Newbie 1953 | Zooborns IV | Game Over

[Jamelia]

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.

But in this case, I think “opportunistic” is the exact word I want to use. I believe that your actions (to me) are more opportunistic (selfish) vs. analysis-driven (team oriented).

[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.

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.

To me, you described a good scumhunting method and then named it opportunism. So in this instance I guess we do have a vocabulary quibble going on. That's fine and all, but bringing things back to this game, do you really think that what Jamelia did matches your description of opportunism? I'd argue against it.

[Micc]

But in this case, I think “opportunistic” is the exact word I want to use. I believe that your actions (to me) are more opportunistic (selfish) vs. analysis-driven (team oriented).

Can you show what posts you analyzed to get to this conclusion?

[Farren]

I appear to have phrased things poorly. Let's try this again.

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.

When a player's votes don't line up with their reads, that player is behaving opportunistically - trying to take the opportunity to get a mislynch they might not have been planning for. "That's opportunism" was supposed to refer to the player with the reads, not the act of catching that player.

I don't think you were behaving opportunistically on D1 - you justified your reads.

You didn't do much justifying on D2 - but you did vote for and help lynch scum, so "opportunistically" wouldn't apply in that case.

I think that moots your question, but to answer the logical follow-up - I don't think Jamelia is behaving opportunistically either, but have been asking for details about his reads to verify that.

[Jamelia]

I’ll post my reads about that later on tonight. I’m just at work so that’s why I’m being short.

[skitter30]

Bleh i'm going to be the closest thing to conftown tomorrow, presumably

At least as long as he doesn't flip Rolecop specifically. Varying degrees of truth if he flips Goon or Town - enough to make you a bad choice to lynch either way.

Does this mean we should lynch Chemist for the sake of gathering this info so we know more about skitter's towniness?

VOTE: Chemist1422

i'm trying to decide if a partner lolhammers like this

[skitter30]

You voted for Chemist on Day 1 though, and then Chemist voted for you on Day 2. So, that makes you one of the townier people in the game, votewise.

? i'm not sure this is a good reason for townreading someone? like it's a pretty shallow way of looking at the game imo

[skitter30]

i still don't love micc's posting but i'm not sure he starts a wagon on a buddy the way he did

[skitter30]

Well, Mr Oobsy said Skitter didn't follow anyone on Night 1, when there was a kill. But Chemist could've been the killer, so I have to figure out how much weight I want to give that. Skitter didn't vote for Chemist on Day 2, so I have to take that into account as well.

The reason why this mattered before is that skitter was highly unlikely to be Rolecop.

Chemist has flipped Rolecop now. It's not only likely but highly probable that Chemist made the kill N1 - it would make the Goon safe from tracking that night, while still allowing Chemist to use his Rolecop view.

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. Normally there'd be an argument that you could possibly explain away "Chemist visited X" but not "Chemist visited X and Y," but that argument no longer applies with the Friendly Neighbor exposed and scheduled for execution.

Mechanically, skitter's on the same level as everyone else now.

couple of things:

a) i didn't realize that the rolecop could do more than one action in a night (i.e. kill and rolecop someone) until i started reading through this discussion

(this is a new newbie setup and this behavior standard across other parts of the site, as far as i can tell; the modifier 'multitasking' gives a player the ability to perform more than one action in a night, and usually a person who can do two actions like the rolecop would explicitly have the word 'multitasking' in their rolename, and they don't here)

b) he's townreading me basically for thinking that i would have performed the kill n1, and oobsy would have seen me doing it - but he didn't see me so i didn't perform the kill. it seems like he doesn't realize that the rolecop can kill and act on the same night?

i'm not sure scum would view me this way if they knew what the rolecop could do, tbh

[skitter30]

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.

meh

[skitter30]

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

what do you think of the fact that micc started the chemist train?

[skitter30]

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 don't realy like that you're trying to give yourself townpoints here

[skitter30]

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.

well i think they're misusing oppurtunist actually

[skitter30]

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.

hmmmm
kinda makes me think that the hammer wasn't as careless as you may have portrayed it being

[skitter30]

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.

i mean i like to imagine if i were scum i would have looked at the rolecop role pm

[skitter30]

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.

a) farren i think is the towniest person in this game rn

b) so what's the difference between 'fourth highest-tier townread' and 'scumread'?

[Farren]

Just realized I screwed up the quoting in post 728. I attributed the quote to Micc; that was wrong. Those words were mine. I took it out of a nested quote and didn't fix the tag. My apologies.

[Leucosticte]

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.

well i think they're misusing oppurtunist actually

When I think of "opportunist" I think of, for example, someone accidentally acting in a sus way, and then scum saying, "Ooh, let me exploit this to try to get him mislynched." Or more generally, any situation where one seizes an opportunity to accomplish some nefarious goal. E.g. taking advantage of confusion or mistakes or unavailability or any other weaknesses by town. So for example, if you know someone is on vacation, and the day is about to end, you try to get them lynched while they can't defend themselves.

But, maybe town could be opportunistic too, since opportunities arise for them to accomplish their goals too.

[Leucosticte]

hmmmm
kinda makes me think that the hammer wasn't as careless as you may have portrayed it being

Who really cares? Were you wanting to be the one to drop the hammer, so you could claim townpoints for it?

[Leucosticte]

i don't realy like that you're trying to give yourself townpoints here

People don't like the idea of approaching this game systematically, but we make these calculations in our head anyway. If you wanna say, "Okay, he gets x number of townpoints for hammering scum, but that number is diminished by the fact that Chemist was doomed anyway, plus he gets penalized for going against hammering protocol, plus I think he's lying about it being an accident, so he gets scumpoints for that," go ahead!

I think it's a legitimate argument for saying, "The other guy is more sus than I am," if you can say, "If I were scum, why would I blah blah blah" and in fact people say that all the time, which means they're claiming townpoints. But people don't like the concept of it, because they think, "That could be manipulated by scum." Well yeah, anything town tries to do could be manipulated by scum to achieve the opposite purpose. So then you try to factor that into your system, and account for whatever the current meta is, etc.; but with n00bs and such, there's always some uncertainty.

And in this case, there's really not a lot to go on, which is why people are seizing on petty stuff as a reason to be sus. When you see people focusing a lot on behavior and not votes or intel, that means we're in something close to RVS.

What do you think of all this, Jamelia.

Anyway, lemme ask Micc, if you're town, and then someone votes for you, even in RVS, how does that not make them, from your perspective, mathematically more sus than if they voted for someone you don't know is town (given that Mafia has information aboutwho's town and who's scum). In RVS, wouldn't scum want to pseudo-randomly choose a townie?

My view is, we don't have a lot to go on here, so in scum-hunting, we have to take even RVS decisions slightly into account; prove me wrong.

[Jamelia]

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

what do you think of the fact that micc started the chemist train?

The "start" of the chemist train was actually started by you, but Micc was the first one to vote for Chemist, correct. However, this vote wasn't held on any merit.

For me: my "opportunistic" claim about Micc comes from my own personal style of playing at this point? I may be viewing this from a "lucid stream of thought" type of thing, but from the beginning I felt like Micc has jumped onto wagons of people who were brought up by others first. For example, voting for Dyrenz after Skitter had suspicions of them (this also occured with the Chemist post#16). Then, states that he OPPOSES voting for Chemist on post #422 and prefers Leoco & settles for Oobsy after Farren begins pushing for Leoco.

Then, immediately after Farren votes for Norwegian, Micc votes for him as well, stating that Norwegian's posts (#464 / 471) did not add up. The progression just doesn't make logical sense to me in the timeline Micc presented in D1.

To which after daychange, Micc immediately votes for Oobsy for hammering. This stays until Oobsy claims (once again, Micc voting for Town until they claim, and then they unvote).

--

I do agree Farren with your scum-hunt on Leuco. I think you did a great job on gathering evidence and I think that Leuco needs to continue to respond to these claims correctly and precisely. I do have a question about Leuco's progression. As a mafia, why would Leuco hammer on their own Mafia partner, especially when I was giving at least 24 hours for Chemist to give ANY response or for someone else to figure out a different vote.

[Jamelia]

I've reviewed Micc's progression on Norwegian.

I can see at least one thing I will probably want to follow up on, but I need to chew on it for a bit. It's not directly related to the progression itself, though. That seems fine. What about the progression do you dislike?

I couldnt really get him to vote norweigian earlier in the phase, but he cast the l1 vote pretty easily/uncautiously. It felt bandwagon-y to me

For the record, i've seen mr oobsey online multiple times yesterday

Also, what I posted about Micc being opportunistic (I guess BANDWAGON-Y is the better word? *rolls eyes*) is the same opinion Skitter had... on post 553.

I wish you were more cooperative Skitter because the way you talk to everyone is just so combative most of the time. But whatever. It's mafia not a boardroom lol

[Leucosticte]

Let me ask you this -- do you accumulate scumpoints for lying about stuff that can never be proven (such as your state of mind)?

Or does that fall into the category of harmless white lies, like saying, "Nah, that skirt doesn't make your butt look too big," so you can accomplish your goals in life without running into unnecessary interpersonal drama?

I was recently in a game where one dude was the gravedigger (aka coroner), but hadn't claimed; and then someone else claimed as gravedigger. The real gravedigger thought, "Hmm, I know he's fake, because there's only one gravedigger in this game, but the others might not believe me if I counterclaim." So what he did was wait till the day was about to end, and then he opportunistically said, "I know this guy is fake because he gave away some telltale clues that I'm aware of because I've played with him for so long; trust me, it's a meta thing" and went ahead and cast his vote when there wasn't really time to try to have a lengthy discussion about it.

Then post-game, he admitted, no, there was no meta thing; he just knew 100% the guy was fakeclaiming because he had the role that the guy was claiming. In that case, it worked, but it could easily have gone against him if we'd thought, "It's pretty scummy to wait until right before nightfall to say that you've picked up on some meta tells that you don't have time to tell the rest of us about." But, it did win the game for town.

[Plotinus]

official vote count 3.02

leopard cub

---

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]

This approach of, "I'm just going to see which way the winds are blowing and then be the first to vote that way" just doesn't seem very helpful. It would be better to base it on one's independent analysis rather than just blindly following others' lead.

VOTE: Micc