It would also be you refining his case and getting actively involved in the attack of the player you claim to think is scum, rather than sitting in the sidelines and coaching SL while letting her take all the heat.iLord wrote:Why have two cases against Incognito at the same time with the same points, albeit one with a little less than the other?
It would be like SL saying Incognito is scummy for A, B, C, D, and E, and then me making my own case saying that Incognito is scummy for A and E.
In addition to what I already answered, turning it into a moral issue which sthar as a good townie felt he was compelled to apologize for takes the matter of him being scum out of the equation.iLord wrote:Guilt? Are you attacking him for guilt? What's wrong with feeling guilty if you do something antitown?
The differences between your reactions to Incog/SL and sthar/myself being somethat disturbing.iLord wrote:"a"? Which one?
That was mentioned in the same post as the apology, that "moral code" could've been created by stharscum to turn the whole thing into a big deal that he as a humble townie sees fit to apologize for. If he'd have mentioned earlier being ambivalent to this, It'd make the possibility he's town and did see it as a big deal less likely and thus make it a much stronger tell.sthar wrote:Was sathr8’s apology affected any by what he had said earlier about hating when people answer for others? Would an apology like the one he presented be perceived differently if he was more ambivalent to this more code?
Yes.Incog wrote:@Raging Rabbit: Was there any reason why you asked me about my read of Crazy in particular?
That's weak logic - if one of them had a stronger sense of guilt, it would be town because they would feel guilty for harming to town - their faction.RR wrote:Yup, scum make an active effort to appear pro town while town are more concerned with looking for scum, so obviously scum have a much stronger sense of guilt when they are called on an anti-town play. For them, it means their town-act failed, while town are more inclined to think it's the other guy's fault for not reading them correctly.
However, both in hindsight and considering his latest comment, I think sthar's massclaim speculation is a pretty strong sign that he's town. Unvote.
Hmm, something to ponder, no doubt. I'll have to reread Incognito's posts myself once I find some time.SL wrote:This post is peculiar because what it does is asking for people to justify their vote on skillit, while he himself has made no commitment as to his thought on skillit's alignment - note here that this imo is in itself is a display of scumminess from Incognito, I will also further speculate that what happened there is that Incognito was been sly and he was defending skillit without seeming to, I acknowledge however that the last is a judgement call.
And to conclude, I'd like to point to skillit's boosting Incognito for absolutely lame reason. It does feel like a piece of a puzzle just failing into place, doesn't it?
I've already pointed out which points I feel were good against Incognito. Incognito and I have discussed them. Why should I make a formal "case" instead of helping SL refine hers?RR wrote:It would also be you refining his case and getting actively involved in the attack of the player you claim to think is scum, rather than sitting in the sidelines and coaching SL while letting her take all the heat.
I don't really get what your saying here. So you think guilt was a nulltell?RR wrote:In addition to what I already answered, turning it into a moral issue which sthar as a good townie felt he was compelled to apologize for takes the matter of him being scum out of the equation.
Admit that your point was weak once you realized it.RR wrote:I'll ask again since you didn't quite answer this one - much of your reason for suspecting me seems to be that I "pushed" my point against sthar repeatedly. However, I did that because I was repeatedly questioned about it by other players. What is the pro town course of action in this case that would'nt have made me look scummy to you?
I whole heartedly disagree.iLord wrote:That's weak logic - if one of them had a stronger sense of guilt, it would be town because they would feel guilty for harming to town - their faction.
You're saying I wasn't attacked for it before? That's interesting, see below.iLord wrote:Good job backing up finally, after someone attacked you for it. My suspicions of you do not falter.
You definitely let her play the main role in the attack, while your own role was to coach her and calm her down. you addresed your posts to SL and avoided direct conflict.iLord wrote:"letting her take all the heat"? Are you saying that I have not been vocal about my opinions and suspicions regarding Incognito? Are you saying only the player that formally pushes a quote-by-quote "case" against a player is under the spotlight?
What's not to get aboutiLord wrote:I don't really get what your saying here. So you think guilt was a nulltell?
But I didn't think my point was weak, which is why I argued back.iLord wrote:Admit that your point was weak once you realized it.
Someone attackedRR wrote:You're saying I wasn't attacked for it before? That's interesting, see below.
What does it matter who played the main role?TDC wrote:You definitely let her play the main role in the attack, while your own role was to coach her and calm her down. you addresed your posts to SL and avoided direct conflict.
I'm still confused. In addition to what you said before, you think that it's a null tell?RR wrote:What's not to get about in addition?
Although I have no way of proving it, I'm fairly sure that you realized that your point was weak after a few prods about the validity of your point.RR wrote:But I didn't think my point was weak, which is why I argued back.
This is not only untrue, it's being used as a defense mechanism, something that votes should not be used for. This is completely scum blowing up under pressure, throwing a vote at your attacker.RR wrote:You're completely contradicting yourself, above in bold you attacked me for submitting to pressure and taking my case back as soon as I was pressed on it, and here all the sudden I'm to blame for being pressed on it and not taking my case back. I think your main concern is to make me look bad, and you're content to use two opposite views to help yourself achieve that goal. That's not the way a town player acts. Vote iLord.
ILord, post 184 wrote:You did point out the points you didn't agree with.
So you don't agree with the other points?
Ah, I see what you're trying to get at now. I don't think I agree though - I don't think you can keep a running scorecard that just count the good points and then discard the poor points. Surely the poor points can indicate a lack of sincerity in the person making the case?iLord, post 189 wrote:First of all, like I have said, weak points don't weaken the good points. You're scummy because of those good points.
I don't think it was genuine 'mad.' (Although, reading #221, maybe I completely misread this...maybe I'm reading uncharacteristic anger, rather than fake anger.) I also don't accept that point that only townies get annoyed.iLord wrote:Second of all, just read some of SL's recent posts after she started getting mad. Look at them and honestly tell me that those are coming from a scum mouth.
You have a point that Electra has kept a low profile since her initial entrance. Her last post where she says "early game is as boring for scum as it gets" is a bit worrying, isn't it, given her apparent boredom with the game...Jahudo wrote:@sthar8: I could ask this to a bunch of people including myself, but you have stated you find Electra most town. What have you thought about Electra’s posting since we’ve gotten off the subject of her claim and the boosting? How has she contributed since then?
I don't really. I guess my problem is that Crazy was coming across to me as scummy whereas I still haven't figured out if my issue with sl is a playstyle/personality thing.Incog, post 201 wrote:eldarad, I meant to ask you about this before, but is there any reason why you seem to have an order of lynching preference?
You also voted for me in that post. When I came up with my 'leap of faith' thing to suggest that Electa probably isn't scum you completely ignored it. If you had changed your mind following my post 32, I would have expected you to mention it. Instead, posts 36 (in which you responded to other parts of my post 32), 39 and 41 fail to even acknowledge that I had discussed why I thought Electra was townie, and certainly don't indicate your agreement with what I said.iLord, post 15 wrote:I'm wary of Electra - what she's doing is way too easy of a scum gambit for me to trust.
But if you think Incog is scum, and that SL is missing points that indicate that Incog is scum, or else is presenting those points badly, it would make sense for you to intervene, wouldn't it?iLord wrote:"letting her take all the heat"? Are you saying that I have not been vocal about my opinions and suspicions regarding Incognito? Are you saying only the player that formally pushes a quote-by-quote "case" against a player is under the spotlight?
For me it was a mixture of buddying and lurking, I guess.TDC wrote:I'm astonished that none of the four Crazy voters bothered to explain the case on him.
I'm not looking at him in a vacuum, I'm looking at him in the context of this game. What is your opinion of the type of Crazy who would exhibit these scumtells?iLord wrote:Electra, you need to avoid looking at Crazy in a vacuum. Scumtells that you have experienced may not be effective here in this situation. Other stuff may be part of Crazy's normal playstyle. You need to imagine what type of Crazy would say the stuff that he's staying, and not ook for stuff that you have been told, or have expereinced as "scumtells."
I myself am not getting any scum vibes from Crazy right now - I sense genuine boredom - he's expressed as much in other games.
Eldarad, think about it - how can poor points decrease the value of the good points!eldarad wrote:Ah, I see what you're trying to get at now. I don't think I agree though - I don't think you can keep a running scorecard that just count the good points and then discard the poor points. Surely the poor points can indicate a lack of sincerity in the person making the case?
You really don't think it's genuine? I get no such sentiment.Eldarad wrote:I don't think it was genuine 'mad.' (Although, reading #221, maybe I completely misread this...maybe I'm reading uncharacteristic anger, rather than fake anger.) I also don't accept that point that only townies get annoyed.
My opinion changed at Post 55 after TDC pointed out yor point. I did not acknowledge it simply because I skimmed over it and didn't read it (Such action was the cause behind me falling hopelessly behind).Eldarad wrote:You also voted for me in that post. When I came up with my 'leap of faith' thing to suggest that Electa probably isn't scum you completely ignored it. If you had changed your mind following my post 32, I would have expected you to mention it. Instead, posts 36 (in which you responded to other parts of my post 32), 39 and 41 fail to even acknowledge that I had discussed why I thought Electra was townie, and certainly don't indicate your agreement with what I said.
That makes me think that you didn't agree with it at the time and it is only now, when the majority of players have agreed with my logic, that you have chosen to voice agreement.
I am intervening - I pointed out my points and I'm helping SL shape her case. My points are within SL's points - there's a reason why I asked if you agree with any of SL's points.Eldarad wrote:But if you think Incog is scum, and that SL is missing points that indicate that Incog is scum, or else is presenting those points badly, it would make sense for you to intervene, wouldn't it?
As it is, you've been commentating from the sidelines, rather than pushing a case against Incog. In the first of the quotes in this post, you are asking me whether there are some of springlullaby's points that I agree with...there's no mention at all of any of your points...
unvote
vote iLord
I still think it's a mild towntell, it's balanced out by sthar's massclaim speculation being a towntell in hindsight.TDC wrote:RR: I'm confused.. do you still think your point on sthar is strong?
Eldarad put this well in his last post, I think coaching SL from the sidelines instead of directly attacking Incog himself, and in particurlar addressing his posts to SL rather than Incog, is non-confrontational in a very scummy way.TDC wrote:How much of your iLord vote is based on the apparent contradiction, and how much on him not being the main propagator of the Incognito case? (I'm asking because I don't really see where you're going with the latter, iLord's position on the Incognito-springlullaby exchange has been quite clear)
In addition to what I said before, by apologizing and turning the attack to a moral issue, sthar takes the scuminess of his actions out of the equation and displays himself as a repenting townie. Therefore the apology is also a non-direct defense, which serve stharscum's interests.iLord wrote:I'm still confused. In addition to what you said before, you think that it's a null tell?
I like how you bring up me "blowing up under pressure" and all that jazz here to avoid explaining what makes it untrue, since you evidently haven't figured out a way to try and explain your contradiction away yet.iLord wrote:This is not only untrue, it's being used as a defense mechanism, something that votes should not be used for. This is completely scum blowing up under pressure, throwing a vote at your attacker.
I think Occam's razor serves us best here - maybe Sthar8 says he's sorry,RR wrote:In addition to what I said before, by apologizing and turning the attack to a moral issue, sthar takes the scuminess of his actions out of the equation and displays himself as a repenting townie. Therefore the apology is also a non-direct defense, which serve stharscum's interests.
I thought I had explained it, but I in fact had not.RR wrote:I like how you bring up me "blowing up under pressure" and all that jazz here to avoid explaining what makes it untrue, since you evidently haven't figured out a way to try and explain your contradiction away yet.
In the same post, first you say I'm to blame for taking back my case as soon as I was attacked, then all the sudden I actually was attacked earlier and am to blame for not taking my case back. Explain how that's untrue.
Yes, of course a pro-town player has to make the leap somewhere, but I still fail to see what's wrong with not making that leap some time later in the game. You began attacking me sincespringlullaby, [url=https://forum.mafiascum.net/viewtopic.php?p=1343306#1343306]in her 222[/url], wrote:There is no perfect case, especially on day 1, and in mafia you could pretty much dismiss anything by virtue of giving the benefit of the doubt if you were thus inclined. But thing is, you've got to make the leap somewhere, somehow, if you want to move things along. That is why in essence the 'reserving judgement being protown' argument is in my view not a good defence.
I've responded to this point previously, so I will not respond to it again.springlullaby, [url=https://forum.mafiascum.net/viewtopic.php?p=1343306#1343306]in her 222[/url], wrote:In addition, I think that wanting to reserve judgement hints heavily at self-preservation being a big motivation in one's play. In clear, I think Incognito has been sending up 'I may be blue' warning signs to town but you see, I do not think there is a role in this game that warrants such a strongly hinted at subtext beside scum.
I've already explained the motivation for my earlier questions, but I guess you still think they were not game-related for whatever reason. Do you think my more recent questions still have no perspective? Do you not see the issues within the points that I've raised against iLord and other players, and can you not see how my questions towards him and others especially as of recent might be helpful in gauging whether or not someone's scum?springlullaby, [url=https://forum.mafiascum.net/viewtopic.php?p=1343306#1343306]in her 222[/url], wrote:2. I do see a pattern of OMGUS in Incognito's play. When left 'unattended' you can see him going about what I see as asking an endless stream of questions with no perspective in sight. But he does comes alive when directly under fire, putting my case on him aside, see his reaction to iLord.
Anything at all?springlullaby, [url=https://forum.mafiascum.net/viewtopic.php?p=1343306#1343306]in her 222[/url], wrote:This combined with his inability to formulate an original view of anything, makes me think he is a pretty good picture of reactive scum play.
First, admittedly, when I pointed out that Skillit was at L-2, I forgot about the "nobody will be lynched before two people get boosted" mechanic.springlullaby, [url=https://forum.mafiascum.net/viewtopic.php?p=1343306#1343306]in her 222[/url], wrote:Later, there is a post from Incognito signalling that skillit is at L-2.
http://www.mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopi ... 85#1324185
This post is peculiar because what it does is asking for people to justify their vote on skillit, while he himself has made no commitment as to his thought on skillit's alignment - note here that this imo is in itself is a display of scumminess from Incognito, I will also further speculate that what happened there is that Incognito was been sly and he was defending skillit without seeming to, I acknowledge however that the last is a judgement call.
While I did find Skillit's behavior early on suspicious, I'm not full of myself nor am I silly enough to think that I'm soo good of a player that I thought I found scum that early in the gameIncognito, [url=https://forum.mafiascum.net/viewtopic.php?p=1325440#1325440]in my 12th post[/url], wrote:No, I don't think he's in any real danger right now either, but I suspect that the wagon that's formed on Skillit is not a random D1 wagon being put forward to figure things out from people -- it seems like a more serious wagon. Therefore, I mentioned that because I'd like for the people who are still on his wagon who haven't particularly elaborated further on what they thought about Skillit's more recent posts to own up to their own votes. I felt like some of the votes were still a bit wagony.
Raging Rabbit, would you please go into your reasoning?Raging Rabbit, [url=https://forum.mafiascum.net/viewtopic.php?p=1343765#1343765]in his 227[/url], wrote:Yes.Incog wrote:@Raging Rabbit: Was there any reason why you asked me about my read of Crazy in particular?
I can agree that many more people focused on your vote than on sthar answering another person’s question, but since you placed and held a vote on sthar it is only natural that you would have to back up your suspicion.Raging Rabbit wrote:However, I did that because I was repeatedly questioned about it by other players. What is the pro town course of action in this case that would'nt have made me look scummy to you?
Just for clarification, the “sthar” quote was by me addressed to RR and not from sthar’s apology post. I also don’t understand why you think he should have made his ambivalence to this faux pas earlier on? He said he hated when people did that the moment he realized he did it. I don’t see how this is relevant speculation to what happened.sthar wrote: Was sathr8’s apology affected any by what he had said earlier about hating when people answer for others? Would an apology like the one he presented be perceived differently if he was more ambivalent to this more code?Raging Rabbit wrote:That was mentioned in the same post as the apology, that "moral code" could've been created by stharscum to turn the whole thing into a big deal that he as a humble townie sees fit to apologize for. If he'd have mentioned earlier being ambivalent to this, It'd make the possibility he's town and did see it as a big deal less likely and thus make it a much stronger tell.
First off, thanks. Second, I still think it’s a good move and a safe move to boost Electra. I don’t think that her low profile would be a big issue if she was not at B-1 for boosting, which has a similar feeling to having a confirmed townie. You expect them to act townie and when they don’t it stands out more. And it feels like several people have been catching boredom in this game, so maybe that inspires more boredom?eldarad wrote:You have a point that Electra has kept a low profile since her initial entrance. Her last post where she says "early game is as boring for scum as it gets" is a bit worrying, isn't it, given her apparent boredom with the game...
Boost Jahudo
Seconded. Crazy and also skillit I think are looking worse because of their absense.eldarad wrote:I am still a bit concerned about Crazy's lack of activity and her comparative lack of opinions...
You previously said you didn’t understand the case on Crazy and asked to be clued in. Did the lack of a response make you think about the legitimacy of the case? What about the response you got after you asked again? Also what do you think about the Crazy case now?TDC wrote:I'm astonished that none of the four Crazy voters bothered to explain the case on him.
He didn’t unvote after any particular pressure but after something that sthar did which had occured after amounting pressure but might not be related. I’m still not sure the unvote was as serious as the initial vote.iLord wrote:Although I have no way of proving it, I'm fairly sure that you realized that your point was weak after a few prods about the validity of your point.
I didn't understand it when I asked, so obviously this didn't change when nobody explained it.Jahudo wrote:You previously said you didn’t understand the case on Crazy and asked to be clued in. Did the lack of a response make you think about the legitimacy of the case?
I share iLord's feelings towards Electra's case. I, too, see Crazy genuinely bored.Jahudo wrote:What about the response you got after you asked again?
Now, I think I've asked this before, but where did Crazy make any assumption about Electra's "information"? RR and iLord where the people talking about cop investigations.eldarad wrote:For me it was a mixture of buddying and lurking, I guess.
Also the assumption about Electra's "information" and the fact that SL completely ignored Crazy borrowing my opinion, but chewed Incog for doing it, which - at the time - suggested to me that there might be a SL-Crazy link.
I'm not convinced that is true anymore, but I am still a bit concerned about Crazy's lack of activity and her comparative lack of opinions...
I still think it's pretty weak.Jahudo wrote:Also what do you think about the Crazy case now?
That logic can be applied to each and every scumtell possible. "Maybe he said X because heiLord wrote:I think Occam's razor serves us best here - maybe Sthar8 says he's sorry, because he genuinely feels sorry, rather than this dissembling you state that he's doing.
So I realized I was seen as scummy but didn't take it back, which according to you is scummy, but then all the sudden you OMGiLord wrote:There is no contradiction - you are scummy for pushing the point against sthar8 in the first place. Not taking back the attack after the other players pointed out it's weakness when I believe you realized it was scummy confirmed that it was not a town mistake.
Now, as soon as I back up my stance on your attack with a vote, you back out of the spotlight...
Another misrep, I never said that I no longer consider it a scum tell. I said that integrating another factor into the picture makes sthar look a lot less likely to be scum now.iLord wrote:stating that you just found that your vote was not in fact a scumtell.
What's the "orignial point" I'm trying to avoid, pray tell? All I see is two seperate points that completely contradict each other and a contrived explanation trying to link them.iLord wrote:I do admit it's not really "blowing up." It's more like how I would've expected you to act as pressured scum - attempting to set-up contradictions in my speech to defend against my attack, all the while backing off the point my original case was based upon.
Why is that so importatnt to you?Incog wrote:Raging Rabbit, would you please go into your reasoning?
Yes, but it's only natural for me to have to repeat my logic when questioned about it and isn't a repeated pushing/forcing of my case like people tried to display it as. The massclaim speculation isn't a good move for scum because it draws attention to them and their roles, and makes any convincing fakeclaims they may have ready not as good since the town sees how insistent they were on claiming it. Also the way he chose to phrase his offer it feels very pro town in hindsight.Jahudo wrote:I can agree that many more people focused on your vote than on sthar answering another person’s question, but since you placed and held a vote on sthar it is only natural that you would have to back up your suspicion.
Why in particular did you think sthar’s massclaim speculation makes him town enough to unvote him? Is trying to look pro-town vs acting pro-town relevant to how sthar discussed the massclaim theory?
He said "In hindsight along with his latest comment" or something like that. "hindsight" is a key excuse for scum to back off.Jahudo wrote:He didn’t unvote after any particular pressure but after something that sthar did which had occured after amounting pressure but might not be related. I’m still not sure the unvote was as serious as the initial vote.
First of all, it can't be applied to all scumtells - scumtells are by definition actions that are indictive of scum.RR wrote:That logic can be applied to each and every scumtell possible. "Maybe he said X because he genuinely thinks X?" Yes, it's obviously possible, but X is also a comfortable tactic for scum imo and therefore worthy of suspicion.
You're not looking at my points.RR wrote:So I realized I was seen as scummy but didn't take it back, which according to you is scummy, but then all the sudden you OMG vote me and I become panicked scum and unvote?
If I was already aware I was under negative attention and chose to stick with my opinion, why would one vote make me go all panicked? This is just really contrived.
I don't remember you saying this.RR wrote:Another misrep, I never said that I no longer consider it a scum tell. I said that integrating another factor into the picture makes sthar look a lot less likely to be scum now.
Your continued attempts to twist my attacks are noted - scum scrambling for methods of defense no doubt.RR wrote:What's the "orignial point" I'm trying to avoid, pray tell? All I see is two seperate points that completely contradict each other and a contrived explanation trying to link them.
It's important because that type of question is usually the type of question a person asks when he or she is trying to draw connections between players. I'm generally leery of those types of questions in the cases where I can find no underlying basis for them, so I figured I'd ask you for your reasoning.Raging Rabbit, [url=https://forum.mafiascum.net/viewtopic.php?p=1345819#1345819]in his 245[/url], wrote:Why is that so importatnt to you?Incog wrote:Raging Rabbit, would you please go into your reasoning?