Open 577: Hope Plus One! (GAME OVER - SCUM WIN)

[Rudolph the Reindeer]

EDWOP: *nearly everyone

[acryon]

I don't get the Cain and Able vote by Acryon. It's a very weak case, in my opinion. I'm confused how you find that so convincing as to confidently throw a "that's so easy" vote out on that slot. I'm slightly suspicious of your behaviour.

I would argue that a vote with confidence is better than one without in nearly every case. A vote with apprehension applies less pressure, implies lesser accountability, and is less likely to promote discussion than one with confidence.

[Rudolph the Reindeer]

I don't get the Cain and Able vote by Acryon. It's a very weak case, in my opinion. I'm confused how you find that so convincing as to confidently throw a "that's so easy" vote out on that slot. I'm slightly suspicious of your behaviour.

I would argue that a vote with confidence is better than one without in nearly every case. A vote with apprehension applies less pressure, implies lesser accountability, and is less likely to promote discussion than one with confidence.

That's not what I'm saying. I'm asking you to justify your crap case, not try and spin some dodgy angle about how a 'confident vote' is better.

One more chance, Acryon.

[acryon]

I don't get the Cain and Able vote by Acryon. It's a very weak case, in my opinion. I'm confused how you find that so convincing as to confidently throw a "that's so easy" vote out on that slot. I'm slightly suspicious of your behaviour.

I would argue that a vote with confidence is better than one without in nearly every case. A vote with apprehension applies less pressure, implies lesser accountability, and is less likely to promote discussion than one with confidence.

That's not what I'm saying. I'm asking you to justify your crap case, not try and spin some dodgy angle about how a 'confident vote' is better.

One more chance, Acryon.

You can quit with the one more chance crap. You can dislike my case, and that's fine, but it's, as you stated, your opinion. I'm sorry that you are confused on the case or think it's bad, but I'm trying to find scum, not please Rudolph the Reindeer, so I think I'm fine. Even in its premature stages, I think it is a better case than those I've seen on others, so I'm sticking with it for now.

[Aneninen]

@ GGG

When did lurking stop being a scum tell? I think lurking/low posting is absolutely a scum tell. At least in combination with other tells. I wouldn't vote a lurker solely based upon lurking, but I certainly consider it when deciding whether someone is scummy or not.

This was the part I liked the most in TexCat's 336.
As for my vote for you, it's not only because of your predecessor's lurking (and being active elsewhere). Other reasons were posted in 343. Plus, the idea that House is buddying. Also it seems that you're maintaining an argument with TexCat about lurking – but she's not voting for you at all. (362)

________

As for Acryon's case in 364. That was weird indeed. Was it scummy? To tell the truth, I don't know. What do you mean by "out of character for C+A", Acryon?

Generally, when someone is asking someone else why they are town-reading them, it is for two reasons: 1) The person is town and believe the other may be scum throwing out town-reads without real reasoning or 2) The person is scum and is trying to give extra strength to public town-reads on them.

I disagree. There are plenty of other reasons for that question.

This is the issue. You and C + A both clearly misunderstood what I was saying. C + A and Anen both accused me of saying that the ban was alignment indicative. I did not do this, and any claim I made that the ban was alignment indicative was A) dependent on other moving parts, including my initial read on him, and B) rooted in the individual posts that got him the ban. Both X + A tried to fight against the idea that the ban was alignment indicative, which is not something I even said. Meet the strawman.

What kind of Strawman are you talking about?

@Copper: you're right, we shouldn't forget about the empty slots.

[Mathdino]

I would argue that a vote with confidence is better than one without in nearly every case. A vote with apprehension applies less pressure, implies lesser accountability, and is less likely to promote discussion than one with confidence.

Whoa what?

So you just argued that your own action was objectively townish? The fact that you're applying this to yourself nullifies the entire argument.

FoS: acryon

[Rudolph the Reindeer]

I don't get the Cain and Able vote by Acryon. It's a very weak case, in my opinion. I'm confused how you find that so convincing as to confidently throw a "that's so easy" vote out on that slot. I'm slightly suspicious of your behaviour.

I would argue that a vote with confidence is better than one without in nearly every case. A vote with apprehension applies less pressure, implies lesser accountability, and is less likely to promote discussion than one with confidence.

That's not what I'm saying. I'm asking you to justify your crap case, not try and spin some dodgy angle about how a 'confident vote' is better.

One more chance, Acryon.

You can quit with the one more chance crap. You can dislike my case, and that's fine, but it's, as you stated, your opinion. I'm sorry that you are confused on the case or think it's bad, but I'm trying to find scum, not please Rudolph the Reindeer, so I think I'm fine. Even in its premature stages, I think it is a better case than those I've seen on others, so I'm sticking with it for now.

Cool, scum found.

Vote: Acryon

[Mathdino]

What's bugging me is why would he, as scum, go gunning for one of the more universally townread and aggressive players with an as aforementioned terribly weak case?

[Rudolph the Reindeer]

That's easy:

"I'm sorry for misreading you Cain and Able, I am not familiar with your play [or some other excuse] so I misread your posts as coming from a scum mindset. I really thought you were scum which is why I was so confident. Sorry again guys. You deserve better. "

[copper223]

That line of thinking just leads to WIFOM, does Acryon actually have a case on C+A or are his latest posts some form of bluster after he went overboard trying to look like he is scumhunting, is all I'm interested in.

[Rudolph the Reindeer]

Yeah, sure it's WIFOM, but the point I'm making here is that it's entirely possible for acryon to dismiss his case like that if he was scum.

Acryon doesn't have any kind of case against Cain and Able. None. What bothers me is he justifies his overconfidence for such a weak case with the 'I think confident votes are better...' jargon which is unrelated to what I was asking in the first place.

[GGG]

@ GGG
Also it seems that you're maintaining an argument with TexCat about lurking – but she's not voting for you at all.

Why does it matter if someone is voting for me or not if I am having a discussion about lurking? I didn't like her position that lurking was a scum tell so I pointed that out. It seems a little scummy that your expectation is that I would only respond if someone votes for me.

[Cane + Able]

acryon is derp town, but he's town.

Not a fan of the wagon.

[GGG]

I'm not particurly fond of GGG either. He walks in with a reads post stating everyone is either null or scum for arbituary reasons. Why bother making a reads post if you're just going to say half the slots are just 'null, meh', or that someone is town or scum based on 'mostly gut'? Beyond that, I don't like his posts since: most posts afterwards have been defending his scumreads or nullreads.

Also I missed this post by GGG:

Rudy, I could be reading this wrong but what over reactions to one vote are you talking about?

I voted him based on him being a hypocrite and not scumhunting, which I said earlier. His replies loaded with bad language such as 'Fuck you', 'you're the VI' and other assorted insults reassured me with the vote at the time -- that's the overreaction I'm talking about. At the time, I wasn't familiar with his meta and thus didn't know he acted like this all the time, regardless of alignment. I'm completely baffled how you found Constantine to be your strongest townread. I'm afraid I disagree.

I haven't replaced into a game before. Doing it again I wouldn't post a mass of reads. I should have posted that the crap spewing really made it difficult to make solid reads and then stuck to the few I had strong feelings about rather than try to say something about everything. Now that the game is moving I will be able to do better. The reads I have strong feelings about are as follows:

Copper: every post is a post with purpose and is scum hunting - lean town

Anen: started out with the vote lurkers argument but since then she is trying to mislead saying all my scum reads are OMGUS and now has that weird post above.

NRG : I still like that read but it is growing stale and until his replacement shows up we can't do much.

IdiotKing via Constentine. 306 as he is leaving he is still scum hunting. 277 like the concept don't necessarily agree with the read as you and md were angry at him and not his play. Was anti lynch lurker. Lots of solid stuff in between the Mothe fuckers. I see why you don't see it as you were the target of the shitstorm.

I am pretty confident in the above 4 reads. Since NRG is inactive and waiting to be replaced

unvote

VOTE: annen

For non posters it looks like
NRG
BMWS
CT
Gravity

Hopefully we get replacements soon or can extend day one if we don't get active participation soon.

[Aneninen]

What bothers me is he justifies his overconfidence for such a weak case with the 'I think confident votes are better...' jargon

(About Acryon, edited by me)

In my opinion, most Day1 cases are not very reliable. It's "cute" to call Day1 votes "confident"... If he were a newbie I'd understand it but he isn't.

Why does it matter if someone is voting for me or not if I am having a discussion about lurking? I didn't like her position that lurking was a scum tell so I pointed that out. It seems a little scummy that

your expectation is that I would only respond if someone votes for me.

I haven't told that. There's a difference between responding and over-responding.

As for your 388 – was that your complete readlist? 4 players? (Including NRG as a "confident" read and admitting that we should wait for his replacement at the same time?)
And your vote was la wow! I bet noone ever had expected it. ^_^

[Idiotking]

@IK: Does the knowledge that your slot is (presumably) town help you gather any reads when it comes to people interacting with it?

The main thing was my townread on you. C+A was quick to jump on Constantine for trying to form a townblock, but then switched over to you after deciding that you were trying to harass Constantine to create drama. Once again, this suggests C+A is either town or very competent scum, since scum would most likely want the "drama" to continue. While I don't agree with C+A that you were trying to egg Constantine on (that wouldn't make sense with your "He's a VI, ignore him" line), it does at least suggest C+A was doing some genuine scumhunting.

Pretty much everyone agreed that Constantine was a VI, but that's not informative, because it's obvious. And everyone interacted with him on that level; so knowing that Constantine was town is unhelpful, because everyone treated him the same way anyway. For the most part it was ignoring Constantine, telling him to stop arguing, or saying that townblocks are stupid. RDR is an exception to this, but that's discussed below.

You said you're townreading me for not voting Constantine. What do you make of RDR? Where'd the townread on him come from?

For RDR I like that, upon joining and seeing that nobody was really engaging with Constantine, RDR decided to talk. Then, on hearing from you that Constantine was an awful, angry player, RDR backed off and started engaging different targets. I like that mostly because it shows RDR wanted to look into someone that was being dismissed, and scumhunt there. When RDR backed off it showed that RDR wasn't simply going after Constantine to be an easy target.

Whatcha think of BMWS?

Well, before he replaced out:

My main thought was newbie town. No real substance until 193, which was entirely in defense of the Constantine "RVS" vote and then unvote. Newbie scum would be more annoying and flaily, if that makes sense; they'd be fishing for easy targets, when smarter scum would probably hold back and let the town do that part, then jump in later (or go for someone else entirely and avoid the town wagon).

Since the replace out, I'm guessing it was genuine lack of time to play more than anything. That lack of paying attention to the game would also explain not noticing C+A was a hydra, and the lack of scumhunting. So once again I'm at neutral.

I'm on-the-fence with IK's catchup post. It's very much on-the-fence in parts. I'm surprised there aren't any scumreads drawn from his analysis, or even a vote.

My last game (the only other one in two years) was disastrous for me, since I was using outdated scumhunting techniques. So this time around I'm more trying to do townreads with process of elimination, since the town game doesn't change as much as the scum one does. If I get a real strong scumread I'll of course discuss it, but I think it's reasonable to be somewhat cautious of my abilities.


On the acryon thing:

I would argue that a vote with confidence is better than one without in nearly every case. A vote with apprehension applies less pressure, implies lesser accountability, and is less likely to promote discussion than one with confidence.

I don't think that the problem is your confidence, I think everyone's problem is that it's a dumb vote with weaksauce reasoning. And this just comes off looking like town posturing. You're acting like you're stuck.

acryon is derp town, but he's town.

Could you elaborate on this? Why, in light of acryon's case against you, is acryon town?

[copper223]

@C+A

Could you elaborate on this? Why, in light of acryon's case against you, is acryon town?

Pretty much what I wanted to ask.

@IK
You say smart scum would stay on the fence until town decides to myslynch someone on their own, wouldn't your reads fit well with that kind of strategy?

@Tex
What's up?

[Cane + Able]

acryon is derp town, but he's town.

Could you elaborate on this? Why, in light of acryon's case against you, is acryon town?

His posts don't strike me as manipulative, merely ill-conceived.

He might need to steal your username, but I can't see him as scum because of it.

[acryon]

What kind of Strawman are you talking about?

I have already explained this. You and C+A both made posts that seemed to imply I made a statement to the effect of "Pastro's ban is scummy", which is, at best, grossly misrepresented by leaving out all of the qualifiers.

I would argue that a vote with confidence is better than one without in nearly every case. A vote with apprehension applies less pressure, implies lesser accountability, and is less likely to promote discussion than one with confidence.

Whoa what?

So you just argued that your own action was objectively townish? The fact that you're applying this to yourself nullifies the entire argument.

FoS: acryon

Absolutely not. This is a meta-statement. Votes with confidence are more effective for scum in a similar way.

He might need to steal your username, but I can't see him as scum because of it.

Since you're so keen on rules:

3. Do not personally insult anyone you are playing with.

Let's play nice, shall we?


To sum up my vote on C+A since no one is acknowledging I ever said anything other than the recent point:
-The slot has posted a lot about how mafia needs to be played and other meta-arguments (see 162), which is, in my experience, more often than not indicative of manipulative scum.
-Create's Strawman #1 on Mathdino in 101.
-Create's Strawman #2 on me, regarding Pastro's ban. Continued to try and push it and misrepresent me despite my reiteration multiple times that I did not say what he was trying to make it look like I did.
-Only scum gains when people are misrepresented, and C+A misrepresented both Mathdino and myself on separate occasions.
-C+A proclaimed themselves as a slot that likes to call out crappy arguments. This persona seemed to continue when GGG called them town for no reason, but then the response came which was extremely weak, and C+A simply accepted it. I then asked how the explanation was good at all, and they replied "gut." Which, 1) is not an answer to whether something is a good explanation or not, and 2) seems to reject the persona of a player that pushes people to make better arguments and tears down weak ones.

Sorry Rudolph, I know you were really hoping I was going to make up some excuse to jump off of this, but I have reasons for my vote being here, and I believe they are better than the reasons for keeping it elsewhere.

[Aneninen]

I've read your case, Acryon. Right now I'm allowed to tell you: I can't see a scummy House-head. It's a kind of "House is being House" read from my side. I've never played with the other head before.

[Mathdino]

Gonna have to agree with E.B.O.N.Y. and Ivory here, and here's the thing.

Your case is good and well structured. However, those things don't necessarily point to scum and if you actually read through C+A, it's a very townish ISO.
Which makes me think you're trying to twist C+A to put one of the more aggressive players in your lynchpool.

[texcat]

The thing that worries me about C+A is that Constantine originally declared them part of the bloc, and they didn't immediately say, huh? or no! or even hmmm not a good idea. I still have a town read on C+A, but that bloc thing is still a niggling doubt.

[GGG]

Here is a list of times already where C+B has tried (in some form) to tell everyone how they need to play the game. And there were more in the block near the end, but I got tired.

Scum tends to pay attention to pre/early game happenings for scheming and reputation building purposes.

Town doesn't have much to do pre-game and may miss out on details.

A bit early for associative tells.

-House

Never too early for townslip because those are often done in a single derp post.

Associative tells develop over time. Everyone will be interacting in interesting ways until we feel each other out.

BMWS isn't being lynched today, and quite likely not tomorrow unless he derps pretty hard.

-House

Manipulating a player's playstyle to fuel drama and trying to fabricate associative tells on the first page of the first day is pretty blatant scum play.

VOTE: Mathdino

Discussion of ongoing games is not game content. It should be taken directly to the game or list mods.

Accusations of rule breaking should be made via PM to the mods

to avoid this very scenario

.

Cease discussing ongoing games

now

.

No. Outside actions are not alignment indicative.

-House (past three C&A posts)

Besides, isn't it against some rule to use outside factors to claim someone's alignment?

Feels like you are in inappropriate territory and you need to stop.

-House

And for that last post, I'll just point you to a post you should be plenty familiar with:

Accusations of rule breaking should be made via PM to the mods to avoid this very scenario.

Going back through Arcy. I don't know what to make of this post. I don't really agree that this is telling people how to play? Arcy can you reiterate why this is scummy again.

[Cane + Able]

The thing that worries me about C+A is that Constantine originally declared them part of the bloc, and they didn't immediately say, huh? or no! or even hmmm not a good idea. I still have a town read on C+A, but that bloc thing is still a niggling doubt.

Right, now tell us what the very first post was once the game actually started. Then proceed to hide your embarrassment at missing something so obvious.

- House

[Mathdino]

VOTE: Aneninen
for asking to be in a townbloc.

VOTE: Constantine

Because forming townbloc..