NY 174: Oldy Mafia 2 (Game Over)

[Green Crayons]

Actually reading everything since Saturday:

- Not dissuaded from my Glork vote. Also, actually, he posts defenses against suspicions of other players, but these posts read as preemptive defenses for himself since they apply to his D1 play (Post 918, Post 974). Also, wtf Post 975 apropos of nothing and scummy as hell for it.

- I wish UT would post more. His (relative) silence undermines my confidence in my UT-town read.

- I'm not going to forget that bussing is apparently A-Fucking-Thing LML does as scum (seriously, what), but I don't find it useful information at this point in time. Later in the game, yeah, it will probably be something I will think long and hard about. Now, I'm fine with it just being something to remember, as it's basically a "try to do some doublethink about players" level that I don't find helpful when there are still so many of us.

-----

@Yos:

(1) If CES is off the table, who would be next in line to pursue?

(2)

Since scum know who the town are, doesn't it make it easier to say XXXXX is town when you're scum?

Not really. The timing is everything.

Several times this game, DGB declared someone town just at at moment where I felt the same way. She's getting a lot of the same gut reads that I'm getting, and that's hard to fake as scum. Also, you can tell a lot about motivation based on timing; I don't see a scum wanting to declare SSK as town on page 5 where she did, for example.

I donno, maybe it's just because I've played with her so many times, but this feels like town-DGB play, specifically.

I'm interested in your opinion on your ability to read DGB in light of Real Life Results!: DBG declared LML town in D1 (Post 388), and DGB has since explained in D2 that her read was based off of LML's "emotional" posting (Post 910). Do you think her after-the-fact explanation matches up with the in-the-moment declaration?

I recognize that DGB did mention, indirectly, LML one other time in D1 -- when DGB said that a no-lynch was preferable to a LML-lynch -- but I don't think that's relevant to what I'm asking for here: how comfortable you are with your DGB-is-town determination based on her from-the-hip assessments?

-----

@chamber:

KK is not scum. I think LML saw him pick up a few votes and just jumped on the opportunity to hopefully swing the direction in someone-not-him.

And that someone wasn't bookitty because?

Speaking from personal experience, when I have been scum I have refused to vote the competing bandwagon player because I was afraid it looked too much like attempting to save my own skin -- which I don't actually think is anti-town, but scum are overly cautious so as to not look like they're motivated solely by self-preservation -- and instead went for a not-competing-bandwagon vote to make it look like I was above the fray of simply trying to escape the noose and to be Really Seriously Scumhunting. So there's as clean of an explanation as I can give from my own (poorly played) scum experiences.

I mean, we can speculate this thing to death, but if bookitty was LML's scumpartner, only one of them can get lynched in any given day. If LML was willing to throw his full weight behind the competing bandwagon, and either he or bookitty were lynched and flipped red, it would look a whole lot better for the surviving member the following day.

Actually -- and I didn't notice this until I was finishing up this post -- but mathcam actually points out (I have it quoted at the bottom of this post) LML doing something with respect to Vitamin that I think springs from the same mindset: show that you're above the fray of pettiness (in this instance, declaring LML's then-voter Vitamin to be town) to try to fly the flag of a Real Scumhunter.

-----

@DGB:

You've focused on LML's "bus" slip, and that's fine, but have you considered that maybe it was in there on purpose to let his teammates know it was okay to do him in? Does that change anything for you?

-----

@mathcam:

Here is another point I thought was interesting re VitaminR:

I think anyone who is looking to create a correlation between me and VitR is acting certainly scummy and may very well be trying to domino lynches. Although he's attacking me, I currently have a pro-town read on VitR. Knowing my alignment, I believe that anyone who is trying to say "they can't have the same alignment" are not only pushing for a lynch of me today, but will also be pushing for a lynch of VitR after I flip blue.

At this point, LML was pretty solidly leading in the plausible-lynch department, and was quite possibly posting with his inevitable scum-reveal in mind. I'm trying to get into LML's head to see what he was trying to do here, but haven't come to any definitive conclusions. Anyone else want to take a stab?

Buddying with Vitamin-town.

Immediate benefit: people were already saying Vitamin was town (and even folks who were at the time suspicious of Vitamin, such as myself, had unvoted Vitamin by the time of LML's post), so LML was trying to slander his attackers by saying that they were also attacking Vitamin.

Post-death benefit: if LML got lynched, he would be tying his scumminess to Vitamin.

[petroleumjelly]

Now some follow-up questions for mathcam. It should be noted that I did not realize your +1/-1 system would not even give

post numbers

. I imagine this makes it difficult for you later on to interpret them, and so you are certainly correct that it makes it more difficult for anybody else to figure out what went on. And yet I still have questions!

1.)

About what posts does your list actually span? It is certainly missing your multitude of FoS's against me, so it cannot be anything close to up-to-date or really past Post 657. Am I correctly assuming that if something is bad enough to make you FoS a person in-game, it would also get at least a -1 mark from you on your list?

~

2.)

Here's your posted list:

But lest I be accused of being obstructionist, here's my list:

Tigris -1
Glork +1
VitaminR -1
GC +1
ABR -1
Tigris +1
Yos2 +1 (comes in, votes, and leaves)
Seol -1
UT +1
PJ +1
CES -2
CTD +1
Glork +2
chamber +1
undo -1
Yos +1
ABR +1
Shanba +1

LML -1

STD +1

LML +1

ABR +1
Chamber +1
DGB +1
Zorblag +1
Yos +1
DGB +1
STD +1
Boo +1

And here was your earlier assertion concerning LoudmouthLee:

An oversimplification: as I read through, I assign little +1's and -1's to people if their post strikes me as pro-town or scummy (with most posts getting a neutral 0). Most people accrue some of both. In this game, moreso than usual, I have lots of people with more town points than scum points.

But in all of LML's posts thus far, I haven't marked a single one as pro-town.

Your list includes two marks for LoudmouthLee: one positive and one negative. Please explain.

3.)

Why did you have DrippingGoofball as "pretty Protown" on Day One? Apparently there were at least

two

posts to make you think as much.

[petroleumjelly]

Other things.

1.)

@PJ, what's your take on the interactions between LML and STD? Do you agree that LML's aggressive suspicion of STD was an outlier, and if so, how do you interpret that?

Honestly, I don't know. I do not have a good grasp on Save the Dragons' play. LoudmouthLee's reasons were weak, but that is consistent with Save the Dragons being of either alignment.

2.)

DrippingGoofball gave the definite impression

Wut no, it was a

VAGUE

impression. I did say after his fakeclaim that my brain shuts down when I see a riddle or a puzzle. Where do you get "definite" impression????????

You gave the definite impression of thinking LoudmouthLee was a Roleblocker in Post 893. My wording was not the best there, but you must have had that impression before LoudmouthLee actually flipped scum. Did you, like Bookitty, think the "Rollus Interruptus / Diceblocking" post was a Roleblocker crumb? The timeline of your thought process is confusing.

3.)

I am totally down with a lynch on any of DrippingGoofball, Glork, or mathcam. If I had a button to blow all of them up, I would press it.

[DrippingGoofball]

@DGB:

You've focused on LML's "bus" slip, and that's fine, but have you considered that maybe it was in there on purpose to let his teammates know it was okay to do him in? Does that change anything for you?

He was L-3? L-4? PJ & Bookitty were still alternatives. Why confess scum at that point?

No, that was a true slip. I can say that with the benefit of hindsight.

[DrippingGoofball]

You gave the definite impression of thinking LoudmouthLee was a Roleblocker in Post 893. My wording was not the best there, but you must have had that impression before LoudmouthLee actually flipped scum. Did you, like Bookitty, think the "Rollus Interruptus / Diceblocking" post was a Roleblocker crumb? The timeline of your thought process is confusing.

I thought "lame PR" and roleblocker came to mind very vaguely from interfering with clock movement. I didn't catch the fake breadcrumb that Bookitty found.

Also your link to post 893 is a Glork post???? No wonder you find the timeline confusing.

[DrippingGoofball]

mathcam

Hey PJ

Vote mathcam

I think ABR is hinting at a guilty result

[mathcam]

PJ: Do you intend to answer questions, or only ask them?

While I'm here, can you give me some insight as to how long this might go on? Should I post my whole note sheet? Will you then hold me accountable for everything I wrote there? For discrepancies between things I thought when I wrote the note and things I later thought when I wrote certain posts? Why haven't you asked for anyone else's notes?

Anyhow, back to answering questions.

1) Pre my entry into the game, probably. Some times I get distracted when taking notes, and forget to write down both the quote I'm referencing and a +1/-1.
2) I have no response that will satisfy you. Either I forgot that I marked a +1, or it was a typo, or I'm lying scum.
3) At least twice she made "X is town" statements that I agreed with, often simultaneous with me thinking them.

This is vaguely familiar but can you explain the reasoning behind this? I'm not on this list and yet earlier you said I was protown so I'm a little confused.

Explain the reasoning behind what? Note that this covered only the first 22 pages -- reads may have evolved since then.

I would also like you to detail your in him read

To be honest, it was Nat's completely banworthy exit post. Maybe scum's a boring role to him, but I was guessing not.

[mathcam]

Seriously, DGB? Now you're taking a ridiculous stab at identifying a cop

and

outing said cop at the same time?

[mathcam]

Also...

your +1/-1 system

For Pete's sake, it's not "my system"! I don't know where it got stuck in your head that this was my method for identifying scum. Is it because I have "math" in my username that you assume I have a mathematical formula in some spreadsheet somewhere? It's just a thing I do, in a completely separate column from the rest of my notes, that lets me record the fact that I occasionally have gut responses to posts that I can't articulate any better than that.

[DrippingGoofball]

Seriously, DGB? Now you're taking a ridiculous stab at identifying a cop

and

outing said cop at the same time?

LOL are you confirming ABR is a cop with a guilty on you?

[mathcam]

How on earth did you read that from what I wrote?

Here's what I'm saying appears to have been your thought process: You thought you found a cop with a guilty investigation, and instead of going back and trying to make an argument against that guilty person, you decide that the best plan of action would be to out your perceived cop. How does that even resemble a sensible plan of action?

[DrippingGoofball]

How on earth did you read that from what I wrote?

If you're innocent, I'm not outing a "cop," I'm just pretending to think ABR is a cop.

Only if you're scum, am I outing a cop, LOL. You said I outed ABR-cop who is hinting at a guilty on YOU. You just confessed scum.

Thanks!

[petroleumjelly]

1.)

You gave the definite impression of thinking LoudmouthLee was a Roleblocker in Post 893. My wording was not the best there, but you must have had that impression before LoudmouthLee actually flipped scum. Did you, like Bookitty, think the "Rollus Interruptus / Diceblocking" post was a Roleblocker crumb? The timeline of your thought process is confusing.

I thought "lame PR" and roleblocker came to mind very vaguely from interfering with clock movement. I didn't catch the fake breadcrumb that Bookitty found.

Also your link to post 893 is a Glork post???? No wonder you find the timeline confusing.

I meant Post 983, the numbers got transposed.

2.)

mathcam

Hey PJ

Vote mathcam

I think ABR is hinting at a guilty result

Wow.

FoS: DrippingGoofball

. This is so bad.

3.)

PJ: Do you intend to answer questions, or only ask them?

While I'm here, can you give me some insight as to how long this might go on? Should I post my whole note sheet? Will you then hold me accountable for everything I wrote there? For discrepancies between things I thought when I wrote the note and things I later thought when I wrote certain posts? Why haven't you asked for anyone else's notes?

Point me to questions I have missed and I will answer them. I have tried to answer everything I can answer, but I am not perfect. And I have actually fielded quite a few questions this game.

~ I do not have a planned length of having a conversation with you.
~ If I felt like your notes were fine I would have left them at that and potentially apologized for wasting your time (which would have presumably consisted of "copy+paste"). But as it is, I had questions and so I asked them.
~ You are more than free to post your whole note sheet, and if you do, yes I will hold you accountable to it (which obviously includes potential discrepancies with your notes and your play -- why

else

would I be interested in your notes).
~ I have not asked for anybody else's notes because nobody else has explicitly stated they are

keeping

such detailed notes (except perhaps Bookitty?, but I think she actually said she was

not

keeping detailed notes) and basing their reads/suspicions off of such notes.

[DrippingGoofball]

Wow. FoS: DrippingGoofball.

You REALLY are confused. You're voting me already. Now I get an FOS???

I love you're continuing your interrogation of mathcam like he hasn't just confessed scum.

[Save The Dragons]

How on earth did you read that from what I wrote?

If you're innocent, I'm not outing a "cop," I'm just pretending to think ABR is a cop.

Only if you're scum, am I outing a cop, LOL. You said I outed ABR-cop who is hinting at a guilty on YOU. You just confessed scum.

Thanks!

This is the strangest post I've ever seen...

[petroleumjelly]

Wow. FoS: DrippingGoofball.

You REALLY are confused. You're voting me already. Now I get an FOS???

I love you're continuing your interrogation of mathcam like he hasn't just confessed scum.

I am

well

aware I am currently voting for you. Your continual incredulousness is noted.

And mathcam has not "confessed scum," though I agree his wording is not elegant.

If you are

Town

, your post is legitimately bad, and you

would

be "taking a stab" at Albert B. Rampage being a Cop with an investigation result on mathcam. And it should go without saying that if you are Town and

believe it

, then you should have just pursued mathcam without drawing the slightest bit of attention to such a potential result. If you

don't believe it

then you are unnecessarily inviting commentary from Albert B. Rampage (or other roles that have reason to doubt Albert B. Rampage could

have

such a result) to confirm or deny.

If you are

Scum

, then your post is still bad, and there is no actually no easy way mathcam could point this out without in some way suggesting Albert B. Rampage, if a Cop, could have such an investigation result. Simply put: because you were suggesting the investigation was on mathcam, mathcam would almost always appear to be incriminating himself on some level no matter what words he used to argue your post suggested you are Scum -- because of course you would "know" that Albert B. Rampage could not have a guilty on mathcam unless you are partnered with mathcam.

[mathcam]

DGB: Are you drunk? (Not like, Porochaz drunk, but a couple-of-glasses-of-wine-after-dinner drunk?)

As to your last point, except possibly for ABR, whose play could be effectively replaced by a bot, I would've thought it was crazy to think that anyone was not taking notes. As a bit of a meta, hammering on people who explicitly reference making notes encourages (a) lack of note-taking, and (b) play like ABR and DGB. It is still shocking to me the extent to which the town allows them get away with their level of participation because "it's their meta." And again, "such detailed notes"? Where are you getting this? I've seen at least three major note purges in posts here that far outstrip the level of detail in my notes.

PJ, here's my frustration. There are absolutely discrepancies between my notes for myself and my public posts, because my opinions are fluid and evolving and past notes are completely static. I might jot something down as I'm reading the thread, and then ten posts later when someone clarifies that original post, I don't necessarily go back and change it. So I as a human being can have a conversation about why I find a particular person scummy or not, but a person just looking at my notes might get a completely different impression. For you to force yourself into an inside look at my notes and then come out with a "Gotcha!" moment (one of many I can assure you you could find if I did post my entire notesheet) feels opportunistic. The questions I asked you in the last post were not as flippant as they might have come across, and relate to the question you skipped before about what it means for you to "not like" something. Presumably it means you find something scummy (or at least detect the potential for scumminess), but it doesn't feel like any of your questions toward me have been working towards any implication of scumminess, only to nitpick and force me to jump through hoops for your satisfaction (I'm sure you see it differently, but therein lies the point -- do share!). Would it

even

be that scummy if your initial suspicion was true, that I had lied about physically having a list of +1/-1's, and was using it only as a metaphor for how I kept track of my positions?

Yos: Do you keep notes on the game?

[mathcam]

Sorry, that drunk comment was flippant and rude. I apologize.

[DrippingGoofball]

there is no actually no easy way mathcam could point this out without in some way suggesting Albert B. Rampage, if a Cop, could have such an investigation result.

Actually, there IS a way.

"no one can have a guilty on me, I am town."

I don't drink.

I say ABR is a cop with a guilty on mathcam.

mathcam says:

"you crazy outing the cop?"

NOT

"no one can have a guilty on me, I am town."

mathcam is acknowledging that ABR is a cop. A cop with a guilty on mathcam.

[Untrod Tripod]

I wish UT would post more

hey, you see that V/LA right by my name? yeah.

[petroleumjelly]

mathcam,

1.)

You in particular have made reference to your notes several times: you had "list of people" you thought were Town, then you mentioned your +1/-1 notes, then you mentioned that you did not have any positive marks for LoudmouthLee, and you also mentioned that unlike

most

games, most players had more Town points than scum points in your notes. Given that you were talking so much about your notes -- something

nobody else can see or verify

-- I wanted to

see

them to match them up to your in-game claims. You continually opened the door by referring to your notes as a basis for why you were playing the way you were playing.

2.)

I have felt that your claimed suspicions have been generally mainstream, with the two notable exceptions of Cogito Ergo Sum (which I think may have been fabricated to an extent on Day One to justify MafiaSSK's play) and VitaminR. But I could find nothing in your posts indicating

why

you thought VitaminR was scummy -- at best (as I have explained), you indicated that if Bookitty was scum,

then

VitaminR would be a "point of interest." Your strange positions towards VitaminR ("seeing the arguments" and linking him to Bookitty) had me seriously wondering if there was a mathcam-VitaminR pairing, or if you were just trying to set up an eventual VitaminR mislynch (which could in turn suggest mathcam-Bookitty). I still am not convinced you had genuine reasons for suspecting VitaminR. This is why I pursued your reasons for suspecting VitaminR.

3.)

I

was

to a certain extent playing for a "gotcha" moment; how people react to those moments can help me determine their alignment. Of course "gotcha!" moments might have reasonable explanations behind them. For example, you will note that I merely asked you to explain why LoudmouthLee had a positive next to his name without yet drawing inferences. This is in part because I actually chalk your inconsistency up to carelessness at this point, and I do not find it terribly alignment-telling. But I certainly was not going to

avoid

asking you about the inconsistency.

4.)

Overall, my questions have pretty much been designed to determine whether or not you are actually legitimately scumhunting, or

acting

like you're scumhunting (with an appeal to your notes as a silent indicator you have been putting in work and have reasons for your play), or else trying to determine whether -- if you are scum -- you might be paired with other players or vice versa (hence my Day One questions to you on Bookitty, LoudmouthLee, and VitaminR). The general exception was my question about why you thought MafiaSSK replaced out, which I posed largely as a counterpoint to DrippingGoofball's assertion that the MafiaSSK replace-out was Town. I did not think it was, and I thought (and still do) think he may have been folding under pressure, especially now that LoudmouthLee has proven to be scum.

[mathcam]

PJ -- thanks for the elaboration. I still find myself surprised that so much credence is put to literally interpreting the phrase "checking my notes." While I do maintain a notesheet, and frequently reference it, I also often use that phrase to reference my accumulated feelings gathered thus far in the game. I will endeavor to do that less in the future. As to carelessness, they did give me this title for a reason...

Actually, there IS a way. "no one can have a guilty on me, I am town."

That does not suitably convey how ludicrous it was that you thought you would reveal your cop suspicion.

You have yet to respond to why you thought this would be a good idea.

[Green Crayons]

I wish UT would post more

hey, you see that V/LA right by my name? yeah.

No, I did not see that V/LA right by your name.

[DrippingGoofball]

That does not suitably convey how ludicrous it was that you thought you would reveal your cop suspicion.

ABR is so obvious, Sherlock. I didn't "reveal" anything.

Also you're scum with a guilty on you so.

[Kublai Khan]

That does not suitably convey how ludicrous it was that you thought you would reveal your cop suspicion.

ABR is so obvious, Sherlock. I didn't "reveal" anything.

Well, obviously Albert B. Rampage isn't a cop, so...

I mean, I understand what you're saying about mathcam, though I'm waffling on it. It feels a little "gotcha!" and not substantial, but... mathcam might have actually slipped in attacking the perceived outing rather than the result.

Still, I still feel like lynching you. Then depending on your flip, I'll feel differently about mathcam. How do you feel about that?