Mini 1532: Mac's Mini Normal - GAME OVER~

[frog]

Hi guys, give me a few minutes to catch up and I'll be right in.

[frog]

Ok, brainfart time, just a commentary-as-I-read-it:
RVS seems normal except for the hydras, pie's reads post is odd for the placement of Ice, and this is noted, but I don't think a lot can be read into it. Still, cowbells gets townpoints. Rem's first post is odd for the lack of comments in it. Meph looks like he's trying to hunt, as does Milked. Ice gets really pent up and seems to start venting, that reaction makes me think he could be scum. Rem redeems himself in 39 and 43. I don't think Ice's frustration is forced though. Don't like what Bauss is doing, but I don't have much on Rank at the moment. Something about Hayato's 78 annoys me. Yup, 81 as well. Don Johnson's first few posts I do not like either, but WBO seems cool. Rem is so town how are people not seeing this. Pie's 95 and 102 also annoy me, and doesn't help on the ice/pie idea. Not sure if Flameaxe is lurking or not. aaaaand don Johnson comes in with 132 and gets townpoints. Hayato misses shit and flameaxe does some stuff. At this point I'm clued in enough.

May I also say thanks for the activity, there's nothing worse than a slow game.

Unvote

Vote pieguyn

[frog]

Sure. I like Rem's 39 and 43 because they're sensible posts that challenged Ice on reasonable grounds. This looks like someone who wants clarity but doesn't seek to piss anyone off. The observations he makes shows he is connecting to the game well.

Hayato's 78 and 81 annoy me as the first post he seems to be latching onto Cowbells for pushing a lynch on one of his scumreads and not the other, and 81's questions (how can you have more games to catch up on, honestly) and the discounting of meta don't really add to what's going on (if anything they detract from hunting as he's making up silly issues to distract us with).

Don Johnson's initial posts are lacklustre given the content and read as a very late RVS, but 132 attempts to bring everyone back to topic and contains an informed vote with an explanation.

Pie's 95 has already been noted for being awful, with random opinions being made and no thought given to what's beings said. 102 has a (funny) OMGUS, with 'no your reaction is shit), dodging the question and leaving the Town with more shit to deal with. Plus the constant 'I had a reason but now is too early' means I think I can label this player the most anti-town one in the game.

[frog]

You can call me scum if you like, but I would appreciate your not using the word "retarded" in my presence unless you are actually referring to a person clinically diagnosed mental retardation. At any rate, I would love to hear your substantive response to my official declaration.

Oh great we have one of these guys.

@Hayato, some things don't fly with me:

Even if an association-tell should allow her to vote either one (ICE or Pie),

I don’t see how town would pick ICE at that point, not Pie

. Her new posts doesn’t improves my reads on her. She suddenly became “convinced” by an awful reaction from Pie.

I've likely got the wrong end of the stick here, but it appears you don't like how he chose one over the other, though choice is inevitable in this case0 Flameaxe has it exactly right in #175; you could reverse the names and the case would be the same. In any case, I'd like to know why the vote is odd, not just that you think it is odd. About the #81 issue, I don't think the questions contained within are of particular worth to us, given that they hold little relevance (catching up should be expected after downtime, this doesn't need anything more than a nod) and such questions could have been replaced with more substantial ones. It looks to me like a lot of filler questions are being asked for their own sake, i.e false content. I don't see any case in #78 or #81. Here are two silly issues:

How can you suddenly have more games to catch up to, when everyone else was experiencing the same downtime?

Does this really matter?

Why is the vote on Ice but not on Pie, who is according to your theory bussing her scum partner?

Vote is on one of the two he reads as scum, so again, what's so bad about it?

Why is Annie(RCow) obvtown?

So let's go back to RVS and analyse something that could easily have been a joke? And we're now on post #78? Isn't there better stuff to look at?

You have, in time, brought up helpful issues, but I am 'pretty sure' none of these questions are remotely helpful. These are what I call the distractions.

W/ regards to Rem/Flame: Replacing isn't null but there is a limit. I don't think it should necessarily colour your reading of Aegor so much, Rem. I don't appreciate the insults but Flame is making perfect sense.

[frog]

Also I'm not buying pie's 'reaction test', and especially not what he's trying to get out of it.

[frog]

how convenient. nothing at all to back this up?

and why wouldn't you buy what I'm trying to get out of this? this is an experimental test that is based off empirical evidence, as opposed to smth theoretical or logic based. I've explained the reasoning behind it. thus, you declaring this and turning the burden of proof back to me, without explaining anything, feels fake as fuck

the scum motivation here is obvious. you are scum who got caught by the test AFTER I explained it. then you saw the reason for the test and you're now trying to discredit the basis for the test so you won't get caught. gj being transparent as fuck about it ~

Let's have a look at this in more detail. First of all, it took you a good 200 posts to actually tell us what you were doing, which, as has already been noted, gives you a large amount of time to salvage your post.

Second, RC is scum for taking it seriously? I don't think that logically follows: RC takes reads list seriously, therefore he is scum? You haven't explained this logic leap. You use anecdotal evidence ('imo (sic) the only time people have taken THE LIST seriously they have been scum based on a whopping two incidences, one of which was you being scum. I think I can safely say that this is not a credited scumtell of any sort. If anything, RC is town for trying to get us out of RVS faster.

Thirdly, there's a little bit of hypocrisy mixed in. RC took you seriously, and is therefore scum, but that means you also took RC seriously, but that doesn't impact on you at all? Before you use the reaction test defence, how can you be sure he wasn't being serious (as it was RVS) or that he wasn't reaction testing also (and he can claim this with the same confidence as you, by the way)?

That combined with the fact that 'reaction test' can be used as a get-out-of-jail-free card for ANYTHING. I'd believe it more if it came relatively shortly after you posted the reads list, but using it as your prime piece of evidence a whopping 200 posts later when there's more substantial stuff to talk about screams if laziness and opportunism.

why is that alignment indicative? like, what is the scum motivation in constantly saying "now is too early", especially when there's plenty of time left?

first part is also a misrep. my vote on him was not based on his vote on me, or anything similar to that. it was bc his reaction did indeed suck, as I've explained. however, I can see why you'd think it's an OMGUS if you haven't reached my explanation yet

You have, in fact, misrepped me here; I said you were anti-town because of that, not scum. However, I will humour you. See above why 'now is too early' is bollocks. You haven't explained why his reactions sucked (well, you have, but there's no logic) so of course I see it as an OMGUS. Most of your votes have been on somebody who has been voting you this game.

[frog]

Of course he has. His argument is very clear: the missing logical step is that the read was random (supported by the fact that it was very clearly random and in the RVS and by his explicit statement that it was not to be taken seriously). Thus anyone taking the list seriously is scum.

I'm not sure if you're playing devil's advocate or you genuinely can't see why the reasoning is bad. If someone takes a reads list seriously, and the reads list was not made seriously, it does

not

logically follow that that person is scum. Pie hasn't been ashamed in admitting that this is entirely anecdotal, and has worked on only one person aside from himself. The case pie is pushing is not legitimate.

Please also note that he said it was not to be taken seriously until AFTER he'd posted it. The lateness of the claimed 'reaction test' bothers me. Why take 200 posts to spill the beans?

Just to determine where you stand, I would like you to explicitly agree or disagree with the following statement: ''Anyone who takes a comment seriously that was not intended to be taken seriously is scum''

Has RC stated that his case is merely reaction-gathering? If not, then no hypocrisy.

And there you go, absolutely awful reaction.

He has, post 96. Naturally, pie follows it up with 'no,

your

reactions was awful'.

And yet pie is still being voted in part because of his first post and the subsequent reactions of other posters. It seems like it succeeded to me, so I have no idea why you are so skeptical.

No, there's far more substantial stuff to be basing my vote off of than their first post. You may have noticed in my catch-up post that I find the placing odd but think little of it. Pie, however, is basing her vote on an event from RVS, which I find to be scummy.

[frog]

One last thing I'd like to point out:

pie's reads post is odd for the placement of Ice

wow
ok you can be scum too

This is selective quoting to the extreme. The full sentence was:

pie's reads post is odd for the placement of Ice, and this is noted,

but I don't think a lot can be read into it

.

So I'm not even guilty of your 'reaction test' yet this is apparently the evidence needed to brand me scum. Very well done though, I almost missed your misquote.

[frog]

In order:

Big words aside, all I've done is reiterate what I've said previously. I don't appreciate having to say the same thing twice.

And he has those... 200 posts after? Really? If it were legitimate, why wasn't it outed sooner when it was more relevant, and why wasn't earlier in the game (such as 100 posts ago) suitable?

If you disagree then you should see the problems with pie's 'case'.

Nice try yourself. Post 96 has RC explicitly say that voting Ice was a reaction test for Pie.

The event was the reaction to the reads list, sorry that wasn't clear.

[frog]

Let's have a look at this in more detail. First of all, it took you a good 200 posts to actually tell us what you were doing, which, as has already been noted, gives you a large amount of time to salvage your post.

nope. I've already explained why I'm so inactive

Inactivity doesn't come into it. You were asked to explain and refused to do so until this point. Why is this?

Second, RC is scum for taking it seriously? I don't think that logically follows: RC takes reads list seriously, therefore he is scum? You haven't explained this logic leap. You use anecdotal evidence ('imo (sic) the only time people have taken THE LIST seriously they have been scum based on a whopping two incidences, one of which was you being scum. I think I can safely say that this is not a credited scumtell of any sort. If anything, RC is town for trying to get us out of RVS faster.

nope. I've explained everything behind the test

No, you haven't. You're missing the logic leap (and it isn't only frogs that can leap, clearly) explaining why someone who interprets it seriously is scum.

Thirdly, there's a little bit of hypocrisy mixed in. RC took you seriously, and is therefore scum, but that means you also took RC seriously, but that doesn't impact on you at all? Before you use the reaction test defence, how can you be sure he wasn't being serious (as it was RVS) or that he wasn't reaction testing also (and he can claim this with the same confidence as you, by the way)?

nope.

he said it was a serious vote at the time he made the vote

And all evidence at the time pointed towards your reads list being serious

at the time

. Why can't he retcon whilst you can? See: hypocrisy.

as for his comment about my reaction, obv my reaction to his push on me is important, even if it's not explicitly a reaction test

You have, in fact, misrepped me here; I said you were anti-town because of that, not scum. However, I will humour you. See above why 'now is too early' is bollocks. You haven't explained why his reactions sucked (well, you have, but there's no logic) so of course I see it as an OMGUS. Most of your votes have been on somebody who has been voting you this game.

nope. first off, you said this:

Plus the constant 'I had a reason but now is too early' means I think I can label this player the most anti-town one in the game.

and then you voted me. it's p clear the idea here was you think I'm the most likely to be scum, and that me saying "it's too early" is one of the reasons for that. this is blatant backpedaling and scummy as fuck

Actually, you'll find it in my initial thoughts in the game, so it isn't 'backpedalling'.

second, what does the last sentence have to do with my argument against you? who cares if most of my votes are on people who are voting me? my case on you still stands. you're trying to deflect by bringing this up

Nah, just making an observation about how you yourself

react

to pressure, which is to explode and accuse everyone around you.

0/4. plz try again

[frog]

Just to determine where you stand, I would like you to explicitly agree or disagree with the following statement: ''Anyone who takes a comment seriously that was not intended to be taken seriously is scum''

this is a blatant strawman. I've already said this is based off empirical evidence (or anecdotal w.e you wanna call it) and I don't have any logical or theoretical explanation. the statement should be "anyone who takes pieguyn's RVS reads list seriously is probably scum". you have no way to generalize it. nice try

Of course, because only you can do this and only you know exactly what only your 'reaction test' can result into. And let me call BULLSHIT on the 'empirical evidence', since you've only done the test ONCE aside from yourself. This is not empirical in the slightest. It is extremely subjective and you are missing logic and theoretical explanation. How you can think this is solid is beyond me.

So I'm not even guilty of your 'reaction test' yet this is apparently the evidence needed to brand me scum. Very well done though, I almost missed your misquote.

the reads list is a base. it's a starting point. you mentioning ICE at all pinged, and the last part didn't matter. then your actions afterward reinforced my read on you.

Sorry, that isn't going to fly. Ice was placed weird as all the scum are normally put at the top of the list and he wasn't. I made an observation, and the fact that I thought LITTLE OF IT does, in fact, MATTER. Now you're changing your test to adapt to the situation, so hark at me about 'empirical' evidence a bit more and we'll see where that gets you.

what does this have to do with my case against you? again, nice deflection

Last I checked, this was your case against me. If you do have something more substantial on me, please show me.

Simultaneously calling me scum to try and discredit me while not pushing a wagon on me is scum play #1.

misrep. I had a vote on you and I intended to push you when I came back and started paying attention. then frog came in and started being scummy as fuck. I can't wagon both of you at once

Yet you had a go at RC for not being able to do exactly the same thing. See: hypocrisy. Again.

What "THE LIST" are you talking about? And what reaction are you referring to?

the list I posted on my first post. it's

not a specific reaction

, it's how there was so much uproar all around at you being scum in that list

So now you've admitted the following things about your test:

1) It has only been done once.
2) There's no specific reaction.
3) You're willing to change it as needs suit you.

Need I say more?

what do you think of frog and RC?

I'm genuinely getting annoyed by the fact that people are following this dire logic as if it is Word of God. There's so much wrong with it that it is funny, but not so funny as it is sad that people are following it. Newbie games have more logic and critical thinking in it than this.

Vote: frog

But hey, if you lynch me, at least I'll have proven this 'test' is bullshit.

Merry Christmas.

[frog]

Inactivity doesn't come into it. You were asked to explain and refused to do so until this point. Why is this?

already explained

Link me to it.

No, you haven't. You're missing the logic leap (and it isn't only frogs that can leap, clearly) explaining why someone who interprets it seriously is scum.

I've already explained that there is no logic or theoretical basis for it - it's based off empirical (or apparently anecdotal idc) evidence. several times, in fact

Twice =/= several. Especially when the first time happened to your scumbuddy, which makes only one real instance.

And all evidence at the time pointed towards your reads list being serious at the time. Why can't he retcon whilst you can? See: hypocrisy.

I never implied said list was serious. there was no evidence towards THE LIST being serious... in fact it's RVS so the natural assumption should be that it's not serious. especially considering half the playerlist hadn't even posted at the time I posted that list

thank you for proving my point ~

Actually, you'll find it in my initial thoughts in the game, so it isn't 'backpedalling'.

the backpedaling isn't anything in your "initial thoughts". it's how you thought I was the most scummy player and then redacted it to "owait I said anti-town not scummy" when I showed there was a problem with what you said, when you clearly meant the latter on a conceptual level

I clearly meant that? Sorry, but it was a reaction test which you failed /sarc. But no, I wasn't referring to it on a conceptual level, whatever that is.

Nah, just making an observation about how you yourself react to pressure, which is to explode and accuse everyone around you.

again, thank you for proving my point ~
this hs nothing to do with my case on you. you are deflecting

I think it is very relevant given your 'scumreads' were both voting you by you reads post. For all you saying it was non-serious you have continued in the same habits since that post.

Of course, because only you can do this and only you know exactly what only your 'reaction test' can result into. And let me call BULLSHIT on the 'empirical evidence', since you've only done the test ONCE aside from yourself. This is not empirical in the slightest. It is extremely subjective and you are missing logic and theoretical explanation. How you can think this is solid is beyond me.

misrep, I've done it twice and it's worked both times

Once properly, and two is hardly a large enough sample size.

when did I say it was

solid

? it's a base, a starting point. I won't take it seriously if someone who gets caught by the test ends up being obvtown, or if someone starts acting scummy as fuck despite passing the test. the test pinged on you so I started pushing on you and now your reaction to my push has reinforced my read

So you admit it isn't solid, good.

you're basically just repeating the same thing: that there's no logic or theoretical explanation. why does this even matter? first off I already said WHEN I EXPLAINED THE TEST none of this existed, and you're acting like I didn't. what's the problem with ~anectodal~ evidence? you're acting like I shouldn't even be accusing you at all despite the fact that you've done a shitton of scummy things since then. not sure if this is the correct word but I think it's strawmanning (?)

So you say there's no theory or logic either, good. Problem with anecdotal evidence is that you can spin it however you want, which has so far been the case. And I don't think strawmanning is the word you're looking for here, that's when someone misreps someone's case and tears it down, giving the impression that their actual case has been torn apart.

Sorry, that isn't going to fly. Ice was placed weird as all the scum are normally put at the top of the list and he wasn't. I made an observation, and the fact that I thought LITTLE OF IT does, in fact, MATTER. Now you're changing your test to adapt to the situation, so hark at me about 'empirical' evidence a bit more and we'll see where that gets you.

that's the most bullshit thing I've ever read. let me explain why

Sorry, that isn't going to fly. Ice was placed weird as all the scum are normally put at the top of the list and he wasn't.

this reason is bullshit

I hold it isn't.

I made an observation, and the fact that I thought LITTLE OF IT does, in fact, MATTER.

no it doesn't. the fact that you were taking it seriously matters, and you took it seriously enough to make said observation, even if you thought little of it. why are you trying to tell me how to handle my own reaction test, when 1. you got caught by said test and 2. you clearly don't know how it works?

I observed, thought little of it, didn't pursue it. Therefore I didn't take it particularly seriously. I voted you for different reasons.

Now you're changing your test to adapt to the situation, so hark at me about 'empirical' evidence a bit more and we'll see where that gets you.

not only is this really ambiguous, what does this have to do with anything? how does this change the fact that
1. you failed the test
2. when you saw you failed the test you tried to discredit said test so you wouldn't get caught
3. you're misrepping and deflecting in response to my push on you
4. you backpedaled on your stance on me on a quite obvious basis of convenience?
and I know you're going to just try to discredit the test again so let me point out again that 2, 3, and 4 are way stronger than 1 and were obtained by pushing on you, whereas 1 was just a starting point

1) I contest this
2) I don't believe the test has any credence at all anyway, so of course I discredit it.
3) I'm not misrepping, though I can see you pov about deflections.
4) Backpedalled on my stance? I've thought you were scum for a while now.

Last I checked, this was your case against me. If you do have something more substantial on me, please show me.

yet another misrep. my case on you started with the list. however, then you demonstrated obvious scum motivation by trying to discredit the test after you saw you got caught by said test, and then all your responses to my push on you have been misreps, deflections, or otherwise incorrect

Exactly, the basis for your case is this. That's what I said.

Agree or disagree with the following statement explicitly please: only scum do not believe in this test.

So now you've admitted the following things about your test:

1) It has only been done once.
2) There's no specific reaction.
3) You're willing to change it as needs suit you.

Need I say more?

1. is a blatant misrep
2. is BS. there is a specific reaction and that is taking THE LIST seriously. and not only that, why can't I use it in different ways if it seems reasonable? your idea that I can't makes no sense. there is a logical, although weak, basis for thinking ICE may be scum based off the events resulting from THE LIST. this is different from the ~anecdotal~ basis for RC/you scum. sure I had a specific thing in mind when doing the test but if there's smth else that's interesting, even if it wasn't intended, why isn't it valid? you are again trying to discredit the basis for the test, fitting the scum motivation I pointed out earlier
3. see above

1) Except it is true, since 2-1 (the one that happened to your own team)=1. 2) That very same post has you quoted as saying 'no specific reaction' and is bolded. 3) See 2).

[frog]

I'm genuinely getting annoyed by the fact that people are following this dire logic as if it is Word of God. There's so much wrong with it that it is funny, but not so funny as it is sad that people are following it. Newbie games have more logic and critical thinking in it than this.

why are you frustrated that a bunch of people whose alignment you, if town, don't know, are following said wagon?

I'd expect if you were so frustrated that you'd be taking a closer look at the people on said wagon. and if anything if you think my logic is bad you should be really skeptical of said people. why not?

hint: you're talking as if you know said people following me are town

Yes, I read Rem as town. Yes, I am annoyed he's been taken in by this. I don't see anthing inconsistent here.

Vote: frog

But hey, if you lynch me, at least I'll have proven this 'test' is bullshit.

this AtE feels fake considering you only have 2 votes on you. squirm much?

Perfect, now you've fallen for my reaction test. Everyone before you has either ignored my selfvote or told me to vote their scumread, but you took it seriously. In the past I've found that only scum ever take me seriously when I get frustrated and self-vote, even though it was clearly intended as a humorous testament to the ridiculousness of the situation. Why would you take it seriously, given that I clearly have other scumreads and that I'm in the process of pursuing one at the moment? A selfvote is clearly not serious in that situation. The fact that you took it seriously, and are willing to use it to make me seem scummier, shows me that you are likely scum as a result.

Vote: Pie

Now tell me, Pie, how that steaming pile of bullshit I just wrote is any less valid than your reaction test?
Hope this proves my point.

[frog]

@Hayato: Thanks for 271, your logic is sound and I did miss some of your answers. You're quite correct.

[frog]

4) Backpedalled on my stance? I've thought you were scum for a while now.

nope. when I questioned your read on me you redacted it saying you at first thought I was "anti-town", not "scum". when you clearly did thought I was scum, as evidenced by the fact that you posted your thoughts on every player in the game, said I was the most ~anti-town~ and then VOTED ME. this is exactly what I meant and now you're trying to cover it up

You have, in fact, misrepped me here; I said you were anti-town because of that, not scum

nice try. fail. die :>

Another misrep. Go back and you'll find that in my blow-by-blow read of the game I was referring to a specific instance, which you then picked up on. It has been made clear enough I think you are scum and that that action (I forget what it was since you've been pushing it for so long now) was what I called anti-town. By the way, you missed the bit where I said 'link me to it' at the top of my post, so I'll assume you can't.

Hope this proves my point.

1. it did not occur during RVS and there was nothing indicating it's not serious. and it wasn't "clearly" intended to be humorous at all. so the natural idea is that it's serious
2. the statement about only scum taking it seriously is almost certainly false
also, this shows how you are grasping at straws. you still haven't discussed the other points in my case and are STILL focusing on said test. however you do this and act like you've completely defeated my case. the point is, in light of all my other points on you (how you showed obv scum motivation after you saw the reasoning for the test, misrepping and deflecting, etc.), the test itself is practically irrelevant. this is exactly what I mean when I say you're strawmanning

Actually, it wasn't a serious vote at all. I made a nice little summary as to why it was a joke, and how nobody except you took it seriously. Plus, with regards to the second point: this is my reaction (and others', clearly) to your reaction test. I'm at least a little bit happy you've seen what I'm getting at. Given the rest of your case relies on this (I'll get to it in a moment) of course I am looking at it.

and why are you trying to prove a point to someone you're scumreading? if I'm so obvscum and all my logic is complete nonsense as you say, then what is the point of this? the sole purpose of this post is to get people to disagree with my case on you. I don't see any other explanation.

Well, yes, the foundation of mafia is getting people to agree with you and disagree with others. Your point?

Also, may I say, this back-and-forth has gone on long enough that I doubt anyone is reading it and fewer still actually care. Next post I make I'll address ICE's request for a summarised case, and I'll have a look at the rest of yours too.

[frog]

1. fails test
2. when he saw that he failed he tried to discredit said test so he wouldn't get caught. this is obvious scum motivation and needs to be lynched ASAP
3. misreps the fuck out of me and a lot of his answers have been deflective and not really answering my points
4. backpedals on his read on me and then tries to cover it up
5. AtEs and self-votes with only 2 votes on him
6. grasping at straws, including 5
7. acting like my case on him is just said reaction test, and still focusing on disproving said test, when there's far stronger evidence against him. completely ignores said stongrer evidence and acts like he completely 0wned my case on him
8. trying to manipulate people into not believing my case on him

and since you don't seem to believe in the basis for the test, ignore 1 if you want. it shouldn't have an effect on anything else =w=

Ok, in order.

1) I dispute this, but I'll let it slide.
2) I do discredit this test, not because I'm scum but because I believe the test is awful. Other players agree with me on this (hayato on the last page, ICENinja, to name two) so I'm not seeing how this is valid. Only scum have motivation to disagree with the test? So hayato and ICE are scum? Plus, there's a catch-22 here. If I'm town I would agree with the test, but that would make me scum???
3) I could say the same about you. This is pretty subjective, I think I've been very direct.
4) I've said you were scum and not said anything else since? (Unless you count anti-town semantics).
5) Part of a reaction test (which you failed, lol) which, may I say, is as valid as yours.
6) So I guess straws and bargepoles are the same thing?
7) Here's the meat. Let's analyse which of your 8 reasons rely on the reaction test: 1, 2, 3 (since FMPOV I haven't been misrepping), 7. That's 1/2 of your (revised) case. Your original has a 75% reliance on the test.
8) This is funny, I'm scum for trying to get others to not believe your test? Another catch-22, since if I were town, I wouldn't do this, but then I'd be letting people believe I was scum. Since when has arguing been a scumtell anyway. Also, you've been manipulating people into not believing my case on you: does that make you scum?

[frog]

So, onto my summarised case for why Pie is scum:

1) The reaction test. Pie has continually been pushing for me and other players (RC, for instance) being scum due to us failing this reaction test. The test is, as Pie has admitted, anecdotal, has worked only once outside of himself, and has, by his own words, said that it isn't solid and doesn't test for specific reactions (which means it can't even be a reaction test). Pie took 200 pages to out the reasons for his reads list, which is quite a long time (and though I have asked, 'why not sooner?' this has not been answered sufficiently) so, to me, this looks like Pie has simply lied about this test from the get-go.

Basically, Pie has been using bad logic (with full knowledge that it is bad logic) to push lynches on players (only those who have voted/voiced opposition to him, so let's call it an OMGUS), at a time when more discussion could be had on immediate events. Unlike Pie's points, this is actually a scumtell.

2) Pie's reaction to earlygame pressure. Pie's response to being voted for and pushed was to become incredibly verbose and OMGUS everyone. Rather than rebutting RC's points, Pie just screams 'no, your reaction is shit) and deflects attention away from this. Pie only actually gets involved with the game when he's threatened, as there's an 80-post gap between his first and second post. Post 95 seems to be a confused mess of reads (not even sure if serious or not) and 102 contains the line 'do you see what I'm seeing on RC?'. Pie has asked this question in some form multiple times and to me this looks like he is seeking validation before advancing, a common scum behaviour. Plus, we don't know what he sees on RC since he hasn't told us (a behaviour he hasn't dropped throughout the game) so not only is he looking for validation, he's looking for someone else to state the answers for him. This is textbook scum behaviour.

3) The lack of content. Content starts right after this whole 'reaction test' nonsense, but before that (posts 95-197) Pie contributes very little towards the game, something I'd call lurking. While not specifically a scumtell, contrast it with recent behaviour and we see that Pie has connected little with the game, save the 'reaction test'.

4) Selective quoting (see 'but I don't think much can be read into it') has been used by Pie to a great extent, taking things out of context to make others seem scummy. Whilst other logical fallacies can occur naturally (strawmanning, misinterpretation, etc) this requires active thought on Pie's behalf. That Pie is actively warping others' words is indicative that the word 'mafia' appears in his role PM.

5) The catch-22s, as seen above. Pie has turned certain actions into a scumtell, such as discrediting cases and trying to get people on your side. First, these are not scumtells but the foundation of how mafia is played. Second, according to Pie, if I were town I'd agree with his case, but that makes me scum. In other words, no matter what I do, there's a scumtell I'm committing for Pie. This is some more deliberate bad logic on Pie's part.

6) Strawmanning, misrepping, selective quoting, grasping at straws, being contradictory over how his own test works, etc. None are as strong as Pie wishes them to be, but taken into consideration they don't portray him in a good light.

If I need to expand or clarify, I'd be happy to do so.

[frog]

The vote on TV was actually pretty proper. He was cheerleading.

This. SoS' vote was legit. ICE, could you expand on your read of SoS a bit more?

[frog]

Sorry for the lack of activity recently, don't know what's been happening!

Anyhow, Pie's gone, nobody cares about my case, and I'm beating my head against a brick wall. Sorry RC, but frustrating as it is, a Pie lynch is unlikely to happen today.

Unvote

I'm reading SoS as town, and he's certainly been pushing and hunting a bit (though I admit he is lurky), and I don't see much reasoning behind the votes or suspicion on him. ICE's recent behaviour has made me reconsider my read on him, simply because he's being incredibly expansive and helpful. I don't think his slot is scum.

What I'm not liking is TunnelVision's recent play. That last post screams of you blaming another player for your own lack of work, and I read your comment on scum being on a wagon inflammatory (and not in a good way, as all you seem to be doing is defusing, deflecting, and spreading confusion). I agree with active lurking, and clearly Rank's promise of catching up has not been met. Bauss, please do some scumhunting of your own, not asking Sos about your beef with Rem (how about you explain it? That is your onus, right?) or explaining how someone else could have drawn you in (ever heard of DIY?).

Vote: TunnelVision

[frog]

RC/hayato your deal isn't doing either of you much credit. I'm just glad nobody else supports the deal.

@TV: differing reactions is no more odd than you claiming to have so many different tools in your belt. Why can't ICE have been scumhunting elsewhere, as he claims? I don't see how your explanation follows.

[frog]

Hi BBMolla, thanks for replacing in.

Can somebody neatly summarise the case on hayato? I initially thought they were scum but they started being specific when I started questioning, which made me reconsider my read.

[frog]

Deadline looms so don't take too long.
I don't see anyone besides TV who has votes that I'd want to vote for except RC who only has one vote.
Who would support RC lynch today? Clearly Hayato and RC would considering their 'bargain' or whatever.
Would not be opposed to a Rem lynch (TV and BBm seem to be on board with this).
Who would support Rem lynch today?

My preference for the lynch is Pie/BBMolla or TV. I would accept a lynch on Rem and maybe ICE. I would not accept an RC or a Hayato lynch.

@MME: I've asked that a few pages ago and have received no response. I can't see why a Hayato lynch would work either.

[frog]

Also that bargain is a stupid idea, let's not take that into account please.

[frog]

Nice entry CDB.
Awful claim ICE. Why did you claim then? You weren't in danger of being lynched.

I'll reiterate that I'd be happiest with a TV lynch or a BBMolla lynch today. ICE is a no-no at this point, RC's just frustrated, Scorpion is town, and so is SoS. I don't think anyone else has seriously suggested lynching someone other than those players.

[frog]

I don't like this lynch, but with the other wagon not going anywhere and the day's end approaching, we need something to happen.

Vote: SoS

This is L-1. Do not lynch without a claim.

I don't like this, and I'm sorry it has to happen, but I can't see anything else for today.

[frog]

Aegor's pretty scummy for yesterday's play but I'm intrigued what hayato has on him. It would be nice if we could stop beating about the bush, though; that's why everyone got despondent yesterday. Tell me clearly, hayato: can you out your reasons explicitly or not? If yes, do so, if no, I'll put Aegor at L-1 so we'll get the results anyway.

Don and TV, your posting is terribad.

[frog]

why do we think TV is town? and whats up with frog's hypocritical post?

What's up with you saying 'shut up, I need to reread D1'?

[frog]

CDB, Aegor was faking misunderstanding SoS? Or actually misunderstanding but attempting to bus?

It's not addressed at me, but this is what I read into it. Aegor's intent came out of the blue and he twisted SoS' claim to suit when he wanted to hammer (he also asked if he could hammer, which I find a bit scummy). SoS may have flipped scum but Aegor's intent and vote still looked awful.

[frog]

Way to ruin TV's fakehammer, guys.

[frog]

I'm town, but scum must have some power role to counter act a Doc + 2-shot Cop

I am a bit concerned about this. We've had a doc and a cop claim, and all that's been flipping is mafia goons.

Seconding BB's request that if there is a vig who shot RC, they need to claim. It's odd that CDB accepts that BB is town but is sceptical of this request. Anyhow, I'm not seeing Flameaxe or Hayato for scum, but I've been wrong before in this game, so I'll reread and see if it changes things. At the moment I'm leaning don Johnson for last scum.

[frog]

UNVOTE:
VOTE: Flameaxe

Have you noticed something or what?

Reread with respect to Hayato and Flameaxe. Hayato still reads very much as town, and though I can see Flameaxe-scum, I don't think it is particularly likely.

Vote: Don johnson

[frog]

Catch-up post incoming.

[frog]

Can we stop discussing whether BBMolla could be a Godfather or not? MME is most probably cop, and lynching an inno unless we truly suspect foul play is never a good idea. Nothing, literally nothing, has indicated the presence of a GF so far. TV, Hayato, drop it please. CDB, have town points. There's better stuff to do today.

TV: whether there's something going on on another level, it would be nice to have some clear reads from you. I don't buy your vote count analysis either, since Aegor not being on his own wagon is irrelevant, meaning you have only D1 to look at. You could conclude almost anything. However, you make a convincing case for yourself, (and may I apologise for calling your posts awful; they have been, but that fakehammer yesterday was something I loved).

@Don: Flameaxe has been proactive (rude, but proactive) and I haven't noticed anything overtly scummy from him. There was an exchange back in D1 that raised my eyebrows, but since then, nothing. Through the hostility, look at where and what he's pushing. My conclusion is that he is town. May I also point out that you're criticising Hayato for putting off the Aegor lynch, despite the fact that you literally asked for everyone to stop posting yesterday? You're more guilty of opposing progress than he is. Being on both lynches isn't inherently towny. I don't like 939. Calling bullshit, by the way: you were posting it to get towncred.

[frog]

Those walls

I don't care what you want to call it, Don, you brought up being on both wagons to make you seem better in some way, but that's bad logic and you're continuing to profess it. About the wagon, TV's defence makes sense as if he is the last scum he must have some sort of amazing powers to compensate for going up against a doc and a 2-shot cop, so bussing him is stupid. Nothing about what you've done or where you've been makes you any less likely to be scum than anyone else. Plus, if you're butting heads with Hayato, I'd like you to get to 968 asap.

Hayato, why TV over don?

[frog]

Prod dodging. Will rebut don's case tomorrow.

[frog]

again: djscum is not a likely scenario here. if you give no reasons for your vote, then I have no opportunity to defend or dispel. piggybacking a bad case is not exactly the best. would you like a pbp response to 979:

@Don

You said, you can’t be scum because if that is true, then you’ve being hard-bussing both of your scum partners all this time which is highly unlikely.

^^ we begin with a misinterpretation of what I actually said.

meh. I understand I'm not dripping town here, but looking at it objectively, I don't really see why I'm so high on your guys' list. I rode both scum lynches.

very unlikely team member three was on both lynches

. just my opinion though. and you know what they say about opinions...

I don't think it is. There's nothing to support your claim that, just because you were on both wagons, you were less likely to be scum.

odds are against the final scum being on both wagons imo. that's a hard bus. in my experience, scum isn't going to bus their entire team without flinching.

^^ here, I define the term "hard bus". this is later redefined in an attempt to make me look scummy. my initial argument was that I bussed both scum without flinching. imo, that constitutes a "hard bus". heyato's later post does not dispel the idea that I bussed both scum, it changes the definition of "hard bus"(most likely to what heyato actually believes the term means if heyato is town) and then attempts to prove that I did not, in fact, hard bus. however, as you can see, by my definition of terms, I did. if you go by my original statements above, they make sense. if you go by an after market interpretation, then you can be led to think something else.

This is almost semantics, and surely Hayato using a term incorrectly does not make him any more likely to be scum. 'Hard' bussing or no, it is still bussing and Hayato's points should be rebutted even if you dislike the word 'hard'.

tl;dr: this an argument over the meaning of "hard bus". not an argument stemming from my original statement, which was this:

very unlikely team member three was on both lynches

and

in my experience, scum isn't going to bus their entire team without flinching

^^ this is a simple, matter of fact statement of what I believe the odds are here. this analysis does not only apply to myself. it is pretty common sense in a game this size.

I'm not seeing this either. How on earth is it common sense?

A vote without explanation. Not even trying to convince others to join your wagon. Wow very hard-bus here.

I don't even remember what prompted my vote here, but the implication is that this somehow ties in with my original argument. it doesn't. I never made any statements about the weight of my votes or the veracity of cases I made. this is where heyato and I seem to disconnect. they are changing the definition of "hard bus" from my initial statements. not to say that I was necessarily correct in using the term, but I did define what I meant.

did I miss something? SoS looks like scum here. why are we suddenly against hammering? and how did the topic of innocent child even come up? all I see is SoS claiming to have crumbed miller at som epoint(coming to light at L-1) and then some half assed dayvig claim which was unsuccessful? really? there is no reason not to see this lynch through. I guess there could be a .00001% chance that flameaxe is a bp townie and SoS is a dayvig. so yeah, let's risk a no lynch for such incredible odds. :/

Here, you told others, we should ignore SoS claim and lynch him. He was at L-1. ONLY NOW, you want to convince others to lynch him, when there is one vote left and there were people waiting around to drop the hammer. VERY hard bus here. WoW!!

again an attack on the veracity of my statements. at this point I believe there was some ridiculous conversation going on in the thread and it was very obvious to everyone that SOS was scum. maybe heyato truly believed there was another explanation, the odds of there being a dayvig and a bp townie in a game and that the dayvig targeted the bp townie on day 1 are about equivalent to the odds that some sort of "god" actually exists in the universe. if you read the above statement, I actually do quote the odds. heyato's argument also ignores the very important part of the supposed miller crumb.

Here we reach some nice information. SoS, you say, looked surely scum. If this is so, then scum can leap on the wagon quite freely. Furthermore, MME had a guilty on Aegor yesterday, meaning it was very easy for scum to get on that one as well. Frankly, scum being on both wagons is very possible and has few repercussions. Why is it 'unlikely', therefore?

I have read day 2. mme hasn't really presented a case. the way I see it we have two people claiming role info, if that is indeed what mme is claiming. so I guess that's where I'm confused. I thought there was some sort of actual case on aegor.

vote: aegor

Here you voted on Aegor, AFTER it was clear as hell MME had a guilty-investigation result on Aegor. WoW. Crazy hard-bussing here.

I believe this post speaks for itself. again, heyato's argument is addressing the semantics of the words "hard bus", and not applying the original argument I made which was:

Ok, cut the last sentence. He's accusing you of being opportunistic. Your response?

very unlikely team member three was on both lynches.

^^ again, this statement is consistent to where my suspicions currently lay and is not just used to apply to myself. it also does not contain any exploration regarding the term "hard bus", nor does it adfdress the veracity of votes and cases, the number or content of posts, or any such measurable part of this game. it solely has to do with odds of what is likely vs. unlikely.

Don, you’ve ignored post 968. Please. I don’t like being ignored.

^^ I can talk about 968 a bit more, too. in a little bit. heyato actually brings up a couple good points, but I believe some of it may fall into the wifom or circular logic category. I will take a closer look here going forward.

I don't care what you want to call it, Don, you brought up being on both wagons to make you seem better in some way, but that's bad logic and you're continuing to profess it.

I strongly disagree. this game is very mathematical imo. and though I am not a good mathematician, my odds are generally good indicators of gamestate. for instance, I gave odds on SOS' day 1 claim. I realize that true odds are difficult to manage in this game, but if it makes you feel better you can call my odds "gut". either way, when someone claims dayvig and there target fails to die, and they also claim to have breadcrumbed "miller", and there is some ridiculous conversation going on about an innocent child... then yeah, my odds and my gut say the player is scum. and I was right. so whatevz. it is not bad logic to say "in a game where scum got strung up day 1 and day 2, it is not likely that the third scum bussed both partners without flinching in some way or casting out some small defence or attempting in some small way to derail at least one of the wagons."

True odds are literally impossible with this kind of set-up, actually. All you've given is 'gut' with the pretence of it being fact. What you have so far pedalled: 3rd member not being on the wagon, hard-bussing, etc, is not correct. Look at Aegor, he bussed SoS unflinchingly. Why can member 3 have not joined?

It is absolutely bad logic to make the claim in bold. You have not explained it at all and there is not evidence to support it. I may also bring up how you've mainly been discussing setup, and not ingame stuff; this is an old scumtell.

About the wagon, TV's defence makes sense as if he is the last scum he must have some sort of amazing powers to compensate for going up against a doc and a 2-shot cop, so bussing him is stupid.

agreed.

Nothing about what you've done or where you've been makes you any less likely to be scum than anyone else.

untrue. I am much less likely to be scum based on wagon analysis. anyone who thinks otherwise is not good at wagon analysis.

''Here is what I think, and if you think differently, you're bad at this''

Shouldn't have to explain why this is awful.

Plus, if you're butting heads with Hayato, I'd like you to get to 968 asap.

yeah. I will. I skimmed it the first time, but when I looked at it I noticed some good points. but like I said, imo, Occam's razor points to the guy trying to derail both wagons and believing in shitty claims and being on one wagon and off the other. I would be shocked if the third scum is not somewhere in the flameaxe, heyato, frog, TV pool. and that's tough because I am starting to see reasons why you all could be scum and why you could all be town. I will most likely have to reread this entire game in order to come up with a truly informed vote. this prospect does not excite me.

[frog]

Can somebody with hammer capabilities ask for a claim, please? If don isn't today's lynch we need to know that as soon as possible.

[frog]

How on earth are we screwed if it is multiball, we've lynched right both days so far, we're literally in the best possible position save any possible doc protections Night 1 and 2. If you want people off your wagon, you should probably claim, and if you want people off your wagon because you want to contribute more, you've got it all backwards.

Anyhow,

V/LA for 2 days

[frog]

Sorry for going off like that with little warning.

Anyway, thanks for contributing that much, don, even if I don't like how you haven't been very standard in your L-1 play.

Unvote

I see the case on TV put am still puzzled as his logic on why he wouldn't be bussed D1 is sound.

[frog]

No chance for a don lynch? What's the VC? If hayato's the only possible candidate I'll jump on, but that's if and only if.

[frog]

Sure, I'll explain why I thought WBO seemed cool, despite there only being three posts:

The first one, though late, looked like he was trying to connect with what was going on, even if it was late RVS. The second one promised content, which is never a bad thing. He replaced out too earl to produce said content but it looked town to me. The reason he used to replace out (too many people to keep track of) is a town complaint, not a scum one. It would suggest that he's trying to read everybody and do some scum hunting but is finding a 13 player game too big to do this.

Of course, we have hindsight in that his slot flipped scum, but there's why I thought he was town.

There are some things I am concerned with so far this game:
1) don not claiming. Aside from beginning to contribute more after we'd asked him to (and that was a battle) nothing he's done as yet has dispelled the possibility of him being scum.
2) TV shooting BBMolla. I'd like you to explain why you shot BB, TV.

[frog]

I never said it was a mystery, don. I merely don't follow the logic of shooting someone who has been inno'ed. Plus, the vig claim is not inconsistent with scum or SK, and saying otherwise is incorrect. Additionally, if there is a third member left and an SK as well, it doesn't really matter which one we have to get as both have to go in the end. So tell me again how pursuing possible anti-towns is 'out of whack' priority? Where should it be, exactly?

What's wrong with you not claiming is that a) you were at L-1 and that's standard stuff, but I gather you don't care about that b) if anyone with half a brain knows what it is, why aren't you dead? and c) if you're a townie power role, as you seem to be suggesting, your claim could have massive implications for solving how this game could be balanced.

With all this setup spec, I propose we massclaim today. I'd like everyone to comment on the idea.

[frog]

I maintain my townread of Hayato and my scumread of don. @CDB's 1175: don has implied he is a power role, which is why I have proposed the massclaim: a lot of setup spec regarding SKs and possible scum PRs would be solved if we massclaimed, and speculation is only going to confuse us further. Scum enjoy this kind of confusion and, frankly, we're not at a stage where keeping the PRs under wraps actually matters. Don's claim has huge implications for solving this game and I'm amazed nobody else is encouraging this.

Anyhow, little has changed since yesterday and I can't see why people have me down as scum (apart from my read of WBO which I have dealt with and nobody seems to have pushed). But, hey, I'll start the 'massclaim' that might not even happen: I'm a VT,

[frog]

frog: nowhere did I imply I had a power role. frog I have you as scum for two reasons: 1) your opening post listing WBO as "cool". yes you seem to have answered this,

but the answer carries no weight with me because you should have and could have answered to that point yesterday

. 2) you seem still concerned with TV. TV can only be sk or vig. either way, he is outed as a nightkiller. only scum benefit from working to get him lynched ahead of actual mafia. we can talk about this more post game, but townies should not be concerned with lynching an sk when the sk's identity is already known.

1) There's so much wrong with this. I did not answer yesterday as there were more pressing issues at hand (see: deadline which we missed) and I wasn't on a lot before the day ended either, so I couldn't have answered the question. Furthermore, just because I answered today and not yesterday does not make this any less valid. If you don't care about my answer just because it comes today, why did you, TODAY, ask me the question again, if my answer didn't matter? Additonally, as I have answered it satisfactorily, surely all 1) boils down to is 'you didn't answer when I asked you to', which I have shown was not appropriate.

2) Ironically, you're going on about TV far more than me. I'm asking for caution, and given that I thought you were a PR the existence of an SK was, to me, probable. Put simply: I wouldn't be talking about TV so much if YOU weren't asking me about him. Self-fulfilling prophecy here.

You should probably get yourself checked out, as you might test positive for bad logic.

[frog]

Vote: HayatoBL

[frog]

I managed to find out a total of no scums (I know I was on the wagon but that was because the wagon was the only one possible/it made sense). Any tips? I seem to have a habit of getting into town v town too often.