In post 1854, Darthe wrote:First and foremost, two votes on two strong town players this game. I would also like to note before I get into this that Ferret knows how to play mafia, and is not new to the game despite being new to site. This is important to note because he is making clearly basic mistakes and seems to be playing up his newness and experience simultaneously.
Why do you think he is attacking two strong town players, and why do you think those two players are town?
In post 1854, Darthe wrote:Here we see something not overtly scummy. However, it is notable because this is a player setting themselves up as a median.
I tell people to stop being stupid when they're being stupid regardless of my alignment. What is ferret doing as scum?
In post 1854, Darthe wrote:Random discusson about a breadcrumb and is arguing that early reveals are pro-town because of their effect on wigggle room? How did this slide?
Different mindset; that doesn't mean scum. Unless you think that he's experienced scum who is confident that he can change the opinion of the site meta while maintaining the image of the innocent newbie, it's not that good of a tell; it's just wrong. Early reveals are good in formats where plurality lynch rules and majority doesn't always go through because scum always like to claim near the end of the day so they can grab a few panic unvotes and not be in fear of being counterclaimed.
In post 1854, Darthe wrote:See now, this is why I called that earlier thing bullshanks (refer to {1}), because he has yet to vote anyone else and voted her on the policy of...pretty much nothing by his own admission?.. and then he is being submissive towards her.
I sort of agree with the submissive part, but that's distinctly a newscum scumtell and inconsistent with the rest of your case.
In post 1854, Darthe wrote:And then he votes Goat. It's been a while here, but pressure is off him and goat is getting traction so this is a vote "for being drunk". That is four throwaways in a row, not somethng I feel happens from townies, especially not ones who seem so involved in the game. Why is this person not casing or advocating anyone? Why does he not have reads? Why is he playing an erratic game? To avoid looking too false. That is literally the only reason that I can come up with that makes any sense, because for someone who "can't reply to the big pile of questions/casing/etc" made against him he is remarkably active.. and unfocused.
Just because you don't understand him doesn't mean that an explanation exists. I've never seen someone with a "I don't know what he's saying, thus scum" case actually hit scum.
In post 1854, Darthe wrote:Defending? Before you voted him for being drunk, then you said he appeared genuinely drunk (forgot to quote guys, sorry), now you're defending him for drunkenness because the act of intoxication somehow makes someones statements less likely to reflect their alignment in your eyes? This is again contrary with various things ferret stated before regarding his views on playrs, playstyle, scumminess, and the like. It doesn't add up at all for a player who is not inexperienced.
OK. So you think that this inconsistent thought process is coming from him because he's pretending to be bad? But, why play like that anyways? Why not just play well as scum?
In post 1854, Darthe wrote:In summation, this is why Ferret stuck out to me. He is trying to get by, but not helping town. While others are doing so as well his reads to me as the most false and manipulative example.
I see so much "this is bad" but not enough "this is scum". You haven't been helping town worth shit and now you're flying after an easy target.
Answered point for point:
It seemed to me like simple bad play to attack players who are (to me at least, and the general consensus so far as I can tell) town and I would consider once regular but... so many separate irregular votes with no purpose (admittedly) strike me as someone who overstepped and recognized it in trying to blend early game.
Setting himself up as a mediator..? Did you not read the post?
I would disagree. Submissiveness happens anytime the individual doesn't have a ready plan to charge in another direction, so to speak or would rather avoid confrontation. It fits his play, which isn't simply bad play but has the distinct ring of care associated with scum in my opinion.
This one isn't arguable, sorry. Breadcrumbing: good. False breadcrumbing: okay in the right situation. Seeing someone elses breadcrumb: good for accountability. Announcing someone elses breadcrumb on thread: bad. I recognize that this was a hypothetical, hence I didn't continuously argue it, but there is no advantage gained by pointing out a breadcrumb that would not better serve after the individual claims.
You make a good point here. Perhaps this is some minor confirmation bias but I saw it as connected to the erratic voting.
My general notion of town play is that people play less cautiously as town because their lives are worth less than those are as scum. In essence, if you want to fake being town you can't play a perfect game. People wonder why you aren't being NK'd. People use PR's on you to be sure you aren't awesome scum. People just don't trust an overly done performance and will sense it being off. Thus, I caught onto this (initially gut and pretty confirmed to me by what I found in my casework) because it seemed too much so in the opposite direction, someone who was
trying
to look bad enough to skirt, but not be killed.
If this is an easy target then why are you so for him? Ferret is being successful and I am aiding the town to the best of my ability by finding these sorts of inconsistencies. What going would I be if I spread myself thin on people who didn't stick out to me as much?
Posted: Wed May 29, 2013 1:06 pm
by Darthe
In other news I think the despo monkey chase looks like town on town and goat is not helping do anything but instigate.
Posted: Wed May 29, 2013 1:23 pm
by The Goat
In post 2126, Darthe wrote:In other news I think the despo monkey chase looks like town on town and goat is not helping do anything but instigate.
Sorry you feel that way about the latter. Not my intent.
Of course, I think I'd take your criticism a lot more seriously if the following wasn't your only other contribution this entire damned week:
In post 2014, Darthe wrote:I would legitimitely vote mutley just to get people to shut the hell up about him and because he is being a retard..
Posted: Wed May 29, 2013 1:24 pm
by The Goat
I'm not entirely sold on Monkey as scum, but his adamant refusal to admit that he was acting a little squirrely is a huge red flag for me.
In post 2016, xMALCOLMx wrote:In post 1963, Nero Cain wrote:no one else finds this strange? Not even Goat or Despo replaced out and I argued with them more.
He replaced out because he was bored.
He told you that in ya'lls qt? I find it odd that he replaced out right after I called him scum plus he said he didn't have time which seems like he'd replace out over that instead of being bored.
It isn't always about you.
no one said it was. This is about his reaction to being called scum.
Posted: Wed May 29, 2013 6:46 pm
by penguin_alien
Desperado, if you think xMalcolmx is to blame for the lack of a lynch yesterday, do you see him and Mutley as buddies? I know you initially said xMalcolmx was more problematic than Mutley, but xMalcolmx's reaction seems to have changed your mind.
And how does that whole situation compare to the case on ferretlover? You mentioned you liked Darthe's case and wanted ferretlover strung up. Given that GCBC was apparently game to lynch the Mutley slot and ferret, does that affect anything?
Posted: Wed May 29, 2013 7:04 pm
by Desperado
In post 2138, penguin_alien wrote:Desperado, if you think xMalcolmx is to blame for the lack of a lynch yesterday, do you see him and Mutley as buddies? I know you initially said xMalcolmx was more problematic than Mutley, but xMalcolmx's reaction seems to have changed your mind.
And how does that whole situation compare to the case on ferretlover? You mentioned you liked Darthe's case and wanted ferretlover strung up. Given that GCBC was apparently game to lynch the Mutley slot and ferret, does that affect anything?
That was my original interpretation, yes.
It doesn't affect anything in a proven multiball setup.
Still searching for petapan and Fuzzyman replacements. Concerned about this lack of getting them, especially considering some people are either close to, or have already met their "three prods and you are replaced" quota.
The Goat is v/la until Monday (or Tuesday), Ravenpaw is v/la until Sunday.
With 18 alive, it takes 9 to lynch. Day 2 will end at 8PM BST on Wednesday 5th June 2013.
Posted: Thu May 30, 2013 4:38 am
by Nero Cain
In post 2139, Desperado wrote:It doesn't affect anything in a proven multiball setup.
no, it means they are less likely to be Heyman.
Posted: Thu May 30, 2013 5:11 am
by PeregrineV
Quick skim through GoodCopBadCop iso. Was hoping Sven might be scum, since he fakvigged but never voted him, but it turns out I'm Sven, so no luck there.
Looked through ArcAngel posts, since I generally find her easy to read. Will check a few things and have better answer for that.
i didn't even notice you asked for one. i'll iso him later but the argument you are having looks like town v town.
Posted: Thu May 30, 2013 6:23 am
by Darthe
In post 2128, The Goat wrote:I'm not entirely sold on Monkey as scum, but his adamant refusal to admit that he was acting a little squirrely is a huge red flag for me.
This is valid. You're kind of an odd read for me because it seems like you aren't productive (and can even be counterproductive) but then make statements like this. I don't know how to count that.
In post 2128, The Goat wrote:I'm not entirely sold on Monkey as scum, but his adamant refusal to admit that he was acting a little squirrely is a huge red flag for me.
This is valid. You're kind of an odd read for me because it seems like you aren't productive (and can even be counterproductive) but then make statements like this. I don't know how to count that.
Can you explain how Goat's post make sense from a town perspective?
Posted: Thu May 30, 2013 9:25 am
by ferretlover
I don't understand the vote on me. It's hard to say something against the case when I already said what I said.
I'm not sure if I'm thinking of another game right now:(
It's hard to say something against the case when I already said what I said.
I'm not sure if I'm thinking of another game right now:(
How can you understand the case on you but not understand my vote on you?
Posted: Thu May 30, 2013 9:41 am
by ferretlover
I think I already explained that.
You can understand the case but not see why it warrants a vote.
Posted: Thu May 30, 2013 9:46 am
by Desperado
Just so I have this straight:
Darthe puts a lot of effort into writing up a case that concludes that you are scum
You say "I understand the case on me, this is just how I am," which is not a refutation of the case, but an acknowledgement of its merit
You ask "is it honestly scummy?"
You don't understand when someone's answer is "yes."
So why did you ask the question if you were going to be confused if anyone answered anything but no?