Mafiascum.net

I don't really have much to add at this time.

Just a hi to Green Crayons and just pointing out that sthar8 has been boost-hammered. We've got 24 pages for a Day 1, we've been in this game for longer than a month, and so we should probably kill someone soon lol.

eldarad wrote:Let us assume for a moment that you are correct and sthar is trying to keep the focus on you rather than me. Do you think it is scummy for players to speak out against wagons that they disagree with, or to push other wagons that they think have a better chance of lynching scum?

Not as such, but it can be when combined with other factors.

eldarad wrote:So do you think that both of Today's boosts (Electra and Sthar) are poor choices?

I wouldn't have chosen either of them; not Electra as she is one of my top suspects, nor Sthar for the reason I gave in post 538.

eldarad wrote:How was my boost of Electra too quick? (Rather than just "quick"?) Do you disagree with my "leap of faith" logic regarding Electra?

See my reply to Jahudo re: the boost in post 565. As for the leap of faith, I don't entirely disagree with it but I don't give it as much credence as you seem to be doing.

eldarad wrote:Do you think my boosting of Electra harmed the town? If so, how? If not, how is my boost scummy?

It will only harm the town if she is scum. I just don't think the reasons you gave for thinking she is town were strong enough to keep your boost on her; particularly in view of your comment in post 234.

eldarad wrote:

Huntress wrote:2) His pushing of the Skillet wagon, which already had two random votes on it before he added his, for reasons which look like making a mountain out of a molehill, the molehill being Skillet's joke and theory discussion.

Why are the presence of random votes significant?
Crazy pushed the Skillit wagon too, for virtually the same reasons as me. Why do you think that is?

I don't think that the random votes are significant; I was just noting that this wasn't a first or second vote on Skillet. I don't know why Crazy pushed that wagon, nor do I agree with the point he made with his vote which, however, was the same point you made when you voted Skillet.

eldarad wrote:

Huntress wrote:What "continued assumption"? The only thing Crazy ever said about this was "The problem is... the information Electra gives us is not testable.

What if she claims an innocent on Player X?

How would you test that?" (post 151).

Bolded part of your quote...
Contrast with:

Electra wrote:I don't have a role, so I'm vanilla, however my role PM says that if I'm boosted, I'll gain information about the town (reworded, of course).

Electra wrote:I don’t know what kind of information I get, but I do hope it’s something cop-ish

So Crazy focussed on "I hope I'm cop-ish" rather than "I don’t know what kind of information I get."

The trouble with clipping quotes is that it sometimes takes things out of context. What I actually said was:

I wrote:What "continued assumption"? The only thing Crazy ever said about this was "The problem is... the information Electra gives us is not testable. What if she claims an innocent on Player X? How would you test that?" (post 151). Electra had said earlier "I don’t know what kind of information I get, but I do hope it’s something cop-ish,

and it certainly would be nice if I got scum out of it.", so this wasn't an assumption by Crazy but a point about a possible scenario.

Also note that in the same post, in a response to TDC on the subject, Crazy says, "and I'd like to see Electra's clarification on that", which shows he didn't have a closed mind on the subject.

eldarad wrote:

Huntress wrote:So his only reasons for voting Crazy were that Springlullaby ignored him and Crazy's "assumption" about Electra's possible information. Definately very flimsy reasons for a vote.

You missed the most important part - the fact that Crazy agreed with EVERYTHING I said consistently up until post 166 when I turned around and voted for the person who had been blatantly sheeping off of my opinions.
Can you think of a pro-town reason why Crazy would do that? Do you think it is scummy for me to react to that behaviour in the way I did?
Why did you totally ignore this when you summarised my reasons for voting Crazy?

Your statement that Crazy agreed with EVERYTHING you said consistently up until post 166 is blatantly false. The only things he seems to have agreed with you on are the points raised in your first three posts, mainly the comments in post 32 about the boostwagons. Why should you object to him agreeing with you on that?

eldarad wrote:In addition, there was also the possible double-standards from sl that suggested possible sl-crazy linkage.
Do you think possible linkage is a good basis for a vote? If not why not?

If you saw double standards from sl that might have been a basis for a vote on her but why on Crazy? If player X seems to be buddying up to or ignoring player Y, which would you call more scummy, the one doing the buddying etc.? Or the one on the receiving end?

eldarad wrote:

Huntress, post 565 wrote:But most of my reasons for voting Eldarad come from the past! And there has been suspicion on him right from the beginning so why are you suggesting there wasn't?

What do you mean by this? Who was suspicious of me right from the start?

This was in reply to a comment by Jahudo. It was iLord who showed an early suspicion of you.

Huntress wrote:This was in reply to a comment by Jahudo. It was iLord who showed an early suspicion of you.

Suspicion, might I add, that I retracted.

I'm here, I'm gonna try and play for a bit. I wanna watch tv tho ;P.

My plans:
respond to something sth said about Huntress.
read over past 3 pages and respond to other things
read crazy, huntress.
read eldarad
read jahudo
(finish incognito read)?

If I don't succumb to my tv desires, I anticipate finishing reading huntress, probably eldarad. maybe jahudo. finishing reading incog tonight is doubtful.

sth wrote:However, some opinions are of greater value than others, and Huntress has been giving us the information that is least valuable to the town. While the rest of us are scrambling to find an acceptable lynch before deadline, Huntress is busily making vague noises, announcing that she is contributing, and only giving us specific opinions on the one person whose lynch is guaranteed bad play for the town.

This actually makes a lot of sense. It is an interesting/misguided/suspect target for Huntress as she replaces in.

Jahudo wrote:@Guardian:

Jahudo wrote:

Guardian wrote:I remarked that I saw him as hedging... I think it was from when he asked people's opinions about me-Incog before he expressed his own opinion.

Is hedging “asking people’s opinions before expression own opinion”? I was not doing that when you first entered the game: post 337
In post 317 you felt people were not expressing their own opinion on you-Incog so what have you seen from others that differs?

Can you address this? Also, how do you think this compares, if at all, to Incog asking people’s opinions on Skillit before he expressed his own?

Post 279 you were asking people's opinions when you hadn't given their own that I had seen.

In post 317 I asked for other people's thoughts on my case on Incog, and frankly few people have responded to the specifics of it or explained why they think what they do which is really frustrating to me. The general tone is (both could be town, Guardian slightly more suspicious than Incog, but in the recent pages Incog is slightly more suspicious than Guardian). Now eldarad thinks we have been busing each other all game, and TDC thinks that when people argue like we did one of them have to be scum, but the general notion is that. Like I said it is frustrating because it seems to me that people are in general not confronting the arguments.

In 337 you expressed your opinion, but if you hadn't done so before 279, my point still stands -- why ask for other's opinions before giving your own?

It seems like it could be scum wanting to be on the popular side of the debate.

Crazy in [url=https://forum.mafiascum.net/viewtopic.php?p=1323423#1323423]79[/url] wrote:

Skillit wrote:There are likely either only 2 categories, or 4. it seems presumptuous to assume that all mafia members would be in one category when everyone else falls into one of 2. I agree that people either have or do not have roles, but to assume that either all or no mafia have roles seems like it would require some extra information to assert.

you don't...have extra information about the specifics of the mafia members powers...do you?

Bolded is an accusation.

Further:

Skillit wrote:the gist of it was that i was not trying to imply any kind of slant either way about E and that i was just trying to make sure that, if we were going to use her theory to frame the discussion about boosting, that it should be as accurate as possible.

Denies that he accused her in the first place.

Unvote, Vote: Skillit

Sthar caught my eye in his first post:

sthar8 wrote:I have a theory about the setup that does not conform 100% with electra's, but it is close. If I'm right, early massclaim might be a game-breaking strategy for town. Unfortunately, while electra's post does support my idea, I don't have enough evidence to be sure, and I can't reveal the reasoning without showing the scum how to mitigate the damage.

So, I'd basically have to ask the town to trust me on a huge risk, which I'm not willing to do without more concrete evidence. What I'll do instead is ask everybody a question.

Do you feel that massclaim might be a viable strategy at this time?

Suggesting a massclaim shows that he knows something most of us don't. Either he's non-vanilla or scum as far as I know. His later posts don't really give me a slant either way on him, so I'm not really feeling the wagon.

I'm now not seeing what possible great benefit Electra would get from getting boosted (presumably as scum) that would warrant a gambit like this. It's not like a boost is an automatic win, right? Which makes me think it's more likely that she's pro-town.

*coughpressure* Scum vibes from TDC and RR. */pressurecough*

Massive QFT to everything that eldarad has said so far.

And... there's some random spill-out of my thoughts. Good night, it's midnight right now.

This post has a lot of substance. His point about Skillit/Green Crayons seems fair, and makes me want to re-read skillit more closelier.

He massively QFTs eldarad, which makes me think he isn't scum with eldarad (scum tend not to be so easily identified with each other).

His point about sth makes me pretty sure he is scum or a vanilla townie.


Post 151 mostly seems like a fair analysis.

I didn't say don't worry about boosting scum. We do want to boost town, but I can't imagine that scum will go all out just to get boosted.

I disagree with this sentiment. I don't find him scummy for it, but we have no idea what the scum get from being boosted. Who is to say scum don't get TWO night kills? And one night kill is VERY powerful. If it is so good for town to get boosted, we must assume it is so good for scum to get boosted. Again, this makes me think Electra is nowhere near confirmed.

---


Crazy I think was bored with the game, but tried to contribute as possible.

Overall I did not find Crazy suspicious. What is the case on him?

Huntress wrote:

TDC wrote:I don't see the eldarad case, I still have him as likely town.

What is your opinion of his reasons for his votes on Skillet and Crazy? I'd be interested to hear this from Jahudo too.

I agreed (and voted Skillit for the same thing) on the former, and disagreed on the latter (and said as much back then).

Still playing catch up.

Incog wrote:Just a hi to Green Crayons

Hi.

Rabbit wrote:Roleblocking does little to clear you since you can easily be mafia RB, and kills can be manipulated as well. Info is testable regardless of this. Anyway, I don't see how this theory disagreement makes me scummy.

Information is testible (just like RBing, NKs), but can also be manipulated (just like RBing, NKs). You originally (and still, it seems) didn't make that connection and held the opinion that somehow information is a more refined/reliable town-validation process. Also, I said it stuck me as funny. As in odd. Because there's a seeming gap in the logical structure of this reasoning. Didn't really claim that it's what made you super-scum in my book, just that the argument seemed off.

Rabbit wrote:You have a point, but why isn't lynching him the right move? If she claims a guilty investigation result on scum she's either bussing or town.

What? I didn't state or otherwise imply that lynching the guilty "result" wouldn't be the right move (if I did, please show me where as that was not my intention). You seemed to have missed the point: your whole "safety net" idea is a poor safety net (as I described per example) if Electra was scum.

Rabbit wrote:I get that it's hard to understand my logic here, but I dislike SC raising this matter from the dead as if it's the main thing I did all game. It's just an early game gut vote that got blown way out of proportion.

I was asked by another player to post reasons why I found you leaning scum after a read through of the thread. I think it's quite odd how here you are criticizing me for having taken the time to read through the thread, formed my own opinion about past events which occurred when I was not present and then explained and backed up those opinions when questioned by another player.

Rabbit wrote:Explaining how much of a good town player he is (and especially the link to his case from antoher game) has little to do with his actual alignment here, and just seems meant to paint him in a good color.

If you accept my view that scum actively try to appear town while town aren't as concerned with that since they know they

are

town, I don't see what there is not to understand here. It's a classic example.

I don't accept such a rigid view of the respective mentalities. As such, I think your points against Incog amount to a null tell, as any good townie would want to show that they are town so that suspicion can be focused in a more appropriate place elsewhere. Incog's posts could come from either scum or town.


...And it's GC, not SC.

iLord wrote:Am I right when I think that you are trying to say: "SL was protown because she's allowed me to get a better read of Incognito"?

Yes.

iLord wrote:But that directly contradicts your reasoning for boosting RR - You said that you were boosting him because he wasn't focusing on a person.

This is just semantics but when I boosted him I wasn’t arguing whether he focused on a person or not, but that I didn’t think he was focusing exclusively to the point of being tunnel-visioned. That’s why I said he paid attention to other parts of the game too.

Jahudo wrote:Boost: Raging Rabbit
I like his recent posting. He's scumhunting but not focusing too heavily on one person or one point, but it looks like he's paying attention to alot of the dynamics going on.

Huntress wrote:But despite it being "a bit worrying", he is still content to leave his boost on her.

I think this is as interesting as thinking eldarad was too quick to boost Electra. Although to be honest I had the same feelings around that time but didn’t uboost.

Incognito wrote:We've got 24 pages for a Day 1, we've been in this game for longer than a month, and so we should probably kill someone soon lol.

Seconded. I nominate Incognito.

Guardian wrote:Post 279 you were asking people's opinions when you hadn't given their own that I had seen.

Um, I gave my opinion in that very post:

Jahudo wrote:I think more people need to say if they think Incog was playing the agitator on SL.

I don't think so. The two posts she just referenced I don't think are so bad, or as bad as I've seen so maybe it's all perception. The second one I didn't even understand: Ether theory?

huh? Anyway, I'd like to hear at least some kind of response from the newly replaced.

So how is "I don't think so" not an opinion?

Guardian wrote:In 337 you expressed your opinion, but if you hadn't done so before 279, my point still stands -- why ask for other's opinions before giving your own?

Post 337 was my first post since you asked people comment on your case in post 317, so that was the first time I could’ve given answers to those specific questions.

Jahudo wrote:

Incognito wrote:We've got 24 pages for a Day 1, we've been in this game for longer than a month, and so we should probably kill someone soon lol.

Seconded. I nominate Incognito.

Oh? What happened to this (bolded green):

Jahudo, [url=https://forum.mafiascum.net/viewtopic.php?p=1369258#1369258]in his 444[/url], wrote:This whole thing is confusing me now To me it seems like the case isn't going the way she hoped it would, maybe because you aren't responding the way she thinks you ought to or because not enough people are paying attention to her besides you. But at some point she stops building a better case as her first priority or at least starts to become insulting herself.

So yeah, I'm starting to have doubts about my vote.

GC wrote: What? I didn't state or otherwise imply that lynching the guilty "result" wouldn't be the right move (if I did, please show me where as that was not my intention). You seemed to have missed the point: your whole "safety net" idea is a poor safety net (as I described per example) if Electra was scum.

It's not the best safety net, no. Forcing scum to supply us with info still isn't too bad, though.

GC wrote: I was asked by another player to post reasons why I found you leaning scum after a read through of the thread. I think it's quite odd how here you are criticizing me for having taken the time to read through the thread, formed my own opinion about past events which occurred when I was not present and then explained and backed up those opinions when questioned by another player.

You're misinterperting me, what I dislike is how this one early game vote that was over discussed anyways looks like your main point against me.

GC wrote: I don't accept such a rigid view of the respective mentalities. As such, I think your points against Incog amount to a null tell, as any good townie would want to show that they are town so that suspicion can be focused in a more appropriate place elsewhere. Incog's posts could come from either scum or town.

I rarely see townies this concerned with showing how each and every action they make is done for logical, pro town motives - see my post summarizing his course of liking SL for attacking him and then slowly changing his mind and voting him for a stronger example. Anyways, how does this game-theory disagreement make me scummy?

Raging Rabbit wrote:I rarely see townies this concerned with showing how each and every action they make is done for logical, pro town motives - see my post summarizing his course of liking SL for attacking him and then slowly changing his mind and voting him for a stronger example. Anyways, how does this game-theory disagreement make me scummy?

I don't remember ever really liking springlullaby for attacking me. Reposting for convenience:

Incognito wrote:Some of your points seem like a bit of a stretch to me, which is a bit bothersome. I'll try and take it as a slight pro-town sign that you've called me of all people out on certain things when I've pretty much had absolutely nothing directed at me and have been finding myself trying to create my own content to get involved in. But yeah, there ya go.

I said I was bothered by her attack because I felt like her points were a bit of a stretch. I also said I'm gonna and take it as a pro-town that she called me out.

In summary: Clearly I felt like she was misrepresenting some of my early actions, and instead of immediately jumping to conclusions that her intent was absolutely, positively malicious and therefore scummy, I decided to see how she would react to my response and then my response after that... etc. Her reactions to my response(s) furthered my belief that her attack might have malicious intent and so I came to the conclusion that was scummy for this. That shouldn't be so hard to understand.

EBWOP: "so I came to the conclusion that [she] was scummy for this"

I agree that we should find someone to kill.

Here is who I'd support a bandwagon on.

Crazy/Huntress - obviously.

Jahudo - for the reasons in my previous post. Also, Incognito's quote of his opinion changing is interesting.

Mana_Ku - is she still around? has she been replaced and I just missed it? At any rate, the lack of posting is scummy, even if she will be replaced.

Raging Rabbit - probably the silliest reason, but I have no read on him and it doesn't look like a read is going to be appearing, so if other people find him suspicious, I'd go for it just to be able to form an opinion on if he claims.

Holding my vote on Crazy/Huntress for now.

Incognito wrote:Oh? What happened to this (bolded green):

Jahudo, [url=https://forum.mafiascum.net/viewtopic.php?p=1369258#1369258]in his 444[/url], wrote:This whole thing is confusing me now To me it seems like the case isn't going the way she hoped it would, maybe because you aren't responding the way she thinks you ought to or because not enough people are paying attention to her besides you. But at some point she stops building a better case as her first priority or at least starts to become insulting herself.

So yeah, I'm starting to have doubts about my vote.

I said that because I previously thought the ad-hom attacks were more one-sided. That was 1 issue I have had with your posts and while I still think it is a valid point, it's not as strong a tell for me because SL was guilty of some ad-hom too. But I will re-gather my suspicions into one post to make it clear to others why I'm voting you.

Electra wrote:Mana_Ku - is she still around? has she been replaced and I just missed it? At any rate, the lack of posting is scummy, even if she will be replaced.

It's Green Crayons now.

Electra wrote:Raging Rabbit - probably the silliest reason, but I have no read on him and it doesn't look like a read is going to be appearing, so if other people find him suspicious, I'd go for it just to be able to form an opinion on if he claims.

I really don't think that's a good reason. What if it's mostly scum trying to push one particular person?

Electra wrote:Jahudo- I agree with iLord's case on him. He has definitely been playing very cautiously, there are several lines of him that sound like scum trying to sound like a good townie.

Do you have specific lines in mind?

Incognito pointed out what I was going to point out .

Jahudo wrote:Yes.

How is that indicative of town? Scum could easily do that - in fact, scum want to put the spotlight on other players.

Jahudo wrote:This is just semantics but when I boosted him I wasn’t arguing whether he focused on a person or not, but that I didn’t think he was focusing exclusively to the point of being tunnel-visioned. That’s why I said he paid attention to other parts of the game too.

I need to look back, but I have a comment on this, I think.

Jahudo: Uh huh. Right. Is there any reason why your suspicion decrease that I mentioned above seemed to coincide with Guardian's? Or am I just imagining things?

Now that you've conceded that one point I'll go ahead and help you out with the points against me summarizing thing that you plan on doing. Here ya go:

Jahudo, [url=https://forum.mafiascum.net/viewtopic.php?p=1360533#1360533]in his 356[/url], wrote:

Vote: Incognito

I went over Guardian's considerations and agree that alot of what he said holds true. There were times when Incog was using an ad-hom attack on SL

I also think he's been trying to make this game about other games and this quote is trying to defend a point using meta:

Incognito wrote:when I have a scum read on someone I'll make my opinion on the person blatantly obvious.

I just think that sometimes a defense has to hold up in the game it's brought up in and meta's are only a manipulating factor in reading how a player is behaving for a particular event in another to explain away something in this one.

That must be ooooooooooone solid scum tell!

iLord, in his 591, wrote:Incognito pointed out what I was going to point out .

Me and iLord thinking alike? No wai! o_O

Jahudo wrote:I said that because I previously thought the ad-hom attacks were more one-sided. That was 1 issue I have had with your posts and while I still think it is a valid point, it's not as strong a tell for me because SL was guilty of some ad-hom too. But I will re-gather my suspicions into one post to make it clear to others why I'm voting you.

Re-gather your suspicions? That sounds way too much like scrambling to justify a mistake.

Incognito wrote:Me and iLord thinking alike? No wai! o_O

O Rly?

iLord wrote:I'm getting a little tired of reiterating the explanation for my summaries. They are just a summary - an organizer. My reasoning follows after questions or cases.

That's fine, because I don't think anyone misunderstands your intentions in that post at this point. I happen to think it is very scummy to provide suspicions without reasoning, and I feel that it is very probable that scum would provide some kind of summary or notes to flesh out the post without giving the town any info we can use.

GC wrote:Before I start, I just want to disown Skillit's weird "illogical" argument against Electra that occupied the first few pages of his posts. It was dumb (to be frank), flawed and pointless.

I, for one, don't have enough read on skillit of mana to hold anything they've done against you. I'd also like to point out that I have reliable meta info that that argument was intended as a joke.

GC wrote:putting him in a booster seat

Guardian wrote:Do those make sense to anyone but me?

Yup.

Jahudo wrote:I thought Huntress was more cautious not to exempt Electra from scrutiny just because she’s been boosted.

I could be wrong, but I don't think is exempting electra from suspicion. It's just demonstrably antitown to do anything about it right now.

Huntress wrote:When I did my initial read I wasn't thinking about who to boost, just looking for possible scum.

So you chose to ignore a significant game mechanic and barrier to lynching during your first read? Like I said, given the quality of information that we have recieved, I don't believe you.

Huntress wrote:You imply that I'm not making any effort to find lynchable scum and yet, in the same sentence, you quote a couple of words from a post that reports the progress of my continuing individual reads, my read on iLord to be precise.

I'm not sure how I could have been more explicit with that statement. And your "progress report" gives us exactly information, which is basically my whole point.

Huntress wrote:I note that you address the second to last sentence of that quote but not the last one.

Ok, I'l do it now.

That last sentence is a manipulative strategy using a fallacy known as a "straw man" in which you assume the weakest and least relevant argument possible on my side in order to make my argument appear less valid. I'm pretty sure everybody saw it, categorized it correctly, and ignored it, because it bears no relevance to the discussion.

Huntress wrote: So why are you raising the subject?

Um, you accused me of attempting to "suppress discussion" on this topic. So, you brought it up. So, what's your point here?

Huntress wrote:Come to think of it, is that an admission that you are trying to divert attention from Elderad?

Loaded question? And entirely baseless, since I've commented on the Eldarad issue and added my opinions to the discussion.

Huntress wrote:The points I was raising with Electra were things I couldn't find answers to in the thread. I had questions about others but all that I wanted to ask had already been asked and answered in the thread and I didn't see the point in repeating them. If I should want clarification on anything you can be sure I will raise it when I need to.

So all that stuff about how important it is for you to express your opinion on every subject no matter how irrelevant to the current discussion fits into this how?

Huntress wrote:None of them required any additional research. So what is your point here?

My point is that since I can't watch you play the game in person, the only gauge I have for your comparative effort on a particular player is the amount of attention you give them in thread. Since electra remains your most discussed topic, as well as one of your "top suspects," I see evidence that you are giving her more attention than .

Huntress wrote:I guess you must have completely overlooked post 545, which I posted nine hours before you posted this, and which contains my case against Eldarad.

Actually, that post was typed mostly before your post, but due to the family emergency I didn't have enough time to revise as I would have liked. Regardless, what are you trying to say with that "nine hours" nonsense?

I still maintain that you've given Electra's case far more attention than the (more relevant) eldarad case.

Huntress wrote:And what ad hom do you mean?

Huntress wrote:And his current scramble to divert attention from Elderad back to me combined with his desire to supress discussion of my other top suspect obviously doesn't help.

This is pretty much a textbook example of attacking someone to decrease the value of their arguments. It may not be as personal as some of the examples we've already had in this thread, but that doesn't make it any less fallacious.

RR wrote:You have a point, but why isn't lynching him the right move? If she claims a guilty investigation result on scum she's either bussing or town.

Wait, lynching who?

RR wrote:Again, it's sthar who felt he comitted a scumtell

No, I did something antitown. Not even close to the same thing.
That said, I understand what you're trying to say here.

RR wrote:RG really needs to start posting.

Pretty much.

Huntress wrote:Not as such, but it can be when combined with other factors.

Ooh, mysterious.

Huntress wrote:Your statement that Crazy agreed with EVERYTHING you said consistently up until post 166 is blatantly false.

Crazy wrote:Massive QFT to everything that eldarad has said so far.

I don't know where he got the number 166, but your emphasis is clearly in the wrong place.

Guardian wrote:Overall I did not find Crazy suspicious. What is the case on him?

I'll summarize it (again ) a little later.


Portland was... wet. I also gave notice at my job today. Last day of work is the 29th, which may or may not affect posting.

Not done rereading Jahudo yet, sorry

sth if you want to just link to the crazy case next time you post that would be helpful. I'll try and find it.

I've noticed that, while Incog's reasons for thinking I'm scummy are mostly flawed, I have been unhelpful this game in a few ways.

I keep having word-slips that could be construed to show apparent scum motivations. I focused on Incog for a long time when I could have spent time reading, and I wasn't even well acquainted with the game. When I do read I miss important details/my reading comprehension has been pretty bad. And it is hard for me to "get into the game" and spend the time I need to really figure it out.

I just wanted to apologize for all that.

I'll try and read posthaste; right now I'm gonna go watch some TV :\.

Sth about crazy wrote:I don't see any waffling that would be indicative of a partner deciding to bus, but Crazy's poorly justified and lately applied vote highlights his other behavior, which is a shining beacon of scumminess.

In his first substantial post, Crazy notes his own inactivity and blames it on a lack of interest in the game so far, which is a weak indicator of scum in my experience so far, since early day 1 is about as boring for scum as you can get. They have no major objective other than avoiding attention and getting closer to night, and since they have no need to create any serious content, their boredom often manifests as indifference and apathy to whatever is going on.

He continues on to express suspicion of four other players, without providing any reasoning on two of them. I cannot think of any reason for both variety and inconsistancy unless he's just looking for an easy wagon. Note that Crazy's vote does go to the wagon that is the largest at this point.

He then encourages us not to worry about boosting scum, expresses unsupported suspicions of two apparently unconnected players, and buddies up to eldarad before signing off.

Was there anything protown about that post?

I found his attack on Skillit insightful, as I said. I have something of a lack of interest in the game so far... I don't really feel like holding that against Crazy. His so called expressed suspicion of four other players includes:

-saying sth must be scum or power role, which is pretty obviously correct.
-saying he has suspicion of rr and tdc (why is saying this bad?)
-he isn't suspicious of electra, he finds her actions pro-town, which I disagree with but is reasonable

I disagree with what Incognito has said and you have said about finding multiple players suspicious to be scummy. Being suspicious of everyone IS_A_GOOD thing imo. I disagree with that point as the bedrock for suspicion of anyone.

sth, in my analysis of Crazy, I found the post you launch a case on him for to be a mark to his credit, not a reason to launch suspicion of him.

I think Crazy/Huntress is a bad lynch, barring new insightful argument to the contrary.



ps: Jahudo, I misread your post. I am still a bit miffed you didn't give reasons for your stance, but at least, apparently, you did give it, which is a mark to your credit....

Jahudo, why did you try and compare yourself to Incognito though? What does it matter if he was guilty of the same thing you were guilty of?



pps: eldarad is still scum, amirite?

sthar8 wrote:That's fine, because I don't think anyone misunderstands your intentions in that post at this point. I happen to think it is very scummy to provide suspicions without reasoning, and I feel that it is very probable that scum would provide some kind of summary or notes to flesh out the post without giving the town any info we can use.

There's no way I can put down all of my thoughts in this game down at the same time. My summaries do not give the rest of the town a lot of info to use. However, if you ask me why I put someone somewhere, then I'll explain my reasoning.

A lot of people all calling me out because my summaries appear "contrived" but no one has yet to point out where, so that I could elaborate. Similarily, you're saying that the lack of opinion is scummy, when I have offered to give my opinion to whatever you ask.

And, because I need to be proactive, I started actively posting cases against my top suspects. I don't see the reason to go to great lengths to explain who why I think a certain player is town if no one cares.

I'm still, like, a page behind in responding.

sthar wrote:I also gave notice at my job today.

Yay?
~~~

sthar8 wrote:Eldarad: You seem to have undergone a quite radical shift of opinion on Incog. Is there any cause for this apart from your scumteam theory?

Radical shifts of opinion are what I do...

When I asked Incog and Guardian to summarise their arguments in a small post, it was an attempt to get everyone back on track by allowing us all to deal with the key issues rather than pages and pages of text that didn't go anywhere.
My opinion changed when both Incog and Guardian were reluctant to have their argument condensed in such a way, and then I considered it odd that for all the posts that Guardian and Incog where making at each other, neither argument was progressing.

Jahudo wrote:I can see how this could be a legitimate question to ask iLord if he had not demonstrated his opinion to boost Electra more than Guardian throughout the game.

See my recent response to iLord for my reasons. But also:

iLord wrote:Oh, I get it now – you’re trying say the whole thing was a “trap” to see if I said that? :rolleyes:

They're your words not mine. I didn't call it - or intend it to be - a trap.
However, as you have already demonstrated, sometimes you change your opinion without announcing it in-thread so I wanted to pin you down on the reasons for the change rather than leave you with wiggle-room on a later Day to say that your opinion at changed some time earlier in a similar way to when your opinion on Electra's claim changed some time after the reason you changed your mind was posted but some time before you announced it in-thread.

Here's the rub though. If you boosted Electra in order to boost-hammer her since we were nearing deadline, then that is a perfectly acceptable reason for boosting her even if she isn't the 2nd towniest on your list. There would be nothing wrong with unboosting Guardian - even if he was number 2 on your list - in favour of someone you reckon is town and can be boost-hammered.
But apparently that isn't the reason why you boost-hammered. That's fine too - and I'm pleased that we've managed to remove that element of ambiguity from your boost-vote.

iLord wrote:At the time of #452, we had agreed that we were to start boosting now and that a deadline was imminent. It had little to do with posting my scumdar.

But you did both in the same post. If you're saying that the scumdar and the boost were unrelated then I suspect that is something that will come as a surprise to most other players.

iLord wrote:Are you kidding me – Incognito and I started arguing almost literally the second I stated I was suspicious of him?

I wonder if I am the only person who gotten the sense that the iLord-Incog argument has been valuable, meaningful and centred on this game (rather than discussing whether anti-town motivation can diminish a good point, etc). Maybe. I doubt it though.

I missed out one of Jahudo's questions, and I want to answer it properly.

Guardian wrote:pps: eldarad is still scum, amirite?

How's your re-reading of my posts going? Last time you mentioned it you'd gotten as far as post 3.

iLord wrote:How is that indicative of town? Scum could easily do that - in fact, scum want to put the spotlight on other players.

I said it was pro-town. That doesn’t mean they are town. Yes I can see scum doing that but wouldn’t they also be putting themselves into a spotlight by making these accusations? I think it helps gain a read on both the accuser and the accused.

Incognito wrote:Is there any reason why your suspicion decrease that I mentioned above seemed to coincide with Guardian's? Or am I just imagining things?

I don’t know how that can be quantified.

Incognito wrote:Now that you've conceded that one point I'll go ahead and help you out with the points against me summarizing thing that you plan on doing.

I’m not conceding the point, I’m just saying it’s not as strong a tell because both you and SL made personal attacks against one another. Yes, I still believe that bringing up other games can be a manipulating factor because they aren’t going to be the exact same situation and you have the power to defend a meta you might purposefully not be following.

I also think that your cautious play on the Skillit wagon is another possible scum tell. To me it looks anti-town no doubt but I am reminded from my actions that it isn’t indicative of scum.

sthar8 wrote:I could be wrong, but I don't think anyone is exempting electra from suspicion. It's just demonstrably antitown to do anything about it right now.

Yes but I think that suspicious on boosted people should be suspicion without votes until day 2 at the earliest to avoid being counter-productive.

Guardian wrote: When I do read I miss important details/my reading comprehension has been pretty bad. And it is hard for me to "get into the game" and spend the time I need to really figure it out.

Was this something you’ve been aware of for a while? I feel that your confidance has been pretty high about what you have said throughout the game, so if you know that you miss important details when you read sometimes why do you keep calling for people to join a bandwagon you support?

Guardian wrote:Jahudo, why did you try and compare yourself to Incognito though? What does it matter if he was guilty of the same thing you were guilty of?

I’m comparing the accusations but I cannot say for certain if they look exactly the same, what with me knowing I was trying to scumhunt and forgetting to be opinionated. I think that it can be a town and scum move so I think you need to make individual judgments based on each occurrence.