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

[GGG]

The amount of suspicion for IK's lies is not matching the number of votes on him. Meanwhile the strength of the texcat case in comparison isnt matching the difference in votes.

Calling shenanigans. Vote stands.

Why is idiot kings gambit anything more than just bad town? Are you putting a lot of stock in the intent to hammer thing?

[copper223]

@GGG

I am off of Matt Dino after his hatred of a Abacuses.

I'm not sure on idiot king. I would still like my question answered of why he didn't keep the gambit going beyond tex and coppers reactions.

I am back on the texcat wagon.

vote texcat

. That's l-2

I doubt this has much to do with abacuses and a lot with survival instincts.

Why is idiot kings gambit anything more than just bad town? Are you putting a lot of stock in the intent to hammer thing?

Please continue telling me why you and my other favourite scummer IK can be mafia toghether after all.

@Mod
Sorry if I'm coming off as a bit of an ass here but you are not doing your job with the prods and the replacements.

@Tex

MMEek has been AWOL for quite a while, but what's happened to GIF?

Town points, we are the only ones that seem to care.

[TellTaleHeart]

The amount of suspicion for IK's lies is not matching the number of votes on him. Meanwhile the strength of the texcat case in comparison isnt matching the difference in votes.

Calling shenanigans. Vote stands.

Well now I'm confused. Do you think GGG is scum or not?

TTH, perhaps you should pay more attention to who was off the leading wagon, rather than who was on it.

This is completely tangential to the point I was noting.

That's what I'm talking about... that VCA makes a lot more sense than TTH's "scum dogpile on town lynches" theory.

That's not my theory, and all texcat did was copy/paste two vote counts and put her scumreads in blue.

[Cane + Able]

The amount of suspicion for IK's lies is not matching the number of votes on him. Meanwhile the strength of the texcat case in comparison isnt matching the difference in votes.

Calling shenanigans. Vote stands.

Well now I'm confused. Do you think GGG is scum or not?

TTH, perhaps you should pay more attention to who was off the leading wagon, rather than who was on it.

This is completely tangential to the point I was noting.

That's what I'm talking about... that VCA makes a lot more sense than TTH's "scum dogpile on town lynches" theory.

That's not my theory, and all texcat did was copy/paste two vote counts and put her scumreads in blue.

Funny, that is exactly what your theory sounded like to me.

And there is no need for you to discredit an opposing view.

[theelkspeaks]

@Mod
Sorry if I'm coming off as a bit of an ass here but you are not doing your job with the prods and the replacements.

MME confirmed a VLA to me which expires today.

GIF appears to be due for a prod as well. Prodding GIF.

[acryon]

My attempts at VCA are pretty dismal. But I tend to think that scum wants to stay off town wagons to the greatest extent possible. At the end of D1, it was pretty clear that Rudi was to be lynched. Bookitty and GIF both announced intent to hammer before Copper did hammer. This practically clears Copper to me.

How does this clear copper for you? If anything, it does the opposite since he could sort of hammer with impunity since there was already multiple intents-to-hammer looming. To be clear, I'm unsure of where I think copper lies, but this reasoning seems really bad.

[texcat]

My attempts at VCA are pretty dismal. But I tend to think that scum wants to stay off town wagons to the greatest extent possible. At the end of D1, it was pretty clear that Rudi was to be lynched. Bookitty and GIF both announced intent to hammer before Copper did hammer. This practically clears Copper to me.

How does this clear copper for you? If anything, it does the opposite since he could sort of hammer with impunity since there was already multiple intents-to-hammer looming. To be clear, I'm unsure of where I think copper lies, but this reasoning seems really bad.

And my thinking is that scum would stay away from hammering and let a townie do it. A scum

could

hammer but why would they? Why bother getting their hands dirty if they don't have to? I have no research to back this up, but it makes sense to me.

[acryon]

My attempts at VCA are pretty dismal. But I tend to think that scum wants to stay off town wagons to the greatest extent possible. At the end of D1, it was pretty clear that Rudi was to be lynched. Bookitty and GIF both announced intent to hammer before Copper did hammer. This practically clears Copper to me.

How does this clear copper for you? If anything, it does the opposite since he could sort of hammer with impunity since there was already multiple intents-to-hammer looming. To be clear, I'm unsure of where I think copper lies, but this reasoning seems really bad.

And my thinking is that scum would stay away from hammering and let a townie do it. A scum

could

hammer but why would they? Why bother getting their hands dirty if they don't have to? I have no research to back this up, but it makes sense to me.

Despite the general idea that hammering is scummy(it's often anti-town if done prematurely, but town do plenty of things that might be anti-town), hammers tend to be, in my experience, more often than not carried out by town.

[copper223]

@Acryon
I agree, so why are you saying hammering there makes me more likely to be scum?

@TTH
I can't find scum meta of you unfortunately, pushing hard on me after our latest game where you regretted not saying you thought I might have been mafia before getting lynched I can factor in, but now you are misrepping Texcat as well and that's less understandable.

That's not my theory, and all texcat did was copy/paste two vote counts and put her scumreads in blue.

- MME is not a Tex scumread.

- The two vote counts she took are the same you used and reasonable if you want to try doing a pseudo (because we have no flip on GGG) VCA, how is yours any more valid than hers?

- I did not like that part of the VCA telling a story you mentioned, it sounds like fabricating evidence to fit a prior belief, if that's the case the whole VCA is either town confbias or scumplay.

What is the story you mentioned?

@All
I read TTH as town for the same reason as Rudi, the cases she makes and the angles she comes from seem very indicative of a townie trying her best to figure out the game, sometimes she comes out with goofy stuff but the best way to learn is to try something out and I admire her for being ballsy and going ahead with it, but this is the third instance I see a clearly forced read from her:

- The Copper read switch from BMWS to Boo, the guy barely posted and I had direct meta of Boo so updating my read there is I think normal (also town favoured as Boo turned out to actually be town).

- The hive mind theory, my presence on the first wagon is completely incidental and IK is claiming a reaction test on the GGG one, since she is not voting him I'm assuming she is letting this fly, C+A and Tex both had GGG as scum yesterday and Tex joining the Rudi wagon also looked more like a compromise rather than a premeditated play.

- Her latest post on Tex, see above.

Gun to the head I'd still say she is town confbiasing and playing mafia sided

[acryon]

@Acryon
I agree, so why are you saying hammering there makes me more likely to be scum?

I'm not saying it makes you more likely to be scum. But I am saying it doesn't make you more likely to be town. I am arguing against the premise that you hammering makes you town because scum would have let the townies hammer. I disagree, because I think scum (especially those with experience) are a lot less afraid of hammering than people seem to think, because the scummy stigma that comes with hammering just doesn't really hold true.

[copper223]

@Acryon

Despite the general idea that hammering is scummy

This is why it's town indicative for me, even if you believe I would not be too worried about hammering as mafia (which I can stand behind), given the general belief that hammering is scummy, I would have no reason to do so when someone else said they were going to, if I had played with you multiple times and knew you and the rest of town believe that hammering is usually done by town then the null read or a reversed read would make sense.

As town I have a strong motivation to ensure we get a lynch in because getting a flip on a questionable player is

always

better than gifting our lynch to scum, where they can freely select who to kill and it will never be one of them, so that's why I hammered when I had to leave the office and saw we only had 2 hours left.

Regardless I see no problems with the read Tex gave, it's consistent with her initial belief, which is understandable.

[acryon]

@Acryon

Despite the general idea that hammering is scummy

This is why it's town indicative for me, even if you believe I would not be too worried about hammering as mafia (which I can stand behind), given the general belief that hammering is scummy, I would have no reason to do so when someone else said they were going to, if I had played with you multiple times and knew you and the rest of town believe that hammering is usually done by town then the null read or a reversed read would make sense.

As town I have a strong motivation to ensure we get a lynch in because getting a flip on a questionable player is

always

better than gifting our lynch to scum, where they can freely select who to kill and it will never be one of them, so that's why I hammered when I had to leave the office and saw we only had 2 hours left.

Yes, but if you are scum, then the same holds true. The town motivation is only true if you are town, so it's mostly irrelevant. It is completely null, because it's full of WIFOM. I thought the hammer was totally fine, and you are not the one I am putting on trial here. I think Texcat using the hammer from you as a major reason to town-read you is terrible, however.

[acryon]

I would like to add that you having no problems with it makes sense in that it appeals to you as a person and player, but I don't think you're looking at it critically, which seems out of character.

[copper223]

@Acryon
No if I am scum I have no reason to hammer when GIF, who is either my teammate and is going to hammer for me since he said so or town and has no reason to lie about hammering so is going to go ahead with it, will do it for me, so I get the same result.

The only case you can try to make is that I believe hammering there as scum would make me look more town, since you just said there is a general belief that hammering is scummy I find it hard to believe you have now decided this is the case based on WIFOM.

Tex stated she believes scum wants to avoid joining town wagons, I can see someone having that belief and based on that she thinks Copper is clear, I don't think that's an amazing read but I've definitely seen wierder ones including your idea that mafia tries to tell town how to scumhunt, but not in one or two instances but by building an overall framework beforehand...

[acryon]

@Acryon
No if I am scum I have no reason to hammer when GIF, who is either my teammate and is going to hammer for me since he said so or town and has no reason to lie about hammering so is going to go ahead with it, will do it for me, so I get the same result.

The only case you can try to make is that I believe hammering there as scum would make me look more town, since you just said there is a general belief that hammering is scummy I find it hard to believe you have now decided this is the case based on WIFOM.

Tex stated she believes scum wants to avoid joining town wagons, I can see someone having that belief and based on that she thinks Copper is clear, I don't think that's an amazing read but I've definitely seen wierder ones including your idea that mafia tries to tell town how to scumhunt, but not in one or two instances but by building an overall framework beforehand...

What I am saying is that it is null. I think giving you town-credit for hammering there is reckless at best.

There is a "general belief" that hammering is scummy, like I said, but that doesn't mean it is a belief that actually guides people in their decision making. It is something people talk about, but how often is town pushing the person that hammered a townie? Seldom, if ever. My point is that the idea that hammering is done by scum is wrong, and I think people realize that which is why it doesn't guide their decision making as much as it should if they firmly believed it. Texcat giving you town-points for your hammer because scum wouldn't hammer because hammering is scummy and they don't want to look scummy, is itself rooted in the faulty assumption that hammering is scummy.

[acryon]

This whole thing is also pretty self-serving for you, which is why I was talking to and asked Texcat about it, not you.

[copper223]

@Acryon
That is such crap again, the fact is:

- there is a clear motivation for town to hammer, because I had no clue if the people who said they were going to hammer would actually go ahead with it and if that didn't happen, D1 would have been a shit-show for me.

- there is none for scum other than questionable WIFOM that depends on me reading you and the rest of town as thinking you will read me more town if I hammer.

I have no problems with you calling it null if you want to but calling other people bad for going with the logical interpretation of the facts, especially given they state a belief which is understandable, is just bad from you. Go and check Texcat's games as town and see if she really believes that scum wants to stay off town wagons instead of calling her bad (and what do you mean by this, is she scum or wrong?) if you think she is making up reads.

I never mentioned the hammer before so I fail to see how it is self serving to give my version, clearly the most relevant one, when you are discussing it, if anthing it's self serving of your Texcat interrogation to try and force me out of it.

[acryon]

@Acryon
That is such crap again, the fact is:

- there is a clear motivation for town to hammer, because I had no clue if the people who said they were going to hammer would actually go ahead with it and if that didn't happen, D1 would have been a shit-show for me.

Why would you have no clue whether they were going to actually go ahead with it or not? Two people expressed intent to hammer, so I don't see the town motivation there vs a situation where one or zero people expressed the intent. Can you point me to some games where multiple people expressed an intent to hammer and none of them did?

- there is none for scum other than questionable WIFOM that depends on me reading you and the rest of town as thinking you will read me more town if I hammer.

No game I have ever played in had a giant wagon led on the person that hammered except situations where it was a clear quick-hammer/troll-hammer with no prior intents expressed. Something tells me your experience hasn't been that much different than mine, so I don't think you would need to know that much about us to discern that information.

I have no problems with you calling it null if you want to but calling other people bad for going with the logical interpretation of the facts, especially given they state a belief which is understandable, is just bad from you. Go and check Texcat's games as town and see if she really believes that scum wants to stay off town wagons instead of calling her bad (and what do you mean by this, is she scum or wrong?) if you think she is making up reads.

I didn't call her bad. I called the reasoning bad, and I gave reasons for why it was bad. There's nothing wrong with that at all. To be clear, I think she is scummy for it, but again, this is a conversation I would have much rather had with her, but instead you decided to step in and WK, so it's essentially been nullified.

I never mentioned the hammer before so I fail to see how it is self serving to give my version, clearly the most relevant one, when you are discussing it, if anthing it's self serving of your Texcat interrogation to try and force me out of it.

It's self-serving because it is directly involving a town-read of you. Do I really need to explain the conflict of interest here?

[copper223]

Why would you have no clue whether they were going to actually go ahead with it or not? Two people expressed intent to hammer, so I don't see the town motivation there vs a situation where one or zero people expressed the intent. Can you point me to some games where multiple people expressed an intent to hammer and none of them did?

Because GIF, a player I still think has a decent shot at being scum, decided to take it upon himself to state he would hammer at the 3 hour mark (thus for all I know voiding Boo's prior commitment) and when I checked if he had actually done so I found he hadn't. I probably could find games but the above alone should be enough to tell you why I decided to hammer.

No game I have ever played in had a giant wagon led on the person that hammered except situations where it was a clear quick-hammer/troll-hammer with no prior intents expressed. Something tells me your experience hasn't been that much different than mine, so I don't think you would need to know that much about us to discern that information.

This is BS, if I had to form an expectation, as mafia, and you asked me at the end of D1 I would have probably gone with: it's bad to hammer, because of what Dino said to GIF about tunnelling him for his d12 if it weren't provably random (which I still think is a shit read btw), if you are asking me now I'd probably say null, certainly not that it's a good idea as scum in both cases.

It's self-serving because it is directly involving a town-read of you. Do I really need to explain the conflict of interest here?

Yes, you cannot talk about something that I did, giving bizarre interepretations, the first one definetely looked like you were saying it made me more scummy, and expect me not to give my pov., like in what world? I also did not interfere until Tex first clarified her read for you.

[acryon]

Why would you have no clue whether they were going to actually go ahead with it or not? Two people expressed intent to hammer, so I don't see the town motivation there vs a situation where one or zero people expressed the intent. Can you point me to some games where multiple people expressed an intent to hammer and none of them did?

Because GIF, a player I still think has a decent shot at being scum, decided to take it upon himself to state he would hammer at the 3 hour mark (thus for all I know voiding Boo's prior commitment) and when I checked if he had actually done so I found he hadn't. I probably could find games but the above alone should be enough to tell you why I decided to hammer.

Actually, GIF said at 8:11 my time that he would hammer in 3 hours, which would be at 11:11 my time. You hammered at 10:36 my time, 2 hours and 25 minutes after GIF said he would hammer. So that idea and subsequent thought process is just plain not true.

No game I have ever played in had a giant wagon led on the person that hammered except situations where it was a clear quick-hammer/troll-hammer with no prior intents expressed. Something tells me your experience hasn't been that much different than mine, so I don't think you would need to know that much about us to discern that information.

This is BS, if I had to form an expectation, as mafia, and you asked me at the end of D1 I would have probably gone with: it's bad to hammer, because of what Dino said to GIF about tunnelling him for his d12 if it weren't provably random (which I still think is a shit read btw), if you are asking me now I'd probably say null, certainly not that it's a good idea as scum in both cases.

Something seems like BS here, but it isn't what I had to say. Also this entire part of the discussion is total hypothetical WIFOM, and this post from you appears to be the WIFOM climax.

It's self-serving because it is directly involving a town-read of you. Do I really need to explain the conflict of interest here?

Yes, you cannot talk about something that I did, giving bizarre interepretations, the first one definetely looked like you were saying it made me more scummy, and expect me not to give my pov., like in what world? I also did not interfere until Tex first clarified her read for you.

Again, I was talking to Texcat about the interpretation. Because it was all about mine and her interpretation's, not yours, because obviously your interpretation will serve whatever alignment you belong to. Also, I said "I'm unsure of where copper lies" in my post to Texcat, just to make it clear I wasn't saying you were scummy but was instead looking for answers from Tex. That rider was clearly added because I expected you to respond without it, but hoped it would deter you from doing so once I added it.

[copper223]

Actually, GIF said at 8:11 my time that he would hammer in 3 hours, which would be at 11:11 my time. You hammered at 10:36 my time, 2 hours and 25 minutes after GIF said he would hammer. So that idea and subsequent thought process is just plain not true.

I was at work and read 3 hours from the deadline, not 3 hours from his post, that's my bad, but the reason why I hammered stays the same. There would also be no reason for me to make this up as it is easily verifiable and I also mentioned it before in the thread:

- I hammered Rudi mainly because I will never NL D1 on principle, your case on him looked decent and he refused to tell me why he thought Tex was scum, it could have easily been GIF

if he hammered at the 3 hour mark as he said he would.

Something seems like BS here, but it isn't what I had to say. Also this entire part of the discussion is total hypothetical WIFOM, and this post from you appears to be the WIFOM climax.

You are asking me WIFOM questions and blaming me for WIFOM answers

[acryon]

Actually, GIF said at 8:11 my time that he would hammer in 3 hours, which would be at 11:11 my time. You hammered at 10:36 my time, 2 hours and 25 minutes after GIF said he would hammer. So that idea and subsequent thought process is just plain not true.

I was at work and read 3 hours from the deadline, not 3 hours from his post, that's my bad, but the reason why I hammered stays the same. There would also be no reason for me to make this up as it is easily verifiable and I also mentioned it before in the thread:

- I hammered Rudi mainly because I will never NL D1 on principle, your case on him looked decent and he refused to tell me why he thought Tex was scum, it could have easily been GIF

if he hammered at the 3 hour mark as he said he would.

In that case, we

really

can't give you town-cred for the hammer, because your proclaimed town-motivation for doing so was actually based on incorrect information.

Something seems like BS here, but it isn't what I had to say. Also this entire part of the discussion is total hypothetical WIFOM, and this post from you appears to be the WIFOM climax.

You are asking me WIFOM questions and blaming me for WIFOM answers

I didn't ask you a question. I said that there

is

possible scum motivation to do it. You said there wasn't other than questionable WIFOM depending on how you read the town, which started the WIFOM discussion. I disagreed that it was simply WIFOM, because I don't think a town exists that hard-pushes anyone who hammers a townie. This is the fallacy I alluded to earlier.

[copper223]

@Acryon

In that case, we really can't give you town-cred for the hammer, because your proclaimed town-motivation for doing so was actually based on incorrect information.

This is another retarded or scummy statement. What is relevant to determine my alignment is the honesty of my motive, not the information I based it on (especially when the two information sets can be easily compared like in this case).

As an example, if you strongly believed every player starting with the letter A was mafia and you voted for them as town and only as town in every game, I would always call you town for doing so no matter how incorrect your initial information on said players are.

If anything it should make my motive more clear, if I had your information set my motive would have actually been

more

questionable because at that point I wouldn't really have had reason to worry about who was going to hammer.

I'd say this is the end of the discussion for me, unless someone else has questions, I'll come back to you tomorrow if I can/have to.

[copper223]

@Acryon
Tbf. It does mean you questioning Tex also makes more sense though.

[acryon]

@Acryon

In that case, we really can't give you town-cred for the hammer, because your proclaimed town-motivation for doing so was actually based on incorrect information.

This is another retarded or scummy statement. What is relevant to determine my alignment is the honesty of my motive, not the information I based it on (especially when the two information sets can be easily compared like in this case).

As an example, if you strongly believed every player starting with the letter A was mafia and you voted for them as town and only as town in every game, I would always call you town for doing so no matter how incorrect your initial information on said players are.

If anything it should make my motive more clear, if I had your information set my motive would have actually been

more

questionable because at that point I wouldn't really have had reason to worry about who was going to hammer.

But that isn't the reason he was giving you credit for it! The point wasn't that she gave you town-cred because your reasoning and response were genuine or that your motives were honest. She said that the fact that two other people had claimed intent and you still hammered "practically cleared you as town" because she believed that scum wouldn't get themselves involved in a wagon that they didn't need to get involved in. She didn't clear you because of your perceived intent as town. She cleared you because she didn't think the action matched what scum would do. These aren't the same thing. There are scummy things, there are towny things, and there are null things. This was a null thing, and I think claiming that it practically clears you as town is crazy.

I'd say this is the end of the discussion for me, unless someone else has questions, I'll come back to you tomorrow if I can/have to.

I agree, since the target of my initial and follow-up statement was Tex.