Mini 1625: Redemption (Game Over)

[DrippingGoofball]

Not feeling Willow anymore. Don't want AWA lynch.

VOTE: Flubbernugget

[GGG]

I've got a few people saying they would be fine with me being lynched, but no votes and no reasons why. Why?

POE for me, but I will iso you before casting a vote. I have some work this afternoon and then I'll get to it.

If its POE for you what people have you cleared as town in order to POE istott

Dripping i want an explanation for this post. Also why flubber?

[GGG]

@Istot
2- i would like to see your reads today.
3- sorry you didnt, not sure where i got that from

[Flubbernugget]

V/LA family illness

[GuyInFreezer]

VC 1.11

Whomping Willow (2):

Originalchris, AWA

DrippingGoofball (1):

kuror0

Flubbernugget (3):

crazypianist1116, GGG, DrippingGoofball

AWA (4):

droog, Whomping Willow, Munkir, Flubbernugget

droog (1):

Naomi-Tan

Not Voting:

istott, TierShift

The deadline is Nov. 30, 9:40 AM EST.
Countdown: (expired on 2014-11-30 09:40:00)

[crazypianist1116]

Hey DGB want to give us some reads? Maybe reasons behind why you voted?

[TierShift]

I'm very uneasy about Flubber's unwillingness to commit to reading large posts, which in my opinion are the kinds of posts that most often contain valuable information, on many levels. The arguments he is constructing are also very weak, and he seems to be very liberal with his vote, something that I am against philosophically. FoS: Flubber.

Blleeeeeeeegh, awful post. Trying to justify himself too much. Also, is this the best you could comment on?

Flames: Get stronger glasses, then. Reading a wall is no different than reading a book. You HAVE read a book, yes?

False. A post on MS is supposed to have a purpose, while a book is supposed to enjoy the reader. If you're making a fluffy wall, you're not getting your point across and it's hard to read.

Spoiler:

I don't like this. Backing your votes up with numbers is easy for scum as they don't have to justify their thought processes. The numbers can also be manipulated (putting focus on other criteria because on one criterium your scumbuddy is the most scummy)

This is one of the most ridiculous posts I have ever seen. You specifically denounce providing justification or explanation behind actions. This is a trend that I notice with you, droog, and Flubber. WHY ON EARTH is it considered a valid playstyle to NOT provide justification for your thoughts and actions? Tier is slowly creeping up my scumlist for the crime of behaving exactly like droog, who is also on my scumlist.

On the contrary, I'm laying out my thought processes. I do not know what you are seeing.

I could see myself ending up on this. Iioa is pretty much the only long-standing-but-golden scumtell I know. And I disagree with pretty much all his stances.

I am insulted that you call my posts IioA. I present a lot of information, this is true. I also provide a lot of analysis. To say that I post

only

information with

no

analysis (which is the actual tell of an IioA "scumtell") is false and unfair.

I can show you scum saying these words. Do you want links to prove it?

Yes. I would also like you to prove that I only give information, with no analysis. The name of the fallacy is Information Instead of Analysis, not Information With Analysis, or Analysis, or Information. I get it, I post a lot of words, that doesn't mean you can automatically write it off as a scumtell that also happens to be one of the easiest ways to mislabel players like myself. And in case you feel like doing any real homework, go through my meta and realize that I post this way in every game I play.

Your posts are very high on information and very low on analysis; this makes it seem that you are doing mroe than you actually are. I'll have a glance at some of your games later.

[TierShift]

@awa:

Spoiler: scum saying lolno I'm not IIoa lol

-#354...this is why I'm voting Rob. He was on the wagon. I find it extremely unlikely that there wasn't scum on the wagon, and Rob's interaction with it looks really bad to me. I'd like Beck to give a read on Rob now....and then he does later and votes him.

-#408 is more hypocrisy from Rob, which I've pointed out before but he's really sticking to it.

-#422 is obviously wrong. So obviously wrong it makes me think it's scum reaching for reasoning for their vote. He says Hop declared intent to hammer before shos refused to claim, therefore he doesn't believe that Hop changed his mind as a result of shos not claiming. What Hop was saying -- quite obviously, I might add -- was that he decided to hammer shos because shos wouldn't claim, not that he declared intent to hammer because shos wouldn't claim. Declaring intent to hammer and actually hammering are two very different things.

You know what else is convenient? Voting for the most obvious lynch choice D1, then voting for the person who hammered the mislynch the next day.

I see a post with mostly IIoA, just like tool's previous posts.

I see a post with mostly IIoA, just like tool's previous posts.

I'd like you to expand on how my posts have been IIoA, because I feel like I've been analyzing plenty.

I'm -Eek_ I'm a Belgian -_-
Needless to say, we were nightkilled and scumtoolenduso lived to endgame.

[TierShift]

> Lots of Vote Switching - This is scummy as train hoping, and flip-flop voting are generally a scum tatic to try and get more pressure on townies and hope the other lynch them.
> Lurking - This prevents town getting a good read on them, and if combined with dense attacking posts, or posts talking about stuff that is pretty much dead and burried can lead people to thinking they are actively contributing
> Content indicative of scum (High Offence, and Self Defence, not much defence of others) - Scum don't tend to defend as much as town, and instead stay on the offence as much as possible to spread malice and try to push for lynches, the more suttle put 1 or 2 good points and a vote on it and let town carry on the discussions.

Do you believe in this? I don't think any of the three are scumtells and I'd like you to explain why they are.

I quickly looked through some of your older games and you never used this numbers-approach nor this "I don't really know what I'm doing but I'm trying"-thing. Why is it that you feel like you don't know what you are doing here and scumhunt with numbers, when you've never done so before?

[TierShift]

I'm not saying it's a bad thing, but perhaps looking at word count would be a bit more of an indicator of what you're trying to figure out when you accuse me of "lurking"

That is a very good point. NaomiTan herself posts a large amount of wall posts. It would be a good idea to factor that in.

This post is very awkward. It completely misses the context of what is happening and is an effective fencesit.

VOTE: CrazyPianist

This needs to die.

MEEEEEEHHHH, bad.

I hate it. It's a terrible overreaction from one usually as calm and cool as he usually is. Why couldn't he just post "being inactive isn't a scumtell" as he did in 500 and just move on? From his perspective, if he was town, he would think, "lol, derpy town is voting for me with flawed logic! Let's say why and then resume scumhunting".

I think his overreaction is not an overreaction, it's an annoyed jab at naomi-tan. You're trying to paint it as if he freaks out over being voted, which is obviously not the case.

VOTE: crazypianist1116

I can write this off as a newb-vote.

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.

This honestly says a lot about your posting style.

Either way theres nothing in that wall that provokes discussion. Very safe.

Also I like droog's posting style tyvm.

This is basically what the IIoA means. You're so thin on analysis that you will not butt heads with anyone and just glide past. I like flub.

[TierShift]

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.

goodpost

Naomi has presented the most spectacular case of IIoA I have ever seen.

yeah

If the mods don't replace flubbs I am okay with a policy lynch on him. Regardless of alignment I don't want to play with someone who is intentionally using homophobic slurs.

grow a thicker hide

If the mods don't replace flubbs I am okay with a policy lynch on him. Regardless of alignment I don't want to play with someone who is intentionally using homophobic slurs.

^^^^^^This.

GROW A THICKER HIDE

flubber and pianist are both trolls
but when each one talks i like their position better
thinking its definietly not town v town
leaning toward pianist being the scum

why do you think it's not town v town? I don't get it.
Last time I saw you say this it was town v town.

[TierShift]

Wow Flubbernugget, you're terrible.

I don't like the whomp wagon, essentially people are voting for him because he is an ass.

No, shut the fuck up.

WHAT THE FUCK

or is it that gays need unique protection
and that is not patronizing at all

I like you on a personal level

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.

AWWWW THIS POST NO
"I'm doing my duty as town by removing this player from the game"
NO

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.

THANKS

[Naomi-Tan]

Well deadline is approaching and with no one having much to say I guess there isn't much to say to prevent AWA's Lynch, Im looking forward to seeing how this reflects on people post flip though.

[TierShift]

Well too bad for Riddle he was still my strongest scum read and was planing to push for his full reads tomorrow since he said he would do it in post 474 and has been more than a day since he promised that, yet he participated in the whole slur thing without any meaningful input.

GGG I'm checking constantly but most of today's conversation was about something Im not interesting in dealing whit, so nothing to add there. I will participate as I see fit or when i see things i can use, and was hoping ww, flame, droog and OC would finish their discussion, hopefully without as much aggression as before because they are the ones deeper in a gray area on my reads so far. Will check tomorrow the wiki to know what this neighbor thing is, because as i said before i have no clue what mechanics does that involve and clearing that up should clear my mind as to what to do next, also Riddle being replaced doesn't help.

this is so town

Unvote

I think i did that right

As of right now I have no scum reads only a vague idea of what I'm looking for and who I'm looking at

I think its one of those cases of "I will know it when I see it"

this is probably town

Ok this is most likely a stupid question but why can i see titles under peoples names they surely can't be correct can they?

If so then I think I'm seeing something I'm not suppose to see

I'm going to leave this here and see what other people think since nobody commented on it at the time. Munkir's subtitle is Townsperson. He seems inexperienced enough for this post to be a legitimate question. If he weren't town, he wouldn't have asked the question, seeing the contradiction with his own role.

That being said the rest of his posts have virtually no content and I would have had him on my leaning scum list. Not sure how to feel.

This post here is why crazy is currently in my leaning town list.

You guys are boring. I'll make a proper post later

Oh my goodness he talks. And doesn't say anything except saying we're all boring. Amazing. I can imagine his next post now:

"Guys, I was just trying to get information in RVS. I did and you're clearly all scummy."

Pro-tip willow, your actions were pretty anti-town.

But In isoing him I don't like this post. He is presupposing the next argument to make whomping look worse then he is.

Flubbs, what is your case on CP. I am not seeing it in your ISO?

I saw his inconsistent tone as a red flag and dropped a naked vote to see what would happen. He completely lost his shit and got way too defensive. He can make any case he wants but his intentions scream self preservation over scumhunting.

What inconsistent tone. Could you identify which posts show a change in tone?

I identify exactly with the three posts above. However much I hate to say this, GGG is probably town.

something about ishtott has been ringing hollow lately
maybe ill do an iso through him

still dont like awa
ochrist hasnt bugged me in a while

I like this.

[TierShift]

I must agree with AWA that he has IIoA'd like crazy as town before, as illustrated below.

Spoiler:

Subject: Mini 999 - Isolated Mafia (Game Over)

So here's my long-awaited post. As it comprises the content of a week's worth of posts, it's going to be long. If you don't like that, get over it.

The format will be as follows: I will go down the list of players in the order they appear in the OP, and I will do a rough PBPA of each. I will analyze each player pseudo-chronologically, that is, if I analyze an earlier post, any later amendments excepting EBWOP's will not be regarded in my analysis. Actual analysis will look like this:

Post ###: Analysis goes here.

Also, I will only address the parts of each which I feel warrant attention; if you want me to address a specific part of a post which i have neglected, please tell me and I will be glad to do so.

I'll try to not include as much theory in this post as possible to keep it as clear as possible.

When I address different parts of the same post, I will separate them with slashes, like so: "Analysis A/Analysis B/Analysis C" etc.

Ok? Ok.

In the interests of fairness, I will

Unvote

before I analyze.

-----

AWA

I'm not even going to comment on this piece of trash.

remussaidow

Post #54: (We seem to have moved past the RVS discussion of the first few pages, so I'll give it little space here).
Post #105: I like the fact that rem is willing to unvote when there becomes no purpose for a vote.

Merlin

Merlin has requested replacement. Besides this, no posts of interest, though it is important to remember that this role

does

still exist.

Copper

Post #86: I agree that for the most part, the RVS bickering was just noise./I also agree that, in general, I was focusing too much on the logical aspects of the game, and not so much the socio-psychological aspects. This is a flaw of mine; I will attempt to rectify it./I agree that AGar, in general, seems very haphazard with his attacks; they seem to be to be analagous to a person blindly attacking anyone who has a reasonable chance of becoming a target.
Post #115: I would like to reinforce the point of how AGar's attacks seem random until they latch on.
Post #132: My Post #131 amends my point to couch against extremism.

DavidParker

Post #48: RVS and RBS are, in my opinion, extremely unproductive, and should last no longer than absolutely necessary to get discussion started./My views on bandwagons have already been expressed. I am suspicious of this particular bandwagon vote, as it was made extremely cavalierly and in ignorance of the rather large amount of activity above it.
Post #52: Every question that would be answered ina courtroom should be answered here, that is, suggestive, leading, or loaded questions are exempt. Purposefully avoiding "redundant" questions, in my opinion, throws suspicion on the avoider, as they could be answered easily and dismissed.
Post #73: I find it difficult to believe that suspecting three people, but not to the point of voteworthiness, is a scumtell. That you would place a vote simply for this reason smells of trying to start a wagon on a flimsy premise.
Post #80: Someone town-aligned would, I think, naturally be dispositioned to find suspicion in everyone else, you know, being part of the uninformed majority. One analytical post is worth any number of worthless posts. However, I will analyze screl later.
Post #82: The interesting thing I find about this post is the timestamp. The post came roughly one minute after TBM's vote; I feel like David was trying to scramble. I know the feeling, but it's still mildly suspicious.
Post #84: I completely agree; i will discuss TBM more in-depth later, but I dislike his emphasis on what he calls "conciseness" and his rather pronounced tunnel-vision.
Post #93: I feel like the entire Michel/AGar thing was simply noise, but from other points of discussion i am inclined to believe that AGar, not Michel, is slightly scummier. I disagree with the backpedalling claim./I agree that Copper seems slightly pro-town./I fail to see how it's scummy for me to use my vote in a context other than that of a serious vote. I would imagine that, psychologically, an attack punctuated by a vote would carry more weight than a simple attack.
Post #103: Having seen how quickly bandwagon votes can pile up, and not knowing how many scum there are, I can attest that L-5 isn't necessarily as safe as it would initially seem, especially with people constructing arguments against him behind which scum can hide and wagon.
Post #117: Pointless votehop to pressure Merlin; I'm curious if this might have been a thinly disguised attempt at a quicklynch wagon. Mildly suspicious as his vote is

still

on Merlin two (IRL) days later.

MichelSableheart

Post #33: The "scum lengthening Night 0" conjecture seems flimsy. I don't remember the breakdown of when everyone confirmed, so I can't check this, but it still seems quite unlikely, seeing as there are people who (essentially)

still

haven't responded.
Post #41: I want to bring as little of the old RVS argument into this as possible, but I want to laud Michel's defense of reasoning.
Post #45: Michel is so far doing admirably in deflecting AGar's rather ad hominem attacks.
Post #47: I'm not happy with the "I make up scumtells" bit of this post, but it would certainly explain the logical underpinnings behind random voting. I'm willing to dismiss it.
Post #60: I am slightly suspicious of your 3 scum claim, though with 11 players 3 scum is logical.
Post #77: I completely disagree with your TBM read, as I will explain later on./I'm a bit confused by the language you used to address me. Can you please clarify?
Post #91: The only thing I have to say to this post is WIFOM. I understand the inherent fallacy in this, but there it is.
Post #116: I'm much less suspicious of this vote on Merlin than David's because it was made first, and was backed up with sound reasoning (though it was slightly non sequitur).
Post #125: I think you confuse the terms "game relevant" and "game related". Some of the posts to which you refer are related, but not relevant, to the discussion at hand, and thus you confuse them for usefulness.
Post #134: Again, I am appreciative of the ability to unvote when the vote becomes unfounded./As I will later outline, I believe that TBM's "game relevant" content is actually simply "game related" content, and therefore worthless taken at face value.

My Milked Eek

Post #75: I feel that yes, some of David and screl's interations might be construed as scummy. At the same time, when you feel strongly enough about them to vote, it is up to YOU to provide the argument, and not everyone else. The burden of proof is on the voter, not the voted, and certainly not the people to whom the voter is trying to convince.

screl1

Post #56: I'm not particularly impressed with your FOS'ing everywhere, though I understand it; in this game, everybody is intially perceived as more guilty than innocent. At the same time, no one is either until proven so./Yes, I am worried about votes. Perhaps this is a gameplay flaw of mine, but I feel that a vote is an extremely powerful tool, and should be used as a tool, not as a cudgel. When I saw AGar throwing cotes around like candy, I naturally got worried about his free usage of this most powerful tool. I was "quiet for a while" because I did not get the chance to check mafiascum.net for the remainder of the day; check the timestamps before making time-related posts. While I did target AGar, I did not target Michel. I question the validity of this FOS, especially as the reasoning is "There is nothing concrete here". When why FOS?/I don't understand the FOS on Michel, either. What I got from this "analysis" is that he confused you, so he's suspicious. I'm not buying it./TBM garners the most questions, yet does not receive an FOS. Interesting./This is your only slightly valid FOS, and even then I thihnk it's flimsy. yes, AGar's been unwieldy with his attacks, but you construct your "argument" based on his clout.
Post #69: I refuse to allow you to force anything, be it alcohol, a movie, or whatever, take responsibility for your actions. This isn't a scumtell

yet

, but it's definitely worth keeping an eye on.
Post #99: I'm quite amused at this post; first you claim that David's vote was the only OMGUS vote (not strictly true if you count RVS), and then you OMGUS. The only good part of this post is that you defend the right to post whenever one pleases. Still, there is a lot of emotion in this post, and I feel that this fact, combined with the OMGUS vote, is a mild scumtell. On the other hand, screl is ostensibly a newbie.
Post #106: Here you seem a bit too intent on building a case on Michel, apparently due to the earlier theory discussion. Not sure what to make of this, but I think that you're making a mountain out of a molehill. Your intent behind this is anyone's guess; mine is that you're trying to shrug attention off of yourself and onto Michel.
Post #107: Don't get too used to the "new to Mafia" argument. It won't hold water for long.
Post #113: An OMGUS vote is inherently

not

random, but has a rather unconvincing reason.

Guthrie

Oso

Hasn't posted much (if anything).

Equinox

Hasn't posted anything of interest (yet). I look forward to their wallpost.

TheButtonmen

Post #26: See Post #29 for my views on this post.
Post #40: No reasoning, no logic, just presupposed self-evidence. Nothing in this game is self-evident. The almost brutal terseness of this post screams scum at me.
Post #43: See Post #50 for my views on this post.
Post #61: A) No, but they are extremely inefficient and decidedly anti-town, as they promote mob mentality. B) You voted me with no reasoning at all. You have yet to provide any such reasoning. C) There is an ostensible contradiction there, yes, but the answer is simple: Answer the question satisfactorily, we collectively move on. Ignore it or deflect it, and we get suspicious. D) Irrelevant. E) Elaborate? Oh right, "conciseness is protown".
Post #66: See Post 127 for my views on this matter.
Post #81: Tunneling + promotion of mob mentality. Anti-town at best.
Post #85: Arrogance is anti-town; if you are a protown alignment, it estranges the town, and if you are an anti-town alignment, it makes people resentful.
Post #124: See Post 127 for my views on this matter.

AGar

Post #22: OMGUS is not a scumtell. I'm tired of people claiming that it is. Yes, sometimes scum will use it as an excuse. It still is an extremely unreliable "tell", unreliable enough to discount it as a reasonable premise for lynching.
Post #31: Your mastery of leading questions is admirable. Stop using them; they're misleading and anti-town.
Post #37: Your defense of bandwagons is flawed for the reason that it come from the perspective of a person who is dead-set on only seeing the perceived positives of the activity (bandwagoning), and to hell with the negative. By this logic, we should push someone to L-1 to "lead to a telling scumslip", while in the meantime a scum can hammer under the pretense of simply "joining the wagon" and forgetting that it was L-1. I counterclaim that

your

view on bandwagons is flawed and distorted, and I might take it so far as to call this a slip./Ad hominem, ad hominem, ad hominem. Enough with the fallacious play, and try to hunt scum instead of falsely asserting yourself as hunting.
Post #44: [1] Enough with the ad hominem. [2] No, they shouldn't; the point is that they

can

, and that's what Michel was worried about. [3] IIRC, your "reasoning" for voting David was that, essentially, you felt like it. You retroactivtely justified it when he OMGUS'd. Don't claim to have sound "reasoning" when this is clearly not the case. [4] You seem to think that reasoning cannot be employed in the early stages of the game. RVS is not the only way to begin discussion; when someone attempts to use reasoning, flawed or not,

that

is a discussion point./You're awful liberal with your vote. I'm inclined to think that you're a bit too eager to get suspicion off of yourself by accusing others first.
Post #46: [1] Hyprocrisy. You did the exact same thing with David. [2] While I agree with your argument, I (still) disagree with your attitude. Enough with the personal attacks, and stop clouding the waters of discussion with emotion.
Post #49: Your supposed "reasoning" toward the end of this post is not grounds for "believing [Michel] to be scum." You correctly point out inaccuracies in his own logic, and that's all. Additionally, the little "QED" at the end is unnecessary and counterproductive, as it psychologically denies a strong rebuttal.
Post #55: I rather think that, instead of your random votes/questions, it is your inflammatory language that draws reactions. It certainly did here./Let's take a second here to actually analyze the Chainsaw Defense. The key to the defense is that the player utilizing the defense is, well,

defending

another player. I was not defending Michel; I was attacking you, and it so happened that you were, at the time, attacking Michel. By your logic, any person who attacks someone who isn't directly attacking them is using the Chainsaw Defense. I think not.
Post #63: Thus far, you have pointed fingers at no less than four people. Does this mean that you want all of these people lynched? It is a poor moderator who chooses that many scum in a 12 person setup. This indicates, to me, that you are willing to kill as long as the scum (or rather, the people you personally believe are scum) get killed as well. I don't like this./Please elaborate on why you feel my hesitation on bandwagons is scummy. You never answered my question in Post #38: "[why is] my caution in rushing into a potential mislynch (which, by definition, is accidentally lynching a pro-town) scummy?"
Post #65: More ad hominem. I'm beginning to think that your "playstyle" is of the "attack attack attack and if I don't have a sound argument attack the person" variety. I have seen very little reasoning out of you thus far (though, admittedly, what I have seen is mostly accurate).
Post #78: THIS is finally a good post! Legitimate scumhunting with very little to no emotion involved. I agree with this analysis of the interaction between David and screl, though outside of this specific instance, I have not seen much more interaction between them.
Post #94: Screl's post came in the middle of your battle with Michel, yes; a battle which occurred in the span of one IRL day, during which it is entire plausible that screl could only get on once. That said, screl hadn't exactly been inactive between the analysis post to which you refer and this one.
Post #100: You yourself have pointed fingers at no less than four people. For the sake of argument, let's suppose that all four were scum. If all four wagoned onto screl (which, as stated before, you would have no problem with), he would be at L-1 *snap* like that. Implausible, yes. But not impossible. Particularly as a new player, though I hesitate to bring this into the discussion, he would be more jumpy than others when a case, and a flimsy, ad hominem one at that, was being built against him.
Post #110: "When I think someone is scum, I pressure them until they break." This has never occurred to you to be a poor way to play? It completely rules out the possibility that you might be

wrong

, and it lets real scum wagon on your attack.
Post #118; 1) FOS, to

me

, is simply a way of indicating that you are mildly suspicious of a person, but not the point of voting. Fence-sitting, to me, is having no strong opinions either way, and thus not warranting an FOS./I didn't notice David's voting habits; this was an excellent observation. Still, correlation does not imply causation, but it's something to keep an eye on.
Post #130: See Post #131 for my response to this. I only include this because Copper seems to have ignored it, and I wanted to make sure people read it.

-----
Conclusions:

AWA- Me.

remussaidow- Not much to get a read on. His willingness to unvote is laudable. Mildly protown, but keep in mind that there's not much to go on here.

Merlin- Nothing. No posts of interest.

Copper- Not much of a read. Very few posts on interest, though Post #86 was good. Still, no read.

DavidParker- Slight scum read. I don't particularly like how he overreacts to provocation, though as I outlined above, it's understandable. A lot of his posts were directly catalyzed by AGar's attacks, however.

FOS: DavidParker

MichelSableheart- Much of his posts were lacking in relevance, but the ones that weren't seemed to give me a very slight scum vibe. I'm not happy with his buddying up with TBM, however, and as I find TBM the scummiest player so far, this naturally throws suspicion on Michel. Not enough to FOS, but

IGMEOY

.

My Milked Eek- Little to go on. No read.

screl1- A lot of his reactions can be chalked up to newbishness, but I want to stay away from that. That said, his reactions, when viewed objectively, are fairly natural. Not willing to say protown, however.

Oso- Nothing.

Equinox- Nothing of interest.

TheButtonmen- Currently my candidate for the scummiest player in the game. I believe that his terse attitude, combined with his blunt posts can be called a scumtell. He has provide zero reasoning behind any of his actions thus far in the game, and is promoting mob mentality and therefore directly anti-town.

Vote: TheButtonmen

AGar- Not a fan of his penchant for ad hominem and insults. They frankly muddy the posts of relevance by steeping them in emotion, which in turn allows players to interpret facts differently when there should be a single truth for a given fact. The feeling I get is that you are trying to throw suspicion off of yourself by suspecting others first, and then when they suspect you in turn, it is a "scumtell". Not buying it.

FOS: AGar

-----

Hopefully this makes up for my V/LA; sorry again for the inactivity.

I'm a bit uncertain in my AWA scumread because he is very ignorant of his own wrongdoings.

[Whomping Willow]

If AWA is town and makes it to LyLo his OMGUS olympics will lose us the game. But I'm pretty certain he's scum at this point.

[TierShift]

munkir's posts are getting gradually more coherent
cant shake off the feeling of coaching there

ehh maybe

so an awa recap:

before this conversation:
- i scumspect you for

'flubber is antitown = flubber is scum'

except he never did this

istott - Eeeh... looks townish... just boarding really... not really sure about them... got a few points... but not really getting where they are... 3% town?

Munkir - 90% sure he is town, all the tells are there and after a rocky start, I believe he has come out unto himself lately and is making a great contribution to town. keep it up.

keeping this in my ISO.

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.

He seems to really believe in this.

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.

He really believes in this.

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.

I don't see why scum would attack droog here.

When I made the original post, my mental scale was sliding from Town to Neutral to Scum. I have since revised that to include Antitown, since I have realized that a person's actions may be against the best interests of the town without them necessarily showing scumtells. It's not so much that my initial impression of Flubber was more severe than it is now, it's more that since my scale was revised, his placement on that scale now sits in a more accurate place.

I'm not voting AWA today.

[Naomi-Tan]

could you be convinced you into a Droog Lynch?

[TierShift]

Flail harder

badpost

Maybe I'm confbiased but it just looks like flail to me

Hes not attacking being voted for though. Hes attacking d roog misrepping him. To me it reads frusterated town.

blegh you keep on goodposting

[TierShift]

could you be convinced you into a Droog Lynch?

possibly. I'm thinking one of WW/droog might be scum for the buddying I'm seeing. Not sure tho.

[TierShift]

Droog:
AWA HAS NEVER SAID FLUBBER WAS SCUM FOR BEING ANTITOWN, JUST THAT HE WANTED HIM LYNCHED FOR IT.

Just like GGG and most of all istott, who has got a surprising amount less shtick for it.

[Naomi-Tan]

Droog:
AWA HAS NEVER SAID FLUBBER WAS SCUM FOR BEING ANTITOWN, JUST THAT HE WANTED HIM LYNCHED FOR IT.

Just like GGG and most of all istott, who has got a surprising amount less shtick for it.

Think thats bad;

awa has called flubber scummy
awa has called flubber anti-town
awa has called flubber scummy for being anti-town

[TierShift]

IM BACK, AND 2 PEOPLE HAVE SUBBED OUT. W00T.......
Anyway, stuff I've picked up on:
My top scum reads at the moment are:
Flames774878378373873. He unvoted me as soon as I unvoted him. This leads me to believe he was scum reading me because vice versa.

Yuck, what awful reasoning.

Droog. I agree with Naomi and awa that he is grossly misrepresenting AWA.

Hopping on a wagon.

Flubber. I still think that there was no town motivation behind his actions, as he knew that what he said would cause a debate, which is the last thing this town needs.

"He was being anti-town, because he's scum."
DROOOG HERE YOU SEE SOMEONE SAYING ANTITOWN IS SCUMMY

PLEASE

[TierShift]

@droog

I just finished the newb game the camping trip with flubbs. Flubbs in that game just asked questions with no analysis. In the other town games you listed he seemed to follow this ask questions meta. This game he is just making fluff statements.

http://forum.mafiascum.net/viewtopic.ph ... ct[]=24265

Compare this games ISO with the one above. This came he isn't the same questioning scum hunter.

First badpost by GGG! YUSSS

Don't any of you fucking dare say that you refuse to read 842, I will instantly pin you as scum if you don't.

I skipped 842

[TierShift]

I'm caught up!

The Istot case

Votes on whoever hasn't posted for random voting stating it creates pressure for them to post. This allows him to skip contributing to early discussion

Has made one read on the flames / tier slot

436. He makes sure everyone knows that they shouldn't town read him based on dayvig. This leans scum it shows concern for managing how other view him

896 asks other to summarize the cases against themselves (this is just wierd but null)

Really he posted a lot early with low content then dropped to the background (though some was vla). Similar to flubbs profile.

That's about what I have on Istot

Are youn scumreading istott as well? Magnificent!

I'd be up for an istott lynch.

Hi are you caught up can we converse a little?
Why are you up for an istott lynch?
What do you think of willow?