Blitz 12: Double Trouble! (Game Over)

[AlwaysInnocent]

VOTE: bebop

How do you know he is gonna flip town?

Since this is multi-ball, being scum doesn't mean that you know that someone is going to flip town. It may very well be scum from another faction.

But you probably already knew this.

[hi im Yakko]

VOTE: bebop

How do you know he is gonna flip town?

Since this is multi-ball, being scum doesn't mean that you know that someone is going to flip town. It may very well be scum from another faction.

But you probably already knew this.

Why are you not letting him answer? Is my question not valid?

What could it mean that he called wander a town flip?

[BeBopAReBop RhubarbPie]

VOTE: bebop

How do you know he is gonna flip town?

*sigh* why do people always assume that planning for alternatives means I'm scum? I never said he was going to flip town. I said that a flip in either direction gives information which is an improvement over the other wagon when I don't see particularly strong evidence on either. I see dominator as scummier than both of them, but others have commented that he always plays like this, and there doesn't seem to be much interest in it.

[AlwaysInnocent]

I see dominator as scummier than both of them, but others have commented that he always plays like this, and there doesn't seem to be much interest in it.

"Always plays like this" is not a reason to not vote for someone. Meta is inherently unreliable. Focus on

this

game. In this game, Dom is acting scummy. But having more information on him would be nice. So that is the main reason that I am not voting for him... yet.

[Ranger]

But they are.

Something I do every game cannot, by definition, be scummy.

You know you are going to have to revise it anyway, which you seem to be hesitant about, even though a lot has happened in the meantime.

What.

Seriously, what.

Forgive me for luring you out.

You cannot lure out someone whose posting times are unaffected by your mafia time and are instead affected

by their own real life

.

So you mean you are only defending yourself against things you cannot defend yourself from, but not the things you should be defending yourself from?

No, I'm defending myself against the things which are explicitly BS. You know the things of yours I haven't defended?

Spoiler: This stuff

I don't like this post at all. If something seems calculated, it is this post by Ranger. Furthermore, without an explanation, any defense of TheDominator is just not credible.

I could have defended against this. I didn't.

Townreading me again, without explaining why.

Then insisting on Phantom being scum

I could have defended against this. I didn't.

Then there is the vote on Bebop, who is practically confirmed town.

I very, VERY easily could have defended against this (simply by pointing to

a prior post of mine

even), but I didn't.

She had Dwlee at the top of her townreads with me. It would make sense if Ranger killed Dwlee with her faction. Indeed, not very odd at all.

I could have defended against this, but I didn't.

Heck! Your argument for me being scum in it has a big wide gaping hole in it, here:

am inclined to believe Titus for now, but there is just one thing that keeps bugging me: her early and highly confident (and uncalled for) townread of Ranger. This conflicts with my belief that Ranger is scum.

...But the closest I go to arguing this point is pointing out why Errant using it means Errant (who should know better) is scum! (You get the benefit of the doubt because you don't have that experience. Errant does.)

So, what

have

I defended myself against?

...Oh yeah. Exactly what I said I have! BS about my activity (null and also verifiable by

searching my posts site-wide

), and BS about listing.

I've zero intent of defending myself on other fronts.

You don't think I look for motivations?

Clearly you don't.

If you did you wouldn't be voting me.

Motivations are an intricate part of listing. If you can't see motive behind lists, then you can't see motive at all, mate. Pure and simple.

If I cannot see any reasons, I am going to assume you don't have any.

And you think a person who has played mafia for over five years can't fake reasons as scum? I choose not to give reasons. That does not mean none exist.

So explain why.

You haven't been listening. I've been pushing Errant. I've been explaining my read on Errant.

That is why Errant is a stronger scumread

. You harp on me for not giving reasons, yet when I do, you pass over them as if they're nonexistent!

You call my analysis superficial, but calling this a scumslip is even worse.

Scumslips are not superficial. They are driven by simple thought processes. If anything, scumslips are deeper than motivation. You just need to know where to look. BeBop did legitimately slip not-VT. This should be evident because someone with an actual VT role PM would, by virtue of looking at their own role PM, know what the VT role for the game is. (As I already explained.) I called it a scumslip because I made the assumption that BeBop was not a VT, but would be scum faking VT. BeBop being a power role, however, also explained the slip, rendering it a strong confirmation of BeBop's claim. Very, very useful information to have.

There is no proof that it is a null-read. Meta-reads are manipulable and therefore inherently unreliable.

So you're saying something I do literally every game is NOT in fact null, that it IS in fact alignment indicative, in spite of the fact that I do it literally every single game?

Dude.

There's meta that's "stuff you do as town, and stuff you do as scum".
Then there's meta that's

this is my freakin playstyle you douche

.

You even called reasons a luxury, which they are not from the town POV.

Not mine. Reasons have always been optional. Reads are fundamental. The game does not work without reads (you'd literally be random lynching if not for getting reads); the game works without reasons. I rest my case.

[Ranger]

Like...I don't use meta myself.
I won't meta a player.
I judge them off of their actions rather than their past games.

But I'm not a douche, because I know that sometimes...NULL MEANS NULL.

[hi im Yakko]

Hmmmm UNVOTE:

I see my mistake. Oops my b.

[Ranger]

Then you only slightly revise these reads to accommodate for new information.

Because the new information "only slightly" (VERY debatable) changed them.

My reads change off of how much new information changes them.

I generally quote or directly mention pieces of relevant information. (For instance, noting PhantomCobalt's death, Titus's status, Bebop's status.)
Sometimes that's a lot of change.
Most of the time.
Easily verified in my games, most of the time you'll find.
I don't change my reads that often because very little changes them.

Heck!

The changes I've made this game are probably larger than changes I've made in almost any other game! Not often I have to remove half my scumreads in one fell swoop, after all!

It seems as if your list of reads serves primarily as an overview for yourself so you can appear relatively consistent to the town.

Kind-of, yes. And? Point being?
I use lists as a tool. They help me keep my own thoughts organized; they help share my thoughts with others. They're as much for my benefit as they are for yours. They do function exactly like you said: as an overview of myself. They show you

what I am thinking

. Which is why I say if you can't read lists, you can't read motive.

Belief revision is necessary for the town to win.

Belief revision happens when there is reason to revise a thought. But there's a difference between being rational about a change and irrational. For instance, when it comes to

you

, I very easily could go all irrational, and point out how your extreme confirmation bias and unwillingness to move would mean you were scum, but I know better. That's an irrational, paranoia-induced thought from an emotional state. Not all read changes are good. I prefer to only make

accurate

changes.

I revised my thoughts on Titus because there was reason to. I revised my thoughts on Bebop because there was reason to. I revised my thoughts on Errant because there was reason to. I have gone over other reads, but when I reviewed them, there was no reason to revise the read. (e.g. ZZZX remains null, so too does ABR, because they haven't done anything and that hasn't changed.)

I particularly don't like Ranger's habit of giving a read and then sometimes filling in reasons later as it gives ample opportunity to make stuff up to justify the read based on future information.

Well, tough luck.

[AlwaysInnocent]

But they are.

Something I do every game cannot, by definition, be scummy.

You are basing yourself on meta again. I don't bother with meta.

You know you are going to have to revise it anyway, which you seem to be hesitant about, even though a lot has happened in the meantime.

What.

Seriously, what.

You said the game would not be challenging if every scum was obviously scum from the start. This is true, which is why we have to revise our beliefs all the time. You, however, stick to uninformed reads from the beginning, like Yakko being town and Errant being scum.

You cannot lure out someone whose posting times are unaffected by your mafia time and are instead affected

by their own real life

.

Apparently it is affected by it. I have to admit that it was somewhat of a jerk move, but it seems to be working.

No, I'm defending myself against the things which are explicitly BS. You know the things of yours I haven't defended?

You should have. You look scummy now.

So, what

have

I defended myself against?

...Oh yeah. Exactly what I said I have! BS about my activity (null and also verifiable by

searching my posts site-wide

), and BS about listing.

Except that the listing was not BS.

I've zero intent of defending myself on other fronts.

Makes sense if you are scum.

You don't think I look for motivations?

Clearly you don't.

If you did you wouldn't be voting me.

Haha. Good one.

Motivations are an intricate part of listing. If you can't see motive behind lists, then you can't see motive at all, mate. Pure and simple.

Crapping out lists is too easy. The only motivation I can see is that you are trying to appear town when you aren't.

If I cannot see any reasons, I am going to assume you don't have any.

And you think a person who has played mafia for over five years can't fake reasons as scum? I choose not to give reasons. That does not mean none exist.

Duh. Of course experienced scum will offer reasons, but doing so will put them in danger of contradicting themselves (without it being reasonable belief revision). It becomes harder and harder, the more reasons you give. This is why I insist that people offer reasons. If you are scum, better get ready to get scrutinized.

So explain why.

You haven't been listening. I've been pushing Errant. I've been explaining my read on Errant.

That is why Errant is a stronger scumread

. You harp on me for not giving reasons, yet when I do, you pass over them as if they're nonexistent!

You should be voting for Wanderer, though.

You call my analysis superficial, but calling this a scumslip is even worse.

Scumslips are not superficial. They are driven by simple thought processes. If anything, scumslips are deeper than motivation.You just need to know where to look. BeBop did legitimately slip not-VT. This should be evident because someone with an actual VT role PM would, by virtue of looking at their own role PM, know what the VT role for the game is. (As I already explained.) I called it a scumslip because I made the assumption that BeBop was not a VT, but would be scum faking VT. BeBop being a power role, however, also explained the slip, rendering it a strong confirmation of BeBop's claim. Very, very useful information to have.

Deeper than motivation? I thought motivation was the most important.

So you're saying something I do literally every game is NOT in fact null, that it IS in fact alignment indicative, in spite of the fact that I do it literally every single game?

Dude.

Meta is manipulable. Unreliable. I look at the game at hand. Makes it impossible for you to hide behind your meta. No-one plays exactly the same as previous games.

There's meta that's "stuff you do as town, and stuff you do as scum".
Then there's meta that's

this is my freakin playstyle you douche

.

"Well, it is my playstyle that I always act like scum, even when I am town. Why are you holding me responsible for that?!"

Also, I am not a douche.

Not mine. Reasons have always been optional. Reads are fundamental. The game does not work without reads (you'd literally be random lynching if not for getting reads); the game works without reasons. I rest my case.

Except that reasons give rise to reads. If I offer 3 reasons why you are scum, then I am implicitly scumreading you. However, I cannot derive reasons from your reads alone. Therefore reasons are superior to reads.

[Ranger]

Again, what's up with Yakko and Dom?

I come from a site with a

really

heavy focus on the RVS.
When in doubt, return to the RVS.
We do it every game.

It works pretty well, and we've got the art of RVS down to practically a science.

When you see a post, you see: "oh, it's the RVS, probably doesn't mean much". When I see a post, I see: "Nice!" Because on this site, players tend to not know how to RVS properly. They reveal their alignments surprisingly often, and nobody even realizes it. I'm not always right, not even close, but I use the technique with confidence. Just ask former victims of it like Errant. (Oh, wait! Errant isn't acknowledging that!)

One of the first people to suspect Ranger was Phantom. It is most likely no coincidence that both Ranger and Wanderer jumped on that wagon.

Check your chronologies. 71: my first mention of PC as scum. 87 PC votes me erroneously believing I'm a newbie. (I'm not.) Hops off at 216. I vote in 277.
PC does not revote me.
In fact, PC doesn't even mention me again.
PC last mentioned me in reference to Titus's strong townread (which, again,

I disagreed on

), and prior to that, way back in 207 where he was still voting me and held three scumreads...and then he switched to Bebop, AKA our conftown player by your own words. The only time PC described the scumread on me, it was...oh, yeah. Using...lists, and nonexistent inactivity.

[AlwaysInnocent]

Again, what's up with Yakko and Dom?

I come from a site with a

really

heavy focus on the RVS.
When in doubt, return to the RVS.
We do it every game.

It works pretty well, and we've got the art of RVS down to practically a science.

A science, eh? Well, if it is a

science

, then you should know the reasons.

When you see a post, you see: "oh, it's the RVS, probably doesn't mean much". When I see a post, I see: "Nice!" Because on this site, players tend to not know how to RVS properly. They reveal their alignments surprisingly often, and nobody even realizes it. I'm not always right, not even close, but I use the technique with confidence. Just ask former victims of it like Errant. (Oh, wait! Errant isn't acknowledging that!)

I do not really believe in RVS tells, but I guess I do not know the science.

[Ranger]

In this game, Dom is acting scummy. But having more information on him would be nice.

Here's an idea.
Why don't you actually go do something to, oh...I don't know...COLLECT more information on Dom?

Hmm...now what universal force can be applied to maybe give that extra information?

Something all townies are given, even scumbags are gifted with...let's see...what could it

possibly

be?

You said the game would not be challenging if every scum was obviously scum from the start.

Yeah, and Errant wasn't! (Well, this game anyway!) And I got not one, not two, but THREE (at

minimum

) false positives in the form of PhantomCobalt, Titus, and Bebop. It's as I said: I'm not always right, but I still go in fairly confident anyway. Scum aren't always obvious, but that bravado can still raise eyes and catch attention. I think every scumteam I've read the topic of has had me as someone they considered or wished to nightkill, and it's

because

of this confidence. I come in, I post a list, the list might not be accurate but it scares them, and then I die.

You, however, stick to uninformed reads from the beginning, like Yakko being town and Errant being scum.

And you've revealed you're not reading my posts given Errant was, explicitly, a townread.

A weak townread, sure, but a townread all the same.

Apparently it is affected by it.

How fond of the wiki are you? Actually, I'm pretty sure it's not just our wiki that has it, it's

so commonly known it exists outside our wiki

. Still a wiki, but a broader one. You know why it's called a logical fallacy, right?

My real life access to here is COMPLETELY unrelated to any callout you made, and to even THINK you could have that effect is pure, simple, unfiltered arrogance.

Except that the listing was not BS.

Exactly my point! :P
(

Accusations

about the listing, on the other hand, are BS.)

Makes sense if you are scum.

Right, because ignoring all attacks on me which draws suspicion totally makes sense.

I have no intention of defending myself against points I'd rather not waste my time defending myself on, because guess what?

I'd rather be scumhunting

.

The only motivation I can see is that you are trying to appear town when you aren't.

Then you have fundamentally failed to grasp what motive actually is.

You should be voting for Wanderer, though.

My weaker scumread?
Only out of desperation.

Otherwise, no.

I thought motivation was the most important.

Something can be deeper and still not be more important. :P
Scumslips are something that, most of the time, do not happen, and therefore, most of the time, are irrelevant, and therefore, most of the time, unimportant.

However

, when a scumslip

is

real, then they are the most important thing of all, arguably.

"Well, it is my playstyle that I always act like scum, even when I am town. Why are you holding me responsible for that?!"

My record says otherwise. (Nightkills, post-game compliments, etc.)
This is not me acting like scum.

This is me acting like the way town players

should

.

Your style of play is not mine. That does not make yours superior. If you can't recognize that, in fact, it makes yours by definition inferior.

Also, I am not a douche.

Calling a person scum for something they always do, and calling into question

real life activity

say otherwise. If that's not being a douche, I don't know what would be.

Except that reasons give rise to reads.

Only to 50% of the mafia-playing population.
You

do

know gut doesn't really count as a reason, right? Gut is a read without reason, and half of mafia players operate on it.

Again.
If you can't recognize this.
Then you're, fundamentally, sabotaging yourself.

However, I cannot derive reasons from your reads alone.

Yes you can. It requires looking into motivation.

Do you think I choose listed names at random when scum?
No, there's strategy involved.
When I use listed names as town, naturally of course it's neither random nor strategy; it's simply how I see things.
That's how I look at lists.

[Ranger]

A science, eh? Well, if it is a science, then you should know the reasons.

Of course I do. You think I make these things up?

Granted the reasons aren't rock-solid, but RVS content contains readable material. One reason I don't often share though is that I like keeping the secret: it seems to work, yet if I shared it with everyone, it probably wouldn't. At least not nearly as blatantly.

There's many reasons not to share reasons for reads: the effort involved, the information I gain by

not

sharing (for instance, by seeing how

other people treat my reads

), keeping the trade secret, intimidating the scum if I'm even remotely accurate, refining my reads if it turns out I'm not (yes, giving no reasons on my lists can help me refine my reads!), and many more.

[Ranger]

Calmed down a bit to recognize two statements which actually do contradict.

This is me acting like the way town players should.

Your style of play is not mine. That does not make yours superior. If you can't recognize that, in fact, it makes yours by definition inferior.

Sort of, anyway. The latter takes precedence over the former: people have different styles of play, none are better than the other by default, though the ones which do not recognize other styles are often inferior.

My statement in the former would be better said, therefore, in a different way: this is me, acting like the way a town player

with my style

should. I recognize other styles, but I will fight for my right to use my own. I focus on finding scum. I don't necessarily do the lynching of the scum. I can push for the lynch of scum, but I mostly do the job of

locating

them. I leave the rest of the job to other, more charismatic, players.

[AlwaysInnocent]

A science, eh? Well, if it is a science, then you should know the reasons.

Of course I do. You think I make these things up?

Yes.

Granted the reasons aren't rock-solid, but RVS content contains readable material. One reason I don't often share though is that I like keeping the secret: it seems to work, yet if I shared it with everyone, it probably wouldn't. At least not nearly as blatantly.

Which is why meta sucks ass.

There's many reasons not to share reasons for reads: the effort involved, the information I gain by

not

sharing (for instance, by seeing how

other people treat my reads

), keeping the trade secret, intimidating the scum if I'm even remotely accurate, refining my reads if it turns out I'm not (yes, giving no reasons on my lists can help me refine my reads!), and many more.

Let's discuss your reasons for not sharing one by one:

1.

The effort involved.

Giving a reason for someone requires less effort and is more valuable than giving reads on everyone, especially that early in the game.
2.

Keeping the trade secret.

I am highly opposed to this. It frustrates scumhunting, since anything can be potential giveaway to scum. Furthermore, it emphasizes the meta-game over the game itself. I treat every game as if it were my last game. If people learn from it, it will only make future games more fun and challenging.
3.

Intimidating the scum if accurate.

Scum generally aren't intimidated by reads without reasons. Scum are intimidated by rational townies, even when they are initially incorrect. Especially if they rationally revise their beliefs to accommodate for new facts and information. A rational townie will eventually close in on the scum.
4.

Refining reads

. Refining reads isn't harder when you have given reasons before, unless your reads are based on nothing.
5.

Many more

. Let's hear about it.

[AlwaysInnocent]

Your style of play is not mine. That does not make yours superior. If you can't recognize that, in fact, it makes yours by definition inferior.

It has nothing to do with my play style. It is just a factual statement. I base my play style on facts.

[Ranger]

Giving a reason for someone requires less effort and is more valuable than giving reads on everyone, especially that early in the game.

I am not you.

Maybe it's easier for you.

Not for me. Focusing long enough to compile reads actually strains me.

Scum generally aren't intimidated by reads without reasons.

My experience says otherwise. I can quote past scum topics if you don't believe me.

Especially if they rationally revise their beliefs to accommodate for new facts and information.

And I do this. Subtly, but I do this. It does not go unnoticed.

A rational townie will eventually close in on the scum.

Do you remember that 66% figure I quoted at the beginning of the game? There's a reason I said that. I do exactly that: close in on scum. Yes. With lists. You do not need reasons to do this. You simply need to be rational.

Refining reads isn't harder when you have given reasons before

But it's not easier, either.
In contrast, refining reads when you list is easier. There's a reason I do it, after all. ;)

5. Many more. Let's hear about it.

What time zone are you in?

I'll tell you where I live: inside America. Let me give you a hint: I woke up, by my local time, at 6:00 AM in the morning. How good are you at math? I won't give you which of the four continental timezones I live in, but I don't need to. Eastern, it's 7 AM. Central, 6 AM. Mountain, 5 AM. Pacific, 4 AM. Again, that is me getting up at 6 AM, and it being somewhere between 4-8 AM now. Somewhere either near, at, or exceeding 24 hours awake.

Most of it spent on this game.

I'm in no mood to elaborate. I'm far overdue for bed.

[Ranger]

It has nothing to do with my play style. It is just a factual statement. I base my play style on facts.

Uh-huh. And you're either blind or a hypocrite if you can't turn this around and see it from my side.

My style of play

isn't

based around hard, factual statements. I

use

logic and reasoning and factual statements, but they make up only about 50% of my style; the rest is composed of feeling and assuming.

[Ranger]

Let me give you a hint: I woke up, by my local time, at 6:00 AM in the morning. How good are you at math? I won't give you which of the four continental timezones I live in, but I don't need to. Eastern, it's 7 AM. Central, 6 AM. Mountain, 5 AM. Pacific, 4 AM

For clarity: that's waking up at 6 AM on

Sunday

, with it currently being between 4-8 AM MONDAY.

No sleep.

And do the math: calculate by your local time zone my post 568 to the timestamp on this post: you'll find it almost exactly 7 hours.
I've spent the last seven hours on this game.

I'm not in the mood to spend more time here.

[AlwaysInnocent]

My experience says otherwise. I can quote past scum topics if you don't believe me.

I am talking about rational scum.

And I do this. Subtly, but I do this. It does not go unnoticed.

So, hesitant.

Do you remember that 66% figure I quoted at the beginning of the game? There's a reason I said that. I do exactly that: close in on scum. Yes. With lists. You do not need reasons to do this. You simply need to be rational.

Rational play implies having reasons, even when you do not share them. However, not sharing them is objectively bad play.

But it's not easier, either.
In contrast, refining reads when you list is easier. There's a reason I do it, after all.

I would rather have that you provide reasons for lists than providing reasons for not giving reasons.

What time zone are you in?

GMT+1

I'll tell you where I live: inside America. Let me give you a hint: I woke up, by my local time, at 6:00 AM in the morning. How good are you at math? I won't give you which of the four continental timezones I live in, but I don't need to. Eastern, it's 7 AM. Central, 6 AM. Mountain, 5 AM. Pacific, 4 AM. Again, that is me getting up at 6 AM, and it being somewhere between 4-8 AM now. Somewhere either near, at, or exceeding 24 hours awake.

Most of it spent on this game.

I'm in no mood to elaborate. I'm far overdue for bed.

You are not required to spend most of your time on this game. It would have been easier if you had just provided reasons from the start. We could have avoided all this talk about the meta-game.

[Flubbernugget]

Yakko might very well be scum, but he is harder to read, so I would not prioritize him over Wanderer.

You wouldn't prioritize the harder to read that would probably take. more time to lynch?

[Flubbernugget]

Expressing "surprise" at NKs is often a scumtell, especially when it is completely without substance. Ending your sentence with "hmm" makes it seem like you are deeply thinking about it, but in the end you say nothing worthwhile. Phantom was right to suspect you.

So

TheDominator

becomes red.

There's something off about making a huge case on someone and then scumreading someone else in the same breath over something like this. But that would probably need flips to really dig here

[Flubbernugget]

Oh god flubber pls no.

More importantly who are you town reading?

I was commenting on the fact that he might be scum.

More votes pls

[Flubbernugget]

Also town reads are easier to fake than scum reads so that's an interesting question you have there

[Flubbernugget]

Yakko
Wanderer
Dwlee

For now everyone else can be town by poe