NY 174: Oldy Mafia 2 (Game Over)

[Green Crayons]

VOTE: Glork

I never trusted your proficiency.

[Green Crayons]

Coming from someone who didn't even join the almighty Glork wagon?VOTE: Tigris

I'm not typically a bandwagoner, so why would I join a bandwagon instead of choosing an alternative that I think may lead to more information on the first day?

Although, I still find starting with day instead of night somewhat odd.

Because bandwagons are guaranteed information especially at high vote counts. You choosing to go after someone different has in fact more potential to gain less information. And also cause Glork needs to be wagoned.

Starting with day also just helps with balance of setups.

Yeah, but starting with a vote on someone new has the possibility of starting a

new

bandwagon. By your logic, that means we should be comfortable not voting for an ongoing bandwagon, in the hopes that our new vote will start a new bandwagon and the town gets even more "guaranteed information."

UNVOTE: Glork
VOTE: MafiaSSK

Case in point: your life in this game so far.

[Green Crayons]

That post is approximately 100% rhetoric.

What does this even mean?

[Green Crayons]

Sure. If you have enough confidence that your new bandwagon/vote will probably land on scum, then go ahead and start a new bandwagon. That's cool.

That's what's happened to me and this is a perfectly natural and townie wagon to happen.

Does the bolded mean you disagree with the following observations about your wagon?

I'm also not feeling the MafiaSSK votes. Seems like a poor excuse to vote him even for this early in the game. I understand what he is trying to say about bandwagons being one of the best ways to garner information, but they aren't the only way.

I'm not a fan of any of the MafiaSSK votes on this page. Feels like a bunch of strong players going for an easy target.

[Green Crayons]

When did Shanba sign up for this?

spookily

like a ghost

Point of order: "spookily" is a how, not a when.

I demand explanation.

[Green Crayons]

As in: the response was in the abstract rather than talking about what the vote was concretely supposed to do in this game? Meh.

Mostly? Responding in abstracts rather than specifics is a classic tell. (abstracts are unchanging and can be your actual town thoughts, after all)

Let me get this straight: you're faulting Tigris for failing to respond to the question "What kind of information do you think your alternative vote will produce?" for her Page 2 vote with specific information she was hoping to get out of the vote?

[Green Crayons]

So then what are you faulting Tigris for?

[Green Crayons]

I look forward to a long and illustrious game of you ignoring my questions!

[Green Crayons]

Sure. If you have enough confidence that your new bandwagon/vote will probably land on scum, then go ahead and start a new bandwagon. That's cool.

That's what's happened to me and this is a perfectly natural and townie wagon to happen.

Does the bolded mean you disagree with the following observations about your wagon?

I'm also not feeling the MafiaSSK votes. Seems like a poor excuse to vote him even for this early in the game. I understand what he is trying to say about bandwagons being one of the best ways to garner information, but they aren't the only way.

I'm not a fan of any of the MafiaSSK votes on this page. Feels like a bunch of strong players going for an easy target.

Not necessarily. Take VitaminR, for example, just because it would be a bunch of strong players all teaming up against me, doesn't make it any less natural or townie. But even with Sotty, my statement can still hold true, for scuminess is sort of subjective and just because Sotty doesn't think of the reason as good enough to be natural, doesn't mean that it isn't.

It's interesting that you see their explanations coming from a "this is a bad reason to vote MafiaSSK, but that bad reason is not suspicious" frame of mind. And by interesting, I mean I perceived their explanations being less benign and I hadn't thought of them in the way you pointed out. Not in a pejorative sense.

[Green Crayons]

I vaguely recall Albert playing in this manner until later on in the game, when he opens up.

[Green Crayons]

In that one post, you

<GC Edit: VitaminR>

hard-defended SSK and implicity attacked everyone on his bandwagon (saying it looked like a , and attacked people for being on the tigras wagon, and voted LML for being on the tigras wagon and FOS's SSK. Without naming names other then LML, you hinted at a suspicion for the "strong players pushing the SSK wagon" (which, at the time, probably meant Seol and PJ, since they had made the real cases against SSK). You also implied that you thought that both tigras and SSK were town, without really explaining why.

Defending both SSK and tigras, the two leading bandwagons, and going after people like LML, PJ, and Seol all at once is an incredibly ballsy move, and I don't really see why you would stick your neck out like that so far, so early in the game, based on so little.

So my initial thought, reading your post, was that your behavior here would make the most sense if you're a scum who already knows SSK's and tigras's alignment.

I like this post. Admittedly, my like is partially based on confirmation bias. That is, Yosarian's identifying Vitamin's laying the groundwork for suspicion of the "strong players" is what I was referring to back in Post 95. I found something off with Vitamin's criticism, and apparently I wasn't the only one.

However, I didn't make the leaps that Yosarian does in his second and third quoted paragraphs. However, I don't find them to be unreasonable.

I look forward to Vitamin's response to Yosarian's post, as well as to PJ's Post 107.

[Green Crayons]

UNVOTE: MafiaSSK

I don't want my vote there anymore.

[Green Crayons]

@Tigris:

Back in Post 47, why did you feel the need to state that your style could be unorthodox as a response to CTD's query about what you wanted to learn from your not-main-bandwagon vote on MafiaSSK? It seems to be a strange non sequitur in light of what CTD was asking.

-----

@LoudmouthLee:

Back in Post 62 you FOSed MafiaSSK while maintaining your vote on Tigris. You defended your FOS suspicion of MafiaSSK in Post 70. But I didn't catch where you actually explained why you were suspicious of MafiaSSK (so much so, that you would have voted MafiaSSK if not for Tigris's invocation of the third-on-the-bandwagon tell).

Why were you suspicious of MafiaSSK, and does that suspicion still linger?

-----

@PJ:

Any particular reason why you picked the two players that you did in your Question 3 of Post 107?

-----

@CTD:

I wish I could find that smiley, but I agree with Yos2. This just makes sense.

And I think it makes more sense than Tigrisscum at the moment so..

Even after admitting that he should have kept it on the "joke" level, he

still

tries to legitimize his Tigris vote.

unvote, vote: MafiaSSK

I don't see where MafiaSSK disowned the legitimacy of his Tigris joke, and I think you're misapplying something MafiaSSK said about his choice to respond to Tigris's question with a theory position rather than his choice to vote Tigris. (Incidentally, it looks like PJ also conflated these two separate things in Post 160.)

Please respond. Best, GC.

-----

@STD:

UNVOTE: MafiaSSK

I don't want my vote there anymore.

Why not and where do you want it?

Why not? Because my original reason for voting MafiaSSK has run its course, I'm not terribly convinced that he's a worthwhile target to keep voting, and I don't feel compelled to have my vote

somewhere

just so that it's not anywhere.

Where do I want it? (Going to take the high road on that one. ) I wasn't sure at the time because I didn't want to do

thinking

, man. So I went a reread the entire thread with my thinking cap on.

-----

VOTE: VitaminR, because:
- Yosarian's Post 108.
- Vitamin's response to Yosarian in Post 167, which explains how Vitamin acts when scum, reads as if Vitamin is outright explaining why he acted the way he did in this game. That is: (1) Vitamin-scum is "overly concerned with 'leaving a paper trail,'" (2) "One of the ways of <leaving a paper trail> can be to leave a FOS or to call out a specific post, so you can refer back to it later when you actually switch your vote," and (3) in Post 65, Vitamin left a paper trail for developing suspicions of all of the MafiaSSK voters, while targeting one in particular (LML).
- Although I recognize Sotty reacted in a similar way as Vitamin (Post 58), her particular word usage is more than a difference in degree: it looks like Sotty is saying that she finds the reasons for voting MafiaSSK were bad, whereas Vitamin is saying that he finds the voters voting MafiaSSK were bad/scummy.


I wasn't voting VitaminR, I would probably vote seol (I find his Post 162 not sitting well with me), MrBuddyLee (one post all game), and maybe even LoudmouthLee (for reasons I'm letting simmer).

And, really for my own future reference than anything else, I find UT, Sotty, Glork, and STD likely town based on these first 8 pages.

[Green Crayons]

@CTD:

I wish I could find that smiley, but I agree with Yos2. This just makes sense.

And I think it makes more sense than Tigrisscum at the moment so..

Even after admitting that he should have kept it on the "joke" level, he

still

tries to legitimize his Tigris vote.

unvote, vote: MafiaSSK

I don't see where MafiaSSK disowned the legitimacy of his Tigris

joke

<GC Edit: "vote">

, and I think you're misapplying something MafiaSSK said about his choice to respond to Tigris's question with a theory position rather than his choice to vote Tigris. (Incidentally, it looks like PJ also conflated these two separate things in Post 160.)

Please respond. Best, GC.

Beep boop. Embarrassing. Fixed.

[Green Crayons]

Yes.

[Green Crayons]

- Vitamin found MafiaSSK voters suspicious because "Feels like a bunch of strong players going for an easy target."
- STD found MafiaSSK voters suspicious because one of the later wagon joiners (plus LML) is "highly likely to be opportunistic mafia."

The only point of comparison is that you two are referring to the same group of players.

Do you think his rationale is comparable to yours?

[Green Crayons]

@VitaminR:

I never said that you lacked self-awareness when specifically describing your scum play. Nor do I think you lack self-awareness generally, or when you made that comment.

Also, your point about LML -- while well taken -- does not really address my suspicion of you.

-----

@STD:

A main thrust of Vitamin's suspicions is, apparently, there was a "power disparity" (Post 167) between those who were voting MafiaSSK and MafiaSSK himself. That colors what Vitamin meant by MafiaSSK being an "easy target." That is, MafiaSSK was an easy target because was not "perceived as being strong at theory discussion."

In contrast, I had previously understood your term "opportunistic" to simply refer to the more general scum strategy of finding a building bandwagon and jumping on at the right time to help propagate that bandwagon without seeming suspicious in doing so.

However, if you are now clarifying that Vitamin's stated suspicion is what you meant by "opportunistic" -- that a scum was jumping on the MafiaSSK bandwagon

because of this "power disparity"

-- that is an entirely new position from what you have previously stated. And, if you are in fact adopting that position, then I would say that, yes, there is much overlap in y'all's two suspicions of the late MafiaSSK players.

[Green Crayons]

Although I don't think MafiaSSK is scum, I don't endorse his Post 193, mainly because I don't think Vitamin was lying. My comment about Vitamin having self awareness is that I understood the overlap in his description of his scum play and his play this game as arising from a "nobody would believe that scum would describe their scumplay in a way that describes their play in this very game!" mentality.

-----

@undo:

VOTE: VitaminR, because:
- Yosarian's Post 108.

After MafiaSSK,

you're the second person taking this post as sacred.

I'm starting to feel stupid for still not understanding how Yosarian's argument against VitR wouldn't as easily be used to dismiss him as a townie.

Well that's a hyperbolic mischaracterization of my reaction to Yosarian's post if I've ever seen one. I've explained why I thought his original post was solid, and why I didn't care much for Vitamin's response. (Post 117 and Post 179, respectively.) You can disagree with my stated rationale for my Vitamin vote (as I'm sure you've noticed other players have), but here you've taken the extra step by treating those rationales as nonexistent.

-----

@Sotty:

You're quoting something I wrote that directly addresses how you dismissed the MafiaSSK wagon. I'm not sure what more you want, when you're responding to a statement that is exactly what you're asking for.

[Green Crayons]

Is that a Family Feud reference I see?

Awesome.

[Green Crayons]

Porochaz, sorry for your loss.

-----

@Sotty:

@Sotty:

You're quoting something I wrote that directly addresses how you dismissed the MafiaSSK wagon. I'm not sure what more you want, when you're responding to a statement that is exactly what you're asking for.

It's because I think your distinction between the two reasonings is extremely thin. One draws suspicion and the other doesn't, makes me feel you're not being very genuine.

I thought both of your responses were worthy of attention. (Post 68.) MafiaSSK made me rethink that position. (Post 69 and Post 95.) Which, upon rumination, led to my difference in opinion about the two different reactions.

Two players can react to the same event, and the difference in that reaction can signify the difference in town and scum mentality. While I agree there's a broad similarity between your and Vitamin's reactions (that is, you both reacted to the same thing), the actual substance of y'all's reactions are noteworthy.

You disagreed with the reasoning ("Seems like a poor excuse to vote him"). To me, this denotes a town mentality: cautious about bad voting, and critiquing the rationale for a vote.

In contrast, Vitamin slandered the players themselves ("Feels like a bunch of strong players going for an easy target.") To me, this denotes a scum mentality: attacking the players, rather than the rationale for their votes, to get the attention on the who instead of the why. This leads to identity-based suspicion rather than suspicion based on players who pushed bad reasons to lynch people.

[Green Crayons]

I don't really care for PJ's Post 244, but I can't put my finger on why. It doesn't make me want to vote him, though. It strikes me as off, but not necessarily because of scumminess. For example, maybe I'm just not used to PJ's play style -- I

think

we played mafiachat games together before, but that was long ago and I don't really know how well that translates relative to forum games.

I recognize that this is pretty wishy-washy stuff, but I'm just noting it now for future reference, so I can come back to it if I can eventually identify what's bothering me about it.


Much like:

I wasn't voting VitaminR,

I would probably vote seol (I find his Post 162 not sitting well with me)

, MrBuddyLee (one post all game), and maybe even LoudmouthLee (for reasons I'm letting simmer).

I can thank Glork for pointing out why seol's post rubbed me the wrong way: "Like, this wagon is legit based on nothing SSK did to actually hurt the game, and just on his theory crafting." seol's Post 162 is a defiant "I'm going to vote MafiaSSK because his bandwagon theory is bad."

Having a bad bandwagon theory is indicative of having a bad bandwagon theory. I don't see how it's alignment indicative, but seol is flying that flag as if it's golden material.

[Green Crayons]

@LoudmouthLee:

Back in Post 62 you FOSed MafiaSSK while maintaining your vote on Tigris. You defended your FOS suspicion of MafiaSSK in Post 70. But I didn't catch where you actually explained why you were suspicious of MafiaSSK (so much so, that you would have voted MafiaSSK if not for Tigris's invocation of the third-on-the-bandwagon tell).

Why were you suspicious of MafiaSSK, and does that suspicion still linger?

LML didn't directly respond to this. Instead, he posted:

Okay, I gave an FOS to MafiaSSK, and I never voted him. If you would like to run a meta on me (which you're MORE than welcome to), I FoS everyone. Hell, I'd FoS my mother if she said something that I don't agree with. I also tend to confirm vote as well. I'm trying not to make broad, sweeping judgements yet because, well... we're just beginning D1. Here's what I can tell you about my play. I random voted Tigris via dice roll, and changed my vote to StD. I'm tried to scum-hunt with what I have at my disposal, but if you think you're going to catch scum THIS early with small "common" tells, you're sadly mistaken. This game will be trying. Completely.

From that response completely downplaying his FOS of MafiaSSK, it looks like LML is saying that he never really had any articulable suspicion against MafiaSSK. He just really wanted to FOS him, but not because of any real scum reasons, but because _____. The first answer that my mind jumps to to fill in the blank is a scummy rationale.

LML, please respond (to either my original question, my subsequent point made in this post, or both).

[Green Crayons]

CTD:

Rephrased:

- MafiaSSK said that (1) it "would make sense to blow it off with a joke" when referring to how he responded to Tigris -- that is, it would make sense to respond to Tigris with a joke rather than with his bandwagon theory -- but MafiakSSK (2) never disowned the legitimacy of his Tigris vote, and directed PJ to look at MafiaSSK's earlier posts where he justified his Tigris vote. (Post 124.)

- You conflated those two points to say that MafiaSSK de-legitimized his vote for Tigris by recognizing that

his vote

should have been kept on the joke level. (Post 129.) As stated above, MafiaSSK acknowledged that maybe he should have responded with a joke instead of a bandwagon theory, but MafiaSSK never said that his vote itself was a joke or not legitimate (which he apparently thought was aligned with his own bandwagon theory).

Do you disagree with what I believe to be your mistake in reading MafiaSSK's posts?

-----

@Sotty:

In contrast, Vitamin slandered the players themselves ("Feels like a bunch of strong players going for an easy target.") To me, this denotes a scum mentality: attacking the players, rather than the rationale for their votes, to get the attention on the who instead of the why. This leads to identity-based suspicion rather than suspicion based on players who pushed bad reasons to lynch people.

I explicitly stated that I agreed with VitR's conclusions. Does that change anything?

No. Or, rather, I should say that it does not change anything with respect to how I feel about Vitamin's post.

(1) One player simply stating "agree" with another player's post is information on the agreeing player, not the original post.
(2) Town players (which I currently have you as likely being) agree with scum positions as an inevitability of the game.
(3) Because you do not see much light between your post and Vitamin's post, I attribute your agreement with Vitamin's statement to confirmation bias.

[Green Crayons]

@LML:

So in reading your posts, I am coming to the conclusion that you currently believe that your Tigris vote was based on a weak rationale (garnering trust via third-vote philosophy), and therefore your MafiaSSK FOS, not being sufficient to replace that Tigris vote, was based on an even weaker suspicion?

Is that correct?

[Green Crayons]

Thanks, LML. I just wanted to make sure my newly bolstered suspicions of you were warranted.

I wasn't voting VitaminR, I would probably vote seol (I find his Post 162 not sitting well with me), MrBuddyLee (one post all game), and

maybe even LoudmouthLee (for reasons I'm letting simmer)

.

Alright, trekking back to this post, I'm happy to follow up on my LML suspicions. (For the record, I'm still comfortable with my seol suspicions as I previously readdressed, but I would not vote MrBuddyLee as I liked his most recent catchup post.)

(1) Well, when referenced above, my suspicions were not much more than what had been previously stated by other players. Perhaps best stated by Vitamin (yup, I already acknowledged in Post 189 that Vitamin has made a good point re: LML notwithstanding the fact that I am voting him; nope, I don't know how I feel about whether this makes the less likely to be partners):

I especially don't like LML's #62, which nicely sets up a potential switch to the MafiaSSK wagon while maintaining a push on Tigris. Seems like something scum might do to make sure that two wagons keep momentum.

Of course you can find two people scummy. It's more about the fact that they seem like weak wagons to me and it seems convenient that those are your two suspects. It's a little bit too 'going with the crowd' for me and I don't remember you as that kind of player.

(2) However, in addition to that original suspicion is LML's post-weekend behavior (Post 278 onwards): the fact that LML has pulled a complete 180 about his suspicions and play.

- Pre-weekend LML is strong and confident (Post 62, Post 70, and Post 110): "there are a few reasons to vote for both Tigris and MafiaSSK," "I like my vote where it is right now," "I tend to shy away from group think," and "I decided that my vote was a good vote to keep there <on Tigris>."

Perhaps best underscoring the point, LML asked incredulously "Am I not allowed to think two people seem scummy?"


- Post-weekend LML is a wilting flower (Post 278, Post 282, and Post 302): "I gave an FOS to MafiaSSK, and

I never voted him

. . . . I FoS everyone. Hell, I'd FoS my mother if she said something that I don't agree with," "I'm trying not to make broad, sweeping judgements yet," "I'm tried to scum-hunt with what I have at my disposal, but if you think you're going to catch scum THIS early with small "common" tells, you're sadly mistaken," and "You're voting me because I went along with two (wait,

one and an FoS

) weak wagons with less than 7 pages on D1...."

Perhaps best encapsulating this new approach is LML's self-depreciating "At the time, I didn't have any wonderful suspicions. It sucks to admit, but I'm kinda feeling like I've lost a step. Like I'm not nearly as good at this game as I used to be."


There's this clear disconnect between (A) the pre-weekend LML, who was happy to admit that he thought both Tigris and MafiaSSK were

scummy

, and (B) the post-weekend LML, who is adamant on emphasizing that he didn't think much of his suspicions of Tigris and MafiaSSK were all that good, that his vote on Tigris was basically post-RVS apathy, and that he didn't even vote (only FOSed!) MafiaSSK.

So why the change? The most articulated suspicion against pre-weekend LML was for his dual Tigris/MafiaSSK suspicion. His new rhetoric looks like a clear attempt to deflate that suspicion. The manner in which he does so strikes me as scummy.

UNVOTE: Vitamin
VOTE: LML

[Green Crayons]

Nope.

[Green Crayons]

Apparently the forum has been live for longer than I was able to access it (tried earlier today, even, and no luck).

Anyways, I am posting to post. I will catch up tomorrow, most likely.

[Green Crayons]

Still happy with my LML vote.

-----

TOWNIES

DrippingGoofball
Chamber
Glork
Albert B. Rampage

LoudmouthLee

Yosarian2

CrashtextDummie

MafiaSSK
Save the Dragons

I agree with this list, as modified. I think LML is lynch worthy. I don't have any feelings towards CTD.

I previously mentioned UT and Sotty as likely town. I am noting this here to remind myself to read through their posts to confirm/alter that position.

-----

@Zorblag:

@Green Crayons:

Would you say that you're following the game on the whole fairly closely? Who is the scummiest of the players that you haven't particularly talked about so far?

(1) Yes.
(2) This is a loaded question that would be asked by scum.

[Green Crayons]

I did add something to the conversation from the last few pages. You will find it in Post 425.

[Green Crayons]

@Porochaz:

There was a question I had for GC but for the life of me I have forgotten what it was.

Pipe up when you remember it.

-----

@LML:

[*]Point #1: Natirasha

I am going to underline this, because you all (and yes, YOU ALL) should be considerably better than this.

Voting is for lynching, not getting people to contribute.

When people place votes on somebody to push pressure on them, the mentality changes. People no longer are looking for analysis. They're looking for defense. You've ALL been in this situation before. Think about it. When you're bandwagoning someone, they want defense of your actions. Then, they want to know why you aren't posting analysis. That all of your posts seem "defensive". It's circular. And it's a dangerous game that scum have been perpetuating for as long as I remember playing.

The defense of the Natirasha wagon has nothing to do with the fact that it had opportunity, and people JUMPED on it. Everyone who had read the thread knew what was going on. The votes were cast to generate suspicion on someone who had enough negative feelings from the town to move a wagon. I cannot be the ONLY person who sees this.

This is just fundamentally wrong.

-----

- I find myself going back and forth about how I feel re: PJ depending upon the particular post I read. That's frustrating.

- Following up on my last post, I'm still happy with my UT town read.

- Following up on my last post, I'm not as confident in my Sotty town read, but she's still there for now. I think I'm feeling what DGB was implying in her Post 394, but I'm reserving my opinion until Sotty does her reread and reassesses her vote.

[Green Crayons]

@Glork:

I am genuinely curious to know why people think LML went through the VC analysis to try to frame/jump on someone who hadn't had any attention whatsoever. Yeah, he lacked context as PJ indicated, but I'm really really really not seeing the connect between what LML did and an actual scum motivation.

You don't see a reason why scum would make a fuss about being active and pressing a case against a player that is not likely to result in a lynch due to lack of overall interest?

I'm not saying LML's targetting of UT, based solely off of the fact that it was UT and UT "hadn't had any attention whatsoever," is alignment indicative. That is, LML's UT vote -- when divorced from LML's rationale of contextless voting patterns -- does not inherently suggest town or scum alignment. But such action is certainly not mutually exclusive of scum alignment, as there are reasons why scum would choose to pursue such a vote.

[Green Crayons]

@Glork:

But such action is certainly not mutually exclusive of scum alignment, as there are reasons why scum would choose to pursue such a vote.

I'll bite. What are some of the reasons scum-LML would make that vote here?

Once again, based solely off of voting a player who "hadn't had any attention whatsoever," and therefore wouldn't likely result in a lynch, a scum would pursue such a player because if there is no lynch then there is no alignment flip, and if there is no alignment flip then there is no analysis of who suspected that player, and if there is no analysis of who suspected that player, then the scum's suspicions are not scrutinized outside of in-the-moment reactions.

-----

@Zorblag:

@Zorblag:

@Green Crayons:

Would you say that you're following the game on the whole fairly closely? Who is the scummiest of the players that you haven't particularly talked about so far?

(1) Yes.
(2) This is a loaded question that would be asked by scum.

@Green Crayons, it's really more an attempt to get some evidence that you're paying attention to the game, but I guess thanks for calling an attempt to get a feel for your game scummy?

Your answer on it's own was particularly uninspiring, but the rest of that post and the posts that you've made since then actually do make me think that you are paying attention to the game and trying to determine alignments. The fact that you're now laying out some town reads and not quibbling about language in the posts that you make, but really examining what the motivation for the overall tactics used (for, say LoudmouthLee) does more to assuage my concerns than any direct answer to a question I might have asked would have. I'd still be happy to hear what you think of scummy play beyond what you've mentioned, but it's now more possible in my opinion that you actually care about figuring out alignments in this game.

I'm going to put you as a backup to my LML suspicious. You're not my number 1 non-LML suspicion, but keep making posts like this, and you'll rise quickly in the ranks!


(1) Mischaracterization. I said your question would be asked by scum, because it would be asked by scum: it was a loaded question that implied that I have found other players scummy but have refused to talk about their scumminess, which in turn is an anti-town thing to do. When I call out this question for what it is, you conflate that into calling out your "attempt to get a feel for <my> game" as scummy. No, buster. Your question was scummy. Feel free to try again with a non-scum question. I tend to answer most questions that are thrown my way.


(2) Your turnaround on how you feel about me feels manufactured. Like, you

should

think I'm town (because I am), but nothing in my post-Post 389 play has changed in a way that would change someone's read of me based on pre-Post 389 play. It's just the same ole me responding to the developing game.

(a) "The fact that you're now laying out some town reads": I've laid out town reads in the past (Post 179), and have explicitly referenced those previous town reads in my new posts (Post 425). This is not new behavior that should alter your opinion of me.

(b) "not quibbling about language":

First, if you're going to call my scumhunting worthless bullshit, please do me the favor of just calling my scumhunting worthless bullshit. I have pretty thick skin, so someone thinking my play isn't going to find scum isn't going to hurt my feelings. What you shouldn't do is make these passive aggressive characterizations of my play that undercut the validity of my suspicions. Or, rather, you

can

keep on doing it, but the more you do so the more I'm going to assume you're scum who is attempting to subtly undercut my positions without drawing too much attention to yourself.

Second, as should be inferred from my Post 425, I continue to embrace my LML suspicious that are based on his radical change in tone (Post 307). (You should also infer that my LML suspicions are not solely based on my Post 307 in light of post-Post 307 developments.) So I haven't abandoned my "quibbling about language" tactics/suspicions.

(c) "really examining what the motivation for the overall tactics used (for, say LoudmouthLee)": Until I find something that really clicks, I'm fine with people thinking my inquiries are surface-level bullshit. I don't need to explain the deeper suspicions underlying my posts unless if I think they're worth pursuing, which I usually gauge based off of responses. I already did this with LML pre-Post 389, so to the extent you think my "really examining what the motivation for the overall tactics used" is an example of this, that's not anything new that should change your opinion of my play.

But more problematic, I think you're actually being more charitable about my post-Post 389 play, because (1) you give as an example LML, but there's literally no other players that you could consider I put my Real Scumhunting Hat on to analyze and (2) my post-Post 389 LML observations are still pretty close-to-the-chest stuff which, based on your apparent criteria of play, doesn't strike me as "really examining" scum play.

[Green Crayons]

@Kublai:

But I've read the first four pages and lately I've had the belief that first impressions are far moar important then we generally give them credit.

<snip>

Scum

sotty7
LML
VitaminR
porochaz
Seol

I know you're still in your read through phase. But at some point, because you put a lot of emphasis on the first impressions, I would like to see you point out the first-impression posts of the players you find scummy, and then explain why your first impressions are of scum rather than town.

-----

@chamber:

because of Post 466?

[Green Crayons]

It's not invalid.

Scum, as a general rule, are going to play as if they are going to make it to the end. If scum picks a player who has not previously garnered much attention, either (1) people will join that suspicion and it will lead to a lynch, in which case the scum simply stated some (not very good) suspicion that a whole bunch of other people bandwagoned, putting the scum in a pretty good spot in terms of when everyone else reviews the town player's lynch, or (2) people will not join that suspicion, it fizzles out and the scum looks active without garnishing additional suspicion.

In the second scenario, the town player could make it to LYLO (something scum have better control over than town, obviously) or he might die in a subsequent lynch/night phase -- but if the player is either later lynched or night killed, the player's death will likely be removed from the scum's ineffectual suspicions from previous play. Which means the scum's suspicions would still be not as scrutinized (and maybe not even reviewed, depending upon the distance between the stated suspicions and the player's death) as they would be in scum suspecting a town player that immediately leads to that town player's lynch.

Is it a perfect scum play? No. But it is certainly a tactic that scum could take, and the fact that it isn't fool-proof doesn't make it invalid.


That was the only reason that immediately came to mind. Perhaps there are others! I'm not going to scratch my head and think of one that is sufficiently distinct just to satisfy your nitpickiness when I've already said that the mere fact that he's voting a player that hasn't received much attention isn't alignment indicative, just that it isn't mutually exclusive with scum play.

You seem to think this is a bigger deal than I do. Let me turn it around on you: how is voting a player who "hadn't had any attention whatsoever" mutually exclusive with scum play?

[Green Crayons]

Instead of being cryptic, chamber, you can just state why you think it's a bad question. Here's even a form response you can copy & paste. Just fill in the blank:

"This is a stupid question, GC, because ____."

I then promise to reply with what will be at least a monosyllabic response that either agrees or disagrees with your assessment. You can modify the form response to your liking, such as changing out "question" for "comment," "post," or even "play," as you see fit.

[Green Crayons]

So your problem isn't with my question. Good to know.

Your problem is with the fact that my question addresses Glork's mindset, which has equated voting a player who "hadn't had any attention whatsoever" with being mutually exclusive with scum play:

I am genuinely curious to know

why people think LML went through the VC analysis to try to frame/jump on someone who hadn't had any attention whatsoever

. Yeah, he lacked context as PJ indicated, but

I'm really really really not seeing the connect between what LML did and an actual scum motivation

.

[Green Crayons]

Rephrased: your problem is with Glork's mindset, which my question highlights.

[Green Crayons]

So we disagree about what Glork basically said.

I think it's clear that Glork basically said that LML's vote of UT is an exception to the general rule that "no actions are mutually exclusive with scum play" -- that is, that Glork basically said that LML's vote of UT is town because scum would not have motivation for taking such action.

If Glork was saying "that isn't evidence that LML is scum," then he would have addressed the aspect of LML's play that people had highlighted as suspicious: using voting patterns out of context. That would be challenging the evidence of whether LML is scum. That is not what Glork did in Post 428.

On the other hand, if Glork was saying "this action is mutually exclusive with scum play," he would have set aside the suspicious aspect of the action particular to the circumstances (Glork did this by setting aside PJ's notation of LML's use of voting patterns without context), and he would have challenged there being any type of scum motivation for the action in the abstract (Glork did this). This would be defining the action, in and of itself, as town.

[Green Crayons]

chamber:

I'm assuming Glork meant to say what he said, and that he meant what he said. And, with Glork, its not a matter of interpretation, since his post is abundantly clear about what he was saying. Especially so since he challenged my explanation that LML's action is not mutually exclusive with scum play.

I don't think Glork (or anyone) is stupid, so if I have given you that impression, that's my bad.

I do think LML is scum, and that Glork is town. I therefore want Glork to vote LML, and I don't want an incorrect theory (LmL's vote is mutually exclusive with scum) to stop him from doing so. Hence my follow up and my "dumb" question. If Glork wants to clarify that he didn't mean what he actually wrote, he can do that -- you know, by answering my question.


As for your larger issue with my play, I ask questions from players so that they can clarify their positions. I do this because I don't fully understand what they are getting at, or because I want to make sure my understanding is correct before I make further town/scum conclusions. (In fact, I did exactly this with LML.). So to the extent you thought I asked you something because I thought you were saying something dumb, I can verify the I was asking you because

I really didn't understand exactly your point or what you were saying

, and I was trying to get over my own lack of understanding.

[Green Crayons]

(Didn't read Glork's post, since posting from phone.)

[Green Crayons]

@Bookitty

:

@PetroleumJelly

: In a game this size with this many players, wouldn't it make more sense NOT to put in the effort to do that analysis if LML was scum? I think it would be pretty easy to blend in with the pack and not make too many waves. VCA data is verifiable by town and can be used throughout the game to catch scum, though I think it's really not that useful until later. Why would scum make an effort to tell the truth to town when they could generally just coast? This line of argument seems fabricated and could be used against anyone, town or scum, who put in effort to provide data. To paraphrase chamber's tagline, it's as if you're saying "content is scummy."

UNVOTE:
VOTE: PetroleumJelly

No.

Follow-up: do you think my play has been coasting? Do you think I have been making any waves? What makes you say I have "given a minimal approach to contributions to the game so far"?

At the point I posted that, you had posted eight times. Some of your posts were lists of questions; others were theory discussion regarding the value of bandwagoning and the question of weak players vs. stronger players. You asked Tigris some questions; what did you hope to derive from the answers? Did Tigris's answers sway you to the view that she was town or that she was scum?

I liked your move from MafiaSSK to LML because LML is far higher on my scumlist than MafiaSSK; however, I didn't like the timing and it seemed really suspicious since you said you had been "giving him a wide berth" and then suddenly you came up with all the reasons why your vote was totally and completely justified at the point you made it, i.e., right after he put up his VCA (good) and then exhibited craplogic in his conclusions (bad).

What do you think your main contributions have been so far? What do you feel you've learned from your questioning? Do you still think MafiaSSK is scum? Is it likely he is scum with LML?

Reading the game for the second and third time, I'm seeing a lot of heat and smoke from your posts, but I just don't see a lot of light.

I've pulled what I don't like about your entrance into the game.

You stake out a position (scum are more likely to "blend in with the pack and not make too many waves"), PJ challenges you on the fact that he himself

hasn't

"blended in with the pack and not make too many waves," and then your response to that is a wish-washy post that is, in part, answering a question with questions of her own.

My takeaway is that you've come up with a play style that's indicative of non-scum activity, PJ fits that play style, and so you've tried to contort PJ's play so it doesn't fit that style.

Which part(s) of that takeaway would you disagree with?

[Green Crayons]

@Glork:

It looks like you're blending what I view as two separate points.

We're all smart enough to know that both scums and towns can take actions that are contradictory to their alignment. I'm not saying that LML's analysis and subsequent vote of UT eliminates the possibility of him being scum, but it's something I'm having a harder time seeing in Hypothetical-LML-Scum's grand scheme of things.

"I'm having a hard time finding the motivation for scum-LML to make this case" doesn't mean "I think it is impossible for scum to take this action." I meant exactly what I said. I wanted to hear the logic behind LML's attackers as to why

they

think scum-LML would do it.

<snip>

I think that the arguments as presented by Yos, PJ (caveat: haven't read his last couple of big posts yet), et al, are insufficient. They're attacking the bad vote, and when I ask for the reasoning behind the bad vote, I'm extremely dissatisfied with the answers.

Right now, I don't think LML is scum, and I don't think UT is scum either. And I don't think that the people going after LML are all town. There are almost certainly scum riding this train.

First, these comments make it appear that your issue with the LML votes is that you don't know why scum-LML would use contextless voting patterns to justify his vote.

To that end, scum-LML would use that bad reasoning because (1) at best, voting patterns in the abstract aren't alignment indicative and (2) at worst, voting patterns in the abstract lead to misunderstandings of actual reality (e.g., how many times has STD stated that LML has mischaracterized STD's vote as a bandwagon vote in light of the fact that STD voted a player

before

other votes piled on, and therefore before a bandwagon even existed?).

Why would scum use such bad reasoning? Because it makes them look productive (use of voting patterns!) without actually reaching results that identify scum.

To be frank, if LML-scum were to make this kind of attack and really stick to his convictions when questioned about it, I'd expect UT to be scum. Earlier in the game, UT was suspicious of LML among others, but didn't really pursue the optino very heavily, which could be a possible distancing link. Coming out of the break, LML tried to show that he was putting forth the effort to vote for UT, and he defended his vote when people questioned his argument's validity. I could potentially see that coming from LML trying to put some distance between himself and a scumbuddy, so that if one of them eventually died, it would lower suspicion on the other one.

Unless I missed something, I don't think anybody's addressed this possiblity. People seem to think that LML as scum would make a bad analysis vote on UT, and have implied that he has some grand scheme, but nobody seems to be willing to complete the train of thought and actually take that argument to its likely logical conclusion(s). All I'm getting out of the attacks (and the responses to my criticisms) are "no, this vote lacks context and therefore it's from scum."

Second, these comments make it look like your issue with the LML votes is that you're not sure why scum-LML would vote UT, regardless of what reasons LML is using to justify that vote.

To that end, I gave a reason why scum-LML would vote a player who hadn't any attention on him (based upon a belief that UT is town). In this post, you give a reason why scum-LML would vote a player who hadn't any attention on him (based upon a belief that UT is scum). Without a flip of either LML or UT, I don't know why you're interested in this aspect of LML's UT suspicions, especially because we all recognize that LML voting UT -- when that vote is divorced from LML's rationale -- could be the result of either town-LML or scum-LML.

[Green Crayons]

@Sotty:

I should probably take a read though again now we're back to get my footing and figure out if Seol is still where I want my vote.

I've noticed you've retained a focus on Bookitty, who replaced Seol. I was curious to see what other players have caught your eye, and the reasons why for such suspicions (I assumed such observations would arise from a reread). Should I presume that you've done your reread and are comfortable with your Seol/Bookitty vote?

-----

- CTD has nudged slightly toward the town column. Was previously completely neutral.

- I look forward to Bookitty's responses to questions.

- I look forward to Kublai's further explanation of her first-impressions suspicions.

- I wish MafiaSSK didn't replace out because lame.

- Still happy with my LML vote. Found his four-point case (Post 451) against PJ flawed and unpersuasive. I'm curious how the other PJ-voters (

Albert, Vitamin, Bookitty

) feel about LML's four-point case.

[Green Crayons]

Yosarian2 awards towncred to both GreenCrayons and chamber for their outstanding snarkiness.

If chamber doesn't outright hate me by the end of the game, I believe this game will be the beginning of a beautiful friendship.

[Green Crayons]

Thought about it. Did a bit of reading. I agree with ABR in re: Bookitty.

[Green Crayons]

Seol suspicions don't strike me as compelling, either, since his 4 posts out of 25 pages does not compel me to lynch the slot. Particularly in light of more compelling targets.


I think Yos mentioned that PJ's play in this game is akin to PJ's typical play style. Would like a confirm/deny on that point if anyone else has insight.

[Green Crayons]

Fake VT claim is "the only possible safe claim at this point"?

[Green Crayons]

Would that, like, make it

not

a safe claim, if it's the "only" safe claim?

[Green Crayons]

mathcam, I think LML fits your voting criteria.

(1) Scummy.
(2) Has had a lot of interactions with players. Thus, his flip will be pretty informative.
(3) Will probably claim VT.

-----

Your focus on the fact that she's claimed VT is weird for a few reasons.

(1) Using the rationale of "hey, at least we won't lynch a power role because she claimed VT" alongside "scum's safest claim is VT" -- when you've just stated that Bookitty is

not

safe specifically because she claimed VT -- strikes me as you having reached your conclusion (Bookitty vote) and then finding reasons to justify it.

(2) Also, she claimed VT. Big whoop. I don't see how that's determinative for how we should act in either direction (lynch or not lynch). You've seized on it as signifying Bookitty as a safe lynch (town-perspective wise), but that suggests that you would rally behind

any

lynch, so long as that player was the first to claim VT and you had "a slightly higher than average scum read." And since that's a pretty low threshold, it means that you basically would have been locked in with just about any of the leading bandwagons this Day so long as the suspect was first to claim VT.

[Green Crayons]

Reflecting, I realize my point (1) does not quite capture how you're using "safe."

You: safest in the sense of safe from being counter-claimed
Me: safest in the sense of safe from being lynched


However, this is really parsing language, and the general point I'm trying to get at is there. Your two rationales are not compatible because they attribute the same action -- Bookitty claiming VT -- as being a positive move for both the town and scum.

So, I could see someone seeing Bookitty's VT claim, and then think one of those things: either "hey, at least town won't hit a power role" or "scum would claim VT because no counter-claim potential." But not one and then the other, because both positions view how Bookitty's claim benefits both town and scum, which is just really weird headspace. That is why it looks like you first decided to vote Bookitty, and then came up with a list of reasons why that would be a justifiable course of action.

[Green Crayons]

@mathcam:

I don't really fault the mechanical aspect of your analysis: (1) scummy + (2) minimal town her if she's town (VT) = good lynch.

(There is some problem with that formulation in the sense that a townsperson is worth more than the sum of her power. Mafia is very much a personality game and all that.)

But more problematic for me is that because you've hit those two criteria (plus the interactions-with-people point), you're ready to call it a day. It suggests that you think lynching the first bandwagoned suspicious player who claims VT, because VT was claimed, is always the right thing to do.

[Green Crayons]

mathcam, I think LML fits your voting criteria.

(1) Scummy.
(2) Has had a lot of interactions with players. Thus, his flip will be pretty informative.
(3) Will probably claim VT.

Are you trying to get a reaction out of me here? Trying to fish for my role? This is the scummiest post of the match thus far.

FoS: GC

The only reason my vote isn't changing is because I'm nearly positive that PJ will flip red. I'm not nearly as sure about you yet.

- I don't want any reaction from you. That post was not directed towards you. It was directed towards mathcam. I want mathcam to vote you.

- Rolefishing is a great trigger word that doesn't actually apply if you read the post in context. matham was using those three criteria to justify his vote for Bookitty. I'm saying those three criteria will, or will likely, apply to a LML vote, so he should switch.


So: Triggers (rolefishing assertion) + Hyperbole ("scummiest post of the match") = overly defensive. Which could be a town trait, admittedly. But I'm going to attribute it to scumminess in light of the fact that (A) you're at only two votes, so you're not in an immediate danger of lynch and therefore not really a time when town would get flustered (and therefore overly defensive), and (B) you're ignoring context, which makes it look like you're just trying to come up with a reasons to slander a player voting you.

-----

I just got out of a large normal game with an encryptor (scum aligned), which allowed both scum and masons to have daytalk. So it's a role and feature found in normal games.

[Green Crayons]

do not lynch bookitty

Still agree.

[Green Crayons]

@Kublai:

Ugh. So much text. Im out od practice.

But I've read the first four pages and lately I've had the belief that first impressions are far moar important then we generally give them credit.

<snip>

Scum

sotty7
LML
VitaminR
porochaz
Seol

I know you're still in your read through phase. But at some point, because you put a lot of emphasis on the first impressions, I would like to see you point out the first-impression posts of the players you find scummy, and then explain why your first impressions are of scum rather than town.

I don't think anyone has asked you any direct questions. I find a PBPA only moderately useful, so at this point I'm actually only interested in (1) you answer to my question and (2) your feelings about Bookitty/Seol, LML, and PJ.

[Green Crayons]

People I'm willing to lynch:

Petrolumjelly
Glork
LoudMouthLee

People I think are town:

DGB
VitaminR
farside22

VitaminR's defense of the two leading wagons is legit, his suspicion of LML is warranted, and he's on the right track. Yosarian's assertion that the only reason why VitaminR would come to the defense of mafiaSSK and Tigras is because he knows their alignments, is misleading. The fact that Green Crayons references Yosarian's post confounds the issue. I believe in the LML wagon. VitaminR has my support.

Wrong. And you're also completely wrong about CES.

Also:

Vote:LML

One of the two of you or both are scum.

These are the only posts I found in your history where you mention Vitamin. I'm legit curious in your thought development on Vitamin.

[Green Crayons]

I have questions for players that do not pertain to Bookitty/Seol or LML (or even PJ) -- and since those are our most viable lynch candidates, and we are up against a deadline, I will keep the questions to myself until Day 2.


Still happy with my LML vote.

[Green Crayons]

Also, STD, your declaration that it's too late to get a wagon going has brought KublaiKhan scurrying out:

sotty7 - Disliked Post 58. Don't really understand the need to actively diffuse the MafiaSSK wagon at that point in time.
VitaminR - Also shaming the MafiaSSK wagon for little reason. (Post 65)
Seol - Post 54 - The MafiaSSK push is trumped up and bad.

Seol scummy for a bad push on mafiaSSK, VitR and sotty scummy for trying to defuse the "bad" mafiaSSK wagon. Looking forward to more quality scumhunting tonight.

Your characterization of Kublai is waaaay off. Reread my post to which she was responding, and then consider the context of her post that you're criticizing, to see why.

[Green Crayons]

I stand on my opinion that KK's posting now not because you asked her questions weeks ago, but because it's too late for her to earn votes. And that her scumhunting is dreadfully thin and internally inconsistent.

Fair enough.

And, hey, what do you know, but I'm not actually taking the time and effort to really read into Kublai's post until Day 2. So you do have a fair point. Just one that I'll consider more fully tomorrow. Hat tip.

-----

Why are people calling me a "she"? I'm a dude...

Because I thought you were a girl. Sorry.

[Green Crayons]

@Vitamin:

To say so little must have been deliberate. He had all the reasons in the world to try and push the BooKitty wagon.

For this to have real force, you would have to compare LML/bookitty interactions with how often LML spoke about every other single player.

(I don't want to do this, because effort, but if you would like to do so I would be interested in what you find.)

-----

@lynch pool:

Bookitty (7) -- Sotty7, Shanba, Cogito Ergo Sum, chamber, mathcam, undo, CrashTextDummie

We need to lynch from this player pool.

I'd sooner vote from LML's wagon since it is now confirmed that he was in fact complaining about being BUS'ed.

I agree with DG.

[Green Crayons]

VitR should be our lynch today.

Because: ______.

[Green Crayons]

Because: ______.

[Green Crayons]

Once again, chamber, we disagree.

Your point only further underscores what additional data points would need to be compiled for Vitamin's observation to be compelling. So, not only would you need to compare how frequently LML spoke about Bookitty relative to every other player, but then such comparisons must be contextualized by how frequently all the other players were being discussed by the thread as a whole.

So, for example, if LML did not speak about several players who were major topics of discussion by the thread, then his lack of Bookitty commentary is not significant in and of itself.

[Green Crayons]

Instead of merely going with a "look at the bandwagon" route, I went and reread the game with LML-is-scum tinted glasses. That was neat. And time consuming. Also I might have just been skimming at the end.

Town

1) Chamber
4) Untrod Tripod
6) DrippingGoofball
11) Petroleumjelly
15) Albert B. Rampage
16) Green Crayons
18) VitaminR
19) Save the Dragons: but LML's insistence on pushing a STD vote, when his suspicions of STD were just so bad, gives me pause
20) Yosarian2
21) Bookitty (replacing Seol)

Not Sure

2) Porochaz: need non-recap posts to get a better sense of where I stand
3) CrashtextDummie: need more direct back-and-forth interactions with other players to get a better sense of where I stand
5) MrBuddyLee
9) Sotty7
12) Cogito Ergo Sum
13) mathcam (replacing MafiaSSK)

Scum Candidates

8) undo
10) Glork
17) inHimshallibe (replacing Zorblag who replaced Natirasha, who replaced farside22)
22) Kublai Khan (replacing Tigris)

-----

@DGB:

why were you so convinced LML was town?

-----

@Glork:

no, really, please set forth your reasons why you think Vitamin is scum.

-----

@mathcam:

mathcam, I think LML fits your voting criteria.
(1) Scummy.
(2) Has had a lot of interactions with players. Thus, his flip will be pretty informative.
(3) Will probably claim VT.

(1) Meh. (2) Agreed. (3) Maybe. But that's a risk, right? There's an inherent risk in bandwagonning more claims -- either we get more VT claims (which doesn't do much in terms of helping us select a target) or we get a power claim, which while exciting, might be disastrous given that they haven't had a single change to use their role.

Really looking forward to your follow up to Point (2).

-----

@CTD:

it's super weird that LML zeroed in on you in Post 661 for posting elsewhere on the site, but not in this thread. Like, why would he be checking to see if you, specifically, were posting elsewhere, as opposed to any of the other players in this game? Thoughts as to why that might be? Do you know what other areas of the site LML saw you posting?

-----

I'll have a vote next time I post. I already know which of my main suspicions it's going to be, but I want to post my reasons along with the vote, and rereading the thread took all my time and energy, so I don't have the desire at the moment to effort post my thoughts.

[Green Crayons]

VOTE: Glork. Based on my D1 re-read with LML-is-scum in mind. More specifically, because:


(1) Glork attempts to nullify LML suspicions when it's early enough in the game that it doesn't look bad:

VitR, what are your thoughts on petroleumjelly?

Like I said above, I was not charmed by the MafiaSSK vote (I was mostly referring to pj and Seol). Seemed like an easy, mostly theory-based vote. Why do you ask?

You voted LML specifically referencing his Post 62 in which you suggest that he's setting up the groundwork to switch from one wagon to the other. At the same time, you ignore that PJ did essentially the same thing, only by asking questions and using pretty formatting instead. It was an interesting contrast.

(2) Glork attempts to nullify LML suspicions when LML suspicion is growing (at the time, had votes from Vitamin, GC, Yos, and PJ):

So regarding this whole VitR/LML thing, I think I am of the exact opposite opinion that everyone else seems to hold. I'm feeling a slightly scummy read on VitR, and I'm really unenthusiastic about the LML bandwagon (even though I have town reads on GC/ABR/possibly UT).

<snip>

I am genuinely curious to know why people think LML went through the VC analysis to try to frame/jump on someone who hadn't had any attention whatsoever. Yeah, he lacked context as PJ indicated, but I'm really really really not seeing the connect between what LML did and an actual scum motivation. PJ's vote also feels in that opportunistic category. There's not a lot going on, and people might be feeling antsy after the downtime, so why not punish LML?

This post begins my back and forth with Glork, with additional commentary from chamber, about whether LML's act of doing a VC analysis on someone who hadn't any attention whatsoever is or is not mutually exclusive with scum role.

To not bore everyone with the blow-by-blow (Post 428, Post 453, Post 461, Post 477, Post 482, Post 483, and Post 500 if you want to read the goods), the take away is this: Glork absolutely could not see why LML-scum would do a VC analysis on someone who hadn't had any attention whatsoever (UT). Several things are wrong with this:

- For starters,

I was right

that LML-scum could have a reason for voting UT. Heck, bunches of players in D2 have suggested another reason: LML-scum was attempting to bus fellow scummate UT.

- Speaking of which, it's not that hard to come up with scum motivations for most actions. But Glork takes the indefensible stance that LML's VC analysis is completely incapable with scum motivation, and therefore he couldn't see why LML's scummy action was scummy.

- chamber jumped in to Glork's defense, which concluded (Post 496) with him summarizing his problem with my problem with Glork's post: the fact that I didn't give Glork the benefit of the doubt that Glork didn't really mean what he actually said. Instead of just giving Glork a freebie because this is an oldy game, I think it's fair to hold Glork to what he actually said. Which was a very bad defense of a very scummy (and what do you know – scum) player.

- And then we get to Glork's response (Post 500), which justifies his position with a post that amounts to "yes LML made a bad case against UT because the case itself is horrible, but that doesn't make LML scum because why would scum have motivation to make a bad case against a player?" I mean, come on: Glork was setting so high of a suspicion standard for LML to be scum that LML's bad case against UT had to be part of "some grand scheme" for it to be scummy. No. It was just a bad vote, based on bad reasoning, which is babby's first scumtell.


(3) Glork only votes for LML because of an easily planted "PLEASE VOTE FOR ME SCUMFRIENDS" slip.

(A) Going into lynch, Glork wants Bookitty or PJ. No sign of LML suspicions:

I'm like 80% sure that I will be voting to lynch Bookitty or PJ today. I just really can't decide which.

(B) Glork latches onto to Bookitty's VT claim is obvtown material. I don't really have an opinion one way or another on that. What I do have an opinion on is the fact that Glork and CES get into this huge, and hugely boring, pissing match about the point. Why drag out the issue over pages?

Recognizing that this could be subject to WIFOM, it strikes me more as Glork-scum realizing he has a (weak) hook to declare town a player who will flip town, so that when that player does get lynched (bookitty a very viable candidate at that time), Glork can tout his town cred by having tried to stop her horribly misdirected lynch. Yeah, WIFOM or whatever, but seriously the Glork/CES thing is just so unnecessarily drawn out, it looks like Glork is really trying to go out of his way to die on the hill that bookitty = town.

(C) Wait, now that bookitty isn't going to be Glork's vote, who else can he vote?

<snip>

Unvote
Vote: CES

Unvote
Vote: KK

Yup, no LML vote.

(D) But then: permission! Being the first to spot LML's "slip," (Post 828), it's the only justification he gives to go all in on LML after being adamantly against the LML suspicions all day (Post 829, Post 830). Wow that's not an incredibly convenient excuse to vote someone who Glork was very clearly not suspicious of all day.


(4) This one's for chamber and CES: LML mentioned Glork only three times! Post 62: suuuuper early statement that Glork is a "definite town read." Post 451: mentions Glork only in passing to make his case against PJ. Post 759: whoa Glork is still in the town slot.


(5) Glork has repeatedly refused to put out affirmative suspicions on people. Just ISO his posts and be prepared to read posts that either (1) discount suspicion of other players, (2) have an argument with CES (yes this is a major component of Glork's D1 presence), or (3) put out weaksauce support for his suspicions. Oh, and there's not even a lot of weaksauce support for his suspicions.

[Green Crayons]

I've only skimmed the posts that have shown up since the last time I visited, so I haven't much to say about anything recent.

-----

@ABR:

I'm certain that Yos is tonw because his posts have repeatedly reflected my own mindset and thought process about other players. I can quote posts if you think that would be more helpful.

-----

@CES:

Yes, this is a game where people are required to make judgment calls, but it's good to make sure that the judgment you're making isn't based off of a flawed premise.

[Green Crayons]

Actually reading everything since Saturday:

- Not dissuaded from my Glork vote. Also, actually, he posts defenses against suspicions of other players, but these posts read as preemptive defenses for himself since they apply to his D1 play (Post 918, Post 974). Also, wtf Post 975 apropos of nothing and scummy as hell for it.

- I wish UT would post more. His (relative) silence undermines my confidence in my UT-town read.

- I'm not going to forget that bussing is apparently A-Fucking-Thing LML does as scum (seriously, what), but I don't find it useful information at this point in time. Later in the game, yeah, it will probably be something I will think long and hard about. Now, I'm fine with it just being something to remember, as it's basically a "try to do some doublethink about players" level that I don't find helpful when there are still so many of us.

-----

@Yos:

(1) If CES is off the table, who would be next in line to pursue?

(2)

Since scum know who the town are, doesn't it make it easier to say XXXXX is town when you're scum?

Not really. The timing is everything.

Several times this game, DGB declared someone town just at at moment where I felt the same way. She's getting a lot of the same gut reads that I'm getting, and that's hard to fake as scum. Also, you can tell a lot about motivation based on timing; I don't see a scum wanting to declare SSK as town on page 5 where she did, for example.

I donno, maybe it's just because I've played with her so many times, but this feels like town-DGB play, specifically.

I'm interested in your opinion on your ability to read DGB in light of Real Life Results!: DBG declared LML town in D1 (Post 388), and DGB has since explained in D2 that her read was based off of LML's "emotional" posting (Post 910). Do you think her after-the-fact explanation matches up with the in-the-moment declaration?

I recognize that DGB did mention, indirectly, LML one other time in D1 -- when DGB said that a no-lynch was preferable to a LML-lynch -- but I don't think that's relevant to what I'm asking for here: how comfortable you are with your DGB-is-town determination based on her from-the-hip assessments?

-----

@chamber:

KK is not scum. I think LML saw him pick up a few votes and just jumped on the opportunity to hopefully swing the direction in someone-not-him.

And that someone wasn't bookitty because?

Speaking from personal experience, when I have been scum I have refused to vote the competing bandwagon player because I was afraid it looked too much like attempting to save my own skin -- which I don't actually think is anti-town, but scum are overly cautious so as to not look like they're motivated solely by self-preservation -- and instead went for a not-competing-bandwagon vote to make it look like I was above the fray of simply trying to escape the noose and to be Really Seriously Scumhunting. So there's as clean of an explanation as I can give from my own (poorly played) scum experiences.

I mean, we can speculate this thing to death, but if bookitty was LML's scumpartner, only one of them can get lynched in any given day. If LML was willing to throw his full weight behind the competing bandwagon, and either he or bookitty were lynched and flipped red, it would look a whole lot better for the surviving member the following day.

Actually -- and I didn't notice this until I was finishing up this post -- but mathcam actually points out (I have it quoted at the bottom of this post) LML doing something with respect to Vitamin that I think springs from the same mindset: show that you're above the fray of pettiness (in this instance, declaring LML's then-voter Vitamin to be town) to try to fly the flag of a Real Scumhunter.

-----

@DGB:

You've focused on LML's "bus" slip, and that's fine, but have you considered that maybe it was in there on purpose to let his teammates know it was okay to do him in? Does that change anything for you?

-----

@mathcam:

Here is another point I thought was interesting re VitaminR:

I think anyone who is looking to create a correlation between me and VitR is acting certainly scummy and may very well be trying to domino lynches. Although he's attacking me, I currently have a pro-town read on VitR. Knowing my alignment, I believe that anyone who is trying to say "they can't have the same alignment" are not only pushing for a lynch of me today, but will also be pushing for a lynch of VitR after I flip blue.

At this point, LML was pretty solidly leading in the plausible-lynch department, and was quite possibly posting with his inevitable scum-reveal in mind. I'm trying to get into LML's head to see what he was trying to do here, but haven't come to any definitive conclusions. Anyone else want to take a stab?

Buddying with Vitamin-town.

Immediate benefit: people were already saying Vitamin was town (and even folks who were at the time suspicious of Vitamin, such as myself, had unvoted Vitamin by the time of LML's post), so LML was trying to slander his attackers by saying that they were also attacking Vitamin.

Post-death benefit: if LML got lynched, he would be tying his scumminess to Vitamin.

[Green Crayons]

I wish UT would post more

hey, you see that V/LA right by my name? yeah.

No, I did not see that V/LA right by your name.

[Green Crayons]

@mathcam:

Seriously, DGB? Now you're taking a ridiculous stab at identifying a cop

and

outing said cop at the same time?

How is "taking a ridiculous stab at identifying a cop" different from "outing said cop"?

I'm trying to figure out the difference because I'm trying to figure out why this was your response to DGB's post.

-----

@CTD:

Instead of merely going with a "look at the bandwagon" route, I went and reread the game with LML-is-scum tinted glasses. That was neat. And time consuming. Also I might have just been skimming at the end.

I would like to know how you reread the game with LML-is-scum tinted glasses and arrived at town reads on DGB and ABR.

- DGB read is based off of a gut read of D1 + other players' opinions about her that I'm willing to trust.
- ABR read is based off of ABR's townposting. By the way, this is wrong:

ABR was arguably the biggest advocate for not lynching LML.

- It's wrong on its face because ABR was pro-lynching LML for a good majority of the day, with the only lull in that being after LML's post-weekend revivial. Hardly a contender for the title you want to bestow upon ABR.
- But it's also wrong in terms of who was the biggest "don't lynch LML" advocate. That would be Glork.

@CTD: it's super weird that LML zeroed in on you in Post 661 for posting elsewhere on the site, but not in this thread. Like, why would he be checking to see if you, specifically, were posting elsewhere, as opposed to any of the other players in this game? Thoughts as to why that might be? Do you know what other areas of the site LML saw you posting?

There's only one area of the site he could have seen me posting in, as I am active in only one other game. The reason he would point this out was either to invite this line of questioning or to prepare an attack against me. You are asking me to guess though and you could have figured this out yourself. Another rather pointless inquiry on your part.

This is pretty defensive and dismissive of a basic follow up to a scum flip.

- What is this one other area of the site, specifically, that you're active in? Is LML also involved in that game? I'm trying to figure out how he would have known you were posting elsewhere -- did it just flash up on his screen because he was in the same part of the forums as you, or did he have to go searching you out? Or, you know, did he know of your activity because scum might have daytalk? These are all possibilities that make my question far from "pointless."

- I'm asking for your speculation as to why LML-scum decided to focus on you, and on this particular aspect of your play. You know, because people usually look at who known scum suspected, and the strength of those reasons, in order to look for scum buddies. Your input, as the focus of LML's suspicion, is helpful for me to suss out your alignment.

[Green Crayons]

@CTD:

1. I didn't know giving any information more than "another game" would break site rules. But if it would, then obviously I don't want that.

2. For me, speculating why scum did what they did is part of figuring out who is/is not connected to them. For me, your "take" as to LML's actions are insightful because I can evaluate your own assessment in and of itself, and also compare it to my own meanderings. But if you have no further answer on the point, fair enough.

3. I disagree about who takes the crown, but maybe we agree that Glork was at least one of the major (if not the most) anti-LML-lynch advocates.

[Green Crayons]

GC: I don't think anyone (myself included) is denying they I defended LML hard during D1. That said, I'm a rather bus-happy player (not quite to the "pathological" level that MBL suggests of LML, but probably not far off).

What specifically makes you think that I am LML's scumbuddy, and not just someone who was wrong and vocal on Day One?

This is the second or third time you've self-meta'd in defense of your actions. I don't find it persuasive, and actually find it suspicious for the very obvious reason that it's manipulable by the very person who seeks to use it as a defense.

To respond to the bolded, I could just link to my Post 1069 and call it a day. And I could do that because my points against you don't really line up with your mischaracterization of my suspicions -- that is, what I set out in Post 1069 wasn't that you were just "wrong and vocal." So I will simply indicate how each point does not fall under the umbrella of simply calling you "wrong and vocal."

1. Post 1069's Point (1): soft defending LML-scum on Page 5 nips suspicion in the bud while still being early enough in the game that you don't have any established connections for your defense to get linked to. This is a scum motivated action.

2. Post 1069's Point (2): your actions as described -- which notes that you go above and beyond merely being wrong about LML (of course, merely being wrong is not alignment indicative) -- is scum motivated play.

3. Post 1069's Point (3): your actions as described -- which notes your LML vote being opportunistic after being incredibly anti-LML-lynch all D1 -- is scum motivated play.

4. Post 1069's Point (4): this point does not describe your play, but LML's, and is therefore completely unrelated to your mischaracterization of my suspicions.

5. Post 1069's Point (5): this point does not pertain to your play in relation to LML, but instead notes that your play is pretty conservative and safe and scummy, and is therefore completely unrelated to your mischaracterization of my suspicions.

[Green Crayons]

Vitamin, please stick around for a while. I like your posts.

[Green Crayons]

Heh.

Saying "You defended LML early. This is scum motivated" is no more valid than saying "Glork thought LML was town. This is town motivated."

This might be true if you close your eyes and ignore the scummy behavior I picked out.

-----

Obviously SOME people who weren't on the LML wagon were town. But you're picking the loudest wrong person and just stating they're scum because they defended LML without actually analyzing WHY he did, or what he would have done differently if he were town.

Keep banging that mischaracterization-of-my-suspicions drum. I can tell you it's helping you 0% in convincing me that my suspicions are misplaced.

-----

I want you to distinguish between what

GlorkTownWhoWasWrong

would have done, and what

GlorkScumWhoInexorablyLinkedHimselfToTheMostSuspectedPlayerInTheGame

did.[/b]

Hey, look, this is you making Glork-suspicions about me rather than about Glork. Good tactic to divert suspicion without having to address that suspicion.

Recognizing that, I'm going to follow you down this road -- but only briefly -- so that you can't make my complete unwillingness to humor you A Thing to further take the conversation away from your suspicious play.

1. Post 1069's Point (1): soft defending LML-scum on Page 5 nips suspicion in the bud while still being early enough in the game that you don't have any established connections for your defense to get linked to. This is a scum motivated action.

Scum would do this action for the reasons listed. Town are less likely to do this action because it doesn't criticize bad logic (a town thing to do), but merely displaces the recognized-as-legitimate suspicion on Player X (here, LML-scum) by asking why Player Y isn't also suspected.

2. Post 1069's Point (2): your actions as described -- which notes that you go above and beyond merely being wrong about LML (of course, merely being wrong is not alignment indicative) -- is scum motivated play.

Scum would take these actions for the reasons listed. Town are less likely to do this action because (1) you took an indefensible theory position to refuse to vote for LML and (2) you then created, just for LML, a higher barrier for what constitutes scumminess. Town would not take these actions because they artificially restrict their options.

3. Post 1069's Point (3): your actions as described -- which notes your LML vote being opportunistic after being incredibly anti-LML-lynch all D1 -- is scum motivated play.

Scum would take these actions for the reasons listed. I noted

as I made the original Post 1069

that my speculation as to your motivation might be subject to WIFOM. Interesting, instead of actually defending your actions by trying to explain how they sprang from a town mindset, you have decided to go the route of attack your attacker.

4. Post 1069's Point (4): this point does not describe your play, but LML's, and is therefore completely unrelated to your mischaracterization of my suspicions.

Wait, what's that, Glork?

In 4, you merely state that LML called me town and only mentioned me three times, and inexplicably include this as "evidence" that I am scum.
JUST LIKE IN YOUR FIRST THREE POINTS you just make an observation and conclude that I'm scum from it.

heh. Someone hasn't been reading the thread carefully.

5. Post 1069's Point (5): this point does not pertain to your play in relation to LML, but instead notes that your play is pretty conservative and safe and scummy, and is therefore completely unrelated to your mischaracterization of my suspicions.

Let's get a direct line to the Glork-defense:

And in 5, you're describing a playable and flatly asserting that it's scum. Preeeeetty much the same as the other points.

Actually, I described your play how I read it, and the descriptions I gave

are scummy

. It's scummy because you were an active presence throughout D1 (thus you garnered no lurker suspicion) but you really failed to put out any affirmative suspicions as to who could be scum (thus you escaped pushing a bad lynch). These are scummy actions, and you faulting me for failing to break this shit down is completely BS because this is nobody's first rodeo.

-----

GC, I also defended Bookitty really hard from a terrible wagon on her. Does that mean I'm scum with her, too? I was pretty vocal about that one, and it's consistent with what you claim is GlorkScum behavior.

1. Bookitty isn't scum. Glad to see that (A) you're still trying to hitch yourself to Bookitty's towniness and (B) making this really bad argument that your actions towards other players determine the alignment of those other players, rather than the other way around.

2. It's almost . . . as if . . . I have already spoken about this? Wait. Wait, I do believe so. Yes, I have found it:

(B) Glork latches onto to Bookitty's VT claim is obvtown material. I don't really have an opinion one way or another on that. What I do have an opinion on is the fact that Glork and CES get into this huge, and hugely boring, pissing match about the point. Why drag out the issue over pages?

Recognizing that this could be subject to WIFOM, it strikes me more as Glork-scum realizing he has a (weak) hook to declare town a player who will flip town, so that when that player does get lynched (bookitty a very viable candidate at that time), Glork can tout his town cred by having tried to stop her horribly misdirected lynch. Yeah, WIFOM or whatever, but seriously the Glork/CES thing is just so unnecessarily drawn out, it looks like Glork is really trying to go out of his way to die on the hill that bookitty = town.

3. And you continue this line of defense into your Post 1137, 1138, and 1139 by trying to discredit

how you acted with known scum LML

by suggesting that you might have acted in a superficially similar manner to other players with unknown alignments, and therefore we should ignore the substantively different interactions you had with LML-scum.

[Green Crayons]

Echoing KK: Can both pj and Glork explain their switch to ABR? I don't get how his Post 1144 prompted those votes.

And second, Albert B. Rampage alleged he had "looked into the players bussing LoudmouthLee" and decided mathcam was the worst (and maybe CrashTextDummie), but neither of those players had voted LoudmouthLee. Even if I was charitable enough to think he

meant

Bookitty when he said LoudmouthLee, the use of the word "bus" would still be wrong unless Bookitty is also scum (which then begs the question why Albert B. Rampage is not voting for Bookitty). It suggests that Albert B. Rampage has fairly artificial suspicions given that his single sentence must be read to have

two

mistakes in order to make any sense.

How do you feel about ABR's posts 1151 and 1152?

I can see how you could come away with what you did before that explanation, but his explanation makes it clear that his language conflated the LML-wagon with the bookitty-wagon which explains his convoluted sentence without there being two independent mistakes (mathcam suspicion relates to bookitty-wagon, CTD suspicion/the "bus" comment relates to the LML-wagon).

Or do you think that was a quick fix ABR came up with 20 minutes after his post that isn't worth crediting?

-----

Honestly a big part of it is I don't feel like trying to out-argue a bunch of self-righteous condescending twats. For example, I could keep trying to point out the backwardness of GC's approach to "determining" my alignment, but he's clearly beyond reasoning with.

This just in: it's "backwards" to go look at players who said things about a flipped scum, and then suspect a player who first found scummy ways to not find LML-scum suspicious, but then found a scummy way to vote LML-scum when it was clear he was the day's lynch, and whose play in general is not pro-town.

[Green Crayons]

@mathcam:

PJ's last post on ABR was pretty solid. Any more comments on my speculation against him? I know a couple of people seemed to suggest that unless it was a 100% all-out attack on LML, it would not have been ABR bussing. I'm pretty reluctant to try to dissect ABR's meta, but would be curious to further opinions.

I really can't decide between ABR and DGB -- I find aspects of both of their play mysterious, and yet both present this nagging doubt that they wouldn't have played this way had they been scum. Too bad we can't lynch both.

Since you have an open invitiation as to thoughts about your thoughts:

- So you're going to need to set aside the fact that their playstyle just doesn't fit well with you because it's "mysterious." I grant you that it may make it more difficult to determine their alignment, but it is not alignment indicative when this is just how they play (and indeed it's not an unpopular playstyle these days from my limited experience with recent games).

- In re: ABR more specifically, the only part of your ABR suspicions that have struck me as worthwhile is back in Post 1011, when you state your suspicions about ABR's seeming half-hearted pro-LML-lynch stance. My only problem with ABR's play towards LML is that it was the very posts that made me suspect LML enough to vote him that made ABR jump off the lynch-LML train. But even then, that doesn't make ABR scum, it just gives me a moment's pause. I don't think it amounts to waffling about LML -- which is how you characterize ABR's play -- particularly because I think his LML stance after that time had a clear development path when you compare his LML comments to what LML was actually posting at the time.

-----

Sotty

is

scum. She's in everybody's blind spot.

This is basically how I feel about her (the blind spot, not necessarily being scum). In fact, I did a quick review of her posts as soon as ABR mentioned her as possible scum, and confirmed that, indeed, I feel nothing towards her, which makes me feel like she's flying under the radar. One of the things that bothers me is that Sotty keeps posting that she's going to do rereads and the like, but I never get the sense that she's following through.

-----

- Yup, it's official: I find the mathcam/DGB back and forth a complete nullity for either's alignment.

-

@chamber:

I think STD and KK have hit the point, but I'm basically waiting on undo's follow through. As is, his numbers post is just basically another version of his failure to take a stand, which was an issue porochaz underscored back in D1, and which put undo in my scum candidate pile.

[Green Crayons]

I really don't know how to feel about DGB. I wrote up a post voting her, with a few reasons typed out, and ultimately decided not to follow through.


I'm holding off voting because I feel more comfortable with my Glork vote (it's safe and warm and right), but not I'm opposed to a DGB vote. I just want to see how the day further develops.

[Green Crayons]

Also an undo-vote is the first alternative that sprung up after the DGB wagon, which I'm sure has something to do with its sudden rush of popularity.

I haven't really been keeping up beyond skimming for the past day or two. I'll make a point of actually reading sometime this weekend.

[Green Crayons]

@ABR:

Unvote, vote Untrod Tripod

Stop doing this.

-----

@mathcam:

(1) If you couldn't vote either ABR or DGB, who would be your next two lynch candidates and why (not requesting fully fleshed out cases -- unless if you want to do so -- just a general sentiment about your suspicions)?

(2)

4) Found an interesting quote:

Bookitty isn't scum.

A little suspicious -- uncharacteristically declarative for GC, I think. How do you know? (I realize that there was a lot of context in that post before that quote, but I'll let you make that case instead of me).

At first I thought this was something I posted at the end of D1, but upon review I see it was a part of a long post about why a Glork vote is correct. Which makes much more sense, because by that point in time I had already espoused that view that Bookitty is town and further justifying that point in the post in which this statement was made would be a weird aside.

At any rate: Bookitty is town because (A) the suspicions of Seol -- based on 4 total posts at the beginning of D1 -- do not hold up, and (B) I find Bookitty's overall play, including her response to late D1 pressure and her D2 explanation of her D1 suspicions/play, indicative of a town alignment.

-----

@undo:

do you still believe that Bookitty is scum?

-----

UNVOTE: Glork, for now.

VOTE: inHim, because:

(1) Because LML did this w/r/t Narishasha:

You keep calling Nat the VI wagon this game, but he wasn't. Nat was never going to get lynched for those votes, they were just forcing him to participate or replace out. The VI wagon this game has been an is on MafiaSSK.

(2)

De Zorblag

<snip>

I also don’t like Zorblag's jump on the Porochaz wagon. About Green Canyons, Zorblag insists “That’s how I would play as scum”; about Porochaz, he says “I know that he's busy, but I don't feel like he's caring.“ Zorblag seems to suggest GC is scummier than Porochaz, but between the active poster and the lurker, he chooses the latter to vote. Indeed, lurkers are less likely to give you trouble, while GC is well able to present a strong defense.

(3) Because inHim replaced in on June 9, LML was lynched on June 11, but inHim didn't want to post until June 15. Conveniently not having to weigh in on the LML/Bookitty dueling wagons.

(4) Because there's a running theme with this slot:

Yeah I don't really feel like reading the thread.

chamber who do I vote?

Highly unlikely to read D1 right now.

Also, this solidifies inHim's refusal to weigh in on the LML/Bookitty dueling wagons. Like, it's fair if you don't want to read all 35 pages of D1 -- because that really sucks -- but this is an outright refusal to even look into LML's play.

(5) Because inHim hasn't said anything about the LML's scum flip. (The only arguable post, Post 1146, states it in a conditional tense -- as if inHim is saying

if

there's anything to glean from LML's flip, then maybe it would be good to say that CTD is scummy.)

[Green Crayons]

Also, if Bookitty comes up town,

it'd be really hard to make the case that Glork was scum protecting her all day.

You'd have to add that protection of a townie up against a scum wagon to his "spot" of the "bus" and his willingness to post and vote in a possible no-lynch situation to sink his scumpartner. Plus your(undo's) statements that LML's interactions with Glork make them look like unlikely scumpartners.

All that being said, a Glork vote is a really ill-considered/scummy vote right now, imo.

Also, you think Bookitty is very town.. so from that perspective,

do you REALLY think Glork's protection of her all day

combined with the fact that the alternative wagon was scum combined with the fact that he was the vote that tied it up between Boo and LML, etc etc points to Glork as likely scum?

You're describing a game that never happened. So that's cool.

[Green Crayons]

UNVOTE: inHim. I would like to think he will still respond to Post 1351 and Post 1354 even without my current vote on him, but if not, I can always vote him again.

VOTE: DGB, because PJ Post 1378's Point (1).

[Green Crayons]

Is he? I'm going off of this:

I guess I can continue to play, but I won't be very active.

[Green Crayons]

My primary reasons for voting Undo have to do with LML's attack on ABR based on Undo's "legitimate question" and Undo's questioning of ABR about their LML votes. He asks ABR repeatedly why he's voting LML and hunts that line of questioning much longer than I think is reasonable.

I'm interested in what specific posts you're referring to.

[Green Crayons]

Psh. You read Patrick's posts?

[Green Crayons]

UNVOTE: DGB

Don't know who to vote for. How disheartening.

[Green Crayons]

I can't tempt you to vote for PJ? mathcam? STD?

Do you have reasons NOT to vote for UT or ABR?

Just shooting from the hip:

PJ: I finally decided to put him under solid town after rereading D1. It's a mental roadblock to do a 180 and go ~*~ NOPE WRONG ~*~ that I would need to go and re-reread D1 to get past, barring some really scummy post yet to come.

mathcam: I'm pretty ambivalent about mathcam. I had a pretty solid town read on mafiaSSK, but mathcam has been present but pretty unobtrusive -- which strikes me as scummy, as it's allowing him to fly under the radar. Like, I don't remember how mathcam plays, but it really feels like he's making an effort not to play. So, I guess he's in my "would be willing to vote for" pile.

STD: Out of all of the options of who LML was bussing because LML has a Weird Thing About Being Right, I would guess STD. I remember lots of folks (myself included) saying that STD posting was super town, and just around that time LML was like "NOPE because of these horrible, horrible reasons!" and wouldn't let up. But that's really the only justification I can readily pull out of my butt to vote STD.

UT: Because he's playing town.

ABR: Because he's playing town. The only point that I think is valid is his jump off from the LML vote, but I don't see a reason not to take ABR's justification at face value -- that is, the rest of his play strikes me as town, so I don't have a reason to attribute it to scum motivation.

[Green Crayons]

@mathcam:

Really? I feel like I've been one of the most active players today, and with reasonably content-filled posts. I think I'm more willing than most to say "I don't have a read on suchandsuch," but I wouldn't call that not playing. *shrug*

I think I have a fairly good grasp at remembering broad strokes impressions about players. So, without looking into your ISO, I thought of only two things when I thought about you: (1) you want to lynch ABR because of his move away from the LML wagon (I don't see how this, standing alone, justifies a lynch, and question whether your aversion to his play style is also somehow skewing your position because you agreed that this was the only real point you have against ABR), and (2) you ask a lot of questions about whether so-and-so usually plays like such-and-such.

It's not so much that there isn't content, it's just that it isn't content that's affirmative scum-hunting.

-----

@DGB:

UT: Because he's playing town.

ABR: Because he's playing town.

How, exactly?

UT:

- I liked his D1 play with respect to Vitamin and LML -- it hit all the same notes that I was feeling, so I qualify it as town play.
- I don't find his D1 stance on Zorblag or Bookitty as indicative of alignment, but I will say that I can't figure out why he voted Bookitty.
- The UT/DGB back and forth, in retrospect, looks more like two town going at each other rather than scum v. town.
- I was really tempted to do an undo vote even though I have misgivings about the wagon for the exact same reason that UT stated: to get the game moving. So even though ABR qualified this as an anti-town vote, I actually think in context it's a null-to-protown because my goodness D2 has gone nowhere in finding scum.

ABR:

- This is a much more "feely" opinion. I feel like I can easily read where his suspicions lie, and why he's willing to vote people. Although I don't always agree with his positions, I don't find them to be unreasonable -- just that I disagree about the interpretation of the suspicious play.

[Green Crayons]

@DGB:

I mean, your "kicker" argument rests upon the fact that you ignore that PJ did vote ABR without explanation, and then only posted his explanation (that you quoted) after ABR had corrected his mistake (which had prompted PJ's vote) and after Vitamin asked PJ to explain his vote.

-----

Going to do a reread of D2 before voting.

[Green Crayons]

I still don't see the kicker argument. Unexplained is what his vote was when it was made, even if it had reasons behind it. It became explained when he was asked about it.


I do credit your meta argument, though. My vote followed PJ's meta argument after dithering to myself for a short while. One of my problems in committing was that PJ hadn't looked at more than a single game. I told myself at the time that that was fine because it was your (DGB, the target of the meta) burden to explain how your play is less like your scum games by coming up with town games in which your play in this game is similar to.

I realize now that I was looking at it from the wrong perspective. (Frankly, I was getting tired of not knowing how to feel about you, had been wavering towards voting you, and was probably just looking for a good reason to vote moreso than a good reason to vote scum.) A town player using meta wouldn't go only to a scum game, but would instead also check and make sure that their arguments based on comparisons to a scum game aren't undercut by similar comparisons to a town game.

[Green Crayons]

@PJ:

can you please explain why, in Post 724, you switched your vote from Bookitty (who had 9 votes at the time) to LML (who had 3 votes at the time), while saying:

I am still willing to vote Bookitty.

<snip>

This day needs to get a move-on. Deadline is Wednesday and there are not reduced-majority rules for lynching. We must get twelve votes to achieve a lynch. Rather than failing to get something together or lynching last-minute, let's get it done. Players with votes that are unlikely to lead to a lynch need to compromise and move elsewhere or else actually argue and pursue their top choice instead of idly sitting on their votes.

[Green Crayons]

I'm going to look back at you guys to see if this makes sense, you understand why I'd be incredulous I hope.

I don't. Please explain your incredulity.

[Green Crayons]

I'm really not comfortable with the degree to which MBL has cozied up to me while attacking undo.

I was just having fun cause I could tell that it was irking you. <3

VOTE: MBL

[Green Crayons]

@mathcam:

(shrug) I said "unobtrusive," not "wildly scummy," so it slots you in the "I don't know pile." Play however you want, it wasn't meant as a criticism, just my observation/reaction.

W/R/T ABR: your quoted post only presents two additional points to support your LML suspicion.

(1) I think PJ's "scum slip" argument is not actually sound (I said as much in Post 1171). PJ didn't respond to my post. I don't want him to do so, now. I want you to respond to it.

(2) I think your summary of ABR's vote on DGB is a bit reductionist in light of his reasons as stated alongside the vote (Post 1176) as well as his explanation of his problem with DGB's particular vote on him (Post 1282, Post 1284). Can you tease out this line of your suspicions more?

[Green Crayons]

You don't seem to be trying very hard to either figure out anyone's alignment or to lynch anyone.

I feel like I'm getting attacked a lot for my playstyle for a game in which every other player's idiosyncrasies are swept under the run for "being their meta."

I'm zeroing in on this because I wanted to verify my own town read on ABR.

I did a quick ISO of ABR in that scum game of his that he just linked, and the tone of his posts there have a tenor of trying really hard to look helpful and productive. Here his posts really don't contain the same tone. So it's not that I'm giving him a pass under the umbrella of "that's his meta." I'm having to feel my way through his play, and here it strikes me as town posts rather than scum posts. Hardly cold and calculating (unfortunately), very touchy feely (unfortunately), but I try to adapt my method of sorting players based on what seems to work best based on their play style.

UNVOTE: MBL
VOTE: Glork

Time to double down on first impressions.

[Green Crayons]

I'm not voting mathcam because I'm not convinced that he's scum. I think that all (but maybe one?) of your remaining scum will be found among {MBL, UT, STD, CES, VitR}

I'm down with a MBL lynch.

(1) Voted tigris in his initial post of the game, on May 14. (Post 41.) Didn't switch that vote until he voted LML,

on June 11

. (Post 832.) There's wanting your vote to be used wisely, and then there's simply refusing to have a voting trail. MBL did the latter.

(2) MBL said this:

LML

isn't really playing like LML-town

, but his wagon has a poor foundation--two players(now one) who gave no reasons, one who says "gut", and one who bandwagoned Mr. Gut at his request. I prefer wagons on which people can be held accountable for their logic. LML suspects STD, who jumped to LML at UT's request, and who suspects LML for reasons that haven't been fully explained. LML doesn't seem to be entirely consistent when discussing his earlier votes/FOSes and the strength behind his convictions. All in all, the situation is actionable, and

Lee's is probably the wagon I'd move to at the moment if a vig put a gun to my head.

But did not vote for LML until 500 posts later.

(3)

I find it especially odd that no one at all has called out CTD for being active all over the site, but largely ignoring this game.

You've got us. It's a 21 scum/1 town game--congrats on your victory.

Scum humor.

(4) Big pusher of the KK suspicions at the end of D1, but of course did not vote for KK. (Post 786, Post 798, Post 800, Post 805.)

(5) His lead up to his LML vote was scummy.

(A) Only laid the foundation for his vote switch (Post 816, Post 820) once LML-wagon was gaining votes (was at 6, but had gained 3 in the past 3 days). His foundation was not enough for him to actually vote, though, because he waited until he was number 9 on the wagon. (Post 832.)

(B) The foundation for his vote was a lot of words to say what a bunch of other people had said: LML's vote count analysis was scummy. Yes, yes it was. MBL's extensive use of words to make that one point, when that point had been made long ago, but which had inspired MBL enough to consider LML suspicious enough to talk about at length in the final hours of D1 -- but not suspicious enough to justify a vote when those suspicious are stated -- smacks of a reluctant scum trying to look productive about suspecting a scum buddy, and hoping that the tide doesn't require him to vote LML.

(6) This:

I'm really not comfortable with the degree to which MBL has cozied up to me while attacking undo.

I was just having fun cause I could tell that it was irking you. <3

-----

Two days until deadline? Plenty of time.

UNVOTE: Glork
VOTE: MBL

Still willing to vote Glork. Not interested in mathcam, Vitamin, UT, or ABR. I have no feelings about CES.

[Green Crayons]

~*~ drunk posting ~*~

Poro! I invoke your wisdom! Shine down upon me, and invoke thine power.

----

GC, that was a truly awful case.

Beep boop you have done nothing this game. Thanks for your input.

-----

GC, that was a truly awful case.

I know right

It reads like:

(1) something neutral
(2) something neutral
(3) something neutral
(4) something neutral
(5) something neutral
(6) something neutral

conclusion: player is scum

Beep boop if MBL flipped scum, I would vote for you 100%. So sorry if I take your opinions with a grain of salt.

Also, you are voting ____ because ____. (Yes, this is saying I don't know who you are voting for, much less why, because your reasons are basically fffppppppttt since PJ claimed. By all means please recompose and reassert yourself. <realtalk; not being sarcastic>)

-----

~*~ words ~*~

You have said a lot about Vitamin D2. What about Vitamin D1? I find D1 cases much more persuasive than D2 cases because, well, the obvious reason why. I find D1 Vitamin wholly town. Respond.

-----

@Crayons

, I think your (1) and (2) are the same point--I stayed on KK all day despite finding LML "off". Fair point.

Check.

Your (3) and (6) are the same point--humor is scummy. Sue me for trying to have fun in my one game in like three years or whatever.

WRONG-O, SUCKA. Not all humor is scummy.

(3) is scummy because you are using humor to say "yeah, I'm scum, but this is me saying that I"m scum in a funny way (we're all scum hahahaha), therefore I could not be scum saying such a revealing thing, even if in a funny manner."

(6) is not humor. It is you acknowledging that you did something scummy, but simply handwaving it away as a flippant move. No handwaves are acceptable.

I'm not responding to the remainder of your points because quote wars are bad, and because I think my points are sufficient in and of themselves.

-----

ABR and DGB both claimed to find GC's case on MBL to be weak but I can see myself sheeping GC for the rest of the game at this rate.

UNCOMFORTABLE.

-----

<vote pattern analysis>

The irony here is that you are doing a vote pattern analysis and yet you refuse to allow yourself to have voting patterns.

Hrm. What alignment would want to avoid having voting patterns.


Hrm, indeed.

[Green Crayons]

GC, that was a truly awful case.

Beep boop you have done nothing this game. Thanks for your input.

I take back what I said in this part of my post.

[Green Crayons]

A SpyreX lynch would be acceptable.

@Patrick:

at what time does the deadline hit?

[Green Crayons]

UNVOTE: MBL
VOTE: Glork

-----

I doubt Spyrex is scum, for various reasons.

??? explain ???

Why are you acting incredulous about this statement, when before today you confidently asserted that slot as town.

[Green Crayons]

What did you think about my earlier theory about Nat's exit post indicating that it was probably a ("boring") town slot?

That's my theory also - but after 5 replacements and now SpyreX lurking, my faith is shaken.

I was hoping nobody was going to say anything about this before the slot claimed. (I didn't catch mathcam's original post on point, only DGB's mentioning of the point.) I did some forums searching and Nat's favorite role is roleblocker and some other night-action town-aligned role. (Pulling from memory at this point.) I think that indicates she doesn't like VT and vanilla scum roles.

-----

I think there's a very good chance UT is scum.

That's what I've been saying but everyone calls him town.

I don't remember either of y'all filling out this template w/r/t UT:


Because ________.

[Green Crayons]

at least I'm not sidetracking every goddamn wagon because it's not the platonic ideal of wagoniness that everyone seems to demand

I want to frame this and make it a banner that replaces the mafiascum logo on the forums.

[Green Crayons]

Because it cuts deep.



I need the platonic ideal of wagoniness.

[Green Crayons]

If that was a vig who killed UT, you should feel bad about your poor decisions.

[Green Crayons]

SpyreX

should post something. Something really, really good.

[Green Crayons]

@MBL:

Please explain this:

MrBuddyLee, your vote is on Kublai Khan (replacing Tigris). Your vote has been there the entire game. Kindly move it or make a compelling argument for why we should lynch Kublai Khan.

I'm trying to figure out who's the most likely scum amongst the leading wagons, but

I can't escape the feeling that Tigris/KublaiKhan is equally if not more likely scum.

The slot reeks of "I don't care who gets lynched as long as it's not me." And despite claiming to find both LML and Bookitty scummy early (positing that first impressions are disproportionately important), and having read through page 15-20 or so, KK hasn't placed a vote on either (or anyone). The more I say/argue here on this specific topic, the more I potentially mold KK's post, so zipping it for now.

Two out of

PJ, STD & KK

are scum.

Not sure about KK at this point

.. but there is almost certainly scum in {STD, UT, PJ}. LML looooves to be right, and he really wanted us to know he found those three guys suspect.

[Green Crayons]

It isn't apparent. That's why I'm asking.

[Green Crayons]

I'm not really in the business of exaggerating the town cred of people who aren't on the chopping block. If you really want me to defend KK like I defended Glork yesterday, run up a KK wagon.

Interesting that you're making this about KK-suspicions, as opposed to what it is about: MBL-suspicions. Here, let me underscore the point. VOTE: MBL


I want you to explain your dramatic swing stance w/r/t KK. He went from being "equally if not more likely scum" than LML/Bookitty all the way downgraded to you being "not sure" about KK. What justification do you have for this swing? So far:

(1) You said: Because KK voted LML.

I say: So what? When DGB was

talking about LML voters

(Post 919), you exempted KK from that group of players as not being suspicious (Post 926). The fact that KK voted LML is of stunning nonimportance when you were already talking about a group of LML voters.


(2) You said: Unspecified "more" that "should be apparent."

I say: It isn't apparent. Specify.


(3) You said: A bunch of posts that occurred after your swing.

I say: Unless if you are claiming to be psychic, anything that occurred after your switched position on KK (Post 926) cannot justify your switched position on KK. Don't quote posts that are after 926, much less from the 1300s+ range.

[Green Crayons]

Also, why are you drawing attention to your "defense" of Glork? Are you suggesting that we should draw the conclusion that you are town because you had the foresight to know that Glork would flip town? Because that's what it's coming across as, which is scummy.


For example, I had a pretty good idea that UT would flip green, and said as much in the previous days, but just because UT actually did flip town doesn't mean anyone should conclude that I'm more town because of UT's flip.

[Green Crayons]

@ABR:

My strongest town read besides the masons, is Green Crayons. GC, what do you have to say about my theories?

- I don't agree with your Vitamin points. I skimmed his D1 posts and founds several that were not just fluff. How do you respond to his Post 1614 rebuttal to your problems with his D2 play?

- I'm open to a mathcam vote. Currently pursuing my own thing at the moment, though.

[Green Crayons]

It's not about the foresight, it's about putting effort into helping town make the right decisions. Yes, I'm drawing attention for you in an attempt to shift your vote--I gave a shitload of really good reasons not to vote Glork yesterday. Personally, I think you're narrow-minded or scum if you find me a good vote right now. Leaning narrow-minded. You also ignored my rebuttal of your point 5 yesterday, which fits perfectly with the narrow-minded diagnosis.

- This is you talking about stuff that does not require you to explain your swing stance w/r/t KK. Your silence means to me that you have no real reason for your sudden shift on how you feel about KK, which means your suspicions on KK are artificial. Which is scummy.

- You said: "Personally, I think you're

narrow-minded or scum

if you find me a good vote right now."

(1) This is you using dismissive language as a defense, rather than confronting the thrust of my inquiry head on. Which is scummy.

(2) This is you using loaded terminology that is not actually applicable. I'm "narrow-minded" because I'm asking you to explain your positions? Ridiculous. Man, I feel like I said this before in a similar situation. Oh, yeah, that's right. LML used a similar tactic, and I called him out on it in Post 655.

[Green Crayons]

No you're annoying. Glad we're five.


Also, not responding to a defense is not equivalent to not responding to an initial inquiry. Also also, I didn't not respond to your defense, I simply said that I thought my point stood sufficiently on its own even in the face of your defense. Which it does. But, here, let me do a quick quote wall to underscore the point.

LML's VCA sucked a nut imo, and expressing no townreads this early isn't scummy imo.

VCA criticism. Already established suspicion.

LML has been weird as fuck to me.

Null comment.

I don't like LML's VCA.. it was really early to do a VCA like that and the face that he posted the spreadsheet was weird as hell.

VCA criticism. Already established suspicion.

He drew attention to a "VI" wagon (Nat) that didn't really feel like the true VI wagon at the time (SSK).

VCA criticism that chamber already voiced immediately after LML's bad VCA analysis in Post 372.

He never once mentioned/considered the possibility that Nat was scum and the people voting for Nat might be correct. He condemned UT for being on that Natwagon and didn't really mention DGB/Yos who were also on the Natwagon. Went after StD for other things, but also votehopping, which seems to be the reason UT was selected as the scum on the Natwagon.

VCA criticism. Already established suspicion.


You then talk about how you don't like LML's PJ vote. Before you get your knickers in a twist about the fact that you said something all on your own, note that my Point (5) criticism in Post 1601 was for the ample amounts emphasis you put on LML's VCA, which was A Thing long before you decided to give it a lot of emphasis to justify your (maybe impending) LML vote.



Your turn.

[Green Crayons]

@ABR:

I'll reassess those players.

[Green Crayons]

UNVOTE: MBL
VOTE: mathcam

-----

I'm not following the "scumcomputer" posts. When DGB hits her conclusion, which will hopefully come with a vote, I hope she will provide a small synopsis of why she's voting it.

-----

Between D2 and D3, Sotty has said about five or six things that have come straight out of my mind. I'm comfortable with her being town again.

[Green Crayons]

@CES:

how do you feel about Vitamin vouching for you?

[Green Crayons]

Yes, plenty. You could always boot up the scumputer instead of scrambling to be on the forefront of whatever new trend is sweeping the game.

It's Day Effin 2, there is no use to the scumputer.

Oh and WOW

I'm alive Day 3?

I'm going to dust off the scumputer!

How does the difference between D2 and D3 make your methodology worthwhile?

[Green Crayons]

(3)

I find it especially odd that no one at all has called out CTD for being active all over the site, but largely ignoring this game.

You've got us. It's a 21 scum/1 town game--congrats on your victory.

Scum humor.

GC, that was a truly awful case.

I know right

It reads like:

(3) something neutral

-----

Damn. You caught me.

GG I concede.

Joke or truth???

Damn. You caught me.

GG I concede.

Hey Yosarian, is the above a scum post or what? It makes my scumdar pulsate and glow.

I dunno, it reads like:

something neutral

[Green Crayons]

@Vitamin:

In Post 771, you switched from voting LML to PJ. In your very next post, Post 826, you switched back to voting LML.

Why?

[Green Crayons]

@Vitamin:

I didn't see that post. Thank you for pointing it out to me.

You said:

My switches from LML to pj and back were motivated mostly by indecisiveness and self-doubt, triggered by gut feelings that LML's frustration, and later pj's, were sincere.

If you thought PJ's frustration at the end of D1 was sincere enough for you to switch back to LML, whereby sincere = town play, why did you vote for PJ in your first post of D2 (Post 873)?

I know that you state reasons for your PJ vote in Post 873. I am saying that your problems with PJ's play that you point out in Post 873 do not seem to be congruent with the claim that you thought, at that point in the game, PJ was being sincere and therefore had town cred.

Please address however you would like.

-----

Also, I did not realize that you are CES are related. (Unless if I am misunderstanding your "little brother" comment?) You appear to admit that you may have some bias -- "I might be a little protective of him" in Post 1959 -- but stop short of recognizing that such bias might be affecting your read of CES.

(1) Is that not a possibility, or is your town read so certain that any potential bias is a non-issue? But if your potential bias is a non-issue, why even bring it up to qualify your read on CES?

(2) Have y'all played together where he was scum, or do you just know of his scum play from observations?

(3) How do you feel about the fact that CES

hasn't

really vouched for your townness in the same way that you have for him? Shouldn't he be just as familiar with your town/scum play as you are with his?

[Green Crayons]

@Vitamin:

I don't think your scum, or that you are buddying chamber/CES, but (1) skimming your posts, I can see where ABR/Yos is coming from in suspecting you -- it's a certain "feel" to your posts, for lack of a better/more thorough description, and (2) since I'm using you as a proxy for my CES read, I just wanted to vet your CES position.

----

UNVOTE: mathcam
VOTE: Save The Dragons

Albert, ISO STD and then get in on this.

[Green Crayons]

@STD:

Nope, only child.

[Green Crayons]

@Vitamin:

I don't think

your

you're

scum, or that you are buddying chamber/CES, but (1) skimming your posts, I can see where ABR/Yos is coming from in suspecting you -- it's a certain "feel" to your posts, for lack of a better/more thorough description, and (2) since I'm using you as a proxy for my CES read, I just wanted to vet your CES position.

Oh god the worst typo.

[Green Crayons]

That's why it was a question?

[Green Crayons]

Also, don't push a fallacy that all sibling relationships are the same. I was inquiring specifically about the dynamic between Vitamin/CES.

[Green Crayons]

Yes.

[Green Crayons]

I was bored, so I thought to myself, "GC, what do you think about your fellow players?" And so I did this list.

Strong Town

1) chamber: but I agree with ABR that chamber has been unhelpful since D1 ended, which I attribute to chamber apparently being out of sync with the game more than scumminess

8) undo: mason

9) Sotty7: really, she is constantly saying things that are on my mind, which says to me that she's approaching the game from my shoes; I didn't like her clear buddying, but it's only a minor thing out of her entire play; also I should double check and see if she's overcome my previous criticism of not really doing promised rereads to make cases on her own

11) Petroleumjelly: mason

15) Albert B. Rampage: egg will be on my face if he turns up scum, but I'm really feeling like ABR is incredibly town

20) Yosarian2: D1 and D2, solid town reads; D3, not liking his Vitamin interactions; on balance, still a strong read

21) Bookitty (replacing Seol): maintained strong read since end of D1; if mathcam flipped red, I guess I would have to reevaluate based on some theory ABR had

Lean Town

2) Porochaz: wish he'd post more, I like his contributions, but they're infrequent enough to make it only a lean read

6) DrippingGoofball: I agree with mathcam w/r/t the scumputer, but it's really just being a springboard for her to talk about other things as well, and those conversations come across as pretty town; PJ's continuing distrust makes DGB a lean rather than a strong town

13) mathcam (replacing MafiaSSK): thinking town in light of his D3 posts

18) VitaminR: I was very close to voting Vitamin today, but decided against it because of his most recent posts all look town

Null or Scum

5) MrBuddyLee: I'm letting this one rest because of ABR's observation that he thinks its town v. town

12) Cogito Ergo Sum: proxy Vitamin read is town, but people whose judgment I trust think otherwise; CES hasn't done much of anything, though, and so I have nothing much to based a read off of --> could suggest scumlurk

17) SpyreX (replacing inHimshallibe who replaced Zorblag who replaced Natirasha, who replaced farside22): could be a scumslot for reasons I articulated back when it was occupied by inHim. I would look further into the Spyre versus STD conversation if either would flip red

19) Save the Dragons: waiting to hear back from ABR if he caught anything in reading STD's ISO that I did

22) Kublai Khan (replacing Tigris): potentially lurking scum

[Green Crayons]

@STD:

Also I'm curious why you care so much that it's ABR who looks at my posts, but I doubt I'll get an answer to that so I'll let it be.

Oh, I'm happy to answer this. I think it's interesting that this is your question, rather than the obvious one: "why are you voting me?" You care enough about my position to pose a question relating to it, but the question only indirectly addresses my position and, even then, you undercut the imperative for me to answer it.

(1) Because I want to compare my own read on you with the read from another player who I'm going all in on labeling as town (ABR).

(2) But perhaps more importantly, and because I'm perpetually in a cycle of doubting my reads, and regardless of how ABR reads you, I can have an independent read on ABR (via his read on you) -- which I think will provide to be insightful in a manner different than how his current, "naturally occurring" reads (those he's just voluntarily voicing) will be informative when certain players start dying.

---

@ABR:

you tell me what you see. Just looking for your impressions. I'm happy to follow up.

[Green Crayons]

Is there any scenario where you would decide to your case on me before ABR gets back to you about ISOing me?

Can you restate this? I'm not understanding what you're asking.

[Green Crayons]

It was interesting for the reasons I stated in my original post -- which is more than the fact that you simply did not ask "show me your case."

In response to your earlier post, I don't know whether I would have immediately explained to you or not. At the time, I had thought that you might ask me to explain my position, and I hadn't decided how I would respond if you did, in part because I suspected that ABR would do exactly what he did: not much insofar as what I asked.


At any rate, I'm currently busy, and am going to be on vacation for the rest of the week with limited access.

[Green Crayons]

UNVOTE: STD

I will be keeping an eye on the thread over my vacation weekend. I should be back home by Monday, which is before the deadline, so I'll vote then.

[Green Crayons]

Phone posting!

-----

OGML: I'm interested in your opinion on 1) the late D1 votes on KK, 2) KK's D2 feelings on Glork, and Glork's assertion that KK is scum, and 3) anything you have to say about MBL.

Good luck and Godspeed with your reread.

-----

I'm not going to vote sotty today. My own feelings + mason's previous experience > poorly articulated bandwagon.

[Green Crayons]

VOTE: DGB

Interestingly, a lot of her problems re: Yos apply equally to my play. But it's only bad when Yos does it I guess?

[Green Crayons]

I'm very intrigued by Sotty's last few posts, which have all focused on how there's nothing for her to argue against. There's no "The wagon is wrong because..." or "A better wagon is blah because..." She even goes so far as to call the wagon unfair. Whether or not this is true, this does paint to me a slight picture of scum bemoaning being caught for circumstances out of her control, annoyed that she played the game carefully enough to have nothing to actually be attacked for, and yet got caught away. I'm sure this is partly me trying to retroactively justify the wagon, but it sounds pretty reasonable.

Apart from the rationale that LML pointed to mathcam, sotty, and STD (a point you said was not compelling), the only other knock against sotty that I recall seeing is that she's not very aggressive.

PJ has asserted that her play this game aligns with her town play that he recently experienced. STD claimed to have double checked and verified.

So what's this case against sotty, exactly?

[Green Crayons]

VOTE: DGB

Interestingly, a lot of her problems re: Yos apply equally to my play. But it's only bad when Yos does it I guess?

Which problems specifically are those?

Here is what caught my eye:

(1)

If PJ says he has a town read on her based on his comparing her play here to a previous game he played with her, then I'm going to take that seriously. He's confirmed town, and I tend to trust his judgement.

NOW

you're scum.

(2)

Yosarian is scum for:

(1) Trusting PJ's "meta" on Sotty based on observation of a single game; remember that PJ also tried to "meta" me based on a single game earlier.
(2) We all know meta is crap, who would actually rely on someone else's "meta" proclamations to begin with... and without checking? Not that double-checking makes "meta" anymore reliable.
(3) PJs reads are bad so it's a great place for scum to hide behind.

But this also caught my eye:

And just in case I die tonight,

If Sotty7 flips scum

29 Yosarian2
18 VitaminR
18 chamber
18 MrBuddyLee
17 Tigris/KublaiKhan
14 Green Crayons
1 MafiaSSK/mathcam
-1 Porochaz
-10 Seol/Bookitty
-12 Save the Dragons
-16 Albert B. Rampage
-20 Cogito Ergo Sum

If Sotty7 flips scum & mathcam is town

35 Yosarian2
32 VitaminR
23 chamber
23 Tigris/KublaiKhan
18 MrBuddyLee
17 Green Crayons
2 Porochaz
-2 Albert B. Rampage
-3 Save the Dragons
-10 Seol/Bookitty
-17 Cogito Ergo Sum

Somehow Yos magically becomes SUPER SCUM if Sotty flips scum, but I'm still middle of the pack?

[Green Crayons]

BTW I'm back from my vacation, and let me just say:


Texas is awesome.


That's all.

[Green Crayons]

I don't know! I actually saw that only just now, when I was looking back to quote her posts.


I don't particularly want to get into the merits of the scumputer, but plenty of people have pointed out how it

isn't

objective.

[Green Crayons]

If anything (and this is me first trying to articulate why that post struck me), I think it further underscores how I don't think the scumputer is particularly insightful -- rather than an indication that DGB is manipulating the numbers somehow (or "lying" as you so finely put it).

[Green Crayons]

From memory, I recall someone mentioning the fact that she has excised herself from scum consideration and uses her judgment to pick which wagons are worth looking at.

That's not objectivity.

[Green Crayons]

"she has excised herself from scum consideration" = she doesn't include herself in the numbers

[Green Crayons]

Okay?

[Green Crayons]

Heh. This game.

[Green Crayons]

Here's who I am leaning scum on: UT, Mathcam, STD, Sotty

This part of the list has been discussed a fair bit today, mostly by DGB, and is a key reason to suspect sotty.

Alternatively, a key reason to suspect STD -- a player who LML was very vocal about suspecting for clearly horrible reasons.

[Green Crayons]

3 masons = 6 scum?

I don't know balance.

[Green Crayons]

What convinced me Sotty is town: she keeps saying things that I literally am thinking (started in D2, continued in D3).
What convinced me Yos is town: he keeps saying things that I literally am thinking (mostly in D1, a bit in D2, not much in D3).

So far, my own thoughts/reactions to the game is one of the better standards for me to measure whether someone else is town. I'm not saying it's fullproof -- because it isn't -- but I'm not going to vote Yos today because of it.

My position on this becomes even more entrenched when other people point out Yos's actions, says that those actions are scummy, but I see those actions reflecting my very play. I know I'm not scum, and while I'm not claiming that my actions are mutually exclusive with scum play, I don't think that I'm exactly scumming it up over here.

Just the most recent example:

MBL, Yos being right every time makes him more scummy not less.

Listen, man:

He was a deciding factor in lynching LML = He knew LML was scum and posted in a way to get town credit
He trusted PJ on Sotty = He knows she's town
He lynched Glork "with reservations" = He knows Glork's town

In my last scum game in a large, Star Wars, I bussed my scumbuddy day 1 in the same way Yos positioned himself against LML. I mean, tell me why you townread Yosarian so much, a real reason. You're just proving my point that Yos is scum with your explanations for why Yos is town.

1) I'm not going to claim to have been a "deciding factor" in LML's lynch, since I was basically just saying over and over again "let's lynch LML" while Yos was pushing hard, but I don't see to terribly big of a gap between myself and Yos on D1 w/r/t LML.

2) I trusted PJ on Sotty not because I was super keen on picking up the fact that he was calling her mason, but because I trust a good player who is confirmed town and who said to trust him on his read.

3) I voted for Glork because I didn't see many good options at the end of D2, and I figured I would at least go back to my initial D2 suspicions. Though I didn't go *siiiigh*why do I have to lynch Gloooork?*siiiigh*, I

was

looking for a viable alterantive, as indicated by my last minute, failed switch to MBL.

[Green Crayons]

FWIW, I like MBL's most recent posting.

[Green Crayons]

(And I hope to see more like it.)

[Green Crayons]

I happen to know CES quite well and I feel like there are way more town tells in his play so far than usual. He stuck his neck out to make a case against you Day 1, which he wouldn't do as scum (I noted this at the time). He also very quickly read chamber as town Day 1, in the same way that I did, which makes me think we're approaching the game the same way. The way he has reacted to ABR's case on me I think also fits more with him as town, but I'm less certain about that tell.

I defended them because I think they're town (still pretty sure about chamber,

maybe less about CES

), which comes from knowing them well.

What.

[Green Crayons]

What's your problem? All the stuff I list there is about Day 1 and he's been kinda absent since then. I still think he's town, but I'm no longer absolutely confident of it (I've also been wrong a lot, something has to be wrong somewhere).

I think CES has been consistent the entire game in how he's playing, and so I don't see what basis you would have to change your opinion on him.


Happy with my DGB vote.

[Green Crayons]

I would vote CES over OGML.

I would vote Vitamin and OGML, but don't want to. I don't have a preference of one over the other.

I would not vote Yos.


But, I'm happy with my DGB vote.

[Green Crayons]

CES over OGML and Vitamin*

[Green Crayons]

I think CES has been consistent the entire game in how he's playing, and so I don't see what basis you would have to change your opinion on him.

I just said that I am

maybe

a little less sure about it, since a bunch of my reads have turned out wrong. I'm not getting why this is a big deal to you.

As a reaction to your shift on CES, I simply said: "what."

The fact that you think that qualifies as a "big deal" is weird.

[Green Crayons]

. . .


What?

[Green Crayons]

UNVOTE: DGB
VOTE: CES

If CES flips red, we can all look hard at the folks Yos pointed out as being (explicitly or implicitly) against a CES lynch.

If CES flips green, I don't really see how ABR's "Yos is super confident about being right all the time because he's scum, and therefore of course he is right" theory really stands up, because Yos would have been super confident about a completely wrong opinion.

[Green Crayons]

He JUST SAID that "CES could be scum" (in order to avoid having to explain why he was defending him so hard) and then he goes right back to defending him, saying CES is a "town player".

These aren't mutually exclusive positions.

[Green Crayons]

@mathcam:

your propensity for understandment is well received.

-----

@ABR:

Green Crayons, why do you town read Yosarian?

It's like you don't even read my posts. I said it here most recently:

What convinced me Sotty is town: she keeps saying things that I literally am thinking (started in D2, continued in D3).
What convinced me Yos is town: he keeps saying things that I literally am thinking (mostly in D1, a bit in D2, not much in D3).

So far, my own thoughts/reactions to the game is one of the better standards for me to measure whether someone else is town. I'm not saying it's fullproof -- because it isn't -- but I'm not going to vote Yos today because of it.

My position on this becomes even more entrenched when other people point out Yos's actions, says that those actions are scummy, but I see those actions reflecting my very play. I know I'm not scum, and while I'm not claiming that my actions are mutually exclusive with scum play, I don't think that I'm exactly scumming it up over here.

Just the most recent example:

MBL, Yos being right every time makes him more scummy not less.

Listen, man:

He was a deciding factor in lynching LML = He knew LML was scum and posted in a way to get town credit
He trusted PJ on Sotty = He knows she's town
He lynched Glork "with reservations" = He knows Glork's town

In my last scum game in a large, Star Wars, I bussed my scumbuddy day 1 in the same way Yos positioned himself against LML. I mean, tell me why you townread Yosarian so much, a real reason. You're just proving my point that Yos is scum with your explanations for why Yos is town.

1) I'm not going to claim to have been a "deciding factor" in LML's lynch, since I was basically just saying over and over again "let's lynch LML" while Yos was pushing hard, but I don't see to terribly big of a gap between myself and Yos on D1 w/r/t LML.

2) I trusted PJ on Sotty not because I was super keen on picking up the fact that he was calling her mason, but because I trust a good player who is confirmed town and who said to trust him on his read.

3) I voted for Glork because I didn't see many good options at the end of D2, and I figured I would at least go back to my initial D2 suspicions. Though I didn't go *siiiigh*why do I have to lynch Gloooork?*siiiigh*, I

was

looking for a viable alterantive, as indicated by my last minute, failed switch to MBL.

[Green Crayons]

Who put forward the idea that UT was killed by a vig? I remember DGB saying it.

- I said it first, first post of D3.
- chamber then said shortly thereafter (within ~1 real life day, ~1 game page) that he assumed UT was vig-killed.
- DGB, not long after (but uncertain as to when), then thanked the vig for killing UT (if memory serves).

[Green Crayons]

Vote him and then act smug w/r/t Yos if he flips green.

[Green Crayons]

Because CES should have spoken up by now? Seriously if he's a PR and didn't bother to check the game at any point in the last 24 hours, that's on him, not us.

holy fuck this is a gigantic pile of awful

can we please just have lynched like twenty five pages ago

because this is getting us nowhere except for outted town roles

like oh my god

I know one of the fake tells people are using to poke at my mislynch is "he's bandwagoning", but at least I'm not sidetracking every goddamn wagon because it's not the platonic ideal of wagoniness that everyone seems to demand

can we please just lynch one of mathcam/VitR/Glrok

this is fucking painful and the scum are loving it because it's helping to set up mislynches for later

how are this many good players in one place not seeing that

UT, I love you. Why did you have to leave us?

[Green Crayons]

Because CES should have spoken up by now? Seriously if he's a PR and didn't bother to check the game at any point in the last 24 hours, that's on him, not us.

I did a quick ISO, and see that CES did post earlier today. But at that time he was tied for the leading bandwagon (someone had done an unofficial vote count on the very page he posted on), so I still think his absence is actually a knock against him when, even if he isn't a super active player, he hasn't said anything at game time.

[Green Crayons]

Because CES should have spoken up by now? Seriously if he's a PR and didn't bother to check the game at any point in the last 24 hours, that's on him, not us.

I did a quick ISO, and see that CES did post earlier today. But at that time he was tied for the leading bandwagon (someone had done an unofficial vote count on the very page he posted on), so I still think his absence is actually a knock against him when, even if he isn't a super active player, he hasn't said anything at game time.

DGB claimed vanilla, prematurely, but only after the vanilla cop got KO'd. Since you seem to be weighing risks.

No, I'm all-in on a CES lynch for today. I'm tired of the waffling.

[Green Crayons]

oh goodness I'm starting to actually agree with DGB.

[Green Crayons]

DGB claimed vanilla, prematurely, but only after the vanilla cop got KO'd. Since you seem to be weighing risks.

QUOTED STRAIGHT FROM THE SCUM QT

FOR YOUR WEIGHING AND CONSIDERATION

Like, OGML, you read through this game SUPER quick. You even admitted to skimming.

And yet you caught this specific sequence of events?

[Green Crayons]

Is it "fucking outlandish?" No, I would not say that it is.

[Green Crayons]

Yo ho, yo ho, you are frustrated. Don't take it out on me.


All DGB's post did was make me realize that I should actually go back and reread your catching up posts juxtaposed with her "SCUM QT CLIFF NOTES!" assertions tomorrow.

[Green Crayons]

That was directed towards OGML.

[Green Crayons]

I would think you read the game because you're a glutton for punishment plus wanted to know where to stand? Is this a rhetorical question?

Yes, I know you responded to my questions. And I appreciated the response, I thought it was informative.

I didn't really pay attention to DGB's assertions the first time through, so now I have to go back and actually match up her posts with what you were saying when she was making them. That's all I'm saying, and you're getting a butthurt at me for it. Sorry that I'm not sorry now that I need to go back and REREAD AND SEE IF MY ORIGINAL READ ON YOU CAN WITHSTAND SOME SUSPICIONS OH GOD THE HORROR.

I think reading through a 80 pages of this monster of a game in one day is super quick. Yes, caps lock SUPER. Sorry if my measurement of speed reading is different than yours?

[Green Crayons]

Fuck you both

I originally thought this was directed to ABR and DGB. I caught it again when doing a quick reread to look at the end of day STD posts, and realized that it might have been directed at DGB and myself.

If it was directed in part to me, I will accept your apology when you cool off and actually read what I posted.

[Green Crayons]

FWIW, I disagree completely with Vitamin's claim that DGB looks more town at the end of today.

[Green Crayons]

VOTE: DGB

[Green Crayons]

Quote the scum claim.

[Green Crayons]

@ABR:

I don't have a sense of humor. Quote it. I think I know what you're talking about, but I want to make sure.

w/r/t OGML, believe it or not I'm doing what I said I would do right this second! (Which is not that I would "re-examine" him. I'm looking into a very specific thing.)

Also, thanks for thinking I'm not dumb, but you're pretty great at being wrong.

@OGML:

please explain your reread process. Did you just go straight through, skip around, skim large sections, etc?

[Green Crayons]

Explain your Yos read. Last time you said Yos was scum, it was because his confidence about being right (that LML was scum, that Glork would flip town), and that he was actually right, stemmed from the fact that Yos was scum and therefore knew he would be right.

Yos was 100% confidence CES was scum. Yos was 100% wrong.

It completely breaks your thesis.

[Green Crayons]

lol

No, this is what I said:

I didn't really pay attention to DGB's assertions the first time through, so now I have to go back and actually match up her posts with what you were saying when she was making them. That's all I'm saying, and you're getting a butthurt at me for it. Sorry that I'm not sorry now that I need to go back and REREAD AND SEE IF MY ORIGINAL READ ON YOU CAN WITHSTAND SOME SUSPICIONS OH GOD THE HORROR.

Believe it or not, I started doing this as soon as I posted my vote! But then I realized I wanted to know how OGML says he went about reading the thread, for <reasons> that I will post later when I'm done.

[Green Crayons]

And? It's easier to be right about who is town. I mean, the odds are in your favor. I'm saying you're wrong about who is scum (insofar as you are calling me scum, rather than stupid).

Also, hey, wait, didn't I post something about this once? Oh yeah:

Also, why are you drawing attention to your "defense" of Glork? Are you suggesting that we should draw the conclusion that you are town because you had the foresight to know that Glork would flip town? Because that's what it's coming across as, which is scummy.


For example, I had a pretty good idea that UT would flip green, and said as much in the previous days, but just because UT actually did flip town doesn't mean anyone should conclude that I'm more town because of UT's flip.

[Green Crayons]

ABR is town in my book, for a host of reasons.

That's why I want his further explanation w/r/t Yos.

(preempted by ABR's post -- now I've received it, and appreciate it.)

[Green Crayons]

Yos didn't break your pattern in D3. He was 100% confident about voting CES at least in D2, which was before you said anything, I believe. Is Yos psychic?

[Green Crayons]

I've been hosting some out of town guests this weekend, so I'll hopefully be caught back up some time before the end of the day.

[Green Crayons]

@MBL:

(1)

And Crayons, I understand what you're saying about Albert but my brain is having trouble synching his play with townishness. Like CES yesterday, though, he's a lousy lynch in the first few days and he's vulnerable to mislynch unless he gets results.

I don't think we're on the same page with respect to your first sentence. I don't know what you mean by your second.


(2) So your vote for today is basically locked in, right?

-----

@OGML:

The reason why I asked for your input as to how you went about reading is because when I started looking into your catch up posts, it looked like you were reading posts out of chronological sequence rather than in sequential order. I wrote up a quick list just now to point this out, but it actually made me see that you were, in fact, responding to events chronologically -- for the most part. The one post that I would like for you to explain (and what really prompted my question) is:

- Post 2443: you quote Post 94 to support the position that you are "no longer" certain that Yos/Vitamin are a scum team. Your language makes it sound like you just discovered Post 94, even though your earlier posts were already at the end of D1.

-----

@ABR:

(1) I'm sticking with my DGB vote, which was my preferred lynch yesterday. For these reasons:

- PJ's plethora of posts on the subject, including most recently Post 2949 and Post 2980.
- OGML's Post 2414.
- DGB's anti-town need to throw shade on anyone who suspects her. (Huzzah, it finally happened to me in Post 2924!) It's a very basic attack-my-attackers schtick, and at lot of times her suspicions amount to "player is scum because player is scum," though occasionally she switches it up with "player is scum because player is voting me." She repeats this anti-town tactic enough, and in conjunction with the remainder of her play, to make me think it is scum motivated.

I think she'll flip red. But even if she flips green, I think it'll be super informative. (For example, I would make a STD vote tomorrow.) (I'm also not against a STD lynch today, but for the fact that I'm tired of the town getting distracted from a DGB lynch.)


(2)

I want OGML lynched because it's painfully obvious that he is scum.

You have to give more than this. Doing my reread, DGB instantly dismissed OGML's posts as reading the scum QT as soon as OGML vocalizing his suspicions of her. She didn't explain more than that, and it looks like her typical attack-her-attackers-by-yelling-scum-repeatedly strategy. If that's what you're relying on, I gotta say it: that sucks as a basis for suspicion.

Looking over your posts, I don't even see you saying anything about KK or Tigris. So you've become convinced that the slot is scum based on OGML's play alone. Please explain other than "it's obvious." I'm open to the possibility, because I thought KK was a potential scum. OGML's play looks

better

to me than KK's. I'm interested in why you think it's

worse

.

-----

@mathcam:

can you please explain your STD's scumpartner elimination in Post 2943?

[Green Crayons]

@Vitamin:

based on your Post 914 and Post 1122, I would have thought that your vote today would also be locked in. However, you seem to be against a STD lynch for today, which goes against your embrace of the "LML busses like whoa" meta theory.

Thoughts?

[Green Crayons]

Through page 10...I'm posting this to remind myself and so you guys know where I am at. I'm not explaining anything until I get closer to day 4 cause you probably don't remember anyway and it may be irrelevant now. Reads exclude my mason buddies for obvious reasons

Town reads: chamber, std, dgb(maybe, not strong)
Scum reads: Vit, Green Crayons

I get this a lot from my early D1 play. Not sure why.

[Green Crayons]

Yosarian has a lot of gall to be criticizing DGB or me after the disastrous chaos he manufactured yesterday. Really.

Really?! We're blaming yos for that one?

I'm trying to determine any motivation for this comment

other

than attempting to buddying Yos, but missing the mark because of the very apparent reason chamber just pointed out.

[Green Crayons]

Please never answer a question I direct towards someone else.

chamber using these last few pages to play against his own standard of play to either buddy DGB or position himself as an anti-Yos is noted.

-----

@MBL:

<snip>

(2) So your vote for today is basically locked in, right?

Ignored.

-----

@Vitamin:

based on your Post 914 and Post 1122, I would have thought that your vote today would also be locked in. However, you seem to be against a STD lynch for today, which goes against your embrace of the "LML busses like whoa" meta theory.

Thoughts?

Also ignored.

[Green Crayons]

Yosarian has a lot of gall to be criticizing DGB or me after the disastrous chaos he manufactured yesterday. Really.

I thought CES was going to flip scum, so I spent the last 48 hours of the day yesterday trying to figure out who, out of the people who had defended him (you, chamber, and VitR) was his buddy, by attacking all three of you, putting pressure on you, demanding answers, and generally trying to make it as difficult for you as possible to continue to try to have it both ways on CES. I wanted a hard answer on why you thought he, chamber, and VitR thought he was town, and I wanted it before the lynch happend. I went pretty far out on a limb there to try to get a reaction out of you three.

But saying that "I sewed chaos" is bullshit; you were the one trying to use spam and bullying to get me to unvote CES. If you had used logic and evidence instead, then I might have listened to you.

Anyway, so far this game, I was right about LML, right about PJ, right about UT, wrong about Undo, wrong about Glork, right about Sotty, and wrong about CES. You were nowhere on LML when it counted, wrong on PJ, wrong on UT, wrong on Sotty, and right about CES. If we're really keeping score on "who's right more often", then I think i'm still a few points ahead.

I'm curious what type of "logic and evidence" would have convinced you not to vote CES?

You had a CES vote hardon since D2 (early D1?) because of CES's play (focusing on one player, not very active) and other players replied that that was consistent with CES's town play, and inconsistent with CES's scum play. How was that not "logic and evidence"?

[Green Crayons]

chamber using these last few pages to play against his own standard of play to either buddy DGB or position himself as an anti-Yos is noted.

I was cognizant of what I was doing. General rules are general rules for a reason, and I've explained why I interfered in this case.

I believe you that you were cognizant of what you were doing.

But DGB is fully capable of both defending herself, and of identifying and calling out bad arguments -- as she did with Yos's most recent line of questioning in Post 3093.

You jumping in at the time you did, and in light of your previous standards of play, looks like you're trying to position yourself as pro-DGB/anti-Yos.

[Green Crayons]

UNVOTE: DGB
VOTE: STD

@ABR:

the question you should be asking yourself is why isn't MBL

already

voting STD?

[Green Crayons]

He said it's because he wants the masons to sign off on the bandwagon, weren't you reading?

MBL was one of the biggest proponents of the "LML busses like crazy to a fault" meta. Weren't you reading?

[Green Crayons]

looks like you're trying to position yourself as pro-DGB/anti-Yos

I'm not all that pro-DGB. I'm absolutely anti-yos, but I don't think I've been hiding that prior to this?

Defending a player against arguments = acting in a manner that is pro-player.

[Green Crayons]

@chamber:

You can keep saying those words, but that's not the effect your play has. For example:

"Position yourself"?

He

<GC notation: "he" is "chamber">

thinks that DGB is town

and that Yos is a bully, and rightfully so.

People reasonably and rightfully understand your play as being pro-DGB because you keep playing in a manner that is pro-DGB.

So, the response to your "and?" question is simply what I've already stated: you acted in a manner that contravenes your own standard of play (answering questions for another player), when that is unnecessary for the situation (DGB can identify the bad arguments), that does nothing except make you look anti-Yos (looks good if Yos flips scum) and pro-DGB (looks good if DGB flips town). That is, your play looks self-serving.

[Green Crayons]

You asked why he wasn't voting STD. He said he wasn't voting STD because of the reason I stated. What does MBL thinking LML buses have to do with your original question at all? He waits before voting his suspicions, or haven't you noticed? It seems like you're propagating undue paranoia and I don't like it. You're on the list, GC. IGMEOY

Oh holy fuck, ABR. Shit or get off the pot. Call me scum or call me town, but don't do this annoying "hurf durf I disagree with GC so therefore I'm going to state increasingly large suspicion acronyms." I'm town you dolt.


As for your question "what does MBL thinking LML buses have to do with" my original question of why isn't MBL already voting STD? Because MBL was one of the biggest proponents of "LML has a compulsion to bus his partners." Who did LML bus? Let's go to the best post that summarizes LML's feelings:

Here's who I currently think is town: Chamber, DGB, Shanba, Glork.
Here's who I am leaning town on: MBL, Undo, ABR. inHim (or any incarnations)
Here's who I have null on: Porochaz, CTD, CES, VitR, GC, Yos2, BooKitty (I feel like that wagon is incredibly manufactured... similar to mine), Kublai Khan
Here's who I am leaning scum on: UT,

Mathcam

,

STD

, Sotty
Here's who I have strong scum feelings for: PJ

Only mathcam and STD are the "unknowns" w/r/t who LML could possibly be bussing.

But who was LML suspecting hardcore all D1 -- the more visible and actually credible "bus"? That's right: STD.

The masons weighing in on how they feel about STD doesn't have any relation whatsoever on whether MBL actually believes his own LML meta claim. So the question to ask is: (1) why was MBL pushing a meta theory about LML that he now apparently doesn't have much confidence in, (2) why is MBL refusing to comply with a meta theory that he does have confidence in, or (3) unknown third option.

[Green Crayons]

Oh I didn't realize DGB was tied with STD before I switched. I want either of them to go today, so I'm happy to switch back if that's the way things are going.

[Green Crayons]

Not a fan of GC's willingness to go with two easy wagons (DGB and StD). Feels the most slippery out of the people voting for either today.

You're trying really quite hard to find me scummy.

With this new line, you're just ignoring my entire ISO and my stances w/r/t DGB and STD.

[Green Crayons]

So...I guess you're saying that you're not confident STD is scum, then?

GC's vote seems singularly unengaged. Maybe he's bus'ing. Maybe he's a townie that's a team player. But I took notice of his vote.

Haha go fly a kite.

[Green Crayons]

19) Save the Dragons: but LML's insistence on pushing a STD vote, when his suspicions of STD were just so bad, gives me pause

STD: Out of all of the options of who LML was bussing because LML has a Weird Thing About Being Right, I would guess STD. I remember lots of folks (myself included) saying that STD posting was super town, and just around that time LML was like "NOPE because of these horrible, horrible reasons!" and wouldn't let up. But that's really the only justification I can readily pull out of my butt to vote STD.

UNVOTE: mathcam
VOTE: Save The Dragons

Albert, ISO STD and then get in on this.

@STD:

Also I'm curious why you care so much that it's ABR who looks at my posts, but I doubt I'll get an answer to that so I'll let it be.

Oh, I'm happy to answer this. I think it's interesting that this is your question, rather than the obvious one: "why are you voting me?" You care enough about my position to pose a question relating to it, but the question only indirectly addresses my position and, even then, you undercut the imperative for me to answer it.

Here's who I am leaning scum on: UT, Mathcam, STD, Sotty

This part of the list has been discussed a fair bit today, mostly by DGB, and is a key reason to suspect sotty.

Alternatively, a key reason to suspect STD -- a player who LML was very vocal about suspecting for clearly horrible reasons.

Slugheads.

[Green Crayons]

@STD:

1) How LML interacted with others is (still) the most vital information we have to figure out who is scum. So, I don't know why you're underplaying just how important that is.

2) As for what I saw in your posts, it had something to do with your play coming across as very measured and safe.

3) Yes, you did try to justify why you didn't ask me about my suspicions of you. And then I said:

It was interesting for the reasons I stated in my original post -- which is more than the fact that you simply did not ask "show me your case."

In response to your earlier post, I don't know whether I would have immediately explained to you or not. At the time, I had thought that you might ask me to explain my position, and I hadn't decided how I would respond if you did, in part because I suspected that ABR would do exactly what he did: not much insofar as what I asked.

[Green Crayons]

That was in response to 3226, if not apparent.

[Green Crayons]

So if your suspicion was, when you were voting me, because LML was clearly bussing me, why didn't you mention that? When ABR responded, why did you back down and not push with that?

I might have been unclear. What I saw, and wanted to see if ABR also caught, was not STD/LML interactions, but:

2) As for what I saw in your posts, it had something to do with your play coming across as very measured and safe.

I didn't follow through because I think that was around the time that nobody else was voting you, ABR was being a wet fart about "looking" (I think he said that he skimmed and didn't see anything and then let it die), and I had to go enjoy San Antonio for an extended weekend.

-----

You mention your town reads in your most recent DGB response. On the flip side, apart from DGB, who are you other scum candidates? Have you made a post recently summarizing your positions on those players?

[Green Crayons]

I've already done "digging of <my> own." I've stated in previous days, accompanying my previous votes for both STD and DGB, why I want both of them lynched.

Once again, ISO my posts you slughead.

The two minutes it takes to CTRL + F and then search for "DGB" and "STD" shows that your "suspicion" is total bunk, because what your complaint amounts to is: "GC, in every time stating that he wants DGB or STD lynched today, hasn't restated his already-stated justifications for wanting STD and DGB lynched."

[Green Crayons]

lol

[Green Crayons]

What's the joke?

[Green Crayons]

UNVOTE: STD
VOTE: DGB

[Green Crayons]

UNVOTE: DGB


looooool

[Green Crayons]

VOTE: STD

[Green Crayons]

Maybe don't be so suspicious when you play.