In post 824, vettrock wrote:I am not suggesting that you asking for a claim was scummy. I was referring to the comment that eyestott claimed before intent to hammer was declared. I think by copper.
Who is this addressed to?
In post 648, copper223 wrote:He was not at L-1 and nobody stated intent to hammer on him.
All I was trying to address, is your post above states the Eyestott claimed, and no one one called for intent to hammer, and was not at L-1. However, clearly Killa asked for him to claim, and then he claim. I'm not sure this was the best move, but it appears to have at least stopped the wagon on him, and since I think he is town, that is a good thing.
How about you start contributing some actual reads rather than some tit bit inaccurate notes. How do you know I wouldn't have hammered eyestott given the chance? Many others thought he was pretty scummy at that time.
Speaking of intention were is your contribution to the game so far?
Have you followed through on that scum hunting you promised to do?
At the moment I mostly just seeing conservative filler posts from you. 658 is about your first attempt to actually give reads and they are mostly null, which begs the question how at over 600 posts in do you not have anything more than weak reads? Some of the 'reads' are not even justified. 696 you excuse your poor read list
the posts that follow are more 'I can't make judgements this early/D1' and yet you can say with certainty that Eyestott is town? Without even citing a reason as to why?
It is easy to criticise when you do nothing to contribute, I see your RVS vote has been stuck on dodgy since post 53 it doesn't even look like you have made much of an attempt to follow the game.
I'll "play a mastin" here and say I have my reasons for the eyestott read but it is probably not best to reveal them now. Assuming I'm not dead, I will explain it in the future, for certain. UNVOTE:
I'll go ahead and unvote.
I'm inclined to vote dave, but I don't think we are ready for a lynch yet, and I think he is already at L-1.
Yes there is 900+ posts. If all it took for town to catch scum was 900 posts town would always win. I don't like copper since his vengeful claim, but I'm not sure we should test him on the chance that we are wrong.
, in this case his read on Dodgy and my personal impression they were both scummy in the exchange, Eyes because the theory arguments he made were bad and Dodgy because he was scumreading Eyes for every second sentence, make Dodgy a good lynch for today. I do not believe they are scum together nor did I, I did find them both scummy individually.
Spoiler: 797
In post 797, copper223 wrote:- I am vengeful so my lynch isn't too bad for town and that was plan b), we can pick a second player we find scummy, I think BBT is a fine choice, at worst we get rid of useless town and it is unusual for him to get this many town reads, the style of posting he has been going with, the point by point catch-up is also a departure from town BBT as I know him, the fact he says he usually pays more attention as scum is an interesting note, but
am open to suggestions that do not involve Eyestott
, I am also very skeptical about the claim but
not willing to shoot a possible PR.
Something big changes here. Big. Copper was previously not considering me on policy. Yet, now he starts voicing a desire for my death, even though he knows that my lynch today is pretty much impossible to achieve, given what he has already said.
Spoiler: 883
In post 883, copper223 wrote:- Dave's wagon failed, at least from my pov, becuase Aneninen told me he was town, that's when I gave my both Dodgy and Eyes look scummy in their interaction read and when the two of them started to get more attention.
- The wagon on Eyes failed because he claimed tracker.
- My wagon stalled when I claimed vengeful.
I've gotta say,
following my reads this game I really want to lynch or shoot Eyestott.
at the end of the day you have to trust your reads most and they are telling me he is scum despite getting lucky.
Spoiler: 909
In post 909, copper223 wrote:The first point was the VCA I did and finding out there is a pretty slim chance of both Dave and Eyes being town, before doing it I hadn't realized that was the case. Once you assume one is scum and one is town I went through the people supporting either one or the other and I noticed I was always reading the dave supporters as town in isolation, only the fact Eyes claimed tracker was changing my read on them, and as I said that's the wrong approach, if your reads tell you a) and a claim tells you b), you should listen to your reads or you should play another game.
This definitely feels as if copper is purposefully voting for a wagon that he knows will not happen, to increase the chance of a no lynch.
Spoiler: weird vibes from conversation directly after tracker reveal
Asks if i'm claiming he is scum. Understandable mistake, so I clarify:
In post 557, eyestott wrote:No, but I'm saying that, if I were scum, I'd likely pick tracker. It's easy to fake, given that in this game, it's just a yes/no of whether the person made an action.
I make it clear here which part I was referring to.
In post 557, eyestott wrote:No, but I'm saying that, if I were scum, I'd likely pick tracker. It's easy to fake, given that in this game, it's just a yes/no of whether the person made an action.
and this is relevant why since you are saying you are legit tracker and you therefore should know we are not scum together?
Yet he insists that I'm claiming scum with him.
In post 560, eyestott wrote:Oh yeah. Id be unlikely to fakeclaiming an investigative when I'm in a game with someone from Fable.
I fakeclaimed a Flavor cop, to be precise, and I breadcrumbed it and everything.
P.edit: I wasn't responding to the part about us as a team. I was responding to the other part.
Now I explicitly say I wasnt responding to the team part.
In post 561, copper223 wrote:Yes, the part where BBT says if you are scum so am I? So are you claiming scum with me? I don't really mind a 1v1.
In post 561, copper223 wrote:Yes, the part where BBT says if you are scum so am I? So are you claiming scum with me? I don't really mind a 1v1.
NO!
I was just responding to the part that said that tracker is a great fakeclaiming for scum.
In post 564, copper223 wrote:Good, I don't need a townread to not lynch you D1, just common sense.
If you are scum you already screwed the pooch and you have at most 2 days left to survive, there is no KP reduction this game so I have no interest in lynching someone that is already a dead man walking if he is scum (there is no prize for winning the game faster), I do have a vested interest in not lynching a possibly town PR when there is very little need to.
FoS BBT for that BS.
All of a sudden, he understands.
In post 616, copper223 wrote:I'll sum it up again, just in case one of you has the misfortune of being tracker and is not claiming:
There is a 7% probability of there being 2 full trackers in this setup.
If a tracker cc's here, 93 times out of 100 we have a guaranteed scum lynch within the first two days and close to a 50% chance of lynching scum on our first day.
This play is superior to any other possible lynch you could come up with day 1, in comparison the average lynch rate based on reads is close to the probability of randomly lynching scum (some say even worse), which in this setup averages roughly 25% (half as much).
So if you are tracker it's necessary for you to claim here.
Okay, this point is because of his maths.
He clearly understands the binomial theorem. He would almost definitely know about conditional probability.
Because:
If there are 0 trackers, and I am fakeclaiming, then it was is extremely unlikely that I would be counterclaimed. This means that while "Pr(0 Ts)" is .32 "Pr(0 Ts | a CC)" is actually closer to 0. The same kind of thing can be done for other scenarios too.
Copper really should have thought about this, and while its not a very strong point, its a point nonetheless.
I am going to consolidate to VOTE: Copper.
If you are a vengeful, dont kill me. If i'm town, thats two PRs gone before N1 starts, and If I'm mafia, ill get caught out eventually.
This definitely feels as if copper is purposefully voting for a wagon that he knows will not happen, to increase the chance of a no lynch.
This conclusion is ridiculous.
I understand conditional probability, I don't understand your point, Pr(0 Ts | a CC) is the probability of there being no trackers given someone counterclaimed (hence we have 2 claims), unless someone has been smoking tons of weed I would well hope that is a solid 0, but how is that in any way relevant? That would also mean you are lying to begin with if we apply it to this scenario.
I understand you are damned if you do damned if you don't if you are scum here, but if it is up to me I am taking the shot.
In post 649, Wickedestjr wrote:Eyestott had four votes when you said this. He later got up to L-2, with no opposition other than me, and you still didn't say anything about it - you didn't unvote until his claim. I still think that the eyestott bandwagon had more support than the dave bandwagon. Do you disagree?
I did not like the active lurking Eyes was doing by being active on the forum and not posting in the thread and that was my main focus, I was however not on the wagon when he claimed as I voted Mastin before because I liked the case TTH made on her (and I have an open post to her about it), so that is incorrect. I agree that by the end the Eyes bandwagon had more support.
This doesn't defend against my point, though. I understand that you were suspicious of eyestott. But you were also suspicious of dave. I understand that you were more suspicious of eyestott than you were of dave - that also doesn't defend against my point. You expressed doubt in the dave bandwagon because of 'dog piling' and 'little opposition' and these points are even stronger for eyestott, yet no mention of these points when you were voting eyestott. I thought the eyestott bandwagon was awful, that’s why it bothers me that you seem uncharacteristically loyal to it.
vettrock
why do you have Heartless as leaning scum?
More to come
"You miss 100% of the shots you don't take. -Wayne Gretzky"
-Wickedestjr
Unless we have a doc, both eyestott and copper are nightkill bait. We can lynch them easy enough if they're still alive in a couple of days.
Heartless is pushing an obvious mislynch. I also see scum in the hydra dissonance -- Anti thinks I'm easy meat, while TTH knows from personal experience I can nail scum who go after me with no evidence. I challenge anyone to quote a post of mine in this game and show clear scum intent in the post. My vote is on scum. I put mastin in the same category but can only vote one. It would have been safer for scum to leave me alone and NK me later. Town can win, if they follow my reads after I'm gone.
Wanna play Minecraft with your ms friends? Check out the minecraft thread, or the channel on discord
I find it ironic that the guy saying "fuck meta, ESPECIALLY self-meta" is asking me to talk about something that is...essentially, meta.
But to answer the question...yes, actually. I DO have trouble. I've had trouble ever since 2009, in fact, back in my Mastin days. (Admittedly, I was a VI back then, butstill.) I just didn't "do" logic. I understand it better now, but I use
reasoning
, not strictly speaking 'logic'. Players who are incredibly logical and methodical have always been a blind spot. Some, I've come to learn to read; most, I can't. It's generally players who rely more on instinct that I can read, because logic, being objective, is easy to pull off as both alignments, thus hard to read and naturally I find it on a subconscious level to be "suspicious" in that I always seem to want to write scum motive to it. INSTINCT, being subjective, is something incredibly difficult for scum to fake, thus it's much easier for me to catch a faker. (This is why contrary to what Anti may believe, I do in fact have more than just activity to determine his alignment. He can't fake-scumhunt worth a damn.)
I actually can buy that. It's not outside the realm of possibility.
Like, at this point, I could lynch copper if absolutely needed, but I would MASSIVELY prefer not to.
For a start, if copper's town, scum need to kill him anyway, and the later his ability is used if we decide to lynch him, the better.
I also think the claim was done in a rather pro-town manner, too. So were I to lynch him, it'd be believing him to be town, who'd use his ability, and that's something I find sub-optimal. I'd rather just lynch someone I think is scum.
In post 811, copper223 wrote:I also am still unsure if Mastin is town for it or she was happy killing me off during the night so I wanted to share this, personally I am leaning town.
Hate to burst your bubble, but I totally didn't see your softclaiming. I thought you were town on other merits. (Sooner or later, people will realize that I really, really SUCK at seeing PRs. I townread Vezok and Bert, INDIVIDUALLY, in Organic Chemistry, not because I caught them softing masons.) Generally, I'm the one who DOES the softing.
In post 705, Tean Samargo wrote:Firstly, when examining what I posted, did you take in mind the context of the post? What it looks like is that you think my reply to penwin was a read. This is not exactly true. To understand my post fully, you must look at penwin's odd question:
In post 346, killapenwin wrote:@tean what do you think of mastin's holding her reads 'close to her chest'?
My post was/is
not
a current read of mastin. It was an opinion on her play earlier where she would literally just post "I think he's scum. Trust." and leave it for a day or two.
I never thought your post was meant to be a 'read'. Not sure why you got that impression. Also not sure how this distinction affects the validity of my points...
i dont trust you on that at all. why do you think he is scum?
Dave is a player i would consider voting right now but i want to know what your case against him is.
dodgy, mastin is just as (If not more) experienced at mafia as the likes of sjg and Crunkus. She cant fully explain, because it would be against the rules (I think because of the "no talking about ongoing games" rule).
Here in this post, we see the white knight Eyestott defending the vague post. I see here that Eyestott is encouraging his fellow companions to trust mastin and to join the glorious dav bandwagon. He's fine with trusting her saying that she's a veteran, and/or the reason why she couldn't explain was because of a current game. 'Idolizing' might be a bit of a stretch, I must admit, but I do interpret this as blindly following seeing how quickly eye is willing to trust and defend mastin's 15 syllable argument.
Glad you have admitted that 'idolizing' was a stretch - it still bothers me though. And eyestott trusted that mastin had reasons he couldn't immediately divulge with us, but I don't consider that blindly following - he waited several days before voting dave. Your use of the word 'people' in 'people are practically idolizing her' and 'blindly following her' also seems like a stretch if this is your only example. Do you have any other examples?
Tean wrote:Look, there's a little bit of a difference between "Look this guy said he's scum without explaining- lets trust him" and voting for someone with some sort of evidence. I thought that Dav was suspicious not because of what mastin had said, but because of his play. Two different things. You're sort of blowing it up and taking it out of context.
I don't think I'm blowing anything up. You say that you voted dave because he was suspicious and not because of what mastin said. But mastin never gave explicit reasons for suspecting dave, so EVERYBODY voting dave had to give their own reasons, just like you. Even eyestott, your example follower, voted dave for claiming prematurely - this was not a point that mastin mentioned prior to his vote. Nobody ever said anything along the lines of "Look this guy said he's scum without explaining - lets trust him", everybody gave their own reason for joining just like you. I think you're blowing this up.
Tean wrote:
In post 637, Wickedestjr wrote:The thought, “I think most of her actions are cryptic as f***” is a very strong opinion that is very surprising considering mastin has actually just started revealing more AND Tean had never mentioned mastin prior to this.
My opinion is based on Mastin's earlier play. This is
obviously
not an opinion on her
current
play. Especially after she started revealing more.
In post 637, Wickedestjr wrote:This whole post is absurd and feels like setting up to join a potential bandwagon that could form on mastin.
So you're suggesting that I think mastin to be scummy? No where in this post states that I thought that mastin was scummy.
Okay, you're right here.
Tean wrote:And please don't say disliking someone's opinion is scummy. I expect you to at least know this.
When did I say that?
"You miss 100% of the shots you don't take. -Wayne Gretzky"
-Wickedestjr
For the record, tean/vettock/eyestott/dave is where I'm looking at for scum mainly. Obviously, they can't all be scum, but I'm preeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeetty sure we've got at least two in there, and with luck, three.
In post 867, davesaz wrote:I'd go stronger with this, but I feel this is a player that you need your ducks lined up in order to attack, especially D1. I've had a bad experience with that but can't give details for the obvious reason. And hell yes, this approach (wanting ducks lined up) is survivalist. It's also consistent with how I play so bite me if you don't like it.
Yeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeaaaaah,
And you wonder why I scumread him.
In post 916, eyestott wrote:I am most likely going to vote copper, as a few of his posts have been pinging me as quite suspicious. I will try and find them.
For the record, I'm basically just assuming eyestott's scum at this point.
In post 916, eyestott wrote:I am most likely going to vote copper, as a few of his posts have been pinging me as quite suspicious. I will try and find them.
For the record, I'm basically just assuming eyestott's scum at this point.
Please please please explain.
You only have one game with me where I was scum, and that was where I had no associatives, as the buddy kept replacing out.
Why do you keep saying I am scum, but not actually back up your claim with any evidence, but do it for other players? And you keep missing questions i ask you, which drives me crazy. You havent really interacted with me all that much, but youve been calling me scum all day. It's pretty infuriating, to be honest.
In post 797, copper223 wrote:I blame TTH for not being around if they are town because that ruined my plan a) after I joined this game just cause she asked me to, thanks bud, the best strat was to play scummy enough to potentially survive to lylo and more or less seal the win by baiting a quick hammer, that's why I naked voted and followed reads a lot, she should have known I don't play like this as scum and could relieve some pressure but her brother can't read me or is pushing a scum agenda, I think the first is more likely.
I REALLY don’t like this. Blaming Heartless for not being able to read you when you deliberately alter your play? I would expect someone to scum read you for playing scummy on purpose. There’s another hole in your plan: “play scummy enough” and “survive to lylo” - those don’t go together. I think you should know that drastically altering your play as a pr is usually a bad thing. I don’t buy this.
And the crumb is ridiculous too. The phrases “have a good shot” and “gun to head” are both perfectly ordinary.
Vengeful is a good claim for scum because it’s not at all testable. Also, at this point in the game, even if you are town, your power has no benefit. It doesn’t increase the number of kills that town has control over - a vengekill would simply replace our day 2 lynch. But I’d much rather have a day 2 lynch.
In post 844, beastcharizard wrote:When have I ever successfully manipulated my meta? Also, this type of game is solely my town style of game as it makes me a huge target for a lynch or Vig kill.
If scum, you wouldn’t be ‘playing to win’ unless you made an active effort to manipulate your meta… If you were scum, why wouldn’t you just play the same way?
In post 846, Heartless wrote:there's a 1% chance there's 2 k's. if there's a vig, the obvious optimal strategy would be to stay quiet and shoot copper.
vengeful is not the best fakeclaim
Wrong. The probability of two Ks is actually;
21(0.90)^5(0.10)^2 = 12.4%
Still pretty unlikely, but not as negligible as 1%.
This VCA seems really pointless, too many assumptions, not enough flips. I agree that dave’s recent activity jump feels solely motivated by the increasing pressure on him.
"You miss 100% of the shots you don't take. -Wayne Gretzky"
-Wickedestjr
In post 867, davesaz wrote:I'd go stronger with this, but I feel this is a player that you need your ducks lined up in order to attack, especially D1. I've had a bad experience with that but can't give details for the obvious reason. And hell yes, this approach (wanting ducks lined up) is survivalist. It's also consistent with how I play so bite me if you don't like it.
Yeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeaaaaah,
And you wonder why I scumread him.
And it's scummy how?
Wanna play Minecraft with your ms friends? Check out the minecraft thread, or the channel on discord
In post 946, Wickedestjr wrote:If scum, you wouldn’t be ‘playing to win’ unless you made an active effort to manipulate your meta… If you were scum, why wouldn’t you just play the same way?
I asked when I did it successfully. Also, there is no benefit of lurking at this time. Late game sure lurking has its benefit, but early game it is a death sentence. I have my reasons for not being around and yes it is a strategy. If dave is scum it totally worked.
and this is relevant why since you are saying you are legit tracker and you therefore should know we are not scum together?
