Blitz 4: Kingmaker (game over)

[Accountant]

/confirm

Spiffeh why did you sign up without knowing the setup?

[Accountant]

If this were a normal game I would vote Titus for admitting to having a scum PT, but it's not, so I'll just leave you with this cool sound effect:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=erFcYsC ... tu.be&t=8s

[Accountant]

@Firebringer, My nodded game doesn't count as the mod is insane.

lol I have no idea if you are serious or not.

I have been trolling the entire time to see who jumps. Accountant jumped.

*jumps*

[Accountant]

*skips*

Hey offtopic here, Accountant are you actually a accountant?

I am far too young to be an actual accountant, but I am good with finance.

[Accountant]

VOTE: Titus

This is who I think the King should execute.

[Accountant]

I believe the Kingmaker chose who the King is in pregame.

[Accountant]

If soft-spoken is really King and he just ended the day I'm going to convert to Pastafarianism for the next three months.

[Accountant]

texcat you are very quick to call things scum itg which is very different from how I remember you as town before.

VOTE: Spiffeh

This seems like someone lashing out

[Accountant]

id rather be annoying than contribute nothing more than fluff

VOTE: firebringer

How dare you!
Here is the OMGUS vote:
VOTE: Soft-Spoken

This is fluff. I don't like this post.

[Accountant]

Lots of players read casual and informal play as townie since they perceive that scum would care more about the game and put in a bigger effort to look good. If that's Titus' train of thought, I disagree.

[Accountant]

Guess who forgot to bookmark this topic... oops? reading now.

I just bookmark mafiascum.net and use "view your posts" to remind me which games I'm playing in.

[Accountant]

My vote on Spiffeh stands.

[Accountant]

texcat you are very quick to call things scum itg which is very different from how I remember you as town before.

VOTE: Spiffeh

This seems like someone lashing out

nothing so far has altered my viewpoint here

[Accountant]

Accountant, could you explain why you interpreted that as 'lashing out.'?

Doubly interested as Accountant has attacked almost anything resembling scumhunting/engagement.

He's going out of his way to cast doubt on tex. That's not scumhunting, that's reaching or maybe setting up a ML

[Accountant]

texcat you are very quick to call things scum itg which is very different from how I remember you as town before.

This is literally textbook doubtcasting.

"which is very different from how I remember you as town before" is a meta argument.

Note how he doesn't directly call tex scum so if tex flips town he can go "but I didn't say tex was scum, I just said he acted differently from what I remember of him as town". If town!Spiffeh really was leaning scum on tex, he would come right out and say so instead of sniping at him like this.

[Accountant]

texcat you are very quick to call things scum itg which is very different from how I remember you as town before.

This is literally textbook doubtcasting.

"which is very different from how I remember you as town before" is a meta argument.

Note how he doesn't directly call tex scum so if tex flips town he can go "but I didn't say tex was scum, I just said he acted differently from what I remember of him as town". If town!Spiffeh really was leaning scum on tex, he would come right out and say so instead of sniping at him like this.

You can be sure there will be at least a few million more instances of townies performing actions which can be interpreted as scummy before the sun sets today. My question is why did you come up with this reason now and not before when it would have been of greater utility?

Just be aware that you have changed your reason for voting against him from 'lashing out,' to this elaborate reason which you have procured in your defense. This inconsistency is detrimental town play at best, but more likely malignantly motivated wouldn't you agree?

What do you mean greater utility?

My reasoning against him is unchanged, he was lashing out against tex and I find that scummy.

[Accountant]

There is such a thing as passive-aggressiveness dude.

[Accountant]

nobody is actively pushing spiffeh except me.

[Accountant]

There is such a thing as passive-aggressiveness dude.

This is not relevant, and if it is, all the more reason to believe your motivation for voting was malicious.

If you can call him out and condemn him as scum for passive-aggressive reference to other players, then your own method is scummy for the same reason. As you said, your vote for him stands because you believe he lashed out. Now some things to note:
1) You originally called it lashing out, and then described what he should have done as something which was far more 'lashing out' or aggressive, meaning there was no actual hope for him to be able to get a town read off you.
2) You underplayed your original claim by citing text-book scum plays that applied to him. What you cited, namely the 'lack of aggression' = scum, because scum would come right out and say it flatly contradicts your initial reason for voting him.
3) When you attempted to justify it, you came up with "Passive-aggression." Which is not actually what you were claiming when you were elaborating the reasons previous. Hence you've changed your claims yet again.
4) The reasons which you've cited as evidence against him I'd like to use as a more valid construction for a vote grounds against you. Namely, you are scum because:
a) Instead of 'saying so,' you gave arbitrary and highly ambiguous reads that concluded a vote against Spiffeh was justified.
b) You lashed out against Spiffeh (is equally valid to your original claim, which is to say, not valid at all)
c) You're blatantly performing 'doubt-casting' on Spiffeh, by making a claim against him that can be retracted into: "Oh, it was passive-aggression."

Your play is scummy as fck let's be honest.

Addressing your points:

1) You seem to think that him standing there and saying "texcat is scum" is less aggressive than sniping at texcat from the shadows. This isn't true at all. Sniping at someone, especially scum pushing a wagon from the shadows, is a far better way to cast suspicion on them and push their wagon than just voting them and going flat out "this person is scum".

2) Being passive-aggressive is NOT lack of aggression. It is being sneaky about your aggression. I called out spiffeh for his sneaky aggression.

3) See above.

4a) Arbitrary and highly ambiguous reads? I said spiffeh was scum and voted him lmao

b) I was aggressive towards spiffeh, but I was open and upfront about my aggression instead of poking him sneakily like he did to tex.

c) That's not doubtcasting. Doubtcasting is when you say something like "well don't you think X could be interpreted as Y under a certain light" and scum like to do it because if they are proven wrong they can laugh and say "well I did say under a certain light". It's basically being a weasel. On the other hand I am coming out and saying "what spiffeh did was scummy and I am voting him for it". See the difference?

Also right now Smithereens is blatantly whiteknighting spiffeh

[Accountant]

Spiffeh what do you think of Smithereens

[Accountant]

firebringer if you were king who would you execute

[Accountant]

151 is another example of sniping:

"I could see Smithereens being scum".

Spiffeh can you just post a readslist and say who is or isn't scum already please?

[Accountant]

^ I don't really like that post.

texcat you are very quick to call things scum itg which is very different from how I remember you as town before.

I have read literally nothing but she's not in the thick of things which I don't like

Fuck Titus might be scum

Not a fan of her very few posts so far.

I could see Smithereens being scum.

Talk about spreading shit around to see if some of it sticks.

[Accountant]

Also of all of those quotes are worded in such a way that if the target flips town spiffeh can weasel his way out of looking like he tried to push a mislynch

[Accountant]

I can't get a read on Firebringer or Titus.

I want Smithereens to respond what they think about Spiffeh. A lot of people have come forward and said they thought Spiffeh was doubtcasting(Titus said he was doubtcasting, Firebringer thought he was pushing on Smith, softspoken said he was poking with twigs), what do you think of that?

[Accountant]

spiffeh I want a reads list now please

[Accountant]

@Smithereens:

>This blatantly contradicts your original motive for voting him. You claimed he was 'lashing out.' Which explicitly entails an overt medium of attack. Don't change your definitions of aggression, we all read that as active aggression, hence you meant that as active aggression. Presumably you are fluent in English, so there is no wiggling out of the fact that you conveyed to us the meaning of that as 'active aggression' not 'passive aggression.'

I don't know where you studied English but where I come from "lashing out" indicates two things:

1) aggression
2) motivated by a feeling of being trapped, cornered or opposed.

It does not give any indication of active-aggression at all. Suppose I am an unpopular dictator who is oppressing you. In this case, you may choose between taking an assault rifle and shooting me or talking badly about me behind my back until my reputation dovetails and I can overthrown in rebellion. Both actions would be regarded as lashing out, but the second one is more subtle and less likely to be called out.

tl;dr: lashing out does not imply active aggression and I don't know where the hell you got that from.

See also: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/lash+out

1. to burst into or resort to verbal or physical attack

I maintain that my post indicates that Spiffeh was verbally attacking texcat. The thesaurus also includes synonyms like "snipe", "criticize" and "pick apart" that are hardly a strong indication of active verbal assault. Now, I agree that I do not make explicitly clear in my post(since the phrase "lashing out" is neutral in terms of active or passive) that what I meant was Spiffeh's specific action of being passive in his aggression. Thus, once I realized that you did not understand what I meant by "lashing out", I corrected you by writing that it was passive aggression.

Your readers are the ones who define that,

This is a silly remark. For example, in post 197, Spiffeh makes the post "hold your horses omg". Should I choose to redefine that phrase as "I am claiming scum, please lynch me?" that would be dumb and not in line with the message he was trying to communicate to us("don't post so quickly, I am organizing my thoughts"). Similarly, the definition of "lash out" that you keep trying to force on me is not in line with the message I was trying to communicate to other players when I posted that Spiffeh was lashing out.

You clearly didn't intend to convey any form of passiveness because that didn't come out until later on in the questioning, so you intended for us to believe what a primary appraisal of what you first said would conclude.

Like I said above:

I agree that I do not make explicitly clear in my post(since the phrase "lashing out" is neutral in terms of active or passive) that what I meant was Spiffeh's specific action of being passive in his aggression. Thus, once I realized that you did not understand what I meant by "lashing out", I corrected you by writing that it was passive aggression.

>The fact remains that your claims have changed. So to seal this in concrete, at the time you made your vote against Spiffeh, did you intend to mean he was too passive-aggressive or too aggressive-aggressive?

At the time I made my vote against Spiffeh, I meant that he was too passive-aggressive.

>To clarify: By saying that he 'lashed out,' and later defining lashed out as being either passive or aggressive depending on whichever he was, you've created a double conundrum for him in that whatever he does you are able to peg him as scum.

I would say that lashing out in the general, "can be either passive or aggressive" sense that you are espousing, is not alignment indicative. When I wrote my accusation against Spiffeh, I meant that he was lashing out in a scummy(passive) way. Since lashing out without being a passive scummy sniper in the process is not alignment indicative, I would not have been able to peg Spiffeh as scum if he had been active-aggressive and upfront about his reads.

>So you admit you lashed out against Spiffeh? And conversely what Spiffeh did cannot be aptly described as lashing out?

We both lashed out.

I'm attacking you=/= whiteknighting Spiffeh. Please show me where I revealed a town read on Spiffeh.

Attacking someone's attacker is a form of defending them. By attacking my arguments, you attempt to discredit me, and by extension my argument on Spiffeh. If my argument on Spiffeh is discredited, he is less likely to be lynched. Hence, by attacking me, you are defending Spiffeh. I think that when you attacked me, you intended to defend Spiffeh, and have done so in other posts(like calling his mudslinging "clearly stylistic").

A single instance of this is suspicious. When its this constant, its clearly stylistic. A null lead in other words.

Suppose Spiffeh is scum who wants to discredit townies without being upfront and attacking them directly. To do this, he decides to sling mud on a bunch of different townies with the statements that I quoted. How do you distinguish between this and a blundering townie whose playstyle coincidentally involves mudslinging random players? Because I think the former is more likely.

That concludes my responses for page 8. Please stand by while I respond to pages 9 and 10.

[Accountant]

from my point of view its likely that this is one of those games where town is at each others throats while scum is sitting there with a shit eating grin... and we are about to conftown everyone involved and lynch scum.

I think you are town but I don't want this to happen. If I was scum I would be jumping in with gleeful joy, taking advantage of the scrum to push mislynches as blatantly as I want on any townie knowing that 3 other people who also hate that player will immediately back me up. I also think it's a terrible idea to conftown a bunch of players on page 8.

Although Accountant I am curious as to what you think about texcat?

I think the fucker needs to post more.

-

To be honest right now Smithereens is my top town because I don't think scum Smithereens would have the giant balls necessary to push a mislynch this far this hard this early.

[Accountant]

To be honest right now Smithereens is my top town because I don't think scum Smithereens would have the giant balls necessary to push a mislynch this far this hard this early.

Also, even if her arguments are pretty much 100% bullshit she's still generating lots of reaction and responses from players, which is good for town.

[Accountant]

Not to sound like I want Smithereens to vote me, but why has Smithereens been pressuring me for the past fifty posts and then votes Wanderer-nl?

[Accountant]

Accountant: Have you looked into games of Spiffeh to check if the meta-argument in favour of him was correct? Or at least that you could recognize it? Because I don't get the feeling you're doing anything to improve your read on Spiffeh, it's like you decided he was scum and are just sticking with it now no matter what.

My policy is to reject any meta-arguments, whether correct or incorrect. I consider any meta-tells short of an actual trust tell non alignment indicative.

Right now UNVOTE: because I'm really not comfortable with the other people on the Spiffeh wagon. I don't want to wagon on tex, I'd rather vote blocky or bard.

[Accountant]

Bard seems too eager to push on people that I consider town, like Smithereens. I honestly think Smithereens is pretty towny at this point, so it seems to me like he's reaching for something to attack. Blockyman has a terrible vote on soft-spoken and I don't know why, plus his posts just make me think he's not very interested in the game.

texcat and Sakura are... sort of inactive and lurky, plus I don't really have a strong town read on them. I'd rather not be on that wagon, because I could easily envision tex/sakura the scum team, making it a mislynch.

[Accountant]

I don't think that Spiffeh is town. But I'm not comfortable wagoning him at the moment due to the other people on that wagon.

[Accountant]

I think tex is scum now. He's not even making any effort to suss out people's alignments. I don't see the "I am trying to figure out the game" attitude in any of his posts, even less than Spiffeh.

VOTE: texcat

Probably my final vote of the day given that this is blitz, unless someone claims scum or some shit

[Accountant]

Accountant explain why you care who's on my wagon when you still hold to the belief that I'm not town?

because I might be wrong

[Accountant]

Accountant I asked like five times. Who specifically did you not like on the Spiffeh wagon and why?

I said already, I didn't like tex and sakura

[Accountant]

smith/accountant/spif have my immunity vote btw

the correct shot is outside of them regardless of alignment. i want our catalysts alive for future days.

Good shit. I like immunity votes on myself.

[Accountant]

Personally, I believe Accountant makes the best target today. There are still questions that have been raised yet to be answered, such as why the wagon on Spiffeh could possibly incentive one to not vote against a scum read.

I've already explained and I'm irritated that you didn't read carefully; while I think Spiffeh is objectively acting scummy, the fact that tex and sakura were on his wagon makes me suspect that I may have been wrong about that.

[Accountant]

The only thing that should motivate you to lift your vote off a player is if the severity of your scum read decreases.

I wouldn't say my scum read on spiffeh has decreased but my scum read on alternative lynch targets certainly has increased.

Plus, while scum might bus scum, they aren't going to go all in on a popular wagon on other scum d1.

[Accountant]

Top town: smithereens, soft-spoken.

top executes: tex, sakura, spiffeh

[Accountant]

Titus isn't going to execute me with so many better targets around, so I'm not really worried.

[Accountant]

Don't say that like that's some scummy post because it's not.

It is. It suggests Accountant and her buddy are making a better target for me to shoot so she doesn't have to be afraid.

If I was scum I wouldn't have to make a better target, because they are making themselves. Shoot tex, not me.

[Accountant]

Titus why do you think I am scum?

[Accountant]

Titus why do you think I am scum?

You've been making baseless attacks at the entire game yet have no fear of dying.

Why would scum have no fear of dying, unless they know their partner is the King and won't execute them?

[Accountant]

Titus why do you think I am scum?

You've been making baseless attacks at the entire game yet have no fear of dying.

Why would scum have no fear of dying, unless they know their partner is the King and won't execute them?

If scum have an army defending them, it's easier to take bold risks.

Well, no. This isn't regular mafia. If I am universally townread but the King hates my guts, I will lose.

[Accountant]

I don't like town blocs because I think that scum can hide in the town bloc.

I've already stated all I needed to say, 20 hours left so I'm probably not going to be able to generate anything marvelously original. I'll keep an eye on this thread in case anyone has questions for me.

[Accountant]

I would have preferred texcat but this is acceptable.

[Accountant]

OHHH SHIT TITUS I JUST REALIZED YOU SHOULD HAVE WAITED FOR HIM TO CLAIM!!!!

LAST GAME WE KILLED THE KINGMAKER DAY 1!!!!!

or hero

[Accountant]

Titus any comment about the night?

[Accountant]

requesting replacement

I forgot to add in hydras when calculating how many games I would be playing and unfortunately find myself one game overloaded. My policy is to drop games in the same order they started, so I guess I'll have to be replaced here.

Many apologies for any inconvenience.

PS: Titus is totally scum.