Mini 844 - P-p-plain! - Over

[AlmasterGM]

/confirm!

[AlmasterGM]

Pom, why no Keelie vote?

Because plum is obviously scum. The rhyme is just so catchy!

[AlmasterGM]

Alm, what does Plum have to do with Pom not voting Keelie?

Nothing? When did I even reference Pom?

[AlmasterGM]

Pom, why no Keelie vote?

Because plum is obviously scum. The rhyme is just so catchy!

Alm, you referenced me here.

Oh ... misread. My bad. Pom and Plum just looked similar to me.

[AlmasterGM]

First of all,

Unvote

. Keelie's OMGUS response is exactly what I'd expect from Keelie as town. As scum, I'd expect more of a "Wait, how'd I slip up" kind of response.

Thus making it an optimal scum play?

Rosso is town. His post is obviously for reactions, but using a different player. I'd see this as a little bit suspicious if Keelie were scum, but even then, it would be weak considering my wagon request was the first post of the game, so a scumbuddy wouldn't be too worried. I simply can't find a strong scum motivation for his post. Therefore, Rosso is town.

Why do all posts have to have a motivation? What if the internal motivation is just to appear as though there is no motivation so that you get a town read?

CoCo is town. There were two posts at the time he posted. Both requested wagons. One included a vote. Another didn't. The logical thing to do is to vote for the one who didn't vote. CoCo did that. Town.

So ... scum don't act logically? If the person who didn't vote is town and CoCo is scum, why would CoCo have any problem smacking a vote on them?

KScope is town. After some non-game threads I've seen, it makes sense that he'd follow Rosso the way he did. And the "slow game" comment is consistent with Drawn Together, where Scope was town.

All of your town reads seem to be of the opinion that "making sense" is an exclusively town trait and "not making sense" is a scumtell. This is false. Scum make sense all the time - it's their job. Also, in this case specifically, considering your metric for evaluating what "makes sense" isn't even from a legitimate game, I find this argument dubious at best.

Lew is my third suspect. Jumps on the wagon I started. Seems to want it to go all the way to a lynch. Then wants to set up tomorrow's lynch on the player who started it. Terrible logic. Hypocracy as well. Calls the wagon "pointless" in next post (nobody else had even posted yet!), but then says Keeluie hasn't defended herself. Wishy washy stance, especially considering he voted Keelie. Then he changes his mind when nobody else has even posted again! Unvotes and votes CoCo. Lew, what made you switch? I personally suspect that you were worried about how you'd be looked at for voting Keelie.

So, my case on Lew:
-Wagon jump with intent to lynch

Uh, I'm missing the intent to lynch part. As far as I read it, he just cast a normal random vote.

-Setting up a chain lynch
-Says to suspect the player who started the wagon, which
----is bad logic
----is hypocritical

Another misquote. He clearly states that he doesn't like day-start games because it's possible to accidentally lynch a pro-town power role. He then says (with a simile) that if that happens, the person who started the wagon should come under suspect. This makes perfect sense - if someone starts a wagon on the cop, don't you suspect them? Minimally, even if not, I fail to see the scumtell you are calling here. I also fail to see how it is hypocritical. You need more explanation.

-Calls the wagon pointless while still being on it AND making a point against Keelie

He gets off it right afterwards.

-Switches to CoCo for no good reason.

Actually, he does give a reason, and given all the random voting, it's not a bad one at that.

So, you're welcome guys. I've given you the scum team on Page 3. Pom, Lew, and Raiv. (That line sounds too much like Mastin for my comfort. Actually, so does that one. I'll stop now. Damn, Mastin would say that too!)

No. What you have done is cleared a lot of people based on nonsense and made a few bad cases. For someone with, like, six thousand posts, I'm not impressed at all.

Vote: Kmd4390

[AlmasterGM]

I agree that it's a mostly pointless case, but why are you answering for lewarcher? I'm sure he can explain himself fine. You could be scum defending your scumbuddy for all I know. Let people answer cases( and questions) directed at them by themselves.

Why?

[AlmasterGM]

I agree that it's a mostly pointless case, but why are you answering for lewarcher? I'm sure he can explain himself fine.

You could be scum defending your scumbuddy for all I know

. Let people answer cases( and questions) directed at them by themselves.

Why?

The bolded, and also that I would've liked to see how lewarcher would've defended himself from Kmd's accusations. The different ways that people react are useful to notice and analyze.

For all you know, lewarcher could be scum himself. This argument makes no sense. As far as how his reaction goes, why don't you just gauge his reaction to both KMD's and my posts? Either way, there will be a reaction.

[AlmasterGM]

I'm not saying anything she did is optimal for either alignment, but more of what I'd expect. What she did is what I'd expect her to do as town.

There's still a non-sequitor in your logic. Just because she did what you'd expect her to do as town doesn't make her town (which is what you claim). My argument is that, as scum, it'd be optimal for her to make the exact same play.

On Rosso read:
Why are you asking "what if"? That's how I interpreted his actions. If I'm wrong, he can correct me.

It's not a what-if - I'm arguing your assumption that posts by scum always have a scummy motivation. IMO, Russo is just as likely to be scum as he is town.

On CoCo:
So being logical is a scumtell now? Riiight.

That's not what I said at all. You said that CoCo was town because he made a logical play. I argued that scum can make logical plays as well, and that logic isn't a tell either way. You keep mischaracterizing my arguments as attempts to get reads one way or the other, when in reality all I'm doing is showing how your "town" reads are flawed.

On Scope:
I'm saying that it makes sense for Scope to have followed Rosso as town. If something makes sense from a town perspective, I'm going to see it as a towntell.

What if something makes sense both scum and town, as Scopes' play did?

On Lew:
Tell me how this sounds like a normal random vote:

Because 1) it's not even page 3 yet and 2) he prefaces it by saying there's no way to decide who to vote for, thus implying his vote is random/has little justification.

Wow. Just wow. Let me break down the craplogic here by numbering things in your quote.

1. How is it a misquote? I don't see it.

Because he isn't doing or saying what you say he is.

2. How is this only true for daystart and why is it even what you'd look at when looking for scum? I don't know about you, but I'm not going to freak out about suspecting players because "OMG THEY COULD BE A POWER ROLE!!". Anyone could be a power role. Know what else they could be? Scum. It works both ways.

I'm not sure if you only play mafia on mafiascum, but in many games, the game begins with night actions. This reduces the D1 randomness because you have information you can use to characterize power roles. Lew simply seems to be referring to this fact and saying how it doesn't apply here on MS.

3. Yeah, that's exactly my problem with Lew. Why suspect someone just because they make a vote, people follow their vote in agreement, and the player happens to flip town? I don't see how someone who makes a case on a town player is any scummier than those who vote the same player later. In fact, I'd be much more likely to suspect people who vote later.

Depends on how hard they tunnel the wagon. If people just pile on, then I am in agreement with you. However, if the person is really pushing for it, then I think suspicion is in order.

4-6.

Ok, I sort of agree with you here. Still don't think lew is scum, though.

So because I gave my reads on PAGE THREE, and you aren't satisfied with their strength, I must be scum? Tell me this then. Who has given a better case than mine on Pom. Who has given a better case than mine on Lew? Hell, how many cases are better than the one I gave on Raiv? Your reason for suspecting me applies to every player in this game more than it applies to me. I'd suggest rethinking your position.

I think your reads are bad. No read is better than a bad read, so I don't care that you have posted more text than the other players. If you want to cop out and say it's only page three, then maybe you shouldn't make such definite reads in the first place. According to you, logical strength of arguments is the mechanism we use to find scum. At the point where, in my opinion, you have the most logically flawed arguments in the game, why shouldn't you be my number one suspect?

Pom is actually right, Alm. If you answer for people, you make things too easy for them. This is especially bad if you are town answering for scum, because we don't get their reaction to pressure. You make it easier for them, and they can coast to victory.

Unfortunately, I don't think lew is scum, so I don't think this is an issue.

[AlmasterGM]

It doesn't make her guaranteed, untouchable, town. It does give me a town read on her so far though. If she can come into HER FIRST GAME, and know that I'm voting her to gauge her reaction, know what reaction I'm expecting from either alignment, and fake the correct one, then congratulations to her for a scum game well played. I personally don't think that's the case. If she's scum, I'm misreading the situation.

It's open knowledge that she has a friend who has played the game before. You have no clue what her experiences with mafia are. Your gauge of her reaction isn't some extremely advanced theory utilized and known only by you - it's generic town behavior vs generic scum behavior. If you want to underestimate new people, go right ahead. I personally don't think it would be that hard for her to pull a dupe.

What? I didn't make that assumption. I assumed that his post was similar to mine as far as looking for reactions, which is a protown thing to do in the second post of the game. Don't make the mistake of thinking that I'm calling Rosso, or anyone else, 100% guaranteed town. It's just where my read was at the second post of the game, and still is until I'm shown otherwise.

Yes you did. You said "I can't find any scum motivation for CoCo's posts, so he's town." This assumes that every scum post has some deeper implication and that they won't just post things for no reason other than to appear town. I'm glad you don't think Rosso is 100% town, but I don't even see him as 95% town. I think he's 75% town - an even percentile.

How is it flawed? He, like Rosso, made a protown move. Yes, he could still be scum, but that's not what I'm seeing so far.

I'm still confused as to how "logical" moves translate to "pro-town" moves. You keep using these terms interchangeably when they are entirely different.

Elaborate on why Scope would do that as scum.

Why wouldn't he? There have been no negative implications, and you think he's town because of it. Seems like a decent scum play to me.

stuff about lew

I've got a response, but I'll just save it and let lew reply, since that's what you and everyone else seems to want.

Strongly disagree. I think giving reads does more for the game, whether people agree with them or not. If the read is truly bad, people can point to why and it allows the player who gave the read a chance to either show more about why they feel the way they do (as I have done) or rethink the position and change their mind.

I suppose what I meant to imply in my comment was not as clear as I thought. What I meant was "No read is better than a bad read ... when scumhunting." So, if I'm looking at two players - one who gives no read and the other who gives what I consider to be a bad read - I'm going to go after the bad read.

Neither do I. My point was that I've made it clear where I stand. Who has done a better job of that so far?

I don't see why this matters. I agree that it is clear where you stand. I don't like where you stand. So I'm going to disagree with you.

Flawed arguments (which I still don't see how mine are flawed by the way) is not always a scumtell. Town can just as easily be wrong about a player.

This is exactly what I've been trying to say. If this is what you think, then how can you say someone is pro-town because they made a "logical" play?

Unless you are 100% sure on this, the point stands. The only way you are 100% sure, considering it's Day 1 and we haven't had a night yet, is if you are scum. Therefore, let me be blunt for a second. Shut up about my case on Lew and let him defend himself.

Wrong. But OK.

[AlmasterGM]

Yeah, she knows someone who has played. Me. I'd know if she had experience in the game. She knows a VERY basic version. Nothing that would help her fake a reaction like that.

Whatever, I guess you are in a better position to meta than I am. If she flips scum at the end, though, I'll laugh pretty hard.

No, I said I think he's town. I didn't say I know he is. And you're right that I don't see scummy motives in his posts, so I don't suspect him. Yes, I do think he is likely town. No, I'm not saying that is a definite read that will never change. 95% would even be a bit extreme IMO. I'm not 95% on anyone just yet.

First of all, go back and read your post Your exact rhetoric was "Rosso is town ... Therefore, Rosso is town." Obviously, if you want to retract that ex-post-facto, you can goright ahead. Pointless who-said-what aside, though, I'm still not seeing a justification for why you should even

think

he's town. Explain to me why the lack of motivation in a post is a TOWN tell and not just a null-tell? Scum post things for no particular reason all the time.

This is a semantics argument then. Pointless.

It's not a semantics argument. You said that because the play was "logical," it's was (probably) a town move. My question is why logical moves are a town tell, when, as you conceded yourself, scum play "logically" and townies can play poorly all the time?

You are arguing what would be "good" play while I'm arguing what is more "likely" play. We don't disagree on logic. Just the conclusions.

Fair.

Yeah, you were clear the first time. I disagree with this opinion. I'd be more likely to vote someone who isn't giving reads and is coasting through the game than I would be for someone whose reads I disagree with or consider "bad" or "wrong".

This is day one, not three. There hasn't even been enough game to coast through yet. In the late game, I'll agree with you, but right now, I think spreading bad information is much more dangerous than doing nothing.

That's fine, but why does disagreeing with my stances on players make me scum?

The vote was primarily to ensure there was a response elicited, not because I am actually convinced by any significant margin that you are scum. I do, however, disagree with your reads enough that I'm keeping my vote on you for now.

Vote: AlmasterGM

OMGUSSCUM

^^This is a good wagon^^

What?

1. Answering for other players is a big scumtell in my book.

Why?

[AlmasterGM]

Wow, town rocked the house.

Nice game, everyone.