Newbie 1497 (Game Over)

[Knell]

I received a warning. Next time I mess up I get a suspension. Sorry for the slip up Zaicon and thank you for running the game. Thanks for post game write up Thor.

[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!

[Aquanim]

Huh.

@Thor

:

From my perspective, the problem was almost the opposite; that I walked into the game with too much respect for your play. Y'see, when I started playing forum Mafia a year or two back (on a different site), I taught myself to play the game at least partially by reading your games here. Whether it's because your play has changed in the intervening time, my perspective as a Mafia player has changed, or just because it's different to play a game as opposed to read it, I don't know - but I found myself, for whatever reason, less impressed with you than I thought. Disillusionment can be kind of harsh. Sure, your reads were accurate; to draw a very unflattering comparison, so were Hemp's.

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. Which, as Elk pointed out, comes straight out of Umbrage's scum playbook (point #7); so at least somebody thinks it's a good scum play. There was also partly a pre-flip association case to Elk I should have known better than to make, to be honest. I don't remember every small detail of the read, it was the better part of a month ago and I largely threw it out after the Elk flip.

FWIW, if you'd not died night 2 I would probably have been townreading you, if only on the strength of negative association with everyone else.

[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.

[Aquanim]

To be honest, I'd forgotten that Hemp had any reads beyond Tr1ckster; I think I dismissed them as him simply being peer-pressured into changing his stated position. As for his case being vaporware - well, I did say it was an unflattering comparison.

As for the other, in the end we were both town - so by definition it was a failure to communicate effectively, rather than malicious misunderstanding. The same goes for my efforts to get your read on Elk, and the strength of your day 1 townread on Madonna. Mistakes were made, and I'm willing to leave it at that.

[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.

[Aquanim]

Well, from my perspective the first time I pointed out your error in memory was #978:

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.

after which we went back and forth three or four times (your #996, #999, #1003) until you acknowledged the mistake in #1010. From my perspective, the above quote was entirely clear as to what I thought the problem was.

[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?

[Aquanim]

Look, this is a waste of time. In the end you flipped town so my read was evidently incorrect. We each have problems with the other's play that I don't think are even possible to reconcile, so I don't see the point in continuing this.

And yes, I could answer the above. But then you'd have another answer to that, and so on ad infinitum. I have better things to do with my life.

[Josh_B]

Wait a second, hold up. I'm a nonsilent third party on this.
Was your argument about the scumminess of Not_Mafia?!?! Who now that endgame is up wasn't Mafia?

GG Trixster GG. I wish, I had caught on to that in my read. Unfortunately, I just kind of ISO'd the Vote Counts of the living players, and skimmed through so stuff that I thought was interesting. I totally would have shot Knell instead of Thor, and Knell again instead of Aquamin, if I had known this happened.

[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.

[Not_Mafia]

Thanks for write up Thor. I think it was more a more personality clash issue that disengaged me, but that's something I have to get over. May have been my imagination but in Jungle Republic I saw you adjusting your style in a way that would keep me better engaged, I appreciated that even though I was scum in that game.

[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!).

[Josh_B]

Yeah, there is no way I would have NK'd you Thor. Even if BBT had been lynched the next day, It obviously left you and Aquanim at odds with each other. Which would have meant a compromise vote on NotM and you both being angry at each other in LYLO.

BBT, are you still reading this?

[BlueBloodedToffee]

Yeah, I'm still reading. Just nothing to say haha

[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.

[Josh_B]

I said this in my first Newbie Game on this site. Town has to lynch town in order for scum to win.
I threw out a lot of my theories in that game.

[theelkspeaks]

Thor, any chance you could give me tips on how not to end up frustrated and confused like I did during the start of the day leading up to my lynch? I kept finding scumtells from different players, but then wasn't sure which ones were real and which ones were town players committing scumtells anyway - how do you focus on sorting out the real from the imagined?

[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.

[Mina]

Goodbye.