Newbie 1024 -- Minimalist Mafia (Game Over)

[Trendall]

/confirm

[Trendall]

Hello. Here are some questions that I find are often quite useful.

1) What time zone are you in?
2) What experience do you have playing Mafia?
3) How often do you anticipate you'll be able to post?
4) Are you male or female?

[Trendall]

I should probably answer my own questions. I'm in GMT, but I'm a student with a very bizarre sleeping pattern, so I'll probably be online at all kinds of crazy times. This is my third game on this site, and I've played a bit in real life, a few games on forums with friends, and a couple of hundred games over at Epicmafia. Hopefully I should be able to post quite frequently. I've always got internet access, so I can't think of a time when I would ever not be able to post. And, I am male.

[Trendall]

These questions are harmless and not very relevant. What are you trying to accomplish in asking them?

Well, previous mafia experience is very relevant, because people's playstyles are obviously going to change depending on how much they have played the game. It's very helpful to know if something that could be perceived as scummy could also be down to lack of experience. I ask whether people are male or female solely because I hate having very embarrassing 'omgg I'm a girl' conversations with people. The time questions are there just to get a general feel for what the game's going to be like, and again, if someone says that they're going to be very active, and then they're actually not during the game, that's something that's not necessarily scummy but worth looking into. I've seen people ask questions like this in many other games, and I've never seen anybody be called out for it. Personally, I think it's better than everyone going 'vote beefster because his name begins with B and I don't like B' or whatever people usually do.

Was the reasoning behind your random vote for me at the start of the day in any way serious?

[Trendall]

Question:
Do you like it better when you play as Town, Mafia or a Third Party? And why?

I don't really like being a third party role, but I think I enjoy being town and mafia equally as much as each other. Mafia gives you a strong sense of satisfaction when you win, as you have managed to lie through your teeth for the whole game and get away with it. As town, it's great when you catch scum, because you've managed to outsmart somebody who was lying through their teeth.

I believe I know how, but I'll ask just in case:

Why

do you find these questions often helpful, Trend?

Post #29

I

thought

I recognized that avatar! You were playing over there before, right? How long have you played, there?

Yeah, I've been playing over there for two or three months now. I don't have the same avatar on epicmafia though. I usually switch between random pictures of Pokémon every now and again.

Vote: Kayi for this blatant alignment fishing question.

You're voting for somebody because they were 'alignment fishing'? Surely that's the whole objective of the game ? You find out whose alignment is the opposite to yours, and then you vote them off.

Beefster, you forgot to unvote.

Says in the rules that unvoting isn't necessary.

[Trendall]

I don't understand this. How would somebody's answer to what their favourite alignment to play as is possibly have any relevance to which alignment they are in this particular game? Plus even Kayi was 'alignment fishing', which I'm pretty sure she wasn't, then that can only possibly be pro-town, seeing as, as it has already been pointed out, mafia already know the alignment of each player. They're just innocent questions to get the game moving.

[Trendall]

Just wanted to say sorry, was on vacation for a couple of days and couldn't confirm. Best of luck to you all, sorry for the inconvenience I caused.

That's a shame, you have the best avatar here.

Questions like that can be interpreted in nearly any way and aren't even effective at catching scum reliably, at least from my experience.

They don't have to be. Questions like that get more discussion going, which means we have more to go on, which means that it then becomes easier to employ other techniques to work out who the scum is. You're not going to directly work out who is scum and who isn't from their answers to that one question, but that doesn't mean that the question is in any way worthless or scummy.

However, I really didn't find anyone suspicious and decided to just use random.org instead.

Once you didn't find anything suspicious, why didn't you decide to just not vote for anyone at all?

Specific to the "are you excited to play?" question: It tells you one of 2 things: the player is nothing more than excited to play or the player has a power role.

It's inconclusive

, so using it to scumhunt is absolutely ridiculous.

Surely every scumhunting technique is?

The timing of that vote was mainly because of my inexperience with mafia games. See, I had been planning on waiting for a reason to vote for someone, but, since I'm stupid and didn't know exactly how the game worked, I thought there was some sort of time limit to have your votes in by, because on past games I've played, it is usually said that "Day 1 ends on [...] at [...] PM/AM," and if you did not vote by that time you received a thing called a phantom vote. I was worried I'd receive one of them, and thought that I'd better have my vote in by that time, when I posted my vote, so I just decided to go with a random one instead.

I wasn't finding you scummy at all until this post. I find it difficult to believe that you were that worried about not having your vote put in, but not worried enough to like, check Post 1 to see if there was anything in the rules about it. Plus, I'm not really sure exactly what a phantom vote is, seeing as I only play forum games here, but surely a completely random vote is no more useful than a phantom vote?

Also,

Beefster, Trendall

: What do you think of the definitions I gave? Are they good? Is there any you disagree with? (Not really a game question, so much as an SE+IC thing. Call it a "Teacher's Conference", of sorts. )
For that matter, what do you think of my opinion on SE's?

Nothing wrong with them. I'd also add that from what I've seen, some people only either FoS people or vote for them, and FoS can mean 'you are absolutely 100% scummy but I can't vote for you because I'm already voting for somebody who is 110% scummy'. I think they're very player dependent, and it's worth looking more at the content of a person's argument rather than the acronym that they use to define how strong their argument is. A player should be responding to another person's arguments no matter how minor they are. It's not as if you can go 'I'll ignore that, it's only a mFoS anyway.'

As for SEs, the Wiki says that the SE role is only there to make the queue run smoother, and isn't necessarily a teaching role. As such, you probably won't see me doing a great deal of teaching, but if there's something I feel is worth pointing out, I'll point it out, which I think is what all players should be doing anyway, teaching role or no teaching role.

I don't want us to waste much time on RVS. Or the RQS.

Then why did you put a random vote in at all?

It's early in the game. I really don't see why my voting patterns (at this point) are such a big deal. Typically at the start of the game, votes mean nothing. As the game goes on though, they start to become more meaningful. So if a 0 is a random vote and a 10 is a cop-sure vote, where I'm at is about a 1.

If your votes are irrelevant at this stage, than why are you calling out Kayi because you feel that her question was irrelevant?

Quick note: Hmm...I'm seeing a HEAVY link to Kayi and Neruz, in a LOT of their posts.

HoS: Kayi, Neruz

. Looking at my post above, they're agreeing with each other a lot, not to mention, supporting each other from attack, and--to top it all off--they're now voting together as well.

This simply happens sometimes. I'm often being accused of being scumbuddies with someone else, when it turns out that me and that person are both just two town players who happen to be on the same wavelength.

--------------------------------------------------------

Right now, my biggest FoS is on Beefster. He's been criticising other people for asking questions that he doesn't deem to be too effective at scumhunting, while not really offering anything in the way of scumhunting himself. He's built up a very tentative argument against Kayi, which was in fact so tentative that Neruz had to jump in and actually explain his argument for him. Apart from that, nothing. If he was saying 'guys your questions all suck' while offering tonnes of awesome, legitimate material himself, it would be fine, but that's not what's happening. He seems very anti-discussion, and it's not sitting right with me. I will wait for a response before voting, though.

[Trendall]

I'm having computer issues at the moment, which is why I've been a bit subdued for the last two days, but I will post something useful with some content in it tomorrow.

[Trendall]

Just responding to things that were directed at me. More to come later...

@Mastin, Trendall, and Mujex: Who is your biggest suspect? Why aren't you voting?]

At the moment, you, but I'm not confident enough in that for a vote yet.

@Trendall

What's with the lack of vote? Why would you be handing out an FoS instead of a vote? Also what have you learned specifically regarding peoples' alignments via your questions?

Lack of vote is because I am not confident enough in any of my FoSes yet. Once I've done a proper reread of the whole game with a fine tooth comb, then I'll be handing out votes and FoSes all over the shop, but for now, I haven't had time to do that. This game's moving a lot faster than I am used to, which I will be able to adjust to, but I have had a very busy past few days.

Also:

Trendall:

You promised a post yesterday--I have not seen it. What happened?

Sorry, I didn't have time. Next week is my week off though, so far more content will be coming then.

[Trendall]

Word

[Trendall]

Beefster's voting pattern so far:

* Randomly votes for Trendall
* Votes Kayi for a very tentative reason
* Unvotes
* Puts vote back on Kayi
- Goes on to say that his vote is at about 1/10 in seriousness at the moment
* Votes for Trendall for not doing anything useful

As far as I can see, he's not voted for anyone because he actually thinks they're mafia yet. He berated lots of people in the game for posting things that were irrelevant, and expressed his dislike of the RVS and RQS, yet none of his votes have been remotely relevant at all. There's a big bandwagon forming on him, and he suddenly switches his vote to me. No argument or case, he just votes for me because he wants me to talk more. I'm pretty certain that when the most votes in the game are on you, it is not the right time to change your vote from somebody who you've been suspicious of all game to a random policy lynch. I see Beefster's most recent vote as him trying to turn the bandwagon on him around to the most easy target, which seems to have become me over the past page or so.

I'm reluctant to hammer on Beefster right now, because if he flips as town, you'll all see me as an opportunistic mafia who lurks and then hammers on a town player. However, I will if I have to, so I'd like to just give it a bit more time first.

[Trendall]

@ Trendall: When it comes to hammering, my personal thought based on my game and what I've read, I think you should wait until it's almost deadline to get as much discussion as possible. Of course there are exceptions, such as if discussion comes to a stop or the majority of town say we should end the day and hammer.

Agreed

I see Beefster's most recent vote as him trying to turn the bandwagon on him around to the most easy target, which seems to have become me over the past page or so.

I have not seen this. Explain.

The point I was trying to make is that it is all too easy for a scum player to go 'Oh look, Trendall's not posting much, I bet he's mafia'. I'm unquestionably quite a good target here, seeing as I am 'lurking' or whatever. I don't know if I'm necessarily the 'easiest' target, that was just poor wording on my part.

This is scummy.

Spoiler: Now I'm doing Sessions for SE's, too!

Why is it scummy, Trend? Because, if you're town, this should be your last concern. We all make mistakes. None of us are perfect; we all have our flaws. If you hammered town, so what? We lose a town player, but gain information from their lynch. True, we wouldn't hit mafia, but we are one step closer to that. A pro-town player should realize this. They shouldn't fear the hammer, because hammering is part of the game. Scum, however, do: scum fear the hammer, because of the exact reason you state: they fear that it'll make them look scummy. It doesn't, not anymore, anyway. Most players who are even semi-experienced realize that hammering is far from a scumtell in most cases. Reluctance to hammer, however,

is

. You're afraid to look bad. Townfolk know they are town, and tend to be a

little

more on the carefree side. Remember my tells? This was one of the most valid for a reason--I've found it's around 60/40 for work/not work. Unless you're constantly cautious, there is no pro-town reason to fear the hammer of a player who

might

be town--they might also be scum; you don't know, if you're town!
If you're scum, however, you do. You

do

know they are town, and that you're hammering town, and that you'll look bad. Therefore, what you did was a bad scumtell, Trendall.
That said, though, just because you don't want to look like scum, doesn't mean there aren't any valid reasons to NOT hammer Beefster. In fact, a very pro-town reason was already brought up in-thread by Yenros: for more discussion. More discussion--99% of the time--will be better than less discussion. Considering how far away the deadline is,

that

is a valid reason to not hammer. Had you said that, I wouldn't have thought twice of it. That you

feared

hammering him, however, is what made it catch my eye.

No. No no no no no. Anybody who skipped over this because it was in spoiler tags, read it, because it is basically a very subjective, speculative, opinion-driven argument made to appear legitimate by being placed under SE tags, which always throws up a huge red flag for me. 'Here's my theory on what's happening here, and my theory is right because I'm an SE' always comes off as scummy to me.

I'm town. Of course lynching a fellow town player is going to be a concern for me. I'd much rather lynch mafia, and even if I make a wrong decision I'd rather leave it until close to the deadline to allow for more discussion. I didn't say that I wanted to leave it until closer to the deadline in my previous post because I thought that that kind of went without saying. Obviously I was wrong. You can see from checking the other two games on the site that I am often reluctant like this. I was town in both those games. I'm a new player. I'm not a particularly good player. I'm aware that my decisions could totally screw the game up for the rest of the town, and that's why you will never ever see me make quick decisions like that, or at least certainly not this early in my mafiascum career. Although it might not seem like it from what I've posted so far, I'm still in the process of reading the game carefully, checking people's previous games, making lots of notes, etc. I don't feel like I've done everything I can to work out who the mafia is yet, so I'm not going to hammer on anybody until I've got that done. Again, you'll see that I behaved similarly in previous games. My interest is in making the best decision possible here, and if that's scummy, then I don't know what to think. I don't think cautiousness is a scumtell, and I'm fairly sure that if you did an analysis of a large sample of games to test that theory, it wouldn't yield any solid results. Whether somebody is cautious or reckless is far more likely to be defined by their playstyle and personality than it is by their alignment in any specific game. Feel free to prove me wrong, but either way, I don't think it's anywhere near a solid enough 'tell' to be listed under SE tags. Sorry.

I missed when Trendall said his computer broke down. Going back to re-read. I'm finding

Trendall

's last post worthy of mention though. When did he suddenly become the "easiest target"? Too defensive when no one but Beefster has really attacked him in any way. I'd be an 'easier target' than him considering how many people find me scummy. Just sayin'.

This is addressed earlier on in this post. I meant that I was an easy target, not necessarily the easiest target. My fault for not wording it accurately enough.

I didn't say that my computer broke down, but post #110 is where I said that I had computer issues.

------------------------------------

I've gotta say, I'm going off the idea of a Beefster lynch a bit. I find it hard to believe that a scum player would act this out of the ordinary when the pressure's on them, especially on day one. I'd expect mafia to be trying to get votes off of themselves here, which Beefster doesn't seem to be doing. Instead, he's still relentlessly trying to get reactions out of people and work out who the mafia are. I originally thought that Beefster's vote on me was to try and get votes off of him and onto me, but I'm starting to realise now that that may not necessarily have been the case.

[Trendall]

I never understood OMGUS. If somebody is suspicious of me, I'm automatically meant to rule out the possibility of them being mafia, otherwise it's OMGUS?

[Trendall]

Exactly- It's more about the reason. OMGUS is voting for someone specifically because they voted for you. It doesn't have to be the only reason, but it has to appear to be a contributing factor. I don't really see any good reason you're voting for me, and to me, it looks like you're coattailing off everyone else's reasoning and using that as an excuse for your real intentions.

It's okay to vote someone who voted you as long as that isn't part of the reasoning.

I'm not voting for you.

I wasn't suspicious of Mastin because he was suspicious of me, I was suspicious of Mastin for disguising speculative theory under SE tags, which I thought was explained clearly enough in my post. I would have been wary of that whether it was me who he was addressing or someone else. That was the only reason, and it's not a particularly big FoS at all.

[Trendall]

lylo - lynch or lose, a situation where you have to lynch a mafia, or else mafia wins.
mylo - mislynch and lose, a situation where you don't have to lynch, but if you do lynch incorrectly, the mafia wins

[Trendall]

Okay, I'm hammering. There's not time to turn this bandwagon around now, and no lynching here sucks.

VOTE: Beefster

[Trendall]

V/LA from Friday till Sunday

, just in case day two starts during that time.

[Trendall]

Yeah, I reckon no lynch is the best option here, and if we choose to no lynch, we should do it fast, otherwise it just helps mafia to work out potential power roles. My preliminary guess here would be that mafia decided to no kill so that they could claim doc at a later stage, but an actual doc save is obviously possible too.

VOTE: No Lynch

[Trendall]

@Mod:

What's your rule for when the game ends up in a Mexican standoff situation, eg. there are four players left, and both maf and town keep no killing/no lynching repeatedly?

[Trendall]

Hurrrr

@Mod: What's your rule for when the game ends up in a Mexican standoff situation, eg. there are four players left, and town and the remaining mafia member keep no lynching/no killing repeatedly?

[Trendall]

We're on an even number of players during the day now, so we could potentially get to that point later on in the game.

[Trendall]

Okay, I've never seen anybody claim in such an inappropriate place and for such an inappropriate reason (especially after I categorically said that we should no lynch to stop mafia being able to work out power roles), so I really don't know what to do in this situation. Lynch today and no lynch tomorrow, am I right?

[Trendall]

I've gotta say, I agree with the arguments against Mastin here. For somebody who's talking so much and telling everybody else how to play, I'd expect him to do a far better job of finding the mafia than he has been doing. His arguments against Jay, especially 'you randomly voted for the doctor when nobody knew who the doctor was' are just terrible. Then again, I'll have to do an ISO read before I can commit to this more. Some players do just make bad arguments against people regardless of whether they're town or mafia. However, there have been a number of times when I've seen Mastin make an argument against either me or another player, and I've just thought 'what? That's nonsense'.

[Trendall]

Re-using Nacho's flawed argument, when I made it clear it was an ISO-read of Jay, not a case against Jay. ISO: Isolation read. Not case. It says so in the post I made it in. Also, again, it was not a point against Jay. As it was gut, I cannot in any fair mindset use it as a valid argument against Jay, for it is extremely opinionated, instead of evaluated. Subjective, instead of objective. It's my personal feeling on the matter, not something which is a logical argument against Jay. Instinct over Intuition. How many ways do you want me to say it?

Just the once would have been fine. The problem I have with this is...why would you bring this stuff about Jay at all if you don't find it scummy? You posted a couple of posts before your read on Jay that him and I were your top suspects, so I thought that it was kind of heavily implied that you were trying to build an argument against him. You said 'Jay randomly voted Mute. Doesn't sit well with me, considering Mute's claim'. Are you seriously telling us that that wasn't intended to be an argument against Jay? You were just saying that as an interesting observation that doesn't have any bearing on what you interpret Jay's alignment to be? As far as I can tell, what's just happened here is you've tried to make an argument against Jay, other people have told you that your argument isn't very good, and you've gone 'oh, well I wasn't trying to make a case anyway'. Well then what the hell were you trying to do? This behaviour just strikes me as very over-defensive.

Incidentally, I did think exactly the same as Nacho did as soon as I read that ISO read on Jay. He just happened to bring it up before me.

Add in fencesitting to all this. It's still a quite valid tell.

No it isn't. Read my previous games. I was town in both. I was exactly the same. I'd rather vote correctly than go around haphazardly voting for anybody. I'm considering the possibility that you might be town. If that's going to be a problem for you, then I won't bother rereading and will just go ahead and vote for you now

[Trendall]

Underneath the quick reply box, you've got 'Display posts by user:' and a dropdown box where you can select an individual person to ISO.

[Trendall]

Thing is, if it was a case, I would've marked it as a case. It's really quite that simple. I didn't. If I make an argument against someone to be lynched, I make it clear. I'll pull up examples from past games--old as they are--or even ones from off-forum (where I'm playing Werewolf) if necessary. When I make a case, it's quite clear it's a case. When I make a read, it's quite clear it's just a read. Lots of times, when I do a read, it contains a lot of information, but virtually zero analysis of said information until later. I'll put notes in, like "X and Y seem to be close, hmm...", but I do not form a conclusion from all of it until I'm done, and those small opinions are often replaced with the bigger picture instead of that smaller place. It's, uh, really hard to describe, but I do do it. When I make a case, I accentuate everything, not just the bigger picture. I tend to give the larger points first, and then go into more specific points as I go in, trying to further convince others of my case, and why I'm right. There's a huge difference.

I don't want to get into another lengthy semantic argument. Why did you feel it necessary to say 'Jay randomly voted Mute. Doesn't sit well with me, considering Mute's claim'? For now, I'm just interested in that line. Why did you say it? I can only see two possibilities - either you brought it up because you thought that it was scummy and needed attention drawn to it (which you seem to be vehemently denying), or you put it in as an unrelated whimsical filler comment (which would also be a bad thing; I think the term is 'information instead of analysis')

This behaviour just strikes me as very over-defensive.

*Points to wiki*. I take attacks somewhat personally. If you attack my play, that's fine. I'll point out why your attacks are wrong, and that'll be it. Attack my character, and I take offense. You're doubting my terminology. That definitely pushes into the latter. And when someone insults my integrity, I take SERIOUS offense. I go out of my way, rambling on and on to explain just how they're wrong, and most likely, I will not stop it until they admit they're wrong and apologize. I. Hate. Personal. Attacks.

What am I meant to be looking at on the Wiki, and where are the personal attacks exactly? If you're referring to the quote in question, I meant that your decisions in play as the Mastin persona in this specific game come off as over-defensive, not 'you are generally over-defensive as a person'. Plus, I have to point out, as problematic as this may be, that this is now the second time that I've made what I feel to be a fair argument against you, and you've taken it as a personal attack and basically said 'no, you can't make that argument, it's out of bounds'. I don't know if that's the behaviour of mafia putting up barriers, or a genuinely offended townie, but once again, I'd like to take the time to think about that, no matter how much you see it as 'fence-sitting'.

----

Onto the points that you made against me

1. Buddying with Nacho - I happen to agree with him. Why am I mafia and Nacho isn't? He's the one who brought this up

2. Burden of Proficiency - Making an argument with a fallacy isn't scummy at all. Logical fallacies like this exist in real life, and everybody makes them. My real life friends make arguments with fallacies in them all the time, but it doesn't mean that my friends are part of a mafia organisation. So, I don't see how this can possibly be used as an argument against me. Plus, as the Wiki says, it's not necessarily even a fallacy. If a player is behaving differently from how you'd expect them to, then that should naturally raise suspicions, and you're not playing as well as I'd expect you to. I know you said in your post that you're a mediocre player, so maybe I'm expecting too much from you, but I'm looking at your profile on EpicMafia where you say 'I have become good enough that, when left alive, I rarely ever choose wrongly', and I'm noticing that that directly opposes what you've said in this game, and also that you've chosen wrongly twice in this game now (firstly Beefster, now me), and it's making me suspicious. Again, I'd like to hear more about the context of that quote before I decide how relevant it is. Also, iirc, I didn't use the Burden of Proficiency thing against Beefster, but I may be wrong about that.

3. Fencesitting - I've not got much more to say on this other than reiterating what I've already said.

[Trendall]

+1

[Trendall]

VOTE: Mastin

[Trendall]

If I make an argument against someone to be lynched, I make it clear. I'll pull up examples from past games--old as they are--

or even ones from off-forum (where I'm playing Werewolf) if necessary.

Heck, I recently went back to EM and found myself completely essentially lurking through days as town, when before, that used to be an EM scumtell from me, personally. So, 1:

You can't use another site against me

, and
2: You can't use something years old against me when more recent information will prove to be more accurate.

[Trendall]

If I make an argument against someone to be lynched, I make it clear.

I'll pull up examples from past games--old as they are

--or even ones from off-forum (where I'm playing Werewolf) if necessary.

Heck, I recently went back to EM and found myself completely essentially lurking through days as town, when before, that used to be an EM scumtell from me, personally. So, 1: You can't use another site against me, and
2:

You can't use something years old against me

when more recent information will prove to be more accurate.

[Trendall]

Don't worry, I'm pretty much finished with it now. That's not to say that I've run out of points against Mastin, or that I can't repudiate his points against me, because that's definitely not true, but it seems like for every one thing that I post, Mastin posts about fourty things in return, to which I have a lot to say etc., and it's not really getting us anywhere. I'll be bringing up things that stand out/have stood out to me one at a time as we go along, but for now I'm just interested in what Mastin has to say about my previous pair of posts.

[Trendall]

Also, I'd like to get a general feel for what everyone thinks about what's going on at the moment. Does anybody particularly agree or disagree with any of the things that Mastin and I have said about each other?

[Trendall]

Trendall's vote is predictable, but unfortunately due to my earlier attitude, null. Had I kept a calm, rational mind and not walled (which frustrates players regardless of alignment), I could call this voting a scum tell, though.

Yeah, I had no idea how anybody would react to that vote. Voting for you might be seen as OMGUS or something, but at the same time, not voting for you would be seen as 'fence-sitting' (lol), so I thought I'd just throw a vote on and see what happens. There's nothing to be read into it.

(Trendall, as you don't have a wiki page, would you mind linking me to your other games to make it easier for the meta section of my case?

Here and Here. Again, notice that I've made like, four votes on people ever on this site or something. It's not scummy, it's not fencesitting; it's a byproduct of my weird, indecisive, perfectionistic personality. Also, if you fancy reading through the whole games, note that this 'burden of proficiency' thing doesn't come up at all. Plus, on epicmafia, the only other place I play, I don't think a single logical fallacy has ever been talked about in technical terms in the couple of hundred games that I've played over there. Which brings me onto my next point, which is simply...

---

One of your arguments against me, and correct me if I'm wrong about this, seems to be, in simple terms - 'Your argument has the burden of proficiency fallacy in it, and you should know better than to make arguments with this fallacy in with how many games you've played. This is scummy'. You realise that that's a burden of proficiency argument in itself, right?

[Trendall]

Mastin, I've seen it. I've used it against people. Sometimes it's right, sometimes it's wrong. It's right a surprising amount of the time. I have never seen the term 'burden of proficiency' come up. That was my point. And rightfully so, because I still don't think it's a fallacy.

[Trendall]

And all of that isn't a burden of proficiency argument because...?

[Trendall]

Mastin, have you tried writing something, then going away for ten minutes to do something else, then coming back and rereading it and cutting it all down? I suspect that you might do that, but if you don't, try it, it might work.

[Trendall]

Mastin, yeah, your argument against me contains a burden of proficiency fallacy. My argument was 'Mastin's not making very good arguments. I'd expect him to know better. This is scummy'. You're refuting this argument by saying 'Trendall's not making very good arguments. I'd expect him to know better. This is scummy'.

[Trendall]

Rebutting*. Not refuting.

[Trendall]

...You haven't explained to me why I should be a good scum hunter.

Your 'lack of knowledge' I find scummy, and I've explained why.
You thinking "Mastin hasn't found any scum yet; he must be scum" hasn't been explained, other than "It's not a logical fallacy". That's your 'opinion' on it, but you haven't given me any evidence which shows that I

should

be a good scum hunter. Can you give evidence proving I should be a scum hunter?

Naah. I've changed my mind. I overestimated you (lol, sorry, that sounds a bit harsh). I had your epicmafia profile, where you flat out said that you're a good scumhunter. I also categorically said that I wanted to hear the context of the quote before I decided how relevant it was. You say that it's not relevant because it's two years old and from a different site. Fine.

Now I'm more concerned with how you're tunnelling my balls off and making a lot of points against me that just seem to be making a big deal out of absolutely nothing. In one of your earlier posts, you went through a load of stuff that I'd made, and effectively said 'this wasn't scummy before, but now that I've decided that Trendall is mafia, this backs up my point'. From what I can tell, you're not interested in working out whether I'm mafia or town at all. You've already decided that I'm mafia, and that's not going to change, and now you're going through my posts, picking tiny little irrelevant details, and using them to back up your case. I'm fairly certain that you've ruled out the possibility of me being town completely. You think that I'm mafia, and are now looking for things that fit well with that. Irrespective of how good or bad a player you are, I find that odd. That's how a person would play it if they were mafia. It would be, 'right, I need to build up a case against this person, so I'm going to go back and find stuff that fits'. I can't think of a reason why a town-sided player would try to build an argument in that way.

I might as well bring this up too while we're here. This is the best example I can find of what I'm saying above, because I don't feel like I expressed it very clearly...

I think I enjoy being town and mafia equally as much as each other. Mafia gives you a strong sense of satisfaction when you win, as you have managed to lie through your teeth for the whole game and get away with it. As town, it's great when you catch scum, because you've managed to outsmart somebody who was lying through their teeth.

Wait, weren't you town in both your games on-site? (Hmm...)

For somebody who is using me not knowing stuff as a large part of your argument (I should have known about burden of proficiency, I should have known that you weren't a good scumhunter, etc.), it strikes me as odd that you simply neglect the fact that I play on epicmafia a lot in this point against me. From what I can tell, the point that you were trying to make was 'Trendall says that he enjoys playing as mafia, yet he's never played as mafia before. How would he know? He must be mafia in this game'. At the time you made this post, you knew that I played on epicmafia, because we discussed it during the RQS. Therefore, you knew from that that I must have played as scum before, and therefore you knew that this argument against me was totally irrelevant. Yet, you still made it. By simply omitting crucial information, you've manipulated something that I've said to make it fit into your case against me. These kinds of very selective, confirmation-bias filled arguments are what's not sitting right with me at the moment.

[Trendall]

Once again, could I get current fosses from everybody else in the game, please?

[Trendall]

In one of your earlier posts, you went through a load of stuff that I'd made, and effectively said 'this wasn't scummy before, but now that I've decided that Trendall is mafia, this backs up my point'.

Oh? How so? Do explain. I see none of that in my post; elaboration required.

Well, previous mafia experience is very relevant, because people's playstyles are obviously going to change depending on how much they have played the game.

Hmm...Keeping in mind what I was saying before, how does this sound to everyone? To me, quite poorly. It does not mix well with his view on me.

Surely every scumhunting technique is [inconclusive]?

This shows recognition that no matter how solid a case is, it's not going to be 100%. This is relevant for two reasons--1: It means Trendall shouldn't be as cautious as he has been. If every scum hunting technique is inconclusive, you might as well use what you have to the best of your ability and vote with what you have, because you'll never get to 100%. (He doesn't.)
2: It shows recognition that no matter how good a case is, it's not going to be 100%, so therefore, someone who is wrong will not necessarily be scum. This is a huge hint at previous experience with the Burden to Proficiency. If scumhunting techniques are always inconclusive as he says, then there's room for error, meaning people will not always be right, not even a veteran player. (Heck--quite honestly--veteran players seem to be less accurate than newbie players, for some reason. I don't know why; it just seems like on average, newbies have that beginner's luck which gets them right more often than veterans.)
He ignores this later on, expecting me to be correct with my case, when in fact, I have no way of knowing for sure I'm right.
In that same post, he says that a SE--what I am--isn't required to teach. To me, if I look behind the literal definition and at the intention of the words (I'm a writer; I am good with metaphorical meanings and picking up on Exact Words, Weasel Wording, etc.), it's him saying that just because he's more experienced doesn't mean more should be expected of him. It may seem like a stretch to you, but think about it for a solid moment. It fits so well in that context. Though maybe that's just me. My brain is wired in an unusual way, and to me, I see this as the deeper meaning.
And if true--Trendall will obviously deny it, of course--that would make Trendall a bit hypocritical, expecting too much of me, when really, I haven't played regularly in over a year and at my best would only be equal to a good newbie player. (In other words, I might be able to teach like an experienced player, but I can't play like one; I am no better a player than most newbies.)

I'm often being accused of being scumbuddies with someone else, when it turns out that me and that person are both just two town players who happen to be on the same wavelength.

Foreshadowing, anyone? Yeah, this seriously reads like an excuse, to later justify his buddying to Lat/Nacho.

All of the above is stuff that you never found scummy before but are now making out to be scummy, often at a huge stretch, now that you've decided that I'm mafia. I don't even see what point you're trying to make in the first one, so I'll skip over that. The second one is saying 'if Trendall's opinion is

this

, then he should be acting like

this

', which is a massive leap of logic and isn't anywhere near true. The third one just baffles me. Are you seriously saying that I thought to myself, 'Hmm, I might need to buddy Nacho in the future. I'll just post a thing now about how buddying with people is sometimes okay so that I can clear myself later'? That's just ludicrous.

--

and now you're going through my posts, picking tiny little irrelevant details, and using them to back up your case.

Of course I use details in my arguments.

I've already given the broad picture of why I think you're scum; the more specific reasons require evidence which the finer details give. In that way, they are not irrelevant. Not to me, anyway.

it strikes me as odd that you simply neglect the fact that I play on epicmafia a lot in this point against me.

I had forgotten that particular point at the time I said that. It wasn't that large of a discussion thing.

It's a minor detail which I happened to have forgotten at that particular time.

--

Again, when you make an argument about me, minor details are crucial. When I make an argument against you, you write it off as a 'minor detail'. When you use evidence against people, it can be from another website. When I use evidence against you, it's irrelevant because it's from another site. When you use evidence against people, it doesn't matter how old it is. When I used evidence against you, it's irrelevant because it's too old. When I say that you should have known better to act a certain way, you write it off as a fallacy. When I act a certain way, you say that I should have known better. When I make any other point, you say that it's a personal attack on your character and integrity, which makes me very uneasy in bringing up further points against you. I'm still undecided as to whether you're town or mafia, but your flimsy arguments against me and unsatisfactory defenses against my points really aren't helping at all.

[Trendall]

Mastin, why's it even relevant if they are 'buddying' (they're not)? As far as I'm concerned, I'm mafia. They can't both be mafia as well.

[Trendall]

As far as YOU'RE* concerned. Lol.

[Trendall]

Post #63:

VOTE: Kayi for this blatant alignment fishing question.

I find this response interesting. It seems to be making a lot out of nothing. (What was that, Strawmanning? Or was that making a lot

into

nothing? Ahg, I'm so rusty.)

Post #412

Now I'm more concerned with how you're tunnelling my balls off and making a lot of points against me that just seem to be making a big deal out of absolutely nothing.

Your absolute nothing is not the same as mine, Trendall. I took offense at something which to you was absolutely nothing, for example. This holds no weight.

---

Mastin uses the argument, 'you seem to be making a lot out of nothing' against Beefster early on in the game. When I use the same argument against him later on, he says that it holds no weight.

[Trendall]

starting with Lat's vote on Kayi soon after the onset of the day. Note here his reluctance to get bogged down in talk of a no-lynch, this drove me to have no doubts he was mafia and that my suspicions of both him and trendall made me confident to oust my identity as doctor.

Why are any of those actions scummy?

Here and here, are where I see those two being scum partners.

Why?

This post by Jay makes me suspicious to his motives as well,

Why? As far as I can see, this is just OMGUS

but that amounts to nothing given this post, as well as this post here. Jay is, in my eyes, town.

Why?

This post by Trendall seems oddly scummy to me. Maybe my logic isn't in line with the norms of the site here, but I see this as a minor scum-tell.

Why?

Oh wait, he ignored Neruz answering his question quite clearly.

This is stupid. I asked a question. He interpreted wrongly and asked me about it. I reworded my original question. I DID answer his question by effectively saying 'No, you read the question wrongly. Here is a clearer version of it so you can see what I meant'. I can't believe that I just had to sit here and explain that.

Trendall, I already suspect you as scum

Why?

This just further cements my suspicion of you as mafia; though it is only after you make that post where it's explained that a lynch is a better option. Still too aggressive a move to be town to me.

WHY? Also, this is blatant OMGUS.

It is up to this point that I will let Neruz's evidence against him be the case I augment to mine own.

WHY?

-----

In case you don't see what I am getting at here, you've posted NOTHING in this post. Absolutely nothing whatsoever. All you've done is gone 'I think X is scummy. Here is a post that X is made', and expected everyone else to make the link between those two things. Basically, you've fossed everybody who considered no lynching. That's all you've done. Me and Laterus22/Nachomamma8 wanted to no lynch, so you fossed us for that. Jay voted for no lynch, and you were suspicious of him, and then he unvoted for no lynch, and he's suddenly town. Also, I'm noticing that every one of his posts where he doubt your doc claim, you find suspicious. However, every one of his posts where he agrees with your opinion on Lateralus/your not willing to no lynch, you find as town.

-----

In a nutshell, Mute fosses everybody who disagrees with him about anything, and thinks that anybody who agrees with him about anything is town. That's the sole basis of every single one of his 'arguments'.

As it happens, Mute's probably my strongest town read at the moment, but that doesn't mean that any of his fosses or town reads hold any water.

Now, is anybody still considering no lynching here? I still think it's strategically the best option. I'm always inclined to get off even numbers as quickly as possible to avoid a mexican standoff, and plus, it might not necessarily be Mute who dies tonight. I know that the argument for not no lynching here was so that we have Mute alive and therefore an extra opinion...but seriously? He's offering nothing. If nobody else wants to no lynch, then fine, I'm not too bothered. I'll probably still be voting for Mastin, but I'll have to reread the stuff that's been brought up on Neruz, and also possibly Nacho, although as far as I can see from skimming through so far, there's nothing suspicious about him.

[Trendall]

Yes,

Nacho

's attitude starts looking very scummy. The vote change is questionable. As soon as the player he was voting for got what it seemed a decent case/wagon on him, two/three days before the deadline he suddenly decides that he's not the scummiest person out there and changes his vote. Weak case, too. He seems willing to vote anyone whose playstyle annoys him.

Is it scummy though? Surely if Nacho was mafia, the better and easier option there would have just been to stick on Mastin, seeing as a lot of people are now suspicious of Mastin, rather than starting a brand new bandwagon on somebody who nobody had really been paying any attention to.

[Trendall]

I'd much rather avoid Mastin for now, simply because i really don't want to try and slog through his mess and

try to work out which of him or Trendall is scum

. Nacho has, fortuitously, slipped up and given me someone else to scumhunt instead.

Why is it that one or the other of us is scum? We could easily both be town.

[Trendall]

I'm done with defending myself against these ridiculous arguments. I also think that Mastin is probably town.

UNVOTE:
VOTE: Yenros

[Trendall]

Anyway, do you think I should continue my Trendall read, or switch to a Nacho read? (

...I thought that you were pretty much 100% confident that I'm mafia?

[Trendall]

Cleared up a previous misconception here, so it makes me wonder why it was so hard to do so this game with him.

What on EARTH are you referring to here?

[Trendall]

So, did anyone catch what happened at the end of day two there? Mastin had a choice. He could either hammer on Nacho, who was apparently equal with me at the top of his list of suspects, or he could not vote for Nacho and have the day end in a no-lynch. Mastin was vehemently opposing a no-lynch throughout the whole of day two, yet he still chose to not hammer on Nacho. Mastin chose not to hammer on Nacho, despite the fact that he was arguing against me throughout all of day two for 'fencesitting'. Mastin chose not to hammer on Nacho, despite the fact that he thinks that, and I quote,

'if you're more than 25% sure someone's scum (9 players minus self-->8 players, 2 scum-->2/8-->25%.), then you should still be voting them'

. As far as I can see here, Mastin and Nacho are the two mafia. If they're not, then I don't know what to think.

VOTE: Mastin

[Trendall]

Trendall, you never answered me or jay.

Is this the only thing you have to be concerned about right now? Somebody voting for you? If you want to know, I voted for you for pretty much the same reasons that Nacho is voting for you today. I wanted to get you to actually say something useful.

[Trendall]

Trendall: Why do you thought Mastin was town on D2? What made you change your mind? And why did you change your mind again now?

I'd never really made that much of a decision in the first place, which you'll be able to see me repeatedly saying in my posts. I came to the conclusion that he was probably town near the end of the day, but then his hesitation to hammer on Nacho seems mega scummy to me, so I now think that he's probably mafia. I'm allowed to change my mind, aren't I?

[Trendall]

We should lynch today, otherwise we risk the game ending up in a draw.

[Trendall]

If you feel this is too long of a wait, feel free to replace me, however, I personally recommend against it,

for a few reasons I'm about to explain in a PM to you.

Don't like this. Care to share those reasons with us?

[Trendall]

Everyone

: Who are your current suspicions? I'm getting a bit lost here.

Here's a summary. Main two suspects at the moment are:

Mastin

* Didn't hammer on Nacho, despite how Nacho and I were equal top of his suspects list. By his own logic, this should mean he is scum, as he is being cautious/fencesitting.
* Tunneling HARD on me, and only switched focus to Nacho when it became clear that other people were wanting to vote for him.
* Lots of inconsistencies in his arguments
- Says that he pulls examples from off-site if necessary. Says that my argument based on another site is irrelevant.
- Says that he uses examples from past games no matter how old they are. Says my argument based on old data is invalid.
- Says my 'you should know better' argument is invalid. Uses the argument 'you should know better than to play like this' against me.
- Says that my 'fencesitting' is scummy. 'Fencesits' himself when it comes to Nacho.
- Uses minor details in his argument. Writes one of my arguments off as a 'minor detail'
- Uses the argument 'Beefster seems to be making a lot out of nothing'. When I use a similar argument against him later on, he says it's invalid.
* Says that Mute would die in the night for sure, despite the obvious possibility that mafia still have reasons to leave him alive. Does the classic 'omg the mafia did that? I can't believe it' when Mute doesn't die during the night.
* Few if any actual solid arguments against people.
- Arguments based on gut
- Arguments based on Meta
- Arguments based on totally inaccurate and baseless leaps of logic (eg. if Trendall said this, this means he should have acted like this)
- Arguments that are just weird (Jay random voted the doctor)
* Posting lots of information, and far less analysis.
* Uses a lot of semantics arguments to worm his way out of accusations ('that thing I said against Jay wasn't a case so you can't criticise me for it', 'Anti-town, scummy, and scumtell are all separate' etc.)

There's probably more, but that's just the stuff that I can find/remember right now.

Nacho

* Mastin, who is my top suspect, didn't hammer on him. That's all I've got on him at the moment.

---

Trendall, Mastin just made a very long ISO/case on/against you. Nothing to say about it?

Lol, have you read any of it? Mastin's entire argument against me is based on comparing random things that I've done in this game to random things that I've done in two other games, neglecting the hundreds of other games that I've played off site. I mean, look at his first point about me in post #510. 'Trendall mentions his unusual schedule in both games. This is a consistency, so he's more likely to be town'. As if me mentioning my unusual schedule is in any way relevant to which alignment I am. I mean, seriously? That point alone is just absolutely...there's not even an adjective powerful enough to describe how irrelevant and absurd it is.

If you want me to go through everything that Mastin has said and point out why it is wrong, then fine, I will. However, I really don't see a need to, seeing as everybody else should be able to work out for themselves why his whole argument is just null and void just by reading it.

[Trendall]

Hmm.

Kayi, who are your current suspicions?

[Trendall]

In what way, Neruz? As far as I can remember, this is the first time you've mentioned this.

[Trendall]

That doesn't answer my question.

[Trendall]

Jay, am I right in thinking that Mastin is your top suspect here? If so, why aren't you voting for him?

[Trendall]

Jay, am I right in thinking that Mastin is your top suspect here? If so, why aren't you voting for him?

Why're you pressuring him into a vote on a bandwagon? Sounds pretty scummy to me, wanting to get rid of a player by questioning why someone isn't placing a vote on a suspect.

I'm not pressuring anybody. If he doesn't wanna vote, fine. I'm just asking him why.

[Trendall]

So you're policy lynching him, basically?

[Trendall]

Yeah, I understand. I've been battling with this problem all game. Mastin's either mafia, or he's generally just an inconsistent, erratic, illogical player. Either way, I think it's a good lynch.

[Trendall]

@mod:

Can I request that prods/replacements happen as soon as possible, please? This game needs to start moving.

[Trendall]

Mute, at least from my point of view, if Mastin flips scum, then it makes it likely that Nacho is scum too. If Mastin flips town, then my entire case against Nacho is eliminated.

[Trendall]

Cool, cheers.

[Trendall]

Just to be clear

UNVOTE: Mastin
VOTE: DLG

[Trendall]

@Trendall:
http://mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopic.ph ... 10&start=0
Do me a favor and read page 10 of the game and look at everyone's alignments.

I hate hate hate these 'I'm not going to make a counter argument but I

am

going to link you to something random and expect you to draw your own counter argument from it' things. What are you saying here, you didn't get hammered once when you were town, so you're town in this game? The problem I have with Mastin not hammering you isn't simply the fact that he didn't hammer. It's the fact that he didn't hammer when he said you were tied with me as his top suspect, didn't hammer despite the fact that he was very anti-no-lynch, and didn't hammer despite the fact that he thinks townspeople should be reckless and risk-taking. These are huge discrepancies in Mastin's behaviour that put both you and him into the spotlight.

[Trendall]

Naturally, I didn't hammer. It was a day before the deadline. Others probably would've chimed in, I figured.

With a real life day left, why should he hammer when he was still working things out? You have failed to acknowledge this point by him, yet you continue to assert him not hammering is scummy. Please reconcile this discrepancy before reiterating the scumminess of him not hammering.

Once again, it's not Mastin 'not hammering' that I find scummy. I'll try to summarise my argument as best I can because I know you can't possibly have had the time to reread everything yet.

Mastin was berating me quite a lot for being undecided on who the mafia were. Often in the game I've not been voting, or said 'I'm still trying to work out if X is town or mafia', and Mastin's called me out on it. He's accused me of 'fencesitting'. He also brought in this theory of his, 'cautiousness vs. recklessness'. His theory is that if somebody is being cautious, they are more likely to be mafia, and if someone is being reckless, they are more likely to be town. Mastin's also said stuff like 'if you are more than 25% certain that someone is mafia, you should be voting for them'. He was also hugely against no lynching during Day 2. He knew when the deadline was, and also knew that he was going to have limited access before the deadline.

So, the fact that Mastin was cautious, fencesat, and didn't hammer on his 'top suspect', which ultimately resulted in a no lynch, is a colossal contradiction.

'I figured other people would chime in' just doesn't cut it as a defense at all. There were/are quite a few people lurking in this game, and nobody had particularly voiced any suspicions of Nacho other than Mastin and the people who were already voting for Nacho. Mastin had no reason to think that anybody else would hammer on Nacho there, and even if he did, why would he take the risk of leaving someone else to hammer Nacho when he found Nacho scummy himself? He knew full well that it was probably going to go to a no lynch there.

[Trendall]

1. Why is everyone accepting Mute's claim so readily? Just because no one has seen scum make a gambit like claiming while not under pressure does rule the possibility out. If this is in fact a new scum gambit, it is remarkably effective. So effective, that probably within 6 months or a year, Mastin can start up a new MD thread on how doing this exact thing is a new scum tell.

2. When it was established that No-Lynch on Day 2 was not the best option given Mute's claim, why did no one go back to the one solid piece of evidence in existence? Beefster flipped town. I didn't see where anyone took a hard look at the wagon which lynched him. I intend to. If scum jumped on that wagon, it should be possible to find them by looking at who can't really explain why they were on that wagon.

3. There seems to be a deplorable acceptance of apathy/repetitive excuses for lurking/acceptance that bad play can be excused away by newbieness. Why? Does this town really not want to win?

1. Mastin was the only person who refused to accept the possibility of Mute being mafia, with his 'I've never seen scum claim early before so Mute must be town', 'Mute's going to die tonight', 'OMG Mute didn't die, really?', etc.. I can't speak for all of us, but I think the rest of us are leaning towards thinking that Mute's claim is genuine. For me, it wasn't the fact that he claimed early, it was the reason why he claimed. He saved Kayi, then Laterus (now Nachomamma) voted for Kayi, which I think led Mute to believe that he'd caught a mafia. It was a stupid, terrible play, but I think it was a genuine play. If Mute's mafia, then it was very imaginative and clever. Also, interestingly, if Mute's mafia, then you're probably his partner, seeing as Mastin was the one who was adamant that Mute was town for the whole of D2.

2. Good point. I'll go back and look at this. I think we all got distracted by the doc claim, and Mastin in general.

3. What Neruz said.

[Trendall]

As I said to Neruz above, I didn't see any pressure applied to Mute over the claim. Thus, my point that the claim seemed to be accepted whole-cloth.

What, so because nobody's put pressure on Mute yet at this stage in the game means that we all think he's confirmed town? Hell no. Again, I can't speak for anybody else here, but I am totally undecided as to whether Mute is town or mafia here. I haven't

not

been putting pressure on him because I think he's town, I've not been putting pressure on him because I'm more concerned with Nacho and your slot.

Your belief in the save actions is predicated solely on Mute's claim being true. If the claim is a lie, the "save" is a lie, and the inferred suspicion on Lateralus/Nachomamma is negated. Even if Mute's claim is true, I don't completely accept that the Lat/Nachomamma slot is made to look scummy by it. Having the role of "Doctor" does not confer omniscience. On my first read, Laterallus's initial vote on Day 2 made sense from a townie perspective. Voting to start Day 2 on your primary suspect from Day 1 is perfectly legitimate. Especially after a mislynch on Day 1.

I totally agree with all of this. If Mute definitely is the doctor, that doesn't make Nacho look scummy at all. It's completely irrelevant. I am suspicious of Nacho because of Mastin not hammering on him, not because of anything that Mute has said or done. If Nacho is mafia, then Mute's argument against him was still terrible and irrelevant and was just correct by coincidence.

As for the bolded portion above, I would say this. Your connection between my slot and Nachomamma relies on Mastin protecting Nachomamma, and you make a parallel accusation here. Mastin was protecting Mute. It's as if you've never imagined that scum might distance from each other. Or, bus one another for town credit.

Imagine this for a minute. Mastin does hammer Nachomamma. Nachomamma is scum. Would you ever even consider Mastin scum for the rest of the game?

Of course I would consider that Mastin was scum if that happened. Do you think I'm some kind of idiot? I realise that mafia can either protect each other or distance from one another. I think that in this instance, they're protecting each other. That doesn't mean that I haven't considered other possibilities, though.

[Trendall]

Lol, you new guys are funny. Mute seems like obvtown to me, but we need to lynch, and you're obviously all not changing your minds, so I'm hammering on the off chance that I'm wrong.

VOTE: Mute

[Trendall]

...

Yes. By miles.

[Trendall]

I'm really not impressed with how Ghostlin outed his suspicions on me before no lynching. Basically, all he's done is ensured that I'm kept alive tonight. I'll deal with his argument after we're done with all the no lynching, though.

VOTE: No Lynch

[Trendall]

My additions in bold:

There is one person in town that's beginning to bother me, a lot. Trendall. There's a few inconsistences in his play that are starting to really be highlighted as time goes on:

1) He goes after Mastin for him declaring Nachomamma scummy but not hammering. Well, Trendall didn't hammer either,

I didn't declare Nacho scummy either. I thought he was town at this point in the game, so that's not an inconsistency

and he cast both of the hammers on Day 1 and Day 3

On day one, statistically, the best option was to lynch. I thought Beefster was town, but a lynch is still statistically better, and I could have easily been wrong. That's why I lynched day ONE. On day two, statistically, the best option was to no lynch. That's why I didn't hammer day two. On day three, no lynching risked having the game end in a draw. That's why I hammered day three. There's no inconsistency there, those lynches/no lynches all occored in three completely different contexts

: once against Beefster, who he kinda went 'well, I don't believe it but we're out of time' and Mute, where he mocked the replacements

Yes. I thought it was pretty obvious the maf left Mute alive, and was amazed that you guys all came in and pretty much threw everything scummy that everybody had done out the window and lynched Mute based on the total WIFOM of him still being alive

with:

Lol, you new guys are funny. Mute seems like obvtown to me, but we need to lynch, and you're obviously all not changing your minds, so I'm hammering on the off chance that I'm wrong.

VOTE: Mute

So, let me posit this: there was a majority on Nacho, you've not declared any reason Nacho's scummy

He was Mastin's 'top suspect' and Mastin didn't hammer on him. Mastin was my top suspect, and him not hammering on somebody in that situation was hugely out of character. That was my reason

(I'll get to the specifics here in a minute), why didn't YOU hammer Nacho on Day 2

Because I didn't find him scummy until day 3, plus I was trying to force a no lynch because it was statistucally the best option

, instead of people you gave off the impression have been acting protown? It's not the fact you hammered, it's the fact you've hammered 2 days out of 3, after a hot debate about no lynch, you forced one on the day on a person someone thought was scummy.

2) His hammer on Mute saying he's obvtown isn't consistent with his meta this game on Mute.

Yes it is

He has an entire post on refutation where he calls an argument Mute posts 'stupid', and asks the question 'Why?' over and over.

In the same post, I categorically say that Mute is my strongest town read. There's no way you didn't see that. Just because I say someone makes stupid arguments doesn't mean I think they're mafia

He also posts earlier in the day something to the effect that even though Mute claimed doctor, doesn't mean he's town.

That's true. A claim of doctor doesn't clear somebody. However, I still thought he was town

And then, on the hammer, Mute's obvtown with a rather sarcastic lol. Why the change of heart, Trendall?

Either you're misreading, or you're just conveniently missing out bits that nullify your argument. There was no change of heart. I had a town read on Mute all along, which is explicitly stated in my ISO#44

3) Discards metacase against himself as invalid that Mastin posts, which I don't think is invalid.

My ISO#55 - 'Lol, have you read any of it? Mastin's entire argument against me is based on comparing random things that I've done in this game to random things that I've done in two other games, neglecting the hundreds of other games that I've played off site. I mean, look at his first point about me in post #510. 'Trendall mentions his unusual schedule in both games. This is a consistency, so he's more likely to be town'. As if me mentioning my unusual schedule is in any way relevant to which alignment I am. I mean, seriously? That point alone is just absolutely...there's not even an adjective powerful enough to describe how irrelevant and absurd it is.' .... Do you seriously think that Mastin's arguments are valid?

If something worked once, odds are it'll work again. Past behavior is not always indictive of, but can help dictate future behavior. Ironically, I think there's a part or two he uses meta as well, so this point is hypocritical while he's pointing out Mastin's hypocracy?

No, because I used specific things that Mastin said in the past that were relevant to this game that were contradictions. Mastin just took everything I'd ever done and compared it, no matter how relevant any of that stuff was

(It should be said I don't find hypocracy in and of itself scummy: town is often as guilty as scum for using it. I do find it in this case to be consistent with Trendall's inconsistent play.)

4) Small, almost flavorless posts and then posts paragraphs just enough to not be considered active lurking. There are posts in ISO that are one liners, such as:

That doesn't answer my question.

Jay, am I right in thinking that Mastin is your top suspect here? If so, why aren't you voting for him?

Which is somewhere between helpful and not helpful for town. It's helpful enough to help people clarify their points, but it's not really scumhunting.

Are you serious? If I only have one thing to say, I'm only going to say that one thing. I'm not going to write out reams and reams of unnecessary text. Plus, if you're advocating meta so strongly, go back and read mine and you'll find that I do this in all my games.

Then he posts this wall of text on Mastin:

Kayi wrote:
Everyone: Who are your current suspicions? I'm getting a bit lost here.

Here's a summary. Main two suspects at the moment are:

Mastin
* Didn't hammer on Nacho, despite how Nacho and I were equal top of his suspects list. By his own logic, this should mean he is scum, as he is being cautious/fencesitting.
* Tunneling HARD on me, and only switched focus to Nacho when it became clear that other people were wanting to vote for him.
* Lots of inconsistencies in his arguments
- Says that he pulls examples from off-site if necessary. Says that my argument based on another site is irrelevant.
- Says that he uses examples from past games no matter how old they are. Says my argument based on old data is invalid.
- Says my 'you should know better' argument is invalid. Uses the argument 'you should know better than to play like this' against me.
- Says that my 'fencesitting' is scummy. 'Fencesits' himself when it comes to Nacho.
- Uses minor details in his argument. Writes one of my arguments off as a 'minor detail'
- Uses the argument 'Beefster seems to be making a lot out of nothing'. When I use a similar argument against him later on, he says it's invalid.
* Says that Mute would die in the night for sure, despite the obvious possibility that mafia still have reasons to leave him alive. Does the classic 'omg the mafia did that? I can't believe it' when Mute doesn't die during the night.
* Few if any actual solid arguments against people.
- Arguments based on gut
- Arguments based on Meta
- Arguments based on totally inaccurate and baseless leaps of logic (eg. if Trendall said this, this means he should have acted like this)
- Arguments that are just weird (Jay random voted the doctor)
* Posting lots of information, and far less analysis.
* Uses a lot of semantics arguments to worm his way out of accusations ('that thing I said against Jay wasn't a case so you can't criticise me for it', 'Anti-town, scummy, and scumtell are all separate' etc.)

Some of these are particularly amusing: He again says Mastin invalidates his arguments; and then posts arguments on meta.

Arguments based on meta are fine, but it was the fact that Mastin's whole argument was essentially based on lots of irrelevant meta that bothered me

Anti voting with your gut wouldn't be quite so bad, but he posts this gem:

I'd never really made that much of a decision in the first place, which you'll be able to see me repeatedly saying in my posts. I came to the conclusion that he was probably town near the end of the day, but then his hesitation to hammer on Nacho seems mega scummy to me, so I now think that he's probably mafia. I'm allowed to change my mind, aren't I?

This is a gut judgement based on one particular behavior

No. A gut judgement is based on NOTHING. 'Gut' is when you say 'I think he's mafia but don't really know why'. If you have a reason for thinking someone's mafia, then it's no longer gut

and not really quantifable in any way.

* Tunneling HARD on me, and only switched focus to Nacho when it became clear that other people were wanting to vote for him.

This summarizes his play early Day 3, and is something of a nulltell if you read the wiki

I don't accept 'it's on the wiki so it's true'. The wiki has all sorts of really stupid baseless shit regarding mafia theory on it. I think in this context in this game, the fact that Mastin was so obsessed with getting me lynched and completely ignored everyone else was scummy

: but interesting nonetheless. OMGUS?

[Trendall]

EBWOP: OMGUS means nothing. Mute was OMGUSing all over the place, and he was the doctor.

Ghostlin. Why did you omit the fact that I said that Mute was my strongest town read from your argument?

[Trendall]

Where do I accuse Mute of being mafia? Find me a quote.

[Trendall]

1) You say he was your biggest protown read but the FoS's put you off.
2) You say he was your biggest protown read but you said we shouldn't necessarly trust his claim as Doctor (which meant you held the possibilty he was lying, which is an anti-town behavior).

1. No, I didn't say that. I didn't fos him at all. Not once. I said his arguments were useless. I didn't say I thought he was mafia. Ever. Those two things aren't mutually exclusive. Town can make bad arguments.
2. He was my biggest town read. Of course there was the possibility that he wasn't the doctor. That's why I said he was my biggest town read, not that he was clear. I took that possibility of him being mafia along with all the other stuff against him, and got a town read on him. Just because there was the

possibility

of him being mafia doesn't mean that I had to think he's mafia. I don't know how I can possibly make this any more obvious. There's no contradiction. I thought he was most likely town, but that doesn't mean I was going to be completely oblivious to all other options.

[Trendall]

The arguments against Mute were pure WIFOM. Nobody was changing their mind, no matter how much 'information' there was. From what I can tell, there weren't any real argument's against him other than 'you're still alive', to which there isn't a counter-argument. Plus, I thought that lynching Mute and having him flip as doctor would put the people who were trying to lynch him into the spotlight. As it happens, that seems to have backfired, and everyone seems to be suspicious of me now, which I can guarantee I wasn't expecting. If I end up getting lynched, that's game over, and I'll be the first to admit that it was probably my fault.

As for top suspects, DLG is at the top of my list. I can't ignore how scummy Mastin was, sorry. I'm really not liking how Ghostlin has misconstrued a lot of stuff I've said to build an argument against me, and I don't like how he was the one who started the whole 'Mute is mafia' nonsense. So between him and Nacho, I'm gonna have to reread. I don't think it's Jay, but again, I'll look into that if I have time.

[Trendall]

On that note, where is Nacho? Don't tell me there's gonna be another replacement...

[Trendall]

Ghostlin, during day two, I wanted to no lynch. Mastin and a couple of other players wanted to keep the day going so that we'd have an extra opinion from Mute. So, I was rightfully annoyed that Mute posted barely anything all day and then eventually came out with a load of bad, unsubstantiated arguments, seeing as we'd prolonged the day so that we could have his opinion. I don't know how many times I'm going to have to keep repeating this, but just because I say somebody is playing badly doesn't mean that I'm implying that they're mafia. I wouldn't use the argument 'you are playing badly' against Mute. I'm aware that I used it against Mastin, but that argument 'you are not playing as well as you should be for an experienced player', which is different, and then I essentially discarded that line of enquiry because Mastin turned out not to be as good as I expected him to be (lol, sorry Mastin, I feel so bad saying that), and to be fair it is a very tentative argument anyway. As a new player, the quality of Mute's play has no relevance in determining his alignment, and I would never use that in an argument for him being mafia. If you don't believe me, I'm gonna have to put this down to either you being mafia, or a difference in play styles between us.

[Trendall]

This is the one other thing that I want to bring up right now...

If you feel this is too long of a wait, feel free to replace me, however, I personally recommend against it,

for a few reasons I'm about to explain in a PM to you.

Again, apologies. I tried to get access, but really, really couldn't. I really wanted to continue playing, but I understand why I was replaced. As sad as it is, I'll have to live with it once again, that

I couldn't follow all the way through on my game

. Good luck, all; see you in the post-game. Ah, well. It does give me time to work on all those theories this game has given. (Which'll be posted 1: after they're finished, and 2: if I get Mod permission.) (What? Can't a replaced player get a Bah post, too? )

By the sounds of these two posts, it sounds like Mastin had some kind of strategy planned. He says 'I couldn't follow all the way through on

my

game'. He says that he has reasons for not replacing out. He's thinking ahead. A town player can't possibly have like, a full game strategy planned out, other than 'lynch the mafia'. Why would a town player have 'a game' that they need to follow through on?

I struggled in wording the above correctly, but does anybody else see what I mean?

[Trendall]

Also, if you read Mastin, he seemed really fond of theory and really bad at practice; he could of been practicing a strategy based on theory to prove something.

That's a possibility, yes. I hadn't thought of that. My dozens of other points against Mastin still stand though, and I respect that DLG can't exactly argue against Mastin's behaviour, so I'll bear that in mind. However, I'm surprised that DLG and I are tied as your top suspects. What information do you have to support a DLG lynch?

I agree with a mass roleclaim. I'm guessing that everyone will just claim blue, but I don't think there's any harm in doing it.

[Trendall]

Woah. No no no no no.

As for top suspects, DLG is at the top of my list. I can't ignore how scummy Mastin was, sorry. I'm really not liking how Ghostlin has misconstrued a lot of stuff I've said to build an argument against me, and I don't like how he was the one who started the whole 'Mute is mafia' nonsense. So between him and Nacho, I'm gonna have to reread. I don't think it's Jay, but again, I'll look into that if I have time.

Trendall (suspicions: DLG, Nacho/Ghostlin, in that order)

[Trendall]

Yeah, this day has to go on for as long as possible before anybody lays a vote down.

[Trendall]

I'm a Vanilla Townie. DLG's going next.

[Trendall]

Woah. Hello? I get back and it's game over?

[Trendall]

Mastin, am I right in thinking that you thought I was the cop?

[Trendall]

Yeah, I could have played a lot better, but this game was a hell of a lot of fun, and I learnt a lot from it. I literally had no idea whether Mastin was town or scum during the whole of day two. I found him incredibly scummy, but I wasn't sure whether that was down to his being mafia or just his playstyle, and I spent ages debating over it. I eventually came to the conclusion that he was probably town at the end of day two. However, when Mastin didn't hammer on Nacho at the end of Day Two, right there, they became obvious scum partners to me. However, when I posted about it at the start of day three, nobody really seemed to agree with me, despite how obvious it seemed to me. I thought that if nobody agreed with me, I must be wrong about it, and I started doubting myself and generally falling to pieces. Again, when I came back and saw that a lot of the town were building arguments against Mute, I really didn't know what to think. As for my hammer on him, I realised that it was a huge mistake the second Neruz posted the 'could that hammer have been any more scummy?' thing. I thought that hammering on Mute and exposing him as the doctor would reflect really badly on the people who were pushing to lynch him, but I somehow totally didn't realise that it would clearly make me look worse than anybody else until right after I posted it. It was a huge error, and I almost wanted to just give up playing there and then, but at the very least I'm glad that my foremost suspicions throughout the majority of the game were correct. Of course, working out who the mafia is is only half the game. You have to get town on your side as well, which is the other half of the game that I completely failed at. However, it was a valuable learning experience and I'll definitely be playing more games in the future. Cheers everybody. Great game.

[Trendall]

I found him incredibly scummy, but I wasn't sure whether that was down to his being mafia or just his playstyle, and I spent ages debating over it.

Honestly? I can't tell you if it was me being mafia, or if it was my playstyle. I *think* it was my playstyle, so it definitely needs to improve (greatly), but, eh, won't know for another game or two for sure.

Yep, I wouldn't be surprised if it was just down to your playstyle. I probably would have found you scummy even if you were town.