Open 566: Murder on the Oriental Express (Game Over)

[Green Crayons]

Sup. Reading through now.

[Green Crayons]

Well that was quite the read.

Not going to vote Amy.

@farside:

can you please explain (again?) why you don't think Chaos and Bel are a potential scum team? (I know you've said it, I'm just not sure if I caught why you think that.)


I do have a case and a vote to make. Will post it when I have the time (hopefully tonight).

[Green Crayons]

TLDR:

VOTE: scrambles, because:

(1) I didn't like Blonde's hyper-defensive play.

(2) I don't like the slot's interaction with Beli. Blonde looked like he was distancing from Beli-scum. scrambles looked like he was bussing Beli-scum.

-----

Mr. Blonde

(1)

Blonde gets really defensive, really quick to any criticism of his play. In Post 43, Blonde gets really snippy with Snuggly's vote on Blonde – calling Snuggly's reason for a vote (a nebulous "something" and Blonde's "shall we dance" comment to Amy) as "mightily subjective," and then goes out of his way to remind the thread that Snuggly "apparently has never played before." Attacking his attacker, on Page 2? Wow.

(2)

I think Blonde's disproportionate defensiveness is also more clear with respect to farside's vote. His whole handling of farside's (not very good, not good enough to base a lynch off of, but perfectly adequate for a Page 1 vote) vote on his slot is weird. At first he ignores it until Post 33, then he calls it a joke in Post 43, and from there it just grows and becomes this Big Thing.

(a)

I really dislike the hyper-logical tone Blonde uses to defend himself. (For example, "You are using intangible evidence and supposed experience as a way to push me for a generic tell that essentially I can't defend against." in Post 45.) It reads like someone who is purposefully trying to remove their emotional response to being voted, which is artificial and calculated.

(b)

So Blonde and farside have a long back and forth about the merits of her Page 1 vote. It would be incorrect to say that Blonde

only

posts about farside, but it would be quite correct to say that Blonde posts

only

about those people who have voted him. (farside in Post 45, Post 49, Post 58, Snuggly in Post 50 and Post 53.)

(c)

Alright, so Point (b) wouldn't be that big of a deal except Blonde suddenly is off his farside vote/suspicions in Post 83 and Post 84 after a brief step away from the thread. Here's what bothers me about Blonde's move away from his farside argument/vote:

- Blonde's last post to farside in Post 58 is a bunch of questions directed at farside, all challenging the basis of her vote on him. Farside

does not answer them

between Post 58 and when Blonde returns in Post 83/84. Nonetheless, Blonde is happy to move away from his farside vote.
- Blonde invokes Acryon and Skelda to justify his move away from his farside vote in Post 83. I don't like this. Why point to other players and say "yeah, what they said!" if not attempting to preemptively justify your action under the basis of "you can't suspect me for this unless if you also suspect these other players!"
- Also, what Acryon (Post 66) and Skelda (Post 67) said was that they didn't agree with farside's Blonde-vote, but that alone didn't make farside scummy. Blonde appropriates that position, but then severely undermines it in the very same post: he can only "sort of see where a Townie would think something" like what farside is saying; he faults farside for failing to follow up on some questions with Toby; and farside is, at best, "maybe" "derpttown." (Post 83, Post 84.) Reads like a player hedging his bets, willing to step away from a target but laying enough groundwork that a return will not appear unnatural.
- SO THE END RESULT IS THIS: Blonde moves away from his farside vote, which he has been super defensive about/engaged with, even though farside never gave him answers to questions he was asking, preemptively justified by invoking the reasoning of other players, all while simultaneously laying seeds for why his continued suspicions of farside wouldn't be unwarranted.

(d)

Okay, so all that didn't sit well with me on my read through, but the kicker was the fact that Beli piled on with his farside vote (Post 61) in the time frame between Blonde being super into his farside vote (Post 58) and Blonde dropping his farside vote like it was a hot coal (Post 83/Post 84).

SPECULATION: Blonde didn't want to be on the same wagon so quickly with scum, thus the bad justifications for running away from the farside vote, but leaving himself room to return.

QUERY: Why would Beli be happy to throw a vote down on a player already being voted for by a scumbuddy? (shrug) Nobody would expect it? It wasn't necessarily a bad vote, as far as early D1 vote justifications go? Bel's play this game was weird. I don't know.

(e)

BONUS: Blonde (Post 83) first credits Skelda's note (Post 67) that he was "giving scumpoints to Beli and Chaos since farside would be such an easy wagon to join for scum."

Setting aside the ADDITIONAL conflicting opinions Blonde has thrown out there w/r/t farside, this lays the groundwork for Blonde to be critical of

both

Chaos and Beli. But Blonde only gets critical of Chaos, going so far to put him in Blonde's null/scum read in Post 137.

Well, what about Beli? Blonde's got nothing to say about him, except for asking Amy to talk about her non-Beli suspicions (Post 83) and despite Blonde's go-to advisor Skelda voting for Beli in Post 128 (close enough to Blonde's scum-list read in Post 137 to give Blonde plenty of time to reflect upon where his supposedly Beli suspicions to have gone). In hindsight, this looks like Blonde is purposefully turning a blind eye to Beli-scum.

scrambles

(1)

Day One: Doesn't do a lot (other than complimenting his slot in Post 233 :eyeroll:) until his vote on Beli in Post 339 and Post 340.

(a)

The basis for scrambles' Beli vote is solely: "I currently dont like belisarius at all for that "derp, I have no scumreads" comment." This is a surface read. It's not even a read. It's copying and pasting what other players said immediately prior to scrambles vote: acryon in Post 328 and farside in Post 337.

(b)

The timing of the Bel vote is particularly cringe-worthy.

- Naked Jogger voted Beli in Post 314. That brought Beli up to 2 votes (Amy and Naked), putting the Beli-wagon just one vote behind the Chaos-wagon (3 votes) and the Skelda-wagon (3 votes).
- From NakedJogger's Beli-vote to scrambles Beli-vote, nobody else actually voted Beli. But it's clear that that's where the wind was blowing:
- Skelda, Post 316: "Of the people with votes, I am most likely to go back to Beli. I really do not think that Chaos is scum. I guess I could see acryon, not really sure. But I am not in the mood to die Day 1 again."
- acryon, Post 328: "I don't like votes without explanation (314 from NakedJogger), but 313 from Belisaurus really sucks IMO. Bel's entire ISO at this point is tunneling Farside and trolling. Follow that up with a "darn I wish I had more to go off of!" and he really doesn't look good to me."
- acryon, Post 332: "I would say I am between Bel and Skelda at this point."
- farside, Post 337: "Bel is another player that concerns me. I don't see a lot coming from him for reads. Those are still my top two scum reads."
- Dry-fit, Post 338: "Belisaurius is a wildcard for me. I still don't know what to think of him."

SPECULATION: scrambles saw that there were votes already on Beli-scum, and saw that there were plenty of players who were also willing (and almost ready) to vote Beli. Rather than being late to the party, scrambles got ahead of the Beli-wagon and preemptively bussed his partner.

QUERY: why bus a partner over, putting Beli-wagon at 3 votes, to tie it with the other two leading wagons (Chaos and Skelda)? Because scum like to bus their partners for some stupid reason. Because scrambles wouldn't have to explain away a bad vote on confirmed town Skelda, or likely town Chaos. Makes it easier to play.

(c)

I think scrambles' "unsafe lynches are the best lynches" gobbledygook nonsense in Post 353 is scum posturing: scrambles is saying ALL AT ONCE that (1) chaos is reasonably suspicious, and is therefore a "safe" lynch, and thus voting him denies all culpability to a chaos-voter, which would be where scum would place their vote, (2) Beli is not reasonably suspicious (because a Beli-vote is "unsafe") and therefore if Beli were to flip town, scrambles would rightly get suspicion on him, (3) because Beli is an unsafe lynch, and not a safe lynch, scum wouldn't be keen on voting Beli, and therefore scrambles must be town.

(d)

scrambles is willing to back of Beli (Post 359), but never actually does so (much less follow through this willingness to reevaluate his Beli-vote) because that would look REALLY BAD if he jumped off the Beli-wagon and a Beli lynch actually went through.

(2)

Day Two: first reading through D2, I started to doubt my suspicions on the Blonde/scrambles slot, but then I got to Toby's insight and rethought my position:

I've had a scum buddy, having obviously going to be lynched the next day

, have their plan be that day to call me town and argue it to their death.

The bolded is what I think very much happened. Scum saw that Beli was a probable D2 lynch, and so acted accordingly. In this light, scrambles' D2 Beli-focus is weird:

(a)

scrambles first D2 posts asks

chaos

, and only chaos, what chaos thinks about Beli. (Post 570, Post 574, Post 634.) Why the zeroing in on chaos? Why not try to get more of the thread on board? It looks like scrambles is making a half-hearted attempt to get people back on the Beli-wagon.

(b)

scrambles reasoning for a Beli-vote have downgraded: no longer is it that Beli isn't actually giving good reasons, it's only that "there's something there," a "feeling," and some type of "vibe." (Post 574.) Holy smokes that's a horrible effort to justify a suspicion: "Hey guys, I totally am on board with this suspicion, but I'll let others fill out my nebulous accusations." Looks like scum recognizing that Beli-lynch might be inevitable for D2, but doesn't want to actually contribute to it at the beginning of the day just in case if suspicions go elsewhere.

(c)

Then we get scrambles Beli-vote in Post 634. Now he's fourth on the Beli-wagon. Why the Beli-vote from scrambles? Because of Beli's wifom (Post 636.) Once again, not original Beli-suspicions:

- Toby, in Post 440: "everyone huddle together and let's wifom what this means." (in a Beli/Toby back-and-forth)
- CKD, in Post 450: "too flippant (yeah yeah WIFOM)..also his is a counter wagon to someone I think is scum." (discussing why he thinks Beli is town)

(d)

scrambles then ignores Beli for the remainder of the day, up until Beli is L-1. Only then does scrambles jab at Beli in Post 861. scrambles literally did not talk to Beli at all, did not try to pursue or explore his suspicions, until the Beli lynch was sealed.

[Green Crayons]

Disclaimer: I try to stay away from large, wall posts like this.

I just had a lot to say about what I don't like about the Blonde/scrambles slot.

[Green Crayons]

@farside:

I have noticed a growing trend where scum will defend the VI or the player that looks scummy and stay off the wagon, so the scum looks town when that player flips town.

This would also apply to scrambles' treatment of chaos. scrambles explicitly rejected Blonde's suspicion of chaos, and actively attempted to get chaos (and only chaos) onto the Beli-wagon.

Thoughts as to scrambles play in this regard?

[Green Crayons]

To the general thread: my eyes starting glazing over the last 10-15 pages of my read through, and that's where I started to skim heavily. (Will need to revisit soon.) Has anyone made a case against a living player on the basis of Beli flipping scum?

If so, please point out.

If not, shame on this thread. Shame.

[Green Crayons]

@Riddle:

CKD/Beli makes sense based on CKD's constant conjecture Beli is innocent. If Beli flips scum, I'm most certainly going after CKD tomorrow. However, I don't think the reverse necessarily holds true.

Is your theory here that CKD did a reverse-bus?

What are you basing this off of, as opposed to CKD-town simply being wrong about Beli-scum?

(I understand that it's plausible for CKD to have gone whole-hog in on a reverse-bus, I just don't understand why you think this is the case here.)

[Green Crayons]

^^^ For more precise wording: I understand that it's

possible

for CKD-scum to have gone whole-hog in on a reverse-bus, I just don't understand why you think that scenario is

more plausible

in this game than simply CKD-town being wrong about Beli-scum.

[Green Crayons]

@Riddle:

I'm on the fence, but leaning towards not seeing it. I'll let CKD answer for himself and let y'all's conversation develop before I throw in my two cents, but I will say that I'm particularly keen on seeing CKD's response to your point #3.

[Green Crayons]

@scrambles:

just because I didn't ask you a direct question doesn't mean you can't respond to my case in any direct manner. As is, it looks like your response is "wifom." Confirm/Deny?

-----

Reread the past 15 pages.

- CDB is my second vote choice for reasons stated in Toby's Post 951. I recognize the "defend stupid town to get townie points" scum play that farside pointed out, but Bel's play was super weird (undoubtedly on purpose) in this game and I don't want to read too much into what he did or did not do/say/vote. I think more useful analysis will come out of how other players acted (or failed to act) towards Beli.


- Still not keen on the Amy vote. I'm unclear why CDB unvoted Amy in Post 1046.

@CDB:

What in particular are you rethinking? Why does it require an unvote?


- I don't care for acryon's interaction with Titus. acryon has been slowly but consistently ramping up his beef with Titus (compare Post 877, where Titus's Beli-hammer "isn't exactly scummy" with Post 1083, where Titus has already started shifting his Titus-vote from a motivational vote into a voting-for-scum vote). And he's gone out of his way to get into conflict with Titus (Post 998 and Post 1003).

Yo, acryon. We get it. You don't like how Titus is playing. Unless if you want to vote Titus because you think she is scum, I'm going to consider your "motivational" vote to be suspicious in light of the fact that we already have a flipped scum (best source of info) and it's Day 3 (plenty of material to work off of). That is, your vote makes you look active and engaged, but you aren't actively engaging in scum hunting.

[Green Crayons]

@scrambles:

I didn't think there was anything to respond to.
You've made your point, I think it's wrong, but what is there to argue?
Was there something specifically you wanted me to comment on?

You said:

Ape- because of his play eary on in the game. Just felt like a lot of non-participation. Though, Green Crayon is looking a lot better. I liked his direction with attacking me, which I felt was a pretty good case (

even though it's wrong

). It probably took a lot of effort.

Most of it is wifom

, but I don't see any real scum motivation behind it.

He's trying to figure me out, and what my motivations are.

He hasn't asked me any direct questions, which I thought was weird, but I could see a town getting fed up with my non-participation and

just going through my posts for any crumbs he can find

.

There's plenty you could actually follow up with in here, as bolded:
- Why am I wrong?
- Where's the WIFOM? Is that really your entire defense: "yeah, I could have done all of this as scum, but I could also have done all of this as town"?
- Apparently I have your motivations incorrect. What were your motivations for the particularly scummy actions I pointed out?
- So why aren't these "crumbs" I found correct?

[Green Crayons]

@acryon:

I don't like when people throw out accusations, and presumably gain town-cred as appearing to scum-hunt, while not actually saying anything. I also fail to see how a pressure vote isn't acceptable simply because we have a flipped scum and its day 3.

I would rather simply put on a pressure vote on someone that claim scum at this point, because my goal is to get real information from Titus, not to invoke some defensive response.

A pressure vote, in the abstract, isn't unacceptable.

Your

pressure vote, which appears to be part of a long-running issue you have with Titus's play, is suspicious because you're not doing any actually scumhunting in addition to your Titus complaints.

[Green Crayons]

@scrambles:

the only way for me to determine whether my scum read on you is valid is for someone to pipe up and explain why my case is wrong. The person in the best position to do so is you, however you want to do that. So far, you've got that my case is wrong simply because it is, and because WIFOM. I'm not keen in getting into an "argument" just for the sake of it, but was instead asking if you had anything else to contribute to why my read on you was wrong.

Apparently, you don't. (shrug)

[Green Crayons]

Acryon, your case against Titus isn't valid. It's just complaints you have against his playstyle (ie. VCA)

The only qualm I have with AFF is I

still

don't believe she's a newbie.

Both of these posts are solid.

[Green Crayons]

I also would join a Farside wagon too (sorry dear, people who say you and CD are scum keep dying)

You do realise that one of the people who said farside was scum was Belisarius, right?

Do you think that his early push on farside, which was all about latching onto a wording issue as a quasi-policy lynch, is the sort of thing that buddies do? I absolutely don't. That's the sort of thing I try to push on a townie as scum in order to get a relatively blameless mislynch ("well, we all agreed the wording was definitely wrong...").

Counterpoint:

I still think scum bel would vote his scum buddy for town credit.

I don't think farside suspicions are unwarranted, but I don't know how much I want to vote her.

[Green Crayons]

@CDB:

I don't understand what you're trying to say. (Not trying to be a dick, I really just don't understand.)

[Green Crayons]

@Titus:

Last time a town player ducked a lying accusation? Probably never, but then again I don't think I've ever seen scum duck it either, so. (shrug)

[Green Crayons]

@CDB:

OK. This is why I'm coming around to an acryon vote. CKD, consider this as a start to answering your question about 'who are the scum who wanted an Amy wagon to succeed?' in post 1147.

Eh? Only CDB, farside, and Riddle were on the Amy-wagon (per Post 1036).

[Green Crayons]

Most people don't go out of their way to make a big spiel about why they are town reading another player. That's one of the problems I had with Riddle's case against CDK: Riddle was comparing CDK's in-depth scum cases with CDK's less-in-depth town reads. Apples and oranges.

For a minimalist playstile like Titus has, it's not uncommon to see "<other player> is town" and not much else. So what? Who cares? If that other player flips scum, then it becomes relevant as to why Titus was reading that other player as town. If Titus later decides that that other player is scum, then it becomes relevant as to why Titus was previously reading that other player as town and why the switch. Until either of those events happen, though, a naked town call is null.

[Green Crayons]

CDK = CKD*, my bad

[Green Crayons]

She had two scum reads: scrambles and you. I'm pretty sure she explained her read on scrambles, and you dismissed it as bad. She called you scum after quoting a particular post of yours, so it's not hard to deduce why she thought you were scum (the reason: that post).


Working from memory.

[Green Crayons]

scrambles, you have gotten feisty.

[Green Crayons]

She called you scum after quoting a particular post of yours, so it's not hard to deduce why she thought you were scum (the reason: that post).


Working from memory.

Sorry to say that didn't happen.

I beg to differ:

Kudos to both Beli and one of CDB's posts for instantly making everyone vote for me. I'm not even going to bother right now because clearly I'm getting lynched. Yes I'm giving up, yes it's bad, but I completely lose it when people vote me when I'm town. WIFOM alert, but as scum I tend to actually play to my wincon in these situations and try to get the wagon off me.

Examples, please!

I'd also like to point out that it seems very odd that someone would "completely lose it" when people vote them as town. Multiple townies are usually mislynched every game. Does it suck? Yes, but it happens every game. It seems odd to have such a reaction to something that happens

all the time

.

Probably scum. I lose it frequently as town is I am the mislynch. My losing it is usually relative to the amount of confidence I have in my team nailing the other scum.

[Green Crayons]

@acryon:

As I read that post, the reason why she thought you were "probably scum" was because she thought you were manufacturing a reason why Amy should be lynched, a reason that was based on a particular way town should play that was contrary to her own experiences. (The "probably scum" part of her post was referring to you, the remainder of her post was referring to Amy's play and how Titus herself usually plays.)


Speaking of the Amy-wagon, as CDB noted in Post 1207, you never did put a vote on her, notwithstanding the fact that you appeared to approve of the wagon. What gives?

-----

@scrambles:

yeah, but you have chosen the weirdest things to argue over. Like, it looks like you're now arguing for its own sake rather than to make a point.

[Green Crayons]

@acryon:

As I read that post, the reason why she thought you were "probably scum" was because she thought you were manufacturing a reason why Amy should be lynched, a reason that was based on a particular way town should play that was contrary to her own experiences. (The "probably scum" part of her post was referring to you, the remainder of her post was referring to Amy's play and how Titus herself usually plays.)

And herein lies one of the problems with Titus. She isn't actually saying anything; she is letting people like you and CDB say everything for her. It's perfect, because then she never has to be made accountable for what she is pushing.

Irony: I never would have made a post explaining what I thought Titus thought except for the fact that you brought it up.

[Green Crayons]

Can you explain a bit? What are these weird things I'm arguing about, and what what points am I not making?

Your interaction just now with CDB, making a big deal about whether you did or did not say that Riddle was "deliberately distorting content," as opposed to the point of CDB's question: whether such actions made Riddle scummy.

Your previous interaction with Titus, asking Titus to repeat herself (and refusing to allow anyone else quote posts) about how she saw you say two different things about your experience, as opposed to simply explaining your previous experience.

[Green Crayons]

(Catching up, I see that you've explained part of that in 1228.)

[Green Crayons]

Green Crayons

, comments on what I've said in #1224 and #1225 please

I'm referencing Post 1076 and Post 1077, where you make your points against CKD:

Your Point 1): Like I said in Post 1205, I think you're comparing apples and oranges in comparing a player's scum-reads versus town-reads. I think your Post 1224 inferences are a stretch, to put it charitably, based merely off of the fact that CKD asked another player, once, to further explain their town read on one other player.

Your Point 2): Like I said in Post 1087: "Bel's play was super weird (undoubtedly on purpose) in this game and I don't want to read too much into what he did or did not do/say/vote. I think more useful analysis will come out of how other players acted (or failed to act) towards Beli." Your Point 2 is attempting to make connections based on what Beli said. I don't find that persuasive, because Beli was basically fucking with the town.

Your Point 3): I already stated that I was interested in CKD's response back in Post 1084. I don't think he has, or I missed it.

[Green Crayons]

As I said, I am willing to step back from this for now, as I don't think this Titus-pushing is doing much to help town at the moment. I would rather spend our time developing other reads.

Ah, so we return to:

Yo, acryon. We get it. You don't like how Titus is playing. Unless if you want to vote Titus because you think she is scum, I'm going to consider your "motivational" vote to be suspicious in light of the fact that we already have a flipped scum (best source of info) and it's Day 3 (plenty of material to work off of). That is, your vote makes you look active and engaged, but you aren't actively engaging in scum hunting.

You've approved the Amy pressure, but not enough to join the wagon.

You've disapproved of Titus' playstyle, and made much hay out of it.

That's all well and good, but who would you like to see lynched today?

[Green Crayons]

What point do I need to make the point should be self-evident.
Titus called me a liar despite me previously having a discussion with him where I SPECIFICALLY said that I played on another site.
She made an accusation and I wanted to see her back it up. She cannot. And she didnt even quote the post riddle did, which actually is the better accusation. So, in my opinion, she was throwing shit at the wall to see what sticks. It was a baseless accusation.
On top of which ive made mo secret about my experience whatsoever. When asked about it, I divulged. Im being accused of covering ip something I never said.

With cdb I asked him to repeat because again, im being accused of something I never said. When I ask people to quote me its because I want to see if their accusation is actually coming from scumhunting or momentum pushing. I see the purpose in asking why a scum read changes. I dont see the point in asking why scumteam haven't changed.

w/r/t Titus: I just re-double checked a Titus/scrambles ISO.

- Titus first quoted the posts where she observed a discrepancy in Post 1048.
- You then take inconsistent positions: (1) you acknowledge her point but simply state that it's wrong (Post 1089) and then (2) you then immediately have no idea what she's talking about (Post 1090).
- When she links you to her observation of your inconsistency in Post 1092, which

in and of itself explains why she thinks your positions are inconsistent

("These two posts strongly imply you have played more than one game that just ended Tuesday." when you previously said you had played only one game on MS and completed one game on another site), you simply ask her to explain herself in Post 1094.

Like, reading through it, I think there is a clear miscommunication here. It appears that you have played only one game on MS, have just completed one other game on another site, but

have also

played other games on that other site. This third point is not really implied in anything you said, and therefore your statements about your limited play conflict with your statements about your vast experience.

THE POINT BEING: all of that could have been resolved if you simply made explicit that your experience offsite is more than the single game you completed on Tuesday of last week (or whenever). Instead, you argued for arguments sake, making a whole bunch of not very helpful discussion crop up.


w/r/t CDB:

Scrambles, I ask because this is the most recent post of yours that I can find on an iso-scan declaring your list of scumreads (though acknowledging that you've since moved me to null-pending); let me know if I'm missing one. But now you're accusing Riddleton of "deliberately distorting content". So is

Riddleton on your scumlist now?

What does that mean for Titus and CKD?

Yeah that was only four hours ago. Someone doesn't just switch slots over one post.

So you think he was "deliberately distorting content" but is not scummy?

lol if you think this is CDB accusing you of saying that Riddle is or isn't scummy, as opposed to CDB saying that you said Riddle was "deliberately distorting content" and then asking if you don't think that such actions are scummy. The quotation marks are there for a reason: to denote your quoted words. The question mark is there for a reason, too: to denote that he has a question.

I don't see how you could misread that as anything else, and thus I see you once again engaging in unnecessary argument instead of simply just responding to a post.

[Green Crayons]

So your argument with Titus was pointless, and you're sticking to your guns about being wrong about CDB. That's cool. No need to further engage an argument about you arguing just to argue.

[Green Crayons]

@GreenCrayons

What do you think of RoyalApe's reads? Especially near the end, there wasn't much from him, but specifically his reads in 327: "AFF, acryon and CKD in my goodish pile. chaos is in my scumish pile"

Ape himself didn't give much of a reason for his reads, so I take your question as simply asking me how do I feel about those players.

- AFF looked town throughout most of my read through. I didn't notice her drop off in activity until someone posted it. That alone isn't necessarily alignment indicative, even though CDB did his darndest to make it so, so that doesn't sway me one way or the other. I don't care for her extreme reaction to being put under pressure, but not enough to overcome her pretty solid town play earlier in the game. Lean town.

- acryon didn't really strike me one way or the other through my read. Could be due to the fact that -- as others pointed out, not something I picked up on my own -- he plays "devil's advocate" way too much and simply appears to question every position rather than ever taking a position. That alone is suspicious, but the jury's still out. Waiting to see if the next 1 to 3 days will give him insight that the previous however many real life days haven't. Null, lean scum.

- CKD proclaimed from the hilltops that chaos was scum and Beli was town. Even in the face of an ever-growing Beli-wagon. Ballsy move for a CKD-scum to make, but certainly not unthinkable. Regardless, that play inclines me to put him in the town pile. He appears competent and thinks his suspicious out in a pretty understandable manner, which means he's pretty transparent. Also, the basis of his suspicious aren't necessarily horrible (NK analysis), but I wish he would put more meat on the bones of that case. NK analysis alone does not make the basis of a lynch, and resting on simply that doesn't inspire confidence. Also, I just don't see Riddle's case against CKD. Town.

- chaos I read as an inexperienced, not particularly well engaged town during my read through. I reevaluated that position in light of Toby's Post 951, which makes a case against the chaos slot on the basis of how chaos did (not) act towards Beli, and I would vote the slot based on that analysis. One thing that gives me pause is the fact that chaos entered the game following Beli's farside-vote with a farside-vote of his own, which would be a bit weird for a scum partner to do -- but then again, that could be chalked up to WIFOM or being new.

As for CDB, who replaced into the slot, I think his case on Amy was uninspiring. The fact that he walked away from that case, even though he failed to justify

why

he was backing away (I noted this back in Post 1087) does not look good. It's a town thing to say "hey, I'm not sure about my case, I recognize that it's not perfect, etc." CDB, on the other hand, backed away from his AFF case in Post 1046 even though he appeared to be still all about his AFF suspicions in Post 1045, and his justification for the unvote was simply because he wanted to hear alternatives (which doesn't require an unvote). Feels too manufactured.

[Green Crayons]

Oh, chaos/CBD is scum under my read of the slot's play, and I would be willing to vote.

[Green Crayons]

scrambles, your willingness to get into an indepth discussion about whether you have been arguing for the sake of arguing (which I don't even think is alignment indicative, just frustrating from a reading-the-thread standpoint), which is in stark contrast to your refusal to get into any type of discussion (besides a one-liner "wrong lol" and "wifom") about my suspicions of you, is suspicious in and of itself.

[Green Crayons]

Hey, that sure is a sentence.

[Green Crayons]

Oh, no. It's a sentence alright. And perfectly legible, too. But that's all it has going for it.

Your sentence is an accusation that has no basis in reality.

[Green Crayons]

@acryon:

do you still want me to do that? I only skimmed what Ape posted on my read through, and haven't looked back, but I don't recall him posting in a manner that was particularly insightful to divine what he was thinking but not saying. I don't know how fruitful my attempt will be.

@CDB:

I hear what you're saying. It sounds reasonable. It does. Your explanation isn't alignment indicative, but I will submit that it lessens my suspicion of your play in particular. That said, you inherited the sins of your predecessor. If you've got a better argument based on Beli interactions than what I said about scrambles or what Toby said about chaos, I'm all ears.

@scrambles:

I appreciate the step back, and I'll take a deep breath as well and say that I was just shooting from the hip when I posted my fiesty/arguing for its own sake thoughts -- it was just a stray observation that struck me in a time when posts were aflying. It might not have been based on an entirely accurate premise, but it certainly was how I saw your posts coming across at the time.

When I have a moment, I'll single out a few major points of my case against you and ask about your thoughts. I appreciate the fact that you're engaging me.

[Green Crayons]

@scrambles:

I'll pick out the strongest issues I have with your play from my case.

Point 1)

(a)

The basis for scrambles' Beli vote is solely: "I currently dont like belisarius at all for that "derp, I have no scumreads" comment." This is a surface read. It's not even a read. It's copying and pasting what other players said immediately prior to scrambles vote: acryon in Post 328 and farside in Post 337.

(d)

scrambles is willing to back of Beli (Post 359), but never actually does so (much less follow through this willingness to reevaluate his Beli-vote) because that would look REALLY BAD if he jumped off the Beli-wagon and a Beli lynch actually went through.

I'm combining these two points because they focus on your D1 Beli-vote justifications. You voted while using other player's reasonings, and then promised to reevaluate those suspicions but never appeared to do so. Were you actively influenced by other player's Beli-suspicions -- if so, why didn't you just own up to it, rather than appear to present your suspicions as original? What happened to reevaluating your Beli-vote?


Point 2)

(b)

The timing of the Bel vote is particularly cringe-worthy.

- Naked Jogger voted Beli in Post 314. That brought Beli up to 2 votes (Amy and Naked), putting the Beli-wagon just one vote behind the Chaos-wagon (3 votes) and the Skelda-wagon (3 votes).
- From NakedJogger's Beli-vote to scrambles Beli-vote, nobody else actually voted Beli. But it's clear that that's where the wind was blowing:
- Skelda, Post 316: "Of the people with votes, I am most likely to go back to Beli. I really do not think that Chaos is scum. I guess I could see acryon, not really sure. But I am not in the mood to die Day 1 again."
- acryon, Post 328: "I don't like votes without explanation (314 from NakedJogger), but 313 from Belisaurus really sucks IMO. Bel's entire ISO at this point is tunneling Farside and trolling. Follow that up with a "darn I wish I had more to go off of!" and he really doesn't look good to me."
- acryon, Post 332: "I would say I am between Bel and Skelda at this point."
- farside, Post 337: "Bel is another player that concerns me. I don't see a lot coming from him for reads. Those are still my top two scum reads."
- Dry-fit, Post 338: "Belisaurius is a wildcard for me. I still don't know what to think of him."

SPECULATION: scrambles saw that there were votes already on Beli-scum, and saw that there were plenty of players who were also willing (and almost ready) to vote Beli. Rather than being late to the party, scrambles got ahead of the Beli-wagon and preemptively bussed his partner.

QUERY: why bus a partner over, putting Beli-wagon at 3 votes, to tie it with the other two leading wagons (Chaos and Skelda)? Because scum like to bus their partners for some stupid reason. Because scrambles wouldn't have to explain away a bad vote on confirmed town Skelda, or likely town Chaos. Makes it easier to play.

Were you aware of this growing Beli-suspicion? (This is an admittedly Catch-22 question, but I'm more interested in the follow up question/answer for purposes of scumhunting.)


Point 3)

(a)

scrambles first D2 posts asks

chaos

, and only chaos, what chaos thinks about Beli. (Post 570, Post 574, Post 634.) Why the zeroing in on chaos? Why not try to get more of the thread on board? It looks like scrambles is making a half-hearted attempt to get people back on the Beli-wagon.

So what's the deal with chaos? Why were you focusing only on him to consider a Beli-vote?


Point 4)

(b)

scrambles reasoning for a Beli-vote have downgraded: no longer is it that Beli isn't actually giving good reasons, it's only that "there's something there," a "feeling," and some type of "vibe." (Post 574.) Holy smokes that's a horrible effort to justify a suspicion: "Hey guys, I totally am on board with this suspicion, but I'll let others fill out my nebulous accusations." Looks like scum recognizing that Beli-lynch might be inevitable for D2, but doesn't want to actually contribute to it at the beginning of the day just in case if suspicions go elsewhere.

Why the shift in your justifications in a Beli-vote? On D1, you had pretty solid accusations. On D2, they devolved into a "feeling" and a "vibe."


Point 5)

(d)

scrambles then ignores Beli for the remainder of the day, up until Beli is L-1. Only then does scrambles jab at Beli in Post 861. scrambles literally did not talk to Beli at all, did not try to pursue or explore his suspicions, until the Beli lynch was sealed.

I did not see you directly interacting with Beli during your time voting for him up until this post. (Correct me if I'm wrong.) What was your thought process behind simply stating a basis for your Beli-vote without ever attempting to actually engage Beli?

[Green Crayons]

@acryon:

@acryon:

do you still want me to do that? I only skimmed what Ape posted on my read through, and haven't looked back, but I don't recall him posting in a manner that was particularly insightful to divine what he was thinking but not saying. I don't know how fruitful my attempt will be.

Since you and CDB showed how easy it was to explain the reasoning behind Titus' posts, I think you would do fine with Ape's since his posts are at least as insightful as Titus'. I think it may be helpful to clear up that half of your slot.

You're equating all playstyles -- that somehow a sparse, in-the-moment reactionary playstyle (Titus) can be understood on the same lines as a infrequent, spouting off thoughts playstyle (Ape). So, there's that.

At any rate, Ape's playstyle leads to a pretty easy-to-understand basis for his reads because he affirmativelty summarizes his feelings about palyers. For example:

1)

Spoiler: The Basis for Ape's AFF Read:

A.F.F. is probably my best town read so far.

The first few posts that I really noticed from her seemed like she was just trying to appear to be participating as I saw her throwing questions out and I felt she was trying to mediate more than participate in the discussion itself.

Now that I see her reacting to some of the responses with her opinions, I'm feeling better about her.

A.F.F. is probably my best town read so far.

The first few posts that I really noticed from her seemed like she was just trying to appear to be participating as I saw her throwing questions out and I felt she was trying to mediate more than participate in the discussion itself.

Now that I see her reacting to some of the responses with her opinions, I'm feeling better about her.

Out of curiosity, in which posts was I trying to appear to participate, and how did they differ from the participation level of others around that time?

My read of you was through ISO and I wasn't trying to compare your participation to others. Everyone participates differently, so comparisons don't do anything for me.

What i was looking at was I originally just saw you asking questions of others but not submitting your own opinions.

My ISO showed you giving opinions on what others were saying, so you are now giving us something to judge you on.

I'm getting a good tone read from you.

I do lean town on AFF thus far. I just don't understand you throwing people completely into a "confirmed" good pile with so little information.

I generally waffle in the middle too much which is it's own problem, particularly early with little actionable information.

You're right that it could just be a style issue, but I'm happy with my vote here now.

2)

Spoiler: The Basis for Ape's acryon Read:

Because I don't think going into them now will help the town.

Here's how I like to look at it. Each of us is working on the same puzzle, but some of us find different pieces at different points. By providing what pieces you have(as little as they may be), you could provide someone else with the missing piece they need to put together a more solid case.

I really like this post. Encouraging town to work together is good. Assuming we see the same contributions from him that he is asking for from the town, this helps me read Acryon as town.

Generally players that hand out reads for seemingly arbitrary reasons get the stink eye from me.

Fair enough but I rarely find reasons to suspect people other than arbitrary ones so prepare to give me a lot of stink eyes.

I hope this isn't the case. It isn't that hard to find at least semi-legitimate reasons to suspect players.

I don't like this response. It seems to indicate that it is OK to find arbitrary reasons to point to in order to justify a crap vote.

I generally like to see real reasons myself, it gives more to judge players by, both good and bad. If Duckling isn't going to provide reasons for his suspicions - ok - it will just make it harder for me to trust him.

I think this may just be an issues of definition. Arbitrary means without reason, and I said with reasons, so it wouldn't be arbitrary. I think the ultimate point is that I think even a suspicion based on

something

legitimate is good, even if it may not be the strongest case in the world, because at least that little something can get us somewhere.

I agree with that. Arbitrary probably isn't the best word there, but I took issue with saying "semi-legitimate" reasons should be given to support somebody's case.

The way I read that sounds more like something somebody would tell in a private scum chat. In other words, go ahead and accuse random people, you can find something to use to support your case, it isn't that hard.

That said, everything else that I've read from you tells me that you probably wouldn't slip like that if you were scum.

UNVOTE: all

I'm reading blonde as town, so I'll get off that RVS vote.

All of the ISO reads this morning are reading good (acryon, blonde, far side, duckling, dry fit, Toby) to me or null (jogger, astinus) for lack of content. I think the ISO reading isn't working for me yet this game as I'm losing track of interactions between players. I plan to reread from the beginning once I finish the last several ISOs. Until then, back to work I go.

3)

Spoiler: The basis for Ape's chaos Read:

VOTE: Mr Blonde, sorry I missed your birthday. Have a belated b-day vote.

Thanks?

Any opinion on what's happened thus far?

If farside had sat on the vote for the reasons stated, I would definitely be reading scum there. As is, I'm willing to believe it was used to generate discussion.

Chaos jumping in with a farside vote seemed like he was trying to jumpstart a wagon, so I'm reading it as scummy.

The only read that Ape made that I can't discern why is CKD. Ape did not comment upon any of CKD's posts and did not interact with CKD at all before Ape made his CKD-town read in Post 327. Thus, unlike with a playstyle such as Titus's, I don't know why Ape read CKD as town.

[Green Crayons]

@Titus:

Alright scrambles, just how experienced are you? I need to know this in order to know how to exactly read you. What is the name of your homesite?

Still waiting for the other shoe to drop on this, now that you know of scrambles's sordied mafia history.

[Green Crayons]

sordid*, not sordied

(Also, the sordid bit is a joke. I haven't looked into scrambles off-site mafia history.)

[Green Crayons]

Well, if it's any consolation, I don't think that you're scummy for not liking Titus's playstyle. I've seen plenty of town and scum people vote players with that style of play, mistaking playstyle for scum (admittedly, not a clear line).

[Green Crayons]

Well, if it's any consolation, I don't think that you're scummy for not liking Titus's playstyle. I've seen plenty of town and scum people vote players with that style of play, mistaking playstyle for scum (admittedly, not a clear line).

No one was considering Acryon scummy for his dislike of Titus' playstyle. The distinction is I think Acryon is scummy for pushing a dislike of someone's playstyle as anti-town in itself.

And I wasn't implying that anyone was? acryon and I have had a strong disagreement about his Titus suspicions/vote, and I have stated that I find his play null/lean scum. I am clarifying that our disagreement re: Titus is not influencing that read.

[Green Crayons]

-

acryon

: biggest ding is not taking sides, potential disparity in how he treated Titus with other players with similar playstyles (e.g., Naked)

-

Scrambles replaces Mr_Blonde who replaced Hiraki

: biggest ding is his votes on, but failure to interact with, Beli, and his actions around same

-

Farside22 replaces vendetta21

: biggest ding is that both NK'ed town suspected her

-

curiouskarmadog replaces cerberus48

: biggest ding is potentially reverse-bussing Beli

-

Titus replaces SnugglyDuckling who replaced EOE

: biggest ding is I'm not sure why she's still voting scrambles other than inertia

-

ChannelDelibird replaces chaoslord54 replaces uncledaphne

: biggest ding is chaos's play towards Beli (see Toby's Post 951 and acryon's Post 1287)

-

riddleton replaces Ranon who replaced astinus

: biggest ding is ???

-

Green Crayons replaces RoyalApe

: biggest ding is ???

-

Amy Farrah Fowler

: biggest ding is her reaction to CDB's case, and the notable slump in productive activity

-

TobyLoby

: biggest ding is early D1 play (I didn't care for it, at least)



That's how I see the game state. Corrections / modifications?

[Green Crayons]

Because nobody has said anything suspicious about you that I recall, and I don't personally have any problems with your play that I could substitute in (as I did with Toby).

I mean, I guess there's this, which I think is just weird rather than you being a cheeky scum (oh man, but my paranoid suspicions!):

Alright, CKD,

you win a sheep.

UNVOTE:
VOTE: Skelda

I'm not happy about my lack of scumreads this late in the Day. There's

got

to be something usable here...

You've won a sheep.

But I'd still like you to answer my questions if possible.

UNVOTE: CKD
VOTE: AFF

But I wasn't going to mention it.

[Green Crayons]

scrambles & CDB

[Green Crayons]

My second scumread tends to change.

And a quick (as in, very quick) skim through scrambles' ISO looked okay to me.

Nevertheless, it's not a lynch I'm averse to.

If I had to narrow 2 two it would be amy/scrabbke based on interaction. Which is almost none.

I wasn't going to basically repeat what other people said about scrambles, and I had nothing extra to add, therefore the lack of interaction is axiomatically inevitable.

I read through her ISO, I picked out posts that jump out to me, and I have a leaning-scumread on her.

I don't see how these two bolded statements are compatible in being posted within 3 minutes of each other.

[Green Crayons]

I have a leaning scumread on both acryon and scrambles, I had to pick one of them for my two main scumreads, I picked acryon. I see how they're compatible.

Maybe there's some miscommunication here. So I'm following up, because I still don't understand -- I'm not trying to pull a "gotcha" or something along those lines.

In 1347, you said you skimmed through scrambles' ISO, and found it to look okay.
In 1348, you said you read through scrambles' ISO, and came away with a leaning-scumread.

How did you come away with two different feelings -- "okay" and "leaning-scumread" -- from the same player's (scrambles') ISO?

[Green Crayons]

@mod: what's the current deadline?

[Green Crayons]

Also, scrambles' disappearance should be sealing the deal for you fence-sitters.

[Green Crayons]

Well the flu sucks, so I do hope you feel better.

[Green Crayons]

@Amy:

discrepancies aren't inherently scummy, and I didn't see a clear way how this particular one might be. I just wanted to be clear about your position.

[Green Crayons]

Blergh. My immediate take away is that, overall, I like scrambles' response.

UNVOTE:

Will contemplate this further.

CDB is still my go-to as a second choice. Based solely off of chaos' play (once again, see Toby's Post 951 and acryon's Post 1287). After an initial scum-leaning read, I think CDB's play has been alignment neutral. The only person I've seen that has given a justification for a CDB town-read is Titus, and that reason made no sense (Post 1264: "CDB scumhunting in his spot was why he isconftown to me.").

[Green Crayons]

Sup.

-----

@Riddle:

I dislike Scrambles' responses and "oh my god Riddleton is scum for pushing me" post. He doesn't say it, but it's clear he's referring to me when he says "trying to push something", due to his disagreement with my earlier joke post. It's OMGUS minus the vote, even he implies himself it would look awkward if he pushed me right now. Would still be OK with his lynch.

What in particular about his responses don't you like?

[Green Crayons]

@CDB:

I really want to hear why GC in particular was led to unvote, but a word from farside on why she felt it looks more likely town than scum would be welcome as well. Honestly, assuming you give Scrambles enough credit to at least make the effort as scum, I'm not exactly sure what you would have expected to see done differently in some of those posts.

The explanations come across as genuine, and reduce a lot of the suspiciousness I had about his play. I credit a degree of the genuineness to the fact that he actually owns up to pretty anti-town play in Post 1377, which scum would not want really want to do.

I'm not against a scrambles lynch, but it's not my favorite any more.

Here's a question right back at you, using your own phrasing: Honestly, assuming you gives scrambles enough credit to at least make the effort as town, I'm not exactly sure what you would have expected to see done differently in some of those posts.

-----

@Kalimar:

I don't particularly have much of an opinion on scrambles' ISO, but I'd probably lynch AFF and/or CDB before him.

I actually liked the post where he told GC he was wrong because he was, since scum is more likely to break things down into tedious semantic arguments,

but I don't like that the thing he's actually bothered to address in detail - the newness or lack thereof - is probably the least alignment indicative and most easily debunked claim there is. I'd call it a gut town read but it's got no proper basis to it.

I don't know how to feel about the bolded, and I've been thinking about it ever since scrambles posted it.

I've had town refuse to engage my questions before, and so I do see it generally as a town response. That said, it's usually been done in reference to questions I pose to another player and not to an actual case. Plus, scrambles doesn't appear inclined to engage in a playstyle of "breaking things down into tedious semantic arguments" (scare quotes because, man, that sure was a pejorative way of putting it), so I don't know how much town credit he can be given for simply not adopting that type of play style -- similar to Titus not getting scum credit for adopting another type of play style.

-----

VOTE: CDB
Moving to my second choice. Sorry bud.

[Green Crayons]

Oh, and this is just a thought that I never vocalized previously, but since I mentioned Titus off hand:

@acryon

, how did you feel about SnugglyDuckling's play?

Personally, I thought Snuggly's play was strong town on my read through, and that's why I'm allowing a lot of leeway for Titus's absentee play.

[Green Crayons]

@CDB:

-Scrambles's self-analysis regarding how he gets lynches done, things like "it's not about who says what, it's about who has the conviction to move on it", is consistent with things he's said before and I wouldn't be at all surprised if it genuinely is how he sees things. His explanation of his relationship with Belisarius, which GC rightly points out looks suspect, boils down to this sort of thing. But this philosophy is inherently blustery and difficult to read because it's pretty impossible to hold such views to account - and it isn't something that would be harder to keep up as scum than town because, as Scrambles admits, it's so arbitrary. So the fact that he's probably telling the truth about this philosophy doesn't make his actions in this game more likely to come from town than scum.

Here's a question right back at you, using your own phrasing: Honestly, assuming you gives scrambles enough credit to at least make the effort as town, I'm not exactly sure what you would have expected to see done differently in some of those posts.

Nothing, particularly, and that's exactly my point. All that's there is the effort, which is null, and the fact that he probably believes in his approach to the game, which is null.

These two posts make it look like you think scrambles' explanation about his play is null, as it simply goes to playstyle. Flowing from that conclusion should be that because much of the scrambles suspicion is based off of a play style that is not alignment indicative (that is, the playstyle is null), much the suspicion on scrambles is no longer valid. You don't appear to that up that position, but I cannot see why.

[Green Crayons]

@CKD:

(1) I never saw your response to this point made by Riddle. Please provide a response:

3) CKD's rant at #830. When I replied to it afterwards, I didn't quite catch onto what he was implying. But on careful examination, I do see a minor change of stance. He went from defending Beli, to complaining that he's a "horrible player" if he flipped town, at least vaguely implying he doesn't quite think Beli is town anymore. It strikes me as strange considering CKD has consistently been on the Beli-town stance throughout the whole game. The stance change is quite abrupt. The swearing and anger at him perceiving Beli to perhaps not be town after all is very different from his #563 regarding Skelda where it's quite the opposite. 'Well darn, he's town after all! Not to worry'.

(2) Are you justifying your suspicions against CDB and farside solely based off of NK analysis? I haven't seen anything else from you on that point.

If not, what else do you got?

If so, why are you content with pushing a vote based solely on grounds that aren't exactly stellar?

[Green Crayons]

More detailed stuff w/ Scrambles to follow

Point 5
You'll find that unless im really on the fence about a player, I will (even with time) never interact with someone I think is scum. I have no reason to talk to scum or give them a reason to try and argue a point.

Then why does he interact with my rebuttal of his case against me?

Fair point.

[Green Crayons]

PEDIT: That point from Riddleton there only makes it more likely that we've got a "this is how I am, just go with it" defence from Scrambles because there's not a lot else that he can say in the circumstances.

I disagree. It makes scrambles' explanation about his play less genuine, because it provides a real life example of scrambles not playing the way he says he plays.


Looking into the other points you made.

[Green Crayons]

Or maybe I don't disagree, because I'm not actually sure what you're saying with the "this is how I am" comment. But I'm explaining why I think Riddle's observation is important for me.

[Green Crayons]

What do you think of the fact that I pointed out a new mysterious change of interpretation from him, regarding my questioning of his Riddleton read?

Maybe you can explain the disparity between those two sets of posts, because I think the bolded points are talking about different things? (The first set is about whether you, CDB, understood how scrambles felt about Riddle; the second set is about whether you, CDB, should have known about scrambles' suspicions if you were already looking into scrambles' ISO.)

(1)

Scrambles, I ask because this is the most recent post of yours that I can find on an iso-scan declaring your list of scumreads (though acknowledging that you've since moved me to null-pending); let me know if I'm missing one. But now you're accusing Riddleton of "deliberately distorting content". So is Riddleton on your scumlist now? What does that mean for Titus and CKD?

Yeah that was only four hours ago. Someone doesn't just switch slots over one post.

So you think he was "deliberately distorting content" but is not scummy?

So you think he was "deliberately distorting content" but is not scummy?

Did I say that?

http://forum.mafiascum.net/viewtopic.ph ... 9#p6278039

Grats, you know how to link posts.
Again, did I say that?

Grats, you know how to link posts.
Again, did I say that?

This is a really annoying shtick to be using here. You clearly implied that he was doing so, so if it was a joke could you please just fucking say as much and let me drop one of the many lines of inquiry that I am currently trying to juggle coherently?

Ok, well, I'm not trying to be annoying, I thought you were trying to misquote me purposely but it seems like you're just confused about it.

I was asking where I said your quote in entirety. It seemed like you were putting words in my mouth with the "but don't think he's scummy".
My response is that just because I found something scummy doesn't mean I read the player as scum yet. For the moment, he's still in my null read, and that one misplaced comment isn't going to change that. I don't mean to add to your pile. I just don't like all the misrepresentative quoting and selective reading atm. Sry if I lashed out at you. You appear genuinely confused.

(2)

Scrambles, who are your scumreads? Seems like you ave a lot.

I've already posted it

Oh, and this post was directed at the one directly above it, wherein CDB asked for my scumreads and said "seem's like you have a lot".

Yet if someone was actually scumhunting me, shouldn't they know that I only have two?

What kind of scumhunting is that, to point out such a meta-tell that isn't even based in fact. It's not. It's simply moving with momentum. It's fake.

[Green Crayons]

Incidentially I think scrambles Post 1381 is an incoherent use of buzzwords.

Like, I don't even know what he's saying with "What kind of scumhunting is that, to point out such a meta-tell that isn't even based in fact. It's not. It's simply moving with momentum. It's fake."

But that sentence uses "scumhunting," "meta" "momentum" and "fake," all letting me know that I shouldn't like what's happening even if I don't really understand just what in the world scrambles is saying.

[Green Crayons]

Uh, it took me only a few minutes to find it after I read Riddle's original post on the matter:

In Post 1399, Riddle talks about how he doesn't like scrambles' suspicions.
In Post 1403, scrambles dismisses Riddle's dislike of scrambles' suspicions.
In Post 1404, Riddle responds.
In Post 1408, scrambles responds to a substantive point made in Riddle's post 1399.

[Green Crayons]

Incidentially I think scrambles Post 1381 is an incoherent use of buzzwords.

Like, I don't even know what he's saying with "What kind of scumhunting is that, to point out such a meta-tell that isn't even based in fact. It's not. It's simply moving with momentum. It's fake."

But that sentence uses "scumhunting," "meta" "momentum" and "fake," all letting me know that I shouldn't like what's happening even if I don't really understand just what in the world scrambles is saying.

I think the one part of that post that makes no sense is why he is saying it is a meta tell.

scrambles' post (1381) is the one that includes the line that doesn't make any sense, not CDB's post -- which is the post scrambles is referring to. And scrambles is the one who is invoking the term meta, which also doesn't make sense.

So I don't think that explains it. (Unless if I'm mistaking what you're trying to say.)

[Green Crayons]

Re: 1452, it's possible that I've confused what are supposed to be two points as one, but they really feel like part of the same thing, because 1228 is Scrambles's last word on my questioning there and seems to accept that I'm confused about the state of his scumreads rather than having been simply asking as a means to look like like I'm scumhunting rather than actually trying, as he implies in 1381. It seems extremely difficult to separate those two aspects of my line of enquiry and, if they

were

meant to be separate, why didn't Scrambles object more at the time? Hard not to think that he puts it that way now because I'm one of his counterwagons.

Oh, I now see that the second set of posts actually pre-date the first set of posts, except for scrambles' after-the-fact commentary (Post 1381). Reading y'all two in ISO together, I see how all of the original line of questioning goes together, and they're not really two separate strands of conversation.

In that light, scrambles after-the-fact commentary in Post 1381, putting a different spin on things after you started putting pressure on him, does look scummy.

[Green Crayons]

Also, I will note that in fairness to scrambles, he appears to have posted Post 1381 in a flurry of posting replies to other people who had criticized him in some way (see Post 1379, responding to farside; Post 1380, responding to CKD).

1381 is weird, though, because he's pulling up his own response to CDB (and not something CDB posed to scrambles), that happened 7 real life days prior, and which didn't really invite any additional/modified reactions from scrambles.

-----

PEDIT: scrambles, that particular problem with 1381 boils down to the fact that I have no idea why you think CDB's question about who you suspected was fake, and so all those terms look like window dressing for a pretty empty accusation. How is CDB's question, as posed to you in Post 1184, a scumtell of any sort to the point that you criticized it as fake in 1381?

[Green Crayons]

If you thought a player had a likelihood of being the doctor, you wouldn't group them in your scum suspects.

If you thought a player had a likelihood of being the doctor, you wouldn't bring up that possibility when you are a leading lynch candidate unless if you want to yell that to your scum partners.

UNVOTE:
VOTE: scrambles

[Green Crayons]

scrambles, you had no reason to post the entire exchange with Riddle, starting with "However, I'm not keen on pushing riddleton at the moment. I'll come back to this at some point. (If I live, that is)" in Post 1382 and ending with "The reasoning, which should be pretty clear, is that I'm not fully convinced that you are scum, and my reasoning for that I thought you may be the doc, due to how you were shooting from the sidelines." in Post 1466, if you are in fact town.

1) Town would not group a player they think is possibly the doctor in their Top 3 scum reads, as you did in Post 1382.
2) You then played against your own self-proclaimed (anti-town) playstyle, by interacting with one of your scum reads. (Discredits the genuineness of your responses about your playstyle.)
3) Town would not cap it all off by making explicit the implication of a previous post by telling the thread who you think is the doctor, as you did in Post 1466.

[Green Crayons]

You apparently thought Riddle was possibly the doctor when you made 1382. If that was the case, town would have simply removed him from the list of possible scum suspects, instead of winking while nudging the thread with a "what about this guy, eh? EH?"

The fact that you recognize that you have a habit of thinking the doctor is scum only further underscores why your actions are scummy. You

knew

that you have a history of saying that the doctor is scum. You

thought

that this was the case with respect to your Riddle suspicions. Town would not then have acted as you did, because it draws unnecessary negative attention on the doctor from BOTH the town (becuase you said Riddle might be scum) and the scum (because you hinted at, and then explicitly stated, that Riddle might be the doctor).

[Green Crayons]

2. I DIDNT INTERACT WITH A SCUM READ IF I THINK THERES A POSSIBILITY I AM WRONG AND HES A DOC.

Also, this is doublespeak. You listed Titus as at least your second-strongest scumread in 1382. You simultaneously thought Titus might be the doctor. Regardless of whether you thought Titus was the doctor, you still had Titus labeled as scum.

Under your Post 1476 definition of who constitutes a "scum read," you can assert only those players who you are certain are actually scum -- that is, dead players or players you have investigated -- because only then is there no "possibility <that you> are wrong."

---

@acryon:

if I think someone is a PR, I don't think that they are also scum. I cannot recall that ever happening to me, because it's such a weird situation. If there was such an uncertainty, I wouldn't go making that player part of my Top 3 right after I posted a bunch of things about how I shouldn't be the lynch for the day because to do so is scummy.

[Green Crayons]

@acryon:

Cops always claim on guilty. So... there's nothing ambiguous about those situations.

I've never recognized a player saying that they thought another player was innocent for crappy reasons, and said to myself "this might be a cop." I really don't think about PRs, and how PRs would play. Also, I don't think someone reading another player as town is all that insightful as to the first player's alignment, so I don't pay attention to such a thing.

[Green Crayons]

(Until it becomes relevant, as I noted in our earlier conversation w/r/t Titus's so-and-so is town claims.)

[Green Crayons]

Oh yeah, me typing "Titus" instead of "Riddle" once sure is the same as you saying that a "scum read" is literally only a player you are 100% certain about -- as opposed to the players you listed as your "current top reads" in Post 1382.

[Green Crayons]

@acryon:

Cops always claim on guilty. So... there's nothing ambiguous about those situations.

I've never recognized a player saying that they thought another player was innocent for crappy reasons, and said to myself "this might be a cop." I really don't think about PRs, and how PRs would play. Also, I don't think someone reading another player as town is all that insightful as to the first player's alignment, so I don't pay attention to such a thing.

Ok...guilty is only one of the scenarios. The one we are obviously talking about is green checks. I think it's stupid to not think about the fact that a player may be a PR. I would say that, if anything, it is a town-tell, since scum knows who is scum.

I don't think it's inappropriate to think about who might be a PR. I just personally don't do it.

I do think it's scummy to say or heavily imply who you think might be a PR by including them in your Top 3 scumreads when you are a leading lynch candidate.

[Green Crayons]

If a person seems to be actively avoiding discussion of a person being scum or defending them with little real information, you automatically assume they are scum and don't even think about the fact that they could be cop?

@acryon:

Cops always claim on guilty. So... there's nothing ambiguous about those situations.

I've never recognized a player saying that they thought another player was innocent for crappy reasons, and said to myself "this might be a cop." I really don't think about PRs, and how PRs would play.

Also, I don't think someone reading another player as town is all that insightful as to the first player's alignment, so I don't pay attention to such a thing.

(Until it becomes relevant, as I noted in our earlier conversation w/r/t Titus's so-and-so is town claims.)

[Green Crayons]

I agree with GreenCrayons in that I don't really think about who might or might not be a PR while I play.

So you just go and push anyone you feel is scum. Cool. Good to know who is in charge of my investigation.

The only way Riddle's play would be detrimental to the town is if there is the possibility that you are a PR. The Jailkeeper is dead, and you have already outed yourself as not the doctor. Riddle's pursuit of people he views as scummy, without giving credence to the possibility that they are a PR, has no bearing on his vote against you.

[Green Crayons]

Well I just disagree with that. Many scum are found because of their town-reads.

Well this has been a neat diversion from the scumminess of scrambles' play within the context of this game, which is completely divorced from the question in the abstract of whether a town player should look to discern -- much less accurately determine -- whether someone they believe is scummy is actually a town PR, as I have repeatedly pointed out in the past page or two.

[Green Crayons]

Well I just disagree with that. Many scum are found because of their town-reads.

Well this has been a neat diversion from the scumminess of scrambles' play within the context of this game, which is completely divorced from the question in the abstract of whether a town player should look to discern -- much less accurately determine -- whether someone they believe is scummy is actually a town PR, as I have repeatedly pointed out in the past page or two.

That's actually not divorced from it. It is a critical piece of your case for scrambles being scum.

There's a difference between thinking to yourself about whether someone you suspect as scum might be a PR, and yelling to the thread who you think is the doctor when you're under pressure as a main lynch candidate. Talking about the former, and not the latter, is not relevant because the latter is what is scummy and is what scrambles did.

[Green Crayons]

Seriously, conflating the two is disingenuous and ignores what has actually happened in this game.

[Green Crayons]

You push a player who is scum. Up until then you do everything you can to make sure they are not a pr without having a claim put down.

You seem to mnisunderstand. I don't just push random people her and there, I push my main scum suspects. Like it or not, I think you are scum.

Main scum suspect whose suspicion stems from a single misinterpreted line. Yeah, real authority on mafia.

1) It's not one-line that stems your case

2) I still thought you said you don't respond to your scum suspects. (I'm not doctor, by the way)

2) Careful, I'm sure GC will vote you along with this long-winded case about how a town would never admit they weren't the doctor, thereof, heretofor the absence of assurance does plausibly guarantee surgeon-survivability, thither.

lol

This is you trying to make you attempting to loud out the doctor not scummy.

[Green Crayons]

@mod:[/] I'm voting scrambles

Fixed

[Green Crayons]

There is only One True Scum Play and you did not do it, ergo you are not scum.

Nope.

[Green Crayons]

scrambles, your fighting sarcasm-with-sarcasm (I think?) missed the mark and your name-calling jab at me doesn't actually make sense.

-----

@Titus:

CDB, if you are concerned about utility, I am only voting acyron or scrambles sooooo

HTH I have no idea why you are voting scrambles, and by this point -- after I know that I've mentioned it on at least two occasions, and I'm certain that others have as well -- I can only assume you've adopted a willful blindness to these posts.

Posts like these:

@Titus:

Alright scrambles, just how experienced are you? I need to know this in order to know how to exactly read you. What is the name of your homesite?

Still waiting for the other shoe to drop on this, now that you know of scrambles's sordied mafia history.

-

Titus replaces SnugglyDuckling who replaced EOE

: biggest ding is I'm not sure why she's still voting scrambles other than inertia

[Green Crayons]

@CDB:

I reviewed your ISO for a case against acryon. This is what I gathered from Post 1180 and Post 1327:

Scum Points:
(1) acryon straddled the fence for the first two days.
(2) acryon pushed his Titus vote (you sometimes say "wagon," but there hasn't been a Titus wagon consisting of more than acryon's sole vote, which has sometimes been joined by scrambles' vote) based off of Titus's play style.
(3) acryon was weird with your case against Amy by saying that Amy was his biggest scum read before her melt down, and supported your case against Amy, but later said he wasn't confident enough in his read to vote her and thought sufficient pressure was already present without his vote

Town Points:
(1) He did some pretty unnecessary hard bussing of Beli, including:
(A) He was the fifth vote on Beli's D1 wagon (Post 390), which put Beli's D1 wagon at 5 votes, putting it out in the lead over the Skelda wagon at 4 votes (as of Beazu's Post 381), with the following: "Ugh, we have 10 hours. We really need to get a wagon going. . . . L-3, still a ways to go."
(B) He shoots out of the D2 gate with placing a vote on Beli (Post 545), which makes him the second Beli vote of the day (following Amy), with the following: "FWIW, I also have Beli as my top scum-read."


Do you have anything else? That doesn't sell a lynch to me. In particular:

(1) I did a quick skim of acryon's ISO w/r/t his Beli statements, and his read seemed to develop naturally from agreeing with Beli to suspecting Beli. I guess this could be construed as "on the fence," but it didn't really strike me that way. (I don't know to what issues/players in particular you were talking about acryon being on the fence about.)

(2) Just as I don't think Titus's playstyle is alignment indicative, I have seen enough people get suspicious of a playstyle to believe that using such suspicions as the basis of a vote is not alignment indicative. He's since mentioned other justifications for his Titus vote, which I think are valid points that deserve a response (such as in Post 1371 and Post 1432).

(3) acryon's explanation of the Amy case is weird and a bit suspicious -- he came out of the gate on D2 with a Beli vote because Beli was his top scumread, but then did not act similarly on D3 with an Amy vote even though Amy was his top scumread. This is probably the strangest activity, but it would require believing that acryon-scum is willing to be inconsistent in a manner whereby he busses his scummates.

[Green Crayons]

Gc take me seriously god damnit.
you're saying that theres only one reason I would call out a doc in a read, (a read I remind you that I left ambiguous until riddle pressed me to explain it)
You say theres only one reason for doing that and its because im scum, you say theres only one reason for having a half doc half scum in my top scumread.
you claim I willfully tried to mislead people with my experience for one reason.
I brought this up before and it still fits. All you're doing is saying "scrambles I every likely scum, he did this because he must be doing this perfectly reasonable scum tactic"
Yet you ignore my arguments about them.
what reason have I to say im a noob and then "forget" my acting role when I could easily be proven wrong? What reason would I have to try and mislead a player I JUST PLAYED WITH about my experience?
What reason have I to try and out a doc? You say I was under pressure of lynch, but in actuality, you had just moved your vote off me onto cdb which tied the wagons. What reason would a teammate have to trust that I know exactly who the doc is? What kind of play is it to not actually find the doc? The scenarios you're painting are bogus. I have no scum motivations for doing the things you are saying im doing because the scenarios are faulty.
Surely you agree that there are more than one reason for doing things but you must admit that if I am going about them the way you are claiming, im playing a very odd scum game indeed.

You say that im inconsistent and brush me off when I say you have mistakes in your own posts. You also said I was inconsistent when I said something to someone, I forget where but you said I said two contradictory things but the posts weren't even aimed at the same player. Youre seeing what you want to see. Ifyou cant get that then I dont know what else to tell you. Its exactly what I said earlier that arguing your wifom motivation arguments is pointless. I called it right from the start and here you are continuing to do it. I give up. I really do.

I'm not going to address these posts point-by-point because they retread ground I've already covered (optimal scum play is not the only scum play); or attribute suspicions against you to me that I don't have (I don't think you tried to willfully mislead people about your experience, I think you have been argumentative to the point of being counterproductive); or it compares apples to oranges (my "inconsistency" in accidentally using "Titus" instead of "Riddle" in one post =/= inconsistency between characterizing one's own play with one's actual play).

All of that said, just because I think there is a lot wrong with these posts, it reads like frustrated town. Having frustrated many a townsperson in my day, I'm throwing in the towel.

UNVOTE:

God dammit.

-----

@Riddle:

I'm all ears w/r/t CKD. Give me your pitch.

[Green Crayons]

@gc

titus was banking on the day ending already so she wouldn't have to explain it.

I told you in1386 she wouldn't be returning. We have a player named hatmoza exactly like her on vgc, and ive had years of figuring out how to read his nonsense. Their play is identical. Leading wagons with seemingly incontrovertible evidence and then balking and refusing all culpability after the mislynch, preferring to say "x was obviously a threat that needed to be dealt with". Go on vgc I forget which round, it was game of thrones. He played this way all game and gave the scumteam a perfect win. Not a single scum lynch. Titus is scum.

The bolded is what has me looking at Titus, not her playstyle. Plenty of people on this site have a similar playstyle, and use it in all the games that they are in.

[Green Crayons]

@Titus:

CDB, if you are concerned about utility, I am only voting acyron or scrambles sooooo

HTH I have no idea why you are voting scrambles, and by this point -- after I know that I've mentioned it on at least two occasions, and I'm certain that others have as well -- I can only assume you've adopted a willful blindness to these posts.

Posts like these:

@Titus:

Alright scrambles, just how experienced are you? I need to know this in order to know how to exactly read you. What is the name of your homesite?

Still waiting for the other shoe to drop on this, now that you know of scrambles's sordied mafia history.

-

Titus replaces SnugglyDuckling who replaced EOE

: biggest ding is I'm not sure why she's still voting scrambles other than inertia

Also this:

My main point lies here:

It's my second game on mafiascum. I was just in a game with your hydra as well where I specifically talked about my experience. I've played before on another site, which I've mentioned here as well a couple times already.

I looked at that game, and scrambles did talk more than once about his history on other sites including phrases like "I've just played enough to know [x]" and when he came up with the name of Titus' hydra in this game, Titus just completely ignored that part of the conversation. Doesn't seem odd that in that game, Titus/her hydra seemed to have no problem with his claims of playing many times, but in this game, she all of a sudden cares?

As in, please address. The longer you don't the more suspicious you become.

[Green Crayons]

@farside:

I tried looking at your ISO last night for your acryon-based reasoning, but it was late and you mentioned him a lot -- and also in a conflicting manner (first you said acryon might be scum if chaos flipped red; later you said you thought acryon was no longer suspicious; and then even later still you put him back in your scum pile).

Could you either boil down your case to acryon to a few points or point me to your previous posts which you think best state your case against him?

[Green Crayons]

Acryon, your discredit train is not in full working order I see. In order to effectively discredit me, you need to put out more than I suck. You know, meat on the bones. I don't feel the need to write 200 words to say the same thing.

My trajectory has been clear. Dual wagons for VCA. Do VCA.

Stick with results of VCA.

Note that scumget bitchy and say I suck while not saying why. Repeat.

Crayons, scrambles is wifoming. If he was scum, he cannot perform the action sll scum do.

I just rechecked your ISO. You haven't done a VCA.

You also ignored this (again):

@Titus:

CDB, if you are concerned about utility, I am only voting acyron or scrambles sooooo

HTH I have no idea why you are voting scrambles, and by this point -- after I know that I've mentioned it on at least two occasions, and I'm certain that others have as well -- I can only assume you've adopted a willful blindness to these posts.

Posts like these:

@Titus:

Alright scrambles, just how experienced are you? I need to know this in order to know how to exactly read you. What is the name of your homesite?

Still waiting for the other shoe to drop on this, now that you know of scrambles's sordied mafia history.

-

Titus replaces SnugglyDuckling who replaced EOE

: biggest ding is I'm not sure why she's still voting scrambles other than inertia

Also this:

My main point lies here:

It's my second game on mafiascum. I was just in a game with your hydra as well where I specifically talked about my experience. I've played before on another site, which I've mentioned here as well a couple times already.

I looked at that game, and scrambles did talk more than once about his history on other sites including phrases like "I've just played enough to know [x]" and when he came up with the name of Titus' hydra in this game, Titus just completely ignored that part of the conversation. Doesn't seem odd that in that game, Titus/her hydra seemed to have no problem with his claims of playing many times, but in this game, she all of a sudden cares?

As in, please address. The longer you don't the more suspicious you become.

[Green Crayons]

When people say they're doing a VCA, they quote which votecounts they are looking at in particular (as bandwagons grow and diminish), and usually plug in red and green coloring for flipped players to help us layfolk understand. They then state their conclusions deriving from such votecounts, which usually consists of "because X did Y on Z bandwagon, in the context of everything else, possibly scum."

Also, because Titus has claimed that VCA is her "thing," I would expect her to actually do a full fledged VCA, and not simply allude to the fact that has done some VCA.

VOTE: CDB

CDB's case on acryon didn't convince me. farside's case on acryon didn't convince me. I don't have particularly solid town feelings about acryon, but he's far from looking like a good lynch at this point.

[Green Crayons]

I've become less inclined to lynch Scrambles, as their struggle does seem pretty legitimate.

And... ehh, this wagon.

Mind clarifying what you mean by this?

[Green Crayons]

And yeah, I've re-convinced myself...

Vote: CDB

We can lynch acryon tomorrow, since the CDB wagon's got going now.

I've become less inclined to lynch Scrambles, as their struggle does seem pretty legitimate.

And... ehh, this wagon.

Mind clarifying what you mean by this?

Titus/Riddleton/CDB

CDB is probs scum
Titus and Riddleton are by no means super-towny.

I meant what did you mean by the wagon comment.

[Green Crayons]

Ah, I see.

[Green Crayons]

11 hours to lynch.

CDB L-2.
scrambles L-4.

[Green Crayons]

I'm the worst.

UNVOTE: CDB
VOTE: scrambles

That makes CDB and scrambles L-3 each, if I'm not mistaken.

I'm trusting just-replaced-in GC over waffling-like-a-toaster-oven GC, coupled with the fact that I'm also willing to trust Riddle's judgment about the scramble vote. (scrambles, if you're town, sorry bud, gotta stick to my guns. scrambles, if you're scum, nice try, you almost had me.)

Also, Amy's recent activity jumping off and then back on to the CDB wagon, and parroting acryon's "this scrambles wagon sure is suspicious" tagline -- even though Amy herself suspects acryon -- makes me uncomfortable being on the same counter-scrambles wagon with her.

-----

@farside and Riddle:

I'm (still) not against a CDB lynch, so I'll lay down a quick summary of why not.

There's chaos, and everything acryon and Toby pointed out about him, of course.

I think CKD's observation of the two NKs suspecting CDB/farside is at least a consideration, if a minor one.

And as for CDB himself, CDB's play comes across as very careful and calculated. I can't necessarily fault his play (having tried earlier), but at the same time it doesn't come across as town, either.

So there's a lean scum replacee (chaos) and a nullish replacer (CDB). Not the platonic ideal for a lynch, but good players usually won't provide such a situation.

[Green Crayons]

And now it's homecoming weekend, so I'm going to go tailgate. I'll check in before deadline via phone, if I can remember, but only to change votes to avoid a no lynch.

[Green Crayons]

@Riddle:

what's the difference between CKD defending Beli-scum and acryon defending scrambles-scum?

[Green Crayons]

@CKD:

this is ridiculous.

Kalimar's hammer was pretty solid town material. Most people didn't think Toby was suspicious, particularly in later play. And Kalimar wasn't exactly making a hard push for CDB.

Looks more like a solid but safe kill for scum, rather than a specific attempt to divert attention away from the dead player's suspicions.

[Green Crayons]

Riddle is still solid town for me. Going to throw titus in there in the solid town box as well, as my worries from late yesterday have dissipated.

Feeling better about CDB. Would put at lean town.

Still nullish on acryon, but not liking any of the cases made against him as of late yesterday.

That leaves Amy, CKD, and farside. Will look into each soon.

[Green Crayons]

Vote Counts at Lynch (blue is who I think the thread should consider as solid town, but unconfirmed):

Vote Count 1.14

Belisarius

: (4) Amy Farrah Fowler,

NakedJogger

,

scrambles

,

Skelda

Skelda

: (8) Curiouskarmadog ,

RoyalApe

,

Belisarius

,

Dry-fit

, Chaoslord54, acryon,

TobyLoby

, Farside22
Chaoslord54: (1)

Snugglyduckling

acryon: (1)

Ranon

Not Voting:

Vote Count 2.Final

Belisarius

: (7) Amy Farrah Fowler, acryon,

scrambles

,

Riddleton

,

TobyLoby

, ChannelDelibird,

Titus

Curiouskarmadog : (1)

Belisarius

ChannelDelibird: (3) Farside22, Curiouskarmadog ,

NakedJogger

Not Voting:

RoyalApe

Vote Count 3.12

Titus

: (2) acryon,

scrambles

ChannelDelibird: (2) Curiouskarmadog , Amy Farrah Fowler

scrambles

: (6)

Titus

,

Riddleton

, ChannelDelibird,

Green Crayons

, Farside22,

Kalimar

Not Voting:

-----

OBSERVATIONS:
- Amy looks good for her first-on-the-wagon D1 and D2 votes for Beli, under the theory that scum wouldn't lead a wagon against a fellow scum.
- CDB looks good for being on both the Beli-scum (D2) and scrambles-scum (D3) wagons, under the theory that scum wouldn't bus both of their scumbuddies. (Same goes for likely town Riddle and Titus.)
- acryon looks good by way of scrambles' actions, under the theory that scrambles-scum would not closely associate himself with a scumbuddy as he did with acryon by following acryon's vote both on the Beli-wagon (D2) and the Titus-wagon (D3).
- CKD looks bad for never lynching any scum.
- farside looks bad for not lynching scum D1 or D2, and lynching scrambles only as a "ugh, if I have to."
- If scum bussed scrambles, it was either CDB or farside.

[Green Crayons]

I agree with Riddle about his feelings w/r/t acryon.

-----

Safest scum play on D3 would be to not kill your remaining scum partner, but not to follow your likely-to-be-lynched partner on another wagon. That narrows my focus to Amy and CKD.

-----

CKD's interaction with scrambles:

Day 1:

- Minor, incidental references to Blonde, nothing substantive.
- Minor interaction about scrambles voting Beli, starting at Post 343 and ending at Post 401 (a less than 12-hour exchange that spanned only a handful of posts).

Day 2:

- Only mentions scrambles as parts of other player's or the mod's quotes, does not directly interact with scrambles.
- Does a weird thing suggesting that both Beli-scum and scrambles-scum should be replaced by the mod in Post 785. Almost too on the nose to be a coincidence.

Day 3:

- Once again, only mentions scrambles as parts of other player's or the mod's quotes or in passing as part of reviewing VCs (but makes no substantive commentary w/r/t scrambles).
- UP UNTIL Post 1336, where he finally actually gets into some substantive interaction with scrambles. But most of this is vague suspicions (e.g., "scrambles is coming off really..odd?", "this was a weird way to address this post", "Page 50, still not liking scrambles, he is avoiding questions and when people call him on these actions, his defense..is…just strange?").
- After expressing suspicions of scrambles in Post 1336, he continues a thread he started there of buddying me in Post 1343, here by suggesting that he is "maybe" into seeing scrambles lynched as I have stated at this point in time.
- Resumes silence on scrambles, only to pop up near the very end of the day questioning farside why she voted scrambles (Post 1636) and asking for a case against scrambles (Post 1637). Never actually votes or looks close to voting scrambles.
- The request for the case against scrambles in Post 1637 is weird, because CKD only wants a case pertaining to whether scrambles was lying (and not about scrambles interaction with Beli-scum). CKD states in this very post that CKD recalls scrambles admitted to having lied, but just wants someone else to help provide him with post numbers. Looks like CKD is looking for excuses to delay coming to an opinion on scrambles.

-----

Amy's interaction with scrambles:

Day 1:

- First vote is a self-vote (Post 9). Shortly thereafter, votes Blonde immediately after Blonde makes his first post of the game (Post 23). No explanation as to why.
- Challenges Snuggly's (Titus-slot) vote on Blonde in Post 47, but makes a similar challenge to Naked's vote on Toby in Post 62.
- Discredits Chaos' (CDB-slot) defense of Blonde in Post 64.
- Short interaction with Blonde in Post 87, responding to Blonde's softball question regarding Amy's non-Beli suspicions. (Amy points to Chaos.)
- Short interaction with Blonde in Post 139, defending her read of farside as null/town.
- All interaction with the slot ceases upon scrambles replacement of Blonde.

Day 2:

- Does not interact with scrambles at all.

Day 3:

- States that she sees CDB and acryon as the final two scum in Post 1347. Immediately within that post states that scrambles' ISO looks okay, but is not adverse to his lynch. 3 minutes later, stated a leaning-scumread on scrambles in Post 1348. Later clarifies that she has a scumread on scrambles (Post 1351), even though she didn't see "any blatantly scummy shit" (Post 1352). Ultimately resorts to explaining the discrepancy as "bad wording" (Post 1388).
- Finds scrambles interaction with Riddle looking like it comes from town, so that scrambles' "scumminess has midlly alleviated" in Post 1409 and Post 1587.
- Post 1632 is a bit weird, because Amy states that she doesn't want to defend scrambles, but simultaneously says that she disagrees "with the premise of the lynch."

-----

TAKEAWAYS:

- So both CKD and Amy had very limited interactions with Blonde/scrambles throughout D1 and D2. However, Amy actually interacts with the slot on D1, whereas CKD merely mentions the slot in passing. However, the Blonde/Amy interactions are not exactly rough and tumble stuff, and it's all very surface discussion.

- D3 is really where their play diverges w/r/t scrambles.

When Amy finally pipes up, she basically lists scrambles as her third most suspicious ("bad wording" notwithstanding), but then that read slowly shifts to town by the end of the day. I can't necessarily fault that, as I had problems with my own scrambles read.

Conversely, when CKD finally pipes up, he states that scrambles is suspicious and then keeps hitting that note throughout the rest of the day. However, he never goes so far to actually vote to pursue that suspicion, and instead makes weird excuses for not voting scrambles as the deadline was approaching.


VOTE: CKD

[Green Crayons]

As for Farside, Beli attacked them had day 1 for going after the scrambles slot.

Beli acted super righteous in pursuing farside, as if his cause against farside was handed down from above.

Totally bus material.

[Green Crayons]

That situation would, of course, be Beli-scum defending Blonde/scrambles-scum by attacking farside-scum who was attacking Blonde/scrambles-scum.


It's scum v. scum v. scum. Ballsy.

[Green Crayons]

Not a stretch. I might have time to post a current up-to-date case w/ the Scrambles associations, but for now, you can see my general case in #803 and my assoctaive case with Beli in #1076, #1077 and #1224

Also, I'm giving Riddle's case more credit than I did on D3.

[Green Crayons]

Alright, I'll take these one at a time.

(1)

just so everyone is clear...you think as scum and a veteran, I (in the face of a certain scrambles lynch) was trying to delay in voting him...because?

Because if Kalimar didn't jump in, scrambles wouldn't have been lynched.

Also, why are you appealing to your authority as a veteran?


(2)

you think my lack of well anything at the end of the day, yesterday was a ruse?

You had a lack of anything throughout most of D3. scum frequently fail to post because it's easier than attempting to look town.

You had a flurry of activity at the end of D3, where you basically were asking for other people to give you a reason to vote scrambles -- hours from the deadline, on a Saturday.


(3)

when I flip town, will you immediately pursue the Amy lynch instead?

Riddle is still solid town for me. Going to throw titus in there in the solid town box as well, as my worries from late yesterday have dissipated.

Feeling better about CDB. Would put at lean town.

Still nullish on acryon, but not liking any of the cases made against him as of late yesterday.

That leaves Amy, CKD, and farside. Will look into each soon.

(4)

how do you feel about CDB case yesterday? you agree with or not?

@farside and Riddle:

I'm (still) not against a CDB lynch, so I'll lay down a quick summary of why not.

There's chaos, and everything acryon and Toby pointed out about him, of course.

I think CKD's observation of the two NKs suspecting CDB/farside is at least a consideration, if a minor one.

And as for CDB himself, CDB's play comes across as very careful and calculated. I can't necessarily fault his play (having tried earlier), but at the same time it doesn't come across as town, either.

So there's a lean scum replacee (chaos) and a nullish replacer (CDB). Not the platonic ideal for a lynch, but good players usually won't provide such a situation.

Riddle is still solid town for me. Going to throw titus in there in the solid town box as well, as my worries from late yesterday have dissipated.

Feeling better about CDB. Would put at lean town.

Still nullish on acryon, but not liking any of the cases made against him as of late yesterday.

That leaves Amy, CKD, and farside. Will look into each soon.

(5)

and lets be clear here, I still think Amy is town. I am just wondering if by this post you are setting up your moves tomorrow, so no one will be surprised.

Egads, I'm talking out my suspicions with the thread, so others can respond/comment/criticize them. How scumlike of me?

[Green Crayons]

@Riddle:

my 1697 was constructed throughout the entirety of today whenever I had some free time on my hands. That particular point was made shortly after I posted the end of day VCs, and explained why I was looking at Amy and CKD in particular.

-----

@CKD:

Ah, I didn't see the "most votes at deadline gets lynched" rule. I was assuming no majority at deadline = no lynch.

[Green Crayons]

just answer the question though...I am hung, flip town..you get little or less from Amy today...lets say she doesnt join my wagon. will you be voting her tomorrow (all things constant)?

Probably farside before Amy, assuming absolutely nothing happens with those players between now and then.

[Green Crayons]

@CKD:

Ah, I didn't see the "most votes at deadline gets lynched" rule. I was assuming no majority at deadline = no lynch.

so given that..was it still a ruse for me to avoid voting him "hours before deadline"?....or....could it actually be..that....I was really busy and trying to get some thoughts in there when I could? How big of a part was that of your case?

No, my biggest reason for voting you is because you have never voted a dead scum, followd by I trust Riddle's intuition (mainly because trusting his lead on scrambles steadied my wavering in light of scrambles' personality appeal).

Regardless, this caused me to go back and look over your end of day posts. Please explain your thought process behind the following posts (I bolded the points I'm not sure what you're saying):

Well my vote seems to go no where and the cbd "case" is pretty lacking.

Vote: scrambles

so why vote here?

was there a case you saw (ie didnt skim over) you thought was good?

running out of time, can someone quickly post where scrambles basically said "ok I was lying" i thought he did say that somewhere...I wanted to see WHY he said he was lying..

also, it will have to be pretty damning , seeing that FS and CDB are on that lynch.

[Green Crayons]

Green Crayons

, why farside over Amy?

Briefly, because I don't have the time to make a thorough case:

- Looking over Amy's interaction with scrambles' slot, she doesn't really come across as a scum partner. I think Blonde's softball questions to her are iffy, but that doesn't necessarily reflect suspicion on Amy as it can easily be chalked up to Blonde just trying to look engaged. Amy's sudden break of communication with the slot as soon as scrambles replaced in is weird, but goes further to show that it was Blonde that was pushing for a connection with Amy, rather than the other way around. Thus, out of Amy v. farside, Amy looks good.

- I really don't like Beli's hard push against farside out of the gate. If that's all there was to the situation, then whatever, fine. But it was a hard push against someone attacking his scummate Blonde, on what farside hadn't exactly claimed was a basis to lynch Blonde, just a basis for an early D1 vote. It's just a very weird situation, and one that doesn't sit comfortably with me.

- Even recognizing the fact that farside has had IRL issues, farside has used a lot of her activity simply being "catchup" posts. These look active, but they're not necessarily big on engagement -- it's much easier to look productive without gaining much suspicion by commenting on something that has already passed out of the thread's collective consciousness. I have seen scum use this tactic in recent games that I have played.

- farside is also just difficult to read for me, which makes me inherently suspicious of her play.

[Green Crayons]

@gc: do you know what the vote count was before I voted scramble?

Yup:

Vote Count 3.11

Titus: (2) acryon,

scrambles

acryon: (1) Farside22
ChannelDelibird: (3) Curiouskarmadog ,

Kalimar

, Amy Farrah Fowler

scrambles

: (4)

Titus

,

Riddleton

, ChannelDelibird,

Green Crayons

Not Voting:

[Green Crayons]

@CKD:

I am not justifying my vote solely on NKs

....both Chaos/CDB and farside are playing strangely. I dont believe (especially farside) that their stated reasoning, lines of thinking, and actions are coming from townies. I dont like how farside has come off the Chaos lynch for literally no reason. I really didnt like CDB's case on Amy, and I dont see how an experienced player like him could have believed it. I also think the timing was convenient for him to realize that (maybe) his case wasnt that good after all. Once the wagon was clearly going no where, he had to find a reason to go somewhere else..not buying it.

I would be fine for either lynch today.

that is three people who thought CDB/chaos was scum dead.....however, at this point,

I just dont think CDB would have offed someone who suspected him

ESPECIALLY after I went on and on about it yesterday (but it is all WIFOM).

Also Farside, doesnt make sense as scum

(at least not the scum theory I had in my head yesterday) so she is down on my list too. I really thought farisde and CDB were scum together...I need to go back and reread Bel (and scrambles). at this point, I dont have a clue.

My bolding. Can you please explain in greater detail how you went from suspecting CDB and farside based on reasons other than a NK analysis, to both CDB and farside being lowered in your suspicions? I get that you thought that CDB and farside were scummates, but how does the fact that (at most) only one of them could be scum appear to completely demolish your non-NK analysis suspicions of them?

[Green Crayons]

Since farside brings up CDB, I was mulling something over earlier today.


My observations about scrambles' play:

(2)

Day Two: first reading through D2, I started to doubt my suspicions on the Blonde/scrambles slot, but then I got to Toby's insight and rethought my position:

I've had a scum buddy, having obviously going to be lynched the next day

, have their plan be that day to call me town and argue it to their death.

The bolded is what I think very much happened. Scum saw that Beli was a probable D2 lynch, and so acted accordingly. In this light, scrambles' D2 Beli-focus is weird:

(a)

scrambles first D2 posts asks

chaos

, and only chaos, what chaos thinks about Beli. (Post 570, Post 574, Post 634.) Why the zeroing in on chaos? Why not try to get more of the thread on board? It looks like scrambles is making a half-hearted attempt to get people back on the Beli-wagon.

(b)

scrambles reasoning for a Beli-vote have downgraded: no longer is it that Beli isn't actually giving good reasons, it's only that "there's something there," a "feeling," and some type of "vibe." (Post 574.) Holy smokes that's a horrible effort to justify a suspicion: "Hey guys, I totally am on board with this suspicion, but I'll let others fill out my nebulous accusations." Looks like scum recognizing that Beli-lynch might be inevitable for D2, but doesn't want to actually contribute to it at the beginning of the day just in case if suspicions go elsewhere.

If CDB is in a scum slot, that means on D2 scrambles recognized that Beli was probably the lynch for the day, and then tried to persuade (only) Chaos-scum to vote Beli-scum with nebulous/vague justifications, whereby scrambles-scum is asking Chaos-scum to come up with more concrete justifications to vote Beli-scum.

Doesn't strike me as a likely scenario, as it makes no sense from scrambles-scum POV. scrambles-scum zeroed in on another player (Chaos) to get that player to vote for a scumbuddy, which would have the benefit of that other player (Chaos) thinking scrambles-scum was town. This benefit works only if Chaos was town, as the benefit of this play derives from who the play is directed at (Chaos) rather than the town at large, because scrambles isn't really making a broad pitch to the entire town to vote Beli.

Also, the "fill the in blanks" as to why Beli-scum was suspicious doesn't look like something one scum would say to another scum: "Hey, don't you agree with these really vague suspicions about our fellow scum? Let's vote him together!" Scum would have had the opportunity to discuss their plans w/r/t Beli over N1, and having one scum attempt to persuade a second scum to also vote a third scum with really bad reasons seems to be an unlikely strategy.

[Green Crayons]

Because I want to trust my gut instinct, not my paranoia. I think you are more likely scum than the other person, hence why I am focusing on you. I don't think you will flip town hence why I don't think it's relevant at the moment. I may say later though, if it's the right time. But not now.

The right time is before the end of the day, along with the basic gist of why.

[Green Crayons]

Well you made it sound like you might hold off until tomorrow.

[Green Crayons]

Green Crayons

, why farside over Amy?

Briefly, because I don't have the time to make a thorough case:

- Looking over Amy's interaction with scrambles' slot, she doesn't really come across as a scum partner. I think Blonde's softball questions to her are iffy, but that doesn't necessarily reflect suspicion on Amy as it can easily be chalked up to Blonde just trying to look engaged. Amy's sudden break of communication with the slot as soon as scrambles replaced in is weird, but goes further to show that it was Blonde that was pushing for a connection with Amy, rather than the other way around. Thus, out of Amy v. farside, Amy looks good.

- I really don't like Beli's hard push against farside out of the gate. If that's all there was to the situation, then whatever, fine. But it was a hard push against someone attacking his scummate Blonde, on what farside hadn't exactly claimed was a basis to lynch Blonde, just a basis for an early D1 vote. It's just a very weird situation, and one that doesn't sit comfortably with me.

- Even recognizing the fact that farside has had IRL issues, farside has used a lot of her activity simply being "catchup" posts. These look active, but they're not necessarily big on engagement -- it's much easier to look productive without gaining much suspicion by commenting on something that has already passed out of the thread's collective consciousness. I have seen scum use this tactic in recent games that I have played.

- farside is also just difficult to read for me, which makes me inherently suspicious of her play.

I want to add the following:

My vote on scramble is for 2 reasons, 1) no one else is voting acryon (2)deadline is coming up in a few hours and a no lynch is not helpful.

This comment is suspicious for two reasons.


(1) farside, like myself, was under the misconception that a failure to get a majority at the time of the deadline would result in a no lynch. (CKD pointed out my misconception of the actual rule at the beginning of today.) Therefore, farside-scum would be under the impression that her vote would actually contribute to scrambles' lynch (it wouldn't, because scrambles already had the most votes on him, and it didn't look like CDB was going to be surpassing scrambles' vote count per Post 1625).

farside had adamently refused to vote Beli on D1 and D2 -- even though Beli had pursued farside with an unnatural conviction and self-cetainty, and with a case that farside has herself said was really bad -- and so has been lacking in town cred. One way to up her cred would be to join the wagon on the sinking ship of a scummate. Hence, the late vote on the scrambles wagon.


(2) farside had commented extensively about her suspicions of scrambles. See: Post 1065, Post 1071, Post 1262, Post 1309, Post 1345, Post 1346, Post 1353, and Post 1419.

Despite this lengthy love affair with suspecting scrambles, farside failed to put a vote down on scrambles until the deadline was hours away.

But here's what really bothers me: in Post 1640, farside justifies her late-wagon vote on scrambles because nobody else would vote acryon, and the deadline was approaching. . . . Really, that's it? Absolutely

nothing

from the 8 posts where she voiced or agreed with scrambles suspicions contributed to her scrambles vote?

I was trying to think why a farside wouldn't at least point to her previous scrambles suspicions, regardless of farside's alignment. Then it hit me: farside had completely disowned her scrambles suspicions based solely off of scrambles' response under pressure (see Post 1396 and Post 1451).

I personally experienced a similar – but not identical – reaction. I also had doubts about my scrambles vote after scrambles' response, but was talking my way through it and actually revoted scrambles after he did another scummy thing. (Yes, I also then unvoted again, based off of perpetual self-doubt, but once again, I was open about trying to work through my stance.)

farside, however, did none of this. She was flirting with a scrambles vote, and then killed her scrambles suspicions completely in one fell swoop. It would look contradictory and messy if farside were to suddenly revive those suspicions hours before the deadline – a deadline farside thought meant would spell a no lynch if she didn't join the scrambles wagon. Scum don't want to look contradictory and messy. Hence, farside's avoidance of her previous scrambles suspicions when justifying her late-wagon scrambles vote makes her vote clean and simple -- but also artifically detatched from the actual history of the game. Thus, the basis for farside's vote on scrambles appears to originate from a scum alignment.

[Green Crayons]

Mod: v/la till Tuesday 10/28

If I told you the number of times I have attacked a scum player just to see them lurk like a fiend while people fought or lurk in general in hopes someone else would do something scummy I think I would be physically ill to my stomach at how often it occurs.

[Green Crayons]

(shrug)

I didn't check to see what farside is doing in other games. It's just another example of when I've seen her point out scum behavior that would point to her being scum.

Example:

I still think scum bel would vote his scum buddy for town credit.

I also think looking at those that beli didn't interact with would be good. I notice if not bussing, scum typically avoid interaction with scum buddy.

VOTE: farside22

That is not a random vote.

Still liking CKD, farside, and AFF for scum, in that order.

[Green Crayons]

You're better than this, GC.

This implies that I'm somehow playing quick and loose. See above for why that is incorrect.

Also, you've ignored everything else I've said about farside. You're better than this, CDB.

[Green Crayons]

Are you really trying to misconstrue farside's V/LA as scummy?

See Post 1768. See also:

- Even recognizing the fact that farside has had IRL issues, farside has used a lot of her activity simply being "catchup" posts. These look active, but they're not necessarily big on engagement -- it's much easier to look productive without gaining much suspicion by commenting on something that has already passed out of the thread's collective consciousness. I have seen scum use this tactic in recent games that I have played.

Ten bucks says she will be doing another catch up post.

I'm not saying her V/LA is fabricated. I'm saying that going absent and then coming back with a serious of catch up posts -- and this is her habitual play this game, not a one-time event -- is aligned with scum play.


Want to try to justify your vote on me?

[Green Crayons]

But here's what really bothers me: in Post 1640, farside justifies her late-wagon vote on scrambles because nobody else would vote acryon, and the deadline was approaching. . . . Really, that's it? Absolutely

nothing

from the 8 posts where she voiced or agreed with scrambles suspicions contributed to her scrambles vote?

Okay, well here is my problem with this. This would make her look scummy IF scrambles flipped town. IF she was scum with scrambles and was under the impression that a no lynch occurred if the majority was not reached, wouldn’t it have just made since to stick to her acroyn vote? No one would have been none the wiser. OR if she wanted to get some town cred, would farsidescum, suddenly find something she didnt like about scrambles and vote him instead providing the excuse of "I will vote him if I have to"?

Yeah, that would be one way to be suspicious of her play if scrambles flipped town. But scrambles didn't flip town, he flipped scum.

So I was trying to think of a reason why farside-town

wouldn't

mention the suspicions she independently voiced or agreed with in eight other posts as a justification for her vote. Not even to say "yeah I know I had these suspicions, but even now I'm not too sure of them." Just completely absent from her justifying her scrambles vote.

I couldn't come up with anything why farside-town would do that. Can you?

[Green Crayons]

^^^ To further expound why farside-town

would

want to mention her previous suspicions of scrambles: farside thought that without a majority, there would be a no lynch. No lynches are obviously not good for the town. You would therefore want to persuade others to vote for the candidate you believe has the best chance to reach a majority vote hours before the deadline --

even if

you're simply attempting to avoid a no lynch. One way to help persuade others would be to mention all the suspicions you have previously posted about the player you think is best able to reach a majority vote.

farside didn't do that.

Even worse, CKD prompted her to mention all of her scrambles suspicions in this post, hours before the deadline:

Well my vote seems to go no where and the cbd "case" is pretty lacking.

Vote: scrambles

so why vote here?

was there a case you saw (ie didnt skim over) you thought was good?

farside posted again before the deadline (Post 1640), but ignored this opportunity to help bolster a scrambles vote.

UNVOTE: CKD
VOTE: farside

[Green Crayons]

lol

You literally lopped off the main thrust of that part if my suspicion.

Are you really trying to misconstrue farside's V/LA as scummy?

See Post 1768. See also:

- Even recognizing the fact that farside has had IRL issues, farside has used a lot of her activity simply being "catchup" posts. These look active, but they're not necessarily big on engagement -- it's much easier to look productive without gaining much suspicion by commenting on something that has already passed out of the thread's collective consciousness. I have seen scum use this tactic in recent games that I have played.

Ten bucks says she will be doing another catch up post.

I'm not saying her V/LA is fabricated. I'm saying that going absent and then coming back with a serious of catch up posts -- and this is her habitual play this game, not a one-time event -- is aligned with scum play.

Want to try to justify your vote on me?

[Green Crayons]

Uh, no?

I'm not making a meta argument. If she wants to make that meta defense, she's welcomed to do so.

[Green Crayons]

Inactivity allows scum to not have to engage with the town. Universal scum tactic.

Catchup posts allows scum to look engaged, but such posts rarely become the focus of the town's attention (at most, there's some back and forth between the scum and a town mentioned in the catchup post). It's basically the next best thing to not posting at all. It makes the player look active without actually bringing the spotlight onto them.

[Green Crayons]

It happening a few times is not alignment indicative because V/LA does happen and catchup posts aren't inherently bad. When it's the majority of someone's presence in a game, it's scummy.

[Green Crayons]

I'm phone posting, so can't link, but porochaz did the exact thing as scum in Oldie Mafia 2 (normal large).

[Green Crayons]

^^^ and in the game porochaz had a legit reason for his V/LA. But then he exploited it for an overage dance of catchup posts.

[Green Crayons]

My interaction with scrambles is simply part of an enduring saga with myself where I'm trying to not become blinded with confirmation bias while simultaneously not falling victim to self doubt.

Here's me talking about it after another game had concluded:

It even made me self reflect about why I play the way I do. Yo, MBL, my self-certainty is an overcorrection because I historically flounder between believing my suspicions and second guessing myself. I didn't want to get real with you in-game about that because I thought you were scum trying to exploit my self doubt.

I haven't really perfected a middle ground approach, and so I use other players I'm reading as town to help me figure it out.


I'm looking at Amy, farside, and CKD because of process of elimination. acryon is the only possible substitute into that group, but I just don't see it with how he played with scrambles.

I was (and still am) willing to vote CKD because someone I think is town believed their case against him. Knowing my ability to be wrong, I'm willing to acknowledge that maybe my problems with your case were misplaced. That said, I think the fact that he knew about the no-majority-lynch plays in his favor w/r/t the end of yesterday.

I don't see any ATE that I've done.

[Green Crayons]

1781 isn't a meta argument, it's an example of how certain play is alignment indicative.

If I were making a meta argument, it would go "because farside does _____ as scum in these past games, and because she is doing that action in this game, she is scum in this game."

There's a clear difference.

[Green Crayons]

meta is how someone acts as a certain alignment. That's a separate argument than saying a certain action is alignment indicative, regardless of player. By your logic, me saying that being inactive is a universal scum trait is a meta argument because other people, as scum, do it.

-----

scrambles post read like town explaining themselves. There was nothing in particular that made me go "man this is town," but at the same time, it didn't look like it came from scum.

I basically said as much to CDB at the time, when I asked him what else he would have expected town in scrambles' position to have posted.

[Green Crayons]

CKD: you mean the game I mentioned in 1781?

lol I'm sure I've done a catchup post at some point in my years of playing mafia. Once again, a few catchup posts aren't alignment indicative. It's when that's the majority of a player's presence in the game that it becomes another reason to vote that person.

Feel free to answer my other post asking for a town justification for farside not mentioning her scrambles suspicions.

----

Riddle: we'll have to agree to disagree. Giving an example of a theory of scum play isn't meta. I I showed you a previous game of John Doe being scum who was inactive doesn't make it suddenly a meta argument pertaining to farside.

[Green Crayons]

Okay.

[Green Crayons]

I'm looking at Amy, farside, and CKD because of process of elimination. acryon is the only possible substitute into that group, but I just don't see it with how he played with scrambles.

I want to come back to this. I think POE helps us out a lot -- almost to the point of winning us the game, but not quite.

We have eight living players: acryon, farside22, curiouskarmadog, titus, ChannelDelibird , riddleton, Green Crayons, Amy Farrah Fowler

Four of these should be categorized as town by the thread.

Riddle:

(1) Played against a scum win condition.
(a) THEORY: Scum won't bus both of their scum partners back-to-back so that they are last alive, this early in the game.
(b) THEORY IN PLAY: Voted to lynch Beli-scum D2 and scrambles-scum D3.

(2) General posting is strong town.

CDB:

(1) Played against a scum win condition.
(a) THEORY: Scum won't bus both of their scum partners back-to-back so that they are last alive, this early in the game.
(b) THEORY IN PLAY: Voted to lynch Beli-scum D2 and scrambles-scum D3.

(2) His slot's interaction with scrambles doesn't look aligned with scrambles-scum, as I noted in Post 1748.

GC:

(1) Played against a scum win condition.
(a) THEORY: It's practically suicide to bus your last remaining scumbuddy this early in a game if they are not actually the guaranteed lynch.
(b) THEORY IN PLAY: I basically made -- if I do say so myself -- a stellar case against scrambles that helped persuade at least CDB onto the scrambles vote right out of the gate in replacing into the game, and when nobody was looking at scrambles except titus. And then I basically stuck with my scrambles suspicions alongside pursuing CDB suspicions.
(c) THEORY IN PLAY: Despite my waffling on the scrambles-vote, I voted for scrambles in Post 1623, which shifted the scrambles-wagon (4 votes) into the lead over CDB-wagon (3 votes) per Baezu's Post 1625. I think this was pretty pivotal -- even accounting for the fact that I was actually incorrect about the VC, as I had thought I had simply tied up the wagons -- because this basically shifted the momentum back to scrambles as the deadline evening approached.

Titus:

(1) Played against a scum win condition.
(a) THEORY: It's practically suicide to bus your last remaining scumbuddy this early in a game if they are not actually the guaranteed lynch.
(b) THEORY IN PLAY: Was first on the scrambles wagon, and although was in and out with her presence, she steadily pushed him throughout D3.

(2) I think a lot of her posts read natural, as if they come from town.

Four of these are not easily categorized as town.

CKD:

(1) Has never voted a scum.

(2) Hard defended Beli-scum.

acryon:

(1) Repeatedly promises scum hunting, but doesn't really follow through. (D3: I noted it back in Post 1254, when acryon was more concerned with Titus' playstyle than looking for scum; D4: today he has only defended himself, with only alluding to luck helping him discern who the last scum might be in Post 1687).

(2) Hard defended scrambles-scum.

Amy:

(1) Has basically become a minimal presence since D1.

farside:

(1) Everything I posted in Post 1757, Post 1770, Post 1771, and Post 1772

[Green Crayons]

Updated:

Vote Counts at Lynch (blue is who I think the thread should consider as solid town, but unconfirmed):

Vote Count 1.14

Belisarius

: (4) Amy Farrah Fowler,

NakedJogger

,

scrambles

,

Skelda

Skelda

: (8) Curiouskarmadog ,

RoyalApe

,

Belisarius

,

Dry-fit

,

Chaoslord54

, acryon,

TobyLoby

, Farside22

Chaoslord54

: (1)

Snugglyduckling

acryon: (1)

Ranon

Not Voting:

Vote Count 2.Final

Belisarius

: (7) Amy Farrah Fowler, acryon,

scrambles

,

Riddleton

,

TobyLoby

,

ChannelDelibird

,

Titus

Curiouskarmadog : (1)

Belisarius

ChannelDelibird

: (3) Farside22, Curiouskarmadog ,

NakedJogger

Not Voting:

RoyalApe

Vote Count 3.12

Titus

: (2) acryon,

scrambles

ChannelDelibird

: (2) Curiouskarmadog , Amy Farrah Fowler

scrambles

: (6)

Titus

,

Riddleton

,

ChannelDelibird

,

Green Crayons

, Farside22,

Kalimar

Not Voting:

-----

Thinking about it more, I'm more inclined to think acryon is scum than Amy. Although it's hard to think that acryon-scum hard defended scrambles-scum, and that scrambles-scum jumped on the same Titus vote as acryon-scum, it's not entirely incredible. CKD hard defended Beli-scum, and he's not dead, so there's a template for that kind of play getting a pass in this game. Also, scrambles-scum could have been attempting to distance himself from acryon by essentially doing the exact opposite and shadowing acryon's vote (yes, WIFOM, just simply explaining

why

the play doesn't clear acryon).

My preference in lynching is probably farside --> CKD --> acryon --> Amy, but I'm not sure about the CKD / acryon order.

-----

By my count, town has three lynches to go. That means if the suspect pool is correct (farside, CKD, acryon, Amy), we have a 75% chance to hit scum based on numbers alone. We have the win if either the doc either saves a NK or the doc is in the suspect pool. (Not asking for a claim atm, obv.)

[Green Crayons]

other than the vote to get a lynch, what post are you talking about here, where farside mentioned scrambles suspicion? why couldnt that post be exactly what it is..farisdetown, wanting a lynch over the a no lynch.

As I stated in Post 1757:

farside agreed with, or independently stated, suspicions about scrambles in Post 1065, Post 1071, Post 1262, Post 1309, Post 1345, Post 1346, Post 1353, and Post 1419.

My question for you is, when you prompted her to justify her scrambles vote (Post 1636), why would farside-town refuse to mention those previously voiced suspicions of scrambles when she responded to you (Post 1640)?

I can't think of a town-based reason why farside would refuse to put forward suspicions farside had previously endorsed. (I stated why farside-town would want to do so in Post 1771.)

now "feel free" to explain to me why farsidescum who supposedly didnt know that a player with the most votes hangs, would vote scrambles/her buddy at the time that she did? There is no reason to as scum...

Once again, I answered this in 1757:

(1) farside, like myself, was under the misconception that a failure to get a majority at the time of the deadline would result in a no lynch. (CKD pointed out my misconception of the actual rule at the beginning of today.) Therefore, farside-scum would be under the impression that her vote would actually contribute to scrambles' lynch (it wouldn't, because scrambles already had the most votes on him, and it didn't look like CDB was going to be surpassing scrambles' vote count per Post 1625).

farside had adamently refused to vote Beli on D1 and D2 -- even though Beli had pursued farside with an unnatural conviction and self-cetainty, and with a case that farside has herself said was really bad -- and so has been lacking in town cred. One way to up her cred would be to join the wagon on the sinking ship of a scummate. Hence, the late vote on the scrambles wagon.

scrambles was looking like the lynch for today. scum bussing their last remaining partner when they're practically locked in for the lynch (as scrambles was, leading the votes) is smart play, because it allows them to potentially net some town cred.

[Green Crayons]

I can't think of a town-based reason why farside would refuse to put forward suspicions farside had previously endorsed. (I stated why farside-town would want to do so in

Post 1771

Post 1772

.)

Fixed.

[Green Crayons]

@farside:

1) You never voted Beli, so linking to a post where you didn't vote him doesn't exactly undercut my point. You did say that you thought one of Beli/chaos was scum. But just saying that, and then only voting chaos out of the two, does not net you townpoints.

2) My problem with your interaction with scrambles is not that you suspected him. It's that you suspected him, then dropped that suspicion, then (and here's where the suspicion arises) when you voted him again hours before deadline and was asking about that vote, you only justified that vote on the basis of avoiding a no lynch -- without mentioning any of your prior suspicions.

3) Your hostility isn't warranted. I've never said that you're lying about the bases for your V/LA, and I think that it's genuine. It sucks that your real life is hectic and hitting some lows. But repeatedly going quiet and then -- and this is the important part -- doing catchup posts as a major part of your presence in this game is alignment indicative. Sorry, but it is what it is.

4) It isn't misquoting when I'm literally quoting exactly what you said? Also, you keep hammering that Beli-scum was pushing your lynch based off of a bad reason. This cuts against you being town for two reasons: (1) Beli-scum bussing hard against a teammate can be to self-implode, thereby making the other teammate look good when the busser dies. Beli acted weird all game. I don't put it past him to have pushed hard against a fellow scum for bad reasons with the foresight of him getting lynched before his teammate. (2) You've hit hard several times about just how horrible Beli-scum's push was on you. And yet you never actually voted him for it. Scummy.

[Green Crayons]

@CKD:

scrambles was looking like the lynch for today. scum bussing their last remaining partner when they're practically locked in for the lynch (as scrambles was, leading the votes) is smart play, because it allows them to potentially net some town cred.

so do you think I am a smart player?

is farside scummy for joining scrambles lynch...

or am I scummy for not joining scrambles lynch?

I am trying to figure out if you are tunneling (town) or just throwing shit against a wall to see what sticks and people will grab a hold of (scum).

I feel like I just repeat myself when I interact with you.

Before I knew that you knew that there is a most-votes-without-a-majority-gets-lynched rule, I thought your play looked like scum attempting to stall voting his teammate. Once I realized that you actually knew your vote was unnecessary on scrambles for him to be lynched, your questioning looks less like a stalling tactic and more like trying to figure out whether you should vote scrambles/figure out farside's justification for switching to a scrambles lynch. I have said this in some iteration twice now, and this is the third time.

In contrast, farside looks scummy for joining the scrambles lynch because from my process of elimination, she's the only unknown on the scrambles wagon, and a player jumping onto the scrambles' wagon at the time that she did, with the mistaken belief that majority vote was required to avoid a no lynch, looks like scum play.

[Green Crayons]

Going to take some time to read through and think about CDB's analysis.

[Green Crayons]

I would like to hear from acryon and Titus.

[Green Crayons]

(Before I contribute further.)

[Green Crayons]

Titus promised updated reads in her last post.

I want to know if acryon is actually going to scumhunt today.

[Green Crayons]

acryon and I have come to opposite conclusions on the scrambles/chaos interaction on D2 regarding the Beli vote.

I would appreciate Riddle's and Titus's interpretation of that interaction.

-----

vote staying on farside atm.

Her 1816 is bad.

- She lies to attack her attacker (me): both my Post 1757 and farside's Post 1803 pertained to her

failure to vote Beli

, not whether she was

against a beli lynch

. I haven't shifted my position on this, but farside states I have to suggest that I'm somehow evolving my suspicions as she shoots them down.
- Still hammers her "misquoting" defense, when I'm simply putting her quotes about what she thinks Beli-scum would do with what Beli-scum actually did, which points to her being scum.
- AtE all over the place.

[Green Crayons]

lol, scum claiming doc is autodeath at this point in the game, so unvote UNTIL there is a counterclaim


You're not helping yourself look good in this interaction with acryon, CDB.

[Green Crayons]

That's fair.

[Green Crayons]

@acryon:

do you think CKD, Amy, or farside should be removed from the lynch pool because you're strongly reading them as town?

[Green Crayons]

@Titus:

I wanted your updated reads since acryon is very clearly the doctor, and how you feel about scrambles attempting to persuade chaos (CDB slot) and only chaos to vote Beli on D2.

[Green Crayons]

was coming in to make a "i am busy (at work) going to be little posting this week" post (on oh GC!!!!)

lol

If you are scum then, as farside has pointed out that you yourself have made a big point of having catchup posts be a large part of your game presence, that only shows that my claim that X activity is alignment

indicative

is not the same thing as saying X activity is alignment

confirmation

.

[Green Crayons]

@Riddle:

you've withdrawn your CKD suspicions. Was that simply for purposes of throwing out your GC vote/suspicions, or do your CKD suspicions still exist? Why, if they no longer exist?

[Green Crayons]

@acryon:

Better place to start as in a lynch? Because we still have 5 days left. How about we talk through some things?

What in particular do you think needs more discussion?

[Green Crayons]

I'm phone posting, so can't link, but porochaz did the exact thing as scum in Oldie Mafia 2 (normal large).

Oh, I can link this now.

Oldie Mafia 2. The scum that was constantly doing catch up posts was porochaz. He had a legitimate excuse for his V/LA (funeral and other bad IRL experiences), but he kept doing posts like these: Post 444, Post 596, Post 676.

Also, I just got finished with a game where this happened again. Mini 1609. The scum that was constantly doing catch up posts was massive. Once again, a legitimate reason (no weeked access), but he kept doing posts like these: Post 2434, 2497, and Post 3336.

Once again, it's not so much that someone has V/LA, and then decides to make catch up posts. It's the heavy emphasis of using catch up posts, as it allows a person to look like they are providing the town with a lot of activity, but it isn't really all that substantive and useful for the town.

[Green Crayons]

I don’t like GC’s case on farside. When I poked a giant hole in the case, his logic to keep on the push was flawed (or scum driven).

What was this?

[Green Crayons]

I would say that there are a bunch of your posts that would fit the requirement. So, yeah, it's something I'm keeping in mind when assessing your likelihood of being scum.

Once again, activity which is alignment

indicative

is not alignment

confirmation

. I have never said that doing Action X means YOU ARE SCUM. It is just one of several factors to consider, and one of several reasons why I think farside is suspicious.

The fact that both you and farside have reduced my position to being "OH NO CATCH UP POSTS MUST BE SCUM GUYS 100%" is complete BS.

[Green Crayons]

Yes, the flaw.

[Green Crayons]

I think this last post from CKD is enlightening, and the last part is particularly damning IMO. Everyone should take a closer look. What CKD had to say coupled with what was going through my head as I read through votes and discussed with Titus mean this is coming back. He's a good player so he convinced me off of it last time, but I doubt he will this time.

VOTE: CDB

Do you have the posts specifically where CDB previously discussed this point CKD is currently making w/r/t scrambles?

[Green Crayons]

@acyron:

maybe I misunderstand what your post said?

You said that CKD's last point regarding scrambles' lack of a CDB vote is enlightening, but that you had previously engaged with CDB on this point and CDB convinced you otherwise because he's a good player.

I wanted to be pointed in the direction of this conversation you had with CDB.

[Green Crayons]

The fact that both you and farside have reduced my position to being "OH NO CATCH UP POSTS MUST BE SCUM GUYS 100%" is complete BS.

that is what it is coming off as.

why didnt you go check to see if farside had issues posting in other threads?

also, after my flip, will you adjust your belief in this?

It's coming off that way only if you focus on that single aspect of my entire case against farside.

The only relevance that farside being V/LA is that it lines up with her previously saying that scum go quiet, which is another time of when she has said Actoin X points to scum (the other time being her insistance that Beli would bus a scummate, and Beli was hardpushing a farside vote). I've already mentioned this, but I don't think you read my posts because I keep repeating myself to you.

If you flip town, will I adjust my belief that a certain type of play is only alignment indicative, and not alignment confirmation? No, because you flipping green will not undercut what I've said about the extent of this suspicion's usefulness. If you flip scum, it will not really change my mind either, because of reasons already stated.

I want to know what the flaw is to make sure I understand your problems with my farside vote. Amazingly, there is only one scum left, so I'm balancing who I suspect against what people have to say.

[Green Crayons]

The only relevance that farside being V/LA is that it lines up with her previously saying that scum go quiet, which is another time of when she has said Actoin X points to scum (the other time being her insistance that Beli would bus a scummate, and Beli was hardpushing a farside vote). I've already mentioned this, but I don't think you read my posts because I keep repeating myself to you.

For clarification, this should read: "the relevance that farside being V/LA

to her being scum

is that . . . ."

That's why I didn't check to see whether she was V/LA in other games (because her being V/LA was suspicion was limited to the extent I mention in the quoted portion of my post). I assumed she was, and as Riddle has rightly pointed out, it doesn't make sense for a player to go V/LA in all games just to lurk in one.

Of course, being V/LA was the predicate for farside relying heavily on her catch up posts, but it's the catch up posts and not her V/LA that is the suspicious part of her play for purposes of that line of suspicion. And as I pointed out when Riddle wanted me to do the work for farside, farside could have jumped in and made a (what would have been a pretty convincing) meta defense: that she has been doing similar catch up posts in all of her games.

[Green Crayons]

Thanks acryon, I need to reread your suspicions of CDB again anyways.

[Green Crayons]

The only relevance that farside being V/LA is that it lines up with her previously saying that scum go quiet, which is another time of when she has said Actoin X points to scum (the other time being her insistance that Beli would bus a scummate, and Beli was hardpushing a farside vote). I've already mentioned this, but I don't think you read my posts because I keep repeating myself to you.

It seems waaaay too risky to next-level like this. I would say that scum would be extremely careful to avoid doing whatever they said scum do, otherwise you are casting suspicion on yourself for no reason.

That is fair.

I was probably unnecessarily flip when I empty quoted farside about her V/LA that got everyone riled up. But I had originally wanted to say something about farside talking about Beli's play which ultimately pointed to farside herself being scum all the way back when I replaced in. This was just another example of her doing that, and it got caught in my craw.

For it's worth, I acknowledge that this line of suspicion is, objectively, too much of a stretch to really credit, so I'll make clear that I am dropping it.

[Green Crayons]

I'm also cooling on a CKD lynch for the reasons Amy stated.

[Green Crayons]

23hours left. It's either going to be GC or CKD today. The people whom have their votes parked in other slots should move.

Well this is a bit delusional.


I'll switch to CDB if necessary, but I'd prefer a farside. CKD only as a last resort to avoid a no lynch.

[Green Crayons]

I'm pretty sure NL is actually detrimental to town, unless if it somehow gets us an extra flip?

[Green Crayons]

Oh lol that's right, I don't need to switch votes to avoid no lynch.

[Green Crayons]

I would prefer to no lynch closer to LYLO.

[Green Crayons]

@farside:

Oh man please continue just making stuff up about me.

I'm not giving Amy a pass. I have repeatedly stated that Amy is still part of the lynch pool. I just don't think that she's the lynch for today, because I think that there are more likely scum candidates still alive.

I said as much in these posts:

Green Crayons

, why farside over Amy?

Briefly, because I don't have the time to make a thorough case:

- Looking over Amy's interaction with scrambles' slot, she doesn't really come across as a scum partner. I think Blonde's softball questions to her are iffy, but that doesn't necessarily reflect suspicion on Amy as it can easily be chalked up to Blonde just trying to look engaged. Amy's sudden break of communication with the slot as soon as scrambles replaced in is weird, but goes further to show that it was Blonde that was pushing for a connection with Amy, rather than the other way around. Thus, out of Amy v. farside, Amy looks good.

- I really don't like Beli's hard push against farside out of the gate. If that's all there was to the situation, then whatever, fine. But it was a hard push against someone attacking his scummate Blonde, on what farside hadn't exactly claimed was a basis to lynch Blonde, just a basis for an early D1 vote. It's just a very weird situation, and one that doesn't sit comfortably with me.

- Even recognizing the fact that farside has had IRL issues, farside has used a lot of her activity simply being "catchup" posts. These look active, but they're not necessarily big on engagement -- it's much easier to look productive without gaining much suspicion by commenting on something that has already passed out of the thread's collective consciousness. I have seen scum use this tactic in recent games that I have played.

- farside is also just difficult to read for me, which makes me inherently suspicious of her play.

I'm looking at Amy, farside, and CKD because of process of elimination. acryon is the only possible substitute into that group, but I just don't see it with how he played with scrambles.

I want to come back to this. I think POE helps us out a lot -- almost to the point of winning us the game, but not quite.

We have eight living players: acryon, farside22, curiouskarmadog, titus, ChannelDelibird , riddleton, Green Crayons, Amy Farrah Fowler

....

Four of these are not easily categorized as town.

....

Amy:

(1) Has basically become a minimal presence since D1.

Thinking about it more, I'm more inclined to think acryon is scum than Amy. Although it's hard to think that acryon-scum hard defended scrambles-scum, and that scrambles-scum jumped on the same Titus vote as acryon-scum, it's not entirely incredible. CKD hard defended Beli-scum, and he's not dead, so there's a template for that kind of play getting a pass in this game. Also, scrambles-scum could have been attempting to distance himself from acryon by essentially doing the exact opposite and shadowing acryon's vote (yes, WIFOM, just simply explaining

why

the play doesn't clear acryon).

My preference in lynching is probably farside --> CKD --> acryon --> Amy, but I'm not sure about the CKD / acryon order.

-----

By my count, town has three lynches to go. That means if the suspect pool is correct (farside, CKD, acryon, Amy), we have a 75% chance to hit scum based on numbers alone. We have the win if either the doc either saves a NK or the doc is in the suspect pool. (Not asking for a claim atm, obv.)

-----

As for why CDB, because I have a lingering suspicion about his play from yesterday, because of the acryon/CDB interaction earlier today, and because of the point made at the end of CKD's Post 1933.

[Green Crayons]

@acryon:

I would also prefer to no-lynch closer to LyLo, but this wagon on CKD is terrible. GC - what do you think of the fact that CKD voted for neither of the scum?

I think the fact that CKD did not vote either scum, standing alone, ultimately cuts against being town because otherwise you have to assume scum will bus at least one of their partners.

However (and I have mentioned this before), I think CKD's particular play with respect to scrambles -- in that CKD was apparently trying to assess the correctness of a scrambles vote, just hours before the deadline, when CKD knew that he did not need to actually vote scrambles in order for the scrambles vote to go through -- looks town and nullifies the scum points for failing to vote-to-lynch a scum, and actually gives him town points.

[Green Crayons]

@acryon:

I would also prefer to no-lynch closer to LyLo, but this wagon on CKD is terrible. GC - what do you think of the fact that CKD voted for neither of the scum?

I think the fact that CKD did not vote either scum, standing alone, ultimately cuts against being town because otherwise you have to assume scum will bus at least one of their partners.

I think that is a perfectly reasonable assumption, at least given the way this game has been playing. I find it

very

hard to believe that scum-CKD would abstain from either of his partners' wagons, as well as essentially hard-defend his partner D1. I've already said this, but doing these things does nothing but make him look bad, and the chance that someone would make the argument I'm making and get people to believe it is much much lower than the chance that he gets lynched for not hanging either of his buddies.

If you are saying that the specific circumstances of how CKD went about not voting scum in this game undercuts the typical suspicion that results from failing to vote scum, then I agree with you.

That is why I have listed him last among those players I would vote for who already have a vote on them.

[Green Crayons]

By the by, town should NL at least once if it gets us down to 3 person LYLO instead of 4 person LYLO.

[Green Crayons]

@acyron:

it looks like whenever there is a tie, whoever was first voted with their first vote (as opposed to the tying vote), will be the player lynched, so long as there hasn't been a complete devoting of the lynchee (that is, the first player to vote the lynchee can unvote, but his vote will still count in terms of timing so long as there is another person voting the lynchee at the time of the first voter's unvote).

Not sure who that would be in this game.

[Green Crayons]

Waiting for his response.

[Green Crayons]

It really boggles my mind that Beli's really shitty push against farside has made her immune from suspicion from most of the town, even as she has become essentially a nonentity surpassing even Amy in this game.

[Green Crayons]

I think scum wants me to get to lylo. i really do. it will be a slam dunk win then.

keeping vote on CDB.

Sure, that must have been why I tried to get you lynched Today while also making it clear that I want you and Amy to be the next to die in no particular order, leaving precisely none of you at LyLo.

I've switched to Amy because people who I think are town like acryon and GC are insistent on thinking that you are town so your wagon seems less likely to go through at the moment.

Could you explain this a bit further, considering the most-votes-absent-majority rule?

[Green Crayons]

Could you explain this a bit further, considering the most-votes-absent-majority rule?

Forgive the stupidity but it's late and I don't know what you mean.

So long as CKD has the most votes, even if it's only three, then he's the lynch for today.

Why switch to Amy? You don't need acryon's or my vote to have CKD lynched.

[Green Crayons]

I'm going to just put you on ignore at this point.
It seems your okay with Amy's non expressive behavoir during the scrambles lynch, but when I state a v/la during most of this day it's scummy.
Your double standards on players is very much a peeve.

You aren't scummy for being V/LA. Keep pounding that drum.

Amy is not excused for her own lurk behavior. No double standard. Mr. Mean GC is not playing favorites.

[Green Crayons]

CDB, you're telling me that you didn't read any of the multiple conversations this thread has had about the most-votes lynching rules?

Like, it started at the very beginning of this game day.

[Green Crayons]

Sigh.


After today, especially late game day, CKD looks pretty town. I guess his play today could be a gambit -- "let me throw myself upon the mercy of the town with plenty of LYNCH ME's" -- but I really don't think so. Couple that with

how

he went about not voting Beli (hard defense) and scrambles (actually appeared to inquire into the merits of a scrambles vote, even after scrambles was locked into the lynch via the most-votes-absent-majority rule), I think CKD is town.

I also think CDB looks lean town. Scum wouldn't bank on "forgetting" a pretty vital rule to excuse play. His reasons for unvoting CKD to vote Amy don't strike me as suspicious -- I myself have said that I have X-number of lynch candidates, and I don't particularly care what order they get lynched in. scrambles refusal to vote CDB is weird, and not something I'm just forgetting. But that alone isn't going to really do it for me.

[Green Crayons]

That leaves me with farside and Amy.

Nobody appears willing to join Amy and I on farside. Fine. UNVOTE: farside, VOTE: Amy. She really has become the lurker queen, and has failed to really participate at all this game day. I wouldn't want her at LYLO because of that, as it would be a serious knock against her towniness.

[Green Crayons]

Yeah I don't know why you think Riddle is a serious scum contender.

[Green Crayons]

Yeah I didn't think he was trying to get us to no lynch, and I see what you're saying but I don't really think how he went about doing it matches up with how you're describing it.

[Green Crayons]

VOTE: farside

[Green Crayons]

Justifications for a farside vote:

(1)

- I really don't like Beli's hard push against farside out of the gate. If that's all there was to the situation, then whatever, fine. But it was a hard push against someone attacking his scummate Blonde, on what farside hadn't exactly claimed was a basis to lynch Blonde, just a basis for an early D1 vote. It's just a very weird situation, and one that doesn't sit comfortably with me.

(2)

My vote on scramble is for 2 reasons, 1) no one else is voting acryon (2)deadline is coming up in a few hours and a no lynch is not helpful.

This comment is suspicious for two reasons.

(a)

farside, like myself, was under the misconception that a failure to get a majority at the time of the deadline would result in a no lynch. (CKD pointed out my misconception of the actual rule at the beginning of today.) Therefore, farside-scum would be under the impression that her vote would actually contribute to scrambles' lynch (it wouldn't, because scrambles already had the most votes on him, and it didn't look like CDB was going to be surpassing scrambles' vote count per Post 1625).

farside had adamently refused to vote Beli on D1 and D2 -- even though Beli had pursued farside with an unnatural conviction and self-cetainty, and with a case that farside has herself said was really bad -- and so has been lacking in town cred. One way to up her cred would be to join the wagon on the sinking ship of a scummate. Hence, the late vote on the scrambles wagon.

(b)

farside had commented extensively about her suspicions of scrambles. See: Post 1065, Post 1071, Post 1262, Post 1309, Post 1345, Post 1346, Post 1353, and Post 1419.

Despite this lengthy love affair with suspecting scrambles, farside failed to put a vote down on scrambles until the deadline was hours away.

But here's what really bothers me: in Post 1640, farside justifies her late-wagon vote on scrambles because nobody else would vote acryon, and the deadline was approaching. . . . Really, that's it? Absolutely

nothing

from the 8 posts where she voiced or agreed with scrambles suspicions contributed to her scrambles vote?

I was trying to think why a farside wouldn't at least point to her previous scrambles suspicions, regardless of farside's alignment. Then it hit me: farside had completely disowned her scrambles suspicions based solely off of scrambles' response under pressure (see Post 1396 and Post 1451).

I personally experienced a similar – but not identical – reaction. I also had doubts about my scrambles vote after scrambles' response, but was talking my way through it and actually revoted scrambles after he did another scummy thing. (Yes, I also then unvoted again, based off of perpetual self-doubt, but once again, I was open about trying to work through my stance.)

farside, however, did none of this. She was flirting with a scrambles vote, and then killed her scrambles suspicions completely in one fell swoop. It would look contradictory and messy if farside were to suddenly revive those suspicions hours before the deadline – a deadline farside thought meant would spell a no lynch if she didn't join the scrambles wagon. Scum don't want to look contradictory and messy. Hence, farside's avoidance of her previous scrambles suspicions when justifying her late-wagon scrambles vote makes her vote clean and simple -- but also artifically detatched from the actual history of the game. Thus, the basis for farside's vote on scrambles appears to originate from a scum alignment.

^^^ To further expound why farside-town

would

want to mention her previous suspicions of scrambles: farside thought that without a majority, there would be a no lynch. No lynches are obviously not good for the town. You would therefore want to persuade others to vote for the candidate you believe has the best chance to reach a majority vote hours before the deadline --

even if

you're simply attempting to avoid a no lynch. One way to help persuade others would be to mention all the suspicions you have previously posted about the player you think is best able to reach a majority vote.

farside didn't do that.

Even worse, CKD prompted her to mention all of her scrambles suspicions in this post, hours before the deadline:

Well my vote seems to go no where and the cbd "case" is pretty lacking.

Vote: scrambles

so why vote here?

was there a case you saw (ie didnt skim over) you thought was good?

farside posted again before the deadline (Post 1640), but ignored this opportunity to help bolster a scrambles vote.

(3) She was actively lurking all of the last game day, popping in to

only

discredit my and Amy's suspicions of her.

[Green Crayons]

Updated Vote Counts at Lynch:

Vote Count 1.14

Belisarius

: (4)

Amy Farrah Fowler

,

NakedJogger

,

scrambles

,

Skelda

Skelda

: (8) Curiouskarmadog , RoyalApe,

Belisarius

,

Dry-fit

, Chaoslord54,

acryon

,

TobyLoby

, Farside22
Chaoslord54: (1) Snugglyduckling

acryon

: (1) Ranon

Not Voting:

Vote Count 2.Final

Belisarius

: (7)

Amy Farrah Fowler

,

acryon

,

scrambles

, Riddleton,

TobyLoby

, ChannelDelibird, Titus
Curiouskarmadog : (1)

Belisarius

ChannelDelibird: (3) Farside22, Curiouskarmadog ,

NakedJogger

Not Voting: RoyalApe

Vote Count 3.12

Titus: (2)

acryon

,

scrambles

ChannelDelibird: (2) Curiouskarmadog ,

Amy Farrah Fowler

scrambles

: (6) Titus, Riddleton, ChannelDelibird, Green Crayons, Farside22,

Kalimar

Not Voting:

Vote Count 4.07

Amy Farrah Fowler

: (3) Farside22, Green Crayons, ChannelDelibird
Farside22: (1)

Amy Farrah Fowler

Curiouskarmadog : (2) Titus, Riddleton
ChannelDelibird: (1)

acryon

Not Voting: Curiouskarmadog

[Green Crayons]

It's CDB or farside. They are the only two potential bussers from the scrambles wagon.

[Green Crayons]

That's fine.

[Green Crayons]

The fact that CKD is the only living player who was not a part of either scum-lynch only gives him town-points IMO. And WIFOM, blah blah, but you would never choose to count on someone making this argument over just gaining cred by lynching a partner.

@acryon:

I would also prefer to no-lynch closer to LyLo, but this wagon on CKD is terrible. GC - what do you think of the fact that CKD voted for neither of the scum?

I think the fact that CKD did not vote either scum, standing alone, ultimately cuts against being town because otherwise you have to assume scum will bus at least one of their partners.

I think that is a perfectly reasonable assumption, at least given the way this game has been playing. I find it

very

hard to believe that scum-CKD would abstain from either of his partners' wagons, as well as essentially hard-defend his partner D1. I've already said this, but doing these things does nothing but make him look bad, and the chance that someone would make the argument I'm making and get people to believe it is much much lower than the chance that he gets lynched for not hanging either of his buddies.

If you are saying that the specific circumstances of how CKD went about not voting scum in this game undercuts the typical suspicion that results from failing to vote scum, then I agree with you.

That is why I have listed him last among those players I would vote for who already have a vote on them.

[Green Crayons]

Well I hit submit and not preview.

Those posts show why I don't think CKD was consciously avoiding voting a scummate.

Rethinking my Post 2013, I agree with acryon that it's reasonable to assume that scum will bus at least one of their scum partners.

I've stated why farside's scrambles vote looks like a bus.

If farside is actually town, POE means that the only potential scum on the scrambles wagon was CDB. I think CDB is more likely to be scum that CKD for the reasons quoted above.

[Green Crayons]

CDB is clear because of this post.

I think a last minute switch from someone whom was suspicious anyway to Amy as scum... would be a very ballsy gambit considering the gamestate.

I'd be impressed if CDB is scum, but don't think it's likely.

I don't understand what you're saying here.

[Green Crayons]

Actually, if farside isn't scum, I'd probably have to hope that I get NKed because frankly I don't know which of CDB or CKD I would lynch first.

[Green Crayons]

@CKD:

why didn't you vote at the end of yesterday?

[Green Crayons]

@CKD:

if you think you reaching LYLO is SUPER BAD for the town, and you have lamented your play, why haven't you self voted?

[Green Crayons]

Yeah, Riddle, that's probably the best argument for why he's scum.

[Green Crayons]

You also don't say "town would be 100% better off with me dead before LYLO" because you know for a fact that you are town, and that your vote is ultimately a vote attempting to help the town.

[Green Crayons]

Like, if CKD truly believed that: his pre-LYLO death > his vote for the town's well being, self-voting would be the optimal play on his behalf.

[Green Crayons]

Farside is likely town too for her natural posts.

I don't even

[Green Crayons]

Most importantly, she's not active lurking or strategically V/LAing.

lol

[Green Crayons]

lol because "most importantly" suggests that you're responding to the most suspicious part of the case against her, when it isn't.

lol because "strategically V/LAing" is never a thing I have suggested, and it's like you're purposefully adopting your own misunderstanding of the case against her because I've stated this point multiple times.

[Green Crayons]

And:

(3) She was actively lurking all of the last game day, popping in to

only

discredit my and Amy's suspicions of her.

[Green Crayons]

GC, I am not lynching farside either. I doubt Day 1 was all scum bickering over lynching themselves.

VOTE: Riddleton

lol

Refusing to believe that scum would bicker between themselves on D1 as a distancing tactic, but all-in on believing that Riddle-scum bussed both of his scum buddies (4th on D2 Beli-wagon; 2nd on D3 scrambles-wagon).

That makes all sense in the world.


Also, I just ISOed you Titus. You went from repeatedly stating that Riddle was very likely town to saying that Riddle was one of two or three scum candidates without any actual explanation of the change in stance.