Open 581: Making Friends and Enemies! (Game over)

[Heartless]

If you're going to OMGUS us Green Crayons go ahead and do so. This caginess is "weird".

[Green Crayons]

Ignore:

verb (used with object), ignored, ignoring.
1.
to refrain from noticing or recognizing:

Yup, that's what you did. Sorry that there aren't more words that reflect your actions.

lol, what OMGUS? You have a null/lean-town read because of the good cop/bad cop play that you two are doing, not because your other half unnecessarily defended you.

[Green Crayons]

UNVOTE: Mala
VOTE: Ranger

[Green Crayons]

@Titus:

@GC, Yes. Hypo claiming there is mason fishing. Someone says they recruited a scum, scum know they are not a mason OR said mason would not be believed in lylo. Second, scum shoot someone who liked Swag's plan. If they shot a mason, scum have an idea on who was recruited. Swag fishes on Kaboose to try and draw the last mason (or masons).

My understanding of the hypoclaim was that everyone would claim mason, and claim who they would "recruit" on the following night. The following day, nobody would claim with the understanding that should an actual mason die, his results would be confirmed.

Now that I work through the plan, I don't really see the point to hypoclaiming, though. And I do see that the death of a mason would immediately and unnecessarily reveal the flip.

So, definitely an anti-town strategy. But proposing it = scum? I'll think it over.

[Green Crayons]

unnecessarily reveal the recruit*

[Titus]

If the masons wouldn't tell the truth, then what information would be gained by having the hypoclaim exercise at all?

[Heartless]

Yes, I had reservations about the elle suspicions. That's why I talked to her about my suspicions, and ended up deciding against voting her. Your problem with my play is that I didn't say "hey I have some doubts about my suspicions of you, just a head's up as we go into this conversation"?

There's a balance between being open with the town and sabotaging one's suspicions. I choose not to completely undermine my suspicions.

As for "resolv this doubt," it's there if you want to look for it. Post 573 and Post 574 was the tipping point where my elle suspicions started to deflate. I was much more secure in reading elle as town by Post 659 (was phone posting at night so didn't feel like going into a blow by blow), and I made explicit this development in my elle read in Post 880 back when your other half had a hardon for calling elle scum.

well that leaves us w/ a problem. namely that the only thing that coincides w/ your elle read is the rise and fall of the wagon.

This is a pretty big bullshit line, so I'll let you rethink it.

Well then prove us wrong.

I'm following the links you're providing which show the history of the read, but reviewing elle's activity I can't figure out what she said that influenced the change of heart. There's a few explanations for what happened. The more charitable one is that you simply neglected to give the specifics at the time for whatever reason be it time constraints or what have you. The less charitable one is that you didn't want to get your hands dirty and vote elle. This one is making more sense given our townread on elle and the lack of any evidence to the contrary.

So let's settle it here and now. What is it that you saw in elle's posting that made you back off?

[Green Crayons]

@Titus:

If the masons wouldn't tell the truth, then what information would be gained by having the hypoclaim exercise at all?

Spoiler: analysis of swag's hypoclaim strategy

Alright, I just re-reread swag's hypoclaim strategy intermixed with Corpses' interaction on that point.

swag's original plan was for everyone to claim mason on D2 and name the person they targeted the night before (Post 27). I got that mixed up based on memory, as I thought he wanted folks to hypoclaim before a night's recruit.

It seems the purpose of that strategy was to simply get a confirmed player out in the open should a mason die (Post 53). As Corpses rightfully noticed, that's a bad idea and masons should stay hidden and alive for as long as possible.

Alright, so a bad, anti-town plan through and through. But would scum propose it?

I don't see why scum would propose a strategy with the knowledge that the plan would ultimately help scum. It takes a few moments of actually giving the plan some thought to see the negative repercussions (admittedly, I don't think I did the first or second time I read through the swag/Corpses interaction, as I was more focused on their playing off of one another). Especially right off the bat of the game. It unnecessarily brings suspicion on themselves, which is never good scum strategy. Additionally, swag proposed the hypoclaim really early in the game - right when gathering suspicion on yourself is a great way to break RVS. So a doubly bad scum strategy.

Of course, failing to play as optimal scum does not make someone not scum. But I don't see why swag-scum

would

have proposed the hypoclaim strategy. I guess the most viable answer is to see who would respond to the plan, so that even if the hypoclaim strategy wasn't followed, reactions to it would help ferret out the masons? But how the game played out, the N1 scum kill - Cheetory - didn't react in any manner whatsoever (Cheetory-slot's prior occupant had almost no action in this game), so it doesn't look like swag's hypoclaim suggestion was actually used to try and mason hunt. (Of course, a lot of game happened between the beginning of the game and the N1 kill, but its lack of apparent influence on that kill is still something to consider.)

Also, there's the complication that apparently swag was confused about the fact that the mason pair already existed, and did not need to recruit the other (Post 113, Post 115). Believing swag's confusion to be true only buttress my belief that his hypoclaim suggestion came from a point of town. It makes a bit more sense if there's only one surviving mason upon the death of the first mason. I think. Still a bad strategy, though.

tl;dr:

swag's hypoclaim strategy, in the context of when it was made, does not suggest coming from a scum standpoint; also, it does not appear that the hypoclaim strategy was actually used as an attempt to seek out a mason, further buttressing the notion that the hypoclaim strategy wasn't being used by scum.

[Green Crayons]

@Heartless:

Well then prove us wrong.

I'm following the links you're providing which show the history of the read, but reviewing elle's activity I can't figure out what she said that influenced the change of heart. There's a few explanations for what happened. The more charitable one is that you simply neglected to give the specifics at the time for whatever reason be it time constraints or what have you. The less charitable one is that you didn't want to get your hands dirty and vote elle. This one is making more sense given our townread on elle and the lack of any evidence to the contrary.

So let's settle it here and now. What is it that you saw in elle's posting that made you back off?

mmm, no. I'm not going to do that.

I see no benefit in doing so.

You're an astute reader. Surely you can pick up what it was about elle's play that had me changing my opinion about her. Your "obvtown" dave certainly could, as he has already agreed with my observations about elle's change-into-town play.

You either believe that I had an active, developing read on elle, or you don't. I can give you the reasons, but then if you still don't want to believe me (be it because of confirmation bias, or simple mistrust, or because of your alignment) you can say I am simply retrofitting justifications for my changed stance.


Also, your claim of "lack of any evidence to the contrary" of elle's play being suspicious is hyperbole and dishonest. I could point to the plethora of players - some who you think are scum, some who you think are town - who have stated that elle's play has been suspicious. But I won't, because I can simply point to the fact that you yourself have called elle scum this game. The fact of the matter is, is that elle's play for the first part of D1 was suspicious. Then it turned town.

[Titus]

I don't see why scum would propose a strategy with the knowledge that the plan would ultimately help scum.

This right there is your cornerstone and it's the problem GC. Scum propose plans all the time that help scum. Grib will tell you that I'm literally a master of this.

I had one game where I mislynched Grib solely because keeping him alive if he was scum was too detrimental to the town. Scum, particularly players that rely on strategy, do this all the time.

I don't see the kill relating to the hypoclaim strategy solely because Swag's plan was shut down.

[Green Crayons]

I agree in theory. I disagree here, though. Sorry, Titus.


Is there another aspect of his D1 play that you think points to him being scum?

[Heartless]

Also, your claim of "lack of any evidence to the contrary" of elle's play being suspicious is hyperbole and dishonest.

The "lack of any evidence to the contrary" is referring to lack of any evidence that your evolving read is dependent on the rise and fall of the wagon. And an appeal to popular opinion doesn't really do it for me. What's going on in Anti's head isn't the same thing as what's going on in yours, mine, and everyone else's, I guarantee it. I'm not questioning that you

can

have a changing read, I'm questioning why

you, in this specific instance

had this changing read. I also don't get the curtness or why you have a chip on your shoulder. I'm trying to explore theories where you

aren't

scum, so I don't get this stubbornness. There has to be a reason, just cough it up. It's not a trick question.

[elleheathen]

@Elle, I mean exactly what it says. I don't see how that's complicated.

I didn't think complicated so much as... interesting.
I was just curious as to what you were thinking I was gambiting and what you would be giving away if you were to be too literal about it.

[Heartless]

You either believe that I had an active, developing read on elle, or you don't. I can give you the reasons, but then if you still don't want to believe me (be it because of confirmation bias, or simple mistrust, or because of your alignment) you can say I am simply retrofitting justifications for my changed stance.

Oh, well then

I don't

. There, how do you like that?

I'm not asking for shits and giggles or to waste your time. I don't know why you're projecting this stubborn, closed-mindedness you seem to have onto me though. It's rich that you're accusing Anti of being "defensive" when you're crawling in your turtle shell when asked the most basic of things such as "why did your elle read change" which should require a few sentences at most.

It's quite irritating and not pro-town at all. What do you want from me? For me to take you at your word? Sorry, but if you're scum you're supposed to be lying to me.

[elleheathen]

I really wouldn't mind hearing the answer to that, too.
Because the

only

thing I'm going on right now is that GC feels a lot more consistent here with his town games than he does in the one scum game I could find.

And all the lurking going on gives me bad, bad feels.

[elleheathen]

Like,

I really dislike Kaboose's prod dodge. 'Hey guis, I'm sick but hopefully be better by

Sunday

the time my next prod dodge will be due.'

LR's non-entity feeling for this day phase makes me moonlogic all over the place.

I don't mind Grib's as much, oddly enough.

Mala's absense is meh. Feels more like she forgot than is avoiding.

Daves... eh, idk.

[elleheathen]

But it just makes me think that this is all TvT with scum sitting back.

[Titus]

@Elle, I mean exactly what it says. I don't see how that's complicated.

I didn't think complicated so much as... interesting.
I was just curious as to what you were thinking I was gambiting and what you would be giving away if you were to be too literal about it.

That was meant as a future warning. Not as I thought you were gambiting.

[Grib]

This weekend was a complete nightmare. I have never been more exhausted in my life.

I feel like most of the recent events have gone completely over my head. Need to reread. I'll get back into this game tomorrow once I feel slightly more human and get homework out of the way.

[elleheathen]

@Elle, I mean exactly what it says. I don't see how that's complicated.

I didn't think complicated so much as... interesting.
I was just curious as to what you were thinking I was gambiting and what you would be giving away if you were to be too literal about it.

That was meant as a future warning. Not as I thought you were gambiting.

Oh.

[Green Crayons]

You either believe that I had an active, developing read on elle, or you don't. I can give you the reasons, but then if you still don't want to believe me (be it because of confirmation bias, or simple mistrust, or because of your alignment) you can say I am simply retrofitting justifications for my changed stance.

Oh, well then

I don't

. There, how do you like that?

(shrug) Then we skipped to where this was going.

Or, rather, where it already is, and you're seemingly upset that your read of me is what it is, and that it's not going to change just because I tell you some scraps of information. At this point, I'm going to convince you that I'm town by my play and catching scum. And that's about it. That's fine, that's where you and I are at. It doesn't make you stubborn and closeminded. It makes you human who is playing mafia.

We've been interacting for a while now with you getting steadily more suspicious about my play. At this point, continuing a dialog about me is not going to be more productive. I'm not going to pull out a piece of information - truthful, though it will be - that will make you go, "Aha! I see all my suspicions have been assuaged!"

That has never happened to me, on either end of the line of suspicions. Back and forths just go down the rabbit hole if you let the conversation go on for too long. I'm hard pressed to think of a time when that has happened to anyone: just being stopped in the middle of a suspicion-train because just the right piece of thought from the suspectee is divulged to the suspector.

So it's not that I think that you're stubborn or close-minded. I just don't think you're a unique mafia player.

But, hey. Sure. Why not. Maybe this is ~*~ the key ~*~ to seeing that you have been wrong all along. Here you go:

Spoiler: D1 elle read

1.

My first hints of doubt on my elle suspicions actually began before I started questioning her. In Post 491, I noticed that her reads list was quite similar to mine. I put a lot of stock in when other players see the game in the same way I do, so this wasn't a great way to start out into embracing elle suspicions. Regardless, as I noted in that post, elle's read list alone wasn't going to outweigh my suspicions of elle.

2.

My elle suspicions reached their apex in Post 484 and Post 485. There were three suspicions: (1) playing it safe; (2) attempting to manipulate others' reads on her; and (3) defensive interaction with Ranger.

A.

In Post 505 I asked elle to directly respond to my suspicion-observations of her posts. She responded (and then some) in Post 513. My Post 553 reads fairly accurately.

B.

I recall making Post 553 and thinking that my suspicions were still pretty solid, but I wasn't entirely satisfied with my first two suspicions (the top half of Post 553) w/r/t elle playing it safe and attempting to manipulate others' reads on her. I don't know what it was that was making me have some doubts, but looking back on it now I think elle's response is pretty town: It's basically a big (shrug) because what else was she supposed to say? That said, I don't know if that was the actual basis for my semi-doubt, or if I'm projecting onto past-GC.

3.

Simultaneously with the above interaction, based on elle's Post 494, there was an offshoot in Post 507 and Post 514.

A.

This was related to my suspicions relating to elle's interaction with Ranger, and I thought that elle was specifically referring to Ranger being town if elle flipped town. This was weird for me because although I had thought Ranger would be more likely to be scum if elle flipped scum, I would think that elle-town's flip of town would show folks that Ranger's case was bunk - and therefore more likely to come from scum.

B.

This particular line of suspicion got caught in my craw, and I followed up in Post 557 and Post 570. And this is where the cracks really began. elle's Post 571 suggested that I was misunderstanding the things she was conveying, and snarky intro aside in Post 573, I was aping her response to make sure I understood it. And then it clicked two minutes later after rereading her Post 494 a few more times with elle's explanation in mind, with my reluctant eureka moment captured in Post 574.

C.

Post 574 deserves special mention because that is when I decided that my own misunderstanding of the basic communication elle was putting out into the thread was also probably affecting my other problems with elle's play. I wasn't convinced elle was town at this point, but I was convinced that my suspicions were less than adequate. For that reason, I voted for a player I did have suspicions of, and those suspicions had already been addressed but not assuaged: dave, in Post 575.

4.

So Page 26 is when my read really started to turn around.

A.

First there is Post 647, where elle claimed VT. I don't think the VT claim inandof itself says much one way or another, but it was the real sense of resigned frustration that came across. At this point, I was thinking elle could just be good at faking it, but it was a good show.

B.

The clincher for me at that time, however, was Post 656 and Post 658. Those posts come from frustrated town who is tired of being badgered and therefore, while sticking to her suspicions as they develop, thumbs her nose at her suspectors. It's not an angle I would think scum would ever jump to in the circumstances, as it made her look contradictory and preemptively defensive and resigned (as in, "whatever, here, have another reason to lynch me, I don't care").

C.

Post 689 and Post 691 also looked like they came from town, sticking to their-not-actually-good-but-what-do-you-want-its-D1 justification for narrowing a pool of suspects. But this was a minor contribution to the shift in my read.

D.

Post 693, Post 695, and Post 696 - though related to Post 689 and Post 691 in substance - constituted a different reason for me to think elle is town. I'm still unclear what, exactly elle is referring to, and I'm not entirely sure it's something that we can dive into. But the matter-of-factly manner in which the information was conveyed, and how of course that aligned with elle's not great D1 theory, and in any event it's beside the point - all of that just reads town.

And that's the rise and fall of my elle suspicions. Do tell, does this make me town?

[Lone Ranger]

Walls are boring. GC's posts just aren't town. Flip GC and figure it out from there.

[elleheathen]

Do tell, does this make me town?

I know that isn't directed to me.
But big, resounding, yes from me.

This feels too much like your towngame, strength of reads vs self doubt kind of thing.

Mayyybe

your scumgame has vastly improved but... I'm just going to trust my gut on this.

[Titus]

@Elle, I mean exactly what it says. I don't see how that's complicated.

I didn't think complicated so much as... interesting.
I was just curious as to what you were thinking I was gambiting and what you would be giving away if you were to be too literal about it.

That was meant as a future warning. Not as I thought you were gambiting.

Oh.

I think you are my only townread that hasn't played with me, so it's best to let you know since you were info hunting.

[Green Crayons]

Walls are boring. GC's posts just aren't town. Flip GC and figure it out from there.

You're clearly a better player than this.