Mini 1190: Game over

[vollkan]

First off, to get my standard "How I Play" PSA out of the way: I rank my suspects from 0 (absolutely town) - 100 (absolutely scum). Everybody starts at 50. Because I don't believe in towntells and am skeptical about most scumtells, it is common for people to stay at 50. 50 does not mean "no opinion" - it means "I don't see scumtells" from this person. Absent claims, need for deadline compromises, etc. I will always vote the person with the highest score.

52:

Toro+5

The discussion about Empking is just pure conspiracy argument and planting doubt where there is no cause for it to exist - coupled with the passive "Don't take this as me wanting to get rid of Empking right off the bat but it's certainly something to think about."
59: Defence here makes me comfortable with the above points. "I'm merely throwing the thought out there, it's not a weak thought at all." There are an infinite number of possible thoughts that you can raise in this game. Raising something inherently means that you think (or want other people to think) that it has some special legitimacy. This is why "I'm just speculating" is NEVER an explanation for raising something - because by raising it you are implying that you have some good reason for thinking that it stands out above background noise possibilities.
63: I'm giving another

Toro+5

here for a piss-weak defence. First, he says "It's not like I'm the only person here who considers this a possibility" as if the fact that other people are thinking that way excuses him. Secondly, there is a (weak) contradiction in that he now says "Would a vote legitimize my

case

for you?" [italics mine]. If he had a "case", why,in 52 and 59, does he present it like merely curious speculation?
66: Why is it that "As of now I'm going to re-read back through the thread and look at all of the different conflicts going on." read like "Shit, need to find something else to talk about"?
70: And now it's a "strong possibility". We go from "just throwing it out there" -> "case" -> "strong possibility"
72: "No one else doubted the authenticity of your Miller claim". Which is weird...because just a few posts ago he says "It's not like I'm the only person here who considers this a possibility"

Toro+5

83: /agree
90: Big post by Toro. Case on CC here makes no sense - in #23 (the post Toro references), CC actually explained why there was no contradiction (rather than, as Toro claims, the post containing a contradiction). Empking case is trash, as explained.
96: Case on Thomith is a beatup (no more points for now, since it pales in comparison to the Empking stuff, and I am conscious of the risk of my system unfairly operating on a very active player like Toro)
122: Elfen gets

Elfen+5

for the same thing as Toro - planting doubt about Empking based on the claim, and claiming Empking is OMGUSing (withoutn using the acronym)

tbc...(end of page 6)

[vollkan]

All of page 7 is null (and a pretty silly argument). On the godfather-Toro point specifically, I can see where EK is coming from, though I'm not confident in the strength of the tell enough to make me comfortable giving Toro yet more points for it.

220: @Toro: What on earth do you mean by you felt Thomith was a "bigger threat"? Threat to what? Tormith was kind of inactive. Empking was (in your view...or, at least, in one of your many, ever-changing views) actually scummy.
244: [b\Sundy+5[/b] for saying Jakesh had the "worst vote ever", despite previously voting Panzer for very weak reasons
246:

Thomith+5

Very bad BW vote. He doesn't explain at all why he thinks Toro is scummy - just says he's decided (no explanation given as to why) that Toro's reasoning is "weird). Also...248
248: When asked whether "weird = scummy" he responds by saying " i voted because i dont think a miller lynch is really ever good day one and toro is pushing it badly". Of course, that's completely unrelated to the question of whether weird=scummy
254: This reinforces the above. He now claims the reason for going after Panzer over Jakesh is that Jakesh had already been punished enough and that Panzer was flying under the radar - of course, you wouldn't have gotten that impression for his actual post in which he voted Panzer
299:

Panzer+5

for asking for Toro to be hammered based on his Vig-claim. Vig-claim is easily testable.
315: And

Elfen+5

for voting a claimed vig when slightly pressured to do so.
329: ...those this makes me think Elfen may just be a VI
330: Agreed with PBug here

@Toro:

Use your vig power on somebody whom you think is most likely scum.
378: I'm opposed to a Toro self-kill. Mafia OSV is an inherently unlikely role. If he is SK, he is crippling himself by claiming OS.
388: @Xvart: can you summarise your case against Hoppster?

Score table incoming.

[vollkan]

Player	Score
SleepyKrew	50
CaptainCorporal	50
Sundy	55
Hoppster	50
Thomith	55
Panzerjager	55
Toro	65
Torquez	60
Xvart	50
Jakesh97	50
PBUG	50
Empking	50

In light of Toro's claim, I

Vote: Torquez

[vollkan]

Mod:

Vig yourself tonight.

Unvote

Vote Elfen

Torquez(2) - Empking, Toro

Torquez has replaced Elfen

[vollkan]

I like your scumhunting method, Vollkan.

Thanks A

lot

of people complain about it, so it's always nice to know that some people actually like it.

[vollkan]

Basically, throughout the entire day he has been softly supporting the main wagon (Toro) while softly defending it. Here he gives a big fat FoS (with enlarged font to make sure we all see it) and even indirectly (accidentally?) identifies Toro and Thomith as scum while keeping his vote on SleepyKrew (detailed above). Then he backs off of Toro saying he is arrogant townie. Then says Empking is making him doubt his read. Then he built a massive wall "case" with basic mafia 101 and providing obvious information like "whoever we vote always has a chance of being uninformed majority OR informed minority" (no kidding; what other options are there?) and when speaking about Empking claiming miller he says "well, if he's not a Miller, that means he's not being truthful. But we know that townies are truthful. Therefore he is not a townie. Therefore he is scum" (also no kidding) and demands a claim (also, again, in big letters).

So either Hoppster and Toro are scum together or Hoppster is scum and knows Toro is town and if so he didn't want to be on the Toro lynch until it looked too good to be true and could get on it and not take heat. But since he had been back and forth all day about it he had to build a case to look like he legitimately believes Toro is scum.

Either way, Hoppster is scum. And if he flips scum then panzer has a very high likelihood of being scum with him.

Thanks for the summary.

These points, and the earlier point about "Are you saying that there is no chance that Thomith is town? Pray, tell us how you know this" warrant a

Hoppster+7

, contigent (upwards or downwards) on how he explains his apparent shifting of position on Toro.

[vollkan]

Suspects:
Empking: I don't like the miller claim or the reason. I still think he is lying.

What is actually suspicious about it though - in the sense of being more likely to scum from scum-Empking than town-Empking? The reason is perfectly valid; if you are a player who is likely to be investigated, that's all the more reason for claiming miller (aside from, as EK also noted, it being the generally-accepted thing). Yes, he could be scum who claimed miller to pre-empt an investigation - but that doesn't actually make it more likely than not that he is actually scum.

Vollkan: I hate his scumhunting style and I feel it's competely arbitrary but that probably doesn't make him scum in every game, so ignore this.

Panzer, maybe I can change your mind on this:

1) Plenty of players will post lists of every other player, classifying them as "really scummy", "slightly scummy", "neutral", "leaning town", etc (or by just listing players in order of suspicion) My system is not fundamentally different from that style of ranking. The list that I post is essentially the same, except that the rankings are represented by numerical points.
2) The only way my system differs is that my reasons for suspecting people are always explicitly stated and easy to find, because they are signified by the addition of points. In other words, most people might say "This action is really scummy", which then will result in a player getting a scummier ranking, though it will always be unclear exactly how strong that particular scumtell was; my system just lets me clearly link each individual scumtell to changes in a person's ranking.
3) Also, the point values themselves are also not particularly arbitrary. In order for my system to have any credibility (and for me not to get picked to shreds when I use it), I have to ensure that the point values remain reasonably consistent. Thus, I will almost always give 5 points for ordinary scumtells, 7 points for moderately serious scumtells and 10 points for very serious scumtells. I don't pretend that this is an exact science, and I'll readily admit that I do manipulate the points in my scum games, but, on the whole, it's certainly no less arbitrary than when most people say "this action is scummy", without specifying any degree of magnitude for that scumtell.

[vollkan]

Hoppster-7

. Having it stepped through in the wall format clarifies it. The FOS --> Arrogant Town --> Suspicion looks bad in isolation, but I'm not prepared to hold you scummy for it, given your explanation.

[vollkan]

Im not a meta player at all, i dont like it + i'm lazy. I checked you the last night in 1170, and Sk i've played more than one game with iirc. Yeah, its based off of like 2 games, so what?

I didn't even take that into consideration, i posted my rough notes from NOTE PAD.

I don't get how you can not like meta and yet be prepared to make a meta argument based off only a couple of games. Normally, not liking meta would make you even more obsessed with getting a comprehensive set of data, but here you are judging panzer based on almost nothing...

[vollkan]

I keep thinking about this and I just can't shake that this is scum motivated.

Unvote, Vote:Hiplop

Case on CC still stands.

But isn't he using the meta as a towntell for you? I agree that the way he is using meta makes no sense, but I can't see the scum motivation for it (especially since he also attacked you in the post where he was using the meta)

[vollkan]

Volkan: the end of number 430 slightly annoys me, when he wants to change PJs mind (even though PJ just called him town)

A big part of this game is being able to persuade people. I can't persuade people if my scumhunting method lacks credibility. I'm not going to debate the issue (you'll notice that I haven't followed up PJ's reply), but I think I was justified in defending my playstyle there.

[vollkan]

I know nobody liked the idea of a Panzerjager wagon last time, but I thought I would bring it up again.

Number 378: Requests self-vig from someone who would prove they are telling the truth by performing this vig
Number 386: Says that Elfen replacement cannot change what Elfen did, even though earlier he said that there is no real evidence either way on Elfen
Number 395: Votes xvart saying, "did not even notice all that." notice what!? Hoppster made a long defensive post that basically reiterated what he already posted, so what new is there to gain? Called out on this by SK and Xvart, gives weak defense
Number 447: FOS on Hiplop with some weird views on meta & sample sizes

TO SUM UP

: did anyone really follow his train of thought with the votes on Xvart, CC, and now Hiplop??

1) Empking suggested the self-vig first. I went with it. That sorts out those fake vig claims really quick, especially from a player as scummy as Toro.
2) I don't like replacements in general. They are a necessary but heavy burden. Elfen was straight unreadable because he was an idiot. I don't care if fucking Yosarian or Glork replace in, they aren't gonna make Elfen less of an idiot, even if they play the straight up townest game one can play. The spot is still tainted. And If we choose to clear the idiocy, we could be giving the scum a pass and the game. This is an awkward view, but (since you are on about meta too) meta me. I think PBuG and most other players who have played with me(which is still most the game) can attest to the fact that I hold replacement spots as far more scummy then regular spots. Most people that replace out are either caught scum or someone who never showed up in the beginning. Also, we established that Toro should be shooting Jakesh.
3) I don't think those are weird views. You can't predict behavior based on such a small sample size. If I get in a fight when I'm drunk, it's unfair to assume I always fight when i'm drunk based on one incident. Why do you think psychologist use samples of 100s even 1000s in their studies? Because 1 incident doesn't mean there is a correalation. Also didn't we go over the weird=/=scummy thing before(this applies to 2 and 3)?

Also, is tunneling the only thing you stop lurking to do?

1) This makes no sense. The problem with self-vigging is obvious - if they are lying, they will not do it, and if they are telling the truth they SHOULDN'T do it. I also don't see why you bring up the fact that EK suggested it first. How is that at all relevant to your actions?
2) I agree with you here (see the fact that Elfen's replacement keeps ELfen's points).Though, I don't think you are really responding to Sundy's points which is that you "Says that Elfen replacement cannot change what Elfen did, even though...he said that there is no real evidence either way on Elfen".

I don't get how you can not like meta and yet be prepared to make a meta argument based off only a couple of games. Normally, not liking meta would make you even more obsessed with getting a comprehensive set of data, but here you are judging panzer based on almost nothing...

I didn't make an argument about it though, i mentioned it quickly in one of my reads. The main things i was looking at were his posts, hes blowing things out of proportion.

Hiplop+5

Focusses on the semantics ("It wasn't an argument!") rather than on the main point - which is quite clearly that his attitude on meta is inconsistent.

(Also, FWIW, an argument is any set of premise/s leading to a conclusion. For example:
- Premise 1 : He plays a certain way as scum.
- Premise 2: He isn't playing that way here
- Conclusion: Therefore, he isn't scum here)

Scum motivated behaviors you have exhibited:
1. Changing reads that coincide with wagon momentum;
2. Attacking the attacker and not the attack;
3. Justifying actions after the fact with information not available and unprovable;
4. Knowing someone's town alignment;
5. Directing a possible vig kill to a single individual; and,
6. Mismatched suspicions and voting (debatable).

What's puzzling me here is that your initial case convinced me, but Hoppster's rebuttal seemed clear enough. However, I am now worried that, not having the ability to keep up with your walls (I've been reading them, but it's just hard to follow), I am missing something important on hoppster. It especially concerns me because the sort of tells you are identifying are precisely the type that I consider most important as scumtells.

[vollkan]

1) Pointing that Emp did it was a way of saying why I'm the only one answering for it. Also, If he doesn't do it, we lynch him for being scum, if he's town he should do it because he obviously played poorly enough and anti-town enough to be a detriment thus should martyr himself for the town. Also, it prevents him from mis-vigging anyone. On a more mafia theory related note, I generally think vig's are a detriment to the town due to them generally hitting town.

But you're forgetting that one-shot scum would be bizarre. Thus, if we let him make a free choice tonight, there is still a prospect that he will hit scum and, moreover, his claim is easily tested if he is faking it.

This reads as off to me. If you are so WORRIED and ESPECIALLY CONCERNED, why do you not just read through xvart points on Hoppster again? Or better yet, make up your own mind independently? Why express all this agony about whether or not you might be missing something on Hoppster, and go do some research for yourself to find out??

I thought I had understood it when I gave Hopp the initial 7, then he made a decent rebuttal. The thing is that xvart seems convinced that he has a strong case, but for the most part Hopp's rebuttals are also reasonable-sounding. You're just being unrealistic if you think that the solution to enablingn people to follow a lengthy wall debate is "READ IT!". I say this as someone who has wall debates a lot myself - they are next to useless for persuading other people.

I guess one solution would be if xvart just provided slightly more detail onto his list (explaining each tell briefly), and then Hopp responded on each - rather than this debate getting drawn out any further. They're both convinced of their own positions, but, if I can't understand it, I'll wager that it isn't making all that much sense to most others.

[vollkan]

1) Pointing that Emp did it was a way of saying why I'm the only one answering for it. Also, If he doesn't do it, we lynch him for being scum, if he's town he should do it because he obviously played poorly enough and anti-town enough to be a detriment thus should martyr himself for the town. Also, it prevents him from mis-vigging anyone. On a more mafia theory related note, I generally think vig's are a detriment to the town due to them generally hitting town.

But you're forgetting that one-shot scum would be bizarre. Thus, if we let him make a free choice tonight, there is still a prospect that he will hit scum and, moreover, his claim is easily tested if he is faking it.

SK could easily just make 1 kill and let it go. Scum could just claim he was blocked. How else would you test it?

I seriously doubt any SK would be willing to forgo their killing power, and what good would claiming a block do in the long-term? Either way, now that he's outed he's accountable for his choices.

A hypothetical scum roleblocker DOES NOT mean directing the vig shot is scummy, AS THEY CAN ROLEBLOCK REGARDLESS OF WHETHER THE SHOT IS DIRECTED OR NOT

AND THEN I HAVE NO IDEA WHAT ELSE YOU COULD POSSIBLY THINK IS SCUMMY

You're missing the point here.

The problem with directing a vig is that, if scum know what the kill choice will be, that can plan their own actions around if. If they know a vig is killing town and they have a RB, they can safely use their RB elsewhere - and vice versa.

Hoppster admits this is true, although claims it is only coincidence;

First, thanks for giving the details like I asked.

On this point, I had a look back at the paragraph in 419 you wrote on this (Beginning with "Basically, throughout the entire day...") and I am giving for it. The shifting is weaker than might otherwise be the case, because he does acknowledge the shifts (ie. in the post where he says Empking is changing his mind) - but coupling the wagon-coincidence with the cognitive dissonance, it is a scumtell, though by no means as strong as I initially thought.

I agree that town does this, but not to the degree you've done it. The saying "fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me." The fact that you have done it repeatedly says something about your alignment. Multiple examples will be provided later.

I don't think this has significant weight independently, but I think combined with the above, it merits a

Hoppster+7

.The reason this has any weight at all for me is more because it reflects a lack of justification for his changing reads - as in, he can only explain them by asserting unposted intentions.

This has been detailed to great extent, but I'm really less concerned with the original argument of him knowing my alignment and more concerned with the fact that he came back and claimed that when he said "for someone who is town" (or even "for someone whose likely town" if that were the case) he meant "for someone who is scum or idiot town." This is a blaring contridiction and as good of a backpedal as I've ever seen.

Honestly, this point just seems like a semantic debate. I think Hopp's "Mary Kate and Ashley"-type examples make it clear what he was trying to say.

[vollkan]

Player	Score
SleepyKrew	50
CaptainCorporal	50
Sundy	55
Hoppster	57
Thomith	55
Panzerjager	55
Toro	65
Hiplop	65
Xvart	50
Jakesh97	50
PBUG	50
Empking	50

My vote is staying where it is.

[vollkan]

But you would be willing to hammer Hop?

As a deadline compromise instead of Hiplop, yeah.

First off, to get my standard "How I Play" PSA out of the way: I rank my suspects from 0 (absolutely town) - 100 (absolutely scum). Everybody starts at 50. Because I don't believe in towntells and am skeptical about most scumtells, it is common for people to stay at 50. 50 does not mean "no opinion" - it means "I don't see scumtells" from this person. Absent claims,

need for deadline compromises

, etc. I will always vote the person with the highest score.

[vollkan]

But you would be willing to hammer Hop?

As a deadline compromise instead of Hiplop, yeah.

First off, to get my standard "How I Play" PSA out of the way: I rank my suspects from 0 (absolutely town) - 100 (absolutely scum). Everybody starts at 50. Because I don't believe in towntells and am skeptical about most scumtells, it is common for people to stay at 50. 50 does not mean "no opinion" - it means "I don't see scumtells" from this person. Absent claims,

need for deadline compromises

, etc. I will always vote the person with the highest score.

I hope you will revise all of your scum-points and future town-tells in light of new information (especially after lynches and the night) or this manner of playing will start to seem

awfully

rigid.

EBWOP: I also cannot help but notice that you have null-tells on fully half the players in the game. Don't like it.

Three points:
1) The fact that I use a numerical system tends to exaggerate my null reads in two ways. First, obviously, it means that my null reads are all explicitly stated (whereas most people will only post their town or scum reads). Second, more subtly, it cuts out a lot of nuance - I'm confident I've given my opinions on every significant matter where you might reasonably expect me to hold a position other than a nullread; needless to say, my points chart won't reflect those opinions. I completely admit that I have a much greater than average rate of null reads (see below: this is a meta trait of mine), but I still think that my system exaggerates it.

2) Have a look across basically any of my games, and you'll more likely than not see both: a) That I frequently have many people at 50 (see also my PSA where I warned of this in advance); and b) People complaining about the significant number of null reads.

Spoiler: 3) Somewhat lengthy underlying theory explanation

3) Theorywise, I think it is ultimately a consequence of my admittedly unusual way of determining tells. Basically, I have the fairly standard starting point of defining a [scum/town] tell as "any action more likely to come from [scum/town] than [town/scum]". The big difference is that, because I don't think there is any reliable way to determine more likely (a probabilistic concept) and because I have an inherent scepticism of anecdotal arguments my basic test is

whether or not any given action could reasonably come from a [town/scum] player, with all the known meta characteristics of the player in question and allowing for reasonable levels of error

.

Because it is almost ALWAYS reasonable for scum to take ostensibly pro-town actions, I don't (at least for almost all practical purposes) believe in behavioural towntells.

Likewise, for me to consider something to be a scumtell, it basically has to be something that I don't think could reasonably come from town.

This recent example I found a few weeks ago (where I was referred to in a game that I wasn't actually even in) comes to mind here:

I'd really prefer a Runner lynch to anything on the table right now, but I know I don't have the energy or the capital to commit to a battle against him. I don't see Spyrex as voting Gorrad illegitimately here. He's fluffing his way through the first part of the game. His vote on Cyberbob is kind of lame. [etc etc]

The double negative is gut scummy, and is RC really one of the

vollkan-Netopalis school of "legitimate" and "illegitimate"?

I only forgive that mindset based on case by case meta history - only certain kinds of rare town players read the game as objectively classifying cases as "legitimate" and "illegitimate" (I think the mindset has gaping holes), but it's a convenient MO as a scum player.

From what I can gather from the context, this is a reference to my tendency to ignore (alignment-wise) anything that I can reasonably/legitimately see as coming from town. I quote it only to show the extent to which my views here have a degree of notoriety

[vollkan]

But you would be willing to hammer Hop?

As a deadline compromise instead of Hiplop, yeah.

First off, to get my standard "How I Play" PSA out of the way: I rank my suspects from 0 (absolutely town) - 100 (absolutely scum). Everybody starts at 50. Because I don't believe in towntells and am skeptical about most scumtells, it is common for people to stay at 50. 50 does not mean "no opinion" - it means "I don't see scumtells" from this person. Absent claims,

need for deadline compromises

, etc. I will always vote the person with the highest score.

I hope you will revise all of your scum-points and future town-tells in light of new information (especially after lynches and the night) or this manner of playing will start to seem

awfully

rigid.

I do revise my scumpoints if new information comes to light. But it will be a cold day in hell before I'm seen giving out townpoints (see previous post)

[vollkan]

UNVOTE:
VOTE: hip

Why do you suspect Hip? I just checked your ISO and I can't find anything backing your vote up.

[vollkan]

Which of the main points against him (or his slot) do you consider most convincing?

[vollkan]

He failmetad. Then he didn't really do anything after that...

Just a few posts ago (535) your position was:

If it comes to it, I'd join the hip wagon. But I'd much prefer Hop.

And 538:

Nothing has changed. But now volkan should vote Hop.

Now, with nothing said by either Hip or Hop in the interim, you change to Hip. What changed?

Sleepy+5

[vollkan]

This is very dull theory-talk. Will someone please do something exciting, like contribute to a bandwagon?

Sleepy-5

As a matter of playstyle I hate wagonning, but fair enough...

[vollkan]

Look at his ISO. Look at his voting record. Look how he frequently hops onto forming wagons generally going with the momentum. Look at how he either does not justify or fail-justifies his votes.

PLEASE PEOPLE STOP BEING SO FUCKING RETARDED AND SUSPECTING HOPPSTER WHEN SLEEPYKREW IS REALLY FUCKING OBVIOUS SCUM

Okay, so I have gone back and looked at my previous game with Sleepy (game is ongoing, but we are both dead and flipped so limited discussion is fine.

He was playing a similar way (short posts and hopping) there (he got lynched D1). More importantly is the exchange contained in this post here.

Sleepy appears to be playing exactly the same "whack a mole" game here as well.

Sleepy+7

[vollkan]

OMG am I actually going to get my Panzer wagon soon??

unvote, vote: SleepyKrew

Reason for switching votes?

[vollkan]

I liked you better when you were lurking intensely through everything relevant that was happening in this game up to here. Seriously, dude, I don't remember you saying anything during the whole Toro vs Empking debate.

Bad memory.

Sleepy appears to be playing exactly the same "whack a mole" game here as well.

Sleepy+7

It's just how I play, as town and scum.

I also just recent finished a game with him, He seemed to tunnel a lot harder. He essentially stayed on target the whole game. I didn't notice this but now that everyone is pointing it out, I want back and checked. I'd be willing to see if this is a meta trait.

Vote:SleepyKrew

Yes, and tunneling that hard led to a perfect scum win, didn't it? So I don't tunnel as hard now.

I'm now just confused. In Panzer's game, were you town?

Just checked something. When hip joined the game, Panzer was all:
"Meta sucks."
"You can't meta from one game."
"Meta is garbage."

Now let's look at his latest post... Hmm...
UNVOTE:
VOTE: Panzer

SK...making...a...good...point

*pinches self*

Panzer+7

[vollkan]

I'm now just confused. In Panzer's game, were you town?

Yes. VT, to be exact.

Okay.

So:
- In my game, scum-SK was madly voting all over the place. Scum-SK said that his playstyle was to tunnel different players in turn (tunnelling whack-a-mole, in short). Scum-SK had no evidence for this so I called BS on it
- In Panzer's game, town-SK was more solidly tunnelling on individuals
- Here, you are random and all over the place again, but you have stated that this is because in Panzer's game, your tunnelling "led to a perfect scum win".

I guess the logical starting point is this: what do you say that your meta is?

[vollkan]

My meta? Including when my ongoing games end, or currently?

Your town meta from all concluded (game finished, or you have flipped) games.

[vollkan]

I said I'd be interested in seeing if was a metathing. I think he his scum independent of this.

Is this the entirety of your response to 591?

[vollkan]

Yeah, seeing as he is at L-1

[vollkan]

@Vollkan/591: The meta tell is periphery, and did encourage me on to hop on the wagon, but he is scummy regardless of his meta. He has been fairly non-commital and cautious. Hasn't ever truly scumhunted in this game(which I would attribute to a handful of players in the game) and majority of his post are just meaning less one liners or questions clarifying kinda pointless things. If it also happens to be his meta, then that's something for me to keep in mind if i play more games with him in the future, but his actions are scummy on their own

But it was the immediate trigger for your vote:

I also just recent finished a game with him, He seemed to tunnel a lot harder. He essentially stayed on target the whole game. I didn't notice this but now that everyone is pointing it out, I want back and checked. I'd be willing to see if this is a meta trait. Vote:SleepyKrew

You're seriously telling me that the meta is only peripheral?

[vollkan]

overaggressive and erratic

This will be my meta, for both scum and town.
I'm a

2 Shot BP Townie

Your meta isn't something that you should be able to declare in advance

I'm a 2 Shot BP Townie

Hmm...on the one hand, hard-to-prove claims always grate the wrong way (especially bulletproof!). The inclusion of "2-shot" gives some pause for thought though - I can think of a few reasons why fakeclaiming scum might include that (the main one being to stop their fakeclaim being countered by subsequent claims showing it is unbalanced), but the level of thought required there makes it less likely a fakeclaim than otherwise. But it is a weird role nonetheless.

Hiplop is a much better lynch, anyway.

Sunday:
1. One-Shot Vig, Miller, Two-Shot Bulletproof too little VTs (since surely we have some useful roles to go with it.)
2. My view is that once somebody claims a useless role they should be lynched.

I disagree. There's no magic number of VTs. Including a Miller instead of a VT is hardly an advantage to the town. Likewise, a role like two-shot BP
(which is very hard to prove) is also not a big advantage.

Your logic is completely crap. And you are really good at tunneling and bussing. Keep up the good work.

If his logic is crap, do you think he is scum?

Can we lynch hiplop tomorrow?

We should have lynched him today