Micro 1010: Divide and Conquer: Round 2 - Game Over!

[Hopkirk]

'To me, this feels like scum making things up to simulate a fictional thought process. I don't buy it as an authentic one. I find it remarkably hard to imagine that town!Vanderscamp was reading conversation between two players in the same pool and not already aware that it cannot be a S-S interaction. '

would scum think 'forgetting the pools' sounds like a townslip? given your assumption that it was fake immediately does scum!vanders/scum!bingle discuss this and decide it makes vanders sound townie? i feel like your read of this comment was somewhat intense

[Hopkirk]

I can also relitigate a lot of my D2 case against Vanders, I think it holds up especially with Dunn/Marci confirmed town now. To restate the main points:

- Mid D1, Vanders voted Marci for being 'awkward', then spent most of his next few posts giving reasons to scumread/suspect Bingle. I thought the reasoning for his Marci vote was a lot weaker than the reasoning he had to scumread Bingle, so the fact that he was voting Marci and not Bingle stood out as odd. Especially since he also claimed a strong TR on Norway at the same time, which would make Bingle/N_M a 50/50 proposition at that point. And he cannot explain this with a defense of 'better to eliminate in 6p rather than 3p' because he specifically said he would rather vote his strongest read than vote based on the pool. I think a lot of the D2 discussion focussed too much on this last point rather than the fact that his Marci vote was not justified to the degree that his Bingle read was, in part because Vanders steered the discussion more on the pool argument instead of acknowledging that the Marci vote had weaker reasons than his Bingle read (without vote)

- Vanders at one point claimed to forget that Luke/Marci were both in the 6p. I think that's more likely to be scum pretending to have a thought process rather than a real one - no one else in this game ever 'forgot' who was in which pool.

- Vanders claimed that he didn't read the neighborhood chat when I pointed out he didn't respond to me in there. He then shifted the discussion to "there's no value to posting in there", which again steered the conversation away from the

actual

point which is that even if you don't believe in

posting

in the hood as town, you should still be

reading

it. I call this out in more detail in 749.

- Vanders vote and push back on me throughout D2 seemed more focussed on discrediting my perspective and the argument rather than genuinely thinking I was scum. He gave no reasons for why I was scum outside of ones centered around me not 'believing' my case because my case was bad - but someone as experienced as Vanders should know that townies genuinely push faulty tunnels all the time.

given you had these points d2, can you explain what made you think each of them didn't hold up as much in d3?

[Hopkirk]

*considering you restated their significance here

[Hopkirk]

looking at a lot of the reasons for the scumreads you have on vanders it feels like you're only considering why scum would do/say it rather than weighing that up against why town would
quite a few of the points on vanders still don't seem genuine to me

[Hopkirk]

i feel like this is GL's towngame and so did Norway very strongly when he has more experience of it hm

in terms of Wim/activity

[SirCakez]

Votecount 4.1

GuiltyLion (1) - Vanderscamp
Vanderscamp (1) - Guiltylion

Not voting (1) - Hopkirk

(expired on 2021-06-22 12:55:00) remain until day end

With 3 players alive, it takes 2 to reach a majority.

[Hopkirk]

i've been sitting here for about 3 hours now. i'm going to stop for the evening.
i'll very likely have a vote down by the end of the weekend

[Hopkirk]

will probably come online for ~half an hour before i sleep later if there's any posts/things people want to discuss

[GuiltyLion]

GL why do you think Bingle (effectively) self hammered when you'd stated that you were going to be back reading between him and hopkirk the next day?

If I had to guess, I think it's because he thought he was most likely to be eliminated (N_M and nEE seemed pretty set on voting Bingle instead of Hop) and there was enough effective distance between him and Vanders at that point. Maybe he thought I could have town told myself by landing on Bingle (personally I doubt it would have been that town-indicative at that stage, because I think as scum it would have been better for me to bus or have bussed by that point). Either way there was nothing really for scum to gain by the day continuing at that juncture so I guess he wanted to end the day before any further surprises could come up, Vanders wagon had died down at that point IIRC but it's obviously better for him to go down first being the 3p scum

[GuiltyLion]

I'm here if you have any last things you want to back and forth, otherwise I'll just reply to your posts

[GuiltyLion]

Vanders pushes GL a lot less than i'd expect from someone who thinks GL is reading him in bad faith around the 700-900 area

also, that's the only reason he really gave for pushing me. At no point has he tried to explain why my interactions with Bingle (or any other non-Vanders slot) are scum-motivated. If he knew that I was scum, especially at the point of voting me today in F3, it should be easier for him to be bringing forward some of those arguments. Instead, even today he just takes the angle that I have convinced him that you are town

[Hopkirk]

ah, if you're here i'll stay online then and check back in a bit, but i'm going to change the song i've not fully intentionally been looping for the last three hours to something else

[GuiltyLion]

when/where/how did you confidently sort NM @GL?

I don't think I ever did confidently sort NM. Usually with him I have to wait and see where his votes/reads lie to try to sort him cause he's actually fairly decent scum hunter as town and historically if I'm agreeing with most of his votes then he's more likely town. But that was a little harder in this setup given it'd be easy for him as scum to focus between nEE/Bingle, which is kinda how his play looked D1. I think all I really got was a disassociative read between him and marci.

Here is where I'd urge you to consider again that at no point was I

especially

confident either way on Bingle or N_M which is again part of why I was hesitant to vote there. and that if you are considering me as potential scum with Bingle because a lack of strong associatives, you could make the same analysis with my relation to N_M as I didn't give a lot of reads/back and forth with him either. again I'd make the point that the reality is I wasn't trying to position myself as more or less likely town with anybody in the 3p, because I was town and operating without an agenda on how I wanted people to see my slot.

[GuiltyLion]

i find the progression on Marci here really hard to buy as coming from town
going from never voting never voting , fully sorted, why won't you hard commit to the read as kind of a gotcha question to vanders > a vote feels like it came far too easily & GL only looked through Marci's iso here? it feels weird to have hard 100% townlocked her without the reread first
plus even when voting Marci it's stuff like 'for the same reasons as my vanders SR' while hard TRing me but also seeming unsure? like how isn't that a scumpool of Marci/Vanders afterwards

the read is very confident then flips at the exact time it would really benefit scum!GL to flip the read and matches the behaviours scum GL does seem to exhibit in the scumreads that don't feel genuine

on this, I regret how I played around marci here. The first post you quoted

was

a gotcha question to Vanders, I felt he was just 1v1ing with me a) to discredit me, and b) as an excuse to not have to sort other slots in the game. I also felt it was suspicious if he was scum and frustrating if he was town that he didn't seem to think it would be understandable/valid for town!me to be scumreading him. 758 was definitely a manipulative post, I was annoyed that nobody seemed to be buying my case on him and was playing with an intention to make him look as bad as possible cause I thought I might get limmed first at this point.

I started flipping on marci when I tried to consider being wrong on Vanders, and that her D2 play felt really tentative and reluctant to do much. There was also 884 in which I doubted myself that I was the only correct townie, and 885 where I felt if I had been wrong on Vanders, marci was trying to set me up to look bad after the fact.

Try to empathize with how I felt early-mid D2, I had what I thought was a pretty solid case on Vanders and everyone was either ignoring it, outright disagreeing with it, and suspecting me. You unvoted Vanders and voted me, and Lukewarm was clearly moving to vote me as well. At times, especially earlier in the day I took an attitude of "fuck it, burn him to the ground so that if he wins the 1v1 and you flip first he can't possibly win", but then later I tried to not be so tunneled/confrontational and really open my perspective to if I had just completely been wrong on him. It's hard to tell when you're in a tunnel if you're right and you need to take charge and bully the rest of the town into following you on your read - because if you are actually wrong then that can really fuck over the gamestate and the town. I try not to let my ego get ahead of me, and over the course of no one agreeing with me on D2 I let my scumread get worn down. In hindsight I shouldn't have done that and it was bad play, especially when I convinced myself on eliminating marci first

[GuiltyLion]

on the marci progression, I'd also to encourage you to look at my 901 and 904 ask yourself if it's fair and how much it makes sense for scum!me to post that. That was me honestly trying to re-evaluate marci and come up with the case for her being scum, and I didn't really fully succeed in convincing myself. I was no longer as sure about her being town, but I wasn't all that sure about her being scum either, and I mainly felt I should hammer because she

could

have been scum, Luke/N_M felt she was scum, and it would move the game forward by that point.

[Hopkirk]

how well do you think Norway can read you? would this be a reason not to put you in the bigger pool?

[GuiltyLion]

during the lulls where you're considering/voting other people (Dunn/Marci) it doesn't really feel like you've got reasons why your previous solid reasons Vanders is scum don't apply and you bring up the same reasons afterwards

the point about Vanders being scum for voting Marci when he TR Norway & scumleaned Bingle doesn't feel super strong when another criticism is that Vanders voted Bingle shortly afterwards. i can see this as scum, but i can also see it as town shopping around on their votes. it feels a bit harsh arguing that vanders' vote on bingle was scum because he considered voting someone else before committing to the bus

during the lulls when you were rethinking Vanders do you ever address stuff like

- Vander's vote on Marci instead of Bingle
- Vander's post saying he forgot the hoods
- not reading the hood
etc

and say why these kind of things that you thought were smoking guns/strong reasons to SR that you couldn't reconcile coming from town didn't apply?

it feels like you still believed a number of things both both and after the moments where you switch to TRing Vanders and i'm unclear how you mitigated their impact during the time when you were questioning the read

On these points, I'm not sure I can quite explain where my head is or was at satisfyingly but I'll try.

I don't think I ever achieved a state of convincing myself "I was wrong about these reasons, they're actually not scummy, and Vanders is probably town". That's why I kept coming back to them or bringing them up, including the start of F3 today. Instead, what kept happening is Vanders would make a post or two that I could imagine being a town post, or he'd raise a decent point against marci or Dunn, and I'd think about the fact that no one else seems convinced by my points, and wind up doubting my read and think maybe I'm focusing too much on stuff that isn't especially indicative.

I think with hindsight, the Big Mistake I made this game was not finding great reasons to townread Vanders but rather just operating from a mindset of "If I'm wrong and Vanders is town, who would be scum then?", and then letting myself follow through with those votes/eliminations and hoping they'd hit scum even though none of them felt super great. I had decent reasons to townread marci/Dunn, but I'd find some decent-seeming reasons to POE to them or find their later play scummy, and use that as basis to feel okay about eliminating them. There was never a point this game where I truly felt Vanders was a solid townread, certainly not on the level I got to with Luke or Hop-prior-to-F3, and so what you're looking for isn't there in my posts or my thought processes.

I can see why in your shoes that looks like it could be scum sitting back and capitalizing on town making mistaken pushes, and saving a convenient back-pocket scumread that no one else wants for myself to push in F3. I think the main points I have against that is that I don't believe (feel free to re-ISO me and check and push back on this if you disagree) at any point that I specifically goaded or manipulated people into voting marci or Dunn on D2, my re-evaluations on them and ultimate decisions to support those eliminations were after people seemed inclined to push those wagons without me. If I'm scum, that's really fortunate that it played out for me like that, especially on D2 when people were willing to eliminate me. If I'm scum I was

really

in the backseat for the crucial moments where the eliminations got decided. Dunn and N_M wanted marci, Lukewarm at some point scumread and voted pretty much everyone EXCEPT Vanders, etc. It felt like the town never rallied around my Vanders scumread and as a result I was faced with a choice to either stubbornly stick to it or to capitulate and land on a different elimination following what other townies wanted. I opted for the latter

Rereading the start of D3, there was a point where both you and Luke voted Vanders and I waffled and suspected marci, I also felt Vanders 1038 was a townie post - this is probably the biggest mistake I made this game, I should have re-evaluated again and stuck with Vanders at this point.

Part of me thinks that would have been what I would have done had I been scum, marci likely would be an easier push in F3, but I could also imagine a case where scum!GL flipping a town!Vanders looks really bad on scum!GL so I'm not sure that argument really holds a ton of water.

[GuiltyLion]

how well do you think Norway can read you? would this be a reason not to put you in the bigger pool?

The last time we were both town in Philosopher's we got into a big fight that lasted a lot of D1, I mistakenly scumread him and I think he OMGUS'd me pretty hard and that was the root of us clashing. Ultimately we did kinda resolve each other by EOD and then I was NK'd so we didn't play beyond that.

We have synced well as town together several times before though, Smuggler's Port and some other Newbie game, but I haven't been scum against him as town, so I can't say for certain if he'd find me out easily and it's kinda hard for me to answer. I don't think I'd feel confident in pocketing him, honestly I think if I had been scum I would have wanted to put myself in the 3p, try to win a 1v1 against somebody else in the 3p on D1, then let myself get bussed D2 or D3 depending on how that went so I wouldn't have to play this out.

[Hopkirk]

i should definitely take another look at both votes on Marci/Dunn

[Vanderscamp]

Also, Vanders was hesitant to vote Bingle first, that's what the whole deal with him shading Bingle but then voting Marci was about and what first made me suspicious. Reread his whole sequence of posts in the 230s-250s somewherethat I called out several times throughout this game. I think after that sequence he realized he wasn't distancing hard enough to be believable and voted Bingle, and then after nEE and NM started suspecting Bingle he got stuck voting there. Backing off afterwards would have looked even worse.

I wasn't hesitant to vote bingle, I thought Marci was being quite scummy and when bingle responded to my accusation against him, he responded pretty poorly, and that was the point when he became more scummy to me than marci and so I voted him.
As soon as he became my top scum read I voted him.
What does "not distancing hard enough to be believable" even mean?

[Vanderscamp]

Vanders pushes GL a lot less than i'd expect from someone who thinks GL is reading him in bad faith around the 700-900 area

also, that's the only reason he really gave for pushing me. At no point has he tried to explain why my interactions with Bingle (or any other non-Vanders slot) are scum-motivated. If he knew that I was scum, especially at the point of voting me today in F3, it should be easier for him to be bringing forward some of those arguments. Instead, even today he just takes the angle that I have convinced him that you are town

I don't think your interactions with bingle are super scum-indicative, you just have essentially nothing at all from your interactions with bingle that are points in your favor.
I don't think you ever voted him at any point, despite apparently (having said this the next day) that my case on bingle early D1 was so convincing that it's extremely strange that I did not immediately vote him over Marci, who had imo objectively been playing in a pretty scummy manner.

[Vanderscamp]

Finding some examples of other games to corroborate my meta, here's some quotes from one where I voted for an evil D1 and then again on D2 in a roleset where not all evils were knowledgeable of all other evils, and it was alignment reveal only.
At this point it was mid-D2 and the player below is eliminating the worlds in which I'm evil and knowledgable of the evil we killed D1 (and I actually pushed on that evil less than I pushed on Bingle this game)

https://www.boardgamegeek.com/thread/23 ... 0#33843560

A few things, I find it entertaining and possibly informative for future games that WWH never answered this question:

WWH, if you were evil in this game, what role would you be?

Also WWH pushed Vanders pretty hard so I think it's less likely that V is evil now.

I think I'd go with egburr or beren if I had to point a finger at someone who might be evil right now.

I also agree that Apple is moving more into my "okay this is just how Apple plays, he's not actually evil" category.

I think Applejack is shiny right now.

Vander is not an evil who was knowledgeable of WWHunter. If WWHunter was a wolf, Vander is not the co wolf. If WWHunter was sorc, Vander is not a wolf. If WWHunter was the Cub, Vander can be any evil role.

Overall, I'd say Vander is less likely to be evil because we can rule out some pairings. But his WWHunter vote means nothing along certain other co-evil pairings.

I somewhat think Vander might be good because I think evil Vander claims a GS role if he thinks he's getting lynched. I'll have to go back and read LC again to see whether this read holds up to how the sequence exactly went down.

Below is the next day after I voted for another evil.
I am the quote in italics, and the other player in bold (same player as before, who has played 94 games with me) is confirming that I am essentially cleared barring the worlds where I didn't know the evils.
(We were both good this game)

I wish BG would out who they saved. Unless wolves WIFOM'd and NK'd last night or forgot to place a kill.

I think seer claiming is more relevant, what if BG saved me for example?
It shouldn't affect the game at all, since it's not possible for hunter/egburr/vanderscamp to be an evil combination of any kind, and there's no reason to lynch or view me anyway.

Because you were the counter to WWH on D1 and egburr voted you?

Because Vander voted for WWHunter, and then absolutely was a driving force on Ed the next day.

If we don't put a Sorc in WWhunter/Ed, it's pretty difficult to reconcile Vander's play with him being a wolf/cub. Based on his past history as evil where he doesn't really bus.


But even beyond the mechanical, Vander wanted to kill 2 evils out of 2. Would you say he's bussing pretty hard? Or he's an evil with terrible reads?

I think the far simpler explanation is that he's a townsperson who has been killing evils.

This is on D4, talking about how I am essentially cleared for nothing other than my pushes on the evils (I was saved from NK on N2 but this information was not publicly known until D4).

I find it a somewhat baffling NK unless wolves had a strong BG/GS read on her.


I think the xandryyte kill makes superficial sense even outside a BG hunt if wolves know that Apprentice Seer is probably promoting (or real seer is alive) and that xandryyte is good. Since the stated plan seemed to be to view her.

It especially makes sense if Kortemaki was the real Seer. Evil knows that since they know he's not Sorc. They have no idea who is going to promote. So, they kill the person they believe is going to be viewed to deny us a clear.

That all makes sense.


But what I don't get is why not kill Vander instead. He was never getting lynched in this game imo, just based on strongly lynching two 'wolves'. Even assume the BG doesn't clear him for being NKd N2, he's unlynchable. And if BG does claim, he's lock clear.

And more importantly, he's a 100% safe NK, because I can't repeat protection targets on consecutive nights.



So I don't really see how xandryyte is a superior NK to Vander unless wolves believed that xandryyte was the BG. That's my ultimate conclusion. They had a GS read on her. If you strongly think she's the BG

and

is going to be the Seer view, she's a great NK.

Summing it up - I think there's probably one wolf left, and that wolf thought xandryyte was BG.

[Vanderscamp]

This is from a game where it was D5 or so and the player below is talking about me having put wolves in my lynch list should be clearing.
I'm the quote in italics, the player and I were both good and she has 78 games with me.

So, two Evils in me, Dejo, Vander, Apple, Rorab (pending cvb not being Cultist, but lol)

My Good read of Rorab is still going pretty strong, so I'll keep that up. Obvs not me.

So 2/3 of Dejo, Apple and Vander.

Benes/cvb/Nets/Paper/Samool/Smug/TWM

Now that's a great lynch list.
My town circle this game is Vanderscamp/apple/dejo/majai/rorab/dubs but I don't feel good about that one at all, I'm guessing it's better than a literal random town circle but maybe not by that much.

Vander's Evil pool here (from my POV, and assuming Good Benes) has 4 Goods in it, but also Evil Wolf Paper, and Evil Wolf Samool/TWM. And Vander did that weird flip of his read of Benes and Net, although I guess he could have been getting ahead of the storm, seeing it coming that people would see them as Good.

I don't think so though. I don't think Vander lists two co-Wolves in his Evil list (Wolf Paper and a guaranteed Wolf in Samool/TWM/Benes).

So my Evil team here is Apple, Dejo, TWM (outside chance of Benes).

I'm pretty settled on this and I think we win if we kill those 4 people in that order

I think that post of Vander's that I've quoted is pretty clearing of him, tbh, but I'm willing to listen to arguments why it shouldn't be.

The same player as above is defending me here against an evil (evil player in bold)
Also worth noting that in the second of this player's posts, she mentions that even if my partner looks pretty bad I still have a pretty high chance of defending them.

How anti-bussing is Vanders? People keep saying that, but if he's a wolf here, his voting record is probably mostly auxes that he wouldn't have known about, so that's not what I would call bussing. He's arguing he wouldn't even give evil reads of his co-wolves, but that's not a pattern I've ever noticed before.

He named every single Evil candidate other than Apple in his pool of Evils, possible that Apple is a Wolf, but then he still heavily pushed for Paper to die.

Paper was claimed and universally thought to be evil, it'd be pretty weird if he wasn't in the list. Two of the others are auxes that Vanders wouldn't have known. So basically you're saying he wouldn't put the second over his co-wolves in his evil pool no matter what felt realistic?

That's only if you think Apple was a Wolf. In my experience, Vander wouldn't go hard in bussing and would in fact argue for Paper as Good or probable Good.

Why is it only if I think Apple is a wolf? (I don't think Apple was a wolf.)

Then from your POV, Vander listed both of his co-wolves in his Evil pool, which I think is extremely unlikely for Vander in this style of game.

Benes - I think at the very least he either argues to punt on killing both the Oranges and almost certainly doesn't go all in on killing Paper.

I dunno, I just don't think I've ever seen Vander Wolf like this. And yes, you can always play against type to fool people, but in this game, that's literally only worked on me, so *shrug*?

[Vanderscamp]

https://www.boardgamegeek.com/thread/23 ... 6#33897286 for a link to that game

[Vanderscamp]

This one is not an obvious yield but essentially two players who have a lot of experience with me and were both good (the one in bold the same one in the first example) were characterising my style for pretty much the entire game in terms of reading me on how accurate my pushes have been.
In this game I was one of two evils alongside a player WerewolfHunter (WH) who was generally suspicious who I never really pushed on, I was pushing pretty hard on a player named BigRed, and I was defending Sloth (the italic player) and Mytherva.

Decent post.

I can definitely see red as evil, I also think evil red basically clears you and vanders so I'm willing to go there.

Why would I push you as evil myth? Please explain that.

You've been read as good since d1 by what feels like a majority of the village. I'd have doused you because early game would suggest you'd be hard to mislynch.

You keep saying my perspective is off but that's mostly due to you not reading what I'm saying.

The perspective being off is less so about the vote on me and more so about other things.

In one post you listed Vanders in 2 of your top evil teams. In one of the next posts you said he’s very likely good.

In one post you voted WWH and then the next you responded with a goo eye to Puavo’s WWH vote.

You’ve said Puavo is very likely evil but you keep suggesting that me/WWH is the evil team.

Things just don’t really add up

Lol ok. You're clearly not reading what I'm saying.

I've explored quite a few worlds trying to see what makes sense. On a pure standalone read, I think ortho and vanders are good. I think ortho is more likely good than vanders, and if you or WWH flipped evil I would almost assuredly want to lynch vanders next.

I don't understand why it's confusing that I think there are lot of evil people. WW is not a black and white game or it'd be easily solved as good every game. I think Puavo has seemed evil, but then when I see a person voting somebody else I think could be evil it makes me step back and go "huh".

I'm currently voting hunter because I think she is SINGLEHANDEDLY the most evil person in the thread right now. I also think she can be wolves with more people than bigred. If she flips evil, then I'll narrow my worldview and see who it makes sense for her to be evil with.

My perspective isn't confusing. It's that I'm a freaking villager so I have to keep an open mind. I think I've explained that multiple times but it doesn't feel like you're reading everythign I'm saying which is yet another reason why you seem evil.

I thought dusk was now but it’s in an hour.

Are we set on a jeremiah kill today? I feel that it’d be the best option.

It seems pretty likely that jerimiah is going to die. In the happy world where the village is coming together well, he's probably evil, too.

So when I flip good, what would that tell us?
If I were to flip evil, what would that tell us? Myth seems to think it's exactly me and pauvo. What do you think?

I don't feel good about jerimiah/Puavo. I have never been as gung-ho about Puavo being evil as others have been.

Part of the reason (aside from thinking your chances of evil being high) why I think you are a good kill today is that Vander and Sloth are evils who eschew bussing for the post part. They push mislynches, usually pretty strongly. This is a game where the main direct validation of anyone's alignment is only going to come from the daykills. Putting reads aside, the 4 people whose alignment it would be most helpful for me to know are you, Puavo, Sloth and Vander.

Sloth looks pretty bad to me if you are good. Part of the reason I continue to think you're evil is your reaction to Sloth, good reading him the way you have. That's a classic evil!Sloth mislynch push if you are evil imo, and your reaction seems more like an evil trying to pacify a good who is suspecting him.

I would rather VOTE: before bed, whom I think has done essentially nothing good in this game.

Mytherva, you might be right about all your individual Vander posts. He seems more good than Sloth fwiw. But I think if Vander shows up on D3 and his main evil read is a guy you're pretty convinced is good, his other main evil read was a guy who flipped good, and there've been no correct daykills all game, that's a pretty bad sign for his alignment! But I think you're putting a lot of effort into your analysis, and fair play.

Link to the game:
https://www.boardgamegeek.com/thread/2498153