Mini 845 - The Amish Village (Game Over)

[Herodotus]

rosso/serial

rosso/sajin?
artem/serial?

Do you think Sajin is likely town? Other?

[Amished]

Mod Votecount 2-10

iamausername (2): magnus_orion; kairyuu
kairyuu (1): chamber
SerialClergyman (4): Sajin; FishytheFish; Percy; VP Baltar
Sajin (2): Herodotus; Ojanen
Herodotus (1): iamausername
FishytheFish (1): SerialClergyman

Not voting (0):

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


Kairyuu is V/LA intermittent until Monday, November 9th


/me is off to look for a Percy. Anybody else need to be found?

[SerialClergyman]

Hero - thoughts on chamber, please?

[magnus_orion]

rosso/serial

rosso/sajin?
artem/serial?

Do you think Sajin is likely town? Other?

...
too many replacements...
I was frustrated by rosso so I meta'd him, its hard to tell but I think he was town...
I did think that serial had replaced him though...
Sajin really hasn't made an impression on me.

[Percy]

Percy - I have very distinct views on the rolefishing issue - namely, I've never seen scum rolefish, I can't imagine how it would ever be successful and I don't think I was rolefishing either in /inv or here (although the circumstances were very different).

I had plenty of reasons to ask the question that I did, including the scum assuming roleblocker because they were told their kill was blocked or them assuming blocker because a hitman or the like failed their kill, ruling out doc. As it is, I think that that line of enquiry was a road to nowhere, but I think we're all big enough boys and girls that we can handle the question.

I've seen scum rolefish, and it occurs when the scum want to know more about the setup after something unexpected happens, such as more than one kill (which happened in this game) or perhaps no kills (like in this game). In the game you linked I have no idea why they accused you of rolefishing wrt elvis_knits, and I can only see a little more why your attack on rofl could be deemed rolefishing. This game, however, was more blatant and was a lot less motivated.

The situation isn't analagous, but it's typical of the argument that says any talk about roles is scummy when it is simply not, and any clinical assesment of rolefishing accusations I'm sure would find town far more often than scum.

I'm not saying that talking about roles is always scummy. My accusation is rather specific.

But worse than that is directly after telling me off for using WIFOM you point to how me defending a townie makes me scum. ><. Hypocrasy, thy name is Percy. I gave good reasons as to why Ray wasn't likely to flip scum, and was right - I'm not accepting this as a scumtell.

I don't think they were good reasons - they essentially amounted to "he's just VI". I don't think defending a townie necessarily makes you scum, but defending anyone, ever is usually a pretty good scumtell for me. The only player I've defended so far in this game is you, actually, from what I saw as poorly formulated and illogical attacks from Sajin which I have now re-evaluated as better than I thought, but still evasive. I think Sajin's attack on you was VI play with a good point at its core.

But even if you totally disagreed, I think there's little absolute there, it seems to me like a personal preference thing.

This. I don't like retreating into the realms of mafia metatheory when I'm trying to scumhunt, so I'm not going to be talking about this anymore. Trying to get others to focus on a specific subset of players via meta reasons is bad play, imo, and I think it's ultimately about asking questions we won't know the answers to until the end of the game. Cases against individual players are far more important than over-reaching theories about how the game is working and who is the scumteam in its entirety. It means you can accuse others of only talking about metatheory or criticising your playstyle (ala Fishy and VP), because you're working hard to do just what I said you'd do - subsume scumtells to negate their effectiveness rather than proving your towniness.

In other words: if you think scum were more likely to vote RF, you should be more suspicious of everyone on his wagon. But the natural reaction to clearing people on his wagon is to weaken your hypothesis that scum voted RF, not to become more certain about the remaining players.

This.

(Fishy, are you a mathematician?)

Also, while I'm still here, could I get your thoughts on Ojanen?

Ojanen clearly has an encyclopaedic knowledge of the game and is a solid reasoner. Right now, I get townvibes, but I think part of that is that her playstyle will make it easier for us to catch slips later. Her contributions make people talk about the things I want them to be talking about, so I'm not interested in interrogating her right now.

(Note: This is somewhat like how I play as scum - go overboard with the towntells and in-depth analysis, forget I'm scum and play as if I'm SK, sometimes try to get my buddies lynched just for the towncred, and kill everyone else in endgame with my shining record.)

In other words, I'm getting townvibes from Ojanen due to her thoroughness, her good reasoning and balanced look at the game, but I am watching closely.

I find your clutching to Ojanen highly suspect. For example,

Ojanen, while you're around and musing about the game, how do you rate your own play this game?

...is this a scumhunting technique? I don't know what you're trying to achieve with questions like these.

In the same post you continue to talk about what is the most effective technique (VC analysis) and I have to say - just because it worked for you doesn't mean it will work on other people playing scum. A good example is this game, where there were two townies on the first two mislynching wagons, and one townie was lynched for his participation in these wagons (amongst other things) on day 3. VC analysis doesn't always work, and trying to say that one thing is better than another

a priori

is just wasting the town's time. Also, it's Day 2, and VC works much better in endgame.

---

I was away in Melbourne for two days (THEY PROMISED ME THERE WOULD BE INTERNET BUT THERE WAS NO INTERNET THEY LIED TO MEEEEEEE) and I was thinking about this SC case I've got going here. These are my conclusions:

(1) Your playstyle is

not working

. If you are town, your experimentation with this new way of playing is going to get you lynched. At the very least, you are wasting our time.

(2) The more you excuse your behaviour with meta arguments and mafia theory, the more I want to lynch you.

(3) The more you buddy up to townies and play down your considerable skill at this game, the more I want to lynch you.

(4) I am willing to admit that I am tunnelling and could be playing quite tilted. I have been focussing too much on your playstyle, but I think

your playstyle itself

encourages this (which is a massive problem).

Therefore,

If you're town, change your playstyle. Tell me who you think is scum and give me

concrete in-game reasons

as to why I should believe you, with quotes. Stop deflecting, distracting and defending yourself as much as you are and give me something I can sink my teeth into. Do it anyway if you're scum, and I'll tear it to pieces.

For the record, I still think you're the best lynch and most likely to be scum, and that's why my vote is still on you. But I want to be more sure than I am, and I want to give you an out that I think will help the town in the long run if you are, in fact, just a misguided and maligned townie.

---

I don't think Chamber is a good place to look for scum right now.

Elaborate.

Percy 676:
You quoted a comment from Fishy on SC's defense. Are you saying it wasn't sufficient?

Yes, that is what I was saying. I made that pretty clear in the post.

What about IAUN's case was good?

Sort of answered in 709, though I don't really see what you mean about the case being good.

"Sort of" answered? Again, I was pretty clear about what I liked about both the case and the response.

---

Because, holistically speaking, the wagon has not been building up quickly, despite its apparent validity, and ease of agreement, else I think I'd have more nay-sayers, suggesting scum are less than satisfied with supporting the wagon.

Sorry, but the fact that no-one likes your arguments doesn't mean it's because you're launching them at scum. If IAAUN is scum, then there is n-1 scum not on your wagon, but 12-(n+1) townies who also disagree. Can you clarify what you mean here?

Until this is even somewhat acknowledged/addressed, what greater possible contribution do you expect from me?

Aside from what you feel is a scummy way of joining RF's wagon "to avoid fencesitting" (which isn't stellar, but doesn't say OBVSCUM to me), is there anything else that made le Chat scummy?
Is there anything aside from IAAUN's case against Fishy (which you have decided is a brilliant scumplay rather than a scumhunting attempt for reasons that are unclear to me) that makes him scummy?

I was frustrated by rosso so I meta'd him, its hard to tell but I think he was town...

Why?
Does this have any bearing on the way you view Sajin (who you think is scum for reasons I haven't seen) or SC?

[magnus_orion]

Sorry, but the fact that no-one likes your arguments doesn't mean it's because you're launching them at scum. If IAAUN is scum, then there is n-1 scum not on your wagon, but 12-(n+1) townies who also disagree. Can you clarify what you mean here?

its simple
scum motive = want to lynch townie
So if there is a reasonable argument on the table that they can use to reasonably make a townie look bad, they're more likely to use it then not. However, despite my accusation of misrepresentation going unchallenged, and therefore being a reasonable argument to take, no one has taken it up. With townies, this is more understandable, there may be some hesitations or vagueness. But with scum, a buzz word like misrepresentation going unchallenged is a free ticket to a towny lynch. But we don't see the wagon on IAM gaining strength, despite this. It suggests that scum don't want to take the free ticket to lynch this person, which suggests this person is not a towny. So it suggests IAM is scum.

Also, non-participation =/= disagreement, why are you equating the two? If people have problems with my arguments, they should openly declare them.

[Ojanen]

Quick glance here, haven't combed through walls but some anti-Serial arguments leaving me unsettled about the wagon:

Even if your scum read on le chat wasn't the strongest in the world, it was pretty much all you had from Day 1 and you pulled a complete 180 because of a single case. It simply defies a town approach to the game of mafia, which would almost always be peppered with at least some skepticism due to lack of knowledge. It seems to me that only a player with added insight could so boldly call another town in the way you did.

How is skepticism town and reversing opinions boldly so scum? How are both not born out of uncertainty? How is flipping your position repeatedly convenient?

I don't think defending a townie necessarily makes you scum, but defending anyone, ever is usually a pretty good scumtell for me.

Wow, jaw-droppingly big theory disagreement. There are obviously many scummy types of defence, it's a very general concept, but scum isn't stereotypically keen on defending each other outright and defending town might get you cred later but is a detour to scum's wincon. I have vehemently defended people as town based on mere gut when I have felt to have good reads, the most frustrating way to lose is to be right but lack impact.

[SerialClergyman]

Percy, I can't tell if your position is general hubris or actual scumminess.

How do you know my playstyle isn't working? I've made one testable prediction, that Ray would flip town. Everything else is yet to be bourne out, and I still have high hopes.

In fact, just about the only negative thing you could show is that I'm getting a high amount of suspicion - something which is bad for both alignments, but more so for scum.

But aside from that - the major thurst of your post seems to be pushing for my lynch due to my playstyle AND THEN BLAMING ME FOR THAT.

You tell me that you don't like my meta reasons, or mafia theory reasons. You tell me you don't like me defending people or 'buddying up to townies' (which begs a question on its own.) You tell me that you're tunnelled on me due to my playstyle.

In short, I hear a hell of a lot of reasons why you're on my wagon, NONE of which indicate me actually being scum over just having a playstyle you think is flawed/ineffective and all of which are nonetheless used as justification for your vote. It's MY fault that you don't like my playstyle, don't understand my methods, that you're tunnelled on me and were I to be lynched, it will be MY fault that you've lynched another townie.

And what good reason have you shown, either in game or meta game or mafia theory, to explain why a) my playstyle is so ineffective, b) my theory in this particular game is incorrect or c) even if either were the case, I'm scum?

Absolutely zero.

In the meantime, you've earned my vote.

vote Percy

Ojanen, chamber, iam, magnus - thoughts on Percy when you get a chance.

[Fishythefish]

Re: Ojanen. I have a town read here.

I haven't learnt the part where I'm obvscum who should be lynched.

In fact, from you and fishy you both seem to be arguing about whether my playstyle and reads are effective or well-founded - where's the part where I'm scum?

It’s true that I have been recently arguing with you an awful lot about your playstyle. Here’s the part where you are scum:
1) You jumped on iam’s case without checking it.
2) You didn’t read my response, or if you did, you ignored it – after I’d asked you which bits of the case you agreed with, you just didn’t answer.
3) You still haven’t explained either 1) or 2). All your reasoning since then have been pretty much totally separate from iam’s case.
4) Instead, you have come up with a theory about the group of wagoners being largely scum. However:
a) Certain aspects of this theory don’t hold together – most notably the theory that 7 players are being influenced by two or three scum.
b) You use this theory to support an attack on me – in fact I think it’s fair to say it’s the meat of your attack. But this theory points to me as scum no better than it points to a few other players.
I think your theory, and the conclusions you draw from it, are designed to move scumhunting from you to the wagon, and to support your vote for me, covering your tracks after your following of iam.

d) I couldn't care less about defending myself to the very block of players I suggest are most likely to be scum.

In case you've forgotten, you have a town read on VP.

(Fishy, are you a mathematician?)

Very much so.

I await Percy's reply to SC's last post before commenting on this exchange.

[iamausername]

I figured you [Hero] were going to use it as an excuse to vote me reguardless of my response.

Yes, quite. Why aren't you voting Hero?

Sajin, I'd love to know the answer to this question.

In other words: if you think scum were more likely to vote RF, you should be more suspicious of everyone on his wagon. But the natural reaction to clearing people on his wagon is to weaken your hypothesis that scum voted RF, not to become more certain about the remaining players.

I completely disagree with this.

I sometimes feel like I get into a bit of a stressed uncertainty rut with games where I suffer from too many townreads like this one. I think I need to post short things that occur me to get back rolling for a while, because I keep pushing the Epic Reevaluation back to the last spot on the things to ration my time to.

I know exactly what you mean.

I don't know what is going on with Herodotus...I assume this note taking in the thread is gearing toward some sort of conclusion.

I'm doubtful. I think it's geared towards making himself look active.

Its true, serial has been somewhat disquieting, but if he isn't partners with IAM, then in my opinion its all been null, and lynching serial would be less than optimal.

I don't even understand what you're saying here.

@Sc- Iam's post claiming he's town doesn't exactly fall under my list of things that he could do to make me reverse my position on him. This list is of course private, and will not be disclosed.

Obviously not. Not that it should, of course. But I honestly don't believe that this list actually exists. I don't think there is anything I can do that will convince you I am town today. If we lynched Hero and he flipped scum, maybe the possibility would occur to you, but without anyone else's alignment being revealed, it is not going to happen. I can live with that, but it would certainly be more helpful if you'd at least consider looking elsewhere.

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.

There was a week left, which is enough time to form a new lynch wagon. Granted, RF was pretty suspicious and a new wagon was unlikely, but this isn't right.

Saying "there was a week left" isn't entirely accurate - there was a deadline extension just before Fishy made the post, by about half an hour, and I think it's unlikely that Fishy put together that whole post after the deadline extension went up, so there was really only about 3 days at the time he made the post, although granted, the extension didn't come as a total surprise. But either way, I think you are being highly dishonest if you're suggesting that Ray's lynch was anything but inevitable at that point.

- Both Nuwen and Fishy have definitely displayed an attitude of not making waves, trying to fly under the radar, etc.

I disagree with this; it's incongruous with what you said about him sowing the seeds for a D2 attack. Was he planning to both attack and not make waves? Maybe he would have done either, but not both.

He went through D1 not making waves, this doesn't mean he would necessarily continue that later on. I don't see how this is incongruous.

Iam 697:
Upon rereading, Fishy doesn't mention MM lurking at all, and doesn't accuse Rayfrost of it until ISO 8.

Fishy doesn't use the word "lurking", but he attacked MM for a lack of good contributions, which is what lurking is.

Iam is now among my suspects. The majority of his first case is based on inaccuracies, and he doesn't want to talk about his accusation toward me, so it looks like it could be a way to lie low after an earlier misstep. I expect to hear that I'm "exploiting Magnus's tunnelvision" now.

I enjoy this tactic of making baseless speculation about what my reaction will be and attacking me based on that instead of waiting to see what my actual reaction is. Good timesaver.

IAM, why do you suspect me? (Especially at the time you said so.)

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.

After reading him in isolation, I was going to add "I also just read Hero in isolation a few seconds ago, and... nope, still no idea", but then I got to the part where he voted Sajin for not analyzing the play of Rosso (Sajin's predecessor). So he has done something, just not something sane.

Analyzing one's predecessor as a replacement is pretty much a complete waste of time. You already know their alignment, so analyzing their posts is not going to serve any purpose in helping you to discern it. And since you are obviously coming from a totally biased point of view, it's unlikely to help persuade anyone else of their alignment either. Is there some other reason to do it that I'm overlooking, Hero?

Is there something unclear about this?

I don't think defending a townie necessarily makes you scum, but defending anyone, ever is usually a pretty good scumtell for me.

Urgh, no.

Percy, I can't tell if your position is general hubris or actual scumminess.

Ojanen, chamber, iam, magnus - thoughts on Percy when you get a chance.

I think it's general hubris. Getting involved in theory arguments and being horribly wrong about everything in them fits my town meta on Percy.

[magnus_orion]

Percy, I can't tell if your position is general hubris or actual scumminess.

How do you know my playstyle isn't working? I've made one testable prediction, that Ray would flip town. Everything else is yet to be bourne out, and I still have high hopes.

In fact, just about the only negative thing you could show is that I'm getting a high amount of suspicion - something which is bad for both alignments, but more so for scum.

But aside from that - the major thurst of your post seems to be pushing for my lynch due to my playstyle AND THEN BLAMING ME FOR THAT.

You tell me that you don't like my meta reasons, or mafia theory reasons. You tell me you don't like me defending people or 'buddying up to townies' (which begs a question on its own.) You tell me that you're tunnelled on me due to my playstyle.

In short, I hear a hell of a lot of reasons why you're on my wagon, NONE of which indicate me actually being scum over just having a playstyle you think is flawed/ineffective and all of which are nonetheless used as justification for your vote. It's MY fault that you don't like my playstyle, don't understand my methods, that you're tunnelled on me and were I to be lynched, it will be MY fault that you've lynched another townie.

And what good reason have you shown, either in game or meta game or mafia theory, to explain why a) my playstyle is so ineffective, b) my theory in this particular game is incorrect or c) even if either were the case, I'm scum?

Absolutely zero.

In the meantime, you've earned my vote.

vote Percy

Ojanen, chamber, iam, magnus - thoughts on Percy when you get a chance.

to be perfectly honest I was considering it after that post...

Obviously not. Not that it should, of course. But I honestly don't believe that this list actually exists. I don't think there is anything I can do that will convince you I am town today. If we lynched Hero and he flipped scum, maybe the possibility would occur to you, but without anyone else's alignment being revealed, it is not going to happen. I can live with that, but it would certainly be more helpful if you'd at least consider looking elsewhere.

So you think I'm lying?

[VP Baltar]

How is skepticism town and reversing opinions boldly so scum? How are both not born out of uncertainty? How is flipping your position repeatedly convenient?

I was saying that the utter lack of skepticism in SC is scummy. I don't see how you conclude that pulling a complete 180 on a position (le chat is scummy) for no visible reason is "born out of uncertainty". That seems quite a deliberate move to me and that is what I have been trying to get out of SC this entire time: WHY? I don't see how his argument of 'big case = likely town' could have caused him to go from wanting to lynch that player slot to it being his best town read in the game instantly.

What I have concluded from this long discussion with SC is that he skimmed the Iam case and jumped on it like I did. Then when called on it, rather than go back and do the rereading to reassess his position if necessary (which doesn't look good on a player, I suppose) he decided to stick with his guns and say he had this mega town read on Iam. Then I asked him why he had that read and that is when he got into all these tangents about vote analysis and responding to fishy's countercase, but the problem with all of those things is that they are revisionist. The fact is that those things weren't in play when he first made his 180 on the player slot. This is what I find scummy about it, his reasoning for the switch doesn't add up and in my opinion you ought to at least have some reasoning for a switch like that.

As far as your last question goes, that seems a bit rhetorical to me.

I don't think they were good reasons - they essentially amounted to "he's just VI". I don't think defending a townie necessarily makes you scum, but defending anyone, ever is usually a pretty good scumtell for me.

Ummm....no. I've (successfully) defended plenty of townies in my time. If I have a strong town read on someone, I have no problem going to bat for them rather than just let them take abuse and possibly be mislynched.

I'm doubtful. I think it's geared towards making himself look active.

I have the same misgivings about it. However, I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt until he "catches up" to see if he actually produces something out of it.

[VP Baltar]

Oh yeah, forgot I was going to respond to this as well:

Obviously not. Not that it should, of course. But I honestly don't believe that this list actually exists. I don't think there is anything I can do that will convince you I am town today. If we lynched Hero and he flipped scum, maybe the possibility would occur to you, but without anyone else's alignment being revealed, it is not going to happen. I can live with that, but it would certainly be more helpful if you'd at least consider looking elsewhere.

I think we saw earlier in this very game that magnus will switch opinions if he feels his town criteria are satisfied. I don't see why this seems an impossibility to you.

[Percy]

How do you know my playstyle isn't working? I've made one testable prediction, that Ray would flip town. Everything else is yet to be bourne out, and I still have high hopes.

The way you are playing this game makes me more suspicious of you, not less, and I'm not the only one. It's also (and most importantly) not doing what you intend it to do, which is to excuse your scummy behaviour.

Also, your prediction that Ray would flip town has nothing to do with your playstyle.

In fact, just about the only negative thing you could show is that I'm getting a high amount of suspicion - something which is bad for both alignments, but more so for scum.

But aside from that - the major thurst of your post seems to be pushing for my lynch due to my playstyle AND THEN BLAMING ME FOR THAT.

You tell me that you don't like my meta reasons, or mafia theory reasons. You tell me you don't like me defending people or 'buddying up to townies' (which begs a question on its own.) You tell me that you're tunnelled on me due to my playstyle.

You have

completely

missed the point.

This is what I said a while back:

By signalling behaviour he may engage in that would otherwise draw attention, he can constantly subsume any and all scumtells into this new playstyle he's adopted.

This was a general trend I noticed. Specific examples and variations on this theme include:

Taking credit for calling Ray town - you yourself admitted that was over the top.

Your lack of case against le Chat - you argued that le Chat was just someone you picked at the last minute because you knew Ray was town, and never got going with a case. I had strong objections to this at the beginning of today and I've never been satisfied with your answer. Furthermore, when IAAUN replaces in, you declare a townread and go along with his case 100%, completely forgetting that the day before you were strongly advocating the lynch of the playerslot. It's this kind of inconsistency that is

not

about playstyle or meta,

even though you try and make it so

.

Rolefishing - I level a specific charge against you, and instead of answering my specific questions you claim that you've done something like it in another game and therefore it's null. I argue that that game was different and these questions worse, and you ignore me. You try and argue that rolefishing isn't really a scumtell, and when I provide evidence to the contrary you ignore me. You continue to make it a playstyle/meta issue rather than a game-specific issue.

Buddying - You spend a great deal of time and effort telling us that you're going to follow IAAUN, Ojanen and VP because they're better than you. When it is exposed that you're following them somewhat blindly (especially in the IAAUN case), you claim that it's your playstyle and therefore null. In my previous post I ask you questions about it which you again ignore.

Evasiveness - You have ignored my questions several times, including my questions about Sajin in Post 753. In fact, your shifting attitude towards Sajin has been poorly reasoned - you went from voting him to saying he was the victim of the same evil scum persecution you were. These inconsistencies are glaring, and yet you

still

try to make it a playstyle issue:

Me too, because i"m being unconventional and change my mind, which apparantly = scum.

See what you did there? When someone calls you out for poorly reasoned stance-switching, your response is to say "so what, I changed my mind, whatever, it's my playstyle" and follow it up with "why are you attacking my playstyle?". When I say "your playstyle isn't working", I mean that your playstyle can't subsume all of this and render it null.

This is quite aside from

genuine

playstyle objections arising from poor logic, such as the "focus on people pretty much at random" objection, as Fishy pointed out (which I will quote again):

In other words: if you think scum were more likely to vote RF, you should be more suspicious of everyone on his wagon. But the natural reaction to clearing people on his wagon is to weaken your hypothesis that scum voted RF, not to become more certain about the remaining players.

...as well as my conclusions which I reached here:

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!

Your contradictions between here:

I think of magnus's suggestion for wagon analysis as like kmd's wagon analysis - don't look at the motivations for being on the wagon, don't look at general scumminess at all, just have a theory that there are x number of scum on the wagon and start lynching people till you find them.

While I don't mind that style in general

, I think the nature of the lynch yesterday is such that

that approach is not particularly helpful

.

...and here (a response he got to after some prodding for answers from me):

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.

...along with your continued insistence that the scum are on the wagon (you even did a VC analysis to try and demonstrate this) is another thing you've tried to make a playstyle issue rather than a consistency issue. Your misrep of magnus to cover up this inconsistency is another specific accusation that you haven't responded to at all.

The problem is emphatically

not

just that you have a scummy playstyle. The point is that when I (or others) level a specific accusation, you immediately say it's for meta or playstyle reasons. You then turn around and say we're attacking you for your playstyle, and should be talking about specifics!

Based on the way you have played this game, this is how I see your play. Note that this is not an objection to meta, but an interpretation of the events of this game based on evidence I have provided in this post and others:

Serial replaced Artem, who had been getting some small amount of heat. By the time he replaced in, the RayFrost lynch was almost a certainty - he was on 5 votes (which was L-2) and no-one else was on any more than 1 vote, and from SC's le Chat votepost (his first content post) to deadline was about one and a half IRL days. As scum, he knew Ray would flip town, and so went along with the magnus case and against the case he knew would succeed in lynching a townie in a bid for townie points. His case was very weak if it was designed to pull five more votes in one and a half days - essentially the one comment of le Chat's which is just as easily dismissed using the VI defence he liberally applied to Ray's play.

When the next day dawned, there was no mention of le Chat - instead, there was a good deal of "told you so" and "lone voice of townie reason" talk. He's since followed the players he finds town, adopted a novel and (imo) scummy playstyle whilst ironically relying heavily on meta defence, rolefished, and suddenly and completely inverted his read on the le Chat slot.

You have been dancing around my accusations, ignoring my questions and viewing my case in an utterly dismissive manner. You ask this batch of leading questions:

And what good reason have you shown, either in game or meta game or mafia theory, a) my playstyle is so ineffective, b) my theory in this particular game is incorrect or c) even if either were the case, I'm scum?

Absolutely zero.

With regards to a) and b), I don't know whether your theory is correct, but I don't think many people share your views with regard to "Look at the wagon, clear some, lynch the rest". You have given me no good reason to believe your theory.
As for c), I've shown my thoughts on exactly why you're scum for a while now. "Absolutely zero"? Are you kidding?

I wanted you to stop talking about the meta and the playstyle and actually concentrate on finding a good lynch for today. Instead, you continue to misrepresent my case, put all your flaws down to "playstyle" while ignoring everything that isn't even tangentially related to playstyle, and vote me. Why do you think I'm scum? I don't even know. I know one thing - you're scum, and my fears of tunnelling have completely dissipated.

---

It’s true that I have been recently arguing with you an awful lot about your playstyle. Here’s the part where you are scum:
1) You jumped on iam’s case without checking it.
2) You didn’t read my response, or if you did, you ignored it – after I’d asked you which bits of the case you agreed with, you just didn’t answer.
3) You still haven’t explained either 1) or 2). All your reasoning since then have been pretty much totally separate from iam’s case.
4) Instead, you have come up with a theory about the group of wagoners being largely scum. However:
a) Certain aspects of this theory don’t hold together – most notably the theory that 7 players are being influenced by two or three scum.
b) You use this theory to support an attack on me – in fact I think it’s fair to say it’s the meat of your attack. But this theory points to me as scum no better than it points to a few other players.
I think your theory, and the conclusions you draw from it, are designed to move scumhunting from you to the wagon, and to support your vote for me, covering your tracks after your following of iam.

I agree with everything listed here. The first sentence is actually the most relevant. The reason we've been talking about your playstyle is that you've been trying to force us to talk about nothing else. In actual fact, you have done concrete, demonstrably scummy things and haven't responded to the questions put to you.

Also, this from VP Baltar was another way of expressing the kinds of things I have been addressing in this post:

What I have concluded from this long discussion with SC is that he skimmed the Iam case and jumped on it like I did. Then when called on it, rather than go back and do the rereading to reassess his position if necessary (which doesn't look good on a player, I suppose) he decided to stick with his guns and say he had this mega town read on Iam. Then I asked him why he had that read and that is when he got into all these tangents about vote analysis and responding to fishy's countercase, but the problem with all of those things is that they are revisionist. The fact is that those things weren't in play when he first made his 180 on the player slot. This is what I find scummy about it, his reasoning for the switch doesn't add up and in my opinion you ought to at least have some reasoning for a switch like that.

---

to be perfectly honest I was considering it after that post...

Considering what? Why?

---

I seem to be getting quite vehement objections to my "defence" comment from several players. Personally, I've never had someone defend me in a game who didn't turn out to be scum in the end. I have used the tactic myself as scum to good effect. However, I'm willing to concede that perhaps my sample space is too small and that defence may sometimes be appropriate. I'd like for one of those who are singing the benefits of defence to link me a relevant game to read it over for interest's sake (particularly Ojanen - I'd like to see this vehement defence of which you speak).

---

@Mod: Can we get a prod on chamber and Sajin?

---

(Fishy, are you a mathematician?)

Very much so.

Awesome! This is the first time I've met another mathematician on this site!

[Amished]

I've heard from both Sajin and chamber. They had unexpected issues and should be catching up soon.

Also, due to Percy posting that awesome pic; I transfer my 10 points from SC to Percy.

[SerialClergyman]

The way you are playing this game makes me more suspicious of you, not less, and I'm not the only one.

It's also (and most importantly) not doing what you intend it to do, which is to excuse your scummy behaviour

.

You started with your post with the most fundamental of errors. The point of my playstyle is

to catch scum

. Excusing any of my behaviour as scummy or otherwise is honestly not a concern at the moment whatsoever.

This is a fundamental misunderstanding, and I'm not sure where it comes from. What's more important to you, Percy, removing suspicion from yourself or hunting scum?

But what's curious in your second post was your shift in position and I think your point has changed quite dramatically. Let me line up some quotes.

(1)

Your playstyle is not working.

If you are town, your experimentation with this new way of playing is going to get you lynched. At the very least, you are wasting our time.

(2) The more you excuse your behaviour with meta arguments and mafia theory, the more I want to lynch you.

(3) The more you buddy up to townies and play down your considerable skill at this game, the more I want to lynch you.

(4) I am willing to admit that I am tunnelling and could be playing quite tilted.

I have been focussing too much on your playstyle, but I think your playstyle itself encourages this (which is a massive problem).

Therefore,

If you're town, change your playstyle.

Tell me who you think is scum and give me concrete in-game reasons as to why I should believe you, with quotes. Stop deflecting, distracting and defending yourself as much as you are and give me something I can sink my teeth into. Do it anyway if you're scum, and I'll tear it to pieces.

The problem is emphatically not just that you have a scummy playstyle.

I wanted you to stop talking about the meta and the playstyle and actually concentrate on finding a good lynch for today. Instead, you continue to misrepresent my case, put all your flaws down to "playstyle" while ignoring everything that isn't even tangentially related to playstyle, and vote me. Why do you think I'm scum? I don't even know. I know one thing - you're scum, and my fears of tunnelling have completely dissipated.

Now it seems to me in the first post your key point is to say that I have a scummy playstyle that needs to be changed, and you are suspecting me because my playstyle encourages it. You make a grand challenge to me ot change my playstyle and adapt to the playstyle you want me to.

In the second post, you argue that my playstyle is largely irrelevent and you are choosing to suspect me irrespective of it. You suggest that I use it as a defence and need to stop talking about it.

Well - which one is it? You accuse me of having a scummy playstyle that is essentially forcing you to suspect me and when I reply you say that I use my playstyle as a defense and I should stop mentioning it at all.. YOU brought it up!!?? In fact, you bought it up to thep oint where you demanded that i immediately change and claimed that it was something that drew your vote to me.

But even ignoring that contradiction between your two latest attacks on me, I'm still unsure as to what you want me to do. For example - you're asking me to explain my scum reads with 'proper' cases with 'quotes'n'things' - I can't do that, it's not how I play. I'm not going to make up a case with 15 bullshit 'scumtells' in a PBPA because a) that's a terribad way of finding scum for me and b) I'd be lying if I said that's why I suspect them.

In order to say I'm ineffective, you need to point out why it's ineffective. You've got no reason to think it will be, and any time you dismiss my hunting techniques before you do is born of absolutely nothing.

And you may well say that I didn't defend Ray to the death, and I agree with that, but you can't deny I made that prediction - in a way where I defended someone which you view as scummy - and was right. Whether I can claim town cred for trying to save him or not is arguable - whether my obviously stated prediction was correct or not isn't.

I'm going to try and cover every left over point in this one because I'm tired of going over it again and again. I'll say in advance, most of these scumtells are rarely actually scummy. Some I just do and won't apologise for.

I didn't rolefish, I asked a relevent question that could havel ed to catching scum. Aside from that - how do you imagine that conversation goes if I was scum? I say why assume blocker, someone in the audience says because I'm a blocker who protected blah N1 OH WAIT DAMN and then I kill them at night? Stupid, stupid point.

I never said anyone was better than me, although it wouldn't surprise me if all three were. I said they were better scumhunters than me at that point in the game, and I totally believe that to be true. I can't do squat D1 and I recognise that. I read Iam's case and liked it. I respect Ojanen's opinion strongly and I need her to post if I'm to judge her alignment. I also respect VP's play very much. I have zero problem with stating any of this in game or not, and I know that all three players wouldn't hesitate to vote me if they thought I was scum (VP already has.)

By the way, I ask questions about people's opinion of their own and other people's play to scumhunt. Have you ever tried to evaluate yourself from a town point of view as scum? It's damn hard. I picked Iam as probable town in a previous game using the exact same question - how do you think you've been playing so far?

Evasiveness - I've ignored questions for a few reasons - 1) I keep getting walls of text posted against me with a bout a billion questions, so if I were to answer all of them I'd be writing a triplewall. 2) When I do answer questions they don't tend to dissipate suspicion, and most of the people voting me have excused themselves as pretty tunnelled anyway. I've already totally and utterly explained my read on Iam, where I got it, why I continue to believe it, why that differed from my scumread D1 and why I still agree with it. I went over every piece of information in list format, and yet still you bring it up as a point against me. Why bother?

n other words: if you think scum were more likely to vote RF, you should be more suspicious of everyone on his wagon. But the natural reaction to clearing people on his wagon is to weaken your hypothesis that scum voted RF, not to become more certain about the remaining players.

Not true. I only have one lynch. Thus I want to maximise my chances of hitting scum. So I take my hypothesis that the scum are primarily on this wagon and assign some level of probability to it. Now I need to find which person on the wagon has the highest probability of being scum. I could do this in one of two ways - identifying factors that make people on the wagon more likely to be scum, or identifying factors that make the people on the wagon more likely to be town. I've already explained that the latter is my strong suit and so away I go, eliminating choices who have done enough to indicate towniness FROM THIS NEXT LYNCH. Now - I agree with you that each person I give townpoints to slightly removes the hypothesises chance of being true. But you'll also note I could clear four people completely and not only is the hypothesis still possible, if the remaining three are found to be significantly likelier to be scum then that actually SUPPORTS the hypothesis, that's exactly what you'd expect to see.

But either way - we're all just trying to find a way to make the game make sense to us at home and increase our chances of finding scum. Everyone who votes anyone else is immediately making assumptions about the likely scum teams and makeup of the town, they're just hidden behind the mechanic of it being too hard to estimate. I open myself up to this criticism with my approach because I deliberately make assumptions that aren't necessarily true and I deliberately talk about the town as a whole - but that works for me and I'm prepared to run with my impressions of the game.

The reason for my changing of mind on whether looking closely at the wagon is important or not has been given before - ie, I changed my mind when I noticed that almost the entire wagon's first vote was someone not on the wagon.

It’s true that I have been recently arguing with you an awful lot about your playstyle. Here’s the part where you are scum:
1) You jumped on iam’s case without checking it.
2) You didn’t read my response, or if you did, you ignored it – after I’d asked you which bits of the case you agreed with, you just didn’t answer.
3) You still haven’t explained either 1) or 2). All your reasoning since then have been pretty much totally separate from iam’s case.
4) Instead, you have come up with a theory about the group of wagoners being largely scum. However:
a) Certain aspects of this theory don’t hold together – most notably the theory that 7 players are being influenced by two or three scum.
b) You use this theory to support an attack on me – in fact I think it’s fair to say it’s the meat of your attack. But this theory points to me as scum no better than it points to a few other players.
I think your theory, and the conclusions you draw from it, are designed to move scumhunting from you to the wagon, and to support your vote for me, covering your tracks after your following of iam.

1) Untrue, explained previously why I liked the case and why I remained on Fishy, and explained on why I like voting with long cases to increase pressure.
2) I did answer that which led to the 'did he suspect Rosso' fiasco. I may have ignored some questions though.
3) How is this a third point? It's just a second bite at 1) and 2)
4) a) This is rubbish. 2 or 3 people committed to a lynch can make it happen, especially if they are scum. Committed attacks and encouragement increase someone's 'default' scumminess. Plus - many people consider the kinds of cases being made against Ray to be legitimate either on a vague policy level or even in an active scumhunting level.
Are you seriously saying that a block of scum can't influence the town on D1 to lynch someone who's contribution so far has been low or poor?
b) Well, if I could lynch the entire wagon I'd think about it but I can't. When I have a good four or five people on the wagon I have to differentiate between them and pick one, and you managed to put your hand up above the pack. Saying I'm scummy because out of the few people I've narrowed it down to I picked you when I could have picked someone else in the group doesn't make sense - I've got to pick one of them.

And Percy, my reason for moving to you is that you are distancing yourself from what would be my mislynch. Your post which basically argued that I was bringing suspicion on myself leads very obviously to a conclusion tomorrow that there was nothing you could do, you just had to lynch me. In case it's not obvious, that fits exactly to my theory of likely mafia play for this game.

[Fishythefish]

1) Untrue, explained previously why I liked the case and why I remained on Fishy, and explained on why I like voting with long cases to increase pressure.
2) I did answer that which led to the 'did he suspect Rosso' fiasco. I may have ignored some questions though.
3) How is this a third point? It's just a second bite at 1) and 2)
4) a) This is rubbish. 2 or 3 people committed to a lynch can make it happen, especially if they are scum. Committed attacks and encouragement increase someone's 'default' scumminess. Plus - many people consider the kinds of cases being made against Ray to be legitimate either on a vague policy level or even in an active scumhunting level.
Are you seriously saying that a block of scum can't influence the town on D1 to lynch someone who's contribution so far has been low or poor?
b) Well, if I could lynch the entire wagon I'd think about it but I can't. When I have a good four or five people on the wagon I have to differentiate between them and pick one, and you managed to put your hand up above the pack. Saying I'm scummy because out of the few people I've narrowed it down to I picked you when I could have picked someone else in the group doesn't make sense - I've got to pick one of them.

1) Please point out anywhere you commented on the case to say you agreed with some specific point of it. Why you remained on me afterwards is irrelevant to this.
2) Talking about the "did I suspect Rosso?" issue is a side issue. You never commented on any of my responses to iam's points, although I think it's quite clear that at least some of them refute his arguments well.
3) Well, sort of. 1) and 2) are scummy actions you've taken. The fact that you haven't attempted to explain them makes them worse.
4a) you misunderstand my argument. You are claiming that the reason that most of the wagoners are not voting for people on the wagon today is that there are a few scum among them. I think this is an odd claim which needs more justification - scum have no particular reason to hunt off the wagon, and thinking that our scum are manipulative enough to influence a block of townies to vote in a particular general way early in the day seems unrealistic.
b) My problem is that you went a stage further than that - you said that given these groupings, the fact that I had only voted people on the wagon was suspicious. This is much more than "you had to pick one" - you were using your theory to support a point that my votes in this game were particularly scummy. I can't see why you would do this while ignoring similar voting patterns from other members of the wagon. You very much did distuingish me from the rest of the wagon - for bad reasons.

n other words: if you think scum were more likely to vote RF, you should be more suspicious of everyone on his wagon. But the natural reaction to clearing people on his wagon is to weaken your hypothesis that scum voted RF, not to become more certain about the remaining players.

Not true. I only have one lynch. Thus I want to maximise my chances of hitting scum. So I take my hypothesis that the scum are primarily on this wagon and assign some level of probability to it. Now I need to find which person on the wagon has the highest probability of being scum. I could do this in one of two ways - identifying factors that make people on the wagon more likely to be scum, or identifying factors that make the people on the wagon more likely to be town. I've already explained that the latter is my strong suit and so away I go, eliminating choices who have done enough to indicate towniness FROM THIS NEXT LYNCH. Now - I agree with you that each person I give townpoints to slightly removes the hypothesises chance of being true. But you'll also note I could clear four people completely and not only is the hypothesis still possible, if the remaining three are found to be significantly likelier to be scum then that actually SUPPORTS the hypothesis, that's exactly what you'd expect to see.

But either way - we're all just trying to find a way to make the game make sense to us at home and increase our chances of finding scum. Everyone who votes anyone else is immediately making assumptions about the likely scum teams and makeup of the town, they're just hidden behind the mechanic of it being too hard to estimate. I open myself up to this criticism with my approach because I deliberately make assumptions that aren't necessarily true and I deliberately talk about the town as a whole - but that works for me and I'm prepared to run with my impressions of the game.

The following is the implication I get from some of your posts that I dislike:
1) Because it's a day 1 wagon on town, likely about 2 out of these 7 players are scum.
2) However, because of other factors, these 3 players are town.
3) So, it's likely 2 out of these remaining 4 players are scum.

I don't mind your basic approach of identifying a group with something that makes it scummy, and then using towntells to narrow it down. I just think that you get an unjustified amount of certainty if you follow arguments like the above.

This is a comparitively minor point, and it's not why I think you are scum.

[Fishythefish]

I'm afraid that picture is a little over my head Percy... this is more my level:

[SerialClergyman]

I just think that you get an unjustified amount of certainty

Maybe I'm sensitive because as I said to you before this is exactly the argument both scum used to try to push aside my similar theory last time, but I'll try to be as clear as I can.

I am not certain. I cannot be certain. Anyone who is town is taking a guess based on the evidence at hand. This is my best guess. If you have no problem with identifying a group with something that makes it scum and then using towntells to narrow it down, you have no problem with how I've been playing this entire game.

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.

That was where I talked about what I liked about the case. You could have some clue about my joining for pressure when I posted this:

Now - iam getting off the wagon isn't fun, and Ojanen is traversing around Eurpoe rather than solving the game for me so I'm going to ride on with VP and lend my considerable bulk to getting some momentum on this Sajin wagon.

Your voting patterns aren't the only reason I chose you, but they're a legitimate one. I had to choose one but would have happily settled for others.

you misunderstand my argument. You are claiming that the reason that most of the wagoners are not voting for people on the wagon today is that there are a few scum among them. I think this is an odd claim which needs more justification - scum have no particular reason to hunt off the wagon, and thinking that our scum are manipulative enough to influence a block of townies to vote in a particular general way early in the day seems unrealistic.

I've been over this but for the sake of completeness - my suggestion is that the scum are currently using a strategy of isolating 'scummy' individuals. I keep putting the ' marks in because I am highly skeptical of a lot of scumtells that people use. The townies on the wagon are a) almost to a man reading more townie than those off it and are b) happy to go along with voting said 'scummy' individuals. Thus is makes th most sense for the scum to keep it rolling onto the next 'scummy' target. As soon as the focus turns the wagon in on itself, the scum on the wagon are exposed to a possible lynch and they lose a voting block that's happy to go along with them and possibly make their cases on 'scummy' individuals for them.

[Ojanen]

I reread iam's replacing in time period. I can slightly better see what you guys are talking about when you present Serial's actions having a scum motivation with the latest turns, but it still feels icky.

The way you are playing this game makes me more suspicious of you, not less, and I'm not the only one. It's also (and most importantly) not doing what you intend it to do, which is to excuse your scummy behaviour.

The whole thing feels a slightly circular, like he would adopt a playstyle so that he can unnecessarily do scummy stuff in the first place. Serial's play doesn't read as convenient in my gut.

Timeline was
1.Serial follows immediately Iam to vote fishy, reverses position on Iam
2.

Now - iam getting off the wagon isn't fun, and Ojanen is traversing around Eurpoe rather than solving the game for me so I'm going to ride on with VP and lend my considerable bulk to getting some momentum on this Sajin wagon.

3.

Hmm
Upon re-reading some of yesterday I warn that I may immediately switch back to fishy in a way that isn't anti-town but will cause people to have scummy vibes on me.

Sajin 4 has, Serial 2 votes.
4. Fishy attacks Serial more, gets his third vote from Percy
5. Posts about the Pattern; reverses stand on likely scum Raywagon; votes Fishy

Taking no. 4 as the motivation assumes he was seeing his stance as attracting heat already during 3, I actually don't find the original Iam reversal that scum-motivated seeming either.

About the question of what I think of Percy:
Liking him less. He does come across as jumping to unconventionalism.
I don't like his stance on the scumminess of this after my reread patch:

It’s true that I have been recently arguing with you an awful lot about your playstyle. Here’s the part where you are scum:
1) You jumped on iam’s case without checking it.

I agree with everything listed here. The first sentence is actually the most relevant.

Percy's own stance on le chat before Iam content:

I have a mild scumread of le Chat, and his meta didn't help.

AFTER Iam's case, Serial voting and Fishy pointing out the inconsistencies, Percy comes to the scene and says

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

FoS: Fishythefish.

...
[To SC:] I think Sajin and Fishy are coming across pretty scummy right now, and you're looking a lot better by comparison.

I'm not sure to what he was referring to with the "rest of the case"; I saw no criticism of Iam's Fishy case before the expression, more like Percy's own anti-Fishy points added to it.
Later and a bit less relevantly:

I don't get a "blatant misrep" vibe from IAAUN for his case. I think it's over-reaching

I'm prob not coming across as terribly coherent right now (on sleepy mode) but seems to me a revisionist criticism. Similar opinion changes are what populate Percy's reasons for finding Serial scum.

FoS Percy.

will come back to a couple questions in a sec.

[Ojanen]

I was saying that the utter lack of skepticism in SC is scummy. I don't see how you conclude that pulling a complete 180 on a position (le chat is scummy) for no visible reason is "born out of uncertainty".
etc. etc.

Ok. I can relate to 180's as a form that exhibits my uncertainty on occasion. Although obviously everything depends on the context. I see the reasons why you question it. I dunno, I have a gut thing on this particular point.

I'd like for one of those who are singing the benefits of defence to link me a relevant game to read it over for interest's sake (particularly Ojanen - I'd like to see this vehement defence of which you speak).

Upon thinking, ongoing games were influencing my rhetoric.
From ended games I think I loudly, although not quite vehemently, tried to defend Xyl and Kmd during D2 of /invitational 4, the game that has been already referenced by Serial. I was right with those reads and attacked scum for attacking town, and some valuable information for later was generated partly from that I think.

[SerialClergyman]

Ojanen - why preface your first point by saying you can see the scumminess of my actions more yet have essentially the entire post as a defence?

[Ojanen]

I had been taken aback for a while on your assumed motivations. Got to rereading some. Basically referred to no. 4 on the timeline, which I hadn't payed attention to and acknowledged.

[SerialClergyman]

Fishy - a while ago you tabulated votes in the game and expressed mild surprise at just how many of them were on people not on the day one wagon. You said you'd have to look at it a little closer. Did you ever do that? If you assumed I was confirmed town, how would that affect your thinking on my theory?

[Fishythefish]

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.

That was where I talked about what I liked about the case.

No. This was where you restated that you like the case. Practically every point in iam's case was about hypocrisy. There is no indication in this post that you didn't like every point in the case.

You could have some clue about my joining for pressure when I posted this:

Now - iam getting off the wagon isn't fun, and Ojanen is traversing around Eurpoe rather than solving the game for me so I'm going to ride on with VP and lend my considerable bulk to getting some momentum on this Sajin wagon.

This implied you joined the Sajin wagon for pressure. There was no indication when you voted me that you were doing so for any reason other than agreeing with iam's case on me. I feel your recent justification of pressure and/or thinking iam town are made up after you came under pressure for your actions.

I keep putting the ' marks in because I am highly skeptical of a lot of scumtells that people use.

Can you give some examples?