Mini 1782 Game Over

[Nosferatu]

You are more than capable of scumhunting and are not scumhunting.
So either you're scum or you're not making an effort and I'm fine lynching you either way.

w/e, what's your opinion of mav going from townlean to scum on jake in ~150 posts (6 pages) without interacting with him?

[Nosferatu]

^ Question isn't limited to RC

[Ircher]

Vote Count - Day 1 VC #6

RC (1) - Kein
Mhsmith (2) - Nos, Jake
Kein (0) -
Froot (0) -
FA (0) -
Jake (2) - Froot, Maverick
Maverick (0) -
Shaddow (1) - Plain
Nos (3) - Lowell, FA, RC
Plain (1) - Shaddow
Lowell (0) -
Clumsy (1) - Rosh
Rosh (0) -
No Lynch (0) -
Not Voting (2) - Clumsy, Mhsmith

Deadline

Dawn will end on April 18, 2016 5:30 PM EST or in (expired on 2016-04-18 17:30:00).

Lynch Threshold

With 13 alive, it takes 7 to lynch.

Mod Notes

The following rule

expansion

is being made:

Rule C2: "Excessive use of posts to forestall prods without playing the game ("dodging" prods) may result in a replacement."

In addition, while it has only been 1 day since Kain's last post, I have decided to prod him, as he has practically made only 1 post with any content at all in them game. (A vote post) while the rest (5) are basically posts saying Hi. Do note that earlier I "nudged" Kain which does not count as an official prod, as the rule for pre-game was you only have to post once. If you have any problems with this decision, please let me know by PM.

[Jake from State Farm]

Lie is abuse of others trust.

don't telling the truth or even giving out false info in a mafia game is not a lie as its happening in the game borders.

No one is attacking your integrity Jake.

Sorry. When somebody accuses me of lying and I prove I wasn't and still accuses me of lying. That's a direct attack on my integrity.

[Nosferatu]

@Mod: RC is voting me

Whoops, wrote your name instead of RC's! Fixed.
~Ircher

[RadiantCowbells]

K nos let's make a deal.

You actually make an effort in this game and if you have good reasons to TR shadow and scum read whoever I'll vote them with you.

[Nosferatu]

I am making an effort, I just haven't hit my scumhunting groove

I hit it midway through D1 in NY192

I hit it at the start of D1 in LI1757

hit it like D5 in NY188

it'll come

and you'll know

[Maverick1102]

V/LA until 11/04 - working a tonne of hours due to the Grand National weekend here.

[a plain farmer]

I'm also sympathetic to the Clumsy wagon.

Can you explain this? This is literally the fourth time you mention Clumsy in your ISO, and only one of them has anything to do with a read (which is useless anyway, since it's in your ordered reads list that has no info in it).

It's mostly a gut read right now, combined with a general absence of towniness in his posts.

You have almost no original content to speak of, and you're just comfortable voting for anyone that's getting attention.

This is about me, right? It seems that way, since it seems like that whole post was about me, but it feels like you drew these accusations from a hat.

The interactions between FA and RC have me on edge, and continue to do so. I don't think they're

both

scum, but wouldn't be surprised if one of them flips red. There's stuff I don't like from both of them, so I'd rather wait to vote there until I'm more sure.

Am I wrong in concluding after reading this bit that you think it unlikely they are both town?

[a plain farmer]

@Clumsy:

What's your objective right now? Do you have any reads besides Maverick as town?

[a plain farmer]

@Frozen Angel:

RC said this about you a while back:

Read scumread as attacked, FA!scum doesn't like being attacked. she omguses and changes her views and stuff.

Then you had this exchange with Jake:

Pregame you seemed to not like shadow and roshar and wanted more from nos. game starts you vote nos for him making a mountain out of a molehill or something like that.

If you were using pregame after the game started, I would think you would have voted one of the people you were suspicious of and not the one you needed more from. Just my opinion though.

oh and fyi, stop accusing people of being defensive like it actually means something. It doesn't. Town and scum both can be defensive.

They can but your reaction / I don't care about getting lynched and your sudden hippocratic push on me "becuase I didn't start the day phase voting the same persons I called scum in pregame" is scummy as shit

actually

VOTE: Jake

(There were other posts to it on pages 23-25, but I didn't want to bloat this post with them and the ones I quoted suffice to summarize the relevance to the RC quote)

This seems to fit what RC said about your scumgame. We have the "attack", the change of views (since you previously seemed to be townreading Jake from what I could tell based on 428), and the omgus.

Is what RC said wrong? Is what RC said true, but not applicable here for some reason? (Or is it true, applicable, and a scumtell? )

RC, feel free to weigh in too if you have any thoughts.

[Frozen Angel]

Calling that omgus is sick.

http://forum.mafiascum.net/viewtopic.php?f=55&t=64645

http://forum.mafiascum.net/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=65639

http://forum.mafiascum.net/viewtopic.php?f=53&t=64492

And thats not a scum tell of me. I do reevaluate my reads however I want to.

[a plain farmer]

Wrt jake, I find myself ever more frustrated with trying to get him to open up at all. It feels like pulling teeth and it really shouldn't. I owe him a meta dive (not ASAP but def. by this weekend) to see if he's always super closed, if he often jumps in with "ok I found the scum guys" type posts representing theories he hasn't fully thought through or came down on one side and just ignored other plausible explanations. But my gut is saying that I'll probably see similar behavior from him in either alignment, and that he's just going to live perpetually in the null zone by choice, because that's where he wants to be.

It's the sort of behavior that IMO makes the game less pleasant, regardless of his alignment. And there's a post game rant that I'll probably go on about why I dislike this behavior so much. But if you want me to give you a strong alignment read on him, I can't. Maybe he'll start to open up and let him be read one way or the other. I hope he does. But I suspect he won't, and that further efforts to get much out of him are likely to be fruitless. Maybe I'll change my mind on that going forward, or maybe someone else will do a better job getting something substantive out of him. But at least right now, I don't know what to make of his alignment, and I'm not optimistic that I'll get much of a better read any time soon. Sorry for not being able to give you a better or more definitive answer, but that's where I am on him right now.

Alright, so null. Let me know if today's events moved the needle at all.

For my part, I have a town-lean on Jake and don't think we should lynch him. I had a bad feeling about some of the things he said. But most of the arguments against him are based on NAI playstyle issues. There was someone saying something to the effect that he didn't have a case on mhsmith. It's true that he doesn't have a comprehensive 'The Case on Mhsmith' post, but it's not hard to glean from what he's written that he sees mhsmith as having been non-genuine on specific instances. Then there's Maverick's points against him, which I may summarize as follows:

1) Jake said the people pressuring mhsmith were pressuring him so that he'd remove his vote (but Jake didn't say this. He was saying that mhsmith got pressured in general, so then removed his vote in hopes that it would reduce the heat on him).
2) Jake isn't trying to convince town to lynch his scumread (but he did say why he thought mhsmith was scum, and the degree of subsequent politicking one does for it is a playstyle thing).
3) Jake was angling for towncred (this might be in the eye of the beholder. I didn't really interpret anything he said like this).

[Froot Loop]

I shared my feelings about both already. if you can't see that I'm null townlean on jake and scum lean on RC atm. RC plays seems a bit fake and closed that I'm not sure what is he trying to do and whats his agenda.

plus RC is not suggesting policy lynches.

he is not just playing open and you need analysing his posts to understand him - which is extremely hard becuase he is basically doing nothing.

and Jake push on RC is becuase he is afraid of RC play as both town and scum and he thinks RC didn't done anything to make him say otherwise.

none of them are policy lynches.

(my bold)

This seems like a policy lynch:

VOTE: JFSF

Not dealing with someone with that attitude, regardless of alignment.

Maverick's gone hard on Jake and I don't like this post:

@Jake: You didn't prove me wrong. You lied about people applying pressure on mhsmith

to make the retraction of his vote seem scummy

. You're backtracking with

pedantic little arguments that anyone ought to be able to see through

, you've

hunted for towncred

and willingly ignored a large portion of the game. (People were talking in pregame. It's part of the game. Deal with it.) You claim you aren't being defensive yet you've gotten worked up about me thinking you're scum and are appealing to emotion by insinuating that you're angry about being called a liar. Bull.

You're angry about being caught out.

You claim you're looking for reads elsewhere whilst your vote remains on mhsmith. Well if you're looking for reads, what do you think of me? Of Roshar? Of FA? Of APF? Or are we all still null-reads for you after 25 pages? Because that, too, stinks of lazy scum.

Nos-ja'd: @Nos: I can agree with Lowell's drifting. There's votes and some reads in there.

(all my bold)

I don't like this kind of representation in the thread. I know it's after a long conversation so there's context but it's presenting contentious assertions as fact.

Maverick doesn't know why Jake lied about applying pressure on smith. Maverick's categorisation of Jake's arguments as pedantic is subjective. Similarly, "hunted for towncred" is an interpretation of Jake's actions as scummy, rather than presenting the actions themselves. Maverick quoted the posts he's referring to but it's presented objectively in this post. Maverick doesn't know why Jake is angry.

Jake has presented conflicting motivations in thread. He said pregame was useless (post 198) and that he was busy (post 201) and then when he was called on saying the thread was useless (post 272) he said it was because he's busy and didn't acknowledge the actual foundation for the comment (post 269.)

Similarly, he posted a vote for RC (post 340) and a subsequent explanation (post 427) which doesn't mention any posts in the game. Then (post 460) says that he's also read some things in the game which make him think RC is scum. (I can't see any reference to what those posts are but that's a different thing.) Then, when Nos says it's a policy lynch (post 462, Nosferatu"],) Jake only quotes his post saying that he has read some of RC's content (post 468.)

This is the kind of thing that comes across as lying in the thread.

I don't know what lying Maverick is referring to about smith, maybe I missed it. Maverick, can you confirm?

I'd also still like to know if Jake's vote on RC was serious or if it was part of gambit. It will help me analyse his play.

[a plain farmer]

Calling that omgus is sick.

http://forum.mafiascum.net/viewtopic.php?f=55&t=64645

http://forum.mafiascum.net/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=65639

http://forum.mafiascum.net/viewtopic.php?f=53&t=64492

And thats not a scum tell of me. I do reevaluate my reads however I want to.

Alright, I'll consider this. But I'm not going to read 400 pages of stuff. Do you recall where I should look in these three games?

[Frozen Angel]

in the first one I omgused zulfy's BS case on me . everyone called that scummy - things got insulty and I replaced out. I was town/ he was mafia

In second one I completly reevaluated my read after my rant in day 1 and a fake hammer which helped me to find two scums in row during the nights.

In third one I started hard tunneling acryon as soon as he made a BS case on me. he was town and we lost the game for my tunnel vision.

I will reevaluate my reads whenever I want.

[a plain farmer]

Thanks.

I'll look at these when I have time.

[mhsmith0]

ninja'd a bit by FL but I have some other thoughts on the subject. Coming soonish.

[mhsmith0]

Spoiler: Jake Thoughts

As annoying as it is to defend Jake, I would say that his argument in 587 holds water as a consistent thought. He's basically saying that there was pressure against my argument, as opposed to specifically being pressure against my vote. There's a logical consistency there, and in fact it represents a plausible read of what happened.
The back and forth seems like Maverick found something and jumped on it as much as there truly being anything worth jumping on. Given that Jake tends to present things in an opaque manner and stonewalls, I don't view maverick's take there as necessarily unreasonable, but it is at least a bit lazy to jump to the "you're lying" take on that incident instead of trying to figure out how it might reasonably hold together in his mind.
That said, Jake's over the top "how dare you accuse me of lying you have insulted my honor sir" bit in , [post]604, etc. was ridiculous. You don't get to blast someone else's somewhat lazy read of what you wrote when you basically did the same with me, see "That really makes no sense to me", "I just don't see his motives being town hence the vote", etc.
PS "I get it, I apparently annoy you for some reason, for what reason I have no idea." Maybe everyone in this game that you've annoyed is taking crazy pills!

Overall, I feel like Jake came out of the back and forth with Maverick looking a lot more decent than I was expecting. I'm not sure anything between him and FA pinged me as especially notable for AI purposes; I may re-read that later, but that's my first take. I'm actually starting to lean a little bit town on him.

Spoiler: Maverick Thoughts

FWIW, some of this is similar to what FL said in 663.
Looking specifically at Jake's 615, which argued that five of Maverick's accusations were false:
1 Likely false. I suppose it's plausible that in 521 Jake was sneaking in that specific wording to try to buy town credit, but it's buried inside of an accusation against me, which makes me think it was more related to the "why are you annoyed at MOI????" point (which of course was ridiculous), but his overall game play has been anything but looking for explicit town credit.
2/3 (related, response to "You're backtracking with pedantic little arguments that anyone ought to be able to see through") Likely false. I say "likely" here because there's an opaqueness to Jake's process that both makes him difficult to read AND plausibly gives him the option to go back and say "no, this is what I meant". That said, I don't see any kind of clear evidence of backtracking or a reliance on pedantry.
4 Debatable. Jake represented getting worked up specifically about the lying portion more than the accusation. But it could reasonably be that he simply focused on that bit as part of the "worked up about you thinking I'm scum" perspective.
5 Debatable. If Jake legitimately thinks that he's being falsely accused of lying, I could buy him getting angry as either alignment. I could also buy that he's faking it (especially as an easy buy of credibility in case there are other points where he DOES end up lying). I don't see in-thread evidence that this is clearly true or clearly false.
Jake's defense against the other stuff ("Willingly ignored a large portion of the game"; not putting effort into reading others; "tunnelling... a quite weak argument") seems to boil down to "I don't play that way, and you can't tell me how to play". I don't like that defense at all, but it doesn't make him scum.

PS There's something specific of Maverick's that I really don't like.

I like both the Nos and the JSF Wagons. I quite liked Froot Loops' reminder that 'Too scummy to be scum' isn't a thing, so I reread Jake in ISO. Despite a fair amount of posts in both pregame and D1, there is still very little to work with and if I'm honest, it seems like he's making it difficult to read him.
Would town do this? Probably not.

This comes after his critique of my case on Jake earlier:

Ninja-ja'd: I have to roll with Nos on that one. Whilst I'd like her to participate with more posts like the #368 you quoted, I can't help but want to know why you think that's scummy. I don't appreciate how Jake is acting, but playing so blatently anti-town just isn't something I can see scum doing so early into D1.

Ninja'd - I can't see JSF as scum being so directly confrontational so far so I'm slipping him into the leaning-town category.

I think the point of active lurking is to coast without drawing attention to yourself. Jake is doing plenty of that.

I'm struggling to see what drove Maverick to basically change his interpretation of the very same set of facts that earlier caused him to town read Jake. Maverick, why did your opinion on this flip between 387 and 543? It can't be because Froot Loop convinced you that it's because anti-town behavior necessarily equals scum; she specifically notes that her Jake vote is due to something else entirely. So what else changed to make that behavior scummy in your mind?

PS I'd agree that Jake's vote on me is mediocre, but I'm not sure that it's necessarily insincere or vote parking or anything like that. He's stated why he's voting me, notably in 474, 482, 485, 503.

So

I can't actually see why JSF is voting for mhsmith other than he dislikes readslists and they've butted heads a little bit

just seems off, and really reductionist. You can certainly disagree with his reasons (I do), but to suggest that he's just hand-waving a case out of nowhere solely because we've "butted heads"... no. That's not what he's saying. And while Jake is opaque, he's not THAT opaque. Town lean retracted.


Nos: I need to spend more time here. But one thing grabbed my attention:

Spoiler: Nosferatu quotes

how I'm making a mountain of a topic I didn't even comment on without being prompted on. I didn't even try to argue that the sarcasm thing was scummy but you're acting like I'm pushing smith hard about it and scumreading him solely based on it, when I clearly said I wasn't.

That's not exactly true.

@smith even tho I said I wouldn't really be reading the previous pages seriously, the stupid "muh sarcasm" shit way back when in the early pages still pinged me a bit so the initial vote was for that
I also think you're gunning for low-hanging fruit with jake, which is why I haven't moved it.

So her initial vote WAS for "the sarcasm thing" (and the fact that she voted for me due to this suggests that it was something she found scummy, unless this was some sort of reaction test thing or the like). And she DID argue the point, see

no, I didn't get the sarcasm, it's that you made a shitty post and then said "oh it was asrcasm gaiz I tohught dat was obvios"

the tone of your post is completely static and there's no reason it could be interpreted as sarcasm. This is why we have and Kappa and :^) and other such emoticons to denote sarcasm properly.

and then eventually becomes

I didn't realize you were being sarcastic. Let's just get this out of the way, I'm not thinking you're scum here because of this post. I realize now that you thought it was sarcasm. I said that the initial reason was because I remember how you explained this post as sarcasm, and that it didn't make sense to me. I'm not voting you know because of that. If it was just that, I would've unvoted much before.

Nos, it looks like you WERE in fact "try[ing] to argue that the sarcasm thing was scummy". Am I reading you wrong? Are you trying to make some other point than something that seems to be explicitly false?

I'll also note that you're not currently pushing me, although I do note that your vote is still on me. Do you still think I'm scum? Has someone else pinged your radar? What are your current thoughts right now?

[Jake from State Farm]

This is the kind of thing that comes across as lying in the thread.

I don't know what lying Maverick is referring to about smith, maybe I missed it. Maverick, can you confirm?

I'd also still like to know if Jake's vote on RC was serious or if it was part of gambit. It will help me analyse his play.

it can't be called lying if everything was the truth.

Yes my vote on RC was serious.

[Jake from State Farm]

Jake has presented conflicting motivations in thread. He said pregame was useless (post 198) and that he was busy (post 201) and then when he was called on saying the thread was useless (post 272) he said it was because he's busy and didn't acknowledge the actual foundation for the comment (post 269.)

How can it be conflicting if both are true? Pregame is useless but I was also busy. See how that works? They aren't conflicting, they are complementary

[Nosferatu]

@smith you are reading wrong. And I've already mentioned who's pinging my radar right now.

[Jake from State Farm]

K nos let's make a deal.

You actually make an effort in this game and if you have good reasons to TR shadow and scum read whoever I'll vote them with you.

Shouldn't you be making more of an effort yourself before asking others to make an effort? Just sayin...

[Jake from State Farm]

Not sure what to make of smith's post. On the surface it looks like he actually put some effort into writing it. Being a newb player that's something im not used to seeing. Smith are you by chance an alt account?

[Lowell]

It's going to be sweet vindication if this Nos wagon (finally) gains steam and s/he flips scum. Then we'll see who's oprah!!*

I'm also interested in lynching clumsy. Read in ISO, in particular, he pings all my scum sirens. He discussed RVS, generates conversation on unrelated material (age of players!?), makes comments about how things are "weird" without offering any insight, and only posts meaningful content when responding to votes against him.

* fighting words