Newbie 1953 | Zooborns IV | Game Over

[Farren]

VOTE: Leucosticte

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

You're right, that is a tough one. We should start out with something simple and easy to type before working on the more complex ones.

VOTE: Micc

[Farren]

Leucosticte: why did you specifically vote for Micc over skitter? Your logic applies to both equally.

[Farren]

Last thing we want to do right now is encourage speculation of who the PRs are.

Nobody in this game should think of themselves as an expendable pawn.

[Farren]

The "follow the leader; seek safety in numbers" attitude I'm describing, I consider typical of vanillas. The strategy I'm pursuing right now is to lynch vanilla-seeming players (who could either be real vanillas or scum acting like vanillas; either way, it thins out the potential prime suspects).

Then again, like I was saying earlier, scum can also act like a townie cop; but the potential downside of targeting players with cop behavior is greater. If you lynch a townie cop, not only do you lose that PR, but a scum could then claim that role and not be CC'ed.

If we lynch a PR, they will flip as the PR. If scum want to try to claim a unique role after that role's been lynched, we should cheer them on. And then lynch them.

But, as I was saying earlier - we don't want to actively discuss who is acting like a PR - or, for that matter, who's acting like vanilla. Who's Town, who's scum - that's all that we should be worrying about right now.

[Farren]

Oh, so in this game, if you mislynch, you find out right away? Ah, okay, I've been playing with some different mechanics elsewhere, where you have to have a Gravedigger dig someone up to reveal the role. (However, the Gravedigger often gets NK'ed early in the game, so then you may not find out till the end of the game who was what.)

Wow, that must really be helpful in figuring out more quickly who's scum.

Given that, how does it change your views on bandwagon accountability? Or does it?

[Farren]

On the other hand, a lot of times, like you say, the people who don't say a lot end up being scum, and at any rate I view vanillas as expendable pawns, and don't necessarily want to pressure a cop into claiming on D1, so on second thought, I'll just go ahead and switch my vote over.

UNVOTE: Micc
VOTE: Chemist1422

Let's try it this way: why do you view VTs as expendable pawns?

[Farren]

UNVOTE: Chemist1422
VOTE: Mr Oobsy

Mr Oobsy is being quiet.. almost TOO quiet

it could be he just forgot that the site exists

also farren is scumpinging me

That'd be pretty bad memory, given that by that point he'd confirmed participation. Not likely.

Why am I scumpinging you?

[Farren]

Hi! I’m sorry for my inactivity. I didn’t check if we had started last night and woke up this morning and ran to the forum haha.

I’ve never played mafia on this board before (or in this community) but I’m looking forward to it!

Got any thoughts on the game so far?

[Farren]

You call it RVS, i have a different name for it. Aggression.
I don't know what kind of culture exists at this site, but where i come from we generally frown upon people that meekly follow the whims of the masses in feeding baseless bandwagons. Even if you don't turn out to be scum, i doubt the town would be overly harmed by one mislynch of this caliber.
I also fail to see anyone suspicious other than you right now, so unless there's substantial information to be gained from any future discussion i'm keeping my vote the way it is.
You're all unknown people to me, so i am basing my vote on a completely objective analysis. I cannot analyze any specific users potentially deviant behavior from their "normal" like i usually do off-site.

Why would i drop the numbers? I don't know you, so i see no reason to treat you in an informal manner. If you didn't want people to say the numbers, why did you include them in your username at all?

UNVOTE: Micc
VOTE: NorwegianboyEE

Your post is aggressive, but you claim Chemist is being aggressive and use it to justify your vote on him.

As a side note - you'd drop the numbers because Chemist asked people politely to do so.

[Farren]

It happens fairly often in newbie games, surprisingly enough. If he doesnt show up soonish plot will replace him

And idk yet
Trying to articulate: Your posts feel kinda lamist (look at me i'm so town) and feel busy-work-y sorta

I wouldn't be overly surprised if he doesn't show up. I just wouldn't attribute it to memory.

My read on you remains unchanged - slightly towards Town.

[Farren]

The difference is that i have a valid reason for voting Chemist. (He put someone who had barely been given the time to talk into L-2 at the beginning of the game)
Chemist has no valid reason to vote Leucosticte. (Unless you seriously count: "difficult to spell name" as a valid reason)

The initial two voters could be forgiven because they clearly label their attempts as early RVS. Meanwhile Chemist just goes along with it and uses very suspicious language that suggests his only reason for voting is because "everyone else is doing it" which is a terrible reason.

Do you think Leucosticte is Town? How strong is your opinion?

[Farren]

I’ll be completely honest I don’t understand the automatic accusations? I don’t think anyone has done anything too scummy but obviously I am still new to the MS meta.

If there's something you don't understand, ask. Confusing argument? Ask the person who made it. Spurs discussion at worst, catches scum at best.

[Farren]

I have not no

And I still don’t see how that’s what you got from it? If it had gone to L-1 I would have unvoted

How do you know that you would have been able to unvote in between L-1 and the hammer?

[Farren]

Mr Oobsy: any comparisons between Micc, Skitter, Chemist, and Leucosticte?

[Farren]

Also, the mafia games i've played usually last 72 hours.

The days usually last 72 hours in the mafia games i've played.

Also i just learnt that this forum doesn't have a way to isolate each user's posts. Sad... （；へ：）

If you look just to the right of the post number, there's an ISO link for the poster.

[Farren]

I judge

Leucostictie

,

Jamelia

, and myself to be

Town

. Sadly the odds are still against me hitting a scum with a random vote at this point, so I will try to narrow down at least one additional player between now and my next post.

Why do you think Jamelia is Town?

[Farren]

Why am i slightly townie?

Also, i think norwegianboy is kinda townie

Haven't seen any reason to put you in the other direction yet, and you've been active enough not to drift there automatically. I agreed with your ping on Chemist.

Nothing you've said against me is based on twisting what I've said, misrepresenting it, or appealing to emotion. Seems to come from just not being familiar with how I operate.

Why do you think Norwegianboy is townie?

[Farren]

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.

I feel better about Micc now.

[Farren]

I think we should try to lynch scum today, in case the nk doesnt elucidate who scum is

Wny do u think the nk will make scum obvious tomorrow?

Leu - classic newbtown, i feel
Farren - feels like they're doing busywork. Like being present bit not really moving things

You - i've seen a lot of new players do the 'why should we lynch today? We might hit town!' bit. It usually comes from town, but not always.
They're usually willing to vote tho - i feel like scum kinda instinctively understands that to facilitate mislynches, they need to vote. Kinda doubt that scum abdicate that responsibility. They need 5 townies dead, and by leaving it all to nks, the game will take double as long. I dont think scum purposefully set out not to vote, it just isnt a scummy mindset

All of that being said you should be voting

My pronoun is listed; please use it. Thanks.

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

[Farren]

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.

I'll wait to hear what she has to say as well. To address your point:

I'm okay with Leucosticte so far. Chemist, unsure. Jamelia, slight scumlean. Dyrenz I haven't engaged with yet, but based on your case, slight scumlean. Although that was based on your first and second point, not your third.

[Farren]

The reason I think

Jamelia

is

Town

is this post:

So I read through everything and tried analyzing as much as possible. My brain actually hurts from trying to form opinion's of scuminess so, yeah. LOL

I agree with the opinion that Leucostictie is pretty neutral, but I wouldn't agree that he is auto-town or whatever. I appreciate the indepth analysis but I found at times the wording of how townspeople should act to be almost a: "I think this is the way Town in this game should play!" versus "I am town, but I wouldn't be surprised if other Town played this way".

I personally don't blame anyone for voting for someone based on inactivity, including Dyrenz' back on Page 2. He hasn't been on since I've started talking and stuff. I think that voting for someone based on inactivity when I personally haven't seen any overt scuminess makes sense?

That's all I really have right now. This is fun! LOL

It feels genuine. That's all.

I see nothing about that post that can't be sincerely written from a scum POV.
- Trying to form opinions of "scuminess" when one is scum is arguably more difficult than trying to form opinions of "scuminess" when one is town.
- Not wanting to think Leucosticte is auto-town: scum would want to keep their options open; the more potential mislynches, the better.
- Not wanting to blame people for voting on inactivity. Effectively defending people - could be defending a scumpartner, if the scumpartner's vote falls into this category.
- Having fun. NAI.

So why does sincerity about things that both scum and town could be sincere about justify a town read?

[Farren]

I also have a problem with

Farren

casting suspicion on

Jamelia

, since again, I felt their posts were extremely sincere.

Do you have another example of a sincere post from Jamelia - that specifically shows a town mindset?

[Farren]

And just so my stance is clear, i still think voting Chemist is the best choice out of everyone so far.

Got anyone you think is Town yet? If so, why?

[Farren]

Not moving things - i feel like your questions exist to ask questions, not really to progress the game or to get answers

Suit yourself. I'm not going to change how I hunt any time soon.

[Farren]

Yes, this one:

I don’t necessarily think Chemist’s post was scummy, and with the bandwagon of people (way more than the majority) thinking so, I guess I’m more inclined to think he is town sided?

I keep re-reading it waiting to be like oh yeah, that was super scummy. But it wasn’t to me

Reason being, at the time it was posted, it was my thoughts exactly. I didn't think Chemist's vote was suspicious, I thought it was a joke. And when everyone complained about it, I also went back and reread it and found nothing suspicious about it.

I will put

Jamelia

back on my

Town

list. That previous theory about him and

Dyrenz

doesn't hold enough weight to me at the moment. Although it is still funny.

"it was my thoughts exactly."

One of the lessons I have struggled the most to learn is that thinking someone else is Town just because they express a thought I myself have thought is not a good way of reading people.

Still, my experience is that basing one's reads on this sort of reasoning is indicative of a town mindset in general.

So: Mr Oobsy goes in the townbucket for now, although we still need to work on that "not willing to vote" business.

[Farren]

To hinder discussion and make a lynch happen without seeming guilty because two people already voted. That’s the feeling i got from the language he used in his comment.
Of course, one can never be sure what sort of motivation Chemist had in his mind when he wrote that comment, but i don’t see anyone i’d switch my vote to atm.

Hypothetical: Chemist is unlynchable. Pick whatever reason suits your fancy. What next?

[Farren]

Town - Mr. Oobsy, Norwegian
Null - Micc, Skitter, Farren, Chemist

Can you further explain your reads on Micc and Norwegian?

[Farren]

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?

[Farren]

After re-reading Norwegian's ISO, I think it a light town read at best. My best reasoning being that his play style seems similar to mine (cautious, somewhat passive) and I just responded positively to that. Of course, now I'm thinking my slow and steady play style isn't always the most efficient way to hunt scum. Might drop him to a null read though, as his posting is more reactive than inquisitive.

For my Micc read, Leucosticte pretty much summed up how I feel in his own post. Micc is very opinionated, aggressive even, and could be a VT with nothing to lose or a mafia looking to play town leader. He's very much the opposite of me and I think that is why he is gunning so hard for me because he sees play like mine to automatically be indicative of scum because it is in such opposition to his own.

I would not describe Norwegian as cautious and somewhat passive, from what I've seen so far in this game.

VOTE: Dyrenz

[Farren]

I just remembered we can vote for no lynch. Please join me everyone!

VOTE: NO LYNCH

There is no way I'm voting No Lynch on D1, and only edge cases where I'd vote it at all - think MYLO scenarios with no cleared players.

[Farren]

I would not describe Norwegian as cautious and somewhat passive, from what I've seen so far in this game.

why is this a voteworthy offense?

Because I don't believe that's an actual reason for a read.

[Farren]

We're definitely beyond random voting at this stage. Votes made, at least some of them anyway, are calculated and based on intuition/hunches.

Farren has, at least twice now, piggybacked Micc's reads specifically regarding me.

Jamelia reminds me of someone from my last game who flipped scum, so while I might be reading her as slightly scummy, I'm worried it's just reminding me of my last game.

I've agreed with some of what Micc has said regarding you, yes.

[Farren]

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 lynch isn't random. We're not rolling dice to see who gets sent to the gallows. Voting at the beginning was arbitrary, yes, but we have to start somewhere. The arbitrariness doesn't last - and hasn't lasted. People make arguments. People make decisions. We judge people based on what they say - or don't say, as the case may be.

Maybe we get it wrong. But it's another source of information - and one that has its basis in public. One that's far more likely to provide us with useful information than anything the NK can provide.

[Farren]

I'm remembering half the game by avatars at this point but I have oobsy and detective pikachu avatar as my top two town rn

micc/skitter probably same level but I have a higher level of expectation for their scum games so they're actually lower

leaves uh

leu/farren/norwegian/someone whose name started with a j I think

Why do you have Dyrenz as Town?

[Farren]

Alright, it would appear that overall expectations for level of analysis and contribution are much higher from my first game. Our towniest player wrote in 1-2 sentence posts and said I was their highest town read. I've been in the middle ground of effort, which apparently is worse(?) than being low effort. It seems to be giving off the idea that I am pretending to contribute while not giving enough substantive information to back up the reads offered. Allow me to correct my own laziness then.

Do you believe that you were, up to this point, not providing sufficient analysis?

[Farren]

NorwegianboyEE

- Initial opening onto Chemist, gives and defends reasons for voting. Plays similarly to myself with a cautious, evidence-based voting style. Tries his best to offer analytics, but again like myself is not too good at catching the subtler tells. Mentions my playstyle reminds them of themselves as scum. Has kept vote on Chemist from the beginning, mostly due to having no other convincing voting options in his opinion. Probably town, but the comment on how their scum game reminds them of how I play makes me wonder. -

Null

/

Scum

Farren

- He is asking a lot of questions, but not providing much analysis. His given reason for voting me is pretty weak in my opinion, basically is saying "your read is wrong IMO, you're scum!". Reading over his ISO again, might actually be my scummiest read. -

Scum

You have Norwegianboy and I as your only two scumreads. Does that mean you think the two of us are the scumteam?

[Farren]

Do you believe that you were, up to this point, not providing sufficient analysis?

I thought I was, but it didn't seem sufficient enough to please Micc so I thought I would up the amount of time spent on writing out an analysis.

That's fair.

So, a glimpse into how I look into things. The question I was actually trying to answer: Were you accusing someone (me, in this case, but it could have been anyone) of scummy behavior that you yourself were knowingly performing? That would be a huge scumtell.

In this case, that didn't happen. If you had said you weren't providing sufficient analysis, that would have triggered the tell.

Changing up how you do things to address someone else's suspicion - eh. Scum do it to deflect suspicion, but Town do it too - especially if it's a positive change overall. Which providing sufficient analysis is. So no change there either way.

[Farren]

Finding out the mafia by analyzing who could be partners is just wishful thinking at this point. I don't think the mafia would be so dumb as to act real tight and friendly with each other, if they did so then the game would be over by the time just one of them is revealed to be scum.

Picking two random people and evaluating them for likely scumpartners is silly, I agree.

But if a member of the town has exactly two scumreads in a game with two scum, checking to see if they are plausible scumpartners makes sense. If those two scumreads don't make sense as at least possible partners, then it's a sign that they've got at least one bad read, if not two.

And if it's not a member of the town doing it, then the reads are fake in the first place. The more pressure one puts on fake reads, the more likely those reads are to buckle.

[Farren]

VOTE: NBEE

Yeah okay

This is a frozen reaction

What does frozen reaction mean?

[Farren]

not sure if that’s MU terminology but it means they didn’t know how to respond but responded anyway, basically

Why is that scummy?

[Farren]

Farren: On post 139, you had me down as a "slight scumlean". I'd like for you to explain then why you are more heavy on Dyrenz being voted out first over me.

Dyrenz's post 179 strengthened my scum read on Dyrenz. I didn't explicitly state that in 181, but I did link the post when I voted to imply it.

[Farren]

Also, I am the last one to vote. If I vote, will this day end in a NL? Or does it only end when there's a majority 5?

The day ends in No Lynch if deadline passes with no majority lynch.

You voting now will not end the day.

[Farren]

Is this vote based on your latest gut reaction? Or is this an overall view from everything so far?

I don't know that "gut reaction" is accurate. I think of gut reaction as being more like "I think X is scum, but I can't explain why, even to myself." In this case, it's "I don't believe Dyrenz was telling the truth, and town|Dyrenz would have no reason to lie."

Overall view implies a broader argument, I'd say. I think of that more in terms of: "X is scum. Here is X's plan in all its glory. Motives, means, attempts. Details, etc., etc." Definitely does not fall into that category.

[Farren]

You have Norwegianboy and I as your only two scumreads. Does that mean you think the two of us are the scumteam?

i don't like this question

What are you trying to accomplish here?

[Farren]

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?

[Farren]

Sharing that i didnt like that question

Congratulations on your rousing success, then.

Or was there more to it than that? By which I mean, I think there was more to it than that; please share.

[Farren]

Jamelia: I wasn't asking skitter. I was asking Dyrenz, and I think since then Dyrenz has since changed his read on me.

[Farren]

Eh, fuck it.

I'm Town Friendly Neighbor so we're obviously in B
There's a Mafia Rolecop, guaranteed.
Other PR is Tracker or Jailkeeper. Speculating this is hardly inappropriate since they're the only 2 options given my own role.

UNVOTE: Dyrenz

[Farren]

*sigh*

I'm sorry. I really am. I'm being overly emotional and letting those feelings drive what I write. I get frustrated. I'm sure anyone who is still just trying to learn how to play a good town game would get frustrated when everything they try to do gets thrown back in their face as wrong or false. Makes me feel like an idiot. Maybe I'm just too thin-skinned for this game. Idk. I'm gonna try to continue to do what I can to scumhunt, but I'm getting sick of feeling like I have to constantly defend myself on every page, especially when I know I'm town and I'm trying so hard to communicate that in my actions.

So again, I apologize for being so bad at this. My first game I was really meek and careful, and I tried to be more confident in my play this game and all it has done is blow up in my face. Sorry everyone.

Eh. Getting emotional is understandable. I don't think anyone with experience at this is going to say they don't understand. I'm certainly not.

Having to defend yourself constantly can be nerve-wracking. Happens to all of us.

Assuming you're not scum making a fake claim (unlikely), your odds of getting shot just jumped through the roof. Definitely keep scumhunting today, and if you've got anything you want to say, don't assume you'll be able to say it on D2.

[Farren]

I didnt like the bit where you asked if he thought his two scumreads were the team

A) that's a bad approach to take to scumhunting at this stage of the game, preflips. Just like for scum individually, for the most part, it's not really helpful to try to shoe-horn both reads into a scumread at this stage

B) i'm not sure how to articulate it exactly, but it kinda felt like a leading question

A: Disagree, at least in the case where you have exactly two scumreads. If they're not a valid potential team, it means at least one of them is wrong. It's more likely to be helpful later, yes, but that doesn't mean it's useless now.

B: If the answer was yes, then there'd be follow-up, unless it was explained sufficiently from the get-go. If the answer was no, then it'd prompt a suggestion to re-evaluate the reads. If the answer was uncertain, then I probably table it until there's more certainty. Not a leading question.

[Farren]

Sigh
Dyrenz is town
You should not have claimed this early

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

No point in criticizing Dyrenz's choice to claim now, unless you're making a scumcase out of it - which clearly you're not.

I actually need to re-read Norwegian. My scumread there is stale, and I don't recall anything recent from him that's pinged me.

[Farren]

My initial scumread was based on this:

You call it RVS, i have a different name for it. Aggression.
I don't know what kind of culture exists at this site, but where i come from we generally frown upon people that meekly follow the whims of the masses in feeding baseless bandwagons. Even if you don't turn out to be scum, i doubt the town would be overly harmed by one mislynch of this caliber.

Specifically, calling out chemist for "Aggression." Post 63 itself is aggressive tonally. Calling out someone for a particular scummy behavior while doing that same scummy behavior is a strong sign of scum.

But looking further, I think we're dealing with different meanings - or at least different applications of the word.

"meekly follow the whims of the masses" doesn't describe aggression. Meekness and aggression are pretty much polar opposites. But this was specifically being used to describe Chemist's vote, not Chemist's attitude or tone.

I don't think of aggression in this game as being centered on how a person votes; I think of it in terms of how a person acts. What language they use.

You are correct. My posts tend to be more reactive in general. It’s the way i play most of the time. I’ve tried to be more outgoing before but it usually ends in me getting lynched by mafia because i might get erratic or obsessive over those i believe to be mafia. Therefore i am intentionally trying to tone down my language and behaviour so i can stay more calm and collected about this whole thing.

"more outgoing," "erratic or obsessive" sounds like what I'd define as aggressive behavior - at least when put together like that.

Point is, aggression (by my definition) is *not* inherently scummy. The inherently scummy thing is saying "aggression is scummy" while acting aggressive. But in this case, I should be looking at what Norwegian actually defines as aggressive to apply that tell properly. In this case, that was the bandwagon voting. Which Norwegian didn't do, so the tell doesn't apply.

Conclusion: Norwegian goes back to a neutral read for now.

[Farren]

skitter: what's your take on Jamelia's case on Chemist?

[Farren]

Plus if he's gonna single me out as the most sus, I should probably return the favor and make him justify it more if he wants my vote shifted elsewhere.

UNVOTE: Mr Oobsy
VOTE: Chemist1422

A) where did this happen?
B) why is this a voteworthy offense?

Leucosticte: I didn't see an answer to this question.

I also didn't see any of Chemist's posts where he described you as "most sus" or anything similar. I see the RVS vote and post 203, where he puts you in the "not a town read" category.

Could you please answer?

[Farren]

We have multiple targets but I’d like it consolidated so we can all come to some sort of agreement that we like and helps us moving forward the next days or so.

I’m also not “pushing” for chemist. In my opinion if we’re voting based on who we all think is the most “scum acting” so far, my vote is for Chemist. I’m not trying to change anyone opinions on it, but no one has convinced me that someone else has been scummier than them.

The only way consolidation is going to happen is if people change their opinions.

[Farren]

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

[Farren]

People need to start making a case if they want people’s opinion to change Farren. Maybe i don’t give the impression since i do tend to be stubborn, but i am perfectly capable of changing my vote as long as someone has a compelling argument why X is scum or why X is innocent. I’m sure everyone thinks the same.

That was the point I was trying to make, yes.

Counter-point: "People" includes all of us, including me.

[Farren]

conclusion about skitter based on games I read: not going to be productive to continue reading. I'm seeing both town and scum parallels, comparing against three town games and one scum game. More town than scum, but I read more town games than scum games, because duh.

skitter: what if anything has caused your read on Chemist to change since post 131 ?

[Farren]

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

I can link off-site meta as well if you like

Would the off-site meta be helpful in evaluating you in such a way that the on-site meta wouldn't?

[Farren]

Possibly?

iirc my only on-site scum game was forkbomb which is probably not representative of my current scum play

You were scum in Mini Theme 2084.

[Farren]

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?

- Almost 24 hours ago, post 342 - thinking about who to switch the vote to. Since then, has posted. Has not voted. None of the posts look like attempts to form opinions on people. Closest is the response to skitter's question that I re-asked, but that could have been a jumping-off point to re-think things - and wasn't.
- Had that previous vote on Chemist prior to switching to Dyrenz. The Dyrenz case got shot down, so naturally unvotes. But the previous vote - and post 335 indicates that Chemist is most likely still a scumread. So there's at least one pre-existing opinion that could be either strengthened, probed, or re-evaluated.
- post 303 - the Chemist vote itself. Sounds more like a negotiation than a scumcase. I might be overrating that as a scumtell, though - my background involves plurality lynch, where deadline means someone is getting killed.
- Don't see anything in the last few days that looks Town.

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.

So I'd put him on the scumside of the tracks.

And thought of something else I'd like to test as well.

VOTE: Leucosticte

[Farren]

Why Jamelia, Mr Oobsy?

[Farren]

Because

Dyrenz

voted him.

Why does that matter?

[Farren]

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.

Mr Oobsy is probably a town vanilla tbh but in the absence of any major scumtells, I don't have a problem with pushing him overboard if he's going to be a liability; we need the final group of players to be people whose judgment we can rely on

I know Leucosticte is not the only one who has voiced this sort of thing.

And I can even kinda see a justification in Majority Rules - I think a policy lynch would probably be better than no lynch at all from a pro-town perspective.

But from a health-of-the-game perspective, it's a dangerous road to walk, and I'd just as soon avoid it if at all possible.

If people are saying "X is scum because" (unpopular opinion that probably benefits scum more than town), OK. If people are saying "X is town because" yadda yadda, "but lynch them anyway," I am going to object.

[Farren]

I voted with

Dyrenz

because he is practically confirmed

Town

. There was nobody in particular I wanted to vote, so voting with him makes my vote immune to suspicion. Since if anyone were to suspect I were

Mafia

encouraging

Dyrenz

to mislynch, they could test me by having

Dyrenz

change his vote to see if I followed it.

Voting with Dyrenz by no means makes you or your vote immune to suspicion.

Who you vote matters, but why you vote matters just as much. Arguably more so, in some cases.

If you're saying your motive is to avoid suspicion, that's a scummy mindset. Yeah, Town doesn't want to get mislynched any more than scum wants to get lynched, but it shouldn't be Town's top priority. Scumhunting should be - and voting is just as much a scumhunting tool as it is a scumkilling tool.

[Farren]

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

Assuming the accuser is town and accuses two people at random:

First: 2/8 Scum, 6/8 Town. Accuses Town. Remove that town from the pool.
Second: 2/7 Scum, 5/7 Town. Accuses Town again.

Odds of both events happening: (6/8) * (5/7). About 54%. Not just plausible, but more likely to happen than not.

[Farren]

Thing is, accusations are not made at random (except maybe during RVS, but I'd hardly call those votes accusations). So arguing the odds at all isn't going to do much good. Better to counter the accusations with evidence to the contrary, or show why the accusations are otherwise flawed.

[Farren]

And the reason i believe this would prove their alignment is because if they were scum and knew Chemist was town, i'm sure they would be completely ok with facilitating his mislynch. So either way his flip would be an good indication of alignments.

It might be evidentiary, but it wouldn't be proof.

Scum can and will defend members of the Town from time to time. Conversely, scum can and will question, vote for, and accuse their partners.

That being said, busing is risky as heck in a 9er. Even more risky given Dyrenz's claim - Trackers and Jailkeepers become much more dangerous to a lone scum, and one of them is almost certainly in the game.

[Farren]

Leucosticte: why Micc over me? Both of us are voting you.

[Farren]

My logic here:

skitter's already voting me. If Leucosticte is scum, then unless his partner is exactly skitter, it makes more sense for scum-Leucosticte to be trying to set me up as a potential consolidation target than to be trying to start a new wagon on Micc, especially as skitter appears to be tunneling. Or alternately pushing chemist, who already has some votes, unless his partner is exactly chemist - but obviously both can't be partners to scum-Leucosticte, so there is definitely a better choice than Micc available to scum-Leucosticte.

Maybe Leucosticte actually is Town and is just lashing out rather than faking an appeal to emotion and deliberately using bad logic. Let's investigate further. Over eight hours have passed, so *if* Leucosticte is Town and just pissed off at being voted for, he should have calmed down by now.

Based on your response, I am eliminating that "maybe" as a possibility.

So either you're Town-Leucosticte and pissed off, well after the heat of the moment, voting for me because you think scum-Me actively wants to be voted for - or you're scum-Leucosticte. Or I'm missing something.

Explain, please.

[Farren]

That’s extremely angleshooty and against the rules so don’t make reads like that

This was about the Leuco read

Whose? Mine or Mr Oobsy's?

[Farren]

why is micc a townread ?

I like how he's answered my questions.

The case on Dyrenz in particular, especially post 297 - yes, given what we know now the conclusion of the case was wrong, but the evidence itself was solid despite that.

[Farren]

conclusion about skitter based on games I read: not going to be productive to continue reading. I'm seeing both town and scum parallels, comparing against three town games and one scum game. More town than scum, but I read more town games than scum games, because duh.

skitter: what if anything has caused your read on Chemist to change since post 131 ?

i've been told i'm hard to read :p

basically i still don't like his rvs post but like he hasn't done much else ai and i think people are scummier and being suspicious of him became like a ~popular~ opinion so i'm wondering if scum were piling on when it was popular

Right after the RVS vote:

Micc, Leucosticte, skitter vote Chemist, in that order. You put Chemist at L-2; then Leucosticte dropped off the wagon; then Norwegianboy put Chemist back at L-2.

So that theory would put either Norwegianboy or yourself as the scum. From your POV, not you, ergo Norwegianboy. And you're voting Norwegianboy now, so that's consistent.

[Farren]

also which scumgame did u read ?

"911: what's your emergency?" - you, Tris, and Baezu as the scumteam.

[Farren]

Heading to bed; will address anything else after I wake up tomorrow.

[Farren]

basically i still don't like his rvs post but like he hasn't done much else ai and i think people are scummier and being suspicious of him became like a ~popular~ opinion so i'm wondering if scum were piling on when it was popular

Such a bad argument. Your only defense of Chemist is that people are voting him because he seems suspicious... That’s why you think he’s town? Seriously?

If she thinks scum is pushing Chemist, that seems a totally logical reason to think Chemist is less likely to be scum to me.

[Farren]

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

Meta's a tool, just like any other. It can be used, misused, and abused.

Example, for skitter: Mini Normal 2082.

skitter death-tunnels on Pine. skitter's Town. Pine's Town.

Establishes: skitter can death-tunnel on Town as Town. Therefore, skitter death-tunneling on me cannot be taken as proof of lockscum-skitter.
Does not establish: skitter is definitely Town. I'd need to read a wide enough selection of skitter's scumgames to establish that she doesn't (or does?) do that as scum.

[Farren]

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.

[Farren]

@Skitter30

If you think my rationale is "why not" then you're incredibly dishonest Skitter30.

I'm sticking with my Chemist vote anyways, so if you're not worried about his flip i'd advice you to do the same. If he's town the suspicion will be directed towards me in any case.

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?

(underlining added)

This does not look like skitter being dishonest to me. This looks like skitter using your exact words in proper context. I see no other posts afterwards where you expanded upon your rationale.

If there's more to it than that, you need to explain it. If I missed something, please point it out.

[Farren]

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.

Heh. Asking may be good for post-game, but I wouldn't trust it during the game.

Falls into the same category as "I would never do X as scum!" arguments. Too much WIFOM potential to be meaningful.

[Farren]

I don't think my reads are bad, i'm just not as good at selling my message as the veterans.

Right now, the worst thing I can say about Chemist is that he appears to be staying out of the fray. But that's true of a lot of people right now, and this is Labor Day Weekend, which is probably impacting activity levels in general.

[Farren]

UNVOTE: Leucosticte
VOTE: NorwegianboyEE

At least unless I get an answer I like to 492 / 498.

[Farren]

L-1

.

No more votes for Norwegian without a declaration of intent and a chance for Norwegianboy to respond.

[Farren]

Apparently I should have phrased that better.

[Farren]

That's hammer, and twilight. Norwegianboy, if you've got last words to say, better get 'em in before the thread gets locked. If you're town, last chance for reads and parting thoughts. If you're scum, last chance to spread WIFOM, FUD, and other sorts of misinformation.

[Farren]

Any questions for remaining players that weren't answered - or that you never got around to asking?

I get the scumread on Oobsy. Why Micc?

[Farren]

Predicted nightkill= Dyrenz.

I don't get what the point would be of killing Dyrenz.

This discussion favors scum more than town right now.

[Farren]

Mr Oobsy. Please explain your hammer on Norwegianboy.

[Farren]

Leucosticte: still waiting for a response to post 437.

[Farren]

I was just like, "Let me just prove that I'm not scum arbitrarily voting for this other guy instead of you, because voting is more powerful than words; if I give some explanation, that could just be BS, but voting proves my sincerity"

Also, I was just getting exhausted from all the debate and feeling too lazy to go back through what was said and figure out who was more likely to be scum, especially since my vote probably wasn't going to matter anyway; maybe I'll be less lazy today.

How would switching your vote demonstrate that your vote wasn't arbitrary? If anything, it indicates the opposite.

Your vote was post 426. Plotinus's VC: post 425 shows the tally being 2-2*-1-1-1-1 just before your vote for Micc, with you as the only non-voter and being one of the two people with two votes. With the tally in this state, why would you believe that your vote wouldn't end up mattering?

[Farren]

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.

Or alternately:
- the person who is being wagoned has been given enough time since they hit L-1 to indicate that they don't plan to claim or address the accusations against them. That didn't happen in this case; Norwegianboy was at L-1 for seventeen minutes. I don't think seventeen hours would be sufficient to meet that standard, much less seventeen minutes.
- the hammerer is scum, and deploying the hammer wins scum the game. Mr Oobsy may be scum, but that was definitely not a game-winning hammer.
- deadline is close enough to expiring that not hammering invokes No Lynch. Also not the case here by a long shot.

[Farren]

L-1

.

No more votes for Norwegian without a declaration of intent and a chance for Norwegianboy to respond.

VOTE: NorwegianboyEE

ok

ok, what? I'm confused. What are you trying to say here?

[Farren]

this doesn't accurately describe how the hammer went down
you're partner-y with mr oobsey imo

I agree that it doesn't describe how the hammer went down. Leucosticte didn't directly portray it that way directly, though - it was couched as more of a hypothetical ("someone", not "Mr Oobsy").

Normally I'd think that coaching it as a hypothetical is a bit scummy. In the Newbie queue, though, I'd be more inclined to think null / NAI.

Partner-y, I'm deferring judgement until either Mr Oobsy makes an appearance or the prod timer gets triggered.

[Farren]

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

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

Going to review that progression myself before I inquire further on that.

Given the 800 pound gorilla in the background, I'm not drawing any conclusions about the lack of a vote.

I can think of a couple of possible meanings to stating the bald read.

skitter, what was yours?

[Farren]

Sorry, should have made it clear.

skitter: what was your intent behind stating the scumread on Micc in post 538 without further details?

[Farren]

I've reviewed Micc's progression on Norwegian.

I can see at least one thing I will probably want to follow up on, but I need to chew on it for a bit. It's not directly related to the progression itself, though. That seems fine. What about the progression do you dislike?

[Farren]

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?

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?

[Farren]

A) i'm in a pithy posting phase
B) it generates discussion

I'm not sure why it's bothering people so much that i didnt give details

B) was what I was suspecting.

Why it might bother people:

You'd already stated that same read during twilight of D1 - without details. Stating it again here doesn't add any new content. Could be scum - hoping that if you repeats an untruth often enough, people will start believing it.

Except - you haven't done that anywhere near enough times to get to that point. Plus, night shut the game down in between when you last said it and now. Raising it as a discussion point again is not unreasonable, given how long night runs here; it's the same thing I did bringing up my question to Leucosticte from D1. Something that might slip between the cracks after yesterday's hammer. Plus it serves as a reaction test, the way you did it.

[Farren]

For the record, i've seen mr oobsey online multiple times yesterday

At this point, I will be surprised if he shows up and defends himself.

[Farren]

Chemist: what are your game thoughts right now that do not involve Mr Oobsy?

[Farren]

Partner-y, I'm deferring judgement until either Mr Oobsy makes an appearance or the prod timer gets triggered.

It's been 36 hours since Dawn. Looking back on D1:

Spoiler: Leucosticte on Oobsy:

- 48: votes Oobsy due to inactivity.
- 164: reaffirms that vote, shifts reason to Mr Oobsy's failure to vote.
- 175: says Mr Oobsy was cool at first but disapproves of Oobsy's naked vote on him. Thinks Oobsy is VT but a possible liability. (Note - Oobsy claimed VT in his first post.)
- 303: moves vote to Chemist; no comment on Oobsy here.

Spoiler: Oobsy on Leucosticte:

- 84: mentions Leucosticte's vote without naming Leucosticte.
- 87: strong townread on Leucosticte due to sincerity.
- 103: reiterates townread on Leucosticte.
- 132: asks skitter why she townreads Leucosticte and Oobsy, and why she thinks I'm suspicious.
- 172: Votes Leucosticte, no reason.
- 178: Parrots back what Leucosticte said in 175 (the VT but possible liability part).
- 185: moves vote to me, complains that D1 voting is random.
- 438: back to a strong townread on Leucosticte.

Oobsy's progression on Leucosticte is just bizarre. How do you go from sincerity to voting with a parroted line back to sincerity again?

The parroting is the weirdest part of all. That's probably the part that most rings of scum/scum interaction. Like something was scripted and misunderstood in scumchat?
Oobsy's question to skitter in 132. It wouldn't seem weird at all, except - it's the only set of questions that Oobsy asked during D1 about anyone's reads or opinions. Why does that in particular catch his eye above everything else?

I can see partner-y.

[Farren]

VOTE: Mr Oobsy

[Farren]

UNVOTE: Mr Oobsy

I also do not counterclaim Mr Oobsy.

Micc, I see your response; thank you. I will respond to it at a later time.

I am going to refrain from addressing Mr Oobsy's claim further unless a counterclaim arises.

[Farren]

Mafia

didn't vote me because they knew I was

Tracker

, correctly predicting

Micc

and

Farren

would vote me, hoping to exploit this fact to make themselves look less suspicious than

Micc

and

Farren

. That's the logic.

I would be shocked if the Mafia picked up on your breadcrumbs. I base this on the fact that you didn't get shot last night. Tracker is more dangerous than Friendly Neighbor, and mislynching PRs is tough unless you can get people to speedhammer without going through proper protocols OR are willing to counterclaim. Given that we've already been burned once by the speedhammer, seeing it happen again isn't very likely. Counterclaim means a guaranteed dead scum by D3 no matter what the circumstances.

I can buy that scum would take a wait-and-see approach to today. I don't think they could specifically predict Micc's vote and mine, but I'm sure they could predict that at least *some* people would hop on you sooner rather than later.

[Farren]

town players who

ideally are following a consistent and defined thought process

to lead them to their votes.

Thank you, I needed that laugh.

I think I do need to read some of your past games after all. Especially some of your newbie games. I think this is not a scummy mindset, but it'd be nice to see if this sort of thinking shows up in your other Town games.

There's less of an incentive for town to do this, generally only for strong 1v1 battles which wasn't the case here.

This is indicative of the same mindset, I think. Yeah, there's no incentive for Town to act snarky in most cases. But it's one of those that, incentive or not, happens on a regular basis.

[Farren]

VOTE: Leucosticte

Let's see if we can shake off some of that laziness.

[Farren]

I don’t counter claim Oobsy but I’m not mafia. So I don’t really know what to say/do to prove that.

When in doubt, hunt for scum.

Take a look at everyone. Who looks good? Who looks suspicious? What's changed since the last time you looked?

[Farren]

Let's start seeing some action, people. Votes. Questions. Opinions and responses. Something. Anything. We don't need a hammer yet, but we do need to at least start looking for nails.

Apathetic towns lose games.

[Farren]

Right now, scum|Oobsy would require either:

- PR|Leucosticte, who hasn't posted since Oobsy's claim, or
- a PR that's voluntarily decided not to CC despite Oobsy's wagon falling apart.

#2 falls into the ?!? category - the longer you wait to counterclaim, the less likely your counterclaim is to be believed.
A counterclaim by Leucosticte would be awesome. I would love to see that. But I'm not going to hold my breath waiting for it given the circumstances.

[Farren]

Jamelia: is Chemist currently your strongest scumread? If not, who is?

[Farren]

I think something that I’ve picked up on is that people love to go for those they believe are the scummiest at that current moment, but not looking at overall game.

I think my strongest scumread is Oobsy, based on hammering D1 on norwegian without scumreading them before that point. I still think as a whole everyone has a scumread on Chemist however, including myself.

My read on Chemist is based partially on process of elimination, partially based on under-the-radar behavior today - and at least some of D1 as well, once the opening vote business furor died down. I wouldn't say he's my strongest scumread, but he's definitely in my lynch pool.

He's also the low-hanging fruit, though. Given Mr Oobsy's sudden case of Tracker, Chemist's probably the easiest person to lynch right now.

It would be *really* nice to get some fresh content to evaluate Chemist with. (hint, hint)

Anyway. So Oobsy's your strongest scumread. Voting for him right now would be pretty silly given the claim. So where would you rather go? Say majority lynch wasn't a thing, you didn't have to worry about hammers, deadline was all that mattered. Where would you be voting in that case?

[Farren]

I think all of the poking at stuff Farren did was really towny and that they’ve been genuinely solving a lot

Mechanically Oobsy and skitter are clear which leaves Micc/Leuco/Jamelia

With no counterclaims, Oobsy goes into the 99%+ town bucket. Close enough to mechanically cleared to remove him from consideration.

Mechanically, skitter is not clear, even with Oobsy's view. Could be Goon|skitter with Rolecop making the kill N1. With the Friendly Neighbor ID'd and scheduled for execution, it even makes sense to have the Rolecop make the kill - "Your target visited <X>" would be just as incriminating as "Your target visited <X> and <Y>" if the only PR left is the Tracker. If the remaining PR is the Jailkeeper, if the JK blocks the Rolecop, scum probably won't have to worry about IDing the JK anymore.

Skitter's highly unlikely to be Rolecop, though. Technically she could have forgone her view (and had the Goon kill N1), but she wasn't exactly viewed with mass suspicion D1. Would she have been paranoid enough to skip it? I'd expect generic-scum-in-her-slot to not be that paranoid; I don't know her well enough to judge if she's more paranoid than normal as scum. Not quite the 99%+ bucket there, but at least 90%+.

[Farren]

Chemist: how are you going to sort between Micc / Leucosticte / Jamelia / (skitter)?

[Farren]

Mechanically, skitter is not clear, even with Oobsy's view. Could be Goon|skitter with Rolecop making the kill N1.

When I posted that I did not know that

Mafia

kills cannot be seen by

Tracker

. I also did not know either of the

Mafia

could choose to perform the kill.

"Your target visited <X>" would be just as incriminating as "Your target visited <X> and <Y>"

How could I see someone visit 2 people in this match, if a kill is not seen as a visit?

No, Mafia kills can be seen by the Tracker.

But the Rolecop can both view and kill in the same night. So it's possible that in a given night, Rolecop both views and kills, while the Goon does nothing. If that happens, the Tracker viewing the Rolecop would get "Your target visited (X) and (Y) last night" or words to that effect. Tracker viewing the Goon that night would get "Your target visited no one" since the Goon didn't take any actions.

So *if* skitter is the Mafia Goon, then you could view her and get "skitter visited no one" or words to that effect.

If skitter's the Rolecop, then she'd have had to voluntarily skip her view action *and* have the Goon do the kill. Unlikely. Not completely *impossible*, but unlikely. Very unlikely, IMO.

So: could be the Goon from a mechanical perspective, highly unlikely to be the Rolecop.

[Farren]

i guess if nobody else claims pr mr oobsey is conftown

Everyone's had an opportunity. No one's done so.

I could kinda maybe see keeping quiet if it looked like Mr Oobsy was going to get lynched despite his claim. But that didn't happen.

[Farren]

so I got distracted and gave up and yeah

You have inspired me to go re-read Leucosticte.

[Farren]

Spoiler: Case One

UNVOTE: Chemist1422
VOTE: Mr Oobsy

Mr Oobsy is being quiet.. almost TOO quiet

If you want people to change, sometimes you gotta provide an incentive, so my vote stays where it is for now.

Leucosticte --

that dude's pretty cool, I think he's got potential

; he strikes me as one of these turboneets who will be able to give this game the attention it deserves; really I have nothing negative to say about this player at this early juncture based on what has been presented thus far

Thinks being quiet is worthy of being voted; sets expectations to participate; isn't participating today.

Spoiler: Case Two

But, what I consider scummier than the guy who's just quietly unobtrusive, is the guy who is mostly quiet except to break into the convo to say a few short words of bad advice

Is it bad for someone to be decisive and say, "Let's get this show on the road; we've debated long enough and there are already four votes for this guy, and I think he's guilty too, so let's do this"? (Of course it looks bad if afterward they turn out to be innocent)

This isn't exactly bad advice, but it certainly seems like it's justifying bad behavior.

Spoiler: Case Three

I'd rather people give some reason, even if it's a made-up or bad reason. It might help get people's creative juices going by giving them something to argue for / against, or serve as a catalyst for their own ideas. If townies say "random vote" then it might encourage scum to say, "Here's my random vote too" when they vote for town.

I was just like, "Let me just prove that I'm not scum arbitrarily voting for this other guy instead of you, because voting is more powerful than words;

if I give some explanation, that could just be BS

, but voting proves my sincerity"

Also, I was just getting exhausted from all the debate and feeling too lazy to go back through what was said and figure out who was more likely to be scum, especially since my vote probably wasn't going to matter anyway; maybe I'll be less lazy today.

(underlining added)

Higher standards for other people's RVS votes than his own non-RVS vote.

My goal here was to either compile enough evidence against Leucosticte to make a convincing argument that we should lynch him, or to convince myself that *maybe* I was misreading him - at least enough uncertainty to switch my vote to Chemist after Chemist's last post. What I saw led me to the former, not the latter.

Those of you with townreads on Leucosticte: what are you seeing to get those townreads? I see interest in the game, but not interest in finding scum. I see behaviors that he himself has declared to be scummy behaviors.

Task for tomorrow - see how plausible a Leucosticte / Chemist team sounds.

[Farren]

What's the exact definition of mechanically cleared, by the way? Would an example be, "this a game with only one scum in it; x flipped as the tracker, and before he died, he said y didn't go anywhere the night that z was killed; since we know x was town, and therefore wouldn't lie, that means mechanically y is cleared"? But x could still lie strategically, even though that's usually not regarded as pro-town, so is anyone ever really mechanically cleared, in the sense that we KNOW they're town?

Like maybe someone could be mechanically cleared from a certain player's perspective (because he has the necessary intel), but not from everyone's perspective?

Mod-verified information that can't be falsified through in-game means is the only means of 100% clearing a player. But there are some things that can get so close to clearing a player that for all intents and purposes might as well be treated as such.

Best example I can think of - final 3. Players A,B,C. C's scum, A and B are town. C votes for A. If B were scum, he could vote for A as soon as he saw it and clinch a scum victory. He sees the vote, posts something to show he saw the vote - but does not vote. B's mechanically cleared. Yeah, technically, B could be dumb as a rock and not realize the opportunity. Technically, B could be an utter jerk and deliberately want to drag the game out meaninglessly. But A should still treat B as if he was mechanically clear despite those two technical possibilities.

Here: I could spin hypotheticals where Mr Oobsy is not the actual Tracker. But all of them require the actual remaining PR to have deliberately failed to counterclaim despite opportunity to do so, since we know with 100%, mod-proven certainty that one PR is still alive.

Technically, that could happen. But it's a pretty out-there possibility, and spending time thinking about it is probably going to be wasted time, other than the learning and growth aspect.

In your hypothetical - yeah, a PR giving false info could happen. I have seen it happen a couple times, for mixed reasons, with mixed results. Given an uncountered PR with a role known for sure to be in the game, I assume PRs are telling the truth unless I know they aren't - but I won't speedhammer anyone on a hit, just in case they're not. In most cases of a PR lying, the lie is temporary and will be cleared up once it's served its purposes.

[Farren]

they go back and forth a lot on their read on me and it feels like they're trying to push a scum agenda

VOTE: Jamelia

The first part of this accusation is false.

Here's Jamelia's progression:

Spoiler: Progression

110: Everyone's piling on Chemist; "inclined to think he's town-sided."
116: Much the same as 110. "Odds are Chemist shouldn't be scum, right?"
126: Chemist not clearing things up, which is scummy.
160: Chemist is the only one who's acted scummy.
259: re-iterates that initial RVS vote was not scummy, but Chemist's reaction towards Norwegian is scummy.
270: votes Chemist.
374: accuses Chemist of twisting his words.
590: been "weary" (wary?) of Chemist from the beginning.

I can certainly see one change in reads here - from 116 to 126. But that's it. To me, that looks like discarding weaker evidence (actions of others, null actions by Chemist) in favor of stronger evidence. That sounds like Town to me, not scum.

I see nothing scummy about this progression. Changing a read once does not qualify as going back and forth a lot.

Second part of the accusation: from Chemist's POV, trying to get a townie lynched would certainly qualify as a scum agenda, but "town making mistakes" should be just as plausible as "scum pushing mislynches" from a town POV. By itself, insufficient.

[Farren]

UNVOTE: Leucosticte
VOTE: Chemist1422

This is L-1. Please declare intent to hammer and allow reasonable time for response before hammering. Even if you are 100% convinced Chemist is scum, please allow him the courtesy of being able to respond. Thank you.

[Farren]

Sorry about the number use. It's a habit I have to use the full username when voting.

[Farren]

Only thing that caught my eye when looking for evidence for or against a Leucosticte / Chemist team was the whole voting business during D1. I don't see that as disqualifying, nor do I see anything else.

[Farren]

Step 1: post in big bold letters, Intent to Hammer. Do not vote at this time.
Step 2: State a reasonable deadline for everyone to react, especially Chemist himself and anyone else voting for him.
Step 3: Engage with others while you wait.
Step 4: If Chemist is still at L-1 when your deadline passes - or when everyone's said their piece - and you still want to hammer, cast your vote.

If anyone unvotes Chemist during that time, act as you see fit.

[Farren]

Bleh i'm going to be the closest thing to conftown tomorrow, presumably

At least as long as he doesn't flip Rolecop specifically. Varying degrees of truth if he flips Goon or Town - enough to make you a bad choice to lynch either way.

[Farren]

I think chemist is probably scum
I'm not sold that he's going to flip scum tho, at least in part because i scumread ... several people voting him and/or giving intent

Got details?

Think you can skip Micc, unless you've changed your read or have additional reasons for it.

[Farren]

Feels like you're asking permission to hammer, and like you want to be talked our of it almost?

Idk the underlying train of thought is weird

I didn't get a sense of asking for permission; felt more like trying to avoid what happened on D1.

Wanting to be talked out of it? I'm thinking somewhere between oddly courteous and flashes of pre-lynch jitters. Neither of which bother me.

[Farren]

sigh

Is that all you have to say?

[Farren]

Does this mean we should lynch Chemist for the sake of gathering this info so we know more about skitter's towniness?

VOTE: Chemist1422

UNVOTE: Leucosticte
VOTE: Chemist1422

This is L-1. Please declare intent to hammer and allow reasonable time for response before hammering. Even if you are 100% convinced Chemist is scum, please allow him the courtesy of being able to respond. Thank you.

I will be hammering on chemist in 24 hours from this post.

If people want to unvote so we can discuss this further, please do.

I want to give a lot of time in between now and then just so Chemist can push for someone else (whether it be me or whoever they think is scummy), and hopefully we can get some new evidence to help us.

[Farren]

(note: post 661 was an actual vote. I must have accidentally stripped the vote tags while C&Ping somehow. My mistake.)

[Farren]

Interesting kill.

I suspect that whoever mafia is, is banking on me having a “noob” mentality and taking out someone who was saying I was partners with Chemist, since at that time they were the only one (besides Skitter) who has been against what I’ve been saying.

I’m interested to hear more about Farren’s read on Leuco, but I suspect that I will be one of the options to lynch.

I initially parsed your comment as "whoever mafia is, is banking on me ([having a “noob” mentality]

and

[taking out someone who was saying I was partners with Chemist])..." which made no sense whatsoever and looked scummy. Guessing it's supposed to be parsed as "whoever mafia is, is ([banking on me having a “noob” mentality]

and

[taking out someone who was saying I was partners with Chemist])..." which does make sense.

I would be surprised if scum was thinking of you at all when they made that kill. Mr Oobsy was an uncountered PR that - with Chemist dead - was now a significant threat to scum, as he could get both incontestable clears and hits. That alone is overwhelming justification to kill him and not anybody else. Trying to read anything else into it isn't going to be productive.

I'll address the Leuocsticte read in a separate post.

[Farren]

I suspect that whoever mafia is, is banking on me having a “noob” mentality and taking out someone who was saying I was partners with Chemist, since at that time they were the only one (besides Skitter) who has been against what I’ve been saying.

You voted for Chemist on Day 1 though, and then Chemist voted for you on Day 2. So, that makes you one of the townier people in the game, votewise.

(Dyrenz was town and voted for you, though. Hmm.)

So from my point of view it's:

Leucosticte:

towniest

skitter30:

second-towniest

Jamelia:

third-towniest

Micc and Farren:

tie for fourth-towniest

Could you please explain why you have people in that order? What makes skitter your top read? What makes Micc and I your worst read?

[Farren]

First: how D2 went down.

At the start of D2, from the scum perspective, Mr Oobsy must have looked like a very tantalizing mislynch. He committed a flagrant violation of site protocol that clearly benefited scum and not Town, and the scum know he's not actually scum. Micc jumps on him right away. I follow suit, although I don't do so immediately. I wait until 36 hours have elapsed. Plotinus prods Mr Oobsy not too long after that; Mr Oobsy claims shortly thereafter; both Micc and I unvote.

Everyone else stands back, including scum|Chemist.

Not much here, I think. I know I'm not scum; Micc could be scum trying to get the obvious mislynch started, but just as plausible he's Town making another logical-but-wrong vote. Voting for a Town player who hammered Town without intent is pretty NAI.

[Farren]

Second part of D2.

Mr Oobsy states Chemist and Jamelia as scumreads; votes Jamelia.

I vote Leucosticte. Micc starts the wagon on Chemist.

So now things are up in the air.

At this point, there's no longer anything inevitable.

Jamelia mentions scumreading Oobsy. If Jamelia's scum, this seems like an oddball choice to make. Why focus his attention on you, especially when his backup read is your partner?

Of the two of Jamelia / Chemist, I'd say that Chemist was more scum-read by the Town. The last thing scum|Jamelia would want here would be more people piling on him - if scum|Jamelia dies, scum's odds really start looking horrible.

And Mr Oobsy's response to all this: he switches to Chemist.

Based on this, and what I read about Jamelia's read progression D1, I think Jamelia is Town.

[Farren]

Continuing with D2. After I interact with Chemist and see his false accusation on Jamelia, I switch over to him. Jamelia declares intent to hammer.

At this point, I'd say the hammer's getting close to inevitable, especially after Chemist "sigh"s and says nothing further.

Leucosticte then hammers, seemingly without being aware that he's doing so.

[Farren]

Best example I can think of - final 3. Players A,B,C. C's scum, A and B are town. C votes for A. If B were scum, he could vote for A as soon as he saw it and clinch a scum victory. He sees the vote, posts something to show he saw the vote - but does not vote. B's mechanically cleared. Yeah, technically, B could be dumb as a rock and not realize the opportunity. Technically, B could be an utter jerk and deliberately want to drag the game out meaninglessly. But A should still treat B as if he was mechanically clear despite those two technical possibilities.

We just had something like this happen in a recent game of Werewolves (just concluded; it's why I'll probably be more active here now). I was a roleblocker, and roleblocked A the same night I was killed. B claimed the next day, "Hey, I got roleblocked by Leu last night, and that's why I couldn't protect Leu from dying, but I'm the doctor." A didn't notice he'd been roleblocked the night before, because he overlooked the message notifying him about it. Otherwise, he would've CC'ed.

Here's some context for evaluating Leucosticte's frame of mind.

He's just been in a game where a player did not meet a baseline of competent play - that player failed to check his messages from the mod and missed out on an opportunity to counterclaim scum. Being in a situation like that emphasizes the importance of meeting that baseline of competent play.

Yet Leucosticte then hammers.

Well you just hammered on chemist so

Oh, I thought he only had three votes.

This despite my post announcing L-1, Jamelia's post announcing intent to hammer, and every vote count Plotinus has posted today saying: "With 7 votes in play, it takes 4 to lynch."

This is not a credible mistake. Not with so many opportunities to see that it was a mistake. Not after seeing how D2 started after Mr Oobsy's hammer. Not after just posting about how missing things that a player should catch can hose people over.

As scum, though - Chemist is almost certainly doomed. There's credit to be earned from hammering. And he doesn't have to worry about the possibility of Chemist flipping Town and making himself look **really** bad in the process.

[Farren]

Well, Mr Oobsy said Skitter didn't follow anyone on Night 1, when there was a kill. But Chemist could've been the killer, so I have to figure out how much weight I want to give that. Skitter didn't vote for Chemist on Day 2, so I have to take that into account as well.

The reason why this mattered before is that skitter was highly unlikely to be Rolecop.

Chemist has flipped Rolecop now. It's not only likely but highly probable that Chemist made the kill N1 - it would make the Goon safe from tracking that night, while still allowing Chemist to use his Rolecop view.

I think it's safe to say that if the scumteam is composed of two SEs, they're not going to make a rookie mistake by needlessly doubling their exposure to Tracker hits when there's a 50% chance of a Tracker being present. Normally there'd be an argument that you could possibly explain away "Chemist visited X" but not "Chemist visited X and Y," but that argument no longer applies with the Friendly Neighbor exposed and scheduled for execution.

Mechanically, skitter's on the same level as everyone else now.

[Farren]

Oh, I just noticed that Jamelia didn't vote for Chemist either on Day 2. Hmm, I need to come up with a weighting system.

Jamelia declared intent to hammer. Most likely he would have voted for Chemist if the timer had expired. For weighting purposes, I would accord that the strength of a vote - unless Jamelia's timer expired and Jamelia failed to hammer on schedule.

More to the point, you were the one that prevented Jamelia from following through.

[Farren]

VOTE: chemist1422

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

VOTE: Leucosticte

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

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

[Farren]

Some might be like "Oh, if you're worried about seeming like

scum

, that means you're

scum

" but the reality is that if you're

town

, and you do something like vote for someone to get lynched who then turns out to be

town

, and then you get lynched the next day because of that, then at this point in the game, potentially your side loses.

This also accords nicely with what I was saying earlier. If you were Town hammering Chemist unawares, this shows you knew what the consequences would be of that mistake - should Chemist flip Town, which would make it a mistake. If you were scum hammering Chemist, then you knew Chemist would flip scum and wouldn't have to worry about it.

[Farren]

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.

While you're waiting for those, you can address post 624.

[Farren]

And yet, Mr Oobsy voted Day 1 to hammer a

townie

, and Mr Oobsy turned out to be

town

. I voted Day 2 to hammer a

scum

, so that makes me even

townier

than Mr Oobsy, from a certain perspective. We can argue WIFOM all day about it, but that just goes in circles.

The only one of us that didn't either a) participate in lynching Chemist or b) clearly state intent to do so was skitter. She's your top townread.

Meanwhile, I'm in your bottom tier. I had the opportunity to back out and stop a hammer. I was clearly around to do so after Jamelia declared intent. Yet I didn't.

It doesn't sound like your opinions are based on how the votes went down.

Point is - I'm showing reasons why I think scum-you hammered - deliberately - and why I think town-you would not have accidentally hammered - even though the hammer directly resulted in a scum lynch.

(I have 0 games under my belt on this platform.)

This sounds like you're claiming inexperience with majority rules. Inexperience is understandable. What's not understandable is missing all the warnings. Especially when you understand the potential consequences of missing those warnings.

[Farren]

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

I saw what you said in post 690. What else do you have? Either showing Micc is scummy, or showing that Leucosticte is Town?

[Farren]

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)?

The case I'm trying to make is not that hammering Chemist hurt the town. The only thing we really lost was giving Jamelia the opportunity to follow-through - or not. And I think Jamelia's Town, so I'm not too concerned about that.

The case I'm trying to make is that from a town-Leucosticte perspective, you should have been aware of the possibility that hammering Chemist

could

hurt Town, and that you'd be held responsible for not giving everyone the full amount of deadline time. Especially if it results in town-you getting lynched right afterwards; that would mean a scum victory. That given what you've seen in this game so far - you making a mistake and not realizing you were hammering is not credible. From a scum-Leucosticte perspective, you would know that hammering Chemist would be pro-Town, and did so to garner the credit, especially given that Jamelia had stated intent and nobody on the wagon was expressing doubts.

Nevertheless, I can answer your question: I think Chemist was going to die no matter what. The only one not on the wagon that was expressing doubt prior to the hammer was skitter.

One possible exception: Micc mentions after the hammer that he would have unvoted. I think if that does happen, we see the following:

1) Jamelia puts Chemist back at L-1;
2) EITHER Micc hammers Chemist, OR
3) skitter thinks Micc is scum saving scum|Chemist and hammers Chemist.

[Farren]

I'm just now starting to keep some serious notes about this game, because that Werewolves game I was playing distracted me more than I expected.

Anyway, as for my votes. On Day 1, I originally voted for you as an OMGUS, and then switched my vote to Chemist since he was more laconic (as I noted in post #26, I often find that the more laconic guys are

scum

; and it turned out, I was right about Chemist too).

Then in post #48, I cast a pressure vote for Mr Oobsy for being quiet too (since at that point he was being even quieter than Chemist). Since the whole basis for my vote for Chemist was his being quiet, it made sense to switch my vote to the even quieter guy.

Then Chemist seemed to be saying a lot of unpersuasive / irrelevant stuff, which made me switch my vote back to him in post #303 because that's a

scummy

behavioral cue

and we were still in RVS

(so didn't have a lot of intel and votes to go on).

In post #312,

I switched my vote to Dyrenz because he had a "just lynch me" attitude, which I've seen in

scum

before as a way of manipulating and dismaying

town

; although I've now seen it from

town

in some games too, so I'm starting to revise my opinion about how much of a

scum

tell that is. Then I unvoted, and switched to Micc in #426 as an OMGUS, then switched to Farren in #436 as another OMGUS.

This was RVS, after all

.

In my eyes, the underlined parts and the bolded parts contradict each other. If you're casting meaningful votes based on scumtells (or pretending to do so as scum), it's no longer RVS. Meaningful votes are clearly superior to arbitrary and/or random votes; why would you use RVS to justify a vote after RVS is clearly over?

[Farren]

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.

"Fourth-most townie" is your bottom category. Are you trying to say you don't scumread anyone? Is there any sort of meaningful difference between "scumread" and "bottom-tier read?" Especially when we're this far into the game?

[Farren]

Okay, well, keep thinking that, but it sounds like potential confirmation bias from the fact that I voted for you on Day 1, which has made you sus of me ever since, even though you pretty much implied that day in post #435 that from my perspective, you could be equally sus as Micc.

It could be. But if you're thinking I'm suffering from confirmation bias, then that should mean you think I'm Town. Scum doesn't do confirmation bias - they can't.

I mean, I get that being voted by someone makes someone more sus, all else equal, but it was RVS, and I was just doing OMGUS right back to you.

At any rate, you're talking about behavioral evidence right now, which is weaker than voting, so I don't really care too much how much you want to talk about it.

Not trying to convince you of anything here. I'm trying to do one of two things: establish to everyone's satisfaction that you're scum, or alternately, get people to show me why I'm wrong so I can look elsewhere.

But: behavioral evidence is just as important as voting. If voting were the be-all and end-all of everything, we'd be lynching skitter right now.

[Farren]

So basically all this comes down to, Farren, is that you're saying, "You're lying about why you hammered, which makes you scummy." The hammering itself was not a big deal; heck, it would've been kinda sus too if I

hadn't

voted for Chemist. Basically the only way to not be sus, would've been to have gotten on the wagon sooner. But I think there was more justification to get on it later, because Chemist had had opportunity to defend himself, and hadn't done a good job.

So whatever; it was a breach of protocol, but at the end of the day, who cares. I was gonna be sus no matter what (once a few people had already cast their votes while I was distracted), but I think I did right in at least giving Chemist a chance to present whatever defense he wanted to.

Save the talk about "you should've known better than to accidentally hammer someone" for people who have played more than one day of this game.

1) That's the most recent argument I've made; it certainly isn't the only one. It's certainly possible that you genuinely were not aware. In which case, you've learned a valuable lesson about majority rules games - count up the votes before voting for someone.
2) If you hadn't hammered, then it depends on what you did do. We'll never know.
3) Pretty sure it's safe to say people care about how the hammer comes down on this site.
4) Your defense has been a mix of "It was an accident" and "so what if I did anyway?" If it really was an accident, why are you spending so much time trying to justify it as okay?

[Farren]

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 don't think I agree with this. Micc showed signs of analyzing things on D1, where he voted for Norwegian. He didn't show much sign of analyzing things on D2 - but he voted Chemist that day and was the first person to do so.

[Farren]

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.

I don't agree with this either. The concept of "opportunistic" is sound, even if I don't think it applies in your case. Is this a vocabulary quibble, or is there something more meaningful here?

[Farren]

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.

I am amused that you're showing sympathy with the people responsible for the murder instead of those who were investigating it. If you want to put yourself in Col. Jessup's shoes, by all means, be my guest.

This is trying to justify your action. That would be appropriate if you made a conscious decision to do so; you'd have to justify that decision.

So was it accidental? Or did you do it deliberately?

[Farren]

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.

[Farren]

I appear to have phrased things poorly. Let's try this again.

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.

When a player's votes don't line up with their reads, that player is behaving opportunistically - trying to take the opportunity to get a mislynch they might not have been planning for. "That's opportunism" was supposed to refer to the player with the reads, not the act of catching that player.

I don't think you were behaving opportunistically on D1 - you justified your reads.

You didn't do much justifying on D2 - but you did vote for and help lynch scum, so "opportunistically" wouldn't apply in that case.

I think that moots your question, but to answer the logical follow-up - I don't think Jamelia is behaving opportunistically either, but have been asking for details about his reads to verify that.

[Farren]

Just realized I screwed up the quoting in post 728. I attributed the quote to Micc; that was wrong. Those words were mine. I took it out of a nested quote and didn't fix the tag. My apologies.

[Farren]

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.

Scum-reasons to hammer a scum-partner:

1) To gain town credit from the flip.
2) To end discussion early.
3) To paint people who didn't get on the wagon as scummy.

In Leucosticte's particular case, I'd say #1. Check out my post 706 - I laid out how I thought the day would have gone if Leucosticte hadn't hammered.

[Farren]

Let me ask you this -- do you accumulate scumpoints for lying about stuff that can never be proven (such as your state of mind)?

Or does that fall into the category of harmless white lies, like saying, "Nah, that skirt doesn't make your butt look too big," so you can accomplish your goals in life without running into unnecessary interpersonal drama?

I was recently in a game where one dude was the gravedigger (aka coroner), but hadn't claimed; and then someone else claimed as gravedigger. The real gravedigger thought, "Hmm, I know he's fake, because there's only one gravedigger in this game, but the others might not believe me if I counterclaim." So what he did was wait till the day was about to end, and then he opportunistically said, "I know this guy is fake because he gave away some telltale clues that I'm aware of because I've played with him for so long; trust me, it's a meta thing" and went ahead and cast his vote when there wasn't really time to try to have a lengthy discussion about it.

Then post-game, he admitted, no, there was no meta thing; he just knew 100% the guy was fakeclaiming because he had the role that the guy was claiming. In that case, it worked, but it could easily have gone against him if we'd thought, "It's pretty scummy to wait until right before nightfall to say that you've picked up on some meta tells that you don't have time to tell the rest of us about." But, it did win the game for town.

Lying about state of mind is generally not a good idea as Town because that's one thing scum *have* to lie about.

You're right that it can't be proven - but there's a large part of this game that doesn't revolve around proof. And that's a good thing for this game. If everything was 100% mechanical, it'd take some of the fun out of it - as much as I love diving into the mechanics.

Sometimes people pull off gambits. And sometimes they work. Your example above would be one such - ultimately, success is its own justification, as long as the rules are followed. This game has never had a rule saying Town *can't* lie.

As you said, though - in your example, it could have gone the other way too. It's a risk one takes when they start bending the truth.

[Farren]

Heading to bed now; will respond to anything I missed Wednesday evening (by PDT standards).

[Farren]

One might say, "Oh, if you think Micc is just following blindly instead of being malicious, that indicates you think he's town, so therefore you shouldn't vote to lynch him" but the reality is, we can afford a mislynch and he's already not in my top townreads. If you don't have any strong scumreads, though, sometimes it's best to just think, "Hmm, which player would be the most likely to inadvertently be an asset to scum," and just go ahead and lynch them so you can be rid of them and then pursue the scumhunt without their getting in the way.

Some of the same people who make formidable town opponents can also make formidable scum opponents, so that's something to be aware of; just because Farren seems high-effort and so on doesn't mean that he's town.

On the other hand, some might say, "Wow, Farren can make these brilliant connections" but don't discount too, some of these lead him astray, like in post #562 where he thought Oobsy and I were a scumteam. Well, what about, say, post #680; do you still stand by your analysis from that post, Farren, where you reached those conclusions about Jamelia's towniness based on his scumreading Mr Oobsy after Micc had started the wagon on Chemist?

Farren has some cool Mafia theory that he expresses well but it doesn't mean he's town, so don't give him too much of a halo just based on that; you still have to challenge him and see what he's really about. Otherwise, you're potentially just giving scum a free ride.

The point is to lynch scum, not Town. Yes, mislynching one player today doesn't cost us the game. That doesn't mean we should be actively aiming to mislynch, or just trying to lynch the weakest player just because they're the weakest player. If we know the player that's most likely to assist scum, then that probably means we also know who scum is - and thus should lynch the scum.

Post 562: yes, I was wrong about Mr Oobsy being scum. I stand by Mr Oobsy's behavior being bizarre.
Post 680: the logic still makes sense to me. Scum can only shoot themselves in the foot for the purposes of looking townie so many times before they bleed to death. I think that scum|Jamelia taking that tack would have been shooting himself in the foot, as it puts Jamelia in danger - who is currently the better positioned scum of the two in scum|Jamelia world - without doing much to help Chemist. I think that's unlikely behavior as scum - ergo, evidence that Jamelia's Town.

Challenging me is always encouraged. Attacks that show someone is actually reading what I'm saying, analyzing it, and finding things to question is another way of finding Town players. Conversely, attacks that attempt to misrepresent what I'm saying, assault positions I don't endorse, or that flat out ignore facts about the game - that's another way of finding scum players.

[Farren]

I can agree that Leuco COULD have done this with a scum intent, but I don’t think it was with intent to gain credit from the flip, especially when we all chastised Oobsy for hammering early D1 on a TOWN. We know that Chemist is mafia, and maybe Leuco knew this too, but chances are that hammer doesn’t happen since Micc admitted that they would have unvoted if they saw the L-1.

I addressed the possibility of Micc's unvoting in 706 as well.

If Leucosticte is scum, then there's no question that he knew Chemist was also scum.

Leucosticte trying to put the hammer in the best possible light:
- Post 711: "The hammering itself was not a big deal;"
- Post 668 (pre-flip): "Well, judging by [Chemist's] iso, he probably wasn't going to have much more to say anyway pre-hammer, and at any rate, he can probably get a few more words in during twilight if there are some useful thoughts/insights/perspectives/analyses he wants to offer."
- Post 695: "Idk, the hammering probably shouldn't have happened the way it did, but on the other hand, had we waited, it's still technically possible that maybe people would've changed their minds and not lynched him.

So, perhaps it ended up being for the best

". (underlining added)
- Same post: "I voted Day 2 to hammer a scum, so that makes me even townier than Mr Oobsy, from a certain perspective."

Leucosticte did not think the hammer would be seen in a negative light. That idea's out.

That last line right there also shows attempt to claim credit from the flip.

[Farren]

I'm still trying to figure out the best order to do this in.

Should we lynch Micc today and Ferren tomorrow, or Ferren today and Micc tomorrow?

I haven't figured out whether Micc is the low-effort scum or Farren is the high-effort scum, but I've pretty much narrowed it down to those two.

Putting the cart before the horse here.

Not sure if this is scummy or not, though.

[Farren]

For example, voting for Dyrenz after Skitter had suspicions of them

When did skitter show suspicion of Dyrenz?

[Farren]

Closest thing I can see to any suspicion on Dyrenz prior to Micc's vote is Mr Oobsy asking Dyrenz a question or two.

Micc was not following the crowd there.

[Farren]

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.

I didn’t have more to say because I don’t have anything to respond to. This isn’t being right/wrong it’s just an opinion.

I'd say you do have something to respond to. Micc's made comments on his progression. The only part of post 773 you responded to was to his answering your question about his reads. The rest of it deserves your attention too.

[Farren]

I feel like there's something very funky with the logic/conclusions you're drawing here, but i'm not sure how to articulate it

All right. I've seen two major arguments against Micc so far.

First revolves around Micc's progression on D1 - specifically, how Micc voted on D1, with his vote ending up on Norweiganboy - putting Norwegianboy at L-1, allowing Mr Oobsy to hammer him.

First: Leucosticte. RVS, no further comment needed.
Second: Chemist. Micc approves of Leucosticte's bad logic (while acknowledging that it's bad); says Leucosticte is "more likely to be town than someone like than chemist who hasn't expressed any reads or shown signs of trying to make reads." If Chemist hadn't flipped scum, I would find this mildly concerning; majorly so if Leucosticte had flipped scum in Chemist's place. As it stands, no issue here.
Third: Dyrenz. Two reasons given: per 100, Dyrenz appears to be concerned about optics; post 111 has Dyrenz stating a logical analysis that simply lays out the possibilities and doesn't reach any conclusions - making it look like a post for the sake of posting.

Pausing here. Looking at Chemist's posts up to now, Chemist hasn't expressed reads, but he has been asking questions. Those questions mostly center around people who voted for Chemist - with two points of note. First - Chemist also points out both of the Dyrenz posts that Micc references when Micc switches his vote. Second, Chemist does not ask any questions of Micc. Small minus here, but put an asterisk by it - anything based on what Chemist said and did could be WIFOM.

Additionally: in post 123, Micc points out: "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." Switching votes comes 35 minutes later.

Later, posts 422-424. I was initially thinking that 123 was inconsistent with 424, but on further reflection, I don't think so. "that's really not a hard stance to defend" implies that the case behind the stance is weak, which fits with 424.

I could say that Micc never followed up on the first half of 123, but the counterpoint here is that Micc started the wagon on Chemist D2.

[Farren]

Note - my availability today is lousy at best. Not going to declare V/LA, as it should be less than 24 hours of absence, but finishing this is going to take a while. Don't hold your breath.

[Farren]

Micc stays on Dyrenz until Dyrenz claims PR, at which point Micc unvotes, then votes for Leucosticte again, citing the votes for Chemist and Dyrenz.

Timeline here:

Post 303: Leucosticte votes for Chemist. Justification: partially Chemist's deflecting by asking questions, partially OMGUS.
Post 304: Leucosticte clarifies that maybe the questions are OK; it's more about Chemist suspecting him.
Post 310: Dyrenz posts his "Go ahead and mislynch me" post.
Post 311: Dyrenz claims Friendly Neighbor.
Post 312: Leucosticte switches vote to Dyrenz, citing post 310.
Post 326: Leucosticte addresses a post Dyrenz made after 311 - does not unvote.
Post 331: Micc votes Leucosticte, citing his votes for Chemist and Dyrenz.
Post 350: Leucosticte unvotes Dyrenz.

The vote for Chemist - I could kinda see the deflection logic. I don't know that it's logic I agree with, but I don't think it's inherently scummy or unreasonable, especially after Leucosticte walks it back. The OMGUS is a little more problematic.
The vote for Dyrenz - yeah, okay, P-edit is a thing. But I could give someone new to the site a pass on this - provided that the next post was either an unvote citing the claim, or alternately a counter-claim. Neither. Micc's vote is totally reasonable here, I think.

[Farren]

Last but not least: the switch to Norwegianboy.

Post 300: Micc says Norwegianboy is out of his lynch pool, no reason given.
Post 422: Micc calls for consolidation, endorsing a Leucosticte lynch, tolerating an Oobsy lynch, opposing Chemist.
Post 425: VC, with no votes between 422 and the count. Jamelia: 2, Leucosticte: 2, Oobsy 1, Chemist 1, Norwegian 1, Farren 1.
Post 475: Micc retracts post 300 - not sure why he said that; Norwegianboy's back in the pool.
Post 480: Micc clarifies that the D1 pool consists of people he wouldn't go out of his way to defend or work with - or people that he's willing to give space to.

From here on, the tide starts turning against Norwegian. skitter, Micc and I are all going after Norwegian in some sense or another.

I vote Norweigan in 505. Micc in 506. I announce L-1 in 507. Oobsy hammers at 508.

Still seems like a logical progression to me, both in terms of how Micc's votes changed over the course of D1 and how Micc's read on Norwegian changed over time.

[Farren]

VOTE: Leucosticte

L-1

.

Everyone should know the drill by now, even if it's been botched twice.

[Farren]

P-edit

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

Micc did a better job of answering this than I could have. I'll just explain the context.

In a hypothetical world with no P-edit, it's entirely possible that while you're writing up a vote for Dyrenz based on logically suspicious behavior, Dyrenz makes his claim. You don't see the claim and vote for him anyway.

With P-edit, if Dyrenz claims while you're writing up your vote, you get a warning and get to see Dyrenz's post before your post goes through - and have the option of editing and/or deleting your post before it's submitted.

I was using the term "P-edit" to refer to that whole process - not sure if there's a better term to do so. "P-Edit" when attached to a post means that someone edited a post in progress due to additional posts coming through while they were writing it up.

It's not a thing where I come from either; I generally preview everything before I hit submit, or at least try to.

[Farren]

It's such a non-issue, though. Anyway, whatever, you're just voting for me in an attempt to escape this death tunnel I've got you in, but it won't work.

Questionable motives are absolutely an issue. Evidence showing those motives are absolutely an issue. Scum lie about their motives because they have to. Town usually don't - except when there's a PR role involved, but we know that doesn't apply here. If you're lying about your motives, that is a strong indicator of scum. Trying to wave it off as unimportant rather than addressing the issue is also a strong indicator of scum.

I'm voting for you because I think you are scum. I think you are scum because you have engaged in scummy behavior over the course of the game.

And your death tunneling needs work. First rule: you should be voting for the person you're death tunneling. You're not even doing that. Death tunneling is irrational Town behavior, which scum try to imitate both for purposes of getting mislynches and to seem more townlike.

[Farren]

You hope for the best, and plan for the worst. I'm just saying, this death tunnel can accommodate two suspects if needed.

Hope for the best and plan for the worst is understandable. Stating you're going to death-tunnel two people when there's only one scum left in the game is not, even within the bounds of the irrationality of death-tunneling.

[Farren]

What is there to address? (1) There's a difference between a pressure vote, to get someone to talk, and other kinds of votes (like where you say, "I think he's guilty, so I'm ready to lynch whenever the rest of you are"). So if I vote for, say, Mr Oobsy to get him to talk, and then he talks, presumably I'll next switch my vote to someone else who's being quiet, or to whoever seems most sus. (2) Bad behavior is a matter of opinion/interpretation; some people think that anything that goes against their preferred meta is bad behavior. Okay, well, vote accordingly, if that's what you want to make your highest priority; that's what policy votes are for. Last game I was in, someone didn't like the meta people were going with, so he just said, "Lynch me, I want out" and after he got lynched, he turned out to be town; that's how far people take this stuff sometimes. (3) I regard you and Micc as equally sus, so it's pretty immaterial which of you I vote for; I don't see that as "having higher standards for others' RVS than my own".

At this point, it's just a mutual death tunnel where you and Micc regard me as sus over the Chemist vote and I regard the two of you as sus for giving it so much weight, and even for regarding it as a bad thing, so it's whatever.

Case 1 and Case 2: you engage in behavior that you yourself say is either scummy or vote-worthy. Case 2 is a bit of a stretch in that I'm equating "giving bad advice" with "justifying bad behavior", but those two concepts are close enough for me to be okay with it. This was based on your attempts to justify Mr Oobsy's hammer. If you want to argue that the case doesn't qualify because you genuinely think Mr Oobsy's hammer was pro-Town, feel free. It's going to be a hard point to argue, though, especially given the results - outed Tracker D2 with no useful information and a mislynch. If enough people believed in policy lynches, it could have resulted in a mislynched Tracker too. If you'd rather argue that "giving bad advice" and "justifying bad behavior" are not the same thing and shouldn't be treated as such, feel free.

Case 3: you advocate a particular type of behavior, but then don't abide by it yourself. You specifically say you'd rather have a BS explanation than no explanation at all, then turn around and don't give an explanation yourself for a vote. The only way this doesn't fit the description is if you are saying that RVS votes should be held to a higher standard than non-RVS votes, which is laughable.

A lot of reads are based on "I think scum do X; player A is doing X, therefore player A is scum." A better form of read is "player A says scum do X; player A is doing X, therefore player A is scum." Alternately, "player A says Town do Y; player A is not doing Y, therefore player A is not Town" works just as well.

My case against you is not based solely on the Chemist vote. Your attempts to portray it as such are further evidence against you.

[Farren]

How do you know Micc isn't scumteam trying to bus Chemist for the sake of townpoints? Seems like in some situations, you read it that way, but not in others.

Anyway, are you talking about "bad" logic or bad logic? Because I don't think my logic in post #20 was ever refuted, really. It's the same issue with regard to what you mentioned, about how some people hold others' RVS votes to a higher standard than their own. Of course they will; town players will always hold others' behavior to a higher standard than their own because they know other people might not be town, but they know their own motives are pure.

I can't eliminate that as a possibility. I think it's unlikely; I think scum-Micc is better served in that case to try to get Jamelia lynched, as at the time Micc voted for Chemist, that's where Mr Oobsy was voting for. Or alternately, scum-Micc could have renewed his push on you. But it's certainly possible.

I haven't seen a strong case against Micc, though. I've seen attacks on his progression. I've looked at his progression multiple times in multiple ways; I see nothing that appears to be faked. I haven't seen anything that boils down to "Micc would do X as scum but not as Town," "Micc would do Y as Town, but didn't do it," or "Micc says Z is scummy; here's Micc doing Z."

As far as post 20 is concerned: I'm honestly not sure how you could prove or refute that. I suspect it'd involve a lot of data collection, though, given that RVS isn't truly random. One starting point - a scum voting randomly in a 9 player game here (assuming no self-voting - which frankly is not a safe assumption) has a 1/8 of voting for their scumpartner. Take 100 Newbie games, look up the scum, see who they voted for first. What % of those starting scumvotes land on scum?

Sounds more like a problem to be tackled post-death, or post-game. I don't think it's going to be helpful here.

You'll have to explain what you mean by "bad" logic vs. bad logic, though.

[Farren]

Two thumbs up for the moderation.

Thanks for the game, everyone!