Mini 1082 (Guns and Ropes: Midland): An Unfaithful Ending.

[gonnano]

confirm

[gonnano]

Jimfinn's reaction to charter threw up a red flag, but I'm willing to let it slide for now.

Enigma's last post really rubs me the wrong way. To me, his bandwagon jump really fails in the fact that he restated the "overreaction to sarcasm" reason while trying to make it appear as though he had something original to say.

What I don't like about this is the criticism for using the same scumtell as someone else. Especially since the scumtell in question is in regard to the only thing that jimfinn has done so far, so it's not like there were a wealth of other places to look for information about his role. Furthermore, saying that someone is piggybacking on the arguments of others has no meaning unless there is a

very

extensive pattern of this behavior. Agreeing with someone is not a scummy action.
VOTE: Rabies

[gonnano]

Why are you willing to let it slide for now?

Because a.) he's already getting pressure for it from other people and b.) I need to see more of his posting style before I can make a judgment call on whether or not it was scummy for him to say that.

I never argued that it was. My arguement is that Enigma's post reads like a piggyback plus absolutely nothing original, which seems to be what scum wants: to just go with the flow, conformity.

I don't think that's much of an argument considering there was essentially no original material to be presented in this case.

So, are any other tells disallowed early game? What tells are allowed early game?

First, my opinion of the piggybacking tell is that it has hardly any weight unless there is an undeniably clear pattern, regardless of whether or not the game is in the early stages. As far as which tells can be trusted at the beginning of the game, I would say that the best strategy with such limited information is to look for people who are using shaky logic and seem to have the main goal of trying to get someone lynched soon rather than finding scum. Any tells that point to those characteristics are fair game. Also, lurking is just as scummy at the beginning as it is for the rest of the game.

[gonnano]

What do you think are the chances of your day 1, page 3 reads actually being right?

[gonnano]

That wasn't a defense, I was just curious about the extent of your overconfidence.

This is the defense.

Gonnano and Enigma are probably buddies with how much Gonnano is going on about Enigma actually not being scummy, and Enigma with how he's doing nothing but being scummy.

The point was not to say that Enigma is cleared for some reason -- he isn't. The point was that it was scummy of Rabies to jump all over him for agreeing with someone.

LMP has been ignoring most of everything, and it really stands out that he has no comment on these two.

So far you're the only person who has chosen to interpret my criticism of Rabies as a defense of Enigma. Why single out LMP when no one else has commented about it either?

Jimfinn's first post is still pretty bad, but then Gonnano comes in and votes Rabies and keeps in on Rabies (I can see voting Rabies when he voted Mizzy, but after that, no).

What is it that you don't understand about the reason that I voted for Rabies? Why does keeping my vote on Rabies have any significance when nothing has changed since I placed it?

[gonnano]

I thought his post you disliked was very good, I think you're faking your vote.

My vote is real. As I see it, the situation now is that I didn't think Enigma's post was scummy, so I voted Rabies for voting him. You didn't think Rabies's post was scummy, so you voted me for voting him. To me it looks like you're doing the exact same thing that I did, which leads me to wonder if the same logic you used to say that I was Enigma's scumbuddy would also make you and Rabies scumbuddies.

I singled LMP because he hasn't mentioned Enigma at all (which most people have) and hasn't mentioned you, which is bad for him, since you're scum.

We've established that LMP wasn't ignoring me, so the remaining reason is that he was ignoring enigma. However, moose had also failed to comment on enigma's posts. Plus, moose actually WAS ignoring me when you singled out LMP. Why didn't you say anything about moose?

@gonnano: Is there such a thing as too much pressure? If you want to see more of his posting style, shouldn't you apply MORE pressure?

I'll see more of his posting style regardless of whether I apply any pressure... either that or he'll be lynched for lurking. The reason that I didn't vote for him was because while he was getting some pressure from other people, Rabies wasn't. I thought they both deserved pressure, so I voted Rabies.

According to whom?

Here, let me post the sum total of everything that jimfinn had said.

/confirm
*voted Macavity*
That really strikes me the wrong way. I don't think a town player would suggest a quicklynch, even jokingly, this early.
*voted charter*

There's only so much room for analysis in that. What else could Enigma have brought up?

Your vote relies on the assumption that my motivations match up with the latter part of your sentence. What makes you think that, though?

As I stated, I don't think the piggyback argument is sound given the circumstances. It looks to me like you might have voted Enigma because the third person on a bandwagon is an easy target because of the rule of thumb (read "commonly accepted fallacy") about that spot being scummy.

I'm not sure what the purpose of saying this is, other than to bait charter.

The purpose was to point out the enormous chance that reads formed with this little information will be wrong. They certainly don't have an 85% chance of being right, and probably aren't very close to 50% either.

I don't know about charter, but personally, I don't understand any of your reasons.

If there's something specific that you don't understand, I'll be happy to answer questions. I can't do much about a general lack of understanding of all of my reasoning, though.

[gonnano]

Unlikely is not the same as impossible. If that was a mini, you'll get the same result about once every sixteen to thirty-six times you try it just by picking randomly. One success doesn't make uninformed guessing effective.

[gonnano]

What made LMP's absence of comment more noticeable to you than moose's?

[gonnano]

Prod received. Busy couple of days, post on the way.

[gonnano]

moose's post seems to match up pretty well with the scumtell you describe in the quoted post (it didn't look like he made much of an attempt to hide it, either). Care to tell us why he didn't get even so much as an FoS from you? Or do your scumtells just not apply to people on your team?

I would rather let other people take care of lynching the VI. Honestly, it's going to happen eventually anyway because we can't afford to have him in the endgame, so I'm not going to waste my time with it while there are substantial things to talk about.

That's all of what jim said, but not all of what everyone said up to that point.

Well, considering that Enigma was voting for jimfinn, I find it odd that you would expect him to accuse jimfinn on the basis of what some other person said rather than what jim actually said.

I don't know. If everything obvious has already been said, why not come up with something... not obvious? I tried doing that with Mizzy.
What's with the white knighting here?

You can't just order someone to have a groundbreaking new insight that no one else has thought of. Especially when the source material is two sentences and two votes. Like I said before, the point here is not to argue that Enigma is town. For all I know, you could be bussing him. The point is that you went after someone for a reason that sounded good but ended up not being a logical one.

I'm not sure what you're referring to here.

Third person on a wagon is likely to be mafia

the full page is here, and in my opinion the tell probably used to sort of work, but now the games on this site have gone way past the point where it has any meaning. However, people still seem find this behavior scummy for some reason.

1) Policy lynches are terrible in general and don't help anyone but scum.

QFT

Gonnano attacked the certainty I had of my read rather than trying to defend his actions. Then once I called him out on this, he defended, but still went on about the number. What he's doing is trying to weaken my case by saying there's no way I can be as sure as I am of him, and thus my attack on him is disingenuous, rather than respond to my actual points. I showed that example because I didn't want to explain this to him (I wanted to see if he was just going to continue attacking my numbers or what). I said I was 85% sure he was scum. By now, that's higher, but that's neither here nor there. I'm not arguing that since I was right in another game, I must be right here. If that's how it came across, that's not my intention.

I commented about the probability of charter's reads first because it was blaringly obvious that 85% is much too high for any day 1, page 3 read. I then began my post responding to his points, and while I was writing that he accused me of failing to offer a defense and voted for me. Note that I did respond to all of his points, and saying that I'm scummy because I did it after he accused me of not having a defense is ridiculous. If I came up with those responses, what possible reason would I have to withhold them as scum or town?

@gonnano: What's your read on moose? What do you think of Enigma's last posts and overall game so far?

I think you can get a pretty good idea about my read on moose from the beginning of this post, and as far as enigma is concerned I have no read on him. If you look, though, no one else really does either. All of the suspicion of enigma is based on some supposed connection to me. The overall game so far has seemed to revolve around charter thinking that I'm scum and Rabies backing him up (with some help from moose).

Sorry if I missed any questions. If I did miss one, please point me to it so that I can address it.

[gonnano]

I don't believe in policy lynching VI's, if that's what you mean. In my (limited) experience with cases like this, though, there wasn't much I could have done to stop the lynch. I guess my strategy would be to first look to lynch someone who is acting scummy, and then if no one stands out especially lynch the VI.

[gonnano]

I'm not going to waste my time with it while there are substantial things to talk about.

[gonnano]

What disturbs you about it? LMP read the first part of my statement and jumped to conclusions. I quoted my reasoning to show him why I said what I said.

[gonnano]

@StrangerCoug
Why should I? I can't tell if he's town or scum, so as far as far as I'm concerned he's just a place to put my vote if no one else is acting scummy. Unless of course his play improves like he claims it will.

[gonnano]

by calling moose200x a VI, you imply that you think he's town doing a bunch of anti-town things.

That's not my understanding of the term... https://wiki.mafiascum.net/index.php?ti ... lage_Idiot

LOL at the misunderstanding -- maybe I should be more careful with the word "claim"

[gonnano]

Also, gonnano, the wiki is rubbish. Don't be naive enough to take it as gospel, it was probably written by some self righteous big headded scum hunter.

When did I say that the wiki is always right? I was just trying to show that I had a different understanding of the term VI, and that it wasn't just some random meaning that I made up to defend myself. Also, I would appreciate it if you could stop with the condescending tone. Unless you really, really need to feel important, that is.

This isn't what I'm talking about. I'm talking about the fact that the only thing he did was parrot. He could have accused and voted jim, but the fact that he didn't say anything else was scummy to me at the time.

What I've been saying is that there was no other aspect of jimfinn's play to comment on, so the choices were to parrot or disagree. Therefore parroting isn't scummy in this specific case because there was nothing else to say.

So, this is your response to my accusation of white knighting? Distancing?

Also, why does it seem like you're selectively giving the benefit of the doubt to Enigma? My reason for voting isn't OK, but voting someone because of a disagreement over sarcasm is?

The sarcasm argument was a judgment call. There are arguments on both sides of that as to whether it is scummy or not. Voting for Enigma for agreeing with someone is not the same at all. If I recall correctly, I have been saying the entire time that this is a case against you, not a defense of enigma. You seem to be very interested in turning it into one, though, which I assume is because you want to deflect attention from yourself.

Now that Enigma is posting some content, I'm beginning to find him very scummy. Mostly because he seems to be saying that his lack of posting/ lack of scumhunting is just part of his playstyle and shouldn't count against him, where a townie would try to remedy the situation instead of giving excuses.
Before Rabies gets all excited and accuses me of distancing in response to pressure from him, let me reiterate that I have never said that I think Enigma is town, in fact I have specifically said that I was not considering him town or scum. This is enough to tip the balance. Plus, the scumtell he comes up with in 196 is terrible.

Charter

I'm trying to be careful not to let the fact that charter is accusing me influence my read on him, but I can't help finding him scummy. Take a look at this.

First, I don't believe he ever responded to this:

As I see it, the situation now is that I didn't think Enigma's post was scummy, so I voted Rabies for voting him. You didn't think Rabies's post was scummy, so you voted me for voting him. To me it looks like you're doing the exact same thing that I did,

which leads me to wonder if the same logic you used to say that I was Enigma's scumbuddy would also make you and Rabies scumbuddies.

and then we get these two gems:

Rabies is the most town out of any of you, so I am ignoring him.

Gonnano is STILL voting Rabies. It seems pretty clear to me that he A) has no interest in finding scum, B) has no interest in convincing anyone else to vote Rabies, C) is obvscum!

sounds a lot like "gonnano is voting my buddy, we gotta lynch him!"

and from Rabies:

While I don't agree with jim's conclusion that charter is scum, I think his thought is genuine.

I'm not sure what the purpose of saying this is, other than to bait charter.

I don't know about charter, but personally, I don't understand any of your reasons.

jimfinn
In a previous post, you placed charter fairly high on a scum rating list. I would still like to hear why you think charter is scummy.

For the record, I also agree with charter about your active lurking.

I'm happy with my vote where it is, and I'd appreciate thoughts from others about my case on Rabies.

On a side note, RBT's super lurking is starting to bother me and if I don't see some content I'll have to conclude that he is scum.

[gonnano]

Taking a page out of Mizzy's book of poor reasons to vote someone.

and what is it about lurking and refusing to scumhunt that is a bad reason to vote someone again?

You've already made up your mind that he's scum and are now just waiting until either a wagon forms on him, or he lurks a little more and it's acceptable to vote him.

If he continues to lurk, it will be acceptable to vote him, because that would convince me that he's scum. Why is it scummy for me to say this but not for the others who have criticized RBT's lurking?

No, you haven't tried to convince anyone to vote Rabies, or even that Rabies is scum. No one but you has said they're suspicious of him. You are content for that to the the status quo, just sitting on the sideline, not ruffling any feathers, so that you avoid any suspicion yourself and don't get lynched.

My job is not to whine until people vote for Rabies. I've pointed out the things that I think are scummy about him, and if people agree with me then they can vote for him too. That said, I have felt like my case is being largely ignored, so...

@ everyone -- what is your opinion of my vote/case against Rabies?

So obvious you are scum. WHY CANT I BE A DAYVIG?!?!? WHYYYYYYYY

If it's so obvious that I'm scum, why is Rabies the only one who agrees with your case against me? Moose is voting me for because he thinks I'm a good policy lynch or something, and the only other criticisms of me have been in response to some answers I provided which were misunderstood and which I then cleared up.
(You can't be a Dayvig because that would put too much power in the hands of the mafia)

[gonnano]

I have attention on myself to deflect?

It's also ironic that you talk about attention deflection. charter called you down on vote parking and now all the sudden you're advertising your case that's existed for a while?

Yes, my arguments against you would count as attention. You've been trying to turn them into an argument about me protecting Enigma. And I fail to see how I am deflecting attention by responding to charter's observation that people are ignoring my case by asking people what they think of my case.

If you are town and scum are riding your wagon, I think it has to do with the fact that you've made yourself a target, and not that you're some huge threat to them.

Made myself a target by doing what? The only thing I've done is put pressure on you.

@ charter

As I see it, the situation now is that I didn't think Enigma's post was scummy, so I voted Rabies for voting him. You didn't think Rabies's post was scummy, so you voted me for voting him. To me it looks like you're doing the exact same thing that I did,

which leads me to wonder if the same logic you used to say that I was Enigma's scumbuddy would also make you and Rabies scumbuddies

.

I'm still interested in a response to the bolded.

[gonnano]

Well, I fail to see how I am deflecting attention by responding to your distancing from Enigma.
You've put pressure on me? How so? Asking tough questions that I simply didn't have a response to?

Oh, I don't mean that I've put a lot of pressure on you, just enough to provoke a reaction from your scumbuddy charter because he thinks he can get me lynched and he know's that I'm suspicious of you. By deflecting attention I mean that I said your reason for voting Enigma was scummy and you tried to turn it into me saying that Enigma was townie, thereby moving the argument from investigating your reason for voting Enigma to accusing me of buddying Enigma. The difference between that and what I did was that I responded to charter's accusation by explaining the reason for the behavior that he observed.

While we're speaking of unanswered questions, you should feel free to weigh in on the issue of whether the same logic that makes me Enigma's scumbuddy would also make you and charter scumbuddies.

There's nothing to respond to there. Your vote was bad and on a townie, my vote was on a scumbag.

So... you thought my reason for voting was bad and you voted me for it. I already went over that. In fact, it's part of the question.

Let's recap:
I thought it was scummy of Rabies to accuse Enigma for not posting analysis of content that wasn't there -- analysis that Rabies himself hadn't even provided. I voted for Rabies.

You thought it was unreasonable of me to vote Rabies for this, so you voted me.

Why is it that my reason for voting for Rabies is bad? Why is it that I'm protecting Enigma somehow, but you aren't protecting Rabies?

[gonnano]

What is it? Maybe we should take a poll to see who thinks I was deflecting for Enigma.

This is the case? You're just repeating old crap from page 2;

Actually that was a response to you wondering why I said that you were deflecting attention from yourself.

You backtracked; charter didn't. That's a major difference.

What backtracking have I done?

Burden of proof is on you to show why it's not bad.

I thought it was scummy of you to accuse Enigma for not posting analysis of content that wasn't there -- analysis that you hadn't even provided yourself. The reason that I thought this was scummy was because you seemed like you were trying to get a wagon going on Enigma based on bad logic that sounded good on the surface. Scum are looking for any excuse to accuse someone, and the fact that you used a very common scumtell -- piggybacking -- made it seem like you were trying to fit a scumtell to the situation rather than examining the actual motives of the players. As scum you would have no need to look at the motivation of a player; you would just be trying to point fingers. Unfortunately the scumtell you chose to employ wasn't such a good fit.

[gonnano]

I'm not buying the Mizzy/moose scumteam just yet. However, a read through of Mizzy's ISO has left me with the impression that she is flying under the radar, which I do not like. Any comments on this observation would be appreciated.

I don't like much of Enigma's case against Mizzy, though, because I just don't see a whole lot of scum motivation in the points he brought up.

Also, everyone but StrangerCoug, charter, and Rabies seems to be ignoring my question about the merits/shortcomings of my vote and case against Rabies. I'm very interested in the responses to that question, if it's not too much trouble.

[gonnano]

@gonnano: Much of your posting day one has been about Rabies and defending against Charter. Assuming Rabies isn't getting lynched today, who else do you think is scummy?

Well, RBT is definitely up there. I'll have to wait on Mizzy's catch-up post, but it seems like she's been interacting with moose a lot instead of scumhunting. I am also beginning to think of moose as an acceptable lynch for today, because he's not even pretending to try to find scum.

My opinion of the "scum teams" argument is that it's just a misunderstanding, nothing inherently scummy on either side.

Charter, my read on jimfinn is that he's vaguely scummy, but I've kept it to myself because I have absolutely no evidence to back it up. He's not lurking as bad as other players are, and so far I haven't seen any specific points against him that make sense to me.

You drew back and distanced from Enigma when accused of white knighting. charter didn't.

I assume by distancing you mean I thought his posting was scummy. Honestly, I don't know how much clearer I could have been about saying that Enigma was really never even a consideration in my vote against you. Why is it so hard for you to grasp the concept of me thinking that you and Enigma both said scummy things?

Either way, after reading the responses of people to my vote, I agree that it is time for me to turn my attention elsewhere.
UNVOTE: Rabies for now...

VOTE: RBT
The lurking has got to stop, one way or another. If you're analyzing like you say you are, tell me what conclusions your analysis has produced.

[gonnano]

Now Gonnano is voting RBT townlurker over Jimfinn scumlurker. Also it seems like he's giving up on Rabies now that everyone has told him he's wrong. Looks like a backtrack coupled with an opportunistic vote. Doesn't even ask RBT any questions to get him to stop lurking.

If I had stuck with the Rabies vote you would have said that was scummy too. I have a funny feeling that you're just going to say that anything I do is scummy from now on, regardless of whether it is or not. I'm not giving up on Rabies, but it looks like no one else suspects him yet, so I won't be able to get him lynched today. And I did ask for information from RBT, but the fact that I didn't specifically state it as a direct question probably got you all confused. Here, I'll rephrase it.

@ RBT - You say that you are sitting back and analyzing, but you haven't posted much analysis. What results have your analysis yielded?

If there aren't any specific points against him, why do you think he's "vaguely scummy"?

Did you even read what I wrote?

Gonnano is the one who is basing RBT being scum solely on his lurking

that's because lurking is ALL HE HAS DONE.

The reason that I am voting RBT over jimfinn is that RBT has done more lurking. Jimfinn has made some meaningful comments and placed a few votes with reasons that are real (whether you agree with them or not). RBT has made a couple of cryptic statements and voted for the VI. Not to mention that jimfinn has twice as many posts in this game as RBT.

[gonnano]

In case it wasn't clear, I think that lynching RBT would be the right way to go unless something drastic happens.

[gonnano]

I'm back, had another late Friday night/early Sat morning where I couldn't post. Will answer questions soon.

[gonnano]

I'm still trying to figure out what the heck gonnano's problem is with Rabies. I'm probably seeing the forest for the trees, but... agreeing with somebody is scummy? Seriously? I'm also not fond of how gonnano deals with the VI issue.

Rabies

was the one who was accusing someone of being scum for agreeing with someone. I was saying that he was scummy for doing that. Also, disagreeing with me on how to deal with a VI is not a good reason to vote me.

@gonnano, why is the lurky lurker the right lynch instead of someone scummy?

Lurking is extremely scummy. I don't see jimfinn as our biggest lurker, and I don't consider the statements that he has made so far to be scummy.

@Rabies, the lack of specific points is

why

my suspicion is vague. Vague as in it's not clear to me exactly why I'm getting a scummy vibe from jimfinn. I didn't say anything before because this suspicion is completely unsubstantiated, but charter seemed like he really wanted to know so I told him.

Honestly, the jimfinn case seems ridiculous to me. The only legitimate point against him is lurking, and RBT has done twice as much of that.

@ charter - all these accusations of me being buddies with jimfinn because I'm voting for the other lurker instead... does the same logic make you RBT's scumbuddy? Why is Jimfinn's lurking is unforgivable, but RBT just needs some time to improve?

I still maintain that my case on Rabies was as strong as any of the other cases that were around at the time, and that my accusation of him is still relevant.

I'm not going to claim, because as soon as people start actually looking at the accusations against me and my responses to them, I think it will be obvious that I am not the best lynch for today.

Sorry if I missed any questions, you can bring them to my attention again if I did and I will answer them ASAP.

[gonnano]

There's really no point in Gonnano claiming.

sounds to me like scum trying to push through the lynch before I had a chance to claim, just in case I was a PR.

[gonnano]

Sorry about the multiple posting, but I just want to say that RBT's lurking has been the most objectively scummy thing all game. That's why I favor lynching him.

[gonnano]

I probably should have said "let other people decide what to do with the VI" to communicate my meaning more effectively.

[gonnano]

Well, it looks like I might be the day 1 lynch, unless everyone somehow comes to their senses really soon. Enigma's willing to hammer, so I'll go ahead and claim VT, not that I expect it to change anything.

As a final-ish statement, allow me to entertain you with a short skit* starring Rabies, charter, and moose as scum 1, 2, and 3.

Rereading gonnano, I think I just voted him because I was pissed he's accusing me for no damn reason. That's not a scumtell, though, that's just a fooltell. I actually would be more in favor of a jimfinn lynch today.

Hey charter, you want to read PZ and tell me if you would be down for his lynch?

UNVOTE:
VOTE: ProkhorZakharov

Rabies is trying to get off the mislynch now that it's close to a hammer, and he's asking his scumbuddy charter for advice.

Then charter says this about PZ:

He does seem like a plausible Gonnano buddy, infrequently questioning him and claiming to be suspicious of him, but it never goes anywhere. I'd still rather lynch Gonnano, though.

charter says "Sure, buddy! I think we could swing a PZ lynch. But not right now. Let's just finish off gonnano."

In chimes moose, the third wheel on this two man scum team.

Charter, how are you SO sure gonnano is scum?

The ol' scumdar.

Oh really? Am i scum?

I think this is moose's idea of a joke.

Then for some reason Rabies tries again to convince charter to vote PZ. He must really want this.

Meh, PZ being scum seems pretty independent of gonnano being scum at this point.

Would you vote him, charter?

and moose finally starts to catch on here:

I'd vote him rabies, wanna try to bandwagon to him?

but he doesn't catch on quick enough... he makes a valiant(for moose) effort to push my lynch through.

Guyswe need to hammer someone.
Like now. hury! 2 days!

Then charter responds to Rabies by saying that he would vote PZ to get off the mislynch, but he's worried that the townies wouldn't lynch me by themselves. (Good call, charter)

If he had more than one vote, I would. But we have an inordinate amount of lurkers in this game, and I'm afraid splitting votes could end bad.

In the end, Rabies rejoins my bandwagon, frustrated that his buddies didn't go along with his plan.

YEAH, I DID, YOU GOOFBALL, BUT NOW IT'S TOO LATE

oh my god, you people are insufferable.

UNVOTE:
VOTE: gonnano

*Any resemblance to actual events or persons living or dead is purely coincidental

[gonnano]

I would (obviously) also go for a moose lynch over lynching myself. From my point of view, it's lynching someone who might be scum over someone who is definitely town. Besides, his interactions with the other people that I find scummy are making me suspicious.

Just in case you people see the light...
UNVOTE: RBT
VOTE: Moose

What would be the scum motivation for trying to stop a wagon on you and switch to someone else?

I didn't say that you wanted to stop my wagon, just that you wanted to get off of it.

[gonnano]

Either way, he wasn't talking about Night 1, he was talking about tonight irl.

[gonnano]

Well, if my lynch went through anyway you could say that you weren't on it, and if PZ's wagon took off you might be able to turn it into a no lynch.

[gonnano]

This game is a little bit depressing to me. Even before I found out who was who via the dead QT I had pretty much stopped caring. Not to mention that almost all of my reads were wrong. And I still can't believe that RBT got away with such insane lurking.