Blitz 12: Double Trouble! (Game Over)

[Ranger]

At least one of {PhantomCobalt, Titus} is scum.

Dwlee is town; texcat and BeBop also are pinging for scum.

It's too early to tell for sure on Errant/Firebringer/AlwaysInnocent, but early indicators are town.
Squirrelly, not so sure about; still too early to say.

[Ranger]

Yakko is town and so is Dominator; Wanderer

may

be scum.

[Ranger]

VOTE: Titus.

[Ranger]

So!
{Dwlee}
{Yakko, Dominator}
{Errant, Firebringer, AlwaysInnocent, Flubbernugget}
{Squirrelly, gimick, ZZZX}
{Wanderer}
{Phantom Cobalt, Titus, texcat, Bebop}.
(Forgot Flubbernugget in my notes before.)
There we go!

[Ranger]

@Ranger this have to be weak reads right? We just got of RVS.

Nope, except for those that were. (I noted the weak and strong ones.)

People on this site have

no

clue how obvious they make their alignments in the RVS.

How accurate do these reads end up being? How often do they change?

About 66% (may be dwindling down to 50% slowly), and not very often.

What makes you think all these people are town?

Because I'm pretty sure, even in THIS game, there are more town than scum. :P (I see at absolute most, six scum possible.)

Ranger, can you tell me about your town read on Dwlee?

Dwlee's posting was very, very strongly town scumhunting naturally rather than scum awkwardly scumhunting. (This is multiball, so everyone can legitimately scumhunt a little, but town scumhunt blindly and scum scumhunt strategically; Dwlee is the former.)

Sure would be nice to have reasons.

Reasons are a luxury, not a necessity.

She does that. I don't like it and will continue to point it out. Reads don't do much for the rest of us without explanation. But, I have seen her do this as town.

Ah. Didn't know you were a hydra. This explains things.

VOTE: BeBop.

[Ranger]

Wasnt that a huge tell we missed in blitz one that scum was hard defending each other?

Actually, we soft-distanced from each other for the majority of the game. It wasn't until the last two day phases post-mason-claim that we got all buddy-buddy.

Dwlee is doing a lot of joking even past the rvs stage while throwing shade at errant.

And that's part of the reason I have the townread.

Titus continues to send off many alarm bells on page six. I may explain after getting caught up. (Probably not, bit busy tonight.)

Always Innocent is much stronger town by now, naturally.

Ranger's now disappeared.

I post once a day.
Sometimes twice. (More if I'm obsessing over a game, but average of 1/2 times a day.)

That's not disappearing, that's called

having life

.

PC is still scum, btw.

[Ranger]

Actually, wagon here's larger.
VOTE: PhantomCobalt.

[Ranger]

Can I ask why the vote on my ranger?

Because I'm gonna be blunt, I'll vote whichever scumread of mine has the largest wagon.
At the time I voted, I was reading and your wagon was the largest, albeit still small at only two.
Then I saw the PhantomCobalt wagon, also a scumread, much larger, so I switched.

[Ranger]

{Dwlee, AlwaysInnocent}
{Yakko, Dominator}
{Errant, Firebringer, Flubbernugget, Squirrelly}
{gimick, ZZZX}
{texcat, Wanderer}
{Titus, Bebop}
{Phantom Cobalt}
For clarity: this is Wanderer and Phantom Cobalt moving down, not tecat/Titus/Bebop moving up.

[Ranger]

Titus's posting just seems calculated. It feels like how she would go about hunting scum in a multiball game when being scum herself: manipulative and controlled, easily compromising and changing, lacking in stubbornness because stubbornness draws attention to yourself and drawing attention to yourself when scum in multiball is suicide.

Dominator's posting simply hasn't bothered me at all, which instantly puts him above half the players in the game. I'd have to get back to you on what specifically I actually liked, I just remember reading what Dominator said and thinking, "This doesn't look like scum."

[Ranger]

Are town villager and town citizen different somehow? *Is confused*

Hello scumslip.

VOTE: Bebop.

[Ranger]

I don't do crumbs.

Yes you do.
Titus is scum, too.

VOTE: Titus.

[Ranger]

Ranger: throws around random reads, without explanation, and then disappeared

>_>

I post once a day.
Sometimes twice. (More if I'm obsessing over a game, but average of 1/2 times a day.)

That's not disappearing, that's called

having life.

Exception: yesterday (Saturday), since I didn't know the game would be starting Saturday, and I took the whole day off for personal reasons. (Easily confirmable.) Otherwise, yeah. Been here every day, once or twice per day. Very much not disappearing.

UNVOTE: Titus.
Titus explained herself sufficiently, Bebop's result on her is apparently rock-solid, Bebop is unlikely to be protecting a scumbuddy, and Titus as a godfather is unlikely to claim jailkeeper, so all signs point to Titus as town, and Bebop as probably-town. (The scumslip I mentioned was, more accurately defined, a "not-VT" slip, and Bebop claimed not-VT.)

Since this has cut my scumreads down in half (between Bebop being town, Titus being town, and PhantomCobalt flipping town), I'll need to re-evaluate my assumptions from yesterday.

I still feel comfortable with a Squirrelly townread (for obvious reasons) and also am feeling good about Always Innocent, but aside from that, I need to re-think the rest. Will do after I have caught up.

[Ranger]

and acting all-defensive when her post behavior gets analyzed by him.

Of course I'm defensive about post behavior involving

my real life activity

.
You call me a lurker, I'm calling you out on BS because I don't lurk.

I post once or twice a day.
That's plenty active, even in a blitz game. I stay up to current, I catch up quickly even when not, and my post count is always easily at least middle of the pack. I do NOT "disappear". So you say I do, and I WILL call you out on your lie.

Well, I think the opposite is more likely to be true: providing lists of reads is a luxury; reasons are a necessity.

You're not very good at making cases if you bring up playstyle as an argument. I have a widely established history, null because it's there as both alignments, of listing. Reasons are a luxury, lists practically a necessity for keeping my thoughts organized.

Ranger being scum in Hardcore mafia means that Ranger isn't necessarily town for any of her early game strong positions
I think Titus early townread ranger due to something of that sort?

This is tripping all kinds of opportunism bells.

VOTE: Errantparabola.
(So

this

is what it feels like. I've been on the giving end of this a few times, never the receiving end. I'd tell you the vote's not OMGUS but you wouldn't believe me.)

[Ranger]

I could've seen Titus and Ranger as a team, especially with the Dwlee kill.
But the jailkeeper reaction on D2 start confirms titus as town?

"Titus and Ranger could be a team"-->Titus is town-->

VOTE: Ranger

^That. Why this doesn't make sense: Because if the assumption is "Titus and Ranger could be a town"-->Titus is confirmed town, the first thing to do is

reassess your read on the other player

. As in, "Titus and Ranger could be a team"-->"Titus is town"-->"So maybe Ranger isn't part of a scumteam, need to reconsider".

[Ranger]

The titus townreading ranger thing isn't why ranger is scum, to clarify. but it's a benefit that comes from ranger being lynched.

And the benefit behind lynching a strong townread of a player who is apparently confirmed town is...

...What, exactly?

[Ranger]

I am inclined to believe Titus for now, but there is just one thing that keeps bugging me: her early and highly confident (and uncalled for) townread of Ranger. This conflicts with my belief that Ranger is scum.

Why do you think I scumread Titus?

I did not think I deserved the townread. Her holding it raised all sorts of alarm bells.
But she's apparently confirmed town, so she had some reason for holding it. I MAY have a theory for why, but I wouldn't be able to explain why and it'd require me double-checking something which I'm too lazy (and busy) to check.

[Ranger]

Ranger likes to throw around lists of reads without explanation, it seems. Even as scum. This does not surprise me at all.

Yes, and it is also present in every town game of mine.

And I do mean every town game.

I like to throw reasonless reads out. It is what I do as town, so I fake it as scum. Null. Playstyle. Now, you brought up actual points against me. You can push those all you like. But these? These are invalid.

And this is one of the statements from ranger that I don't like.
The whole faux-confidence thing.

This is another reason Errant is scum: because Errantparabola has an acknowledged history of recognizing that me listing is null, and knows that what I said is perfectly accurate: reads are a necessity to give, but reasons aren't. Not for me. They are given out when it pleases me: luxury.

[Ranger]

I feel scum would be aware of this being multiball by now so Dom's 524 feels like a towntell. It does very much annoy me though because this has already been discussed. Twice. (iirc)

I kind-of feel like Wanderer could be scum with Dom.

Explain. And keep in mind that pisskop edited the post I was referring to.

Already did.

(The scumslip I mentioned was, more accurately defined, a "not-VT" slip, and Bebop claimed not-VT.)

[Ranger]

You're not a strong townread anymore?

But I WAS, and it weirded me out a lot because it didn't feel justified at all. JUST recently, as in, five minutes ago (literally, just in 576), I realized what I

think

caused the townread, but I haven't bothered to confirm.

How is Titus confirmed town, ranger?

Because of players like you trying to push her as not being confirmed town. :P

(Quirky humor aside...for obvious reasons?)

Your attitude + style of play and your reads list are two different things.

Sure my attitude is a different concept from style of play, but style of play is

synonymous

with reads list, and the quote being discussed, "Reasons are a luxury", is a simple statement of exactly that. Maybe said in a bit of a tongue-in-cheek manner, but a statement of a personal fact all the same. And you're agreeing with a person saying it would be scum, when...it literally cannot be. Null, explicitly. Town, not so much.

[Ranger]

{Dwlee, AlwaysInnocent}
{Yakko, Dominator}
{Errant, Firebringer, Flubbernugget, Squirrelly}
{gimick, ZZZX}
{texcat, Wanderer}
{Titus, Bebop}

From this:

{Always Innocent, Squirrelly, Titus, Bebop}
{Yakko}
{Firebringer}
{Flubbernugget}
{Albert B. Rampage, ZZZX}
{texcat, Wanderer, Dominator}
{Errantparabola}
To ^that.

[Ranger]

Explain how I'm being opportunistic.

Always Innocent, who people are claiming is conftown (don't know why, but I'll run with it), posted about the Titus read. You come in and buddy him. You then build on his already-existing Ranger doubt to cast shade, which is particularly egregious given our game history: you may not have explicitly painted my listing as a scum indicator, but you implicitly were, running contrary to the proof it's null.

Buddy a town player? Good scum strategy. Having that town player be the main pusher? Good scum strategy. Having the player being pushed on be town? Even better scum strategy. It's a trifecta of opportunism: you get to push town without consequences, because if anyone would take heat for the wrong read on me, it would be Always Innocent instead of yourself, when in truth you are by far the more guilty party.

Out of the town games you linked, are there any that you could show me specifically that are like hardcore?

Like I'd know? When a game's done, I remember some important facts about it. I remember my general style. (Listing.) I remember the general outcome. I generally (though not necessarily) remember the players. My style's my style, though. I wouldn't be able to single out any one game because it's my style. It's what I do naturally. I don't know what to point to and tell, "that's me doing the same", because as far as I'm concerned,

every

game is me doing the same.

No you didn't. That post was valid no matter what my role was. The two people killed were listed as citizen/villager respectively. I made the post to point out the inconsistency.

You don't need to defend yourself. The post looked like a not-VT-slip, because a VT would know by their own role which it was. But since you are a claimed power role, you triggered a false alarm.

[Ranger]

Ranger, you don't get to metaread yourself, as that is entirely meaningless.

Exactly my point? Errantparabola asked me to metaread myself, but the task is impossible.

Your highly defensive attitude is telling.

This is not even remotely highly defensive?

The only things I have been defensive about are pet peeves of mine: lists instead of reasons being called scummy (not), "inactivity" being "called out" (I'm not inactive), and similar BS. Quite explicitly I'm not defending myself against many of the points I actually could be defending myself from.

Why is he your primary suspect and not someone more obviously scummy.

Because the game of mafia would not be even remotely challenging if all the "obviously scummy" players were actually scum? You're looking at things awfully superficially. Surface-level scumhunting is something I haven't done in four years. I focus on motivations behind posting. And through it, "obviously scummy" players are very rarely actually obviously scummy.

Obviously you cannot suspect yourself, so why not Wanderer instead?

Wanderer is, explicitly, a scumread, just not as strong one as Errant.

I'd switch to there if I didn't feel like pursuing Errant (there's a nice wagon), but I do.

[Ranger]

But they are.

Something I do every game cannot, by definition, be scummy.

You know you are going to have to revise it anyway, which you seem to be hesitant about, even though a lot has happened in the meantime.

What.

Seriously, what.

Forgive me for luring you out.

You cannot lure out someone whose posting times are unaffected by your mafia time and are instead affected

by their own real life

.

So you mean you are only defending yourself against things you cannot defend yourself from, but not the things you should be defending yourself from?

No, I'm defending myself against the things which are explicitly BS. You know the things of yours I haven't defended?

Spoiler: This stuff

I don't like this post at all. If something seems calculated, it is this post by Ranger. Furthermore, without an explanation, any defense of TheDominator is just not credible.

I could have defended against this. I didn't.

Townreading me again, without explaining why.

Then insisting on Phantom being scum

I could have defended against this. I didn't.

Then there is the vote on Bebop, who is practically confirmed town.

I very, VERY easily could have defended against this (simply by pointing to

a prior post of mine

even), but I didn't.

She had Dwlee at the top of her townreads with me. It would make sense if Ranger killed Dwlee with her faction. Indeed, not very odd at all.

I could have defended against this, but I didn't.

Heck! Your argument for me being scum in it has a big wide gaping hole in it, here:

am inclined to believe Titus for now, but there is just one thing that keeps bugging me: her early and highly confident (and uncalled for) townread of Ranger. This conflicts with my belief that Ranger is scum.

...But the closest I go to arguing this point is pointing out why Errant using it means Errant (who should know better) is scum! (You get the benefit of the doubt because you don't have that experience. Errant does.)

So, what

have

I defended myself against?

...Oh yeah. Exactly what I said I have! BS about my activity (null and also verifiable by

searching my posts site-wide

), and BS about listing.

I've zero intent of defending myself on other fronts.

You don't think I look for motivations?

Clearly you don't.

If you did you wouldn't be voting me.

Motivations are an intricate part of listing. If you can't see motive behind lists, then you can't see motive at all, mate. Pure and simple.

If I cannot see any reasons, I am going to assume you don't have any.

And you think a person who has played mafia for over five years can't fake reasons as scum? I choose not to give reasons. That does not mean none exist.

So explain why.

You haven't been listening. I've been pushing Errant. I've been explaining my read on Errant.

That is why Errant is a stronger scumread

. You harp on me for not giving reasons, yet when I do, you pass over them as if they're nonexistent!

You call my analysis superficial, but calling this a scumslip is even worse.

Scumslips are not superficial. They are driven by simple thought processes. If anything, scumslips are deeper than motivation. You just need to know where to look. BeBop did legitimately slip not-VT. This should be evident because someone with an actual VT role PM would, by virtue of looking at their own role PM, know what the VT role for the game is. (As I already explained.) I called it a scumslip because I made the assumption that BeBop was not a VT, but would be scum faking VT. BeBop being a power role, however, also explained the slip, rendering it a strong confirmation of BeBop's claim. Very, very useful information to have.

There is no proof that it is a null-read. Meta-reads are manipulable and therefore inherently unreliable.

So you're saying something I do literally every game is NOT in fact null, that it IS in fact alignment indicative, in spite of the fact that I do it literally every single game?

Dude.

There's meta that's "stuff you do as town, and stuff you do as scum".
Then there's meta that's

this is my freakin playstyle you douche

.

You even called reasons a luxury, which they are not from the town POV.

Not mine. Reasons have always been optional. Reads are fundamental. The game does not work without reads (you'd literally be random lynching if not for getting reads); the game works without reasons. I rest my case.

[Ranger]

Like...I don't use meta myself.
I won't meta a player.
I judge them off of their actions rather than their past games.

But I'm not a douche, because I know that sometimes...NULL MEANS NULL.

[Ranger]

Then you only slightly revise these reads to accommodate for new information.

Because the new information "only slightly" (VERY debatable) changed them.

My reads change off of how much new information changes them.

I generally quote or directly mention pieces of relevant information. (For instance, noting PhantomCobalt's death, Titus's status, Bebop's status.)
Sometimes that's a lot of change.
Most of the time.
Easily verified in my games, most of the time you'll find.
I don't change my reads that often because very little changes them.

Heck!

The changes I've made this game are probably larger than changes I've made in almost any other game! Not often I have to remove half my scumreads in one fell swoop, after all!

It seems as if your list of reads serves primarily as an overview for yourself so you can appear relatively consistent to the town.

Kind-of, yes. And? Point being?
I use lists as a tool. They help me keep my own thoughts organized; they help share my thoughts with others. They're as much for my benefit as they are for yours. They do function exactly like you said: as an overview of myself. They show you

what I am thinking

. Which is why I say if you can't read lists, you can't read motive.

Belief revision is necessary for the town to win.

Belief revision happens when there is reason to revise a thought. But there's a difference between being rational about a change and irrational. For instance, when it comes to

you

, I very easily could go all irrational, and point out how your extreme confirmation bias and unwillingness to move would mean you were scum, but I know better. That's an irrational, paranoia-induced thought from an emotional state. Not all read changes are good. I prefer to only make

accurate

changes.

I revised my thoughts on Titus because there was reason to. I revised my thoughts on Bebop because there was reason to. I revised my thoughts on Errant because there was reason to. I have gone over other reads, but when I reviewed them, there was no reason to revise the read. (e.g. ZZZX remains null, so too does ABR, because they haven't done anything and that hasn't changed.)

I particularly don't like Ranger's habit of giving a read and then sometimes filling in reasons later as it gives ample opportunity to make stuff up to justify the read based on future information.

Well, tough luck.

[Ranger]

Again, what's up with Yakko and Dom?

I come from a site with a

really

heavy focus on the RVS.
When in doubt, return to the RVS.
We do it every game.

It works pretty well, and we've got the art of RVS down to practically a science.

When you see a post, you see: "oh, it's the RVS, probably doesn't mean much". When I see a post, I see: "Nice!" Because on this site, players tend to not know how to RVS properly. They reveal their alignments surprisingly often, and nobody even realizes it. I'm not always right, not even close, but I use the technique with confidence. Just ask former victims of it like Errant. (Oh, wait! Errant isn't acknowledging that!)

One of the first people to suspect Ranger was Phantom. It is most likely no coincidence that both Ranger and Wanderer jumped on that wagon.

Check your chronologies. 71: my first mention of PC as scum. 87 PC votes me erroneously believing I'm a newbie. (I'm not.) Hops off at 216. I vote in 277.
PC does not revote me.
In fact, PC doesn't even mention me again.
PC last mentioned me in reference to Titus's strong townread (which, again,

I disagreed on

), and prior to that, way back in 207 where he was still voting me and held three scumreads...and then he switched to Bebop, AKA our conftown player by your own words. The only time PC described the scumread on me, it was...oh, yeah. Using...lists, and nonexistent inactivity.

[Ranger]

In this game, Dom is acting scummy. But having more information on him would be nice.

Here's an idea.
Why don't you actually go do something to, oh...I don't know...COLLECT more information on Dom?

Hmm...now what universal force can be applied to maybe give that extra information?

Something all townies are given, even scumbags are gifted with...let's see...what could it

possibly

be?

You said the game would not be challenging if every scum was obviously scum from the start.

Yeah, and Errant wasn't! (Well, this game anyway!) And I got not one, not two, but THREE (at

minimum

) false positives in the form of PhantomCobalt, Titus, and Bebop. It's as I said: I'm not always right, but I still go in fairly confident anyway. Scum aren't always obvious, but that bravado can still raise eyes and catch attention. I think every scumteam I've read the topic of has had me as someone they considered or wished to nightkill, and it's

because

of this confidence. I come in, I post a list, the list might not be accurate but it scares them, and then I die.

You, however, stick to uninformed reads from the beginning, like Yakko being town and Errant being scum.

And you've revealed you're not reading my posts given Errant was, explicitly, a townread.

A weak townread, sure, but a townread all the same.

Apparently it is affected by it.

How fond of the wiki are you? Actually, I'm pretty sure it's not just our wiki that has it, it's

so commonly known it exists outside our wiki

. Still a wiki, but a broader one. You know why it's called a logical fallacy, right?

My real life access to here is COMPLETELY unrelated to any callout you made, and to even THINK you could have that effect is pure, simple, unfiltered arrogance.

Except that the listing was not BS.

Exactly my point! :P
(

Accusations

about the listing, on the other hand, are BS.)

Makes sense if you are scum.

Right, because ignoring all attacks on me which draws suspicion totally makes sense.

I have no intention of defending myself against points I'd rather not waste my time defending myself on, because guess what?

I'd rather be scumhunting

.

The only motivation I can see is that you are trying to appear town when you aren't.

Then you have fundamentally failed to grasp what motive actually is.

You should be voting for Wanderer, though.

My weaker scumread?
Only out of desperation.

Otherwise, no.

I thought motivation was the most important.

Something can be deeper and still not be more important. :P
Scumslips are something that, most of the time, do not happen, and therefore, most of the time, are irrelevant, and therefore, most of the time, unimportant.

However

, when a scumslip

is

real, then they are the most important thing of all, arguably.

"Well, it is my playstyle that I always act like scum, even when I am town. Why are you holding me responsible for that?!"

My record says otherwise. (Nightkills, post-game compliments, etc.)
This is not me acting like scum.

This is me acting like the way town players

should

.

Your style of play is not mine. That does not make yours superior. If you can't recognize that, in fact, it makes yours by definition inferior.

Also, I am not a douche.

Calling a person scum for something they always do, and calling into question

real life activity

say otherwise. If that's not being a douche, I don't know what would be.

Except that reasons give rise to reads.

Only to 50% of the mafia-playing population.
You

do

know gut doesn't really count as a reason, right? Gut is a read without reason, and half of mafia players operate on it.

Again.
If you can't recognize this.
Then you're, fundamentally, sabotaging yourself.

However, I cannot derive reasons from your reads alone.

Yes you can. It requires looking into motivation.

Do you think I choose listed names at random when scum?
No, there's strategy involved.
When I use listed names as town, naturally of course it's neither random nor strategy; it's simply how I see things.
That's how I look at lists.

[Ranger]

A science, eh? Well, if it is a science, then you should know the reasons.

Of course I do. You think I make these things up?

Granted the reasons aren't rock-solid, but RVS content contains readable material. One reason I don't often share though is that I like keeping the secret: it seems to work, yet if I shared it with everyone, it probably wouldn't. At least not nearly as blatantly.

There's many reasons not to share reasons for reads: the effort involved, the information I gain by

not

sharing (for instance, by seeing how

other people treat my reads

), keeping the trade secret, intimidating the scum if I'm even remotely accurate, refining my reads if it turns out I'm not (yes, giving no reasons on my lists can help me refine my reads!), and many more.

[Ranger]

Calmed down a bit to recognize two statements which actually do contradict.

This is me acting like the way town players should.

Your style of play is not mine. That does not make yours superior. If you can't recognize that, in fact, it makes yours by definition inferior.

Sort of, anyway. The latter takes precedence over the former: people have different styles of play, none are better than the other by default, though the ones which do not recognize other styles are often inferior.

My statement in the former would be better said, therefore, in a different way: this is me, acting like the way a town player

with my style

should. I recognize other styles, but I will fight for my right to use my own. I focus on finding scum. I don't necessarily do the lynching of the scum. I can push for the lynch of scum, but I mostly do the job of

locating

them. I leave the rest of the job to other, more charismatic, players.

[Ranger]

Giving a reason for someone requires less effort and is more valuable than giving reads on everyone, especially that early in the game.

I am not you.

Maybe it's easier for you.

Not for me. Focusing long enough to compile reads actually strains me.

Scum generally aren't intimidated by reads without reasons.

My experience says otherwise. I can quote past scum topics if you don't believe me.

Especially if they rationally revise their beliefs to accommodate for new facts and information.

And I do this. Subtly, but I do this. It does not go unnoticed.

A rational townie will eventually close in on the scum.

Do you remember that 66% figure I quoted at the beginning of the game? There's a reason I said that. I do exactly that: close in on scum. Yes. With lists. You do not need reasons to do this. You simply need to be rational.

Refining reads isn't harder when you have given reasons before

But it's not easier, either.
In contrast, refining reads when you list is easier. There's a reason I do it, after all. ;)

5. Many more. Let's hear about it.

What time zone are you in?

I'll tell you where I live: inside America. Let me give you a hint: I woke up, by my local time, at 6:00 AM in the morning. How good are you at math? I won't give you which of the four continental timezones I live in, but I don't need to. Eastern, it's 7 AM. Central, 6 AM. Mountain, 5 AM. Pacific, 4 AM. Again, that is me getting up at 6 AM, and it being somewhere between 4-8 AM now. Somewhere either near, at, or exceeding 24 hours awake.

Most of it spent on this game.

I'm in no mood to elaborate. I'm far overdue for bed.

[Ranger]

It has nothing to do with my play style. It is just a factual statement. I base my play style on facts.

Uh-huh. And you're either blind or a hypocrite if you can't turn this around and see it from my side.

My style of play

isn't

based around hard, factual statements. I

use

logic and reasoning and factual statements, but they make up only about 50% of my style; the rest is composed of feeling and assuming.

[Ranger]

Let me give you a hint: I woke up, by my local time, at 6:00 AM in the morning. How good are you at math? I won't give you which of the four continental timezones I live in, but I don't need to. Eastern, it's 7 AM. Central, 6 AM. Mountain, 5 AM. Pacific, 4 AM

For clarity: that's waking up at 6 AM on

Sunday

, with it currently being between 4-8 AM MONDAY.

No sleep.

And do the math: calculate by your local time zone my post 568 to the timestamp on this post: you'll find it almost exactly 7 hours.
I've spent the last seven hours on this game.

I'm not in the mood to spend more time here.

[Ranger]

I am talking about rational scum.

So am I. Think like a scum player,

especially

in a game where the roles aren't known. What freaks you out more? A player who has given reasons which aren't accurate and who is presenting no threat...or a player who,

mysteriously

, for some reason

you don't know

, is scumreading you? Are they a cop with a guilty? They might be acting like one with their unwavering vote. They're not explaining the read, what if they've got some super-case for why you're scum they're just waiting to spring at the moment least convenient for you? Rational scum are terrified of lists without reasons.

However, not sharing them is objectively bad play.

Incorrect. Not sharing reasons is, by your subjective opinion, bad play. It is in no matter objective.

Yakko
Wanderer
Dwlee

For now everyone else can be town by poe

Not sure if scum slipping they're hunting for one faction only. (Who may or may not be aware Dwlee's dead.)
Or just town slipping they don't know there's two, unaware Dwlee's dead.

Need more to be sure, but if I were to

guess

, I'd go with the latter.

[Ranger]

This is not how you scumhunt when you think you've found a slip

Yes it is, assuming equal tiers of scum.
Bebop made a post which was a not-VT-slip: I recognized the potential for it to be a power role, but deemed it more likely to be scum, thus, scumslip.
Titus engaged in Squirrelly, seemingly entering into what was a 1v1 fight. In that fight, Squirrelly is a townread and Titus was a scumread. Furthermore, Titus made a claim I know to be false: she claimed she does not do 'crumbs, but I've played with her and I know she does, thus, thought she was lying. Since lying about not doing 'crumbs is something that lacks town motive, she was most likely scum in my eyes.

Later posts changed this, as it was revealed to not be as much of a 1v1 as it appeared, Titus explained her thoughts adequately, giving an explanation that made sense, and Bebop claimed the innocent on her, rendering it incredibly likely both were town, rather than my original assumption of both being scum.

Hence my vote on Ranger.

My death does nothing to shed light on Titus's alignment. It wouldn't even if I were scum, it CERTAINLY doesn't since I'm town.

My biggest scum reads are Errant and Ranger. I'm guessing they must be of different scum factions.

This seems mildly opportunistic, not to mention, OMGUSy.

Talk to me about what motivations you see behind this post

Null. As scum, "HA! I found a slip I can push!" As town, "Wait...

what did you say

?!?" I can see either, neither looks more likely than the other.

Is this a good summary of Ranger v. AI? AI: your reads are bad. You are scum
Ranger:that's just how I play
AI: your play is bad. You are scum
Ranger: my play isn't bad tho
AI: yes it is
Ranger: no it's not
Etc.

Meh, close enough.

Have you never seen an incomplete reads list before

Do not like this justification.

[Ranger]

Sometimes I do not realize that I am being a dick.

I sincerely hope so!
Wouldn't want you to

never

realize it. :P
(Sorry, that might be overstepping the bounds of a joke a bit.)

You can't have a PoE to three people and then say it's incomplete.

Titus's point is exactly why I did not like Flubber's justification.

Okay but why am I less scummy than ranger then?

I do like this, though.

Not liking ABR's 674.

[Ranger]

I would have NK'd Titus N1 if I was scum.

I very much sincerely doubt that.
What is your game experience with Titus?

Lets lynch wanderer and look at albert again when we have some more info.

This is a fair idea, but I want to see my name recorded on at least one more VC as on Errant before I switch, for emphasis.

[Ranger]

{Always Innocent, Squirrelly, Titus, Bebop}
{Firebringer, Yakko}
{Flubbernugget, ZZZX}
{Albert B. Rampage}
{texcat, Wanderer, Dominator}
{Errantparabola}

[Ranger]

There we go.
VOTE: Wanderer-nl.

[Ranger]

So...do we want to discuss anything today or just speedlynch ABR?
In the mean time:
VOTE: Errantparabola.
I feel no need to be on the lynch of confscum, so might as well make a statement with my vote.

[Ranger]

If someone is confirmed scum, then why not vote for them?

So...

do we want to discuss anything today

or just speedlynch ABR?

Confscum is confscum is guaranteed lynch.
That doesn't require one vote after another.
ABR's getting lynched today, without question, without doubt.

So I want to have my suspicion on Errant stated in vote form, because I can.

[Ranger]

...Though texcat is scum, too.

[Ranger]

I actually had some mental idea of teams going into the night, will have to look at it tomorrow though if texcat was the hammer. Basically, we've got scum lynched. We can hunt for teams. I had texcat's faction pegged, but I don't remember off the top of my head which I had him pegged as.

[Ranger]

VOTE: Ranger
I'd still prefer Errant or Ranger. I'm off to work, but hope to be back before deadline.

Vampire. He's Wanderer's scumbuddy.

That'd make Errant the unflipped scum faction, since texcat is not Errant's scumbuddy. Similarly,

TheDom would be better than a no-lynch.

This would be very doubtful to be a bus.

ABR's probably the unflipped scum faction. Dominator is a possible scumbuddy too, given:

I've seen him make exactly one post today. He needs to come out and play.

[Ranger]

This game might be 2:3.

The options are: I'm missing a scumread and it's 3:3, one of {Errant, Dominator} is town and the other scum and we have 2:2, or I'm right and it's 2:3.
Two vampires against three weaker unflipped scum: ABR+Errant+Dominator.

[Ranger]

(Well, I could also be wrong on my reads, but I don't think so.)

[Ranger]

Eeny meeny mini
VOTE: texcat.

Also could wagon Errant or Dominator.

[Ranger]

Do people want me to explain why texcat is a vampire, beyond the one quote I provided?
'Cause it's pretty obvious texcat is a vampire.

[Ranger]

Errant is town. Ranger is town.
Texcat could be scum.
VOTE: Flubber

texcat is not an ABR scumbuddy. Neither is Flubber. Errant is a candidate.

I've seen him make exactly one post today. He needs to come out and play.

This is 770. Dominator is a possible ABR scumbuddy as a result.
772, 775, and 779 show why I am not an ABR scumbuddy.

This is about all the useful information there is from his slot. He bantered with Always Innocent, but not in a way that strongly reveals alignment.

Switching to Wanderer, you get:

Then I wonder what the various reasons you had for voting me were.

Firebringer is unlikely to be a vampire as a result. 339 and 395 makes Always Innocent not scum with Wanderer, too.

Looking at the tone behind it, I'm actually thinking that Dominator is not a vampire because of 565; it reads as scum a bit miffed a mislynch of theirs was shut down.

So this is the information that can be gleamed from the dead scum. I'd like to note both were fairly reserved at giving out reads, which makes sense for multiball: you don't want to draw attention to yourself, so it makes sense for a scum player to give as little information away as possible.

[Ranger]

So, Squirrelly is my strongest townread for obvious reasons. Beyond the PR claim, they have constantly been scumhunting, and have scumhunted both factions if memory serves me. They've given many reads and many reasons, which easily could have drawn a lot of attention to themselves.

Behind them are Always Innocent, who has one of the longer isos in the game. He's been scumhunting plenty, and is definitely not a vampire. His play is largely focused on certain players at a time, meaning there isn't exactly one spot you can look at and go, "so that's what his thoughts on the players are", but he's not leaving himself with suspiciously few interactions. He is also very doubtfully a werewolf, given his relatively-early callout of ABR being scum. (This is not quite as absolute as his Wanderer callout, but it's close enough.)

Firebringer is definitely not a vampire (see 295, and also: while Fire defends Wanderer in 737, the defense is done in such a manner that I don't think it's a scumbuddy since that'd be too obvious), and I doubt Firebringer's a werewolf. This is mainly a gut thing, but I don't think Firebringer takes the stances Fire has if scum.

624 makes Flubber slightly less likely to be a vampire, and combined with ABR's iso makes Flubber overall look like town, but this is weak. His play looks decently town enough, so given these interactions, I don't think he should be touched.

I'm reading Dominator's iso right now, and I actually see it as being fairly town. Dominator is, undeniably, a lurker. Furthermore, Dominator has given virtually zero content. However, if you read between the lines, what content Dominator

has

given does vaguely look town. (It takes a minimalist to read a minimalist?) He had reads which matched mine: wrong, but existing scumreads on PC and Bebop, as well as a scumread on Errant. 520, the oft-talked-about post, is a line that comes from scum more often than town, but Dominator's explanation in 524 looks really town, especially given the callout of the scum being mafia. (When...they're actually werewolves and vampires.) While the presence on the Wanderer wagon doesn't add much, I think that 784/785 are posts an unafraid town player would make. (Similarly, 718 looks town for the same reason.)

hi im Yakko is someone that I'm

considering

for being scum. There's nothing in that iso off of the flips we have so far to suggest Yakko isn't scum...merely my speculation on texcat. However, while I admit it's possible for Yakko to be scum, right now I don't think it quite as likely as other options. I want to take a more detailed look at Yakko's iso to get better thoughts there.

Then we get into my more serious scumreads: texcat and Errantparabola. Let's do Errant first:
Errant is, very much, a player staying in the background, and trying to take a "back seat" to wagons. Errant's not a Wanderer scumbuddy, for posts like 266, but is my main candidate right now for being a Werewolf.

texcat's my primary candidate for being a vampire. 270 is texcat defending Wanderer-nl. 271 as well. 284 agrees Wanderer is weak, but texcat does nothing, with her vote still on Errant. Furthermore, come D2, and you get things like 719 and 752/753 where texcat is trying to wagon every player

except

for Wanderer-nl.

Furthermore, texcat fits the profile of lurking scum not drawing attention to themselves: texcat has given virtually zero content this game, and what little is there has been largely focused on specific players, just like ABR and Wanderer-nl.

[Ranger]

I have Flubber and firebringer as scum. I'm going with who I see more likely scum here.

*facepalm*
Read my posts, please?

This game's multiball, you have scum interactions to go off of.

texcat is, clearly, 100% a vampire.
Errant's not nearly as clear a Werewolf, but is a probable suspect.

What are your thoughts on Yakko being a potential vampire, Ranger?

It's possible if the game's 3v3 (or texcat to not be a vampire), but that requires you to be scum. :P

Do you think, since we've lynched a vampire PR but a werewolf goon, that werewolves pose a bigger threat? Do you think that we should try our luck with lynching a werewolf over a vampire? Or should we stick with lynching the vampires because you have more solid reads on them

Lynch the player most likely to be scum. It doesn't matter which faction.

Since texcat is the player most likely to be scum, we should lynch texcat.

[Ranger]

Why is Ranger more definitely town than the rest of us?

Because Errant is trying to buddy me.

But then again there was only 1 scum again last night O_o

^Why we should be lynching texcat.

The role speculation is stupid; we have solid play evidence that suggests texcat is a vampire, so we should lynch there and worry about potential werewolves tomorrow.

[Ranger]

Prodding Firebringer

This is the cutest image ever.

Ranger and errant what are your thought on number of scum in game faction wise?

At least 2:2, could potentially be up to 3:3, but probably not; 2:2 or 2:3 most likely. Particularly, 2:3 given vampires flipped PR and werewolves flipped goon.

Off the top of my head I remember having squirrel as town and ranger as well. I don't mind follwing them.

Since when?

[Ranger]

You think Errant is scum vampire then?

No, Errant's my best guess for werewolf.
texcat's the vampire, and probably a smaller faction at that, so could potentially be eliminating a faction with that lynch.

What do we have on Texcat, though?

She seemed to deflect from Wanderer.
An insincere sounding congratulatory post.
Emphasizing consistency, for voting Errant again. Not sure why we need to know.

But how is this a solid case?

Yes, we have these incriminating interactions in addition to texcat fitting the same posting profile as ABR and Wanderer: focusing only on specific players and not providing much reason behind their pushes, with a low post count.

If that isn't enough for you, then I'm sorry, you need to seriously rethink how you play; it's rock-solid evidence.

[Ranger]

I suppose you're right about that, but often there is one active scum member guiding the game, and that could be you.

If we want to go, "but it could be you!", then I could just as easily say, but it could be you. :P

Not really a good argument to avoid voting texcat.

Somehow she was already speculating about Wanderer being scum.

I've said it before, I'll say it again. You people have no clue how much the RVS reveals. I'm planning on going over it again some time soon to see if I can get anything.

It seems like she cared more about appearances than just getting confirmed scum lynched. Perhaps she thought that jumping on the wagon would make her suspicious?

Absolutely not. ABR was getting lynched, period. Why would I feel the need to join? I spent my time productively. There's nothing suspicious about voting confirmed scum.

You'll note ABR hammered himself to cut off discussion for the day, something I was engaging in at the time.

voting for Albert B. was the best thing for any alignment.

Yes, it would be the best for any alignment. Meaning me not doing it is...
...What, exactly?
What do you think it was?

Because I've explained my reasoning.

"Not providing much reason"? As opposed to you, who provides readlists with no reasons?

Not providing reasoning by itself is not the crime. It's not providing reasoning while

being focused on only specific players

. When I gave my readslist, that was me giving a spreadsheet of the whole game. When you've given not much reasoning, you've...done so on a select few players. One or two. You're refusing to take stances on more players. Combine that with a low post count and low activity, and you've got why you are scum.

[Ranger]

(I should mention Firebringer is almost definitely town for me now.)

[Ranger]

Squirrelly: actively scumhunting, so town
Ranger: the evil mastermind; it is easy to be deceived by her, she knows how to be convincing as scum (but there are some tells)

One of these things is not like the other.

(You're tunneling.)

I just don't trust you.

And therein lies the problem. You don't trust me, yet everything you've said is reason for me to be town. You're blatantly saying I'm scum, off of what amounts to paranoia.

Vote texcat. Eliminate vampires. If you think I'm a werewolf, fine. But it will be easier to scumhunt if the vampires are killed off first.

[Ranger]

Fmpov, ranger and i is clearly tvt. Ive responded to all of her arguments. But ive learned that sometimes there's no convincing her. So i decided im not going to clog up the thread begging her to townread me.

You know, the last time you said this, I was scum.

What makes you think that I'm not scum this time so strongly?

(I actually am willing to reconsider my read on you. Right now, it's things like this and POE that have you as a werewolf.)

[Ranger]

UNVOTE:
VOTE: Flubber

- pers

I'm willing to consider that option tomorrow, but today, we should really be lynching texcat.

[Ranger]

Off of the RVS posts, I am heavily considering ZZZX for scum, particularly werewolf; I don't think Yakko is scum, especially not a vampire.
I'm looking and Errant does still look like a possible werewolf, however, most strongly, texcat's posts stick out like a sore thumb.

[Ranger]

How about flubber today, texcat tomorrow, due to lack of time and there's already a few votes on flubber?

- persivul

Flubber is possible scum (but there are other possibilities, namely, ZZZX and Errantparabola), but texcat's guaranteed scum.
I'd much rather lynch texcat first.

Especially given that lynching Flubber will almost certainly not eliminate a faction, whereas lynching texcat almost guarantees eliminating a faction.

[Ranger]

Also, Ranger, how do you know that the vampires only have 2 scum?

Refer to the flips: vampire flipped power role; Werewolf flipped goon.

That implies stronger powers in the vampire faction but lesser numbers, and greater numbers yet weaker powers for the werewolf faction.

[Ranger]

Or both factions have a goon.

Possible, but unlikely.

Of course, lynching texcat's a fine way of finding out. Flips vampire PR, then we know; flips goon, then we don't.

[Ranger]

But how is Texcat guaranteed scum?

Refer to my case on texcat, along with texcat's response to it.
That is not a town player.

[Ranger]

Even if I vote for Texcat now, she would still need two more votes.

I'm pretty sure Squirrelly was L-1?

[Ranger]

Oh, nevermind. Six to lynch.

[Ranger]

At this point, I think what we need is to town-hunt.

Firebringer is a strong townread of mine; Squirrelly is my strongest townread.

With seven alive and likely only two werewolves left, what we need to win is one name who is undeniably not a werewolf.

The candidates are {Errantparabola, Kaboose, hi im Yakko, Flubbernugget}.

The problem I face now is that I'm equally willing to consider lynching any of them.

[Ranger]

I would like to know about why fire is town but I will say flubber scum read for sure.

vote: Flubber

And I'd like to know why Flubber's so strongly a scumread (hint: Titus's JK does not count for anything as far as I'm concerned), so if you have a case, I'd love to see it. (You might've done so already, but now's a fine time to restate it.) Ideally, we townhunt for the single town name, but lynching scum is lynching scum, soyeah, if Flubber is scum...I'd vote him in a heartbeat.

[Ranger]

Ranger was right about me too.
Ranger always manages to keep me on my toes

You actually killed me at

exactly

the right time, though.

I was getting paranoid of Squirrelly and thought you might be town for your respective perspectives on Flubbernugget: you 'thought' Flubber was a werewolf (like I did), whereas Squirrelly thought Flubber was a vampire. When Flubber flipped vampire, it got me very paranoid of Squirrelly. Obviously, them claiming mason would have removed that paranoia and made me rethink, but you did kill me precisely when it was best for me. :P

Pretty proud at my reads this game. They didn't start off great, but by D2/D3 I got stuff like 827. (If you flip Dominator and Flubbernugget, then all the scum would be at the bottom of the list!)

[Ranger]

Firebringer voted without consensus, so scum got to quickhammer.

Two games in 24 hours, even.
Be less vote-happy in lylo, Firebringer.
Pretty, pretty please.