Mini Normal 1609: The Case Of Doctor Pepper (Game Over)

[Green Crayons]

@Csareo:

if you're on a mind to do so, please link to one (or, even better, several) of your scum games. I know you said that they have all been offsite, but I don't think simply linking to a completed, offsite game violates any MS rules.

[Green Crayons]

@Csareo:

Unless it is on the grounds of inactivity, a policy lynch is usually a scum motivated lynch.

This is the second time in recent memory that you've mentioned favorably voting for players who are lurking. How do you feel about the pressure BBT got early in the game for wanting to vote for lurkers:

Spoiler: Full Back-and-Forth Conversation, Posts Cut Down to Relevant Portions

@doogal - what question have you asked me?

@scrambles - great contribution so far. Have a vote

VOTE: Scrambles

Here is another question:
BBT, do you just look at the last post and throw a vote down or do you read the thread?

Here is another question:
BBT, do you just look at the last post and throw a vote down or do you read the thread?

Have you ISO'd Scrambles? Do you disagree with my previous statement?

How is scrambles any more suspicious than flubber, csareo, rufflig, etc. if your only basis is they haven't said much?

I can't vote all four of them can I?

I chose the latest to actively lurk. That happened to be Scrambles. Like, he is posting, but may as well not be posting because he hasn't said anything.

Do you think not posting much makes them scummy?

If they're actively lurking, yeah, it makes them scummy.

I find that to be a really lazy and counter-productive way of looking for scum, particularly for someone purporting to be looking for scum by analyzing productivity.

Thanks.

I'm Ok with leaving my vote on you BBT.

If you are just going to randomly sheep instead of engage and pressure, you are not helping the town and most likely scum.

For the record, the whole Greyice thing is sitting in my craw really bad as well and I'd be willing to switch my vote if needed.

So, if Scrambles and Flubber continued to contribute in the way they are, you're happy with that? We just continue ignoring them?

So, if Scrambles and Flubber continued to contribute in the way they are, you're happy with that? We just continue ignoring them?

They'll either replace out or start playing, likely. Townies lurk/are lazy/get disinterested in games. It's a total crapshoot to just start chainsawing through lurkers and is just going to waste days.

AK - You're seriously telling me you're OK with Scrambles 154 given everything that's going on in this thread? He completely abstained from commenting on anything of note.

I'm telling you there is no indication he is scum in that post given everything that's going on in this thread.

[Csareo]

if you're on a mind to do so, please link to one (or, even better, several) of your scum games. I know you said that they have all been offsite, but I don't think simply linking to a completed, offsite game violates any MS rules.

No, for two reasons...
1. Meta isn't abundantly relevant right now
2. I want to establish a new clean meta
I can tell you a bit how I used to play as scum though. I would excessively anaylze theme in order to trick town into thinking I'm scum hunting, associate myself in favorable town blocs, and do risky pushes on my scum buddy while they're it L-3/L-4(not the early into the game like most noob scum).
In B.E 1601 "Little Italy", I stated that if you think I'm scum, I'm probably town, and this wasn't me being gloated. My record as scum IS far more desirable than it is as town.
I actually pride myself on not making mistakes as scum, so I generally am more careful of what I post. Losing as scum hurts my ego far more than losing as town.

This is the second time in recent memory that you've mentioned favorably voting for players who are lurking. How do you feel about the pressure BBT got early in the game for wanting to vote for lurkers:

Yet I never actually pushed a vote, or even a case on lurkers, have I? BBT isn't scummy for wanting to lynch inactives, but it's the fact that he kept reverting back to policy lynches while undergoing a tunnel, which is what is really suspicous.
I'm not a fan of your selective quoting either, just to make that clear.

[Csareo]

Editing my terrible spelling

I can tell you a bit how I used to play as scum though. I would excessively anaylze theme in order to trick town into thinking I'm scum hunting, associate myself in favorable town blocs, and do risky pushes on my scum buddy while they're at L-3/L-4(not early into the game like most noob scum).

[Green Crayons]

Yet I never actually pushed a vote, or even a case on lurkers, have I? BBT isn't scummy for wanting to lynch inactives, but it's the fact that he kept reverting back to policy lynches while undergoing a tunnel, which is what is really suspicous.

The point of my question was how do you feel about the players criticizing BBT for voting lurkers, not your well known feelings about BBT.

I'm not a fan of your selective quoting either, just to make that clear.

There's not a emoticon with a large enough eye roll for me to post.

[Csareo]

Greencrayons, if you are town, then I would like to give you some advice.
Over relying on association as you were in your early case is a bad idea.
Association is near useless D1. Actually, it is anti utillity and anti town to be doing pushes based on association until at least one scum has been uncovered.
Skilled players can sometimes successfully deduct association out of a town flip, and I'll be honest when I say I'm not to good at that myself, but this is just one of the many flaws I see in your cognitive processes.
Basically you're reaching conclusions based on false premises, IE, your train of thought never had an established truth to work off of.
Let's pretend like this wasn't a common scum tell, everything always reaches the same broken statement, "Csareo is scum because he is wrong about X, and I know I'm right, therefore he is scum". "Csareo is scum reading X, and I'm town reading him, and I know I'm right, so Csareo is scum.

As I said, we all use different methods to reach different conclusions, and it isn't very wise to scum read people simply because they don't reach conclusions in the same manner you do.
Which is why I'm not falling into your logic trap and scum reading you. As far as I'm concerned, you're misguided/stubborn town if BBT flips non-mafia, and scummy if he flips mafia.
It isn't 100% indicative, but that is when association tells really start to count for something. Now I wish you would stop being stubborn, and drop your retarded case. Is retaining your pride that worth it?

Now if you wouldn't mind, I would appreciate it if you restate your case on me, so I can refute every fallacy in it, in a timely manner.

[Green Crayons]

w/r/t your description of your scum play:

That doesn't really help me. You mention your strategies as playing scum, but I'm more curious in the general "feel" to your playstyle when you're scum.

Your reasons for not linking to a game are pretty thin. Your scum playstyle is pretty darn relevant for how I'm going to move forward with dealing with you, as has been mentioned countless times in the past day or two.

Also, you linking to offsite games is not going to somehow magically transform your meta on MS itself. This is also a strange hangup to have if you are town in this game.

[Csareo]

The point of my question was how do you feel about the players criticizing BBT for voting lurkers, not your well known feelings about BBT.

He shouldn't be criticized for looking towards lurkers, but anatole got on his ass after he was already being tunnelled, and it looked like he was starting an opportunistic scrambles wagon.
I don't always think policy lynching lurkers on D1 is a good idea, mainly because I noticed that scum latch on to inactives whenever they are under solid pressure, and the sad thing is that it usually works.

[Csareo]

I'm not linking games offsite, but that shouldn't stop you from answering this....

Now if you wouldn't mind, I would appreciate it if you restate your case on me, so I can refute every fallacy in it, in a timely manner

I play on mafiascum now so I have a fresh start from my past games. Please respect that.

[Csareo]

And I would appreciate it if you actually defend your case this time. There is a repeating pattern of you making a fallacious case, me refuting it, you disappearing, making a new case, rinse and repeat.

[Csareo]

BTW, I'm a little fucking mad that you dropped 80% of my questions.
A big one was "who else are you scumreading besides me"?

[Green Crayons]

It's easier for me to just quote myself as to why I'm voting you. So here you go:

Spoiler: My Basis For Voting Csareo

Oh, further clarification:

- You said:

When you think about the case and strip it to its core, it consists of: buddying Wake and "lining up lynches" of the neighbors.

Yup.

That, of course, was simply for my vote as it then existed. Since that time, there's Csareo excessive hostility/defensiveness and his crazy wrong silver bullet about buddying.

Also this is downright adorable scum melodrama:

That contradiction was so outright blatant.
Please lynch him tommorow, as I'll probs be NK'd

w/r/t the buddying aspect of Csareo suspicions, I think massive's point here is actually worthwhile and directly responds to your 762 comment:

3. The buddying of Wake, but really, the reaction to being called on it. It might have been a completely different story had you said, "yeah, I'm townreading Wake, I agree with this point," but you go straight into yelling at people for "bullshit associative tells" (hint: it's not associative since it doesn't rely on Wake's alignment) and claiming we'll lynch Wake if you flip town (607). Not only are you buddying him, but you're working extra hard to tie your alignment to his.

Here, I'll add another reason to my vote: you're grasping at all the straws to vilify those who disagree with your BBT "suspicions." Yeah, the scare quotes are there on purpose, because your stated bases to lynch BBT are bad.

(2) Also, it

(GC Edit: talking about Csareo's villifying those who disagree with his BBT case.)

allows Csareo to pull this "if I'm right, people who disagree with me are scum; if I'm wrong, people who disagree with me are scum" tactic:

There are two possibilities that make sense to me now.
1. BBT is scum and two of the people voting me are reacting to my push
2. BBT is town, and scum are defending both me and him to be apart of a town bloc if we are mislynched

I don't respond to most of your posts because by and large they are so far off into left field territory, that the time and energy it would take to correct you about your misunderstandings/misrepresentations/irrelevant tangents just really isn't worth it to me.

[Green Crayons]

I'm trying to pursue other suspicions while attempting to figure you out, so maybe if you have a little patience you'll see if I have suspicions of other players that I find worthwhile enough to vocalize.

[Csareo]

Let's see what we have.
First post is about buddying with wake
Second post is about buddying with wake
Third post is me tunneling BBT
Fourth post is again about me tunneling BBT
Is there anything I haven't went over? I believe I spent entire pages refuting the stupidity of both accusations (I KNOW I spent a whole page refuting wake buddying)

Still, three questions you keep putting off. Why are you town reading BBT? Why am I scum for scum reading BBT? Who else besides me are you scum reading.
I'm not letting you put off the scum reads one, you need to tell me now. I don't believe I"m your only scum read.

[Csareo]

For the love of Krishnu, I can't believe I'm accused of grasping for straws on BBT.
It is you who's grasping for straws on me.

[BlueBloodedToffee]

But I'm town.

I've done nothing scummy.

[Green Crayons]

lol, 863 is why I don't respond to you.

You've reduced suspicions against you to "buddying" (in a generic sense, ignoring the fact that your response to the assertion is even more damming of your alignment than the initial assertion itself) and "tunneling," (ignoring the fact that it's not even tunneling which constitutes my suspicions as I've never suggested that you're suspicious for failing to have pursued players other than BBT).

This, of course, which makes it super easy for you to dismiss my suspicions. Very convenient for you, you deserve a slow clap. Clap clap clap. But it's such a gross misrepresentation of what I have actually said that either you're scum just spewing BS or are so far gone that there's no way for me to even reach you.


Ah, yes. Then you're asking me three questions "that I keep putting off."

1) Why am I town reading BBT? I've responded to this question from you twice already. TWICE. And then an additional time to Jagged. READ THE THREAD.

2) Why am I saying that you are scum for scum reading BBT? lol. this question belongs in an alternate reality, as it does not pertain to the game we're playing here in the real world. Your position on BBT is bad and wrong, but that doesn't make you scum, and I never said it does. The

closest

thing I've said to that is that you've pushed a really bad case against BBT as part of attempting to set up a one-two back-to-back lynch with BBT and TTH.

3) Who else am I scum reading? Nobody. I have some inklings as to suspicions, but amazingly they are nearly as fully developed as my suspicions of you.

[Csareo]

So wishy washy voting wasn't scummy?
The reactive arguments weren't scummy?
Even putting that aside, the tip off is how weird other people got when I put pressure on you.
They got weird and defensive, lighting up on me with shitty cases.

You pracitically agreed with me earlier that one of our two static wagons must be scum.
I find it odd that scum wouldn't of tipped one of the wagons if they weren't defending someone.
It is nearly confirmed that 2 scum are on either me or you, and I'm hoping others will see how it only makes sense if they're on me.

It really comes down to Anatole and Wake making a decision.
No pressure guys.

[Wake1]

Do we have a Vote Count yet?

[Csareo]

Do we have a Vote Count yet?

I'm at L-3 and BBT is at L-2.

[Boonskiies]

There's also GreyIce's replacement, Jagged, I believe. We really aren't getting anywhere further, so nothing is going to change in the votes unless someone gets impatient.

@Wake - They are both at L-2. I'll update it for you, though, I guess.

[Wake1]

That would be appreciated.

[Green Crayons]

Since you're around,

wake

, and have not addressed anything I have ever posed to you, I hope that you will at least answer this:

@wake, Anatole:

you two, along with Jagged, are the only players who aren't voting for either Csareo or BBT. I'm curious as to your thoughts about both wagons, and why your vote is where it is (Anatole on Jagged (replacing GreyICE), and wake on nobody, as of last VC).

[Boonskiies]

Vote Count 1.05

BlueBloodedToffee(5)

– TellTaleHeart, Flubbernugget, Csareo, Boonskiies, Doogal121

Csareo(5)

– Omph, The Rufflig, Green Crayons, BlueBloodedToffee, massive

Jagged Appliance(1)

– Anatole Kuragin

Not Voting(2)

–Wake88, Jagged Appliance

With 13 alive, it's 7 to lynch
New deadline is on Sunday, September 28, 2014, 11:00 AM {(expired on 2014-09-28 11:00:00)}

Mod notes:

No Vote History.[/area][/color]

[BlueBloodedToffee]

So wishy washy voting wasn't scummy?
The reactive arguments weren't scummy?
Even putting that aside, the tip off is how weird other people got when I put pressure on you.
They got weird and defensive, lighting up on me with shitty cases.

You pracitically agreed with me earlier that one of our two static wagons must be scum.
I find it odd that scum wouldn't of tipped one of the wagons if they weren't defending someone.
It is nearly confirmed that 2 scum are on either me or you, and I'm hoping others will see how it only makes sense if they're on me.

It really comes down to Anatole and Wake making a decision.
No pressure guys.

Vote-hopping isn't scummy. What are the scum motivations behind doing that?

I'm a reactive player. It's a play-style thing. Again, not scummy.

Who is getting weird? Do you think it's possible you're just presenting a bad case?

I do agree that scum is on one of us, and they're prob on me because I'm town and you're scum. I find the people on my wagon much, much scummier than yours also.