Newbie 624: Kodak City, Flour District (Game Over)

[NabakovNabakov]

*waves at hascow*

/confirm

*bows to mith*

[NabakovNabakov]

Vote: Acidmix

Agreeing is for wimps and scum.

[NabakovNabakov]

Next player to post: If you had to vote for one of the players who had already posted, and your life depending on whether or not you were right, who would you vote for and why?

^^

This is a good way to make sure nobody else posts

Also, I would keep my vote on acidmix. I have no idea what he's trying to pull/say, and faced with that which confuses me and that which does not, I'll generally vote to lynch the confusing influence.

Ah, and the post I saw in preview just confirms this.

@Acidmix:

-Why didn't you change the "random" factor you were going to vote for once it was already taken?
-Please explain how a post with a quote and two lines of text is any shorter than a post with two lines of text.
-Why didn't you answer mith's question to the next person to post?
-Do you know who mith is?

[NabakovNabakov]

Vote: Chelseafan

We don't really have a good idea of who's mafia though, so the votes will be a little random. My vote is just because he voted for me though.

Translation: "OMGUS"

Mith is the creator of this site right?

mith is the creator of this site, but close enough. *gives cookie*

I also dont like Nabakov's "agreeing is for wimps and scum" comment...maybe Im just nitpicking, but that statement is obviously not true. But in context, yeah, I agree, Acid's post was odd. Wait...O.o

Hey, it's the random voting stage, lighten up. It's a weird point in the game where votes aren't really supposed to be all that important, but they're also supposed to spark conversation. One of the most common ways to break out of the random voting stage is to find some poor sucker who placed a second vote on somebody (in this case, Acidmix) and accuse them of trying for a quicklynch under some pretense or another.* Luckily enough, our game started right out with a bandwagon.

@Acidmix: You're rocking a pretty high proportion of ennui there, but I would still like to hear you answer mith's question. "I just didn't want to" is

never

a good answer.

*The alternative is to swallow your pride and be that poor sucker.

[NabakovNabakov]

@mith: I totally see what you're saying (and I would point out that very little in my definition of the "random voting stage" was well), but I,

personally

, enjoy the first couple of pages before things really settle down. Your cannonade of questions is my cookie.

@Cow*: I fail to see how Acidmix voting for you is unreasonable. He was already asked to stake his life on his answer, why not his vote too? And seriously, this makes a grand total of one vote on you. Additionally, but the fourth post of the game we already had a wagon and a counter-wagon. If you couldn't find something to talk about, you weren't looking hard enough.

Hi Achil, is English your first language? (This isn't meant to pry, but a large portion of this game is being able to express your ideas in writing, so I want to know how much facility you have in the language before I start reading too far in)

*Just call hasdgfas "Cow" if you like.**

**Just call me NabNab, Nab, or NN if you like.

[NabakovNabakov]

Can I play? I am use to these kind of games, but this forum is somewhat confussing to me. I don't know where to sighn up for games or anything I need help.

Considering you don't have a role for this game, no.

You're looking for This Thread

Go there, read the instructions, and post "/in". You'll get linked up with a game after a couple of days.

Or join a queue for more complex games if you think you know how the game works.

[NabakovNabakov]

Mod:

Some prods might be in order.

Open question to all players: What do you think of mith's aggressiveness so far? Do you share his opinion on the random voting stage?

[NabakovNabakov]

NabNab: My questions are your cookie? Bweh?

We're both looking for our own way out of the random voting stage. You've tackled it head on by shooting questions every which way; I've tried to stir the pot by making small talk, exagerating, and giving out cookies.

[NabakovNabakov]

I was under the impression that NabNab had a read on Achil because of the "before i start reading too far in," but nothing has been said further. I guess i may have misinterpreted Nab's statement.

When there isn't a whole lot to go on, I have a tendency to parse language. I've accused players of being scummy for posting in a certain tense, so I'd like to know how much nuance Achil is capable of before I start doing that to him. Also, oddly structured sentences are somtimes a sign of scumbuddies passing along messages or powerroles breadcrumbing through initial letters.

@Cow: If you really want to split hairs, Acidmix answered (and reposted) the question in 33, after the entire game had checked in. Whether or not he was answering on that timeline is for him to tell us.

You're really making this a much bigger bru-ha-ha than it has to be.

[NabakovNabakov]

@Seahawk: I believe the word you're looking for here is "lukers". Don't be one.

I read hasdgfas's post and can't really see anything wrong with it. He was mearly defending himself and I don't think that anything pointed toward OMGUS. I don't want to be seen as defending him as it may seem scummy but this is directed mith as there is no real evidence behind his accusation.

You know that thing mith said about people using OMGUS denying OMGUS. That's kind of what's going on here with you defending your scumbuddy.

On the other hand, I really have to consider what the implications of Cow's massive defensiveness are. He's been around; he knows what's up, so why does he freak out when he gets voted on page two? Certainly not a way keep Seahawk's low profile.

[NabakovNabakov]

On the other hand, I really have to consider what the implications of Cow's massive defensiveness are. He's been around; he knows what's up, so why does he freak out when he gets voted on page two? Certainly not a way keep Seahawk's low profile.

Please don't say you're getting suspicious of me because I'm defending myself. Why shouldn't I defend myself against even a single vote?

Please don't reduce my observations to a strawman.

Why did you quote the paragraph where I undercut myself anyway?

[NabakovNabakov]

On the other hand, I really have to consider what the implications of Cow's massive defensiveness are. He's been around; he knows what's up, so why does he freak out when he gets voted on page two? Certainly not a way keep Seahawk's low profile.

Please don't say you're getting suspicious of me because I'm defending myself. Why shouldn't I defend myself against even a single vote?

Please don't reduce my observations to a strawman.

Why did you quote the paragraph where I undercut myself anyway?

huh?

If you wanted to simplify what I said into an accusation based on defensiveness, you shouldn't have quoted the paragraph where I WIFOMed regarding said defensiveness.

[NabakovNabakov]

To answer Acidmix's question:

mith I get what you are saying now but I still don't think that as that suspicious. I found out what strawmanning was on the wiki and understand that cow was probably doing this

but I don't consider it that scummy, just a bit suspicious.

So I'll unvote

Scummy

is

suspicious. You know that, but you don't want to admit your partner is scum.

That is... *ahem* assuming that cow is scum.

[NabakovNabakov]

@mith: You're totally right. I'm no longer most suspicious of Acidmix,

Unvote

. But I'm still not sure what to do about cow, and I don't know if both fans agreeing with my cow + robro sentiment means:
1) I'm right and it speaks for itself
2) I'm wrong and good at convincing people
3) I'm wrong and and couple of scum are encouraging it (though I doubt this one due to lack of wagoning)

[NabakovNabakov]

Yeah, that post of his that you quoted earlier, and bolded, was odd. I guess it could be since he's new, but my impression from reading other games was that Townies shouldnt be worried about being scummy--theyre out to hunt scum and as long as Town wins, everythings good.

Correct to a point. Town's main purpose is finding scum, but this should generally be balanced by not looking scummy. You as a townie do the town no favors when you act flagrantly scummy. Not only does it draw heat where it doesn't belong, but scummy behavior itself (craplogic, bad wagoning) are generally going to contribute to a town loss.

The more concerning thing about Robro's post is the lack of consistency in which it handles his allignment. Its generally a good idea to only step forward and defend somebody when you have a pretty good idea that they're town, so why does Robro throw out a defense quickly followed by a disclaimer? It belies an ulterior motive.

@mith: Wouldn't page 4 seem a bit early for heavy bussing in the order of what you're describing? Why are you giving Robro as much credit as you are?

[NabakovNabakov]

NabNab:

Heavy

bussing? None of the three of you are voting for cow. And what "credit" do you think I am giving Robro?

But your theory had us planning for his iminent demise. By falling back to implicating Robro with Cow, we would have already abandoned him to the wolves. Such a strategy seems even heavier to me than a "wait and see" vote.

If Robro was posting a defense of a scumpartner, it was ameturish in actual content and tactical placement. In other words, he's reeking newb scum. Not "OMG, this noob has no idea how to play so I can't read him", just clumsy scum. I don't see why you credited him with knowing better, essentially WIFOMing the issue.

[NabakovNabakov]

I'm going to be totally without access until Monday, June 16

But to quickly answer mith's question:

Cow has still been playing extremely defensively for no particular reason. Not just in actual defenses, but in only responding and never creating content. That is not the play I would expect to see from an IC player who really wants to help the town

My opinions on how Robro is connected to Cow have already been explained

Third would be seahawksfan for going mindlessly with the flow but treating the Cow wagon with kid gloves. If we really have uncovered both other scum, he's likely been shocked into total yes-man mode.

Very conspiracy theoryey, I know (and I think my vote shows how confident I am in this), but that's kinda what I'm working from now.

Also, Achil seriously needs to post more.

[NabakovNabakov]

NabNab: "Both other scum"? You know you're playing a newbie game, right?

Oh, shit, you're right. I had somehow got it in my head that 2 more players in the setup lead to another scum, but I guess that would be kind of harsh, wouldn't it?

Well, now I need to change my reads. I think it's far less likely that even a new player like Robro would lay it all on the line for his scumbuddy. With a 3-man group, there's a little more room to take risks and make connections, but it would be an extremely gutsy move to tie yourself to your only scumbuddy. I'll spend some more time reconsidering.

@mith: I'd like you to defend your fan club selection.

[NabakovNabakov]

@mith: I did read the setup, and I did initially acknowledge that there were still two scum, but somewhere in actually playing the game, that got lost. This has really felt like a mini to me, and I think it actually is the largest game I'm in at the moment.

I can see your line of thinking on Chelsea, but I have some qualms with it and would like you to put it in the open.

[NabakovNabakov]

"Still"? And, did you? The only thing I could find was this post, option 3. Is that what you meant? (Note to self that I have further comments on this after you confirm or deny.)

I am honestly confused by what you mean here.

1. The fan club followed you on the "cow and Robro are the top two" thing, and then followed me on the "cow and Robro aren't scumbuddies" idea. (Could suggest that neither cow nor Robro are scum and one/both are pushing two potential mislynches; it could also mean one of them is scum with cow, as I theorized earlier; and it could mean other things too. But the MeToo thing bugs me.)

Note that seahawks was consistently the third man.

2. The line of questioning regarding his agreeing with my "reasoning" revealed that, at best, he was sloppy and taking the MeToo thing to a whole other level, and at worst was lying about it.

Chelsea initially agreed with this post:

Chelseafan: Hunch, mostly. I don't think Robro would have defended cow in the manner he did if they were scum together. (It's possible, I just don't think it's likely.)

Also, let's say that, hypothetically, you and cow are scum together. You don't want to be seen as defending cow, in case he goes down. So pushing a different partner for cow, Robro, helps you tomorrow if cow is lynched, and you may also have the opportunity to try to push the wagon over to Robro so that he gets lynched today instead (at which point cow gets a little "well, you were obviously wrong about that pairing, can you leave me alone now kthx" action).

If it were just you (or one of the others) suggesting a cow/Robro pairing it probably wouldn't register. But given that NabNab and the fanclub are all suggesting this same pairing, I find it pretty likely that if cow is scum, his partner is trying to set Robro up to take the fall next.

Now, correct me if I'm wrong, that actually is a fairly convincing post. You state an opinion, and while you can't defend that opinion with fact (this is Mafia afterall), you present a believeable hypothetical situation and tack on a nice conclusion. It is entirely plausible that somebody's mind could be changed by that. Especially a newbie who is dealing with an aggressive player who also happens to be the founder of the site.

But somehow in transit, that post became this:

1. It's a hunch.
2. I don't think he would defend cow like that - no reasoning, just gut feel.
3. I think you could be scum trying to frame him.

You, in essence, strawmanned yourself and trapped Chelsea.

3. Of the three of you, Chelseafan has seemed the least interested in lynching cow - seahawks listed cow as his top suspect early in the discussion (and later added the third vote), you seemed to be giving both equal attention before giving your top three when I asked, but Chelsea originally gave Robro has more suspicious (here), and as far as I know still has that ordering.

True, but that lack of interest seems genuine. Seahawks feinted a few times towards voting cow but didn't until a few days ago. Forgetting for a moment that Seahawks eventual vote changes things, I'm much more wary of people extremely and generically suspicious of the top suspect without actually voting than somebody who appears to be putting them on the back burner for legitimate reasons. The way in which Seahawk's vote changes the situation is that I'm now even less suspicious of cow that I was before. Basically, people were acting weird around him, but I'm pretty sure it's plain old wagoning as opposed to bussing now. What's your opinion? (I suppose this can serve as a response to your parenthetical paragraph as well)

Additionally, you've been bumping me up farther and farther on your scumlist. I know you've disagreed with me on points, but I'd like your one-step back view of it. Maybe then I can find a time to put something together on you.

*Nervously eyes Defcon display*

One last thing, this isn't the Nab and mith show everybody. It's the summer, come inside and play Mafia!

[NabakovNabakov]

@mith:

You initially asked me if I was aware I was in a newbie setup in leiu of asking me if I knew there were only two scum. I am obviously aware that 7-person newbie setups have 2 scum, and thus I became aware that the 9-person newbie setup

still

has two scum.

This is what really go me off to the "seahawks is bussing/distancing"

Right now my #1 suspect is cow, but I'm not ready to vote just yet.

The obvious question being, "why not, you lying scum?" But then he did vote and it's fairly convincing.

And I think I've been expressing my decreasing suspicion over Cow for a while now. I unvoted after a time and reconsidered my position in light of the actual number of scum in the game.

I also strenuously disagree with your mischaracterization of your strawmanning of your argument. Particuarly that you emphasized your read being gut in the summary when it was only a preface to your original post. Do you think 89 was convicing?

[NabakovNabakov]

If I am reading this correctly (in the context of our discussion), you are saying that you read the setup (prior to the game starting), acknowledged that there are two scum in this setup (this is what I am asking: where did you do this?), and then during the course of the game got it in your head that there are three scum instead of two.

You are. I know it's hard to believe.

I guess you're right that I haven't done a particuarly thorough job of expressing my decreasing suspicion (though it's kinda there if you look for it, and that he was my top suspect last weekend doesn't mean I was nearly as suspicious of him as I was the week before). But when I posted "even less suspicious" it reflected the evolution of my suspicions in and out of the thread (in other words, it was something I was thinking but I hadn't really posted). Though I suppose in using that construction, I did end up posting it.

How does "somebody else might be partners with cow" not contribute

directly

to "Robro isn't partnered with cow"? I'd accuse you of seriously splitting hairs on this one, but then I reread my last paragraph.

Vote: AwesomePants

L-1 on a poorly explained meta with a gigantic burden of proof? I don't think so. This isn't even: he's acted this way as scum before, so he must be scum now. It's: he

didn't act this way as town

before, so he must be scum now.

[NabakovNabakov]

Why are you not answering the question? I've asked you four times now. I even put it in italics that time.

I'm loving a cow/NabNab pairing right now. I want an answer before we lynch one of them, though.

Unvote

Like, acknowledged in thread? I didn't, why would I have to?

I read the setup, noted

to myself

that there were two scum, and promptly forgot that there were two scum.

I'm sorry we've been having communication issues here, but I fail to see the deal.

How do you feel about AP's vote?

[NabakovNabakov]

This isn't even: he's acted this way as scum before, so he must be scum now. It's: he

didn't act this way as town

before, so he must be scum now.

Well yeah.. I guess so. Do you not think that he could be scum?

I think there is, of course, a possibility that he is scum (there certainly hasn't been any evidence to indicate he's town) Even with the pressure off a bit, he

still

refuses to contribute anything beyond his personal situation. That sort of play is obviously anti-town, and the rider to that is that an IC should know better.

However, nearly every aspect of the wagon that has developed around cow is scummy. Especially yours and seahawk's votes. And that makes me doubt the independent tells on him.

I think a summary of the case on cow, from the people voting cow, would be a good thing. If it's there, I might be convinced. If it's not there, I'd like the voters to explain why (it would also be nice if mith went last).

[NabakovNabakov]

Sorry,

Even with the pressure off a bit, he almost never contributes anything beyond his personal situation, and even then it rarely dips below the surface.

[NabakovNabakov]

First of all, I don't care about "who" anyone is as there was some talk about earlier. As I see it there is 25% chance for your all being Mafiascum. I know what I am, that leaves 6 from town, and 2 mafiascum (25%).

BZZZT!

Try again.

You're not asked questions because you know the answers, you're asked questions so everybody can see what

your

answer is. Claiming there's no merit in discussing your top suspects because it's too early (or, contradictorally, because they've already been discussed too much) is cheating.

[NabakovNabakov]

BZZZT!

Try again.

You're not asked questions because you know the answers, you're asked questions so everybody can see what

your

answer is. Claiming there's no merit in discussing your top suspects because it's too early (or, contradictorally, because they've already been discussed too much) is cheating.

There is no point in writing the same stuff that others did already. When I have something new to say, you'll be the first to hear it

If your position on cow is the same as everybody else's, that certainly something I want to know, but I really doubt it's exactly the same, and even if it is, you'd express it differently.

Also, you should always have something new to say. Don't wait for it to just hit you over the head, go find it, or else you're useless.

[NabakovNabakov]

If he did read my post (all of it), then why did he write:

Also, you should always have something new to say. Don't wait for it to just hit you over the head, go find it, or else you're useless.

When I did bring something new?

You didn't... that's the point. I was saying you should.

And what makes you think I'm not aggressive too?

[NabakovNabakov]

Surely.

NabakovNabakov wrote in post 20
"-Do you know who mith is?"

And it didn't sound like he meant if he was scum or town - but rather that he was the creator of this site(?). Something I don't care about, because if roles are chosen by random, then there is as much chance for him being scum as the rest of you.

That had nothing to do with him being scum or town. Actually, it didn't even have all that much to do with mith. I was checking to see if Acidmix had done his homework (and instead discovered that AS had). Knowledge of things like notable people, games, terms, and elements of site history are a decent indicator of what level of experience and commitment a player might bring to the table, and that's a useful thing to know when working in newbie games.

[NabakovNabakov]

I will have no access from Wednesday to Wednesday. Just a head's up.

[NabakovNabakov]

My top 3 scummiest would go to Cow, NabNab and Cederstrom

Hi, how are you?

Why? (At least for me and Cederstrom)


mith, please tell me 191 was a joke. You go through and present your case on cow (which I assume was made up of various places where you held your tongue previously) But that case is merely a documentation of "absurd" behavior. I don't think anybody in this game (cow included) would deny that cow's play, especially in the early game, has shaded into silliness, but I still fail to see where the scummy factor comes in. What does/did cow stand to gain from his behavior? Why would scum be any more disposed to irrational defensiveness than town? You're using the "different is scummy" argument here to dupe a lot of newbies, but I'm not going to let it pass without a fight.

Additionally, you make much of cow misinterperting my commentary on his overdefensiveness. Do you think our exchange was staged? (you are very comfortable with our pairing after all) If so, why would we stage such a bizare encounter? For that matter, why would I hammer at cow until he had built an irrevocable wagon and

then

pull off and start defending?

What was so remarkable about raider's first post? I addressed the most glaring problem at the beginning of mine, but it was essentially a loose confederation of contextless comments entirely lacking analysis or interpertation. I realize this is a newbie game, but lets not encourage bad habits just because the habits at hand will lead to the hammer you want.

I'm taking a stand here people, and I'll probably be dead tonight if Cow is town (and dead tomorrow if he's scum.) So while I still have a finger/relatively clean name, I'd finger mith and AP as my two top suspects.

Unvote; Vote: mith

[NabakovNabakov]

Hi, how are you?

*snip*

Why? (At least for me and Cederstrom)
What was so remarkable about raider's first post? I addressed the most glaring problem at the beginning of mine, but it was essentially a loose confederation of contextless comments entirely lacking analysis or interpertation. I realize this is a newbie game, but lets not encourage bad habits just because the habits at hand will lead to the hammer you want.

I have a 3 day weekend so how can I not be doing good! (Happy 4th everyone!)

The case or lack their off on you is minimal. I just had the bad vibes from your vote agianst AwesomePants for voting someone to L-1. At some point someone is going to be at L-1 and as day one is long I didnt see why it was a problem. I have no real reason to think you are scum other then that. Voting someone for placeing a vote seems scummy.

I'm sure NabNab would have/will answer(ed) this, but it wasn't the fact he put him at L-1 that he percieved as scummy, but the fact he felt it was poor reasoning for putting someone at L-1.

Anyway, I want to reread cow, probably will happen tomorrow sometime hopefully.

What he said.

My perception of AP's vote was not that he had considered the situation and felt that his top suspect was cow. It was that he wanted to see cow lynched for some other reason and needed an excuse to vote for him. The L-1 aspect just amplifies it.

I recognize that replacing and reading can be difficult. Some things to keep in mind:

1) We've all (presumably) read the game too, so there isn't much need to summarize what's happening unless you have something significant to say about it.
2) You don't have to say something about everything. You're a replacement, the game to this point has passed you by. We're not going to hold that against you. If you're just going to repeat what somebody else said or comment on a situation that has already been resolved, think about it first. I'd prefer 2 or 3 really weighty, original contributions to the game to 20 or 30 one-liners. If there's something in the past we think you should comment on, we'll ask you to.
3) The best way to join the flow of the game is to figure out what's really going on at the time of your replacement. Find out what's "open-ended" and jump right in. I've seen a few replacements get stuck in parts of the game they haven't even played and miss out on where the action is.

@mith: So that's why that sounded familiar. I checked directly after cow's posts a few times but I guess you must have waited a few of your posts to respond sometimes.

Not that it really matters anymore, but would you mind stating a fresh case?

[NabakovNabakov]

1. The characterization of 191 as "merely a documentation of 'absurd' behavior" is... well, absurd. I have explicitly stated several things that I have found "scummy", "scumtells", etc., and given reasoning (where it isn't already obvious; do I really need to go into detail as to why strawmans are scummy?).

In large part, you state that his actions are scummy

because

they are silly, absurd, defensive, strange (It's actually funny how certain posts lean heavily on certain words). Because he jumps on acidmix for voting him and me for calling him defensive and Robro for defending him. He's been lashing out at every player who makes contact with him, and that's odd, it's not going to make him any friends, but I fail to see how it makes him scum. Essentially, you've fallen back on slight statistical probabilities that would get you laughed out of MD, or am I reading this wrong?

"Why would scum be any more disposed to irrational defensiveness than town?" - Why do they do it? I don't know, I'm sure that's an interesting psychological question. Why does this work as a scumtell? It just tends to. The experience of many games suggests to me that this is the case. (Weren't you yourself listing him as your top suspect at one point at least in part because of his defensiveness?)

This is a scumtell you admitted to being "slight" in your earlier analysis, and the reason it put him at the top of

my

list was because it was detracting from the productivity you would expect to see in an ordinary IC.

I was hoping that comment would get him to pick up his play, but it hasn't. Cow has admitted to playing poorly in this game - he still is - but it's become a null tell because we've

told

him it's scummy. Is that a lie/front? Is he just playing poorly as scum? It'd be WIFOM to discuss it, but I really think we'd be playing Cederstrom's 25% if we lynched him.

And I know your pairing of me with Cow is totally shot now. What scumbuddy sees his partner at L-1 with 12 hours to live and immediately launches into an impassioned defense? There's no chance in hell anybody except cow (or maybe me) is going to be lynched when deadline hits 6 hours from now. There's no chance in hell I would survive a scum flip given a town direct enough to lynch a guy for playing poorly. If what you're pushing is correct,

this post loses me the game.

Though I do like how you're backing off cow now, maybe pairing me with somebody else, setting up your own mislynch when cow turns up town (or isn't lynched at all).

[NabakovNabakov]

beautiful WIFOM argument

Thank you.

NabNab: What have I done that has caused 2 different people, yourself included, to defend me?

You haven't played like scum

Oh please. Are you seriously going there? He's said that me and you are his top 2 suspects. Why wouldn't he go after you after me?

Until very recently he's been pushing me and you

together

. This is a good play until deadline because it projects confidence and perspective while keeping his options open, but once you're actually on the verge of being lynched, it's something he has to back off owing to the fact that you will flip town.

[NabakovNabakov]

*sigh*

4 - hasdgfas (Cederstrom, seahawksfan2863, mith, Awesome Pants)

Cederstrom's vote is an odd relic of Acidmix's OMGUS. It remained after his replacement "Mostly in lack of a better person to put the vote on". He only mentions cow once more... to deride the game's focus on him. It was the perfect stealth vote. Too bad nobody picked up on it yesterday.

Seahawks was mainly a follower to the wagon. Most of his points are rehashed from me or mith, but its difficult to tell if he was being genuine or not. It also doesn't help that he hasn't posted in nearly 20 days.

Mod

: Can we get a prod?

mith is third in this count, but he has also been (at various times) second and fourth. I'd like to spend some more time looking at his contribution, but needless to say, it's significant.

Awesome Pants replaced in and called cow "neutral", but he quickly found a bullshit rationale for finding him scummy, a rationale which he explicitly failed to defend:

This isn't even: he's acted this way as scum before, so he must be scum now. It's: he

didn't act this way as town

before, so he must be scum now.

Well yeah.. I guess so. Do you not think that he could be scum?

Formatting keeps his vote from hitting until later.

@raider: Did you intend to vote cow before deadline like you inimated a few pages back? What would you have done if forced to choose right when it hit?


Cederstrom confuses me, I'd like to hear from Seahawks (or his replacement), and I need to consider mith more (don't worry, I'll post my thoughts no matter what they are), but I'm damn confident about AP.

Vote: Awesome Pants

[NabakovNabakov]

I was considering my post, a few notes:

I know I should have thought about mith during our nice long night; I didn't, I'm lazy/busy with other things. Sorry.

The phrase "damn confident" holds no deeper meaning.

[NabakovNabakov]

The last few posts of D1 are of an extremely interesting sort. There was no more need to discuss who was being lynched that day, cow was locked in (though not revealed). Instead, mith and I took to redrawing and bolding (respectively) battlelines to prepare for today.

Because this is the fundamental difference in the two accusations we made of each other (that each knew cow was town and attempting to set the other up for a lynch). My knowledge was acquired through townie methods. I analyzed, reasoned, and argued my way into believing that cow was town. I was then open about that belief and open in my use of it to draw futher conclusions. Don't trust me? Read page 9; read my posts defending cow. Read the game; read how my belief develops. Notice how I was putting it to work even at a time when cow could have been saved. Notice how I continued to rant about it even after he couldn't be.

Mith's knowledge was exactly the same as mine, but expressed differently (because it was acquired differently). The accusation he begins in 219 and continues through the rest of our pseudo-twilight reveals it. By that time, we had both established our terms:
Mine: If cow is town, AP and mith are probably scum.
His: NabNab is setting up lynches based on cow being town, so if cow is town, NabNab is probably scum.

What does mith do then? He votes for me. Despite the fact that he has never accused me of any independent scuminess (his accusations have always been based on some association with cow), there is something there big enough to tip the scales, to make me scummier than cow. What that something was is obvious: Mith knew cow was town.

Mith was doing the exact same thing he was accusing me of doing, setting up a lynch for today based on cow being town (don't beleive he was setting up the lynch? Look at your own suspicion list and wonder whose reasoning put me at the top). Now, he had built the cow wagon, he couldn't freely base any reasoning on him being town, so he wrapped it up in a patently confusing situation - the one I've tried to decipher above. If mith was really as confident in cow being scum as he was even as late as 224, why would he continue to build up a case against me based on cow being town?

Mith knew cow was town, and he alternately lied about it and exploited it when it suited him. This is because mith is scum. By the end of D1, both of us knew the score pretty well. One of us lied about it and the other one didn't.

Unvote; Vote: Mith

Ugh, I know that post isn't very coherent (I had a better one written up, but the internet ate it and I'm all posted out), but in conclusion: I have acted only on convictions built from solid reasoning; mith has hidden his true convictions because he won't be able to adequately explain where he found them.

[NabakovNabakov]

I'm taking a stand here people, and I'll probably be dead tonight if Cow is town (and dead tomorrow if he's scum.) So while I still have a finger/relatively clean name, I'd finger mith and AP as my two top suspects.

I'm not positive that you're mith's partner. It's totally creepy to me that raider and seahawks both posted suspicion lists putting myself at the top and mith and the bottom, but I really don't know what to think now.

As it is, mith is my top suspect, you're my second for aforementioned reasons not necessarily connected to mith.

[NabakovNabakov]

a.

This is a lie.

Off the top of my head, I mentioned NabNab's voting behaviour early on (having his vote on someone who wasn't his top suspect, and then not voting for ages); I mentioned that I found the whole "I don't know how many scum there are" thing very suspect; and I mentioned the possibility of a NabNab/fanclub pairing quite early in proceedings.

This is reaching

. The first point is somewhat valid; I left my early-game vote on Acidmix while I went after cow, and you pointed it out. I guess that's kind of scummy, but it still contributes to a cow pairing more than anything.

The second point is complete bunk. We had some major miscommunication on this point, but once I clarified what I meant, you posted this:

Alright, that's fair enough. It sounded like you were saying you were acknowledging it in the thread somewhere, and I was trying to figure out where to see if it was consistent with your claim that your original cow/Robro pairing was based on three scum.

But if you would like to defend the idea that not knowing how many scum there are is a scumtell, be my guest.

You might want to point out where the third point occurs. I've gone through with a pretty fine comb, and I found some stuff similar to that, but the closest I got was you being apprehensive that the fanclub and I were all taking a similar position on cow/robro (something I still feel was a dangerous oversimplification)

Ultimately, I still feel confident saying you never expressed suspicions of me as an independent player/in collaboration with a non-cow player. We argued... a lot, but that doesn't mean you found me scummy. You promised to write up a case on me (remember the hints at "behavioral tells"?), but you never really wrote a case on me.

Concerning your ten-point post, the vast majority of that post was dedicated to the ongoing cow argument. I addressed the larger part of that in my own way in the very next post. The part regarding raider's entry post was pretty much right. I had gone over the line and there was no reason in the world for me to keep up that argument. And I think I addressed the insidious 10 well enough in 244 (or at least expansively enough)

3. "If mith was really as confident in cow being scum as he was even as late as 224, why would he continue to build up a case against me based on cow being town?"

Well, let's go to 224 itself for the answer to that: "I still think it's quite likely he's scum (better than the random 25%), but the end of post 213 led me to believe that it is more likely you are scum and he is not than that he is scum and you are not, and so I voted for you."

And this is precisely my point. I fail to see any indpendent variables affecting my scumminess that would influence this decision, so it would have to be based almost entirely on the cow dynamic. Why does my treating cow as town trump

your

treating cow as scum?

Only scum are certain about the alignments of other players.

But anybody can profess certainty, and that's what I chose to do upon seeing a wagon so rickety even its driver jumped off before the finish line.

Much of his "case" is along the lines of "I defended cow! mith thought he was scum, and then changed his mind!

You obviously haven't read my case considering that the majority of it focuses on how you never thought he was scum. Also, it would have been easy (and somewhat true) to simply say "I was right, and mith was wrong". Instead, I have stated the claim of "I told the truth (as I saw it), and mith lied", and I will stand by that claim.

[NabakovNabakov]

No, it's not bunk. The quote here was talking about a specific statement you made regarding "acknowledging" there are two scum. I was trying to catch you in a lie (since you hadn't acknowledged this in the thread), but you cleared up that you were talking about acknowledging it in the thread. However, this was a sub-discussion to the "I don't know how many scum there are" thing, which had gone on for a few posts previous to the "acknowledging" point.

I'm clearly not saying that you being mistaken is a scumtell (STRAWMAN!). What I was suggesting when I brought it up was that it could be/seemed to be feigned confusion - faking confusion or any other reaction/motivation almost always is a scumtell, and the point of the discussion was to determine whether you were faking it or not.

And what did you determine?


Third point taken. How did it affect your judgement when your vote switched to me? Which fan would I have been partnered with?

I have repeatedly pointed out that I am not suggesting you are scum because you took the cow-is-town stance, but rather because of the tone in your end-of-day posts that felt strongly of trying to use that stance to promote your own innocence and push lynches for today.

I understand that, and I can see how it would be a tell. But I fail to see how an apparent White Knight on my part is a more powerful scumtell than the supposedly damning case you had assembled on cow. Not only a more powerful scumtell, but powerful enough to override said case on cow and make you operate under the (vaguely expressed) assumption that he was town (for your accusations would have made even less sense if you still beleived cow was scum). It does not make sense; it does not follow an organic line of reasoning. Whether it was unintentional or part of a careful plan to get me lynched today, it's your knowledge shining through.

[NabakovNabakov]

It would seem you guys are scaring off everyone else as no one else is chiming in. Do you guys have any advice for us to help us jump in this thing without getting our heads riped off in the process?

I can definitely sympathize with getting lost in a big argument. It's happened to me a couple of times, and it's very disorienting.

Some tips:

1) Ask questions for clarification or to further the discussions. Find points you're confused about or points you think are very important and ask the combatants to clarify or enlarge. You're starting to do that already, and that's good.
2) Draw up a list of the points and counterpoints. Mith said this. What does it mean? What did NabNab say in response? What does that mean?
3) Eventually, you're going to have to create your own picture of what's going on and what happened yesterday. This could mean you believe one of us is scum and the other is town. You could also consider the possibility that we could both be incredibly passionate townies with far too much time on our hands (unlikely from my perpsecitve but a possibility all the same). Once you're working from one perspective, things will become easier to sort through.

Alternately, if you think the argument is becoming repetitive or unhelpful, find something else to talk about and try to get the town involved in that.

To answer your question, cow flipping scum would mean I made a grossly incorrect read just from the baseline. However, you can not assume things would have happened the same way yesterday if cow was going to flip scum. Mith would have acted differently and I would have acted differently in response. But in the hypothetical situation that all the same things were said, I would have been at a greater loss for who exactly the scum was. Certainly less suspicious of mith, less suspicious of AP but still concerned. I'd probably be looking at the quieter players like the fanclub or yourself (largley for Robro's behavior) as newbie scum have a tendency to clam up when their partner is on the ropes. However, I would have been the town's prime suspect (even moreso than now), so none of that would have really mattered.

[NabakovNabakov]

The single tell, that last paragraph, was big to me though. I spent an hour talking it through at my girlfriend in the car. She probably hates Mafia, now.

What did she think?


And just so you know, I think you're being very silly concerning how many scum I thought there were. Neither of us has a leg to stand on here (Mafia isn't a game of certainties afterall), but I will say I'm an excessively naturalistic scumplayer (even to the point of shrinking from near guaranteed LyLo plays because I wouldn't have voted for the person as town), and a silly little gambit like that would be completely outside my style. [/WIFOM]

[NabakovNabakov]

Mod:

How's that replacement on Cederstrom going?

Also, prod the slackers, please.

[NabakovNabakov]

Mini 471 D1 and D3 are a study in my backing out of perfectly workable wagons because I didn't trust them.

Newbie 571 when faced with bussing or supporting Kort's cop claim, I chose bussing (and would have gone through with it if Elias hadn't handed me the game)

The first focus of my scum play is to ensure that everything I say is utterly believable, and the easiest way to do that is just follow my judgement and what's actually happening in the game. I only ever lie about my allignment and (occasionally) the allignment of my scum partners. In all my games as scum,(Newbie 415 and Mini 451 complete the set) I have never attempted a gambit such as the one you are accusing me of here.

[NabakovNabakov]

Answering to Awesome Pants, I think that one or two of them are scum. I think that mith is more scummy than NabakovNabakov, because his posts are confusing, and he changes his thoughts every three or four posts (scummy?)

So you think its possible they're a scumpair trying to get each other lynched? Why do you think they would do that?

Hey Pacman, it's silly interpertations of what other people have said (like this one) that have put AP on my scumlist.

Also, don't go around giving people neutral records just because they haven't said much. Sometimes avoiding discussion can be a very scummy trait.

[NabakovNabakov]

Why is that silly interpertation? He said that 'I think that one or two of them are scum'.

That can be a strategy. If both are scum and one is lynched, then the other wouldn't be, because he was against him. I think that I have said it before, but that would have been a never-posted post.

Nevermind. I thought pacman had typoed, and I was being coy about it when pacman was really just being coy himself.

[NabakovNabakov]

Given all that, how could you being confused possibly say anything about my alignment?

QFT (not the next bit, just this one)

If people agree with me, I'd rather it be for reasons that don't make me very uncomfortable (and "I'm confused" happens to be among those)

raider, same sort of thing. You've gone from listing me as least scummy to voting for me for (as far as I can tell) not understanding me. (I'm interested in what NabNab has to say about this, given part of his "case" on me is how I switched from cow to him "inorganically".)

Don't think I didn't notice his drastic switch, but I will say that his switch only happened after a full page of argument (even if he didn't really participate), so his change of heart could be legit. (Note the "could")

[NabakovNabakov]

NabakovNabakov is being replaced.

No I'm not. I was the one who requested the mass prod I didn't pick up.

I'll actually post about the game later.

[NabakovNabakov]

You both have some points I agree with and some I dont.

Please do elaborate.

Getting earnest vibes from raider. He's focused very much on spreading the conversation, and the fact that he's still trying to puzzle things out makes me think that his agenda hinges more on puzzling things out than hiding what he already knows.

Not so sure about pacman. He had some pretty heavy misrepresentations of mith in 301, but that could easily be an honest mistake. Keeping my eye on.

I'm going to do some pondering, but I am not happy with the activity level of AP and Chelsea.

[NabakovNabakov]

Agreed that raider is pushing the bounds of logic to put a vote on mith. Definitely getting the feeling that his intention was to vote mith in the end, not to find the scum, but then why open with a scumlist placing mith at the bottom? I am genuinely confused.

lol@AP: You're doing basically the same thing as raider, basing his scumminess on your own. Shouldn't you be voting yourself?

[NabakovNabakov]

Hmmm...

I had been considering AP-as-compromise-lynch before Raider even brought it up, and it's definitely an idea that deserves to be thought through.

It is curious that almost the entire town seems to find AP scummy (even, to a certain extent, AP!) Rarely do you find a situation where so much of the town can chime in and agree before the poor bastard has already been lynched, but as a sideshow to me V mith, AP hasn't been attracting the votes he normally would.

But I do get the sneaking suspicion that AP might just be a red herring. He's a fairly easy target with a fairly easy to understand case against him, and a lot of the attention directed at him (this post included, if you're so inclined) could be read as full-scale deflection from other topics.

In my opinion, we've lost the typical thread of accusation and wagon in the case of AP, and that's throwing my perception off. We're not getting the standard tension and factions that normally form around a center of attention. I would not be comfortable going directly from this point to a pure compromise/deadline-panic lynch.

What I like to do when I come back is take the AP cycle from the very beginning and see what happens. I'll

unvote

in expectation.

[NabakovNabakov]

Really, I'm confused. But, I think that the mith/NabNab stuff is pointless (now, I haven't suspects on both you). We must continue scumhunting, not spinning in circles!

Actually, I would call my argument with mith far less circular than other clashes I've seen. Just don't sign up for any games with Vollkan, OK?

With NabNab unvoting my case my idea behind a Mith lynch goes out the window.

Please take time to consider, then explain.

A note and a question
-I was voting

my

case on mith, not yours.
-It seems as if you're still pushing AP/mith even after this post, if you think they're both scum, why are you changing your vote here?

[NabakovNabakov]

experienced players make mistakes.

Yes.

This is a lesson newbie games are essential in teaching, though it usually happens inadvertently.

@Raider: I thought you might answer with utility, but this is what gums up the works.

AP was the person I thought most likely to be scum

Then why didn't you push him? Were you so confident in your pairing of mith and AP that you were willing to follow what you saw to be the inferior case rather than pushing your own? I'm definitely getting the impression that your goal is to lynch somebody, not to lynch scum.

Also, why didn't you include Chelseafan in your tallies?

[NabakovNabakov]

Welcome to the game GJ, it's good to have you.

if i interpret this correctly you are saying you play scum without taking too much risks and using far fetched ploys. As far as i'm concerned you're playing a good game, just like that. Of course playing a good game is no reasonable cause of suspicion, i'm just trying to say it doesn't clear you either.

Thanks... I guess. Though I will say that naturalistic scum play doesn't always come down to not taking any risks. In a situation where a townie might take a risk, it's something to consider. It just doesn't include gambits. Do you think I haven't been taking risks?

AP: couldn't find much anti-town, except maybe his voting behavior end of day one, mostly he seems just to ask a lot of questions while giving very little/none content. So same request for you (if you ever show up), your suspects + reasoning

I appreciate the effort you put into other sectors, but as a major topic of conversation, this seriously needs fleshing out. Especially because even what you say after you say AP isn't very anti-town sounds like cautiousscum to me.

[NabakovNabakov]

Prodd received. I will post tomorrow.

[NabakovNabakov]

Strongly considering an AP vote. A lot of the things mith listed in his last substantial post were certainly places where AP was a hypocrite, but some of them do seem to just be generic poor play. If AP's intention was to exploit a false dichotomy between mith and me, why

wouldn't

he be voting one of us? On the other hand, there are several other instances where AP's contradictions clearly show scummy intentions.

I'll consider it, but in the meantime, I'd be really interested in seeing what Chelsea, Joost, and pac have to say about it.

[NabakovNabakov]

I'm still vaguely uncomfortable about this lynch (largely because other players are making it very difficult for me to read them by not posting), but I'm confident enough in my individual read on AP to put my name to this.

Vote: Awesome Pants

[NabakovNabakov]

Bah!

[NabakovNabakov]

Grrr

At least I was (eventually, kinda sorta) right about mith not being scum. This was definitely a case where lurker scum were able to get lost in lurker town for the beginning of the game and let the three townies/IC's tear each other apart.