Open 480 - C9++ Game Over!

[Belisarius]

No, everyone else that's responded to the "slip" sees it as a genuine mistake.

Argumentum ad populum is shit.

I'm still challenging you to show me a scenario in which it

could

be a scumslip.

The language used shows a mindset of wanting to kill town, coming right out of a night phase where the most recent discussion scum had was with other scum.

You can still link old games

that aren't ongoing

Exactly.

Should I just trust you on this?

Don't be fatuous, Jeffrey.

That's not nearly what I said. Where'd you get that idea? I'll explain what I meant differently.
For that whole portion of the game, you mainly explained why you were against a NS lynch.

Which was the topic being discussed at the time.

But, proving that NS is a bad lynch doesn't take ANY analysis on your part.

Stating it doesn't. Showing

why

does.

I have one scumspect I have any confidence out of, when there may be up to 4 people who need to die. In this circumstance, how is a reaction test in any way inappropriate?

I read this as accepting Cheery's accusation that you were reaction testing, despite not referring to your self admitted scumminess as a reaction test earlier.

Saying I was sheeping

was

a reaction test. I expected people to jump on it, and intended to use those interactions to get reads on them. Here is a post from a recently completed game where I lay out my stance on drawing fire. Note how I flipped in that game.

No, you're intentionally discrediting my argument.
You said that the last time you made wall posts and elaborated on your reads as scum, you got busted big time.

Incorrect. I said:

I like the catchup wall. It doesn't give me a solid read, but it shows he's not afraid of being readable. Scum are, and with good reason --

my catchup wall

provided the town with tons of ammo to bust me with in Newbie 1305.

Note the bold.

[Nobody Special]

I have literally no idea who to vote for. I guess I'll have to go back and read Day One.

Again.

[SafetyDance]

Oh wonderful, it's so good of you to do that. You're totally the BAMF of this game.

Remind me why he's not being looked at as a viable lynch?

[SafetyDance]

I agree with Beli on this one, what the hell was that slip? Didn't even compute first time round. :S

He told us we should have attacked him early because he was lurking heavily at the start of the day, he then went later to active lurking and prod-doging after we said his lurking wasn't actually that scummy.
I felt it was like he was scum laughing at us with those posts.

See, I don't get why if this was the case, you wouldn't just post it. Does Cub even have a history of taunting as scum? That seems like a stretch too.

Vote:CheeryDog

[SafetyDance]

Got round to this eventually.

@Safety

I'll add GM and Apozzle to the list of people you're happy to lynch. Cub moves down to watch list I suppose. Good to know you're prepared to move a vote onto pretty much anyone.

Susan, you're an idiot. If faced with the prospect of lynching A.B.S and No Lynching, I'm going to go with the first option obviously. Did I really think GM was scum? No. My vote isn't thrown around lackadaisically at anyone, you'd realise that if you've even bothered to read in your constant tunnelling attempts.

Bonus Person

And for my final thought let's talk briefly about NS. NS is thus-far useless. Lurking, scummy, vague you name it. There is no way I want to see NS coast into Lylo at this rate. However, NS can also be the go-to name for anyone who wants to derail any current discussion. Start a bit of open speculation about someone's post and anyone can barge in yelling "NS is scummy! Kill him!" and the thread will collapse into a session of scumminess of lurking vs his meta and so forth. I'd much rather if the suspicion was cast on people making those sorts of easy calls, rather than NS himself for the time being. There are two people above that I want town to look at seriously. There are also others.

And seriously what the hell is this? NS is bad for town and should be lynched before lylo but trying to lynch him is bad? FTW?!?!? So just when do you lynch an unhelpful, lurking player?

You know what I think the best time to do that is? DAY-FUCKING-ONE.\

Instead let's just lynch someone for half-arsed reasons. That's pro-town play right there.

I'll wait for Apozzle and see his reactions. Would be nice for conf-town to play like it. Curious as to what he thinks of Ed, that's a person who deserves a re-read.

HD deciding to Play-by-Play day one supports GM's theory he's third paty, regardless of it tying him to reads later its not helping any play this day, right now. So hopefully that gets done away with (or a.s.a.p)

[Cheery Dog]

I agree with Beli on this one, what the hell was that slip? Didn't even compute first time round. :S

He told us we should have attacked him early because he was lurking heavily at the start of the day, he then went later to active lurking and prod-doging after we said his lurking wasn't actually that scummy.
I felt it was like he was scum laughing at us with those posts.

See, I don't get why if this was the case, you wouldn't just post it. Does Cub even have a history of taunting as scum? That seems like a stretch too.

Vote:CheeryDog

No idea, and I also have no idea if apozzle (who I was talking about in that post) does it either, silently not since he is town here, but I haven't seen either of their scum plays.

[implosion]

Belisarius. Cheery dog did not scumslip. I don't care if he

is

scum. He did not scumslip. There is no psychological reason that typing "town" instead of "scum" would be more likely to come from scum than it would be to come from town, and CD's explanation is perfectly legitimate. I'd be hard-pressed to find an MS player who's played a significant number of games and hasn't accidentally typed town instead of scum (or vice versa) at some point.

In fact, for some players (including me in some cases but not all), typos can be indicative of town. Typos indicate that the player isn't paying close attention to what they post, and some players (myself included much of the time) check or analyze their own posts before posting more as scum than as town because they have more to worry about once its posted.

[implosion]

The language used shows a mindset of wanting to kill town, coming right out of a night phase where the most recent discussion scum had was with other scum.

Oh

brother

. This argument is ridiculous. People do things other than play mafia. Scum are not constantly in the same mindset just because they talk to other scum. Learn basic psychology :\. When you talk with your scumbuddies as scum, are those thoughts just permeating your mind when you post as scum? Either the answer is no or you aren't playing right as scum - one of the most important things for scum to do is separate their 'town-personas' and 'scum-personas' so to speak.

Safety's 603 is bad. Safety's 604 is good. I really like his analysis of 509 - it reads as town who's genuinely irritated that popc's thinking seems somewhat contradictory. Safety is still town.

[implosion]

Let's start talking about Edosurist.

Quick reads:
implosion looks town, and his play also looks very similar to Mini 1394, in which he was also town. By the way, I don't imagine him wearing a monocle.
Cub is weak scum for the tunneling on NS.
I'm not liking NS and Belisarius's active lurking. They make posts, but there's very little content to them. I'm hesitant to give a read beyond that, at least for NS, because I always think he's scum when I read/play with him for exactly for that reason, and I'm sure he's not scum in ever game he plays...

These are his first reads of the game. The reads on me and Cub are okay, but the read on Beli is a bit awkward - he conflates NS's and Beli's active lurkings, which are very, very different. Beli's posts 50, 57, 62, 76, 117, 148, and 153 all contained content. NS's first post that I can construe as content is 65, and beyond that 81, 140 and

maybe

84. Point is, Beli had posted much more content than NS, so lumping them together as "active lurking" is ignoring the fact that they active lurked very differently. Sure, he does differentiate the reads on the two, but not based on their content. Again, the key word here is conflation - he's conflating NS with Beli, which ignores any specific content of their posts (which is fine since they were quick reads) but also ultimately misrepresents what they'd done.

How is "conflating" them by grouping them into a generic group that they both fit show anything about my alignment?

Because it shows that you're half-assing the analysis (sort of). It shows that you care more about calling people things than about being right - if you cared about being right, you'd distinguish the two more clearly. But it's much easier as scum to just say "all of these people are X" because it makes you look like you're doing things, it puts you on a higher level than them, and it makes it so that you don't have to give as many specifics.

I'd also say that you appear to have overreacted, but in a different way.
Within the course of 5 hours, you made 7 posts. 7 fairly long ones, mind you.
It's mainly directed at pecanpie, but it also has things like this:

See my post 320 for what I think of this part of the post. The second part feels really exaggerated, to the point where I don't think the content is genuine.

OK, here it is:

I'd also say that you appear to have overreacted, but in a different way.
Within the course of 5 hours, you made 7 posts. 7 fairly long ones, mind you.
It's mainly directed at pecanpie, but it also has things like this:

Worse point. Calling that an overreaction is like calling the evacuation of a city an overreaction to a hurricane that's about to hit that city. Sure, it's a big reaction, but it's

called for.

When I say a big reaction, I mean that Safety was reacting to several things - like he said, he had to, because there were several things to react to. He did not, however, overreact to any thing in particular. pieceofpecanpie, on the other hand, very definitely DID overreact to one very specific thing.

And I've explained myself on this already. The string of posts made it look like he got really excited about the game all of a sudden for whatever reason, but I now realize that's just his playstyle.

The fact that you've explained what happened after you posted this doesn't change how I see it. I still think your point was exaggerated. I still think you were jumping on something as a "gotcha" because you could. And I still don't think that your reasoning was genuine

at the time

, whether or not you've rescinded it.

[Gammagooey]

Votecount #15

Cheery Dog (2) Belisarius, SafetyDance
Belisarius (1) Edosurist
implosion (1) Human Destroyer
Edosurist (1) Zaicon
pieceofpecanpie (0)
Apozzle (0)
Nobody Special (0)
SafetyDance (0)
Zaicon (0)
ac1983fan (0)
Human Destroyer(0)
Not Voting: pieceofpecanpie, Apozzle, Nobody Special, implosion, ac1983fan

With 11 alive, it takes 6 to lynch!

Deadline: March 26th 9:00pm EST

[implosion]

Right now I'm willing to vote Edos, NS and probably popc. I have townreads on ac and safety, and weakly on belisarius - this is mostly because many of the points on belisarius feel like they're criticizing him for bad reasoning/misunderstanding things, rather than scummy reasoning/misrepresenting things.

There are plenty more people that I still need to read, though~

VOTE: Edosurist]/vote]

[implosion]

VOTE: Edosurist

[Zaicon]

Cheery Dog

I'm happy with your response for now.

Human Destroyer

I don't agree with his method of "catch-up", but more because he's just commenting on posts and not analyzing them (for example, he votes for implosion based on RVS-stage comments with no explanation at all AND keeps it there). Also:

hey bro

we're out of RVS

why the fuck are you voting randomly and ignoring the very important content going on?

As far as I was concerned, it was still RVS. I didn't consider anything that happened before that "very important" or even worth commenting on at that point.

I like the catchup wall. It doesn't give me a solid read, but it shows he's not afraid of being readable. Scum are, and with good reason -- my catchup wall provided the town with tons of ammo to bust me with in Newbie 1305.

If you don't like walls, go ahead and skim them, or don't post them. I could use more transparency in this game.

What

are

you getting from it? He's not being "readable", as he isn't explaining himself in regards to his thoughts (and posting smilies in response to posts is even more useless). What value - what transparency - are you seeing?

Belisarius

I don't believe it, either. Why would scum be thinking someone else is "probable town" in the first place, considering scum know everyone else is town (except for an SK, if there is one)?

---

He didn't explicitly say that, but he implied it by saying others were quote "bussing" him.

I'm just going to have to disagree with your interpretation here. Yes, he did say others were "bussing" him, but I think that was based more on their actions than on NS being "scummy", which wasn't what SD was claiming to begin with.

[pieceofpecanpie]

Hmmm, trying to absorb this game.

Feels like I'm close to calculating something from what's been said, but everyone's created a confusing web of points and counterpoints onto everyone else.

Safety's #604 is really bad, a great of it does not make sense in terms of town strategy, yet he still is aggressively trying to make himself sound like a pro-town thinker. I get the impression that he's willing to follow Apozzle's vote around for the sake of blending in, since his other votes haven't made a lick of sense. I'm both baffled and disturbed that implosion finds Safety's #604 good. It's just as bad as his vote on Cheery.

My thoughts are that one of these two (Safety, implosion) would make a great lynch for today. Either one would provide great information on where others stand.

VOTE: implosion

[Zaicon]

I do not believe that implosion is a good lynch.

[Human Destroyer]

I do not believe that implosion is a good lynch.

Well yeah duh that's because he's your scumbuddy

(This is filler for the upcoming wall)

[Human Destroyer]

Spoiler: Page 4, now with 10x the grammar!

It's as simple as that.

Okay, I understand your case now. I would simplify it further as "gut". Fair?

Understanding a case against you, what is this? and then just discrediting it to gut, I don't like that at all.
UNVOTE:
VOTE: Cub Daigoro

OK,

now

my CD vote is no longer random. Trying to understand the thought processes of others is how you read them.

This has the distinct smell of a strawman.

I just read your iso and failed to come up with any kind of reason to vote me.

Would you [like] to provide some reasoning now?

Out of your seven posts, one has content. It consisted of an OMGUS vote that you described as RVS well past RVS (IMO). You've done literally nothing else. I see no reason to move my vote.

There are two players with fewer posts than I, currently.

What are your reads on them?

Attention deflection much?

Your content/post count ratio pings my scumdar.

Find me a game where Nobody Special has a high content/post count ratio.

Seriously.

Your content/post count ratio pings my scumdar.

Bullshit, good sir.

You didn't find me scummy after post 32.

Is this admitting to being scum? Like seriously, this post is pretty dumb.

-wall-

This wall consists of a crapton of semantics such as "He worded this too passively" and "This doesn't suggest what he thinks about someone's alignment".

Seriously, this is so contrived it isn't even funny. It's slapping scum motivation onto something that doesn't really have scum motivation. Because, apparently, ignoring everything is going to help...him...achieve...his...win condition?

allowed him to ignore everything for the first two page

What makes you think I'm ignoring everything that I'm not focusing on?

Your post is a bit odd. It uses the present tense, whereas I was using the past tense.

Are you saying your posts lacked content at that point?

Absolutely.

OH LOOK MORE SEMANTICS

THAT'S DEFINITELY SCUMHUNTING.

What makes you think I was ignoring everything I wasn't focusing on?

Because you didn't say a single word about anything that wasn't NS.

All of your posts have contained more than the equivalent of "Hi, I am here." Content.

I basically trolled for my first 9 posts.

Translation: I don't want to be held to any of my early posts so I'm going to call them trolling.

None of the above. In fact, it contained intent.

*anagrams*
right it's just a coincident that your vote wasn't on the person you were calling scummy, got ya.

Wait dammit I don't have enough T. Tents are silly places to be in anyway.

Elaborate for the masses please.

I tried thinking of a synonym to random that contained the word "intent", however there weren't enough T's to be right. Then there was a pun on

in

TENT to show that my whole post was a useless joke, obviously that didn't work and/or you're still tired.

Probably both.

I agree with the case made by Implosion in Post #67

That said, Cub's Post #71 is accurate as well.

Actually, I think you're both looking town at the moment.

UNVOTE
VOTE:Nobody Special

Post count is nice but substance would be nice. Don't you have any reads?

"LET'S NOT PROVIDE ANY ACTUAL SUBSTANCE BUT INSTEAD PARROT THINGS ALREADY SAID"

~SafetyDance

Also calling the argument town v. town is scum-motivated, especially if one of those arguers is scum.

Oh, would you look at that.

We have two players that haven't even confirmed in yet too. ac1983fan and Messiah have at least confirmed but their last posts on the site were inning into this game. Considering it null,

for now

but would like them to post soon.

Useless post is useless, although possibly setting up for a lurker lynch.

implosion and SafetyDance are scum together. I can almost guarantee it.

Zaicon is probably scum too, but he's been relegated to a lesser read.

[SafetyDance]

Hmmm, trying to absorb this game.

Feels like I'm close to calculating something from what's been said, but everyone's created a confusing web of points and counterpoints onto everyone else.

Safety's #604 is really bad, a great of it does not make sense in terms of town strategy, yet he still is aggressively trying to make himself sound like a pro-town thinker. I get the impression that he's willing to follow Apozzle's vote around for the sake of blending in, since his other votes haven't made a lick of sense. I'm both baffled and disturbed that implosion finds Safety's #604 good. It's just as bad as his vote on Cheery.

My thoughts are that one of these two (Safety, implosion) would make a great lynch for today. Either one would provide great information on where others stand.

VOTE: implosion

Wonderful deflection there, don't even try to answer any of the points I raised just deflect and go on the attack yourself. FFS, you said yourself you agree with my NS argument before but now you're saying you don't understand anything? I think its you who's not making any sense. And you're just trying to appropriate reasons to fit a read instead of the other way round.

GM agreed with me before, she must be my scum buddy too! I'm loving this (lack of) logic.

[SafetyDance]

"LET'S NOT PROVIDE ANY ACTUAL SUBSTANCE BUT INSTEAD PARROT THINGS ALREADY SAID"

~SafetyDance

Also calling the argument town v. town is scum-motivated, especially if one of those arguers is scum.

Rofl. Ok, generally if you're going to quote someone, at least make it factual, I didn't say that, no matter how much you use caps it doesn't make it true.

So who was I parroting exactly? Oh, you mean myself...

I didn't call the argument town v town, I said they're both were

looking

town. So well done on the misrep.

Useless post is useless, although possibly setting up for a lurker lynch.

Ah, well we wouldn't want that. I haven't given any inclination of doing that at all, it must come as a complete surprise.

Spoiler: Page 4, now with 10x the grammar!

Ok, I think this may or may not have been mentioned, but these have to stop. We're EIGHT days from deadline and you're just solely going through day one and are only 4/21 in. Ridiculous.

This is useless, get on with it or wrap it up now and start playing today please?

[Human Destroyer]

Rofl. Ok, generally if you're going to quote someone, at least make it factual, I didn't say that, no matter how much you use caps it doesn't make it true.

So who was I parroting exactly? Oh, you mean myself...

I didn't call the argument town v town, I said they're both were looking town. So well done on the misrep.

Oh, then do tell me what agreeing with 2 posts and offering no other commentary on them or any other psots is other than parroting.

And yes, saying two players that are fighting look town is the exact same as saying it's town v. town. There is literally nothing about it that suggests otherwise.

If you're going to defend yourself with semantics like that, it's only going to make me want to vote you more.

[SafetyDance]

Rofl. Ok, generally if you're going to quote someone, at least make it factual, I didn't say that, no matter how much you use caps it doesn't make it true.

So who was I parroting exactly? Oh, you mean myself...

I didn't call the argument town v town, I said they're both were looking town. So well done on the misrep.

Oh, then do tell me what agreeing with 2 posts and offering no other commentary on them or any other psots is other than parroting.

And yes, saying two players that are fighting look town is the exact same as saying it's town v. town. There is literally nothing about it that suggests otherwise.

If you're going to defend yourself with semantics like that, it's only going to make me want to vote you more.

Good to see page 5 isn't keeping you distracted all of a sudden. Boring bottle episode is it?

I'm hardly saying that their discussion is town v town fighting (your adjective) when both posts from each player that I commented on are not even addressing each other. Parroting is your definition again, you brought up the semantics by deliberately misinterpreting my post. That's your problem and it's only going to make you look worse if you do end up voting me an I end up lynched.

Or you know, you could stop being lazy, coinciding your day 1 reads with ppp's posting and actually start giving proper reactions and reads from

all

of the posts in game, I believe I may have mentioned this?

[SafetyDance]

I'd save them for our final mislynch (by my count, we have at least 2 more left). A cop could clear the lurker/doc could save/claim mason/vig, maf, or SK could NK them, get them our of the way for us. Killing them now when they could be clear town later would be pointless and only harm us.

This seems counterproductive to the town wincon - why do we want to have the clears as unhelpful active lurkers? and if we can't kill them give scum an easy win come LYLO if they turn out town?
This game may have a godfather in it, so it's not as if clears by cops can even be trusted.

Wow, backtracking here. This is bad from Edo too. To add from CD, expecting scum to do something pro-town that benefits us? Expecting a SK with only one night kill last night? If more kills happen, that further limits the amount of mislynches. What happens then?

The earlier you get rid of anti-town players the better.

[pieceofpecanpie]

FFS, you said yourself you agree with my NS argument before but now you're saying you don't understand anything? I think its you who's not making any sense. And you're just trying to appropriate reasons to fit a read instead of the other way round.

GM agreed with me before, she must be my scum buddy too! I'm loving this (lack of) logic.

Wut? Completely misrepped my opinion on NS, good try though. I'm loving this too, all your posts start with [example of how crazy/stupid other player is] and end with [sarcastic comment indicating how you're the only pro-town player*]

The thing is, you're not. And the more you beat your chest about it, the scummier you look.

Hey everyone, Safety is yelling any sort of opportunistic bullshit about anyone and calling it scum-play.

• eg. No 2 kills last night = edo instant scum for even mentioning the possibility of SK
  Cheery says something about something = call it a slip and vote him
  No vote on NS, FoS instead = PoPP NS' scumbuddy, easy tell, scum caught

Can we hang him from the treetops already?

UNVOTE:
VOTE: Safety

*mental Safety note: use "rolleyes" smilie for added emphasis

[implosion]

Safety's #604 is really bad

Of course you think it's bad, he's refuting points that you made :\. Look at it neutrally.

implosion and SafetyDance are scum together. I can almost guarantee it.

Have you heard of Bayes' theorem?

[implosion]

HD's analysis of my posts on page four is a bit silly - I'm fairly sure he's reading with confirmation bias (that is, he's looking for reasons for every one of my posts to be scummy, when even if i AM scum it doesn't guarantee that all of my posts will be scummy). In other words, he's assuming that i'm scum (possibly unconsciously) based on some of my earlier posts, and with that assumption in mind, he's attempting to find scummy motivation in all of my posts rather than reading them neutrally and trying to figure out if they are scummy.

Anyway, let's talk a bit about safetydance.

Hey everyone, Safety is yelling any sort of opportunistic bullshit about anyone and calling it scum-play.

eg. No 2 kills last night = edo instant scum for even mentioning the possibility of SK

Nowhere did he say "instant scum"; nowhere did he imply anywhere NEAR the level of confidence that you imply he did. You're also totally ignoring the reason that he called that scummy.

Cheery says something about something = call it a slip and vote him

Firstly, he's not the only one who called it a slip. Secondly, bad reasoning isn't necessarily scummy, and you need to show specifically that it is more likely to come from scum than from town.

No vote on NS, FoS instead = PoPP NS' scumbuddy, easy tell, scum caught

I'm not even sure what this is referring to. Enlighten me.

My comments in red. I don't want to defend safety for safety but dear god, you're being so ridiculous.