Newbie 1953 | Zooborns IV | Game Over

[Micc]

As I see it, Leucosticte was really late to the Day 2 chemist wagon for someone who had been scumreading chemist all of day 1. It reads like he was pushing his partner Day 1 for the town credit, and then when his partner got under read pressure Day 2 he gave every opportunity for another wagon to develop. When it became more clear that chemist was the lynch for the day he made sure to get on the wagon.

I've been in his situation before. Being decisive about whether to bus a partner or not is really hard, and easy to get wrong. I think he got it wrong.

Also, scum reading Farren at this point is just silly.

[Leucosticte]

I was looking back at the Norwegian vote as well, and Micc immediately votes for them after you, leading to an L-1. I think it’s interesting that Micc/Chemist both voted for Leuco at the beginning. Since we now know that Chemist is maf, it makes sense to me that Micc could be mafia as well (if Chemist was following suit and trying to get a random mislynch going ASAP D1).

Could be, but on the other hand, I often attract some votes on the first day of a game, even if, maybe even

especially

if, I'm

lit

. (Aka

town

; I don't know if you use that word "

lit

" here)

[Farren]

And yet, Mr Oobsy voted Day 1 to hammer a

townie

, and Mr Oobsy turned out to be

town

. I voted Day 2 to hammer a

scum

, so that makes me even

townier

than Mr Oobsy, from a certain perspective. We can argue WIFOM all day about it, but that just goes in circles.

The only one of us that didn't either a) participate in lynching Chemist or b) clearly state intent to do so was skitter. She's your top townread.

Meanwhile, I'm in your bottom tier. I had the opportunity to back out and stop a hammer. I was clearly around to do so after Jamelia declared intent. Yet I didn't.

It doesn't sound like your opinions are based on how the votes went down.

Point is - I'm showing reasons why I think scum-you hammered - deliberately - and why I think town-you would not have accidentally hammered - even though the hammer directly resulted in a scum lynch.

(I have 0 games under my belt on this platform.)

This sounds like you're claiming inexperience with majority rules. Inexperience is understandable. What's not understandable is missing all the warnings. Especially when you understand the potential consequences of missing those warnings.

[Farren]

I am more inclined to believe Micc is more scummy than Leuco at that moment.

I saw what you said in post 690. What else do you have? Either showing Micc is scummy, or showing that Leucosticte is Town?

[Micc]

Which is it, Farren; was Chemist already doomed (and therefore hammering him was harmless), or was he not doomed (and therefore I'm

townier

for having put him out of misery when he still could've been saved from the rope)?

I think he was doomed since D1. There were plenty of distractions that day though. From Dyrenz’s RP spill to Norwegian/Oobsy drawing out conclusions that were just ultimately not true, we still had an underlying truth that Chemist had not adequately provided any reasons for their scummy behavior.

Micc pucks up on this BUT still votes for Norwegian. Then D2 immediately starts the vote on Chemist. Now D3 knows that Farren has been scum-reading Leuco for a while, starts the vote on them.

To me Micc is being opportunistic instead of analyzing what’s been happening.

I'm having a hard time finding a way to say this nicely, but "opportunistic" is one of those words where if you remove it from your vocabulary, you'll immediately have become a better scum hunter.

[Leucosticte]

As I see it, Leucosticte was really late to the Day 2 chemist wagon for someone who had been scumreading chemist all of day 1. It reads like he was pushing his partner Day 1 for the town credit, and then when his partner got under read pressure Day 2 he gave every opportunity for another wagon to develop. When it became more clear that chemist was the lynch for the day he made sure to get on the wagon.

I've been in his situation before. Being decisive about whether to bus a partner or not is really hard, and easy to get wrong. I think he got it wrong.

Also, scum reading Farren at this point is just silly.

I'm just now starting to keep some serious notes about this game, because that Werewolves game I was playing distracted me more than I expected.

Anyway, as for my votes. On Day 1, I originally voted for you as an OMGUS, and then switched my vote to Chemist since he was more laconic (as I noted in post #26, I often find that the more laconic guys are

scum

; and it turned out, I was right about Chemist too).

Then in post #48, I cast a pressure vote for Mr Oobsy for being quiet too (since at that point he was being even quieter than Chemist). Since the whole basis for my vote for Chemist was his being quiet, it made sense to switch my vote to the even quieter guy. Then Chemist seemed to be saying a lot of unpersuasive / irrelevant stuff, which made me switch my vote back to him in post #303 because that's a

scummy

behavioral cue and we were still in RVS (so didn't have a lot of intel and votes to go on).

In post #312, I switched my vote to Dyrenz because he had a "just lynch me" attitude, which I've seen in

scum

before as a way of manipulating and dismaying

town

; although I've now seen it from

town

in some games too, so I'm starting to revise my opinion about how much of a

scum

tell that is. Then I unvoted, and switched to Micc in #426 as an OMGUS, then switched to Farren in #436 as another OMGUS. This was RVS, after all.

Then on Day 2, I was wrapped up in that Werewolves game because it was approaching a critical moment in that game, so I just wasn't paying much attention, other than noticing that Chemist was still being apathetic and laconic, so I figured he was either a kinda useless

townie

or

scum

; plus Farren seemed to be saying there could be valuable intel to be gained from flipping Chemist, so I went ahead and cast my vote. Micc, you even seemed kinda relieved to see it happen, and I don't blame you, because that discussion didn't seem like it was going anywhere useful.

I'd be interested to know why

scumreading

Farren is silly. I didn't even say I

scumread

him; I just said that he was tied with you as

fourth-most-townie

. Not everyone's gonna get the blue ribbon in every contest. Just try to act more

towny

today and maybe you'll be higher up on my list next time.

[Farren]

Which is it, Farren; was Chemist already doomed (and therefore hammering him was harmless), or was he not doomed (and therefore I'm

townier

for having put him out of misery when he still could've been saved from the rope)?

The case I'm trying to make is not that hammering Chemist hurt the town. The only thing we really lost was giving Jamelia the opportunity to follow-through - or not. And I think Jamelia's Town, so I'm not too concerned about that.

The case I'm trying to make is that from a town-Leucosticte perspective, you should have been aware of the possibility that hammering Chemist

could

hurt Town, and that you'd be held responsible for not giving everyone the full amount of deadline time. Especially if it results in town-you getting lynched right afterwards; that would mean a scum victory. That given what you've seen in this game so far - you making a mistake and not realizing you were hammering is not credible. From a scum-Leucosticte perspective, you would know that hammering Chemist would be pro-Town, and did so to garner the credit, especially given that Jamelia had stated intent and nobody on the wagon was expressing doubts.

Nevertheless, I can answer your question: I think Chemist was going to die no matter what. The only one not on the wagon that was expressing doubt prior to the hammer was skitter.

One possible exception: Micc mentions after the hammer that he would have unvoted. I think if that does happen, we see the following:

1) Jamelia puts Chemist back at L-1;
2) EITHER Micc hammers Chemist, OR
3) skitter thinks Micc is scum saving scum|Chemist and hammers Chemist.

[Plotinus]

official vote count 3.01

tamarins are so great

---

Lynching

With 5 votes in play, it takes 3 to lynch.

Leucosticte

(1): Micc

Not Voting

(4): Farren, skitter30, Jamelia, Leucosticte

Deadline:

(expired on 2019-09-17 21:45:00).

Mod notes:

[/area]

[Leucosticte]

The only one of us that didn't either a) participate in lynching Chemist or b) clearly state intent to do so was skitter. She's your top townread.

Meanwhile, I'm in your bottom tier. I had the opportunity to back out and stop a hammer. I was clearly around to do so after Jamelia declared intent. Yet I didn't.

It doesn't sound like your opinions are based on how the votes went down.

Oh yeah, I forgot, I need to redo my ranking like I was describing in post #682. So I take back what I said in #705 about Micc and you still being tied for 4th-most-townie.

Point is - I'm showing reasons why I think scum-you hammered - deliberately - and why I think town-you would not have accidentally hammered - even though the hammer directly resulted in a scum lynch.

This sounds like you're claiming inexperience with majority rules. Inexperience is understandable. What's not understandable is missing all the warnings. Especially when you understand the potential consequences of missing those warnings.

Okay, well, keep thinking that, but it sounds like potential confirmation bias from the fact that I voted for you on Day 1, which has made you sus of me ever since, even though you pretty much implied that day in post #435 that from my perspective, you could be equally sus as Micc.

I mean, I get that being voted by someone makes someone more sus, all else equal, but it was RVS, and I was just doing OMGUS right back to you.

At any rate, you're talking about behavioral evidence right now, which is weaker than voting, so I don't really care too much how much you want to talk about it.

[Farren]

I'm just now starting to keep some serious notes about this game, because that Werewolves game I was playing distracted me more than I expected.

Anyway, as for my votes. On Day 1, I originally voted for you as an OMGUS, and then switched my vote to Chemist since he was more laconic (as I noted in post #26, I often find that the more laconic guys are

scum

; and it turned out, I was right about Chemist too).

Then in post #48, I cast a pressure vote for Mr Oobsy for being quiet too (since at that point he was being even quieter than Chemist). Since the whole basis for my vote for Chemist was his being quiet, it made sense to switch my vote to the even quieter guy.

Then Chemist seemed to be saying a lot of unpersuasive / irrelevant stuff, which made me switch my vote back to him in post #303 because that's a

scummy

behavioral cue

and we were still in RVS

(so didn't have a lot of intel and votes to go on).

In post #312,

I switched my vote to Dyrenz because he had a "just lynch me" attitude, which I've seen in

scum

before as a way of manipulating and dismaying

town

; although I've now seen it from

town

in some games too, so I'm starting to revise my opinion about how much of a

scum

tell that is. Then I unvoted, and switched to Micc in #426 as an OMGUS, then switched to Farren in #436 as another OMGUS.

This was RVS, after all

.

In my eyes, the underlined parts and the bolded parts contradict each other. If you're casting meaningful votes based on scumtells (or pretending to do so as scum), it's no longer RVS. Meaningful votes are clearly superior to arbitrary and/or random votes; why would you use RVS to justify a vote after RVS is clearly over?

[Farren]

I'd be interested to know why

scumreading

Farren is silly. I didn't even say I

scumread

him; I just said that he was tied with you as

fourth-most-townie

. Not everyone's gonna get the blue ribbon in every contest. Just try to act more

towny

today and maybe you'll be higher up on my list next time.

"Fourth-most townie" is your bottom category. Are you trying to say you don't scumread anyone? Is there any sort of meaningful difference between "scumread" and "bottom-tier read?" Especially when we're this far into the game?

[Leucosticte]

Which is it, Farren; was Chemist already doomed (and therefore hammering him was harmless), or was he not doomed (and therefore I'm

townier

for having put him out of misery when he still could've been saved from the rope)?

The case I'm trying to make is not that hammering Chemist hurt the town. The only thing we really lost was giving Jamelia the opportunity to follow-through - or not. And I think Jamelia's Town, so I'm not too concerned about that.

The case I'm trying to make is that from a town-Leucosticte perspective, you should have been aware of the possibility that hammering Chemist

could

hurt Town, and that you'd be held responsible for not giving everyone the full amount of deadline time. Especially if it results in town-you getting lynched right afterwards; that would mean a scum victory. That given what you've seen in this game so far - you making a mistake and not realizing you were hammering is not credible. From a scum-Leucosticte perspective, you would know that hammering Chemist would be pro-Town, and did so to garner the credit, especially given that Jamelia had stated intent and nobody on the wagon was expressing doubts.

Nevertheless, I can answer your question: I think Chemist was going to die no matter what. The only one not on the wagon that was expressing doubt prior to the hammer was skitter.

One possible exception: Micc mentions after the hammer that he would have unvoted. I think if that does happen, we see the following:

1) Jamelia puts Chemist back at L-1;
2) EITHER Micc hammers Chemist, OR
3) skitter thinks Micc is scum saving scum|Chemist and hammers Chemist.

So basically all this comes down to, Farren, is that you're saying, "You're lying about why you hammered, which makes you scummy." The hammering itself was not a big deal; heck, it would've been kinda sus too if I

hadn't

voted for Chemist. Basically the only way to not be sus, would've been to have gotten on the wagon sooner. But I think there was more justification to get on it later, because Chemist had had opportunity to defend himself, and hadn't done a good job.

So whatever; it was a breach of protocol, but at the end of the day, who cares. I was gonna be sus no matter what (once a few people had already cast their votes while I was distracted), but I think I did right in at least giving Chemist a chance to present whatever defense he wanted to.

Save the talk about "you should've known better than to accidentally hammer someone" for people who have played more than one day of this game.

[Leucosticte]

In my eyes, the underlined parts and the bolded parts contradict each other. If you're casting meaningful votes based on scumtells (or pretending to do so as scum), it's no longer RVS. Meaningful votes are clearly superior to arbitrary and/or random votes; why would you use RVS to justify a vote after RVS is clearly over?

Okay, well, strike out "RVS" and replace it with whatever word refers to when we have no intel and no final vote tallies to look at, so all we have are, at most, behavioral cues.

[Farren]

Okay, well, keep thinking that, but it sounds like potential confirmation bias from the fact that I voted for you on Day 1, which has made you sus of me ever since, even though you pretty much implied that day in post #435 that from my perspective, you could be equally sus as Micc.

It could be. But if you're thinking I'm suffering from confirmation bias, then that should mean you think I'm Town. Scum doesn't do confirmation bias - they can't.

I mean, I get that being voted by someone makes someone more sus, all else equal, but it was RVS, and I was just doing OMGUS right back to you.

At any rate, you're talking about behavioral evidence right now, which is weaker than voting, so I don't really care too much how much you want to talk about it.

Not trying to convince you of anything here. I'm trying to do one of two things: establish to everyone's satisfaction that you're scum, or alternately, get people to show me why I'm wrong so I can look elsewhere.

But: behavioral evidence is just as important as voting. If voting were the be-all and end-all of everything, we'd be lynching skitter right now.

[Leucosticte]

I think it's safe to say that if the scumteam is composed of two SEs, they're not going to make a rookie mistake by needlessly doubling their exposure to Tracker hits when there's a 50% chance of a Tracker being present.

I'm not sure that's really safe to say, because Chemist's level of engagement was pretty low, especially as the game went on (thus, maybe he wasn't paying close attention to what his teammate was doing at night), and there are a lot of n00bs in this game, and even SE players can make dumb, even potentially game-losing errors and oversights.

Therefore, I have to weigh that to Skitter's advantage and consider Skitter one of the less sus players.

[Farren]

So basically all this comes down to, Farren, is that you're saying, "You're lying about why you hammered, which makes you scummy." The hammering itself was not a big deal; heck, it would've been kinda sus too if I

hadn't

voted for Chemist. Basically the only way to not be sus, would've been to have gotten on the wagon sooner. But I think there was more justification to get on it later, because Chemist had had opportunity to defend himself, and hadn't done a good job.

So whatever; it was a breach of protocol, but at the end of the day, who cares. I was gonna be sus no matter what (once a few people had already cast their votes while I was distracted), but I think I did right in at least giving Chemist a chance to present whatever defense he wanted to.

Save the talk about "you should've known better than to accidentally hammer someone" for people who have played more than one day of this game.

1) That's the most recent argument I've made; it certainly isn't the only one. It's certainly possible that you genuinely were not aware. In which case, you've learned a valuable lesson about majority rules games - count up the votes before voting for someone.
2) If you hadn't hammered, then it depends on what you did do. We'll never know.
3) Pretty sure it's safe to say people care about how the hammer comes down on this site.
4) Your defense has been a mix of "It was an accident" and "so what if I did anyway?" If it really was an accident, why are you spending so much time trying to justify it as okay?

[Leucosticte]

It could be. But if you're thinking I'm suffering from confirmation bias, then that should mean you think I'm Town. Scum doesn't do confirmation bias - they can't.

Yeah but both town and scum would have a reason to try to lynch people who vote for them, because regardless of what side someone is on, they're trying not to get lynched. If you're scum and someone's voting for you, maybe they're on to you, or maybe they're just paranoid about you, but either way, it works against you. Same way if you're town; someone voting for you either has the wrong idea, or they're scum; either way, that's a problem for you.

What's up with Micc wanting to lynch me every day? He must really hate that username. It's really easy to remember the spelling, though; just learn the mnemonic, Louis Eats Under-Cooked Onion-Stuffed Tomatoes In ConnecticuT Everyday. Just imagine him crossing the state line to go to this restaurant where they have a really good recipe for those.

[Micc]

I'd be interested to know why scumreading Farren is silly. I didn't even say I scumread him; I just said that he was tied with you as fourth-most-townie. Not everyone's gonna get the blue ribbon in every contest. Just try to act more towny today and maybe you'll be higher up on my list next time.

My town read on Farren is so strong that I feel like anyone who isn't townreading him is being silly. I don't know what else to say about it. Putting him in your lowest tier and dismissing it being a scum read is also pretty silly.

What's up with Micc wanting to lynch me every day? He must really hate that username. It's really easy to remember the spelling, though; just learn the mnemonic, Louis Eats Under-Cooked Onion-Stuffed Tomatoes In ConnecticuT Everyday. Just imagine him crossing the state line to go to this restaurant where they have a really good recipe for those.

What's up with you trying to discredit my pushes by bringing up the reasoning I gave for my RVS vote as if that was still relevant?

[Farren]

Which is it, Farren; was Chemist already doomed (and therefore hammering him was harmless), or was he not doomed (and therefore I'm

townier

for having put him out of misery when he still could've been saved from the rope)?

I think he was doomed since D1. There were plenty of distractions that day though. From Dyrenz’s RP spill to Norwegian/Oobsy drawing out conclusions that were just ultimately not true, we still had an underlying truth that Chemist had not adequately provided any reasons for their scummy behavior.

Micc pucks up on this BUT still votes for Norwegian. Then D2 immediately starts the vote on Chemist. Now D3 knows that Farren has been scum-reading Leuco for a while, starts the vote on them.

To me Micc is being opportunistic instead of analyzing what’s been happening.

I don't think I agree with this. Micc showed signs of analyzing things on D1, where he voted for Norwegian. He didn't show much sign of analyzing things on D2 - but he voted Chemist that day and was the first person to do so.

[Farren]

To me Micc is being opportunistic instead of analyzing what’s been happening.

I'm having a hard time finding a way to say this nicely, but "opportunistic" is one of those words where if you remove it from your vocabulary, you'll immediately have become a better scum hunter.

I don't agree with this either. The concept of "opportunistic" is sound, even if I don't think it applies in your case. Is this a vocabulary quibble, or is there something more meaningful here?

[Leucosticte]

My town read on Farren is so strong that I feel like anyone who isn't townreading him is being silly. I don't know what else to say about it. Putting him in your lowest tier and dismissing it being a scum read is also pretty silly.

Unless you have some justification for your town read of him, then that's just your feeling, then. And I think there's a difference between having a neutral opinion about someone, and saying they seem scummy to you.

What's up with you trying to discredit my pushes by bringing up the reasoning I gave for my RVS vote as if that was still relevant?

Your reasoning has been kinda sketchy from Day 1 (e.g. saying in post #24 that my math doesn't add up, but then not really refuting it; although at the time I just let it go because you were townreading me just for putting in effort; but, it's like you'll bring up stuff, such as "opportunism" being an unhelpful concept, and then not really support your opinions.)

Anyway, Farren is acting kinda scummy by making a big deal out of my dropping the hammer on Chemist; you know what it reminds me of, is that scene in

A Few Good Men

, when they're accusing the Colonel of having ordered the code red and then lying about it. In reality, that soldier they killed was putting other men's lives in danger so he needed to be snuffed out. And it was the same way with Chemist!

Who's going to be upset about that decision, other than scum? Who's going to going to give me a hard time about it, other than someone who's upset that his scummy teammate just bit the dust?

You wanna know what I think about people ignoring protocol and dropping the hammer "prematurely"? On the record I tell you that I discourage the practice. Off the record I tell you that it's an invaluable way of lynching scum that might otherwise go free.

[Micc]

The concept of "opportunistic" is sound

It's not a sound concept though. Scum players don't just jump on wagons because they see an opportunity for a (mis)lynch. They make an effort to have reasons for their reads just like a town player would and they use those reads to direct their vote. "Opportunistic" is scum hunting at the most shallow level, and almost always leads to the user making reads off things that aren't indicative of alignment.

Scumhunt by looking at why players have the reads they do or make the votes they make. Look for ulterior motives, inconsistencies, or bad logic. But don't call someone scum for wanting to lynch the people they claim to scum read, because that's something that both town and scum need to do to play well.

[Farren]

Anyway, Farren is acting kinda scummy by making a big deal out of my dropping the hammer on Chemist; you know what it reminds me of, is that scene in A Few Good Men, when they're accusing the Colonel of having ordered the code red and then lying about it. In reality, that soldier they killed was putting other men's lives in danger so he needed to be snuffed out. And it was the same way with Chemist!

Who's going to be upset about that decision, other than scum? Who's going to going to give me a hard time about it, other than someone who's upset that his scummy teammate just bit the dust?

You wanna know what I think about people ignoring protocol and dropping the hammer "prematurely"? On the record I tell you that I discourage the practice. Off the record I tell you that it's an invaluable way of lynching scum that might otherwise go free.

I am amused that you're showing sympathy with the people responsible for the murder instead of those who were investigating it. If you want to put yourself in Col. Jessup's shoes, by all means, be my guest.

This is trying to justify your action. That would be appropriate if you made a conscious decision to do so; you'd have to justify that decision.

So was it accidental? Or did you do it deliberately?

[Farren]

The concept of "opportunistic" is sound

It's not a sound concept though. Scum players don't just jump on wagons because they see an opportunity for a (mis)lynch. They make an effort to have reasons for their reads just like a town player would and they use those reads to direct their vote. "Opportunistic" is scum hunting at the most shallow level, and almost always leads to the user making reads off things that aren't indicative of alignment.

Scumhunt by looking at why players have the reads they do or make the votes they make. Look for ulterior motives, inconsistencies, or bad logic. But don't call someone scum for wanting to lynch the people they claim to scum read, because that's something that both town and scum need to do to play well.

Opportunism isn't trying to lynch people that one is "scumreading." It's the exact opposite, really - it's trying to lynch someone without a good reason to do so. Looking at why players have the reads they do - and then seeing that their votes don't line up with the reads they're making when it comes down to crunch time. That's opportunism.

[Micc]

My town read on Farren is so strong that I feel like anyone who isn't townreading him is being silly. I don't know what else to say about it. Putting him in your lowest tier and dismissing it being a scum read is also pretty silly.

Unless you have some justification for your town read of him, then that's just your feeling, then. And I think there's a difference between having a neutral opinion about someone, and saying they seem scummy to you.

What's up with you trying to discredit my pushes by bringing up the reasoning I gave for my RVS vote as if that was still relevant?

Your reasoning has been kinda sketchy from Day 1 (e.g. saying in post #24 that my math doesn't add up, but then not really refuting it; although at the time I just let it go because you were townreading me just for putting in effort; but, it's like you'll bring up stuff, such as "opportunism" being an unhelpful concept, and then not really support your opinions.)

Anyway, Farren is acting kinda scummy by making a big deal out of my dropping the hammer on Chemist; you know what it reminds me of, is that scene in

A Few Good Men

, when they're accusing the Colonel of having ordered the code red and then lying about it. In reality, that soldier they killed was putting other men's lives in danger so he needed to be snuffed out. And it was the same way with Chemist!

Who's going to be upset about that decision, other than scum? Who's going to going to give me a hard time about it, other than someone who's upset that his scummy teammate just bit the dust?

You wanna know what I think about people ignoring protocol and dropping the hammer "prematurely"? On the record I tell you that I discourage the practice. Off the record I tell you that it's an invaluable way of lynching scum that might otherwise go free.

If a wagon gets built on Farren then I'll town case him, and if someone asks for a summary I guess I'll do my best to give that, but right now those things don't feel productive.

The line between giving veteran advice to newbies who want to learn and lecturing at newbies who would rather just play the game is really hard to walk. If you want a more in depth explanation on something then please ask for it. I think that pushing me as scum for overall sketchy reasoning is a misrepresentation considering I haven't shied away from explaining anything in depth this game.

I don't know what to make of the rest of your post. It doesn't answer the question I posed, and rather comes off as you complaining about the game state or maybe our site meta. Is this something you're looking for me to respond to?