Open 680.1 C9++ | Endgame

[ThinkBig]

VC 1.10

Official Vote Count

CommKnight

(4): Green Crayons, Umlaut, FireScreamer, RoryMK

Titus

(2): Brian Skies, davesaz

FireScreamer

(2): FrankJaeger, CommKnight

RoryMK

(1): Alchemist21

Umlaut

(1): Narna

shannon

(1): Titus

FrankJaeger

(1): shannon

Not Voting

(1): Gamma Emerald

With 13 alive, it takes 7 to lynch.

Deadline

: (expired on 2017-05-03 20:06:48)

[RoryMK]

@GE, have you seen Titus this quiet as town before? If not join the wagon?

I'd like to step in and say I have seen Titus this quiet before as town. I wouldn't worry about it unless it becomes a pattern throughout the entire game.

[RoryMK]

Rorys posts look disingenuous.

Kinda agree with this. Hard to say if he's just like this on early D1 though.

Rorys posts look disingenuous.

Is there a reason you still haven't moved your RVS vote if you think that's true?

Do you have any other reads?

It also feels like he tried to turn it around on Frank here.

VOTE: Rory

Can you explain where I went wrong by asking Frank 2 questions in an attempt to get him involved?

[Gamma Emerald]

@GE, have you seen Titus this quiet as town before? If not join the wagon?

Not really, but A) I've been gone a while and B) there could be several explanations for Titus's play, like maybe she's trying to let other people lead the discussion.

[Gamma Emerald]

@GE, have you seen Titus this quiet as town before? If not join the wagon?

I'd like to step in and say I have seen Titus this quiet before as town. I wouldn't worry about it unless it becomes a pattern throughout the entire game.

That's actually really useful ty

[davesaz]

Rorys posts look disingenuous.

Got thoughts on anyone else? It's really hard to tell from your posts.

[davesaz]

Anyone got a read on Narna? I'm drawing a blank.

[davesaz]

Ugh, so many people I need answers from.

[Green Crayons]

@Brian:

Why would it be suspicious?

I have no idea if he has a trust tell and the mods looked into it anyway.

Also, you cherry picked my statements without taking the context into account. I can understand if I just worded the explanation poorly and you just want me to rephrase, but I don't think that's what you want here. Also, why do you care about me explaining what a trust tell is? Why do you think it's even alignment indicative?

Trying to intimidate another player into not using a method of defense is suspicious because it might actually work, thereby depriving that other player of a valid defense that could help make their case that they are town, if they are in fact town.

It is additionally suspicious because it can be used as a type of reverse psychology on the target, who could start thinking: "this guy is looking out for me by warning me not to go about using trust tells; his interests must align with mine."

I didn't cherry pick. I grabbed the heart of what was wrong with your explanation in the greater context of, if this was a real concern, you could have (should have) taken it to PMs with the mod. Or just waited until after the game was over.

[Green Crayons]

@Umlaut:

Are you stating that you don't understand what the insinuation is, or that you don't know whether there is an insinuation?

Either you think one or both of us is handing out townreads too freely, you think one of us may be trying to buddy the other, or you just really like Pulp Fiction and wanted to post that video.

If there is an insinuation I don't like the vague eye-rolling expression of it because it's just shade and doesn't actually help improve your reads or advance a point.

Well you got the correct message so my method of communication appears to be a success

Several potential messages were mentioned.

Yup.

Are you just being opaque for fun now?

No.

[Green Crayons]

^^^ More seriously: no.

You managed to articulate the different thoughts I was was attempting to convey in my original post. None of them were lost on you. This was easy enough, as my thoughts were all pretty obvious reactions to the Alchemist/Umlaut posts where each player called the other player some version of obvtown.

[Green Crayons]

@dave:

@GC : Your "yup" is not helpful. I view giving someone multiple vague messages and then saying they received it without saying what it was you think they received as potentially manipulative. Do you have an investigative purpose in doing this?

I wasn't "giving" a message to Alchemist and Umlaut. I was noting their posts that occasioned commentary. I am not required to spell out my exact suspicions of any given player when they occur, and providing non-specific suspicions of a player can make them nervous. Particularly if they are scum.


This isn't groundbreaking. Not sure why you're acting like I'm doing something you've never seen before.

[Brian Skies]

Trying to intimidate another player into not using a method of defense is suspicious because it might actually work, thereby depriving that other player of a valid defense that could help make their case that they are town, if they are in fact town.

It is additionally suspicious because it can be used as a type of reverse psychology on the target, who could start thinking: "this guy is looking out for me by warning me not to go about using trust tells; his interests must align with mine."

I didn't cherry pick. I grabbed the heart of what was wrong with your explanation in the greater context of, if this was a real concern, you could have (should have) taken it to PMs with the mod. Or just waited until after the game was over.

Okay, first of all, I gave him a warning shot because it's literally a bannable offense. And he seemed new.

The second line is you just literally throwing out there to justify you nitpicking an explanation post, which is just what? I haven't even stated a townread on the guy.

You absolutely cherry picked. You snipped out the majority of the second line you quoted, which was me explaining

why it was borderline

. If you truly cared about what the 'heart of my explanation was,' you'd ask for elaboration. Which you haven't done. And to elaborate, the reason why 'just saying you wouldn't do something as scum' is fine is because if you're using that defense

in response

to an accusation, then it's just going to be written off as an expected response as either alignment in most scenarios. The second case, which has everything to do with FS' comment, is borderline because he was either preparing

to cite self meta unprompted

or faking it. Which, if you actually cared about what my post was saying (which wasn't an argument in any way), that you would have read this and made that connection.

So, once again, why are you nitpicking a post whose only purpose is to explain what a trust tell is?

[Brian Skies]

I didn't cherry pick. I grabbed the heart of what was wrong with your explanation in the greater context of, if this was a real concern, you could have (should have) taken it to PMs with the mod. Or just waited until after the game was over.

True that it's not credible (and I think everyone has rightly ignored it) but not true that it's a trust tell or really even close to one, even assuming he's town. I could point out things in any of my town games that I never do as scum, because they're not things that get me townread and so I have no real reason to emulate them in my scum games.

This is what a trust tell is as explained on the MafiaScum Wiki.

It's not punishable to just say 'I would never do this as scum.' That is just playing to your win condition and is unlikely to be considered self-imposed.

"A Trust Tell is a specialized behavior a player may use to "prove" their alignment in any arbitrary game

via a personal meta argument

. For instance, a player may promise that they are Town if and only if they actually are Town in a game, and will use that self-imposed rule when they draw Town as an argument to confirm their alignment whenever they see fit." ~The Wiki

What FS is saying is that he cannot be scum here because he did something only a town him would do (what that is, I have no idea, but he insists that he did it). This falls under the first criteria of the trust tell definition that he's 'insisting he only does something as one alignment.' However, this is just one game. But if it happens over the course of multiple games, then it becomes punishable as a 'trust tell' or a 'trust tell in the making.' And there are players that have been punished for things like this (See: Varsoon).

I'm not saying that he has a trust tell, just that he needs to knock it off because the Skittles don't take stuff like this lightly.

It's not punishable to just say 'I would never do this as scum.'

What FS is saying is that he cannot be scum here because he did something only a town him would do

These are literally saying the same thing. "never scum" = "only town".

Actually, let's take a look at these posts again.

What is the 'heart of the explanation' I'm giving here and why do you think it matters in the overall context of this game? What do you hope to gain out of it? Why do you (or did you) think the explanation was incorrect?

Also, why do you care if I PM the mods about this or not (I haven't) when I can just throw an off-hand comment to tell him to knock it off? Why are you even suggesting I wait until the game is over to bring it up? Regardless of my alignment or his, if he's breaking a rule or in danger of breaking one, why should I table my concerns?

[Brian Skies]

Trying to intimidate another player into not using a method of defense is suspicious because it might actually work, thereby depriving that other player of a valid defense that could help make their case that they are town, if they are in fact town.

Once again, it's a bannable offense. But explain to me how, even if you think this to be true, that it's any different from your post here where you straight up undermine two players' townreads on each other?

[Titus]

Green Crayons is scum. Too much whining.

[Green Crayons]

Brian, you can repeat the same question over and over again in 387 and 388, but the answer is literally right there in 383.

[Green Crayons]

Trying to intimidate another player into not using a method of defense is suspicious because it might actually work, thereby depriving that other player of a valid defense that could help make their case that they are town, if they are in fact town.

Once again, it's a bannable offense. But explain to me how, even if you think this to be true, that it's any different from your post here where you straight up undermine two players' townreads on each other?

Because I wasn't threatening their play with the specter of a bannable offense? Which doesn't entail the same side effects I noted in 383.

[Green Crayons]

Green Crayons is scum. Too much whining.

I'm making people angry which is a sign of town. Balances out.

[Green Crayons]

I mean

*stomps feet*

I am NOT being whiny!

[Brian Skies]

Trying to intimidate another player into not using a method of defense is suspicious because it might actually work, thereby depriving that other player of a valid defense that could help make their case that they are town, if they are in fact town.

Once again, it's a bannable offense. But explain to me how, even if you think this to be true, that it's any different from your post here where you straight up undermine two players' townreads on each other?

Because I wasn't threatening their play with the specter of a bannable offense? Which doesn't entail the same side effects I noted in 383.

If I were scum, what would be my motivation to intimidate him? It would be to keep him from being townread. How is this different from you wanting two players wanting to be townread by each other?

[Brian Skies]

I completely butchered that line. How is it any different from a scum you wanting two players to not townread each other? The method is different, but the motivation is the same.

[Brian Skies]

Brian, you can repeat the same question over and over again in 387 and 388, but the answer is literally right there in 383.

Considering you don't even know what the heart of my explanation is, I find your earlier responses completely underwhelming. And I still find it hard to believe that you actually cared about what I was saying instead of just looking for an easy inconsistency to comment on.

[Brian Skies]

Green Crayons is scum. Too much whining.

Please explain this. Is your gameplan this game just to echo my suspicions or what?

[Brian Skies]

Also, why do you care if I PM the mods about this or not (I haven't) when I can just throw an off-hand comment to tell him to knock it off? Why are you even suggesting I wait until the game is over to bring it up? Regardless of my alignment or his, if he's breaking a rule or in danger of breaking one, why should I table my concerns?

Also, Crayola, you haven't answered this.