Mini 1625: Redemption (Game Over)

[droog]

You suggested in 648 you'd already explained
I suggested you hadn't
You then suggested you had... In 648

[Flames682]

@Mod replace me

[GGG]

I really don't like AWAs voting because he sees flubs as anti town and he keeps pushing it as a good tactic so he has gone from null to lean scum, this could just be misguided town though so I need more from him. Not a day 1 lynch for me.

Can you explain to me why voting for an anti-town player is worse than not voting, which is my only other option at the moment, since I don't have any definitive scum reads? To me, the order of danger to the town goes: Scum > Anti-town > Neutral > Town. If I can't be sure of someone being scum, then anti-town becomes my highest choice for removing danger to the town.

People in this game have done scummy things. You should be voting for who you think is the scummiest. The problem with your logic is that you are never sure someone's scum so therefore will never vote for a scummy person.

Do you find anything scummy about flubs posting?

[GGG]

Naiomi,

How do crazies vote, posting, and content differ from the average.

Also it appears that you picked out crazy

did a bunch of fake graphs,

then fit the data and the argument to your pre-existing suspicions.

Have you benchmarked this system in other games say by taking 10 games, do this type of analysis and predicting scum based on it. How much better than luck is this type of pseudo analysis.

I would suggest in general to drop the spreadsheets and focus on content.

Just going back to this one; the graphs are not fake, you can confirm ALL the data your self, its below the graphs in plain view, Please don't misrepresent my graphs, they take alot of time to build partially when examining someones attacks, self defend, null, informative and defence posts, that took the best part of 4 hours.

Sorry, I shouldn't have said fake, I should have said that the data doesn't support any conclusions.

Without baseline data of to what produces scummy stats the stats only identify a posters posting style. I appreciate the effort but think your effort could be better directed at finding the scummy posts and connections between people rather than trying to find meaning in percentage of posts and post to vote ratios.

[Naomi-Tan]

Naiomi,

How do crazies vote, posting, and content differ from the average.

Also it appears that you picked out crazy

did a bunch of fake graphs,

then fit the data and the argument to your pre-existing suspicions.

Have you benchmarked this system in other games say by taking 10 games, do this type of analysis and predicting scum based on it. How much better than luck is this type of pseudo analysis.

I would suggest in general to drop the spreadsheets and focus on content.

Just going back to this one; the graphs are not fake, you can confirm ALL the data your self, its below the graphs in plain view, Please don't misrepresent my graphs, they take alot of time to build partially when examining someones attacks, self defend, null, informative and defence posts, that took the best part of 4 hours.

Sorry, I shouldn't have said fake, I should have said that the data doesn't support any conclusions.

Without baseline data of to what produces scummy stats the stats only identify a posters posting style. I appreciate the effort but think your effort could be better directed at finding the scummy posts and connections between people rather than trying to find meaning in percentage of posts and post to vote ratios.

Well lurking is scummy
Only attacking others without showing your view points Is pretty scummy
Train Hoping is pretty scummy

and the charts showed all 3 to be true.... so theoretically, its true

[Flubbernugget]

Cp/oc??/awa scumteam.

Elaborate?

This is a very brazen thing to ask from your "read the thread" high horse.

[AWA]

I really don't like AWAs voting because he sees flubs as anti town and he keeps pushing it as a good tactic so he has gone from null to lean scum, this could just be misguided town though so I need more from him. Not a day 1 lynch for me.

Can you explain to me why voting for an anti-town player is worse than not voting, which is my only other option at the moment, since I don't have any definitive scum reads? To me, the order of danger to the town goes: Scum > Anti-town > Neutral > Town. If I can't be sure of someone being scum, then anti-town becomes my highest choice for removing danger to the town.

People in this game have done scummy things.

That is an matter of opinion.

You should be voting for who you think is the scummiest. The problem with your logic is that you are never sure someone's scum so therefore will never vote for a scummy person.

Do you find anything scummy about flubs posting?

The person I think is scummiest is the person that I think is helping the scum the most, be they actual scum or not. This is completely in line with what I have been saying all along.

I really don't like AWAs voting because he sees flubs as anti town and he keeps pushing it as a good tactic so he has gone from null to lean scum, this could just be misguided town though so I need more from him. Not a day 1 lynch for me.

Can you explain to me why voting for an anti-town player is worse than not voting, which is my only other option at the moment, since I don't have any definitive scum reads? To me, the order of danger to the town goes: Scum > Anti-town > Neutral > Town. If I can't be sure of someone being scum, then anti-town becomes my highest choice for removing danger to the town.

People in this game have done scummy things. You should be voting for who you think is the scummiest. The problem with your logic is that you are never sure someone's scum so therefore will never vote for a scummy person.

Do you find anything scummy about flubs posting?

Cp/oc??/awa scumteam.

Elaborate?

This is a very brazen thing to ask from your "read the thread" high horse.

The difference here being that whenever I post a conclusion that I draw, I provide the steps of reasoning within that same post. You, on the other hand, simply state a conclusion(?) without any supporting evidence, leaving everyone to read your post and come to their own conclusions, which, since you poisoned the well with your own assertion, will likely be skewed toward your own stated conclusion. It's a classic example to psychological manipulation, which some people might not have recognized but which I won't fall for.

[GGG]

I really don't like AWAs voting because he sees flubs as anti town and he keeps pushing it as a good tactic so he has gone from null to lean scum, this could just be misguided town though so I need more from him. Not a day 1 lynch for me.

Can you explain to me why voting for an anti-town player is worse than not voting, which is my only other option at the moment, since I don't have any definitive scum reads? To me, the order of danger to the town goes: Scum > Anti-town > Neutral > Town. If I can't be sure of someone being scum, then anti-town becomes my highest choice for removing danger to the town.

People in this game have done scummy things.

That is an matter of opinion.

You should be voting for who you think is the scummiest. The problem with your logic is that you are never sure someone's scum so therefore will never vote for a scummy person.

Do you find anything scummy about flubs posting?

The person I think is scummiest is the person that I think is helping the scum the most, be they actual scum or not. This is completely in line with what I have been saying all along.

I really don't like AWAs voting because he sees flubs as anti town and he keeps pushing it as a good tactic so he has gone from null to lean scum, this could just be misguided town though so I need more from him. Not a day 1 lynch for me.

Can you explain to me why voting for an anti-town player is worse than not voting, which is my only other option at the moment, since I don't have any definitive scum reads? To me, the order of danger to the town goes: Scum > Anti-town > Neutral > Town. If I can't be sure of someone being scum, then anti-town becomes my highest choice for removing danger to the town.

People in this game have done scummy things. You should be voting for who you think is the scummiest. The problem with your logic is that you are never sure someone's scum so therefore will never vote for a scummy person.

Do you find anything scummy about flubs posting?

Cp/oc??/awa scumteam.

Elaborate?

This is a very brazen thing to ask from your "read the thread" high horse.

The difference here being that whenever I post a conclusion that I draw, I provide the steps of reasoning within that same post. You, on the other hand, simply state a conclusion(?) without any supporting evidence, leaving everyone to read your post and come to their own conclusions, which, since you poisoned the well with your own assertion, will likely be skewed toward your own stated conclusion. It's a classic example to psychological manipulation, which some people might not have recognized but which I won't fall for.

So AWA, you see nothing that would indicate mafia alignment with flubs. It is purely because he is a distraction to the town and allows town to hide.

[droog]

I refuse to let you dictate the flow of my posts. You accuse me of moving the goalposts, yet you yourself are never satisfied by my responses, all of which have been backed up by quotes and evidence, while you do nothing except restate the same words over and over. It's like talking to a broken record. You're not going to drag me into an endless loop of explaining the same things over and over just to satisfy you because you are apparently incapable of critical thinking or basic reading comprehension. I'm done with you until you actually post some meaningful content. Don't think I don't take note of your pressure vote, either; you won't succeed at baiting me.

i explain my exact problem with you
and you ignore it
because youve already declared you're ignoring me
a classic example of physchological manipulation
which i wont fall for like all those other dumb people

[droog]

The difference here being that whenever I post a conclusion that I draw, I provide the steps of reasoning within that same post. You, on the other hand, simply state a conclusion(?) without any supporting evidence, leaving everyone to read your post and come to their own conclusions, which, since you poisoned the well with your own assertion, will likely be skewed toward your own stated conclusion. It's a classic example to psychological manipulation, which some people might not have recognized but which I won't fall for.

i mean, seriously?
do i have to state out exactly where you have done the same thing you accuse flubber of

[droog]

When it comes to this game, I see no significant difference between abetting scum by being flagrantly anti-town and true scum.

reminder that ignoring cases
is flagrantly anti-town

[AWA]

I really don't like AWAs voting because he sees flubs as anti town and he keeps pushing it as a good tactic so he has gone from null to lean scum, this could just be misguided town though so I need more from him. Not a day 1 lynch for me.

Can you explain to me why voting for an anti-town player is worse than not voting, which is my only other option at the moment, since I don't have any definitive scum reads? To me, the order of danger to the town goes: Scum > Anti-town > Neutral > Town. If I can't be sure of someone being scum, then anti-town becomes my highest choice for removing danger to the town.

People in this game have done scummy things. You should be voting for who you think is the scummiest. The problem with your logic is that you are never sure someone's scum so therefore will never vote for a scummy person.

Do you find anything scummy about flubs posting?

Cp/oc??/awa scumteam.

Elaborate?

This is a very brazen thing to ask from your "read the thread" high horse.

I really don't like AWAs voting because he sees flubs as anti town and he keeps pushing it as a good tactic so he has gone from null to lean scum, this could just be misguided town though so I need more from him. Not a day 1 lynch for me.

Can you explain to me why voting for an anti-town player is worse than not voting, which is my only other option at the moment, since I don't have any definitive scum reads? To me, the order of danger to the town goes: Scum > Anti-town > Neutral > Town. If I can't be sure of someone being scum, then anti-town becomes my highest choice for removing danger to the town.

People in this game have done scummy things.

That is an matter of opinion.

You should be voting for who you think is the scummiest. The problem with your logic is that you are never sure someone's scum so therefore will never vote for a scummy person.

Do you find anything scummy about flubs posting?

The person I think is scummiest is the person that I think is helping the scum the most, be they actual scum or not. This is completely in line with what I have been saying all along.

I really don't like AWAs voting because he sees flubs as anti town and he keeps pushing it as a good tactic so he has gone from null to lean scum, this could just be misguided town though so I need more from him. Not a day 1 lynch for me.

Can you explain to me why voting for an anti-town player is worse than not voting, which is my only other option at the moment, since I don't have any definitive scum reads? To me, the order of danger to the town goes: Scum > Anti-town > Neutral > Town. If I can't be sure of someone being scum, then anti-town becomes my highest choice for removing danger to the town.

People in this game have done scummy things. You should be voting for who you think is the scummiest. The problem with your logic is that you are never sure someone's scum so therefore will never vote for a scummy person.

Do you find anything scummy about flubs posting?

Cp/oc??/awa scumteam.

Elaborate?

This is a very brazen thing to ask from your "read the thread" high horse.

The difference here being that whenever I post a conclusion that I draw, I provide the steps of reasoning within that same post. You, on the other hand, simply state a conclusion(?) without any supporting evidence, leaving everyone to read your post and come to their own conclusions, which, since you poisoned the well with your own assertion, will likely be skewed toward your own stated conclusion. It's a classic example to psychological manipulation, which some people might not have recognized but which I won't fall for.

So AWA, you see nothing that would indicate mafia alignment with flubs. It is purely because he is a distraction to the town and allows town to hide.

The only person that I would consider having a strong scumread on right now is droog, but God forbid I switch my vote (BACK) to him since that would obviously be nothing more than OMGUS, even though I had my vote on him in the first place. As of this moment, behind droog, Flubber is the person who I believe is the most dangerous to the town, from a metagaming perspective, and so I am voting for him. To answer your question directly, yes, I see nothing that would outright scream to me that he is mafia, however there is nothing that screams to me that ANYONE currently playing is mafia, because it is day one. Again, the only person that I think is remotely beyond that is droog, but I am well aware of how it would seem to switch my vote back to him after our recent exchanges. I do note that droog managed to slip in a vote on me while attacking my read on another player. I also note that droog has been extremely tunnel-visioned on me for the past hundred posts or so.

[AWA]

When it comes to this game, I see no significant difference between abetting scum by being flagrantly anti-town and true scum.

reminder that ignoring cases
is flagrantly anti-town

Then you have committed the same crime I have, by ignoring my cases.

[droog]

awa why do you care what people think of you
if im your top scumread vote me

[droog]

where the fuck did i do that

[AWA]

Literally the only thing you have ever said in my prosecution has been that since I apparently said that "anti-town = scum" that I was scum. That is your entire case. I have since shown that not only do I not believe that, but I have never said that. Yet you still continue to parrot the same accusations against me.

I'm interested to see what other people think of our interactions. I note that even the people who aren't on V/LA have been remarkable quiet.

[droog]

so an awa recap:

before this conversation:
- i scumspect you for 'flubber is antitown = flubber is scum'

after this conversation:
- i scumspect you for 'flubber is antitown = flubber is scum'
- i scumspect you for pretending you only ever said 'flubbel is antitown'
- i scumspect you for suggesting you responded to a point you actually didnt

[GGG]

Right now, my two highest candiatess are Flubber and Droog, Flubber for causing anti-town chaos and Droog for not only encouraging that sort of chaos, but for pointing a finger at those who call it out. Flubber's 524 is exactly the kind of misdirection and poisoning the well that I'm talking about. Also notice the buddy-buddy with Droog; I could easily see a scumbuddy relationship there.

This is as close a AWA comes to calling flubbs scum.

[droog]

It's clear that Flubber is just trying to add chaos and confusion to the game, and I don't particularly care about the reason. That kind of posting style, behavior, and language serves only to distract from the true goal of the game, which is to eliminate the scum. Creating distractions OF ANY KIND supports the scum. That is why I am in favor of removing Flubber from the game.

"flubber is anti-town = scummy"
is a fair characterization of this post

im not even touching that i disagree with the basic idea
ive seen it be true

my original reason for touching this post was that it seemed like a horribly convenient moment
for scum to push on a growing wagon

[droog]

Flubber conveniently handwaves my entire post, without actually addressing anything in it, and then proceeds to make assertions with no backup, and THEN continues to use uncalled-for language and continues to spam post. These things may seem innocuous now, but over the course of a full game they become nonproductive at best, and anti-town at worst.

Vote: Flubbernugget

this is calling flubber scummy
for being anti-town

[droog]

It's clear that Flubber is just trying to add chaos and confusion to the game, and I don't particularly care about the reason. That kind of posting style, behavior, and language serves only to distract from the true goal of the game, which is to eliminate the scum. Creating distractions OF ANY KIND supports the scum. That is why I am in favor of removing Flubber from the game.

This reeks of scum
Scum would be pretty happy with this "gay is a slur" nonsense
It gives them a chance to be genuine
Which scum will take for all it's worth

You're trying to justify a lynch as though flubber is making the ruckus
He's not.

here is my explanation of why awa's behavior is scummy
((you know, the explanation she said i never gave))

[GGG]

Wow I'm a lot more tired than I thought I was. I wanted to make a big post but I don't really want to do a point-by-point of the eight pages that happened since my last post, so I'll just give my general impressions here:

Whomping Willow:

I'm glad that he's decided to start contributing, and his contributions have some content. That said, I don't have any particular leaning either way: I don't necessarily gather a scum vibe from him, but I haven't gotten any clear town tells from him either. My stance: Neutral. (Side note: I explicitly didn't vote for you in RVS because I dislike RVS in general; especially in this forum format where people may vote and then be away for an extended period, a person may be mistakenly lynched due to an RVS vote that would otherwise have been prevented in a different format. IGMEOY does the same thing, perhaps slightly less strongly, without the chance of mislynch).

Originalchris:

My inclination here is scum. By 219 Willow had been posting several content posts, none of which I personally got a scum tell from. His entire case against Willow appears to be the "scumtell of the year" (commenting on the word "anyway"), and an apparent obsession with deflection, which is a convenient counter to almost any response and which can be both confusing and frustrating for the town. He also seems to be of an extremes mindset, by which I mean that if someone is accused to scum, then reasonable doubt is not enough to save, them, but rather we must go beyond a shadow of a doubt. This can be very dangerous later in the game, where a scum player can simply put a random town up for examination, and then cast doubt to create the lynch. My stance: Neutral.

Pedit: 370 is a great post. I don't necessarily agree with everything in it, but that he posted some more content is great, something that everyone should do, instead of posting fluff in order to look active.

crazypianist1116:

Despite him asking both myself and kuror0 to post more, he has almost no posts of content. The only one I could find is 170, but it is a very important post. I agree that if Munkir were not town, he would not have asked the question, though there are indeed some strange things with his post style (more on him later though). Not enough content here. My stance: Neutral.

Pedit: 373 is great, similar to 370 above. Again, I disagree with some of the points, but more content = good.

istott:

I'd say that the most important interaction here is Riddleton's fake dayvig (actually had to look up what that was, had no clue that that even existed), his reaction to it, and his reaction to the aftermath. In my opinion, his reaction was fairly normal for a town, though a properly skilled scum player could fake it fairly easily I suppose. In order to arrive at this conclusion, we have to look at what a scum would do:

Istott, having no knowledge of whether there was in fact a dayvig, has three options: Post a claim saying that he he's town, post a claim admitting to scum, or not posting at all and waiting to see if there was a mod announcement.

Iif he thinks there is indeed a dayvig, then:

-Claiming town as scum does nothing; he's already dead. Claiming town as town also does nothing.
-Claiming scum as scum does nothing; he's already dead. Claiming scum as town is stupid.
-Therefore posting nothing is the only sensible response. He did not post nothing, so he must have thought that there was not a dayvig. Therefore:

-Claiming town as scum could possibly save him. Claiming town as town could also save him.
-Claiming scum as scum would do nothing. Claiming scum as town is stupid.
-Posting nothing would lead to an accusation of dodging, although we don't know if the mod would immediately make an announcement of death, so it might lead to an examination to see if the dayvig actually existed based on mod response (or lack thereof).

The only conclusion that it is possible to draw is that istott did not think that there was a dayvig, but felt compelled to respond in the only logical manner, which was to claim town. This does not tell us anything about his role in and of itself, and I'm not experienced enough at reading forced tells to make a judgment on 192. That said, he seems rather chilly in ISO 29-33. I don't know whether to label this as a scum trying to imitate a town keeping their emotions down, or the genuine article. Basically, my read is that I have no clear reads, however IGMEOY. My stance: Neutral.

Naomi-Tan:

Her biggest post by far is 245, although 22 and 165 warrant consideration.

22: I agree somewhat that acting newbish and naive in the beginning seemed like a possible smokescreen, but in my opinion she has since shown enough caution and general competence to be disavowed of that defense. I also share her views toward RVS in general, so I'm glad that she wanted to move on as soon as possible.

165: There are lots of words here, but not much content. You say that 94 (you said 92 but meant 94) was a possibly-good, possibly-bad post, which is convenient waffling. You also state your ideas on how a point-by-point post should be structured, which doesn't really tell us anything at all. Moral of the story here is that lots of words does not mean lots of content.

245: Another big post with very little actual content. The most important things are right at the end: She lists several negative things about originalchris, yet also states that she doesn't see him as scummy, and then proceeds to vote GGG for not talking, where her vote still stands, despite him actually posting several comments, both before and after her vote, of meaningful content.

My big problem with Naomi is that she tends to talk a lot but say very little. This can be detrimental in the long run, but I don't really get a scum vibe from it, either. That said, I haven't seen any town tells. My stance: Neutral.

Munkir:

Almost entirely no content at all. The most curious thing that I see is that in 323, he uses the term WIFOM. Either Naomi is giving him coaching (which I'm not particularly fond of in principle) or he's more familiar with the game than would be expected of a true newbie (in which case he has been obfuscating stupidity). Either way, while I haven't seen any explicit scum tells, I'm uneasy about this player. My stance: Neutral, but IGMEOY.

droog:

The first thing I have to say is that I really dislike his posting style. It reminds me of Runescape, and there's really no point to it on a forum where posts can be typed out in their entirety and be made grammatically correct. However, that doesn't really have a bearing on the game, and since he seems to be consistent with using that style over his previous games, I don't believe that there is some kind of posting restriction associated with his role.

His "plan" to prod out Riddleton as his neighbor was kind of strained and his reaction was very disproportionate. Can someone clarify to me if neighbors necessarily know the other neighbor's role? If so, then I could see a scum's attempt at a fake bus backfiring. Other than this, he's posted almost nothing of any substance. His freakout gave me a very negative vibe. My stance: Scum.

GGG:

He brings up a good point about the isott-Riddleton dayvig exchange, which I hadn't considered. However, it would only be able to be staged if the scum were able to communicate outside of the thread. Is this possible? I'm not sure how the neighbor mechanic works (I had to look it up when analyzing droog above). I sort of agree with him about Riddleton bailing too easily on the fake dayvig. I don't know if it's enough to make me vote, since as I said such a ploy would only be possible if they were able to communicate, which we don't know is possible. So far, I get at least a neutral feeling, leaning toward town. My stance: Town.

AWA:

obvious scum pls lynch.

kuror0:

No content. I certainly understand the time problem, since I've been rather sparse myself, but with only one post so far it's very difficult to get any kind of read. My stance: Neutral.

Riddleton:

His dayvig test really unsettles me. It seems very forced, and he gives it up very quickly for something that is by nature only usable once per game. However, Like I said above, it's hard to see how this could be construed as scummy UNLESS he and istott were both scum, AND could have communicated outside of the thread. IGMEOY. My stance: Neutral, dependent on my views toward istott.

Flames682:

Just to address something that happened WAY back and has already been moved on from, I didn't IGMEOY Willow for bandwagoning GGG, but for bandwagoning Riddleton in the beginning. This sounds dumb, but I got to the bottom of the first page of posts and didn't realize that there were more pages before I replied (it's been a long time since I've post on any kind of message board).

What I really don't like about him is that ISO 28-65 is all fluff, there's absolutely zero content whatsoever. In addition, his only other useful substance relates to the istott-Riddleton exchange (which I've already gone over several time); he jumps on istott for reacting in the only possible way he could have reacted (see above) and puts a vote down on top of that. Combined with his general rude and aggressive attitude and posting style, I get a negative vibe from him. Perhaps lower on my list than others, but still suspicious. My stance: Scum.

Flubbernugget:

First things first: Your avatar creeps me out. A lot. I would appreciate it if you would change it, but if you don't I'll live.

In regards to his content, there is actually very little here to go off of. The only thing is a vote on droog for his overreaction to the "hammer" on Riddleton (where it still stands, by the way). The vote itself is innocuous, in my opinion; less so is the fact that it still stands, without any reasonable justification, and in fact an explicit refusal to justify it. All of his other posts have been fluff. My stance: Scum.

---

To sum up, I think that there are some people who lean further toward scum than others, and some people who are VERY tenuously on the fence, but who can easily fall one way or the other. For now, I think I will

Vote: droog

. His Riddleton hammer response and subsequent neighbor claim both seemed contrived. However, depending on how the next few pages of discussion go, I could easily see this vote switching to Riddleton/istott or Flubber.

Tag fixed
~Mod

I am flip flopping back and forth on you. In your first reads post you have flubbs, flames and droog as scum. Now you are saying you have no scum read on flubbs and it is basically lynching someone anti town.

Why the change from scum reading flubs to him just being anti town.

[droog]

im going to shut up now
both to give you the chance to respond
and to let you focus elsewhere on the off chance you somehow are town

but this is a happy wagon i want to lynch. today.

[Whomping Willow]

Okay so Oc can lurk his way to day 2 for now

VOTE: AWA

[Flubbernugget]

Cp/oc??/awa scumteam.

Elaborate?

This is a very brazen thing to ask from your "read the thread" high horse.

The difference here being that whenever I post a conclusion that I draw, I provide the steps of reasoning within that same post. You, on the other hand, simply state a conclusion(?) without any supporting evidence, leaving everyone to read your post and come to their own conclusions, which, since you poisoned the well with your own assertion, will likely be skewed toward your own stated conclusion. It's a classic example to psychological manipulation, which some people might not have recognized but which I won't fall for.

Prove to me you're reading the thread.

Which of my three scum reads have I not posted evidence on.

I'll give you a hint. It's only one.