clear my issue is two people attacked me before he did. I even indicate that you should go back and check. Meaning, if I was lying, I'm extremely cheeky and don't think you will.

Not_Mafia hadn't said anything about your day 2 play before #830. Why not go look yourself?

I did.
I found post 824.
Your move?

Here your point is that he talked about my Day 1.
My point is that he attacked me.
Functionally we're talking at cross purposes here. This is not me being difficult any more than it is you - we're still trying to figure out what the other means.

Post 824 was only talking about your day 1 play, not your day 2 play. Your move?

Are you serious? I said two people had attacked me and that he had held off doing so until after that fact - you even agree this is happening but are debating as to whether I need to show it's about my Day 2 play or not. This is an amazing hair-splitting quibble. Please justify its purpose.

Here you clarify your point and I clarify mine. My belief is that this settles the issue.
You then clarify that your issue is that I initially said they attacked me for the *same* thing.
I then immediately respond with 'you're right, they didn't, but change my comment to 'two people attacked me' and my point holds.

So the very instant each of us understands what the other is saying I'm attempting to clarify.
ALso, if you think I was intentionally lying about what had happened - why in the world was I pointing out specific post numbers for you to reference that, if my point was what you claimed to think it was - didn't support my point at all?

[Thor665]

Was your argument about the scumminess of Not_Mafia?!?! Who now that endgame is up wasn't Mafia?

Only peripherally.

I was claiming BBT was scum because he had opportunistically waited until other people had attacked me before also attacking me.
Aquanim was of the opinion that his attack was not an opportunistic follow, but was well formed.
I countered that it only became well formed after I had called him on it, and that he had still followed two people's attacks.
Aquanim felt I was lying about how the attacks were the same as BBT's.
I agreed that only one was the same, which had not been what I had earlier stated from memory, but pointed out the issue was the overall sheep of the thread activity.
It disintegrated from there due to reasons you may decide for yourself.

NM was simply one of the people BBT had sheeped. That's why he was being discussed.

[Thor665]

If I did that, it was not a conscious decision on my part

I will admit I felt like I was being Sisyphus in this game - that probably came through in my posting (shock!).

[Thor665]

Yeah, there is no way I would have NK'd you Thor.

As I indicated - I thought I was an unwise NK. No one was listening to me - it didn't matter that I was tunneled on scum.

[Thor665]

By being frustrated

Well, as you can see in this game I did get frustrated quite a bit, but, yeah, I was able to still be working to sort things. The core concept behind that is the same idea I'm throwing at Aqua. It's not about doing derpy or scummy things - town will do that all day long, sadly enough. The real question is about motive - *why* are they doing the dumb thing.

Like, say a player is just voting everyone in sight, like, whatever wagon is biggest he votes. Is that scummy?
Well, it's not particularly helpful to town, I'll agree, but scummy?...no, probably not. The *motive* of that looks like what he wants is a lynch, any lynch. On the very surface that seems scummy, but when you ask yourself who would be fine with any lynch besides themselves? The answer is 'town with no town reads'. Scum would still have another person they wouldn't want to lynch, town would not. So seeing that action I would, all other things being equal, probably slide that poor play to the side and consider it a mild town tell.

Same thing with misreps (which I hate as a scumtell) I think they are, most of the time, misunderstandings. A misunderstanding is not scummy until the point the player in question seems to shut down info gathering in favor of their theory.

So I would always try to keep in mind motive.

And, if your motive thoughts give you too many scumspects? Just pick one, declare them scum, explain why, and try to force the wagon to at least L-1 and maybe a claim just to see what happens and who supports it. Then eyeball the wagon and see what you can learn from it and perhaps flip the player to learn more.