Ok, the long awaited Walnut case. I apologize in advance for the size of this, and anything that may not be entirely clear. Proofreading was pretty limited due to how massive this is, and because I'm damned tired of looking at it at this point.
I'll be happy to try to clarify things if anyone has any questions about stuff.
I'm going through Walnut's history post by post here, trying to show why much of the stuff he's done is extremely scummy, and why a lot of his defenses to points that have been raised previously are basically null. Any post numbers outside of quotes below refer to Walnut viewed in isolation. I'll skip a few posts that are trivial. The abbreviation NRC will appear frequently early on, and means No Real Content.
Post 2: Notes CF/charter argument, then launches into a discussion about whether setup speculation is scummy, combined with commentary on the setup of
last
game.
NRC
Post 3: Over a day later, after some serious commentary and arguing between a few players, has nothing to say other than to point out the wiki and role flash, encouraging more setup discussion.
NRC
Post 4: More setup speculation based on the roles from last game. Makes the nebulous claim that some people may be finding the setup discussion useful. Either way, it is not in anyway
helping to find scum
, the town's main job.
NRC
Post 5: Agrees with several people pointing out hadhfang's post as scummy. Contributes nothing new to that discussion.
Post 7: Hops on hadhfang's wagon, placing him at L-2.
Walnut wrote:And, based on post #83, I would almost expect Had to be mafia and CFRiot a townie he is setting up for a fall. Maybe he is trying to use it as an argument against Charter, but I am not convinced. I have to admit that nothing he says is entirely unreasonable, but the gut feeling is there at the moment.
vote Hadhfang
This is the first he's said about hadhfang beyond "I agree this post was scummy," and is somehow enough to justify putting hadhfang at L-2, which lead to him claiming. Notice there's a lot of waffling here - almost expect, maybe, not convinced, [not] entirely unreasonable - setting himself up to jump back off.
Post 8: Unvotes hadhfang for the claim, and disagrees with a conclusion Battousai made.
Walnut wrote:@Battousai, I see what you are saying about who called you out for lurking, but I don't agree with the conclusion. Yes, if Had looks likely to be lynched early on Day 1 his scum partners could try to distract attention to lurkers to get the heat off him. Equally well townies could say "Hey, let's not lynch this guy yet until we hear a bit more from some of those who have not said much". For me, they are both valid responses, so it is kind of WIFOM.
Actually relatively helpful by Walnut's standards, but still no real effort to find the scum here - he's not pointing to or trying to find anything scummy here, just disagreeing.
Post 9: Starts pushing on Balckberry's "claim." Suggesting we lynch someone just because they've said "I have a kickass role" is scummy, because that could mean literally anything, including vanilla (which was my guess), doesn't benefit scum, and could be useful to draw an NK as demonstrated by camn's eventual full claim (or in simpler ways).
Post 10: More pushing on blackberry for bad reasons
Post 11: Short bit of waffling on blackberry. Returning to form.
NRC
Post 13: Responds to an FoS from Riot and tries to deflect attention back to blackberry.
Post 14: A long discussion about prod and replacement mechanics, attempting to look useful by using examples with blackberry.
NRC
Post 15: Rambling about blackberry replacing out, along with a statement that his replacement won't be suspected. There's no logical town reason for that, so presumably this is because he's realized at this point the blackberry hate he tried to start is going nowhere. Also mentions the trainwreck game.
NRC
Post 16: Answers a question farside asks, then questions Battousai's motives for a question. We have here our first case of Walnut scumhunting this game, halfway through page 8.
Post 18: Asks Tinsley a question, me for a clarification, then talks a bit about something Battousai said without actually saying much.
Post 19: Spends a lot of words rehashing an argument hadhfang made, with the only contribution being that he's trying to buddy with CF Riot. The content of this post could have been made to fit in a tenth the space - again, posting a lot to look active, but saying little.
Post 20: Agrees with me, than waffles around about some game theory in response to things camn said trying to look like he's adding something, but is really mostly rehashing what I said.
NRC
Post 21: Some WIFOMish comments about things Netlava and LG posted.
NRC
Post 22: After 2 days and several arguments for and against Netlava being presented, all Walnut has to say is quote of himself and a line of text to reiterate a point in it.
NRC
Post 23: Answering a question from farside. Quotes a couple things and doesn't know whether Netlava is scummy or not. Carefully avoiding taking any position on Netlava.
Post 24: Defending himself against charter's first attack. charter sort of nibbles around the edges of the real issues here, and Walnut defends decently, while not having to address the large issue of no scumhunting. A couple points I'd like to bring up:
charter wrote:Walnut in 63, massive derailing of town
Walnut wrote:Um... in post 63 I answered Shdowgirl's question about roles. I think that this was in fact a useful contribution to the town in general, and specifically as people had talked about two NKs meaning that there was a serial killer.
That particular post wasn't terrible, but it wasn't all that necessary either. Trying to represent it as helpful to the whole town is definitely a stretch - at best it was useful to shadowgirl. charter could have picked much better posts to say you were massively derailing the town with. 14 would have been a much better example.
charter's next bit about role speculation in Walnut's next post Walnut passes off as answering questions from the previous post. This is accurate to a point, but Walnut still dives far harder into unnecessary speculation there than simply answering the questions requires.
Post 26: Defending against me now.
Macavenger wrote:Overall, I would probably leave my vote on Netlava for now, were it not for the fact that CF Riot and Battousai are both currently on his wagon,Walnut is waffling about joining it
Walnut wrote:I said that right now I am not committed either way on Netlava. Are you saying that to be not voting at this stage of the game is scummy?
Trying to strawman here. Voting has nothing to do with it, it's the fact that Walnut talks a lot about Netlava, but never takes any kind of firm stance, posting in a way that could easily be used to defend him (he's always scummy!) or vote him (I'm finally convinced) depending on where the wagon goes.
Walnut wrote:Mac, you keep accusing me of the same thing, in that I tend to post things I think will be aids for other peoples' thinking, rather than just saying "I suspect person x for reason y". To use a recent example, when people were assuming 2 night kills meaning that there was a serial killer, that is simply wrong. If I hadn't pointed it out, I don't know who would have considered other possibilities. CFRiot had the grace to say "Thank you for the clarification", but you vote for me for content not related to this game. As with Charter, I don't think this makes you scum, although it ranks up with the dumb townie reasons for voting for people.
The point I've been trying to drive home for a long time now, is that Walnut's explanation here is basically a way for him to post lots of content that looks game related, but isn't helping find scum. You comment on what other people say, but it's really jsut commenting and speculation. The only time up to this point you've taken a stand on something is "I think (claimed/semiclaimed) player is scummy." You odn't ask questions; you don't take a stance on broader town suspects, you don't put any effort into pushing what few people you do claim to ever want lynched.
Post 27: Another attempt at a strawman:
Tinsley wrote:I like Mac's suspicion of Batt, Walnut, and Riot, as both Batt and Walnut were already high on my list. All are currently suspicious of Netlava, two of which are currently voting him. I would think as scum Netlava would make a good first target because of his playstyle.
Walnut wrote:What? When I say it, it is cause for suspicion, but when you listen to what I say and paraphrase it, it is good reasoning?
This isn't what he was FoSing you for. As far as I can tell, it has nothing to do with why he thinks you're scummy, but you try to turn it around on him anyway.
Post 29: Admits to participating in setup speculation, but blames others for starting it. Participating and encouraging it is really no better. Also claims camn's claim confirms that talking about the possibility of an SK was useful - no, it still wasn't. It still serves absolutely no purpose Day 1. IF more than one person had died overnight, we could have talked about it then, although even then it wouldn't have mattered much.
Post 31:
Walnut wrote:My general tendency is to want long days to slowly build up a body of knowledge to make a decision from. Yes, on Day 1 in particular it will still be at best an educated guess, but better that than a quick lynch and not much learned from it. It is common scum play to shorten the day, and I am not going to rush in and contribute to a hurried lynch. It takes being pretty confident to vote, and I was (and am) pretty confident that Hadhfang is scum, so I voted for him.
Huge contradiction here, which has already been mentioned. There is no way Walnut could have been as confident about hadhfang early as he was claiming to require later in the game.
Also depends my first major PbP of Walnut, but only by referring back to the previous point about speculation being justified (which is false) and puts the rest down to "playstyle differences." Not really a defense. Gives a couple opinions on players, but says remarkably little in doing so. Very large post that adds amazingly little to the game.
Post 32: "Defends" the contradiction in the previous post... by pointing back to it again. Answers a question about Riot/Battousai with standard waffling, saying nothing. Also brings up the "I always die N1" schtick. Nothing here, really, except to finally jump on Netlava's wagon using the deadline as an excuse.
Post 33: Answers a bunch of questions about his play, again mostly just referring back to prior responses and such. One thing I'd like to point out:
Walnut wrote:I think here you are confusing posting with analysing the game. Scumhunting is not just about asking your own questions and having them answered, it is also reading all of the conversations going on. Whether I had posted about Hadhfang or not before voting for him is irrelevant. I felt, and do feel, pretty confident about Had. Only time will prove whether my confidence was well founded or not.
You didn't, and haven't, talked about these reasons that make you so sure in any detail. We have no way to see that you've done any such analysis.
Post 34: More defending. Claims not to have space to scumhunt because he's defending, which is fail - there's no space limit on posts. Townies make space.
Walnut wrote:Is it that if a post doesn't include a vote or at least a FOS it is not beneficial to the town?
More strawmaning, against the "you aren't scumhunting" argument.
Walnut wrote:Don't repeat the mantra- look at what I am saying, and think about it. If you had something useful to the town to say, and were aware that due to lynching or NKs you might not get a chance to say it later, why would you wait a day?
Pretty hypocritical, given you're just repeating the "I always get killed N1" mantra here. The point is that the things you were saying weren't benefiting the town. Townies have no need to worry about being killed at night. Say what's useful and don't worry about it.
Post 35: Goes after charter and Tinsley as Day 1 ends.
This was the end of Day 1. Walnut has, to this point, done almost no discernible scumhunting. He asks a couple questions of Tinsley and Battousai in the middle of the day, and indicates some reasonable looking suspicions at the end of the day. For most of the day, he does nothing to help find scum though. The vote on hadhfang has pure wagon jump written all over it, and the attempts to defend it later in the day are just contradictory and make it look worse. Through most of the second half of the day, he's just defending, and doesn't make any room for scumhunting during it at all - a fact he admitted.
On Day 2, Walnut changes his style a bit. charter, I think when you said recently that you weren't as sure about Walnut, you said it was after rereading Day 2. I suspect that's probably the reason. Day 2, Walnut abruptly starts doing some actual scumhunting. I can only assume he got coached by his buddies a bit during the night or something. There are still some telltales in his Day 2 play, however. I'm not going to analyze every post in detail for Day 2, because I'm not trying to show that none of them have substantial content here - I'm just going to draw attention to some points that stick out identifying him as scum. (Also, I don't think I have the mental stamina to keep analyzing all the tl;dr posts in extreme detail)
Post 37: Comes out swinging against charter. A few things to note here:
Walnut wrote:However, he kept on going, even when the case was well answered.
Also quotes Battousai agreeing with that sentiment. As you may be able to see from earlier in my post, I don't agree that it was well answered one bit. Answered, yes, but the answers really didn't resolve anything.
Walnut wrote:It should be noted that Charter's case on me, as much as I have been able to understand from his ravings, was based on 1) distracting the town with irrelevancies, and 2) non-committalness and lack of scumhunting. On 1) I say again what I have said all along, that everything posted can lead to something useful and on Day 2 he has already overstepped his mark on trying to direct and shutdown conversation; and on 2) I say guess what? All that conversation has been useful, as it has led to me being convinced that Charter is scum.
Your answer to 1) is blatantly wrong, as several people have pointed out, and 2) isn't really even an answer to non-scumhunting.
Walnut wrote:If Charter were lynched and came up scum, there is no way that Mac would not be the next day.
And here we're lining up a lynch after charter.
Post 45: Encourages Thesp to vote for charter even though Thesp doesn't find him suspicious.
Post 47: Putting words in camn's mouth here:
Walnut wrote:Angry and aggressive is just another form of manipulation. If he makes talking with him unpleasant, and you stop voting for him, he has manipulated you. It seems to be working, as right now people seem to be saying that Charter is playing too badly to be scum.
camn never said he was playing too badly to be scum, she said he's not manipulative in the way she would expect from scum. This is perfectly reasonable - I said something similar about acidmix last game. Obviously I was wrong in that case, but the argument is sound. That charter isn't elucidating his arguments in the best way does not make him scum, and I believe this is what camn is getting at here.
Post 48:
Walnut wrote:If by scumhunting you mean baselessly claiming that people are scum, I am indeed guilty of what you say. Compare me to Thesp- he comes out and says something along the lines of "A, B and C are the scum- thanks for coming everyone" and everyone nods approvingly, while I am a pariah because I don't. It clearly wouldn't be in favour of the town to take a considered approach. This argument by Mac is rivalling Charter at his worst.
This is a great batch of strawmaning and OMGUS wrapped up in a neat package. There's a lot more to scumhunting than making accusations, and we both know it. I challenge you to find one place where I've said I was entirely happy with Thesp's scumhunting this game. I wouldn't mind seeing him doing more of it. Whether or not Thesp has done a ton of scumhunting has no bearing on whether you have, though.
Also, in this post he tries to use his twisted interpretation of camn's words against charter. I haven't seen anyone say charter was too scummy to be scum other than Walnut.
Post 55:
Walnut wrote:Do bear in mind that no player has to come up with all of the ideas by themselves, you can say "I agree with that argument". It is not like we are rival detectives who each have to find their own evidence and are not allowed to share.
Probably covering for buddies who jumped off the charter wagon when they realized it sucked. Yes, you can say you agree in some cases. Basing your entire vote on someone else's reasoning and then abandoning it when challenged is very suspect, though, and that's what the people on charter's wagon did.
Also abandons charter's wagon himself here, jumping to Tinsley, the second-largest competitor to the Walnut wagon at the time. He doesn't really say much about Tinsley here, other than a "view tending more towards scum as the day goes on." In a prior post he sided with fark on one specific point of the Tinsley case, and that's about all he's said about Tinsley all day. Another blatant wagon jump a la hadhfang Day 1.
Post 57: Makes some arguments about Tinsley after the fact. While more than he did for hadhfang, this is still a long way from justifying the standards he claimed and used on Netlava Day 1.
So, overall summary: Little scumhunting day 1. The vote on hadhfang was a pure wagon hop, probably an attempt to draw out a claim, which unfortunately outed the cop. Makes a bunch of poor excuses when attacked, then continues referring back to them throughout most of the game. The deadline was a convenient excuse to hop on Netlava's wagon without too much suspicion, helping make it inevitable. Day 1 play overall was horrible and not in any way protown.
Day 2 play has been a more standard scum style, trying to actively manipulate the town instead of just confusing us with lots of text about nothing. charter was a great target to attack as scum - he was pushing Walnut, so getting rid of him takes off some pressure, and his posting is superficially poor, making it easier to drum up a case against him. I say superficially poor, because as has been commented by some others, he's not trying ot manipulate in any scummy way, and if you cut through some poor wording to what he's trying to say, he makes a lot of sense. Uses several manipulative tricks to try to push this wagon, succeeding reasonably well to a point, then gives up and wagon jumps on Tinsley when it's clear that isn't working.
Note also that the jump to Tinsley instead of fark somewhat implicates fark as a possible buddy here, especially combined with his play on the charter wagon. I'm not entirely certain if fark is really Walnut's buddy, or if he's just a townie who got misled by his argument on charter that Walnut is now trying to frame.
As I've stated, I don't mind the LG hate that has cropped up lately. I think there's a very good chance he and Walnut are buddies at this point, based on his play today. Also worth noting that Walnut has virtually ignored LG all game. Obviously, I still think Walnut is the surest case, and want to lynch him today.
"By far the towniest player in the game. Very good scum hunting, doesn't let anyone off the hook. All in all I find Mac's posts insightful and thought-provoking. " - Vel-Rahn Koon
