Open 713: Jungle Republic [Game Over]

[Espeonage]

I was about to give beef some points but then remembered this is multiball so like nup.

[Espeonage]

It seems actually quite scummy to me you'd do that.
VOTE: Thor

Why did you vote when the post previous looks like you take the case as a misrep?

[BuJaber]

@korina huh.. I don't get your last question? Skitter's theory is far-fetched for sure but the advantage for scum!thor is obvious.

That's interesting, as I don't actually think it is.
What's the advantage for me if I'm scum to put myself into a 1 v 1 situation?

@thor
I agree maybe it feels weird that I would call something you did scummy and yet townread you in the same post. But that is how I feel. Town can do a lot of scummy things. I weighed the scummy thing you did (imo) against the townie things and the townie things outweigh it.

Actually it wasn't the town read - it was that you offered a soft town read while also calling me out for giving a soft town read.
You left yourself as much of a backdoor as I did. So why is it when I did it = questionable, but yet you're doing it also?
That's the double standard.

Like why would you even bother stating a read on me there anyway?

It helps me remember what I was thinking at any given point when I'm assessing the game later.

Fair enough I misinterpretted what you were saying to me earlier.

As for the advantage it's basically what skitter said in 68. If you are scum you can probably win the argument, get people to lynch whoever you choose to engage (paradox in this case) while also appearing like town because "where is the town motivation?" As wilky and others have asked.

You've already secured a town read from most players even those arguing that you could be scum. So even if you don't get paradox lynched a scum!you would have gained a lot of value from the fight you instigated.

[Thor665]

Well I read through your ISO and you don't ever say he's scum or make a similar implication anywhere else. But "you're full of noise" != "your stance isn't supported". To me it more suggests something along the lines of "you're full of empty words". As in you're saying nothing while trying to appear to be saying something. I don't want to nitpick language here, if your meaning was along the lines of you don't agree with his stance than that's fine.

I agree, it is fine - I'm just curious why you automatically decided to attack me over a theory concept of my desire that was unsupported in anything I did or said (Skitter's doing it too, and I suspect the reality is both of you are equating aggressive with scummy - but that's such an obvious fallacy that I want you to unpack the thoughts and lay them on the table so I can be sure).

The only weird thing is that you're going at him aggressively for a first post. I expected RVS, and you came right off the bat with this PL vote. Like, I'm not surprised it got someone to respond.

The "only weird thing" is that I used my RVS in a way that was nearly assured to generate a response...
What am I supposed to use RVS for? Something that *doesn't* generate a response?
I would suggest that's bad/scummy play.
Why do you consider the opposite to be true?

3 - yes, I basically think you decided to force the conflict and present it as binary and as being an *issue* (as opposed to letting it become a thing to not become a thing naturally) with Paradox because I think you know that you can probably get more people to agree with you than Paradox can

Okay, so I, as scum, saw someone post a questionable attack.
I didn't call the attack scummy (feel free to prove me wrong on that), but brought it up as an issue and asked for more info and clarification/support on the stance.
In doing so I set up a situation where other people could assess the issue and offer their thoughts.

Does that describe your case?
Because, and maybe it's just me, that describes "scumhunting" to me.
If the above doesn't describe your case - clarify where I'm misrepping it.
If it does describe your case - can you describe how you think it differs from scumhunting.

Everything else is burden of proficiency, yeah?
Just because I'm more capable of winning a debate with someone does not mean that, by definition, I am scum and they are town. It is quite possible I am town and am just capable of winning debates...yeah? I'm pretty sure I'm allowed to scumhunt people I can debate better than and still be protown.

It's multiball. You can be scum and still scumhunt and make legitimate points against someone else.

Statistically it's better to find someone who you think is town and sheep their random vote, then to sheep anything by scum at this stage of the setup.
So...meh.

I'm saying that I think Thor deliberately instigated/highlighted/framed/created a conflict that he could probably win that might not have existed otherwise by presenting it as binary.

Can you describe the non-binary possibilities of the disagreement?
I'll wait.

But the actual diction/semantics/word choice is not the point. Like you already agreed with me that you set it up as binary:

I agree I set it up as binary.
I disagree that I set it up as scum/town, which you appear to be implying for your case to make sense. I look forward to being proven wrong about that.

As for the advantage it's basically what skitter said in 68. If you are scum you can probably win the argument, get people to lynch whoever you choose to engage (paradox in this case) while also appearing like town because "where is the town motivation?" As wilky and others have asked.

You've already secured a town read from most players even those arguing that you could be scum. So even if you don't get paradox lynched a scum!you would have gained a lot of value from the fight you instigated.

1. How does me being better at debating someone suggest I am more likely scum?
2. I'll agree that other players are noticing that I am using logic and appear to be scumhunting. I'll also agree that a roughly equal number of players are calling my aggressiveness/being town read scummy. So...?

[Thor665]

Also, I'm going to do this;

VOTE: skitter

Until he can describe how he isn't calling me scum for scumhunting.

[TheGoldenParadox]

VOTE: Paradox

Trying to make something out of nothing

VOTE: Wilky
I understand it's supposed to be a joke, but chainsaw defensing someone the third post of the game? I could see you as scum not wanting to be on a mislynch wagon that doesn't go anywhere and trying to get onto who you know is a very mislynchable player, then claim that you started it as a joke and it shouldn't have be taken seriously when suspicion is on you.

[wilky]

VOTE: Paradox

Trying to make something out of nothing

VOTE: Wilky
I understand it's supposed to be a joke, but chainsaw defensing someone the third post of the game? I could see you as scum not wanting to be on a mislynch wagon that doesn't go anywhere and trying to get onto who you know is a very mislynchable player, then claim that you started it as a joke and it shouldn't have be taken seriously when suspicion is on you.

You really do read to much into RVS don't you, by that account why would I have voted off of you again in page 1 if I was voting you as a mislynch option?

[BuJaber]

You missed the point. I wasn't saying you are more likely to be scum.
I was simply saying that if you were scum what you did could have been a successful gambit to mislynch a townie. Skitter is going too far and saying you actually are scum because of this. As for me I only agree with him on that a scum motivation does exist for doing it.

I am seeing a level of motivation from paradox that I have never seen (or heard about) before.
We have 5 anti town roles. I am quite confident that lynching a lurker would be favorable to town in this setup.

UNVOTE:
VOTE: not mafia

[BuJaber]

Didn't finish point about paradox: I want to see more of it. This should be encouraged.

[TheGoldenParadox]

You missed the point. I wasn't saying you are more likely to be scum.
I was simply saying that if you were scum what you did could have been a successful gambit to mislynch a townie. Skitter is going too far and saying you actually are scum because of this. As for me I only agree with him on that a scum motivation does exist for doing it.

I am seeing a level of motivation from paradox that I have never seen (or heard about) before.

Well, I'm still a newbie.

We have 5 anti town roles. I am quite confident that lynching a lurker would be favorable to town in this setup.

UNVOTE:
VOTE: not mafia

I disagree. In my opinion, lynching a lurker will hurt town because in my opinion, scum would be slightly more motivated than town and would lurk less in this high proportion of scum.

[wilky]

You missed the point. I wasn't saying you are more likely to be scum.
I was simply saying that if you were scum what you did could have been a successful gambit to mislynch a townie. Skitter is going too far and saying you actually are scum because of this. As for me I only agree with him on that a scum motivation does exist for doing it.

I am seeing a level of motivation from paradox that I have never seen (or heard about) before.

Well, I'm still a newbie.

We have 5 anti town roles. I am quite confident that lynching a lurker would be favorable to town in this setup.

UNVOTE:
VOTE: not mafia

I disagree. In my opinion, lynching a lurker will hurt town because in my opinion, scum would be slightly more motivated than town and would lurk less in this high proportion of scum.

Can you answer my question?

If I was scum motivated to cause a mislynch on you on the first page why did I vote off of you in the first page too?

[Montosh]

I'm not surprised that people are engaging in it. I am suspicious of people who see an argument and immediately infer that one of the participants must be scum. This feels opportunistic to me.

And where did anyone declare someone as definitely scum in this argument? I just saw people saying certain behaviour seemed like it could be scummy.

I already pointed to 33 and 46 as examples of people trying to frame this as TvS.

Neither of those posts demonstrate someone framing it as Town vs Scum. I don't know where you feel you're getting this from. This feels like you're trying to stay above the argument while framing all those who do engage as suspicious.

@Thor: If it's a T v T, some scum might egg it on sure but I feel like scum are more likely to try and not get too involved with it Day 1,

given that a mislynch is generally pretty likely anyway first day.

In

this

setup? Mmm... This comment bothers me.

Statistics bother you? Yes, In

this

setup. 12 people, 3 mafia, 2 werewolves, 7 town.

Just to explain myself, Thor's frustration with my playstyle is fresh and looks very town. His defense of half-jokingly PL'ing me is genuine.

Why couldn't I be scum and also honestly consider you a valid policy lynch?

It's certainly possible, but given other evidence (particularly your obvtown response), I just don't think you're scum. I mean, the fact that you're willing to raise this question says something. I probably would have ignored it had I been scum.

I could speculate things like "because it would be too easy", but that's on par with WIFOM in terms of unhelpfulness.

This strikes me the wrong way. Your whole play seems centred around defending Thor. If we have town!Thor, then this strikes me as you trying to buddy up with him by defending him and attacking those attacking him. Laserguy is sorta doing this too. Yours strikes me more though, you feel like a follower on top of it. At least Laserguy was pushing their own things, even if it strays closer to buddying Thor than I'm comfortable with/

VOTE: Beefster

Well I read through your ISO and you don't ever say he's scum or make a similar implication anywhere else. But "you're full of noise" != "your stance isn't supported". To me it more suggests something along the lines of "you're full of empty words". As in you're saying nothing while trying to appear to be saying something. I don't want to nitpick language here, if your meaning was along the lines of you don't agree with his stance than that's fine.

I agree, it is fine - I'm just curious why you automatically decided to attack me over a theory concept of my desire that was unsupported in anything I did or said (Skitter's doing it too, and I suspect the reality is both of you are equating aggressive with scummy - but that's such an obvious fallacy that I want you to unpack the thoughts and lay them on the table so I can be sure).

I disagree that I was attacking you. Your initial statement seemed to imply that he was scummy, and I'm not the only one who noticed this. I find your style of play difficult to parse yes, simply because you're throwing so much out there in different directions and I'm having trouble locking you down. I

could

see that as a scummy thing to do, but I want to establish where you're going with what you say and if this is consistent with your normal style of play.

The only weird thing is that you're going at him aggressively for a first post. I expected RVS, and you came right off the bat with this PL vote. Like, I'm not surprised it got someone to respond.

The "only weird thing" is that I used my RVS in a way that was nearly assured to generate a response...
What am I supposed to use RVS for? Something that *doesn't* generate a response?
I would suggest that's bad/scummy play.
Why do you consider the opposite to be true?

I think it's probably fairly good play. But it doesn't feel like the norm exactly. Does it really surprise you that people reacted to that? Like, I think i'm getting that your style of play is to after

every

thread of info hard, but I can't believe you've never had people being off put a little by just how hard you go at it.

[Montosh]

@mutant It's been more than 48 hours since game start, can we get a prod on Not Mafia? Also, happy birthday!

- Yeah, I was planning to do this but then my birthday got in the way :3 Thanks for the birthday wish <3

[Beefster]

@Montosh: basically what you're saying is that I'm scum because I defended a player I think is town. IMO, you need some flips before buddying theories hold water.

GoldenParadox is looking suspicious, but I'll admit I'm sheeping wilky somewhat.

Korina vote stays.

[TheGoldenParadox]

You missed the point. I wasn't saying you are more likely to be scum.
I was simply saying that if you were scum what you did could have been a successful gambit to mislynch a townie. Skitter is going too far and saying you actually are scum because of this. As for me I only agree with him on that a scum motivation does exist for doing it.

I am seeing a level of motivation from paradox that I have never seen (or heard about) before.

Well, I'm still a newbie.

We have 5 anti town roles. I am quite confident that lynching a lurker would be favorable to town in this setup.

UNVOTE:
VOTE: not mafia

I disagree. In my opinion, lynching a lurker will hurt town because in my opinion, scum would be slightly more motivated than town and would lurk less in this high proportion of scum.

Can you answer my question?

If I was scum motivated to cause a mislynch on you on the first page why did I vote off of you in the first page too?

I feel your vote on LaserGuy could be due to the fact that he called you out on a decently valid point, and you voted him to minimize that. Could you please explain why you changed your vote?

[LaserGuy]

Neither of those posts demonstrate someone framing it as Town vs Scum. I don't know where you feel you're getting this from. This feels like you're trying to stay above the argument while framing all those who do engage as suspicious.

I'm looking for scum. I do not think that there is anything of particular interest in the argument itself.

@Thor: If it's a T v T, some scum might egg it on sure but I feel like scum are more likely to try and not get too involved with it Day 1,

given that a mislynch is generally pretty likely anyway first day.

In

this

setup? Mmm... This comment bothers me.

Statistics bother you? Yes, In

this

setup. 12 people, 3 mafia, 2 werewolves, 7 town.

Your perspective is wrong. For Town, the odds of hitting scum D1 in this game are ridiculously good. In a typical setup, it's like 20%. In this game, it's nearly 50%. Your comment makes sense coming from the point of view of scum, but not of Town.

[wilky]

You missed the point. I wasn't saying you are more likely to be scum.
I was simply saying that if you were scum what you did could have been a successful gambit to mislynch a townie. Skitter is going too far and saying you actually are scum because of this. As for me I only agree with him on that a scum motivation does exist for doing it.

I am seeing a level of motivation from paradox that I have never seen (or heard about) before.

Well, I'm still a newbie.

We have 5 anti town roles. I am quite confident that lynching a lurker would be favorable to town in this setup.

UNVOTE:
VOTE: not mafia

I disagree. In my opinion, lynching a lurker will hurt town because in my opinion, scum would be slightly more motivated than town and would lurk less in this high proportion of scum.

Can you answer my question?

If I was scum motivated to cause a mislynch on you on the first page why did I vote off of you in the first page too?

I feel your vote on LaserGuy could be due to the fact that he called you out on a decently valid point, and you voted him to minimize that. Could you please explain why you changed your vote?

Unless I was reading it wrong LaserGuy never seriously called me out and just added to the RVS stage. If I thought he was seriously calling me out would I place such an obvious omgus on him? Again, what would be the scum motivation for me to do that aswell? You seem to be calling me out for something that I just can't see motivation for scum!me to do.

[TheGoldenParadox]

You missed the point. I wasn't saying you are more likely to be scum.
I was simply saying that if you were scum what you did could have been a successful gambit to mislynch a townie. Skitter is going too far and saying you actually are scum because of this. As for me I only agree with him on that a scum motivation does exist for doing it.

I am seeing a level of motivation from paradox that I have never seen (or heard about) before.

Well, I'm still a newbie.

We have 5 anti town roles. I am quite confident that lynching a lurker would be favorable to town in this setup.

UNVOTE:
VOTE: not mafia

I disagree. In my opinion, lynching a lurker will hurt town because in my opinion, scum would be slightly more motivated than town and would lurk less in this high proportion of scum.

Can you answer my question?

If I was scum motivated to cause a mislynch on you on the first page why did I vote off of you in the first page too?

I feel your vote on LaserGuy could be due to the fact that he called you out on a decently valid point, and you voted him to minimize that. Could you please explain why you changed your vote?

Unless I was reading it wrong LaserGuy never seriously called me out and just added to the RVS stage. If I thought he was seriously calling me out would I place such an obvious omgus on him? Again, what would be the scum motivation for me to do that aswell? You seem to be calling me out for something that I just can't see motivation for scum!me to do.

The way I read it, he did call you out. I don't think a RVS ever existed in this game. What would be the scum motivation for you to OMGUS him? Well, he made a valid point against you that you were making nothing out of something, aka minimizing what I said. You OMGUSed him, I feel, because you wanted to minimize what he said.

[wilky]

The way I read it, he did call you out. I don't think a RVS ever existed in this game. What would be the scum motivation for you to OMGUS him? Well, he made a valid point against you that you were making nothing out of something, aka minimizing what I said. You OMGUSed him, I feel, because you wanted to minimize what he said.

He took my RVS vote on you and flipped two words, its definitely a vote based on low information which is pretty much the whole definition of RVS. I don't see how omgusing the vote would "minimise" it either. If anything it would draw attention to it.

[Not_Mafia]

Okay I'm here now, didn't get a daystart PM

- Goddammit I knew I was forgetting something... In fairness to this, your prod won't count as one of the 3 required for a force replace.

[Not_Mafia]

VOTE: Thor because Thor

[Not_Mafia]

VOTE: wilky Serious vote, Montosh is scum too. Wolves NK Thor pls

[wilky]

VOTE: wilky Serious vote, Montosh is scum too. Wolves NK Thor pls

This is opportunistic af.

[Not_Mafia]

It's not

[Korina]

Ok, expect me to be somewhat active this entire week.
My vote on Thor is because I get a serious scum vibe from what he was planning. I can't describe it any other way.

Also, side-note: are all days gonna be 15ish irl days? Jfc that's a long time.

-All days are 14 irl days long. This is typical of most standard games on mafiascum (at least, that’s the impression I’ve got).