I actually explained what I meant in greater detail in the part which youIn post 484, Salsabil Faria wrote:Spoiler: Greeting vs BloodB0t vs Tejate/NJACIn post 97, Greeting wrote:I agree with theIn post 90, BloodB0t wrote:My scum reads are Wayward, Greeting, maybe Calum. Kitty's inactivity is suspicious. Though none of my scum reads are very strong yet, I will VOTE: Wayward because it is the strongest nonetheless.
My town so far is CornPuff, Salsa and Tejate.Calumscumread. Why do you scumreadWayward Sonthough?In post 121, Greeting wrote:At first, I typed this sentence:In post 115, Tejate Raichu wrote: TL;DR, I believe Calum may be trying to play an aggressive mafia game to focus discussion on a topic that ultimately benefits a Calum/not Bloodb0t scumteam by virtue of not being about them.
Now, at the moment we all only have tiny ISOs to go off of, however this sort of behavior to me is something I'd expect more from a red role than a green one. In my opinion, mafia has 3 major strategies for the day game. Obviously there's details, but I feel as though it breaks down to 3 main ways to accomplish whatever goal, be that survival or gaining trust. Do note that I am not implying that these are equally effective, and they are not mutually exclusive either. For me, they exist on a spectrum of sorts. Also note I do not necessarily consider these hard tells, these are just general approaches I think mafia is likely to take, mafia is not a flowchart.
1) Coasting, a strategy very common with beginner mafia and sometimes even experienced players. This usually isn't even done on purpose, but this consists of a lot of fluff and little else. I don't think this is really a scumtell, but not contributing is very likely to get you limmed by more experienced players, since people simply don't have any way to slot you. This is not what is happening here, but I figure I should mention it.
2) Contributing bad info. This is when a scum agrees with a townie (usually townread player) who is contributing a theory that is way off the mark, or pushing their own. Townies are often wrong contrary to popular belief, so this is a very easy thing to fall back to.
3) Stifling discussion. This is when, instead of simply throwing bad ideas into the pot like strategy 2, you essentially try to force the conversation to as far off track or end as soon as possible. The less townies discuss things that are actually relevant, the less likely they are to successfully gamesolve. This is the most aggressive of the 3, you essentially have to be dominating the conversation for this to be pulled off. More experienced players are likely to be wary of this, but in a newbie game people are far more likely to simply "follow the leader". Not speaking about you guys specifically, but largely speaking people brand new to the game do this when presented with domineering mafia play.
I pointed out that I usually don't solve games by assuming that the mafia team has a strategy, because there might as well be none. But then took the time to actually analyse what has been given here, and something's off here.This is a good observation coming from a townie mindset. I thinkTejate Raichushould be off the radar for Day 1 as well.
Then, I looked atIn post 115, Tejate Raichu wrote:In my opinion, Calum's play thus far lines up more with 2 and 3 than what I would expect a townie to be saying this early. Especially the part where they immediately suggested to vote one of me or Bloodb0t. The biggest thing that gives me pause at the moment is that, if they are leaning 3, the most aggressive playstyle, I would expect them to be following up more, especially with my posts countering Calum. They did say they were new, but I don't want to discount this doubt based on that alone.Calum's ISO. It's full of single-sentenced posts, questions, half-naked votes. Very little content.
How would you categorise this as 2/3? It'sliterallycoasting. He does not engage in discussion, his questions do not redirect the discussion. His influence on the game is minuscule.In post 123, Greeting wrote:Nice try. I was just about to wait forIn post 122, BloodB0t wrote:
This kind of seems like splitting hairs. As you say, it's not like scum has to have a strategy that they stick to. They could switch things up depending on any number of things. I do think Calum's been exhibiting behavior from all 3 categories. His low post/word count could be considered coasting, but all of his little content fits into 2/3. That doesn't exonerate them at all. Calum has been one of the most scummy players so far. The specific categorization of his strategy doesn't really matter.
I think your overall play exhibits strategy number 2, which is the most dangerous one for town in my opinion. You're also using strategy 3 in the quoted post because the inconsistency you point out doesn't really matter.
I would prefer to Lim you day 1, so VOTE: Greeting, but I am also willing to hammer the more harmless scum in Wayward/Calum because those are more likely to actually happen. I sense that a D1 vote on you probably won't be gaining much traction, which is unfortunate.Tejateto respond and start questioning him about his townread of you, but this pre-emptive attack seems to me that I'm heading towards the right direction.
This vote is completely unsurprising. It makes sense when one looks back atTejate Raichu's ISO and he actually white knighted you (48) even though, in my opinion, there's really no reason for town to do so. I was just pondering a potentialTejate/BloodB0tteam. Even ifTejateis actually town, he's the only notable advocate to not eliminate you.
What's the truth? Your "reads" are inconsistent and chaotic. Townies sometimes are inconsistent and chaotic, but not within one post:
As a matter of fact, I replied to you in 96, but you didn't really seem to care. Is that really inciting discussion or just posting reads for the sake of it?In post 90, BloodB0t wrote:Greeting's non-reaction to my vote and getting on with moving the game forward does seem slightly townie, I guess, though it could be scum doing well at appearing town. I do find it a bit strange that he asked cornpuff if we've played together before. I didn't mention having any experience here (41). This is my second game here and the first is still ongoing.
You defend yourself by claiming that your votes were intentionally strange (90) and you're "making waves" and want to see what happens (106).In post 90, BloodB0t wrote:My scum reads are Wayward, Greeting, maybe Calum.Kitty's inactivity is suspicious. Though none of my scum reads are very strong yet, I will VOTE: Wayward because it is the strongest nonetheless.
Your voting record so far is also really bad, your main scumreads are literally obvtown players (even if you not count myself). These are all actually book scumreads, from Mini's Scumhunting Kit: :"Trying to discredit obvtown people for bad reasons", "Being "jokingly" scummy, self-admitting they are scummy, claiming scum" (admitting your bad ISO).
And, since LAMIST has been mentioned in this game before, trying to initiate discussion for the sake of it, not for the sake of forming reads literally falls under the definition from this scumhumting guide.
Post in reference - 41: zero relation of vote to post content, claiming to elicit reaction afterwards."Look at me, I'm so town!" (+1.0)
It's the so-called LAMIST tell and it's still relevant enough to have its own acronym! Newbscum usually are very concerned with 'looking good' to avoid falling under suspicion, but don't know how to fake-scumhunt. Instead, they will do things like pushing the lurkers to contribute, trying to "resuscitate" them by voting them, asking for reads on themselves, talking a lot about the game itself (this is called IIoA), claiming they are doing anything in their power to get information.
This is a good Day 1 elimination.
VOTE: BloodB0tIn post 125, Greeting wrote:For the record, that someone was none other than...Tejate Raichu.
IfBloodB0tflips red then I am going afterTejatetomorrow.In post 154, Greeting wrote:There exists a pattern in this game in whichIn post 127, Salsabil Faria wrote:Can you explain, why you think they can be the scumteam?Tejate RaichuandBloodB0tshow signs of supporting rach other each other (90, 48 - fromTejate), and evenBloodB0tdefendsTejate Raichu(12) even though in my opinion, there isn't enough towny stuff byBloodB0tto support this.
Another notable connection between the two is post 91, fromTejate, where he claims thatBloodB0tshould "post more". But it's not really that threatening.
My major issue here is thatIn post 91, Tejate Raichu wrote: No disagreement there, Bloodb0t should be posting given the large amount of contention his slot has at the moment. However, I do take issue with Calum hard pushing me and him as a group.BloodB0ton surface level is not even remotely towny and yet,Tejatewrites him off and even slightly supports him.In post 155, Greeting wrote:I am 100% aware thatCalum's ISO is bad. This, on surface level, is the literal definition of a coaster and is a commonly used scumtell.
But why has no one said this as a major argument to vote him out?Tejate Raichu's 115 aboutCalumlooks townie on the surface, but when I read into it, his real reason for voting him out just doesn't make sense and doesn't add up.
(in his words he said it's a combination of 2/3)
And when I tried to question him about it,In post 115, Tejate Raichu wrote:2) Contributing bad info. This is when a scum agrees with a townie (usually townread player) who is contributing a theory that is way off the mark, or pushing their own. Townies are often wrong contrary to popular belief, so this is a very easy thing to fall back to.
3) Stifling discussion. This is when, instead of simply throwing bad ideas into the pot like strategy 2, you essentially try to force the conversation to as far off track or end as soon as possible. The less townies discuss things that are actually relevant, the less likely they are to successfully gamesolve. This is the most aggressive of the 3, you essentially have to be dominating the conversation for this to be pulled off. More experienced players are likely to be wary of this, but in a newbie game people are far more likely to simply "follow the leader". Not speaking about you guys specifically, but largely speaking people brand new to the game do this when presented with domineering mafia play.BloodB0tcame charging at his defense.
Which is why I am really suspicious about theCalumwagon rn.In post 181, Greeting wrote:I have made my case with regard to you andIn post 165, Tejate Raichu wrote:And another thing: Greeting, you have said a couple times now that Calum is LHF. Think about this from my perspective for a second: my "defenses" of Bloodb0t mostly involved pointing out that, at the time he was actually LHF. I used this to point out a particular post sussing Bloodb0t that I didn't like because it seemed like it was simply trying to reach that LHF rather than actually get a mafia limmed.
Does the same thing not apply to why you think my suspicion of Calum over Blood isn't warranted? If I'm reading correctly, you believe my reasoning for a Calum wagon is bad, and therefor I am scum with Bloodb0t trying to get the LHF. Does that actually make sense, though? Why do you feel so confident that I am trying to push Calum because he's LHF? Why do you seem to think this is any different than my "defense" of Blood?BloodB0t, it's in my ISO and I continue to support it. I can obviously see a universe whereBloodB0tis town LHF. I am not 100% sure on that scumread. It's just the best I have for today, and given the way Day 1 is going now, it will probably be my best case this Day.
Part of why I am so reluctant to scumread him for the obvious is my extensive experience of playing Newbie games with players who had similar levels of activity (and sometimes even replaced out) who were all scumread en masse for it.Calumis, in my humble opinion, far lower hanging fruit though.BloodB0twould be a different kind of LHF if he's town - the explanation would be erratic behavior and gameplay issues (I have played with players who genuinely attempt to start discussions like this).
Nonetheless, my approach is not without its flaws. What if we're at ELo ("eliminate or lose") andCalumis still alive? This kind of slot, if town, is just perfect for the mafia to have in the game because he's totally mislimmable.
Which struck out to me the most isGreeting's main suspicion started withTejate/NJAC, but pushedBloodB0tfor the sake ofdefending scum-partneraka associative read. The way these conversations happened, (what I think) town!him should eliminateTejate/NJACfirst (FYI, he never votedTejatefor once, despite having strong suspicion.... classic scum-partner move), then the flip would clearBloodB0tto him but happened the opposite.
So the manipulation scum!Greetingdid here was.... went after a townie, made a scum-case of the townie, included his scum-partner in that case, madeif X flips red then Y will also be the redassociative read among them, night killed the townie (after failing to eliminate him in the day phase), cleared Tejate/NJAC in his eyes by the flip.
This wholeBloodB0t-Tejate/NJACcase was based on associative only which contradicts withGreeting's stance on 170.
In post 198, Greeting wrote:[Perhaps the phrasing on my part was a bit ambiguous, but I meant his voting record and not necessarily people who he named as scumreads.In post 196, Moonshot wrote: Why do you think Wayward Son and Calum are obvtown?Moonshotcaught a good thing here....GreetingstatedwaywardandCalum/T3asobvtown playerson his 123 (who were/are not obvtown to me) which I think is a Freudian scum-slip.
very conveniently left out from the quote.
In post 198, Greeting wrote: Perhaps the phrasing on my part was a bit ambiguous, but I meant his voting record and not necessarily people who he named as scumreads.
This was his voting record until, and including, post 90:
Emollient(Moonshot) - 12
CornPuffBuddha- 18
Greeting- 41
Wayward Son- 90
That's me, and three players I was townreading or townleaning at the moment. Even if we consider 12 a random RVS vote, that's a bad voting record.
~ 
