Mafiascum.net

Ok me schedule is stupid right now. I'm going to have to think what to skip to make time for this. Done skimming but not enough time for rereading or considering validating meta

Done some* skimming

In post 208, Bingle wrote:

In post 190, NorwegianboyEE wrote:Vanderscamp's ISO doesn't lend itself well to being allied with N_M imo. Ping me if you disagree.

Actually, could you explain this?

I don't see anything at all that makes Scamp and N_M unaligned, and iirc you scumread scamp for focusing on mech stuff last game when he's done basically the same thing here.

In post 217, Bingle wrote:

In post 211, NorwegianboyEE wrote:I don’t think Vander makes this comment if N_M is his partner as he would already know this probably.

Hm.

In post 219, Bingle wrote:In general, it means "This post is something I find noteworthy in a way I'm not entirely sure I want to share yet but would like other people to pay attention to." but thinking about this further I don't actually see a drawback to bringing this up.

Your argument for N_M not being partnered with Scamp applies equally well to yourself, but you phrased it in a way to avoid that entirely which leaves me inclined to think you might yourself be aligned with scamp and looking to passively clear him.

In post 221, Bingle wrote:If you're town I don't have to worry about whether he's your partner.

If you're scum you almost certainly knew what you were doing there.

My point is entirely that if you are scum, Vanderscum equity rises dramatically because of that post.

One thing we haven't talked about much is this series of posts/argument from Bingle. It kinda reminds me of how I have tried to associate my teammates with townies in the past as scum.

Bingle isn't talking about Vander's play at all here, nor is he really giving a definitive read on Vander. What he's attempting is to paint a picture of scum!Norway aligned with scum!Vander. This would be a convenient move for a Bingle/Vanders team - if Norway flips town first, it can make Vanders townier to the thread because "well, that reason we had for suspecting Vander/nEE team turned out to be wrong".

Whereas if we eliminated Vander before Bingle, now he's set himself up with a reason to push nEE afterwards on the basis of being scum with Vander.

It strikes me as agenda driven play, the goal here was to associate Norway and Vanders and I think that's more likely to be scum creating misleading associatives between a buddy and a townie rather than something scum!Bingle makes up about two townies. Because if they were both town, then as soon as one flips town it doesn't give him a reason to push the other one. And again, it's notably awkward that all this is done without really talking to Vander, or about Vander directly.

Sorry, I should be more here in 10 hours or so

In post 1179, Vanderscamp wrote:Sorry, I should be more here in 10 hours or so

this inactivity does not bode well

I'm still thinking it's like 70% Vander 30% Hopkirk but I'd really love to talk with both of you today and also have opportunity to satisfyingly town case myself if there are hangups on my alignment that I can try to explain or talk about

Hopkirk you gave this self-meta point about how you hate playing scum and playing it feels like a waste of time and then you don't do anything from Wednesday onward, I'm not gonna lie that's making me a little worried

although I will grant that you haven't really been around on site since then much so I can buy that this is busy, but before I throw a vote down it would help tremendously to see more town efforting from you in this game Day if possible

I'm very busy at the moment
I'm struggling to see your progression on Vanders as town from skimming. For example you say earlier you are never voting Marci/hop then voted Marci and are 30% on me over Vanders. I felt the switch away because other people are TRing Vanders was awkward. I need to verify whether town or scum you is more likely to leave a SR alive for later like that, but the benefits scum you gets from that are very clear.

D1 I'm also having issues with you not having problems with what Bingle said about me and looking like you could agree with it/might have been planning to vote me

Have you done any meta on Vanders?

I might skip my event tonight to make time, but I'm free Wednesday evening for at least 2-3 hours so that'll depend if work/study is draining today

In post 1180, GuiltyLion wrote:

In post 1179, Vanderscamp wrote:Sorry, I should be more here in 10 hours or so

Yeah, sorry

I've been unexpectedly busy, hopefully tomorrow is actually the day I can at least be here.
Happy to answer any questions from either of you

In post 1181, GuiltyLion wrote:this inactivity does not bode well

I'm still thinking it's like 70% Vander 30% Hopkirk but I'd really love to talk with both of you today and also have opportunity to satisfyingly town case myself if there are hangups on my alignment that I can try to explain or talk about

I'm happy for you to towncase yourself, I do have hang ups with your alignment, my biggest issue is that most of what I think you're town for (tone and effort) is stuff that I think is fakeable from a competent scum.

Tomorrow for me meaning 10 hours from now btw

In post 1184, Hopkirk wrote:I'm very busy at the moment
I'm struggling to see your progression on Vanders as town from skimming. For example you say earlier you are never voting Marci/hop then voted Marci and are 30% on me over Vanders. I felt the switch away because other people are TRing Vanders was awkward.

So first things you first, you need to understand that I try to play in a way that's building consensus with my townreads, because I think generally the average sum of town's reads is going to be better than just my own. Especially when it's a situation with just a solo scum remaining as there's no room for a team to be manipulating the thread vibe.

D2 I had both you and Lukewarm as town, and you disagreed with my scumread on Vanders:

In post 704, Lukewarm wrote:Overall, I like a lot of your reasoning about Vanderscamp, but this one really give me pause.

In post 698, GuiltyLion wrote:I also think Bingle's openwolf 477 may have been meant to scare us away from a Vander wagon.

Because, like when he made 477, You+Marci were alraedy voting for Vanderscamp, and I was so obviously trapped in his pocket, he should have know there was a chance I would follow his lead there. That puts Vanders at e-2, which is often equivalent to e-1 in a game with Not_Mafia. So, if I had followed through with his suggestion, the he would have immediately been put into the position of needing in to ante up or back out of his "I will vote Vanderscamp if we then vote Hopkirk"

For 477 to save Vanderscamp, Bingle would have had to assume I was going to climb out of his pocket at that moment. But from the nice and cozy comfort of his pocket, I saw it was "extreme confidence in his scum read" instead of "openwolfing." So 477 came awfully close to either getting Vanders voted out (GL, Marci, Me, Bingle, Not_Mafia is an Elimination) or essentially a scum partner claim by forcing Bingle to backtrack 477 the moment I follow him and vote Vanders.

In post 777, Lukewarm wrote:

In post 768, GuiltyLion wrote:IT'S RIGHT THERE IN HIS ISO HOW DO YOU NOT SEE IT

It just seems like you are making a big deal over him have a vote on marci for less then 12 hours.

When he voted Marci, I think that there were valid reasons in the thread to scum read her at that time, and I probably would have agreed with them had I not just witnessed her scum game.

So if he is starting with a SR on Marci, and still trying to sort Bingle, he voted Marci. Then over the course of 12 hours, his SR on Bingle formed, and he moved his vote.

I am not saying that his transition from a Marci -> Bingle vote is a reason to TR him, but it feels like all of your reasonings (not just this one, and not just on Vanders) come from a place of hunting for a reason to make a scum case on someone, rather then looking at someone and actively trying to sort them.

In post 850, Hopkirk wrote:scum!vanders' yesterday would essentially have been planning to either a.) bus, or b.) vote me when another town voted me (Bingle/Lukewarm/Dunn/Vanders/X) wagon. there's not really a credible enough push from vanders onto any other slot yesterday (Marci being too TR to push through), and Bingle's only serious push being me. given vanders pushed back on lukewarm when there were 3 votes on me i'm not sure i buy b, and based on meta i'm not sure i buy a.

stuff from other games on bussing
-https://forum.mafiascum.net/viewtopic.p ... #p12738362 (bringing it up as a defence to self/saying does it infrequently)
-https://forum.mafiascum.net/viewtopic.p ... #p12649297 (anti-bussing coming up in scumchat when partner asks how they feel about bussing)

There's also a lot more to this post ^ that I didn't quote, I didn't want to make this post a bigger wall than it already will be.

So when two of my top townreads are saying they don't buy scum!Vander, especially since at one of you could be scum (and in that world, Vanders was town anyways), it made me re-evaluate. I also convinced myself that I was likely to be wrong using this reasoning:

In post 884, GuiltyLion wrote:

In post 882, Lukewarm wrote:

In post 881, Lukewarm wrote:Well... we really split the vote on this one

2 for Vanders, 2 for Dunn, 2 for Marci

So luckily, we all appear to be on the same page here

FMPOV it's pretty likely (almost ~100% minus probability of scum!Luke) that one of these wagons is on scum, and scum is sitting on one of the other two. I suspect if that's the case that scum won't want to switch their vote here as it would very likely look bad jumping from one miselimination to another, especially if/when both town wagonees are flipped before F3. So we probably need some direction from Hopkirk to resolve the deadlock right now.

Given that N_M is town, it could mean:
1) marci is scum and two townies have correctly solved today
2) scum!Dunn avoided the GL/Vander TvT entirely and opted to push a marci miselimination without any real support yet from other townies
3) I'm right about Vander and

all of

Lukewarm/N_M/Dunn are wrong as town

all this assuming a town!Luke

Could be some fuel for thought about which of these scenarios is more or less likely. Putting it this way makes me feel further uncertain about Vander because I currently know at least

three

townies would have to be wrong for me to be right, whereas worlds where marci or Dunn are scum mean only one or two townies besides me

has

to be wrong.

I also explained a similar thought process here:

In post 883, GuiltyLion wrote: - I have not wanted to admit it but I am wavering a bit in my confidence of the scumread of Vanders, I'm not sure if that's more due to waiting it out and just getting cold feet or due to both Lukewarm and Hopkirk pouring some water on the flames of that read. I still think he's best bet for scum by POE and my general philosophy of how scum is likely to play, as well as me still being stuck on the awkward "I remembered Marci/Luke can't be S-S" phrasing, but I'm like maybe 50% sure instead of 70-80%. I'm also a bit flummoxed that my response to Hopkirk about townslips was the thing that apparently changed his mind on me, but I can honestly see that coming from either alignment so I couldn't draw any AI conclusions from it, though I do think it's odd for his read to swing so drastically off of just that.

and another thing in my mind was that Vanders had recently pivoted to townreading me as well, which is something I wasn't sure that scum!Vanders was likely to do given that I had been pushing him really hard for most of the day and I didn't think he would anticipate that switching to townreading me was likely to make me back off.

--- reply to more of your post in a sec, just breaking this up here ---

In post 1184, Hopkirk wrote:D1 I'm also having issues with you not having problems with what Bingle said about me and looking like you could agree with it/might have been planning to vote me

I did have problems with what Bingle said:

In post 321, GuiltyLion wrote:yeah I'm not vibing with a Lukewarm scumread, nor the marci scumreads, if whoever's town in Hopkirk/Vanderscamp/Dunnstral could town it up a little bit that'd be great

I read through Bingle's push on Hopkirk but I'm going to reread it now with close attention and think about how much I agree with it

In post 322, GuiltyLion wrote:the crux of it seems to be that Hopkirk said Norway has an established reputation as being low WIM as scum and cited players that he thought had expressed that sentiment, Bingle doesn't think those players would have said that and asked Hopkirk about a specific one (FL), Hopkirk gave a jokey response instead of clarifying where he saw/heard FL talking about it.

I generally feel like "Norway has low WIM as scum" is likely to be something Hopkirk felt is true regardless of his alignment in this game (or nEE's for that matter), like I don't think he's going to just make up a complete lie about another player's scum meta, especially when naming specific players as references

. however I do not see why he deflected a question about it instead of just saying where he might have seen FL comment on it, so I can sympathize with Bingle's suspicion there.

If this is a premeditated push from scum!Bingle I think it would be hard for him to continue pushing it if Hopkirk had brought receipts, but at the same time I could envision scum pouncing on a townie's careless remarks about meta, so I don't know if it's strictly a town-indicative push especially since odds are not in Bingle's favor.

I do think this rules out a S-S relation and has decent odds of T-S in some direction given the difference in pools

I have some other thoughts that I typed up and deleted cause they amounted to further wishy-washiness than even the above. I'm a bit rusty at this game and feelin like I can't quite make reads yet with the confidence I used to have in my prime

The problem is I'm a tentative sap who was afraid to make Bold Moves in the early game, so while I felt Bingle came off slightly scummier in the interaction I didn't have him as lock-scum at this point and was also about to get altogether distracted by Vanders.

I'd also like to point out that these posts came roughly 40 minutes apart, about the time it took for me to reread the Bingle+Hop posts together in ISO and reflect on them. If you think I'm scum and that I was completely faking my thoughts in 322, it would mean I posted 321 then sat around waiting for 40 minutes before writing my next Grande Fake Thoughts Poste. I don't tend to do that as scum, I'd be more likely to just post 322 because my process would be to read up on the thread, maybe see if scum!Bingle has an idea on how I should play around his fight with you, and then just go ahead with the narrative.

Later on, when the Hop-Bingle Throwdown continued to escalate, I came to play late on a Sunday night in my timezone. Here's what I posted:

In post 592, GuiltyLion wrote:I have read up but it is late and I'm tired and I need to sleep on things before really diving back into this game, I'll be around tomorrow

my current laying in bed hot takes:

- Lukewarm posted a great point in our hood about how scum!Bingle would have hard defended both marcistar and Lukewarm slots away from potential elimination today and to what gain? If it's something like a Bingle-Dunn or Bingle-Vanderscamp team, that's playing fairly awkwardly as it's strictly increasing chance of autoloss. I was kinda waiting to see if Lukewarm would raise the same points in the thread, but he hasn't?

- Overall I do find Bingle scummiest in the 3p hood in a vacuum but I'm struggling to see winning partner candidates due to the above ^. This is one of the matters I intend to sleep on. If you're in this game and scumreading Bingle but townreading Lukewarm/marcistar I need help seeing why Bingle is playing the way he's playing - who is his partner and how do they win after we eliminate a town!Hopkirk?

- Vander's reply to me is alright, I guess. I feel a bit more town vibes from him now that he's actually playing, I still disagree with a few of points, should probably cede a few others

- I thiiiiink I agree Bingle/Hopkirk really doesn't feel TvT, eliminating either way there is likely a good call for D1. I do intend to sleep on this and look at all the Bingle/Hopkirk posts in closer detail so no flashwagons tonight plz

This is pretty clear and self-evident - but to reiterate what I basically say in the post, Lukewarm made a case in our neighborhood that Bingle had hard-defended both his slot and marcistar slots, and it wasn't clear what the scum benefit to that would be when eliminating his partner in the remaining 4 would be auto loss. It seemed to be strictly increasing the odds of a D1 loss, that is why I had a hard time pulling the trigger on a Bingle scumread, even though I did find him scummy.

I also even said this to you at the time:

In post 646, GuiltyLion wrote:

In post 610, Hopkirk wrote:@GL- why do you see reasons that Bingle wouldn't be aligned with Dunn

It's not that I don't see specific reasons he could be with Dunn, I agree that's a viable pairing, it's more that I don't see why he'd stick his neck out so early/decisively on behalf of marcistar/Lukewarm if those were two viable miseliminations today, narrowing the 6p to 4p with his partner in the group of 4.

Finally, I've said this before today, and I think this is maybe something that's generally wise to take with skepticism as it may be just self-meta WIFOM, but my belief is that good scum play would be manipulating Bingle's upcoming flip to make myself look as un-aligned as possible. It's part of why I've been pushing on Vanders all game, because I could easily see his early scumread+votepark as a planned bus to give him towncred to ride to endgame. My interactions with Bingle weren't Decidedly Clearing, but that's because I made no attempt to try to make myself look good on his flip, because I'm town and don't have any partners or agenda. It would have been great for me (as either alignment) to have correctly solved Bingle early and pushed him and ensured his flip so I could take all that sweet towncred for myself, but alas I did not and could not do that because I genuinely didn't know whether he was town or scum and was late to the game in figuring it out.

I also will highlight a couple interactions with him in my next post that I think should look partner-y, though I recognize these aren't clearing.

In post 112, Bingle wrote:

In post 103, NorwegianboyEE wrote:Bingle has been very active outside of this thread but not said hi here yet.

Hi.

Norwee's theory is functionally the summation of my ISO from last game.

Weird that scum would open the thread early, tbh.

Early townread on Dunn, early scumpings from GL.

So first, note that in Bingle's very first reads that he gives, he shades me. You could write that off as planned distancing, but what if I had flailed about and other townies started scumreading me and I picked up a serious wagon? He'd be in a position where he'd have to reverse course on me or vote me, it's dangerous to start himself off on that trajectory at this point.

Next, there's his whole progression on my townslip. (Also, don't forget in general that I town slipped I have not tried to push myself as town on that basis cause I think that's a little self-indulgent, but uh, worth remembering that I didn't realize scum had a NK).

In post 167, Bingle wrote:

In post 164, Lukewarm wrote:

In post 163, NorwegianboyEE wrote:

In post 61, GuiltyLion wrote:oh lmao you're right, I read that the setup was Mountainous and assumed that meant no NKs for some reason

fully disregard that point then

@N_M do you think this is a staged towntell or genuine?

I think I would like the answer to this question from you and bingle as well.

Full NAI.

I think mountainous->night less is a term replacement equally likely to be misread as town and scum.

His initial take is that he doesn't want to give me any towncred for it. Do you think scum is likely to do that about their buddy? I could imagine maybe you could believe he would think it would look better on him if I were to later flip scum, but I'd wager that the vast majority of scum players on this site would just let their scum buddy be townread instead of trying to take a stance against it. And if he really wanted to position himself to dis-associate us, he could have pushed it harder as fake. Instead, because I'm town, he's walking an awkward middle line here, where he wants to leave room to vote me if it's convenient for him and keep me in the lim-pool, but doesn't want to go too hard down a road of scumreading me when it frankly wouldn't make a lot of sense.

He gets called out on it being kinda dumb that he thought my comment was NAI:

In post 174, Bingle wrote:

In post 168, NorwegianboyEE wrote:Do you think the same when considering that scum would get a lot of time beforehand to think about the setup and how they are to plan out the neighborhoods/the game?

Fair point. I hadn't considered the intersection of planning NK's and neighborhoods in the context of that post.

In post 176, Bingle wrote:I was avoiding bringing it up to see how he reacted to mild questioning, but yeah.

Then is clearly like, "whoops, shit, guess I should do what I would have done as town here and maybe press GL on this to 'sort' him":

In post 178, Bingle wrote:GL, when you thought the game was nightless what did you think about game balance?

Why did you sign up for this game specifically?

Also note this - he doesn't initiate with this questioning, he only brings it forward when prompted. If we were scum together, the plan we would have had here would have been:
a) For me to fake a townslip
b) For him to not read anything into it either way
c) , after his first few posts and 30 minutes and pressure from nEE, decide to give me an opportunity to explain myself.

I think if we were buddies, there would have been more of a plan here. I would have suggested that he interact with my fake townslip in some way, with some purpose in mind, whether to stir up more distance between our slots or to make me look good. Instead, like I said he took an awkward middle road first.

I reply:

In post 209, GuiltyLion wrote:

In post 178, Bingle wrote:GL, when you thought the game was nightless what did you think about game balance?

Why did you sign up for this game specifically?

I really had not thought about the game balance, I thought it was an interesting concept to have one mafia in two separate pools of players but hadn't thought through how townsided it would be to run this without an NK. I was just looking at the setup page again and I believe I can explain why I thought there wasn't an NK, it was this section -

from the setup wiki wrote:"Night zero, one Mafia Goon neighborizes two of the Vanilla Townies, and the other Mafia Goon neighborizes the remaining five of them.

The rest of the game

is Mountainous."

[emphasis mine]

In my first read through, I assumed the "rest of the game" phrasing was used in a temporal sense to suggest there were no more night phases the rest of the game, since the sentence immediately preceding was talking about 'night zero'.

Specifically, I just signed up for this because it was the next available game in the Micro queue and I've played with a bunch of players here before.

do you really think I came up with this elaborate reasoning for why I thought the game didn't have night kills? Would I have read the wiki beforehand and planned it? Or was I fortunate enough to think of this explanation referencing this specific sentence from the wiki after I already faked a lack of knowledge about scum's abilities? And why does Bingle suggest it as NAI before he questioned me if the goal was to either distance our slots or make me look good?

@Vanders,

On reread, I noticed this interaction which I had completely forgotten about:

In post 286, Hopkirk wrote:Does jingle = bingle?

In post 296, Bingle wrote:

In post 286, Hopkirk wrote:Does jingle = bingle?

Publicly so. Jingle is for modding and is my main account. I played TM there as an anomaly. Bingle is my game account, so that I can have a dedicated ego search/bookmarks for the games I'm playing in.

In post 297, Hopkirk wrote:i remember seeing you quite a lot then. i assumed you were someone else

If Hopkirk and Bingle are a team, then this would almost have to be completely faked and Hopkirk would be aware of who Jingle was from pregame chat.
Do you think that is a) possible and b) likely? Cause this is the sort of thing that I actually would say is almost completely clearing for Hopkirk, I don't think most scum players are likely to premeditate and fake this kind of interaction.

In post 1184, Hopkirk wrote:Have you done any meta on Vanders?

This makes me sad cause it feels like you haven't been paying close attention to my posts I meta'd Vanders on D2 - I didn't find anything I would say was extremely indicative because he only has one completed scum game IIRC, but I read over that game as well as a few of his town games to try to see if I could pick up on differences in his vibe or his play. Here's where I posted as I was doing that:

In post 847, GuiltyLion wrote:I'm skimmin' Vanders' past games and continuing to feel validated in this scumread, his towngames feel more involved and insightful than what he's given us here (and what he's contributed D2 has really only ever been under direct fire from me). He also clearly has extensive mafia history, claiming 500-600 games played, which removes any poolspec concerns about Bingle putting a 'newbie' in 6p.

As long as he gets flipped at some point this game I think we win. Y'all can ignore me and vote myself or Dunn instead today but I don't see myself wanting to vote elsewhere, and I will expect you to atone for bad votes and sheep my read if I'm flipped first. Do not let him live through any F3.

In post 848, GuiltyLion wrote:This is by no means a slam-dunk scum tell but I also did notice in his past scumgame, he made a very similar post to one he made in this game:

https://forum.mafiascum.net/viewtopic.p ... #p12647731

In post 348, Vanderscamp wrote:I'm not getting anything from the flea/mena discussion

Also of importance is that Mena was his scumbuddy here.

What do we see in this game?

In post 329, Vanderscamp wrote:I got nothing at all out of the bingle/hopkirk exchange

have not found a similar post in his town ISOs yet, claiming to receive nothing useful out of other players arguing/discussing, but I haven't done a full deep dive.

I'll admit I have not since felt as confident as I did when I originally posted 847 - and I've been slowly talking myself back into that confidence, I think I'm pretty much ready to vote Vanders with a little more discussion today - but I suggest you meta him again and see how you feel his involvement and analysis in his town games compares to his effort here, especially regarding any vote or push outside of his D1 Bingle scumread.

I also again would like to highlight that this is a lot of effort for me to fake as scum. If I were scum, I would that Vanders is town and that meta'ing him would be an exercise in trying to prove something that isn't true. I certainly would not have been able to plan that I would find a post from his scum game that is nearly identical to a post that he gave in this game, that is simply something I could not engineer or expect to use against him without having read his scum game in close detail - which I would have had no reason to do as scum.

I also found that comment about his mafia experience from one of his town games which should serve as proof that I specifically was not only looking at his scum game in order to try to bullshit a fake case against him, but rather reading all his completed games to try to look for patterns or differences in play.

In post 1186, Vanderscamp wrote:my biggest issue is that most of what I think you're town for (tone and effort) is stuff that I think is fakeable from a competent scum.

The last thing I want to do is reply to this with a brief summary of my effort in my past few completed scum games to show that it simply does not match the effort I have put into this game, but that will have to wait as my partner is about to get home and I need to take a break from this for now. I'll bring it tomorrow

In post 1191, GuiltyLion wrote:

A QUICK TANGENT FROM THE WALL OF GL REPLYING TO HOPKIRK AND TOWN-CASING HIMSELF FOR A QUESTION FOR VANDERS

@Vanders,

On reread, I noticed this interaction which I had completely forgotten about:

In post 286, Hopkirk wrote:Does jingle = bingle?

In post 296, Bingle wrote:

In post 286, Hopkirk wrote:Does jingle = bingle?

Publicly so. Jingle is for modding and is my main account. I played TM there as an anomaly. Bingle is my game account, so that I can have a dedicated ego search/bookmarks for the games I'm playing in.

In post 297, Hopkirk wrote:i remember seeing you quite a lot then. i assumed you were someone else

If Hopkirk and Bingle are a team, then this would almost have to be completely faked and Hopkirk would be aware of who Jingle was from pregame chat.
Do you think that is a) possible and b) likely? Cause this is the sort of thing that I actually would say is almost completely clearing for Hopkirk, I don't think most scum players are likely to premeditate and fake this kind of interaction.

Possible, sure, but definitely not likely.
It's a pretty pointless interaction to try and fake, the only reason would be to try and gain cred from it being a weird reaction, but I'm pretty sure hopkirk hasn't at any point tried to bring it up, it would be a super next level play if he's banking on the fact that one of us will bring it up after all this time.

In post 1192, GuiltyLion wrote:

In post 1184, Hopkirk wrote:Have you done any meta on Vanders?

This makes me sad cause it feels like you haven't been paying close attention to my posts I meta'd Vanders on D2 - I didn't find anything I would say was extremely indicative because he only has one completed scum game IIRC, but I read over that game as well as a few of his town games to try to see if I could pick up on differences in his vibe or his play. Here's where I posted as I was doing that:

In post 847, GuiltyLion wrote:I'm skimmin' Vanders' past games and continuing to feel validated in this scumread, his towngames feel more involved and insightful than what he's given us here (and what he's contributed D2 has really only ever been under direct fire from me). He also clearly has extensive mafia history, claiming 500-600 games played, which removes any poolspec concerns about Bingle putting a 'newbie' in 6p.

As long as he gets flipped at some point this game I think we win. Y'all can ignore me and vote myself or Dunn instead today but I don't see myself wanting to vote elsewhere, and I will expect you to atone for bad votes and sheep my read if I'm flipped first. Do not let him live through any F3.

In post 848, GuiltyLion wrote:This is by no means a slam-dunk scum tell but I also did notice in his past scumgame, he made a very similar post to one he made in this game:

https://forum.mafiascum.net/viewtopic.p ... #p12647731

In post 348, Vanderscamp wrote:I'm not getting anything from the flea/mena discussion

Also of importance is that Mena was his scumbuddy here.

What do we see in this game?

In post 329, Vanderscamp wrote:I got nothing at all out of the bingle/hopkirk exchange

have not found a similar post in his town ISOs yet, claiming to receive nothing useful out of other players arguing/discussing, but I haven't done a full deep dive.

I'll admit I have not since felt as confident as I did when I originally posted 847 - and I've been slowly talking myself back into that confidence, I think I'm pretty much ready to vote Vanders with a little more discussion today - but I suggest you meta him again and see how you feel his involvement and analysis in his town games compares to his effort here, especially regarding any vote or push outside of his D1 Bingle scumread.

I also again would like to highlight that this is a lot of effort for me to fake as scum. If I were scum, I would

know

that Vanders is town and that meta'ing him would be an exercise in trying to prove something that isn't true.

I certainly would not have been able to plan that I would find a post from his scum game that is nearly identical to a post that he gave in this game, that is simply something I could not engineer or expect to use against him without having read his scum game in close detail - which I would have had no reason to do as scum.

I also found that comment about his mafia experience from one of his town games which should serve as proof that I specifically was not only looking at his scum game in order to try to bullshit a fake case against him, but rather reading all his completed games to try to look for patterns or differences in play.

I'm pretty certain I've said that as both alignments?
I can try and look this up if either of you care, but I'm pretty sure I'll be able to find a post where I say something to that effect in a town game on this site. So any post I make that is similar to anything I've said in a scum game is something you can plan to find if there's no requirement that it isn't also something I say as town.

In post 1193, GuiltyLion wrote:

In post 1186, Vanderscamp wrote:my biggest issue is that most of what I think you're town for (tone and effort) is stuff that I think is fakeable from a competent scum.

The last thing I want to do is reply to this with a brief summary of my effort in my past few completed scum games to show that it simply does not match the effort I have put into this game, but that will have to wait as my partner is about to get home and I need to take a break from this for now. I'll bring it tomorrow

No problem

My intent is to probably vote you unless you blow me away, I haven't really seen anything from you that has made me change my mind about you two, if anything what you have been posting is convincing me more that hopkirk is town.

whoa i'm actually starting to read up

Bingle iso
112- scumpings from GL
178 – asks GL what he thought about game balance when he thought it was nightless-
254 – not sure what Bingle TR GL based on here?

208 – slight pushback on norway’s light sus of Vanders -

219 – says Norway might be aligned with Vanders - @GL i think you mentioned that bingle would be doing this with the aim of elimming Norway first then TRing Vanders off of that with the 'oh that pairing was wrong so the other one is probably town logic'. i'm not sure how that makes sense in light of Bingle consistently pushing within the bigger pool first. he wasn't noticeably aiming for norway (or in the small pool at all) here which kind of means his strat here needs to be exile Hop > exile norway > TR vanders based on that which seems like too many stages

Bingle ignoring Vanders vote probably isn’t significant since Bingle also ignores the Dunn vote and some others

Binlge is gunning for the Hopkirk exile. He’s got Dunn/Luke so needs one more + a partner, or two more town. Given Norway/NM on him essentially needs Marci which makes his self hammer make sense when she votes him and that’s no long possible.

-In the scum Vanders world Bingle needs to buy Marci & GL's votes OR let Vanders draw sus by switching to me. There's a couple of posts appealing to Marci here but none that i noticed trying to buy GL's vote in any way. i don't think scum!Bingle is going to lie down to die even if being bussed because if he can get those votes then he gets a hop elim while spreading negative associatives with his partner. Abandoning things on the marci decision also rules out Vanders/GL both voting on Hop which is possible in the scum!vanders world. Bingle doesn't wait for this - so either decided that puts Vanders in too bad a light, or we aren't in that world
-The scum GL world is one where GL hangs around waiting to see votes without majorly taking a stance beforehand which i don't really see anything on the d1 voting against this? There's the GL vote on Luke putting him to 3 drawing a little attention away from Bingle early on as the only thing that really resembles a counterwagon

between 112-254 do you know what Bingle switched on you based on GL? all i can see is that Norway TR you for reasons then Bingle flipped to TRing you for the rest of the game with no clear indication (i don't remember you asking Bingle about his progression on you, but i'll verify that in the iso i'm about to do of you next)

In post 1198, Hopkirk wrote:between 112-254 do you know what Bingle switched on you based on GL? all i can see is that Norway TR you for reasons then Bingle flipped to TRing you for the rest of the game with no clear indication (i don't remember you asking Bingle about his progression on you, but i'll verify that in the iso i'm about to do of you next)

It was the response to his questioning about my townslip

In post 252, NorwegianboyEE wrote:You haven’t really townhunted in the big pool Bingle.

In post 253, NorwegianboyEE wrote:Do you have any reads yet or what?

In post 254, Bingle wrote:Disagree. We've talked about Dunn, I'm waiting for a response from Hopkirk, and

I agree with your logic on GL given his response

. Luke and Scamp both strike me as the kind where their alignment will be more obvious if I let them do their thing and I can afford to be a passive observer on marci at the moment.

Sometimes, it's better to know how to let the thread breathe to get reads.

You should read my post directly above yours where I also walk through this interaction

also, on this:

In post 1197, Hopkirk wrote: -The scum GL world is one where GL hangs around waiting to see votes without majorly taking a stance beforehand which i don't really see anything on the d1 voting against this?

again, if I were scum with Bingle I basically took the worst possible course of action for myself, did not bus him strongly to buy myself towncred and distance our slots, nor did I push for a counter wagon to prevent his elimination from going through. I was on the sideline without pushing any kind of agenda at all - that's passive play and something I'd like to think I would have avoided as scum.

I think you make some good points about how scum!Vander switching from Bingle to Hopkirk would look tremendously bad after you flip green and Bingle flips red.