Micro 66 - Robo's F11 (Game Over)

[Malakittens]

I GOT POWER.

Brb. Let me get excitement out then ill post.

[Violet]

Is walling scummy?

I never said it was, and if I did, I should check myself on that because that's what I've been doing. You post walls, so I have a lot of words and thoughts to go over when determining

your

alignment, and as such I have a better picture of it. Mala is not you, I have a lot less material and there's quite a bit of uncertainty.

This makes me feel better about you. Do this more often.

Damn lot of work for one thought.

Wat. Semi-okay with it?

I didn't say she liked it. She said she wasn't willing to participate and dislikes them. That doesn't mean she's 100% against them, and the language suggested that she'd be somewhat ok with it if it were in the right situation and everyone else wanted it.

Twisting what I say to push your scum agenda just exposes you more.

Tell me how I grasped at straws. How have I distracted the town?

Specific examples

.

That phrase literally can't be used without context, and it was right there when I said it. But since you don't remember, here's your post responding to Mala about policy lynches (the first one was here but I'm pretty sure you weren't talking about that one).

Spoiler: Post in question

My personal take on policy lynches is that they can be discouraging, but also they might be in the benefit of scum. Scum can use it to their advantage and try to direct that in their favor.

And this is why I didn't like your wishy-washiness towards the policy lynch. You knew scum could take advantage of a policy lynch... And yet you didn't try to crush Taz's discussion about policy lynches? What bothers me even more is:

Taz has moved to a low scum read because of attempting to want to PL PM. I think it's anti town, but also scummy. My main answer if you don't like someone's play style either you don't join or you find a way to play nice without wanting to PL.

Why did you not think this was scummy when he first asked about it?

You took Mala's general policy on policy lynches and flipped it around into something you implied was scummy. Not only did you misrepresent what happened, but you also completely ignored her argument and squashed the discussion into oblivion. Here's the kicker: Her point was against

me

. You attacked her for addressing issues she had with what

my slot

did.

It couldn't be any clearer to me that you don't actually care about who is scum and who's not.

@Violet: When you read through the game, did you quote stuff as you went, or did you come back to the quotes after you read?

I don't really know what you're asking. I read through the game taking mental notes (I don't write them down, but I generally have a good memory) and then if I need to bring it up I'll come back to it. 95% of the time, I'm right about what I remember and can just go back and quote it.

---

I feel like it would be worthwhile to mention that you haven't pointed out a

single thing

I've done that is scummy, and are just voting me because I called you scum. Town would be clear-headed enough to realize that just because someone is against you does not mean they differ in alignment. Why you believe Mala is scum is also unclear, but to somewhat of a lesser extent. I have not seen your case against her. Infact, you have not made cases - you have pointed fingers and repeatedly asked people to sheep you.

[Violet]

Is walling scummy?

I never said it was, and if I did, I should check myself on that because that's what I've been doing. You post walls, so I have a lot of words and thoughts to go over when determining

your

alignment, and as such I have a better picture of it. Mala is not you, I have a lot less material and there's quite a bit of uncertainty.

This makes me feel better about you. Do this more often.

Damn lot of work for one thought.

Wat. Semi-okay with it?

I didn't say she liked it. She said she wasn't willing to participate and dislikes them. That doesn't mean she's 100% against them, and the language suggested that she'd be somewhat ok with it if it were in the right situation and everyone else wanted it.

Twisting what I say to push your scum agenda just exposes you more.

Tell me how I grasped at straws. How have I distracted the town?

Specific examples

.

That phrase literally can't be used without context, and it was right there when I said it. But since you don't remember, here's your post responding to Mala about policy lynches (the first one was here but I'm pretty sure you weren't talking about that one).

Spoiler: Post in question

My personal take on policy lynches is that they can be discouraging, but also they might be in the benefit of scum. Scum can use it to their advantage and try to direct that in their favor.

And this is why I didn't like your wishy-washiness towards the policy lynch. You knew scum could take advantage of a policy lynch... And yet you didn't try to crush Taz's discussion about policy lynches? What bothers me even more is:

Taz has moved to a low scum read because of attempting to want to PL PM. I think it's anti town, but also scummy. My main answer if you don't like someone's play style either you don't join or you find a way to play nice without wanting to PL.

Why did you not think this was scummy when he first asked about it?

You took Mala's general policy on policy lynches and flipped it around into something you implied was scummy. Not only did you misrepresent what happened, but you also completely ignored her argument and squashed the discussion into oblivion. Here's the kicker: Her point was against

me

. You attacked her for addressing issues she had with what

my slot

did.

It couldn't be any clearer to me that you don't actually care about who is scum and who's not.

@Violet: When you read through the game, did you quote stuff as you went, or did you come back to the quotes after you read?

I don't really know what you're asking. I read through the game taking mental notes (I don't write them down, but I generally have a good memory) and then if I need to bring it up I'll come back to it. 95% of the time, I'm right about what I remember and can just go back and quote it.

---

I feel like it would be worthwhile to mention that you haven't pointed out a

single thing

I've done that is scummy, and are just voting me because I called you scum. Town would be clear-headed enough to realize that just because someone is against you does not mean they differ in alignment. Why you believe Mala is scum is also unclear, but to somewhat of a lesser extent. I have not seen your case against her. Infact, you have not made cases - you have pointed fingers and repeatedly asked people to sheep you.

[Violet]

@Robocopter:

I double-clicked the submit button. You can feel free to delete one of those, they're exactly the same post.

[Guy_Named_Riggs]

Unvote

I forget why I voted Taz in the first place at the moment.

Going over pages to find some info

[Malakittens]

Okay I reread since Violet replaced in.

In post #239:

I have a strong town-read on Mil and Commie. Both have contributed a lot of good information and stand individually - I can't see them having connections to anyone thus far.

I see a very likely Tracey-Klick team, and it's so obvious it kind of hurts.

I have a neutral read on everyone else. I'd love to see more discussion, but until that happens, my reads are going to be incomplete.

I have never really seen a player who's replaced in as scum look for direct connections.
Clearly shows a sign of scumhunting, wants to see more posts out of other players to get accurate reads. Only town benefit from wanting more posts because more posts it's easier to see possible connections which can help find scum.
Violet touched on why there's a possible Tracey/Klick team earlier in the post.

Post 251:

Direct answer to Mit's question in post #244.
No sign of waffling in the read and post, which reads to me as it was well thought out before posting. Also reads as a honest answer rather than a made up one. Didn't stand out as scummy to me.
Later responds to why he didn't like his slot's prior posts.

I really didn't much care for his play, especially when he semi-advocated a policy lynch. He appeared to be disinterested in the game and didn't put much effort in. I plan to change that.

Reads to me as an honest answer and it explained why exactly he didn't like the feel of the prior posts and explains that it will be changing.
I don't really see scum honestly saying, "Oh I feel my slot was scummy, this is why"
I actually see scum trying to discredit a case with a few different arguments. One that he couldn't be held responsible for Taz's actions, but another by asking why the posts in question were never originally challenged to the previous slot owner.

Post 254:

Buddying to me is anti-town. There's a few exceptions to using buddying as town strategy, but it involves having a cop read or a really accurate gut read on the player, but another would be if you played with that person for games in a row you can get a sense of an direct feel.
Scum benefit more from buddying because they can direct it to their advantage.

I agree with that beginning part of her post and stands out more as a town answer rather than a scum because Violet is trying to show where the buddying is and why it makes you both look scummy.

Also, gives a direct statement to Klick and gives a response to his case on Tracey.

With regards to Klick's #195: I remain unconvinced that you actually believe Tracey is scum. Most of your content seems forced and ingenuine, or just plain wrong, like how you call Tracey out for her #36 and imply it's scummy, when that post was half questions (which aren't reasoning by definition) and half discussion of RQS (which was only tangentially related to the game). Mala on pages 2-3 wasn't really doing much of anything, much less discouraging scum-hunting. It appears that was entirely fabricated to add "content". There's other allegations as to Tracey's alignment, but it's really weak (Her #53 doesn't immediately shout "I'M PRO-TOWN!" Is that seriously a reason to think she's scum?). In short the entire post is really just bad, and you seem more concerned about what people think between you and Tracey than you are about getting information out there so that the town can evaluate it

I just don't see scum calling out a case like that unless they are actively trying to distance themselves from each other. I just don't see Violet as scum, but I do see Klick as scum.

Post 262:

Mala's post #82 calls Mit out on potentially scummy behavior (waiting for wagons to vote) and then directs him to be more active. And actually, that's a great example of a pressure vote - because had he not responded, that would be a reason for Mala (or anyone, really) to be all up in his business. She then follows up in #174 with a hearty explanation as to her thoughts. But though she has her town points, she also doesn't have enough of those moments for me to think her solidly town, infact there are a lot of posts such as #51 and #108 and #169 which are all short and just kind of messing around, they don't do much, they're hardly worth mentioning. But the relatively significant amount of those leads me to perceive her less as town and more neutral - they don't do anything either way, but the amount of them dilutes her pro-town moments. It's hard to articulate and source that when I'm just giving my general thoughts about her.

Honest answer and doesn't really contradict the point Violet made in post #251. Reads town.

---

Violet:

What's your read on GNR, but also Cheery Dog.

Also can you explain your town read on the Commie slot, but also the Mit slot?

[TraceyLyn11]

I didn't say she liked it. She said she wasn't willing to participate and dislikes them. That doesn't mean she's 100% against them, and the language suggested that she'd be somewhat ok with it if it were in the right situation and everyone else wanted it.

Twisting what I say to push your scum agenda just exposes you more.

Spoiler: No, just no.

Eh.

I

really dislike

policy lynches. There's

only

two players who I will

attempt

to PL and they are

not in this game

.

Honestly, I rather go for information as a scummy player than risk killing a town just because of the way they play.

Not trying to stop your discussion

and I'm

totally

open to talking about it, but I'm

not willing

to help PL.

My personal take on policy lynches is that they can be

discouraging

, but also they

might

be

in the benefit of scum

.

Scum can use it to their advantage and try to direct that in their favor.

If a large palayerbase wants to policy lynch a player who is actually scum.
A scum can take the charge lead on that lynch which to me is a mini form of bussing. If it goes into their favor they can potentially be able to have themselves cleared. Meaning the partner can lead a lynch on the teammate.

If a larger player base wants to policy lynch a player who is town.
The scum can do a few things. They can avoid that wagon as a whole and divide on singleton votes or attempt to gain town cred by trying to stop the PL and change the direction to another town player.
They also can use this policy lynch as a reason to find someone scummy and get them lynched in the future.
They also have elimated a town or they gradually forced someone to claim if that people has a PR.

The bolded parts show key words or discussions that imply she was very much not okay with policy lynches. I agree that the tone of her posts imply that she wasn't 100% against them, but her words certainly did. This sort of contradiction seems scummy. Which is why I commented on the wishy-washyness of her seemingly disliking policy lynches at a large degree compared to her being okay allowing the discussion to continue on something she believed would be most beneficial to scum. The only point in either of her two posts where she actually says anything about being "semi-okay" with it is when she said she'd only be willing to policy lynch two people.

And they are not in this game.

As for her tone, I italicized the wishy-washy parts. None of it implies being "semi-okay" with a policy lynch. Her words very clearly state she dislikes policy lynches. What the italicized parts

do

represent, however, is a reluctance to be concrete. The only reason I can think of why that would be present in these particular posts is because she's scum who doesn't want to remove the opportunity of a possible mislynch, but also doesn't want to go against something that she's maybe been firm about in her past town games.

I have not twisted anything you have said. You know I very much dislike it when people misrepresent me; that is what you are doing. I get the feeling you're trying to provoke me given the tone and words you've been using in your posts. This is one of the factors aiding in me thinking you are scum.

You took Mala's general policy on policy lynches and

flipped it around into something you implied was scummy.

Not only did you misrepresent what happened

, but you also

completely ignored her argument

and

squashed the discussion into oblivion.

Here's the kicker:

Her point was against

me

. You attacked her for addressing issues she had with what

my slot

did.

I literally can't even fathom how... Wrong this post is.

Bold: I didn't flip it into anything, and you have yet to explain how I have misrepresented her original statement aside from saying she was "semi-okay with it" and "the language suggested that she'd be somewhat ok with it if it were in the right situation and everyone else wanted it." Now that I have showed you in a very clear way (bolding and italicizing specific words), explain to me how the hell I have misrepresented her posts.

Italic: ^Above^

Underline:

Where

did I ignore her argument? And what exactly was that argument? That she doesn't like policy lynches?

Bold/italic: Damn skippy I did. I don't agree with policy lynches. I see zero benefits in them, especially in a game as small as newbies. With that being said, why would I allow the discussion to continue? Explain to me how it's scummy.

Bold/underline: ... And? I call things out as I see them regardless of whether or not I find the person in question scummy. If Klick does something I deem scummy, I'm going to question him hardcore about it regardless of my town read on him. If Mala or you do something townish, I'm going to call it out. I don't look for associative tells on

day one

. I might point them out if they're ridiculously obvious, but I am not hunting for both of the scum. I'm only hunting for one. I have two scum reads right now. I have no idea whether you are partners or not, so I am attacking my strongest read (i.e. you). I'd also like to point out that when I attacked Mala for the policy lynch stuff, you were not in this game. I didn't have a strong scum read on your slot until you replaced in. I had a null read on Taz. Why does it matter that I was attacking issues she had with your slot? And as ANOTHER side note, she was

not

attacking Taz in that particular post. Not to mention even if she was, that's not the part I had an issue with. The issue I had in her original post basically centers around: "Not trying to stop your discussion and I'm totally open to talking about it [...]"

I don't really know what you're asking. I read through the game taking mental notes (I don't write them down, but I generally have a good memory) and then if I need to bring it up I'll come back to it. 95% of the time, I'm right about what I remember and can just go back and quote it.

I'm not asking you what you usually do. I'm asking you what you did in this game. Did you read through and

then

quote the information you were going to use in your initial catch-up post, or did you come back to it after you had completed reading over the game?

l feel like it would be worthwhile to mention that you haven't pointed out a

single thing

I've done that is scummy, and are just voting me because I called you scum. Town would be clear-headed enough to realize that just because someone is against you does not mean they differ in alignment. Why you believe Mala is scum is also unclear, but to somewhat of a lesser extent. I have not seen your case against her. Infact, you have not made cases - you have pointed fingers and repeatedly asked people to sheep you.

I don't need the person I think is scum to tell me that what they're doing is not scummy. I obviously don't trust your thoughts on the matter. That aside, you are right. I have not made cases. I have pointed fingers and repeatedly asked people to sheep me. I don't make cases anytime I think someone's scum. That would be ridiculous. I make cases when it's getting near deadline and a lynch is likely, I make cases to derail wagons I disagree with, and I make cases when they are asked for. I am not, however, only voting you because OMGUS. You can tell in my post where I said that that I was joking. You sure did opportunistically latch onto that, though, didn't you? I hear discrediting an opponent can be a good strategy as scum. I think you still need to work on it a bit, though.

More later (probably tomorrow). I still need to respond to Mala and Mit, as well as say some more to Vi, but I have a lot of studying to do tonight (THREE TESTS TOMORROW. Gah) so this is all I could get done.

[Violet]

Vi

Thank god you're not starting a trend. Stop it.

I agree that the tone of her posts imply that she wasn't 100% against them, but her words certainly did. This sort of contradiction seems scummy.

...

Her words very clearly state she dislikes policy lynches. What the italicized parts

do

represent, however, is a reluctance to be concrete.

The only reason I can think of why that would be present in these particular posts is because she's scum who doesn't want to remove the opportunity of a possible mislynch, but also doesn't want to go against something that she's maybe been firm about in her past town games.

That's a really weak argument for Mala-scum, and it doesn't hold any water. Which is exactly what I meant by grasping at straws - there is no argument there, and you're trying to paint it like there is. And obviously you read the post, so you couldn't have missed this:

Taz has moved to a low scum read because of attempting to want to PL PM.

I think it's anti town, but also scummy

. My main answer if you don't like someone's play style either you don't join or you find a way to play nice without wanting to PL.

She can't say someone's scummy and then turn around and agree with a policy lynch, that would be suicide.

Especially

since she already said "

There's only two players who I will attempt to PL and they are

not in this game.

"

How could you possibly think she was leaving herself open to go ahead with a policy lynch? I will admit, I was wrong that she was semi-ok with it - she's dead-set against it. But that's even scummier because

you knew

she wouldn't dare push a policy lynch this game and

still

used it against her.

I have not twisted anything you have said. You know I very much dislike it when people misrepresent me; that is what you are doing. I get the feeling you're trying to provoke me given the tone and words you've been using in your posts. This is one of the factors aiding in me thinking you are scum.

Provoking people is generally pro-town. We get to see more of your unadulterated emotion and can evaluate how you cracked under pressure. For instance, instead of denying everything, you're turning the tables. Which is scummy. But I do know you in real life, and you tend to think anyone that doesn't think your way is trying to provoke you. Which makes it less scummy, and more just your meta.

---

Spoiler: For reference and ease of read, this is my post

You took Mala's general policy on policy lynches and

flipped it around into something you implied was scummy.

Not only did you misrepresent what happened

but you also

completely ignored her argument

and

squashed the discussion into oblivion.

Here's the kicker:

Her point was against

me

. You attacked her for addressing issues she had with what

my slot

did.

Bold/Italic: I didn't flip it into anything, and you have yet to explain how I have misrepresented her original statement aside from saying she was "semi-okay with it" and "the language suggested that she'd be somewhat ok with it if it were in the right situation and everyone else wanted it." Now that I have showed you in a very clear way (bolding and italicizing specific words), explain to me how the hell I have misrepresented her posts.

I already stated above that I was wrong about her policy, there was a post I overlooked, but that doesn't really matter because you still misrepresented her posts. Again, referring to above: "

you knew

she wouldn't dare push a policy lynch this game and

still

used it against her."

Underline:

Where

did I ignore her argument? And what exactly was that argument? That she doesn't like policy lynches?

Did you seriously forget the post we're talking about? It's the only argument we could have been discussing. Her argument for Taz as scum for wanting a policy lynch. I can't show you where you ignored it any more than I can show you where uranium

isn't

. If you didn't ignore it, the burden of proof is on you to show us where you addressed it. But I remember where the conversation happened, and I know you didn't address it, because your response was "Why did you not think this was scummy when he first asked about it?" Which brings us full circle. You attacked her for scumhunting, and that's

scummy

.

I don't look for associative tells on

day one

. I might point them out if they're ridiculously obvious, but I am not hunting for both of the scum. I'm only hunting for one.

Associative tells are always helpful, in my opinion. Even on day one, you naturally act different around someone if you're partnered with them. That is an extremely significant part of the game that you can't just ignore.

Why does it matter that I was attacking issues she had with your slot?

Obviously smug humor is lost in text. I found it humorous and ironic, that's all.

Did you read through and

then

quote the information you were going to use in your initial catch-up post, or did you come back to it after you had completed reading over the game?

Honestly I'm not sure why it matters so much to you, but I quoted things of particular interest while I was reading, and then commented on them accordingly after I had read to near-completion.

I don't need the person I think is scum to tell me that what they're doing is not scummy. I obviously don't trust your thoughts on the matter.

That's a cancerous attitude to have. I'm not scum, and I can advocate against my own lynch if I damn well please. You're also doing a terrible job of actually convincing anyone to think the same way, which is what I meant by it in the first place, along with the fact that you don't seem to be making cases or scumhunting as much as pointing fingers. Infact,

that's one of the more prevalent issues I have with seeing you as town

.

That aside, you are right. I have not made cases. I have pointed fingers and repeatedly asked people to sheep me. I don't make cases anytime I think someone's scum. That would be ridiculous. I make cases when it's getting near deadline and a lynch is likely, I make cases to derail wagons I disagree with, and I make cases when they are asked for.

If you plan on convincing anyone to agree with your opinion, I suggest you start making cases. Derailing cases doesn't make any sense - you're just shutting down the flow of information to be controlling and self-righteous. Town leading town is blind leading blind, only scum serve to gain from control.

I am not, however, only voting you because OMGUS. You can tell in my post where I said that that I was joking. You sure did opportunistically latch onto that, though, didn't you? I hear discrediting an opponent can be a good strategy as scum. I think you still need to work on it a bit, though.

You discredit yourself with your "logic". You don't need any of my help.

---

GNR? Cheery Dog? Commie? Mit?

GNR: I don't know what he was trying to accomplish with his first post, but I don't really trust it. There is a possibility he could be trying to earn early town points by feigning PR-protection while simultaneously limiting town information by keeping the Jailkeeper from us. Even stranger is the fact that Jailkeepers are usually on the scum side, and there is none in this game. But that's all speculative BS. I'd really love to comment on something other than his first post, or comment on something concrete that he's done or said, but he's been very distant and lurky this game, and his ISO is bare. No read.

Cheery Dog: Half of his posts are asking irrelevant questions and the other half is stating irrelevant or vague thoughts. He strikes me as extremely active-lurky, and honestly before I had looked into him, I felt bad for not having a read (as if it were my fault for not paying attention to him). Sure enough, it's not my fault, he's just done a very good job of blending in without contributing to the conversation. Null-scum. Active-lurkers give me really vibes.

Commie: Honestly I don't know why I had such a strong town-read on him before. The only strongly-town post he's made is his ISO#5. His question I had wanted to ask myself (and we still don't have the answer to), and the statement was on-point, so much so that the post stuck in my head as all I remembered from him. His other posts haven't done much to change that because once again there hasn't been many (that seems to be a recurring theme this game). I'd say he's town with a lot of real-life obligations and he probably shouldn't have signed up for a mafia game.

Mit: His early posts (#16, #33) right off the bat shows activity and eagerness to scumhunt. #37 gives a comprehensive and complete answer that also speculates scumminess based on past meta, and was good for overall discussion (this was on page 2, where there wasn't even that much information to go on, and he was trying to spark discussion). Then you have a lot of posts like #197 where he points out bad reasoning, especially where it would be scummy bad reasoning. He's started to trail off and fade into lurking, and given the vast amount of banter between Tracey and I, you'd think he could give a little bit of his thoughts. Recent behavior definitely detracts from my town read on him. But still mostly town.

[Mitillos]

@Violet: The thing is, I don't have much to say about you and Tracey. You guys are taking care of all that, yourselves. And I would like more people to participate, so I can have a more complete picture of everyone, before making up my mind. This goes back to my roboticness. Also, I really don't trust lurkers.

In all seriousness though, I'm far more suspicious of the lurkers than the active people. Whilst there's still lurking going on, the people talking are more townish than the ones not here. So, as far as I'm concerned, the scummiest behaviour is displayed by PMyst and Riggs, at the moment. Klick is starting to slip into that as well.

[Cheery Dog]

People tend to start disappearing when wall wars happen, when neither of you are in my current scumreadlist, the whole thing just goes over the top.
I still don't think either of you are scum.

[Klick]

@Mod: I'm sorry. I'm not doing myself or the game any good by staying in it. I also will have a week V/LA coming up soon. There's no way I'm going to have time to be productive here. I'm gonna have to replace out.

I'm really sorry, guys.

[Malakittens]

Are you giving yourself an excuse to lurk CD? Just because there are walls doesn't mean players should dissappear. Eh, to me walls give out more information.

That post just irks me in such a bad, bad way.

[Cheery Dog]

All I'm saying is that it drains my supply of motivation to participate in the game as such., if I saw either Tracey or Violet as scum then I;'d be fine with it, however I'm not seeing them as scum at the moment, and that means I think it's probably a town on town battle, which ends up making me taking me closer to lynching another town which I don't want (unless my reads are off which is quite possible)

[PMysterious]

Just because there are walls doesn't mean players should dissappear. Eh, to me walls give out more information.

Walls are harder to read for players coming back or replacing in. This is a good reason why most people actually end up lurking in games like Newbie games because these players post these massive walls that end up becoming harder to work with. However, they are usually Town at the same time. I know this sounds confusing at first, but later you'll get what I'm saying.

[Cheery Dog]

This isn't a newbie game myst.
Walls themselves I find better than multipost arguments as they're contained within the one post and not spread acrosmultiple pages which means only the one quote is needed. (although if you're on a non-computer device then the multipost argument is probably better for quote purposes.
(hi im being useless to the game state again)

[Mitillos]

Yes, but so is PMyst who continues to dodge prods and questions.

[PMysterious]

Yes, but so is PMyst who continues to dodge prods and questions.

Questions? What questions? I didn't see any anywhere. "zzz" I'm so sorry, but this post is half invalid. Try again.

[TraceyLyn11]

Yes, but so is PMyst who continues to dodge prods and questions.

Questions? What questions? I didn't see any anywhere. "zzz" I'm so sorry, but this post is half invalid. Try again.

READ THE DAMN THREAD

[Violet]

READ THE DAMN THREAD

This.

[TraceyLyn11]

In post #239:

I have never really seen a player who's replaced in as scum look for direct connections.
Clearly shows a sign of scumhunting, wants to see more posts out of other players to get accurate reads. Only town benefit from wanting more posts because more posts it's easier to see possible connections which can help find scum.
Violet touched on why there's a possible Tracey/Klick team earlier in the post.

You not seeing it =/= it not being possible. Not to mention, associative tells are not helpful to the town - especially day one, especially in newbie-type games. I don't understand why Vio (gah, feels weird) connecting two players this early looks like a town-tell to you.

Vio is going to be active - you could tell that from the beginning. Why would an active scum consider it a smart idea to attack one person and ignore everyone who is lurking? It might

benefit

them alignment-wise, but I'd be very suspicious of an active player not caring about the inactivity of the rest of the game. This might be a more notable, townish thing in a more active game, but it's not an active game. Not to mention this is the quote I assume you're referring to:

I have a neutral read on everyone else. I'd love to see more discussion, but until that happens, my reads are going to be incomplete.

He did nothing in his post to start discussion other than attacking the most active player in the game. I'm not saying that he's scum for not asking everyone several questions - it

was

his first content post. What I am saying is he had a null read on several people, said he'd "love to see more discussion", and then said his reads would remain incomplete otherwise. While not a particularly bad quote in and of itself, you saying it was good was a bit off the margin as well. He did nothing to start a discussion. He basically said he had null reads and left it open to keep the null reads. I don't know if I'm explaining my thoughts on this effectively, but meh. It's one of my more insignificant points, anyways.

Post 251:

Later responds to why he didn't like his slot's prior posts.

I really didn't much care for his play, especially when he semi-advocated a policy lynch. He appeared to be disinterested in the game and didn't put much effort in. I plan to change that.

Reads to me as an honest answer and it explained why exactly he didn't like the feel of the prior posts and explains that it will be changing.
I don't really see scum honestly saying, "Oh I feel my slot was scummy, this is why"
I actually see scum trying to discredit a case with a few different arguments. One that he couldn't be held responsible for Taz's actions, but another by asking why the posts in question were never originally challenged to the previous slot owner.

What does a scum have to lose from saying their slot was scummy?

Post 254:

Buddying to me is anti-town. There's a few exceptions to using buddying as town strategy, but it involves having a cop read or a really accurate gut read on the player, but another would be if you played with that person for games in a row you can get a sense of an direct feel.
Scum benefit more from buddying because they can direct it to their advantage.

Not sure if you're saying this as a point against me or to just get your view out there, so I'll just respond as if it's the former. I buddy as both alignments. I have a wide range of reasons why I do. It's not an alignment tell for me.

I just don't see scum calling out a case like that unless they are actively trying to distance themselves from each other. I just don't see Violet as scum, but I do see Klick as scum.

Well here's your biggest problem. This is one of the many faults of looking for scum partners. You rule people out as being possible scum because they don't look like they're partners. You have a town read on Vio to begin with, so what I'm saying doesn't really apply to this, but still.

Post 262:

Honest answer and

doesn't really contradict

the point Violet made in post #251. Reads town.

The bolded is silly. It's really easy not to contradict yourself as scum.

Thank god you're not starting a trend. Stop it.

I don't understand why, but whatever.

How could you possibly think she was leaving herself open to go ahead with a policy lynch? I will admit, I was wrong that she was semi-ok with it - she's dead-set against it. But that's even scummier because

you knew

she wouldn't dare push a policy lynch this game and

still

used it against her.

I didn't say she was leaving herself open to do so. I said it looked as though she was reluctant not to leave an opening. Nice try, though.

Provoking people is generally pro-town. We get to see more of your unadulterated emotion and can evaluate how you cracked under pressure. For instance, instead of denying everything, you're turning the tables. Which is scummy. But I do know you in real life, and

you tend to think anyone that doesn't think your way is trying to provoke you.

Which makes it less scummy, and more just your meta.

I've told you in the past that I have gotten a temper when people misrepresent me. I have also told you of a game where a scum literally tried to provoke me because he knew I had a temper about such things. You know from real life that

you

are rather capable of upsetting me. I wouldn't put it down as something you'd be unlikely to try. Also,

provoking

is not pro-town. It just makes people angry, giving scum a clear shot to twist what they're saying. I've had it happen to me, I've seen it happen to others, I've used it on others.

The bolded is incorrect. I only think that about you because half the time you

are

trying to provoke me. /insignificant to the game

Did you seriously forget the post we're talking about? It's the only argument we could have been discussing. Her argument for Taz as scum for wanting a policy lynch. I can't show you where you ignored it any more than I can show you where uranium

isn't

. If you didn't ignore it, the burden of proof is on you to show us where you addressed it. But I remember where the conversation happened, and I know you didn't address it, because your response was "Why did you not think this was scummy when he first asked about it?" Which brings us full circle. You attacked her for scumhunting, and that's

scummy

.

I... What? Was the post from Mala this?:

Taz has moved to a low scum read because of attempting to want to PL PM. I think it's anti town, but also scummy. My main answer if you don't like someone's play style either you don't join or you find a way to play nice without wanting to PL.

I don't know how you wanted me to respond to that nor how I ignored it. I agree with policy lynches being wrong, so?

Associative tells are always helpful, in my opinion. Even on day one, you naturally act different around someone if you're partnered with them. That is an extremely significant part of the game that you can't just ignore.

Agreed. You can't ignore the associative tells of day one

after one of the scum have flipped

. Before then is total WIFOM. I understand that the theory surrounding this particular subject tends to be much more lenient in larger non-newbie games, but because this is still a newbie setup, I'm going to treat it the same as any other newbie game. In which case, associative tells = bad.

Honestly I'm not sure why it matters so much to you, but I quoted things of particular interest while I was reading, and then commented on them accordingly after I had read to near-completion.

This is rather interesting. Will return to this at a later time.

That's a cancerous attitude to have. I'm not scum, and I can advocate against my own lynch if I damn well please. You're also doing a terrible job of actually convincing anyone to think the same way, which is what I meant by it in the first place, along with the fact that you don't seem to be making cases or scumhunting as much as pointing fingers. Infact,

that's one of the more prevalent issues I have with seeing you as town

.

Well of course you can advocate against your own lynch. But can you not see the reasoning behind my not believing you? If I think you're scum, I'm going to obviously believe you are lying. You said I haven't pointed out a single scummy thing you have done... I obviously disagree. I have no reason to believe what you are saying to be fact because I do not know your role, and I am forced to trust the information in this game and my own intuition to tell me what your role is. You telling me I'm wrong is like a criminal saying they're innocent. They might be telling the truth.. But that's for the law to decide.

I already explained why I have not made cases. They take a lot of time, and I'm not going to make one every time I find someone scummy. That'd be a waste of time and effort. I instead make cases when the town looks ready to lynch someone or when I am asked for one.

If you plan on convincing anyone to agree with your opinion, I suggest you start making cases. Derailing cases doesn't make any sense - you're just shutting down the flow of information to be controlling and self-righteous. Town leading town is blind leading blind, only scum serve to gain from control.

I laughed. So what... I'm supposed to allow a lynch to go through on someone I think is town and allow my scum read to go unnoticed? No. I will attempt to derail the town wagon in order to gain more support on the scum wagon. That's not an attempt to be controlling and self-righteous. That's how you play the game.

You discredit yourself with your "logic". You don't need any of my help.

This is exactly what I meant by trying to provoke me.

GNR: I don't know what he was trying to accomplish with his first post, but I don't really trust it. There is a possibility he could be trying to earn early town points by feigning PR-protection while simultaneously limiting town information by keeping the Jailkeeper from us. Even stranger is the fact that Jailkeepers are usually on the scum side, and there is none in this game.

Could you explain this? I don't follow.

@Violet: The thing is, I don't have much to say about you and Tracey. You guys are taking care of all that, yourselves.

And I would like more people to participate, so I can have a more complete picture of everyone, before making up my mind.

This goes back to my roboticness. Also, I really don't trust lurkers.

That could quite possibly be the scummiest thing you've said this entire game.

@Tracey: I don't have something significant to add, usually because in the time between me being here there's a new couple of walls, 4 responses, 9 counter-responses and so on. There's very little for me to add, without just sounding like I'm repeating what other people have already said. As for Violet being right about one of you, I think that one of you and Klick is scum. I'm not sure which, yet. I might be wrong and

I'm prepared to re-evaluate at any moment

, but right now, I think that one of you two is mafia. If I had to guess, it'd probably be Klick, but I don't think it's both of you. And I'd like to hear more from the less active people; I don't trust lurkers, they must have something to hide.

You have plenty to respond to. Ask questions if you must. You're complaining about lurkers? How about you actually question them and try to get them involved instead of leaving a dead vote on them?

Why do you think one of us is scum? Why can't it be both of us? Why Klick over me? What do you think the lurkers are hiding?

The bolded makes my skin crawl.

Unvote

I forget why I voted Taz in the first place at the moment.

Going over pages to find some info

Well?

[Cheery Dog]

Vio is going to be active - you could tell that from the beginning.

Why would an active scum consider it a smart idea to attack one person and ignore everyone who is lurking?

It might

benefit

them alignment-wise, but I'd be very suspicious of an active player not caring about the inactivity of the rest of the game. This might be a more notable, townish thing in a more active game, but it's not an active game. Not to mention this is the quote I assume you're referring to:

I have a neutral read on everyone else. I'd love to see more discussion, but until that happens, my reads are going to be incomplete.

He did nothing in his post to start discussion other than attacking the most active player in the game. I'm not saying that he's scum for not asking everyone several questions - it

was

his first content post. What I am saying is he had a null read on several people, said he'd "love to see more discussion", and then said his reads would remain incomplete otherwise. While not a particularly bad quote in and of itself, you saying it was good was a bit off the margin as well. He did nothing to start a discussion. He basically said he had null reads and left it open to keep the null reads. I don't know if I'm explaining my thoughts on this effectively, but meh. It's one of my more insignificant points, anyways.

That bolded question, doesn't that mean Violet would be town? Because if Violet is scum, then you're calling him not smart for doing what he has done. Are you saying he is a dumb scum?
If so, what makes it a "dumb" scum move to be just attacking the most active person?

[PMysterious]

Also @Myst: Could you explain why you voted undecided, as opposed to the other options, like voting somebody randomly, not voting, or voting no lynch?

Okay, I found a question. I voted Undecided to bring back the old me. I mean, this is an old set-up, right? You gotta go back to your roots.

[TraceyLyn11]

Yes, but so is PMyst who continues to dodge prods and questions.

Questions? What questions? I didn't see any anywhere. "zzz" I'm so sorry, but this post is half invalid. Try again.

READ THE DAMN THREAD

[PMysterious]

I really hate to say it, but that's all I found first time around.

@Tracey: Do you mind quoting and bolding your questions? I couldn't seem to find them in your walls.

[TraceyLyn11]

That bolded question, doesn't that mean Violet would be town? Because if Violet is scum, then you're calling him not smart for doing what he has done. Are you saying he is a dumb scum?
If so, what makes it a "dumb" scum move to be just attacking the most active person?

No because he hasn't ignored the other players. He's focused mostly on me, but he has commented on the inactivity of the game as well as his thoughts on players. Mala was saying that him wanting reads and more activity was an indication of him being town. I disagreed saying that any scum that was going to choose to be active would be smart enough to not ignore the inactivity of the rest of the game. While tunneling isn't necessarily scummy, there's certain ways it can be done. The way Mala was implying Vio was

not

doing (i.e. replacing in, tunneling immediately and on the most active player, being very active, ignoring inactives) is definitely very scummy. Which is my point - scum are likely to have enough forethought to realize doing such a thing would be perceived as scummy. Which leads back to my question: Why would scum do something that would be considered scummy (paraphrased)?

@PM: I don't care about you answering questions (well, I do, but that's not my top priority). I want you to

participate

. If Mit's question was the only one you found, then you haven't READ THE DAMN THREAD.