Mini 611a - Troy, Meet Helen (Restarting)

[Macavenger]

/firmcon

[Macavenger]

omg, ftp!

Vote: Macavenger

How do you usually confirm?

Usually I PM the mod along with my scumbuddies talking about our pregame strategy, obviously. But Mizzy wanted me to confirm in the thread this game. D:

Vote: Macvenger

Note this is the third vote on Mac. Payback time, for lynching a claimed tracker (in another game).

Yeah, that was pretty terrible. I learned my lesson from that though, I swear.

We still would have won if not for ABR!

I shall join Blackberry in not random voting for now.

[Macavenger]

I'm not going to answer that. Whatever answer I give you'll turn into an argument against me. Obviously it can't be very odd, or even odd enough to raise much suspicion. But I agree with netlava, that was pretty scummy (except I'm not really joking), especially the way you demanded I answer you "right now". Makes it seem like you want to string me up early.

This post is really terrible. There was nothing loaded about that question at all; it was quite clearly a simple attempt to get some discussion going and advance the game. If you didn't want a case being made on you, this was pretty much the worst possible way to go about it.

Vote: charter

Regarding 3 votes on Macavenger - I also took Near's vote as a joke, but if Near pushes for his lynch based on the reasons in post 26, then that's a different case. But Macavenger still needs four more votes for a lynch so I think he's pretty safe.

Yeah, 3 votes is nothing at this stage, and believe me, I earned that random vote.

Wow, that got under way quickly! So much to read before carefully placing a random vote. I am tempted by Hadhfang trying to subtly influence the mob by referring to Charter as "cHATER", but in the end my vote goes on Near. Why? Well, coincidentally I had been following the game in which Macavenger participated in the unfortunate tracker lynch (Mini 578), but then Near dropped out and his replacement was... spectacular. Vote Near

You may find it weak reasoning, but if having a replacement like that is not a scumtell, what is?

I'm confused by this. It looks like a random vote based on 578, but on the other hand your bit about reasoning and stuff makes it look kind of serious. Explain?

[Macavenger]

Wow, this game really took off quickly. Nice to see.

To explain my previous post, I had confirmed in thread. Next time I logged in, the game was already in page 2. Unlike various others, who as a policy did not want to random vote, I took the other reasonably common option and random voted. I had thought that I had chosen a reason so absurd that no one could possibly take it seriously, but somehow Macavenger wanted an explanation, Blackberry didn't like it and thought it sounded silly (a random vote being silly? oops, my mistake), CFRiot had a problem with it and honestly didn't understand it, and Acidmix thought I had posted multiple confusing messages.

I've seen people vote for reasons they thought were too absurd to be serious before also, and get questioned about it. Keep in mind humor doesn't carry nearly as well over the internet as in person, since we can't read vocal inflections and stuff, just the text. If you're going to do that in the future, I recommend adding smilies or something to make it more clear it's a joke.

I can accept the fact that that was a joke. I'm a little curious why you have nothing else to say about all the posting that's happened to this point, though. Surely you could have found something to comment on in all this stuff swirling around charter, in addition to answering questions about your random vote?

Blackberry - why the read of protown on Tinsley, while you're fairly neutral on everyone else? I don't really see much justification for that read in your post.

This post is scummy because of the way you force charter to take a stance on Blackberry this early in the game while placing the responsibility entirely on him. Charter says Blackberry's actions seem odd? What do they like seem to you? I would consider that a loaded question.

How is this in any way loaded or scummy? Getting people to take positions is a good thing for town; it will help us analyze connections and such later when we find scum. There would be very little attached to such a position given how early in the game we are, and honestly anyone attacking over a reply to that would just make themselves look stupid and scummy.

I'm not defending Charter. I think his reaction was justified, but I don't think he's necessarily innocent or guilty.

However, I do think you're guilty, so that implies that Charter isn't scum, unless you are bussing him, which doesn't seem as likely.

Being the first to accuse Charter doesn't mean much, because that's not why I think you're scum. For now, I'll take your word on what your intentions were though.

None of this makes a lot of sense to me. Charter's reaction was certainly not justified in my opinion, although that by itself certainly doesn't necessarily make him scum.

I can't see how you're so sure of CF Riot already. You're being pretty selective in your accusation against him, to me - he posted a lot of reasoning that looks fairly protown to me that you didn't even touch on.

I don't like how you're setting up links Charter flips town. Setting up links if someone flips scum, I can understand (with some caution), but not if someone flips town. This suggests that you are scum who knows whether Charter is town, and are thus taking precautions or setting up future votes. It also suggests that you may not be too convinced whether Charter is scum, even though you entertain the idea of a Charter lynch.

Not seeing this. I get no implication that he's scum knowing charter is town from that. Stating how your opinions might change if someone is lynched and flips town is not unreasonable. Trying to disconnect yourself from the wagon if they come up town is the scummy action, and he's not trying to do that with that statement.

The possibly legitimate thing to attack him over here would be overeagerness to lynch - speculating that we may lynch charter at this point is a bit premature, I think. Interesting that you don't bring this up.

FoS: Netlava

My other suspect at the moment would probably be Mac.

Reasons? I see no justification for this in any of your posts.

@ Mac and Had, your votes would seem to indicate that you guys are suspicious of Charter and would support a Charter lynch. How guilty/suspicious is Charter in your opinion?

My vote on charter was mainly a pressure vote; I wanted to see how he'd react to a wagon. More on that a bit later.

Another thing, if you're so sure I'm scum, why haven't you voted me?

Charter brings up a good point here - why haven't you voted him? I get a bit of a disconnect between you not voting him and speculating on what would happen if he's lynched.

Acidmix - how about some reasons for why you read people that way? Comments on the charter wagon?

Too much is being made of Battousai's coming in and voting charter, in my opinion. He's here as a replacement before all the original players had even posted; just coming in and "random" voting isn't unusual. I also see nothign wrong with his reasons for voting charter immediately - I've used similar strategies in the past. I don't really have much of a read on him either way yet, but calling him scummy over the way he stepped in and voted is stretching a bit, I think.

Since the wagon built on charter, he seems to be doing a pretty decent job of scumhunting it. I don't agree with all his conclusions, but it looks reasonably genuine. At one point I felt like he was just attacking everyone who got on the wagon, but post 64 reassures me somewhat.

Unvote

, though I'm going to keep watching charter carefully.

[Macavenger]

The reason I think cf riot and blackberry are pro town is because they are doing alot of scum hunting or at least thats what it seems like to me going posts: 54, 60, and 61. They also seem to have a very aggressive play style.

Why would an aggressive playstyle e indicative of pro-town motivations?

The Charter Wagon:

I find charter suspicious for post 37.
The one thing I've learned from my first game is that its never a good idea to post that your refusing to answer question seeing as that as how player get information.

I also meant what you thought of the people voting for charter. Do you view all the votes for him as legitimate, or do any look out of place or opportunistic to you?

The question, "On a scale of 1-10 rank his scumminess," is scummy because it's not a question one would ask when suspecting someone, which makes me doubt your earlier claim that you suspected Charter when asking that question. What info did you hope to glean from such a question?

Justify. This early, why wouldn't you ask that of someone you have a tiny suspicion of? Asking questions and seeing how people react to them is a good way to get the game out of the random stage.

I've yet to see any explanation of why this is a loaded question - how would he be building a case on any answer to it? This goes for both charter and Netlava.

It's a scum tell because baddies know who is scum. So when accusing a player, they know their alignment beforehand and the fact that they'll inevitably be "wrong." Your posts seem to indicate this by trying to shift the blame already in the case of a mislynch. Usually when townies try to get someone lynched they are at least reasonably convinced that the person is guilty. Granted, nothing is certain, but if you aren't convinced whether someone is guilty why lynch?

Townies lynch townies. It sucks, but it happens. We have to deal with it. It's precisely because townies can never be sure that we have to, to some extent, plan for all possibilities. How is he trying to set himself up an out from the wagon by those comments? I see no shifting of blame or disconnecting going on by his statements about what could happen.

But mostly because of the timing of your Charter vote, which looks off.

Explain why the timing of my vote is off, but Hadhfang's or Battousai's isn't.

Post 33 is serious. I think it's a legit scumtell.

I think your case is full of crap.

Vote: Netlava

[Macavenger]

The reason I think cf riot and blackberry are pro town is because they are doing alot of scum hunting or at least thats what it seems like to me going posts: 54, 60, and 61. They also seem to have a very aggressive play style.

Why would an aggressive playstyle e indicative of pro-town motivations?

He doesn't say aggressive playstyle is indicative of pro-town motivations. You've jumped to that conclusion all by yourself. He just says they also seem to have an aggressive play style, not that that makes them pro-town.

I think it's implied, given that he said it in the context of discussing why he found them pro-town. I'd like to see him answer the question himself.

I've yet to see any explanation of why this is a loaded question - how would he be building a case on any answer to it? This goes for both charter and Netlava.

First, I'd already expressed my opinion (that it was odd) before he asked me a question. Odd has only a very slightly suspicious connotation, nothing like if I'd said "Oh, that's suspicious" or something of another degree. For him to ask me a question to which I've already given my thoughts makes me think he's fishing for some ammo to go after me with.
If I'd told him 1 (or another low number), I thought he was going to say that I was subtly pointing suspicion to BB, with my saying his change of play is odd. This subtly steering us towards someone I would have found to be scummy, because the whole goal of the scum is to point to innocent townies while not appearing to. Hence, why I refused to answer.
If I'd said a high number, I would have been expected to pursue my suspicions. BB's change in play this game can't influence how I think of him in terms of scum or not scum. Basing a decision on something like that is pure WIFOM.
If I'd said a middle number, I would have gotten more questioning for my 'lack of taking a stance' on anything.

I can see where you're coming from here, but I think you're being unreasonably paranoid. I would have seriously laid into anyone making the type of accusations you allude to in response to you giving a low number, as would most townies, I should think. I also think an accusation of "not taking a stance" for a middle number would be seriously silly, since giving a number is pretty much by definition taking a stance.

It's a scum tell because baddies know who is scum. So when accusing a player, they know their alignment beforehand and the fact that they'll inevitably be "wrong." Your posts seem to indicate this by trying to shift the blame already in the case of a mislynch. Usually when townies try to get someone lynched they are at least reasonably convinced that the person is guilty. Granted, nothing is certain, but if you aren't convinced whether someone is guilty why lynch?

Townies lynch townies. It sucks, but it happens. We have to deal with it. It's precisely because townies can never be sure that we have to, to some extent, plan for all possibilities. How is he trying to set himself up an out from the wagon by those comments? I see no shifting of blame or disconnecting going on by his statements about what could happen.

Townies don't worry about the fallout they will recieve if they honestly think someone is scum. They aren't as concerned to come out the next day looking clean. Scum however will prepare for the fallout because they know it's going to be a mislynch. Townies don't know, so they can't prepare, especially this early. If you're a townie and you're voting on someone to lynch them, then you genuinely think they're scum. Riot has already started preparing to distance himself if I wind up being the lynch today. It makes it seem like he knows I'm going to turn up town and is preparing. Notice how no one else who suspects me is the least bit concerned of their image tomorrow. This suggests that they actually think I'm scum.

I mostly agree with the theory you cite here. The part I'm not seeing is where he's trying to disconnect himself from your theoretical lynch. Simply stating how he would feel if you happened to turn up town does not carry any connotation of distancing to me. Where are you getting that from his statement?

[Macavenger]

Vote: Macavenger

For Strawmanning info in post:89.

This is an utterly abysmal reason for voting me.

First, it isn't in any way a strawman. It's a misinterpretation of what you wrote, which could just as easily have been unintentional (which in fact it was) as intentional.

Look at the possible motivation. Was I trying to get you lynched or in any way paint you as scummy with that question? No. There was no implication one way or another. I was just trying to check for logical consistency, something scum usually lack. You answering that it wasn't meant that way should have been the end of it.

Of course, this all assumes you're telling the truth and weren't influenced by charter's interruption. I have no strong reason to believe otherwise for the moment.

I don't see any particular scum motivation in your vote for me right now either, so I'm going to pretty much ignore this for the moment, but I'm definitely going to be watching you carefully.

If it will help prove my township and prove I'm willing to take responsibility for my own actions, so be it.

Vote: Charter

This statement is very scummy. Riot, if you're town, never do this again. Doing something because other people want you to is not a good way to act as town.

My last post was pointless. I don't like how Riot is says he's not scum. There's no need to claim this unless he is scum. Looks pretty WIFOM to me.

This is a load of crap. Yes, him claiming he's protown is meaningless. Everyone is going to claim to be protown. There's no need to claim that if he's town or scum since it's implied - it's not in any way a tell. You trying to represent it as such, and calling it WIFOM, is a huge stretch.

Charter, don't answer questions not directed at the whole group or yourself. Now I don't know what acid really would have said if you hadn't answered by himself. His answer could have been manipluated by you because now he knows he has support with this reason.

Mac: I agree with you on post 89. It sounded like his reasoning for thinking they are protown is because they are scumhunting and aggressive because he wrote ALSO. To me that means that's a second reason.

:goodposting:

First off, I didn't answer Mac's question and his question wasn't directed at anyone in particular. I was pointing out that Mac was stretching Acid's words to say what he wanted them to say. Second, Acid would have had support if I didn't say anything because Mac had already voiced his opinion on this. Convienent how you overlook this. Third you are ignoring acid's clarification and twisting his statement as Mac did, but this time it's worse because he's already said otherwise.

Wrong. You absolutely did straight up answer a question I posed to acidmix. There's no reason I wanted his words to say that - I already covered this above. His words could easily have had a couple different meanings. I should have pointed this out in my initial reply when you did that; I can't remember why I didn't now. Because of your intervention, I can't be sure that I got an honest answer to that question out of him, which screws up my attempt to find out how consistent he is. Interrupting questioning like that is almost never protown. You could always have called me on it later had I tried to stretch his response in a way you thought was inappropriate.

Macavenger, are your unvotes and votes always this methodical, or is it just me?

Not entirely sure what you mean by this. If you're referring to the way I unvoted, FOS'd you, and then voted you later, not always. I jsut do whatever seems appropriate at the time. Charter was sounding better when I unvoted him, and I didn't quite feel you were yet voteworthy at the time.

Also, Mac, how guilty was Charter in your opinion at the time of your vote? I noticed that your unvote of him was quite timely (after I asked this question).

I answered this in that post - it was mostly a pressure vote. He was the first to do anything noticably scummy, so I wanted to see what would happen.

An answer to this type of question wouldn't have given any insight into Charter's guilt/innocence at that point in the game, yet it puts him in a bad position by forcing him to commit that early on over apparently nothing. It also grossly overestimates the significance Charter's "that's odd" post.

Completely disagree. The actual number wouldn't have given much information, but the way someone answers (or doesn't, in this case) can be a valuable reaction to look at. It wouldn't have put him in a bad position at all, as very little stock would (or should) be put in that number later.

Had was the first to vote, and his reason was pretty trivial. It seemed more of an upgrade over a random vote. On the other hand, your reason indicated the beginnings of a case on Charter.

Battousai, I'm not so sure about it because it's a pressure vote, so it's harder to guess at its intent.

Your vote was the second vote after Tinsley's FOS, and the reason for your vote was a bit ambiguous.

This is pretty inconsistent. Tinsley was actually the first to vote, though it was random. Had was the first serious vote, followed closely by Tinsley confirming his.

I fail to see any way my vote was substantially different from Hadhfang's. The only real difference is that I used the word "case," and I did so in reference to what charter had already said himself.

You also already know mine is a pressure vote when you wrote this part, like Battousai's, so why are they still being treated differently if that makes it hard to guess intent?

I think having someone take a stance that early in the game was an unrealistic expectation. Mac, rank Near's scumminess 1-10!

The situation is not analogous, and you know it. Near has posted literally no serious content of any kind this game, whereas charter actually had said something of substance about blackberry.

Just to humor you, I'll say 2 because his silence is starting to border on lurking, but enough scumvibes are coming from the people posting that I think there's a good chance the scum lie elsewhere.

Lastly, since this is another of my long winded posts, I'm going to try for at least the end of day 1 to start giving shorter posts unless specifically questioned.

Your posts aren't long winded in the slightest. Don't worry about your post length, just say what you need to say. More information is good for town.

Early reads:

charter + Netlava: possibly scum together. Netlava seems to be going after Riot hard for mostly incorrect reasons, charter answering questions for others but not himself and making some poor arguments, and I feel like they're working together somewhat in the way they're attacking CF Riot.

Acidmix: possible scum connection to charter from the question answering, but that's very loose at this stage. Need more posts to get any kind of real read.

CF Riot: has done some scummy stuff, but also a lot of newbie town mistakes and he's explaining himself fairly well. Also doesn't look like scum with Netlava or charter from the interactions I'm seeing, and I'm more suspicious of them. Tentatively newbie town.

Hadhfang: Questioning CF Riot for more correct reasons, and appears to be doing so honestly. Neutral-leaning town.

Battousai: Likely town.

Walnut, ShadowGirl, acidmix, tinsley, blackberry, Near all need to post more.

[Macavenger]

I still don't see how an answer that question would help. But more importantly, it leads Charter to the conclusion that Blackberry's action was scummy with the phrase "you say that blackberry's actions seem odd." The question almost expects Charter to find Blackberry scummy and makes not finding Blackberry scummy a direct disagreement with his previous post.

This is a load of crap. "You say Blackberry's actions seem odd" was a quote. charter very literally said exactly that. RIot is not leading anything. Odd also does not necessarily imply scummy, so charter would have been just fine saying he didn't find him scummy, had he wanted to.

Your vote didn't seem like a pressure vote. Now that you say it is, I guess I'll have to take your word for it. I'm not so sure about Had's and Battousai's votes either, but yours just feels the most suspect.

Really? What's suspect about Hadhfang's vote? Cause you didn't seem to imply that you found anything suspect about his when you brought it up earlier.

Mac - I'll post my latest thoughts tomorrow. But not much has changed in my mind. I still feel charter is the most suspect right now. What makes you think Battousai is likely town?

Everything Battousai has done so far this game is consistent with protown motivations. He's pressuring suspicious players appropriately, asking good questions, and bringing up proper points on things people are doing that are scummy. This doesn't absolutely guarantee he's town, but I see no reason to suspect otherwise for the time being.

Post 115 is plus town points for Hadhfang.

OK, time to say something that will hopefully get people thinking, rather than following "Scumhunting for Dummies" Confused Just to be helpful, I will even mark with an * the standard scumtells I am giving.

This is not at all helpful. Stop now. Very suspicious that you could be trying to draw attention to minor tells you might commit and not mark any major ones, hoping they slip by as a result.

Some people write more logically, persuasively, or coherently than others. One of the challenges of online mafia is that all we have to work from is what people write, but inability to articulate clearly does not increase the likelihood that the person is scum. Therefore, while some people want to pursue lines of questioning unchecked, it naturally follows that their target should not have to always be their own spokesperson. At the extreme is a question like "Are you the cop, and who are you protecting tonight?"- I would hope that any townie would jump in and say it was not in the town's best interests to for the cop to answer this.

The situation isn't exactly analogous. Yeah, trying to figure out who the cop will investigate or who the Doc is going to protect is obviously very anti-town, and should be stopped. My question, however, was not leading in any particular direction and had no apparent anti-town motivation, and the interjection interfered with an opportunity to get a better read on acidmix.

Breaking up questions is really only good if answering them at all is bad for the town, as in your cop example. Otherwise, it's best to let the person answer, and if you feel like the questioner tries to do somehting inappropriate with the answer, interrupt then.

I don't know if I'm happy or hurt at the fact that Had and Mac see me as protown now at the expense of me being newb town. It is my first game here, so I guess that's not a bad thing yet. My long posts are back. Are you happy? [=

Don't sweat it, I got called a newbie a couple weeks ago by someone who's been here since 2005.

Of course, this all assumes you're telling the truth and weren't influenced by charter's interruption. I have no strong reason to believe otherwise for the moment.

You influenced him first with this. I already tried explaining this to battousia, but I'll spell it out.

The statement of mine you quoted there is from after Acidmix replied, genius. There's no way that influenced his response in any way.

The way you word your question only gives acid one answer. You're asking for reasons why being aggressive indicates pro-town motivations. You don't ask if aggressive=pro-town. You're not looking to see if he thinks being aggressive means you're pro-town, because you've already put that assumption in your question.
With you wording your question this way, you're influencing acid's decision. The way you ask it, you give support to him saying that his two statements were together. I said I didn't think they were. Either way, both of us would have been influencing it in both directions, so he would have had support either way. I don't like how battousai overlooks this on your part, and only questions me.

Again, no. There's nothing in my question that prevents him from answering "I didn't mean it that way." I'm not leading him anywhere, I'm asking him to elaborate on something he already wrote. I put the assumption in my question because it was an entirely reasonable assumption to pull from the way he wrote it, which Battousai apparently agrees with me on. I also don't in any way imply that aggressive=protown is in any way wrong or bad.

If by everyone you mean yourself, battousai, and mac. Scum like to subtly spin things to direct townies at other townies.

This is pretty rich, given that you and Netlava are the ones busy reading accusations that aren't there into questions we're asking.

Nice, [ShadowGirl is] on my list of suspicion already. What do you think of Charter and CF Riot?

Why do you suspect ShadowGirl?

He prefaces that question by pointing out that "you say Blackberry is scummy," which leads Charter to that conclusion. "Rank his scumminess" also implies that the action was scummy.

Please keep twisting words more. Pretty soon the rest of the town will start to see it too and string you up.

He said "odd" not "scummy," and it was a direct quote of charter's own words. These do not mean remotely the same thing, and he wasn't leading charter at all.

yes 89 is my post and that was the post I was talking about Macavenger took the info from that post (meaning post 89) and focused on the last sentence of it in his post 93 and 95. he took the sentence and then tried to say that I said that because cf riot and blackberry had and afressive playstyle that made pro-town and no where in that sentence do I ever mention that making them pro- town. in other words he just straight up lied about it. you know may be thats not strawmaning or whatever I'm just a noob but either way that is not what I said at all!

Please go back, read my post where I explain why your reason for voting me is terrible, and do something more productive with your vote like helping me lynch Netlava, who actually is twisting what people say maliciously. Thanks.

I'd really love to see more votes on Netlava right now, as I feel like the spinning and twisting he's doing is noticably worse than charter's. I do also very much approve of the charter wagon though, so I may switch my vote there soon if I can't convince anyone else that Netlava needs run up too.

[Macavenger]

Odd implies scummy, people.

Charter you say Blackberry's actions seem

odd

. On a scale of 1-10 rank his

scumminess

in your eyes right now.

No. It doesn't. At all. I'm awed by your ability to bold two unrelated words.

Odd means unusual. Unusual does not necessarily mean something scum would do.

Just for fun, I looked up odd on Dictionary.com's thesaurus. One of the synonym's that came up was 'strange.' You called my confirming by saying 'firmcon' 'strange.' So, by your words, you think confirming by saying 'firmcon' is scummy. Seriously? Do you see how totally absurd this is?

Odd is not scummy.

Really? What's suspect about Hadhfang's vote? Cause you didn't seem to imply that you found anything suspect about his when you brought it up earlier.

I changed my mind. Right now, I find batt and had to be the most scummy (explained later).

Nope, no backsies. It doesn't work this way. My post was the only one in between those two posts you made, and it provided no new information on Hadhfang's vote. You don't get to just suddenly change your mind like that. That's a scummy action.

CF Riot has been giving me pro-town vibes as much as I find his actions scummy. Therefore, after re-reading the thread, I think had is scum. Batt would be my second choice.

Translation: "Shit, people realized the bullshit wagon I started on CF Riot was bullshit. I need to start another bullshit wagon so they don't lynch me or my buddy charter!"

Seriously, this is another example where you don't just get to change your mind cause you feel like it. The timing of this is just too unbelievably convenient. Right as the pressure on CF Riot dissipates, you suddenly find him townie, after all those posts you spent attacking him, giving no indication you thought there was any chance he was town? This is bullshit. You're changing your mind on him because you're scum, and realized you can't mislynch him.

As you can see, not answering questions is bad. Now I don't think you should be lynched based on that alone, but I will add my vote on you to add on even more pressure.

Implies not answering questions is somehow lynch-worthy.

Funny cause when I read Battousai's sentence, it implies exactly the opposite. He says he

doesn't

want to lynch you just on that. Could you please at least try to hide the fact that you're twisting everyone's words to say what you want? This feels like shooting fish in a barrel, not a game.

I think that you are perhaps a bit too over eager to defend your actions, This might be a scum tell, but i'm going ot see where this leads.

Damn that vote was useful. A few posts later and you unvote, having gained the wonderful insight of that vote, Anyways, defensiveness as a possible scumtell is the motif here.

Actually yes, it was useful. Seeing how people react to votes is a great way to get a read on them, especially if overdefensiveness is one of the main things they're being accused for.

I see my vote has gotten a reaction out of you charter. Just so you know, just because I vote for you doesn't mean I want you lynched. I wanted to see how defensive you would become with an additional vote on you.

Post implies you expect charter to be defensive after voting him. Then you use that as a scumtell!

More of Netlava's standard twisting. He'd already voted him when he said that. The vote was clearly to see how he reacted, i.e. whether he became more defensive or not. It's called seeing something scummy, giving the target an opporutnity to slip further, and seeing if they do or not. There was nothing slightly scummy about what Battousai did there, and you're misrepresenting what he's trying to do once again.

Sorry Macavenger, I am not following your script. That is exactly what I am trying to say. I am challenging you to use your brain and interpret what you see before you, not to simply use a mental list of known scumtells and check them off as they go by (references power roles? check/// insinuates that he is town? check/// shows concern for rep for next day? check/// defends another player? check etc). I would also challenge your definition of helpful, in that whatever is posted here may be helpful to some member of the town, even if not to you. A bit like someone answering a question for someone else- it is not the result that you desired, but it is still unquestionably part of the puzzle.

Good job, that's exactly what I've been doing. You point out one instance of this yourself about my thing with Acidmix - voting for crap reasons is a standard scumtell, but I skipped it here because in context, I see no reason for him to be doing it as scum. I've also done this with CF Riot this game, and I'm doing it here with you - that's the whole point of me telling you to quit marking your own "scumtells." Doing so isn't anything near a standard scumtell, but it could be one, because pointing out your own would make it easier for you to try to slip some, standard or nonstandard, by the rest of the town. Hence, trying to point out your own scumtells is something I would consider scummy, as there's no benefit to doing it as town, but there is benefit to doing it as scum. That's why I told you to quit doing it.

Anyone who goes by a literal list like the one you give there and lynches only based on that is probably scum looking for easy lynches anyway. Of the ones you list, power roles is a decent one, insinuating town isn't at all, concern for rep is situational and usually weak depending on how it's done, and defending is extremely situational.

The tells I'm using on Netlava are mainly twisting what people say to mean what he wants, and backtracking/flip flopping. These are relatively standard tells, but they're both pretty strong (if situational, in the case of flip flopping). I'm also not applying them blindly. Twisting once or twice can be a legitimate mistake by a townie misinterpreting what someone said. Netlava hasn't done it once or twice, he's doing it multiple times per post. He's also doing it in very malicious ways, i.e. reading things into questions or arguments people are making that aren't really there, in ways that make legitimate, protown questioning look scummy. His opinion changes are also rapid and have poor reasoning, which is what constitutes scummy flip flopping. Wish I could talk about a big argument I just had in an ongoing game here. If a townie takes a couple days, rereads the thread, and comes back with new suspicions and good reasons for them, that isn't scummy. Changing opinions because a wagon evaporated or your old thought suddenly becomes inconvenient is, and it's what Netlava is doing.

The advantage of hanging around this time is that I was able to ask the mod a question about game setup and get a reply back (thanks Mizzy). Based on that, FoS Netlava.

To summarize:

Had is scum, batt is probably the second. Third, dunno yet.

There is no game setup metadata that says that there are three scum. Would you care to explain?

So, after all your ranting about how mindlessly applying standard scumtells is bad, you pick out the bog-standard "how many scum are there slip" tell to accuse Netlava based on? This is terrible. First of all, 90% of the time that isn't a slip in the first place. Secondly, probably 98% of mini normals have 3 mafia/werewolves (plus possibly an SK, but that shouldn't be counted as a fourth in this context, since it's not part of the group) in them, so it's entirely valid to assume there are three.

There are more than enough good reasons to lynch Netlava right now. Let's stick to those and not make up shitty ones. While you're at it, why don't you ask some people some questions, or provide a bit more speculation on who you think the scum are than that one nearly-useless comment, instead of just commenting on parts of the game that happen to directly relate to you?

Hn, I don't know. When I think of 'odd' I think that something is off, and off would lead to scummy, wouldn't it?

Situational. Depends on how it's off, and what the motivations are.

Netlava is staying true to form and twisting words, and it looks like trying to influence a bandwagon by repeating what has already been said, Charter still seems scummy to me, but there is a possibilty that he has a power role (though it seems unlikely), no idea on a third.

Quoted because this was worth making people read again.

Netlava -- I like netlava's recent posts and am glad he has come to the realization had is most likely scum (lol).

FoS: Blackberry

Guys, please seriously read all the stuff hadhfang and I have posted about Netlava's twisting and stuff. His arguments are so incredibly full of shit. Netlava is already the best day 1 lynch I've ever seen, or expect to see for the next year or two. He's repeatedly warping the hell out or what everyone is saying in ways that have no possible protown motivation. He needs to be strung up. There's still some chance charter might be a horribly misguided townie in my mind. Netlava's not. We're well past the "beyond a reasonable doubt" threshold here. Every post he's twisting stuff people say trying to make them look bad. His abrupt reversals of opinion come for no perceivable reason, and all at times that are very good for a scum player. He started the Riot wagon, pushed it really, really hard saying "I think you're guilty" multiple times and leaving no room for any doubt. Suddenly now, when it's clear that no one wants to lynch Riot, he doesn't suspect him anymore? And tries to start a new bandwagon by twisting someone's words to make him look bad, doing anything he can to direct attention away from the scummy charter? We can't let him get away with this. The scummy orca needs to die.

Confirm Vote: Netlava

[Macavenger]

Good try, but what I have been saying all along is that apparently scummy play (such as lynching solely on standard scumtells) can well be town play.

This does not conflict in any way with what I was saying. It can, or can't. It's all situational, and you have to figure out the situation. You're telling people to use their heads, I'm using mine.

Incidentally, you say power roles is a decent one (scumtell)- what do you think of Hadhfang bringing up the possibility that Charter has a power role?

I don't like it, but I don't think it's a big enough scumtell to outweigh the rest of his play, which I find rather townish.

You totally ignored my request for you to talk about who you find suspicious. Why? Please do so.

Sorry I somehow overlooked or missed your question the first time.
To put it simple yes I think Mac was trying to twist my words. I guess its
possible that he just misread my post, but I think the reason he said
what he did was to eventually make me look suspicious or to simply
use it to discredit anything that I post.

I've already explained why this is totally wrong. Please vote Netlava now. Thanks.

I'm not going to argue semantics on this question too. This is really getting out of hand, it's like there should be a dictionary on the forum or something. I read it as looking for a specific point, hence why I responded like I did. Regardless I think my response answers his question.

What the hell. hadhfang gave a

direct quote

of you saying you think he wants to lynch either you or Netlava (both very admirable goals, I might add). There is no way you can call him asking you where you saw that he wanted to lynch Netlava a flawed question. That's just laughably bad.

Moving on to Netlava's many and varied twists and self-contradictions:

In the context of this game, odd IMPLIES scummy. Why do we point out that something is odd in this game? Is it simply because it's bizarre? No, we say it's strange because it can be interpreted as scummy behavior.

I don't care how much you want this to be true, it's still not. There are lots of ways to play as town. Some of them are unusual, or odd, or whatever you want to call them. That doesn't make them scummy. Sometimes odd can mean scummy. You're trying to say that it always does, which is not true.

This "maliciously word twisting" theme is nonsense. You guys are just purposely misinterpreting my posts, and adding some drama to it.

No, you're reading things into people's posts that aren't there, and using that to attack people. We're pointing out why you're full of shit.

My comment here was that it implies not answering questions is lynch worthy. Here, we look at the assumptions. Batt dispels the notion that Charter should be lynched solely because he didn't answer a question. To dispel this notion requires the assumption that a person should be lynched solely for that in the first place, which is an absurd idea. Consequently, batt's post seems fake. I also don't like how he subscribes to the general mantra "not answering questions is bad."

Again, you're reading tons of crap that isn't there into what people are saying. He's making sure no one misinterprets his vote as him thinking that, emphasizing that it's just a pressure vote. You trying to make his statement into the opposite of what it is is just hilarious.

I changed my mind. woohoo. Because obviously nothing new has happened in this game, am I right?

Lots has now. You changed your mind about hadhfang's vote between post 110 and post 113, between which you and I were the only ones to post. You gained no new information on hadhfang's vote during that time, only on mine. Yet somehow, his vote became scummier to you. There's no reason this should happen, unless you need one of those charter votes to be scummy so you can accuse people based on them, which is something only scum need to do.

LOL, you really think I'm buddies with Charter?

Probably. There's still a small chance he's a very misguided townie, though.

And the case against CF Riot is based around 2 primary themes. The first is his question and the second is the precaution he takes. However, CF Riot's third act, voting Charter to stick to his guns, strikes me as a newb act, so therefore I'm inclined to dismiss CF Riot as a newb townie.

Really? Ok then, so obviously in your prior posts you must have quit accusing him after he voted for charter. Let's go back and look at them.

If it will help prove my township and prove I'm willing to take responsibility for my own actions, so be it.

Vote: Charter

If it will help prove my township and prove I'm willing to take responsibility for my own actions, so be it. Vote: Charter

This post implies you are voting Charter just to look more town to the town. Another questionable motive!

Huh. This looks oddly like attacking CF Riot for the thing you just said made him newbie town.

No I never meant to imply that I was in fact taking them. Netlava said it appeared that I was taking precautions as scum. I am not scum, and my post was saying "if I were, I wouldn't need them."

I meant that scum may feel compelled to take precautions because they know they'll be "wrong." Innocents don't know, so they usually hope for the best and assume they'll be right.

Still looks like pressuring him to me.

Except nothing was realistically going to happen with the Blackberry incident either, and CF Riot was trying to make something happen.

Ok, that's definitely still attacking CF Riot.

Good point, but the way you say it suggests you feel Riot is scummy.

Well, yeah

Ok he's definitely still scummy in post 125.

CF Riot has been giving me pro-town vibes as much as I find his actions scummy. Therefore, after re-reading the thread, I think had is scum. Batt would be my second choice.

Ok, so in post 157 he's finally town.

But that's an awfully long time after he voted for charter, which you just claimed caused you to dismiss him as newb town. In fact, you directly called that action questionable while attacking him earlier.

Netlava has some other comments between posts 97 and 157 talking about how CF Riot's first question to charter was loaded and such, but I didn't bother quoting them all because they were mostly in response to other people talking about it, and well, there's plenty of other stuff up there demonstrating Netlava clearly thought CF Riot was still scum long after he claims to have seen Riot as newbie town.


So Netlava has now added blatant lying to his routine. The timing of his shifts of opinion is absolutely damning, and him trying to lie about them only makes it more so. Can we please lynch him yet? Fans of the Lynch All Liars policy lynch can get on board now!

I

think

know you're town, Macavenger, because

you put quite some effort into that long post with a cocky attitude even though you're wrong

I'm scum.

Fixed for you. Also, it's way too late to try to buddy up with me. Nice try though.

[Macavenger]

???

I hope to god that was some kind of sick joke, because if not that's about 37 types of totally not cool.

Unvote; Vote: Acidmix

[Macavenger]

/in just in case the PM I sent you last night doesn't count

[Macavenger]

Haha, in all honesty, I wouldn't have answered that question if I was town either. I was praying for a netlava lynch on D1, then mac lynch on D2 to try and turn my Mt. Everest of a mess into a win.

I was planning on PMing Mizzy asking for a mercy modkill N1 if we lynched Netlava and he came up town. Although as it turns out, since he was lover with a scum, I think I probably could have talked my way out of a lynch afterwards anyway.

There's still no way that first question from Riot was in any way loaded.

[Macavenger]

(Is it cheating to ask that?)

Not at this point, though scum may not have decided.

[Macavenger]

Twisting words less will get you lynched less more than changing your avatar will.

Hope you realize now that both the people you were reading things into actually were townies, so you were wrong.