Newbie 1756: Balloon (Game Over)

[mhsmith0]

Skimmed tweets scum game

Different feel there to here, including...
Higher post count here
No blunder vote posts here like http://forum.mafiascum.net/viewtopic.ph ... 7#p8359177
More pushy/inquisitive, questions have more of a bite to them (that game had a decent % of meh questions)

Leaning a bit town on tweet rn

[mhsmith0]

Vca wise it's kinda weird that day 1/2 is same breakdown wrt living players

Me/accountant/loopdan on main wagon
Tweet/Manuel off wagon (d1 on counter, d2 not voting)

Don't want to say it's 100%, but tweet/Manuel together would really surprise me. I don't normally expect scum, much less newb!scum, to bunch like that, especially in an environment where neither is really under all that much pressure.
Ps Accountants expalabation in 974 is plausible I guess. Not sure what I think there.

[mhsmith0]

I , for one, don't think it's a great idea for everyone to post full reads at the request of the player who is likely being lynched and hasn't caught up yet.

Why exactly shouldn't people have done this? This seems like a perfectly fine thing for people to do, all the more so given the chance that the wagon was a mislynch (which it turned out to be). Why discourage this?

[Loopdan]

1) casting a potentially game ending vote in LYLO means you're pretty sure. What made you that sure? It's surprising that you can't remember why your opinion changed on what should have been a really important vote.
2) what made you unvote, given the lack of anyone doing anything with the vote you'd made?

Were you just leaving and couldn't keep an eye on things?

Something else?

1) If it's important I can go back and check my notes when I'm on my laptop. But I'm on a mini-vacation for the next day and a half so it'll have to wait.

2) The bolded part. I was testing the waters.

[mhsmith0]

It's important but not urgent. But yes, I do want an answer there.

[Loopdan]

I , for one, don't think it's a great idea for everyone to post full reads at the request of the player who is likely being lynched and hasn't caught up yet.

Why exactly shouldn't people have done this? This seems like a perfectly fine thing for people to do, all the more so given the chance that the wagon was a mislynch (which it turned out to be). Why discourage this?

Town rarely has any info advantage over scum. If you think someone is scum why give up full reads for them to work with? There's a time for transparency, but that wasn't it.

[mhsmith0]

I fail to understand your point.

1) if thinkbig was scum, the downside is unclear
2) if thinkbig was town, it gives him more to potentially work with

What's the upside to lack of transparency there? You say "info advantage" but what kind of advantage comes from being unclear about reads?

[mhsmith0]

I keep re-reading the cases and going back and forth in my mind about Morning Tweet's alignment. I do think Manuel looks better now though - he has that "dog on a bone stubbornness" that looks a lot like a townie who found what they feel is a smoking gun and don't want to let go. Scum like to go for lynches that look good and are easy to push; I'm not convinced the sudden aggression on Tweet fulfils either of those criteria.

I want thatsit and Misa to post more! I actually forgot thatsit even exists, which is kinda making me nervous that he's scum slipping by.

So this is kind of interesting. Looking at the tweet/manuel fight, I would actually agree with tweet that Manuel, as scum would be pretty motivated to pick on tweet in that spot. Consider what had just happened:

Char claimed doc, and WCSBO softed the hell out of cop. Then Trans voted Manuel

I fucking hate being wrong

Like so much

VOTE: Manuel87

and in that situation, it was highly possible that momentum would rapidly swing towards a Manuel lynch, especially since anyone looking closely at votes ought to have seen that this

Spoiler: vote post

I agree with Transcend.
A flip gives information on players regardles who we lynch. While it may be true that their flip might tell us a lot about Charloux. A Charloux lynch would give us information on other players as well.
If we think 2 players are equally possible to be scum i agree that lynching the one that gives more information on the other alignment might be better.

VOTE: WeCanSimplyBeOurselves

I think Charloux is town and WCS wants to earn townpoints for defending her.
His Transcend vote makes him look like he is trying to push the lynch on someone else.
Transcend is townread quite a bit so pushing him wont stop the Charloux wagon and its a safe place to pressure without losing the misslynch on Charloux.

looked horrific in a situation where char/wcs was v/v (justifying it in terms of information, explicitly sheeping trans logic).

So what happens?

1) Manuel comes up with a tweet case, seemingly out of nowhere (had been a town read in 152), with some fairly shaky reasons but a lot of words behind them:
- the 5 posts cited read reasonably like thinking through a potential read and engaging in what might be a scumspect, which is entirely null on tweet's part;
- asking char/norska if there are better candidates is also null; it's realistic that she's pushing for content there;
- the thatsit bit is also null on her end, since it's very reasonable that as town she was doing it out nervousness about WCS being a mislynch
- the "better focus on manuel or I'll scum read you" is a big stretch
- the accountant bit is also odd. What her 363 there displays is paranoia and hesitance about town-reading an experienced player, not that it's due to making points and pressuring Char.
Like, the whole thing reads like he's stretching to create a scumread, either due to conf!bias (which would be really weird since he hadn't been pushing there before), OMGUS (which also doens't quite seem right, since there's no real emotional reaction to being suspected, and a direct push against being suspected was a small part of Manuel's post), or that he was being strategic about it for survival (and we know he's not a town pr).

then
2) he gets into a big back and forth with tweet (and your "stubborn townie" read came relatively early in that process
notably, 391 has fairly insipid questions/responses (
A the difference between the two was obvious
B meh, might have been ok
C asks why misa/manuel made sense as a team when she literally just explained why
D asks why accountant is so low, even though she literally just explained it (shallow reasons like "good scumhunting, posts often", which would be the extent of an Accountant townread)
E none of that really gets at why she pinged as scummy in the first place, or addresses the reasonable criticism that the case was thrown-together and hasty
and 394 isn't better
A nitpicking
B plausible, although since the town explanation is fine as well, it's just null
C mediocre question - her read of the thread was that consensus was that manuel/misa/tweet were the most PoE. probably should have thrown in norska too, but "why not accountant/transcend", when neither of those had gotten votes, seems odd
D nitpicky reason, very plausible playstyle issue or lack of confidence. nullscum behavior at worst, as long as content and reads are being generated. she even explains her process in part of the quote that was removed from 394
E tweet's accusation was a hasty thrown together case. if manuel was scum it would be accurate.
F not mentioning that point about charloux meta is a fair criticism, but a minor point

From all of that, Accountant gets "stubborn town". Ehhhh... I dunno. Seems like a premature read there off the cuff. Not sure that makes it a Manuel/Accountant team exactly, but I can't say that I like either of them off of that engagement.

[mhsmith0]

@WCS Forgive me for this, I have one last question. Do you still think it's important to read Manuel and myself's posts and consider both sides of the argument, or do you not bother to read my posts anymore?

I'll be on later to give my thoughts, although I do agree with the pressure on Misa for lurking (I did not post much day one in my scum game).

But before I go:

Okay, that's not true. There'd just have to be a different reason to suspect Norska. Also,

wcs if you're reading this, mention your favourite animal in your next post.

No, WCS, at best you're skim reading my posts. Pretty unfair you weren't considering my side. I am in no way accusing you of being scum for it, I just had a hunch after your reasoning for voting me that you weren't reading much into Manuel's exchange with me.

This reads flagrantly as "aggrieved townie"

[mhsmith0]

Mulling over accountant-loopdan as a team, but I'm skeptical that scum!accountant actively pushes away from town!manuel/town!tweet in that spot, given that if pressure goes away from those two, and char/wcsbo were declared town PRs, it's hard to predict where the next wagon would go (even if accountant's stated preference is the lurkers, that doesn't mean it'd actually end up there).

[borkjerfkin]

Votecount 3.6

[5] Not Voting (Accountant, Manuel87, Morning Tweet, mhsmith0, Loopdan)

With 5 alive, it is 3 to lynch.

Let me know if you see any problems.

Deadline is in (expired on 2016-12-30 08:30:00)

[borkjerfkin]

Will restart prods as of tomorrow; Manuel87 and Loopdan are declared V/LA until today.

[mhsmith0]

through day 1, tweet seems likeliest town. I have a scumlean on manuel from the back and forth, but it isn't massive and I want to go through day 2 in more depth and see how that goes. that won't happen tonight.

[Morning Tweet]

Mhsmith (once you read up to day 3) would you agree Manuel's Accountant case is similar to his earlier case on me, in terms of how far he's reaching? He and I are arguing on the topic once again.

Manuel, you dropped your Accountant scumread and moved it to me. You think I was trying to manipulate you into voting for Accountant over Norska (933), making you unwilling to vote Accountant anymore (???). If that's my intention, don't you think it'd be smarter for me to pile on Accountant with Loopdan and yourself rather than discredit your case?

[Accountant]

mhsmith, what are your actual reads right now? It would be very helpful to get as clear a picture as possible of your thoughts

as

you read through the game and start catching up.

[Accountant]

From all of that, Accountant gets "stubborn town". Ehhhh... I dunno. Seems like a premature read there off the cuff. Not sure that makes it a Manuel/Accountant team exactly, but I can't say that I like either of them off of that engagement.

The sudden jump onto someone with no clear scum motive from it(including looking good) made Manuel stubborn town in my eyes. I understand why you think Manuel had scum motive to attack Tweet, but obviously I didn't see it at the time.

[Morning Tweet]

@morningtweet: Given that there has been some discussion of your previous successful scum game, what would you say is the biggest difference between your play here and in that game?

Even though you came to your own conclusions I'll go ahead and answer this.

In my own words I'd say I'm much less worried about my posts being picture perfect and am less nervous in general. I'd attribute this to the change of alignment but also having slightly more experience this time around.

[Manuel87]

Mhsmith (once you read up to day 3) would you agree Manuel's Accountant case is similar to his earlier case on me, in terms of how far he's reaching? He and I are arguing on the topic once again.

Manuel, you dropped your Accountant scumread and moved it to me. You think I was trying to manipulate you into voting for Accountant over Norska (933), making you unwilling to vote Accountant anymore (???). If that's my intention, don't you think it'd be smarter for me to pile on Accountant with Loopdan and yourself rather than discredit your case?

While this might be true, it would have looked really suspicius to suddenly sheep the Accountant wagon when you were pushing on me the whole time.
Also in case my assumption about an Accountant+Tweet team is wrong it would make a lot of sense.
Thats something a thought about since i switched to Tweet+Norska but the way mhsmith tries to make you look better by discrediting my arguments against you strengthened my scumread on that slot.
He doesnt even ask me questions about the case or anything like he did with Accountant. He just throws out words like meh, weak, null, nitpicky and minor.

His reason for the timing of my case being scummotivated is also bad.
At that time my 2 scumreads outed themselfes as PRs without counterclaims and with that information i started to reread the thread as i mentioned back then.
Also why not mention the same same thing about the Misawagon? That formed when i was pushing Tweet and Norska joined that wagon without saying much.

[mhsmith0]

@manuel: off the cuff, wrt Accountant's hand-waving of the engagement as town v town, I'd say it's pretty likely that if Accountant is scum, he's scum with either you (Manuel) or tweet, and this would be especially true if Accountant flips goon, since protecting the roleblocker is super important on D1 in this format (some of accountant's D3 stuff is a bit suggestive of accountant-tweet as a team [the "let's lynch tweet or norska, with a more substantive case on tweet, and then pushing norska"], but LYLO with all town PRs dead is a decent time to build false connections so I wouldn't want to read too much into that)

You also note that I'm not asking questions of you about your case; what questions do you think would actually be helpful? "Why was your case mediocre?" "Why were most of your responses substantively mediocre?" I could maybe see "Why did tweet catch your eye over the various other possibilities" as a decent question, but for the most part I think that making a substantive read of the back and forth was more useful than just asking random questions.

You also accuse me of "just throw[ing] out words like meh, weak, null, nitpicky and minor", but the fact remains, those are valid responses to the points you'd made in those spots.

Examples:

391
"And why did you feel the need to remind him that he is scumreading Charloux and WCS you could have simply reminded him that WCS is at L-1 and stop there.
Also his first post was pretty far into the game and his vote wasnt a RVS vote."

That she was "remind(ing) him that he is scumreading Charloux and WCS", at a point where Charloux wasn't close to hammer, was minor. You're implying that she was trying to manipulate thatsit into voting Charloux (when the gain from such a vote switch for scum!tweet is ___?), which isn't really something I'd read much scum motivation into. This was one I'd kinda skimmed in my first pass through, where at least it looked like you were thinking on the point, but honestly I don't see much validity here either.

394
"So what are you doing here? You literally say you think he is lying."
That's nitpicky. "I'm not buying it" is a development of a scumread, sure, but that phrasing is much more in sync with "I'm starting to suspect you" than "ok you're now my top suspect". And you pushing tweet on "why didn't she vote him" only works if he was her top suspect, as opposed to merely someone she suspected. So yes, that was nitpicky.

"Why didnt you mention this when you unvoted Charloux?"
It's a minor point. Could a townie legitimately have neglected to mention this during the unvote (especially given that Charloux wasn't close to majority)? Of course. So since it's a plausible town process, it's fundamentally a minor point.

Like, you're accusing me of just throwing out random words, when I feel like the meaning of those words is relatively clear. Moreover, you're exhibiting the same behavior (discrediting my arguments instead of asking questions) towards me that you claim is scummy on my end for how I did it to you. That's especially odd given that your response towards my "discrediting" is to just declare that I've thrown out various words to describe your case/responses instead of actually asking questions to clarify my thoughts or highlight specific areas where you feel like you had actually made good points and that my interpretation was unfair.

So I guess I'll ask you: what of my responses in particular seemed unfair, and why did you think it was unfair? You've accused me of just throwing out random words in my evaluation of your posts, so I'd presume that you have some specific examples where you think that treatment was especially unfair, and I'd like to hear them.

[mhsmith0]

mhsmith, what are your actual reads right now? It would be very helpful to get as clear a picture as possible of your thoughts

as

you read through the game and start catching up.

Accountant, could you clarify where you were going with this? I thought my reads state was fairly clear in 987; was I being unclear, or was there something else in particular you were curious about that I'm just not picking up on?

[Morning Tweet]

@Manuel
I still don't understand why I'd try to manipulate someone I'm arguing with to vote a certain way. I expect I'm the last person you'd listen to on voting.

Out of 16 points, mh uses those words like nitpicky, minor, etc. 4 times. I'd say they define your whole case on Accountant and myself, though.

I think Norska made his largest post all game when he voted Misa, 477

[Accountant]

mhsmith, what are your actual reads right now? It would be very helpful to get as clear a picture as possible of your thoughts

as

you read through the game and start catching up.

Accountant, could you clarify where you were going with this? I thought my reads state was fairly clear in 987; was I being unclear, or was there something else in particular you were curious about that I'm just not picking up on?

Mostly for personal convenience - I read back and forth a lot and it's good to have a clear summary like X - town, Y - scum so I can refer without having to reread your wall. Also cuts down on misinterpretations or misunderstandings - hence "as clear a picture as possible".

[mhsmith0]

After 11 pages...

scum= charl, Manuel (maybe norsk)
town= thatsit
no idea on Acct or Tweet

Why did you stop to explain your reads here?

Why did you care? And why, if you actually did care, did you bring it up precisely never again?

Right, but that doesn't necessarily lead to Tweet being scum. If she can seem as scum, then she'll definitely seem town as town. It therefore follows that Tweet would seem town regardless of alignment - so a shallow observation like "Tweet seems town" tells you nothing. That doesn't lead to an increased likelihood of Tweet scum here.

this is one of those things that seems to obviously tie accountant and tweet together if accountant is scum, but I kinda feel like it's TOO obvious, and that this is more of a (if accountant is scum) defense of someone who is town

Talk to me about Manuel. You've been largely ignoring him.

Loopdan doesn't talk about Manuel, Accountant doesn't seem to be bothered by this

Pretty sure Manuel is town, and Transcend's paranoia about the claim and the demotivation + replace also reads town to me. I've never known Transcend to replace as scum just because he got a bit of pressure, or to really dodge the pressure. He knows how to deal with it.

I have a history of being garbage at reading Trans, but I kinda buy this.


Not sure at all what to think of tweet's 809. It reads ok in isolation, but in the context of the day's flow, it's basically just putting the nail into the coffin of thatsit by essentially removing a counter-wagon possibility. For a more experienced player, I'd be extremely suspicious of tweet not voting accountant and pushing for a counter-wagon there, given her stated worldview that accountant is likely scum regardless of the thatsit flip (further discussed in 811). Tweet, given that you thought that accountant was likely scum, regardless of thatsit flip, why didn't you vote him in that spot? By witholding your vote, you effectively voted for thatsit (and explicitly blessed the wagon); why not vote where your reads were telling you to vote?

[mhsmith0]

Out of 16 points, mh uses those words like nitpicky, minor, etc. 4 times. I'd say they define your whole case on Accountant and myself, though.

Looking at it in a bit more detail...
323 seems like a decent enough question

580 seems fine

929 and 939 suggests a perspective of thinking that Norska is scum and then mulling over a possible partner in the context of that read

913 talks about pushing Misa based on PoE instead of an actual scumread, as well as Accountant voting just because Trans pushed on the topic

944 talks about not voting Misa despite pushing on her, which is generically scummy behavior
he also asks a valid question of you about your thatsit read changing dramatically without you actually voting for him

That's just a selection of posts from Manuel about Accountant, but overall I don't see the same kind of issue with it that I had with his case on you on day 1, where he basically dumped out a bunch of points, most of which were mediocre at best, and IMO didn't do a particularly good job defending them.

What in particular makes you think that his Accountant case is nitpicky and minor?

[Manuel87]

@manuel: off the cuff, wrt Accountant's hand-waving of the engagement as town v town, I'd say it's pretty likely that if Accountant is scum, he's scum with either you (Manuel) or tweet, and this would be especially true if Accountant flips goon, since protecting the roleblocker is super important on D1 in this format (some of accountant's D3 stuff is a bit suggestive of accountant-tweet as a team [the "let's lynch tweet or norska, with a more substantive case on tweet, and then pushing norska"], but LYLO with all town PRs dead is a decent time to build false connections so I wouldn't want to read too much into that)

Well i didnt think to much about protecting the RB but thats close to my thoughts on day 1.
But then Tweet voted Accountant and didnt unvote when he was at L-1. Do you think scum!Tweet had a reason to vote scum!Accountant at that point.
The only one i can think of is an attempt of distancing that almost went wrong.
Actually thinking about it if Tweet is RB and we had lynched Accountant there she could still win with the towncredit she gets because cop and doc were already claimed.

You also note that I'm not asking questions of you about your case; what questions do you think would actually be helpful? "Why was your case mediocre?" "Why were most of your responses substantively mediocre?" I could maybe see "Why did tweet catch your eye over the various other possibilities" as a decent question, but for the most part I think that making a substantive read of the back and forth was more useful than just asking random questions.

Something like why did you drop your Tweet read day 2.
Also its not only about my Tweet case. You directed questions at everyone especially Accountant but never asked me anything.
Yet you take my case and defend Tweet by saying some reasons are bad and every time you say i have a valid point you call it minor or null.

"Why didnt you mention this when you unvoted Charloux?"
It's a minor point. Could a townie legitimately have neglected to mention this during the unvote (especially given that Charloux wasn't close to majority)? Of course. So since it's a plausible town process, it's fundamentally a minor point.

I dont think its minor. If i go to the lengths of reading someones last game why not share the information that made you change your mind on him?

Like, you're accusing me of just throwing out random words, when I feel like the meaning of those words is relatively clear. Moreover, you're exhibiting the same behavior (discrediting my arguments instead of asking questions) towards me that you claim is scummy on my end for how I did it to you. That's especially odd given that your response towards my "discrediting" is to just declare that I've thrown out various words to describe your case/responses instead of actually asking questions to clarify my thoughts or highlight specific areas where you feel like you had actually made good points and that my interpretation was unfair.
So I guess I'll ask you: what of my responses in particular seemed unfair, and why did you think it was unfair? You've accused me of just throwing out random words in my evaluation of your posts, so I'd presume that you have some specific examples where you think that treatment was especially unfair, and I'd like to hear them.

No the words dont seem random at all. They all serve the same purpose of discrediting my case on Tweet.

So here is one question. Point C you say she just explained what i asked. Yet she explained her reads on me and Misa not why she had the feeling that everyone was going to scumread me and her.
And how was her quote in Point D explaining why Accountant is so low? I read that as Accountant posts a lot and is scumhunting. Not really something i would scumread someone for.

@Manuel
I still don't understand why I'd try to manipulate someone I'm arguing with to vote a certain way. I expect I'm the last person you'd listen to on voting.

Out of 16 points, mh uses those words like nitpicky, minor, etc. 4 times. I'd say they define your whole case on Accountant and myself, though.

No i wouldnt listen to you but that was something that wasnt directed at me yet could have influenced the way i vote the way you want me to.

So lets look at his post

1) shaky reasons
- entirely null
- also null
- also null
- a big stretch
- also odd

then
2)
A the difference between the two was obvious
B meh
C literally just explained why
D literally just explained
E thrown-together and hasty
and 394 isn't better
A nitpicking
B it's just null
C mediocre question
D nitpicky reason,
E hasty thrown together case.
F but a minor point

maybe you meant 14?