In post 498, Ranger wrote:mhsmith wrote:You die if you get lynched.
In a normal game, yes.
But this mechanic is basically a nerfed version of the shortnight/longnight mechanic.
In that I don't actually die.
I can still contribute.
And from my wagon, scumhunt.
If you're town, eating a lynch just because you're not feeling confident in your reads or so the town can "move on" or whatever is TERRIBLE play.
Why?
Again.
In a normal game, sure, that goes without saying.
But in this game. When you live on after being lynched. Why is it terrible play to get lynched? Just because it's not a lynch on scum? Sure, that makes it not the ideal play. Ideal play is always lynching scum. But the mechanic exists for good reason. Getting lynched is a viable play. Not optimal, but viable.
NO. You're missing the point in a drastic and fundamental manner. The lynch is what matters. Anything and everything that weakens the lynch and its meaning is
.
Imagine a game in which everyone's votes are targeted towards finding and killing mafia. No secondary objectives, JUST THAT. i.e. a normal game of mafia.
Now look at this game. Here, you get garbage like BTD6's hammer vote where he basically says "eh, screw it, even if this is a mislynch, no big loss". How can you possibly figure out who is being sincere in their scum-hunting and who is just bullshitting when "even if we mislynch it's OK" becomes an acceptable vote rationale? The obvious answer is, you simply cannot.
An atmosphere of indifference towards the consequences of mislynching is completely terrible (and it's probably not a coincidence that the game state turned lurky and indifferent given the underlying "eh, if we mislynch it's ok" attitude). And, again, YOU started it. Others took that ball and ran with it. But YOU started it. It's anti-town, and it's manipulative. And you started that process. Is it possible you simply made a mistake? That you didn't bother to think through the consequences of the things you said? Sure. But it's far likelier that this was an intentional play to lull the board into a false sense of security and laziness.
that's basically OMGUS logic, dressed up a bit.
A scum player would say this, yes.
But a town player should be able to recognize that there's a difference between calling a player a scum for voting them (omgus) and calling a player scum for the way they voted. I did the latter. You're not scum because you're voting me. It could be any player you voted and I'd say the same thing. You're scum because you're not playing to anything even remotely resembling your towngame.
Except what you said was "You're writing a narrative that when examined falls apart"... and to back it up you focus on the argument that I've implied you didn't explain your read. But what I actually said was that your "100% sure" bit was a lie. And it was a lie, at the very least by the time the hammer came down. Was all of your push based on that? No. But that was a key part, and likely a key part of why people followed you. And you allowed that to happen, even though, according to your own recounting of events, you knew that the "100% sure" bit was no longer true. Why should I believe you? Why should your admitted choice to allow for a lynch to happen under false pretenses (especially with deadline being days away) NOT be considered a strong wolf tell?
Sure. And right now the most likely answer is that you're mafia pulling a ploy.
No, I mean the mhsmith that is town I know will post all angles, IN THREAD, on all players. All of them. And with a very low level of confidence, weakly select the ones he thinks are more likely to be true.
This blind push of near-absolute certainty from you? Absolutely not characteristic of your towngame.
wrt meta, I think you're describing my late-game LYLO/MYLO town game more than my town game as a whole. I certainly look for whatever angles I can find and think about, yes (and I believe I have been doing this). But the idea of "with a very low level of confidence, weakly select the ones he thinks are more likely to be true"... that's typically not my town game.
I'm also not sure why you are calling my push on you a "blind push of near-absolute certainty". I explicitly stated "I'd be fairly surprised if she were to flip town. Call it like 60% wolf odds. And I really don't see a better case right now." One of us has represented a read of "near-absolute certainty" to the board. And it's not me. Seems like a mis-rep in my book. Heck, even your quoted bit makes that point, "right now the most likely answer is that you're mafia pulling a ploy". How can you possibly interpret that language as being a "blind push of near-absolute certainty"?
wrt IV, the ESSENTIAL problem is that you yourself stated that you had a stronger read on M&M. So why not try and build the wagon there?
You keep on pushing this point, yet this continues to ignore what I already said. innocentvillager was a stronger scumread originally. Ergo, I pushed innocentvillager. When this stopped being true, I knew I was second-guessing myself, and through a combination of pride and stubbornness, refused to back down off of that paranoia.
And I continue to find that explanation non-credible. You represented to the board that you were "100%" certain on IV. That certainty helped drive IV's lynch. Now you represent that you weren't so certain after all, that you'd found his posts better, and that you were wavering. And yet, despite that wavering, you didn't unvote, you didn't open the floor to more conversation, you just held your vote. Pride? Stubborness? Maybe. But "comfortable with a nice and easy mislynch" works pretty well too, especially since three of the five final votes on IV (Alex, BTD, Kappy) had all voted you not too much prior.
"I hate scumreading a player and then backing down from it even more"
I misspoke; that sentence is incomplete. It was meant to say that I hate scumreading a player
correctly
and then backing down from it. This is obvious enough. When you're right about a read, but then through paranoia, doubt it enough to reverse it, how do YOU feel? Universally, the answer is "very bad". That's what I was referring to. As much as I hate being wrong, being
right
and then reversing my read to be wrong is much, much worse.
Sure. The very first game I played (on PlayDip), I had what basically amounted to a (accurate)tonal read on Harb (a very good player, especially as wolf), and basically let him talk me out of it. I felt like a total fool afterwards.
OTOH, good town play is to be uncertain, to be paranoid, to be questioning. If your read was seriously wavering, there's nothing wrong with unvoting, saying you need more time to think, taking the time to ask questions and refine your read, etc. But if you're mafia and just want to get that mislynch out of the way, then pushing that lynch and then only afterwards "confessing" to your very human doubt and questioning... that's seems like a pretty effective strategy, especially if you're trying to justify your part in the mislynch after it's too late to do anything about it.
And now that you're in a position where you're in actual danger of that "offer" getting cashed anyway, you're pushing elsewhere.
I don't see myself escaping the lynch. I do, however, intend to push you.
And if Music and Mail calls me terrible to be ignored after I flip, they're confirmed scum for it, especially since it's not them that I'm pushing. It's you.
I don't care if I live or die. I expect to die. I'd definitely die if a townread was in any danger of being lynched. But given the choice between contributing to my own lynch, or making a statement about my strong scumread...I'm going to go for the latter.
Cool. I expect you to die too. I still think you're the likeliest player here to be mafia. And I'm still pretty happy with my vote being right where it is.
Want to guess at what I hated about 134?
Nope! I'm looking forward to whatever reason you pose for hating it, and if you intend to lynch me, you WILL post it before I get lynched, because you're going to be held accountable for it and if you don't I swear to god I'll spam the thread until you are lynched.
Hey now, accountable is one of MY favorite words, you can't steal it!
I'll admit to being disapointed that no one seemed interested in figuring out for themselves what was wrong about 134, but so be it. Essentially, what's wrong with it is that it's a weak case that's heavily over-justified. Your case in 134, essentially:
1) M&M stated intent without hammering. That's wolfy for meta reasons.
2)
26 had a fake tone (not sure why that's fake other than a "RVS BS" sort of way though)
3) Empty posting wrt asking for an unvote (this point is actually a bit of something)
4) 72 was a waffle and possible awkward greeting
5) Meta read on RC's feelings in 97, 103
6) Meta read / paranoia on the L-1 unvote
Basically it's nearly 1,000 words that boils down to "I have a meta read on RC/Postie, and there's some mildly suspicious behavior I've noticed". This is over-justified as hell compared to the minor amount of actual evidence at hand.
Bonus points for the needless VT claim btw. That one's more icing on the cake though.
PS Alpaca's your #2 team read on gut alone?
Tied for number one (tiers are equal), but otherwise, correct.
I mean, you get why I'm not buying this, right?
Touka wrote:Your read on Ranger feels opportunistic and your push on Alpacas reads as meh.
Also your slots past players probably all replaced out for a reason and the original owner of your slot made some pretty bad votes.
You are also defending M&M for what appears to be no reason.
This is all true.
It is?
http://forum.mafiascum.net/viewtopic.ph ... er_sort=Go
KAAG made three votes. The first was RVS, the second was probably RVS (with maybe a LITTLE bit of substance to it), and the third was either RVS (inappropriately IMO, but his ISO basically proclaims pretty clearly "we're all still in RVS") or a transparent "sure let's see what happens" wagon hop. Which of these votes was "pretty bad"? Your +1 onto Touka suggests that you see multiple garbage votes there? So... two of the three? All three?
As for M&M, I have a town read on the slot. That seems like a decent reason to defend them.
mhsmith wrote:You must be insanely confident in a smith/M&M mafia team then, since you're also in his top three.
I have no right to use the term insanely confident to describe my reads given D1.
Still, for lack of a better term: insanely confident on you, yes. Confident on M&M, no. They're a scumread, but it's mostly because "I don't have any better ideas and I'm reviewing my past read and thinking it might hold merit". Still, that Touka sees the two players on the bottom of my reads as scum, when I see them as scum, is a promising sign especially knowing it's beeboy behind the wheel.
Still "insanely confident"? Any wavering? It's no longer credible for you to claim that one AFTER a hammer comes down. Not that your stunt should have gotten you town credit the first time though.
...
And here's ranger taking that crappy read and considering a sheep of it.
No, that was because Touka was revealed to be beeboy.
I hold beeboy to basically the same standard I hold RadiantCowbells: the absolute top tier of scumhunters, the players I easily synch with when we share alignments, the players who I see as competent, and while never perfect, strong players with strong pushes.
And the beeboy of this game, as Touka, was playing in a really strange manner. Touka's play, as a person, looked town. Touka's play, knowing it was beeboy, looked strange.
Yeah, but that's not what you actually said, though, now is it?
In post 359, Ranger wrote:shotty wrote:VOTE: beeboy
just claimed scum
Quite possibly.
which was a response to
You literally said that Touka might have "claimed scum". It's right there. It's explicit. This isn't "beeboy was playing off", this was "hey, drmy might have picked up on a slip". Even though that "slip" was nonsense.
