Newbie 1953 | Zooborns IV | Game Over

[Jamelia]

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

I mean, you'd have to, right? Subconsciously if you know you're not scum and other people believe you are, you are going to be more inclined to believe THEY are the ones that are scummy. I am still new to this so I am trying to look for evidence and look past that immediate "Well, they're against me so I NEED to be against them" mentality. For example, I could just be trying to get Skitter out since they've scumread me many times now, but I just don't think they're AS scummy as I think micc or even you are at this point.

To me, the only person who I believe is 100% town is Farren.

[Jamelia]

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

Sigh. But wouldn't this be hypocritical of you? This is the first round that I have pushed pretty hard for a Micc scum-read (and from the posts I've seen / ISO'd, this is the hardest Micc has been seen as scummy from 1 person), wouldn't that make you just voting the way the "winds are blowing?". Since that vote is currently you, wouldn't the only other option be... Micc?

[Jamelia]

Oh, I thought he only had three votes.

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.

So then which one is it? Did you hammer prematurely on purpose or on accident?

[Farren]

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.

Scum-reasons to hammer a scum-partner:

1) To gain town credit from the flip.
2) To end discussion early.
3) To paint people who didn't get on the wagon as scummy.

In Leucosticte's particular case, I'd say #1. Check out my post 706 - I laid out how I thought the day would have gone if Leucosticte hadn't hammered.

[Leucosticte]

One might say, "Oh, if you think Micc is just following blindly instead of being malicious, that indicates you think he's town, so therefore you shouldn't vote to lynch him" but the reality is, we can afford a mislynch and he's already not in my top townreads. If you don't have any strong scumreads, though, sometimes it's best to just think, "Hmm, which player would be the most likely to inadvertently be an asset to scum," and just go ahead and lynch them so you can be rid of them and then pursue the scumhunt without their getting in the way.

Some of the same people who make formidable town opponents can also make formidable scum opponents, so that's something to be aware of; just because Farren seems high-effort and so on doesn't mean that he's town.

On the other hand, some might say, "Wow, Farren can make these brilliant connections" but don't discount too, some of these lead him astray, like in post #562 where he thought Oobsy and I were a scumteam. Well, what about, say, post #680; do you still stand by your analysis from that post, Farren, where you reached those conclusions about Jamelia's towniness based on his scumreading Mr Oobsy after Micc had started the wagon on Chemist?

Farren has some cool Mafia theory that he expresses well but it doesn't mean he's town, so don't give him too much of a halo just based on that; you still have to challenge him and see what he's really about. Otherwise, you're potentially just giving scum a free ride.

[Jamelia]

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.

Scum-reasons to hammer a scum-partner:

1) To gain town credit from the flip.
2) To end discussion early.
3) To paint people who didn't get on the wagon as scummy.

In Leucosticte's particular case, I'd say #1. Check out my post 706 - I laid out how I thought the day would have gone if Leucosticte hadn't hammered.

I can agree that Leuco COULD have done this with a scum intent, but I don’t think it was with intent to gain credit from the flip, especially when we all chastised Oobsy for hammering early D1 on a TOWN. We know that Chemist is mafia, and maybe Leuco knew this too, but chances are that hammer doesn’t happen since Micc admitted that they would have unvoted if they saw the L-1.

[Jamelia]

I also am not trying to “clear” Leuco either. In the same way I wasn’t defending Chemist but rather calling out other scummy content, I am pointing things that other players are doing that are inconsistent and scummy to me.

[Farren]

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.

Lying about state of mind is generally not a good idea as Town because that's one thing scum *have* to lie about.

You're right that it can't be proven - but there's a large part of this game that doesn't revolve around proof. And that's a good thing for this game. If everything was 100% mechanical, it'd take some of the fun out of it - as much as I love diving into the mechanics.

Sometimes people pull off gambits. And sometimes they work. Your example above would be one such - ultimately, success is its own justification, as long as the rules are followed. This game has never had a rule saying Town *can't* lie.

As you said, though - in your example, it could have gone the other way too. It's a risk one takes when they start bending the truth.

[Farren]

Heading to bed now; will respond to anything I missed Wednesday evening (by PDT standards).

[Plotinus]

official vote count 3.03

rusty spotted cat

---

Lynching

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

Leucosticte

(1): Micc

Micc

(1): Leucosticte

Not Voting

(3): Farren, skitter30, Jamelia

Deadline:

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

Mod notes:

[/area]

[Leucosticte]

I'm still trying to figure out the best order to do this in. Should we lynch Micc today and Ferren tomorrow, or Ferren today and Micc tomorrow? I haven't figured out whether Micc is the low-effort scum or Farren is the high-effort scum, but I've pretty much narrowed it down to those two.

[Micc]

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.

This is the definition of opportunistic that leads to bad scum hunting. If someone sees someone acting in a way that is suspicious and then pushes/votes them for it, that's a perfectly reasonable thing to do as town. Town players vote people who they find suspicious. The other thing that's being ignored in this conversation is that some amount of consolidation is always necessary to reach a lynch on Day 1. A lynch can't happen without half the playerlist, so there is a need for town players to work together to make wagons. Scum reading that is really silly.

If the person you think is being "opportunistic" can't give good reasons for why their vote changed then push them for that, but don't push them for just being on a wagon. Town need wagons even more than scum do.

[Micc]

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?

The mafia having information about who's town or not doesn't affect this. Mafia vote each other plenty often, RVS included. If they didn't then there'd be a tell where people who voted each other can't be partners. This tell is easy to disprove. In reality this line of thought is not alignment indicative. On Day 1 there are 8 other players, 2 scum and 6 town. Mathematically, any other player is 2/8 = 25% to be scum. It's that simple.

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.

My view is, we don't have a lot to go on here, so in order to do proper scumhunting we should make an effort to manufacture better things to analyze. Fill the thread with meaningful interaction and make reads off that, all while dropping the shallow RVS reads that are ultimately not alignment indicative.

[Micc]

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.

Calling skitter's page 1 comment the start of the chemist train is laughably misrepresentive of what lead to him getting lynched. Like I'm not going to claim to have strong armed that wagon, or even been fully in support of it going through, but saying that skitter started a day 2 lynch wagon with a comment in post 14 is mind bogglingly off base with reality.

Please answer what is scummy about being on wagons that other people brought up first. Have you considered that it takes half the playerlist to make a lynch, and that if we don't make a lynch before the deadline our win percentage drops significantly? Reality is, teamwork takes leaders and followers, and being able to fall into the appropriate role at the right time is a valuable skill.

I was the first person to vote Dyrenz, and it happened 2 posts after skitter voted Farren, so I find that example to also be unrepresentative to what actually happened. My opposition of the chemist wagon came in an entirely different day phase than my vote on him. There were 2 deaths and a PR claim in between. Is it unreasonable for me to shift around my reads with that new information? The only real change in order was him moving above you after all.

I voted Norwegian at a point in the game where there were 3 days until deadline and no meaningful wagon. Norwegian did some things that I found worth pushing and he already had a wagon rolling. I'd be stupid to not get on the wagon at that point as a town player. The case you're trying to push makes me avoiding the wagon of a player I'm suspicious of near the deadline good play, and that's just never true. If you think the reasons I jumped on Norwegian are fake then feel free to push me for that, but the case you're pushing now is bad scumhunting and you should stop.

You'll have to expand on what you're problem with me voting Obbsy immediately in Day 2 is. From my perspective I did everything you're asking of me by voting a wagon that wasn't brought up by others first. You might hate that the outcome was a PR claim, but that in itself doesn't make me scum.

[Micc]

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

you see, it funny because its ironic...

skitter continuously expresses mild scum read on micc, then jamelia starts expressing similar read....then Leucosticte votes Micc. Who's seeing "which way the winds are blowing and then being the first to vote that way" now?

[Micc]

oh Jamelia pointed this out already. Props to him for his independent thinking on that point...or something.

[Micc]

oh Jamelia pointed this out already. Props to him for his independent thinking on that point...or something.

You know, because he woke up before me and got to post first. Because everyone knows that sleeping in and missing the chance to give your opinion first is a scum trait.

[Jamelia]

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

you see, it funny because its ironic...

skitter continuously expresses mild scum read on micc, then jamelia starts expressing similar read....then Leucosticte votes Micc. Who's seeing "which way the winds are blowing and then being the first to vote that way" now?

To be fair, Skitter has had a mild scum read on pretty much everyone left.

[Jamelia]

oh Jamelia pointed this out already. Props to him for his independent thinking on that point...or something.

You know, because he woke up before me and got to post first. Because everyone knows that sleeping in and missing the chance to give your opinion first is a scum trait.

Want to expand on this? You know what I meant from my post but you’re looking to take it in this direction.

[Micc]

I'm frustrated because the case being built around me essentially comes down to, people expressed opinions and Micc shares those opinions, but didn't have the chance to post them first. It's like I'm being punished for not being online playing this game 24-7, which is stupid, because playing mafia 24-7 is incredibly unhealthy.

[Jamelia]

Let's break your post down, Micc.

Calling skitter's page 1 comment the start of the chemist train is laughably misrepresentive of what lead to him getting lynched. Like I'm not going to claim to have strong armed that wagon, or even been fully in support of it going through, but saying that skitter started a day 2 lynch wagon with a comment in post 14 is mind bogglingly off base with reality.

I didn't claim that Skitter's claim was the definite start. Notice me putting it in "start" because you're right, they were just saying it was an early scumread. But, I think Skitter's "fact" that YOU started the train to get Chemist lynched was incorrect, because you eventually change your mind off of Chemist and then oppose their lynching later in the day.

Please answer what is scummy about being on wagons that other people brought up first. Have you considered that it takes half the playerlist to make a lynch, and that if we don't make a lynch before the deadline our win percentage drops significantly? Reality is, teamwork takes leaders and followers, and being able to fall into the appropriate role at the right time is a valuable skill.

I don't think that it is scummy to be on wagons that other people brought up first if this follows a progression of thinking that makes sense. To others your progression makes sense, to me it doesn't. I don't understand how you got to the point that Norwegian should be the one to go. You mention later in this post that it's because "there were 3 days until deadline and no meaningful wagon", yet you were the one that ended the Chemist wagon AFTER everyone who was defending Chemist (mainly me) switched their minds and decided Chemist was a good D1 lynch.

My opposition of the chemist wagon came in an entirely different day phase than my vote on him. There were 2 deaths and a PR claim in between. Is it unreasonable for me to shift around my reads with that new information? The only real change in order was him moving above you after all.

Right. Your opposition to the Chemist wagon came when the other scumreads were not as strong as Chemist's (D1), which to me is scummy looking back, since we now know that the two people you were opposing the most were both town AND PR's (Norweigan/Oobsy).

If you think the reasons I jumped on Norwegian are fake then feel free to push me for that, but the case you're pushing now is bad scumhunting and you should stop.

How is it bad scumhunting? I am breaking down your VOTE PROGRESSION, not the people you are voting for. I think your reasonings for voting for Norwegian are accurate but I think they came at the wrong time and went against the line of thoughts you had before then (which included a Chemist/Oobsy/Leuco vote D1).

You'll have to expand on what you're problem with me voting Obbsy immediately in Day 2 is. From my perspective I did everything you're asking of me by voting a wagon that wasn't brought up by others first. You might hate that the outcome was a PR claim, but that in itself doesn't make me scum.

I don't have an issue with you voting for Oobsy. I just find that after we hammered D1 on someone who was town, it should have been learned not to vote that quickly until we adequately find information. Your logic is absolutely correct that round (you can see after you I also agree that Oobsy needs to explain their reasoning), but that's just that. I'd rather have someone who isn't scum explain their reasoning so we can either take our votes off of them OR, have the scum explain their reasoning so we can gain more information on rounds like this.

It's like I'm being punished for not being online playing this game 24-7, which is stupid, because playing mafia 24-7 is incredibly unhealthy.

I hope that this post explains my reasoning for scum-reading you. It is not because of you "not posting first" which is stupid and dumb reasoning. I just believe that your progression has been off.

[Jamelia]

Sorry, I said in this post that Norwegian was the PR/Town. I meant to say DYRENZ/Oobsy were people Micc was targeting who were both revealed to be RP/Town.

[Jamelia]

I'm frustrated because the case being built around me essentially comes down to, people expressed opinions and Micc shares those opinions, but didn't have the chance to post them first. It's like I'm being punished for not being online playing this game 24-7, which is stupid, because playing mafia 24-7 is incredibly unhealthy.

To this case then, I have a hypothetical.

Let's say we lynch Leuco this round (which I would be fine with, since Farren has done a great job with this evidence and I firmly believe that Leuco could be the OTHER scum as well), and Leuco happens to be town.

Between Me/Skitter/Farren, who is the scum and why?

[Micc]

I didn't claim that Skitter's claim was the definite start. Notice me putting it in "start" because you're right, they were just saying it was an early scumread. But, I think Skitter's "fact" that YOU started the train to get Chemist lynched was incorrect, because you eventually change your mind off of Chemist and then oppose their lynching later in the day.

skitter's "fact" is presumably referring to my vote at the start of Day 2, not anything I did Day 1.

I don't think that it is scummy to be on wagons that other people brought up first if this follows a progression of thinking that makes sense. To others your progression makes sense, to me it doesn't. I don't understand how you got to the point that Norwegian should be the one to go. You mention later in this post that it's because "there were 3 days until deadline and no meaningful wagon", yet you were the one that ended the Chemist wagon AFTER everyone who was defending Chemist (mainly me) switched their minds and decided Chemist was a good D1 lynch.

For what it's worth I never got to the point where I said Norwegian was the one to go. I made a vote that I believed would pressure a player who I wanted to pressure, and then someone decided to hammer the wagon without a claim.

Regardless, I think the timeline you're presenting is bad. I got off my initial chemist vote in post 124, and proceeded to oppose the wagon the rest of day 1. That's before you made your chemist vote in post 270. I don't know who else you're claiming switched their mind on chemist. Norwegian was on chemist for almost the entire day phase, and no one else voted for chemist.

Right. Your opposition to the Chemist wagon came when the other scumreads were not as strong as Chemist's (D1), which to me is scummy looking back, since we now know that the two people you were opposing the most were both town AND PR's (Norweigan/Oobsy).

I still maintain that everyone who pushed for chemist to by lynched day 1 was pushing a really shallow case. If you think that opposing a lynch that ultimately flipped scum makes me look like scum then so be it. I stand by my reasoning at the time, and ask that you poke holes in that instead of the more shallow level.

How is it bad scumhunting? I am breaking down your VOTE PROGRESSION, not the people you are voting for. I think your reasonings for voting for Norwegian are accurate but I think they came at the wrong time and went against the line of thoughts you had before then (which included a Chemist/Oobsy/Leuco vote D1).

I think you reached the conclusion that the way I acted around the chemist wagon is scummy, and you're twisting the timeline and my reads to make them conflict with the mindset I had at the time. There are a lot of things you're claiming to have happened that simply aren't true.

I don't have an issue with you voting for Oobsy. I just find that after we hammered D1 on someone who was town, it should have been learned not to vote that quickly until we adequately find information. Your logic is absolutely correct that round (you can see after you I also agree that Oobsy needs to explain their reasoning), but that's just that. I'd rather have someone who isn't scum explain their reasoning so we can either take our votes off of them OR, have the scum explain their reasoning so we can gain more information on rounds like this.

The people who I learned this game from were pretty big on wagons as a form of pressure, and I still play that way. You learn more about someone when they think they're about to by lynched than when they are comfortable. So, in line with that thinking, you are very unlikely to find me not voting someone who I think needs to explain themselves. Heck, in those days, if you hammered someone without a claim you were liable to be instantly policy lynched without being given a chance to explain yourself. I miss those days.

I hope that this post explains my reasoning for scum-reading you. It is not because of you "not posting first" which is stupid and dumb reasoning. I just believe that your progression has been off.

I mean, is "Micc has jumped onto wagons of people who were brought up by others first" not a quote directly from your post 745?

Hopefully this post helps sort out issues you have with my progression, mainly that I think you're warping things to conform to the case you want to present.

I'm frustrated because the case being built around me essentially comes down to, people expressed opinions and Micc shares those opinions, but didn't have the chance to post them first. It's like I'm being punished for not being online playing this game 24-7, which is stupid, because playing mafia 24-7 is incredibly unhealthy.

To this case then, I have a hypothetical.

Let's say we lynch Leuco this round (which I would be fine with, since Farren has done a great job with this evidence and I firmly believe that Leuco could be the OTHER scum as well), and Leuco happens to be town.

Between Me/Skitter/Farren, who is the scum and why?

I'll say skitter for the sake of answering your question, but please know that I find this line of questioning unproductive and detrimental to the game, and for that reason I'm not giving an explanation.

[Jamelia]

Ok sounds good.