Mini 845 - The Amish Village (Game Over)

[Ojanen]

I started out finding Nuwen very scummy but have gradually stopped hounding Fishy. I dunno if I'm just falling back to my old habit/natural trait I've been battling of being too reasonable for this game. But there's just something that gives me gut-town twinges putting him to mixed read, despite of the vagueness of the slot. I don't think Fishy's lacked initiative. It's true that he's seemed lost and silent always before he has changed wagons (chamber=>Ray and SC=>Sajin). On average, being scum correlates with more closed mind and difficulty on making up cases. However when a game has a lot of good players and lack of drama (evidenced by the stalling) as I think this one has had, the correlation is smaller.
Not gonna fully try to analyze my gut right now, but to give a slight crack to my head, this for example feels open.

My lack of posting has nothing to do with inactivity. I have plenty of time for this game.

I liked the little snippet of iso 19 but can't quantify why.

Interesting interaction in any case. Fishy,

This is either a misunderstanding or a misrep. My position here is best stated as this:
When someone attacks you, you either believe it’s genuine or you don’t. If you think it’s genuine, you try to explain the situation better – what you were thinking, why you said what you said, etc. If you think you are being attacked in bad faith, you should do this anyway, but you also tend to think the person attacking you is scum, and accuse them. Anyone who sits back and says nothing about their wagon, while ignoring people on it – who they are effectively saying are making points so terrible as not to be worthy of attention – has a totally different mindset to me.
Now, in the case of my wagon, there was one issue – a contradiction of Nuwen’s. This was a fair point against me, and, not being Nuwen, I had nothing to say to clarify it. The fact that it was my replacement who was under attack means the above paragraph simply does not apply – I thought the attacks could well be genuine (though misguided), and there was nothing I could do to explain the situation.

What's your comment to this:

Original MM wagoner left-overs
RayFrost (3): Herodotus; Claus; Artem

townish
artem / kai / claus - good posts and follow through questions

Noting conf.bias from iaaun or clumsy padding.

His first substantial post (Post #343),

his scumlist is

Red_Dye/chamber, MiteyMouse (a lurker) and

Rosso

.

Post #464, 2 weeks and 5 pages after he joined the game, is really the first time Fishy comments on anyone besides RayFrost, chamber and Rosso (and even with those,

his comments on Rosso were the very definition of fence-sitting

).

I'd like iaaun to comment on Fishy's defence.

Not happy that Sajin hasn't been around yet.

[Percy]

I made what I thought was a pretty good case on SC, and he mas made a pretty good meta defense (his posts sound real).

...

The other aspect of my hesitancy has been Sajin - I've been suspicious of him as others have, but I keep coming to the thread to find all the questions I want to ask him already asked.

...

It feels like Sajin has tried to take my case and change it a little to excuse hopping onto a wagon, and it hasn't quite worked. This makes me very suspicious of him - this is bandwagonning in its worst form.

I get major, major scumvibes from these paragraphs.

1. I find it incredibly odd that he didn't comment on SC's defense. Furthermore, I think you already established that his meta defense wasn't worth anything. You asked:

Ongoing games in which you are unconfirmed are both something we can't discuss, and pretty bad evidence for this being townie-SC play. Please tell me if a game in which this playstyle is evident finishes with you town.

SC didn't even acknowledge the request. Fishy's next post was to declare his read on the le Chat meta.

2. Yes, the questions might have been asked, but what about his responses? This issue that you're voting him for arose before your last post.

3. I don't see how Sajin's case relates to yours.

4. I just don't like that last sentence.

How sudden.

Urgggh, I hate this ambiguous OMGUS. SC did it to, and it really screams "scum" to me.

The rest of IAUN's case was good, but Fishy's response was good too.

Overall, a firm

FoS: Fishythefish

.

Also scummy: Herodotus. I just read this entire game in the last few days, so one would hope it would be fairly fresh in my memory but I could not tell you a single thing that Hero has done in this game

Agreed. I read him in ISO just now, and I've found his last four posts to be particularly lacking in engagement.

However, I'll admit that I only took a cursory glance at it because I was at work and didn't have a ton of time. On the surface it looked to be correct, but clearly I need to take a better look at it if it is more like how you are saying.

Hmm. I can understand being busy at work, but it seems to me like you may have been a little too eager to see Fishy as scum here. Please post your thoughts on Fishy.

vote fishy

(hehe Percy and Sajin are going to have a field day with this)

Not really. I think Sajin and Fishy are coming across pretty scummy right now, and you're looking a lot better by comparison.

That said,

If you think having a few town players you wouldn't lynch and then

focusing on the others almost randomly

on D1 is lining up lynches, your mistaken, in my opinion.

(My emphasis)
...are you claiming that's what you did?

Also,

Out of curiosity, why assume blocker over doc or hider or some other protective role?

This is very close to flat out rolefishing. It's also misrepping what Kairyuu was asking for. What kind of answer were you expecting?

[SerialClergyman]

1) I'm claiming that's what I'm aiming to do - but replacing in is a little different. It's just playing around with playstles to try to make myself more useful early.

2) I often come close to flat out role fishing. But aside from that, this question was to do with the fact that there was a lot of assuming roleblocker going on, rather than assuming doc or other. I felt that there was no particular reason why you'd assume one over the other and found it a little odd that that's what was going around.

[chamber]

@chamber: Here's a list of my most recent completed games:

Scum:

Mean mod lovefest:
http://www.mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopi ... highlight=

Unreal Tournament Mafia
http://www.mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopi ... highlight=


Town:

Magic the Gathering: Parallel Universe Mafia
Tar's subgame (started here)
http://www.mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopi ... highlight=
forbiddanlight's subgame (ended up here)
http://www.mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopi ... highlight=

Phables: Death Note Mafia
http://www.mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopi ... highlight=

Wheel of Time Mafia: Rip in the Pattern
http://www.mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopi ... highlight=

Beard Mafia
http://www.mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopi ... highlight=

Case Closed Mafia
http://www.mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopi ... highlight=

Polygamist Mafia 2
http://www.mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopi ... highlight=

Newbie 764
http://www.mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopi ... highlight=

Legend of Zelda: Majora's Mask Mafia
http://www.mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopi ... highlight=

Carnival Mafia
http://www.mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopi ... highlight=

Newbie 750
http://www.mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopi ... highlight=

That's the full list of my completed games since my one month hiatus that started in January of this year. Games I replaced out of and ongoing games are excluded from the list.

@Percy: It's 3am, and I need sleep, so I'll get to your post tomorrow (I hope), or whenever I finish what seems to be an ever-growing pile of homework.

Any other games where you are scum? The one has a weird game mechanic, and a single game isn't really enough for me to get a solid baseline.

[Fishythefish]

1. I find it incredibly odd that he didn't comment on SC's defense. Furthermore, I think you already established that his meta defense wasn't worth anything. You asked:

Ongoing games in which you are unconfirmed are both something we can't discuss, and pretty bad evidence for this being townie-SC play. Please tell me if a game in which this playstyle is evident finishes with you town.

SC didn't even acknowledge the request. Fishy's next post was to declare his read on the le Chat meta.

2. Yes, the questions might have been asked, but what about his responses? This issue that you're voting him for arose before your last post.

3. I don't see how Sajin's case relates to yours.

4. I just don't like that last sentence.

1. His "meta defense" consists of two things. The links to ongoing games, which I won't discuss, and his posts explaining why this is now his strategy. Between the two, I am convinced that this is a general strategy of SC's at the moment.
2. I suggest you look at the interval between my post in which I voted Sajin, and my last post before that. In that time, Sajin made three posts that made it quite clear he was being evasive. Before that, I was waiting for him to clarify his stances. When he effectively refused to do so, I voted for him.
3. My case is about SC townhunting. Sajin's case, made shortly afterwards, is about SC's townhunting. It feels like Sajin has taken this base of my argument, and gone from it to conclusions that make no sense, in an attempt to make a similar point and hop on the wagon.

How sudden.

Urgggh, I hate this ambiguous OMGUS. SC did it to, and it really screams "scum" to me.

The rest of IAUN's case was good, but Fishy's response was good too.

I was merely commenting on the fact that I had gained three votes very quickly, and was surprised. I see how this can be taken as OMGUS; to clarify, I did not intend any comment on the alignments of my three attackers. I don't intend to say what I think about this wagon for a little while.

I don't like that last sentence. My response says that many of his points are wrong. If my response is good, most of his case pretty much has to be bad.

@SC: I asked you what you agreed with in iaaun's case on me. Please answer.

[Fishythefish]

Fishy,
What's your comment to this:

Original MM wagoner left-overs
RayFrost (3): Herodotus; Claus; Artem

townish
artem / kai / claus - good posts and follow through questions

This was the original post that made me make that point against RF - that this was all he had to say about his three attackers.

[Herodotus]

People really need to stop asking the rb to claim. Everytime someone does it limits who it might be.

Not only is Chamber right, but I think we should completely stop discussing it. If any particular player feels that claiming would be a good idea, they can do it. If there is a roleblocker out there, they have access to all the information we have collectively, plus some of their own. They know there was no night kill, and if they feel that they prevented one, that's up to them. None of us are stupid enough not to understand the implications of claiming or not, and that player is in the best position to make the decision.

@Iam, Percy:
I haven't been active much today. I've already explained that this is due to RL stuff, and will change in about a week.

@Magnus:
What do you think of the wagon (SC 659, VP 661) on Fishy that followed Iam's case? Two other players agreed with Iam's points; does that effect your belief that Iam misrepresented Fishy?

[magnus_orion]

@hero: I actually applaud Iam, its really well done.
However, its so well knit together, that it can't possibly be an accidental misunderstanding, making me much more sure that Iam is scum.

Yes, I think that at first glance, the case is rather compelling.
However, I was more critical of it because of my suspicions of Iam. I was going to post explaining the misrepresentations that appear upon further examination, but fishy got to it first (his post showed up in the topic review when I hit the "reply" button)

Now to address your question,
I think the wagon resulted from people not critically reading the case for flaws, none which are obviously apparent. I believe Iam misrepped fishy, and I believe that VP and SC fell for it.

[Ojanen]

@hero: I wanna hear your answer about the Sajin questions.

Fishy,
What's your comment to this:
Original MM wagoner left-overs
RayFrost (3): Herodotus; Claus; Artem

townish
artem / kai / claus - good posts and follow through questions

This was the original post that made me make that point against RF - that this was all he had to say about his three attackers.

...ok, you just very much missed the point there.
Those were the

MM

leftover attackers, with which 2 of the 3 townreads coincided. I was questioning that regards to

This is either a misunderstanding or a misrep. My position here is best stated as this:
When someone attacks you, you either believe it’s genuine or you don’t. If you think it’s genuine, you try to explain the situation better – what you were thinking, why you said what you said, etc. If you think you are being attacked in bad faith, you should do this anyway, but you also tend to think the person attacking you is scum, and accuse them. Anyone who sits back and says nothing about their wagon, while ignoring people on it – who they are effectively saying are making points so terrible as not to be worthy of attention – has a totally different mindset to me.
Now, in the case of my wagon, there was one issue – a contradiction of Nuwen’s. This was a fair point against me, and, not being Nuwen, I had nothing to say to clarify it. The fact that it was my replacement who was under attack means the above paragraph simply does not apply – I thought the attacks could well be genuine (though misguided), and there was nothing I could do to explain the situation.

[Percy]

1) I'm claiming that's what I'm aiming to do - but replacing in is a little different. It's just playing around with playstles to try to make myself more useful early.

This is not a strategy worth trying. I think it's the classic scum strategy, actually - pick a few players who you probably won't be able to get lynched any time soon, and pick someone not like that (pretty much at random) and attack them. If they seem even slightly scummy, push their lynch! Befriend the visible townies and NK them later, and don't commit to wagons with

arguments

or

reasons

or anything that might come back to bite you!

Now as regard to Sajin,

SC suggested we narrow scum down by reads into a group and lynch out of that group.

This is what he accused you of. Would you say that this is accurate?

Unvote

, until I hear more from Sajin. Perhaps he was right after all. Still don't like the evasiveness, however.

2) I often come close to flat out role fishing. But aside from that, this question was to do with the fact that there was a lot of assuming roleblocker going on, rather than assuming doc or other. I felt that there was no particular reason why you'd assume one over the other and found it a little odd that that's what was going around.

When do you come close to flat out role fishing? Can you link me a game where you've been accused of rolefishing before?
Why do you do it?
Also, you didn't answer my question. What kind of response were you expecting to your question?

1. His "meta defense" consists of two things. The links to ongoing games, which I won't discuss, and his posts explaining why this is now his strategy. Between the two, I am convinced that this is a general strategy of SC's at the moment.

Well you dismissed the first element (the ongoing games) rather forcefully. Are you referring to his post 600? Because as far as I can tell, this isn't a "meta" defence, but an explanation of a new strategy he's trying for the first time. It happens to coincide with a good scum strategy, as I explained above. Perhaps you can elaborate on how it seems "real".

If my response is good, most of his case pretty much has to be bad.

Not true. I thought the case needed a good response from you, and you gave it. The confirmation bias argument you gave was particularly persuasive. Ironically, that's how I feel about magnus' read of IAAUN.

I was going to post explaining the misrepresentations that appear upon further examination, but fishy got to it first

Are you saying that you didn't find anything in the post not already covered by Fishy, and that you buy Fishy's defence 100%?

[magnus_orion]

Are you saying that you didn't find anything in the post not already covered by Fishy, and that you buy Fishy's defence 100%?

no, I am not saying that, nor do I think I ever believe anything in mafia 100%. That'd be unhealthy

I'm saying that fishy addressed what I had been planning to address when I hit the reply button after reading the post.

[VP Baltar]

The walls! The walls!!!!!

Anyhow, this is my last game I need to catch up with for tonight and I'm a bit tired, so this probably won't be as extensive of a post as I was hoping to make (i.e. fact checking the Iam vs. Fishy dispute with a finetooth comb is probably getting pushed back until tomorrow).

First thing that it is interesting Iam doesn't respond to fishy immediately. If someone called my case complete bullocks, especially someone I consider scum, I'd be ripe to defend it.

The reason for this is that I haven't been finding anyone compellingly scummy. I quite understand why scum would have the same problem - not being able to find a good target - but don't see why you would assume one over the other.

As I said before, I just feel it'd be more likely to come from scum. Lots of things have both scum and town motivations, but the trick is determining which is more likely. That being said:

However when a game has a lot of good players and lack of drama (evidenced by the stalling) as I think this one has had, the correlation is smaller.

^This is a decent point by Oj. I suppose with a stronger player list, I could see one needing more time to look for scummy behavior and do general leg work.

Hmm. I can understand being busy at work, but it seems to me like you may have been a little too eager to see Fishy as scum here. Please post your thoughts on Fishy.

Well, the Iam case was really an after thought for me and the post that really set me off was his 'uncertainty' comment, which actually comes before Iam's case. However, I fully admit that I didn't spend ample time going over Iam's case when I probably should have.

In terms of my thoughts on Fishy, well obviously Nuwen did not sit well with me at all, as I started the attack on her. Fishy has been in the background somewhat for me, and my read isn't really complete. At times I have liked him and at other times he has felt like he is really going with the flow, so I put my vote on his wagon partially to better my read on him.


SC-can you please respond to fishy's question about what you liked about Iam's case?

...or fishy just asked you this again I guess. nm.

@Magnus:
What do you think of the wagon (SC 659, VP 661) on Fishy that followed Iam's case? Two other players agreed with Iam's points; does that effect your belief that Iam misrepresented Fishy?

Why would SC or I agreeing (especially after I admit that I didn't give it enough attention initially) influence how Magnus feels about it?

[Amished]

Mod Votecount 2-6

iamausername (2): magnus_orion; kairyuu
kairyuu (2): chamber; SerialClergyman
SerialClergyman (1): Sajin
Sajin (2): Herodotus; FishytheFish
FishytehFish (2): iamausername; VP Baltar

Not voting (1): Ojanen; Percy

With 11 alive it takes 6 to lynch.
16 days til deadline.


SC's vote of Fishy in 659 did NOT count due to no unvote.

[SerialClergyman]

I want Ojanen to come in and post more please. I love following your lead.

I agreed with the case on Fishy because I thought iam made some good points, particularly those involving hyporacisy which is always a decent scumtell. But it also highlighted the fact that fishy's targets throughout the game have been the typical lynchbait targets - chamber and rosso and rayfrost and the like. They are exactly the sort of targets that scum love pushing - unusual playstyles that seem more scummy than they are.

Why would SC or I agreeing (especially after I admit that I didn't give it enough attention initially) influence how Magnus feels about it?

Why wouldn't it? Scmmy wagons often point due town and vice versa.

[Fishythefish]

...ok, you just very much missed the point there.
Those were the

MM

leftover attackers, with which 2 of the 3 townreads coincided. I was questioning that regards to

An excellent point. Frankly, I have fallen into the trap of forgetting what I was thinking a month ago.

What I thought was the case:
I attacked RF for failing to defend himself against attacks on him. This doesn't apply for me; the wagon on me wasn't related to my play.

What was actually the case:
I attacked RF for failing to comment in any way on the wagon on MM. Now, as I said, there's no reason to offer a comprehensive defense - you can't know what your predecessor was thinking. However, the wagon on MM was a significant one (far more so than that on Nuwen), and I found it amazing the RF didn't choose to comment on any of the points, or give any kind of explanation about what MM might have been thinking - while at the same time finding townie exactly those players who were voting MM.
The hypocrisy iaaun accused me of still doesn't apply. I did comment on the one point in my wagon, to say that it was a decent one. My comment on Nuwen's actions, was (and is) "that's just not a significant scumtell". In RF's position, if I really agreed with every point in the case against MM (which I probably wouldn't - I find it hard to acknowledge that points against me or my predecessors are good), I would have said something similar.

[Fishythefish]

Well you dismissed the first element (the ongoing games) rather forcefully. Are you referring to his post 600? Because as far as I can tell, this isn't a "meta" defence, but an explanation of a new strategy he's trying for the first time. It happens to coincide with a good scum strategy, as I explained above. Perhaps you can elaborate on how it seems "real".

Since I dismissed the first element, I have read those games. I can say little more on how SC's explanation on his strategy seems real. It seems thought out, and really rings true. I'm referring to both 585 and 600.
His strategy certainly does coincide with a good scum strategy. However, I am convinced that he has adopted it over a period of time, which makes it pretty much null.

Well, the Iam case was really an after thought for me and the post that really set me off was his 'uncertainty' comment, which actually comes before Iam's case. However, I fully admit that I didn't spend ample time going over Iam's case when I probably should have.

I buy this.

I agreed with the case on Fishy because I thought iam made some good points, particularly those involving hyporacisy which is always a decent scumtell. But it also highlighted the fact that fishy's targets throughout the game have been the typical lynchbait targets - chamber and rosso and rayfrost and the like. They are exactly the sort of targets that scum love pushing - unusual playstyles that seem more scummy than they are.

I don't buy this.
I've asked you a couple of times to say what you agreed with. Now, it just feels like you are waiting for the dust to settle on this case to decide which points against me are good. "Particularly those involving hypocrisy"? Well, that narrows it down to all but one point - that I've been flying under the radar. Oh wait! That's the next point you make.
1) Chamber wasn't lynchbait when I replaced in - and once you know his meta, he seems a very hard scum target to me. Also, not knowing his meta (which hadn't been mentioned IIRC), I think my case against him was pretty good.
2) I never went after Rosso. Never, ever, at all. If you had, say, read my response to the case you like so much, you would know this.

IMO, SC is piggybacking off a bad case, and he's doing it very badly.

unvote, vote: SC

[Fishythefish]

Sorry for triple post. On reflection, a couple of further thoughts:
SC's point about easy targets isn't the same as iaaun's point on flying under the radar, though the two are related. Everything else stands.
I currently find both SC and Sajin likely scum. However, I find it pretty unlikely that they are scum together.

[VP Baltar]

Post to review the case/counter case of Iam and fishy:

Point #1: Contradictary stance toward Ray's scumlist when compared with his own.

Fishy is definitely right here, and I was wrong for thinking this was a good point without reading. If you skim Fishy's post, it does indeed look like he is attacking Chamer, Rosso and MM, but on closer review he is uncertain at best about MM and isn't really even calling Rosso scum at all, just questioning him.

Point #2: Fishy wasn't very vocal in his attacks for the rest of the day

I think this is a slilghtly stronger point, and basically what I was attacking Fishy over. That being said, I feel that Iam is greatly exaggerating this and if one looks at Fishy's very next post after he votes Ray you will see that it is quite significant and greatly fleshes out his feelings on a number of players while also actively engaging in the debate magnus and I were having at that time. I do think that Fishy has slipped back at times in this game, but if you look at the period Iam is assessing, he appears to be very selective in what he is looking at.

Point #3: Fishy was hypocritical for not attacking the people on his wagon and then saying the Ray was scum for not doing it.

This is indeed a misrep by Iam because Fishy does acknowledge his wagon in his first major post. He said the following:

First things first, the wagon on me. It seems based off two things; Nuwen’s contradiction on policy lynches, and lurking/disappearance. I don’t think lurking was being used as a scumtell, only for pressure, but if I’m wrong please correct me.

The contradiction is there, and I really have nothing to say on the matter.

So, he points out why he disagrees the wagon, but also says that he can't really attack people over it given the bolded portion. That really was my main point against Nuwen and I don't really see what he could have responded with anyhow. Now compare this to his attack on Ray and you see that they are not really the same thing as Iam is trying to say. Also what needs to be considered is that Ray was attacked for his OWN play and not just that of his predecessor. They are different situations.

Point #4: Fishy didn't comment on anyone but chamber, Rosso and Ray for two weeks

While this is mostly correct factually, I don't really see it as a scumtell necessarily. If that is who he found scummy, then what is the issue really? I think this is a null point.

Point #5: Fishy attacks le Chat for not taking stances, then attacks Ray for attacking le Chat for not taking stances

I agree with Fishy's response here for the most part. He attacked le Chat over not taking clear stances and then attack Ray for also not taking clear stances as well. Ray's post was indeed a generalization and didn't explain why he thought le Chat was scummy. If anything, they are pretty much the same point. I don't see a contradiction here.

Point #6: Fishy "vehemently" disagreed with magnus' theory about one or two scum being on the Ray wagon.

This is simply wrong and Fishy even says that there is probably one scum on there. All he did was disagree with magnus that it was scum driven, which isn't "vehemently" disagreeing at all in my opinion.

Point #7: ?

Some quote about Serial without an explanation. Seeming to imply that Fishy is being hypocritical for attacking SC over not taking stances, but I don't think you get to just post quotes and expect people to infer whatever you attack is from "Mmmhmm".

---

Overall assessment: I have egg on my face for even thinking part of that case was good. I really want to hear Iam's response to Fishy's rebuttals.

Anyhow,

Unvote, Vote:Sajin

POST SCUMBAG.

[magnus_orion]

I really don't see how such a well-disguised misrep could not be an intentional misrep.
I still say this confirms iam to be scum.

[VP Baltar]

Well, I want to hear Iam's response, but I'm not opposed to lynching him either. One question I do have, however, is why fishy wants to vote SC over Iam if he believes he is being misrepped so hard. I mean, I see what you are saying about SC going along with the case, but shouldn't you lynch the person making the bad case first?

[Fishythefish]

Well, I want to hear Iam's response, but I'm not opposed to lynching him either. One question I do have, however, is why fishy wants to vote SC over Iam if he believes he is being misrepped so hard. I mean, I see what you are saying about SC going along with the case, but shouldn't you lynch the person making the bad case first?

In my opinion, the person who follows a bad case blindly is much scummier than the person who makes it. When making a case, town or scum, I think practically everyone suffers from some extent from confirmation bias - bad cases happen, and I don't see them as consistent scumtells (though of course this depends massively on context). In this case, I didn't have any huge immediate problem with SC (or you ) - iaaun's case looks pretty convincing on first read. SC shows no signs of thinking about the case or my response, and for me that says he's scum who thinks he's latched onto a good and convenient case and can push it on. I find his point that I went for Rosso as an "easy target" particularly damning, since in my iaaun response I explicitly made it clear that I never attacked Rosso, and that is totally unambiguous if he followed it up. There is just no way he read that case, read my response, thought about both and then made that post.

[Sajin]

As for not checking the hypothesis - you have some point, but generally you have to have a lot of townies die because you get to the business. If you can just keep making the lynchable group small until you can work out the connections and have that moment of scumhunting clarity, you're doing well. And scumhunting can deliver as many misses as PoE hunting, you might just perhaps feel like you had less control because you didn't specifically test what you were thinking.

Oh, might as well answer Sajin and say I don't believe in lining up lynches at all. If you think having a few town players you wouldn't lynch and then focusing on the others almost randomly on D1 is lining up lynches, your mistaken, in my opinion. But bring on the quotes if you want to make that point.

I think these quotes are in conflict. If you are wanting to make a smaller lynchable group that hopefully has all scum then you are lining up lynches. Please explain if not.

[iamausername]

Dang, there's a lot of words to respond to. Fishy's definitely not flying under the radar any more.

Firstly, Rosso wasn't on a scumlist there. I commented on him because he was being talked about a lot at the time, and IIRC someone had asked everyone to give opinions on him. None of my suspicions were for reasons other than thinking people are scum.

My points on MM were entirely unrelated to the fact that he was lurking

– whereas MM’s suspicions on ABR were for having “said almost nothing this game”. Your point is quite simply false in every aspect.

Mostly a fair response, but the bolded simply isn't true. Your point wasn't

entirely

that MM was lurking, sure, but I think it's pretty ridiculous to suggest that MM's lurking did not play into your case at all.

However, while the inaccuracies he points out are true, this really doesn't address the larger point, you know? It's like this:

iam: Fishy's only suspects are chamber, MM and Rosso, who are all easy targets. He totally ignores everyone else.
Fishy: I didn't say Rosso was a suspect!

True, but... not much of a defence. The point remains that you were not commenting on anyone besides a few easy targets.

Further hypocrisy in Post #428, Fishy attacks RayFrost for this:

But it is… alien to me that you can have nothing bad to say about three of your five wagoners, while not talking about your wagon.

Three people (Ojanen, le Chat, VP Baltar) were voting Nuwen when Fishy replaced her. Guess how many of them he has had something bad to say about!

I can accept that I was wrong here; I missed that "talking about your wagon" doesn't necessarily mean "talking about the people on your wagon". Fishy did briefly address the reasons for the wagon, while Ray did not, I'll give him that.

Post #464, 2 weeks and 5 pages after he joined the game, is really the first time Fishy comments on anyone besides RayFrost, chamber and Rosso (and even with those, his comments on Rosso were the very definition of fence-sitting). It also happens to arrive just a few days before deadline, well after there is any chance of anyone besides RayFrost being lynched. Very much seeing it as sowing the seeds for attacks on D2, now that he's satisfied that the Ray lynch is done and dusted.

Damned if I post reads, damned if I don’t.

Unless you have any particular reason for the last sentence, I see it as simple confirmation bias.

I give a post of reads, you are running with the Fishyscum theory, and you find a reason why scum would post it, when there is a clear protown explanation (ie. it’s protown to post your scumreads). As for my comments on Rosso, I was responding to a general call to reactions on him.

Yes, I have a particular reason. The reason is that you waited for two weeks to post these reads, until after there was any chance of a lynch besides Ray happening. I'm pretty sure I mentioned that. Why did it take you so long to come out with these reads?

Again, there is no contradiction here. None at all. I made the point that LC didn’t comment on the first three pages, got called for this, then commented, and claimed he was always going to, which I don't belive, and in the long post 98 failed to attack anyone at all. This is very specific, and focuses on LC’s early game play. RF made the point that LC sometimes was active, and sometimes not. This is extremely general, and it is unclear what timespan it covers. These are very different points. In my opinion, the first is a good point, and the second is a bad point. I felt that the second point, from RF, was a poor excuse for a read, thrown out by flailing scum – and when considering this, I wasn’t really thinking about LC. I don’t see this as a contradictory stance.

Alright, Ray was vague, you were not. True.

But look at this quote:

The read on Le Chat doesn’t ring true. Le Chat has sudden bursts of motivation/ability to post, with gaps when he doesn’t post much. This might say something about his alignment, but

RF isn’t making it at all clear why he thinks this makes LC scum, and I really can’t see it.

You're saying that Ray is scummy not just because his explanation is vague, but because

you don't think le Chat is scummy

and therefore you think that Ray's read is not an honest one.

So when you later go in and fill out the blanks for Ray and explain how le Chat's behaviour is scummy, how is it that that doesn't affect your read on Ray?

Seriously? I “vehemently disagree” with magnus that “the Ray wagon is a good place to look for scum”? I think this is the post to which you refer.

@magnus:

Of course, the RF wagon is a good place to look for scum

.

Welp,

Yeah, OK, "vehemently disagree" was... probably not the best way to put that. To say the least.

The point is, you are trying to push the focus away from the Ray wagon, ergo, I believe your scumbuddies would be found there.

To what extent is it a point in favour of me being scum, as opposed to a point about my potential scumbuddies?

Pretty much none.

And this, on SerialClergyman:

My basic problem with your playerslot it that is has shunned conflict and controversy pretty consistently throughout the game, in what I feel is a scum-keeping-their-head-down kind of way, and done little that looks like it is geared towards lynching scum today.

Mmhmm.

Is this intended as another accusation of hypocrisy? If so, I suggest people just reread me for themselves. I am not guilty of this.

That is the idea, yes. And I still disagree.

---

magnus's tunnelvision is annoying.

Noting conf.bias from iaaun or clumsy padding.

His first substantial post (Post #343),

his scumlist is

Red_Dye/chamber, MiteyMouse (a lurker) and

Rosso

.

Post #464, 2 weeks and 5 pages after he joined the game, is really the first time Fishy comments on anyone besides RayFrost, chamber and Rosso (and even with those,

his comments on Rosso were the very definition of fence-sitting

).

Fair point. I used the word 'scumlist' to mirror Fishy's use of the word in talking about MM, but in both cases, it's not really accurate. See:

When he posts again, suspects are 1) a lurker 2) RD (examine), 3) Rosso. Of these,

only one is for scummy reasons

, and these are not hugely compelling – not a good scumlist.

for an equivalent contradiction.

@chamber: Here's a list of my most recent completed games:

Any other games where you are scum? The one has a weird game mechanic, and a single game isn't really enough for me to get a solid baseline.

Here is another scum-Kairyuu game.

The rest of IAUN's case was good, but Fishy's response was good too.

I don't like that last sentence. My response says that many of his points are wrong. If my response is good, most of his case pretty much has to be bad.

Yeah, I have to agree with this. I would like more detail from Percy on which parts of my case/Fishy's response are good.

@Iam, Percy:
I haven't been active much today. I've already explained that this is due to RL stuff, and will change in about a week.

It really hasn't just been today.

First thing that it is interesting Iam doesn't respond to fishy immediately. If someone called my case complete bullocks, especially someone I consider scum, I'd be ripe to defend it.

It takes a lot of time to respond to something like that, which is something I haven't had until now.

IMO, SC is piggybacking off a bad case, and he's doing it very badly.

unvote, vote: SC

This vote makes me feel a lot better about Fishy. I think scumFishy here would be much more liable to exploit magnus's tunnelvision and the general feeling that le Chat was scummy and go after me. I think I would be an easier lynch for him to push at this stage, and I think with him having correctly identified some inconsistencies and misrepresentations in my case, it would be hard for anyone to hold his pushing it against him.

Unvote, Vote: Herodotus

[SerialClergyman]

iam, why not vote me?

[iamausername]

I think Hero is more likely scum. Just because I think Fishy's attack on you is more likely to come from town doesn't mean I entirely agree with it.