Mini 692: Boost Mafia (Game Over!)

[Guardian]

Hi guys . I see that peace and happiness precedes my coming.

I just got my role from Patrick (pro-town obv. obv.) and will read the game soon, and have comments .

[Guardian]

Hi. I read the game.

Initial thoughts:

iLord and sth are linked. I find both town-like, but if either showed up scum I would drastically reevaluate the other.

eldarad and incognito are linked.

I find Incognito the most suspicious player. Him voting my role which he in part justifies because I replaced in (an event which has no bearing on alignment) peaked my interest, and when I read the game I found him the most suspicious player.

One of my least favorite posts of Incognito's was 56 - attack/probe two people, vote someone else for doing something that many people forgetfully do.

I think he started the agression between himself and springlullaby. I think some of SL's points against him have a strong appearance of validity and his continued dismissal of her in entirety is suspicious.

I think passive-agressiveness is scummy because it is designed to frustrate others and dismiss arguments instead of addressing them. Agressiveness on the other hand is townlike- townies try and find scum. Scum try and look like they are scum hunting and try and change the subject when they come under scrutiny.

Incognito's whole attack on SL looks like a long drawn out OMGUS and much more like the latter (pretend scum hunting) rather than the former (real scum hunting).

I will keep SL's vote on Incognito. I encourage others to vote him.

I am unsure what to make of Electra. Honestly I do think her post would be easy for scum to do, and if there are no vanilla roles like Electra claimed to have -- that is not a problem. It is in fact better -- no one is going to counter "vanilla who gets investigation benefits if boosted" if no such role exists. I am in fact a bit skeptical that any role has in it "you get X if boosted." My role does not, I can only speculate on what boosting does. I find it surprising that a role would explicitly state "if you get boosted X happens."

I'm going to theorize that there's three types of people in this town.

2)

People without roles - if they are boosted

, they acquire a night choice, or NK immunity, or gain some piece of information or something

So to try to aid this, I'm going to put myself up for being boosted, and also claim-ish.

I don't have a role, so I'm vanilla, however my role PM says that if I'm boosted, I'll gain information about the town

(reworded, of course).

Note how she is claiming to speculate about how roles might work, whereas also claims that she has a role that explicitly says how it works. Note how she does not make a category for her type of role.

Her post seems like it very well could be a scum gambit. Her play otherwise has not been exceptional. I don't see her as my number one scum target, but I definitely do not support boosting her.

I would prefer boosting (myself obv.), and sth and ilord at this point.

unboost

if boosting;

boost: sth, boost: ilord

If anything is unclear please ask.

[Guardian]

Welcome, Guardian.

iLord and sth are linked. I find both town-like, but if either showed up scum I would drastically reevaluate the other.

I can see how a link implies one is likely guilty if the other one is, but not why you perceive it to imply one is pro town if the other one is unless you're thinking of some sort of mason conncetion, which I find unlikely. It looks to me and apparantly to sthar as well more like iLord is buddying up to him, if anything. I'd like you to explain your thinking here more thoroughly.

I find them townlike independently, and if they are town, as my current read is, then their apparent link is actually coincidental. However, if either of them are scum, I would be more interested in the other, since they do appear linked.

Electra:
You say you are theorizing about people who have roles. Why would you think there are other people who are vanilla but whose roles don't say anything about boosting? If there are such people, would they be in the same category as your role? Why do you think your role fits into the category of "does not have a role"?

About boosting -- I don't really see why everyone has been so cautious to boost. To me it makes sense to boost those who you find most likely to be town, the only important thing is to not get to a boosting majority too early. It is just like voting -- there is no reason to be cautious with voting unless someone is near a majority, I see no reason to be cautious with boosting unless someone is near a majority. Is there a reason you disagree with that?

[Guardian]

I don't think sth's feeling bad that he did something that annoys him when others do it is indicative of him being scum.

ilord, why do half or more than half of your posts start with "asdfasdf"?

[Guardian]

I am putting my response to Incognito first since his post feels wrong to me. Then chronological order, pretty much.

Really?

I'll look at that link later, but if SL is known to fake anger, then that would drastically make me reevaluate my read of her.

I would boost Electra and sthar8, but since Electra's refraining at B-1, I'll boost my next choice.

Boost: sthar8

Boost: springlullaby

Damn, that must have been a quick read. What did you think of those links?

Someone remind me to comment on this after rr/iLord does.

Now, onto Guardian.

Incognito's whole attack on SL looks like a long drawn out OMGUS and much more like the latter (pretend scum hunting) rather than the former (real scum hunting).

This OMGUS argument isn't gonna cut it. I mentioned in my 117 that one of the main reasons I was voting for springlullaby was because something about her attack felt off. At the time, I couldn't quite articulate as well as I could have what it was that felt off about it but after looking through MD, I found the phrase that I was looking for. I really think springlullaby's attack against me was

preemptive OMGUS

, which I think is a very little known but highly potent scum tell. What do I mean by this? Let's look at how things happened in temporal order early in the game:

springlullaby began with this:

Boost electra

I think her post comes from a townie.

What skillet said seems superficial but on second thought I think it makes a good point, it's good to keep in mind that mafia may have abilities that are independent from boost to avoid reasonings based on wrong basis - ie: "X can't be responsible of action XXXX because X hasn't been boosted".

I don't like TDC's vote on him.

VOTE:TDC

I didn't like this post because her reasoning for boosting Electra seemed very vague and just seemed to be following the popular opinion about her, and her reasoning for voting TDC seemed equally as vague as well. So I questioned her on what it was I didn't like about this post:

Can you elaborate on this a bit more? Why do you think Electra's post comes from a townie? Also, can you explain in a bit more detail why you don't like TDC's vote on Skillit?

...to which she responded with her 81 in which she both answered my questions and then chose to unleash her attack against me for the remainder of her time in the game. So you see, I don't think your argument that my vote on her was "a long drawn out OMGUS" holds any weight because if you look at things in temporal order, you'd notice that my suspicion of her came

before

her suspicion of me ever came about. I feel like when a pro-scum player realizes or sees a pro-town player putting together some points about him or her, he or she uses preemptive OMGUS to make it seem like his or her attack came first and then the pro-town player's vote came next. Looking at things in the correct order shows how invalid your accusation of me actually is. Further, even if you were correct about my attack on her being OMGUS, I'm surprised that

you

of all people (the king of OMGUS regardless of your alignment) would actually use that as a point against me. Humorous really.

Incognito, why start acting dismissive again? My past meta character has nothing to do with the validity of my argument -- or are you arguing that it does??

This adds to your trend in this game of just brushing off attacks against you for irrelevant reasons or for no reason at all. Does no one else find that suspicious?

Further, you make the case she was preemtively OMGUSing you... I am replacing into a situation where you have unfairly attacked my role to the point you got her so angry you left -- and when I replace in you vote me. I presume you expected I would be suspicious of you -- it seems to me that you were preemptively OMGUSing me with that vote.

Also, I really don't understand how you could mention the following about sthar8/iLord:

iLord and sth are linked. I find both town-like, but if either showed up scum I would drastically reevaluate the other.

but then choose to boost the both of them at the same time. I mean, yes, you did mention that you found both to be town-like, but you also snuck in the possibility that if one comes up scum, you'd closely scrutinize the other, which indicates that you're at least partially worried about them being scum with one another. Why would you boost two people who you think could have a scum linkage with one another?

Before I respond to this, I want to know what you are implying -- do you find my actions suspicious, or misguided, or both? Do you want me to reply why me doing this should not been seen suspicious, or do you want me to consider whether i might be wrong, or both? If you think my action was suspicious, explain why. If you think it was wrong, explain why. I need clarification before I can answer.

Incognito: I have sifted through the two games of sl you mentioned (and a few more of her). I can see the parallel with R-1000, but I don't really see it with Nice Shot. The other games (town and scum) where fairly clean (and lurky) from her. I would have a better feeling about this meta read if there was more data (or if I understood where you think Nice Shot is comparable with this game, could you elaborate?)

Good catch.

I didn't bring up the Nice Shot! to draw a comparison between her play here and her play there because I agree with what you say about her play seeming different there from her play here. If I wasn't clear, I referenced Nice Shot! purely for Battle Mage's comment about her since he claimed to have meta-experience with her. I think R-1000 like you mentioned draws a nicer parallel with her play in this game, yes, and that's why I linked that game.

As for her posting rate, I think her posting rate here better matched her posting rate in her scum games. She was posting here at a rate of about 1 post every 3 days, which, if you look at her past scum games seems about right for her. In her town games, she seems to post at least once per day excluding weekends where her posting does seem to decline regardless of her alignment.

Boost: TDC

His posts are sometimes far in between, but they're to the point and seem pro-town to me especially this most recent post where he's taken the time to meta-game, which I think is more likely to be done by town rather than scum.

This boost seems like it could be pretty blatant buddying to me. "TDC agrees with me and helps my case? Yay! Boost!"

I am going to re-read sometime with a possible iLord--Incognito connection in mind. Incognito seems like he was going out of his way to paint a iLord--me picture. It benefits scum to tie townies to scum, and Incognito seemed to me to think that tying me to iLord was a strong point against me.

[in response to Guardian]

There's a difference in that throwing around boosts doesn't really do anything. If you put a vote on a person, then it's like putting pressure on them. What exactly does boosting someone do? If votes were kept secret, indicating that the person voted was not affected in any way, I certainly would wait til the end to vote.

Electra, I think that your reasoning here is fundamentally flawed -- boosting does efect the game. It is a game mechanic that generates reactions from others, generates debate on who to boost, and leaves a concrete trail of who people have found townie throughout the game.

It lets us discuss who to boost all day instead of a last minute dash at the end under deadline. It stimulates conversation and develops ties between players. Even if it does not directly influence the behavior of the person being boosted, it is a goal that we as town must achieve each day -- generating discussion on it is a good thing, and making a boost and seeing how people react is one of the best ways to go about doing this.

In addition, once scum start dying, it will be of some benefit to look back and see who they have boosted throughout the days. If we just wait to boost at end of the day, we rob ourselves of that analysis.

Guardian - why do you find iLord independantly pro town?

He has taken reasonable stances throughout the game, approached the game in a common sense manner, been OK with admitting he is wrong, etc.

Reading back over the game, one thing that disturbs me is that he could be buddying with sth. I am reevaluating whether their connection is really two-ways or is rather one way. Particularly post 78 I did not understand why he was defending sth. iLord?

Incognito: I have sifted through the two games of sl you mentioned (and a few more of her). I can see the parallel with R-1000, but I don't really see it with Nice Shot. The other games (town and scum) where fairly clean (and lurky) from her. I would have a better feeling about this meta read if there was more data (or if I understood where you think Nice Shot is comparable with this game, could you elaborate?)

---

Guardian: I know you aren't sl, but would you address this anyway? Seems odd she would replace out just when Incognito brought that up.

Re: her meta; I don't see it as appearing faked. If she does exaggerate annoyedness, and Incognito is trying to use that as a meta-argument against her/me, he or someone needs to demonstrate that she does that as scum and does not do it as town. It seemed real to me and she is town here, so I would be extremely surprised if such meta-evidence exists. I think she replaced out because she was frustrated -- I've certainly replaced out out of frustration before, it makes sense to me. Is there something I am missing?

I am unsure what to make of Electra. Honestly I do think her post would be easy for scum to do, and if there are no vanilla roles like Electra claimed to have -- that is not a problem. It is in fact better -- no one is going to counter "vanilla who gets investigation benefits if boosted" if no such role exists. I am in fact a bit skeptical that any role has in it "you get X if boosted." My role does not, I can only speculate on what boosting does. I find it surprising that a role would explicitly state "if you get boosted X happens."

I get sick of repeating this all the time, but Electra never claimed to have "investigation benefits". I understand her claim as passive "the mod will give me some information" thing.

OK. I really don't care about that distinction, except (while this is a mini theme, so there are many more role options) it makes me even a bit more skeptical of her role. She gets "some info" about the town if boosted? What kind of role is that?

I also disagree that if Electra turns out to be the only claimed vanilla that knows what boosting her does, she would be in a better position.

Well in endgame she would not be, but if she is scum, and no other such roles exists, she benefits now because then no one is going to counter claim her now, and we will only figure it out much later, if we do figure it out at all. Meanwhile she gets boosted, gets whatever scum benefit she gets from being boosted, and makes up some BS "info" she got. If she is scum her claim certainly advantages her now.

In fact, if you look at the first page of this game, there's at least one post that suggests that she is not the only one.
I also think it's quite obvious that when Electra says "people with roles" she means people that can do something

without being boosted.

I did not find that obvious, it did not even occur to me; Electra is this what you meant?

For those who ask about how I see eldarad/Incognito:

eldarad and incognito are linked.

For what it's worth, I noticed this a while ago. I also realised when I read back that it isn't all one-way, in the sense that I have (inadvertently) created some linkage back to Incog. I'd rather you hadn't mentioned it, but meh.

I think maybe some of it is that we have a similar playstyle, and some is that we were both town in the most awesome endgame I've ever played in. I have not discarded the possibility that some of it is Incog buddying up to me.

This is pretty much what I saw as well. They had some similar opinions/suspicions, and iirc I saw them defend each other at various points in the game. Incognito might have been buddying or it might be mutual.

Just so it is out in the open, Jahudo and Skillet have bugged me but I have nothing tangible to back that up. Strong gut against Jahudo though :|.

When I re-read I'll be looking at iLord/Incog more closely, and to see where my feelings about those two are coming from.

Jahudo -- why uboost me and not boost someone else? No one you find likely to be town?

[Guardian]

What do you think of Crazy?

I don't have much thoughts about crazy. I see that you find him suspicious -- can you refer me to the post where you outlined why so I can start from there? I will make a note to examine Crazy next time I re-read.

Reading back over the game, one thing that disturbs me is that he could be buddying with sth. I am reevaluating whether their connection is really two-ways or is rather one way. Particularly post 78 I did not understand why he was defending sth. iLord?

I was defending sthar8 because his action wasn't scummy, and I was under the impression that RR was pushing an attack against him for that point. sthar8's post was not a scum freaking out to a baseless attack - it was a player (I believe to be town) apoligizing for doing something antitown.

Regardless of what you thought -- why not let him defend himself?

Incognito, why start acting dismissive again? My past meta character has nothing to do with the validity of my argument -- or are you arguing that it does??

That's the only portion of what I talked about that you respond to?

I feel like it might be fair that SL was OMGUSy, and that might have tainted her judgment, which in a vacuum would be suspicious if that is how she acted. However, you dismissed my argument, as you dismissed hers -- I find this dismissive-ness suspicious, and felt like pointing that out.

I referenced your meta because I think you of all people should know better than to use OMGUS as a scum tell because you know as well as I do that OMGUS isn't something that's a universal scum tell. You should know this because you have a tendency to be OMGUS-y regardless of your alignment, so I was a bit surprised when you used that as a point against me despite the fact that it wasn't even true to begin with.

This is a fundamental misunderstanding/misrepresentation of the issue. I have a meta of OMGUSy-ness

precisely because

normally when someone OMGUS-es it is scummy.

A "meta" is a representation of someone's tendencies and explanation of how they deviate from the norm. I have that meta because

normally OMGUS is scummy

. The reason some people think of that meta for me is because for me it is less of an indicator. For most people, and as far as I know of for you, OMGUS is an indicator for scum-likelihood. The fact that this specific tell (may, according to my past-meta) applies less to me does not mean it does not apply to you, nor does it imply that my bringing it up against you is invalid.

Further, you make the case she was preemtively OMGUSing you... I am replacing into a situation where you have unfairly attacked my role to the point you got her so angry you left -- and when I replace in you vote me. I presume you expected I would be suspicious of you -- it seems to me that you were preemptively OMGUSing me with that vote.

Guardian, I was already suspicious of her before she ever reacted the way she did and had already had a vote on her for a large portion of Day 1. Her reaction made me think even worse of her, and I metagamed her even further, so I placed my vote back on her (you) because I think she (you) have a strong chance of being scum. How could you possibly claim that I was preemptively OMGUS-ing you when I could have had absolutely no clue what you would think about the game following your read? This argument is awful.

If me replacing in had nothing to do with your vote why did you say that it did? Why vote for me only after I replaced in -- you posted between her last post and before I replace in, why not vote then?

Before I respond to this, I want to know what you are implying -- do you find my actions suspicious, or misguided, or both? Do you want me to reply why me doing this should not been seen suspicious, or do you want me to consider whether i might be wrong, or both? If you think my action was suspicious, explain why. If you think it was wrong, explain why. I need clarification before I can answer.

I am implying that your boosting of those two at the same time makes absolutely no sense and yes, I find it suspicious. I said so as much later on in that post you just quoted and gave my reasons why. I can't understand how someone who suggests there could be a positive link between two players that could suggest a scum linkage between them could then

choose

to boost those two players who could be

positively

linked as scum at the exact same time. You seriously don't see anything wrong with this?

I considered it when I voted, but those are the two people I found most townlike. I could be wrong, they could be scum, but they were my primary town suspects, ergo I boosted them.

I can see you bringing it up as something for me to reconsider, but I think that you are reaching in saying that it is suspicious of me.

Guys, Incognito's argument that I have inconsistent thoughts about the game, and it is a huge stretch to say he finds me scummy for it.

I find them possibly tied and then still vote for them. For me to be scum doing that, for it to be scummy, I would have to have forgotten I found them tied -- in the same post where I said I found them tied!! If I were scum I could just omit I found them tied, or not boost both or either them -- I boosted them because I find/found them both most likely to be town, regardless of the chance that they are tied! I find it extremely implausible to find me suspicious for this, because I would have to have less than half a brain to not realize what I was doing as scum. I don't find it suspicious at all.

Unwise? Possibly. I am going to reevaluate, especially iLord, whenever I re-read. Scummy? Definitely not.

I am going to re-read sometime with a possible iLord--Incognito connection in mind. Incognito seems like he was going out of his way to paint a iLord--me picture. It benefits scum to tie townies to scum, and Incognito seemed to me to think that tying me to iLord was a strong point against me.

Are you kidding? I had repeatedly asked springlullaby to comment on this double standard a few times throughout the thread, and she repeatedly avoided it, which made me even more suspicious about it. Also, please note, that you were the first person to begin explicitly tying people together (you tied sthar8 with iLord and me with eldarad). And now it's wrong for me to suggest that I think a link might exist between you and iLord when you did the same just now and after I had repeatedly tried to get springlullaby to comment on her own double standardization? And I guess that sthar8<->iLord link (which included a town read of iLord) just gets thrown out the door now because I noticed a connection between you (springlullaby) and him that makes you want to suddenly look into me<->iLord?

You are not coherent here. Your thoughts are heated and your arguments are not making clear sense. You've spent three or four paragraphs trying to tie me and iLord, and claim to have started doing so before I replaced in. Now you say I am the first one trying to make ties?

Also, I had one sentence about two different ties, observations others could look into and think about. You are trying to argue that we are tied, and that it is a strong point against me that we are tied. There is a clear and distinct difference between the two actions. You think we are definitely tied, and find it to be a scum tell against me. I tentatively think that there is a tie between those two pairings. I find it implausible that you cannot see the difference here.

I really don't want to get into a back and forth with you as I've done this back and forth stuff enough this game.

I find that statement to be a mild scum tell. "This argument is bad for me. Let's avoid it."

I would like everyone to let the group know what they think about

• Incognito's dismissive-ness of arguments against him in general
  
• My recent points against Incognito
  
• Incognito in general

I find him highly suspicious and think a wagon on him at this point would be very productive.

The one caveat to this is he has been a frequent poster -- and I absolutely hate when towns punish frequent posters because there is more room for them to slip up. When I re-read I might also re-read the less active players individually to see what I can find against them if anything.

Also, I think people should boost sth. There are multiple reasons that he seems the most likely to be town to me. I also caution against boosting electra for the reasons I've mentioned.

[Guardian]

Incognito, any chance of you responding to the questions/arguments I bring up in my post? Many of them are new/original.

Guardian, you keep on mentioning that you're going to reread the thread. I'm curious: how much and to what level of detail did you actually read when you first replaced in?

I read with normal detail...? I read every post once, and kept a few notes while doing so when a post caught my attention. I then went back and read some posts I made notes about. I did not go back and analyze each player individually which I often like to do; I wanted to "get into the game" first.

I'd also like for you to do a player-by-player (a short blurb or two) when you get a chance.

1) Electra:

Claim could easily come from scum. No huge read either way. Misguided thoughts about voting and boosting.

2) Mana_Ku (replacing Skillit):

All over the place. Does not appear to have a logical playing style. Hard to get a read on, something about his jumpyness disturbs me.

3) Raging Rabbit:

Seems townish early but then some of his later arguments seem stretching.

4) iLord:

Seems to be approaching the game fairly/reasonably, I am unsure about how I feel about his treatment of sth.

5) TDC:

Makes insightful posts but I am not sure I see much scum hunting. Unsure.

6) Crazy:

Nothing really stuck out about this one.

7) Incognito:

Attack on SL seems very ill founded. Often dismissive of arguments against him, continues to change the topic and/or resort to ad-hom whenever he is attacked.

8) eldarad:

Nothing sticks out one way or the other, seems like might be linked to Incognito.

9) sthar8:

Far and above most townlike player in the game for various reasons. Should be boosted today, obviously.

11) Jahudo:

He makes me suspicious but I cannot get a finger on why.

12) fuzzylightning:

I don't remember anything about him at all whatsoever.

TDC, why does your read that SL is more likely scum than Incognito come from meta-ing her? You said in the same post that one game is not much to construct a meta from.

TDC, why does my being more likely scum than Incognito make me your third choice of who to lynch? Do you think one of us must be scum? Are we about equal and he is fourth? Or why?

Why is trying to discredit Electra suspicious? What makes you think I have SL-like tunnel vision?

All:

I asked for people's thoughts about three specific things about Incognito. I would appreciate hearing them.

[Guardian]

Hey guys, I am going to try and get caught up with this game. I am going to hit "post" whenever I complete a unit of logical thought/objective, so there may be a few in a row. Anyways, I will be trying to "play" for about an hour or maybe more, OR until I get my list of objectives done.

Some of them require a full re-read, some require reexamining some posts, so I doubt I will finish everything I want to say, but I will try and make a dent. If you happen to see the thread in the next few minutes and want me to add something to my to-do/to-answer list, or want to remind me of something you think I may have forgotten, let me know. This post took approximately ten minutes to write -- my realistic goal is to complete the first four things. Well, the first three at least. If I get more that is icing on the cake.

My list is something like:
respond to TDC about me vz. incog
respond to TDC/Incognito about me "continuing SL's suspicion"
illustrate clearer my problem about Incog voting me only after I replaced in.
illustrate clearer my problem with Incog being dismissive* (this may have been done sufficiently by others, so I might skip it/put it last)
Re-read game with all players in mind, now that I have clear idea of how the game generally went.
Read individually: Crazy, iLord, TDC, iLord-sth combo, lurkers
Respond to Huntress's entry (HI Huntress! Long time since NG 576 )
Respond to Electra’s recent post.
Respond to Incognito’s recent post about my list of players and demonstrate how it is unfair.
Respond to recent events I haven't thought about yet.

I may skip harder tasks on this list, I may do some earlier that interest me, I may decide some are worthless; this is the chronological order that seems “fairest,” however.

[Guardian]

TDC, why does my being more likely scum than Incognito make me your third choice of who to lynch? Do you think one of us must be scum? Are we about equal and he is fourth? Or why?

No, it is of course possible that both of you are town. I'm saying that if one of you is scum, I'd place my bet on you, rather than him.
That I'm comparing you two should not be much of a surprise, seeing that sl had not done much more than argue with Incognito, and considering that both of you claim to be pretty sure the other is scum.
Incognito is pretty much a null read for me.

Comparing us is fine. But in your post, you compare us, conclude that I(+SL) am scummier than Incog, but that this is only a lean you have, and in fact a lean you needed to meta SL to acquire. That slight lean then that makes me in your top three:

Guardian's entry [snip] doesn't manage to destroy the "springlullaby is more likely scum than Incognito" lean I got from metaing her.

[snip] if I had to lynch someone right now, I'd be up for either of the three mentioned above.

If me *being scummier* than Incog puts me in the top 3, then does it not follow that Incog is fourth, if you only have a "lean" that I am scummier that you needed to meta SL for?

Why mention me being scummier than Incog as justification for having me in the top three? Also, what do you find scummy about Incog that you needed to compare us for?

Why is trying to discredit Electra suspicious?

Why would scum not have an interest to discredit her? (Assuming she is town, which, as I've explained, I think is very likely).

What about my logic is wrong? I think it is not particularly obvious one way or the other if she is town (which, as I've explained, I think is very likely the correct stance). Why do you take it to be more likely that I am scum rather than a townie that disagrees?

[Guardian]

What makes you think I have SL-like tunnel vision?

I would've expected a replacement to take a deep breath and reconsider. Instead you're just continuing where she left off.

That's the exact thing TDC -- I came in with no prejudices, I took a breath and read the game with fresh eyes, and had no preconceptions to reconsider -- and came to the exact same conclusions that SL came with. There are two possible explanations for this (that I can think of).

• 1) I am scum replacing someone who tried to railroad a townie (I am presuming that there are no third party roles, and Incognito is unlikely to be my scum buddy). I replaced in and thought that to make this railroading plausible I should continue it. I decided that making roughly the same arguments against a townie that weren't working for SL because for some reason (and please provide the reason, I'd like to understand what reasoning you think scum would have) I thought that was the best idea.
  
• 2) I am a townie replacing in with no prejudices. Reading the game from an entirely unbiased/fresh perspective, I found that what I considered to be the best case was in fact the case that the player I was replacing found best. I thought that Incognito's attacks on SL were fallacious and sometimes cruel/hostile, and that he was very dismissive of arguments against him, and quick to shift attention away from himself, often back on to whomever was suspicious of him (OMGUS). I did not use exclusively the same arguments SL used, rather I stated what I found plausible and added some (at least one that I am sure of) entirely new arguments based on new evidence

I realize that it may not be as clear to others as it is to me, but from my perspective option 2 fits the evidence best. If I am town, the fact that I took up the same case as my predecessor should give it credence -- that is two independent town minds who reached the same conclusions about Incognito.

I also would argue that I have not focused exclusively on Incognito in a "tunnel vision" sense, where I ignore what is happening around me or ignore arguments to the contrary -- I have commented and though on other players. Trying to carry on dialogues with the town about 4 different players I find suspicious at the same time is often ineffective and inefficient however, and I do agree that Incognito has been my primary focus. I must ask: what's wrong with that?

Also, (everyone:) do you think it would be fair to describe Incog's play as primarily focusing on me? If so, what is different about me/Incognito that makes it OK for him to focus on me but not vice versa, as TDC's logic would imply?

[Guardian]

If me replacing in had nothing to do with your vote why did you say that it did? Why vote for me only after I replaced in -- you posted between her last post and before I replace in, why not vote then?

I'm assuming you're talking about this:

Plus, Guardian is always scum in games I'm in. QED.

This was pretty clearly a joke. My real explanation for shifting my vote

back

to the player I had it on was directly above this QED stuff. You haven't lost your sense of humor, have you?

Further, I asked her a question after she requested replacement that I wanted a real answer about. After she said "FUCK YOU" to me, I responded with a "ban plz" and then voted for you after you were announced as the replacement. Either way, I don't see what's scummy about me voting for you when you replaced in when I already had been voting springlullaby throughout the day. What difference would it truly make as to when/if I shifted my vote back to you when even after I switched my vote to iLord I mentioned that I still thought springlullaby (you) were scum? You're arguing that my vote on you was preemptive OMGUS but like I mentioned before, how could I possibly know that you would read the game and come to the exact same conclusions as springlullaby did regarding my alignment to be able to preemptively OMGUS you? This argument is crap logic.

Incognito is ignoring the main part of the problem. Let me quote the relevant posts from around what I am finding suspicious from Incognito:

Why are you requesting replacement?

To be at liberty to say FUCK YOU and your disgusting little comments.

I've been gracious enough to attempt to put the whole thing behind, going as far as dismissing everything on my being in a foul mood, but you had to bring it up again.

Man who are you to judge what should or shouldn't pisses me off, you're the one to act all put upon just because I said FUCK YOU.

ban plz ^^^

Guardian replaces springlullaby. Thanks, Guardian!

Hi guys :). I see that peace and happiness precedes my coming.

I just got my role from Patrick (pro-town obv. obv.) and will read the game soon, and have comments :).

I think more people need to say if they think Incog was playing the agitator on SL. I don't think so. The two posts she just referenced I don't think are so bad, or as bad as I've seen so maybe it's all perception. The second one I didn't even understand: Ether theory? huh? Anyway, I'd like to hear at least some kind of response from the newly replaced.

Jahudo, why do you think springlullaby was frustrated? What do you think she could have been frustrated about?

The second one I didn't even understand: Ether theory? huh?

That second was actually more in reference to iLord. Ether (the player on MS) made up this joking theory that a person who can't tell whether someone is a female or male based on the gender icon in the profile is probably scum. Since iLord kept calling springlullaby a "he", I jokingly said I should apply Ether's theory to iLord and label him as scum.

In other news, I think springlullaby's reaction still comes from scum. I think she was agitated that I found this meta against her, and she stormed off because of that. I did nothing to provoke her, so her reaction seems over the top. Also, I still think my case against her is valid.

Plus, Guardian is always scum in games I'm in. QED.

Unvote
Vote: Guardian

Major FoS: iLord

Incognito posted and had an opportunity to vote SL in 276, after the last time she posted. He didn't. Nothing major happened in the game between 276 and 280 except I replaced in. 277 and 278 are just me replacing in, 279 is Jahudo asking for comments on SL vs Incog. The only thing that changed in the game is that I replaced in -- and that caused Incognito to vote SL/me. He "joked" that he was voting because I replaced in -- and sure,

maybe

that was an "innocent" joke (innocent jokes are few and far between in mafia). But even had he not mentioned me replacing in -- it seems fairly clear that me replacing in/SL replacing out is what caused his vote, and he has provided no explanation for that. I can think of a few scum explanations for it, and cannot think of any townie ones.

[Guardian]

Reading over the posts I needed to read to answer the above questions, I think I may have a more tangible reason to think Jahudo is scummy -- hedging. TDC I am not sure what I think about, but there seems to be a lack of clarity in TDC's mind about who he finds suspicious. I find Incognito, Jahudo, TDC, and iLord in a general area of people-who-might-be-scum-(together?)-and-I-need-to-investigate-further.

[Guardian]

I will now be taking a break from this game for a bit or for the evening. I might watch some TV or read or even do some mafia discussion or put some thought into the one other game I am in, which also deserves my attention.

I am a little sad I didn't get a bit more done, but I need a break from this and at least I am an accurate predictor of how long things take.

My to-do list is now something like:

respond to TDC about me vz. incog
respond to TDC/Incognito about me "continuing SL's suspicion"
illustrate clearer my problem about Incog voting me only after I replaced in.

1) The next thing I do, for certain, will be to: illustrate clearer my problem with Incog being dismissive (mana KU also asking for this makes it clear to me that I should do it, that's like the third player. and maybe as I do it I will make it clearer for myself whether that accusation is correct)
2) Re-read game with all players in mind, now that I have clear idea of how the game generally went.
3) Read individually: Crazy, iLord, TDC, Jahudo, iLord-sth combo, lurkers
4) Respond to Huntress's entry
5) Respond to Electra’s recent post.
6) Respond to Incognito’s recent post about my list of players and demonstrate how it is unfair.
7) Answer questions people have asked me to answer, especially ones that they repeat/reference after I make this post. (*I may do this second, since it is nice to get my questions answered fast and it is only fair to try and answer other people's)
8) Respond to recent events I haven't thought about yet.

[Guardian]

I will now attempt to gather evidence for Incognito being dimissive, resorting to ad-hom, trying to turn attention away from suspicion on him, and even being slighting and downright cruel to those attacking him. This happens to be primarily if not totally springlullaby, to my recollection. I will see if the evidence is there or if I misremembered, and comment on his body of play in total after fully re-reading his posts.

Bolded red text is mine, for emphasis.

Glad to see you getting more involved now, springlullaby.

I almost forgot you were even in this game

. Addressing your points.

Before he even addresses a point, he is trying to diminish the validity of the points because SL missed the game starting so was not active early.

2. All of Incognito's posts has 'look I'm such a good little townie' written all over them, but has yet to produce anything meaningful.

Um, yeah, this is such weighted bombast.

I've been

trying

to hunt scum. I didn't like the initial route the discussion took since it seemed to focus purely on the game mechanics which seems more theoretical to me. I think it's

extremely

easy for scum to hide in that type of discussion since it focuses more on information rather than analysis and leaves people reading completely neutral. I prefer asking questions directly to people and engaging in conversation by analyzing posts and eventually formulating gut reads. In my opinion, theory discussion is very unlikely to reveal much about a person's alignment, so the sooner we could move away from it, the better.

Dismissive tone creeping in.

a. Ask 'soft' questions of doubtful relevance in about every post he makes, but doesn't seem to garner any insights from the answers he got.

Eh? All of my questions have been very relevant to the game, and I certainly wouldn't classify them as "'soft' questions" either. Just because I don't immediately reveal my insights from the answers I get doesn't mean that I haven't formulated any opinions on them. When I'm ready to make a case against someone who I think is scum, I'll do so but certainly not this early in the game. Trust me, when I have a scum read on someone I'll make my opinion on the person blatantly obvious. Right now, this is purely the information-gathering stage for me. I've seen certain things from people that make me lean slightly town on them or slightly scum but not enough to come to a definitive answer with respect to their alignments.

This post is not any of the above categories but it is funny to me for a few reasons.

• The place he points to he was "blatantly obvious" in labeling ME scum. I was town (I later re-replaced in as scum, but here I was town). Guess I am not always scum.
  
• Also, Incognito defends his not having definitive reads on people since it is early in the game for him... His action seems awfully close to the healthy suspicion of everyone (but sth) that I have (less than a week after my replacing in) that he most recently attacked me for in response to KU boosting me.

Incognito, I think you very much resemble scum trying to look busy, what do you think?

Cute. Very cute.

Some of your points seem like a bit of a stretch to me, which is a bit bothersome. I'll try and take it as a slight pro-town sign that you've called me of all people out on certain things when I've pretty much had absolutely nothing directed at me and have been finding myself trying to create my own content to get involved in. But yeah, there ya go.

More dismissive. To be fair, this is the first dismissive/mean post of his I noticed and 2/3 of his responses seem fair. On The Other Hand, it is the first post he is attacked :P. It seems that townies should strive to 3/3 fair but let me read on...

Um, yeah, this is such weighted bombast. I've been

trying

to hunt scum. I didn't like the initial route the discussion took since it seemed to focus purely on the game mechanics which seems more theoretical to me. I think it's

extremely

easy for scum to hide in that type of discussion since it focuses more on information rather than analysis and leaves people reading completely neutral. I prefer asking questions directly to people and engaging in conversation by analyzing posts and eventually formulating gut reads. In my opinion, theory discussion is very unlikely to reveal much about a person's alignment, so the sooner we could move away from it, the better.

You are saying here that you prefer reserving judment before commiting to anything, well let me tell you that I think 8 out of 10 persons who prefer to reserve judment are scum because 1)it is hader for them to form an opinion in the first place2)they want to keep all options open the longer possible, especially if they do not indicate their initail read at all, which is your case.

What do you think?

Where did I say anything about reserving judgment in that quote you posted? I was talking about scum hunting and how I felt a large portion of the conversation early on was purely theoretical, which allows for easy scum hiding and how I wanted to move away from exactly that type of discussion ASAP. I specifically mentioned that theory discussion states very little about a person's alignment and how I'd rather engage in conversation with people to figure out where they're coming from.

And who are you, the Neils Bohr of Mafia or something? Have you been running statistical analysis to come forward with these numbers, or are you just pulling them out of your ass to help add even more weighted bombast to an already weak case? Have you considered that it's usually a good idea to reserve judgment on people because it's, oh, I don't know, a bad thing when you find yourself running up on someone who ends up being innocent? Is it abnormal for someone to not know who exactly is scum on page fucking 4 of the thread and who is instead choosing to use this early time to try and figure people out?

I agree with Incognito and disagree with SL here -- but I disagree strongly with Incognito's tone as being a pro-town one.

I also find it very interesting how he is attacking me for having neutral "no read/slight suspicion" reads on most people when he was defending that (or something so similar it might as well be the same) as a good thing to do earlier.

2. Surely if you had wanted to see if there were any underlying reason to her bringing forth the meta, the easiest way to do it would have been to verify her say by meta-ing her? Because if she is scum, wouldn't you expect her to lie?

In response to your first question: Um, no? How could I possibly determine if there were any underlying reasons for her citing meta in this particular game for two people in particular by... actually going forth and meta-ing her? Are you suggesting that people's alignments from previous games carry over or something?

In response to your second question: Yes, you would expect scum to lie about things, but by asking questions to people you can pick up on inconsistencies, check back on things to see if they jibe with what said person is saying, and determine if the person is being sincere or not.

How exactly do you expect to find scum if you don't ask people questions? Do we twiddle our thumbs and hope that the scum come forward saying "HI I'M SCUM! LYNCH ME!"

And do you even realize how little sense you're making right now? You've adamantly stated that you think I'm scum, but yet, (DEEP BREATH), you're asking ME of all people questions! OMG! IMAGINE THAT! Aren't you afraid that I'm lying right now?

Very dismissive of SL's scumhunting ability, aggressive in tone comment.

Some of your points seem like a bit of a stretch to me, which is a bit bothersome. I'll try and take it as a slight pro-town sign that you've called me of all people out on certain things when I've pretty much had absolutely nothing directed at me and have been finding myself trying to create my own content to get involved in. But yeah, there ya go.

Why 'try and take it'? I'm not asking you for any favor. If you think some of my point are stretching, please indicates which and why.

I did. I specifically referred to one of your points as "weighted bombast", I specifically mentioned that I am scum hunting and asking relevant questions rather than "asking 'soft' questions that are irrelevant to the game". If that's not pointing out that your points are a bit of a stretch, then I don't know what is.

This actually makes sense and I take it as a possible explanation for Incognito's dismissive tone... It might turn out that Incognito is just a mean person/not careful with his word choices, not necessarily scum :\.

I will read on and continue thinking on whether I find him as dismissive, ad-homing, and mean, or whether he really is just very blunt.

I am a bit tired of doing this right now, done with almost 1/4 of his posts. I have read ahead a little bit... I am a little less sure about Incog that I had been. SL's case on him had a few good points a few really bad ones.

[Guardian]

Responding to recent questions before going back to the list. Might have to spend some time on my other game before I get back to this one, to be fair.

So it makes sense to think about whether this was a scum-scum, scum-town, or town-town interaction.
Scum-scum seems very unlikely (unless there's more than one scum group).
Scum-town is possible. If it is, I'd bet on you over Incognito (which is why I compared you with him).
Town-town is possible, too. Though the dialogue got a bit too out of hand.

Unless you're trying to tell me that you think it's more likely scum-scum or town-town - what's wrong with comparing you two?

I had not considered thinking about things that way, innovative :)... I think it is problematic though:

Assuming there is no scum-scum:

If I am town (whether he is town or scum), I obviously think Incog has an elevated chance of being scum; I think town-scum at the moment.
If I am scum, I know this is town-scum.

If he is town (whether I am town or scum), he obviously thinks that I have an elevated chance of beign scum; he thinks town-scum at the moment.
If he is scum, he knows this is town-scum.

So, obviously, Incog and me are leaning town-scum. The point is what makes YOU lean town-scum. Do you find his arguments against SL/me convincing? It is up for you to evaluate what to make of me/Incog; the fact that both he and I currently think town/scum is most likely should not bias your reading of the situation.

Why is trying to discredit Electra suspicious?

Why would scum not have an interest to discredit her? (Assuming she is town, which, as I've explained, I think is very likely).

What about my logic is wrong? I think it is not particularly obvious one way or the other if she is town (which, as I've explained, I think is very likely the correct stance). Why do you take it to be more likely that I am scum rather than a townie that disagrees?

I've already explained why I think it is very likely she's town, so I don't really see the point of doing it again.

Your sentence is a bit weirdly structured, do you mean to say that you think the correct stance is that she's town, or that it could go either way?
I assume the latter.
I don't see where you're thinking it could be "one way or the other".
Pretty much everything you've said about her sounds rather negative:

Honestly I do think her post would be easy for scum to do [..] Her post seems like it very well could be a scum gambit. Her play otherwise has not been exceptional. I don't see her as my number one scum target, but I definitely do not support boosting her.

I also caution against boosting electra for the reasons I've mentioned.

Electra: Claim could easily come from scum. No huge read either way. Misguided thoughts about voting and boosting.

Have I missed the post where you actually consider that what she says could be true?

I consider it; I continue considering it. I said about equal likelihood of truth, not "she is definitely lying." I saw no reason to be wishy-washy about it in arguing that the correct stance is a neutral one though. She's at like boost -1 or -2 and has been for a long time, so obviously the public sentiment is that she is correct to boost. I disagree with that, so I wanted couch my argument in strong language to make people reexamine their beliefs.

What would you think if right now someone else claimed a similar (vanilla that knows what boosting him does) role, but with a different power?
Would that make you more inclined to believe her? Less?

If someone claimed an investigation/game knowledge on boosting role, I would be less likely to believe her. If someone claimed a role that was vanilla but had a pretty obvious thing that should/would get improved upon boosting, I would be about the same likelihood of believing her. If someone claimed another role that explicitly stated the exact nature of what would happen if they were boosted, but it was no informational, I might be more likely to believe her. Depending on who claimed I might get paranoid that they both are scum trying for the double.

I decided that making roughly the same arguments against a townie that weren't working for SL because for some reason (and please provide the reason, I'd like to understand what reasoning you think scum would have) I thought that was the best idea.
[..]
If I am town, the fact that I took up the same case as my predecessor should give it credence -- that is two independent town minds who reached the same conclusions about Incognito.

There, you answered your own question.

So the reason that hypothetical me-scum decided to pursue Incognito is because I though that (if) people thought I was town and thus would join me, they would find the argument more plausible because I am a second person who found it plausible? I mean my argument about Incog only shares a few of SL's points -- I re-read a bit after I responded to you, and at least one of SL's points seems really dumb -- that Incog wasn't sure who was scum yet on page 4. So it isn't like we had the same arguments or that SL is this bastion of truth. I could have *thought* that was the case, though, I guess. Is that your reasoning?

@ Guardian - I'll wait for your response to my post, but in the meantime, I caught this in TDC's post.

Why do you take it to be more likely that I am scum rather than a townie that disagrees?"

This isn't something I would ever say as town... I don't think I'd portray myself as a "townie that disagrees", I would portray myself as a townie that's correct, and the rest of you are disagreeing. :p

That's a charming way of looking at the game :). I just tend to look at things as objectively as possible -- I try not to assume I am town in my arguments or that I am right -- if I assume either of these things my arguments are less likely to convince others, and seem fair. I was asking TDC why he thought I was suspicious -- I wasn't trying to convince him of my rightness at that time, I was trying to convince him that it was a reasonable town perspective to have. The majority of people disagree with me and think they are right and I disagree with them, so it makes sense to me to phrase it in that way.

[Guardian]

So, obviously, Incog and me are leaning town-scum. The point is what makes YOU lean town-scum. Do you find his arguments against SL/me convincing? It is up for you to evaluate what to make of me/Incog; the fact that both he and I currently think town/scum is most likely should not bias your reading of the situation.

Either both of you are horribly, horribly wrong or one of you is dead right (thought not particularly convincing) and the other is just trying to make it a two way game.
Just doesn't read like the former, to be honest. I certainly don't remember a town-town discussion ever being as heated. (Which probably has the reason that when both players are town, they both have an interest to keep it civilised.)

Odd, I can remember a few such times... Why doesn't it read like the former? How would a case where two townies are horribly wrong and are very convinced they are right and are attacking each other read?

If someone claimed an investigation/game knowledge on boosting role, I would be less likely to believe her.

I understand that there are probably not going to be two identical roles. But why would you prefer believing the counterclaimer (who could, for all you know, just have copied Electra's role)?

HM. Because of the time delay it would give me some thought. My general rule of thumb is if the time is short, always believe the counter-claimer. If time is medium, tend to believe the counterclaimer. If time is long, think about it objectively. Scum do not like to counterclaim and lock themselves into a role. Counterclaimers tend to be town.

If someone claimed a role that was vanilla but had a pretty obvious thing that should/would get improved upon boosting, I would be about the same likelihood of believing her. If someone claimed another role that explicitly stated the exact nature of what would happen if they were boosted, but it was no informational, I might be more likely to believe her.

I don't really understand the difference between these two. Can you clarifiy?

Like if someone was a vanilla but it says their job was a nurse, then if they get boosted it would be pretty obvious they would be a doctor.

So the reason that hypothetical me-scum decided to pursue Incognito is because I though that (if) people thought I was town and thus would join me, they would find the argument more plausible because I am a second person who found it plausible?

Possibly, yes. You have already claimed that your case is more credible if you're town, for exactly that reason.

IF I am town. That gives no ARGUMENT for me being town. If I am scum I don't care who the hell I mislynch, I just care about looking town. Why does me attacking Incog again make me look more town, or why would I think it would make me look more town?

(You've done something similar with the "I'm always OMGUSy"-meta argument. I mean, meta is all fine, but bringing it up yourself leaves a bit of a bad taste.)

Didn't Incog bring that meta up??? Then I called it a supposed meta, since I am not sure it is true anymore?

Anyway, before you brought that point up, I thought more along the lines of you trying to keep the "duel" between you two alive, because you thought you had a better chance surviving that than when you would've said "uh, look. No idea what sl did there. I'll just start over."

I've done that as town and scum before very successfully; I don't see why I wouldn't have tried it here.

I mean my argument about Incog only shares a few of SL's points

Why would it be necessary for you to use the exact same reasoning as she did?
I mean, if you just copied everything verbatim, it would not really look like a second opinion, would it?
(And dropping weak points is nearly always a good idea, regardless of alignment, isn't it?)
The main point of your attack is pretty much the same though, right?
Dismissiveness, "passive aggression", etc.

And his voting me when he got back in. One of SL's main points was that he didn't have concrete suspicions early after he started playing the game -- and I find that point bogus.

I re-read a bit after I responded to you, and at least one of SL's points seems really dumb -- that Incog wasn't sure who was scum yet on page 4. So it isn't like we had the same arguments or that SL is this bastion of truth.

As far as I remember, this is the first time that you say that one of her arguments was bad. (I think you previously mentioned that she might've been OMGUSy).

She was OMGUSy -- to the extent that if someone calls your arguments weighted bombast and complains that you think you are the Neils Bohr of mafia when really you have no idea what you are doing then you might be more inclined to get confrontational with them.

[Guardian]

I was just day-vigged in my other game, so I am only in one now -- and I think I will keep it that way for a bit, busyness came up :).

Odd, I can remember a few such times... Why doesn't it read like the former? How would a case where two townies are horribly wrong and are very convinced they are right and are attacking each other read?

I'd think the chance that the replacee would notice that this was the case would be kind of high.

Your point is that if it is town-town then an unbiased replacee would realize this because he is unbiased.

If that is true I would think that the unbiased townies around would notice that this chance is high -- this argument goes in circles.

This is why I am asking for ***YOUR*** reasons and reactions, independent of mine.

My general rule of thumb is if the time is short, always believe the counter-claimer. If time is medium, tend to believe the counterclaimer. If time is long, think about it objectively. Scum do not like to counterclaim and lock themselves into a role. Counterclaimers tend to be town.

Let's pretend the counterclaim came as part of a mass claim. (i.e. "not liking to lock themselves into a role" is irrelevant)

If it came as late as a mass claim I would have to evaluate based on who has been more suspicious and who can give the most details as to why their claim should be believed.

Like if someone was a vanilla but it says their job was a nurse, then if they get boosted it would be pretty obvious they would be a doctor.

And that would not change your mind about Electra. But if someone claimed that if boosted, he would be able to target someone and would probably help them in some way, though he doens't know how, that would make Electra's claim more believable for you.
Have I understood this?

Pretty much. I find it odd that the mod wrote specific things in roles like "If boosted, something like X will happen." My role is not like that, and to me the notion of such boost-hungry roles is weird.

If scum were allowed to talk pre-game, some more experienced buddy easily could have told Electra exactly what to do -- and she, a "newbie" does it, and looks so town, and the scum get an easy boost.

IF I am town. That gives no ARGUMENT for me being town. If I am scum I don't care who the hell I mislynch, I just care about looking town. Why does me attacking Incog again make me look more town, or why would I think it would make me look more town?

That's not what I'm saying at all. We were talking about it making your case look stronger if you're town. So to everyone who thinks you're town (regardless whether they're right or not) it would matter.
And as scum you sure do care whether people buy your cases or not.

As scum I care if people buy my cases, but I care MORE if people buy that I am town. This line of thought only helps me IF people think I am town.

You are putting the chicken before the egg -- what I am asking about is how me continuing to pursue Incog is supposed to make me look town-like in the first place.

Anyway, before you brought that point up, I thought more along the lines of you trying to keep the "duel" between you two alive, because you thought you had a better chance surviving that than when you would've said "uh, look. No idea what sl did there. I'll just start over."

I've done that as town and scum before very successfully; I don't see why I wouldn't have tried it here.

Oh I can certainly believe that you've done the latter as town and scum.
But how often have you done the former as town?

I can't recall having done it before as either town or scum.

[Guardian]

Incog, why does it not make sense that in my 1-1.5 hour re-read I attacked what stuck out the most -- you being a complete jerk to springlullaby?

It was obvious not everyone was going to agree with me immediately -- when does that happen in mafia??? You ask "what would have happened if everyone agreed?" as if that was a realistic option.

I pointed out what stuck out to me the most and got comments on it, thought about those, and continued gathering data. I started playing mafia. Why are you trying to cast that as suspicious? You say I am backtracking -- what from?? I never said I liked how SL attacked you for not having concrete suspicions, and I never said that I didn't find you suspicious anymore. The most contrition I had is that there MIGHT be an alternative explanation and that makes you *slightly* less suspicious.

[Guardian]

Also, why are you trying to meta me based on two/three games when I've played over 30?

[Guardian]

Everyone seems to be talking as if I have declared Incog to be pro-town. I have declared that I am going to continue re-reading and figure it out. I have to comb through 3/4 more of his posts.

The whole recent attack of Incog's has been:

Incog: "Guardian missed some (important?) details in reading the game in under 2 hours. This is very scummy."
My response: "Why?"
His response: "Because you attacked ME."

What am I leaving out?

[Guardian]

My re-ordered list is as follows:

6) Respond to Incognito’s recent

post

continued line of argument about my list of players and demonstrate how it is unfair.
1) illustrate clearer my problem with Incog being dismissive (mana KU also asking for this makes it clear to me that I should do it, that's like the third player. and maybe as I do it I will make it clearer for myself whether that accusation is correct)
4) Respond to Huntress's entry
5) Respond to Electra’s post.
2) Re-read game with all players in mind, now that I have clear idea of how the game generally went.
3) Read individually: Crazy, iLord, TDC, Jahudo, iLord-sth combo, lurkers
7) Answer questions people have asked me to answer, especially ones that they repeat/reference after I make this post. (*I may do this as they come, since it is nice to get my questions answered fast and it is only fair to try and answer other people's)
8) Respond to recent events I haven't thought about yet.

[Guardian]

If I'm correct, Incog said something about him not liking Guardian's list. Can you explain why.

Yes, I mentioned that his list is awful. I feel like too many of his reads are dirty*. The only person he seems to come to a positive conclusion about is sthar8, which is interesting considering the fact that he entered into the game saying that both iLord and sthar8 were town-like. Let's have a look at his PBP analysis, shall we?

1) Electra:

Claim could easily come from scum. No huge read either way. Misguided thoughts about voting and boosting.

Everything mentioned here is completely negative. Surely Electra's had to say at least

some

things that seem pro-town, no? And he still has absolutely no read on her despite all the negative things he said?

2) Mana_Ku (replacing Skillit):

All over the place. Does not appear to have a logical playing style. Hard to get a read on, something about his jumpyness disturbs me.

Negative, negative, negative.

3) Raging Rabbit:

Seems townish early but then some of his later arguments seem stretching.

Positi-- oh wait, more negative.

4) iLord:

Seems to be approaching the game fairly/reasonably, I am unsure about how I feel about his treatment of sth.

(Note: This is his read of one of the two people he felt was town-like) Positive at first but then slightly negative.

5) TDC:

Makes insightful posts but I am not sure I see much scum hunting. Unsure.

Positive then negative leading to a neutral read.

6) Crazy:

Nothing really stuck out about this one.

Another nothing read.

7) Incognito:

Attack on SL seems very ill founded. Often dismissive of arguments against him, continues to change the topic and/or resort to ad-hom whenever he is attacked.

The only person he's completely negative about. Note: He's basically picked up where springlullaby's extremely scummy tunnel vision left off.

8) eldarad:

Nothing sticks out one way or the other, seems like might be linked to Incognito.

Another nothing read. Note: I was the

only

person who Guardian was completely negative about, he mentions that eldarad might be linked to me, but still comes to a neutral conclusion about him?

9) sthar8:

Far and above most townlike player in the game for various reasons. Should be boosted today, obviously.

The only person he's completely positive about.

11) Jahudo:

He makes me suspicious but I cannot get a finger on why.

Wow. That sure says a lot. More negative.

12) fuzzylightning:

I don't remember anything about him at all whatsoever.

And again, a nothing read.

this is more or less fair assessment of the content of my reads, although comments like "picks up where sl's scummy tunnel vision left off" are misrepresentations, rhetorical, and unnecessary. It also seems he deliberately is misunderstanding me in some places (or has very little inductive abilities in determining how my final reads came out). For example, Electra is neutral but I comment only negatively on her. This is because she has had some good things to say, some bad things, but I don't think she should be cleared as a near majority of the town seems to think. I comment negatively on her because I am arguing with the town about what I think/thought the correct position is, a position labeling her as more scummy than most people have.

*

Explanation of Dirty Reads

: Scum oftentimes have to keep their player by player analyses as negative or neutral as possible for a number of reasons (I'm listing two here):

1) If they are lynched or killed in some way, they don't want pro-town players going back to their lists to be able to determine who his or her most likely buddies are.

This point seems to be that scum don't want to make anyone pro-town since if they die those people would be likely their buddies.

But wait, if I am scum, it isn't at all likely that sth is my buddy? Or iLord, since I was pro-town on him then am thinking about changing my mind? If I am scum aren't I leaving an even clearer trail to my buddies than if I also cleared some townies?

Or if I died you would have no idea if sth or iLord would be my buddies? Does me having pro-town reads actually make no difference at all?

It seems to me however the above questions are answered, we result in either:
-me clearing fewer specific people is worse for me as scum, because it points clearer to my buddies
-me clearing people as scum actually doesn't tell you anything about who my buddies are.

2) Most players in a game are town, correct (uninformed majority)? A potential scum has a strong incentive to keep things as negative as possible concerning his or her reads of a large majority of players in order to allow himself or herself more wiggle room for future attacks on those town players who he or she happened to list either negatively or neutrally. Scum don't go out of their way to clear people as town -- if they can keep everyone as anti-town seeming as possible, they can keep the town in constant doubt about each other's alignments thus allowing for more future mislynch possibilities.

in terms of making it hard to lynch people later -- yeah I completely agree. It makes it harder for me to lynch people later if I clear them now. The thing you miss is I don't want it to be hard to lynch people later as town unless I am really really sure they are town. Which is why I have only very strongly cleared sth, because I am most sure about him. I didn't talk about iLord more strongly because my read was not as definitive, and people are making me reconsider it.

It seems that both main points brought up here, that I don't want to leave links or that I don't want to make it hard to lynch people fail.

I will also ask this to more clearly illustrate the second counterpoint: If this is all true, why is "buddying" a scum tell? Don't scum like to make friends and win people to their side?

When I am town especially I make sure I do not clear people unless I am very confident, because when I have been wrong about who to clear it has completely burned me in the past, losing the game. I would rather not clear anyone than clear someone wrongly. You can win the game without clearing anyone and just lynching suspicious players. When I label someone as pro-town I often get blinders about them and want to think they are town, and if they are scum I might let them slip by all game. Even if I change my mind, people will get suspicious of me cuz "wtf you cleared them, now you are suspicious of them?" So in general I try not to clear people as town unless I am very sure. I will sometimes comment on actions as pro-town, but not on players as a whole nearly as often.



Also, SL attacked you for this very same thing Incog, not clearing people. She attacked you I believe less than a week into the game -- and that was probably the weakest and wrongest part of her attack -- you rightly found it unreasonable for her to expect you to have a solid read just a week in.

Now you've said this is a hard game to read, and acknowledge that if I read in 1.5 hours I probably missed some details.

Putting the above commentary aside

, even if it is a reasonable expectation for me to eventually have strong pro-town reads, why is it reasonable to expect me to have definitive reads one week into my playing, but unreasonable to expect you to have definitive reads one week into your playing? (Your easy response here is that there is more content in the game now, but I don't want to presume that that is your answer unless you say it is..)

Also, Incog, could you make it explicit in one post, or refer to where you have and I missed: which players do you have strong pro-town reads on?

[Guardian]

I've finished my initial read-through but it's a lot to swallow at one gulp so I'll probably take some time to fully digest it all

That is one reasonable way to approach the situation of replacing in and realizing you didn't catch every detail in your first read.

My first impressions make me suspicious of Electra, iLord, eldarad, sthar8 and springlullaby/Guardian although this may change when I've delved deeper.

Lots of suspicion :). Are these all about equal levels? Can you order them possibly? Who is most suspicious (Electra?)? Least? Can you say anything about why these players peaked your interest?

[Guardian]

@ Guardian - You didn't address this, I don't think, but you agree with springlullaby's assessment of Incognito but not her assessment of me (in that she found my post to come from a town). Why do you think she felt this way?

Hm. My best guess (without re-reading SL) is that she didn't think that a player she didn't recognize would pull off this gambit as scum. I just think that if scum could talk pre-game (could they? did mod say? I tried to check and did not see one way or the other) a more experienced partner could have told you what to do.

@ Guardian - I don't see why Incognito would think you'd be suspicious of him when you replaced. I don't think it was an OMGUS vote towards you specifically. I also think you should have responded about the double boost instead of asking whether you should respond about it being misguided or suspicious - that seems like you trying not to fall into a trap.

I'm very confused about what this is asking about, could you re-explain/clarify?

I disagree about your other points about boosting, but I do agree about the scum boost trail, which would be useful.

That's fair enough but, could you explain why you disagree with my other points about boosting? You might see something I missed and convince me that those points are wrong -- more discussion about the theory of boosting is definitely relevant in this game.

I also disagree about my claim being good for me if I am scum and there are no other similar roles - I find it very short term thinking. If I were scum, I would never do something so risky - the point is to survive for the entire game, not to survive until the town massclaims and then die instantly.

Hm, that makes sense, but you could end up saying "Guys, I guess my role was unique!" I did not consider this point and it lends some more credence to how I said your claim would be more plausible IF there are other roles that explicitly say what happens when you boost them.

I do NOT want other peopl to reveal if they have such roles, or make it obvious... but if you do have such a role it is possible you have justification for boosting Electra that is unavailable to me.

@ Guardian - "I feel like it might be fair that SL was OMGUSy," This comment sounds like Mafia to me. It's a concession about your previous player to ideally get you further in this game. Seems scummy.

Why wouldn't town want to get further in the game? Me being lynched as town is the single worst contribution I can make to the town.

" For me to be scum doing that, for it to be scummy, I would have to have forgotten I found them tied -- in the same post where I said I found them tied!! If I were scum I could just omit I found them tied, or not boost both or either them -- I boosted them because I find/found them both most likely to be town, regardless of the chance that they are tied!"

This is also scummy, you didn't forget, you just made a mistake. Scum make mistakes.

You are asserting that I made a mistake as scum in my second post that I took two hours to compose after replacing in. I make mistakes as scum, but not like that. I knew I was suggesting a link between them and boosting them, that was a conscious choice/thought process. I boosted them despite the possibility of them being linked.

Why do you encourage boosting of sthar over the other player? (I forgot who it was.) It seems like you commented on the two of them to have a unique thought but then you fall back to the general consensus that sthar is town-ish.

No before you right now asked me why I am boosting sth. I find him town for many reasons. He takes a very ubiased stance to the game, his suspicions seem largely untied to anyone else's with possible exception of iLord (I need to re-read/dig deeper) and also he suggested mass claim on page one in a way that made sense. I can try and go into more detail if that is necessary.

By the way, I think that people are overlooking Crazy too much. It seems that in this game, people latch on to an active player to fight with and ignore inactives. I guess I have this feeling because I was inactive for a bit and I was expecting much more suspicion on me when I returned, but the vast majority of people have just continued to attack whoever they were attacking.

I agree with you a lot there, as I've said. As soon as I finish reading Incognito and commenting, even if I still find him very suspicious, I intend to look closely at the less active players and develop opinions about them.

It is way too easy to punish players for being active and let lurker scum go by. The more active someone in the more chances they have to look scummy -- lurking is suspicious in and of itself.

Towns in general and we specifically have to realize that at the end of day one the best play might be to lynch a lurker explicitly

for

lurking. Lurking is in and of itself suspicious and possibly lynchworthy in each individual game.

[Guardian]

1) illustrate clearer my problem with Incog being dismissive (mana KU also asking for this makes it clear to me that I should do it, that's like the third player. and maybe as I do it I will make it clearer for myself whether that accusation is correct)
2) Re-read game with all players in mind, now that I have clear idea of how the game generally went.
3) Read individually: Crazy, iLord, TDC, Jahudo, iLord-sth combo, lurkers
4) Answer questions people have asked me to answer, especially ones that they repeat/reference after I make this post. (*I may do this as they come, since it is nice to get my questions answered fast and it is only fair to try and answer other people's)
5) Respond to recent events I haven't thought about yet.

Whew, now when I finish 1 I can finally do my full re-read and break this game open >:-).

[Guardian]

This point seems to be that scum don't want to make anyone pro-town since if they die those people would be likely their buddies.

Woah, no, that's not the point I was trying to make at all. When someone is lynched as scum, it sometimes helps to go back and look at any comments he or she might have made about certain players that he or she used to arrive at their reads of them that just don't seem to make sense or "fit in" correctly. Since you went ahead and just brought up negative comments galore, it would be extremely difficult for us (if you're scum and lynched) to go back to your list and determine who your most likely buddies are since practically everyone received the same sort of commentary. That should help answer the rest of what you mentioned below this point.

It doesn't really help answer anything. If analyzing how I categorize people is what is important, why can't people go back and see if my classifications of people as negative or neutral don't "fit in" to those categories??

I will also ask this to more clearly illustrate the second counterpoint: If this is all true, why is "buddying" a scum tell? Don't scum like to make friends and win people to their side?

Yes, of course they do, but they'll likely only buddy up to people who they see have major influence over the town or who they may perceive to be a major threat to their agenda. They're obviously not going to buddy up to every single person within the game; they wouldn't get very far that way.

Oh no? I'm pretty sure that of the five or so games I've won as scum where I lived to the end are where I buddied heavily with lots of people, got one or two of them to accept it and clear me, and used them to mislynch townies the rest of the game. The premises you are asserting as the basis for your arguments are unjustified.

So my second point within my explanation of dirty reads is still valid.

Maybe it does, but you haven't demonstrated this. You responded to my addendum/clarification, not to the main argument.

[...]even if it is a reasonable expectation for me to eventually have strong pro-town reads, why is it reasonable to expect me to have definitive reads one week into my playing, but unreasonable to expect you to have definitive reads one week into your playing? (Your easy response here is that there is more content in the game now, but I don't want to presume that that is your answer unless you say it is..)

Lol. Guardian, "easy response"? It's the obvious response. That's how the game of Mafia works, does it not? You begin knowing nothing, stuff happens, you begin formulating reads, and then you try and draw conclusions.

Is there a linguistic distinction between easily accessible and obvious that I am unaware of? The only non-archaic definition of obvious probided by merriam-webster online involves the word easy.

1archaic : being in the way or in front

2:

eas

il

y

discovered, seen, or understood

Would you prefer that I assume the arguments you are going to make in the future, e.g. stick words in your mouth? Why is my word choice of easy a big deal to you?

Anyway, it is the obvious response, but it does not work -- I do not have as firm a grasp of the game yet as someone who has been playing it all the way through. We've talked about this -- you find my "dirty" read suspicious. I disagree that reading quickly is suspicious, and you haven't really indicated why it is suspicious (other than the OMGUS reason that I read quickly and then attacked YOU) but we both acknowledge that I did read quickly.

It is not logically allowable for you to find me "additionaly" suspicious for things that directly stem from me reading quickly. I don't have a good a grasp on the game because I read quickly. If reading quickly in and of itself isn't suspicious, then me not having as good a grasp isn't suspicious.

Furthermore, this whole argument is based on the premise that I eventually should have approximately 1/3 players cleared, 1/3 suspicious, 1/3 more or less neutral, a premise I fundamentally disagree with and have not adhered to in any game to my recollection. You will be very hard pressed to find any game where I was town and I found 1/3 of the players solidly pro-town on day one; I guarantee that for every game you find like that I can find five where I found most players suspicious or neutral.

[Guardian]

Difference in vibe. I thought your catch about my "contradicting" sthar8 vote was pretty good and pro-town-seeming as I might have not clearly explained myself when I first placed it. I also like the fact that you're still

asking me questions

while voting for me rather than just leaving your vote there and not making an effort to figure me out. Jahudo's reason for voting me seems off, and I feel like he hasn't made a conscious effort to figure me out, and Guardian just seems more "all guns blazing".

Hm. Do you mean to assert that I'm not still asking you questions? Do you mean to assert that I am just leaving my vote there ant not making an effort to figure you out? Do you mean to assert that putting most of your effort into going after one target at a time "all guns blazing" is scummy? If the answer to any of those questions is yes I'd like you to explain why.

If none of those answers is yes, how is my vote different from RR's?

[Guardian]

I'm gonna PM the mods. If scum weren't allowed to PM pregame I am more OK with sl being boosted.

I think sth is by far the most likely town and should be boosted.

I (obv) am also OK with me being boosted, as I know I'm town, and I think by far the most important thing is that we don't boost scum. I don't want scum with roleblocking, NK immunity, or double kills, or some crap walking about.

I need to finish my re-read on Incog but I am starting to get a similar vibe from him this game that I got in vollville, where he was town and super convinced I was scum for idiosyncratic reasons....

I need to re-read, and I am really busy with school and then I will be busy with relatives for thanksgiving. deadline sux

[Guardian]

All roles are out; please confirm by PM. Game starts in day when everyone's confirmed; in the meantime, feel free to ask if you're unsure about anything.

Any roles that can nightalk can do so during the confirmation stage

.

I asked Elmo and Patrick if scum could talk pregame; Elmo responded first and directed me to this post. So, scum could nighttalk before day one. So, if Electra is scum, a more experienced partner could have told her exactly what to do.

I am thus still uncomfortable with boosting Electra.

[Guardian]

Guardian, why do you keep on making it a point to say you'd be fine with boosting yourself?

To encourage people to boost me, and to remind them that I am a premium-grade, high-quality boosting option :).

[Guardian]

Let me try to summarise the position here. Guardian, Incog, if you think I have misrepresented your position, keep your explanation to 6 lines or less - you've both posted enough on the subject that there is no need to repeat it again.

Incog thinks sl was scummy because she attacked Incog for stuff (reserving judgement, relying on other peoples' opinions) that she didn't attack others for. He also thinks that it is at least a possibility that sl replaced out because Incog mentioned that he had discovered a "sl is always aggressive as scum" meta.
Incog also thinks Guardian adopting many of sl's points is indicative of Guardian/sl being scum, and that Guardian's list of his thoughts on other players is very negative and/or leaves wiggle room to attack later.

~~~
Guardian thinks Incog is scummy because he has been dismissive (read: evasive) of attacks on him, and that he provoked sl into replacing out with his dismissiveness. Guardian also thinks that, having read the thread independently of sl, the fact that he agrees with many of sl's points suggests that they hold some weight.
Guardian also thinks that the timing of Incog's vote (immediately after Guardian replaced in) is odd.

~~~
I am deliberately not expressing a view until both Incog and Guardian have agreed that my summary is brief but essentially accurate.
In the meantime, someone should Boost Electra, and I will read the thread from the beginning

I don't think you are as fair with either of our POVs as you could be.

He thinks my reading quickly and then adopting my predecessor's opinions

combined

is suspicious -- indicative of me just trying to push the same case on him/same agenda without giving thought to it. He also thinks my singularity of focus on him is suspicious

I am accusing him of being dismissive

and

mean-spirited. I think many of sl's points hold weight independently; my agreeing with them lends them weight only if you already at the conclusion that I am town. You have not fully represented what I disliked about the timing of his vote -- he posted right before I replaced in, no vote, I replace in, vote. There was nothing that changed but me replacing in and so it seems that was why he voted. I also thought many of his points against me are bad/insincere/not well thought out.

Nevertheless, I am getting goosebumps recently. I really hope I have time over thanksgiving to re-read and see if I think Incognito is the best lynch after having read the thread more closely.

[Guardian]

iLord, you boost-hammered electra.
I note that you say Electra is suspicious of Electra... huh?

Why do you think the point about Incognito's vote-timing is stretching? Why doesn't it make sense to you? Maybe you see something I don't.

[Guardian]

I was under the impression that we wanted to boost-hammer Electra.

Why does this matter? Did you want to boost-hammer her?

Hm. My best guess (without re-reading SL) is that she didn't think that a player she didn't recognize would pull off this gambit as scum. I just think that if scum could talk pre-game (could they? did mod say? I tried to check and did not see one way or the other) a more experienced partner could have told you what to do.

I think I'm fairly experienced, if you look at my join date. :p However, this doesn't make sense, if I were new and scum, why would an experienced scum tell me to do this? Wouldn't the experienced scum just do it themselves so there would be less of a chance the gambit gets screwed up?

For precisely this argument; the less experienced a player is the more likely people are to think it is not a gambit. The more experienced, the more likely it is to be a gambit.

Anyway, I still don't think this gambit would have been a good or even possible scum play.

It got you boosted day 1 didn't it? I would like to hear more about it not being a possible scum play, but good, certainly being boosted day 1 is good for scum.

I'm very confused about what this is asking about, could you re-explain/clarify?

Not really a question, just some comments. I guess, why do you think Incognito would believe that you'd be suspicious of him? Generally replacements leave their counterparts' opinions behind.

His joke//past experience playing mafia//intuition.

That's fair enough but, could you explain why you disagree with my other points about boosting? You might see something I missed and convince me that those points are wrong -- more discussion about the theory of boosting is definitely relevant in this game.

I don't know, I am just not seeing much conversation coming from boosts. It doesn't help find who's more suspicious, it just gives people a town list. If anything, if there's scum who's been on several of these town lists, they may be encouraged.

This makes sense but -- we are talking about who is good to boost, no?

Hm, that makes sense, but you could end up saying "Guys, I guess my role was unique!" I did not consider this point and it lends some more credence to how I said your claim would be more plausible IF there are other roles that explicitly say what happens when you boost them.

I do NOT want other peopl to reveal if they have such roles, or make it obvious... but if you do have such a role it is possible you have justification for boosting Electra that is unavailable to me.

It doesn't really seem like a unique role, does it? It's too related to the game to be one of a kind.

I would not have expected such roles to be in the game; maybe my expectations are off.

Why wouldn't town want to get further in the game? Me being lynched as town is the single worst contribution I can make to the town.

I actually have this thought too, and my strategy when I'm town is to try to clear myself as best as I can (hey, if all town can do this, then we win automatically). In general though, I've found town to be very unrelenting in their arguments and scum more friendly.

I find scum selectively friendly/mean, and I think that good town are very open minded... I don't see it nearly as clear-cut as you see it.

Are you categorizing my play as friendly and relenting? I wouldn't imagine that Incognito feels that way :\. And who am I being friendly to? sth?

You are asserting that I made a mistake as scum in my second post that I took two hours to compose after replacing in. I make mistakes as scum, but not like that. I knew I was suggesting a link between them and boosting them, that was a conscious choice/thought process. I boosted them despite the possibility of them being linked.

I don't really get the link possibility. You said in your original post that they were linked, not that there was a possibility.

I sounded much more confident than I was. I said "they are linked" with no qualifications. Obviously I didn't know both pairs were linked -- but I did not describe how sure I felt. I was suggesting a link, not claiming I was sure one was there. My language did not reflect that, I guess.

I am either backtracking or I am telling the truth that I was unclear -- that's for you to decide.

[Guardian]

Oh and just to note: I might be V/LA from now until like Saturday due to Thanksgiving.

& Schoolwork.

The week after this is the busiest week for me all semester. The deadline makes it pretty much impossible for me to contribute meaningfully before tomorrow :|. I do not see how I will get the time to spend 3 hours on this game in the next week.

I think eldarad's analysis of me-incog is even more hard to believe and ill founded than TDC's read that at least one of us must be scum.

I realize that this is not at all what my play has been since replacing in, and that, ironically, Incog will jump all over this, but my gut is telling me Incog is not correct right now. He could be scum but, I am very worried about the me-incog focus that seems to be prevalent, and i think it is misguided.

unvote

I really have no idea who is correct to vote for. I think I'll go with my suspicion of Jahudo.

vote: Jahudo

I remarked that I saw him as hedging... I think it was from when he asked people's opinions about me-Incog before he expressed his own opinion.

I normally would ask for a deadline extension, but Elmo made it clear that isn't happening.

I also would consider asking for replacement since I cannot really contribute effectively the rest of this day, but I replaced in as trading favors with Elmo so that isn't fair either.

Relatives are over right now and I am stealing time. Don't expect me to be able to answer questions posed of me before deadline :\.

[Guardian]

hey. i will

try

and pop in and answer on the go questions, but the in depth reading I want to do seems very unlikely, and me being able to even pop in is catch as catch can. if I get a break from relatives and need a break in doing the papers I need to do I will try but no guarantees.

my rational about incog preemptively omgusing might be misguided. part of my reason for choosing him as my first target certainly could be omgus, even though it was my predecessor and not me he attacked.

i like to attack one player at a time and see how they respond and get a solid feel for them, but with the dealdine so soon that approach isn't timely, even if we get a week extension or something.

i pm'd asking for extension.

happy thanksgiving!

[Guardian]

Wait, randomgen finds iLord scummy because he isn't playing like he did in other games -- where iLord was scum???? Why is it suspicious to not play as you did when you were scum, RG?????

FOS: RandomGem

Very possibly to be followed by vote.

[Guardian]

Oh. Ok that makes sense.

Him having the same suspicions as me doesn't mean that both of us are elevated in scumminess. It does not benefit scum to attack the exact same people. Only if our reasons for being suspicious are not justified then we both are scummy, and then I'd like you to explain why that is so.

Otherwise we might just as plausibly be two townies who are reading the game in the same misled way, no?

[Guardian]

And RR -- you haven't even said (unless I missed it) why you disagree with your actions -- without saying that, why can't we be two townies who are reading the game in the same right way?

[Guardian]

And RR -- you haven't even said (unless I missed it) why you disagree with your actions -- without saying that, why can't we be two townies who are reading the game in the same right way?

And

RG

-- you haven't even said (unless I missed it) why you disagree with

our

actions -- without saying that, why can't we be two townies who are reading the game in the same right way?

Even if one of us is wrong, it is the reasons that matter not the conclusions.

I will still be emotionally unavailable for this game until Friday.

[Guardian]

yay @ boosting sthar .

he is 2nd best boost choice to me, well done people keep it up.

[Guardian]

Guardian has certainly posted a lot but when he started to list off things he was going to accomplish it felt like an attempt to direct conversation by bringing up large pieces of what has already been said. I think this helps the several people who have replaced in and have not caught up or are looking for a summarized version of things, but this is an opportunity for Guardian to be biased and have an influence.

Jahudo, why do you think your explanation is more likely than the explanation that I wanted to keep a list of stuff to do public so I remembered and moreover y'all would hold me to it?

Why is "directing conversation" or "being biased" or "having an influence" scummy?

What does "being biased" mean in mafia, other than that I am biased against those not of my alignment??

===

I have had no chance to read, but let's try a little process of elimination.

1) Electra
2) Mana_Ku (replacing Skillit)
3) Raging Rabbit
4) iLord
5) TDC
6) Huntress (replacing Crazy)
7) Incognito
8) eldarad
9) sthar8
10) Guardian (replacing springlullaby)
11) Jahudo
12) RandomGem (replacing fuzzylightning)

We aren't gonna lynch those who we boost. Let's assume we do the second best thing and boost sthar. I also assume that we aren't gonna lynch me (cuz i'm town, obv).

1, 9, 10 eliminated.

Hm, this doesn't really work, I can't think of anyone I really am totally against lynching. Except maybe RR, he seems pretty cool. I need to read player by player. 2 more essays to write. Saturday morning I'm yours .

[Guardian]

The reason this is not a good scum gambit is this: I've been boosted, so what? It just means that people find me to be unlikely to be mafia today, it means nothing for the future.

Mafia get some kind of bonus if boosted, right? So I assume that that is really bad for the town and good for the scum. So you being as boosted as scum is v(ery).nice for scum :(.

[Guardian]

The reason this is not a good scum gambit is this: I've been boosted, so what? It just means that people find me to be unlikely to be mafia today, it means nothing for the future.

Mafia get some kind of bonus if boosted, right? So I assume that that is really bad for the town and good for the scum. So you being as boosted as scum is v(ery).nice for scum :(.

Sure, but the best possible boost for a Mafia would be an extra night kill. If I'm Mafia, and die as a result of this gambit, a town for a mafia would still be a bad deal for me.

But you aren't dying because of the gambit, you are getting boosted. Obviously the gambit is bad if it doesn't work, that's why it is called a gambit, there is risk involved..... Obviously the risk wasn't that big since pretty much I am the only one who still has substantive doubt of your role -- it paid off in that not only did you get boosted, everyone thinks you are town.

Furthermore, why assume only a NK? What about a role cop, or roleblock powerup, or immunity to NK or investigation? It definitely does not need to be as detectable as an "extra kill" for it to suck for the mafia to have it.

[Guardian]

If you think that Guardian is a townie then it doesn't make sense to unboost him in favour of another person who you also think is a townie, unless you are deliberately trying to (over)emphasise how you are carefully boosting only the two people right at the top of your townie list.
I don't understand why you would unboost someone that you believe to be town.

That's horrible logic - I'm not sure of anyone's alignment - of course I am going to boost the two people who I feel have the highest probablity of being town.

QFT

unvote vote: eldarad

[eldarad's]post was really scummy. Even considering changing my vote to Eldarad.

Oh no, me and iLord are suspicious of the same person for some overlapping reasons, we must be scum together!

[Guardian]

I'ma skim through eldarad's posts cuz what ilord pointed out really struck me as crap logic, so my spidey sense is tingling

[Guardian]

*Electra's assumption was that everyone fell into 1 of 3 categories. Anyone who got boosted got some kind of power, either in the form of an augmentation of an existing power, the addition of a power, or the augmentation of a mafia power.Electra illogically assumes 3 possibilities. If her theory assumes 2 sides (scum and town) and includes her 2 categories (w/ and w/o power) the obvious conclusion is 4 possibilities, not 3. Its odd (heh get it? odd?? ehh??) to me that she omitted the category of scum w/ no power but the potential to gain one as it logically and mathematically seems as self evident as the town version.

I think Skillit's "only 3 categories is illogical" theory feels like reaching. Particuarly as #27 is mostly a rationalisation of his previous comments, rather than an explanation of the original rationale.

vote Skillit

I think this is more crap logic, Skillit makes sense and I don't see him as rationalizing.

people with, people without, and mafia.

Electra if the mafia aren't people, what are they?

There are likely either only 2 categories, or 4. it seems presumptuous to assume that all mafia members would be in one category when everyone else falls into one of 2. I agree that people either have or do not have roles, but to assume that either all or no mafia have roles seems like it would require some extra information to assert. you don't...have extra information about the specifics of the mafia members powers...do you?

I am particuarly bothered because his attack on Electra in post 21 - and it

was

an attack, no matter what he has said since - is later justified in post 27. But a lot of post 27 has obviously been thought of after post 21.
So post 27 isn't explaining the reason for the attack, it is creating reasons as to why the attack was valid

after the event

.

More craplogic. I mean I'd keep reading, but I am already convinced. Skillit was clarifying 21 in 27. eldarad was attacking a player who had a hard time expressing himself. He uses confusing language and I don't think he realized his ideas meshed together/flowed from one another, but eldarad either lied or had a VERY ungenerous read of Skillit in saying that the rationale in 27 was thought of after 21, and then voting him for it.

Then just now he crap logic'd iLord.

Summary:Everyone wagon eldarad please. PS: you're welcome.

PPS, Circle of suspicious people:
Eldarad, Incognito, Jahudo, iLord, TDC in rough order.

**Eldarad could EASILY be scum with iLord, there are a few connexions I'm seeing. But let's cross that bridge if/when we come to it, if when we lynch eldarad he is scum.

[Guardian]

I still fundamentally disagree that finding many people suspicious is suspicious, and do not find it at all plausible to take that as a point against Huntress.

I'd also like to say that my "offense" is fundamentally dissimilar to Huntress's in that I

never

said that Electra was suspicious, and only have repeated that I do not think she was an excellent boost candidate and should not be considered to be surely town.

What makes you say Electra was "assuredly going to be boosted"? People can't change their minds?

Maybe I haven't been "dog-piled," as you put it, because I haven't been scummy, Incog. Why comment on other people for a few posts then return back to me?

---

sth, what do you think about your being boosted so much, and people's timing and reasons for boosting you?

what makes you think mana_ku is intentionally lurking rather than being inactive?

Even though I didn't find her suspicious, I think that suspicion of Electra is a healthy thing and am not sure why that is a point against Huntress. Sharing opinions about the alignments of other players is never a waste of time, even if it is sure that they are not going to be lynched

today

.

[Guardian]

sth, to put it bluntly, how many of the people who consensus-boosted you in the past few pages do you think are likely to be scum?

When a vote-wagon builds that quickly, usually there are scum on it. Should we assume that that does not apply to a boost wagon?

[Guardian]

In other news Incognito has overtaken Springlullaby/Guardian on my scum-o-meter but I haven't finished my read on them yet so this may change.

Why?

[Guardian]

GC: Why isn't it more logical to have "town with ability, town, scum with ability, scum"?

Why wasn't it illogical of electra to not have those categories?

[Guardian]

PS: I am free starting tomorrow, I intend to answer questions asked of me and read (or at least skim) every (every!?... at least some of the) player(s) individually.

[Guardian]

When a vote-wagon builds that quickly, usually there are scum on it. Should we assume that that does not apply to a boost wagon?

Vote wagons and boost wagons are fundamentally different in that a majority of vote wagon results are anti-town (lynching town), while a majority of boost wagon results are pro-town (boosting town), because there are more townies that scum - It's much harder to lynch scum, than it is to boost town. So I guess the analogue of a boost wagon of town (which we both think sthar is), would be a vote wagon on scum. With the motive for scum to jump on it being that they want to be part of it before it's too late.
Even then though, if you're not being part of "the scum lynch", there are (assuming 9 town 3 scum) only two other good vote wagons, whereas if you're not being part of "the town boost", there are 8 other good boost wagons. So basically, being on the wrong boost wagon is less wrong than being on the wrong lynch wagon, and hence there would be less incentive for scum to be "part of it"?
Also, a whopping 95% of possible wagons of size 7 have at least one scum on them (under the same assumptions), so this seems to be a moot argument anyway. (Fun fact: A wagon of size 3 already has about 60%)

Posit1: wagons that develop quickly have an above average scum percentage.

Posit2: Players who vote based on the end of day "consensus" have an above average chance of being scum.

Do those make sense to anyone but me?

[Guardian]

Why?

I'll be able to answer that better when I've finished my reads. I haven't consolidated my thoughts on them yet.

I don't care what you think after you finish your reads (well I do, but that IS NOT what I am asking about here), I want to know why you made the comment earlier that Incog was more scummy than me -- why did he get more suspicious than me to you before you did your read?

[Guardian]

I'm here, I'm gonna try and play for a bit. I wanna watch tv tho ;P.

My plans:
respond to something sth said about Huntress.
read over past 3 pages and respond to other things
read crazy, huntress.
read eldarad
read jahudo
(finish incognito read)?

If I don't succumb to my tv desires, I anticipate finishing reading huntress, probably eldarad. maybe jahudo. finishing reading incog tonight is doubtful.

[Guardian]

However, some opinions are of greater value than others, and Huntress has been giving us the information that is least valuable to the town. While the rest of us are scrambling to find an acceptable lynch before deadline, Huntress is busily making vague noises, announcing that she is contributing, and only giving us specific opinions on the one person whose lynch is guaranteed bad play for the town.

This actually makes a lot of sense. It is an interesting/misguided/suspect target for Huntress as she replaces in.

[Guardian]

@Guardian:

I remarked that I saw him as hedging... I think it was from when he asked people's opinions about me-Incog before he expressed his own opinion.

Is hedging “asking people’s opinions before expression own opinion”? I was not doing that when you first entered the game: post 337
In post 317 you felt people were not expressing their own opinion on you-Incog so what have you seen from others that differs?

Can you address this? Also, how do you think this compares, if at all, to Incog asking people’s opinions on Skillit before he expressed his own?

Post 279 you were asking people's opinions when you hadn't given their own that I had seen.

In post 317 I asked for other people's thoughts on my case on Incog, and frankly few people have responded to the specifics of it or explained why they think what they do which is really frustrating to me. The general tone is (both could be town, Guardian slightly more suspicious than Incog, but in the recent pages Incog is slightly more suspicious than Guardian). Now eldarad thinks we have been busing each other all game, and TDC thinks that when people argue like we did one of them have to be scum, but the general notion is that. Like I said it is frustrating because it seems to me that people are in general not confronting the arguments.

In 337 you expressed your opinion, but if you hadn't done so before 279, my point still stands -- why ask for other's opinions before giving your own?

It seems like it could be scum wanting to be on the popular side of the debate.

[Guardian]

There are likely either only 2 categories, or 4. it seems presumptuous to assume that all mafia members would be in one category when everyone else falls into one of 2. I agree that people either have or do not have roles, but to assume that either all or no mafia have roles seems like it would require some extra information to assert.

you don't...have extra information about the specifics of the mafia members powers...do you?

Bolded is an accusation.

Further:

the gist of it was that i was not trying to imply any kind of slant either way about E and that i was just trying to make sure that, if we were going to use her theory to frame the discussion about boosting, that it should be as accurate as possible.

Denies that he accused her in the first place.

Unvote, Vote: Skillit

Sthar caught my eye in his first post:

I have a theory about the setup that does not conform 100% with electra's, but it is close. If I'm right, early massclaim might be a game-breaking strategy for town. Unfortunately, while electra's post does support my idea, I don't have enough evidence to be sure, and I can't reveal the reasoning without showing the scum how to mitigate the damage.

So, I'd basically have to ask the town to trust me on a huge risk, which I'm not willing to do without more concrete evidence. What I'll do instead is ask everybody a question.

Do you feel that massclaim might be a viable strategy at this time?

Suggesting a massclaim shows that he knows something most of us don't. Either he's non-vanilla or scum as far as I know. His later posts don't really give me a slant either way on him, so I'm not really feeling the wagon.

I'm now not seeing what possible great benefit Electra would get from getting boosted (presumably as scum) that would warrant a gambit like this. It's not like a boost is an automatic win, right? Which makes me think it's more likely that she's pro-town.

*coughpressure* Scum vibes from TDC and RR. */pressurecough*

Massive QFT to everything that eldarad has said so far.

And... there's some random spill-out of my thoughts. Good night, it's midnight right now.

This post has a lot of substance. His point about Skillit/Green Crayons seems fair, and makes me want to re-read skillit more closelier.

He massively QFTs eldarad, which makes me think he isn't scum with eldarad (scum tend not to be so easily identified with each other).

His point about sth makes me pretty sure he is scum or a vanilla townie.


Post 151 mostly seems like a fair analysis.

I didn't say don't worry about boosting scum. We do want to boost town, but I can't imagine that scum will go all out just to get boosted.

I disagree with this sentiment. I don't find him scummy for it, but we have no idea what the scum get from being boosted. Who is to say scum don't get TWO night kills? And one night kill is VERY powerful. If it is so good for town to get boosted, we must assume it is so good for scum to get boosted. Again, this makes me think Electra is nowhere near confirmed.

---


Crazy I think was bored with the game, but tried to contribute as possible.

Overall I did not find Crazy suspicious. What is the case on him?

[Guardian]

sth if you want to just link to the crazy case next time you post that would be helpful. I'll try and find it.

I've noticed that, while Incog's reasons for thinking I'm scummy are mostly flawed, I have been unhelpful this game in a few ways.

I keep having word-slips that could be construed to show apparent scum motivations. I focused on Incog for a long time when I could have spent time reading, and I wasn't even well acquainted with the game. When I do read I miss important details/my reading comprehension has been pretty bad. And it is hard for me to "get into the game" and spend the time I need to really figure it out.

I just wanted to apologize for all that.

I'll try and read posthaste; right now I'm gonna go watch some TV :\.

[Guardian]

I don't see any waffling that would be indicative of a partner deciding to bus, but Crazy's poorly justified and lately applied vote highlights his other behavior, which is a shining beacon of scumminess.

In his first substantial post, Crazy notes his own inactivity and blames it on a lack of interest in the game so far, which is a weak indicator of scum in my experience so far, since early day 1 is about as boring for scum as you can get. They have no major objective other than avoiding attention and getting closer to night, and since they have no need to create any serious content, their boredom often manifests as indifference and apathy to whatever is going on.

He continues on to express suspicion of four other players, without providing any reasoning on two of them. I cannot think of any reason for both variety and inconsistancy unless he's just looking for an easy wagon. Note that Crazy's vote does go to the wagon that is the largest at this point.

He then encourages us not to worry about boosting scum, expresses unsupported suspicions of two apparently unconnected players, and buddies up to eldarad before signing off.

Was there anything protown about that post?

I found his attack on Skillit insightful, as I said. I have something of a lack of interest in the game so far... I don't really feel like holding that against Crazy. His so called expressed suspicion of four other players includes:

-saying sth must be scum or power role, which is pretty obviously correct.
-saying he has suspicion of rr and tdc (why is saying this bad?)
-he isn't suspicious of electra, he finds her actions pro-town, which I disagree with but is reasonable

I disagree with what Incognito has said and you have said about finding multiple players suspicious to be scummy. Being suspicious of everyone IS_A_GOOD thing imo. I disagree with that point as the bedrock for suspicion of anyone.

sth, in my analysis of Crazy, I found the post you launch a case on him for to be a mark to his credit, not a reason to launch suspicion of him.

I think Crazy/Huntress is a bad lynch, barring new insightful argument to the contrary.



ps: Jahudo, I misread your post. I am still a bit miffed you didn't give reasons for your stance, but at least, apparently, you did give it, which is a mark to your credit....

Jahudo, why did you try and compare yourself to Incognito though? What does it matter if he was guilty of the same thing you were guilty of?



pps: eldarad is still scum, amirite?

[Guardian]

When I do read I miss important details/my reading comprehension has been pretty bad. And it is hard for me to "get into the game" and spend the time I need to really figure it out.

Was this something you’ve been aware of for a while? I feel that your confidance has been pretty high about what you have said throughout the game, so if you know that you miss important details when you read sometimes why do you keep calling for people to join a bandwagon you support?

Yeah it has. I call for it to get people's feedback about the wagon (importantly that of the person being attacked), and to see if they join, and because it is currently my best guess for what the right play is.

If I missed details I expect the player being attacked to defend themselves, or others to point this out. I assume that I am right and act confident because as far as I know I am right, and whomever I am focusing on is the player that I think deserves most focus at that time.

If I did miss lots of crucial details and people join wagons anyway, that tells me something. If people ignore wagons I try and start, that tells me something too.

I AM confident in my choices of who to wagon -- I think they are the most likely to be scum based on the evidence that I am aware of, and good candidates for producing further evidence. That doesn't mean I am sure that they are scum or sure I haven't missed anything. Make sense?

Jahudo, why did you try and compare yourself to Incognito though? What does it matter if he was guilty of the same thing you were guilty of?

I’m comparing the accusations but I cannot say for certain if they look exactly the same, what with me knowing I was trying to scumhunt and forgetting to be opinionated. I think that it can be a town and scum move so I think you need to make individual judgments based on each occurrence.

Why do you think that it can be both a scum move and a town move? I think that in general asking people's opinions before you express your own is a scummy thing.

Jahudo -- if you in fact did give your opinion before you asked others -- as you pointed out -- then WHY ask me to compare your actions to Incognito's?? According to you the actions were not the same -- you did not even do what you say Incognito did :O.

[Guardian]

respond to something sth said about Huntress.
read over past 3 pages and respond to other things
read crazy,

read huntress.
read eldarad
read jahudo
(finish incognito read)?

I want to remark at this time that I have an odd vibe against Huntress; everything mentally is telling me that she is town, but I have this weird gut that she is scum; when I played with her previously I got this overwhelming town-vibe from her, now I get a neutral vibe. I question her motives! I will likely finish that list of reads within a week. I hope I have internet access over the holidays, my family may be changing plans on me .

[Guardian]

I still think Guardian is likely scum for the points I've previously provided against him and his predecessor. I'm amazed that he's now pretty much conceded that he probably has been misreading stuff and probably didn't read the thread closely enough and is now trying to ask forgiveness for this but had tried to defend himself against those points earlier when I pointed out how I found this to be scummy.

Incog, did you not read the part of my post where I said most of your points were flawed?

I think the points I am, to use your words, "asking forgiveness" for are different than the points you attacked me for.

They are not "pretty much... those points... that [you] pointed out how [you] found to be scummy."

The actions we both describe are similar, but you assume a motivation in your attacks, and accuse me of doing these things intentionally. Moreover, I think me attacking you was and is pro-town, something you are pretty keen to disagree with. I still think I am right in suspicion of you, something you, again, disagree with. You accuse me of making dirty reads where I purposefully ignore relevant details. That's not what happened; I missed stuff on accident.

Your points are for the great part

wrong

; don't misrepresent what I said by claiming that I said your points were

right

.

[Guardian]

It's actually fortunate, not unfortunate.

Just trying to help out.

[Guardian]

guys really lets not lynch Huntress.

I responded to the case on crazy and I think its bad, and Huntress gives me a neutral vibe at worst. I will not support lynching Huntress today unless my opinion changes drastically.

[Guardian]

So, assuming an eldarad lynch is impossible, you would be willing to support a Huntress lynch as this would generate additional information for the town, correct?

First, I am not willing to assume that at this juncture. Second, I almost never assume that a lynch is impossible at any juncture except right before deadline, and third, I never lynch "to generate additional information for the town," that is a ridiculous reason for lynching people. I lynch "to lynch scum." I would not support a Huntress lynch unless it was right next to deadline and it was not conceivable I could get a better lynch.

In the past I have not defended people because if they are scum it comes back to bite you, but I am going on a limb here, and saying I really do not buy the case on Huntress or think she is a good lynch. I think there are numerous better targets.

See my post 596 for my reponse to sth's case on crazy. What is the case on Huntress apart from the case on Crazy? Sure she "wasted" a bit of time talking about Electra, but really I think that was a healthy thing to do. What else is there??

[Guardian]

BTW, finished exams today, woooh!! I intend to get fully up to speed to my complete satisfaction within the next 3 irl days. Tonight I party .

[Guardian]

My friend made me play a trial subscription of WoW. It is fun. I will tear myself away and make time for this.

eldarad is my preference but people seem to be switching to Jahudo, and I prefer him over Huntress, strongly. Will switch back if hope of eldarad, or Incog.

unvote vote: Jahudo

[Guardian]

WoW is addictive, apologies.

I spent 7-8 minutes skimming Huntress, Jahudo, eldarad.

Wagon on Huntress is terrible.
Wagon on Jahudo is meh.
Wagon on eldarad is meh-.

I'll keep my vote on Jahudo.

PS: Huntress/Jahudo: in my personal opinion, claims are overrated, but do what you will...

Why do I think they are? Scum claim power role like 95% of the time, so believing claims leads townies to being lynched and scum living on. But whatever.

[Guardian]

Summary:Everyone wagon eldarad please. PS: you're welcome.

PPS, Circle of suspicious people:
Eldarad, Incognito, Jahudo, iLord, TDC in rough order.

pps: eldarad is still scum, amirite?

Wagon on Jahudo is meh.
Wagon on eldarad is meh-.

I'm sorry but why aren't we lynching Guardian again?

thx for straw-maning me by taking those posts out of context.

I went back and spent about half an hour total reading huntress jahudo and eldarad and changed my mind. eldarad's craplogic was not a trend as I had suspected it would be, and I found his play overall honestly trying to discern people's alignments. Jahudo just seemed average, there was nothing overwhelming either way.

it's terribly unfair of Incog to attack me for not reading well, and then when I read the game more attack me for changing my opinion based on reading

[Guardian]

Incog, I

am

playing badly.

I got busy with exams, then instead of catching up I got addicted to World of Warcraft.

I think that attacking people based on evidence you have and being confident when you are doing so is fine, and I stand by that.

But I think that i have not caught up nearly to the extent that I would have liked, which is a very necessary follow through to the above. Also, some of my reasons were flatly wrong, mostly due to bad reading comprehension. I'm somewhat bored with the game/mafia in general which started before WoW and finals, and those two only added.

Also, to someone: I spent 7,8 minutes each, approximately. I didn't spend 2-3 minutes on each, that would be more shameful. The reading took me 45 minutes or so but I multitasked, I spent like 30 minutes actually reading, maybe a little less. Just as an fyi.

[Guardian]

yay! go town.