Mini 1398 - Game Over!

[iamausername]

VOTE: McStab

Come on! That's soooo scummy.

agreed, let's hang this scummy bastard quick before he can fool us with his evil words

VOTE: McStab

[iamausername]

am i really being attacked for not carefully selecting my random vote so as not to coincide with anyone else's? what on earth are they teaching kids these days?

UNVOTE: McStab
VOTE: Disturbed_One

he said he was voting jmo "for now" when apparently he thought he'd caught jmo in a lie that makes him obvscum

bit of a disconnect there

[iamausername]

iceninja is also p. scummy, good wagon guys

[iamausername]

Unvote

Vote ICEninja

He seems to hold the opinion that every wagon in town is super awesome

disturbed one is doing the same thing, and the way he has approached his pursuit of jmo reads nothing like a coherent town thought process to me. if he thinks that lying about omgussing makes jmo obvscum, why was he only voting him "for now", and why was he happy to switch over to iceninja when that wagon started looking more popular?

[iamausername]

For the record, my other scum reads are Ice and iamusername.

why? please explain in your own words why either of us are scummy.

[iamausername]

iamusername, you are scummy for a very ungenuine post #12.

ICEninja is scum for saying McStab's vote is not good merely based on the fact that it was placed on him.

these are not your own words.

what was 'ungenuine' about my post? why is what iceninja did scummy?

[iamausername]

@username

- Why does it have to be in his own words?

here's how it went down:

- i do a thing
- disturbed one makes a post, does not say anything about the thing i did being scummy
- someone else says the thing i did was scummy
- disturbed one says the thing i did was scummy

- iceninja does a thing
- disturbed one makes a post, does not say anything about the thing iceninja did being scummy
- someone else says the thing he did was scummy
- disturbed one says the thing he did was scummy

basically, he seemed to just be parroting other people's arguments, so i wanted him to explain them in his own words to prove he could actually demonstrate an understanding of the opinions he claims to hold.

i don't find his responses particularly satisfying.

you were all like "Let's go hunt the scum", which seems weird because it goes without saying that we should be hunting and lynching scum. It kind of read to me like "Oh look guys, I'm so town."

this summation of my first post is pretty much a total fabrication and feels like it is reciting something he's seen before in a different game as opposed to being a an actual thought that stemmed from anything i actually posted.

ICEninja is scummy because he was trying to discourage the vote on himself with bad reasoning. McStab said an explanation was forthcoming, so it was obvious it was not a meaningless vote. Seemed kind of a like a nervous "Oh, he doesn't have a reason for voting me, so I'm not scummy at all."

to be fair, this one doesn't particularly feel made up after the fact, it just doesn't demonstrate any actual scummy behaviour from iceninja. there's really nothing scummy about trying to discourage a vote on oneself, regardless of how good the reasoning is, and the thought he puts into iceninja's head doesn't sound like a scum thought at all.

Also his indirect support of pretty much every wagon without actually voting on the wagons is pretty scummy. It means he's okay with a mislynch, he just doesn't want to be caught on a wagon that ends up in a mislynch.

iceninja had, at the time of this post, voiced support for two (2) wagons, mine and jmo's, both of which he has, in fact, voted for.
disturbed one had voiced support for three (3) wagons, mine, iceninja's and jmo's, only two of which he has voted for.

as you might have noticed, the set of {wagons supported by iceninja} is completely contained within the set of {wagons supported by disturbed one}. so it's pretty rich for him to use this as evidence that iceninja is "okay with a mislynch".

i mean, what disturbed one is saying here is that jmo, who he has previously described as "obvscum", and who he was still voting at the time of this post, would be a mislynch. these are his words, not mine.

[iamausername]

hey, so i just went back and saw what Dire_Drenz's first post was and honestly i didn't realize it was possible to be that contradictory in just fifteen words.

his two posts, for reference:

VOTE: iamausername

For suggesting wagon

Tired, will post more later.

UNVOTE:

VOTE: Disturbed_One

Good wagon

first of all, there's the lie of "will post more later". i mean, it's a lie if he's talking about posting

in this game

, that is. and that's all i'll say about that, because rules are rules. look, don't touch.

and then there's the fact that in one post i earn a vote "for suggesting wagon" and then in the other he votes for the wagon i've been championing for basically the whole game because it is a "good wagon". i mean, that's literally the exact words that i said that he voted me for. good wagon.

UNVOTE: Disturbed_One
VOTE: Dire_Drenz

[iamausername]

this is a bad post, real post to follow

[iamausername]

you know how sometimes you fall a bit behind on a game, so you start writing a catch-up post but don't finish it for whatever reason, and then when you come back to finish it a whole lot more stuff has happened and all the stuff you've already typed seems kind of irrelevant, so you start over, and basically you just keep doing that over and over in an endless cycle.

don't do that. forget the minutae and just focus on the one or two most important occurences. in this case, that's obviously the Bacde wagon, which is a bad wagon.

Bacde's case on Nacho is hella dumb, but there's no scum motivation behind it. scum don't just randomly bail on a popular wagon to bullheadedly attack one of the most experienced players in the game against massive resistance on all sides. that is very much the behaviour of a town player who is convinced they've caught scum and can't understand why no one else sees what they see.

UNVOTE: Jabberwock

the way Dire_Drenz replaced out definitely looks town, and Jabberwock feels town to me in spite of the fact that i disagree with basically everything they've said.

VOTE: Mirhawk

case in point. there is scum to be found on the Bacde wagon, that's a no brainer. Disturbed_One remains an excellent candidate, for sure, but i've been getting some nagging gut rot reading Mirhawk's recent posts.

To be perfectly honest, I read it a second time. It seemed strong the first time I read it, but upon refection the particular points Nacho had seemed rather weak. I still think its non-contradictory, and an okay post in general, but his case isn't very compelling.

i'm just having real trouble buying this. look at the time stamps.

Dec 1st, 2:20 AM (your timezone may vary)

His initial case against bacde was well supported and I feel nothing he has said since then has in any way contradicted his earlier statements.

Dec 1st, 4:43 AM

I must admit however, I am colored on this because as I read the exchange Nacho ripped everything you said apart. In my eyes this makes Nacho look better and you worse. This doesn't take into account the fact that Nacho might just be better at debate. Nothing Nacho has said make him look particularly like town or scum in my eyes.

Dec 1st, 4:57 AM

Nacho's original case on you was quite bad, and in fact until you started responding to Nacho's claims I had a town read on you.

when exactly in the two and a half hours between posts 183 and 189 did Mirhawk go back and read Nacho's initial case again? and what exactly prompted it? i don't know about you, but when i see someone make a "well-supported" case and proceed to "rip apart" everything the defendant says, my first instinct is definitely not to go back and scrutinize the original case and check that my initial assesment of its well-supportedness was correct. and if i did do that, i'm pretty sure i'd mention in some way that i'd done it, and not just state that the original case was bad as if that was what i'd thought the whole time? idk, maybe that's just me.

some other bits that give me minor indigestion:

Unvote

Sorry about that ICE, I've just been using you as a parking lot. I haven't entertained any serious notions of you being scum since page five.

find it very strange that he personally adresses iceninja here, when most everything else he's posted, especially with regards to his vote, has been third person. feels like an attempt to build some false camaraderie with iceninja. probably not a

deliberate

attempt; i don't think he's made a meticulously thought out devious plan to address iceninja in the second person in order to win his trust or anything. but i do think it could be an unconscious revelation of his true motivations.

Nacho hasn't done anything anti-town.

why 'anti-town' rather than 'scummy'? strikes me as a really odd choice of words in the situation.

I can't accept this reasoning unless you can explain why town-Mirhawk

wouldn't

make this comment.

bit of a 'caught me for the wrong reasons'-style tell here; this statement implies that there is a reasoning to call Mirhawk scum that he

would

accept.

...maybe i've just found it.

[iamausername]

iaaun, thoughts on Shamrock please and thank you.

well, he's posted literally nothing of substance, not even a vote, and he's intentionally avoiding this game

what's not to love

[iamausername]

@iam
Why would I not go back and look at that post again in those two hours. I obviously had enough time to do so judging from the time stamps.

why would you talk in such hypothetical terms about events you are claiming actually happened. life is full of mysteries.

Additionally I was arguing with bacde about his and Nacho's interactions during the time in question, Nacho's case is a part of that. I reread that stretch of posts a more than once during that period.

i'm still not following the timeline of events here. ok, you read through the exchange several times, but... when exactly did you change your mind about Nacho's case? was it on the first rereading, or did it take a few passes before you realised that it wasn't as well supported as you thought?

For example, while the timestamp issue is a good point, the second/third person business is ridiculous. Newer players often switch between second/third person out of an awkward sense of detachment, and

I

do that all the time. I'll even switch in the same post at times. This isn't any kind of valid tell, and with iaaun's continuous attention to this kind of thing, we'd expect him to be aware that it's not alignment-indicative.

i mean, obviously, i've noticed that people jump between second and third person before, and clearly it's not any kind of universal scumtell (as if any such thing exists). but there was something about the specific circumstance of this specific example that felt really off to me, and i was just doing my best to figure out why that is by attempting to explain it. i'm not sure that

i'm

even satisfied with my explanation, tbh, but that post still bothers me, and that's the best explanation i've got right now. vv

Are you accusing me of accidentally buddying up to ICE? Because I don't think buddying is a scumtell unless it's on purpose.

also this response feels like 'caught me for the wrong reasons' AGAIN.

I don't know, I can't really defend my opinion on this. It just feels somewhat artificial to me. I'm having difficulty in telling why I feel that way though.

but then this feels totally town and i don't know what to do with that.

@Username

- Other than post #70 and #73, you don't talk to/interrogate your suspects directly. I tried looking through some of your previous games to see if it's your playstyle, but i'm still unsure.
Is this behaviour playstyle? If so, please provide links to some relevant games.

This is you trying to convince town your suspect is scum instead of trying to figure out (by questioning) if your read is correct.

i don't always use the same approach; i change up my playstyle from game to game. i believe that predictability is the enemy. if town play is completely predictable, it makes it so much easier from scum to emulate it. pretty sure i've discussed this in a previous game, but hell if i remember which one.

but yeah, it's

a

playstyle. questioning them is far from the only way to figure out if your suspect is scum, bro. pretending you're totally convinced about minor hunches can be absolutely devastating if you play it right. here is a fine example of this strategy; in this game i managed to completely nail a scum after just three pages by exaggerating the strength of a town read. i also nailed the other scum later by appropriating the tools of the oppressors and manipulating the hell out of everybody for great justice, but unfortunately i couldn't quite convince the rest of the town that i was right again. it was a really hard sell, that scummy bastard played 'em good.

...god i love rereading that game and remembering how fucking amazing i can be at mafia. it's a real confidence booster, you know?

---

p.s. hey everybody, this Shamrock lynch that is obviously about to happen is entirely acceptable, but i'd really like to get that whole timeline issue with Mirhawk nailed down before the end of the day, so if everyone could kindly hold off on any hammers for the moment, that'd be swell. kthxbai! xxx

[iamausername]

Not sure when I changed my mind, after bacde's post 187 I think, since bacde references Nacho's original case in it. Would have been my second or third time reading it I would guess.

are you absolutely sure about that? you changed your mind after you made post 185?

[iamausername]

iam you realize you have the am/pm timestamps on two of my posts mixed up right? My post 189 was about twelve hours after 185, not 14 minutes.

oh, so i did. i guess that's a much more plausible time gap in which to change your mind.

so i guess you are absolutely sure that you changed your mind after you made post 185 then, huh?

[iamausername]

i see absta has got the jump on me and hammered Shamrock, hopefully i can get this out before the thread is locked. if i'm killed tonight, somebody better pick up where i left off because Mirhawk has definitely lied about something somehwere.

I must admit however, I am colored on this because as I read the exchange Nacho ripped everything you said apart.

When I said Nacho was ripping your posts to shreds I meant his later ones, after you started arguing with him. Nacho's original case on you was quite bad, and in fact until you started responding to Nacho's claims I had a town read on you.

this is not consistent with Mirhawk's claim that he changed his mind in between making these two posts. if that was the case, he is lying in post 189 about what he meant when he made post 185.

i expect he'll just try to claim that he's misremembered, and actually he changed his mind before post 185, but frankly that doesn't seem consistent with the wording of post 185 either, and the way it picks up where 183 left off without any indication that anything had changed between them.

i mean all of this was obvious before i tried to get him to nail down exactly where he changed his mind, but the fact that he has really struggled to do so is not making it any easier to buy what he is selling here.

[iamausername]

Anyways I still want to know where I lied iam.

it's here:

When I said Nacho was ripping your posts to shreds I meant his later ones, after you started arguing with him.

if you changed your mind after making post 185, then that wasn't what you meant in post 185. it's what you decided you meant afterwards, when you realised Nacho's case wasn't so strong as you thought.

but anyway, Shamrock trying to undermine Jabberwock's townread on Mirhawk in post 215 makes it highly unlikely that they were scum together, so i'm not going to keep harping on about this. i still don't follow Mirhawk's thought process, but it's not like this would be the first time i've ever been unable to follow someone else's thought process. fine. you somehow changed your mind both before and after post 185. sure.

Post #52 - And the scum gives himself away. JMO says the following:

1.I'm not sure what would have happened if I wasn't drunk. But I probably would have made sure I wasn't voting the guy that was already voting for me.

-snip-

3. I didn't lie about it. Being drunk doesn't make it look worse. Like I said, I voted randomly. If I hadn't been drunk I would have made sure that I wouldn't have voted disturbed one because he was already voting me and I know people regard that as a scum tell/newb move. Simple.

If you're town, why would you care so much to carefully avoid giving off scum tells? Scum, in general, are far more aware of being sure not to give off scum-tells than town. I find this super-scummy.

this is an excellent catch and i can't believe i didn't notice this myself.

VOTE: jmo16mla

[iamausername]

why else do you think jmo is scum?

total lack of scumhunting, mostly. also post 252 is pretty bad in light of Shamrock's flip.

[iamausername]

Also, again in his 315 he said this:

I was just about to come and hammer him though

And it just feels really faked to me.

It's the only emoticon I've seen him use all game

, and reading the context of everything, it just doesn't make sense. ESPECIALLY considering how the rest of the post is his little "case" against absta, and he hardly mentions Shamrock from that point on. It reads very much as a fake reaction to me.

man i want to buy into this, the bolded especially sounds like exactly the kind of thing i look for, but i'm just not feeling it. i think Jabberwock has it completely right; post 359 just really doesn't feel like it's coming from someone who knows Shamrock is scum. Shamrock was obviously dead in the water at that point, do you really think Cheery would bother trawling through his past games if he wasn't genuinely trying to figure out if he was scum?

When momentum is coming down on your partner like a sledgehammer, it seems like a bit of a poor time to bring out the chainsaw.

i've been trying to figure out a way to say this diplomatically, but it's just not coming to me. this is the best i could do; i agree that this would not be a smart move as scum. this is not serving as a barrier to my perception of jmo scum.

(PS: Vote Melmond.)

why not jmo?

[iamausername]

The point is:

he was drunk and made a move he perceives as scummy.

yes, exactly. a whole lot of his defence to the accusations against him consisted of repeatedly saying "i don't think OMGUS is a scumtell anyway". the fact that the post in question shows that he

does

think OMGUS is a scumtell - that's the excellent catch. maybe not the one rob thought he was making, as it turns out, but an excellent catch regardless. it's not just "he's concerned abut looking scummy", it's "he's concerned about looking scummy for doing something he has repeatedly insisted is not a scumtell".

cba reading these Rob and Cheery wall-fests right now. maybe later.