Open 581: Making Friends and Enemies! (Game over)

[elleheathen]

Grib/LR/Mala?

[elleheathen]

Grib/davesaz/Kaboose?

[elleheathen]

Fuck idk.

I think scum is in those 5 though.

Rest I have as town.

I may get a coffee and read through this whole thing again.

[Green Crayons]

Yeah, I suspected Picard was the other mason after Cheetory had asked me to sell him on Fairies being scum, and then did no follow up.

I'm at page 20 of my reread, so you'll get that Ranger case soon, Heartless.

[Green Crayons]

w/r/t Grib's sudden swag vote, I think my only problem is this:

I'm wondering why that next leap vote is on a person you had as town enough to say that you would NOT lynch them, who you hard defended as town even when you knew that it wasn't likely that he was mason and was just lying town...

If Grib thought that there was a 99% chance that swag was not a mason, but still had swag at DO NOT LYNCH, how did pushing swag being 100% not a mason make swag the correct lynch for today?


(Also, I'm not seeing the obvscum play from Grib these past few pages. I think if you were already suspecting Grib, then his play probably comes off worse than, if like me, you were reading him town before hand.)

[Green Crayons]

@swag:

By my so-called "scum team analysis", I think awesomeusername is scum. And obviously since there are masons I would not say out who are the others.

VOTE: awesomeusername

There my vote stays for the rest of the day.

@lone ranger, that I will need to check.

As we don't have to worry about you outing the masons, give your case on awesome and his potential scum buddies.

[Armageddon]

Vote count Day 2.6

Players alive: 11

Players needed to lynch: 6

Green Crayons

- 3 - Lone Ranger, Heartless, MalaKittens - (L-3)

Kaboose

- 1 - Whatisswag - (L-5)

Lone Ranger

- 2 - elleheathen, Green Crayons - (L-4)

MalaKittens

- 1 - Grib - (L-5)

Whatisswag

- 1 - Kaboose - (L-5)

Players not voting: CptPicard, davesaz, Titus

Mod notes:
Still looking for a replacement for CptPicard.

Deadline is in

(expired on 2015-02-03 23:22:00)

Deadline is extended for the duration of this weekend to allow more chance for a replacement to be found before deadline. Essentially a 2 day extension.

[Whatisswag]

I am in fact very happy with a green lynch. I feel that green's lynch is the key to breaking all the interactions. What exactly will my flip give you anyway? whether dave is scum?

[Whatisswag]

@swag:

By my so-called "scum team analysis", I think awesomeusername is scum. And obviously since there are masons I would not say out who are the others.

VOTE: awesomeusername

There my vote stays for the rest of the day.

@lone ranger, that I will need to check.

As we don't have to worry about you outing the masons, give your case on awesome and his potential scum buddies.

Awesome seriously does not like to vote. Neither does people like to vote awesome. Makes me think that he is purposefully avoiding voting others and the other scum are covering it for him.

[Whatisswag]

VOTE: Green Crayons

L-2

[Whatisswag]

Actually I think elle pretty much did nothing by claiming. I dont think it is going to affect the lynch.

[Whatisswag]

It was a relatively simple exercise of "take the player list and eliminate anyone Cheetory ever scumread or expressed legitimate doubts on." It only left Picard's slot.

This is the exact reason why I had thought Green and Kaboose were scum pair, together with a bit of elle or Mala.

[Whatisswag]

It was a relatively simple exercise of "take the player list and eliminate anyone Cheetory ever scumread or expressed legitimate doubts on." It only left Picard's slot.

This is the exact reason why I had thought Green and Kaboose were scum pair, together with a bit of elle or Mala.

Replace Cheetory with Kaboose, Green

[Whatisswag]

Grib is too different from what I know of him. I dont know how to read Grib.

So is it Kaboose, Green, Mala?

[Whatisswag]

elle is a good choice of recruitment as of day 1. As of day two, Green will be a better recruitment though.

[Whatisswag]

More like he's just immediately posting whatever thought runs through his head the second he thinks it.

Hmm... That is true.

[Titus]

Yeah I want Grib and Swag swung from the rafters.

I do have minimal doubts on GC but not enough to make me want to vote there today.

[Whatisswag]

Lets see.

Heartless, Kaboose, Green, Mala, Titus, Grib, LR, dave.

Lets get heartless off that list.

Kaboose, Green, Mala, Titus, Grib, LR, dave.

Lets get dave off that list.

Kaboose, Green, Mala, Titus, Grib, LR.

Lets get Titus off that list.

Kaboose, Green, Mala, Grib, LR.

Well by this, there is at least one scum within Kaboose, Green, Mala. Chances are Grib and LR are not both scum. So that means two scum.

[Kaboose]

Are you excluding yourself from your list to create some subliminal messaging?

[Green Crayons]

Lone Ranger Case:

1.

Spoiler: Ranger's entry into the game and in attacking elle looks like scum trying to mimic town-replacement confidence. Scum motivation: look like town-replacement.

a. Okay, so town replacing into a game that has substantial history is probably the easiest way to find scum, because you don't have any history with any of the players and so you're looking at things objectively. This typically results in the town-replacement being pretty confident in the town-replacement's reads.

b. Setting aside Ranger being wrong about elle (because being wrong does not make one scum), I think Ranger's elle-push looks more like scum attempting to convey town-replacement confidence rather than being actual town-replacement confidence. (1) Globally, I think this is supported by the fact that Ranger is abrasive and dismissive towards elle in their back and forth, which is a close substitute for confidence. (2) Specifically, I think this is supported by the fact that Ranger really shifts points of conversation to prolong her elle argument on continually winning bases (Cheetory's observations in Post 392, Post 394, Post 397, Post 401, and Post 420 capture what I'm saying).

2.

Spoiler: Ranger's push on me is bad but, what makes it more scummy, is that it appears calculated to get into a lengthy wall war. Scum motivation: look like TvT if I get lynched.

a. Once again, someone being wrong does not make one scum. And suspecting one's suspectors is a classic town blunder. That said, I'm still allowed to call Ranger out on her bullshit case, as scum do need to actually push shit cases to win, so here we go.

b. Ranger's first lays the foundation for her GC hate in Post 521 and Post 522. Ranger's criticism is part ad hom (GC is usually good, but here he's fucking horrible!) and, to the extent she states criticism that is valid in the abstract (shallow arguments, failing to actually engage) she doesn't connect them to the real world of this game. She repeats her same case in Post 654 after nobody really picks up on her GC-beef. Consequentially, these posts are nothing short of throwing chum into the water. They are designed to make me jump at the bait of defending myself, but there's no way I can actually defend against the criticism. It's shady as fuck. (When I finally take the bait, my response is at the bottom of Post 779. Ranger doesn't respond to it.)

c. Ranger throws in another dig in Post 524. Here she actually gives a concrete example of her problem with my play: that I'm not providing new, unique reactions to the Ranger/elle interaction, and that I'm hesitant and wishy-washy. (1) The criticism about no unique reactions is BS, because it's based on the flawed paradigm that town comes up with something new to say about interactions, rather than what is on their mind. (I have also never checked to see whether my reaction to Ranger/elle was truly duplicative of other players - I don't have the time/energy to do so now, but I assume that Ranger wasn't flubbing the line.) (2) The criticism about me being hesitant and wishy-washy is BS, because Ranger is apparently familiar with my previous play and should know that that's just me (I wouldn't use such pejorative terms, however - I'd say cautious and thoughtful).

d. Ranger attacks Grib for telling her to actually support her GC-is-playing-like-shit case in Post 668. The problem with this is self-evident, but I'll state it anyways: Ranger turns the conversation around so that it's not her fault for making the case, but it's Grib's fault for wanting someone to scum hunt in a particular manner. Moreover, Ranger shifts the point of conversation (just as she did with elle), so that it's not that Ranger is failing to provide in-game examples (Grib's point), but whether Ranger should be talking specifically to GC or to the town at large (Ranger's response).

e. Finally, Ranger finds a reason to votes me based on me suspecting something she did in Post 741. I finally take the bait. My explanation of why her initial post was suspicious, and why her reaction to my suspicions was suspicious, are adequately explained in Post 742 and Post 747. I'll further note that I my Post 754 captures Ranger once again shifting the points in conversation in order to make herself look better (creating this distinction between two types of questions, and then arguing based off of this new point of minutia).

3.

Spoiler: Ranger's "masons should recruit one of us" strategy is classic "scum would never suggest this because it could out scum." Scum motivation: look town by suggesting anti-scum strategy.

a. At the outset, let me say that I never cared who the masons targeted. That was their prerogative, and despite Ranger's baseless digs to the contrary (Post 797), I made that clear from my conversations about what the masons should do (Post 672).

b. I don't think that Ranger's basic suggestion, that the masons should have recruited either Ranger or myself, is in and of itself alignment indicative. It's the fact that she soft-pushes the notion that she isn't scared of being targeted in Post 805, with: "It feels more like you don't want the avenue of discrediting me snatched away from you." That looks like scum wanting to give off the impression that they are perfectly okay with being recruited, without having to to explicitly state that "yo I'm totally not scum please recruit me."

c. Ranger warps my response to her plan. This could come from either alignment (scum or tunneling town), but I'm noting it here to underscore why people shouldn't trust Ranger's bad case on me. Ranger first picks a fight on the basis that I didn't respond to her suggestion (Post 797). I tell her to shove off, and why, and conclude with "Your plan has a lot of holes in it and the masons can do whatever they want." (Post 802). Ranger then twists my response into "pretending that there is a scum benefit and generalizing it as if talking about roles is anti-town (this is not just for you but others)" (Post 804). I never said that there was a scum benefit, and I never said that talking about the roles was anti-town, so Ranger is - once again - shifting the points of conversation to a place where she can win.

d. Ranger goes quiet on D2. I don't know what to make of this. (1) If Ranger is scum, I have hypothesized that it is because she wanted to give off the impression that she was actually recruited without having to say so. Alternatively, she was a major focus of yesterday and didn't know if the masons

did

actually recruit her, and so decided to play it low until if/when the masons made their move, and then just stuck with that level of activity because it hasn't really been hurting her. (2) If Ranger is town, I only see anti-town motivation in suddenly retracting from the game. She has provided absolutely no substantive input for today. She hasn't critically reexamined any of her reads, continues to push her bad case against me based solely on D1 material, and her reaction to D2 game developments is minimal. This presumes that Ranger is purposefully being a bad player, when I think her previous activity shows that she isn't. Between these two scenarios, I think Option 1 is more likely.

[Green Crayons]

Here are the two reasons why I think Kaboose looks like scum:

1.

I don't care for Kaboose's response to the case, which goes beyond a big shrug and actually offers to put the noose around his neck for such a good job that TTH did. The response is actually more suspicious than TTH's case, in my opinion. The sentiment - "you have made a good case against me and I don't really have a response" - is not necessarily alignment indicative, but Kaboose really just lays it on thick.

2.

I can't tell if you're posting with hubris or if you're just completely convinced everything you say is always right.

This looks like scum buddying by attacking Heartless, who is suspecting me. Alternatively, this looks like scum trying to get townpoints should I get lynched.

What differentiates Kaboose's response from Titus and elle, who both have defended me against suspicions, is that they actually provided reasons for why GC-suspicions are bad, or why they're reading me as town. Here, Kaboose attacks Heartless for hubris/always right mindset, and even as the player who is being suspected by Heartless, I don't see the basis for Kaboose's claim.

[Titus]

@GC, Grib, Swag and LR team?

Your reasons on Kaboose look like playstyle to me. Some players are gut players. It makes them harder to read but Kaboose's response is a simpler version of what I said.

[Green Crayons]

Grib: town
elleheathen: mason
Heartless: town
davesaz: lean town
Whatisswag: town
MalaKittens: scum
Kaboose: scum
Green Crayons: town
CptPicard: mason
Lone Ranger: scum
Titus: mason

My one bit of paranoia about Grib is that he has periodically buddied me in major (declaring town, which is whatever) and minor (agreeing with my arguments without necessarily stating it) ways. I have seen the same thing with Kaboose. I don't know if two scum would buddy the same player in the same way. Between the two, I feel more comfortable in my Grib town read.

[Green Crayons]

Grib: town
elleheathen: mason
Heartless: town
davesaz: lean town
Whatisswag: town
MalaKittens: scum
Kaboose: scum
Green Crayons: town
CptPicard: mason
Lone Ranger: scum
Titus:

mason

town

Fixed.

[Grib]

@mod: I'm declaring V/LA on weekends.

I'll post stuff in about half an hour.

Noted