Newbie 1953 | Zooborns IV | Game Over

[Micc]

VOTE: Leucosticte

Going to need to start practicing right away to be able to type this user name correctly before this game ends.

[Micc]

(Was that a username bias vote?)

VOTE: Micc

Yes, it was.

How about your vote on me? Username bias or something else?

[Micc]

"If I'm town, then from my perspective there's a better than random chance that anyone voting for me right off the bat is scum"

Are you saying that Micc (2/8 random chance of being scum from your perspective) is more likely to be scum than mmiscrazy12 (also 2/8 random chance of being scum from your perspective)? I'm curious why you think that.

[Micc]

I don't know how to quantify the odds, but my theory is...

That's probably because mathematics doesn't actually support your stance. That's ok though. What you done is expressed a "read", aka a guess about someone's alignment made by logically taking into account the things they've done in the game. I think there's some fundamental problems with the logic behind your read, but I understand where you're coming from.

I'm also glad to see the effort because my take is that town players are incentivized to make reads and mafia players are not. This leads me to believe you are more likely to be town than someone like chemist who hasn't expressed any reads or shown signs of trying to make reads.

UNVOTE: Leucosticte
VOTE: chemist1422

[Micc]

As someone who hasn't drunk the Kool-Aid of that particular community, I'm just kinda curious what your perspective is.

I wouldn't drink that kool-aid either.

Site meta is that there's only one way to kill scum and that's to lynch them. The town needs to maximize the number of lynches it makes in a game because that maximizes odds of lynching all the scum. That all starts with lynching someone Day 1. And not just any random person decided by plurality, but someone who the majority of the playerlist thinks is scum. We've got 10 whole days to figure that out by asking questions, analyzing answers and making reads.

I recommend checking out some of the other completed games in the Newbie Queue to get a better idea of the trajectory of games on this site.

[Micc]

chemist hasn't done a great job defending from the pressure being aimed at him for the L-2 RVS vote which catches eye because that's really not a hard stance to defend.

I'd also like to ask that any of the newbies who haven't read Plot's introduction and advice post to do that and ask any theory related questions they have in the thread. Blindly claiming in your first post and speculating about PR's are strategically bad decisions, and if nothing else, I'd like player to understand why by the end of the game.

These are my hot takes from a real quick catch up to where I left off with the thread last night.

[Micc]

UNVOTE: chemist1422
VOTE: Dyrenz

I frequently post from work so if my attention span seems rather intermittent, that is why.

Chemist's reactions to the early votes on Leucosticte are exactly why I was hesitant to RVS and why I unvoted right after. Makes you look scummy

So Skitter jumped on Micc's vote, then immediately turned and started shaming Chemist for jumping on as well.

A few scenarios in my mind

A) Skitter is town, drawing out a potential wagon push from scum. Chemist is scum, taking Skitter's bait.
B) Skitter is scum, baiting out an unsuspecting townie whom he can then try to push a mislynch on. Chemist is town and takes the bait.
C) Both are town and someone else is pushing the mislynch as a red herring

Don't like these posts. The first is an admission that Dyrenz altered his play based on how he thought it would be received by other players. I think that's a thought that comes from a scum mindset and not a town one. I think the first line in the second post is a misrepresentation of what happened. Additionally the analysis doesn't come to a conclusion which raises a red flag that his goal was to make an analysis not to make a read. Something I also think is more likely to come from scum than town.

[Micc]

My first post was literally just me explaining how my real life can interfere with my availability. Yes, I jumped on Chemist and then slowly backed off. Was testing the waters to see if anyone else would jump in but I suspect that scum were smart enough to see the bait. (Or they were already voting for him)

Literally the line after that is you talking about why you didn't do something because you thought it would look scummy...
But anyway, lets say that hypothetically Player A did jump on the chemist's wagon and put him to L-1, or Player A falls for the bait as you described it. Why do you think that is scum indicative?

I don't have enough evidence to arrive at a conclusion yet. We're on basically Day 1 or at least the first full day of play. I'm not going to blindly pick one of three possibilities without having enough evidence to make an informed conclusion.

Having said that, in terms of likelihood, I'm inclined to believe that C is most likely. It's still early in the day and I think we need to get more discussion in before we can get good enough reads.

I understand you want more information and thus more discussion, but consider this:

How has you presenting three possible explanations for what you observed and expanding no further added discussion to the game? Isn't that the equivalent of me telling you that the solution to 2 + 2 is either less than 0, equal to 0, or greater than 0. Sure, what I said is true, but it didn't really help answer the problem.

Is it possible that you contributing your opinion about something adds discussion to the game, even if your opinion turns out to be wrong?

[Micc]

For the record I have no intent to vote today.

This is strongly against site meta. Can you explain why you don't intend to vote today?

[Micc]

Why don't I intend to vote today? In my opinion, tonight's kill will give us enough information to guarantee a Mafia lynch tomorrow. So why risk lynching a Townie today when we're lynching half the Mafia tomorrow regardless?

That take is incredibly optimistic. I don't intend to be mean about it, but I think you're wrong. I'd be happy to explain the theory behind site meta being the way I described it below, because that's an important part of the newbie experience, but you're probably going to need to have a more open mind than you've expressed through your confidence in lynching correctly given what it mathematically 2/8 odds on Day 2.

Spoiler:

As someone who hasn't drunk the Kool-Aid of that particular community, I'm just kinda curious what your perspective is.

I wouldn't drink that kool-aid either.

Site meta is that there's only one way to kill scum and that's to lynch them. The town needs to maximize the number of lynches it makes in a game because that maximizes odds of lynching all the scum. That all starts with lynching someone Day 1. And not just any random person decided by plurality, but someone who the majority of the playerlist thinks is scum. We've got 10 whole days to figure that out by asking questions, analyzing answers and making reads.

I recommend checking out some of the other completed games in the Newbie Queue to get a better idea of the trajectory of games on this site.

In other news skitter's early reads are lining up with mine, which makes me want to town read her.

With regards to not really moving things: what exactly do you mean by that?

At the risk of rudely stepping in and answering for skitter, my thoughts are that you've poked around asking your fair share of questions, but haven't given a lot to go off with regards to how the answers you receive affect your reads. In a way, it's a less extreme example of what I'm currently pushing Dyrenz for.

[Micc]

I want to vote Jamelia, but feel like seeing this Dyrenz push through is important too

[Micc]

yall, I think Dryenz is scum. More people should vote him.

[Micc]

Why?

yall, I think Dryenz is scum. More people should vote him.

Apparently you picked the wrong person's name to practice your spelling on.

I'm assuming your read on Dyrenz has worsened since you voted for him, given that you're now actively rallying for his lynch. What has he done since then to cause that?

Besides what I outlined in the post where I voted, Dyrenz's post 186 came across as deflection to me. He didn't engage in answering any of the questions I asked, and brushed the things I didn't like off as a playstyle thing.

He also threw in reads on two players without giving analysis, along with analysis on a player without a read. His thoughts don't feel natural to me.

Maybe i can try to analyze posts so far and post my reads? But don’t take it too seriously if i post it, as it will simply be based upon the language and general helpfullness of those who have posted so far.

Learning how to make reads is something that comes with time.
because scum can win the game by no lynching each day and killing a townie each night. it'll take like five phases i think for them to win, but it'll happen eventually - much slower than if they got some mislynches along the way

in contrast, if town doesn't lynch, they have no way of removing scum from the game
there's literally no way to win by constantly no lynching

We don't need to lynch a

Town

for clues because a

Town

is dying tonight regardless. You're implying we would lynch a

Mafia

but the odds are overwhelmingly against that.

The odds are overwhelmingly against lynching mafia on any given day. Waiting until Day 2 doesn't change that, it just brings the game from 9 players to 8 players which is from 3 mislynches needed for scum to win to 2 mislynches.

[Micc]

Actually, since your almost certainly planning to counter with something related to information from power roles, consider this:

Lynching on day 1 is like having a free cop shot. There’s a 2/9 chance the moderator will come back with a Mafia result and 7/9 chance for Town. Why wouldn’t you take the free cop shot when regardless of taking it or not, the game is going to move from 3 mislynches to 2?

[Micc]

Oobsy, how come you never addressed the part of my post where I talk about the game going from 3 to 2 mislynches regardless of a day 1 lynch happening or not?

[Micc]

I’m going to make some assumptions about your experience here, but they’re assumptions backed with knowledge I’ve gathered from playing or moderating a lot of newbie games on this site over the years.

The community you learned the game from balances games a lot differently than this site. You’re advocating for a game with heavy emphasis on nighttime play while this site places a heavy emphasis on daytime play. In general, our games don’t have as many PR’s as I’m assuming your used to. There will not be enough information from PR’s to solve the game entirely on night actions.

[Micc]

Well, that’s not objectively true. One could easily design a setup with an even number of players and enough power roles that a day 1 no lynch would be optimal. That’s just not the kind of game we’re playing right now.

[Micc]

Oobsy, how come you never addressed the part of my post where I talk about the game going from 3 to 2 mislynches regardless of a day 1 lynch happening or not?

Because I gave up trying to understand. It's as if you're implying you could mathematically prove

Town

loses nothing by lynching one of their own today.

The community you learned the game from balances games a lot differently than this site. You’re advocating for a game with heavy emphasis on nighttime play while this site places a heavy emphasis on daytime play. In general, our games don’t have as many PR’s as I’m assuming your used to. There will not be enough information from PR’s to solve the game entirely on night actions.

I don't expect to solve the game with nothing by clues shared by power roles. But I don't expect to gain an advantage over

Mafia

with a random Day 1 lynch either.

It's really not that hard to prove mathematically...
Day 1 Town lynch > 6 vs 2 > Night 1 Town death > 5 vs 2 > Day 2 Town lynch > 4 vs 2 > Night 2 Town death > 3 vs 2 > Day 3 Town lynch > 2 vs 2 > Game Over
Day 1 No Lynch > 7 vs 2 > Night 1 Town death > 6 vs 2 > Day 2 Town lynch > 5 vs 2 > Night 2 Town death > 4 vs 2 > Day 3 Town lynch > 3 vs 2 > Night 3 Town death > 2 vs 2 > Game Over

The game ends after a Day 3 mislynch in both scenarios.
By lynching Day 1 the town was 7/9 * 5/7 * 3/5 = 33% to lose at this point.
By no lynching Day 1 the town was 6/8 * 4/6 = 50% to lose at this point.

Also, you seem to be willing to use non PR supplied information to decide on a lynch Day 2 but not Day 1. I don't understand what the difference is?

[Micc]

micc why exactly are you scumreading dyrenz again?

He seems overly conscious of how his posts are being portrayed. I think it comes from a mindset of scum who doesn't want to be lynched. I didn't like that he resorted to deflection instead of engaging with me about that original push. I also thought his reads list in post 220 was really off point and reeked of being done with the intention of getting me off his back instead of finding scum.

[Micc]

Also, a meta question. Are analytical reads as important as I am making them out to be? The SEs are all, from what I can tell, more focused on narrower lines of inquistion instead of broad analysis.

I find it more useful to look for many small reasons to inform my reads than one big reason. There's always a counter argument when the scope is large, but if you can narrow the scope down and find something that can be explained from one alignment and not the other, then you have something useful. Put a bunch of those small things together and you'll have a way more powerful read than if you had started with a wide scope.

That's my take anyway. Hopefully I explained it ok. Your mileage will vary.

He seems overly conscious of how his posts are being portrayed. I think it comes from a mindset of scum who doesn't want to be lynched. I didn't like that he resorted to deflection instead of engaging with me about that original push. I also thought his reads list in post 220 was really off point and reeked of being done with the intention of getting me off his back instead of finding scum.

Which of Dyrenz's reads did you think were off-point, and why?

I'll list the especially egregious ones below, but in general the format of

NAI thing player has done in this game - read

isn't doing it for me.

Mr Oobsy - "Actively applies pressure with voting instead of sitting on an empty vote." frankly is just not true at all and I have no idea how he arrived at that conclusion.
Leucosticte - this is just a list of anti town things that Leucosticte has done this game with the conclusion being town.
chemist - "Looking back on it, probably used initial RVS to bait an unwary scum voter." No, and he's said as much multiple times.

[Micc]

Unless someone gets healed.

Sure if someone gets healed you gain half a day. If two people get healed you gain another half day and end up back where you started.

Micc, can you post your reads?

Dyrenz as scum. Oobsy as worth of being policy lynched.
skitter and norwegianboy as out of my day 1 lynch pool.
Everyone else somewhere in the middle.

[Micc]

Dude it was a page 1 RVS vote and he’s said so repeatedly. He’s not voting you and he’s not pushing for you to be lynched.

You claiming that he’s singled you out as the most suspicious is a gigantic miss representation of what chemist is saying.

[Micc]

UNVOTE:

Please don’t be hard on yourself. Being pushed is part of the game and it happens to everyone. Emotionally, it can be really hard to deal with. I wish I had better advice to give besides that other than extreme cases it’s not personal and there are no hard feelings.

I’m not mad, just disappointed that the one good read I had looks to have been wrong. Just gotta move on.

[Micc]

Also, I’ll respond to your posts regarding the chemist read if you confirm you want me to, but otherwise I’m going to drop it considering your claim makes my read on you invalid.

[Micc]

VOTE: Leocosticte

His Chemist and Dyrenz votes are both yikes.

[Micc]

Now can we all find somewhere else to push, like farren or norwegian? Ty

Can you try to sell me on one of these please? Not looking for a full case, just a summary of things I should be looking at.

[Micc]

My homework for the night - reading some completed games of skitter and Chemist. Not going to bother with Micc; strong Town-read there.

Where do you stand on Leocosticte right now?

[Micc]

Trying not to get annoyed at the policy lynch stuff, as if I start ranting about that it'll derail things too much. We've had enough of that already.

Sorry for questioning something you don't see the merit in discussing, but I don't follow what you're referencing here. I ask mostly because we seem to be mutually town reading each other and that makes understanding your reads important to me.

[Micc]

Time to start consolidating wagons folks. I prefer Leocosticte, would settle for Oobsy, and oppose chemist.

[Micc]

I’m not, but I haven’t seen a case on him that I’ve agreed with so him being wagoned feels silly to me.

[Micc]

Time to start consolidating wagons folks. I prefer Leocosticte, would settle for Oobsy, and oppose chemist.

You were wrong about Dyrenz, so why would should anyone think you're right now? From my point of view, you've now falsely accused not just one, but TWO people. What are the odds of a townie doing that by accident?!

VOTE: Micc

As Farren’s math correctly shows, the odds are better for than not. If you’re going to push me, please find some better reasoning than inaccurate reads because those are par for the course for everyone on Day 1.

[Micc]

Skitter continuing to scumread Farren is scummy to me.

[Micc]

Skitter continuing to scumread Farren is scummy to me.

Do tell
How are u reading norwegian?

Farren’s been incredibly Town over the last 72 hours or so, and if you haven’t seen that I think it’s because you haven’t been looking for it.

I don’t know how Norwegian got out of my lynch pool originally but I would consider him back in now. Not that I think he’s particularly scummy, but he’s not someone I’d go out of my way to defend/work with.

[Micc]

My day 1 lynchpool is anyone who I wouldn’t go out of my way to defend/work with. Also people I respect enough to give space to regardless of what they’re doing, but that’s a short list of people

[Micc]

I’m not talking to you?

[Micc]

Skitter, I think what I’m saying is that if you’re Town then you Farren and I are a strong voting block that should be looking to consolidate instead of fighting each other. Note that I’m not entirely convinced you’re Town, but I’m happier pretending you are for at least a day than anyone else in the playerlist. As I see it Leucosticte, Norwegian and oobsy are the valid wagons and we should be having a discussion about which is best. I think that probably involves me taking a good look at Norwegian and you taking a good look at Leucosticte.

[Micc]

Oh, sorry for commenting on what you say. Rude of me.

Just felt like a really weird comment. I was unsure if understood the context of my posting and sought to clarify.

I guess my question at this point is, what was the point of your comment?

[Micc]

I doubt either Oobsy or Leucosticte is mafia.

@Micc You said "I'm not talking to you" which made me feel very offended. This is a mafia game, why should it matter who's talking or not? Also i'm disappointed that you're planning to stick together with your veteran buddies rather than looking at who is logically townie or scummy out of everyone.

I’m sorry that you were offended by my attempt to clarify that I was talking to skitter and got you. It matters to me because I want my posts to be understood in the context I meant then and not some other way.

Presenting me as allying with veteran buddies irrespective of making reads in the thread is a pretty big misrepresentation of where I’m at.

Finally, please answer what your intent was when you made post 481 without dodging this time.

[Micc]

Ah ok

Not sure how well that represents my scumgame as a whole

Is there a better way of finding game lists and alignment than looking at a player's topics posted in? Takes a lot of digging to find scumgames that way amongst prolific players.

Some players keep a list of games in their wiki. Only a handful are committed to keeping it up to date. Besides that you’re mostly limited to viewing their past threads, using search or asking them.

[Micc]

@norwegian:
Ok, so what makes you think that I care how much you care about where you are in my reads?

Like how is 481 moving the game forward?

At first I just wanted to give clarification, but now it feels like you were just trying to jump in and throw shade at me or pick a fight...

[Micc]

@norwegian:
Ok, so what makes you think that

anyone

cares...

Ebwop

[Micc]

UNVOTE:
VOTE: Norwegianboy

Post 496 for me.

Spoiler:

I wouldn't trust the meta. Might just be scumplayers doing their tricks to fool us into a hard townread.

Really feeling a Skitter30/Chemist1422 combo right now.

Incidentally the two people who are voting you, got it

The whole scumteam piles on you because ...

I read someone say on a different mafia thread (Or maybe it was this one, i can't remember) that it's been trendy lately for the mafia team to pile up their votes on one user because "There's no way mafia would do that!!"
So why not?

Also, these thoughts don’t go together naturally. The unreasonable fear of “veterans” seems to come from a place of knowing that none are on his team (scum mindset), when it’s equally reasonable for him to hope they are on his team (Town mindset).

[Micc]

VOTE: Mr Oobsy
For hammering that wagon.

[Micc]

Also, micc i think ur scummy

Then say why and put down a vote. Just stating it like this is meaningless.

In other words, when is it okay to hammer a wagon?

When the person who is being wagoned has claimed their role, and everyone who’s on the wagon already has a chance to react to that claim by unvoting or not.

[Micc]

i dislike ur progression on norwegian, i'm contemplating putting down a vote, and i disagree that stating it like this is meaningless

Feel free to expand on what you disliked and I have no problem addressing it. I'm still not sure what you were hoping to achieve by telling me that you're scumreading me. Please explain how it had meaning.

[Micc]

UNVOTE:

Not counterclaiming.

[Micc]

Micc:

At first I just wanted to give clarification, but now it feels like you were just trying to jump in and throw shade at me or pick a fight...

What did you think scum|Norwegian's motivation was for shading you and/or picking a fight with you?

I find that players who are new to playing scum are pretty quick to throw in jabs that discredit or show up town players. It's not scum motivated in the sense that it furthers the scum win condition, but more in that its beneficial to scum to disrupt the loud voices in the town and their influence on the game. There's less of an incentive for town to do this, generally only for strong 1v1 battles which wasn't the case here.

I don't see a purpose for his post 481 besides to make me look like the bad guy for considering him as a lynch candidate. It certainly sticks out in the context of a) him not being a part of the conversation and b) me defending him not being the topic of the conversation.

Also, these thoughts don’t go together naturally. The unreasonable fear of “veterans” seems to come from a place of knowing that none are on his team (scum mindset), when it’s equally reasonable for him to hope they are on his team (Town mindset).

464 and 471 were the two being referenced in the spoiler. To me, it didn't seem like those two posts were supposed to be connected at all. Saying they don't go together naturally doesn't make any sense to me. Take two posts about unconnected topics; I wouldn't expect them to go together naturally no matter what alignment. Why was this scum-indicative?

Plus I didn't see how that connects to the fear about veterans. 471 was a follow-up on 456, which connects; 464 didn't seem to mesh at all with this. Was that supposed to be separate from the rest of the argument? If not, how does it tie in?

Either you believe in "meta" being something worth considering while making decisions in the current game or you don't. Post 464 is indicative of him not trusting meta as being relevant because (presumably veteran) scum players can use it to their advantage. Post 471 a meta based argument that he's using to justify his vote. I think these thoughts show an inconsistent approach to the use of meta, which can be a sign of scum players who are grasping for evidence to support the direction they want to vote as opposed to town players who ideally are following a consistent and defined thought process to lead them to their votes.

The post about fearing veterans is more of a general observation and not tied to the spoilered quotes, but I can understand how my post is confusing in that manor.

[Micc]

I saw an opportunity to make myself so suspicious that I would not be nightkilled, while simultaneously ending the day so I could not be lynched, so I took it.

It is incredibly selfish to "protect" yourself in this manor by robbing the rest of the players of an opportunity to make meaningful reads. Assuming you're town here, you've wasted all the power given to you with your role with the way that you've played it. Please don't do it again.

[Micc]

VOTE: chemist1422

After a real brief review of some ISO's, I think this is the direction to go today.

[Micc]

I was town-hunting while looking at ISO's. chemist didn't earn any town points and Jamelia had a couple. He also /in'd for a game despite not really playing this one which is pretty ehh...

[Micc]

sorry for prod. needed some time away from the internet this weekend.

this is where I'd unvote and promise to catch up real quick, but that looks like hammer so I get to dedicate that time to other stuff, which is sweet.

[Micc]

VOTE: Leucosticte

After a real brief review of some ISO's, I think this is the direction to go today.

[Micc]

VOTE: Leucosticte

After a real brief review of some ISO's, I think this is the direction to go today.

When you get some specifics, those would be appreciated.

I too have found myself in a situation where my partner is going down in flames, and proceeded to completely botch the bus. It's not an easy thing to get right.

Micc, why are you repeating yourself word for word here?

Since it worked once, I figured it would work again.

I thought it would be funny. But also that's how I feel right now.

[Micc]

As I see it, Leucosticte was really late to the Day 2 chemist wagon for someone who had been scumreading chemist all of day 1. It reads like he was pushing his partner Day 1 for the town credit, and then when his partner got under read pressure Day 2 he gave every opportunity for another wagon to develop. When it became more clear that chemist was the lynch for the day he made sure to get on the wagon.

I've been in his situation before. Being decisive about whether to bus a partner or not is really hard, and easy to get wrong. I think he got it wrong.

Also, scum reading Farren at this point is just silly.

[Micc]

Which is it, Farren; was Chemist already doomed (and therefore hammering him was harmless), or was he not doomed (and therefore I'm

townier

for having put him out of misery when he still could've been saved from the rope)?

I think he was doomed since D1. There were plenty of distractions that day though. From Dyrenz’s RP spill to Norwegian/Oobsy drawing out conclusions that were just ultimately not true, we still had an underlying truth that Chemist had not adequately provided any reasons for their scummy behavior.

Micc pucks up on this BUT still votes for Norwegian. Then D2 immediately starts the vote on Chemist. Now D3 knows that Farren has been scum-reading Leuco for a while, starts the vote on them.

To me Micc is being opportunistic instead of analyzing what’s been happening.

I'm having a hard time finding a way to say this nicely, but "opportunistic" is one of those words where if you remove it from your vocabulary, you'll immediately have become a better scum hunter.

[Micc]

I'd be interested to know why scumreading Farren is silly. I didn't even say I scumread him; I just said that he was tied with you as fourth-most-townie. Not everyone's gonna get the blue ribbon in every contest. Just try to act more towny today and maybe you'll be higher up on my list next time.

My town read on Farren is so strong that I feel like anyone who isn't townreading him is being silly. I don't know what else to say about it. Putting him in your lowest tier and dismissing it being a scum read is also pretty silly.

What's up with Micc wanting to lynch me every day? He must really hate that username. It's really easy to remember the spelling, though; just learn the mnemonic, Louis Eats Under-Cooked Onion-Stuffed Tomatoes In ConnecticuT Everyday. Just imagine him crossing the state line to go to this restaurant where they have a really good recipe for those.

What's up with you trying to discredit my pushes by bringing up the reasoning I gave for my RVS vote as if that was still relevant?

[Micc]

The concept of "opportunistic" is sound

It's not a sound concept though. Scum players don't just jump on wagons because they see an opportunity for a (mis)lynch. They make an effort to have reasons for their reads just like a town player would and they use those reads to direct their vote. "Opportunistic" is scum hunting at the most shallow level, and almost always leads to the user making reads off things that aren't indicative of alignment.

Scumhunt by looking at why players have the reads they do or make the votes they make. Look for ulterior motives, inconsistencies, or bad logic. But don't call someone scum for wanting to lynch the people they claim to scum read, because that's something that both town and scum need to do to play well.

[Micc]

My town read on Farren is so strong that I feel like anyone who isn't townreading him is being silly. I don't know what else to say about it. Putting him in your lowest tier and dismissing it being a scum read is also pretty silly.

Unless you have some justification for your town read of him, then that's just your feeling, then. And I think there's a difference between having a neutral opinion about someone, and saying they seem scummy to you.

What's up with you trying to discredit my pushes by bringing up the reasoning I gave for my RVS vote as if that was still relevant?

Your reasoning has been kinda sketchy from Day 1 (e.g. saying in post #24 that my math doesn't add up, but then not really refuting it; although at the time I just let it go because you were townreading me just for putting in effort; but, it's like you'll bring up stuff, such as "opportunism" being an unhelpful concept, and then not really support your opinions.)

Anyway, Farren is acting kinda scummy by making a big deal out of my dropping the hammer on Chemist; you know what it reminds me of, is that scene in

A Few Good Men

, when they're accusing the Colonel of having ordered the code red and then lying about it. In reality, that soldier they killed was putting other men's lives in danger so he needed to be snuffed out. And it was the same way with Chemist!

Who's going to be upset about that decision, other than scum? Who's going to going to give me a hard time about it, other than someone who's upset that his scummy teammate just bit the dust?

You wanna know what I think about people ignoring protocol and dropping the hammer "prematurely"? On the record I tell you that I discourage the practice. Off the record I tell you that it's an invaluable way of lynching scum that might otherwise go free.

If a wagon gets built on Farren then I'll town case him, and if someone asks for a summary I guess I'll do my best to give that, but right now those things don't feel productive.

The line between giving veteran advice to newbies who want to learn and lecturing at newbies who would rather just play the game is really hard to walk. If you want a more in depth explanation on something then please ask for it. I think that pushing me as scum for overall sketchy reasoning is a misrepresentation considering I haven't shied away from explaining anything in depth this game.

I don't know what to make of the rest of your post. It doesn't answer the question I posed, and rather comes off as you complaining about the game state or maybe our site meta. Is this something you're looking for me to respond to?

[Micc]

The concept of "opportunistic" is sound

It's not a sound concept though. Scum players don't just jump on wagons because they see an opportunity for a (mis)lynch. They make an effort to have reasons for their reads just like a town player would and they use those reads to direct their vote. "Opportunistic" is scum hunting at the most shallow level, and almost always leads to the user making reads off things that aren't indicative of alignment.

Scumhunt by looking at why players have the reads they do or make the votes they make. Look for ulterior motives, inconsistencies, or bad logic. But don't call someone scum for wanting to lynch the people they claim to scum read, because that's something that both town and scum need to do to play well.

Opportunism isn't trying to lynch people that one is "scumreading." It's the exact opposite, really - it's trying to lynch someone without a good reason to do so. Looking at why players have the reads they do - and then seeing that their votes don't line up with the reads they're making when it comes down to crunch time. That's opportunism.

To me, you described a good scumhunting method and then named it opportunism. So in this instance I guess we do have a vocabulary quibble going on. That's fine and all, but bringing things back to this game, do you really think that what Jamelia did matches your description of opportunism? I'd argue against it.

[Micc]

But in this case, I think “opportunistic” is the exact word I want to use. I believe that your actions (to me) are more opportunistic (selfish) vs. analysis-driven (team oriented).

Can you show what posts you analyzed to get to this conclusion?

[Micc]

I'm having a hard time finding a way to say this nicely, but "opportunistic" is one of those words where if you remove it from your vocabulary, you'll immediately have become a better scum hunter.

well i think they're misusing oppurtunist actually

When I think of "opportunist" I think of, for example, someone accidentally acting in a sus way, and then scum saying, "Ooh, let me exploit this to try to get him mislynched." Or more generally, any situation where one seizes an opportunity to accomplish some nefarious goal. E.g. taking advantage of confusion or mistakes or unavailability or any other weaknesses by town. So for example, if you know someone is on vacation, and the day is about to end, you try to get them lynched while they can't defend themselves.

But, maybe town could be opportunistic too, since opportunities arise for them to accomplish their goals too.

This is the definition of opportunistic that leads to bad scum hunting. If someone sees someone acting in a way that is suspicious and then pushes/votes them for it, that's a perfectly reasonable thing to do as town. Town players vote people who they find suspicious. The other thing that's being ignored in this conversation is that some amount of consolidation is always necessary to reach a lynch on Day 1. A lynch can't happen without half the playerlist, so there is a need for town players to work together to make wagons. Scum reading that is really silly.

If the person you think is being "opportunistic" can't give good reasons for why their vote changed then push them for that, but don't push them for just being on a wagon. Town need wagons even more than scum do.

[Micc]

Anyway, lemme ask Micc, if you're town, and then someone votes for you, even in RVS, how does that not make them, from your perspective, mathematically more sus than if they voted for someone you don't know is town (given that Mafia has information aboutwho's town and who's scum). In RVS, wouldn't scum want to pseudo-randomly choose a townie?

The mafia having information about who's town or not doesn't affect this. Mafia vote each other plenty often, RVS included. If they didn't then there'd be a tell where people who voted each other can't be partners. This tell is easy to disprove. In reality this line of thought is not alignment indicative. On Day 1 there are 8 other players, 2 scum and 6 town. Mathematically, any other player is 2/8 = 25% to be scum. It's that simple.

My view is, we don't have a lot to go on here, so in scum-hunting, we have to take even RVS decisions slightly into account; prove me wrong.

My view is, we don't have a lot to go on here, so in order to do proper scumhunting we should make an effort to manufacture better things to analyze. Fill the thread with meaningful interaction and make reads off that, all while dropping the shallow RVS reads that are ultimately not alignment indicative.

[Micc]

I am more inclined to believe Micc is more scummy than Leuco at that moment.

what do you think of the fact that micc started the chemist train?

The "start" of the chemist train was actually started by you, but Micc was the first one to vote for Chemist, correct. However, this vote wasn't held on any merit.

For me: my "opportunistic" claim about Micc comes from my own personal style of playing at this point? I may be viewing this from a "lucid stream of thought" type of thing, but from the beginning I felt like Micc has jumped onto wagons of people who were brought up by others first. For example, voting for Dyrenz after Skitter had suspicions of them (this also occured with the Chemist post#16). Then, states that he OPPOSES voting for Chemist on post #422 and prefers Leoco & settles for Oobsy after Farren begins pushing for Leoco.

Then, immediately after Farren votes for Norwegian, Micc votes for him as well, stating that Norwegian's posts (#464 / 471) did not add up. The progression just doesn't make logical sense to me in the timeline Micc presented in D1.

To which after daychange, Micc immediately votes for Oobsy for hammering. This stays until Oobsy claims (once again, Micc voting for Town until they claim, and then they unvote).

--

I do agree Farren with your scum-hunt on Leuco. I think you did a great job on gathering evidence and I think that Leuco needs to continue to respond to these claims correctly and precisely. I do have a question about Leuco's progression. As a mafia, why would Leuco hammer on their own Mafia partner, especially when I was giving at least 24 hours for Chemist to give ANY response or for someone else to figure out a different vote.

Calling skitter's page 1 comment the start of the chemist train is laughably misrepresentive of what lead to him getting lynched. Like I'm not going to claim to have strong armed that wagon, or even been fully in support of it going through, but saying that skitter started a day 2 lynch wagon with a comment in post 14 is mind bogglingly off base with reality.

Please answer what is scummy about being on wagons that other people brought up first. Have you considered that it takes half the playerlist to make a lynch, and that if we don't make a lynch before the deadline our win percentage drops significantly? Reality is, teamwork takes leaders and followers, and being able to fall into the appropriate role at the right time is a valuable skill.

I was the first person to vote Dyrenz, and it happened 2 posts after skitter voted Farren, so I find that example to also be unrepresentative to what actually happened. My opposition of the chemist wagon came in an entirely different day phase than my vote on him. There were 2 deaths and a PR claim in between. Is it unreasonable for me to shift around my reads with that new information? The only real change in order was him moving above you after all.

I voted Norwegian at a point in the game where there were 3 days until deadline and no meaningful wagon. Norwegian did some things that I found worth pushing and he already had a wagon rolling. I'd be stupid to not get on the wagon at that point as a town player. The case you're trying to push makes me avoiding the wagon of a player I'm suspicious of near the deadline good play, and that's just never true. If you think the reasons I jumped on Norwegian are fake then feel free to push me for that, but the case you're pushing now is bad scumhunting and you should stop.

You'll have to expand on what you're problem with me voting Obbsy immediately in Day 2 is. From my perspective I did everything you're asking of me by voting a wagon that wasn't brought up by others first. You might hate that the outcome was a PR claim, but that in itself doesn't make me scum.

[Micc]

This approach of, "I'm just going to see which way the winds are blowing and then be the first to vote that way" just doesn't seem very helpful. It would be better to base it on one's independent analysis rather than just blindly following others' lead.

VOTE: Micc

you see, it funny because its ironic...

skitter continuously expresses mild scum read on micc, then jamelia starts expressing similar read....then Leucosticte votes Micc. Who's seeing "which way the winds are blowing and then being the first to vote that way" now?

[Micc]

oh Jamelia pointed this out already. Props to him for his independent thinking on that point...or something.

[Micc]

oh Jamelia pointed this out already. Props to him for his independent thinking on that point...or something.

You know, because he woke up before me and got to post first. Because everyone knows that sleeping in and missing the chance to give your opinion first is a scum trait.

[Micc]

I'm frustrated because the case being built around me essentially comes down to, people expressed opinions and Micc shares those opinions, but didn't have the chance to post them first. It's like I'm being punished for not being online playing this game 24-7, which is stupid, because playing mafia 24-7 is incredibly unhealthy.

[Micc]

I didn't claim that Skitter's claim was the definite start. Notice me putting it in "start" because you're right, they were just saying it was an early scumread. But, I think Skitter's "fact" that YOU started the train to get Chemist lynched was incorrect, because you eventually change your mind off of Chemist and then oppose their lynching later in the day.

skitter's "fact" is presumably referring to my vote at the start of Day 2, not anything I did Day 1.

I don't think that it is scummy to be on wagons that other people brought up first if this follows a progression of thinking that makes sense. To others your progression makes sense, to me it doesn't. I don't understand how you got to the point that Norwegian should be the one to go. You mention later in this post that it's because "there were 3 days until deadline and no meaningful wagon", yet you were the one that ended the Chemist wagon AFTER everyone who was defending Chemist (mainly me) switched their minds and decided Chemist was a good D1 lynch.

For what it's worth I never got to the point where I said Norwegian was the one to go. I made a vote that I believed would pressure a player who I wanted to pressure, and then someone decided to hammer the wagon without a claim.

Regardless, I think the timeline you're presenting is bad. I got off my initial chemist vote in post 124, and proceeded to oppose the wagon the rest of day 1. That's before you made your chemist vote in post 270. I don't know who else you're claiming switched their mind on chemist. Norwegian was on chemist for almost the entire day phase, and no one else voted for chemist.

Right. Your opposition to the Chemist wagon came when the other scumreads were not as strong as Chemist's (D1), which to me is scummy looking back, since we now know that the two people you were opposing the most were both town AND PR's (Norweigan/Oobsy).

I still maintain that everyone who pushed for chemist to by lynched day 1 was pushing a really shallow case. If you think that opposing a lynch that ultimately flipped scum makes me look like scum then so be it. I stand by my reasoning at the time, and ask that you poke holes in that instead of the more shallow level.

How is it bad scumhunting? I am breaking down your VOTE PROGRESSION, not the people you are voting for. I think your reasonings for voting for Norwegian are accurate but I think they came at the wrong time and went against the line of thoughts you had before then (which included a Chemist/Oobsy/Leuco vote D1).

I think you reached the conclusion that the way I acted around the chemist wagon is scummy, and you're twisting the timeline and my reads to make them conflict with the mindset I had at the time. There are a lot of things you're claiming to have happened that simply aren't true.

I don't have an issue with you voting for Oobsy. I just find that after we hammered D1 on someone who was town, it should have been learned not to vote that quickly until we adequately find information. Your logic is absolutely correct that round (you can see after you I also agree that Oobsy needs to explain their reasoning), but that's just that. I'd rather have someone who isn't scum explain their reasoning so we can either take our votes off of them OR, have the scum explain their reasoning so we can gain more information on rounds like this.

The people who I learned this game from were pretty big on wagons as a form of pressure, and I still play that way. You learn more about someone when they think they're about to by lynched than when they are comfortable. So, in line with that thinking, you are very unlikely to find me not voting someone who I think needs to explain themselves. Heck, in those days, if you hammered someone without a claim you were liable to be instantly policy lynched without being given a chance to explain yourself. I miss those days.

I hope that this post explains my reasoning for scum-reading you. It is not because of you "not posting first" which is stupid and dumb reasoning. I just believe that your progression has been off.

I mean, is "Micc has jumped onto wagons of people who were brought up by others first" not a quote directly from your post 745?

Hopefully this post helps sort out issues you have with my progression, mainly that I think you're warping things to conform to the case you want to present.

I'm frustrated because the case being built around me essentially comes down to, people expressed opinions and Micc shares those opinions, but didn't have the chance to post them first. It's like I'm being punished for not being online playing this game 24-7, which is stupid, because playing mafia 24-7 is incredibly unhealthy.

To this case then, I have a hypothetical.

Let's say we lynch Leuco this round (which I would be fine with, since Farren has done a great job with this evidence and I firmly believe that Leuco could be the OTHER scum as well), and Leuco happens to be town.

Between Me/Skitter/Farren, who is the scum and why?

I'll say skitter for the sake of answering your question, but please know that I find this line of questioning unproductive and detrimental to the game, and for that reason I'm not giving an explanation.

[Micc]

Could you link me a wiki article that shows questions I can and cannot ask? I don’t want to ruin the meta by asking questions that don’t get explanations.

I don't think that such an article exists. I don't think the community is anywhere near a consensus on this, but I have a hard time answering questions that give more meaningful information to scum than they do to town.

In the current example, you're essentially asking me to explain where I'd vote in lylo. It's not fair to me because I don't have all the information that I'd have if we actually got to lylo (who was on the D3 lynch wagon, who got nightkilled, ect). It's not fair to you that my answer is less precise than you desire. The only person it benefits is scum, who now has a slightly better idea of how lylo might play out, and can use that information to decide who the best nightkill and mislynch targets are.

[Micc]

It's scummy.

There's only one scum left. Why is he planning for there to be a tomorrow when he should be looking for the lynch that wins the game?

[Micc]

I'm frustrated because the case being built around me essentially comes down to, people expressed opinions and Micc shares those opinions, but didn't have the chance to post them first. I

t's like I'm being punished for not being online playing this game 24-7,

which is stupid, because playing mafia 24-7 is incredibly unhealthy.

i think this is misrepresentative of why people were scumreading you

i don't get the vibe of the bolded like at all

I'm welcome to hearing a more accurate representation of the case as you see it.

From my point of view "people expressed opinions and Micc shares those opinions, but didn't have a chance to post them first" is pretty damn accurate, at least for Leocosticte. Jamelia started thereabout and then transitioned into being about my read progression, and then didn't have anything more to say when I showed how misrepresentative he was being of what happened on day 1.

[Micc]

This isn’t being right/wrong it’s just an opinion.

Wise words indeed. I have to remind myself that arguments aren't about winning or lossing, but coming to a better understanding pretty regularly. Props to you for understanding something that many players never come to terms with.

[Micc]

It's like I'm being punished for not being online playing this game 24-7, which is stupid,

@micc i'm confused where you're getting this from

I reached the same conclusion about Leucosticte's vote in post 749 as Jamelia and you did. Jamelia happened to post about it first, then me, then eventually you but not until after I made this post. The situation resonated with me because the same logic being used to push a case against me could be applied to this too. Micc shares an opinion with someone else, but didn't post it first so he's being opportunistic/bandwagon/ect. In this instance I didn't post my opinion first because I was literally sleeping, and scum reading me for that is punishing me for not watching the game 24-7. That's really frustrating to me and my intent was to explain that feeling.

[Micc]

prod dodge

I've placed my vote and am ready for the day to end. If those of you who aren't voting need more discussion, it's up to you to drive it.

[Micc]

I don't recall ever playing with you.

[Micc]

P-edit

What's P-edit? (Didn't see it on the wiki)

Shorthand for preview edit. When someone posts while you’re writing a post the forum will notify you before your submission goes through. P-edit is a way to note that you tacked on to your original post after seeing another post in the preview.

OMGUS stands for "OMG you're sus" because if you're sus of me, then I'm sus of you. Why wouldn't I be, given the natural tendency of a townie to have a self-serving bias? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-serving_bias

That’s not quite right, or at least is a pretty decent shift from the definition used in this community. See OMGUS.

[Micc]

Thanks for the game Plotinus. Great job as always.

[Micc]

Hmm Farren’s notes dwarf mine in comparison. I guess his game posts probably did too. Good read though. I like the way you think about the game.

Dead thread was pretty locked in on the game too. Nice job.

This game was a nice return from a lengthy break from playing for me. Felt a little rusty, and really had to focus on keeping the apathy from settling in. Did good up until after Obbsy was outed Day 2, and ended up vote parking chemist day 2. Very thankful that read turned out to be correct despite my lack of confidence because it helped to relight the fire to push to the endgame.

Enjoyed the game and playerlist. Happy to answer questions of all sorts and provide overall feedback if any of the newbies request it.

[Micc]

@Micc I apologize for being wrong on my scum read of you! I just wanted to put my opinion out there and I am happy that you and Farren convinced me otherwise. Regardless of the path I think winning is better than being right in this situation lol.

I appreciate the thought, but no apology needed. Everyone gets scumread as town, everyone scum reads town at least as often as they scum read actual scum - that's just how the game works. You handled the situation really well. And I don't say that because you made the right read in the end, but because you did a good job explaining your stance, giving consideration to my response, and moving on before the topic became a distraction. I think those kinds of interactions are really important to town players finding each other, which from a theory standpoint, is a really powerful thing.

[Micc]

- Town -
Farren’s skill ranking: S
Jamelia’s skill ranking: B+
Micc’s skill ranking: B
skitter30’s skill ranking: B
Dyrenz’s skill ranking: D-
Mr Oobsy’s skill ranking: E-
Town MVP: Farren

- Mafia -
Leucosticte’s skill ranking: D+
Chemist1422’s skill ranking: E-
Mafia MVP: Leucosticte

This is probably a little unfair to some people who found themselves playing a format/ruleset that they were very unfamiliar with.

Hopefully everyone who enjoyed this game signs up for another. Definitely want to encourage anyone who has questions about this game/site/meta/ect to ask them here.

[Micc]

Just keep in mind that games in this queue are played for the purpose of learning, not judging skill level. "I think this person could have done this better" is a lot more productive towards that goal than "X is a skillful player and Y isn't". Players come from a wide range of different mafia backgrounds and experiences, and often enough the skills that are valuable in one setting aren't valuable or are even a hindrance in another setting.

[Micc]

The concern is that newbies decide to never play a game again as an alternative to improving and becoming excellent mafia players.

Marketing mafia as a game where "you've got to grow a thick skin" is awful for new player retention and not in line with how we want mafia to be played on this site. We can strive to be more welcoming than that.