"Don't look too town as scum"

[RadiantCowbells]

On the other hand people like NSG have overwhelming 80% town winrates in 2018 so good townies can definitely bring games in

[Ankamius]

Well yeah town CAN hard carry games

It's just a lot harder, same with hard carrying as scum

[Nancy Drew 39]

That seems like an awful lot of mistakes

Scum is a lot harder when you can't take over the game through force of will, since you can run into those pitfalls a lot more easily

It’s also at least partially dependent on your teammates. Having Numbers force us to bus him, didn’t give us a good start and then there was that insane list, where he outted the entire team that Muffin almost caught.

[Ankamius]

That seems like an awful lot of mistakes :P

Scum is a lot harder when you can't take over the game through force of will, since you can run into those pitfalls a lot more easily

It’s also at least partially dependent on your teammates. Having Numbers force us to bus him, didn’t give us a good start and then there was that insane list, where he outted the entire team that Muffin almost caught. :facepalm:

I caught three of you day one >_>

I just happened to let my read of you go

And then I caught a fourth when I was waiting to reenter the game

[Nancy Drew 39]

Setup is also a major factor. In two A50 games, I was on the bad side of swing. In OK 1, I was felled by a flavour cop and in OK 2, I lost to an SK who received amnesiac cop results. :/

[Nancy Drew 39]

That seems like an awful lot of mistakes

Scum is a lot harder when you can't take over the game through force of will, since you can run into those pitfalls a lot more easily

It’s also at least partially dependent on your teammates. Having Numbers force us to bus him, didn’t give us a good start and then there was that insane list, where he outted the entire team that Muffin almost caught.

I caught three of you day one >_>

I just happened to let my read of you go

And then I caught a fourth when I was waiting to reenter the game

It was my first scumgame ever. I made the mistake of just trying to mimic Titus.

But you also thought Numbers had “town markers”.

[Ankamius]

It was my first scumgame ever. I made the mistake of just trying to mimic Titus.

But you also thought Numbers had “town markers”. :lol:

That was more me tilting from the way you were responding to me than anything else

Titus being elected snapped me out of that real quick

[Nancy Drew 39]

It was my first scumgame ever. I made the mistake of just trying to mimic Titus.

But you also thought Numbers had “town markers”.

That was more me tilting from the way you were responding to me than anything else

Titus being elected snapped me out of that real quick

I think I did pretty well for my first time, all things considered.

Having lots of mislynchbaitytown also helps a lot. That’s at least part of the reason, I won my first scumgame on MU, that and strategically planned night kills.

[Ankamius]

I'm still the only person who will ever be the first person that caught you as scum though

don't forget that ;)

[Nancy Drew 39]

I'm still the only person who will ever be the first person that caught you as scum though

don't forget that

I know, you never forget your first. You’ll always have a place in my scummy heart. <3

Spoiler:

[RadiantCowbells]

Can I be the only person who was the first person to claim an innocent on you for purity when you were town?

[mhsmith0]

It could be worse, you coudl wake up to THIS kind of treatment in your very first 24 hours as scum

Spoiler:

Caught up. Not actually calling Luckbox a horse.

IAWY, the reasons you gave in the post when you unvoted mhsmith do not, as far as I can tell, have anything to do with mhsmith or your read on him. Am I missing something?

mhsmith0. have you deliberately tried to change anything about your town game since last we played?

@UDC: per CTR (our GM last game):

The lack of aggression in the town was sad to see.

. So I'm trying to be more aggressive. Was that what you meant? Or was there something else? I'm definitely trying to improve my game (including playing a bit on a different site), so there may be something else in there that's different. If you want to clarify, I can mull something more specific over.

I wouldn't think too much about what I'm looking for. I just wanted you to go on record about how, if at all, you've consciously tried to change your town game since last we played. Because you oound pretty different. "More aggressive" explains some of it. I feel like your certainty expressed here:

If "too serious too early" is wolf indicative, how bad do you want to lynch Calvary right now?
[MENTION=614"]Luckbox Inc[/MENTION"]

It's not JUST the seriousness, it's the inability to tell a joke when someone is pushing you, which suggests defensiveness. If there weren't others who failed to realize the jokey nature of the post, I'd be a lot more supicious of you here, but as it is, that really does feel like a failed reaction test.

Actually, toss in the "Don't look at me, look over there instead" deflection based on a (I think) misunderstanding of what Luck was actually getting at, and I'm comfortable switching my vote to
VOTE: Cron

feels way too high compared to any actual evidence against Cron in thread. I remember you having a similar reaction to GregorV early in our game together, but sort of moving away from that as the game went on and I was trying to figure out if you've continued working on that or not. You were starting to become a little e more paranoid and looking at things from both sides and this reads as a regression in that respect.

Did you read Cron's posting as being from a frame of mind of righteous indignation or general crankiness? I want to know if there's something specific you saw that pointed that way, or if it was more of a "well it could have been that" sort of point. If the former, please point me to where you saw it.

If the latter, would you agree that defensiveness (especially in the context of a clear non-serious post) is scum indicative? Not smoking gun, of course, but at least more consistent with a scum perspective than a town one? From your above post, I get the sense that you're even disagreeing with that association. A bit more info about your perspective here would be welcome.

PS You said my vote was "weak". What strong votes have you seen in this game?

PPS I'd like to see why Cuth's read on Cron switched as well.

PPPS Nice to see you too. Hopefully we can be part of a better town this time than last. If nothing else I'm liking some of the energy I'm seeing so far.

What do you mean by you'd like to see Cuth's read on Cron switched?

Are you still voting Cron? Rewinding a whole bunch, it seems like your vote is premised laregely on treating this post:

If "too serious too early" is wolf indicative, how bad do you want to lynch Calvary right now?
[MENTION=614"]Luckbox Inc[/MENTION"]

As an attempt by Cron to divert Luckbox's attention to Cavalry. Is that right? Does that seem like the only possible interpretation of Cron's post, or even the best one? It seems entirely likely to me that he just wants to see how consistently Luck is applying this metric to other players. And it's pretty softball attention he's getting at this point I have trouble seeing anyone but a very inexperienced player consciously trying to divert onto someone else at that point in the game.

...
What does this ("inability to tell a joke when someone is pushing you") mean exactly, and why is defensiveness a town/wolf trait in your view?

[MENTION=140"]Crunkus[/MENTION"]: to me, it was an overly serious reaction to what I'd expect town to be rolling eyes over. then it turned into what I read as a deflection towards Calvary for what I thought were insincere reasons. Luck later came back and said that it was solely intended to be a test of seriousness (which surprised me I'll admit), but I still think Cron was deflecting, which to me is reflective of a scum mindset. I need to evaluate everything else Cron has said since, but at this time I haven't seen enough to pull or switch my vote.
PS wrt 201, I think I answered above. I was also troubled by your inability to see the obvious joke as obvious joke, but Cron was the one more who took that misread and ran with it more (plus the whole deflection thing)

[MENTION=654"]UpsideDownChuck[/MENTION"] (and sjg11):
really? "What do you mean by you'd like to see Cuth's read on Cron switched?" I said "I'd like to see [b"]

why

[/b"]Cuth's read on Cron switched as well." The "why" is important.

PS It's clearly not the only interpretation of Cron's post, but I think it's the best one. Will I re-evaluate as I see more content from Cron and others? Of course. Have I seen enough to change my position at this time? No.

PPS @sjg: well, I'm am seeing more energy from this group. Is there something else fundamentally different about this group than the last one?

I retracted the 'why' question on Cuth. Your answer to the part I actually care about is giving me flashbacks to condude's four samoan cousins. Why do you think it's the best answer?

Sorry that condude/samoan reference is probably totally inaccessible to most of the people here. The short of it is that I'm dissatisfied with this answer:

[quote=""mhsmith0""]
PS It's clearly not the only interpretation of Cron's post, but I think it's the best one. Will I re-evaluate as I see more content from Cron and others? Of course. Have I seen enough to change my position at this time? No.

and how it asserts without explaining anything.[/quote]

VOTE: mhsmith0

@UDC: you retracted, by the preview post functionality doesn't pop up when I've been ninja'd (that or I'm doing it wrong).

wrt condude's four samoan cousins, he had a bizarre guess about how CTR's puppet point functionality might possibly have functioned, and declared to the whole board that he had it solved based on really nothing but his own intuition. I have what I think is a reasonable and accurate read on Cron, based on an attitude that I saw as scummy. So if you want to draw that analogy, please explain:

1) Why my cited behavior (defensiveness and deflecting) is inconsistent with what Cron did at the time of my vote (i.e. why my facts are wrong)

2) Why my association of those behaviors with scum is incorrect (i.e. why my theory is wrong)
I (think I) understand why sjg doesn't like my vote; what is your objection?

PS Reasons for your vote on me? You don't like my vote? Something else?
[MENTION=26"]soah[/MENTION"]: I have been looking at him (and haven't been as bugged by his post-vote behavior), but I also am working, and posting as I go. I want to take the time to more carefully look at Cron divorced from my mindset of when I was voting him. A full re-read hasn't happened yet.

I feel like I just explained why I don't think he's "deflecting":

It's entirely plausible he's trying to figure out how consistently Luckbox applies his TSTE standard across different players and it's so early in the game and such a light read that deliberately trying to "shift focus" seems unnecessary for scum in that spot. You've asserted that his deflection is the "best explanation" but you haven't said why it's better than the above, and I think the onus is on you there.

As for defensiveness, no I don't agree that it is scum indicative in and of itself. It's a pretty broad term but Cron's response was to ask why Luckbox considered asking questions and interacting wolfy, and then advise him to reconsider that. That seems perfectly well within the bounds of town play. He's trying to understand Luckbox's process better and encourage him to play better if he is in fact town. Again the onus is on you to explain why it is wolfy, which you've asserted but not actually done beyond an appeal to 'common wisdom'

Thoughts on mhsmith?

Was gonna tag people but interested in just about everyone.

Smith do you maintain that 'deliberately deflecting attention' is a more plausible explanation for Cron's original post to Luckbox than the reasons I, and Cron, have given? If so, why? If not, why are you still voting him?

[quote=""mhsmith0""]
wrt @UpsideDownChuck case: there have been a few things floating around. I feel like I've addressed a good # of them. One point that I did NOT actually address, that seems to have been especially notable for him (since it set off his vote), was UDC's "WHY do you think it's the best answer" at 223 [url"]http://www.mafiauniverse.com/threads...l=1#post263230[/url"]

He's right: my answer didn't address what he was getting at. Just restating that I read it that way. So why did I feel it was the best answer? It seemed jarring to me when I read it, it seemed like a deflection on top of the defensiveness that I thought he'd exhibited earlier, and to me it told a consistent (and scummy) story. Was it still the best answer in retrospect? Seeing the context of Cron's progression of his scum read of Calvary... I don't know. It still seemed a bit jarring, but you're right, there are other reasonable explanations, which I'd dismissed.

PS I hope this clarifies my mental process; if not, I'll do my best to provide additional clarity.

You're right this is something I am interested in. I don't understand why it took so long for you to respond to it, and it felt deliberate, but here we are.

"I feel like I've addressed a good # of them. One point that I did NOT actually address"

As far as I can remember I've asked you 3 questions:

1) What chsnges, if any, have you tried to make to your town game? You said "more agreesive" Fine.

2) Why you wanted to see someone's read change? Than realized I misread your post and retracted this question. You replied anyway saying I misread. Fine.

3) I've tried to understand why you think Cron's post constituted deflection. I've asked a bunch of times, often point blank, and not gotten a straight response.

Point being, you're portraying this as though I've asked a ton of questions and you've only missed one. And by extension that I'm being unreasonable in asking you to respond to every single one of my questions. I don't think that's a fair representation of our engagement. There's also something about "seems to have been especially interested" that seems disingenuous. Have I really been unclear on this point?

Anyway, moving on to the response:

He's right: my answer didn't address what he was getting at. Just restating that I read it that way. So why did I feel it was the best answer? It seemed jarring to me when I read it, it seemed like a deflection on top of the defensiveness that I thought he'd exhibited earlier, and to me it told a consistent (and scummy) story. Was it still the best answer in retrospect? Seeing the context of Cron's progression of his scum read of Calvary... I don't know. It still seemed a bit jarring, but you're right, there are other reasonable explanations, which I'd dismissed.

This doesn't tell me anything new. It's your previous answer restated, but with more words. I don't have any insight into why you thought this was deflection, other than it "seemed jarring". I especially don't get why you've continued to hold onto this interpretation when presented with other more reasonable ones. "Outsourcing the theory to the thread" isn't a good look, it let's you off the hook for the read without having to show us a change of opinion. That's appealing to scum since changes of opinion can be hard to fake.[/quote]

I'm not sure it's plausible as a sincere half-baked theory. Again, read my representation of that...note the difference between the represented theory and "lack of self-awareness" which I think is a stretch to apply in that situation....

I guess it's plausible though as something just thrown out to discuss. That's the bottom line. As such it's not an indicative moment, explainable either way. As you say, on to more content from him.

For those of you that are more familiar with Crunkus, is it weird for him to back down like this? I was expecting him to be more stubborn with it.

I actually had the opposite reaction. I thought he held onto the Calvary read a smidge longer than I'd expect townCrunkus to. Just a smidge though, and the post he made about how he's capable of changing his mind read as sincere.

I do have something that I'm worried about on Crunkus. And it's his comment on the mhsmith0 vote that he's worried that nobody is defending mhsmith:

[quote=""Crunkus""] Engagement seems all wrong, and looking back, there seem to be posts he's not responding to. He's lamenting IAWY giving him something to engage with...but there's all this stuff he isn't engaging with...that he's replying to and not replying to. Feels off. I like that those from playdip that have played with him feel that too...

I'm not liking that he doesn't appear to have a friend in the world right now. I'm not sure if he's in that zone where the scum have decided it's time to start bussing him because he's stepped in it too deeply...it doesn't feel quite like that should be the case...particularly if his scumpals aren't from playdip. Could also be explained by scumpals also being underheat or largely absent or not feeling up to the task. Best lynchable right now

.

For one Crunkus has talked earlier in his Cron portion about the "passion pass" Cron had grantd mhsmith. So clearly smith has at least one friend. For another this vote put the mhsmith wagon at 2 votes roughly a quarter of the way into the day. All these external considerations about scumbuddies bussing vs defending him. I just don't think that's something you worry about this early and with such a small wagon. There are also a whole lot of people not wanting to go near the mhsmith case. Sjg11 is talking about it. IAWY is but up til recently (and at the time Crunkus posted this) was giving weak reasons not to vote there. So this feels a little like an attempt to discredit the wagon and is certainly worth revisiting if smith flips scum (and probably even if he doesn't).

For now glad to have him on the wagon but this bears mentioning.[/quote]

Can people who haven't given a read on mhsmith give one? And if you're really feeling generous explain why

@UDC:
1) Can you clarify "think" in terms of whether it was a present question (as of the time of your question) or a past question (as of the time of the vote). I'll answer the "time of the vote" one, if you want me to answer the other I can.

Wrt my original read, Cron was being pushed, and he essentially said "well what about Calvary". On the very surface of it, it looked like a deflection. Pressure incoming, "well what about x", done. I certainly thought that was the correct read at the time, and looking back, I still don't see it as unreasonable. Do you truly feel that was an unreasonable read? You say at 202 [url"]http://www.mafiauniverse.com/threads/13 ... post263186[/url"] "I have trouble seeing anyone but a very inexperienced player consciously trying to divert onto someone else at that point in the game". I think that's a fair point. I didn't think that way at the time. That said, people make mistakes. They get nervous. Slip-ups happen. So while it may not be convincing to you, it was convincing to me.

2) It honestly felt like more questions than just three. Maybe because I've been getting a whole bunch of questions and it blends together, maybe because I see your mulitple posts of questions and think "more".

3) Do you have any reaction to my responses to sjg? Do you think I'm being evasive with him too?

4) How much of your original issue was that you thought that I sounded too certain (in 167 [url"]http://www.mafiauniverse.com/threads/13 ... post263056[/url"]). In terms of my mental state, it certainly wasn't an intentional change to my game. Possibly it was a reflection of last night's turbo, where I DID successfully vote scum (and on D1... though I also defended the other scum, so hardly a full win... but still light years better than the scum sweep I suffered at PD).

5) You also brought up my paranoia in the CTR game. A meaningful portion of my paranoia at the time was that it felt like things were spiralling out of control, like the whole board was sleepwalking into easy lynch after easy lynch. My game changed in part as a reaction to things getting worse. If there's an easy lynch that's the CORRECT lynch, great. I like easy wins.

The problem comes when there's an easy lynch that turns out wrong. THEN I start to worry. And if there's ANOTHER easy lynch on D2 (or we seem to be headed in that direction), and it feels like no one is taking any kind of ownership of the board, then I start to get REALLY worried. Are there signs that the veterans are just lying down and letting us sleepwalk into mislynches in this game? I'm not seeing it yet. But if/when I do, I'm going to push hard on the veterans for letting us go down the wrong path, as frankly everyone should.

I mean, I get why you might think that I've regressed in terms of paranoia, but I'd like you to consider the explanation I've offered. Because I DO think it's genuinely of my mental state.

Actually, speaking of which, who ARE the best veterans here? That's (potentially) important information to know.

1) I'm not sure what clarify "think" means in this context. Are you sympatico on the basic idea that if something is equally plausible as scum or as town, than it's null? I feel like you've been on the same page in that respect before.

Proceeding on that, I've given you some reasons why Cron's post is explainable by him being town. You've insisted over and over that the scum explanation is better with no explanation as towards why. You've reasserted that you were justified in seeing it as plausible from scum, but not explained why it's not from a town perspective. This is just way worse than what I expect from you and its been sustained.

2) K

3) I haven't read all of it all that closely and it's late so I'm not sure I care to look at it right this second. From what I remember he was interested in the same question I asked and wasn't getting an answer.

4) I'm not sure what you mean by original issue. What seemed like overstated certainty prompted me to ask you about changes to your game. Otherwise the vote is premised mainly on your response to being challenged on the Cron read.

5) K, this is a pretty small part of the overall case. The bigger issue, and I wouldn't call this 'paranoia' is that you're resisting the idea that the Cron moment is equally explainable by him being town, and thus should be viewed as null.

[MENTION=653"]mhsmith0[/MENTION"] You best better drop the Cron discussion being based solely on that one post, or Crunkus will tear into you without any mercy. If that's the sole crux of your argument, then it's not a good one, let alone the fact that Cron is always town in this game.

You're voting mhsmith no? Are you gonna try and develop that read while you and him are together in the thread or what?

...
1) I'm not sure what clarify "think" means in this context. Are you sympatico on the basic idea that if something is equally plausible as scum or as town, than it's null? I feel like you've been on the same page in that respect before.

Proceeding on that, I've given you some reasons why Cron's post is explainable by him being town. You've insisted over and over that the scum explanation is better with no explanation as towards why. You've reasserted that you were justified in seeing it as plausible from scum, but not explained why it's not from a town perspective. This is just way worse than what I expect from you and its been sustained.

2) K

3) I haven't read all of it all that closely and it's late so I'm not sure I care to look at it right this second. From what I remember he was interested in the same question I asked and wasn't getting an answer.

4) I'm not sure what you mean by original issue. What seemed like overstated certainty prompted me to ask you about changes to your game. Otherwise the vote is premised mainly on your response to being challenged on the Cron read.

5) K, this is a pretty small part of the overall case. The bigger issue, and I wouldn't call this 'paranoia' is that you're resisting the idea that the Cron moment is equally explainable by him being town, and thus should be viewed as null.

@UDC:
1) How is the "think" clarification unclear? Either you're asking:

- Why did you think that at the time of your vote?

or you're asking:

- Why did you think that at the time of my question to you?

Those are different questions with different (though obviously related) answers. The key part for #2 is not "why did you think it in the first place" but rather "why didn't you change your mind"?

And yes, you've given explanations for why Cron's post was explainable. And yes, I'm simpatico to that idea. I hadn't seriously considered those at the time, in part because it just looked so scummy. Should I have done so? Yes. Did I? No (or not enough to make me change my mind). It was, I suppose, a mistake. I certainly don't think it was a flagrant mistake, though.

PS I get the (implied) compliment, and I really am flattered, but when have you ever had me as an exceptionally strong scum hunter, especially in the first couple pages of a game? (recall, I was the first non joke vote) In our last game, I (eventually) had the solid insight that there was veteran scum in last game, and then promptly voted THE ONLY TOWN AMONG THE THREE VETERANS (a point that I still bring up from time to time for the lolz). In that game, did you think any of my sjg points were convincing? How about my gregor ones? I don't want to be "oh he's just the newbie" guy, but I think that SOME slack is reasonable wrt my scum-hunting, especially early D1 when no one really knows anything.

PPS You said post game that I was "on to you", but in that game I was "on to" just about everybody (except ferdy, my gut said that there was no way our limp town was his fault). I was on to Harb (kind of), Keirador (kind of), sjg (oops) and you were in the clear next tier. And my reason for being "on to you" wasn't even a good one, since it was based on the idea that you might have faked your role claim, when CTR had actually handed it to you for real. I was also entertaining the "Harb is 3P" idea for a long time into D3, and it was only after CTR told us it was Keirador that I eventually realized the scum team (and even there, only the end of D3 shenanigans made it clear that it was you and not EAH or SJG).


2) good

3) his questions were different. You focused on the "deflection" part, he focused on the "defensive" part. Specifically, the whole argument that Cron not picking up on the (IMO, since not all agree) extremely obvious joke was strangely defensive, and I'd thought it AI. That was why he kept going on about the whole theory of defensive behavior not being scum indicative.

4) ok.

5) I'm not really resisting that idea right now, and haven't been for some time. I mean, it DOES ping me a bit on a gut read as suspicious, but as you say, there are legitimate town explanations. What I'm trying to do is explain why I felt that at the time of the vote and when you were questioning me. THEN I really hadn't bought that explanation. And most of this discussion has centered around then, not now.

Ok so I think I understand what you were asking for clarification on. The exchange that immediately preceded my vote was when I offered some townie rationales for Cron's posting, and you rejected them stating:

PS It's clearly not the only interpretation of Cron's post, but I think it's the best one. Will I re-evaluate as I see more content from Cron and others? Of course. Have I seen enough to change my position at this time? No.

What I'm trying to get at is "Why did you think it was the best one" [i"]at the time you posted the above quote[/i"]? Right now that's totally opaque to me. Turning it into "Why didn't you change your mind?" and then treating that like a rhetorical question and stating "Maybe I made a mistake but I don't think it was a flagrant one" doesn't do anything to illuminate that.

If you're town, it seems like it should be very easy to report how you weighed the townie explanations against the scum ones and came to this conclusion. But if you made this justification as scum, and treated is as a toss-off answer you didn't think you'd get questioned on, then you might not really have an answer there at all. That's why I've been trying to extract it, and I don't understand why that's been as difficult as it has.

@UDC....what do you mean too long in regard to how long I held on to my last scum read? As soon as it was clear to me how there was a plausible town explanation (when soah actually pointed out the basis for the assertion there was evidence in thread he was pushing something out for purposes of content generation...) I moved on. Before that, I didn't see the plausibility and didn't. I don't get that statement. What do you feel should have prompted a move earlier?

I'll try to dig us some quotes, basically I don't understand,

<div data-QUOTE=""" crunkus>The wolf explanation is that he through a town read out, was pressed to explain it, felt he had to, and offered up an insincere adhoc explanation...it's not like it was a strategic decision...it's a failure to execute if that's what it is.

No response from Calvary makes me actually think he's mafia now. Lol.

Nah, was on another tab.

Notes:

Cron - rolled town 7
Calvary - psychic 8
Luckbox - lemon seer (sees lemons?) 12

You forgot your video #10

Anyway, this lack of self-awareness = possible town. Discuss.

Hold on this is the first mention of his tappicone town read, and the "lack of self-awareness" specifically as it relates to the nonmention of the video is mentioned explicitly. I don't think it's properly understood as an "after the fact" explanation.

I don't get how "lack of self-awareness" applies here nor do I get how that squares with the later explanation of his actual process. Self-awareness doesn't even enter into that by the numbers...it's more of a lack of seeing a specific behaviour he'd expect to see from a scum. So yes, I'd absolutely call that an after-the-fact explanation.

Also...is this an insincere town read? Is what you're arguing here simultaneously squaring with that explanation?

I don't get what the issue is with the scum plausibility (soah has mentioned it doesn't make sense from a scum motive, I've answered that). Did you have an issue with that?

I don't get the plausibility yet of the insincere town A (pride) or insincere town B (content generation motive) given thread evidence or meta-game evidence. I'd like to know more about this from the people who believe there is something to these two lines.

I don't get the plausibility of the sincere town who had the process I described.

If I'm describing the process in a way that is unfair, please feel free to point that out.

But again...I don't think I am, and you only read that and think...[i"]well okay it's weak...but insincere?
[/i"]

I mean it's really strange.

The underlined. It's pretty clear to me that Calvary's explicit reference to the video not being mentioned and use of the term "lack of self-awareness" means that his theory on trafficone, despite being weak, can't properly be understood as after-the-fact.

In my response to soah I said this was a very small point and largely null. I think the exact phrase I used was that I thought you held onto it a smidge longer than I'd expect you to. I was more interested in your read on mhsmith, and the business about him not having a friend in the thread despite you having previously noted the passion pass granted by Cron. Do you still feel like mhsmith doesn't have a friend in the world? We've got luckbox and cron campaigning pretty openly against that lynch, imo without citing any real reasons.

IAWY: I read your blog post before the game started and I saw you complaining that you post too much and put yourself out there too much and this leads to you being mislynched. I'm not seeing that currently. I'm seeing someone who isn't putting his process out there and who is making no effort at being understood by the other players in the game. Your blog post suggests your capable of this. Stop the self-righteous whinging that it's going to lead to a mislynch and give me something to go off here. Otherwise, if you're town, we will mislynch you. Maybe not today, maybe not tomorrow but at some point we will. So go big or go home.

I want you to explain to me why you unvoted Smith. Why did you getting your facts wrong about Lucky lead to an unvote on smith? When were you scumreading Smith and why?

mhsmith: Your claim is that you were deciding whether my point on Cron was fair or not.

PS It's clearly not the only interpretation of Cron's post, but I think it's the best one. Will I re-evaluate as I see more content from Cron and others? Of course. Have I seen enough to change my position at this time? No.

Here's your quote saying this.

But here's the issue, the instant you start seeing other interpretations of Cron's post, why do you not Unvote? Surely that's the moment when it stops becoming scum indicative.

You follow that up by saying you're waiting for more before changing your position. You're clearly saying that, despite agreeing with my interpretation of events, your position hasn't changed. So, you're still scumreading Cron for that reason despite finding other interpretations for that moment plausible and reasonable aren't you? You don't seem to be saying you're coming to a decision, you're saying you want more from us to change your mind despite agreeing with what we've said so far.

Now, as to the point about me poking at you for "if nothing else". I never scumread you for that. I was poking. You scumread Cron for shit reasons. Your process then went very wacky when I engaged you on it. That's totally different.

Finally, your vote on Cuth is basically because he's posting nothing useful and, is thus Mafia? How is Cuth here different to ferdy (who you were townreading in that game)? Is your vote for Cuth about anything else beyond lurkiness and poor play?

VOTE: mhsmith0

Ok so the underlined is the main difference between sjg11's current issue with you and mine, and it's a fairly subtle one. I'm taking at face value that you made a judgement between these two narratives and asking you to explain what that consisted of. He's seemingly more skeptical that such a judgement took place and is saying he'd expect you to unvote in that spot as town.

I'm sometimes sluggish about changing my vote to reflect my current reads, so I get, in and of itself, not unvoting there. Beyond that though it's the same fundamental issue, we don't understand why you held onto the scumread on Cron for as long as you did.

There's also the defensiveness question. I agree with sjg11 that defensiveness is not scum indicative in and of itself. Do I expect you to take his word on it (or mine)? No not necessarily, but I didn't like the business of "outsourcing" the question to the thread. We gave you reasons why defensiveness isn't necessarily indicative and I would have preferred to see you engage those instead of hoping someone would bail you out and say they thought it was. Overall this is a fairly minor point to me, but I can see where he's coming from in thinking this is significant

[Nancy Drew 39]

Can I be the only person who was the first person to claim an innocent on you for purity when you were town?

Of course. <3

Spoiler:

[Persivul]

Like fucking creature has 11/8 scum wr

That's baseline

To be competent scum you gotta be far above that

And to be great scum you gotta be far above that.

There's no such thing as a good scum win rate in a vacuum.

I'd have more respect for someone with winrates of 60/60 town/scum, than someone with 30/100.

[Creature]

Like fucking creature has 11/8 scum wr

That's baseline

To be competent scum you gotta be far above that

And to be great scum you gotta be far above that.

It's horrifying for the state of towns on this site if a 55-60% win rate as scum is just average

Yes, it is. The good town players have a winrate that ranges 40%-50%.

[Creature]

50%+ town winrate is usually attributed to newer players. Time smooths it up.

[Creature]

As for scum, keeping it to being as towny as possible isn't the only valid strategy.

Like, if you're looking to survive to endgame:
- Do the enough to not be the priority kill
- Kill the players that would best read you
- Leave the bad players
- Freely follow your agenda because there's no good player to point it out anyway

[Creature]

It's somewhat what I did at Mini 2030 after FL fakeclaimed mason with me: I got rid of players that could best read me with a good excuse and at endgame, even though it was painfully obvious I was scum, people weren't really willing to reconsider me.

[RadiantCowbells]

Like fucking creature has 11/8 scum wr

That's baseline

To be competent scum you gotta be far above that

And to be great scum you gotta be far above that.

There's no such thing as a good scum win rate in a vacuum.

I'd have more respect for someone with winrates of 60/60 town/scum, than someone with 30/100.

What about 60/100

[RadiantCowbells]

Cuz that's what you're bashing me for

[Creature]

As for town, I think you'd really want to be the good player scum wants to kill.

I find that my survive/endgame winrate is significantly better than my nightkill winrate.

So yeah, having good town players making long into the game may be one big step to win as town.

If you frequently get endgamed by scum, maybe you might be the bad player scum leaves alive for lategame.

[Ankamius]

Like fucking creature has 11/8 scum wr

That's baseline

To be competent scum you gotta be far above that

And to be great scum you gotta be far above that.

It's horrifying for the state of towns on this site if a 55-60% win rate as scum is just average

Yes, it is. The good town players have a winrate that ranges 40%-50%.

I remember calculating it a while back and I had like a 44-46%, somewhere in that range

And I was embarrassed

[Creature]

After you've played 100+ games it's expected to have 44-46% winrate.

[Ankamius]

As for town, I think you'd really want to be the good player scum wants to kill.

I find that my survive/endgame winrate is significantly better than my nightkill winrate.

So yeah, having good town players making long into the game may be one big step to win as town.

If you frequently get endgamed by scum, maybe you might be the bad player scum leaves alive for lategame.

This is exactly why I think read strength is vastly overrated on this site

If you are the only player with good reads, you need to be alive in order to exert your influence on the game enough that town can be pushed onto the right track before scum catch on and kill you.

Town wins when the last scum is killed, so you need to push the game in a direction that will result in every scum being lynched, even if it will take time to do.

Every convincing town victory I've ever taken part in functioned like this. There was always at least one scum that managed to stay hidden while their team collapsed, but it was impossible for town to lose since the game was on a trajectory towards eventually resulting in their death anyways.

Yet whenever I see postgames where town loses, a lot of the complaining is that people didn't have correct reads or went to bat for a scumread that they locked town, etc. etc. when a little bit of inspection beyond that would show that the problem is as simple as town universally ridiculing their reads when they first state them or something similar.

I kinda feel like this is a side effect of the community at large more than just the mafia side, since I feel like this issue only started around 2014 or 2015; at least my 2011 and 2012 games felt a lot different than they have the last few years; the older games focused on reads more since that was the prevailing issue that was losing town games if I remember correctly

[mhsmith0]

I remember calculating it a while back and I had like a 44-46%, somewhere in that range

And I was embarrassed

A sub .500 town win rate even on this site SHOULD be embarrassing for anyone who thinks they're good as town
(I believe I'm at 46% - fortunately I'm well ahead of the game in terms of blaming setup/teammates/luck/etc )