Mini 1145 — Plain Mafia (over)

[Lucresia]

I claimed because I was at L-2 with one person who had already stated they were probably going to vote for me (Peabody) but wanted to re-read the thread again. Also, I thought I would have been hammered before getting a chance to claim (since that additional vote which seemed likely would have put me at L-1.)

I realized I said Peabody here but meant to say Pine, not Peabody. Sorry for any confusion there.

[ICEninja]

Lucresia, you kept on saying "this player did X" without saying what you think about it. That is useless to us. We already know what happened. Some things like this, referring to Romanus:

Changed his vote to Ice Ninja beleiving his posts were more scummy based on supporting my bandwagon but keeping a bad vote on Erratus.

You didn't comment on the fact that several posts before I clearly stated that I did not like the wagon on you despite finding you suspicious, and had actually changed my vote to someone on your wagon away from Erratus before Romanus even brought this up. That doesn't deserve mention? What do you feel about his vote in context, when both the reasons he give for voting me are

blatantly wrong

?

Then you make this interesting observation:

Although he says they weren't used to find scum, then contradicts himself by saying someone was lying and that they must be scum based on the answer to a question that wasn't supposed supposedly being used to find scum in the first place.

I've never before used these questions to actually find scum. I've never had anyone lie to me (to my knowledge, anyway) regarding them. There's a first time for everything. That isn't a contradiction, that's taking something that I don't usually scum hunt with and used it to scum hunt.

Mentions that the activity in this game is low and brings up the following as people who haven't posted much or posted anything he feels is worthwhile: Valern, Trendall, Romanus, & AMP. Does NOT mention LynchKing who hasnt even posted at all! Possible scum buddy?

I used the ISO function to find out which players had the least content. At that point in the game, I literally wasn't even aware that there was a player named lynchking in the game.

He pointed out a few things he didn't like while ommitting things that had already been covered *(I like this because it allows you to want to read his posts and not just skim since the content is fresh and there is actual thought provoking ideas to consider.

The irony, it burns me.

Your posting about Erratus is 100% IoA. You say a bunch of things he's done, but don't give a

single

opinion about it. I find that strange considering how many little pokes you made at me in your analysis.

Analysis of other players seem to be alright, though there's a continuing trend of severe IoA. Way too much of it, in fact. About 90% of that post could have been trimmed, and we'd have the

exact

same information.

I like the work you put in to that, and I don't really get a huge scum vibe from you for it, but I just can't shake why you'd put so many words and so little analysis.

Mod, we've got some prodding to do, I believe. Lynchking for sure, and I think some others are up.

[Peabody]

@Rangerofthenorth

- Maybe you missed my question:

There's really not much to explain.

I initially read the post wrong, and it seemed scummy. Then I read it again

, realized a second, more reasonable interpretation. Asking the question was probably unnecessary, but I asked it impulsively.

A question to Ranger:
Did you reread Erratus' post after you posted #44 or before you posted?

-----------

I'm getting a general town read from ICEninja at this point and do not support this bandwagon.

I do support a Pine wagon. I've noticed a pattern of sheeping and bandwagoning with a splash of inconsistency.

Sheeping

: His vote on me was based off of Erratus' accusation that I was nervous scum.

Bandwagoning

: Although he never ended up voting for the Lucresia wagon, he 'liked' it. That would be the second instance of bandwagoning (the first was on me). That's 100% of his voiced suspicion by the way.

Inconsistency

: His post 78 showed he was pretty convinced I was scum, but in his next post he unvotes, saying my case is stale and I haven't said anything incriminating?

I think this warrants a Pine vote.

vote Pine

[Fenhl]

@ICEninja:

You do realize that I am not announcing prods in thread? That said, all prods are up to date right now, and no one is flaking.

Vote Count 1.5

ICEninja	4	Romanus	Trendall	Erratus Apathos	Valern
Lucresia	1	lynchking
Erratus Apathos	1	AMP
Valern	2	DeathRowKitty	ICEninja
Pine	2	Lucresia	Peabody

Spoiler: more info

Not voting: Pine, RangeroftheNorth.
With 12 living players, a majority consists of 7 votes.
The current deadline is Apr 8 17:30.

[RangeroftheNorth]

@Peabody - Yes I missed it, but I think the answer would be obvious

since I pointed out the better interpretation in the post.

After Lucresia's post, my suspicions of her have been slightly reduced. Its a large post with only a little substance and a lot of summary of the game, but its a good start.

I've been Looking over the players on the ICE bandwagon:
Romanus has been keeping his posts short, and there's really not much to analyze. I'm getting a scummy vibe from him, but I'm not sure what's causing it.

Trendall jumped on the wagon very quickly, but he had already expressed suspicion of ICE earlier. Not nearly as much suspicion as he expressed for Lucresia, who he never voted for, however. It seems a little strange that he would wait until after someone else had voted for ICE to put his vote on. Almost like he's trying to make sure ICE is a safe target before voting. This is dampened by the fact that he never actually voted for Lucresia, who was certainly a safe target at that point.

EA's posts have generally made accusations without backing them up, ignored the points that other people have made, and with the excessive capitalization and posting his vote against ICE 11 times, have had an annoying quality. To me, he seems the most suspicious on the wagon so far.

Valern's reasons for voting ICE seem to be that ICE got defensive very quickly after being voted. I don't see ICE's actions that way. The quick piling on of votes on ICE seem very suspicious and ICE's reaction was trying to find which of the people voting him was scum. That is scum hunting, and he was focusing on the most suspicious thing going on in the game. Still Valern's vote actually had a reason.

Vote: Erratus Apathos

I find him the most suspicious person on the ICEWagon at the moment, although I'd really like to see more of substance from Romanus.

[Peabody]

@Peabody - Yes I missed it, but I think the answer would be obvious

since I pointed out the better interpretation in the post.

Why did you ask the question if you realized a more appropriate interpretation at the time of post? What I'm really asking is what was the purpose in your mind at the time for asking the question: legitimate scum hunting, maybe you thought Erratus slipped up, etc... ? Did you feel that the second interpretation was a legitimate interpretation at the time, and if yes, do you still feel it is?

[Peabody]

EBWOP: And yes, I am asking these questions with the impulsive nature of the post in mind. I realize you admitted already the post was impulsive, but surely there was a reason behind your impulses.

[Romanus]

Sorry, I have had little to no internet the past couple days.

Yes, obviously I had not read ICE's last post when I made mine. I had composed it much earlier and then posted it without checking.

I still think ICE was trying to push the Lucresia wagon, but it also appears the little bit of pressure I put on ICE brought a crowd of folks.

I think over-reaction and defensiveness comes off more scummy than it actually is. As with most things, it isn't that it's done, it's how it's done.

I think ICE has reacted about the same way he has played the game thus far- aggressively.

Unvote

I need to do another readthrough to find some scum. Will get to that later.

[Pine]

Apologies for my extended absence. I've been ridiculously busy lately, and this thread was harder to keep up with than others.

First, to respond to the accusations of Peabody: Sheeping and bandwagoning? I've made exactly ONE vote, at the tail end of a wagon that was already losing steam, and kept it there long after others moved on, out of conviction. The Lucresia wagon had merit (hence why a whole bunch of people voted for her,) but I wasn't convinced enough to put her at L-1 and risk scum or reckless Town hammering. This caution seems to be supported by the rest of the thread, as the Lucresia wagon has evaporated. Finally, in regards to inconsistency, you have two points. First is that I took my vote off of you when I didn't feel it was doing anything, and you hadn't said anything scummy in a while, and second was that I apologized to Ranger for the vitriol with which I mocked him. What is inconsistent about that?

Your case is a cobbled-together mess of misquotations, half-truths, and gross exaggerations, taped together with delayed OMGUS and scummy nervousness. You hadn't said anything scummy in a while when I unvoted, but as expected, you took the removal of that last vote as permission to scum it up again.

Lucresia's case echoes Peabody's, and adds only null tells (like my fondness for walls and the fact that I answer questions when asked.)

VOTE: Peabody

FOS: Lucresia

[Trendall]

I'm getting a general town read from ICEninja at this point

Why?

[Trendall]

The next 48 hours or so are going to be incredibly busy for me, so apologies if I don't post much. I'll be fully active again on Sunday.

[Erratus Apathos]

EA's posts have generally made accusations without backing them up,

WRONG

Let's look at my accusations so far:

Peabody: (admittedly I didn't initially back up that vote, but then he asked me to back it up and I did)

Your post about AMP's random vote was rather waffly, which is often an indicator of scum uncertain if it's a safe attack or not.

Lucresia:

1) DRK's allegations are clearly serious, as Lucresia is responding to them as serious allegations. So why the "no serious allegations" remark? It's one of those things scums love to do: to deny that there is any case on them at all. Town rarely does that.
2) The accusation that DRK is hiding something is ridiculous. DRK puts up the first case of the game, that means he's hiding something? Poor deflection here.
3) Lucresia specifies that she had only made her first post in the game. By doing that, she's suggesting that because she has only posted once, she is above suspicion. Again, this is unlikely to be town thinking.

ICE:

I don't want to discuss or quote directly from the game, as it is still ongoing, but I asked the exact same questions in newbie 1133 and Erratus answered them very differently.

He is lying right now in response to question number 2. Townies don't need to lie.
Vote Erratus Apathos.

HEY GUYS ERRATUS IS LYING, HE MUST BE SCUM

Erratus's lie is very minor, so it isn't attracting lynchworthy suspicion from me, but it is still noteworthy in my eyes.

OH SHIT NOBODY ELSE IS GOING FOR THIS, I'D BETTER PUT THE BRAKES ON *screeeeeeeeeech*

SO UH, WHICH ACCUSATION DID I FAIL TO BACK UP AGAIN?

ignored the points that other people have made

You need to be more specific. Which points did I ignore, and why do you find it scummy that I ignored them?

and with the excessive capitalization and posting his vote against ICE 11 times, have had an annoying quality.

You don't want me to use capitalization or repetition? Well TOUGH SHIT, COWBOY! TOUGH SHIT, COWBOY! TOUGH SHIT, COWBOY! TOUGH SHIT, COWBOY! TOUGH SHIT, COWBOY!

Capitalization and repetition are strong ways to get attention. I don't give a shit if anyone likes them or not, I'm using them anyways.

This paragraph is so bad I don't even know where to begin.
1) Lucresia went in to survival mode way harder than I did, yet you unvoted her.
2) A townie reaction to being voted for reasons as bad as the ones put on me is NOT to ignore them.
3) The votes on me are

awful

, and I have every right to attack them.
4) I do happen to be concentrating on scum hunting, because I'm nearly positive that there is scum on my wagon somewhere.

Like Ranger, I was having a hard time deciding who was the scummiest person on my wagon. Erratus has had the least scummy (albeit quite rude) attacks on me, where Valern has just been seemingly purposefully trying to get under my skin and attack me without reason. Romanus's original vote on me was horrible and Trendall's vote was a sheep of a horrible vote, but I'm feeling like Valern is still the worst right now. He hopped on a wagon after the Lucresia wagon lost steam, despite being VERY confident that she was scum, and now looks like he's going to try to push my lynch to the end of the day. Perhaps unless my wagon loses steam and then he pushes whatever easy wagon comes along next?

Alright, fair enough. I thought your attack on your wagon was disingenuous because you were just calling it a scumwagon without really scumhunting it, but your response here is reasonable, and I think it shows I was wrong.

SO I GUESS I NEED TO VOTE HOP

AGAIN

. DAMN IT.

I'm not seeing scum from Valern or Pine here. I'd rather lynch the guy with the emptiest ISO, and amazingly enough it's not the guy with one post. It's AMP. He's still sitting on his random vote, and most of his posting is arguing theory. The only thing I see that even remotely resembles scumhunting is this one line regarding Lucresia:

However her OMGUS vote is really, really damn fishy, and makes my scumdar tick, I can see why people started putting pressure on her. I don't know whether I need to put pressure on her or not, you guys seem to be doing a fine damn job of it

and even then, he uses a lame excuse to not vote that way. If there's a motive for town AMP to not vote Lucresia here, I don't see it.

I seriously want everyone to look at AMP's iso and see for yourselves how full of fluff and devoid of scumhunting it is.

UNVOTE: ICEninja
VOTE: AMP

[DeathRowKitty]

Anyway, ICENinja's defense has just descended into a flurry of personal attacks pretty quickly

I'm going to assume you haven't read my most recent post, because you'd have to be pretty unintelligent to say this after having read it.

Or, 'if you think I'm mafia you're stupid'.

Aside from his leaving out "or scum", I'm willing to agree with him.

AMP may or may not be scum, but I'm actually going to just shift to a different ICE voter.

Unvote: Valern

Vote: Trendall

I've been having trouble deciding between them and I think I might have picked the wrong one initially.

[DeathRowKitty]

Also, just to shed some light on some of things, the following players are town. You can stop voting them now:

Me! (obv)
ICEninja
Lucresia
Erratus Apathos (probably)

[ICEninja]

Yes, obviously I had not read ICE's last post when I made mine. I had composed it much earlier and then posted it without checking.

While, if you're busy, I'm not exactly going to call it scummy, but posting a vote like that is pretty anti-town. Especially considering how long it took for you to catch up. I'll let this slide now since you've got RL going on, but I'm not sure you unvoted in a way that town would.

I think over-reaction and defensiveness comes off more scummy than it actually is. As with most things, it isn't that it's done, it's how it's done.

I think ICE has reacted about the same way he has played the game thus far- aggressively.
Unvote

So you're unvoting me because my reaction to pressure has been aggression. You also have no vote on after that.

Aggression is a null tell. You haven't given any reason for no longer finding me scum, especially considering how you still feel like I did what you accused me of doing. It looks like a hasty retreat from a bandwagon that is falling apart.

I'll be closely watching your voting habits.

I agree, at a second glance, that Peabody's attack on pine is pretty awful.

I also disagree with Ranger in that Erratus is attacking me without base. Out of the 4 votes on me, he was the only one that actually managed any actual scum hunting. The other votes were significantly worse. Ranger needs to put his vote on Trendall/Valern instead.

AMP is actively lurking, agreed. I'm definitely for him getting some pressure for it.

DRK, what causes you to feel that Lucresia is a town read? I can understand not thinking she's scum at this point, but flat out giving a town read? That seems a bit of a stretch.

[Fenhl]

lynchking is flaking. Please help me with finding a replacement.

[Fenhl]

lynchking is flaking. Please help me with finding a replacement.

Filled by DarthYoshi — thanks!

[DarthYoshi]

Quick check-in post, happy to be playing here with everyone, yada yada yada. Hi hi hi to ICE and Valern. Glad to be in a game with both of y'all again.

I'm LA for the weekend, but I have internet on my phone, so I'll still be able to catch up in the meanwhile, and should have content in a day or two.

And, in case my predecessor had a vote out,

unvote.

[ICEninja]

Welcome Yoshi, you sneaky bastard. I won't be giving you any free town reads this game, that's for sure!

No surprise on the flake, though.

[Peabody]

Sheeping and bandwagoning? I've made exactly ONE vote, at the tail end of a wagon that was already losing steam, and kept it there long after others moved on, out of conviction. The Lucresia wagon had merit (hence why a whole bunch of people voted for her,) but I wasn't convinced enough to put her at L-1 and risk scum or reckless Town hammering. This caution seems to be supported by the rest of the thread, as the Lucresia wagon has evaporated.

Okay, I can actually buy that to some extent, but both your suspicion of me and of Lucresia were generated by others first which gives me the idea that you're sheeping.

Finally, in regards to inconsistency, you have two points. First is that I took my vote off of you when I didn't feel it was doing anything, and you hadn't said anything scummy in a while

You seemed pretty convicted I was scum in post 78, and I hadn't posted at all before you unvoted me on the grounds that I haven't said anything 'incriminating' for a while. This is inconsistent. Nothing was said between your accusation I was nervous scum in post 78 and your unvote that had anything to do with me. I didn't post. Others didn't post about me. What changed between your two posts?

and second was that I apologized to Ranger for the vitriol with which I mocked him. What is inconsistent about that?

Umm... I never said anything about you and Ranger. Nothing at all. Why did you bring this up? Do you make it a habit of defending against accusations that were never made against you?

--------

I'm getting a general town read from ICEninja at this point

Why?

Well, the way that he is presenting his defense seems solid. He has good reasons to question the bandwagon on him, and I think he presented those reasons well. Now this doesn't mean I agree with him on every point. For example, I was initially suspicious about his lynchking vote because we really don't have much to go on with lynchking(DarthYoda) yet. Out of all the other people who were giving content, I was wary of a vote on a lurker.

[Pine]

The posts immediately preceding 78 were mostly null reads, followed by a long silence from you. I thought I was clear with this:

Vote isn't being useful, case is stale, and Peabody hasn't said anything incriminating (or much of anything at all) in a while.

No one else seemed confused by it.

The "inconsistency" regarding Rangerofthenorth was suggested by Lucresia, but your case and hers are so similar I mixed that point up.

I am at least 95% sure that between {Peabody, Lucresia}, we have at least one scum.

[Peabody]

The "inconsistency" regarding Rangerofthenorth was suggested by Lucresia, but your case and hers are so similar I mixed that point up.

I didn't realize Lucresia actually had a vote on you (I guess I treated her double post as one big post) until I just looked at her case on you. The wall of text was disillusioning for me and I got bored about midway through. Now I see where you were answering an accusation. Thank you for clarifying that.

[Peabody]

No one else seemed confused by it.

That doesn't mean its not inconsistent. You made an accusation and then you dropped it before I said a word. Your accusation was that I was a nervous scum, and at the time of post 78, you were referring to these posts you just called 'nulltells'.

[Pine]

Not reading the thread indicates to me that you don't really care who gets lynched. And clearly not doing the research on the wagon you're pushing is

very

scummy in my eyes. Once in a while, you miss something. Twice in a row, though...

PEdit: When I unvoted, I re-evaluated those posts and decided there was an alternate explanation, and decided to give you the benefit of the doubt. I now think my initial suspicion was correct. Changing one's mind =/= inconsistency.

[DarthYoshi]

Mmmmkay [/end Mr. Mackey voice], content coming. If you are wall-averse, avert ye delicate eyes. For tl:dr folks, I have a scumlist and vote at the bottom of this post. And now, my thoughts in rapid-fire…

Not a lot I can say about my predecessor, he didn’t do a whole lot. Expect me to be a lot more active.

From Lucresia’s #40: “I answered the questions from ICE because although it isn't useful in my opinion,

I have nothing to hide or harm by answering it.

” Emphasis mine. Scumslip here—only scum feel the need to be so explicit in saying they have nothing to hide, especially when they haven’t even been wagoned yet.

From ICE’s #51: “I'm considering joining the Lucresia wagon. I'll need to see how she responds to it.” Why didn’t you join it then? I think she was only L-3 then. What’s wrong with putting her at L-2?

Later, from ICE’s #79: “Erratus's lie is very minor, so it isn't attracting lynchworthy suspicion from me, but it is still noteworthy in my eyes.” That’s some badass backtracking, given how aggressive you were in voting him on p2. Why vote for someone over a ‘very minor’ lie that isn’t attracting ‘lynchworthy suspicion’ from you? Doesn’t a vote inherently imply that your suspicion is lynchworthy? Wait, looks like EA nails this in #103.

Lucresia’s #84: Which lurkers would you have gone after? You just call out lurkers as a group. Not helpful for your stated goal of actual catching scumz, so this looks more cosmetic than anything, especially when coupled with your #88—you unvote without re-voting, why not re-vote another lurker and say why?

Pine’s #90: Why do you see the need to so thoroughly explain an unvote that was doing no harm where it was at? If you wanted to put Lucresia at L-1, why didn’t you do that assessment on your own and not unvote if you felt Lucresia didn’t merit an L-1 vote?

From Valern’s #95: “If you're town, prove it. Start scumhunting. So far, you saying "hey guys, we should be looking for scum" followed by you not doing anything of the sort is just adding to your scumminess.”

^This.

Romanus’s vote of ICE in #98 is actually pretty sound—ICE was hunting mostly on Lucresia, but has been parking his vote elsewhere. Trendall’s immediate sheeping in #99, however, is not, especially in light of the extensive lurking Trendall has been doing.

Valern’s #102: “I prefer short, fast-paced games that go too fast for people to get to the point.” This is not what I am used to from TownValern. *stops assigning towncred*

DRK’s #112: I am also suspicious of how quickly the ICE wagon formed, but picking Valern and explicitly not giving a reason is anti-town regardless of your alignment. Valern’s vote on ICE is terrible, it is more indicative of an opposition of personalities rather than alignment, but I want to hear your reasons for voting. You rattle off a list of scumspects and don’t actually say why you find them scummy. Weak.

RoTN’s #115: Why don’t you want to lynch Lucresia anymore? That post is hardly a ringing endorsement of her.

Valern’s #117: “A towny reaction to being voted is to more or less ignore it (unless that person is voting them for scummy reasons) and continue to concentrate on scumhunting.”

I actually think it is the complete opposite. In my experience, townies are more vocal, or at least more insulting, towards their accusers, while scum want to be diplomatic in their defenses to avoid pissing off more townies. If this is your best reason for voting ICE, it’s a bad one, especially compared to your reasons for voting Lucresia, which were actually a lot better, which makes me wonder why you voted ICE anyways…maybe because he, unlike Lucresia, actually was doing scumhunting?

Skimmed Lucresia’s wall in #122. Her shortlist of reads seems townish, but there is a whole boatload of fluff and IIoA in there. I’m actually thinking she might be town, just not helpful town.

And that brings us to our current page. My read on ICE is still neutral, maybe slightly town…when he plays as town, he’s a tough lynch, and he’s defending himself more or less how I’d expect TownICE to, but I’m not yet confident enough in just putting him on my list of townreads.

Current scumlist (in order of most to least scummy):
-Trendall, active lurking ZOMG, his sheepy vote on ICE is incredibad. Little to no scumhunting.
-Valern—this is not at all like what I am used to seeing from Valern’s town game, especially the ICE vote.
-AMP, see also: Trendall, re: active lurking.
-Lucresia, her early L-2 VT pseudo-claim screams “panicked town,” and her #122 seems townish, so my scumread on her is relatively weak. Not totally okay with her yet, though.

Vote: Trendall. He could use some extra pressure, methinks.

Everyone else I currently have on either neutral or town reads.

@RoTN: Can you give me links to a recent town and recent scum game of your’s? I need to meta you, but your wiki page seems outdated.

And I got that all done today! I’m really something. I deserve a cookie.