Micro 747: Setup UPick Mafia

[Aronis]

another day, another pagetop, another votecount

Votecount 1.3

---------------------------------------------------------

BluBlake - [1] -

northsidegal

Not_Mafia - [1] -

Raya36

Flubbernugget - [2] -

BluBlake, Kop

Fenraiser - [4] -

GuiltyLion, Hopkirk, Not_Mafia, Flubbernugget

Hopkirk - [1] -

Fenraiser

No Lynch - [0]

Not Voting - [0]

With 9 alive, it takes 5 to lynch.
Mod Note: Raya36

is getting prodded. She has about (expired on 2017-10-20 11:23:32) show back up

Day 1 ends in (expired on 2017-10-25 16:09:05)

---------------------------------------------------------

Events

Day 0 Starts|Day 0 Ends
Day 1 Starts

[Flubbernugget]

I don't have town reads on Raya, nm, or north, and am comfortable looking in there for a lynch pool

[Hopkirk]

I don't really like the wagon on Fen. I didn't get the same vibe from his pre game posting that Lion and Hopkirk seemed to have. Flubber is saying his initial vote was random, but I certainly didn't read it as random especially because 2 other people had placed serious votes on Fen before him. I don't think some of Fen's arguments are great, and I don't really understand his vote on Hopkirk, but his posts seem typical of somebody that got put at L-1 on the first page of the game.

Same question on 'random vote' I asked earlier.

I don't have town reads on Raya, nm, or north, and am comfortable looking in there for a lynch pool

Are these scumreads?

[Raya36]

VOTE: Fenraiser because L-1

Typical Not Mafia, why doesn't that surprise me. Always votes and uses either poor reasons, or poor logic.

I actually don't mind the reasoning for the vote here. It could be better but adding the pressure of a l-1 vote could be a good thing.

I don't have town reads on Raya, nm, or north, and am comfortable looking in there for a lynch pool

The wording here is interesting. Why not just say this is your lynch pool or the people you are scumleaning. Saying you don't have town reads on them is weird.

[northsidegal]

if you'll look at fen's indications of how frustrated he is about being suspected for the setup choice i think it's entirely plausible to read scum angry at being caught for something so minor in there. also, slight scumread on flubber for the awkward rvs vote discussion.

[Flubbernugget]

I was in the mindset of a playing a larger game when I made that post. So yeah, in a micro a three person lynch pool doesn't solve much.

But as the inverse of my statement, I have town reads on kop, hopkirk, BB, gl, and obviously wouldn't elect to lynch myself.

[northsidegal]

I was in the mindset of a playing a larger game when I made that post. So yeah, in a micro a three person lynch pool doesn't solve much.

But as the inverse of my statement, I have town reads on kop, hopkirk, BB, gl, and obviously wouldn't elect to lynch myself.

you've mentioned three people in your lynchpool and five people you have town reads on. why exclude fenraiser? also, would you mind explaining your scumreads?

[Flubbernugget]

I'm already locked on Fenraiser being scum. Because he is currently my only scum read, I'm trying to sort the rest of the game.

[GuiltyLion]

Flubber is saying his initial vote was random, but I certainly didn't read it as random especially because 2 other people had placed serious votes on Fen before him.

Yeah, but Flubber has also said his read has since "evolved" into a real scumread due to Fenraiser's defense. What do you think about his 57 and 70?

I don't think some of Fen's arguments are great, and I don't really understand his vote on Hopkirk, but his posts seem typical of somebody that got put at L-1 on the first page of the game.

sure, but does this make Fen town for you?

[GuiltyLion]

I'm

V/LA this weekend

.

I might have mobile access so I'll try to check in and not go completely silent, but I'd like to see more in the mean time. This game has been pretty slow so far.

[Aronis]

Okay, thanks for letting me know

Not_Mafia

and

Fenraiser

are being prodded. They have about (expired on 2017-10-21 19:31:03) to respond

No VC cause the one ten posts above this is 100% up to date

[Not_Mafia]

Sorry, will catch up tomrrow

[Fenraiser]

I'm gonna co-sign the questions in 41 and ask a follow-up:

I can see this as a grab for towncred more than scumhunting.

you

can

see it as a grab for towncred, but how confident are you that it actually

is

a grab for towncred?

Actually, not really. It pissed me off that my game preference seemed to be the sole reason for a vote and scumread. I'm inclined to see more of a scumFlubber than a townFlubber because of this. I am not satisfied with his responses either.

can you unpack this for me a little bit more?

if Flubber is scum, then he posted things like 35 and 36 presumably because he thinks town!Flubber might also say those things and because he thinks it will project as town. You seemed to be making this argument in 40, that you thought those posts were manufactured for towncred.

I basically asked for you to reflect on how confident you are that this is what's going on - trying to see if you would acknowledge that Flubber could also just be

being town

- and you said you were "not really" confident about it, acknowledging some possible bias/tunnel-vision because of his vote on you. On the surface I like those first two sentences because I think it can be difficult for scum to authentically project uncertainty. But then the last couple sentences quoted here and the rest of your post sounds like you're still scumreading Flubber - despite not being confident about it, you're still pushing the idea anyway and not engaging further with more things he's said. That doesn't ring town to me.

I want to understand your mentality when you make a post like this. Why did you hedge and acknowledge that you're not really sure, yet continue to advocate for scum!Flubber, but also move your vote? Do you think Flubber/Hopkirk are partners and both taking advantage of an early mislynch wagon? If not, who else could be scum? who are you most sure about being town?

(basically this is my "trying to engage with you" way of saying this:

My read evolved and you should too

)

Flubber and Hopkirk get some more town points for touching on these or similar things before I got to the thread. I also share Hopkirk's sentiments about Blublake in 55. I'm not yet sold on Fenraiser scum - he might be just tilted trying to defend his game preferences and bad at explaining himself - but I feel like the wagon is good for the game state.

My responses to Flubber were more oriented in hearing him comment about his

first

reasons for his vote on me, and while I'm not really sold on him being scum, his avoidance at addressing his first reasons for voting just made me more and more frustrated. I get that his read can 'evolve', but I keep trying to have him address his "first" reasons for voting and I keep getting frustrated that he doesn't address it. His reads became based more on my reactions after I made my responses on his first reason for voting me.

I want to understand your mentality when you make a post like this. Why did you hedge and acknowledge that you're not really sure, yet continue to advocate for scum!Flubber, but also move your vote? Do you think Flubber/Hopkirk are partners and both taking advantage of an early mislynch wagon? If not, who else could be scum? who are you most sure about being town?

If you look more closely at my posts after I voted Flubber, you would see that I pestered him constantly because I wanted him to address his initial vote. Yes, there is an undertone of me seeing him as scum, but that is because I viewed his responses as him avoiding my concerns. So, I kept at it.

Also, in 40, I claimed that accusing someone of being scum because of their set-up choice would also mean they implied that the people who did not choose 'scum-sided' set-up choices were more likely to be town. I called it towncred grabbing because that implication would benefit scum who chose town-sided set-up choices or did not choose at all. It's kind of flawed, although I'm salty at how Flubber's initial reasoning wasn't poked at either as set-up choice did not seem like a good indicator either-it was completely avoided.

I looked back into some old posts so I could better answer your question and now I have something new (I think I said it once though) to say after looking at them again.

@Fenraiser
‘That seems understandable at first glance, but following that line of logic, the people with those views are implying that people who voted for non-vanilla set-ups and such are probably town.’
This is wrong because: If we do accept scum have a preference for higher scum winrates, then scum must decide what’s optimal in the trade-off between ‘pick high scum winrate to statistically win more’, and ‘pick lower scum winrate to appear town (the whole thing is complete WIFOM). Therefore, the scum who voted for good town setups just fall into the second group. Nobody’s said there isn’t scum in the second group (especially since there’s two scum, and at most 0-1 scum in the first group depending on whether you’re scum or not), so it looks a lot like you’re straw manning the position.
There’s also a difference in that it wasn’t a binary choice between vanilla setup with high scum winrate, and non vanilla with high town winrate. There were multiple options with varying winrates and PR numbers. Flubber wasn’t saying his pick was good by saying yours was bad- he was saying one specific pick was worse than the others, so more likely picked by scum than town.


Also, the non-vanilla setups (especially this one), have better town PRs. That’s a reason for town to prefer non- vanilla that isn’t just winrate based. Winrate and Vanilla are being used interchangeably in some instances.

This post is weird. I don't know why, but it seems very weird. Kind of out of place. I can't put it into words just yet....

@Hopkirk

I thought you didn't address much of Flubber's initial argument against me, so I'd like you to share your thoughts on Flubber like:

What do you think of his initial vote and reasoning?
&
Do you townread, scumread, or nullread Flubber? Were there any significant changes in how you viewed him based on his words/actions?

Also, I'm under the impression that random vote is almost synonymous with rvs, to answer your question.

@Aronis

I shall make up for my absence.

[Fenraiser]

if you'll look at fen's indications of how frustrated he is about being suspected for the setup choice i think it's entirely plausible to read scum angry at being caught for something so minor in there. also, slight scumread on flubber for the awkward rvs vote discussion.

What about the rvs vote discussion was awkward? Also, how does it lead to a slight scumread?

VOTE: Fenraiser because L-1

Typical Not Mafia, why doesn't that surprise me. Always votes and uses either poor reasons, or poor logic.

I actually don't mind the reasoning for the vote here. It could be better but adding the pressure of a l-1 vote could be a good thing.

I don't have town reads on Raya, nm, or north, and am comfortable looking in there for a lynch pool

The wording here is interesting. Why not just say this is your lynch pool or the people you are scumleaning. Saying you don't have town reads on them is weird.

I don't think the 2nd part would get us anywhere. Granted the wording is weird, but there are so many things that have happened, and there are so many other things that could be discussed instead.

Why did you focus on the wording rather than something else?

[Raya36]

It was just something that jumped out at me. I need to do a more in depth reread when I have time (probably tonight) but I wanted to get at least a few thoughts out before then since I knew it could be a couple days before I could really commit to putting some time in.

[Hopkirk]

This post is weird. I don't know why, but it seems very weird. Kind of out of place. I can't put it into words just yet....

@Hopkirk
I thought you didn't address much of Flubber's initial argument against me, so I'd like you to share your thoughts on Flubber like:

What do you think of his initial vote and reasoning?
&
Do you townread, scumread, or nullread Flubber? Were there any significant changes in how you viewed him based on his words/actions?

Also, I'm under the impression that random vote is almost synonymous with rvs, to answer your question.

Why would you expect me to have significant thoughts on a random vote- which is what you were commenting on before?
Flubber is a null-slight town read for me. Slight town because of aligning reads, nullish because he hasn't made any long posts yet, so I can't judge for sure.
I already commented on his initial vote and reasoning (I think in the post I was questioning you in). It looks like a RVS vote. It now looks like a more serious vote that happens to match his earlier one.

If you see 'random vote' as the same as 'RVS' then I don't understand why you're criticising Flubber's vote for looking 'non random'. If you're accepting my definition of RVS (by not providing an alternative definition), then his vote was an RVS vote, and hence a 'random vote' by both our metrics. That would make your attack on Flubber very confusing.

[Hopkirk]

I also still want responses to the rest of my comments- especially on the odd choice of voting me over Flubber.

[northsidegal]

if you'll look at fen's indications of how frustrated he is about being suspected for the setup choice i think it's entirely plausible to read scum angry at being caught for something so minor in there. also, slight scumread on flubber for the awkward rvs vote discussion.

What about the rvs vote discussion was awkward? Also, how does it lead to a slight scumread?

from what i understand i'm expressing the same opinion that you are: it feels like flubber was dodging the question of why he initially voted you, and that seems slightly suspicious. the entire interaction from 78 to 87 is of interest. like, take a look at 78:

Okay so I'm being grilled on an rvs vote now

I've seen it all

is that so unusual to you? i don't think i've ever been in or read a game where someone

wasn't

questioned about their behavior during rvs. i mean, it's basically what transitions the game out of rvs in the first place. so why is flubber expressing such a disbelief here? is it some kind of discrediting or attempt to steer the conversation away from a topic he doesn't want to talk about? might be a stretch, but it's worth looking at anyways.

at the same time i'd like to note that i don't scumread flubber for his rvs vote - at worst it's null, and there's nothing wrong with voting someone in rvs for mostly gut reasons or for a simple reason like the setup choice. that's how you turn your gut reads into substatianted reasons as to someone being scum or town.

[Aronis]

I think n_m needs to be replaced and others prodded
I'll work on that when I get home.
Sorry about the delays, I had like a 14 hour practice thing yesterday

[Hopkirk]

One (other) poster in 24h, and almost half the game needed prods or replacements.
Is this (activity rate) indicative of caught scum D1, or scum on the wagon who want it to just tip over for an easy lynch? Still thinking the first, but I'm looking for thoughts from people who've seen this kind of thing before- since I haven't seen a wagon that started in RVS hang like this for so long.

[Aronis]

N_M doesn't actually need replaced yet, i missed his post. But like I just mass-prodded everybody except for Hopkirk cause this mass inactivity is depressing

[Not_Mafia]

Will try to catch up later, fail, and put it off again

[northsidegal]

hey! i resent that prod, it wasn't even 24 hours since my last post and i was still watching the thread!

[Raya36]

Sorry about not being on.

V/la until Tuesday

. Probably should have done this earlier.

[GuiltyLion]

I get that his read can 'evolve', but I keep trying to have him address his "first" reasons for voting and I keep getting frustrated that he doesn't address it. His reads became based more on my reactions after I made my responses on his first reason for voting me.

let's just say he's never going to address why he first voted you beyond whatever remarks he's already made

is it worth continuing to push on this? is it indicative that he's scum? I don't understand why you're so hung up on this

like, as far as I see it, your argument for scum!Flubber is mostly:
a) his talking about voting for scum-favored setups being dumb

could be

a manipulative grab for towncred
b) he voted you for suggesting scum-favored setups
c) he won't address you about why he initially voted you

I just don't think this is that strong of a case or that it's worth tunneling on, to the exclusion of the other players in the game. I don't feel like I'm seeing you puzzle out alignments.

Further, I asked you about the gamestate as a whole and other possible scumreads as well as your strongest townread and you didn't really answer my questions? You mentioned going back to read old posts which lead you to callout another Hopkirk post - which I also find weird, because I think a townie who is following along with the game would be forming reads as they go would be able to answer my question more "off the cuff". Going back and finding posts to justify your scumreads and getting tracked away from answering the question seems artificial and like you're manufacturing your content rather than engaging in dialogue organically.

on the other hand, I'm not sure that scum would be so careless as to post a response that misses answering the question entirely?