Mini 692: Boost Mafia (Game Over!)

[Elmo]

Day 1, Vote Count #13 - Lynching

Huntress (3) <- Mana_Ku, sthar8, Electra
iLord (2) <- Raging Rabbit, eldarad
Incognito (2) <- Guardian, Jahudo
Mana_Ku <- TDC
Raging Rabbit <- iLord
Guardian <- Incognito

Not voting: RandomGem, Huntress.

Boost Count

Electra (5) <- eldarad, Raging Rabbit, TDC, Jahudo, RandomGem
TDC (3) <- Incognito, Raging Rabbit, sthar8
sthar8 (2) <- Guardian, iLord
Raging Rabbit (2) <- Jahudo, Mana_Ku
Guardian (2) <- iLord, Mana_Ku
eldarad <- TDC
Jahudo <- eldarad
iLord <- Guardian

With 12 alive, it's 7 to lynch/boost.

[sthar8]

Mana_Ku:

This gives me the impression that he has chosen to boost Electra (as he says second)

Your impression is wrong. Obviously Electra would prefer that she be the first one boosted, I wanted to know what criteria she would apply to the second.

Why did you want to know this?

To help determine the motive behind Electra's opening post. I thought it possible that the goal of her strategy was not to get boosted.

Should this matter?

Is this question relevant to anything?

Something iLord said gives you the impression that you have different kind of roles. Why mention this with iLord, but not with Electra?

The answer to this should be blindingly obvious.

How do you know?

I hope this is a joke...

[TDC]

TDC, did you mean this:

I want proof for this before I mindlessly hop onto the wagon!

Obviously not.

That's a fair point. Boost: Electra.

You could also say that scum would do this as they know town won't think scum would do this.

I assume your answer refers to the point I agreed with, which was:

And, as Electra said, for a scum to make that leap of faith about the existence or otherwise of boostable vanilla townies, or whatever, is pause for thought.

I don't really see what you're trying to say, to be honest.
Are you saying it's just as likely that scum would make up a whole role type ("boostable vanilla") that might not even exist, on day 1, without any pressure on them?

[Guardian]

Hey guys, I am going to try and get caught up with this game. I am going to hit "post" whenever I complete a unit of logical thought/objective, so there may be a few in a row. Anyways, I will be trying to "play" for about an hour or maybe more, OR until I get my list of objectives done.

Some of them require a full re-read, some require reexamining some posts, so I doubt I will finish everything I want to say, but I will try and make a dent. If you happen to see the thread in the next few minutes and want me to add something to my to-do/to-answer list, or want to remind me of something you think I may have forgotten, let me know. This post took approximately ten minutes to write -- my realistic goal is to complete the first four things. Well, the first three at least. If I get more that is icing on the cake.

My list is something like:
respond to TDC about me vz. incog
respond to TDC/Incognito about me "continuing SL's suspicion"
illustrate clearer my problem about Incog voting me only after I replaced in.
illustrate clearer my problem with Incog being dismissive* (this may have been done sufficiently by others, so I might skip it/put it last)
Re-read game with all players in mind, now that I have clear idea of how the game generally went.
Read individually: Crazy, iLord, TDC, iLord-sth combo, lurkers
Respond to Huntress's entry (HI Huntress! Long time since NG 576 )
Respond to Electra’s recent post.
Respond to Incognito’s recent post about my list of players and demonstrate how it is unfair.
Respond to recent events I haven't thought about yet.

I may skip harder tasks on this list, I may do some earlier that interest me, I may decide some are worthless; this is the chronological order that seems “fairest,” however.

[Guardian]

TDC, why does my being more likely scum than Incognito make me your third choice of who to lynch? Do you think one of us must be scum? Are we about equal and he is fourth? Or why?

No, it is of course possible that both of you are town. I'm saying that if one of you is scum, I'd place my bet on you, rather than him.
That I'm comparing you two should not be much of a surprise, seeing that sl had not done much more than argue with Incognito, and considering that both of you claim to be pretty sure the other is scum.
Incognito is pretty much a null read for me.

Comparing us is fine. But in your post, you compare us, conclude that I(+SL) am scummier than Incog, but that this is only a lean you have, and in fact a lean you needed to meta SL to acquire. That slight lean then that makes me in your top three:

Guardian's entry [snip] doesn't manage to destroy the "springlullaby is more likely scum than Incognito" lean I got from metaing her.

[snip] if I had to lynch someone right now, I'd be up for either of the three mentioned above.

If me *being scummier* than Incog puts me in the top 3, then does it not follow that Incog is fourth, if you only have a "lean" that I am scummier that you needed to meta SL for?

Why mention me being scummier than Incog as justification for having me in the top three? Also, what do you find scummy about Incog that you needed to compare us for?

Why is trying to discredit Electra suspicious?

Why would scum not have an interest to discredit her? (Assuming she is town, which, as I've explained, I think is very likely).

What about my logic is wrong? I think it is not particularly obvious one way or the other if she is town (which, as I've explained, I think is very likely the correct stance). Why do you take it to be more likely that I am scum rather than a townie that disagrees?

[Guardian]

What makes you think I have SL-like tunnel vision?

I would've expected a replacement to take a deep breath and reconsider. Instead you're just continuing where she left off.

That's the exact thing TDC -- I came in with no prejudices, I took a breath and read the game with fresh eyes, and had no preconceptions to reconsider -- and came to the exact same conclusions that SL came with. There are two possible explanations for this (that I can think of).

• 1) I am scum replacing someone who tried to railroad a townie (I am presuming that there are no third party roles, and Incognito is unlikely to be my scum buddy). I replaced in and thought that to make this railroading plausible I should continue it. I decided that making roughly the same arguments against a townie that weren't working for SL because for some reason (and please provide the reason, I'd like to understand what reasoning you think scum would have) I thought that was the best idea.
  
• 2) I am a townie replacing in with no prejudices. Reading the game from an entirely unbiased/fresh perspective, I found that what I considered to be the best case was in fact the case that the player I was replacing found best. I thought that Incognito's attacks on SL were fallacious and sometimes cruel/hostile, and that he was very dismissive of arguments against him, and quick to shift attention away from himself, often back on to whomever was suspicious of him (OMGUS). I did not use exclusively the same arguments SL used, rather I stated what I found plausible and added some (at least one that I am sure of) entirely new arguments based on new evidence

I realize that it may not be as clear to others as it is to me, but from my perspective option 2 fits the evidence best. If I am town, the fact that I took up the same case as my predecessor should give it credence -- that is two independent town minds who reached the same conclusions about Incognito.

I also would argue that I have not focused exclusively on Incognito in a "tunnel vision" sense, where I ignore what is happening around me or ignore arguments to the contrary -- I have commented and though on other players. Trying to carry on dialogues with the town about 4 different players I find suspicious at the same time is often ineffective and inefficient however, and I do agree that Incognito has been my primary focus. I must ask: what's wrong with that?

Also, (everyone:) do you think it would be fair to describe Incog's play as primarily focusing on me? If so, what is different about me/Incognito that makes it OK for him to focus on me but not vice versa, as TDC's logic would imply?

[Guardian]

If me replacing in had nothing to do with your vote why did you say that it did? Why vote for me only after I replaced in -- you posted between her last post and before I replace in, why not vote then?

I'm assuming you're talking about this:

Plus, Guardian is always scum in games I'm in. QED.

This was pretty clearly a joke. My real explanation for shifting my vote

back

to the player I had it on was directly above this QED stuff. You haven't lost your sense of humor, have you?

Further, I asked her a question after she requested replacement that I wanted a real answer about. After she said "FUCK YOU" to me, I responded with a "ban plz" and then voted for you after you were announced as the replacement. Either way, I don't see what's scummy about me voting for you when you replaced in when I already had been voting springlullaby throughout the day. What difference would it truly make as to when/if I shifted my vote back to you when even after I switched my vote to iLord I mentioned that I still thought springlullaby (you) were scum? You're arguing that my vote on you was preemptive OMGUS but like I mentioned before, how could I possibly know that you would read the game and come to the exact same conclusions as springlullaby did regarding my alignment to be able to preemptively OMGUS you? This argument is crap logic.

Incognito is ignoring the main part of the problem. Let me quote the relevant posts from around what I am finding suspicious from Incognito:

Why are you requesting replacement?

To be at liberty to say FUCK YOU and your disgusting little comments.

I've been gracious enough to attempt to put the whole thing behind, going as far as dismissing everything on my being in a foul mood, but you had to bring it up again.

Man who are you to judge what should or shouldn't pisses me off, you're the one to act all put upon just because I said FUCK YOU.

ban plz ^^^

Guardian replaces springlullaby. Thanks, Guardian!

Hi guys :). I see that peace and happiness precedes my coming.

I just got my role from Patrick (pro-town obv. obv.) and will read the game soon, and have comments :).

I think more people need to say if they think Incog was playing the agitator on SL. I don't think so. The two posts she just referenced I don't think are so bad, or as bad as I've seen so maybe it's all perception. The second one I didn't even understand: Ether theory? huh? Anyway, I'd like to hear at least some kind of response from the newly replaced.

Jahudo, why do you think springlullaby was frustrated? What do you think she could have been frustrated about?

The second one I didn't even understand: Ether theory? huh?

That second was actually more in reference to iLord. Ether (the player on MS) made up this joking theory that a person who can't tell whether someone is a female or male based on the gender icon in the profile is probably scum. Since iLord kept calling springlullaby a "he", I jokingly said I should apply Ether's theory to iLord and label him as scum.

In other news, I think springlullaby's reaction still comes from scum. I think she was agitated that I found this meta against her, and she stormed off because of that. I did nothing to provoke her, so her reaction seems over the top. Also, I still think my case against her is valid.

Plus, Guardian is always scum in games I'm in. QED.

Unvote
Vote: Guardian

Major FoS: iLord

Incognito posted and had an opportunity to vote SL in 276, after the last time she posted. He didn't. Nothing major happened in the game between 276 and 280 except I replaced in. 277 and 278 are just me replacing in, 279 is Jahudo asking for comments on SL vs Incog. The only thing that changed in the game is that I replaced in -- and that caused Incognito to vote SL/me. He "joked" that he was voting because I replaced in -- and sure,

maybe

that was an "innocent" joke (innocent jokes are few and far between in mafia). But even had he not mentioned me replacing in -- it seems fairly clear that me replacing in/SL replacing out is what caused his vote, and he has provided no explanation for that. I can think of a few scum explanations for it, and cannot think of any townie ones.

[Guardian]

Reading over the posts I needed to read to answer the above questions, I think I may have a more tangible reason to think Jahudo is scummy -- hedging. TDC I am not sure what I think about, but there seems to be a lack of clarity in TDC's mind about who he finds suspicious. I find Incognito, Jahudo, TDC, and iLord in a general area of people-who-might-be-scum-(together?)-and-I-need-to-investigate-further.

[Guardian]

I will now be taking a break from this game for a bit or for the evening. I might watch some TV or read or even do some mafia discussion or put some thought into the one other game I am in, which also deserves my attention.

I am a little sad I didn't get a bit more done, but I need a break from this and at least I am an accurate predictor of how long things take.

My to-do list is now something like:

respond to TDC about me vz. incog
respond to TDC/Incognito about me "continuing SL's suspicion"
illustrate clearer my problem about Incog voting me only after I replaced in.

1) The next thing I do, for certain, will be to: illustrate clearer my problem with Incog being dismissive (mana KU also asking for this makes it clear to me that I should do it, that's like the third player. and maybe as I do it I will make it clearer for myself whether that accusation is correct)
2) Re-read game with all players in mind, now that I have clear idea of how the game generally went.
3) Read individually: Crazy, iLord, TDC, Jahudo, iLord-sth combo, lurkers
4) Respond to Huntress's entry
5) Respond to Electra’s recent post.
6) Respond to Incognito’s recent post about my list of players and demonstrate how it is unfair.
7) Answer questions people have asked me to answer, especially ones that they repeat/reference after I make this post. (*I may do this second, since it is nice to get my questions answered fast and it is only fair to try and answer other people's)
8) Respond to recent events I haven't thought about yet.

[Guardian]

I will now attempt to gather evidence for Incognito being dimissive, resorting to ad-hom, trying to turn attention away from suspicion on him, and even being slighting and downright cruel to those attacking him. This happens to be primarily if not totally springlullaby, to my recollection. I will see if the evidence is there or if I misremembered, and comment on his body of play in total after fully re-reading his posts.

Bolded red text is mine, for emphasis.

Glad to see you getting more involved now, springlullaby.

I almost forgot you were even in this game

. Addressing your points.

Before he even addresses a point, he is trying to diminish the validity of the points because SL missed the game starting so was not active early.

2. All of Incognito's posts has 'look I'm such a good little townie' written all over them, but has yet to produce anything meaningful.

Um, yeah, this is such weighted bombast.

I've been

trying

to hunt scum. I didn't like the initial route the discussion took since it seemed to focus purely on the game mechanics which seems more theoretical to me. I think it's

extremely

easy for scum to hide in that type of discussion since it focuses more on information rather than analysis and leaves people reading completely neutral. I prefer asking questions directly to people and engaging in conversation by analyzing posts and eventually formulating gut reads. In my opinion, theory discussion is very unlikely to reveal much about a person's alignment, so the sooner we could move away from it, the better.

Dismissive tone creeping in.

a. Ask 'soft' questions of doubtful relevance in about every post he makes, but doesn't seem to garner any insights from the answers he got.

Eh? All of my questions have been very relevant to the game, and I certainly wouldn't classify them as "'soft' questions" either. Just because I don't immediately reveal my insights from the answers I get doesn't mean that I haven't formulated any opinions on them. When I'm ready to make a case against someone who I think is scum, I'll do so but certainly not this early in the game. Trust me, when I have a scum read on someone I'll make my opinion on the person blatantly obvious. Right now, this is purely the information-gathering stage for me. I've seen certain things from people that make me lean slightly town on them or slightly scum but not enough to come to a definitive answer with respect to their alignments.

This post is not any of the above categories but it is funny to me for a few reasons.

• The place he points to he was "blatantly obvious" in labeling ME scum. I was town (I later re-replaced in as scum, but here I was town). Guess I am not always scum.
  
• Also, Incognito defends his not having definitive reads on people since it is early in the game for him... His action seems awfully close to the healthy suspicion of everyone (but sth) that I have (less than a week after my replacing in) that he most recently attacked me for in response to KU boosting me.

Incognito, I think you very much resemble scum trying to look busy, what do you think?

Cute. Very cute.

Some of your points seem like a bit of a stretch to me, which is a bit bothersome. I'll try and take it as a slight pro-town sign that you've called me of all people out on certain things when I've pretty much had absolutely nothing directed at me and have been finding myself trying to create my own content to get involved in. But yeah, there ya go.

More dismissive. To be fair, this is the first dismissive/mean post of his I noticed and 2/3 of his responses seem fair. On The Other Hand, it is the first post he is attacked :P. It seems that townies should strive to 3/3 fair but let me read on...

Um, yeah, this is such weighted bombast. I've been

trying

to hunt scum. I didn't like the initial route the discussion took since it seemed to focus purely on the game mechanics which seems more theoretical to me. I think it's

extremely

easy for scum to hide in that type of discussion since it focuses more on information rather than analysis and leaves people reading completely neutral. I prefer asking questions directly to people and engaging in conversation by analyzing posts and eventually formulating gut reads. In my opinion, theory discussion is very unlikely to reveal much about a person's alignment, so the sooner we could move away from it, the better.

You are saying here that you prefer reserving judment before commiting to anything, well let me tell you that I think 8 out of 10 persons who prefer to reserve judment are scum because 1)it is hader for them to form an opinion in the first place2)they want to keep all options open the longer possible, especially if they do not indicate their initail read at all, which is your case.

What do you think?

Where did I say anything about reserving judgment in that quote you posted? I was talking about scum hunting and how I felt a large portion of the conversation early on was purely theoretical, which allows for easy scum hiding and how I wanted to move away from exactly that type of discussion ASAP. I specifically mentioned that theory discussion states very little about a person's alignment and how I'd rather engage in conversation with people to figure out where they're coming from.

And who are you, the Neils Bohr of Mafia or something? Have you been running statistical analysis to come forward with these numbers, or are you just pulling them out of your ass to help add even more weighted bombast to an already weak case? Have you considered that it's usually a good idea to reserve judgment on people because it's, oh, I don't know, a bad thing when you find yourself running up on someone who ends up being innocent? Is it abnormal for someone to not know who exactly is scum on page fucking 4 of the thread and who is instead choosing to use this early time to try and figure people out?

I agree with Incognito and disagree with SL here -- but I disagree strongly with Incognito's tone as being a pro-town one.

I also find it very interesting how he is attacking me for having neutral "no read/slight suspicion" reads on most people when he was defending that (or something so similar it might as well be the same) as a good thing to do earlier.

2. Surely if you had wanted to see if there were any underlying reason to her bringing forth the meta, the easiest way to do it would have been to verify her say by meta-ing her? Because if she is scum, wouldn't you expect her to lie?

In response to your first question: Um, no? How could I possibly determine if there were any underlying reasons for her citing meta in this particular game for two people in particular by... actually going forth and meta-ing her? Are you suggesting that people's alignments from previous games carry over or something?

In response to your second question: Yes, you would expect scum to lie about things, but by asking questions to people you can pick up on inconsistencies, check back on things to see if they jibe with what said person is saying, and determine if the person is being sincere or not.

How exactly do you expect to find scum if you don't ask people questions? Do we twiddle our thumbs and hope that the scum come forward saying "HI I'M SCUM! LYNCH ME!"

And do you even realize how little sense you're making right now? You've adamantly stated that you think I'm scum, but yet, (DEEP BREATH), you're asking ME of all people questions! OMG! IMAGINE THAT! Aren't you afraid that I'm lying right now?

Very dismissive of SL's scumhunting ability, aggressive in tone comment.

Some of your points seem like a bit of a stretch to me, which is a bit bothersome. I'll try and take it as a slight pro-town sign that you've called me of all people out on certain things when I've pretty much had absolutely nothing directed at me and have been finding myself trying to create my own content to get involved in. But yeah, there ya go.

Why 'try and take it'? I'm not asking you for any favor. If you think some of my point are stretching, please indicates which and why.

I did. I specifically referred to one of your points as "weighted bombast", I specifically mentioned that I am scum hunting and asking relevant questions rather than "asking 'soft' questions that are irrelevant to the game". If that's not pointing out that your points are a bit of a stretch, then I don't know what is.

This actually makes sense and I take it as a possible explanation for Incognito's dismissive tone... It might turn out that Incognito is just a mean person/not careful with his word choices, not necessarily scum :\.

I will read on and continue thinking on whether I find him as dismissive, ad-homing, and mean, or whether he really is just very blunt.

I am a bit tired of doing this right now, done with almost 1/4 of his posts. I have read ahead a little bit... I am a little less sure about Incog that I had been. SL's case on him had a few good points a few really bad ones.

[Jahudo]

@Jahudo: The second of those two quotes that you've considered "ad-hom" directly followed springlullaby's "8 out of 10" comment to which you had the following to say about:

I'm not sure what spring is trying to say with "8 out of 10 persons reserving judgment are scum...". If she said something like "I think people who reserve judgment are anti-town" it wouldn't sound like a baseless accusation.[...]At this early point in the game, I'm getting some town vibes from Incognito and I would from spring too if not for that 8 out of 10 thing which I think needs a further explanation.

Why have you suddenly changed your stance on this issue at this current time?

To answer Incog and iLord: I define ad hom attacks as replying to an argument by attacking the person’s belief and character but not the substance of what they’re trying to say. My question about her 8 out of 10 was that it did not explain why she sees it 80% from scum and what are the 20% town doing and where did she get these numbers. I wasn’t discrediting her belief in 8 out of 10, but based on her original post I didn’t think she explained why it was 8 and not 5.001 or 9.999. What makes it more than a slight indication but less than a strong indication.

Incog started off his response by calling her Neils Bohr because she used numbers to present her case. It may look harmless, but I think this language, and calling her attack “cute”, etc, chip away at her argument without being about the argument.

I can't see how Jahudo can say that RR has not heavily focused on one person and that's his reason for boosting him.

It's also worth noting that RR was one of Jahudo's "leaning scum" reads a few pages earlier so this recent change to actually go forward and boost the guy is somewhat dramatic.

I think he’s leaning town now. In my earlier read, I thought he was repeating the same point on sthar to continue the case, but now I don’t see his intention from that as trying to keep the case alive but to explain it to certain people. There are a few others I might boost because I think they’re town, like eldarad or Guardian, but I don’t think they’ve posted enough.

Also “a few pages earlier” is page 8.

Jahudo's random boost was surprising. Why did you do a random boost?
Also, what was your reason for boosting Electra and why?

The same reason(s) people do random votes.
Her claim and speculation does seem like a pretty big gambit for scum to make.

Sometimes I also have the feeling that Jahudo was defending Skilit. I don't like those posts which gave me those feelings.
You said that Skilit was neutral due to him not scumhunting. At that point, did you have the feeling that you were scumhunting?
But before I forget, why did you have those feelings?

Who also said I was defending Skillit? What are “those posts”? When I said skillit was neutral back on page 8, he had been gone for about a week and most of his posts were about Electra. I never said that he didn’t scumhunt. I said he needed to post more because I didn’t have a good enough read on him. When did I start scumhunting? I guess when I asked skillit about his feelings on Electra’s 3 setup possibilities.

A few of iLord's questions and comments on RR look to me like he is drawing conclusions without looking carefully enough at the information. For now, just a
FoS: iLord

Why does this deserve a FoS as town does this also sometimes?
How did your view of Incog suddenly change?

My FoS was on iLord coming to the conclusion that RR was scummy for using hindsight to say he was wrong, when RR never said he was wrong.
How strong do you think my view was on Incog? On page 8 I said gut feeling.

Mana, why do you think RR is pro town and why did you boost him?

[TDC]

If me *being scummier* than Incog puts me in the top 3, then does it not follow that Incog is fourth, if you only have a "lean" that I am scummier that you needed to meta SL for?

The list was not a "top three". It was "the three" that I would consider lynching if I had to.
There is no fourth place.

Why mention me being scummier than Incog as justification for having me in the top three? Also, what do you find scummy about Incog that you needed to compare us for?

It wasn't meant as justification. Again, the conversation with Incognito was pretty much the only thing springlullaby did. So it makes sense to think about whether this was a scum-scum, scum-town, or town-town interaction.
Scum-scum seems very unlikely (unless there's more than one scum group).
Scum-town is possible. If it is, I'd bet on you over Incognito (which is why I compared you with him).
Town-town is possible, too. Though the dialogue got a bit too out of hand.

Unless you're trying to tell me that you think it's more likely scum-scum or town-town - what's wrong with comparing you two?

Why is trying to discredit Electra suspicious?

Why would scum not have an interest to discredit her? (Assuming she is town, which, as I've explained, I think is very likely).

What about my logic is wrong? I think it is not particularly obvious one way or the other if she is town (which, as I've explained, I think is very likely the correct stance). Why do you take it to be more likely that I am scum rather than a townie that disagrees?

I've already explained why I think it is very likely she's town, so I don't really see the point of doing it again.

Your sentence is a bit weirdly structured, do you mean to say that you think the correct stance is that she's town, or that it could go either way?
I assume the latter.
I don't see where you're thinking it could be "one way or the other".
Pretty much everything you've said about her sounds rather negative:

Honestly I do think her post would be easy for scum to do [..] Her post seems like it very well could be a scum gambit. Her play otherwise has not been exceptional. I don't see her as my number one scum target, but I definitely do not support boosting her.

I also caution against boosting electra for the reasons I've mentioned.

Electra: Claim could easily come from scum. No huge read either way. Misguided thoughts about voting and boosting.

Have I missed the post where you actually consider that what she says could be true?

What would you think if right now someone else claimed a similar (vanilla that knows what boosting him does) role, but with a different power?
Would that make you more inclined to believe her? Less?

I decided that making roughly the same arguments against a townie that weren't working for SL because for some reason (and please provide the reason, I'd like to understand what reasoning you think scum would have) I thought that was the best idea.
[..]
If I am town, the fact that I took up the same case as my predecessor should give it credence -- that is two independent town minds who reached the same conclusions about Incognito.

There, you answered your own question.

I also would argue that I have not focused exclusively on Incognito in a "tunnel vision" sense, where I ignore what is happening around me or ignore arguments to the contrary -- I have commented and though on other players.

Yes, you have commented on other things since then and I appreciate that.
At the time I said that, you had focused on just Incognito and the "Electra's claim can easily come from scum" thing.

Also, (everyone:) do you think it would be fair to describe Incog's play as primarily focusing on me? If so, what is different about me/Incognito that makes it OK for him to focus on me but not vice versa, as TDC's logic would imply?

Incognito had only one post (the one where he voted you) between your entry to the game and my assertion that you just continued where sl left off. Since then, I haven't seen him as tunneling.
If you mean the time before that, Incognito and sl where certainly interlocked. That in and of itself I don't see as much of a problem. That's the way an extensive dialogue works.
My problem with your entry (and you entered without the "burden" to respond to everything Incognito ever said, so it's not like you were forced into continuing that conversation) was that it amounted to "Hi, sl was absolutely right, Incognito is scum. Oh and Electra's claim could very well come from scum, too!".
It's just so convenient to continue accusing the guy that's pushing for your lynch and discredit someone who the town had pretty much concluded is probably town.
I recognize that you've moved onto other topics since then, and it lessens my suspicions of you.

but there seems to be a lack of clarity in TDC's mind about who he finds suspicious.

There is.

[Electra]

@ Mana_Ku - In response to people boosting me, I made a clear case to be boosted. Some people probably boosted me prematurely (like 1) but most of the boosts I got were after a lot of discussion about my post, so I don't think they were quick boosts.

The point is that you know with about as much certainty of my role as you would if someone else claimed; in my case, I've already claimed, so we would be using the boost more effectively than if we didn't know what it did or if we outed a role.

@ Incognito - I like your post a lot, and I think it makes very much sense. Something that I thought about is that when I'm town, I more often find people unsuspicious for various reasons (i.e. reasons they wouldn't be mafia) instead of suspicious for various reasons because I feel like town is more likely to act like town than mafia is to act like mafia. It does look like Guardian is pointing fingers at almost everyone, and being receptible to whatever bandwagon may form by referencing this post. It could just be his playing style though. Not having meta on everyone is kind of annoying.

@ Guardian - I'll wait for your response to my post, but in the meantime, I caught this in TDC's post.

Why do you take it to be more likely that I am scum rather than a townie that disagrees?"

This isn't something I would ever say as town... I don't think I'd portray myself as a "townie that disagrees", I would portray myself as a townie that's correct, and the rest of you are disagreeing. :p

[Guardian]

Responding to recent questions before going back to the list. Might have to spend some time on my other game before I get back to this one, to be fair.

So it makes sense to think about whether this was a scum-scum, scum-town, or town-town interaction.
Scum-scum seems very unlikely (unless there's more than one scum group).
Scum-town is possible. If it is, I'd bet on you over Incognito (which is why I compared you with him).
Town-town is possible, too. Though the dialogue got a bit too out of hand.

Unless you're trying to tell me that you think it's more likely scum-scum or town-town - what's wrong with comparing you two?

I had not considered thinking about things that way, innovative :)... I think it is problematic though:

Assuming there is no scum-scum:

If I am town (whether he is town or scum), I obviously think Incog has an elevated chance of being scum; I think town-scum at the moment.
If I am scum, I know this is town-scum.

If he is town (whether I am town or scum), he obviously thinks that I have an elevated chance of beign scum; he thinks town-scum at the moment.
If he is scum, he knows this is town-scum.

So, obviously, Incog and me are leaning town-scum. The point is what makes YOU lean town-scum. Do you find his arguments against SL/me convincing? It is up for you to evaluate what to make of me/Incog; the fact that both he and I currently think town/scum is most likely should not bias your reading of the situation.

Why is trying to discredit Electra suspicious?

Why would scum not have an interest to discredit her? (Assuming she is town, which, as I've explained, I think is very likely).

What about my logic is wrong? I think it is not particularly obvious one way or the other if she is town (which, as I've explained, I think is very likely the correct stance). Why do you take it to be more likely that I am scum rather than a townie that disagrees?

I've already explained why I think it is very likely she's town, so I don't really see the point of doing it again.

Your sentence is a bit weirdly structured, do you mean to say that you think the correct stance is that she's town, or that it could go either way?
I assume the latter.
I don't see where you're thinking it could be "one way or the other".
Pretty much everything you've said about her sounds rather negative:

Honestly I do think her post would be easy for scum to do [..] Her post seems like it very well could be a scum gambit. Her play otherwise has not been exceptional. I don't see her as my number one scum target, but I definitely do not support boosting her.

I also caution against boosting electra for the reasons I've mentioned.

Electra: Claim could easily come from scum. No huge read either way. Misguided thoughts about voting and boosting.

Have I missed the post where you actually consider that what she says could be true?

I consider it; I continue considering it. I said about equal likelihood of truth, not "she is definitely lying." I saw no reason to be wishy-washy about it in arguing that the correct stance is a neutral one though. She's at like boost -1 or -2 and has been for a long time, so obviously the public sentiment is that she is correct to boost. I disagree with that, so I wanted couch my argument in strong language to make people reexamine their beliefs.

What would you think if right now someone else claimed a similar (vanilla that knows what boosting him does) role, but with a different power?
Would that make you more inclined to believe her? Less?

If someone claimed an investigation/game knowledge on boosting role, I would be less likely to believe her. If someone claimed a role that was vanilla but had a pretty obvious thing that should/would get improved upon boosting, I would be about the same likelihood of believing her. If someone claimed another role that explicitly stated the exact nature of what would happen if they were boosted, but it was no informational, I might be more likely to believe her. Depending on who claimed I might get paranoid that they both are scum trying for the double.

I decided that making roughly the same arguments against a townie that weren't working for SL because for some reason (and please provide the reason, I'd like to understand what reasoning you think scum would have) I thought that was the best idea.
[..]
If I am town, the fact that I took up the same case as my predecessor should give it credence -- that is two independent town minds who reached the same conclusions about Incognito.

There, you answered your own question.

So the reason that hypothetical me-scum decided to pursue Incognito is because I though that (if) people thought I was town and thus would join me, they would find the argument more plausible because I am a second person who found it plausible? I mean my argument about Incog only shares a few of SL's points -- I re-read a bit after I responded to you, and at least one of SL's points seems really dumb -- that Incog wasn't sure who was scum yet on page 4. So it isn't like we had the same arguments or that SL is this bastion of truth. I could have *thought* that was the case, though, I guess. Is that your reasoning?

@ Guardian - I'll wait for your response to my post, but in the meantime, I caught this in TDC's post.

Why do you take it to be more likely that I am scum rather than a townie that disagrees?"

This isn't something I would ever say as town... I don't think I'd portray myself as a "townie that disagrees", I would portray myself as a townie that's correct, and the rest of you are disagreeing. :p

That's a charming way of looking at the game :). I just tend to look at things as objectively as possible -- I try not to assume I am town in my arguments or that I am right -- if I assume either of these things my arguments are less likely to convince others, and seem fair. I was asking TDC why he thought I was suspicious -- I wasn't trying to convince him of my rightness at that time, I was trying to convince him that it was a reasonable town perspective to have. The majority of people disagree with me and think they are right and I disagree with them, so it makes sense to me to phrase it in that way.

[eldarad]

Eldarad seems pro-town. Although, he immediatly boosts Electra, which should have been thought over in my opinion, he's trying to find scum. But I've got one question. You saw Skilit as scummy. Then he notes that there's probably one scum on his wagon. Hw come you agree with this as you saw him as scum?

Just because I boosted Electra early doesn't mean I didn't think it over...I just thought it over quickly
I'd also refer you back to my explanation that I gave to iLord way back in post 32:

Fair enough. But also note that I was trying to start a boostwagon too.

Skillit's wagon grew very quickly. My assessment was that,

even if Skillit is scum

it was very, very likely that at least one scum was on his wagon. Either:
1) Skillit was town and scum were on his wagon trying to push a townie mislynch, or
2) Skillit was scum and one of his scumbuddies had jumped on as bussing/distancing/going with the flow.

And what made you change your mind about TDC. You said your gut feeling changed due to an actual read. I want to know which comments gave you the feeling that he's townie as I don't trust when players say things like this.

Well then you've got a problem haven't you? Since you think I'm pro-town but you don't trust me.
How do you explain those two contradictory opinions?

Also, how come you see Electra and Jahudo good enough to boost, but not Incog?

I explained this in post 325.

[TDC]

So, obviously, Incog and me are leaning town-scum. The point is what makes YOU lean town-scum. Do you find his arguments against SL/me convincing? It is up for you to evaluate what to make of me/Incog; the fact that both he and I currently think town/scum is most likely should not bias your reading of the situation.

Either both of you are horribly, horribly wrong or one of you is dead right (thought not particularly convincing) and the other is just trying to make it a two way game.
Just doesn't read like the former, to be honest. I certainly don't remember a town-town discussion ever being as heated. (Which probably has the reason that when both players are town, they both have an interest to keep it civilised.)

If someone claimed an investigation/game knowledge on boosting role, I would be less likely to believe her.

I understand that there are probably not going to be two identical roles. But why would you prefer believing the counterclaimer (who could, for all you know, just have copied Electra's role)?

If someone claimed a role that was vanilla but had a pretty obvious thing that should/would get improved upon boosting, I would be about the same likelihood of believing her. If someone claimed another role that explicitly stated the exact nature of what would happen if they were boosted, but it was no informational, I might be more likely to believe her.

I don't really understand the difference between these two. Can you clarifiy?

So the reason that hypothetical me-scum decided to pursue Incognito is because I though that (if) people thought I was town and thus would join me, they would find the argument more plausible because I am a second person who found it plausible?

Possibly, yes. You have already claimed that your case is more credible if you're town, for exactly that reason.
(You've done something similar with the "I'm always OMGUSy"-meta argument. I mean, meta is all fine, but bringing it up yourself leaves a bit of a bad taste.)

Anyway, before you brought that point up, I thought more along the lines of you trying to keep the "duel" between you two alive, because you thought you had a better chance surviving that than when you would've said "uh, look. No idea what sl did there. I'll just start over."

I mean my argument about Incog only shares a few of SL's points

Why would it be necessary for you to use the exact same reasoning as she did?
I mean, if you just copied everything verbatim, it would not really look like a second opinion, would it?
(And dropping weak points is nearly always a good idea, regardless of alignment, isn't it?)
The main point of your attack is pretty much the same though, right?
Dismissiveness, "passive aggression", etc.

I re-read a bit after I responded to you, and at least one of SL's points seems really dumb -- that Incog wasn't sure who was scum yet on page 4. So it isn't like we had the same arguments or that SL is this bastion of truth.

As far as I remember, this is the first time that you say that one of her arguments was bad. (I think you previously mentioned that she might've been OMGUSy).

[Guardian]

So, obviously, Incog and me are leaning town-scum. The point is what makes YOU lean town-scum. Do you find his arguments against SL/me convincing? It is up for you to evaluate what to make of me/Incog; the fact that both he and I currently think town/scum is most likely should not bias your reading of the situation.

Either both of you are horribly, horribly wrong or one of you is dead right (thought not particularly convincing) and the other is just trying to make it a two way game.
Just doesn't read like the former, to be honest. I certainly don't remember a town-town discussion ever being as heated. (Which probably has the reason that when both players are town, they both have an interest to keep it civilised.)

Odd, I can remember a few such times... Why doesn't it read like the former? How would a case where two townies are horribly wrong and are very convinced they are right and are attacking each other read?

If someone claimed an investigation/game knowledge on boosting role, I would be less likely to believe her.

I understand that there are probably not going to be two identical roles. But why would you prefer believing the counterclaimer (who could, for all you know, just have copied Electra's role)?

HM. Because of the time delay it would give me some thought. My general rule of thumb is if the time is short, always believe the counter-claimer. If time is medium, tend to believe the counterclaimer. If time is long, think about it objectively. Scum do not like to counterclaim and lock themselves into a role. Counterclaimers tend to be town.

If someone claimed a role that was vanilla but had a pretty obvious thing that should/would get improved upon boosting, I would be about the same likelihood of believing her. If someone claimed another role that explicitly stated the exact nature of what would happen if they were boosted, but it was no informational, I might be more likely to believe her.

I don't really understand the difference between these two. Can you clarifiy?

Like if someone was a vanilla but it says their job was a nurse, then if they get boosted it would be pretty obvious they would be a doctor.

So the reason that hypothetical me-scum decided to pursue Incognito is because I though that (if) people thought I was town and thus would join me, they would find the argument more plausible because I am a second person who found it plausible?

Possibly, yes. You have already claimed that your case is more credible if you're town, for exactly that reason.

IF I am town. That gives no ARGUMENT for me being town. If I am scum I don't care who the hell I mislynch, I just care about looking town. Why does me attacking Incog again make me look more town, or why would I think it would make me look more town?

(You've done something similar with the "I'm always OMGUSy"-meta argument. I mean, meta is all fine, but bringing it up yourself leaves a bit of a bad taste.)

Didn't Incog bring that meta up??? Then I called it a supposed meta, since I am not sure it is true anymore?

Anyway, before you brought that point up, I thought more along the lines of you trying to keep the "duel" between you two alive, because you thought you had a better chance surviving that than when you would've said "uh, look. No idea what sl did there. I'll just start over."

I've done that as town and scum before very successfully; I don't see why I wouldn't have tried it here.

I mean my argument about Incog only shares a few of SL's points

Why would it be necessary for you to use the exact same reasoning as she did?
I mean, if you just copied everything verbatim, it would not really look like a second opinion, would it?
(And dropping weak points is nearly always a good idea, regardless of alignment, isn't it?)
The main point of your attack is pretty much the same though, right?
Dismissiveness, "passive aggression", etc.

And his voting me when he got back in. One of SL's main points was that he didn't have concrete suspicions early after he started playing the game -- and I find that point bogus.

I re-read a bit after I responded to you, and at least one of SL's points seems really dumb -- that Incog wasn't sure who was scum yet on page 4. So it isn't like we had the same arguments or that SL is this bastion of truth.

As far as I remember, this is the first time that you say that one of her arguments was bad. (I think you previously mentioned that she might've been OMGUSy).

She was OMGUSy -- to the extent that if someone calls your arguments weighted bombast and complains that you think you are the Neils Bohr of mafia when really you have no idea what you are doing then you might be more inclined to get confrontational with them.

[TDC]

Odd, I can remember a few such times... Why doesn't it read like the former? How would a case where two townies are horribly wrong and are very convinced they are right and are attacking each other read?

I'd think the chance that the replacee would notice that this was the case would be kind of high.

My general rule of thumb is if the time is short, always believe the counter-claimer. If time is medium, tend to believe the counterclaimer. If time is long, think about it objectively. Scum do not like to counterclaim and lock themselves into a role. Counterclaimers tend to be town.

Let's pretend the counterclaim came as part of a mass claim. (i.e. "not liking to lock themselves into a role" is irrelevant)

Like if someone was a vanilla but it says their job was a nurse, then if they get boosted it would be pretty obvious they would be a doctor.

And that would not change your mind about Electra. But if someone claimed that if boosted, he would be able to target someone and would probably help them in some way, though he doens't know how, that would make Electra's claim more believable for you.
Have I understood this?

IF I am town. That gives no ARGUMENT for me being town. If I am scum I don't care who the hell I mislynch, I just care about looking town. Why does me attacking Incog again make me look more town, or why would I think it would make me look more town?

That's not what I'm saying at all. We were talking about it making your case look stronger if you're town. So to everyone who thinks you're town (regardless whether they're right or not) it would matter.
And as scum you sure do care whether people buy your cases or not.

(You've done something similar with the "I'm always OMGUSy"-meta argument. I mean, meta is all fine, but bringing it up yourself leaves a bit of a bad taste.)

Didn't Incog bring that meta up??? Then I called it a supposed meta, since I am not sure it is true anymore?

You're right and I retract that statement. It was Incognito who brought that up in the first place.

Anyway, before you brought that point up, I thought more along the lines of you trying to keep the "duel" between you two alive, because you thought you had a better chance surviving that than when you would've said "uh, look. No idea what sl did there. I'll just start over."

I've done that as town and scum before very successfully; I don't see why I wouldn't have tried it here.

Oh I can certainly believe that you've done the latter as town and scum.
But how often have you done the former as town?

[iLord]

asdfasdf

iLord has a good opening post. He keeps in mind that Electra could be scum trying a 'Korts' gamble. The same for his second post. And his third post. But then came all his posts about how he's rereading.
And now I understand why Electra I believe was giving some comments about you and the discussion between SL and Incog. I agree with Electra. If you think Incog is scummy, then why don't you start a case against him? Especially after SL was replaced. Why didn't you continue SL's attack? And who do you see as scummy right now and why?
I thought you were pro-town at the beginning, but now you're moving towards the scummy side.

I've already answered this multiple times - there was no need for a mostly redundant case. SL just had a lot more chaff that needed to be cut off. I've actually been quite busy attacking and defending from RR, as well as barely keeping up with the thread - I haven't had more time to really analyze Incognito's recent posts.

I still see RR as scummy, but a lot of my reasons have proven to be incorrect, so I have barely more than a hunch to back that.

And once again, I'll need another comprehensive reread to get suspects and refine my views.


-------------------------------------------------------------

More later - I've read to 387.

[iLord]

Okay, I've caught up in reading, and I need to do a reread and make a big post.

I don't really agree with a lot of the points against Incognito or Guardian right now, and I'll make a big post detailing this later.

Please note that I will be on vacation until the 23rd.

[Guardian]

I was just day-vigged in my other game, so I am only in one now -- and I think I will keep it that way for a bit, busyness came up :).

Odd, I can remember a few such times... Why doesn't it read like the former? How would a case where two townies are horribly wrong and are very convinced they are right and are attacking each other read?

I'd think the chance that the replacee would notice that this was the case would be kind of high.

Your point is that if it is town-town then an unbiased replacee would realize this because he is unbiased.

If that is true I would think that the unbiased townies around would notice that this chance is high -- this argument goes in circles.

This is why I am asking for ***YOUR*** reasons and reactions, independent of mine.

My general rule of thumb is if the time is short, always believe the counter-claimer. If time is medium, tend to believe the counterclaimer. If time is long, think about it objectively. Scum do not like to counterclaim and lock themselves into a role. Counterclaimers tend to be town.

Let's pretend the counterclaim came as part of a mass claim. (i.e. "not liking to lock themselves into a role" is irrelevant)

If it came as late as a mass claim I would have to evaluate based on who has been more suspicious and who can give the most details as to why their claim should be believed.

Like if someone was a vanilla but it says their job was a nurse, then if they get boosted it would be pretty obvious they would be a doctor.

And that would not change your mind about Electra. But if someone claimed that if boosted, he would be able to target someone and would probably help them in some way, though he doens't know how, that would make Electra's claim more believable for you.
Have I understood this?

Pretty much. I find it odd that the mod wrote specific things in roles like "If boosted, something like X will happen." My role is not like that, and to me the notion of such boost-hungry roles is weird.

If scum were allowed to talk pre-game, some more experienced buddy easily could have told Electra exactly what to do -- and she, a "newbie" does it, and looks so town, and the scum get an easy boost.

IF I am town. That gives no ARGUMENT for me being town. If I am scum I don't care who the hell I mislynch, I just care about looking town. Why does me attacking Incog again make me look more town, or why would I think it would make me look more town?

That's not what I'm saying at all. We were talking about it making your case look stronger if you're town. So to everyone who thinks you're town (regardless whether they're right or not) it would matter.
And as scum you sure do care whether people buy your cases or not.

As scum I care if people buy my cases, but I care MORE if people buy that I am town. This line of thought only helps me IF people think I am town.

You are putting the chicken before the egg -- what I am asking about is how me continuing to pursue Incog is supposed to make me look town-like in the first place.

Anyway, before you brought that point up, I thought more along the lines of you trying to keep the "duel" between you two alive, because you thought you had a better chance surviving that than when you would've said "uh, look. No idea what sl did there. I'll just start over."

I've done that as town and scum before very successfully; I don't see why I wouldn't have tried it here.

Oh I can certainly believe that you've done the latter as town and scum.
But how often have you done the former as town?

I can't recall having done it before as either town or scum.

[Incognito]

@Jahudo:

You haven't really explained what it is that's scummy about these so-called ad-hom statements. If I recall correctly, you yourself classified her 8 out of 10 comment as a

baseless accusation

. If I responded to a baseless accusation using hyperbole like I did (calling her the Niels Bohr of Mafia, calling her superfluous question about my

own

alignment "cute"), is that really truly scummy? I would think your argument would hold more weight against me if you actually

thought

the points springlullaby raised against me actually held some weight, and I

still

responded to them in the way I have. Considering the fact that you yourself thought her accusation was baseless when she first mentioned it, I can't see how you can come to the conclusion that my responses to her were actually scummy. Also, those quotes that you pulled out only tell part of the story. My additional responses to her accusations also surround those "ad-hom" statements.

---

Or I could be wrong about iLord and he might be dead on with RR,

though RR is starting to look more and more protown to me.

Top three are: Huntress, iLord,

RR in that order.

If Raging Rabbit is beginning to look more and more pro-town to you, why is he still number three in your order of suspicions?

---

Reading over the last page, I can't help but feel even more troubled about Guardian

(yeah, I know. How can that be possible?)

.

Here was Guardian's response to my question about how thoroughly he read the thread upon replacing:

Guardian, you keep on mentioning that you're going to reread the thread. I'm curious: how much and to what level of detail did you actually read when you first replaced in?

I read with normal detail...? I read every post once, and kept a few notes while doing so when a post caught my attention. I then went back and read some posts I made notes about. I did not go back and analyze each player individually which I often like to do; I wanted to "get into the game" first.

I asked him this question because if you look at the time stamps from when Guardian replaced in (3:01 P.M. my time) to when he made his first post of content (5:14 P.M. my time) that pretty much left him with roughly 2 hours of time to read through the thread and come to conclusions about it. His opening post was fairly lengthy too, which means that he would have had to spend at least a quarter of that time typing up that post as well. I'm pretty sure that this thread wasn't an easy read either. And upon his entrance, he pretty much picked up right where springlullaby left off with his attacks against me, which included pretty serious statements practically calling for my lynch that also called for comments from everyone about their opinions about his case against me. The only person so far who seems to have been persuaded to vote for me based on this is Jahudo while most others voiced their disapproval and mentioned why they disagreed with it.

My issue is this: If people had actually began agreeing with this case for whatever reason and actually began wagoning me, would Guardian have still come forward and produced a post like his

post 384

in which he seems to

just now

analyze my posts and "see the error in his ways"? Or would he have continued pushing his attack against me calling for my lynch? I really do think it's the latter, and I'm just baffled that a player who supposedly took notes and read with normal detail could have missed this content he just finished analyzing especially considering the fact that this content was a large part of the foundation of his case against me. His recent back-down really doesn't give me a good vibe because of this.

@Mana_Ku, Huntress, and Random Gem:

How have

you

felt about this thread so far upon replacing in? Have you found it to be a difficult read?

---

@eldarad:

You feel somewhat lurkier to me than you felt in the last game we were in together. Is something wrong? What's going on?

@Electra:

I've been in three completed games with Guardian. Mini 554 where he started as town and then replaced in later as scum, Mini 574 where he replaced in during late Day 2 as scum and I was town, and Open 59 where we were both scum. Despite being in these three games with him, I really don't feel comfortable making a judgment call on him based on a meta read of him; I don't think I understand the differences between his town play and scum play enough to be able to do so.

I will note however that in Mini 574 he pulled this "dirty read" kind of stuff during Day 3 where he eventually ended up voting me even though I was a claimed vig where he kept pushing the idea that I was an SK. He was also unwilling to accept two townies as confirmed innocents despite the fact that they were Gunsmith-investigated. In 554 when he was town early-on, I feel like he scum-hunted and still came to conclusions that led him to believe that certain players were pro-town, and he let his thoughts be known about this. You can see then why his play here certainly catches my attention and doesn't dissuade me from being suspicious of the person he replaced in for.

[Incognito]

I need to reduce my word count.

[Guardian]

Incog, why does it not make sense that in my 1-1.5 hour re-read I attacked what stuck out the most -- you being a complete jerk to springlullaby?

It was obvious not everyone was going to agree with me immediately -- when does that happen in mafia??? You ask "what would have happened if everyone agreed?" as if that was a realistic option.

I pointed out what stuck out to me the most and got comments on it, thought about those, and continued gathering data. I started playing mafia. Why are you trying to cast that as suspicious? You say I am backtracking -- what from?? I never said I liked how SL attacked you for not having concrete suspicions, and I never said that I didn't find you suspicious anymore. The most contrition I had is that there MIGHT be an alternative explanation and that makes you *slightly* less suspicious.

[Guardian]

Also, why are you trying to meta me based on two/three games when I've played over 30?