Newbie 2086 - Reaction GIFs | End!

[fferyllt]

Vote Count 2-3

Dunnstral

(2): Cape90, Greeting

Greeting

(1): butterchurn

Not Voting

(6): ɀefiend, catboi, Dunnstral, V0ID

With 7 alive, it takes 4 to eliminate.

Deadline: January 10, Midnight US Eastern Time.

Countdown: (expired on 2022-01-09 21:00:00)

Mod Notes:

-

[catboi]

Had been feeling very down in the dumps the last week or so - slightly better today, will see if I can work myself back into things.

The potential candidates I see are: catboi, ɀefiend and Dunnstral.

I feel the same way with how I feel with cat being the weakest of these candidates.

VOTE: Dunnstral

This slot reads as really wolfy to me right now. Given they were more towny in their hydra game they played with me where they were mafia, I am comfortable voting this

In my experience he tends to try harder to project being town when he's mafia. If this weren't a newbie game I'd probably be scumreading him, but as it is I'm still iffy because I'd expect him to try to be a bit more transparent in a newbie game.

I read Greeting's posts and continue to believe as though he's sorting entirely in earnest. I don't find him publicly tallying suspicions to be a problem as butterchurn does, and somewhat doubt he'd be so overt as scum. Everything I've seen from him matches the same earnestness and thoroughness I've seen from him as town. No model for his scumplay but would be moderately surprised if he were able to replicate it so strongly.


On the other hand, 391 and 415 are complete waffly nonsense. Read those posts and ask yourself: does VOID have a single solid opinion about anyone in this game? I really cannot continue to turn a blind eye to this.

VOTE: VOID

[butterchurn]

Alright, I see some merit to the argument that it doesn't quite fit for him to be self-aware enough to replicate a similar tone to what he usually has, while also being unaware enough to post something so overtly. I still see a lot of his behavior and responses as being pretty unlike his town playstyle. To me he looks like someone who is attempting to "play the same game" as scum and pretend to yourself that you are searching for scum (very common tactic), but not quite being able to replicate the town mentality or successfully search. The methods that he's using to search do not feel at all like how he searches as town, and that's what I keep finding suspicious. But I guess it's not as blatant as I thought it was, so I'll try to look elsewhere for now to avoid getting tunnel visioned.

[Greeting]

On the other hand, 391 and 415 are complete waffly nonsense. Read those posts and ask yourself: does VOID have a single solid opinion about anyone in this game? I really cannot continue to turn a blind eye to this.

VOTE: VOID

I quite agree. I am overall also quite willing to vote out

V0ID

. They only seemingly take stances in posts like these:

I get pretty mixed vibes from greeting and dunnstral.

(content elaborating on this)

Sorta suspicious of cape still. And also get some mixed vibes from catboi and zefiend but it is more like a struggling to get a read on them sort of thing.

I understand what butterchurn is saying, it does seem like a scum thing to put that list together in that fashion. Not to say town should not have their thoughts organized but I get what butterchurn is getting at in the post above. But then again, if greeting did have a notepad file open with that as scum and was keeping track of people in that way for his scum motives would he really have posted it for all of us? Once again, I see what butterchurn is saying and I am not ruling out that perspective. But,I could easily see that just as simply information gathered he is presenting to us to help both us and himself as town. I guess it is kinda strange though.

This is all pretty soft and flaky. They've mentioned quite a lot suspicions but haven't acted on them.

Honestly, their content seems to... kinda go with the flow of the game and replicate whatever is happening at this very moment. I think it's sus. Plus, they are online far more often than they post and that is something I have seen newbie scum do before. It's understandable and makes sense from a mafia point of view, being scum involves having to re-read every single word you put out.

[Greeting]

Obviously I can say that the argument about myself being "performative" is false, but I don't buy it as a description of

Cape90

either.

As for my reads, at this moment I think

butterchurn

and

Cape90

are town and can be trusted. The rest is all varying degrees of mixed feelings.

I am still pretty sure that there is an experienced MafiaScum player leading the scum team.

The potential candidates I see are:

catboi

,

ɀefiend

and

Dunnstral

.

I got a feeling that there is at least one scum hiding amongst them.

Butterchurn

is classified as a newbie, but obviously has previous mafia experience. I don't include them in my suspicions as their tone is independent and investigative, the only thing seeming to worry me is their lack of conviction. I don't think there was anything scummy about the

NK 15

wagon at all - the reasons to vote that player were all pretty reasonable and their fake claim was the cherry on top. I was reassured by

butterchurn

's vote on

Not Known 15

Day 1, they later withdrew it in understandable circumstances (and so have I), but

NK 15

was ultimately eliminated without them.

Cape90

had nothing to do with

Not Known 15

's elim altogether, but has shown strength of conviction in his pursuits into other slots and I like it.

You keep pushing that scum has to be experienced to have made that kill. In my opinion, I would put cape90 in that category because they have experience on another site, as well as yourself since you pointed it out right at the start of the day. That ends up being most everyone anyway.

I disagree.

I think having experience specific to this site, when playing a MafiaScum game counts more here than experience from playing on other forums.

Mafia varies by forum significantly. The vast majority of games I've played in and hosted were all pretty much a fun distraction from the general theme of those forums (which wasn't specifically playing the game). I've played with people who were in there just to have fun and things like mechanics coming from mafia theory were either non-existent or rarely brought up and didn't hold more merit than other argument that the players felt was right at the moment. In the mafia games I played in the past, players who rolled mafia wouldn't really do that much of power role hunting, but would rather focus on eliminating what they deemed to be the biggest threat to them at the moment. Role-hunting attempts were made, but it was something that would be considered more advanced play.

Here, the majority of players tend to use jargon and pay a lot of attention to game mechanics. Elements of game mechanics are even included in guidelines published in each Newbie thread (such as "don't fake claim a power role when you're town"). Although I did start to pay significantly more attention to mafia theory since I started playing here, I still had a rather fierce argument about it in the dead thread of my last newbie game, where I was strongly criticised for my actions in that game with excerpts from mafia theory being brought up as a counterargument. I'm visibly not part of the mainstream of this forum, for instance, I don't use a lot of mafia jargon and admittedly still often look it up. In spite of all this, these games that I played were still the same sort of game we're playing right now - a game of mafia, but with a far more laid-back approach.

So yeah, mafia game =/= mafia game. And that is why I think there is an SE behind this. If it's not and it was

Cape90

, for instance, then it means that I'm strongly underestimating him.

On a side note, this heavy reliance on mafia theory is what I think was the source of my clash with

butterchurn

in this game, other townies in the aforementioned dead thread of Newbie 2084 and notably also Val89 in Newbie 2082. While I do take the general theory into consideration, I am not going to let it dictate my actions and I consider it to be my freedom to reach my winning goal in a way I see fit.

[V0ID]

What is wrong exactly with my post#391 catboi? And that is not me being defensive, I am genuinely asking.

I guess I am just much more hesitant to throw out votes than most people here it seems. They are suspicions (weak ones) and I've noted them.


Also greeting, you are looking far too much into the me being online vs my posting as a scum marker.

Something I find strange is how catboi seems to have this language when talking about others

...closer to the bar for town-him

....to be fairly scummy...

...although that's a weak feeling...

Yet for me, catboi has a very strong opinion

I still think void's day 1 was incredibly scummy

On the other hand, 391 and 415 are complete waffly nonsense. Read those posts and ask yourself: does VOID have a single solid opinion about anyone in this game? I really cannot continue to turn a blind eye to this.

Is my playstyle THAT strongly reading scum to you, and greeting? Like I said in a previous post, "Like, I think I understand the principles behind the mistakes and why they are mistakes and why it could be seen as scummy but as for the actual content of my posts I don't see them as scummy when I try to view it from an objective outside perspective."

It seemed like a lot of people in day 1 started to read me as town after some initial scum vibes from most, I'd like to know what you think about me at the present time, and catboi's and greeting's votes on me.

[Greeting]

Also greeting, you are looking far too much into the me being online vs my posting as a scum marker.

[...]

Is my playstyle THAT strongly reading scum to you, and greeting? Like I said in a previous post, "Like, I think I understand the principles behind the mistakes and why they are mistakes and why it could be seen as scummy but as for the actual content of my posts I don't see them as scummy when I try to view it from an objective outside perspective."

It seemed like a lot of people in day 1 started to read me as town after some initial scum vibes from most, I'd like to know what you think about me at the present time, and catboi's and greeting's votes on me.

My vote is on

Dunnstral

right now, not you.

My major issues with your play, other than the constant lurking are: parroting and lack of conviction. It is easy to say that "x is suspicious and I'll be looking into them" to get towncred for generating content in line with the game. But the content from you does not advance the game in any way. You haven't questioned anyone or even seriously voted anyone (I'm not counting your RVS vote as serious), which in my eyes looks insincere. Scums generally worry about anything that could put them in a bad light and a vote leading to a miselim is something that draws suspicion, so a possible solution here is to lay low and avoid taking definite stances. Your posts haven't contributed to solving the game and can all be easily manufactured.

[V0ID]

Also greeting, you are looking far too much into the me being online vs my posting as a scum marker.

[...]

Is my playstyle THAT strongly reading scum to you, and greeting? Like I said in a previous post, "Like, I think I understand the principles behind the mistakes and why they are mistakes and why it could be seen as scummy but as for the actual content of my posts I don't see them as scummy when I try to view it from an objective outside perspective."

It seemed like a lot of people in day 1 started to read me as town after some initial scum vibes from most, I'd like to know what you think about me at the present time, and catboi's and greeting's votes on me.

My vote is on

Dunnstral

right now, not you.

My major issues with your play, other than the constant lurking are: parroting and lack of conviction. It is easy to say that "x is suspicious and I'll be looking into them" to get towncred for generating content in line with the game. But the content from you does not advance the game in any way. You haven't questioned anyone or even seriously voted anyone (I'm not counting your RVS vote as serious), which in my eyes looks insincere. Scums generally worry about anything that could put them in a bad light and a vote leading to a miselim is something that draws suspicion, so a possible solution here is to lay low and avoid taking definite stances. Your posts haven't contributed to solving the game and can all be easily manufactured.

Oh my mistake, misread your vote when you quoted catboi's post with his vote on me. I understand your points but I just am hesitant to vote and not because how I am afraid I will be perceived but just because I am cautious of voting town out. I don't know, there was time and I was not really convinced not known 15 was scum, and he was at e-1. Sure you could spin it the other way and say I did not vote him because I did not want to be the hammer as scum but... eh it was just simply as I put it before. And as for the lurking thing I would say to stop looking so hard into that as a marker as it is going to perhaps mislead you (in my specific case anyways).

[catboi]

What is wrong exactly with my post#391 catboi? And that is not me being defensive, I am genuinely asking.

I'm glad you asked. Allow me to demonstrate. Bolding for emphasis:

Hi, some thoughts I have:

It is a shame that notscience is gone as I was willing to work with him, as I said in post #152 his reads matched up with mine. Still willing to work with butterchurn for now, re-reading earlier posts I can't seem to shake the feeling even more that butterchurn is town but as zefiend says in post#380

there is the obvious possibility that butterchurn is scum playing a very convincing game.

I get pretty mixed vibes from greeting and dunnstral.

Something I did note from dunnstral was that he did enter the game joining the not known 15 wagon sort of easily and quickly in my opinion, although he gave his reasons. Could it be he wanted to get his vote in asap so he would not be the one to hammer?
Also, something I find kinda weird or maybe I am just misinterpreting: in post#340 when dunnstral is asked by cape why dunnstral's suspicions are on me Void, he says

I agree with 319 from catboi, especially with regards to the newbie scum markers and how newbie scum would play

I personally don't find agreeing with someone scummy inherently, but I was accused of parroting earlier and was seen as a scum marker so I thought it was worth noting that this seems like parroting a bit. But more importantly I found it odd that dunnstral says "especially" in regards to newbie scum markers and how newbie scum plays as if the that have more precedent or weight over other things but the entirety of catboi's #319 is just that. For some reasons to me that "especially" is out-of-place and unnecessary and

I could see that being part of a sort of manufactured read on me and manufactured agreement with catboi. Or I could just be looking way too into the wording of things.

Sorta suspicious of cape still. And also get some mixed vibes from catboi and zefiend but it is more like a struggling to get a read on them sort of thing.

In every line I have highlighted, you have essentially left your options open on every single player in the game, describing things as mixed feelings or saying you could go either way. To an extent, most players are going to have some uncertainty in their reads. I do this myself, there is nothing wrong with it. But there is a difference between uncertainty and refusing to commit to a meaningful opinion at all. What your post does is the latter. It's a very typical sort of trap inexperienced scum tend to fall into, they can't fake reads convincingly and want to keep their options open so they end up fence-sitting on most players. That's what I see coming from you.

[V0ID]

What is wrong exactly with my post#391 catboi? And that is not me being defensive, I am genuinely asking.

I'm glad you asked. Allow me to demonstrate. Bolding for emphasis:

Hi, some thoughts I have:

It is a shame that notscience is gone as I was willing to work with him, as I said in post #152 his reads matched up with mine. Still willing to work with butterchurn for now, re-reading earlier posts I can't seem to shake the feeling even more that butterchurn is town but as zefiend says in post#380

there is the obvious possibility that butterchurn is scum playing a very convincing game.

I get pretty mixed vibes from greeting and dunnstral.

Something I did note from dunnstral was that he did enter the game joining the not known 15 wagon sort of easily and quickly in my opinion, although he gave his reasons. Could it be he wanted to get his vote in asap so he would not be the one to hammer?
Also, something I find kinda weird or maybe I am just misinterpreting: in post#340 when dunnstral is asked by cape why dunnstral's suspicions are on me Void, he says

I agree with 319 from catboi, especially with regards to the newbie scum markers and how newbie scum would play

I personally don't find agreeing with someone scummy inherently, but I was accused of parroting earlier and was seen as a scum marker so I thought it was worth noting that this seems like parroting a bit. But more importantly I found it odd that dunnstral says "especially" in regards to newbie scum markers and how newbie scum plays as if the that have more precedent or weight over other things but the entirety of catboi's #319 is just that. For some reasons to me that "especially" is out-of-place and unnecessary and

I could see that being part of a sort of manufactured read on me and manufactured agreement with catboi. Or I could just be looking way too into the wording of things.

Sorta suspicious of cape still. And also get some mixed vibes from catboi and zefiend but it is more like a struggling to get a read on them sort of thing.

In every line I have highlighted, you have essentially left your options open on every single player in the game, describing things as mixed feelings or saying you could go either way. To an extent, most players are going to have some uncertainty in their reads. I do this myself, there is nothing wrong with it. But there is a difference between uncertainty and refusing to commit to a meaningful opinion at all. What your post does is the latter. It's a very typical sort of trap inexperienced scum tend to fall into, they can't fake reads convincingly and want to keep their options open so they end up fence-sitting on most players. That's what I see coming from you.

I see, thanks for explaining more. Does zefiend's assessment of his uneasy feeling that butterchurn might be scum despite thinking butterchurn is most likely town and playing a town game also in that same vein? As in, does that also ring some scum bells for you? If I had said "I am willing to work with butterchurn, he seems more and more town the more the game goes on and as I re-read his old posts" but without (now looking back on it, unnecessary) bolded line of the "there is the obvious possibility that butterchurn is scum playing a very convincing game." made you feel not as bad about me as scum?
Sure I am struggling to produce reads maybe...it is my first game after all. I think it is worth noting that you also have been pointed out for a lot of "meh" "shrug" posts by at least 2 users, I noted but forget exactly when and who. The first person you seem to be going hard at is me, for reasons I understand but I don't find all that convincing.

[catboi]

Was going to say something about void writing so many words on dunn in particular but given dunn was a wagon when he made that post I don't think it's strongly partner-indicative necessarily if void is mafia. Don't really know who the teammate would be if mafia, don't like hunting for it pre-flip unless I have some very confident townreads, which I don't, this game. Too little to judge by.

[ɀefiend]

I'm probably close to a prod so consider this a prodge. I'm here and gonna catch up, though.

[ɀefiend]

I'm going to address the logical argument butter and Greeting had, because I find arguments like that interesting. It's one of the few times in a mafia game where town can get irrefutable facts. Also, butter was curious and nobody else really tackled the issue.

I think this is the beginning of the logical argument butter and Greeting are having, so I'll quote it for reference.

Somewhat suspicious of Greeting already from what I mentioned in 243 and 245. I would think that scum currently would be pretty excited due to the cop kill and generally being at an advantage at the moment, so I was thinking that at least one of them would be posting early and would want to control the narrative of things from the start of the day. Cape and greeting's posting early today both fit that bill, to some extent. Also still never was particularly satisfied by cape's answer to my line of questioning in 175, especially now that we know notscience was town. Would not be surprised for town catboi to be somewhat discouraged, feeling relatively neutral there.

Scum could also aim to lay low here. Would like to hear more from dunnstral especially, since his first post he's given a few opinions but with little to back them up.

Looks like I failed spectacularly to control the narrative then, because my

catboi

vote was ignored by almost everyone, and even

catboi

himself paid very little attention to it.

Butter says, "Greeting did -

X

- (make an early Day intro post to highlight suspicion on someone) with the intention of -

Y

- (controlling the narrative)"

Greeting says, "I

failed

to do -

Y

-. It's obvious I failed because I did -

X

- (make an early Day intro post to highlight suspicion on someone) but -

C

- (not getting traction on that suspicion, catboi) happened."

Butter's response:

Looks like I failed spectacularly to control the narrative then, because my

catboi

vote was ignored by almost everyone, and even

catboi

himself paid very little attention to it.

Results do not change intent. Second time you've used this argument or a similar one (244) when I would expect you to know it doesn't hold water.

Butter says, "-

C

- happening does not mean you did not have have -

Y

- intent."

Some time passes before the next reply tangentially referencing this argument:

@

butterchurn

That’s

your

interpretation of what I’m doing, so from my perspective your question has a thesis in it which is false. Might I add that this is has already happened in our last exchange. I already said what I’m doing and why I’m doing it and if you keep on interpreting this in a scum way then it’s on you and there’s nothing for me to discuss here.

Greeting says, "

You

(butter) say I had -

Y

- intentions, but from my perspective the

thesis

(actually a

premise

, but let's not get too nerdy here) is false."

Here is where logic begins to fall apart. This all sounds pedantic, but it is actually quite important. In scumhunting, logical errors can be honest mistakes. But, they can also be due to cognitive dissonance, which is impossible to 100% erase as scum. The town's job is to judge intent (which is at the crux of this argument I am commenting on).

The "thesis" Greeting is referring to is actually -

X

-

• Greeting acknowledges that -
  X
  - is true (which it is, the post is there for all to see)
  
• Greeting disputes that the conclusion -
  Y
  - is false, because
  
• If -
  Y
  - were true, then -
  C
  - would not have happened

The truth is, -

C

- (and

-not!C-

) have no correlation with -

Y

-. Using it as evidence against is faulty. I would normally err on the side of "honest mistake," because logic is hard and this site is not extremely logic heavy, but the following post makes me think otherwise:

If you're town, your most helpful response would be to point me to a time in another game where you sorted things out in a similar way, or if it is the first time, explain more about why you decided to do so in this instance.

Sorry to disappoint you, but I feel like me discussing your projections further is a waste of my time and an unnecessary source of frustration for me. If you think that I’m scum then just vote me and I’ll try to work with others.

After Butter calls out Greeting for faulty logic, butter later asks Greeting about a completely different topic and Greeting gets salty about the prior argument. Also, the "work with others" line has relevance to something else I noticed about Greeting that I will address further down.

[ɀefiend]

Also, @catboi, @cape, @dunn and whoever else has a problem with my walls of text: you can go ahead and skip the entire post above if the logical argument is not interesting to you. It is mostly for myself and butter.

[Greeting]

I read the above wall of text and truth is, there is absolutely nothing for me to add here. It is not possible for me to defend myself if someone insists on knowing my intent better than I do, even though in my opinion the facts are against it. So I’m not going to spend time and effort on this.

[ɀefiend]

Right now, I think catboi is coasting, and I also disagree with them.

Then vote me.

Contrary to what you may believe, I do not vote people just because I disagree with them.

[ɀefiend]

Don't worry Greeting I have something coming for you that you can and should respond to.

[ɀefiend]

@Greeting

Something that needs belaboring, since you bring it up quite a bit in your reads:

I think saying "at least one mafia must be experienced" is a hollow conclusion at best and just WIFOM at worst.

Well, I think it's a pretty fair conclusion given the facts in the game and I'm going to stick with it. Maybe you're the experienced scum I'm looking for?

It's a fair conclusion but it's hollow. Literally anyone in this game can make that argument and go after anyone else in this game, so the argument is moot. If scum is equally likely as town to make an argument that can be valid, then the argument is worthless for scumhunting. Do you disagree with this sentiment?

----

Let's use this post as the overarching theme for my issue with you: your reads and relations with butter and Cape.

Obviously I can say that the argument about myself being "performative" is false, but I don't buy it as a description of

Cape90

either.

As for my reads, at this moment

I think

butterchurn

and

Cape90

are town and can be trusted

. The rest is all varying degrees of mixed feelings.

<

stuff about an SE being scum that zefiend is dismissing out of hand

>

Cape90

had nothing to do with

Not Known 15

's elim altogether, but has shown strength of conviction in his pursuits into other slots and I like it.

In your colorful post, you cite that butter is the most universally town-read player. Ok. I think everyone has commented on this at some point, including you:

It seems that the majority of players townread

butterchurn

(4), and personally I also am in that majority, so I'm leaving that slot be.

But you also cite that Cape is tied for the

most

scumread player. Except by you, who trusts Cape:

It also seems that a different majority of players scumread me and

Cape90

(4), and since I'm not scum and I don't really think

Cape90

is either

You cite "strength of conviction" for your town-read on Cape and when pushed by butter you give two pushes Cape has made:

Then,

Cape90

correctly went on the offensive. When I noticed this behavior in this game during Day 1, he pointed out this change in 247 and to be fair, upon comparison, I see it, with him aggressively going after

notscience

. Someone might say that's scummy given the fact that the player in question was town, but I see strength of conviction and willingness to go with their gut as a sign of a townie. Indeed, his vote on

ɀefiend

was a bit out of the blue, but the way I see it, it was an aggressive response to rather aggressive play (215). This is my opinion of them and the way I choose to interpret them though, perceptions may differ.

And after two days of "suspicion" on me let's see what Cape has aggressively posited against me:

He then seems to completely forget his suspicion on notscience and switches to zefiend based on very little

right I "forgot" about it LMAO.

Nice assumption.

I have my reasons for suspecting zefiend is mafia, it mostly has to do with some of the grandiose wording that he was using in his posts, it didn't feel straightforward like your posts do.

Much strength. Such conviction.

In fact, it is such a strong push that Cape

agrees

with Dunn that this "grandiose wording" is just my posting style:

I am not a mason.

This is my first game back on the site in a long time. What I learned from other games is that too many people throw their vote around willy nilly. I am taking a new approach in play style overall, to try to use my vote more effectively.

It is why I ask so many questions and "stall" before committing. My Greeting vote was intentionally left naked. It was meant as a wrench in the spoke of the NK15 wagon, to see how people react.

I was not expecting this gambit from NK15. I have no experience with this sort of thing, personally. But my gut tells me that NK15 is scum trying to pocket me as hoping that I town-read them, to form some sort of "town-bloc."

I think NK15 was happy to see my vote on Greeting, as hopefully derailing the current wagon. I choose to interpret the fake-claim as pre-emptive while at E-1. And I pretty much agree with everything Butter's said about the slot.

No problem voting here now. VOTE: NK 15

This feels a bit overexplain-y.

I disagree, I think that this is their posting style and that a lot of people have commented on it this game but that it is not really a telling piece of information

I also don't think of newbie (?) scum as being overexplain-y

I agree with the first part.

I disagree here with the second part

----

So let's recap. You give Cape a pass as town because his

current "strongest" push

on someone (me) shows "conviction," even though Cape acknowledges that his scum-lean on me "is not really a telling piece of information."

Please tell me if I have that right or wrong. And then tell me if that should pass as reasoning for town-reading someone who is scum-read by some degree to over half the players in the game.

----

On butterchurn, and others.

Besides nope-ing out of an argument that you lost with them, let's look at your more "positive" interactions.

You called butter the town's top town-read, but you also told him to just vote you and you will work with others elsewhere. Does that sound like someone who is trying to play the game based on associations?

You admitted that catboi is one of your scum-leans, but as soon as catboi calls out VOID, you immediately piggyback on the idea and say you're also fine limming VOID today.

So a player with 4 scum-reads on them (Cape) gets a pass because you trust them as town, and you like their suspicions on Dunn and myself.

But a player with 3 scum-reads on them (catboi), who you scum-read, and voted right out the gate, and commented multiple times how your push on them failing to get any pressure was a failure --

ALSO

gets a pass and suddenly you agree with this person about VOID?

Does that sound like someone who is trying to play the game based on associations? Or does that sound like someone who is opportunistically chasing whatever wagon they can?

And one more thing. Dunn also points out that the "an SE must be scum" should include Cape, because it includes almost everyone.

...

You keep pushing that scum has to be experienced to have made that kill. In my opinion, I would put cape90 in that category because they have experience on another site, as well as yourself since you pointed it out right at the start of the day. That ends up being most everyone anyway.

I disagree.

You disagree, saying not every forum and game is the same. I agree, obviously. But what's curious is that you feel the need to specifically defend Cape as "not-an-SE:"

And that is why I think there is an SE behind this. If it's not and it was

Cape90

, for instance, then it means that I'm strongly underestimating him.

Cape is obviously an experienced player, but your defense of Cape seems to rely specifically on the fact that they aren't officially labeled an SE. However, this is inconsistent reasoning: you lump me in with the potential candidates for "experienced scum" even though

I'm

not an SE nor have I ever been an SE. I have ~10 completed games on this site. Perhaps you saw my join date and assumed I was experienced. The inconsistency still stands though: by your logic, either Cape and I

both

fall into the "unofficial SE" bucket, or we both DON'T.

Chucking us into different pseudo-SE buckets to justify your reads is yet another example of what

cannot

be characterized as:

I’m trying to make sense of this game by associations

[ɀefiend]

That is... such a scum way of looking at things. I'm actually baffled, because I can't imagine scum-you being so bold as to post something like that, unless you're just completely lacking in self-awareness, but also can't imagine that perspective coming from town. I've never seen you do this kind of analysis in previous games. You understand how looking at things from a perspective of sorting out what everyone else's suspicions are in order to determine where you have room to be suspicious is exactly what scum would be doing today, right? What made you decide to look at things in this way, when to my knowledge, you haven't before in any of your previous 4 games, as town? And if I'm wrong on that, please point me to an example.

Am I seeing things? catboi, dunn, zefiend, y'all have experience, am I just totally off base here? Current mood: confused

You're just over thinking it.

VOTE: Greeting

[Dunnstral]

Also, @catboi, @cape, @dunn and whoever else has a problem with my walls of text: you can go ahead and skip the entire post above if the logical argument is not interesting to you. It is mostly for myself and butter.

I don't have a problem with your walls of text

[catboi]

Also, @catboi, @cape, @dunn and whoever else has a problem with my walls of text: you can go ahead and skip the entire post above if the logical argument is not interesting to you. It is mostly for myself and butter.

I have not expressed a problem with the formatting of your posts. I think they're perfectly fine. I am simply uncertain as to your alignment based on their content.

Right now, I think catboi is coasting, and I also disagree with them.

Then vote me.

Contrary to what you may believe, I do not vote people just because I disagree with them.

Saying I'm "coasting" has a heavy implication that said behavior is scummy. I was in a particularly surly mood at the time and don't care for suspicion being thrown my way based on my enthusiasm level for a game.

[butterchurn]

You're just over thinking it.

Glad I'm not the only one seeing this. It just looked very obvious to me, and that made me doubt myself because I would expect to not be the only one seeing it. Agreed that his treatment of cape is strange, but I was also worried that was my own bias due to then being my two highest suspicions. Maybe just more overthinking. The main thing holding me back is that I don't think he

has

to make 409 as scum. He's posted a lot already today, and doesn't really need to put himself out there like that yet. I guess if he really feels the need to justify a vote switch onto Dunn as soon as possible? He fished a bit for people's opinions on his three favorite candidates for experienced scum, and then adjusted his own direction accordingly. I just thought he'd be a little more subtle about it, but maybe he sees nothing wrong with his approach there.

Also FWIW, I don't think the faulty logic or failing to see why it is faulty is indicative of scum!Greeting, that's probably AI since he does it out of game too (the logical game theory discussion in 2084 dead thread is actually a very similar case of judging based on results). It's the responses, the way he's approaching scumhunting, and the inconsistencies with his playstyle and his normal town playstyle that I find most suspicious.

[catboi]

Digested that wall on Greeting, have thoughts but will wait to hear his response on it. Want to try to take a look and respond to some other things as well, have been less thorough than I ought to be.

[Greeting]

@

the post

I think the general theme of this text has already been answered by myself, but I'll requote with the bolded part being an explanation. And if you disagree then this is just simply an irreconcilable difference, and I'm not planning on playing to appease anyone.

I disagree.

I think having experience specific to this site, when playing a MafiaScum game counts more here than experience from playing on other forums.

Mafia varies by forum significantly. The vast majority of games I've played in and hosted were all pretty much a fun distraction from the general theme of those forums (which wasn't specifically playing the game). I've played with people who were in there just to have fun and things like mechanics coming from mafia theory were either non-existent or rarely brought up and didn't hold more merit than other argument that the players felt was right at the moment. In the mafia games I played in the past, players who rolled mafia wouldn't really do that much of power role hunting, but would rather focus on eliminating what they deemed to be the biggest threat to them at the moment. Role-hunting attempts were made, but it was something that would be considered more advanced play.

Here, the majority of players tend to use jargon and pay a lot of attention to game mechanics. Elements of game mechanics are even included in guidelines published in each Newbie thread (such as "don't fake claim a power role when you're town").

Although I did start to pay significantly more attention to mafia theory since I started playing here, I still had a rather fierce argument about it in the dead thread of my last newbie game, where I was strongly criticised for my actions in that game with excerpts from mafia theory being brought up as a counterargument. I'm visibly not part of the mainstream of this forum, for instance, I don't use a lot of mafia jargon and admittedly still often look it up.

In spite of all this, these games that I played were still the same sort of game we're playing right now - a game of mafia, but with a far more laid-back approach.

So yeah, mafia game =/= mafia game. And that is why I think there is an SE behind this. If it's not and it was

Cape90

, for instance, then it means that I'm strongly underestimating him.

On a side note, this heavy reliance on mafia theory is what I think was the source of my clash with butterchurn in this game, other townies in the aforementioned dead thread of Newbie 2084 and notably also Val89 in Newbie 2082. While I do take the general theory into consideration, I am not going to let it dictate my actions and I consider it to be my freedom to reach my winning goal in a way I see fit.

It's a fair conclusion but it's hollow. Literally anyone in this game can make that argument and go after anyone else in this game, so the argument is moot. If scum is equally likely as town to make an argument that can be valid, then the argument is worthless for scumhunting. Do you disagree with this sentiment?

Yes, I strongly disagree actually. This is such a simplistic take. If I agreed with it, I wouldn't have made such a point in the first place.

So let's recap. You give Cape a pass as town because his

current "strongest" push

on someone (me) shows "conviction," even though Cape acknowledges that his scum-lean on me "is not really a telling piece of information."

Please tell me if I have that right or wrong. And then tell me if that should pass as reasoning for town-reading someone who is scum-read by some degree to over half the players in the game.

No, that is incorrect. I already explained why I'm town reading

Cape90

. It hasn't been clumped in a single post, but can be seen scattered throughout many, especially my later ones.

On butterchurn, and others.

Besides nope-ing out of an argument that you lost with them, let's look at your more "positive" interactions.

You called butter the town's top town-read, but you also told him to just vote you and you will work with others elsewhere. Does that sound like someone who is trying to play the game based on associations?

You admitted that catboi is one of your scum-leans, but as soon as catboi calls out VOID, you immediately piggyback on the idea and say you're also fine limming VOID today.

So a player with 4 scum-reads on them (Cape) gets a pass because you trust them as town, and you like their suspicions on Dunn and myself.

But a player with 3 scum-reads on them (catboi), who you scum-read, and voted right out the gate, and commented multiple times how your push on them failing to get any pressure was a failure --

ALSO

gets a pass and suddenly you agree with this person about VOID?

Does that sound like someone who is trying to play the game based on associations? Or does that sound like someone who is opportunistically chasing whatever wagon they can?

I don't believe I lost an argument with

butterchurn

. I just felt, and still feel like that conversation had nowhere else to go. Like I said before, I'm not going to cater to the taste of other players with my gameplay. To tell the truth, I don't mind getting scumread for it and even voted out for it. If I have to take one for the team, I'll take it. Sometimes a townie's death can be beneficial to the game, and sometimes that townie is me. Plus people who voted me out might out themselves as scum for town the following Day.

Associations gave me harder data as to what are players stances in the game. If I chose to look for scum in that way then I can't just cherrypick data and post whatever I like. I posted what I considered to be the most relevant to me and my conclusions from it. If you have different conclusions then you're welcome to pour in your thoughts.

The other questions seem rhetorical or not meant for me. In case they are meant for me, as in the previous post you claimed that this would be something for me to respond, asking me to look at myself by the prism of what others may or may not perceive me is, quite simply, stupid, because I don't really need to convince myself that I'm town.

I am quite fine eliminating

V0ID

today, and I believe that I had expressed suspicion of that earlier - before

catboi

cast his vote, so the thesis that I'm piggybacking

catboi

is not factual.

It is also untrue that I'm being opportunistic with every wagon there is - the entirety of my actions Day 1 contradict that.

What I must, however, admit is that I didn't look into your past history and simply judged you were an experienced player due to your join date and, to be fair, your posts didn't sound like those coming from a complete newbie. I'll look into you more closely, but yes, you are right in pointing out that it is logically inconsistent for me to put you in with others in that pool.

That looks like an error of judgement due to an overly simplistic approach on my part and thank you for pointing it out.

[fferyllt]

allez