Open 581: Making Friends and Enemies! (Game over)

[Green Crayons]

VOTE: Riddle

Merry Christmas Eve.

[Green Crayons]

@Riddle:

I'd recruit a null read. Because there's no weak modifier (ie. I don't die if I misrecruit) it basically acts as a 1-shot cop.

How long did it take for you to come up with this response?

[Green Crayons]

@elle:

Also, congrats, you managed to find one of the few instances in which a random wagon actually gets scum. Now there are no associatives to be made D2, no analysis to pull on D1, you're basically at square 1.

@ILF: Hannibal's avatar is from Civilization IV, amazing game. I like your last post, seems townish, stuff before that, very light scumread, so nullread for now.

I think awesomeusername is town. elle's vote is weird if Whatisswag is town.

Why would that make it weird?

This question was responded to in Post 55.

You had no follow up. What was the purpose of your question in Post 52?

[Green Crayons]

General thoughts:

1. swag's ideas of who might be scum based on confirm timing are bad, but strike me as something that would more likely come from town trying to be creative, rather than scum trying to look busy.

2. No idea what Corpses is talking about w/r/t swag's input being "robotic" or whatever; faint lean scum read because of Corpses's focus on shooting down swag's contribution rather than adding to the thread himself.

3. That said, I do agree with Corpses w/r/t Riddle's Page 1 interaction with swag being null, not alignment indicative.

4. Stop rhyming.

5. Kaboose's self-vote is bad. I used to have a no-excuse policy for self voting, but these days I see it as nothing but harmless (and valueless) unless context indicates otherwise. Kaboose's Page 4, second real day of the game, first game post, on Christmas Day, self vote does not strike me as scummy. It strikes me as lazy input. Null.

[Green Crayons]

@Grib:

No one should ever be happy with a Grib vote.

UNVOTE:
VOTE: Green Crayons

Hi there, fellow Williamsburgite.

Hello. I live in Williamsburg, yes. Are you there because of undergrad, graduate school, or just life.

(I look forward to how our pleasant conversation about life outside of this game will inspire conversation relevant to this game.)

[Green Crayons]

with regards to

[Green Crayons]

I think I'm the only person who says that, though. So. (shrug)

[Green Crayons]

Ugh, you're town already. Don't butt into questions that aren't directed at you.

[Green Crayons]

@Grib:

1.

Fairies's first set of posts (Posts 28, 29, 31, and 34) struck me as unnecessarily defensive, leaving me with a lean scum feeling.

A.

Particularly Post 28, where right out of the gate she's doing an unnecessary self-meta as a defense to swag's not great theory.

B.

Post 29 isn't much better, where she questions why swag would want her lynched on Page 2 of Day 1. I understood swag's QL statement to be something of an exaggeration, and the fact that Fairies took it literally makes it look like she's already on the defense.

C.

Post 31 and Post 34 are more neutral, however, as she diverts the conversation into theory. Nothing really to be seen there.

2.

Fairies' second set of posts (Posts 107 and 109) is neutral to lean town.

A.

Post 107 is a bevy of comments.

- The theory discussion is null, but extended conversation about theory in games starts to get me suspicious, so if she lingers much longer on the not-really-much-to-talk-about quicklynch debate, I'll probably chalk it up to scumminess. (Particularly now that I've highlighted that fact.)

- Questions/lack of knowledge about hydras is null.

- I think her last discussion in this post, directed at Riddle, is the most informative w/r/t Fairies' own alignment. Her assessment of swag strikes me as genuine, particularly because it takes a middle ground approach - I've been in a similar position trying to size up players, seeing both good and bad things about them, and admitting that openly is town for me. Scum would be less inclined to make such a middle argument approach because of just how easily that position can be attacked as wishy-washy or whatever.

B.

I have no real justification for this beyond gut, but Post 109 feels town. I'm telling myself now to disregard that pretty weak gut feeling.

3.

Fairies's third set of posts (Posts 111, 112, and 116) are ---.

- I don't want to comment on these until I see Riddle's response.

[Green Crayons]

Green Eyes: what prompted you to do a full analysis of ILF's posts but only post generic thoughts on Corpses and Swag?

Is this a joke?

Hello. I live in Williamsburg, yes. Are you there because of undergrad, graduate school, or just life.

(I look forward to how our pleasant conversation about life outside of this game will inspire conversation relevant to this game.)

Undergrad shenanigans.

You focused on Swag and Corpses, what do you think of ILF?

[Green Crayons]

If by "point" you mean "the rest of my teammates," then I'm all for patience.

This strikes me as something scum would say, trying to be clever.

[Green Crayons]

I went more in-depth because I didn't have a coherent feeling towards Fairies. Hence the lack of any comment about her. The same goes for any other player I have yet to comment about. Your inquiry prompted me to solidify how I felt. I conveyed the process and end result, per request.

Yes. It's not a "slip" (I hate that buzzword) or anything of that magnitude, but it's a comment that looks more like clever scum than town.

[Green Crayons]

(Also how's undergrad life? I finished grad school here and am sticking around for job stuff until the end of this summer. The 'Burg is a perfectly fine place to live for a few years . . . but, holy shit, I'll be happy to head up to RVA before the end of 2015.)

[Green Crayons]

@Grib:

I get that a lot. It's honestly a nulltell, and is more just my way of goofing off a bit. If you meta me, or if we play more games together, you'd see.

1. You get what a lot?

2. What exactly would your meta show me?

Are you saying cleverness is exclusively a scum trait?

I don't see how anything I have said would suggest that my response to this answer would be a "yes." The answer is no.

[Green Crayons]

@Corpses:

Twas the night before Christmas and all through the thread
There was voting at random to see who'd wind up dead
Scum was lining their lynches for the beginning with care
Maybe even by putting a vote on someone who was not yet there...

VOTE: whatisswag

Why?

This vote seems opportunistic, like it's jumping on someone with the ol helpful "defend the people who aren't in the thread yet".

Easy townpoints, especially from the people you're defending, and honestly, this is one of the weakest reasons to vote the guy. Personally I think his RVS stuff is fine, although his repeated preaching about it being a serious vote is kind of annoying and possibly scummy but that could just be me being annoyed.

My bolding.

In light of the above, how do you feel about Hannibal's only contribution to the game:

VOTE: whatisswag
For picking on the people who aren't here yet

I guess more importantly, why did Hannibal not get a criticism in any of your posts?

[Green Crayons]

@Grib:

What are you thinking about davesaz?

His only presence is questions. That doesn't bother me, as I also used to go into games pretty question heavy during the beginning of games as a way to try to hook myself into some conversation/get reactions to evaluate. So I get it, and it's null insofar as it's still early into the game.

As for the questions themselves, I think they're pretty meh except for:

There is a masons team, composed by two masons. They will recruit another member at any time in the game. Read the setup and Sample Role PMs.

Any thoughts beyond the setup speculation yet?

[Green Crayons]

(Also, don't overdo the Cheese Shop. I spent my first year here hitting that place up at least three times a week for lunch. And not only did my bank account hate me, but I really,

really

don't like eating there any more because I just overdid it. Even though it's where company always wants to eat when they visit. Be forewarned!

And enjoy undergrad. Good years, good times. Friends of mine who did undergrad here said it was a good place.)

[Green Crayons]

@awesome:

@GC: I don't understand what you're getting at with 117. What did Riddle's answer tell you?

Nothing, really, and that's fine. I realized it was a bad question about five seconds after posing it.

[Green Crayons]

@awesome:

why the Kaboose vote, based on a pretty flip justification ("You're welcome for the vote. Now talk to me.")?

Your Kaboose vote/justification is particularly incongruous with the remainder of your Post 155, in which you undertake a more thorough analysis of players.

[Green Crayons]

@elle:

What do you mean by "lynch-lining" in Post 162? I don't quite understand what insight Corpses' answer would have given.

[Green Crayons]

UNVOTE: Riddle

VOTE: Corpses

1. What Kaboose said regarding setup spec.
2. Rereading his ISO, I still don't like how he interacted with swag.
3. I know at least 1/2 of his hyrda is around, but he's gone quiet.

[Green Crayons]

Kaboose or Green Crayons: how is it scummy to tell the Masons to act like VTs (unless I'm interpreting Corpses incorrectly)? That's what they

should

be doing.

Telling masons to be "dropping tells that they're not masons (not enough to be scummy ofc)" has no actual value because that is the obvious, logical play of being a mason. However, it's an action that looks like it has value because Corpses is supporting a play that benefits masons staying alive. So it looks like Corpses is taking action to look like he's advocating for a protown strategy, when really he's just advocating for basic game play.

[Green Crayons]

The fact that Kaboose called that a "role trap" leads me to believe we think Corpses' particular action is suspicious for different reasons, though I can kind of see what Kaboose is saying.

[Green Crayons]

I think Corpses weird "have masons potential lie about not being masons" (paraphrasing Post 51) when

everyone

is supposed to claim mason in a hypoclaim scenario is more of a blatant "role trap" kind of situation.

[Green Crayons]

@Cheet:

The Riddle-vote was being maintained out of inertia, as I wasn't sure who I wanted to vote for next. Then I decided.

I was also waiting to see Riddle's response to Fairies's position on him. That never came before my switch, but I guess it was something that helped keep my vote there (even though I don't really agree with Fairies' basis for her Riddle-vote).

My single question to him wasn't sustaining anything, as it was a bad question and I wasn't expecting anything from it.

-----

I don't know how I feel about awesome.

Listing someone as one read and then as another read within the same post when it's a big post doesn't strike me as terribly probative of scum alignment, because town compiling thoughts in that manner can lead to conflicting opinions about a player. But a more suspicious mind can certainly and fairly attribute it to scum mixing up their positions on a player. I don't really have an opinion one way or another about it because neither strikes me as a more likely scenario.

I am waiting for more input from him before deciding how I feel about his alignment.

-----

I don't know if Corpses's mason talk is "clearly" scum motivated, but I think it's more likely to come from scum trying to get townie points when discussing game setup. If a player takes a scummy action, my default reaction is that it is a scummy action, not that it is simply bad play. I see no reason why this particular action would be any different.

-----

Because I forgot I caught Corpse's failure to address Hannibal when I made my vote post.

[Green Crayons]

@Grib:

Telling masons to be "dropping tells that they're not masons (not enough to be scummy ofc)" has no actual value because that is the obvious, logical play of being a mason. However, it's an action that looks like it has value because Corpses is supporting a play that benefits masons staying alive. So it looks like Corpses is taking action to look like he's advocating for a protown strategy, when really he's just advocating for basic game play.

Okay, so you think it doesn't have any value. That's fair. But if you actually go back and look at the interaction as it occurred, Corpses' post was in response to what he perceived as Masonfishing on Whatisswag's part. It wasn't an unprompted "hey guys Masons should totally

not

act like Masons duh" post.

Yes, I know. I think the context in which this particular action of Corpses's arose is also suspicious. I don't like Corpses's interaction with swag, remember? His fight with swag over the hypoclaim is part of why I'm voting him.

[Green Crayons]

@Fairies:

My suspicion about his protection is not that he's defending you, it's in the manner that he is defending you.

I reviewed your Post 111 and Post 167, and neither appeared to get to the point you're saying here - that it's about

how

Riddle is defending swag, not that Riddle is defending swag.

Can you please elaborate about the manner of Riddle's actions that is the basis for your suspicions?

[Green Crayons]

@Riddle:

I know you've seen Fairies' suspicions of you, as you have responded to her about other things. Why shouldn't I understand your avoidance of her suspicions as a scum tactic?

[Green Crayons]

@Cheetory:

My single question to him wasn't sustaining anything, as it was a bad question and I wasn't expecting anything from it.

Why not vote someone who you said was pinging you as slightly scummy?

I don't know to who you are referring that was pinging me as slightly scummy?

I don't know if Corpses's mason talk is "clearly" scum motivated, but I think it's more likely to come from scum trying to get townie points when discussing game setup.

Makes more sense to me now that I've more fully absorbed your train of thought in #189. Though, why were you okay with sheeping Kaboose's reasoning before though if you later disagreed with it?

Kaboose's post prompted me to review Corpses's ISO, and the review of Corpses's ISO is what prompted me to vote him. I connected Kaboose to my vote based on that linear sequence of events. But upon further scrutinizing Kaboose's post after being prompted by Grib, I saw that there was perhaps some difference between what made Corpses suspicious to Kaboose and me.

[Green Crayons]

@Cheetory x2:

Because I forgot I caught Corpse's failure to address Hannibal when I made my vote post.

Where does this reasoning rank in comparison to the rest of your reasons for voting for Corpse?

I'm waiting on seeing Corpses' response before I judge this particular piece of evidence.

[Green Crayons]

@elle:

@elle:

What do you mean by "lynch-lining" in Post 162? I don't quite understand what insight Corpses' answer would have given.

Lynch-lining. Lining up his lynches.
I didn't want to just assume - that's why I asked what he meant by my vote being 'weird if whatisswag is town'.
What makes it weird - and why is it only weird if whatisswag is town?
What does 'weird' mean? Weird scum? Weird opportunistic? Etc.

I wanted corpses response, as I said in #162 (quoted above), for a better read on them.

I guessed that you meant lining up his lynches, but I guess what I'm getting at is I don't see how his response to explaining your "weird" play relates to whether Corpses was actually lining up his lynches. What was it about his "weird" accusation that made you felt like you were being lined up in a series of lynches?

Since you voted corpses immediately following this post to me, why the concern over my line of questioning towards them?

1. I don't have strong scum feelings about anyone, so the fact that I'm voting one player doesn't affect my questions to other players to suss out their alignment.

2. Perhaps more to the point: I was simply following up my original line of questioning.

That original line of questioning was prompted because I thought your question to Corpses looked defensive. However, the fact that Corpses didn't actually respond to your questions (I agree with you there, and I originally failed to see the disconnect between your Post 52 and Corpses's Post 55), and that you then let the issue simply die, looks less like scum defensiveness and more like early town probing. So that winnowed down my interest in pursing this issue to what I asked.

[Green Crayons]

@Cheetory:

I don't know to who you are referring that was pinging me as slightly scummy?

Poorly phrased on my part. Why did you keep your vote on Riddle while saying you were slightly scumreading other people? Too lazy to pull up quotes right now but I know you said other scumreads in between your votechange.

I was slightly scumreading other people? I don't know if I was prior to my switch away from the Riddle-vote.

To the extent I was, it wasn't to any degree whereby there was a large difference between a slight scumread on another player and my nullish read on Riddle that compelled me to switch my vote.

[Green Crayons]

@Riddle:

@Riddle:

I know you've seen Fairies' suspicions of you, as you have responded to her about other things. Why shouldn't I understand your avoidance of her suspicions as a scum tactic?

What merit is there for me to respond to Fairies' suspicions against me?

If you are actually town, then (1) getting her to see that her position is flawed (Fairies hasn't played in such a way that it would make such an exercise futile) and (2) convince other people who are following her suspicions that those suspicions are wrong.

[Green Crayons]

@dave:

Do you see them as both scummy from that interaction, and you're just voting the more scummy?

No. Simply from the Corpses/swag interaction regarding the hypoclaim, I read Corpses as suspicious and swag as lean town.

-----

@Riddle:

I know you've seen Fairies' suspicions of you, as you have responded to her about other things. Why shouldn't I understand your avoidance of her suspicions as a scum tactic?

I see that Riddle replied to this, so a couple followups.

Why do you think ignoring / not responding to suspicions, especially isolated ones which are not pursued, would be more likely to come from scum than town?

I don't know if it would more likely come from scum than town.

That said, I can certainly see a scum positive in not responding to suspicions (letting them die), and a town positive in responding to suspicions (noted above in response to Riddle). I also see a town positive in not responding to suspicions that sort of intersects with the scum positive, but that's why I asked Riddle to tell me why I should see his play as coming from town instead of scum.

Is there other behavior regarding suspicions that someone had raised that would reinforce your thinking that ignoring/not responding is scummy? Things that would reduce/offset it?

I'm not entirely sure what you're asking. If you're asking have I seen scum ignore suspicions directed at them before, I don't recall any specific instance.

-----

I can't help but notice that you're looking for associations pretty much continuously. This setup is one where it's anti-town to do too much association pre-flip. In fact, stating associations and seeing what you get for reactions is one of the scum tactics for dealing with masons. Note: since you went to the effort to find my previous game in this setup you'll note that I got it wrong in that game. I'm a fast learner.

I think this is a pretty good line of suspicion. However, what's your theory as to why swag-scum would vocalize this associative analysis if it's being used simply to out the masons?

[Green Crayons]

@dave:

Is there other behavior regarding suspicions that someone had raised that would reinforce your thinking that ignoring/not responding is scummy? Things that would reduce/offset it?

I'm not entirely sure what you're asking. If you're asking have I seen scum ignore suspicions directed at them before, I don't recall any specific instance.

Player A says B is suspicious. B ignores / doesn't respond to the suspicion. I think you were also saying that B was interacting with A regarding other topics.
I was asking if there are other things B might do that would increase / decrease whether it's scummy to ignore/not respond.

Ah.

The things that come immediately to mind: if there is a lengthy discussion (so the suspicions might have been missed), or if the player willfully chooses to not address the suspicions upon them being pointed out.

[Green Crayons]

@Riddle:

@Riddle:

@Riddle:

I know you've seen Fairies' suspicions of you, as you have responded to her about other things. Why shouldn't I understand your avoidance of her suspicions as a scum tactic?

What merit is there for me to respond to Fairies' suspicions against me?

If you are actually town, then (1) getting her to see that her position is flawed (Fairies hasn't played in such a way that it would make such an exercise futile) and (2) convince other people who are following her suspicions that those suspicions are wrong.

Why do I need to defend myself and argue her scumread on me? You're addressing me as if it's urgent I do so when I'm not a major wagon today.Focusing all of my time into defending people's scumreads of me is futile when actual scumhunting can be done. Like I said, no motive for me to defend someone's case on me. If you think that's a scum tactic for me to "avoid" that then go nuts and vote me.

Well that got real defensive real quick.

You asked me what "merit" there would be in you responding to Fairies's suspicions of you. I answered that question. I presume you read my answer, even though you ask me yet again for a reason why you doing so would be meritorious.

There's no urgency here. There's something crazy like an 18 day deadline. This whole game is without urgency. But I never realized urgency was a prerequisite for suspicions to be discussed. (It isn't.)

[Green Crayons]

I've been purposefully only skimming the more recent postings because I want to do a reread, and I want a less in-the-trenches mindset going into that.

[Green Crayons]

Happy New Year's everyone. I'm now going to catch up with the thread.

[Green Crayons]

Finished the reread.

1. I feel less suspicious about Corpses's interaction with swag after my reread.

2. Grib's posting looks like solid town. He's catching things and articulating ideas that I am having upon reading the thread. Suggests that we're approaching the game from the same alignment mindset.

3. To a lesser extent, I get town vibes from awesome's and Kaboose's postings. Fairies is still a lean town read (don't know if I ever made that explicit from my earlier review of her play).

4. Cheetory's posts come from a much more mechanical stand point (if that makes any sense, I'm not sure it does; but it's the best way I can describe the "voice" of his posts), making it harder to discern alignment. Null read at the moment.

5. NJAC is completely MIA. Potential lurkerscum.

6. Riddle's interest in the game has dwindled down to inquiring as to an alt's main account. Helpful.

7. I don't like the elle/dave/swag interaction. There's something about each player in the context of this three person back and forth that strikes me as suspicious. Will go into more detail later after I tease out my thoughts a bit more.

8. I don't like the elle/Ranger interaction. There's something about each player in the context of this two person back and forth that strikes me as suspicious. Will go into more detail later after I tease out my thoughts a bit more.

[Green Crayons]

Regarding the dave/swag/elle conversation.

A.

dave:

the biggest thing that bothered me is his reasons justifying his swag vote. Grib hit all the right points in Post 312, and Kaboose summarizes my concern about dave's "disarming the opposition" tactic of preemptively declaring his vote a not-OMGUS in Post 323. The swag push looks manufactured, and the not-OMGUS declaration looks defensive.

B.

swag:

I don't like his push on dave, as the basis of the suspicion (dave was only asking meaningless questions) was too premature for the state of the game. Ultimately, though, his thought process and reasoning looks like it comes from town, even if it appears scattered at times.

C.

elle:

I'll admit that I didn't personally have a put-into-words suspicion about elle when reading her posts; it was all a general feeling of "this doesn't sound right." (Contrast this with my suspicions about dave, where Grib and Kaboose simply vocalized my already-formed suspicions.) Of the players who vocalized particular suspicions about elle, I think that (1) Cheetory's "playing it safe" suspicion (originally stated in Post 246), and (2) Kaboose's problem with elle's inquiry to dave about elle's play (Post 323 and Post 339) are the most persuasive.

Regarding this second suspicion, I don't think this is an isolated incident. I noticed that she had previously asked Corpses about her play in a similar manner (Post 118 and Post 235). Well, maybe not a similar manner, but it certainly seems to come from the same mindset: "let me figure out what this player thinks about me and try to turn it to town."

CONCLUSION

: swag still looks town, even if a bit all over the place. dave and elle look more suspicious. Kaboose looks more town.

[Green Crayons]

Regarding the elle/Ranger conversation.

A.

elle:

elle got real defensive, real quick - and used misrepresentation the process (see Post 370 and Post 375 w/r/t a misrep of Ranger's suspicions on Fairies; see Post 378 w/r/t a misrep of Ranger's vote count/deadline conversation). elle also immediate attacks her attacker on an unexceptional issue - town reads - in Post 371 and Post 374, which gets dragged out for several more posts.

B.

Ranger:

my biggest apprehension with Ranger is that the elle v. Ranger interaction looks really forced. This stems from different aspects of their conversation.

- How focused Ranger is on elle. Take Post 375 as an example. There are some legitimate points here - the misrep, the posturing - but there's extra stuff too that looks like a tunnel. For example, the "noted" comment. A suspicion like that would be more at home after a long back-and-forth between two players, when they have been at each other for a while and have convinced themselves of the other's guilt so that every little thing screams scum. So it looks really weird - possibly manufactured - when Ranger finds everything elle is doing is scummy even from the get go of their interaction.

(Huh, I just revisited Post 406 and I see swag had a similar reaction. More town points for swag.)

- The immediate buildup of wall-like posts. It really is an explosion of activity between these two players.

- Some of the twists and turns in their conversation looks like arguing for argument's sake. For example, Ranger's evolving suspicion of elle's L-4 comment just gives me a weird feeling (Post 375, Post 391, Post 398).

CONCLUSION:

elle looks more suspicious. Ranger looks more suspicious if elle flips scum - I usually dislike doing this associative tells before a flip, but this one just hit me upon read through, so I'm willing to trust (and voice) my initial apprehension with Ranger's posting.

[Green Crayons]

UNVOTE: Corpses

Other things to do at the moment, so can't finish up reading, but I stopped my reread on Page 18. I want to read the remaining pages before voting, and think it over a bit more.

[Green Crayons]

Some thoughts on these final few pages.

1. elle's Post 428 reads list is strikingly similar to how I am reading the game. I would only switch awesome (to lean town) and Kaboose (to town), put swag as town instead of lean scum, and put elle as a scum candidate. Despite those differences, there's a lot of overlap in how elle and I are understanding the game.

My takeaway from our apparently shared perspective is this: This reads list doesn't undercut my problems with elle's play, nor does it outweigh those problems. If elle does flip town, however, I will come back to this reads list as support of our (mostly) mutual understanding of other players.


2.

@NJAC:

Really, with Post 445 and Post 446?


3.

@Ranger:

My biggest issue with Kaboose is that his recent wall reeks of confirmation bias. He is acting like he KNOWS Elle is scum.

He is quick to critisize people for considering that Elle may be town. He is quick to applaud and encourage Elle scumreads.

He thinks Elle will get lynched today and is setting up for tomorrow. Who can he attack next as being partners with Elle?

Who showed that slight hesitation that he can exploit to chain a mislynch following today's bus? Those thoughts seem to be pre-dominant in Kaboose's mind. The wall he wrote is so unnatural, it is downright ridiculous. I have never seen a townie post with the level of bias and confidence that he has posted.

The bolded portions of your Kaboose suspicions describe your own play pretty spot on. Thoughts?

[Green Crayons]

@NJAC:

I disagree with the thought process behind your vote, but I guess I understand it.

I look forward to your commentary that incorporates more recent developments.

[Green Crayons]

@swag:

I ISO'd you, and this is the totality of what I found in support of your desire for an awesome lynch:

By my so-called "scum team analysis", I think awesomeusername is scum. And obviously since there are masons I would not say out who are the others.

VOTE: awesomeusername

There my vote stays for the rest of the day.

@lone ranger, that I will need to check.

Nebulous associative suspicions.

No thank you.

[Green Crayons]

@elle:

Are you content with ignoring these observations?

C. elle: I'll admit that I didn't personally have a put-into-words suspicion about elle when reading her posts; it was all a general feeling of "this doesn't sound right." (Contrast this with my suspicions about dave, where Grib and Kaboose simply vocalized my already-formed suspicions.) Of the players who vocalized particular suspicions about elle, I think that (1) Cheetory's "playing it safe" suspicion (originally stated in Post 246), and (2) Kaboose's problem with elle's inquiry to dave about elle's play (Post 323 and Post 339) are the most persuasive.

Regarding this second suspicion, I don't think this is an isolated incident. I noticed that she had previously asked Corpses about her play in a similar manner (Post 118 and Post 235). Well, maybe not a similar manner, but it certainly seems to come from the same mindset: "let me figure out what this player thinks about me and try to turn it to town."

A. elle: elle got real defensive, real quick - and used misrepresentation the process (see Post 370 and Post 375 w/r/t a misrep of Ranger's suspicions on Fairies; see Post 378 w/r/t a misrep of Ranger's vote count/deadline conversation). elle also immediate attacks her attacker on an unexceptional issue - town reads - in Post 371 and Post 374, which gets dragged out for several more posts.

I'm not. Please respond.

[Green Crayons]

@Cheetory:

You've pursued plenty of lines of questioning, but your posts don't really convey your read of all the players. Care to share?

[Green Crayons]

@elle:

What do you make of people connecting you and LR?

I think the only one that makes any sense is GC's: That if I were to flip scum, you should be looking at LR as my partner, given my MO of bussing.

The association with Kaboose is kind of laughable.

But since I'm going to flip town, I'm pretty sure all the other associations will speak for themselves - and clear a lot of people in the process.

So, by your argument, because you are going to flip town, Ranger is going to look less suspicious and be cleared?

[Green Crayons]

@elle:

I was only interested in your comments about my observations of your play. Thanks for the extra work, though.

C.

elle:

I'll admit that I didn't personally have a put-into-words suspicion about elle when reading her posts; it was all a general feeling of "this doesn't sound right." (Contrast this with my suspicions about dave, where Grib and Kaboose simply vocalized my already-formed suspicions.) Of the players who vocalized particular suspicions about elle, I think that (1) Cheetory's "playing it safe" suspicion (originally stated in Post 246), and (2) Kaboose's problem with elle's inquiry to dave about elle's play (Post 323 and Post 339) are the most persuasive.

Regarding this second suspicion, I don't think this is an isolated incident. I noticed that she had previously asked Corpses about her play in a similar manner (Post 118 and Post 235). Well, maybe not a similar manner, but it certainly seems to come from the same mindset: "let me figure out what this player thinks about me and try to turn it to town."

C.

I mean, I could have asked if you thought part

(1)

about 'playing it safe' actually still applied, but really it would just be WIFOM as Cheetory pointing it out could have made me switch tactic as

most

of my play that definitely was not 'safe' came after the fact.

And as for

(2)

, what's there to say? I address the point in 323 in my 332 and I address what I think of 339 in my 343. As for 118 and 235, I address them personally to you in 162 and 236, respectively.

The answers are already there and were already there prior to your post. To me, it's basically saying that despite the last fact, you're just not believing my explanations and you find me suspicious of it regardless.

Yeah, I find your play suspicious and I'm looking for town justification for those suspicious actions. I figure you'd be the best source for such an explanation. Regarding your repeated inquiry to other players to evaluate your play, I have found your explanations lacking. As you're not giving me anything new to work with, I'll stick with what's already out there.

-----

A.

elle:

elle got real defensive, real quick - and used misrepresentation the process (see Post 370 and Post 375 w/r/t a misrep of Ranger's suspicions on Fairies; see Post 378 w/r/t a misrep of Ranger's vote count/deadline conversation). elle also immediate attacks her attacker on an unexceptional issue - town reads - in Post 371 and Post 374, which gets dragged out for several more posts.

A.

I think the playout of elle vs ranger is already pretty clear in thread - I think it's also pretty clear that I don't think her not wanting to provide her townreads while saying she has them only to ultimately not have them is not an 'unexceptional issue'.

1. I just reread Pages 15 and 16. I don't see anything in there that justifies your misrepresentations and defensiveness with any town explanation. And, in fact, there are scum justifications for your play (e.g., "taunt<ing>" the person who suspects you into voting you, per Post 377). Once again, I was just hoping you had something more than what was already out there.

2. Failing to give justifications for townreads is not a big deal because town reads are null except in limited circumstances.

[Green Crayons]

@Ranger:

I'm assuming you're reading my posts, so you could at least respond to them.

3.

@Ranger:

My biggest issue with Kaboose is that his recent wall reeks of confirmation bias. He is acting like he KNOWS Elle is scum.

He is quick to critisize people for considering that Elle may be town. He is quick to applaud and encourage Elle scumreads.

He thinks Elle will get lynched today and is setting up for tomorrow. Who can he attack next as being partners with Elle?

Who showed that slight hesitation that he can exploit to chain a mislynch following today's bus? Those thoughts seem to be pre-dominant in Kaboose's mind. The wall he wrote is so unnatural, it is downright ridiculous. I have never seen a townie post with the level of bias and confidence that he has posted.

The bolded portions of your Kaboose suspicions describe your own play pretty spot on. Thoughts?

[Green Crayons]

@Riddle:

Why do I need to defend myself and argue her scumread on me? You're addressing me as if it's urgent I do so when I'm not a major wagon today.Focusing all of my time into defending people's scumreads of me is futile when actual scumhunting can be done. Like I said, no motive for me to defend someone's case on me. If you think that's a scum tactic for me to "avoid" that then go nuts and vote me.

Still defensive, but you're solid, Riddle.

Come back and play.

[Green Crayons]

@elle:

@ILF, davesaz and GC

, what's your read on Cheetory?

Null, lean town.

[Green Crayons]

@elle:

I keep remembering things that popped into mind last night, so excuse the multiple posts directed at you.

What do you make of people connecting you and LR?

I think the only one that makes any sense is GC's: That if I were to flip scum, you should be looking at LR as my partner, given my MO of bussing.

The association with Kaboose is kind of laughable.

But since I'm going to flip town, I'm pretty sure all the other associations will speak for themselves - and clear a lot of people in the process.

Will you please expand on the bolded a bit more? Who is going to be cleared if you flip town? How?

[Green Crayons]

There's a difference between tunneling and an informed perspective, yes.

Citing that fact as a truism doesn't really address the situation here. Particularly when people have criticized your tunnel of elle as a potential manifestation of your informed perspective. (There's no one, true Scotsman of how an informed perspective plays out.)

You've set up both awesome ("AwesomeUsername is scum. I don't know if he is scum with or without Elle yet. But he is scum. Thinking of switching there." in Post 419) and Kaboose ("A glance through Kaboose's ISO confirms my suspicions that Kaboose is scum, probably with Elle." Post 472) as being potential elle-scum buddies.


Thanks for your response.

[Green Crayons]

@elle:

I keep remembering things that popped into mind last night, so excuse the multiple posts directed at you.

What do you make of people connecting you and LR?

I think the only one that makes any sense is GC's: That if I were to flip scum, you should be looking at LR as my partner, given my MO of bussing.

The association with Kaboose is kind of laughable.

But since I'm going to flip town, I'm pretty sure all the other associations will speak for themselves - and clear a lot of people in the process.

Will you please expand on the bolded a bit more? Who is going to be cleared if you flip town? How?

In case you missed this:

@elle:

What do you make of people connecting you and LR?

I think the only one that makes any sense is GC's: That if I were to flip scum, you should be looking at LR as my partner, given my MO of bussing.

The association with Kaboose is kind of laughable.

But since I'm going to flip town, I'm pretty sure all the other associations will speak for themselves - and clear a lot of people in the process.

So, by your argument, because you are going to flip town, Ranger is going to look less suspicious and be cleared?

Less suspicious, no.

Cleared of the association

, yes.

Bolded.

That's nice.

It doesn't answer my question.

Who is going to be cleared if you flip town? How?

[Green Crayons]

The people being associated with me as scum will be cleared of that association when I flip town.

How? Well... when you use associative tells to try to connect people together as scum pre-flips, it kind of throws it out the window when one of those people flips town.

Mhm. There appears to be a problem with our back and forth. I don't know if it's simply our inability to communicate clearly, or you purposefully muddling things up.


To make sure I now understand you, when you said "But since I'm going to flip town, I'm pretty sure all the other associations will speak for themselves -

and clear a lot of people in the process

." you meant:

(1) the "a lot" of people who were going to be cleared were awesome, Kaboose, and Ranger; and

(2) they would not be "cleared" in the sense that they would be clear from suspicion, they would simply be cleared from being tied to elle-scum because elle-scum would not actual exist in this game.

[Green Crayons]

I guess I see how you were tying "associations" with folks being "cleared," but hot damn that's a confusing way to phrase it. I thought you were saying that your flip would clear people from suspicion more generally in some sort of way, not necessarily clear away only those lines of suspicion that were tying them to elle-scum.

[Green Crayons]

VOTE: dave

[Green Crayons]

You did miss that post.

[Green Crayons]

Sure. Post 484.

[Green Crayons]

I know you've responded to other people's commentary. I'm not asking you any follow up questions.

(shrug) They are conclusions that I independently came to that others had already voiced. I don't really care if you think they're a sheep job or not. Take a number, apparently.

[Green Crayons]

@dave:

I finally have enough time to be a bit more definitive.

Green Crayons looks town. I liked 484, 485, 570, 573 for example.

NJAC's time is running out. I think being willing to replace out if availability isn't there is a good move but isn't necessarily alignment indicative.

Please explain the thought process behind this post. That is, deciding to be more definitive, but then only addressing GC and NJAC with minimal observations.

[Green Crayons]

Jesus, 7 days still?

UNVOTE: dave

[Green Crayons]

Let's see the options.

awesomeusername

- 1 - Whatisswag - (L-6)

I still stand by Post 504 that swag's associative suspicions aren't worth anything. Ranger's observations of his hedging in Post 419 and Post 430 is legit, though, and is worth scum points.

CorpsesInEthanol

- 1 - Riddleton - (L-6)

Hey this guy is still being voted by another guy who is still voting him. The hydra appears to be half dead. Corpses apparently doesn't have the energy to keep the hydra active in this game for some reason. Boo.

davesaz

- 1 - Green Crayons - (L-6)

Meh, but sure.

elleheathen

- 4 - CorpsesInEthanol, Cheetory6, Grib, davesaz - (L-3)

Meh, but sure.

Grib

- 1 - NJAC - (L-6)

No.

Kaboose

- 1 - Lone Ranger - (L-6)

Disagree with everything Ranger has said. dave has a somewhat valid point in Post 588 w/r/t Kaboose's NJAC vote, but I was also tempted to vote NJAC after reading Grib's NJAC complaint, so I see where a Kaboose-town would be coming from to vote NJAC.

NJAC

- 1 - Kaboose - (L-6)

Wouldn't be the worst thing for one of the lurkers to be lynched.

Whatisswag

- 1 - I Love Fairies - (L-6)

swag is still town.

Out of the lurkers, though, I think I would opt for Fairies over others. She has been sufficiently active to not be a complete nonentity, but I don't think she has provided much in the way of substantive contribution. Even her swag suspicions/vote in Post 476 feel really outdated - like she saw that swag got some heat at some point in time, and so she thought he'd be a safe vote at a time when her Riddle vote was getting stale.

VOTE: Fairies

[Green Crayons]

I have nothing to add at this point until the inactives are replaced and I hear from the replacements in a way that will help me get reads on them.

The only thing I really want to comment on is how no one seems to have any issue with Green Crayons's analysis. Too many look at his walls, nod their heads in agreement and say "good point, I didn't notice that!" or similar things. It is lame as hell and moderately annoying. GC's analysis is shallow, surface level, and looks fake. Scum are perfectly capable of writing walls and posting comments and the easy townreads there suck. Unlike my previous concern about people townreading Cheetory, this one is more of I feel that GC is scum coasting by on surface level analysis that a whole bunch of town are buying hook, line, and sinker. What of GC's posts have felt town? Where has GC at any point felt genuine and like he was trying to solve the game? His analysis is skin-deep and lame as hell. And that's who I think people should look into.

Elle, if you are town, don't give up. Your lynch is far from a foregone conclusion. Who knows what the thoughts and opinions of the people replacing in are going to be? I sympathize with your feeling of being frustrated at trying to drive the game forward only to picked apart and its probably one of the reasons that all things being equal, I'd lynch someone who is contributing less.

You're bad at slandering me.

[Green Crayons]

Why do you think I'm telling masons to recruit GC?

And don't forget avoiding my lynch - even though he thinks 'i'm suspicious' and in our last round of posting, I apparently didn't do anything to either change his mind about this read on me or make him think I was town. Sideline advocating my lynch but not wanting to be on it, because davesaz was a much better vote? Town would have voted me there, imo, if that suspicion was genuine.

I wouldn't have said it before until I was more sure because it's really just giving him a copout reason to put his vote on me - but yeah, getting tired of fighting the lynch.

That's a lot of assumptions about how I feel about you.

[Green Crayons]

@mod:

I'm voting Fairies as of the last page.

Oops, missed that one, thanks.

[Green Crayons]

Waiting to recruit is not necessarily a bad strategy, as it means that it is less likely that the recruited player will be killed, and the longer the masons wait to recruit the more powerful their recruiting power will become in terms of providing information.

That said, it's also risky because once one mason dies, it could reveal the other mason via associative tells - and if they had not recruited yet, then there would be a night phase where the remaining mason would get killed before being able to recruit and reveal the results.

(shrug) Sounds like a timing strategy the masons should figure out on their own.

[Green Crayons]

Because out of all the lurkers, I feel best about Riddle.

[Green Crayons]

1.

Out of the lurkers, though, I think I would opt for Fairies over others. She has been sufficiently active to not be a complete nonentity, but I don't think she has provided much in the way of substantive contribution. Even her swag suspicions/vote in Post 476 feel really outdated -

like she saw that swag got some heat at some point in time

, and so she thought he'd be a safe vote at a time when her Riddle vote was getting stale.

On the bolded, you really think he was? Like, if you're looking at safe votes, I would think that elle or awesome would be easier votes, no? Pitch me this.

Answer: Yes, I really think several people have said that they think swag is suspicious. elle, dave, Corpses all did, from off the top of my head. They have been some of the most active players in the game (Corpses when he was actually playing).

Pitch: Moving votes makes you look active. Good for scum.

However, elle was an actively popular suspect, potentially leading to a lynch. If elle gets lynched, her bandwagon will get more scrutiny than other bandwagons. Doubly so if elle is to flip town. Bad for scum.

Voting for swag, who was popular to suspect at an earlier time, is more safe. People agree with the suspicions. So, good for scum. However, unlike elle, there isn't a focus on seeing the swag vote through. Less likely for a bandwagon to lynch, less likely there will be scrutiny on the vote. Also good for scum.

2.

Because out of all the lurkers, I feel best about Riddle.

Why?

What activity Riddle has provided I think comes from town.

The other players to be replaced aren't in as good standing. I had some problems with Corpses play, even if upon reread I think that the severity of my suspicions were lessened. NJAC is null. Fairies I think looks scummish. Even awesome, who I had at lean town earlier, has scum points for his hedging.

[Green Crayons]

I still don't understand the thought process behind the theory that scum would wait to confirm, when the mod would be able to see whether the non-confirmed scum is chatting in the scum thread, thereby circumventing the failure to confirm.

[Green Crayons]

I thought the theory was that scum would wait to confirm so that they could talk longer before the game began?

[Green Crayons]

wondeful that's exactly what I wanted to hear when I'm reaching out to you and asking you to work with me.

Nobody is following swag on this.

[Green Crayons]

I look forward to new input on old content from new players.

[Green Crayons]

While there's a lot of extraneous bits to this conversation, this is a point that strikes me with any interest:

Malakittens is town. Now to wait for the other replacements (who hopefully will

also make their alignments apparent

).

Disregarding the whole logic/gut nonsense, if you want my reasons for reading Malakittens as town, I can do that:

1. She seems engaged with the game in a way that I normally don't see from scum.
2. Her posting feels organic and not artificial and the way she interacted with the game and the reads she developed don't feel strategic or orchestrated.

You figured all that out from her in 5 posts?

That's a pretty quick time frame for a strong town read on Mala to develop - her alignment was "apparent" - particularly considering that Ranger had previously read the slot (awesome) as some degree of scum.


Also, this question:

Do the posts that Malakittens made make you feel she is scum?

Shifts the focus away from Ranger's especially quick solid Mala-town read and onto other players, forcing them to have the burden to disprove that Mala is town. Which is not how reads work.

[Green Crayons]

No, sorry.

You explained your read (Mala is apparently town for X reasons), then dared swag to say that you are wrong because Mala's posts show that she is scum - as opposed to the perfectly reasonable conclusion that you are wrong because Mala's posts aren't really probative of her alignment.

[Green Crayons]

@Ranger:

1. It's not "manipulative" to "pretend" that you were shifting the burden of proof.

You did shift the burden of proof.

You identified the reasoning from the 5 Mala posts that you thought made her apparently town, and then asked swag to show that you were wrong by explaining how those 5 Mala posts made her scum. This was a false dichotomy, because you could be wrong even if the 5 Mala posts didn't make her scum, but simply wasn't probative of her alignment. That's how your Post 739 reads, period.

2. lol @ you trying to conjure up this distinction between "do these posts make Mala scum" and "is Mala scum"?

They are the same question.

Mala had only 5 posts, and therefore the answer to both questions would look to the same 5 posts. This is you muddying the waters with valueless arguments - here, coming up with a distinction without a difference.

[Green Crayons]

@NJAC:

Reading tonight. Can someone please tell me why exactly is Grib a townread? Thanks!

2. Grib's posting looks like solid town. He's catching things and articulating ideas that I am having upon reading the thread. Suggests that we're approaching the game from the same alignment mindset.

His early game play was shaky, and Riddle had a perfectly adequate line of early game suspicion.

His middle game play (relative to D1) was solid town, as noted in my quote above.

Since then, there have been a few things that he has posted that have stood out to me as questionable, but it could equally be town or scum being comfortable in the position of being labeled as town by a large segment of the active players.

[Green Crayons]

@Ranger:

The first has the assumption you are accusing me of - unjustifiably assuming that Mala is scum instead of null and asking WiS why she is scum?

You're just making things up at this point. I have never accused you of "unjustifiably assuming that Mala is scum instead of null." In fact, I said something just about completely opposite of that.

I

did

accuse you of forcing swag to disprove your Mala-town read based on 5 posts by having to explain how those 5 posts make her scum (Post 740, Post 742).
I

did

accuse you of making a false dichotomy that Mala's 5 posts make her either scum or town, when there is the other explanation that her 5 posts aren't alignment indicative (Post 742, Post 747).

-----

Moreover, your distinction between the two different questions is unnecessarily confusing. Yes, there is a difference between a "yes/no" question and a "why" question in the most literal understanding of the form of the question. But if your defense - which I'm not really following how it's actually a defense other than simply creating a new argument about what you were "actually" asking, and therefore distracting everyone from your original post - is that mafia players will answer yes/no questions with only yes or no, and will not be expected to justify their response with a why, then your expectations of how mafia is actually played fails to understand just basic human interaction.

Getting back to your original post:

All this while, you've ignored the actual reasons I gave for reading Malakittens as town. Do you want to talk about them because that's what I'm interested in.

Do the posts that Malakittens made make you feel she is scum?

You invoked your reasons for finding Mala to be apparent town based on her 5 posts, asked swag to comment upon your reasons, and then immediately asked swag if those 5 posts instead made Mala scum. You clearly connected your justifications (the why) to whether Mala is scum, and posed in the form of a question to swag. You did this after saying that Mala was town. You were therefore stating that Mala's 5 posts made her apparently town, and then put the burden of swag to prove you wrong by showing how your justifications were wrong by way of Mala being scum.

-----

UNVOTE: Fairies
VOTE: Lone Ranger

Your suspicions are on people I'm reading as town, you've been attempting to cast my play as suspicious from the get-go, and you make things unnecessarily more complicated as a defense mechanism.

[Green Crayons]

Kaboose and myself. Back when Mala was awesome, your points were valid but did not make him scum as you believed.

[Green Crayons]

@Ranger:

I accuse him of being scum to which he responds with "you are slandering me" or some such post.

lol, because:

LR, if you think GC's posts suck, attack him. Sink your claws in. Pointing fingers from the sidelines is for preschoolers.

*crickets*

Instead of actually explaining how my posts are this horrible fluff - you know, making a case here in the real world of the game - you simply allowed your jargon-riddled accusations to stand on their own. In fact, you got super defensive to Grib's suggestion that you actually back up your case in Post 668,

choosing to attack Grib for suggesting that you shouldn't rely on buzzwords

.

-----

Then he picks apart my townread on Malakittens and wages a semantic assault on a question I asked and later finds some other issue with my reasoning, refutes it and votes me.

Holy cow, you're really going all in on just making shit up at this point. Do you think people just aren't reading the game, so you can get away with rewriting reality?

I accused you of unnecessarily bringing semantics into the conversation as a way of defense (Post 747, Post 754) for

your

defense in Post 743 to my original suspicion of your Mala-town read.

The fact that you are now flipping that suspicion on me and suggesting that I brought "semantics" into the discussion first is a complete lie.

-----

The rest of your case against me is that I'm usually this godlike scumhunter, and I should be living up to that perfect standard, but instead I'm playing badly. Oh, and these other scrubs are being blinded by my experience.


First: lol, go fly a kite.


Second: Where to start in how shitty of a line of thought this is?

-It assumes I have this ability to play perfectly as town. (I don't.)
-It assumes I'm not playing at my best. (I am.)
-It assumes that my play is not affected by the stage of the game (Day One) or by the state of the players (multiple slots being replaced). (It is.)
-It assumes that others are being manipulated by me. (They aren't.)
-For it to be true, you have to assume that I'm simultaneously not playing well but somehow also taking advantage of "weaker" players.
-For it to be true, you have to hold the incorrect belief that my current play which "places a lot of emphasis on presentation" - which I'm assuming means how my posts look? - is now how my posts look in most games. Which Ranger in particular shouldn't belief, as she should be familiar with my recent games, as I don't play under alts and she seems to be well versed in how I should be playing based upon my experience.


Third: Seriously, this is a horrible basis for you to construct a GC-is-scum narrative, but it appears to be what has been driving you to try to figure out how you could box my posts into the scum category. At first I wasn't sure if maybe it was just paranoid town, but you seem sufficiently self aware and rationale, and therefore should have recognized by now that this factor motivating you to create a world in which I am scum is really worthless. Since you're running with it, weaving it into most of your posts criticizing me on an abstract level, I'm concluding that you know that it's bullshit and hoping that it will pick up for others to join in your bad vote.

[Green Crayons]

Screw a compromise lynch, kill Ranger.

[Green Crayons]

I'm going out of town for the weekend.

UNVOTE: Ranger
VOTE: NJAC

[Green Crayons]

Because:

I see NJAC's prod dodging as scummier than the disappearing act players.

[Green Crayons]

I didn't comment because I don't care what the masons do. If either us gets confirmed town, that only confirms that the other was wrong, not that our own suspicions are right.

Also, there isn't the possibility of either one of us getting confirmed town to the thread. We'll be either confirmed scum by a mason revealing itself, or someone will be recruited and nobody will say anything because it'd be stupid to out yourself as a mason simply to confirm town one player.

Your plan has a lot of holes in it and the masons can do whatever they want.

[Green Crayons]

You're great at just making shit up.

I never said there was a scum benefit. I said your plan sucks.

The recruited mason outing itself just to say "hey I'm confirmed town" on D2 is a real stupid plan.

I also don't care who the masons target tonight. I don't care I don't care I don't care. I've said that plenty of times, so stop acting like I care about who they recruit. More importantly, stop making up arguments and attributing them to me as if I care who the masons recruit.

[Green Crayons]

And Picard.

[Green Crayons]

^^^ was commenting as to who should give content

[Green Crayons]

@Picard:

I'd be interested in the basis for your Kaboose and Riddle reads.

[Green Crayons]

"well that sucks" + empty, throwaway vote + softballed faux "scumhunting"

trifecta of scum day starts

sigh

He was such a town read at the middle of D1, though.

[Green Crayons]

@dave:

I skimmed your ISO and your biggest active lead as to who may be scum appears to be "maybe someone who is lurking."

How is this not a scum copout? VOTE: dave

[Green Crayons]

You could have just typed "yeah."

[Green Crayons]

The NJAC wagon looks really similar to the Elle wagon. Odd. Usually when there's competing wagons, there's actually two wagons.

They weren't competing bandwagons, so that's why it is what it is. Elle-wagon happened, fizzeled, and then NJAC-wagon happened.

[Green Crayons]

@Titus:

there were four or five slots that were inactive during both the elle-wagon and NJAC-wagon. I'm not surprised there was a large overlap in the wagon compositions, as elle was a pretty popular suspect and NJAC was necessary to avoid a NL. Everyone on the NJAC wagon, except for Kaboose, voted NJAC on the day of the deadline.

-----

@Heartless:

From about Page 26 onwards, elle's town posting outweighs her suspicious pre-Page 26 posting.

Y/N/M?

-----

@swag:

I doubt Cheetory was killed because he was at some pursuing suspicions against any particular player. In retrospect, his detached, persistent questions do make him look like a possible mason candidate, so I'm guessing that's why he was targeted.

[Green Crayons]

@dave:

Brain Edit: Wait, she said she wasn't recruited, which in this game is a VT claim. How is it town to claim VT right at the top of day 1? It just makes scum's job easier.

I'm not following what you are saying.

[Green Crayons]

I got you on that.

I still don't follow what you are saying. Walk me through the scum mindset of claiming to have not been recruited - if elle is scum, then she's not making scum's job any easier to say "hey I didn't get recruited."

Mulling your bit about the 3 scum mixup.

[Green Crayons]

@Heartless:

ok gc, why are you voting dave?

I ISO'd my four suspicions from yesterday (elle, dave, Ranger, Fairies/Picard), and picked the one that bothered me the most.

[Green Crayons]

Skimming Grib's ISO, I think his lack of a real push on anyone - something more than just questions - is probably the most suspicious aspect of his D1 play.

[Green Crayons]

also, swag's obvtowned himself p nicely early on. who was voting him today and what the hell for?

same thing for dave. gc's vote on him sucks

swag is obvtown, yes.

dave is not. Sorry.

[Green Crayons]

Instead of attacking elle for voting you, please respond to Heartless's suspicions.

[Green Crayons]

On the contrary:

well then it's not a towngame

your ISO is awkwardness central
the conversation w/ gc about the game is one of the most stilted and weird conversations i've ever seen between two human beings and you can hold it up next to your conversation about william+mary and that feels natural

grib/gc/awesomeusername interactions feel like scum theater

everything's exaggerated, the reactions are hammed up, and it's all just..
,,....weird

i keep repeating that word, but it's the most fitting

i just isoed the mod and grib's vote is stickier than a porn addict's keyboard

holy

shit

this

slot
is


so


SCUM

[Green Crayons]

^^^ Plenty to respond to.

Also:

Skimming Grib's ISO, I think his lack of a real push on anyone - something more than just questions - is probably the most suspicious aspect of his D1 play.

(I think this dovetails with Heartless's 912, but whatev.)

[Green Crayons]

@Heartless:

ok gc, why are you voting dave?

I ISO'd my four suspicions from yesterday (elle, dave, Ranger, Fairies/Picard), and picked the one that bothered me the most.

this is a remarkably shitty scum pool

i'd really like to know how you came up with these names

Well good thing it isn't a scum pool.

[Green Crayons]

Elle would have a really good reason to know there are two scum on that wagon if she's the third.

Jumping on LR with a "how do you know there are 3 scum" is the type of reaction you could expect from someone who either plays closed setups or didn't read the setup at the beginning. Scum who know how many there are on their team have less incentive to look in the OP and see that this is spelled out in the setup.

Next step: Look to see if elle has made any other wrong assumptions about the setup.

Brain Edit: Wait, she said she wasn't recruited, which in this game is a VT claim. How is it town to claim VT right at the top of day 1? It just makes scum's job easier.

VOTE: elleheathen

You have likely just established Elle as deep town. There is zero scum motivation in her actions either. I can tell by reactions, she's more of a gut player who plays out the undercurrent of the game. A sheeper if you will.

I more or less agree with this. I also think Grib's Post 940 and Post 941 are also complaining about (not the best, but still) town play.

[Green Crayons]

UNVOTE: dave
VOTE: Mala

[Green Crayons]

@Grib:

It's very easy to change reads when there was no basis for them in the first place.

Like, I doubt you looked at all of my posts, shrugged, and went "Oh shucks! I don't care that he said xyz, because he's town!" for kicks.

You don't call someone "obvious town" and then turn around and vote for them because a slot that hasn't been active for weeks said so. Besides, the only person who's actually given reasons for townreading me is Green Crayons. Anyone else has either not said anything or gave vague reasons (like you).

Heartless's confidence and newness to the game connotes (even if on a subconscious level) a strong trustworthiness quality that is superficially persuasive.

His comments about your play has caused me to question my very solid town read. His play has gotten Ranger to immediately call him town (but she just throws those claims out like candy, see Mala, so whatever). His presence has been persuasive enough to motivate Kaboose to inquire about Heartless's opinion on Kaboose's suspicions.

So, what I'm saying, is that the Heartless-effect is not limited solely to elle. Combine that with elle's developed play that you have recognized - after almost hitting lynch, she has checked-out to a degree as disaffected town - and elle's sudden departure from her strong town read on you and sheeping Heartless to voting you looks completely natural, not scummy.

[Green Crayons]

^^^ For clarification: the confidence + newness is what's superficially persuasive.

Heartless's substantive observations - which are certainly buttressed by the Heartless-effect in terms of presentation and persuasiveness, so it's not like some clear cut dividing line - have varying degrees of merit.

[Green Crayons]

@Grib:

Sounds to me like this is only something that people fall for if they're not confident enough to think on their own. You say yourself it's superficial.

w/r/t elle, if she's town, the optimal play here is to hunt scum, not stay alive via baa baa baa'ing. Her recent play looks to be motivated by a stronger desire to stay alive and out of the spotlight than lynch scum, and the only people who are interested in survival are scum.

I'm not seeing the towny "natural" flow between town shutting down in the face of death > saying fuck it and voting "obvious" town because someone else said so.

1. Not confident =/= scum alignment.
2. Not playing as optimal town does not make someone not town. (This is the corollary to your correct observation in Post 988 that failing to play as optimal scum does not make one town.)
3. If you don't want to stay alive as town, you're playing wrong as town.
4. I guess we just disagree about whether elle-town shutting down would easily transition into sheeping a confident-looking replacee. Do you think elle's "shut down" is manufactured?

The thing with townreads is that if someone else thinks they're scum, immediately agreeing and voting with them is suspect because you think your townread is town. When people suspect my townreads, short of a straight scumslip, I would never vote them without a really compelling case ("Grib is obviously scum" is not a compelling case). And even then, I'd have to think about it first.

I'm not quite sure what your exact issue is with elle. In the quoted part of your post, it looks like it's the fact that she voted you on Page 37 after declaring you town back on Page 18. But you disclaim that very problem later in your Post 990 (it's "obviously not <your> point"). What is your point? That elle-town would never sheep a player who replaced in, looking confident and persuasive?

[Green Crayons]

@Heartless:

why is Kaboose scum?

[Green Crayons]

I take the opposite view of elle.

As scum would know NJAC would flip town, it would benefit scum not to be on the lynch wagon. Why take the "easy lynch" bait when town could do it for them?

[Green Crayons]

I disagree with both of you. The people who were online voted. I can't see how it is alignment indicative at all.

Except for Mala, eh?

[Green Crayons]

I take the opposite view of elle.

As scum would know NJAC would flip town, it would benefit scum not to be on the lynch wagon. Why take the "easy lynch" bait when town could do it for them?

Trying to analyze a last second deadline wagon on a lurker seems like an exercise in futility.

(shrug)

I'm sure scum was both on and off the NJAC wagon. I just think that there is a strong justification for scum to not vote NJAC if not required to do so.

[Green Crayons]

I disagree with both of you. The people who were online voted. I can't see how it is alignment indicative at all.

Except for Mala, eh?

Follow up: and Picard.

[Green Crayons]

^^^ Oh, and elle.

Final Vote count
Day 1.13

Players alive: 13

Players needed to lynch: 7

CorpsesInEthanol

- 1 - Riddleton - (L-6)

elleheathen

- 1 - CorpsesInEthanol - (L-6)

Grib

- 1 -

NJAC

- (L-6)

NJAC

- 7 - Kaboose,

Cheetory6

, Green Crayons, Lone Ranger, Grib, davesaz, Whatisswag - (L-0) (LYNCH!)

Whatisswag

- 1 - CptPicard - (L-6)

Players not voting: elleheathen, MalaKittens

Mod notes:

Still looking for replacements for CorpsesInEthanol and Riddleton.
Cheetory6 is V/LA.
Green Crayons is V/LA

- Non-NJAC voters: Riddle/Titus, Corpses/Heartless, NJAC, Picard, elle, Mala.
- Non-NJAC voters who are confirmed town: NJAC
- Non-NJAC voters who were not being replaced and therefore could have voted NJAC: Picard, elle, Mala.

Out of those three, Mala is most suspicious for the slot's hedging/fencesitting. If scum didn't want to be on a D1 town lynch, I think it would be her.

[Green Crayons]

@elle:

were you still voting me at the time of the deadline? Skimming your ISO, I see your vote, no unvote, but you're marked as not voting.

[Green Crayons]

^^^ Nevermind, just read the entire end of the day. I wanted to see your reasons for not voting anyone in your unvote post, but I see that you were in fact voting me and Armageddon just never caught it.

[Green Crayons]

Other than the conclusion.

[Green Crayons]

Has Kaboose responded to TTH's case and I missed it?

[Green Crayons]

Do you mean to say

That scum would be both off and on the deadline wagon

Like I said?

[Green Crayons]

^^^ Oh, and elle.

Final Vote count
Day 1.13

Players alive: 13

Players needed to lynch: 7

CorpsesInEthanol

- 1 - Riddleton - (L-6)

elleheathen

- 1 - CorpsesInEthanol - (L-6)

Grib

- 1 -

NJAC

- (L-6)

NJAC

- 7 - Kaboose,

Cheetory6

, Green Crayons, Lone Ranger, Grib, davesaz, Whatisswag - (L-0) (LYNCH!)

Whatisswag

- 1 - CptPicard - (L-6)

Players not voting: elleheathen, MalaKittens

Mod notes:

Still looking for replacements for CorpsesInEthanol and Riddleton.
Cheetory6 is V/LA.
Green Crayons is V/LA

- Non-NJAC voters: Riddle/Titus, Corpses/Heartless, NJAC, Picard, elle, Mala.
- Non-NJAC voters who are confirmed town: NJAC
- Non-NJAC voters who were not being replaced and therefore could have voted NJAC: Picard, elle, Mala.

Out of those three, Mala is most suspicious for the slot's hedging/fencesitting. If scum didn't want to be on a D1 town lynch, I think it would be her.

This conclusion.

[Green Crayons]

Has Kaboose responded to TTH's case and I missed it?

lol there has to be a response before you evaluate a case?

lol I like to see how someone responds to a case before voicing judgement.

[Green Crayons]

Do you mean to say

That scum would be both off and on the deadline wagon

Like I said?

probably, but it's still an arbitrary way to judge as the distribution is likely random (who was on at deadline is p close to random)

i could see them all being on the wagon just as easily as all of them being off. scumhunting from a particular group because of this assertion there's X-number of them in such-and-such group is a bad approach

Not disagreeing.

That's why I'm not saying Mala is scum because she wasn't on the NJAC wagon.

[Green Crayons]

That's a really bad case.

1. There's some blatantly horrible accusation-observations.

Spoiler: lol

"Why did Green mention Kaboose's name so many times when Green could have just used "he"? They have a special interaction."

Setting aside the wonky psychological breakdown BS you're trying to use, I didn't use pronouns to refer to either Kaboose or Corpses because I didn't want anyone to get confused about whether I was referring to Kaboose or Corpses by using the male pronoun. I do it frequently because pronouns are confusing. Clear Writing 101.

"Why do you care about something happening between Kaboose and TTH?"

I was prompted by Heartless to talk about Kaboose and TTH.

2. Then there's a baseless "defends Kab" tagline just because Kaboose gets mentioned in a post. That's not how defending works?

3. And then the rest of my posts show that I have developed a town read on Kaboose over the course of the game. Okay.

[Green Crayons]

@Titus:

@GC, Was Mala VLA at deadline? I know she's been at Disney but I haven't really been keeping track.

I don't think so.

I didn't know she was V/LA until she posted on D2, and I would have probably caught her V/LA tag back when D1 deadline was around. But then again, I was only phone posting myself, so maybe I missed it.

[Green Crayons]

And speaking of Kaboose, I'll read his 1051 soon, Heartless. Then you can have all my thoughts and feelings about TTH's suspicions.

[Green Crayons]

@Swag:

why did Cheetory want to recruit Kaboose?

[Green Crayons]

@Heartless:

Read 1051.

My response to TTH's case is a big shrug. I don't think the factual observations are wrong, I just don't think that the resulting conclusion is on point.

I don't care for Kaboose's response to the case, which goes beyond a big shrug and actually offers to put the noose around his neck for such a good job that TTH did. The response is actually more suspicious than TTH's case, in my opinion. The sentiment - "you have made a good case against me and I don't really have a response" - is not necessarily alignment indicative, but Kaboose really just lays it on thick.

[Green Crayons]

That he's a lean town read.

[Green Crayons]

I hope you're not someone who just points at someone, and then calls them something until everyone just agrees with you. Is this your plan? Pick someone out and just casually call them what you want until everyone just kind of agrees with you because they've read it so much?

Antihero has a... unique style. He's an acquired taste, I will admit. And no, I'm (usually) not that way.

@Swag:

why did Cheetory want to recruit Kaboose?

Swag's claim was obviously not true for numerous reasons: he wasn't familiar with the mason mechanic at the beginning of the game and he didn't vote Kaboose to start Day 2. The context of the (obviously) fake "gladiator" claim in the immediately preceding post should make this even more apparent.

The post I'm quoting here bothers me because it shows a level of naïveté that I don't think Green Crayons really has.

It's a question directed to expose whether swag is lying or not.

[Green Crayons]

As for Kaboose read, I skimmed over my ISO to verify why I have been town reading him. To some degree, I believe it has been because he has been vocalizing points that I, too, have thought, and so I see some of my own alignment in him. To a larger degree, his posts just "feel" town.

And there's not much in the way of contrary evidence to convince me otherwise. (Contrast with Ranger's observation of awesome's fencesitting, which I initially recognized as valid and worthy of suspicions, but not worth putting awesome as a scum after having leaned town read him; but which further developed into a scum read after Heartless noted the slot's continued fencesitting in Mala.)

TTH's Post 996 points boil down to

1) walls with little follow up: but it's early game stuff, when small conversations quickly die, and the substance of the quoted posts don't look like scum fluff

2) bad votes:
- a sticky vote on Corpses without an effort to develop a read on Corpses, but Corpses went AWOL pretty quick early in the game so that explains both of those problems
- a vote on NJAC that told NJAC why he was voting him, but telling someone you're voting them to get them to post doesn't "subvert" the point of getting the person to post, as TTH suggests; it in fact does the exact opposite

3) awkward interaction with Ranger: (shrug)

4) lack of a global outlook: not sure how this is alignment indicative

5) is slow to develop reads on others but defensive to attacks on himself: more likely to come from town than scum

[Green Crayons]

He is. He's been thoroughly exposed already. o_O

Titus's 1076 didn't "thoroughly expose" anything.

If swag was not lying, Kaboose's 1077 is what I would expect from scum.

Hence my 1078.

[Green Crayons]

I think your point is you think 1077 comes from scum.

So tell me how swag was "thoroughly exposed already" when I posted 1078.

Don't shovel your shitty suspicions on me.

[Green Crayons]

Ah yes, I have never heard of the concept of a newbie overplaying ignorance of his own role. Titus's quote wall certain precludes that from being a thing.

Ah yes, swag's D2 behavior doesn't line up with being a mason. I agree with that. Oh ho ho but Titus never mentioned that, Kaboose did, but wait I should thinking that Kaboose is scum in mentioning that, but wait hold on it's still valid, oh man my head is exploding.

Your bad suspicions are unwarranted and I'm tired of being mentioned as scum based on bad suspicions. I'll be as irritated as I want.

[Green Crayons]

Okay?

[Green Crayons]

It is if he was boned. Might as well try to spin out of it. A 1 for 1 trade for scum is a hell of a lot better than 0 for 1.

But swag was not in the position of a scum up against a wall.

[Green Crayons]

One town voting scum for all the right reasons doesn't equate to scum being boned.

[Green Crayons]

Because people think you are lying town.

You didn't answer my question.

[Green Crayons]

lol, okay then.

-----

When does Mala's V/LA end so people will start voting her?

[Green Crayons]

@swag:

Hmm.

Find me a scum pair which is more possible than Kaboose and Green. And I will unvote.

If Mala is scum, Ranger is more likely to be scum.

Vote Mala.

[Green Crayons]

You're ignoring the entire context of Ranger's D1 play with respect to her stated suspicions:

- Ranger replaces in, and immediately does into a hard elle push.

- Followed by declaring awesome/Mala scum based on one (valid) point (Post 419).

- But only "Think<s> of switching there," nothing more.

- Unvotes elle in Post 453, but doesn't go to her next suspicion awesome/Mala. Even though in Post 439 Ranger was "debating between Elle and Awesome as the better lynch today."

- Then finds Kaboose scum, "probably with Elle," even though Ranger had already unvoted elle and thus suggesting Ranger's elle suspicions weren't exactly up to par any more (Post 472). This is confirmed in Post 517 when Ranger states "Elle could be town. Her latest posts felt townish." Weird that Ranger goes from elle to Kaboose, rather than elle to awesome/Mala.

- All the more weird for the lack of an awesome vote because in Post 524 Ranger states "Awesome could be scum if you <elle> are town." Ranger was reading elle to be townish (Post 517), which would undercut her associative suspicions of Kaboose and bolster her disassociative suspicions of awesome - thereby leading to an awesome/Mala vote. Not a Kaboose vote.

- No mention of awesome again for remainder of D1.

- Does mention awesome's replacement, Mala, all the way in Post 728. Simply declares: "Malakittens is town. Now to wait for the other replacements (who hopefully will also make their alignments apparent)." Careful - reading Ranger's posts will give you pretty big whiplash as she changes the slot from her biggest scum read to "apparent" town.

- Ranger then proceeds to get dismissive-defensive about the reason and quickness of her Mala read (Post 733, Post 739, Post 741). Also, successfully makes the conversation about something else by attacking someone who had problems with her Mala read (me) (Post 741, Post 743, Post 744, Post 753).


CONCLUSION: If Mala is town, Ranger is a possible buddy. Laid out some suspicions that will look good should awesome/Mala get lynched - "look, I suspected that scum!" - but simply refuses to actually follow through on those suspicions w/r/t awesome, and then when Mala replaces in shifts the read 180 degrees for no real justification (also recall that Heartless noted that Mala was doing the exact same thing that Ranger found suspicious about awesome - fencesitting - and so Ranger's read shouldn't have changed) and attacks her attackers.

[Green Crayons]

If Mala is scum, Ranger is a possible buddy.*

[Green Crayons]

Mala lynch because the slot's contribution - both awesome and Mala - amounts to fencesitting and lurking. Plus, Mala's D1 play is coextensive with scum not wanting to be on a town lynch (this does not make Mala scum, but it explains why Mala-scum would have acted the way Mala did on D1).

Also, I disagree that my case on Ranger being a buddy with Mala-scum shows why Ranger is scum independent of Mala's alignment. I don't know what the scum motivation would be behind Ranger's weird play directed toward the slot. (I'm all ears, though.) I don't really like making cases based on a hypothetical flip, but it appears to be the only thing that persuades swag, so that's why I laid it out today instead of after Mala flips.

That said, I

do

think that Ranger has some scummy actions independent of Mala's alignment. I touched on it at the end of yesterday, and I think some of it coincides with the Mala-And-Ranger buddy case (e.g., attacking attackers to displace suspicion). But Ranger is also being an evasive, patronizing asshole towards me, and so I don't know whether that is biasing my read on her. So I would really like it if someone who I think whose scum alignment would strengthen the case against Ranger, and therefore quiet my uncertainties about any bias I might have, would get flipped first.

That said x2, if folks want to lynch Ranger first, I'm down.

[Green Crayons]

Also, I disagree that my case on Ranger being a buddy with Mala-scum shows why Ranger is scum independent of Mala's alignment. I don't know what the scum motivation would be behind Ranger's weird play directed toward the slot

if the awesome/Mala slot is town

. (I'm all ears, though.) I don't really like making cases based on a hypothetical flip, but it appears to be the only thing that persuades swag, so that's why I laid it out today instead of after Mala flips.

Corrected for clarification.

[Green Crayons]

@Heartless:

Green Crayons is a very problematic slot for me because, while individual posts make enough sense, his opinions and votes over the game don't track well. In particular, his read on elle when she was being wagoned always seemed to have some sort of lingering doubt over it though Green Crayons himself never acknowledged this himself and it doesn't look like there's a clear effort to resolve this doubt.

Yes, I had reservations about the elle suspicions. That's why I talked to her about my suspicions, and ended up deciding against voting her. Your problem with my play is that I didn't say "hey I have some doubts about my suspicions of you, just a head's up as we go into this conversation"?

There's a balance between being open with the town and sabotaging one's suspicions. I choose not to completely undermine my suspicions.

As for "resolv<ing> this doubt," it's there if you want to look for it. Post 573 and Post 574 was the tipping point where my elle suspicions started to deflate. I was much more secure in reading elle as town by Post 659 (was phone posting at night so didn't feel like going into a blow by blow), and I made explicit this development in my elle read in Post 880 back when your other half had a hardon for calling elle scum.

I'm also a little lost on the purpose and the direction of the logic thread in GC's ISO because it feels like the reads should be getting more refined as we go along and they seem oddly stagnant and skeletal. Take Day 1, for instance. There's wall upon wall but the best scum reads, and incidentally the ones that got the votes, that came out of it were apparently: ILoveFairies, davesaz, and NJAC. None of those cases were very well supported and I certainly don't see any reason why it took priority over the peaking elle wagon.

I don't really know how to respond to your "lack of refined" criticism. Mainly because I disagree with it.

My posts explained who I thought was town, and why, and who I thought was scum, and why. I interacted with players who I thought were scum, and my opinions either shifted (Corpses, elle) or they did not (dave, Ranger). I don't know what this something "else" is that you're faulting me for failing to have done. This is just how I play the game.

Also, dave, Fairies, and NJAC votes all occurred after I started to, or had already, smoothed over my suspicions on elle. (There's a Ranger vote that was made in there, too, that you seem to ignore.) That's why they took priority over elle. She wasn't an interesting lynch when I voted elsewhere, because she was looking increasingly more town.

The vote always ends up in the crevices of the vote counts and that really bothers me.

Uh, no? That's not what happened?

I was first on Fairies, dave, and Ranger, if memory serves me correctly. If not first, certainly second, but I don't recall anyone else voting for them prior to putting down my votes.

I was third on NJAC, which is fine if you want to call that the "crevice." But it's not some habitual play I've taken up, as your stating.

[Green Crayons]

Malakittens is the key slot here because it dominoes into the other key ones: Green Crayons, Kaboose, and Lone Ranger.

Then vote her.

[Green Crayons]

The problem with this game is that the main focus is on players I am reading as town. Grib, Kaboose, swag, elle. So a lot of the thread's conversation is of little value for me.

Also, there's nothing much more for me to say about my main two suspicions, Ranger and Mala. My justifications for lynching them are out there. Nobody has said much about my case (lol, Mala isn't even my case) against either, and they don't appear inclined to say much themselves. So while it'd be great for the thread to turn focus to them, that isn't happening.

[Green Crayons]

@Titus:

GC, talk to me about your read on Swag please.

His D1 play reeked of new town.
His D2 fake claim looks like town playing badly.
He was not in the position of a scum about to be lynched, and therefore his D2 fake claim doesn't strike me as being coextensive with swag being scum.

Is there anything specific about swag's play that you want me to address?

[Green Crayons]

Oh.


lol, okay.

[Green Crayons]

By mason fishing, are you referring to his hypo-claim scenario from D1?

I didn't think that it was a bad idea, but not one that I would ultimately endorse. And while I can see how having everyone claim mason and their targeted recruits could potentially reveal the masons (but... not really?), I don't think that makes the idea ultimately one that would come from scum.

Also, not sure why scum would put forward such a strategy.

[Green Crayons]

Yes, I had reservations about the elle suspicions. That's why I talked to her about my suspicions, and ended up deciding against voting her. Your problem with my play is that I didn't say "hey I have some doubts about my suspicions of you, just a head's up as we go into this conversation"?

There's a balance between being open with the town and sabotaging one's suspicions. I choose not to completely undermine my suspicions.

As for "resolv this doubt," it's there if you want to look for it. Post 573 and Post 574 was the tipping point where my elle suspicions started to deflate. I was much more secure in reading elle as town by Post 659 (was phone posting at night so didn't feel like going into a blow by blow), and I made explicit this development in my elle read in Post 880 back when your other half had a hardon for calling elle scum.

well that leaves us w/ a problem. namely that the only thing that coincides w/ your elle read is the rise and fall of the wagon.

This is a pretty big bullshit line, so I'll let you rethink it.

[Green Crayons]

I don't really know how to respond to your "lack of refined" criticism. Mainly because I disagree with it.

My posts explained who I thought was town, and why, and who I thought was scum, and why. I interacted with players who I thought were scum, and my opinions either shifted (Corpses, elle) or they did not (dave, Ranger). I don't know what this something "else" is that you're faulting me for failing to have done. This is just how I play the game.

Also, dave, Fairies, and NJAC votes all occurred after I started to, or had already, smoothed over my suspicions on elle. (There's a Ranger vote that was made in there, too, that you seem to ignore.) That's why they took priority over elle. She wasn't an interesting lynch when I voted elsewhere, because she was looking increasingly more town.

ooooo yeah, make a big deal out of tth missing yet another low-profile, low-impact vote on a wagon that never got past "vanity" status. all the votes d1 are on marginal cases and you never pumped the gas on any of them. and it's not like you don't know how to, you're cranking up the rhetoric for mala right now.

Big deal? Hardly. But it is worth noting that, in the process of analyzing my D1 votes, TTH ignores my D1 vote with the biggest back and forth attached to it. This is a weird defensive thing for you to jump on.

lol at failing to pump the gas. People won't give the time of day to even comment on my suspicions, and that makes me scummy? That's a laugh.

Also I love this imaginary world that exists where I've created this huge push against Mala that differs from my votes on Dave, Fairies, and Ranger. It's the same situation. I lay out my suspicions. If people ask about them, I respond. Nobody joins me. Ta da.

[Green Crayons]

I feel strongest town is Grib, elle, and Picard.

Lean town is swag, Kaboose. I have yet to see a case on either that'd actually convince me that my town reads are incorrect.

Heartless is null/lean town, as half of the hydra raises my hackles but the other half looks like genuine reading.

Titus is null/lean town, as I was reading Riddle as town and Ttus is hard for me to read - I wouldn't know what her scum game would look like.

That leaves Mala, Ranger, and dave. I doubt I'm right on all three, but this case has been mostly spot the town rather than find the scum, for me.

[Green Crayons]

Mala, I'm leaning town due to circumstances surrounding her, but nothing regarding her own play.

Mala wasn't V/LA at the end of D1 as far as I remember.

She can confirm or deny, but her limited access didn't happen until after D1. And so after her suspicious play.

[Green Crayons]

You're defending TTH on something that doesn need defending. That's weird.

She ignored a big D1 vote of mine. I noted it in one sentence. You called that making it a big deal. That's weird and defensive.

Sorry bud.

[Green Crayons]

@swag:

dave is town. So something about your null and town is wrong.

You can keep saying this until you are blue in the face, but it doesn't make it true.

Give me something to work on other than your conclusory say so.

And I dont quite understand why picard is town. You were scumreading corpses until he replaced in. And he barely said anything.

Fairies was replaced by Picard. But, yes, I was finding Fairies suspicious in D1.

The reason why I find Picard solid town is because, after having an initial knee-jerk suspicion reaction to it, I can't fathom scum posting Post 831. It's too blatantly "hey look I'm town" for scum to hope that people would take it at face value, so scum would need to rely upon a too-scummy-of-a-lie-for-scum-to-post mindset - that is, everyone else would have to think that it's just too obvious of a scum ploy for it to be a scum ploy. That certainly does happen, but that type of double think was unnecessary in the context in which 831 is made. The simplest answer, then, is (likely) the correct one: 831 comes from town.

[Green Crayons]

Ignore:

verb (used with object), ignored, ignoring.
1.
to refrain from noticing or recognizing:

Yup, that's what you did. Sorry that there aren't more words that reflect your actions.

lol, what OMGUS? You have a null/lean-town read because of the good cop/bad cop play that you two are doing, not because your other half unnecessarily defended you.

[Green Crayons]

UNVOTE: Mala
VOTE: Ranger

[Green Crayons]

@Titus:

@GC, Yes. Hypo claiming there is mason fishing. Someone says they recruited a scum, scum know they are not a mason OR said mason would not be believed in lylo. Second, scum shoot someone who liked Swag's plan. If they shot a mason, scum have an idea on who was recruited. Swag fishes on Kaboose to try and draw the last mason (or masons).

My understanding of the hypoclaim was that everyone would claim mason, and claim who they would "recruit" on the following night. The following day, nobody would claim with the understanding that should an actual mason die, his results would be confirmed.

Now that I work through the plan, I don't really see the point to hypoclaiming, though. And I do see that the death of a mason would immediately and unnecessarily reveal the flip.

So, definitely an anti-town strategy. But proposing it = scum? I'll think it over.

[Green Crayons]

unnecessarily reveal the recruit*

[Green Crayons]

@Titus:

If the masons wouldn't tell the truth, then what information would be gained by having the hypoclaim exercise at all?

Spoiler: analysis of swag's hypoclaim strategy

Alright, I just re-reread swag's hypoclaim strategy intermixed with Corpses' interaction on that point.

swag's original plan was for everyone to claim mason on D2 and name the person they targeted the night before (Post 27). I got that mixed up based on memory, as I thought he wanted folks to hypoclaim before a night's recruit.

It seems the purpose of that strategy was to simply get a confirmed player out in the open should a mason die (Post 53). As Corpses rightfully noticed, that's a bad idea and masons should stay hidden and alive for as long as possible.

Alright, so a bad, anti-town plan through and through. But would scum propose it?

I don't see why scum would propose a strategy with the knowledge that the plan would ultimately help scum. It takes a few moments of actually giving the plan some thought to see the negative repercussions (admittedly, I don't think I did the first or second time I read through the swag/Corpses interaction, as I was more focused on their playing off of one another). Especially right off the bat of the game. It unnecessarily brings suspicion on themselves, which is never good scum strategy. Additionally, swag proposed the hypoclaim really early in the game - right when gathering suspicion on yourself is a great way to break RVS. So a doubly bad scum strategy.

Of course, failing to play as optimal scum does not make someone not scum. But I don't see why swag-scum

would

have proposed the hypoclaim strategy. I guess the most viable answer is to see who would respond to the plan, so that even if the hypoclaim strategy wasn't followed, reactions to it would help ferret out the masons? But how the game played out, the N1 scum kill - Cheetory - didn't react in any manner whatsoever (Cheetory-slot's prior occupant had almost no action in this game), so it doesn't look like swag's hypoclaim suggestion was actually used to try and mason hunt. (Of course, a lot of game happened between the beginning of the game and the N1 kill, but its lack of apparent influence on that kill is still something to consider.)

Also, there's the complication that apparently swag was confused about the fact that the mason pair already existed, and did not need to recruit the other (Post 113, Post 115). Believing swag's confusion to be true only buttress my belief that his hypoclaim suggestion came from a point of town. It makes a bit more sense if there's only one surviving mason upon the death of the first mason. I think. Still a bad strategy, though.

tl;dr:

swag's hypoclaim strategy, in the context of when it was made, does not suggest coming from a scum standpoint; also, it does not appear that the hypoclaim strategy was actually used as an attempt to seek out a mason, further buttressing the notion that the hypoclaim strategy wasn't being used by scum.

[Green Crayons]

@Heartless:

Well then prove us wrong.

I'm following the links you're providing which show the history of the read, but reviewing elle's activity I can't figure out what she said that influenced the change of heart. There's a few explanations for what happened. The more charitable one is that you simply neglected to give the specifics at the time for whatever reason be it time constraints or what have you. The less charitable one is that you didn't want to get your hands dirty and vote elle. This one is making more sense given our townread on elle and the lack of any evidence to the contrary.

So let's settle it here and now. What is it that you saw in elle's posting that made you back off?

mmm, no. I'm not going to do that.

I see no benefit in doing so.

You're an astute reader. Surely you can pick up what it was about elle's play that had me changing my opinion about her. Your "obvtown" dave certainly could, as he has already agreed with my observations about elle's change-into-town play.

You either believe that I had an active, developing read on elle, or you don't. I can give you the reasons, but then if you still don't want to believe me (be it because of confirmation bias, or simple mistrust, or because of your alignment) you can say I am simply retrofitting justifications for my changed stance.


Also, your claim of "lack of any evidence to the contrary" of elle's play being suspicious is hyperbole and dishonest. I could point to the plethora of players - some who you think are scum, some who you think are town - who have stated that elle's play has been suspicious. But I won't, because I can simply point to the fact that you yourself have called elle scum this game. The fact of the matter is, is that elle's play for the first part of D1 was suspicious. Then it turned town.

[Green Crayons]

I agree in theory. I disagree here, though. Sorry, Titus.


Is there another aspect of his D1 play that you think points to him being scum?

[Green Crayons]

You either believe that I had an active, developing read on elle, or you don't. I can give you the reasons, but then if you still don't want to believe me (be it because of confirmation bias, or simple mistrust, or because of your alignment) you can say I am simply retrofitting justifications for my changed stance.

Oh, well then

I don't

. There, how do you like that?

(shrug) Then we skipped to where this was going.

Or, rather, where it already is, and you're seemingly upset that your read of me is what it is, and that it's not going to change just because I tell you some scraps of information. At this point, I'm going to convince you that I'm town by my play and catching scum. And that's about it. That's fine, that's where you and I are at. It doesn't make you stubborn and closeminded. It makes you human who is playing mafia.

We've been interacting for a while now with you getting steadily more suspicious about my play. At this point, continuing a dialog about me is not going to be more productive. I'm not going to pull out a piece of information - truthful, though it will be - that will make you go, "Aha! I see all my suspicions have been assuaged!"

That has never happened to me, on either end of the line of suspicions. Back and forths just go down the rabbit hole if you let the conversation go on for too long. I'm hard pressed to think of a time when that has happened to anyone: just being stopped in the middle of a suspicion-train because just the right piece of thought from the suspectee is divulged to the suspector.

So it's not that I think that you're stubborn or close-minded. I just don't think you're a unique mafia player.

But, hey. Sure. Why not. Maybe this is ~*~ the key ~*~ to seeing that you have been wrong all along. Here you go:

Spoiler: D1 elle read

1.

My first hints of doubt on my elle suspicions actually began before I started questioning her. In Post 491, I noticed that her reads list was quite similar to mine. I put a lot of stock in when other players see the game in the same way I do, so this wasn't a great way to start out into embracing elle suspicions. Regardless, as I noted in that post, elle's read list alone wasn't going to outweigh my suspicions of elle.

2.

My elle suspicions reached their apex in Post 484 and Post 485. There were three suspicions: (1) playing it safe; (2) attempting to manipulate others' reads on her; and (3) defensive interaction with Ranger.

A.

In Post 505 I asked elle to directly respond to my suspicion-observations of her posts. She responded (and then some) in Post 513. My Post 553 reads fairly accurately.

B.

I recall making Post 553 and thinking that my suspicions were still pretty solid, but I wasn't entirely satisfied with my first two suspicions (the top half of Post 553) w/r/t elle playing it safe and attempting to manipulate others' reads on her. I don't know what it was that was making me have some doubts, but looking back on it now I think elle's response is pretty town: It's basically a big (shrug) because what else was she supposed to say? That said, I don't know if that was the actual basis for my semi-doubt, or if I'm projecting onto past-GC.

3.

Simultaneously with the above interaction, based on elle's Post 494, there was an offshoot in Post 507 and Post 514.

A.

This was related to my suspicions relating to elle's interaction with Ranger, and I thought that elle was specifically referring to Ranger being town if elle flipped town. This was weird for me because although I had thought Ranger would be more likely to be scum if elle flipped scum, I would think that elle-town's flip of town would show folks that Ranger's case was bunk - and therefore more likely to come from scum.

B.

This particular line of suspicion got caught in my craw, and I followed up in Post 557 and Post 570. And this is where the cracks really began. elle's Post 571 suggested that I was misunderstanding the things she was conveying, and snarky intro aside in Post 573, I was aping her response to make sure I understood it. And then it clicked two minutes later after rereading her Post 494 a few more times with elle's explanation in mind, with my reluctant eureka moment captured in Post 574.

C.

Post 574 deserves special mention because that is when I decided that my own misunderstanding of the basic communication elle was putting out into the thread was also probably affecting my other problems with elle's play. I wasn't convinced elle was town at this point, but I was convinced that my suspicions were less than adequate. For that reason, I voted for a player I did have suspicions of, and those suspicions had already been addressed but not assuaged: dave, in Post 575.

4.

So Page 26 is when my read really started to turn around.

A.

First there is Post 647, where elle claimed VT. I don't think the VT claim inandof itself says much one way or another, but it was the real sense of resigned frustration that came across. At this point, I was thinking elle could just be good at faking it, but it was a good show.

B.

The clincher for me at that time, however, was Post 656 and Post 658. Those posts come from frustrated town who is tired of being badgered and therefore, while sticking to her suspicions as they develop, thumbs her nose at her suspectors. It's not an angle I would think scum would ever jump to in the circumstances, as it made her look contradictory and preemptively defensive and resigned (as in, "whatever, here, have another reason to lynch me, I don't care").

C.

Post 689 and Post 691 also looked like they came from town, sticking to their-not-actually-good-but-what-do-you-want-its-D1 justification for narrowing a pool of suspects. But this was a minor contribution to the shift in my read.

D.

Post 693, Post 695, and Post 696 - though related to Post 689 and Post 691 in substance - constituted a different reason for me to think elle is town. I'm still unclear what, exactly elle is referring to, and I'm not entirely sure it's something that we can dive into. But the matter-of-factly manner in which the information was conveyed, and how of course that aligned with elle's not great D1 theory, and in any event it's beside the point - all of that just reads town.

And that's the rise and fall of my elle suspicions. Do tell, does this make me town?

[Green Crayons]

Walls are boring. GC's posts just aren't town. Flip GC and figure it out from there.

You're clearly a better player than this.

[Green Crayons]

@Kaboose:

I had a similar post a long time ago about this that wasn't written nearly as well. My only problem was with your conclusion. Why do you analyze LR, but then state that we can find out LR through Mala? Why does it work that way?

Answered here:

Also, I disagree that my case on Ranger being a buddy with Mala-scum shows why Ranger is scum independent of Mala's alignment. I don't know what the scum motivation would be behind Ranger's weird play directed toward the slot. (I'm all ears, though.) I don't really like making cases based on a hypothetical flip, but it appears to be the only thing that persuades swag, so that's why I laid it out today instead of after Mala flips.

Post 1198 is a case on why Ranger would be buddies with mala-scum, not a case on why Ranger is scum independently of others' alignment.

[Green Crayons]

@swag:

The quote is dave describing scum that are hard for him to catch.

It looks like you're suggesting that dave was over-suspecting you because you fit the mold of scum that is hard for him to catch.

Show me dave's justification for voting you that matches your hypothesis. I remember "fuck off" and "totally not an OMGUS vote."

[Green Crayons]

MD = Mafia Discussion, the discussion forum

[Green Crayons]

Buzzbuzzbuzzwords.

[Green Crayons]

There's nothing more to the conversation to be had.

It's like you didn't even read my post.

[Green Crayons]

Also, if you are putting the minimal conversation I have had with dave, and my pursuit of elle-suspicions, on the same level as Ranger's horrible "GC is scum guys lolobviously he's not being a scumhunting god here," you're p bad at evaluating players.


Oh oh oh, but please do defend Ranger's horrible, lie-infested, refusing-to-back-up-her-accusations position that I'm scum. I'd love for someone to do so, since she won't.

[Green Crayons]

Also, since the basis for swag's "dave is obvtown" stance has been shot down by none other than dave himself, please provide your basis for belief that dave is obvtown.

[Green Crayons]

Explain Titus town? Nothing that she said made any sense. It feels like she jumbled up her sentences in random order and spit them out.

Have you ever played with Titus before?

[Green Crayons]

That's just a side effect of being me. I get thst complaint a lot. That is why I play mafia. It's a correct observation but not alignment indicative.

Yes, that is why I'm asking if Ranger has ever played with you.

If not, then she's just suspicious of your playstyle.

If so, then I'm curious as to what specifically it is about your play, beyond style, that is bothering her.

[Green Crayons]

lol, no. Believe it or not, but your mischaracterization of the dave case is not actually what the dave case is.

This is the case on dave:

A.

dave:

the biggest thing that bothered me is his reasons justifying his swag vote. Grib hit all the right points in Post 312, and Kaboose summarizes my concern about dave's "disarming the opposition" tactic of preemptively declaring his vote a not-OMGUS in Post 323. The swag push looks manufactured, and the not-OMGUS declaration looks defensive.

@dave:

I skimmed your ISO and your biggest active lead as to who may be scum appears to be "maybe someone who is lurking."

How is this not a scum copout? VOTE: dave

1. dave's attempt to explain away his "fuck off asshole" swag-vote as not a reactionary vote looks disingenuous (per Grib's 312)
2. dave's "disarming the opposition" is a great way to explain away dave's sensitivity to how his posts may be received (per Kaboose's 323)
3. dave's contribution to this game is low and if you're giving dave a pass for his at-the-beginning-of-D2 lead suspect being that way simply because of lurk, as opposed to any other justification that requires putting your neck out and stating some sort of opinion, then you're lolbad because apparently you're giving people town credit just because I'm suspecting them

Here, I'll throw another two out there:
4. In Post 844 I gave dave grief for having very minimal suspicions by the end of D1. It only took him 30 minutes to respond with a (paraphrase) "shame on you for not letting me have time to develop reads" because (quote) "I don't pull reads out of my ass and throw them on the table." But in his very next post, Post 879, he

does

pull a read out of his ass and throws it on the table - he votes elle solely on the basis of elle's early D2 posting interaction with Ranger.

It looks like dave denied that he wasn't failing to provide substantive, useful suspicions, but realized that the criticism was valid, and so hurried up and provided some suspicions that were based on the most recent thing he read that could be construed as scummy. Looks like hurried scum.

5. dave, although his activity is minimal, is obviously keeping an eye on the thread. He's lurking just enough to catch when his name is mentioned, so he can pipe up an respond. And then he slumps back into obscurity. He's done it at least twice already. Active lurking at its finest.

-----

Would love to hear what makes dave obvtown.

[Green Crayons]

4. In Post 844 I gave dave grief for having very minimal suspicions by the end of D1. It only took him 30 minutes to respond

in Post 846

with a (paraphrase) "shame on you for not letting me have time to develop reads" because (quote) "I don't pull reads out of my ass and throw them on the table." But in his very next post, Post 879, he

does

pull a read out of his ass and throws it on the table - he votes elle solely on the basis of elle's early D2 posting interaction with Ranger.

edited to include post link for easy reference

[Green Crayons]

I appreciate the response, and reply to it below.

That said, you do know that simply saying "nuh-unh" to a case doesn't make someone obvtown, right? What are your affirmative reasons for reading dave to be obvtown?

-----

1. I've read and reread the dave after the fact explanation for his "fuck off" vote, and it's always been very hazy in terms of where he actually lays out his justifications (as opposed to simply saying "no really I was suspecting swag before hand"). I'll reread it again to review whether I can verify that his "coughed up reasons" really check out.

2. I accept that preemptively declaring no OMGUS could go either way.

3.

a. Is dave the worst in this game in terms of contribution? No. Why are we using that as a yardstick? It was what really jumped out at me from the four folks I reviewed from D1.

b. What I'm saying is that, upon D2 beginning, I reviewed dave in ISO to see what his play had been up to that point. He had suspicions dotted throughout D1, but most of them dwindled or extinguished by the day's end. All that he was left with at the end of D1 was that "scum is probably lurking." Wow, insightful. That's sarcasm. What it is, is that it is super safe play. So I challenged him on it at the beginning of D2.

4.

a. Blow on my house of cards. mmmm, yeah. Sexual innuendo aside, seriously: blow. You haven't made a case as to why my hypothesis behind dave's play isn't correct.

b. Why didn't dave "hurry up a spit out a full reads list?" Because he wasn't challenged on failing to provide a reads list. I asked connected his leading suspicion of "someone who is lurking" to playing-it-safe-scum. He attempted to defuse that criticism the easiest and safestest way possible (while simultaneously acting in contravention to his "take it slow" reason that he used to excuse his lack of substantive suspicions): by spitting out a suspicion on someone based on something more than lurking.

5. Well TTH has played with dave before, so I'm interested in whether, in her past experiences, dave was town or scum and whether dave was providing the same type of active lurking in those games as he is doing here.

[Green Crayons]

Hmm. Will ponder further.

[Green Crayons]

1. I've read and reread the dave after the fact explanation for his "fuck off" vote, and it's always been very hazy in terms of where he actually lays out his justifications (as opposed to simply saying "no really I was suspecting swag before hand"). I'll reread it again to review whether I can verify that his "coughed up reasons" really check out.

So, I reread pages 1 through 13, and had a pretty good analysis of dave's swag vote and justifications and why it was potentially scummy.

Then I hit the key phrase in Post 259: "In case you haven't figured it out from my other posting, my vote

is not currently

an OMGUS. I'm seeing scummy things that have nothing to do with you incorrectly scum reading my playstyle."

I think it's pretty clear that dave's initial "fuck you" vote is a reactionary/OMGUS vote. I was under the impression that he then went on to try to justify that vote from the get-go as being based on actual suspicions. Rereading his posts, it's clear that he initially didn't have any swag suspicions, did a reactionary vote, that caused him to look closely at swag, and then his swag suspicions developed thereby transforming his swag vote into something more than an OMGUS vote. And I see he wasn't really saying anything different than that.


Welp.

[Green Crayons]

lol, and now just decided to skim dave's ISO and saw this:

I then said that after getting ticked off I did a slow read through of swag up to that point and it looked scummy independent of the rage that prompted me to look.

WELP.

[Green Crayons]

@Kaboose:

So do you have a conclusion on all this you're trying to reach?

Conclusion: my scum read of dave is probably wrong.

Congratulations! You will take his slot in my scum pool of <Mala, Ranger, Kaboose>.

[Green Crayons]

GC, Take a chill pill. It's ok.

So you're saying I

shouldn't

be drinking when I play mafia?

[Green Crayons]

Heh. I assumed Titus was reviewing Heartless/GC interactions from previous evenings, and not referring to posts from this morning.

[Green Crayons]

Also, Page 55 discussion with Heartless has been the most productive part of our interaction from my standpoint.

So, more of that.

[Green Crayons]

@Titus:

I assume it is ok to use posts in MD to our knowledge.

It's legal but it reads desperate as fuck.

Well, I was looking through those threads when I saw dave post. I was like "yay"

I don't understand why you think it's desperate.

swag's dave-is-town-because-of-a-MD-post basis was first made all the way back on Page 25 (Post 624), well after swag had unvoted dave in D1. And swag didn't even reveal what the post was at that time (I presumed it was an ongoing game).

Doesn't look desperate to me in the context of when swag first used it as a basis to read dave town.

Revisiting that basis for his dave read in D2, and making it explicit, particularly after folks had prompted him to explain his read, doesn't strike me as desperate.

[Green Crayons]

I disagree. The context in which swag initially brought up the MD-post looks pretty natural. He was reading the MD thread, saw something dave posted, and thought it clicked with dave's play in this game. And, bam, he posted his reaction in this game thread. At most, it isn't alignment indicative because that situation could occur regardless of whether swag is town or scum, but swag's handling of the situation looks more like town than scum to me.


Now that swag's MD-post basis to read dave as town was shot down, swag has moved to the justification of the OMGUS-vote basis. Reading someone as town in D2 simply because of an early, D1 OMGUS vote is pretty weak, I agree.

[Green Crayons]

At the time he made his original post, the MD thread was only 3/4 months old. Checking the MD forum now, that thread is still only on Page 2.

I don't read old MD threads either, but that's because I don't really enter MD all that much. Doing a quick forum search for swag, it looks like he has posted in 9 MD threads that started from June 2014 up until now, with 57 posts total. I don't know what the reading habits are for someone like that, but it's certainly not the same reading habits as someone who hardly ever posts in MD.

Also, it's not swag's "reading old MD threads" that is natural. It's the fact that he saw something dave posted in MD, and then how he conveyed that observation in this game, that looks pretty natural and not scum-based to me.

I suppose it's possible swag-scum did a forums search for dave (which I guess is how you're suggesting how swag found dave's MD-post), and concocted this round about way of introducing a post he found from that search. But that seems more (or at least just as) unlikely than the fact that swag was reading an old MD thread.

[Green Crayons]

Okay.

[Green Crayons]

The problem that I have with your hypothesis is that you are assuming that swag was "pouring through MD to manufacture an argument."

On what basis do you have that this was how swag came across dave's MD post?

[Green Crayons]

In your scenario, swag-scum, who had left his dave suspicions behind for about a real time week in D1, went out of his way to search for an out of thread MD post, came back to this thread about his find but decided to be cryptic about that MD post, then waited until D2 to finally reveal the MD post only after being prodded by players to reveal just what it was that made swag read dave as town.

OR

swag was reading through the MD forum, having to go all the way back (sarcasm) to Page 2 to see a thread that interested him, and just so happened to come across a theory post made by dave that swag thought reflected dave's alignment in this game.


I'm inclined to believe that your scenario is less likely just because it's too unnecessary and unhelpful to swag in a scum alignment. How did swag's sudden dave-town read in Post 624 help swag-scum like you said it did? I don't see how.

I could accept that the two scenarios are just as equally likely to happen. But I don't see how your scenario is more likely than the other, and certainly not based on "common fucking sense."

[Green Crayons]

I think the best case against swag is mason fishing. Having reread the Corpses/swag exchange yet again, swag's "oh I didn't realize masons hadn't recruited yet" sounds off. This becomes exaggerated throughout D1, as swag keeps bringing up the fact that he is forgetting that masons are a thing, interspersed with making accusations based off of associative tells, and bringing up the fact that he does remember masons do exist.

[Green Crayons]

He already had the MD post on hand back in D1:

By the way, if you guys are wondering, it was a post dave made 4 months ago.

[Green Crayons]

Swag's post is buddying.

I guess that would be the scum benefit.

[Green Crayons]

I think the best case against swag is mason fishing. Having reread the Corpses/swag exchange yet again, swag's "oh I didn't realize masons

hadn't recruited yet

weren't already a pair

" sounds off. This becomes exaggerated throughout D1, as swag keeps bringing up the fact that he is forgetting that masons are a thing, interspersed with making accusations based off of associative tells, and bringing up the fact that he does remember masons do exist.

Fixed to be accurate.

[Green Crayons]

I don't understand anything that had been said.

And I'm okay with that.

[Green Crayons]

Yeah, I suspected Picard was the other mason after Cheetory had asked me to sell him on Fairies being scum, and then did no follow up.

I'm at page 20 of my reread, so you'll get that Ranger case soon, Heartless.

[Green Crayons]

w/r/t Grib's sudden swag vote, I think my only problem is this:

I'm wondering why that next leap vote is on a person you had as town enough to say that you would NOT lynch them, who you hard defended as town even when you knew that it wasn't likely that he was mason and was just lying town...

If Grib thought that there was a 99% chance that swag was not a mason, but still had swag at DO NOT LYNCH, how did pushing swag being 100% not a mason make swag the correct lynch for today?


(Also, I'm not seeing the obvscum play from Grib these past few pages. I think if you were already suspecting Grib, then his play probably comes off worse than, if like me, you were reading him town before hand.)

[Green Crayons]

@swag:

By my so-called "scum team analysis", I think awesomeusername is scum. And obviously since there are masons I would not say out who are the others.

VOTE: awesomeusername

There my vote stays for the rest of the day.

@lone ranger, that I will need to check.

As we don't have to worry about you outing the masons, give your case on awesome and his potential scum buddies.

[Green Crayons]

Lone Ranger Case:

1.

Spoiler: Ranger's entry into the game and in attacking elle looks like scum trying to mimic town-replacement confidence. Scum motivation: look like town-replacement.

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

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

2.

Spoiler: Ranger's push on me is bad but, what makes it more scummy, is that it appears calculated to get into a lengthy wall war. Scum motivation: look like TvT if I get lynched.

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

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

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

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

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

3.

Spoiler: Ranger's "masons should recruit one of us" strategy is classic "scum would never suggest this because it could out scum." Scum motivation: look town by suggesting anti-scum strategy.

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

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

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

d. Ranger goes quiet on D2. I don't know what to make of this. (1) If Ranger is scum, I have hypothesized that it is because she wanted to give off the impression that she was actually recruited without having to say so. Alternatively, she was a major focus of yesterday and didn't know if the masons

did

actually recruit her, and so decided to play it low until if/when the masons made their move, and then just stuck with that level of activity because it hasn't really been hurting her. (2) If Ranger is town, I only see anti-town motivation in suddenly retracting from the game. She has provided absolutely no substantive input for today. She hasn't critically reexamined any of her reads, continues to push her bad case against me based solely on D1 material, and her reaction to D2 game developments is minimal. This presumes that Ranger is purposefully being a bad player, when I think her previous activity shows that she isn't. Between these two scenarios, I think Option 1 is more likely.

[Green Crayons]

Here are the two reasons why I think Kaboose looks like scum:

1.

I don't care for Kaboose's response to the case, which goes beyond a big shrug and actually offers to put the noose around his neck for such a good job that TTH did. The response is actually more suspicious than TTH's case, in my opinion. The sentiment - "you have made a good case against me and I don't really have a response" - is not necessarily alignment indicative, but Kaboose really just lays it on thick.

2.

I can't tell if you're posting with hubris or if you're just completely convinced everything you say is always right.

This looks like scum buddying by attacking Heartless, who is suspecting me. Alternatively, this looks like scum trying to get townpoints should I get lynched.

What differentiates Kaboose's response from Titus and elle, who both have defended me against suspicions, is that they actually provided reasons for why GC-suspicions are bad, or why they're reading me as town. Here, Kaboose attacks Heartless for hubris/always right mindset, and even as the player who is being suspected by Heartless, I don't see the basis for Kaboose's claim.

[Green Crayons]

Grib: town
elleheathen: mason
Heartless: town
davesaz: lean town
Whatisswag: town
MalaKittens: scum
Kaboose: scum
Green Crayons: town
CptPicard: mason
Lone Ranger: scum
Titus: mason

My one bit of paranoia about Grib is that he has periodically buddied me in major (declaring town, which is whatever) and minor (agreeing with my arguments without necessarily stating it) ways. I have seen the same thing with Kaboose. I don't know if two scum would buddy the same player in the same way. Between the two, I feel more comfortable in my Grib town read.