Open 680.1 C9++ | Endgame

[Umlaut]

First of all, I don't really understand what point you're trying to make. And if it is what I think it is, then why are you using a reaction test on someone based on probability after spending the vast majority of this game getting on CK's case about it? It's incredibly hypocritical.

I got on CK's case because his math was just incorrect as a matter of fact, not because using probability is bad. I actually spent last roll posting detailed tables of probabilities after every PR claim/reveal, and was planning to do that again once we actually had some.

• A priori
  a player is about eight times more likely to be scum than they are to be a mason.
  
• If FB had seriously confirmed the mason "claim," these would be the only two possibilities with any significant likelihood.
  
• Therefore that claim alone would have made FB scum with 8:1 odds.
  
• This reasoning wouldn't work in just any case, because normally masons would have a far higher base rate for claiming mason than scum would.
  
• However,
  in this special case,
  FB would be about equally likely to do so in either case, so this reasoning
  does
  work.

I think this was an

excellent

reaction test even if it was inconclusive, and I would use it again.

[Brian Skies]

I got on CK's case because his math was just incorrect as a matter of fact, not because using probability is bad.

Okay, I may have gotten you confused with other people.

[FireScreamer]

@Alchemist, Gamma and Narna, what would it take to get you three to vote FS? We can't rely on the others because they've shown they will resist his wagon and if he flips red, we might be able to get two birds with one stone. If you can't help put him at L1, WHY is he town to you all? Look at his ISO, it's fluff, no cases built, nothing. He's relying on being "Town read" to get by. He's not actually trying to scum hunt.

My ISO has me doing more actual sorting attempts than anyone in the game.

[Green Crayons]

@FS:

GC can you attempt to interpret Gamma's side of our 1vs1 on his Commread for me?

Sure:

1.

Yo CommKnight

Doesn't the lack of cases made suggest a passive attitude from FireScreamer?

Your post not only tilted my read of FS to the scum side, it made me find a reason.

VOTE: FireScreamer

Can someone who isn't Commknight explain to me why they are voting me. Can they also explain to me why they think Commknight is voting for me.

I was voting you because Comm said you were playing at a lower level than your last run, but your last post seems to counter that.

I don't particularly care to read the last run so could you or Comm do a summary?

There's some disconnect here. The italics is why Gamma said he voted FS. But originally, it appeared the bolded phrase is what did it: Gamma read FS and decided that FS has a lack of cases = passive attitude = scum. Later, it appears that Gamma is justifying his FS vote (italics phrase) based solely on the underlined phrase--that is, because Comm was talking about a prior game. So, two bases to vote FS--because Gamma thinks FS is being passive, and because Comm said it's different FS play--but when challenged, Gamma relies solely on the latter (and can shift "blame" for his vote onto Comm).

I'm okay with this analysis except for the fact that it all happened pretty quickly. 912 happened late Tuesday night; 929 happened early Wednesday morning. There wasn't real pressure for Gamma to give up one of the bases for his vote, as only FS was asking for explanations.

@Gamma:

as a follow up, can you justify your observation that FS has made a "lack of cases"?

2.

So you voted with what I think was a previously expressed scumlean based on information you didn't care to corroborate?

I took his word. You can run down your actions last time right?

I don't know why you would ever take the word of someone you are reading as scum. This explanation suggests that the scumread was not particularly genuine.

3.

I took his word. You can run down your actions last time right?

CommKnight - The comments about not lynching his former scumbuddies is really weird, but I'm more disturbed by the voting of a townread for a claim. Would vote, but I am not ready for a claim right now.
FireScreamer - Seems like town, do like the open discussion of scumplay as a sign of not caring about preserving scum strategies.

You took the word of a scumread to vote a townread.

Not a scumread anymore. Reads change man.

This is not suspicious. Town are not required to update the town with their ever-changing reads. I don't do it. I don't expect it of others. There's a lot of reasons why not to do so, including depriving scum an accurate, up-to-date barometer of how town actually feels about every single player.

4.

Which parts made more sense and why?

His reads. He went from terrible math to more sensible content reads.

VOTE: Rory

You know. I'm going to grill you for this naked vote after what people made up for excuses to vote me.

- Case on Rory?
- What made you change?
- How confident are you he's scum?
- Looking for another claim today? Rolefisher!
- Not sure if bad play, or just terrible scum!

Come on guys, Brian must be scum, he hasn't even expanded upon this vote since then. His slot was scum last game, herp derp, all aboard the Brian wagon.

Jokevote: Brian Skies

No seriously, town got their head out of their collective asses enough to see GC is a bad choice. I honestly don't want him to claim but at the point I voted him it seemed there would have to be one from him so I wanted to get it done and over with rather than waiting around for some turtle to make up their mind they're going to put him to L1 and make him claim with less than 24 hours left.

So VOTE: FireScreamer <- It's a mistake not to put this one in the noose today.

@shannon, nah, I was just curious, maybe I should've made it clear that was non-game specific question or even taken it to pm. But I was wondering how it worked for the mods since they'd be able to modify the different topics and what not.

@Narna, I claimed VT. Claiming early is NAI (I'm not sure when people think L2 is early, we use to always claim L2, because no point in dragging it out and it prevents someone from making an excuse to cast the hammering vote).

I like this post. It shows a lot of thought, less spewwy than his posting about probabilities.

Which parts of it show a lot of thought. Which parts of it do you like?

I like the list, since it shows articulation. I feel the post shows clear pathways of logic.
Also, I've noted Brian has been wagon hopping a lot lately.

I have no incentive to overtly misrep what you say. Everyone is reading the same thread. Maybe this is a misunderstanding. Tell me again what you like about the post?

I like the way he laid out his points of discussion. It suggests town that is doubling down.

I see "The way he laid out" as meaning the formatting of the post. You arn't really talking about the content at all. Why does that suggest town is doubling down? Define doubling down.

It's like the organization. For some reason words are failing me.
Doubling down means to focus your efforts. It feels like town doubling down since he was in trouble and he shaped up.

This is lazy, and therefore something scum could readily adopt. Comm's probability theory was bad and it was all good fun to suspect him for it, but simply going from <pushing bad theory> to <making coherent arguments> is not alignment indicative.

5.

Why would town "double down" in a position where scum wouldn't?

Scum I believe would start to crack. He just soldiered on.

I don't know what this means, in practice.

Why are scum more likely to crack than town and less likely to try and shape up?

Scum react worse under pressure than town I think

At this point I'm not sure if I actually believe what I'm saying, I've been talking on

Which means this feels pretty genuine. Gamma recognizes that he's in a back and forth and just responding to the questions before him without thinking of the greater context in which they're being asked. That would appear to more likely come from town rather than scum who should be more concerned about how their answers look.

6.

If I provide an example of Comm being taken to claim early on day 1, claiming and then appearing to play better would you reverse your read?

Was he scum?

Yes

Well then there's a shot

Just a shot? You are basing your whole read on that and i'm telling you I can at least prove its NAI and you are telling me theres a SHOT?

I might spot some difference in behavior.

Feels more like directionless town.

[Alchemist21]

@Alchemist, Gamma and Narna, what would it take to get you three to vote FS? We can't rely on the others because they've shown they will resist his wagon and if he flips red, we might be able to get two birds with one stone. If you can't help put him at L1, WHY is he town to you all? Look at his ISO, it's fluff, no cases built, nothing. He's relying on being "Town read" to get by. He's not actually trying to scum hunt.

I haven't actually seen anything from Firescreamer that I think is scummy.

Is he less active this game? Sure. Is he more reactive in this game? Sure. But neither of those are things that can't come from Town. I'm not gonna vote Firescreamer until I see something I think is scummy.

[CommKnight]

@Alchemist. BUT you don't think he's townie neither. At the very least, it'd be a good idea to light a fire under his ass.

[FireScreamer]

@Alchemist. BUT you don't think he's townie neither. At the very least, it'd be a good idea to light a fire under his ass.

I'm the most active poster in the thread. I've engaged in far more pushes and discussion of pushes than you have. I don't need the fire. I AM the fire.

[FireScreamer]

@GC Do you think the change in tone from GC towards the end of that analysis is enough to excuse the play during the rest of it?

[FireScreamer]

from GE*

[FireScreamer]

@GC Do you think the change in tone from GC towards the end of that analysis is enough to excuse the play during the rest of it?

Also it's time to get off of Alchemist unless you can make a fresh case.

[FireScreamer]

First of all, I don't really understand what point you're trying to make. And if it is what I think it is, then why are you using a reaction test on someone based on probability after spending the vast majority of this game getting on CK's case about it? It's incredibly hypocritical.

I got on CK's case because his math was just incorrect as a matter of fact, not because using probability is bad. I actually spent last roll posting detailed tables of probabilities after every PR claim/reveal, and was planning to do that again once we actually had some.

• A priori
  a player is about eight times more likely to be scum than they are to be a mason.
  
• If FB had seriously confirmed the mason "claim," these would be the only two possibilities with any significant likelihood.
  
• Therefore that claim alone would have made FB scum with 8:1 odds.
  
• This reasoning wouldn't work in just any case, because normally masons would have a far higher base rate for claiming mason than scum would.
  
• However,
  in this special case,
  FB would be about equally likely to do so in either case, so this reasoning
  does
  work.

I think this was an

excellent

reaction test even if it was inconclusive, and I would use it again.

I withdraw my objection to what you did.

[FireScreamer]

Brian, what are your feelings on Titus' play? I'm not necessarily asking for a read, just whether you find it pro-town or think you understand her motivations.

All I know is that Titus is heavily reliant on VCA. However, the stars and the planets have aligned and we agree on a read, so I'm sheeping her. And the Rory wagon had no legs.

I think Narna is probably town. His comment about ToS (which I'm assuming to be Town of Salem), reminded me that there are players who actually do push people just to get a claim (it's not their fault though, their classic setup is predicated upon the idea that claim=alignment and they only get like 2-3 minutes per day phase).

I've gone back and tried to look at the game from a Town-CommKnight perspective. I've found myself townreading his thought processes.

Although I don't agree with him about the probability, I can see why he would think it. And FS piggybacking your argument against him felt wrong to me (he also piggybacked my reasons for scumreading

you

). I don't know if he's given a scumread that was based on his own original thought.

Spoiler: FireScreamer Quotes

But yeah. I feel like I've done something this game that I actively wouldn't do as scum and asked a couple of middling questions. The fact that Umlaut ignored the bigger thing makes me think the read wasn't super thought out and I think town is less likely to not properly think about townreads before expressing them.

UNVOTE:
VOTE: Comm

This gamblers fallacy stuff is lol. Time to pressure Comm till he reveals it was all a ruse and he is actually 1 shot doc pretending to be scummy.

And come on guys what are the odds of him doing that twice in a row

Eh. Usually I'd assume it's a town gambit but Commknight has already shown a willingness to make plays as scum. I don't think he should be gambiting and if that is what he is doing the quickest way to shut it down is votes.

Even is this was OMGUS that's NAI. However I challenge anyone in the thead to seriously decide that I wouldn't scumread you for this if it was targeting anyone else.

I warn you Comm. If you try and take me down here you will lose. If you are town you need to reconsider suiciding based on a provable logical fallacy. It would leave town with nothing to go on tomorrow.

Fearmongering.

I've already made a statement in the thread I wouldn't have as scum. And I assure you it wasn't a threat. It was a certainty.

^This is a trust tell statement.

If people come at me with questions in an attempt to sort me il work with them. If people come with accusations based in provably flawed logic I'm going to treat it as hostility.

If this is town vs town and you tunnel me down scum will just hop on the side that is making sense. That isn't your side.

Fearmongering. Also unnatural.

Generally I bet that this is reaction test nonsense in which case I'd tell you that you don't have town credability doing this so knock it off.

Unnatural. More fearmongering.

As a joke because he has started this game the same as last by trying to fite the player in the thread that has been most overtly townread.

Idk what this is. FS is putting himself on a pedestal and I didn't get the impression he was being overtly townread.

Interesting that all I have to do is mention the words 'trust tell,' and I get accused of fearmongering. Yet, that's exactly what FireScreamer is doing to CommKnight here. Not to mention that CommKnight is right that some of his comments sound very unnatural from a town perspective.

Spoiler: More FireScreamer Quotes

Uh, +1, or ditto, or whatever the cool kids are saying these days.

Lol, "cool kids." I'M COOL. So just follow me. The cool kids speak proper English. Not the lame "txt spk" kids do or the "1337 5p34k" either. Also that is a life tip for the younger ones playing. If you go to hit on a woman. Intelligence is much more valuable than that shit. (I mean, don't go rocket-sciency intelligence because the average high school girl will not give a rats ass about that and will look at you like you're weird. Even if you speak of Elon Musk. All the kids raving about environmentally friendly and all this liberal stuff. Yet don't even know who Elon Musk is or what he does. My coworkers don't care when I explain it out to them).

ANYWAY, back on topic.

- I've made a list of 2 people I won't lynch today due to probability (TODAY ONLY).
- I've TR'd two people.
- The other 8 people I'm up for lynching if there's a good case on them.

Had you previously stated the "today only" aspect of your probability thing?
Have you said who the TR's are?
Do you have any actual SR's yourself?

Are you aware of what the probability thing says to an observer who is outside the 3 people who get a free pass and the people you're directly arguing with?

Pedit: Yay, replacement!

I find it funny you ask me those things... since I'm literally the only person with an actual reads list in the game... that and I've stated those things multiple times. I mean heck, this is my 23rd post, so even ISO'ing me isn't so bad aside from my walls of text. (I'm going to build great walls... they're going to be great... the greatest you could say. I know people... important people... they'll help to ensure the USA pays for these walls. They're great people and I know them. Very important. Much Doge).

On a serious note. VOTE: FireScreamer.

His play feels off from last game.

{FrankJaeger, Brian Skies, Narna}
{Alchemist, Green Crayons}
{davesaz, Titus, shannon, RoryMK, Necta}
{Umlaut, FireScreamer}

If FireScreamer is red, I'm willing to bet Shannon is too.

VOTE: shannon

Is anyone allowed to ask why or are you wanting to engage Shannon herself?

Also, the likelyhood of mafia last game being mafia this game will actually probably be unlikely. So I'm pretty confident in the team being green this time around. But TB definitely rolled some of our bloc from last game as red this one. I'm willing to bet on it being FS of all people.

Look at that beaut. My first serious post of the day has an early reads list (and people have been getting antsy about it ever since.

My blocs went: Not lynching, slight-TR, Neutral, Suspicious.

As you can see, Umlaut falls on that bloc very easily.

I'm certainly not lynching anyone

today

that was scum last game,

because that is counter-intuitive. It is a gambler's bet. But it's a bet even you know is likely to be correct. Rolling something twice in a row is highly unlikely. Especially if we end up being in a 2 mafia vs 10 VT & 1 1-shot PR game.

Either way,

I'd be willing to roll the dice on either FireScreamer or Umlaut.

It's a hunch,

but it's more than likely a right one and they're gonna rip on me after the game for "getting lucky" if I'm correct. But we'll see.

And oh mah gawd. My next post literally has me saying I won't lynch them TODAY. Then I even went on to say my Umlaut/FS reads were a HUNCH. It's almost like these two posts everyone has gone crazy over... because they might be... RIGHT.

Anyway, I don't mean to be a sarcastic prick.. oh wait. Yes I do. (No I'm just being an ass because my ISO is a quick read when you read those two posts and then base everything since then from those.). Seriously though, think about how Umlaut and FS have reacted since and the wagon forming on me based on those two serious posts of the day. I mean I get I didn't have the BEST case on them at the time (there was nothing solid to go on back then). But now.. as stated in one of my latest posts.

Again, you're taking it too literally and skipping over the parts that help make it make sense. Not sure if intentional or if you're reading what you want to read into me.

- I've made a list of 2 people I won't lynch today due to probability (TODAY ONLY).
- I've TR'd two people.
- The other 8 people I'm up for lynching if there's a good case on them.
- Instead of building said case on them, you worry about defending FS. Which honestly started as a simple SR as scummy behaviour. But mixed with your defense of him. I'm willing to bet more on there being one scum in the two of you if you aren't both scum.

If you don't like my SR of yourself or FS, feel free to make a case for something. But worrying about me providing burden of proof (when there is none currently for anyone) is itself a fallacy. In fact, your entire thing and vote on me is that I don't have a solid case to vote FS. (Which shouldn't worry you unless you somehow know for certain he is town). Which I could argue the same back against you both. You got no real case. Just votes on me for voting FS and suspecting him. Which IS an OMGUS vote.

Back when I was going on about the probability numbers, you guys are soo worried I won't lynch into two other people (and myself included). I'm not enforcing this rule on others. But *I* won't vote in the pool. (Which of course I'm in the pool, I'm not going to vote myself. Herp a derp).

But yet you keep pushing this "Why won't you lynch X?" crud. Unless you got a case against either of them, then it's wise to drop it. Because why aren't YOU lynching X? Again, I have TWO people I'm not voting for DAY ONE. This is what you guys blew out of proportion because I said the random probability is lower on them being scum than others. Then you get antsy about a vote on FS. Again, unless you got some reason to solid TR him, you should want more information from the slot as well, should you not? Or are you going to claim mason buddies? Otherwise your defense of the slot as a townie makes zero sense. You should want to sort EVERYONE, but you're using past-game-confirmation-bias to be against my style of play while writing off the difference in FS now play compared to last game play.

Do I need to spell it out any clearer? So far you and FS have been the most scummy in my eyes and it's only getting worse. Want to prove me wrong? Then let us get more info, or you find a good case for me to look at. Because currently I only see the one valid case of your defense of FS and overreaction to initial reads. Part of it was gut, but now it's your guys' play thus far.

Fastposted by Umlaut. Well as I've stated in this post, it's leaving the probability phase and entering a more reaction phase. I had nothing solid to go on now, but now I believe I do. (Read the above paragraphs).

For real, read the first two posts I quoted of myself. Where in them did I say no one else could look into Frank or Blue Skies? I just said I wouldn't lynch them today based on probability. Which like the probability or not, or like the reasoning or not. It's my own train of thought and it is most likely right this game based on their overreaction to it thus far.

@Rory, the above was towards Dave, but I'm really interested on WHAT you support about my wagon. I just pointed out the two things people got all antsy over me for which can be reread in my VERY short ISO. So what do you agree with again? Because you're sliding down any chance of being TR'd for today. That's for sure. At least Daves isn't blindly following something they see as an easy mislynch. To me, you seem less interested in why the wagon is formed on me or even reason to vote me. Just you see something forming and voting it. Am I wrong?

Also, you never answered my question. When you play a game, do you avoid the PT area of the forum on your moderator account?

"The capital of France is Berlin"

"No it is Paris"

"Wow you shook get him boyz"

I didn't really understand this interaction at the time. However, reading through it again, I find myself sympathizing with CommKnight.

I'd rather reread the thread tomorrow before giving a considered full reads list.

Scum leans -

[CommKnight], Umlaut,

Brian

Town leans Alchemist, GC, Dave

I still stand by my accusation of this being incredibly fencesitty and noncommittal.

I can probably do a more in depth case later, but that seems fine to me. Also, I'm hungry and need to do some things before work.

I want justification for the following statements.

1. Either you independently agree with Titus or you are sheeping her. Which is it?
2. The narna townread. Why?
3. Why is it wrong to "piggyback" an argument against a demonstrably incorrect strategy such as gamblers fallacy? There is a right answer and a wrong answer and there are only so many ways to express that.
4. Show me where I piggyback your umlaut read or reasoning in any way.
5. You don't know if I've given a scumread based on my own original thought? Go back and actually look. If you still want to defend that statement once you say you have done that be my guest.
6. Why do my statements seem unnatural from a town perspective?

[Green Crayons]

@GC Do you think the change in tone from GC towards the end of that analysis is enough to excuse the play during the rest of it?

Not particularly. I don't have a problem with Gamma votes.

[Green Crayons]

Also it's time to get off of Alchemist unless you can make a fresh case.

See:

Three quick votes on GC - 402, 403, 404 (for unrelated stuff - complaining about someone complaining about trust tells)
410 Alchemist could support the GC wagon but wants to stay on Rory

Gamma brings up the Titus voting me issue again in 412 (he has been ISOing GC?) and asks for an explanation.
GC responds in 421

Alchemist gets involved, says it doesn't look like GC was expressing suspicion in 132. (See 425).
GC responds in 519
Alchemist 532 'You didn't call (titus) out for lack of reasoning, but for voting before you did'

The rest I am calling 'blah blah blah'.

Comm's being weird again like last game, but I can't tell if it's scummy or just plain bad.

What would help you get off this fence?

If someone could make a good case for or against him. Right now it's hard to not see the things he's done as just bad play, because even scum would normally know this is bad.

So is Alchemist always this hesitant to join wagons when he's scum?

Also, the "I'm going to fence sit until someone else does the work for me kthx" is bad and bolsters the theory that he's waiting to find an excuse to join an already popular wagon.

[FireScreamer]

Has anyone responded to that argument? Either make a new one, make the same one better or start sorting elsewhere.

[CommKnight]

@GC, yes start sorting elsewhere. Sort FS with me.

[FireScreamer]

@GC Do you think the change in tone from GC towards the end of that analysis is enough to excuse the play during the rest of it?

Not particularly. I don't have a problem with Gamma votes.

Yeah looks like we are at the same place on that. Like I get what you mean about the tonal shift but was there really anywhere else for him to go?

[FireScreamer]

Comm can you lay out why you actually think I am scum again?

[FireScreamer]

Don't wall of text me either because I am having trouble interacting with that from you. We can go into the why of why afterwards. Summarize your reasoning behind the read in say 3 sentences.

[Green Crayons]

Has anyone responded to that argument? Either make a new one, make the same one better or start sorting elsewhere.

I can't force Alchemist to respond to anything.

I've already spewed a lot of words into this thread. I'm not interested in adding more just to restate things I've already said.

Sorting is easy.

01. davesaz: null
02. Narna: possible scum
03. shannon: likely town
04. Firebringer (replaces FrankJaeger): null
05. Alchemist21: possible scum
06. Green Crayons: town
07. Brian Skies: possible town
08. Titus: possible town
09. RoryMK *: possible scum
10. Gamma Emerald (replaces Necta): possible scum
11. Umlaut: likely town
12. CommKnight: possible town
13. FireScreamer: likely town

It's also easily incorrect because this is D1.

[Green Crayons]

V/LA: Thursday, April 27 to Sunday, April 30

.

Best man duties in an out-of-town wedding.

Noted

[FireScreamer]

Have fun.

[Green Crayons]

@GC Do you think the change in tone from GC towards the end of that analysis is enough to excuse the play during the rest of it?

Not particularly. I don't have a problem with Gamma votes.

Yeah looks like we are at the same place on that. Like I get what you mean about the tonal shift but was there really anywhere else for him to go?

As scum? Prob no if he took the tactic of not being aggressive.

[FireScreamer]

If you could talk about your Narna read before you go that would be nice, though we will still be here when you get back.

[davesaz]

Serious busy all around. I'm at the bottom of 29.