Mafiascum.net

a. Okay, so town replacing into a game that has substantial history is probably the easiest way to find scum, because you don't have any history with any of the players and so you're looking at things objectively. This typically results in the town-replacement being pretty confident in the town-replacement's reads.

b. Setting aside Ranger being wrong about elle (because being wrong does not make one scum), I think Ranger's elle-push looks more like scum attempting to convey town-replacement confidence rather than being actual town-replacement confidence. (1) Globally, I think this is supported by the fact that Ranger is abrasive and dismissive towards elle in their back and forth, which is a close substitute for confidence. (2) Specifically, I think this is supported by the fact that Ranger really shifts points of conversation to prolong her elle argument on continually winning bases (Cheetory's observations in Post 392, Post 394, Post 397, Post 401, and Post 420 capture what I'm saying).

a. Once again, someone being wrong does not make one scum. And suspecting one's suspectors is a classic town blunder. That said, I'm still allowed to call Ranger out on her bullshit case, as scum do need to actually push shit cases to win, so here we go.

b. Ranger's first lays the foundation for her GC hate in Post 521 and Post 522. Ranger's criticism is part ad hom (GC is usually good, but here he's fucking horrible!) and, to the extent she states criticism that is valid in the abstract (shallow arguments, failing to actually engage) she doesn't connect them to the real world of this game. She repeats her same case in Post 654 after nobody really picks up on her GC-beef. Consequentially, these posts are nothing short of throwing chum into the water. They are designed to make me jump at the bait of defending myself, but there's no way I can actually defend against the criticism. It's shady as fuck. (When I finally take the bait, my response is at the bottom of Post 779. Ranger doesn't respond to it.)

c. Ranger throws in another dig in Post 524. Here she actually gives a concrete example of her problem with my play: that I'm not providing new, unique reactions to the Ranger/elle interaction, and that I'm hesitant and wishy-washy. (1) The criticism about no unique reactions is BS, because it's based on the flawed paradigm that town comes up with something new to say about interactions, rather than what is on their mind. (I have also never checked to see whether my reaction to Ranger/elle was truly duplicative of other players - I don't have the time/energy to do so now, but I assume that Ranger wasn't flubbing the line.) (2) The criticism about me being hesitant and wishy-washy is BS, because Ranger is apparently familiar with my previous play and should know that that's just me (I wouldn't use such pejorative terms, however - I'd say cautious and thoughtful).

d. Ranger attacks Grib for telling her to actually support her GC-is-playing-like-shit case in Post 668. The problem with this is self-evident, but I'll state it anyways: Ranger turns the conversation around so that it's not her fault for making the case, but it's Grib's fault for wanting someone to scum hunt in a particular manner. Moreover, Ranger shifts the point of conversation (just as she did with elle), so that it's not that Ranger is failing to provide in-game examples (Grib's point), but whether Ranger should be talking specifically to GC or to the town at large (Ranger's response).

e. Finally, Ranger finds a reason to votes me based on me suspecting something she did in Post 741. I finally take the bait. My explanation of why her initial post was suspicious, and why her reaction to my suspicions was suspicious, are adequately explained in Post 742 and Post 747. I'll further note that I my Post 754 captures Ranger once again shifting the points in conversation in order to make herself look better (creating this distinction between two types of questions, and then arguing based off of this new point of minutia).

a. At the outset, let me say that I never cared who the masons targeted. That was their prerogative, and despite Ranger's baseless digs to the contrary (Post 797), I made that clear from my conversations about what the masons should do (Post 672).

b. I don't think that Ranger's basic suggestion, that the masons should have recruited either Ranger or myself, is in and of itself alignment indicative. It's the fact that she soft-pushes the notion that she isn't scared of being targeted in Post 805, with: "It feels more like you don't want the avenue of discrediting me snatched away from you." That looks like scum wanting to give off the impression that they are perfectly okay with being recruited, without having to to explicitly state that "yo I'm totally not scum please recruit me."

c. Ranger warps my response to her plan. This could come from either alignment (scum or tunneling town), but I'm noting it here to underscore why people shouldn't trust Ranger's bad case on me. Ranger first picks a fight on the basis that I didn't respond to her suggestion (Post 797). I tell her to shove off, and why, and conclude with "Your plan has a lot of holes in it and the masons can do whatever they want." (Post 802). Ranger then twists my response into "pretending that there is a scum benefit and generalizing it as if talking about roles is anti-town (this is not just for you but others)" (Post 804). I never said that there was a scum benefit, and I never said that talking about the roles was anti-town, so Ranger is - once again - shifting the points of conversation to a place where she can win.

d. Ranger goes quiet on D2. I don't know what to make of this. (1) If Ranger is scum, I have hypothesized that it is because she wanted to give off the impression that she was actually recruited without having to say so. Alternatively, she was a major focus of yesterday and didn't know if the masons actually recruit her, and so decided to play it low until if/when the masons made their move, and then just stuck with that level of activity because it hasn't really been hurting her. (2) If Ranger is town, I only see anti-town motivation in suddenly retracting from the game. She has provided absolutely no substantive input for today. She hasn't critically reexamined any of her reads, continues to push her bad case against me based solely on D1 material, and her reaction to D2 game developments is minimal. This presumes that Ranger is purposefully being a bad player, when I think her previous activity shows that she isn't. Between these two scenarios, I think Option 1 is more likely.