QFT.sthar8 wrote: Skillit, she just didn't differentiate between the two scum groups, and I can't frankly see a reason why we'd need to for any practical purpose. Whether a godfather starts off as one and gains an additional benefit from a boost or starts as a goon who becomes a godfather isn't really going to affect who we decide to boost. Electra just defined her sets a little differently than you did.
I don't see what makes boosting votes any different than lynching votes for the purpose of developing discussion and a sense of who isn't looking out for the town's best interests. By not starting with this now we're giving scum the freedom to commit themselves to less, and will have less information to go back to in the future. We're also shutting down a whole new side of discussion.sthar8 wrote:RR and eldarad-
After day1, when we have a little more background info about everybody, I'd be fine with boosting as we go. But for today, I'd like to develop a sense of who is scummy and who isn't before we boost anyone. (that's not to say we need a lynch first, though)
What's more testable than information? It'll be very easy to find out if what she supplies us with is true or false as the game progresses. Definitely easier to test than the unknown effects of boosting anyone else,iLord wrote:Testable?
Information is extremely hard to discern alignment from, if Electra tells the truth.
They're connected, but there's no reason whatsoever they can't exist in parallel. In fact, they'll feed off each other. The reasons for boost voting before we have information are the exact same reasons for normal d1 voting.iLord wrote:We will - just later, after we have evidence for which to base our boast targets on. The discussions are very connected. Unless someone has a possible day power, there's no reason to boast before we have information.
I'm not sure the info is as accurate as an investigation result, but if she does claim to have caught scum with this, lynching him is clearly the right move. If he turns town we'll just lynch her the next day.We test this how? By lynching the target she gets? You want the scum to get our boost AND our lynch?
I say we decide what first as things go along. I agree that 'speedboosting' people isn't a good idea.iLord wrote:I suppose there's no reason we can't start boostvoting people, but we should save the actually boosting until after the lynch target is decided. That way, we have the most information for accurate boost targets.
What I'm saying is that sure, we can start discussing boost targets, but not to boost anyone until we decided who to lynch. There, we can choose the best targets.
I could be misreading something, but these two sentences seem to contradict each other. Isn't the conclusion from your first sentence that scum can just as easily be "extra boostable" as well?iLord wrote:Vanilla getting powers is just like goon getting powers, if it weren't for the sample vanilla PM.
This is a very good point, so I'll boost Electra later, unless she notes that being boosted now would be beneficial.
I don't really buy you weren't noticing the stuff you wrote, this sorta panicky response looks like scum kicking himself for being suspected.stgar wrote:Incog: Wow...I hadn't even really noticed that I was doing that. And I HATE when people do that. I'm sorry
I'll pay more attention.
Going out of your way to answer questions directed at others isn't a sign of not paying attention. I figure by turning it into a mistake and apologizing you where hoping to make it not appear as a scumtell anymore.sthar8 wrote:I was defendingRaging Raggit wrote: I don't really buy you weren't noticing the stuff you wrote, this sorta panicky response looks like scum kicking himself for being suspected.my opinionand I didn't stop to consider that the questions were directed at someone other than me, or that their primary objective might not be to understand the position I was taking. Would you prefer that I lied and came up with some bullshit reason to be answering other people's questions? The simple fact is that I wasn't paying enough attention to determine that I shouldn't have answered those questions at that time.
How does my response imply that I didn't know what I was writing? I know (and knew) exactly what I was saying, the only problem was that my timing should have been better.
I don't see how my response was panicky, or scummy. You're welcome to show me how admitting a mistake and promising to do better is indicative of alignment.
Maybe the right word is more guiltridden than panicky, it sounds to me like "damn, made a mistake. Guess I'll apologize it away". The way he appears to really kick himself for appearing suspicious stinks of guilt to me.iLord wrote:You didn't explain how you found that panicky - it didn't sound like a "OHMYGODI'MCAUGHT" post.RR wrote:Going out of your way to answer questions directed at others isn't a sign of not paying attention. I figure by turning it into a mistake and apologizing you where hoping to make it not appear as a scumtell anymore.
I'm not gonna lie, I have very limited time for MS lately and haven't read into your case enough to decide exactly what I think of it, especially since I find your posts extremely difficult to read. Hopefully I'll find the time to give it a more thourough look shortly.Skilit wrote:RR voiced passive agreement with the campaign on me by doing a real fast 'qft' of Sthar8's post here, but hasn't since even discussed the issue (unless you count this) even after he voted for Sthar8 - this seemed odd to me, like he was trying to avoid supporting too hard a wagon he knew was off base and was instead focusing somewhere else.
Yup, it's how he excuesed it. Answering instead of others isn't much of a tell, just not very good play basically, which makes it more suspect to me that he took it so hard. I'm actually surprised Incognito seems to think the other way around.TDC wrote:Do you think it's more damning that he answered in place of others, or how he excused it?
If it's the latter (and that seems to be the case), how would a response have looked like that's less suspicious?
Town has less inclination bothh kick themselves for not looking pro town enough and make an active effort to not draw suspicion.Incognito wrote:I thought the fact that he admitted to doing something wrong was mildly pro-town. I feel like scum might have tried to concoct some response to try and explain away his or her actions.
So you see how by turning this into an issue of a townie who accidentially "violated a moral code" you show both how important you consider this misstep to be and how very commited to your debt as a pro town player you are for taking this so seriously and promising not to do it again. I still think it's overkill and indicative of an active effort to look pro town, which is indicative of scum.sthar wrote:An apology (in the sense that I offered one) is an acknowledgement of regret for violating a moral code, in this case the code that states that townies should do protown things.
That's odd. Well now that you see it, what do you make of it?Crazy wrote:I might have missed it.
If you wholeheartedly support it, why not attack Incogito yourself rather than sit in the sidelines and goad SL on? I mean, according to you he's obviously not doing it right...iLord wrote:It's not passive - I wholeheartedly support the Icognito attack. The problem is that I don't agree with a lot of SL's points, and it seems as if the rest of the town does not agree either.
Incogito called it a scumtell and voted him based on it, sthar's exaggarated response is imo an implication of guilt. I've said this before more than once, dunno why you voted for me without even trying to figure out what I was actually saying.iLord wrote:If you're talking about his reaction, then I ask you: Why would a scum player react differently than a town player to an action that is not indictive of alignment.
Yup, scum make an active effort to appear pro town while town are more concerned with looking for scum, so obviously scum have a much stronger sense of guilt when they are called on an anti-town play. For them, it means their town-act failed, while town are more inclined to think it's the other guy's fault for not reading them correctly.iLord wrote:Guilt? Are you attacking him for guilt? What's wrong with feeling guilty if you do something antitown?
It would also be you refining his case and getting actively involved in the attack of the player you claim to think is scum, rather than sitting in the sidelines and coaching SL while letting her take all the heat.iLord wrote:Why have two cases against Incognito at the same time with the same points, albeit one with a little less than the other?
It would be like SL saying Incognito is scummy for A, B, C, D, and E, and then me making my own case saying that Incognito is scummy for A and E.
In addition to what I already answered, turning it into a moral issue which sthar as a good townie felt he was compelled to apologize for takes the matter of him being scum out of the equation.iLord wrote:Guilt? Are you attacking him for guilt? What's wrong with feeling guilty if you do something antitown?
The differences between your reactions to Incog/SL and sthar/myself being somethat disturbing.iLord wrote:"a"? Which one?
That was mentioned in the same post as the apology, that "moral code" could've been created by stharscum to turn the whole thing into a big deal that he as a humble townie sees fit to apologize for. If he'd have mentioned earlier being ambivalent to this, It'd make the possibility he's town and did see it as a big deal less likely and thus make it a much stronger tell.sthar wrote:Was sathr8’s apology affected any by what he had said earlier about hating when people answer for others? Would an apology like the one he presented be perceived differently if he was more ambivalent to this more code?
Yes.Incog wrote:@Raging Rabbit: Was there any reason why you asked me about my read of Crazy in particular?
I whole heartedly disagree.iLord wrote:That's weak logic - if one of them had a stronger sense of guilt, it would be town because they would feel guilty for harming to town - their faction.
You're saying I wasn't attacked for it before? That's interesting, see below.iLord wrote:Good job backing up finally, after someone attacked you for it. My suspicions of you do not falter.
You definitely let her play the main role in the attack, while your own role was to coach her and calm her down. you addresed your posts to SL and avoided direct conflict.iLord wrote:"letting her take all the heat"? Are you saying that I have not been vocal about my opinions and suspicions regarding Incognito? Are you saying only the player that formally pushes a quote-by-quote "case" against a player is under the spotlight?
What's not to get aboutiLord wrote:I don't really get what your saying here. So you think guilt was a nulltell?
But I didn't think my point was weak, which is why I argued back.iLord wrote:Admit that your point was weak once you realized it.
I still think it's a mild towntell, it's balanced out by sthar's massclaim speculation being a towntell in hindsight.TDC wrote:RR: I'm confused.. do you still think your point on sthar is strong?
Eldarad put this well in his last post, I think coaching SL from the sidelines instead of directly attacking Incog himself, and in particurlar addressing his posts to SL rather than Incog, is non-confrontational in a very scummy way.TDC wrote:How much of your iLord vote is based on the apparent contradiction, and how much on him not being the main propagator of the Incognito case? (I'm asking because I don't really see where you're going with the latter, iLord's position on the Incognito-springlullaby exchange has been quite clear)
In addition to what I said before, by apologizing and turning the attack to a moral issue, sthar takes the scuminess of his actions out of the equation and displays himself as a repenting townie. Therefore the apology is also a non-direct defense, which serve stharscum's interests.iLord wrote:I'm still confused. In addition to what you said before, you think that it's a null tell?
I like how you bring up me "blowing up under pressure" and all that jazz here to avoid explaining what makes it untrue, since you evidently haven't figured out a way to try and explain your contradiction away yet.iLord wrote:This is not only untrue, it's being used as a defense mechanism, something that votes should not be used for. This is completely scum blowing up under pressure, throwing a vote at your attacker.
That logic can be applied to each and every scumtell possible. "Maybe he said X because heiLord wrote:I think Occam's razor serves us best here - maybe Sthar8 says he's sorry, because he genuinely feels sorry, rather than this dissembling you state that he's doing.
So I realized I was seen as scummy but didn't take it back, which according to you is scummy, but then all the sudden you OMGiLord wrote:There is no contradiction - you are scummy for pushing the point against sthar8 in the first place. Not taking back the attack after the other players pointed out it's weakness when I believe you realized it was scummy confirmed that it was not a town mistake.
Now, as soon as I back up my stance on your attack with a vote, you back out of the spotlight...
Another misrep, I never said that I no longer consider it a scum tell. I said that integrating another factor into the picture makes sthar look a lot less likely to be scum now.iLord wrote:stating that you just found that your vote was not in fact a scumtell.
What's the "orignial point" I'm trying to avoid, pray tell? All I see is two seperate points that completely contradict each other and a contrived explanation trying to link them.iLord wrote:I do admit it's not really "blowing up." It's more like how I would've expected you to act as pressured scum - attempting to set-up contradictions in my speech to defend against my attack, all the while backing off the point my original case was based upon.
Why is that so importatnt to you?Incog wrote:Raging Rabbit, would you please go into your reasoning?
Yes, but it's only natural for me to have to repeat my logic when questioned about it and isn't a repeated pushing/forcing of my case like people tried to display it as. The massclaim speculation isn't a good move for scum because it draws attention to them and their roles, and makes any convincing fakeclaims they may have ready not as good since the town sees how insistent they were on claiming it. Also the way he chose to phrase his offer it feels very pro town in hindsight.Jahudo wrote:I can agree that many more people focused on your vote than on sthar answering another person’s question, but since you placed and held a vote on sthar it is only natural that you would have to back up your suspicion.
Why in particular did you think sthar’s massclaim speculation makes him town enough to unvote him? Is trying to look pro-town vs acting pro-town relevant to how sthar discussed the massclaim theory?
Yup, obviously only scum look at things in hindsight... But wait, if I were to take back my point after being first questioned like a townie would've done according to you, wouldn't that be "hindsight" as well? Good thing you're not contradicting yourself.iLord wrote:He said "In hindsight along with his latest comment" or something like that. "hindsight" is a key excuse for scum to back off.
Give me one tell that the "but maybe he's simply town and blah blah blah..." explanation can't be applied to.iLord wrote:First of all, it can't be applied to all scumtells - scumtells are by definition actions that are indictive of scum.
1. Being questioned and suspected about a case tends to lead to being voted for it. The two backing offs aren't inherently different, if I was inconfident scum with a made up case it makes a whole lot more sense for me to back up as soon as questioned (like you claim a good townie should do) rather than stick with it and wait for further attacks. After I chose to stick with it, one single vote is by no means a cause for enough panic to make me run away from my case as you suggest. The scum thought proccess you're trying draw here makes no sense whatsoever.iLord wrote:You're not looking at my points.
The two backing offs are different - backing off after your point is attacked and shown to be weak is good pro-town action. Not backing off after you realize that your point is weak, and then backing off after someone attacks you with a vote is scummy. It's what scum do when they are attacked for attacking another player for a weak reason.
The basis behind my attack is that the backing offs are different - you can't look at them alone, but you have to look at them in context.
That's because you're more concerned with making everything I say look bad than with actually reading it. (Your initial attack suggested I was voting sthar only for answering for others, which I never even said and yet you blamed me for pushing it multiple times).iLord wrote:I don't remember you saying this.
What other factors would this be?
1. I never did.iLord wrote:The original point was the folly of your suspicions, to which you have already conceded.
I don't want you to see my underlying basis of thought in this case, it would compromise my future read on you.Incog wrote:It's important because that type of question is usually the type of question a person asks when he or she is trying to draw connections between players. I'm generally leery of those types of questions in the cases where I can find no underlying basis for them, so I figured I'd ask you for your reasoning.
iLord wrote:Continuing to push for it is sort of a gambit - if you can convince other players, then you can actually bring a good deal of suspicion on a player, especially if said player explodes or otherwise flails under pressure. One single vote is enough to say that “I think your point is indicative of scum”, something that no other player that questioned you said or indicated. You realized that I actually caught on to you, hence your attempt to back out of the spotlight. The scum process I am drawing makes perfect sense.
This is your original reason for voting me, the only two real point provided is not liking a misinterpertation of my case and "pushing" it many times (which was a result of people asking many times). Here is everything else you said about me until my unvote:iLord wrote:Votes sthar8 for his explanation that he didn’t notice what he was doing. Weak, reading like he’s trying to jump on an easy wagon. Reading scummy. Especially since scum would have no reason to answer for other people, unless RR thinks the people sthar08 answered for are scum. Raging Rabbit continues to construe answering other’s questions as a scum tell. Reading pretty scummy. Still pushes… And Still pushes. Probably top suspect right now. Still pushing. And still pushes. Definite don’t like this push. Reading very scummy.
@RR: Explain why answering for other people is indictive of scum alignment.
If you're talking about his reaction, then I ask you: Why would a scum player react differently than a town player to an action that is not indictive of alignment.
All of this was already answered before you even asked- my #9 post when viewed seperately:Guilt? Are you attacking him for guilt? What's wrong with feeling guilty if you do something antitown?
Nothing in these posts in new or convincing, and no one took you too seriously - nothing here implies you "catching on" to me in any way, the only meaningful thing you did was vote me and one vote simply doesn't make enough of a difference to completely change your read on my backing off. All this questioning about the guilt thing is also interesting because of my #7 post, in response to iLord:Raging Rabbit wrote:Town has less inclination bothh kick themselves for not looking pro town enough and make an active effort to not draw suspicion.Incognito wrote:I thought the fact that he admitted to doing something wrong was mildly pro-town. I feel like scum might have tried to concoct some response to try and explain away his or her actions.
You completly missinterperted my case despite already asking and getting an answer about the exact same point, which yet again proves you weren't and aren't concerned with actually reading my posts but with making them look bad.Raging Rabbit wrote:Maybe the right word is more guiltridden than panicky, it sounds to me like "damn, made a mistake. Guess I'll apologize it away". The way he appears to really kick himself for appearing suspicious stinks of guilt to me.iLord wrote:You didn't explain how you found that panicky - it didn't sound like a "OHMYGODI'MCAUGHT" post.RR wrote:Going out of your way to answer questions directed at others isn't a sign of not paying attention. I figure by turning it into a mistake and apologizing you where hoping to make it not appear as a scumtell anymore.
So now not unvoting right after your vote is ok, but after you asked a few more already answered questions I suddendly panicked from the "brunt of your attack" and jumped ship? This is beyond an extreme stretch, your case is completely contrived.iLord wrote:4. No, you didn't unvote as soon as I voted you. After I made it clear that I was confident that you were scum, you attempted to mitigate the brunt of my attack by backing off.
If it still isn't clear, I maintain that sthar's apology post reads scummy. I unvoted him because I believe his massclaim sepcualtion reads town.5. I must admit that I am still unclear on your standing about the sthar8 point.
What bearing do you currently feel it has on sthar8's alignment?
Eldarad's seems more solid, but mostly I'm just happy to see you gathering votes.12. What do you feel about Eldarad and Incognito’s suspicions of me?
I never even said I was wrong, no idea what you're trying to say here.1. Scum are not the only ones that look at things in hindsight – townies do it all the time. But scum are the ones that most commonly use hindsight as an excuse to back off a point. Townies do not say: “I was wrong before and I should’ve changed before.” Townies say: “I am wrong now and I should change now.” Your filling the scum mold that I’ve predicted for you perfectly.
Already answered.iLord wrote:...you have yet to explain how guilt makes sense as a scum tell over a town tell, instead resorting to attacking my theory rather than the actual point, of which you ignored.
8. If you can, elaborate on how his massclaim speculation is indicative of town.
10. What have I done that you feel is indicative of scum?
Motive has a bearing on you being scummy, cases presented by scum are somewhat less convincing...iLord wrote:6. Nice job attacking my case without bearing in the first sentence there. Easy scum move to try and weaken my case by attacking my motive. Please note that motive has very little matter in the making of a case, except for the other players to look more carefully at the points – lack of apparent pro-town motive does not weaken the points at all, as long as the points ring true.
Actually you were the one who blamed me for trying to divert attention from your original point. Do you think the "I don't like your case" point is in any way convincing and worthy diverting from? Why ask me a million different questions instead of concentrating on your original point if you don't want it distracted from?9. You asked for my original point, and I answered.
That's like the most loaded question ever. How would you ask that if you weren't scum, huh?!11. What do you feel a townie should've done in your position once they realized that the point they were pushing is weak?
Completely and utterly false. If this was true there'd be no such thing as a contradiction.On another side, I believe that the backing offs are fundamentally different – it matters not if you believe they are not. As long as I believe that they are different, there is no contradiction.
Because they're a sign of dishonesty and faked play.14. If not explained above, why do you feel that contradictions are indicative of scum?
iLord wrote:I can’t seem to recall or find where you explained your reasoning behind the MC speculation. Could you repeat it?
I wrote:The massclaim speculation isn't a good move for scum because it draws attention to them and their roles, and makes any convincing fakeclaims they may have ready not as good since the town sees how insistent they were on claiming it. Also the way he chose to phrase his offer it feels very pro town in hindsight.
iLord wrote:I’m not diverting attention from my point – Contrary to what you believe, I’m actually trying to find out something from the questions I ask. More points against you would convince more people that you’re actually scum.
If you really thought I was trying to back away from your original point, you'd be pushing that more and the stuff I brought up to "distract from it" less. However, your original point isn't convincing at all and your case is dependant on moving discussion to other matters, which proves your above quote contrived as well.iLord wrote:I do admit it's not really "blowing up." It's more like how I would've expected you to act as pressured scum - attempting to set-up contradictions in my speech to defend against my attack, all the while backing off the point my original case was based upon.
This question is still loaded, as well as irrelevant. There's more than one possible reaction for "a townie", the best one being to say so and unvote.You know what I mean – what would a townie have done if they realized that they were wrong?
Contradiction in this game is a subjective term. I have strong doubts about your alignment, so taking everything you say at face value would be a severe mistake. Saying that everyone should the accept the "it's not a contradiction because I say so" statement is completely false.Explain. According to the definition of a contradiction, I’d have to have to be stating conflicting ideas. My ideas are not conflicting. It matters not if you say that you can jump into my mind and say that I’m actually thinking that they are – by my definition and classification of the backing offs, they are different.
If he's town yes, if he's scum most probably no. I believe his points contradicting each other combined with his contrived explanation for it makes him more likely to be dishonest (and therefore scum) than anyone else at this point.OK, so I guess a better question is this:
Regardless of whether you agree with iLord's opinion, due you believe he sincerely holds that opinion (even if he is wrong)?
I can see how a link implies one is likely guilty if the other one is, but not why you perceive it to imply one is pro town if the other one is unless you're thinking of some sort of mason conncetion, which I find unlikely. It looks to me and apparantly to sthar as well more like iLord is buddying up to him, if anything. I'd like you to explain your thinking here more thoroughly.Guardian wrote:iLord and sth are linked. I find both town-like, but if either showed up scum I would drastically reevaluate the other.
Well, attacking me for backing off a point while backing off said point yourself to sound more convincing doesn't sit well with me.iLord wrote:I was attacking you for backing off the above point - I'm pushing mutliple other lines of attack because apparently my case against you isn't convincing anyone, mostly because I'm losing this argument fairly badly.
I wish things were this simple. There isn't one scum course of action, it depends on a multidute of factors that are very hard to define and evaluate. The main difference is that from a scum viewpoint, it doesn't matter whether you believe your point is strong or not , but rather if that point succeeds in making you good and townies look bad.And what would scum do once they realized that they were pushing a weak point?
Normally, of course, you can't just take my word for it. However, the crux of your contradiction point is based on my definition of each of the backing-offs. Therefore, you have to judge not whether or not you agree with my definitons, but whether or not I genuinely feel that way, which is not what you have been.
Turning this into a matter of not believing you is a nice twist, but every contradiction in this game can be explained by "from my point of view, the two don't contradict" which creates the same "trust" dillema. The only way I have to determine whether I believe you is according to how convincing your explanation for why your points don't contradict each other is, and since that explanation (two - now possibly three - very similar backing offs being "inherently different" and giving you completely opposite reads in a way that just happens to correlate with your case for me being scum) is imo completely unconvincing, your case appears contrived to me and I "don't believe you". Therefore this totallyAh, so you don't believe me.
Then what more could I say? I've shown how it is not based on my definiton. You don't really believe I hold those definitions. It's for the rest of the town to judge.
@RR: Could you please explain how the massclaim stuff made Sthar8 look more town? You state that you mentioned it, but I can’t seem to find it.
Raging Rabbit wrote:iLord wrote:I can’t seem to recall or find where you explained your reasoning behind the MC speculation. Could you repeat it?I wrote:The massclaim speculation isn't a good move for scum because it draws attention to them and their roles, and makes any convincing fakeclaims they may have ready not as good since the town sees how insistent they were on claiming it. Also the way he chose to phrase his offer it feels very pro town in hindsight.
Nothing. Just because I can look back at an action, find it scummy and think of other things that in the same situation I wouldn't think scummy, does not mean I can tell ahead the "scum" course of action in a given situation. There's no objective "scum course of action", scum play differs in a million different ways depending on the player and all the small details of a situation. I can think of some reactions that I'd perceive as scummy, but "what would scum do?" is a question to which there simply isn't a clear answer.sthar wrote:What changed?
But if I was trying to make you drop that line (how?), and you "caught on to that", why allow it to get dropped and not pursue it?iLord wrote:I'm not backing off said point. I'm saying that somewhere along the line that line of questioning was dropped - I'm still working on the guilt topic, which is what the main point has delved into.
See above. If you want reactions I'd perceive as scummy, some obvious ones are to jump drop the case point blank without explanation and start attacking someone else, or to continue pursuing the same subject but with completely changed reasoning you. Again though, this is not something I "predict scum would do". I can't predict what scum would do.iLord wrote:Let's rephrase - what would most scum do or what would you predict scum would do once they were called on a point they knew was weak. The scum does not know the effectiveness of his point, only that its weak basis is being attacked.
Again, the part that doesn't make sense to me the most is:iLord wrote: If you could point out where you specifically find my definitons fail, then by all means point them out and I'll do my best to explain them.
Again, that doesn't follow with your earlier accusation that I'm intentionally trying to drop it.I can't remember where it was dropped - or even who dropped it. Now that I've realized it, I've resumed pursuing it.
1. Your question was "what would scum do", not "what would you do if you were scum".I'm trying to get your specific opinion on how scum would react to such a situation. You don't have to be scum to answer that question - to make it that you can answer how would you react if you were scum.
Okay, now we're getting somewhere.
Backing off once a point is proven to be weak, once you realized that you've done something wrong, or once you realize that your point is weak, is town (you've agreed on this point). Signals are this are acknoledging your point is weak, and pointing out how you are wrong and how you realized.
Backing off after being attacked (the player thinks your scum) is a scummy action and looks completely different from backing off of a weak point. Some ways that it is different is like when you pointed out another point as a reason to back off, and when you mentioned that you are looking in hindsight.
I don't understand the where the last of your listed backing off comes into play.
Right here.iLord wrote:4. No, you didn't unvote as soon as I voted you. After I made it clear that I was confident that you were scum, you attempted to mitigate the brunt of my attack by backing off.
Incog definitely has been dismissive of SL, and took a patronaizing tone in the process - which is her stated reason for replacing out. While an overreaction on her part, I do think his approach was rather unpleasant for her, and somewhat scummy to boot. A related matter which concerns me more is the process of him going from finding her pro town for making a case against him to finding her scummy for it, and finally voting her. I noticed this before but it seems much worse after rereading him, I'll go into details:Guardian wrote:I would like everyone to let the group know what they think about
Incognito's dismissive-ness of arguments against him in general
My recent points against Incognito
Incognito in general
Incog wrote:Glad to see you getting more involved now, springlullaby. I almost forgot you were even in this game. Addressing your points.
He's been called out on this before, complimenting her like that for attacking him is quite absurd. He makes a real effort to appear so unselfish and pro town that attacking him is cause for a heads up, and then sounds like some sort of disappointed patron when he notes some of SL's points being "a bit bothersome", which off course is what a case against someone is supposed to be for him, but is willing to bite his lip and still take it as a "slightly pro-town sign".Some of your points seem like a bit of a stretch to me, which is a bit bothersome. I'll try and take it as a slight pro-town sign that you've called me of all people out on certain things when I've pretty much had absolutely nothing directed at me and have been finding myself trying to create my own content to get involved in. But yeah, there ya go.
Here he does a 180 degree switch of tone and is acting all annoyed suddenly, like SL deserves punishment for not abandoning the case even after he made the effort to consider it a pro town sign before.And who are you, the Neils Bohr of Mafia or something? Have you been running statistical analysis to come forward with these numbers, or are you just pulling them out of your ass to help add even more weighted bombast to an already weak case? Have you considered that it's usually a good idea to reserve judgment on people because it's, oh, I don't know, a bad thing when you find yourself running up on someone who ends up being innocent? Is it abnormal for someone to not know who exactly is scum on page fucking 4 of the thread and who is instead choosing to use this early time to try and figure people out?
Here he goes back to being somewhat of a nice guy, and is willing to give her another chance and continue discussion to find out whether she "genuinely believes" the points she makes. His reason for not believing them is finding them weak, and I don't see how he could possibly suddenly decide she's genuine unless she takes back the points.And I'm trying to take it as a positive sign because I know that my immediate impression from your attack on me is that it's slightly scummy for stretching the truth the way you have. Instead of immediately jumping to conclusions about your alignment, I'll continue trying to engage in conversation with you to see if you genuinely believe the points you're raising against me or if they're merely contrived and created to paint me in a bad light. Usually when someone makes a case against me, I can sometimes see where the person is coming from and why the person might think something I mentioned gave them a bad vibe. But with you, I really can't see that, and I'm becoming more and more curious about what your alignment really could be.
I'd totally expect him to vote her by now since it's obvious he claims to find the attack completely unreasonable, but Incog makes a strong effort to show everyone he's willing to give SL a strong benefit of doubt and will only vote her when all else fails.I really do find myself most troubled with springlullaby's attack against me and am having a hard time believing it could be coming from town. I've been attacked before in past games, and I feel like I can usually understand what the person who's attacking me for has a problem with and can usually tell when an attack against me is a bit misguided. I've reread the thread a number of times and did a focused read on myself to see if I can genuinely find myself agreeing with the points springlullaby raised against me, and I just can't.
This is followed by finally voting SL, after all else has failed and logic leads him to the conclusion that the chance for SL to beI've tried to think about reasons for why a hypothetical pro-town player might say something like this when she couldn't have possibly been tabulating this kind of data on her own and really the only conclusion I could come up with is if said pro-town player was suffering from a bout of tunnel vision. But tunnel vision on page 4 of the thread? I just can't convince myself that this was the reason for her to bring these numbers up and use them against me.
The Sarcasto example is far from proving anything, you can't deduce SL's scum based on one other case which you find subjectively similar. Also the "do you think they (her points) were strong enough for her to actually be pushing for my lynch?" question is odd, I dislike how suddenly pushing for your lynch (voting for you, basically) is a such a big deal, while originally you considered it a towntell because it's good for people to question you. You go from one opinion to it's complete opposite just to fit the rethoric you're currently using.I also disagree with both you and sthar8's mentioning that springlullaby's attack comes across as pro-town for pressuring me the way she has. The only time I've had a full-on attack against me this early in a game for just about the same level of ridiculous reasons as this one was in Pick Your Poison 3 and that was from Sarcastro who was scum. I think what matters is the context. Do you think springlullaby's points were valid? Did you think they were strong enough for her to actually be pushing for my lynch? I don't think this is just simple pressure coming from her like you're making it out to be.
Didn't you see these points before? Could you give some examples of games where you found points raised against you "correct" and continually considered attacking you a towntell?About that: Yeah, I do think it's mildly pro-town to maybe shift some attention onto someone who did not have the spotlight put on him or her. Those feelings changed when I saw the points that she was actually trying to use to push for my lynch and how incorrect they were. That's what I was trying to get at.
I posted that link because I think one of the points of your "case" against me focused on how I didn't immediately reveal my own thoughts with respect to the answers I received to my own questions and how you supposedly perceived this as scummy because I wasn't revealing my own insight with respect to my position on the other players' alignments. I was using that link to show you that when I'm ready to make my thoughts clear on why I think a particular person is scum, I'll do it in typical Incog-fashion by posting a well-elaborated, thoughtful case against said person. I haven't garnered enough information from this game yet to do so though obviously.
In fact I haven't seen Incog do much scumhunting except for above trail on SL and making a case on iLord after I asked him to name a second subject. For the "most active player in the game", I don't think of that as much.Also, I've probably been the most active player in this game and have been generating my own content through scum-hunting even while I've had to persistently defend myself. I think you're very much incorrect when you say I "only come alive when under fire", and I suspect the other players in the game can look through my posts fairly easily and see how false this is.
How exactly have I done that?iLord wrote:I said that you were trying to shift attention away from it. And how successfully you have done that!
Well, I certainly don't usually take the time to look at things before they're responded to and make a list of how I would take each respone. The number of possible responses in a given scenario is usually huge, and such a tactic therefore becomes futile. I mostly scumhunt by looking back at things already said rather than specualting on what's gonna be.RR, how do you scumhunt? Do you not figure out what scumplayer would do in a certain situation and see if player matchs his scum mold? I'm asking for what scumtells would you be looking for if a player is called out for a weak point.
Someone said something about sthar's massclaim speculation, I don't quite recall the exact post but I thought I'd do a recap on it and see if I'm missing something.What made you reconsider your view on sthar8 and look back at his massclaim speculation?
So you see attacks against you in a pro town light, but full fledged ones are a scumtell?Incogito wrote:Not being full of myself here, but it's not very often that I'm full-fledged attacked by anyone when I'm town so when it does happen, it takes me awhile to determine the person's true motivations whether it be misguided or a scum-driven attack.
But you yourself admit your play there was atypical, and therefore your read of the attack was atypical well. Aren't you playing regularly here? If you are, could you give another more typical example of you treating attacks as towntell, preferably one where you end up changing your mind when the case isn't dropped, like you did here?Incog wrote:Yes, I can give an example of a game where I found the points raised against me as correct. Here's a post that I made in that PYP3 game where I specifically mentioned that Ether's and Gorrad's attacks against me gave me a town vibe mainly because my play in that game was very atypical from my regular town play and them catching onto that made me think they were town. They continued their attacks against me, and I still thought they were town because of it.
True, but you mostly just question his reads on you and never mention finding him scummy.Incog wrote:Also an addendum since I knew your facts were off, and I just went back and checked them: You make it seem like I began pursuing iLord only after you asked me to name a second suspect. I had begun pursuing iLord well before you asked me that and well before you and him entered your back and forths.
So again, attacking me for intentionally distracting from it when you don't actively do much to push it back and can't tell exactly what I did to distract seems very unconvincing and not particularly honest.iLord wrote:I'm not quite sure - If I did, then we wouldn't be as distracted.
Basically, I look back on it under all known circusmstaces and try to figure out how likely it is to come from town and if scum have any motive to say it. If it isn't and they do, it's scummy.iLord wrote:How do you tell if something was scummy?
Well, what's your conclusion?iLord wrote:That's what I was trying to figure out.
Don't like the appeal to majority here. Also, I don't get what you're asking. What do you mean by "it"? I would assume the "distracting" issue, but who said it was a null tell and where?[/quote]iLord wrote:I'll admit it doesn't seem that convincing, but I've pushed it back, and the people in the town that answered have said that it is a null tell. Could you explain why their reasoning is incorrect?
This is where the difference between anti town and scummy comes in to play, some bad townie actions make no sense from a scum point of view as well and therefore are not a scumtell.iLord wrote:How do you figure out the difference between "how likely it is to come from town" and "if scum have any motive" since all scum have the motive to look town?
I've already explained my reasoning for finding that a scumtell more than once, others are free to disagree. There's no point in arguing this further, it's a difference in points of view.iLord wrote:No, I mean the issue of whether or not guilt was a scumtell, which was my original point that I claimed you distracted from.
I've stated my reasoning for why it's not a scumtell. You've stated yours. Some of the town that answered my query has stated its. It's not just appeal to majority - if you feel that their reasoning is incorrect, you must state why.
There are actions that both hurt the town and make sense from a scum point a view. These actions are scumtells. Also, I find actions purely meant to make the writer look pro town (like Incog's) scummy. Then there's the issue of gut, which off course cannot really be defined.iLord wrote:What does this have to do with how you tell if a situation is coming from a town or a scum that's trying to look as town?
Yes, this argument is worthless and scummy when looked at in isolation.Incog wrote:1) First, I was attacked by her for asking 'soft' questions. After I explained to her the significance of those questions that I was asking thereby disproving that they weren't soft at all, she still attacked me for asking questions to people I thought were scum, period, saying that I shouldn't ask people who I thought could be scum questions because I should expect scum to lie to me. Do you seriously not see a problem with this argument?
She has a point here. Not comitting yourself to an opinion on such a dramatic early move is a good scum tactic, since the town may have a different set of assumptions about the game or simply a different line of thought that may make you look bad if you take the less popular side. Also, it is always to scum's benefit to reserve judgment for as long as possible. That's not to say it's a completely unreasonable townie course of action, but it's more helpful for scum2) She attacked me for not taking an immediate stance on Electra's page 1 claim. I explained that I didn't want to take an immediate stance as I preferred to look at her claim as a null-tell and chose to wait for Electra to get more involved in the game to then decide what to think about her claim and whether I thought she was town or not. There's nothing wrong with reserving opinions about someone until more information is obtained. Good town play allows for withholding information all the time.
It wasn't a "too townie" attack. Too townie is attacking someone for being too helpful and in the right to be town, while SL attacked you for trying to hard toIncog wrote:3) A big portion of her attack was based on a logical fallacy. Basically a "too townie" argument. Do you really think it's pro-town to attack someone based on something that's known to be a logical fallacy?
Incog (bolding's mine) wrote:4) She attacked me for voting sthar8 saying that it seemed more like an annoyance vote more than anything else. Ivoted for sthar8 because I do think that answering questions for other people can be a scum-tellas it makes it look like the person who's doing the answering is actually participating when in fact he or she is not. Also, I wanted to nip that kind of stuff in the bud early on since I think that when people answer questions or respond to things directed at others, their response basically nullifies any kind of information that could have been received from the response of the person who the question was directed to. Again, I felt like I backed up my vote well, explained my intention well, and she still decided to attack me for it even after my response.
Explain this apparant contradiciton.Incog (bolding's mine) wrote:I have a slight meta on sthar8 as I just finished moderating a game in which he was scum in. I thought he played fairly well in that game, and I do have respect for his scum play, so I wanted to place a bit of pressure on him to try and get a better read of him. I thought he kinda skated by a bit in that game particularly on Day 1 as nobody seemed to really place much pressure on him until later on in the game during Day 2.Therefore, I figured that by placing a pressure vote on him early even for more minute reasons I would be able to draw more information out of him and not allow him to skate on by. Plus his answering of posts directed at other people has the potential to lessen the information we can draw from their responses since they could just copy or formulate their response around his own response thereby making any response they do put forward a null tell. I wanted to nip that type of "answering posts directed at other people" thing in the bud immediately.
I don't think it's very good pro town play, but SL's attack felt totally honest and likely comes from a town POV. I don't think scum would get annoyed with a fake conflict to the point of replacing out. Upon a partial reread of your argument, I feel even more strongly about this.Incog wrote:If you think I've been guilty of not scum-hunting outside of iLord and springlullaby, I'm curious to learn what you think about springlullaby's singular, tunnel-visioned attack on me. Do you think that's pro-town?
I don't believe you. If you really took attacks against you this positively, to the degree of not voting her for such a long time despite continually claiming to find her attack scummy, you'd have stronger examples of doing it in the past in your typical games. I think the whole self conflict of finding what she's saying scummy vs. giving her the benefit of the doubt was planned ahead to make you look pro town and give your vote more weight.Incog wrote:Yes, I feel like my play here is more regular. And no, I don't have an example like the one you're looking for. Like I said, it's not very often that I find myself being attacked when I'm town.
I voted for electra's boost, I didn't "hammer" her.Mana_Ku, on me being against speedboosting wrote:What about your boost on Electra?
Top suspects are Incog and iLord. Leaning a bit scummy on Jahudo, Crazy/Huntress and Skilit/Mana_Ku. Leaning town on Guardian, electra, eldarad and TDC.electra wrote:@ Raving Rabbit - can you just give me a quick summary of your views in the game?
Too townie is based onIncog wrote:No. "Too townie" is attacking someone for looking like they're being too helpful and in the right to someone else, which is the exact same thing she was attacking me for.
This post doesn't look pro town to me, it looks like youIncog wrote:Eh? All of my questions have been very relevant to the game, and I certainly wouldn't classify them as "'soft' questions" either. Just because I don't immediately reveal my insights from the answers I get doesn't mean that I haven't formulated any opinions on them. When I'm ready to make a case against someone who I think is scum, I'll do so but certainly not this early in the game. Trust me, when I have a scum read on someone I'll make my opinion on the person blatantly obvious. Right now, this is purely the information-gathering stage for me. I've seen certain things from people that make me lean slightly town on them or slightly scum but not enough to come to a definitive answer with respect to their alignments.
I suspect you for similar reasons, but based on your back and forth with SL rather than your early game, in which I don't remember seeing much wrong.SL wrote:Either way, if you're suspecting me for the same reasons, I have an exercise for you: I'd like for you to comb through the thread during early game before springlullaby began attacking me for these reasons and provide specific examples where you felt like I was "trying too hard" to look like I was being helpful. Then I'd like for you to do the same in other areas of the thread as well. gogogo!
To me the first quote totally look like you're saying it isn't an actual scumtell, just anti town and good cause for a pressure vote.Incog wrote:It's not a contradiction? I had multiple reasons for voting sthar8 in my mind at the time, and the one you bolded in the first paragraph was one of them also. I pretty much forgot to list that one. Obviously if I voted him for doing it, I must have thought it was at least somewhat scummy to begin with.
It's the manner of her annoyance that makes her look town, scum aren't anywhere near as emotionally involved in the cases they present but don't really mean. I fully believe her emotions were sincere, and if she didn't act pissed off in other games that just goes to show your little jabs did a lot to send her over the edge. I need to read that other game you mentioned of her getting pissed off as scum, but I recall the circumstances were different there and it's unlikely to change my opinion.Her town play certainly looks more composed to me than her scum play so I'm not going to ignore this as "oh she was annoyed so she's likely town" when she has acted annoyed as scum before. Have you looked through her past games to be able to make this assumption, RR?
I don't like how everyone who isn't convinced by your defences is automatically diagnosed to be inflicted with a bad case of tunnel vision.Incog wrote: I don't think this is true, and I've already explained why but hey, I can't stop you from your "Incog is scum" fixation that only sees my actions in a scummy light. Again, I'd like you to read through the thread and try and notice that my focus was not primarily on springlullaby and that I was looking for scum in other places, otherwise I can probably conclude that you're likely suffering from a bout of tunnel vision.
Please. You don't have to be a genious manipulator or a mind reader to figure out that in response to your "it's nice to see you finally say something, and good job putting the spotlight on me for a bit, but you're dead wrong" posts she can either drop her case - which is good for you and allows you to maintain your pro town read and establish a sort of connection with her - or pursue it - in which case you appear to struggle, but finally vote her when all hope of convincing her to be a good little townie and see reason fails.Incog wrote:How could I possibly plan things ahead like this and control a person across the internet to have him or her continuously attack me for more and more weak points to be able to plan my own future votes against them also? Wouldn't this only work if you thought springlullaby and I were scum together attempting some sort of gambit we agreed upon during pre-game?
What makes my vote better?I thought you were pro-town before this attack, and I currently think you're probably misguided town. Your vote is probably the only one I can stand at the moment while Guardian's and Jahudo's votes make me cringe.
These are more or less the reads if you make a summary, but since he had negative things to say about everyone but you, including his boosts, this post sets him up to attack anyone he wants to in the future should the need arise.Incog wrote:How? In summary here were her thoughts:
eldarad - pro-town.
Electra - neutral.
fuzzylightning/RandomGem - scummy.
iLord - initially pro-town, lately scummy.
Incog - pro-town.
Jahudo - scummy.
Raging Rabbit - pro-town.
springlullaby/Guardian - pro-town.
sthar8 - neutral to pro-town.
TDC - neutral.
I'm seeing four to five pro-town listings and explanations for each one, two to three neutrals, and three scummy listings. Guardian had exactly one pro-town and the other person he thought was pro-town upon replacing in was suddenly iffy.
I didn't question her ability to get pissed off as scum, I said I wanted to examine the manner and circumstance of it and I can do that on my own, thanks.Incog wrote:I'll make it easier for you. Here are some posts she made in that game that look glaringly similar:
So basically, you're saying that anyone that attacks you is either scum or a tunnelvisioned townie. That's a very comfortable way to make it look like no attack against you can ever have any sort of value.Incog wrote:Everyone? I didn't say the same about Jahudo's vote/attack.
I think you're likely town. I know I'm town. Therefore, since you think I'm scum, and you're only seeing everything I say in a negative light, you must be suffering from tunnel vision. How can I defend myself against someone who says "your posts just look like you're trying too hard to appear pro-town"? Did it occur to you that maybe they appear that way because I actually am town and that it's not an act?
Fair 'nuff.Incog wrote:Difference in vibe. I thought your catch about my "contradicting" sthar8 vote was pretty good and pro-town-seeming as I might have not clearly explained myself when I first placed it. I also like the fact that you're still asking me questions while voting for me rather than just leaving your vote there and not making an effort to figure me out. Jahudo's reason for voting me seems off, and I feel like he hasn't made a conscious effort to figure me out, and Guardian just seems more "all guns blazing".
You didn't show that she pushed weak points or any kind or points at all, just that she's capable of getting pissed off as scum as well, which is besides the point.Incog wrote:The point that I'm getting at with those quotes is I think (and I obviously may be wrong on this) that springlullaby has a tendency to push weak points against people as scum. When her points aren't gaining support against a person from the town, she then resorts to personal insults in her attack instead of trying to form a more coherent case against a person. This is the way I perceived her attack on me in this game and the way I perceived her attack in that game too.
I don't really have it that clear cut in my head, attacking a pro town fits the "hurts the town and makes sense from a scum point of view" definition, but obviously doesn't mean much by itself - what makes me suspect you is that the contradictions and contrived sounding statements in your case make it look like you don't actually believe it and are just looking to have a convincing sounding case - so dishonesty is the key word here, I guess.iLord wrote:More information on how you say you scumhunt – and how you have scumhunted.
Which category of scumtells do my actions fall under?
To be "successful" yes, but a case isn't only meant to convince others - it's main purpose for pro town players is to gauge the suspect's reaction and figure out if you still think he's scum based on his defense. This statement along with your unvote of me following my unvote of you and your big post that contains mostly objective summary, which like Incog said looks pretty arbitrary; you could dramtically change the order of your scum-town list with relatively little editing - make me think you dropped my suspicion for the sole reason of lack of support and tried to smooth it out in the most pro town looking way you figured possible.iLord wrote:The point was dropped unintentionally, but now I’m going to drop it because it really is not convincing anyone, which is what a case must do to be successful.
No idea what you're saying here.iLord wrote:"He didn't vote when he could - he voted only after you came in because of SL replacing out is" basically what you're saying here.
First of all, I think that this was probably not a joke. The reason behind that is that Incognito did explain why - he believed that his meta forced him to replace out.
Your point here seems to be "I post a lot, therefore I'm town", which is totally fallacious.Incog wrote: This is an issue I have with a number of people in this game, actually, and it includes people who I've even indicated that I think might be town. Apparently if you sit around and twiddle your fucking thumbs in this game and pick up your prods regularly you get checked off as obvtown and get boosted but when you make an effort and raise valid points continuously and actually do research on people, you get crap-wagoned.
What town meta do you have of her? How did you form it?Incog on SL wrote:My meta read of her suggests that her PPD rate, her pushing of weak or untrue points, and her anger/super aggressive tone matches her scum meta quite well when compared to her town meta.
Once you strip away all the empty refences to your points as "valid" and your wagon as "crap", what you're left with in a nutshell is that we should go attack the people who aren't saying as much as you are.Incog wrote:Uh, no. That's not my point at all. Try harder.
As far as I recall, you read one town game where she didn't get pissed off and one scum game where she did.Incog wrote:I've commented on this before. I formed it by reading her town games. Duh.
You did sort of attack them being "obvtown", but I'll revise - you said you're more town than them because you post more.Incog wrote:First off, I said nothing about attacking people who aren't saying as much as I am. So again, try harder. I specifically mentioned that I think that these certain players who aren't really doing much are players who I think might even be town. Why would I want people to attack other people who I think might be town? I'd like these people who are being non-contributive to finally contribute.
I'll try and read some into these games when I'll have the time, but her frustration reads totally genuine and I have a hard time believing she's that brilliant an actress. And I don't think the parts you quoted in-thread, at least, are very convincing at all.Incog wrote:Second, I didn't only focus on whether or not she got pissed off as town and whether or not that was only a characteristic of her scum play, and I didn't only focus on one game each. TDC linked to a bunch of other games where she was town that I also looked into. There were other characteristics of her play aside from her demeanor that I looked into also that I commented on previously.
Obviously you would say that, but that "I'll drop the point because it isn't successful" statement along with the timing and manner of your unvote make me think otherwise.iLord wrote:Exactly! I have pressured you, and I have deemed that your reactions are not indicative of scum. Believe it or not, my reads have reasons behind them. If you want to point out a specific reasons behind my reads, I’ll answer your inquiries.
Guardian's point, I believe, was that Incog posted after SL asked for replacement without voting her, and then he voted Guardain with nothing changing besides his replacing in.iLord wrote:Sorry if I was unclear – what I was trying to say is that I don’t think it’s a joke, and that Incognito voted because of SL replacing out, and that he stated his reason for doing so.
You didn't say a whole lot, and aren't now either. I think everyone should commit themselves to an opinion today. Crazy didn't say a whole lot either for that matter, so your lack of input is all the more distressing. Biding your time before voting is close proximity of deadline when there isn't time to question anything you say seems like a very comfortable scum-tactic.Huntress wrote:I've been posting in case you hadn't noticed! I mentioned earlier who I would vote for at the moment if I really had to, but if you're desperate for me to vote I can always vote for you . I'm not going to boost anyone just yet.
Wasn't the guilt one your original, most important point, from which I was trying to distract?iLord wrote:You misunderstand - the point I dropped was the guilt one, but I'm dropping my attack agaisnt you because you haven't been reading scum.
Since Guardian is unable to answer right now, I'll explain to the best of my understanding - he claimed that Incog figured Guardian would continue SL's attack of him based on gut/Guardian's meta, and voted him as a "preemptive OMGUS". In other words the vote was only because of the replacement, which is scummy because it obviously has no bearing on alignment.iLord wrote:Ah, right. How is that indicative of scum? Is Guardian saying that Incognito is afraid of him? It seems merely like a delayed vote, especially since there weren't any signs of a easy wagon of Guardian for proposed scumIncognito.
Roleblocking does little to clear you since you can easily be mafia RB, and kills can be manipulated as well. Info is testable regardless of this. Anyway, I don't see how this theory disagreement makes me scummy.GC wrote:Here he is putting forth bad logic. What's more testable than information? Here are two things right off the top of my head: role blockers and night kills. Also, mafia can give information that's more or less useless to the town until maybe endgame (e.g. "x number of people did a night action last night"), or information that's misleading but true to a certain extent (and blame it on bastard modding), etc. Bad reasoning to support an otherwise good choice (boosting Electra). Struck me as funny.
You have a point, but why isn't lynching him the right move? If she claims a guilty investigation result on scum she's either bussing or town.GC wrote:Then he makes this nonsensical argument. Let's assume the hypothetical situation he's suggesting occurs: Electra is scum, the town does boost her and - regardless of whatever benefit she receives - she decides to feed the town a "result." Why would she, sans end-game scenario, ever tell the town an innocent as guilty when she would just be putting herself up on the chopping block come the following day? Or, if it is an end-game scenario, then his safety net (that she'll be lynched the following day because she's obvscum) is a moot point. Showcasing this as an example why Electra should have been boosted just didn't sit well with me.
It's bad town play if you prevent yourslef info by responding to questions directed at others instead of judging their response. Anyways...This starts a really crap-fest half-hearted attempt to slander sthar that snowballs into quite the sizable discussion. First, it struck me on a semi-personal level because I almost always comment freely upon other people's conversations. It's part and parcel of being town: you voice your opinions regarding everything that's on the table and when you see something you don't like I don't believe you should be required to hold your tongue. Granted, there may be points where keeping your own counsel may be beneficiary, but by and large simply hoping someone else brings up your points is a bad town policy. However, I'm more than willing to realize this is a personal preference and was going to let this Rabbit point really just go, but...
The phrasing is far from perfect here, but I never meant "speaking out of turn" was in itself a real scumtell. I saw sthar getting nervous on whatSuddenly he makes responding to questions that weren't directly posed to him a scumtell. I suppose it can be a scumtell if Player X is obviously defending Player Y and not that Player X just has opinions/criticisms/etc of the questions being posed to Player Y. But Rabbit didn't qualify his statement that way; instead, he made what essential boils down to "speaking out of turn" into a scumtell. This stinks of trying to not-so-subtly put a lid on criticism from players who are not directly involved in an exchange. And then...
Not much of a difference, since in this case panic is a result of guilt. The line of thinking I felt sthar had was "damn, shouldn't have done that - got caught in a scumtell trying too hard to appear useful - I'll apologize real quick and maybe people will forget about it". I felt the manner of the apology was overkill, and that "I wasn't paying attention" isn't a likely explanation.He decides to shift his argument. There's a definitive difference than panicky and guilt-ridden (the former could be qualified as defensive, poorly written, incomplete/hasty thoughts while the latter could be identified as... well... filled with guilt and other similar sentiments). Rabbit puts up something resembling an example of why he thinks this way, but it's not made entirely clear as to how his initial accusation was confusion instead of, say, a plotted attack.
Nope, see above.Further shifting of argument. First it was what he did that was scummish, now it's not what he did but his response to what he did that is scummish.
It's less of an overkill.
I fail to see how his first example of a less suspicious but not conciliatory response is, well... not conciliatory or apologetic. He seems to be blurring the lines of his (now entirely arbitrary?) standard of what constitutes this morphing scumtell.
Again, it'sThis quotation is two parts of two different posts addressing the same thing and so I'm putting them together. The first part of this quote is a legitimate theory of mafia/town mindset, but I don't see to what end the latter part of the quote ("In addition to what I already answered...") was even voiced. It looks like it completely disintegrates his previous shifted/modified argument against sthar, that his apology made him look scummy (but it takes the scumminess out of the equation). This just confused me and I couldn't help that it felt like back-peddling (especially after having just unvoted sthar). Rabbit makes some sort of derisive comment to iLord later on, who also seems genuinely confused about this seeming contradiction in philosophy being voiced from the same individual
I wanted to see if Incog will go with popular opinion (at the time) and attack Crazy as a second target, since I felt he was generally going too hard for pro town points. I didn't want to say so at the time because it would've put Incog on his toes and made him stop doing that, which would render me incapable of further judging how hard he's trying to appear pro town and how scummy that is.Defensive and attacking someone for requesting something that's beneficial for the town
I figured it was self evident. The post I refered to as a general example of a lot of Incog's play is:SC wrote: I generally don't like accusations of "that just looks like you're trying to be pro-town" just because they can be so slippery. I usually take them with a grain of salt (and eye the accuser with a bit of suspicion) when they don't explain 1. why said action wouldn't be performed by a town person and 2. how said action makes that player appear town if they aren't. I didn't see Rabbit support his accusations in this way.
Explaining how much of a good town player he is (and especially the link to his case from antoher game) has little to do with his actual alignment here, and just seems meant to paint him in a good color.Incog wrote:Eh? All of my questions have been very relevant to the game, and I certainly wouldn't classify them as "'soft' questions" either. Just because I don't immediately reveal my insights from the answers I get doesn't mean that I haven't formulated any opinions on them. When I'm ready to make a case against someone who I think is scum, I'll do so but certainly not this early in the game. Trust me, when I have a scum read on someone I'll make my opinion on the person blatantly obvious. Right now, this is purely the information-gathering stage for me. I've seen certain things from people that make me lean slightly town on them or slightly scum but not enough to come to a definitive answer with respect to their alignments.
It's not the best safety net, no. Forcing scum to supply us with info still isn't too bad, though.GC wrote: What? I didn't state or otherwise imply that lynching the guilty "result" wouldn't be the right move (if I did, please show me where as that was not my intention). You seemed to have missed the point: your whole "safety net" idea is a poor safety net (as I described per example) if Electra was scum.
You're misinterperting me, what I dislike is how this one early game vote that was over discussed anyways looks like your main point against me.GC wrote: I was asked by another player to post reasons why I found you leaning scum after a read through of the thread. I think it's quite odd how here you are criticizing me for having taken the time to read through the thread, formed my own opinion about past events which occurred when I was not present and then explained and backed up those opinions when questioned by another player.
I rarely see townies this concerned with showing how each and every action they make is done for logical, pro town motives - see my post summarizing his course of liking SL for attacking him and then slowly changing his mind and voting him for a stronger example. Anyways, how does this game-theory disagreement make me scummy?GC wrote: I don't accept such a rigid view of the respective mentalities. As such, I think your points against Incog amount to a null tell, as any good townie would want to show that they are town so that suspicion can be focused in a more appropriate place elsewhere. Incog's posts could come from either scum or town.
The only thing she could've possibly done that would've convinced you she didn't have a "malicious intent" was apologize and unvote you. The "I'll try taking it as a slight pro town sign" sentence is totally contrived, and seems intended to give her an easy out of doing the "right thing" and not pushing your points about the nice guy everyone believes is pro town any further, and no harm will be done since he's been kind enough to consider it a pro town sign. The way you then slowly take yourslef of starting to suspect her for basically not doing the above and continuing to push her case is scummier still.Incognito wrote:I don't remember ever really liking springlullaby for attacking me. Reposting for convenience:Raging Rabbit wrote:I rarely see townies this concerned with showing how each and every action they make is done for logical, pro town motives - see my post summarizing his course of liking SL for attacking him and then slowly changing his mind and voting him for a stronger example. Anyways, how does this game-theory disagreement make me scummy?
I said I was bothered by her attack because I felt like her points were a bit of a stretch. I also said I'm gonnaIncognito wrote:Some of your points seem like a bit of a stretch to me, which is a bit bothersome. I'll try and take it as a slight pro-town sign that you've called me of all people out on certain things when I've pretty much had absolutely nothing directed at me and have been finding myself trying to create my own content to get involved in. But yeah, there ya go.tryand take it as aslightpro-town that she called me out.
In summary: Clearly I felt like she was misrepresenting some of my early actions, and instead of immediately jumping to conclusions that her intent was absolutely, positively malicious and therefore scummy, I decided to see how she would react to my response and then my response after that... etc. Her reactions to my response(s) furthered my belief that her attack might have malicious intent and so I came to the conclusion that was scummy for this. That shouldn't be so hard to understand.
What are you talking about?Jahudo wrote:RR but looking back at it the questions don't look unreasonable.