Mini 855: Colorless Rainbow Town (Halted for list mod error)

[cruelty]

Hello.

vote: Dizzle

[cruelty]

unvote

Just so everyone is aware, I'm from New Zealand and am currently 16 hours ahead of EST. So I won't be around during American daytime.



Anyway, with regards to the current Monkey vs Manzcar debate, I'm currently sort of sitting on the fence. The vibe I'm getting is a fairly early town vs town skirmish. I'm not hugely concerned about either party right now, definitely not concerned enough to vote.


ZEEnon is it really necessary to use that orange, it's very hard to read, especially on even-numbered posts.

[cruelty]

Incidentally I do tend to agree that rolefishing scum roles isn't scummy. I can see the danger inherent in doing so, though. I think that we currently have a case of a slightly dubious (but ultimately pro-town) post being attacked by an overzealous townie.

[cruelty]

At this point I'm not sure on anyone, but I'm leaning scum on d3x, and

I'm leaning town on Fuzzyman.

Huh?

Fuzzyman has posted twice with a total of 28 words. How can you possibly have a town read from what he's said?


If you somehow did have a magical ability to extrapolate allegiance from such minimal input, then I still can't see why it'd be necessary to make a note of it. I'm wondering if it's a poorly integrated breadcrumb..

[cruelty]

Yeah, he has only 2 posts but both his posts were confident and to the point and on those points, I agree. Notice I didn't say prob or confirmed, i said leaning. Gut read. Why you even trippin?

Here's his 2 posts if you're lazy...

I am aware you didn't say anything absolute, that doesn't change the fact that you brought up a relatively inactive (in terms of the game so far) player who has made two tiny posts as being possibly town, for no good reason.


I am aware it is a small issue, but I think it was a very odd thing to say, and I don't really like your reply - I'm "trippin"? I think that in this game it's the little things that you have to look at, and randomly proclaiming that someone is probably town (probably being more likely to be town than not, in your opinion. That is, "leaning town") this early in the game with such little input from the object of your affection is dangerous.


I don't like that you can get a feel for allegiances with so little to go on - that's just dangerous for a townie, and is what I'd expect from scum.

FoS: Raivann

[cruelty]

That is so annoying to try to read.


The danger inherent in rolefishing scum roles in my opinion is that it potentially leads to either speculation on town roles, or accidental claims/tells that give scum an advantage.

[cruelty]

Cruelty wrote:
[On Zee's color flavor]That is so annoying to try to read.

Heh, I thought about doing the same thing... I was going to claim a color at start and use it as flavor. Decided against it though because I am a stick in the mud. I was so going to be Mr. Green.

It's not the colour, no probs with that as long as I can read it, but the 15 (or whatever) posts in a row. It just means that a few sentences take up almost an entire page.

[cruelty]

cruelty is aware that he is hypocritically making consecutive posts.

I would vote Raivann right now but I am a little worried that this lynch is progressing so rapidly.

Agreed. I just wanted to post to make this clear.

[cruelty]

@cruelty- You've said that RoleFishing Scum PRs is dangerous, how advantageous do you think it is? Do you believe the risk is worth the reward?

Sorry didn't see this.

To be honest I think attempting to rolefish scum on day one is pointless; town has no way to establish fact (eg: a town night action being blocked would give a town power role an idea of what's out there) so any conclusions arrived at are merely speculation.

If somehow you manage to establish that there is role X out there then of course it's advantageous to some degree, but I'd be hesitant to engage in a debate about mafia power roles to begin with; I've outlined my reasons for this in a previous post.

commenting on the speed with which the Raivann wagon has built to L-2? Or stating an opinion of MM's reluctance to go L-1, but has no problem with L-2?

I'm prepared to vote for him (Raivann), but I'll hold off in the interest of discussion.

I can see what MM is saying. If there are two (or more) scum, and Raivann isn't one of them (or he is and they've decided he's a liability) then they can hardly 1-2 hammer without some serious heat being fired their way. L1 is a different proposition, one guy with a convincing reason for his vote could hammer and slip away quite easily.

[cruelty]

Sure, I guess, but if you're worried about scum being able to hammer at L-1, why even bring the vote count 1 step closer by making it L-2? Why not just give the warning about not lynching or getting to L-1 too quickly? Raivann knows he's amassed a good deal of suspicion so there's really no need for Monkey's vote at all. Raivann is back to L-3 now anyway, I think, but I still don't like Monkey's vote/explanation.

I feel like you guys are exaggerating the importance of the comment.


I don't think there's anything wrong with being concerned about a possibly scum hammer. It says that he's not 100% convinced in his vote, but that's not really here nor there - this early in the game, who is?

[cruelty]

P.S.I usually look scummy. Hell I've been reading my posts and even I think I'm scummy.
Go ahead and lynch me but be forwarned you're just gonna find out that I'm a townie.

Ugh, I don't like statements like that. Very WIFOM.

I think that if you're not scum, you're dangerous to town anyway in that you appear scummy, you admit to appearing scummy and you were drawing conclusions very early in the game with very little information.

vote: Raivann

[cruelty]

Well at least your not fencesitting anymore.
Just hoping on the popular wagon with a reason that I've been drawing conclusions on day 1.

Actually I believe I was the first to call you out for your weird town read on Fuzzyman. I refrained from voting (and I stated as much) because I wanted more discussion.

Eventually you made your WIFOM post, which I replied to and in the process voted for you.

This isn't hopping on the popular bandwagon - I was suspicious of you before the wagon started and my posts will prove this. I find it reassuring that you're accusing me of doing this though, trying to insinuate my voting is scummy (or questionable) rather than defending yourself? It's subtle OMGUS.

@cruelty: So is it ok to lynch town just because they come off scummy? That's basically what you are saying here. It's almost like you know a mislynch is going to happen on him and want an out.

That's not what I said. I think he is scummy... I'm not 100%. Right now, in my mind he's the most likely candidate to be mafia. Hence my vote.

Re: lynching town, no. I am not giving myself an out. All I meant was that if he is town then the way he is behaving is hugely counter-productive. Could probably have been more clear.

[cruelty]

It is funny that I seem to ripped a new one no matter what I post though.

Take now for instance, if I talk with Scien I'm suspicious.
If I ask questions like would you support Zeenon lynch, I'm suspicious.
Which is a good question, BTW.

Huh. It's like you're pulling for some sympathy here. Sucks. Rather than feeling sorry for yourself (after all this is a game and I don't think anyone is deliberately picking on you or anything) how about changing your gameplay to more aggressively scumhunting? Withdrawing into your shell with woe is me posts just reinforces my confidence in my vote placement. If I'm wrong, prove me wrong.




I also tend to agree with Chinaman that MM is alarmingly easily swayed - I don't really understand how you can think two people are possibly a scum team, and then let one of them convince you that perhaps the other isn't scum at all. Changing tack like that is so horrifically dangerous to town..

[cruelty]

In my opinion, cruelty is likely town due to him being the first person to point out Raivann's scummy opinion.

Gah.

Whilst I obviously agree with the sentiment, your logic is lacking. If someone else had been the first to look at Raivann as scum, there is no way I would lean town on them. Is there more to your feeling of me as town, or is it entirely based on this single point? If that's it, then you're doing the exact same thing Raivann did to alarm me..

[cruelty]

Yeah, where's everyone at?

[cruelty]

I recognized him as lurking, and bringing out lurkers is pro-town.

I kinda think that this statement is a bit misleading.

In my opinion,

lurking is anti-town.

Bringing out lurkers is a null tell.

If scum realises someone is lurking, it's in their best interest to draw attention to this as well - it takes the heat off them.


I think Zeenon's return to the game will shed some light on exactly what's going on here. For now though;

FoS: MonkeyMan

[cruelty]

That's not what I said. Don't twist my words.


Claiming that you're pro-town because you noticed a lurker is, in my eyes, a null tell. That doesn't mean ignore them, it's just that it's to everyone's benefit to put heat on lurkers.


You're rapidly changing your mind, you're claiming pro-town activities when they're not anything of the sort, and you're twisting my words. It's all rather scummy. I'm not going to vote because of the Zeenon factor, but you're on notice.

[cruelty]

Well that's just clutching at straws.

I would happily vote for you if it wasn't for the fact that I'm waiting on Zeenon to get back into the game. If you look at post 308, I have a question for Zeenon waiting to be answered - of course I'm not going to rashly vote for you. That would be premature and foolish.

[cruelty]

Again, nope.

But explain that. How does waiting for

Zeenon

make my argument against

you

premature and foolish?


(If anyone else wants to weigh in, feel free).

[cruelty]

Apparently the players are making it through ok.

Except, conveniently, the one we're all waiting to hear from...

[cruelty]

I don't think there is anything wrong with pointing out something as being pro-town if someone is attacking you. It is suspicious if you are just doing it out of thin air.

You're not even being pro-town.

Also, answer this.

the quality of most of the players left in this game has gone down considerably, you'd think they'd still be just as susceptible to naders

And also tell me exactly how your original response to this (quoted here)

It just looks like you're trying to play both sides without having to take a stance, so that whichever side benefits you more later on you can take advantage of, rather than having an actual argument.

isn't
a) avoiding my question.
b) OMGUS.

I think it's natural to want to seem pro-town when someone is attacking you.

You're artificially trying to create a pro-town persona for yourself. Pointing out lurkers isnt pro-town in and of itself, pointing out that you're doing so and are therefore pro-town is just scummy.

[cruelty]

lol @ my post, that didn't copy + paste right at all.


Answer THIS:

But explain that. How does waiting for Zeenon make my argument against you premature and foolish?

You're trying to attack me because I was questioning you. OMGUS.


You're also only selectively responding to questions/posts directed at you. I don't like it at all, it's not pro-town, it's not scumhunting, you're just frantically trying to survive and it's not helping anyone.

[cruelty]

Also, OMGUS = counter attack based solely on the fact that someone attacked you. Which is what you're trying to do here:

I'd say withholding your vote is scummier than anything you've attacked me on. Seems that you don't want to take sides so you can leap on whatever the prevailing wagon is.

here:

Then it stands to reason your argument against me is premature and foolish.

here:

It just looks like you're trying to play both sides without having to take a stance, so that whichever side benefits you more later on you can take advantage of, rather than having an actual argument.

You've basically said the same thing twice and thrown in a ridiculous retort for colour. You're not advancing your game at all, you're not bringing up any valid points... this is you trying to make me look like the bad guy for questioning you.

[cruelty]

cruelty- Where did your quote {"the quality of most of the players..." } come from? I just combed over your Iso and didn't find it.

It was a copy+paste error. The correct quote is in the post above yours.

[cruelty]

So... you were a part of the Raivann bandwagon, and you were also amongst the numerous people who commented on Zeenon being inactive. Kudos.


You still haven't answered my question in 351.

[cruelty]

I'm not dodging anything, but it is possible I'm not aware of the question.

...

vote: MonkeyMan576

[cruelty]

Oh, ok.

You're not discussing anything. If I ask a question, you ignore it (although oddly you address the fact that I'm asking about you not responding to my question), if I hint that you're scum you call me scummy for holding my vote.


Now we find out that if I vote for you, I'm now "pointing fingers". Additionally, I'm probably the most active right now, I don't think I'm exactly hiding in the shadows here, and I think that my posts are pretty clear. So I don't think your accusation of me attempting to "not [be] an object of interest" is a viable one.

[cruelty]

I never said you were lurking, I said you chose to mindlessly vote for me rather than address my responce, which was that you may have asked a question and I didn't notice it.

a) I didn't say I was lurking. I said I'm not trying to divert attention away from myself:

I don't think your accusation of me attempting to "not [be] an object of interest" is a viable one.

b) You still haven't answered my question, I don't really understand why.


c) Mindlessly vote for you? C'mon.

[cruelty]

mod: manczar was replaced.

MOD NOTE: Skruffs has replaced Manzcar.

Vote count in a few minutes.

Anyway, I'm a little concerned Zeenon is deliberately active lurking. I'm not against a Zeenon lynch if he doesn't post within the next day or two.


(That's not to say I'm not suspicious of you MM).

[cruelty]

If Zeenon is active lurking that supersedes any suspicion I have of MM.

[cruelty]

Just some current events that I need to express my view on:

First of all, I have no idea why people are acting like my overview of the game is so important.

Don't really care about your overview of the game (any content is good content but this isn't the info I want from you). You have had several questions asked of you which you need to answer. This is why people are waiting on you to post, because your answers to said questions could absolutely prove important.

When you act like I have an obligation to make a summary of each player, I completely feel like doing the opposite, which is not doing anything at all.

That's nice. But again, you've incurred a little bit of suspicion, you have to follow through on what you said you would do now, or you'll get pinged for active lurking.

That's rather convenient that you can say that you are suspicious of Zeenon's lurking and me. They seem to be rather mutually exclusive at this point, as by saying you are suspicious of Zeenon, you are supporting the wagon I am on.

Look.

Your suspicion of Zeenon does not make you innocent.

The setup specifically states that there may be some anti-town roles that aren't mafia-aligned. I'm not going to engage in speculation regarding the setup, but I bring it up so that we're clear that I can be legitimately suspicious of both of you.


I feel like your entire defence has been very flimsy, I don't think you're actively scumhunting and I don't really like that you're trying to paint me in a negative light for suspecting you. It's very hard to look past you when basically every post of yours directed my way is (going by my 'liberal definition') OMGUS.

I'd also like a little bit of input from other players.

@everyone, are the points I'm making against MM valid? Vice versa?

[cruelty]

I do take issue with you stating that you'd be ok with a Zee lynch because active lurking supersedes your suspicion of Monkey. Do you mean that active lurking always supersedes any suspicions you might have or just in this case with Monkey?

Oh fair enough.

I think that active lurking (that is, occasional posts that say "I'm here" and nothing more) is about as scummy as you can possibly be without making an obvious scum slip. MM hasn't made an obvious, undeniable scumslip so yeah, I'm not against a Zeenon lynch (if it transpires he is active lurking).

[cruelty]

1) That I've been a proactive scumhunter, at least more so than most players

2) I was on Raivann's scumlist...

3) I was on the Raivann wagon

4) I am on Zeenon's townlist

1 - Where in the last few pages have you been proactively scumhunting?

2 - Irrelevant.

3 - Irrelevant.

4 - Irrelevant.



You cannot use other people as evidence that you're not guilty. I don't want to keep bringing it up but the setup allows for more than one anti-town group (eg: sk), and that's ignoring the possibility of bussing.

There is a precedent for your alignment being determined by your actions with other people, but they have to be YOUR actions. Citing what other people think of you as quasi-conclusive proof that you're not scum is illogical.

I'm not consciously trying to state my towniness. It is something I am generally against in other players.

So everytime you post you're pro-town, it's your subconscious hitting the keyboard? What do you actually mean to say here?

Being defensive is not a scum tell, in fact players that defend themselves well end up being town more often than not, so it could be seen as a town-tell.

Do you think you're defending yourself well?

[cruelty]

cruelty - calm down, reread what monkey said after a night away, and start over. It's pretty clear that you weren't seeing what Monkey said correctly.

Really. Enlighten me.

[cruelty]

if you're not willing to vote for somebody at that point, especially when you're *not voting for anybody*; it looks extremely suspicious

Why?

you could always switch to whoever you want to vote for later depending on results

I'd end up at the same place eventually regardless.

If scum realises someone is lurking, it's in their best interest to draw attention to this as well - it takes the heat off them.

This is only applicable where the scum have heat *on them*

Again, why? Surely it is in the best interest of scum to provide town with a legitimate target regardless of whether or not they themselves are currently under suspicion? Distracting town from scumhunting active players through what you're calling pro-town concerns with lurkers is hugely beneficial regardless of what's happening in-game. Strongly disagree with you here.

In 324, you go from it being a null-tell to being scummy.

No I didn't. I don't think pointing out lurkers is pro-town, because it benefits both town and scum. I think claiming that oneself is pro-town is scummy; this should really be apparent through ones actions.

For it to be OMGUS, it has to actually be a good point.

Uh, not really. Attacking someone because they attacked you is OMGUS. The actual quality of the attack is really irrelevant (as long as the attack is legitimate, weak case or not).



I see what you're saying, I just don't really agree with you. I think MM has been behaving strangely (scummy), and I don't think he's as pro-town as he (and you) would have the rest of us believe.

[cruelty]

if you're willing to make a case against somebody, and don't vote them it looks extremely like buddying. In the meantime, after your case against them (while you wait) you can bring up something else and vote for that instead of your case. You put "pressure" on them without putting them in danger of a lynch, and if they flip scum, you can go back and point to the fact that you had a case on them before anybody else. Why wouldn't it be scummy to not vote who you're putting a case together on?

Buddying? Buddying who?

The reason I was withholding my vote initially was because there was a little bandwagon building on Zeenon, and I was originally leaning more his way. I didn't want to push that wagon (he wasn't active at the time) to a dangerous point, so decided to leave it alone. The more I pressed MM the more he concerned me, ultimately causing me to vote.

I thought I went through why this could be very harmful as scum. If the lurker is a scumbuddy, you're unnecessarily drawing attention to your partner if the town is on a townie (pretty obvious) and I've seen plenty of lurkers come back and look incredibly townie, making them a threat to the scum by reducing the number of suspects and possibly allowing the previous lurker to get a read on scum and peg them as such.

Yes, the lurker could become a town lynch, but often times unless there's enough people committed to a lurker lynch (very rarely the case) you'll just be bringing in somebody that could turn the table on a potential no-lynch while at the very least you're promoting activity, which is strictly anti-scum.

Again, anti-scum isn't pro-town. That's my point. Pointing out a lurker does not give you town points. Claiming that it does is WIFOM.

Gotta cut it off there, dinner time. Will try to address the rest of the post later tonight.

[cruelty]

Huh, 3 pages since I went to bed last night. Catching up.

[cruelty]

Just briefly, Amished I don't really like the passionate MM defence. I've been trying to recall a point where you actually admitted he did something even a little shady and I'm drawing a blank. I'll try to quickly go back and find something that proves me wrong.


Just strikes me as a little over the top; you've swayed enough people towards a Scien lynch to be on the verge of pushing it through (I'm likely not going to hammer, but I concede the case is good) but you're still almost aggressively defending MM. Why?

[cruelty]

If you're assuming Scien flips town, why did you vote for him?

Is that a serious question?

[cruelty]

That's the latest in a long line of MM posts which are predicated on the manipulation of what others have said.

[cruelty]

MM- Answer my question.

Repost the question, please.

I don't understand why you can't just answer questions the first time they're asked of you. Or maybe the second, or even the third.


I mean, if you miss the occasional post directed your way, no biggie. This has been a consistent thing without throughout the entire game thus far.



Jason I find it very hard to believe you seriously thought that someone was going to jump wagons that late and that obviously.

[cruelty]

This has been a consistent thing without throughout the entire game thus far.

This has been a consistent thing

with you

throughout the entire game thus far.

[cruelty]

~scum~
MonkeyMan
Skruffs
ZEEnon
Dizzle
cruelty
Amished
Chinaman
Jason
Dizzle
d3x
~town~

You actually got any content to add or are your already notably short posts now being reduced to lists?

[cruelty]

I don't expect anyone else to post something like that either.

Hm.

@Cruel: What're 3 single adjectives that you would use to describe this twilight phase?

3?

I think

chaotic

would just about cover it. Maybe throw in intriguing and hectic.

[cruelty]

Hey guys.

I've been really busy today and unable to post (and probably will be tomorrow as well) but I have quickly read through the thread.


Just a couple thoughts (not referencing posts/quoting, don't have time, it's late and I have to goto bed):

Amished, I recall you said at the end of day 1 that you didn't expect anyone else (other than fuzzy, apparently) to make a town -> scum list. I read that as coaching (I don't expect, as a teacher might say to his/her students, not an actual expectation).

You also said that the reason you made your list was because you expected to die at night; you obviously didn't expect to die at all. Makes that statement a little redundant. I don't understand the point of it, other than to reinforce your point that you didn't want anyone else to make a town -> scum list.


Monkey the more I read your posts the more I'm convinced you're being deliberately obtuse. You refuse to answer questions even when pressured, you obviously don't go back and read the posts cited to you... I don't really understand the need for you to be so closed off, unless you're genuinely concerned about making a scumslip. I suppose I could be tunneled on you but you're doing yourself no favours with continued anti-town behaviour.

To qualify that statement, I think that refusing to answer direct questions is anti-town. I think that ignoring posts directed at you (except for select portions of said posts which you answer with a sentence or two at most) is anti-town, and I find that your disbelief at being a) questioned and b) thought of as scummy is a) fake and b) damning.

vote: MM

ps: I really, really, REALLY don't like that you claim to have condemning info, but haven't shared it yet. There's no reason not to; if you're a power role and you can uncover scum at the cost of your life then do so. Just so we're clear though, that isn't rolefishing. I want the information that you claim to have, which will expose the power role that you've implied you are.

[cruelty]

Wow.

@cruel: 1 last thing: Is anti-town always scum? If you're town, do you expect to be under suspicion if you feel you're trying hard?

Of course anti-town isn't always scum (deliberate anti-town I'd say always is though). It's a good place to start looking, though. I'm not really sure what the second question means.

I tend to believe the first, because of Chinaman's peculiar behavior today, and of course, I know I'm town.

Can you tell me exactly what's peculiar about CM's behaviour today? I've been reading his posts and whilst I don't necessarily agree with all his points, I don't think he's said anything particularly peculiar.

My defence is Chinaman's behavior(claiming that we shouldn't believe my night action without hearing what it was, then not voting for me oncce he hears it, even though it potentially implicates him), the fact that you could be a paranoid cop, and that Amished is willing to lynch someone because he thinks town roleblockers are rare(which is not true).

a) Please answer my questions re: CM's behaviour.
b) Speculation, not a defence.
c) That's one player. Again, not a defence.

@last scum: I'll be protecting one of Jason or I tonight; so I suggest you leave us alone if you don't want to risk another no-kill.

That's so obvious it's ridiculous. Why bother saying that?

[cruelty]

This is only my second game, never heard of zwetschenwasser.


I just tend to think that when people state the blindingly obvious in this game, it's usually calculated. I'm wary of that, so I try to press the point a little.


It depends on how I'm going about finding scum. I think that an aggressive scum hunter is going to be in the spotlight and therefore yeah, that kind of player could reasonably expect to be a suspect for some people. Someone who is more of an interpreter/reader (that is, decides on a suspect based on an overall read rather than rabid tenacity) would be less likely to fall under suspicion.

[cruelty]

Yeah I can see what you're saying (although I note that it's interesting you assume that I think you pro-town, and I similarly note you covering your ass on that ;]) but I think that as a general rule, subtle manipulation is the domain of scum.

[cruelty]

Damn, this game was fun.

I'm pleased I was right about my two main suspects (mm +rai), I was pretty confident I was right about MM and I couldn't understand why you were defending him so hardcore, Amished (playing as an NK magnet or not).


Anyway, thanks all, and both mods.