Open 850: Democrabilities (Postgame)

[MalcolmTucker]

From a meta POV I've played with Furtive once before and I'd say they approached the game in a slightly manner to this as town - they don't take accusations well in a way that can be frustrating for other players if you think they're mafia trying to get out of being eliminated, and they can potentially get a bit bogged down in their own logic. Certainly some of the posts above strike me as more desperate town than manipulative mafia. But others may have a more detailed meta from other games.

From this game - obviously post count doesn't make a player town or scum, but I feel Furtive has been making an active effort to solve when when potentially wrong in a way that's probably driven the game forward and helped open it up in a way that's not necessarily beneficial for scum.

Think D1. Furtive positioned themselves against the double elimination, while also initially suspecting Titus. They did then back off Titus, but would it have been wise for scum to both position against the double elim and also push for Titus, at least initially? It doesn't feel like a strategy that would have been particularly conductive to scum D1, unless I'm missing something, or unless their partner was incredibly in favour of double elimination and positioning against Titus perhaps, but I'm not sure there were exactly too many players doing that who could be paired with Furtive.

[MalcolmTucker]

On second thought, the fact that your thoughts have been so all-over-the-place today is probably town-indicative.

UNVOTE:

I'll see myself out now.

Why do I do this to myself?

I felt like the Furtive wagon developed incredibly quickly, but not sure I'm keen on Alianna then jumping off the wagon so soon again, strikes me as potentially panicky scum not wanting to be responsible for a miselim if Furtive does come back town if/when they get put out.

Their reasoning here that Furtive's thoughts are all over the place...doesn't exactly strike me as completely true either? I think Furtive's been open to other ideas within their PoE but I don't exactly think their thoughts have been incredibly contradictory for the most part, they have been pretty clear on where they've sided on most major issues in the game.

[MalcolmTucker]

And the way furtive has just hyperfocused on "Well, eliminating Town, that's scummy" to the exclusion of all other circumstances is just... Bad.

It's exactly why I initially sussed him for saying we should just quickhammer whoever leads a Town wagon.

And sure, that was a joke that I'd misinterpreted, and yet here is that same philosophy being pushed seriously.

Is it really though? Furtive isn't exactly arguing in favour of quickhammering...does your logic here suggest a player cannot push for the elimination of someone who was on the Titus wagon? Clearly there's some misguided town on there but it's pretty conceivable that someone from the mafia might have gone on there, or shown interest in eliminating Titus at some point, no?

[Flea The Magician]

I'm trying to be realistic and practical. I can't help you with vibes. Is it possible that you don't like my vibes regardless of alignment?

Absolutely yes. It's also possible I have bias as a result of this and then paying a little more attention than I should be to parts of your post

[furtiveglance]

Explain why I should vote for Radical Rat
Most of your case seems to be that they are paired with me, which I don't agree with

They're scummy in a vacuum.

Peep the readslist in 281.

It's this:
Flea, Dunnstral
Malcolm, Titus
Alianna
Cat, Goldfish, furtive

Then, they vote me for a bit - after scumreading me on page 1 for nothing and doubling down afterwards based on my 'reactions', but when it becomes clear the choice is Titus or Alianna they vote Titus saying 'this needs to happen' - 419, whatever that means.

This is despite Titus being higher up than Alianna on their list. It's why I considered Alianna/Radical Rat a likely scumteam (and still think it's possible).

Then voting to inform Alianna in 576 struck me as really strange. No one was ever going to go for Alianna there. It looks to me like Radical Rat knows they've been playing too safe and does something 'wacky' for the sake of it, because it's something scum might not do.

Their poe is apparently now me/Malcolm/Cat, who are three fairly obvious town to me.

Look at how Goldfish was bottom of the list in 281 ^^ and has been forgotten about because I and others are hard townreading them. It stinks of scum not wanting to cause a fuss and amending their reads in this way. They even voted to inform Goldfish in 657. Why would you give an apparent scumread this ability?

All in all Radical Rat's play has not been consistent and looks like lazy scum doing what they can get away with, including jumping on my wagon at the earliest opportunity. Why didn't they start the vote on me? They obviously want to hide in the middle and avoid responsibility if I flip.

[furtiveglance]

Ok so furtive I still think you're town but some of your recent play really doesn't make sense. Below is a breakdown of 710:

Spoiler:

I'm at E-2 out of nowhere. That means at least 1 town is voting for me, probably 2.

I feel wronged. I'm trying to solve, I'm being open, I'm giving reads.

I called Titus town and you killed them anyway, so you guys haven't helped me solve at all.

What I'm saying is that I think I'm playing well, townreading town and scumreading scum, and other town aren't playing as well.

Not a fan of the guilt tripping, mislims happen, you shouldn't blame the rest of us for thinking Titus was scum.
You've argued in a couple of your posts that you correctly townread titus and that should give you towncred, which isn't true.

Spoiler:

I'm seeing Dunnstral/Radical Rat right now.

I find it hard to see you naturally coming to this conclusion. In previous games, and I think in this one, you've argued before that you didn't have the scum team pinned down because it's never the most obvious choice, and yet this game you think the two scum are the two players who are close to consensus scumreads.

Spoiler:

I think town will lose if I'm eliminated today, it's as simple as that for me.

If you are town I think this is true, although you could probably say that for any town player. A miselimination puts us in a very bad situation tommorow. Unless you are the intended nightkill in which case we might have a chance.

Spoiler:

Practically we have a problem with today's vote. Flea/Alianna/RR/Dunnstral will all end up voting me, whereas me/Malcolm/Cat/Goldfish will vote the counter - either Dunnstral or RR.

You shouldn't assume which way people will vote, if you get scummy enought I will vote for you, the townblock only stands so long as we both townread each other, and people currently on your wagon have other scumreads and might switch.

I'm not really guilt tripping about Titus, I'm just expressing my frustration. As for does it give me towncred - if I had been like "this probably flips town guys, consider voting elsewhere if you want" then it doesn't really, but I begged for a pivot. I really wanted Alianna gone. I was not bluffing.

Are Dunnstral/Radical Rat all consensus scumreads? If they are, then I'm the reason why. You can't argue that I followed the crowd with my scumreads.

I think it's helpful to assume which way people will vote. Today will come down to individual votes.

[furtiveglance]

The other main point I had planned to bring up about furtive was that their progression on me was odd. They pivoted onto me very quickly and just decided their mind was made up. Perhaps I'm placing too much weight on past games, but this is not what I would expect from someone who has misread me before. I was going to say the unvote was opportunistic, but after re-reading the post I don't think I can say that with any certainty.

I see that furtive posted some other stuff, so I'm going to read through that now.

Is this the lost scumcase of old?

You have scumcred in this game for a few reasons:
1) Suspicious nature (your fault, happens every game)
2) Counterwagon to town d1 (who was scumreading you hard)
3) I could only think of 2 reasons but wanted to use rule of three for persuasion.

You're hard to read as a player. If you're town the game makes sense to me, but if you're scum it still makes sense. Other players are easier to read, so I'm more confident on them being town (or more suspicious of them). I'd like to know what you think of Radical Rat in particular. I get the feeling we'll be looking hard at Radical Rat's interactions with people later in the game, whether that's tomorrow or day 4.

[furtiveglance]

And the way furtive has just hyperfocused on "Well, eliminating Town, that's scummy" to the exclusion of all other circumstances is just... Bad.

It's exactly why I initially sussed him for saying we should just quickhammer whoever leads a Town wagon. And sure, that was a joke that I'd misinterpreted, and yet here is that same philosophy being pushed seriously.

Look at the content of the game so far in simple terms.

It's been: No eliminate after some people wanted me gone (I have inside knowledge that I'm town), Titus (town) eliminated instead of Alianna in a close vote, Goldfish is chosen to be informed as a consensus townread.

The most important event is the elimination. Usually town want to vote out mafia and mafia want to vote out town. So yes, the most useful analysis I can give is that the Titus wagon is scummier than non-Titus voters. You're trying to muddy the waters by using the intricacies of this particular setup to make people think we should scumread people who defended town and townread people who voted town, it's in direct contradiction with the law of mafia. You are under arrest.

[furtiveglance]

And the way furtive has just hyperfocused on "Well, eliminating Town, that's scummy" to the exclusion of all other circumstances is just... Bad.

It's exactly why I initially sussed him for saying we should just quickhammer whoever leads a Town wagon.

And sure, that was a joke that I'd misinterpreted, and yet here is that same philosophy being pushed seriously.

Is it really though? Furtive isn't exactly arguing in favour of quickhammering...does your logic here suggest a player cannot push for the elimination of someone who was on the Titus wagon? Clearly there's some misguided town on there but it's pretty conceivable that someone from the mafia might have gone on there, or shown interest in eliminating Titus at some point, no?

Malcolm you've townread Radical Rat all game - 333 for instance. Has this changed? Can you vote Radical Rat today?

[furtiveglance]

I'm trying to be realistic and practical. I can't help you with vibes. Is it possible that you don't like my vibes regardless of alignment?

Absolutely yes. It's also possible I have bias as a result of this and then paying a little more attention than I should be to parts of your post

Ok. Considering that I think you're town, are you willing to put vibes aside and work with me?

[GoldfishFromTheMoon]

The most important event is the elimination. Usually town want to vote out mafia and mafia want to vote out town. So yes, the most useful analysis I can give is that the Titus wagon is scummier than non-Titus voters. You're trying to muddy the waters by using the intricacies of this particular setup to make people think we should scumread people who defended town and townread people who voted town, it's in direct contradiction with the law of mafia. You are under arrest.

This setup includes a pre-determined nightkill, scum wouldn't want to eliminate the nightkill because then they only get 1 dead townie vs two. Which means that in this setup it's not as simple as mafia want to vote town, town want to vote mafia, because mafia won't want to vote particular townies.

I don't have understand why you refuse to see this, it's not a minor intricacy of the setup it's actually really a important and totally relevant to our situation on day 1.

And I don't like how you are scumreading RR for arguing this when other players (myself included) have said it before.

[furtiveglance]

It's not as simple as 1 dead town vs 2, we can't No Eliminate after Day 1 and even numbers is better for mafia so vote the nightkill + miscondemn + nightkill = 2 mafia in 6 = good for mafia.

[Flea The Magician]

It's not as simple as 1 dead town vs 2, we can't No Eliminate after Day 1 and even numbers is better for mafia so vote the nightkill + miscondemn + nightkill = 2 mafia in 6 = good for mafia.

In this kind of game Mafia need to secure as many eliminations as quickly as possible. I don't think they shoot their targets here at all.

3 chances for dead townies D1 and they got rekt on that. Sure they have the numbers still, but, with game progression being slower there's some spicy town power to come which with fewer numbers can condemn them.

[Cat.Jpeg]

On second thought, the fact that your thoughts have been so all-over-the-place today is probably town-indicative.

UNVOTE:

I'll see myself out now.

Why do I do this to myself?

I felt like the Furtive wagon developed incredibly quickly, but not sure I'm keen on Alianna then jumping off the wagon so soon again, strikes me as potentially panicky scum not wanting to be responsible for a miselim if Furtive does come back town if/when they get put out.

Their reasoning here that Furtive's thoughts are all over the place...doesn't exactly strike me as completely true either? I think Furtive's been open to other ideas within their PoE but I don't exactly think their thoughts have been incredibly contradictory for the most part, they have been pretty clear on where they've sided on most major issues in the game.

No, I townread Alianna for this. Scum would probably plan where they wanted to push and not do this. To me it just seems like Alianna's actually thinking about the game.

[Cat.Jpeg]

You have scumcred in this game for a few reasons:
1) Suspicious nature (your fault, happens every game)
2) Counterwagon to town d1 (who was scumreading you hard)
3) I could only think of 2 reasons but wanted to use rule of three for persuasion.

This is actually 0 reasons
1) it happens every game therefore NAI
2) I don't think placing importance on this is too useful until we get more flips, 'counterwagon to town = scum' is just bad
3) Well there was never a reason here

I still townread you and don't want to vote for you today, I think there is at least one scum on your wagon right now, some of what you say does seem pretty scummy at face value though

VOTE: RadicalRat
I think i'm too stingy with my vote normally, will make scumcase tmr

[furtiveglance]

Pivot.

VOTE: RadicalRat

[furtiveglance]

On second thought, the fact that your thoughts have been so all-over-the-place today is probably town-indicative.

UNVOTE:

I'll see myself out now.

Why do I do this to myself?

I felt like the Furtive wagon developed incredibly quickly, but not sure I'm keen on Alianna then jumping off the wagon so soon again, strikes me as potentially panicky scum not wanting to be responsible for a miselim if Furtive does come back town if/when they get put out.

Their reasoning here that Furtive's thoughts are all over the place...doesn't exactly strike me as completely true either? I think Furtive's been open to other ideas within their PoE but I don't exactly think their thoughts have been incredibly contradictory for the most part, they have been pretty clear on where they've sided on most major issues in the game.

No, I townread Alianna for this. Scum would probably plan where they wanted to push and not do this. To me it just seems like Alianna's actually thinking about the game.

I agree with this take. Cat's been making a lot of sense lately. I know they see Malcolm/RR. I'm very interested to see what Malcolm thinks about RR.

[MegAzumarill]

vc

[MalcolmTucker]

And the way furtive has just hyperfocused on "Well, eliminating Town, that's scummy" to the exclusion of all other circumstances is just... Bad.

It's exactly why I initially sussed him for saying we should just quickhammer whoever leads a Town wagon.

And sure, that was a joke that I'd misinterpreted, and yet here is that same philosophy being pushed seriously.

Is it really though? Furtive isn't exactly arguing in favour of quickhammering...does your logic here suggest a player cannot push for the elimination of someone who was on the Titus wagon? Clearly there's some misguided town on there but it's pretty conceivable that someone from the mafia might have gone on there, or shown interest in eliminating Titus at some point, no?

Malcolm you've townread Radical Rat all game - 333 for instance. Has this changed? Can you vote Radical Rat today?

I'm not too sure, my gut still says RR is town even though I find myself in disagreement with them on a lot. I'll give your case on them a proper full look over but can't say I'm convinced - a lot of their play has been quite erratic but it feels like a scattertown type approach a bit where their logic isn't too consistent in a way that makes me feel they're being open town instead of careful scum, if that makes sense.

[MalcolmTucker]

The most important event is the elimination. Usually town want to vote out mafia and mafia want to vote out town. So yes, the most useful analysis I can give is that the Titus wagon is scummier than non-Titus voters. You're trying to muddy the waters by using the intricacies of this particular setup to make people think we should scumread people who defended town and townread people who voted town, it's in direct contradiction with the law of mafia. You are under arrest.

This setup includes a pre-determined nightkill, scum wouldn't want to eliminate the nightkill because then they only get 1 dead townie vs two. Which means that in this setup it's not as simple as mafia want to vote town, town want to vote mafia, because mafia won't want to vote particular townies.

I don't have understand why you refuse to see this, it's not a minor intricacy of the setup it's actually really a important and totally relevant to our situation on day 1.

And I don't like how you are scumreading RR for arguing this when other players (myself included) have said it before.

Scum wouldn't want to eliminate their nightkill, but if scum (say Alianna) was at risk of elimination then it's possible they could've pivoted to get Titus out at the very least and ensure they remained safe. At the very least it's damage control, and they still manage to ensure one townie is eliminated if nothing else. Flea hammering is why I'd think there's potential for a Alianna/Flea team, for example, albeit my read on that is lessened by my suspicion of Dunn, who I reckon has a strong chance of coming back as scum.

[MalcolmTucker]

On second thought, the fact that your thoughts have been so all-over-the-place today is probably town-indicative.

UNVOTE:

I'll see myself out now.

Why do I do this to myself?

I felt like the Furtive wagon developed incredibly quickly, but not sure I'm keen on Alianna then jumping off the wagon so soon again, strikes me as potentially panicky scum not wanting to be responsible for a miselim if Furtive does come back town if/when they get put out.

Their reasoning here that Furtive's thoughts are all over the place...doesn't exactly strike me as completely true either? I think Furtive's been open to other ideas within their PoE but I don't exactly think their thoughts have been incredibly contradictory for the most part, they have been pretty clear on where they've sided on most major issues in the game.

No, I townread Alianna for this. Scum would probably plan where they wanted to push and not do this. To me it just seems like Alianna's actually thinking about the game.

I don't know, maybe I'm a bit tunnelled here but 721 feels a bit too self-aware to me - as if Alianna is trying to create the effect of looking indecisive when moving off a wagon which in this hypothetical scenario would be town. I mean, if that's the approach they're going for here...it's certainly working. Scum can be hesitant at times, especially if they felt a change of tack or a different approach was advisable.

I think you're making a lot of sense and I'm leaning town on you, for example, but if Alianna were to come in and vote for Radical Rat, it'd seem perfectly feasible for me that you two were a potential team and had decided Radical Rat was the easier and more advisable push than Furtive, who may then back off you a bit since they're also keen for RR to be eliminated.

I'm intrigued to hear where Alianna is re Dunn here again - they hinted at some suspicion for Dunn a while back but then quickly backed off the slot, and opted for Furtive instead. If they aren't willing to explore that at all then I'll feel like it's quite suspect and that they're reluctant to strongly push for any townie in case they come out looking bad as a result.

[Radical Rat]

Explain why I should vote for Radical Rat
Most of your case seems to be that they are paired with me, which I don't agree with

They're scummy in a vacuum.

Peep the readslist in 281.

It's this:
Flea, Dunnstral
Malcolm, Titus
Alianna
Cat, Goldfish, furtive

Then, they vote me for a bit - after scumreading me on page 1 for nothing and doubling down afterwards based on my 'reactions', but when it becomes clear the choice is Titus or Alianna they vote Titus saying 'this needs to happen' - 419, whatever that means.

This is despite Titus being higher up than Alianna on their list. It's why I considered Alianna/Radical Rat a likely scumteam (and still think it's possible).

Then voting to inform Alianna in 576 struck me as really strange. No one was ever going to go for Alianna there. It looks to me like Radical Rat knows they've been playing too safe and does something 'wacky' for the sake of it, because it's something scum might not do.

Their poe is apparently now me/Malcolm/Cat, who are three fairly obvious town to me.

Look at how Goldfish was bottom of the list in 281 ^^ and has been forgotten about because I and others are hard townreading them. It stinks of scum not wanting to cause a fuss and amending their reads in this way. They even voted to inform Goldfish in 657. Why would you give an apparent scumread this ability?

All in all Radical Rat's play has not been consistent and looks like lazy scum doing what they can get away with, including jumping on my wagon at the earliest opportunity. Why didn't they start the vote on me? They obviously want to hide in the middle and avoid responsibility if I flip.

This entire post is incredibly misrepresentative.

Yeah, my reads changed after I posted that readslist based on events occurring in the game. I stopped townreading and started scumreading Titus after she made her push on Dunnstral for bad reasons that I believed she should know better on. I made that perfectly clear when it happened, I didn't just suddenly vote her out of nowhere, and I even explained it again for you specifically when you complained about it the first time.

Goldfish too, while I wasn't as explicit about her, I obviously was not scumreading her anymore. I thought her early play was a bit odd, I had her low on the list for that, but as the game's progressed, she looks better. A lot of that comes down to others looking scummier, part of it is because she was early on the Titus wagon which I don't think scum would have done for already stated reasons, but to accuse me of voting to inform a scumread because of an outdated D1 readslist is just nonsensical.


And for everyone else, this kind of thing is exactly what I'm talking about with my scumreading furtive. This isn't just wrong, it's actively malicious.

[Radical Rat]

The most important event is the elimination. Usually town want to vote out mafia and mafia want to vote out town. So yes, the most useful analysis I can give is that the Titus wagon is scummier than non-Titus voters. You're trying to muddy the waters by using the intricacies of this particular setup to make people think we should scumread people who defended town and townread people who voted town, it's in direct contradiction with the law of mafia. You are under arrest.

This setup includes a pre-determined nightkill, scum wouldn't want to eliminate the nightkill because then they only get 1 dead townie vs two. Which means that in this setup it's not as simple as mafia want to vote town, town want to vote mafia, because mafia won't want to vote particular townies.

I don't have understand why you refuse to see this, it's not a minor intricacy of the setup it's actually really a important and totally relevant to our situation on day 1.

And I don't like how you are scumreading RR for arguing this when other players (myself included) have said it before.

Scum wouldn't want to eliminate their nightkill, but if scum (say Alianna) was at risk of elimination then it's possible they could've pivoted to get Titus out at the very least and ensure they remained safe. At the very least it's damage control, and they still manage to ensure one townie is eliminated if nothing else. Flea hammering is why I'd think there's potential for a Alianna/Flea team, for example, albeit my read on that is lessened by my suspicion of Dunn, who I reckon has a strong chance of coming back as scum.

My problem with this scenario is that scum didn't HAVE to pivot onto Titus specifically. They could have picked furtive, or me, or Dunnstral, or any other slot with at least one other person scumreading. And even if they did decide to do Titus for some reason, why would Alianna herself unvote, and risk the plurality shifting?

[Radical Rat]

And the way furtive has just hyperfocused on "Well, eliminating Town, that's scummy" to the exclusion of all other circumstances is just... Bad.

It's exactly why I initially sussed him for saying we should just quickhammer whoever leads a Town wagon.

And sure, that was a joke that I'd misinterpreted, and yet here is that same philosophy being pushed seriously.

Is it really though? Furtive isn't exactly arguing in favour of quickhammering...does your logic here suggest a player cannot push for the elimination of someone who was on the Titus wagon? Clearly there's some misguided town on there but it's pretty conceivable that someone from the mafia might have gone on there, or shown interest in eliminating Titus at some point, no?

I do believe it is possible one scum chose to hide on the Titus wagon. However, my problem is that being on the wagon is not inherently scummy on its own, while furtive has been repeatedly reducing it to that.

Basically, scumreading someone who was on the Titus wagon is fine, but scumreading someone FOR being on the Titus wagon is questionable at best

[furtiveglance]

Explain why I should vote for Radical Rat
Most of your case seems to be that they are paired with me, which I don't agree with

They're scummy in a vacuum.

Peep the readslist in 281.

It's this:
Flea, Dunnstral
Malcolm, Titus
Alianna
Cat, Goldfish, furtive

Then, they vote me for a bit - after scumreading me on page 1 for nothing and doubling down afterwards based on my 'reactions', but when it becomes clear the choice is Titus or Alianna they vote Titus saying 'this needs to happen' - 419, whatever that means.

This is despite Titus being higher up than Alianna on their list. It's why I considered Alianna/Radical Rat a likely scumteam (and still think it's possible).

Then voting to inform Alianna in 576 struck me as really strange. No one was ever going to go for Alianna there. It looks to me like Radical Rat knows they've been playing too safe and does something 'wacky' for the sake of it, because it's something scum might not do.

Their poe is apparently now me/Malcolm/Cat, who are three fairly obvious town to me.

Look at how Goldfish was bottom of the list in 281 ^^ and has been forgotten about because I and others are hard townreading them. It stinks of scum not wanting to cause a fuss and amending their reads in this way. They even voted to inform Goldfish in 657. Why would you give an apparent scumread this ability?

All in all Radical Rat's play has not been consistent and looks like lazy scum doing what they can get away with, including jumping on my wagon at the earliest opportunity. Why didn't they start the vote on me? They obviously want to hide in the middle and avoid responsibility if I flip.

This entire post is incredibly misrepresentative.

Yeah, my reads changed after I posted that readslist based on events occurring in the game. I stopped townreading and started scumreading Titus after she made her push on Dunnstral for bad reasons that I believed she should know better on. I made that perfectly clear when it happened, I didn't just suddenly vote her out of nowhere, and I even explained it again for you specifically when you complained about it the first time.

Goldfish too, while I wasn't as explicit about her, I obviously was not scumreading her anymore. I thought her early play was a bit odd, I had her low on the list for that, but as the game's progressed, she looks better. A lot of that comes down to others looking scummier, part of it is because she was early on the Titus wagon which I don't think scum would have done for already stated reasons, but to accuse me of voting to inform a scumread because of an outdated D1 readslist is just nonsensical.


And for everyone else, this kind of thing is exactly what I'm talking about with my scumreading furtive. This isn't just wrong, it's actively malicious.

I don't think malicious is quite appropriate here. I don't even think misrepresentative is. All you're doing in this post is explaining your actions retrospectively.