Mini 739 ~ Mafia Jailbreak, Game Over

[Rhinox]

Rishi 345:

First of all, if a question or comment is directed at another player, I would appreciate it if you would let that player answer before stepping in. This isn't the first time you've done this in the game, either. You have a strong possibility of tainting the answer that the player is about to give.

2 things: 1) I DID give an answer before bio posted, and 2) After I gave my first answer, I was about to post almost verbatim the same thing bio posted after me, but as bio already posted, I decided not to even bother since the town would have no way in knowing whether or not I was actually influenced by bio's answer. While you're saying you're upset with bio because it would taint my answer, I'm a little upset that I wasn't able to give a defense that the town would know was 100% from my mind and not influenced by what someone else said.

I didn't think we had come to any conclusion on the number of scum issue, and Rhinox was talking as if it were a certainty there. Also, it could definitely be a slip. If someone only has one scumbuddy, then it's a good possibility that there's another scumgroup out there with also two members.

Thats not true either... If you'd like, I'll link you to the game where I was sk, and the other scum faction was a scum group of 2, for a total of 3 scum in the game. I think thats the first game bio and I were in together.

Good job explaining why you wrote four instead of three in a few different ways. Nice job appending the line "which I always do in a mini, FYI" to your original quote. The fact that you felt the need to explain it so many ways makes me feel as though you're getting defensive about something. Still, your explanation is plausible (and bionnicchop2 derailed my question anyway), so I won't vote but, unlike before, IGMEOY now.

The 4 instead of 3 was in regards to the number of players Spy would have to confirm as town, and not the number of scum. I also didn't append anything to my original quote. It was there all along. You just overlooked it.

If I am lynched, what will happen to Rhinox when I flip town?

Why should your allignment determine my fate? Also, isn't this the same type of comment that I got chewed up for earlier?

Frankly I'm more partial to OGML's original idea that Rhinox was attempting to lead a wagon indirectly. On the one hand, saying that I am innocent and the wrong lynch, but on the other

throwing every damaging accusation he could at me

(e.g. stating the obvious, aiding mafia through SK-talk, not answering his questions, being overly defensive, partnering up to pops, etc). Of course, where I differ with OGML is his further prediction that we are two separate scum parties.

They're only damaging if they're true. Since those are pretty much the reasons you are being wagoned, that means that either there is good merit in those accusations, or scum are taking those accusations and running with them just to get you lynched. I haven't voted for you, and I don't think you're scum, because I find it impossible to be objective when I'm involved in a 1 vs 1 argument. I don't believe that I have been pushing your wagon from the sideline - and I'm pretty sure that I expressed my concerns about your wagon before anybody even brought up that accusation.

Even if you think I'm scum pushing your wagon from the sideline (which is nothing more than a guess based on nothing really, to rationalize how I could be scum), that would still mean there would have to be scum on your wagon if you end up being lynched - unless you think I'm so skilled that I can appear to be really scummy, all while getting every town player to vote you so every scum can not be on your wagon.

Assuming 4 scum in the game (which I always do in a mini, FYI)

if you are town and lynched, unless every other town player was mislynching you, there would have to be scum on your wagon. Since I know I'm town, and I'm not voting for you, that would pretty much prove to me that at least 1 scum would have to be on your wagon to get you lynched today if you're town.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Spy: what assumptions did you make to come up with the conclusion that at least 1 of Rishi, pops, and huntress have to be scum? I'm not saying I disagree with your method - I use similar process of elimination methods to focus my scum hunting later in the game when more information is available to the town - however even after explaining why you don't think me or RC is scum, I still can't get to being 100% sure that at least 1 of the 3 has to be scum.

In order to come to that conclusion, you would have to be 100% sure that at least 4 of Bio, Username, CFR, OGML, jahudo and moriarty are town, as well as assuming you are town yourself,

and assuming 4 scum in the game.

I find it suspicious that you are able to confirm 4 town players on D1, and use that information to say that the probability is 100% that at least 1 of Rishi, pops, and huntress are scum. I do agree with the points you've brought up against the three players, but I feel like its manipulative for you to say that you're 100% sure that at least 1 of them is scum.

^^^ You selectively quoted from the second bolded part, and either ignored or overlooked the first bolded part.

Why is everyone just assuming that SpyreX's list is correct? To me, the list seemed somewhat arbitrary, but it seems like everyone has bought the mantra that one of us on that list is definitely scum.

Not everyone... but since I've spoken out against Spy's list, that automatically means I'm protecting a scum partner

Moriarty 343:

Plausible? Well, it's hard to say. Overwhelmingly likely today will end in either a lynch of Rhinox or you. A wagon jump at the last minute to pops is possible though, especialy if he continues to be as unhelpful as he is right now.

I'm not sure I like this sentiment at all. You're not the only one who's expressed this. What I don't like is, your vote is on pops, yet you say you expect either myself or RC will be lynched. What exactly, then, is your vote on pops acomplishing? I would think if you really thought pops was scum, you would be more adamant in your position, and not accept a defacto "Rhinox or RC will be lynched" - which just makes any of the talk thats not about me or RC today basically just for show.

Moriarty 341:

Also, something I'd like to ask Rhinox: you claim that the wagons on both you and RC had a significant amount of scum on them, so who do you think the scum might be? It's strange for you to make such a claim (which I thought notable as well) and then not do any wagon analysis of your own whatsoever later.

Then you haven't been paying too close attention to my posts. I'm currently voting OGML, who is on my wagon. I've given reasons for this as well. I feel OGML has been playing like he's in confirmation bias - but my town meta on OGML says he doesn't get confirmation bias as town. OGML also has been coming up with some pretty extravagant scenarios based on pure speculation to "justify" how his conspiracy theory is 100% correct. Again, my town meta on OGML says that OGML avoids the use of complicated situations to explain theories and focuses more on facts and simple, obvious explanations.

I also did look at the RC wagon a little more closely (I touched on it in my 42nd post), but before I can come to any concrete conclusions, I have to know RC's allignment. If RC ends up being scum, that would pretty much change my entire view of his wagon.

RC 340:

Arguments so based in emotion are used to cloud the rational judgment of another person.

Let me go at this from a different direction... would a town player be manipulative, or try to "cloud the rational judgment of another person."?

Unfortunately because of schedule difficulties, I usually post at a different time than most players, so, as some of you have probably noticed, I tend to average about a post a day in the wee hours of the morning. Why this is important is because I think it puts me at a disadvantage having people think that I am rehashing old discussions, when in reality I usually look at the thread with an entire page of activity that I haven't seen before.

^^^ ZOMG APPEAL TO EMOTIONZZZ!!!

Seriously though, is this not an appeal to emotion? is this not meant to manipulate us into feeling sorry for you for being on a different posting schedule? Is this not meant to make us give you a little extra room since you are so inherantly at a disagvantage because of where you live?

And which side are you on?

Let me rephrase your statement so that you can better understand the corner you painted yourself in. Either you acknowledge to helping scum bandwagon me, or your "merited accusations" against me are still not good enough for your own vote against me.

How bout you don't rephrase and misrep my statements in an attempt to make me appear to painted into a corner when I'm not.

I think I've been pretty clear that the points of concern I've expressed over you are not strong enough to make me vote for you. I've also said that my judgement of you is clouded due to the fact that its impossible for me to be objective about you right now since we had such a heated exchange earlier on, and you're arguing for my lynch now. Personally, I would love to see you lynched - but I'm not sure it would be for appropriate reasons (read: I'm not sure I would be voting to lynch scum). So, its possible that scum are taking the accusations I've made and running with them to lynch you. How does that make me supportive of your wagon, when I've openly admitted that I don't feel your scummy, or that my concerns of you are worthy of my own vote? The other possibility is that I'm not giving my concerns of you enough credit, and that there is actually merit in them, and the rest of the town sees the merit in them and are voting you, where I'm discounting my concerns because were I to vote you, I feel it would be because I personally wanted to see you hang, and not because I thought you were scum.

In other words, because I can't analyze you objectively, I would rather spend my time trying to find scum elsewhere, rather than propetuate the "either RC or Rhinox will be lynched" sentiment.

OGML isn't the most townie player here, but so far as I can tell your case against him is based largely on his overzealous predictions.

Why is OGML a better lynch than me?

haha.. nice try, but I'm not biting. Instead, I'll throw it right back at you: Why do you think I should consider you over OGML? Did you just admit to being scum? Did you just admit that you think you are scummier than OGML?

I do indeed think there are; I think pops sticks out like a sore thumb.

Then why are your posts 90% focused on me, and very little focused on pops? I know... because you don't think you can convince the town to vote for pops, and you think that getting me lynched is the only way to prevent your own lynch...

Then why are you voting OGML?

I've explained this already. I think what you're really asking is, why am I not considering players on your wagon? Well, because if scum are pushing for your mislynch, the key factor in coming to that conclusing is concrete knowledge that you are actually town. Sure, I've said I'm not sure your scum, but that doesn't mean I think you're town either.

pops 330:

The second part is admittedly confusing. What i was addressing there is Rhinox's premature roleclaim. With a vanilla claim, you usually want to lynch the guy who made the claim, since if he's town it makes it easier for scum to shoot at power roles, if he's not town then duh he needs to be lynched. Not saying lynching a vanilla is better than lynching town, but lynching claimed-vanilla is definitely better than lynching a townie player with no claim out, it helps the town in night strategy. So i asked in that post whether maybe the jailkeeper has any sort of positive synergy with vanilla townies that would justify leaving Rhinox alive..

My roleclaim was for a combination of 3 reasons: 1) I wasn't sure how close to deadline we were getting, 2) My internet service was looking to be unreliable and possibly disappear, and 3) there is no way to defend against my main offense (AtE) without using more AtE.

I was also using it as a strategy that would hopefully reveal some scum. I thought any scum who were currently pushing for my lynch would relax and look elsewhere to try to lynch/reveal the power roles. I'm haven't been able to come to any conclusions because nobody changed their vote as a result of my claim, either for me, or away from me.

Rhinox is a tough case to call. Admittedly, all he's done is massive amounts of low level transgressions. We haven't caught him using deliberate logical fallacies, or chainsaw defending, or anything really scummy like that. Just WIFOM in AtE, one of the things that blend in the most with newbies. I think bionicchop is coming from the perspective of wanting to separate newbie from scum in that respect, but i think he's probably erring on the wrong side in this case.

I don't think I would consider myself a newbie anymore. I think its wrong to say my actions are indicative of either newbie, or scum. I think another viable option is that I'm just having a bad game. The problem with claiming to be having a bad game is that if I were scum, I would always make that claim. I would never admit to being scum. The counter argument I would propose is, what other argument, if not that I'm just having a bad game, would I say as town?

Spy 328:

1.) Of COURSE it is my read of the game. The only scenario where I could be 100% sure day 1 that one of them was scum is... if I was scum and bussing my partner in that mess. In that case, I would have expected a response from you to address that instead of saying I'm misconstruing.

Well this is what I'm trying to work out, without being completely direct about it.

2.) True statistical probability would mean I could have picked any three names. I didn't.

I actually had that in my last post, but took it out because I'm trying to keep my posts shorter and more concise.

Those names were picked specifically because...with their play I can not see all three of them being town. Hence, one MUST be scum. Hence, 100%

This is why its misleading... when you say 100%, that means that if we lynch all 3 of them in a row, we will hit at least 1 scum. If we lynch all 3 of them and they're all town, then obviously the chance of 1 of them being scum is not 100% right now. You can think very strongly that 1 of those 3 is scum, but you can't be 100% sure right now. if you still say you are, then I would refer you back up to your point 1) and start wondering why you are absolutely confident, without leaving any room to be wrong.

OGML 325:

I'd be willing to wager that the rhinox scum partner in that grouping is pops.

*sigh*... I don't have any scum partners...

But I'll play your little game... how do I know you're not RC's scum partner, since you're voting for me and not him, when he's the top wagon? Looks like an attempt to save your partner by being on and pushing for the alternate wagon. For that matter, you and CFR seem to be on exactly the same page. He must be your scum partner too. Look, I've found the scum team: OGML, RC, and CFR!

Except I know how silly it is to make those types of accusations without knowing anyones allignment.

CFR 324:

I very strongly disagree.

Will it help if I rephrase my statement without the sarcasm and yes, instigation?

I find it odd that RC would claim that the reason he kept talking about the possible presence of an SK was to warn the town to be prepared. That implies that the town is unableto read the mod's list of possible roles and interpret what that means. RC also claims that town power roles should take into account the sk when making night choices tonight. I'm still waiting for rc to give me the post number where he explained how.

What this tells me is that maybe RC is used to playing in towns that are full of newbs, and there is a need for someone to point everything out. Maybe it shows that RC is arrogant, and feels he is the sole authority on all things pro-town, and always thinks the rest of the town is ignorant. Maybe it says RC realized the town sentiment towards the SK discussion was that it wasn't helpful, so this was the best BS reason he could come up with to justify the conversation, or maybe RC is scum who was just trying to appear pro-town by warning the town to be careful about the sk, when it is obvious that the town is able to deduce on their own that there might be an sk.

I think the above paragraph is a better representation of what I was trying to say.

And while I agree with you on that, I think you asking RC what "PlayerA as RoleA" should do is rolefishing.

No, its not. For 2 reasons. 1, I don't see how any answer RC would give me would help me determine anyones role, and 2, I believe the answer is there is no difference in how any role would play when hunting scum in general on D1, vs assuming there is an sk. In other words, I'm not expecting an answer, and the lack of an answer proves my point.

At the time the statement in question was made, you were the leading wagon with 4 votes.

Ok, fine, but I still don't see your point at all... If I'm "calling out anyone for voting me and using that to justify voting for anybody down the road", which I'm pretty sure thats not what I was doing, then you're basically saying that I can OGMUS my way into getting the town to lynch whoever I want, just because someone voted for me? Do you really think that the town would go for that?

What I was doing, and I don't think there is anything wrong with this, is asking the town to slow down and think about the decision a little, instead of the shoot first ask questions later mentallity that seems to be growing. We have a set deadline, and the thread is active - no sense in being in a hurry to end the day when there is still valuable conversation going on.

1) It seems to me that town-you, having made a simple mistake earlier in the game that drew attention to yourself, would not immediately assume that RC was making a scum-slip because you would realize the parallels between the two actions. However scum-you, who realizes that the mistake you made actually is scummy, would try to press that tell when you saw someone else do it.

so... you are indeed saying that because I played the simple mistake card, I lose the right to call anyone out for anything that could be explained as a simple mistake. I think its wrong to first assume that an action is a simple mistake, because it takes away opportunities to find scum. Instead, I question about it, and wait to hear the response. If the response is "It was just a mistake", then fine. But I think its better for the town to let a player try to defend an action that might be scummy, when they might slip up defending themselves and reveal themself as scum, instead of just assuming it must have been a mistake and eliminating that opportunity to question a player and possibly catch a slip.

2) When I first read what you did to pops, I didn't assume it was a scum mistake. I assumed, just like I did with RC, that you simply forgot, which anyone could do. What changed my opinion was how you responded when people took note of it. You pulled out all this AtE claiming you were a VI, and then brought up the WIFOM of "scum are too careful to make little mistakes like this," which is all crap. I think you got jumpy when someone called you on a dumb mistake, which makes me think you've got a reason to be worried about the spotlight shining your way.

Right, so its a difference in gameplay then. I never assume something is an honest mistake. But, if a player uses that defense, then depending on the situation and the seriousness of the offense, I either believe them or I don't. I guess maybe this explains why I overreacted early in the game. I wouldn't have assumed my mistake was an honest mistake, so I thought nobody else would either, and I would have to "prove" that it was indeed just an honest mistake.

The way you word this makes it look like you're refuting one of my points, but basically what you're saying is you did misrep another player.

Again, whats your point? It wasn't a misrep, but it was an invalid argument because I missed where korts explained why he made posts promising to post. I withdrew my argument.

Now I'm confused... When I was first inconsistent with pops, you assumed it was an honest mistake. When RC re-voted me, you assumed honest mistake. But when I question korts, and it turns out to be invalid because I missed a comment, you don't assume honest mistake, you assume intentionally misrepping to fabricate a case... It seems more to me that you say you assumed whatever is going to help you most in whatever particular argument you're making at the time. Earlier, it makes me look scummier by saying you assumed honest mistakes left and right. Now, it makes me look scummier by saying you assumed mal intent.

I haven't been pushing the RC wagon at all.

O RLY?

As I've already explained, yes I have suspicions of RC. But I don't trust myself to be objective. I think having spoke up in opposition of the RC wagon BEFORE the accusation that I've been pushing the RC wagon from the sideline arrose supports my position. If I were pushing the RC wagon from the sideline, why would I just speak up against it knowing that I'm looking like the sure lynch if RC isn't lynched?

Rhinox thinks my point about 224 is not explained and not a case of backtracking.

I think this whole point is just splitting hairs anyways, because my whole accusation was recanted when I realized my error. Yes, if pops would have really jumped to RC's defense unprovoked, then I would have been speculating that it could have meant scum-pops defending scum-RC, or scum-pops defending town-rc, or town-pops defending town-rc. Instead of saying all those things, I decided to be a little provacative and diliberately accusatory. As I've said, it was early in the game. I was trying to stir up some conversation. Due to my inconsistency, I recalled my accusation, and the conversation never occured, at least not how I was expecting.

Also, I think this slight change in wording is more representative of what I was trying to say:

Here pops jumps to RC's defense after I asked RC questions, whithout giving RC a chance to answer the questions himself. In the same paragraph, however, its giving him a slight scum vibe. This sounds like fence-sitting,

and

or a bad attempt at distancing.

So out of the 10 or so accusations I've made against you, you only responded to 7 of them

Fine... lets see what I didn't respond to...

Not scummy but a flat 180 from "oh ad hom, you must not have a case," to using it himself. Same post.

You said it wasn't scummy, so I didn't consider it part of your case. The difference is, I was just trying to be an ass, and I wasn't using it to help build a case. Whereas, I feel RC only through it in as part of his manipulative arguing style and spin.

The only other points I didn't directly answer for in regards to your post is the AtE and WIFOM. I already said I wasn't touching the AtE anymore, because it is undefendable with commiting more AtE. As for the WIFOM, I still don't see why my use of WIFOM is inherantly scummy. As an analogy, I feel my use of WIFOM has been to point out where the wine is more likely to be, when in fact the wine is more likely to be there. I think WIFOM is only scummy when someone tries to insist where the wine is more likely to be when in facy the wine is not more likely to be there - either because its more likely to be somewhere else, or equally likely to be anywhere.

and I just destroyed 6 of them. Vote stays.

I don't really think you've destroyed anything.

RE: The bottom half of Rhinox's 311, if Rhinox flips scum I would be willing to wager he has a partner somewhere in Rishi/Pops/Huntress.

The way you say "flips" scum makes it sound like you would be suprised if I were scum - sounds a little odd coming from someone who strongly believes me to be scum.

[iamausername]

Ultimately, every single damn one of you that are voting RC because you say he is "unhelpful" versus "actually scum" drive me nuts

As I asked Rhinox (and didn't get an answer, btw), who exactly is doing this?

this is a long-winded game and I can see how someone could spend more time reading and catching up than posting.

holla

It is actually rather strange that a lot of the Rhinox wagon moved to the RC wagon, and most of the people staying off it stayed off it.

"A lot" = "bionic and pops". And what exactly does "most of the people staying off it stayed off it" refer to? The Rhinox wagon or the Coyote wagon?

I thought I'd bring this up, as you consider it a personal scumtell and your most major point against Rhinox, when I consider it rather useless. Why wouldn't a scum get equally indignated when they are voted?

To me pessimism is more of a towntell than a scumtell: why would a scum give up instead of fighting until the end?

This makes no sense at all.

But then, why would town give up either? It's not more of a towntell than a scumtell, it's a total null tell. Some people will be more inclined to give in, some will keep fighting until the noose is around their neck. I don't think it has anything to do with their alignment, generally.

3. Your group of 'lurkers' doesn't seem well thought out. Here are the post counts for the 6 players with the least number of posts prior to your post on Feb 12 (including confirmation). 6 included to show the 3 you called out.

IAU - 5
MME - 6
Rishi - 7
Spyrex - 9
Huntress - 12
Jahudo - 12

Ooh yeah! I'm #1!

Will wait for an explanation before switching my vote, but this looks like a genuine slip to me.

This was so obviously not a slip that I find it suspicious (and by that I mean scummy-suspicious, not potentially-scummy-suspicious argghagrlglrlg) for Rishi to act like it might possibly be.

OGML, I asked a similar question to you earlier that you never answered, and I got chastised for even asking it. When I show up as town after being lynched, how will that change your opinion of RC and the rest of the players in the game.

I would also like to know why it's OK for OGML to ask that kind of question, but not Rhinox. It seems fairly hypocritical to me.

Keep in mind, you also just said RC posting content = scumtell. I want that out there nice and clear.

I'm pretty sure he just said RC posting content =/= towntell. Are we going to get into another "not assuming/assuming not" argument now? That'd be tiresome.

Again, see above. Apples aren't B2 Bombers. My suspicion on them does not inherently mean I have confirmed the rest of the game to be town. Painting it as such is irritating.

It's your fault for saying "100%", really.

3. I need to update my Rishi notes now that he has posted a little more, but he is neck to neck with RC in my mind. Having fewer posts leaves me with less identifiable reasoning behind my suspicions of him though. Maybe this is an avenue worth pursuing.

I would definitely be down for a Rishi wagon, but it's probably too late for it to be a good idea today.

As a side note, I really don't understand all this grouping going on where we are trying to determine how a player flipping as an alignment will affect our view on the rest of the game. Trying to pair people up and determine partners without knowing the alignment of anybody seems like a surefire way to spin our wheels.

this, this, a thousand times this.

The alignment of a lynched player should be a small component of how others are analyzed IMO.

but not so much this. Once we actually know anyone's alignment, that'll be a pretty big consideration in my read of anyone else. It's all the discussion about it based on hypothetical alignments that seems pointless.

Further, are you making the argument that when you don't consider there to be "ANY meta" that we should assume that emotional appeals are necessarily null?

This question was not directed at me, but yes.

Oh, and what's vaguely distressing is how well iamausername has been slipping under the radar this entire time.

Is there anything in particular you'd like me to address?

Also, it could definitely be a slip.

no

Nice job appending the line "which I always do in a mini, FYI" to your original quote.

That's actually a quote from an earlier post of his.

The fact that you felt the need to explain it so many ways makes me feel as though you're getting defensive about something.

This is ridiculous.

no one seems to understand my special treatment of RC.

I understand it, but I think you're going way overboard with it. I mean, if I'm convinced that someone is town in a game, and they ultimately turn out to be scum, then I'm going to be wary of them in future, I understand that part. But saying that RedCoyote fooled you once as scum, therefore you cannot possibly read him, ever; that's really overstating the significance of that one game.

My take on the premature claim is that we probably do need to lynch Rhinox.

I had actually forgotten about Rhinox's premature claim. Even though I'm not at all convinced that he's scum, lynching claimed vanillas D1 is a policy I am hard pressed to find an argument with.

Fake edit: a huge new Rhinox post just appeared in my "topic review" window when I hit preview. I'm just going to go ahead and post this without reading that, because if I keep trying to catch up on the thread completely before I post, I am never going to be finished at the rate you guys go.

[Rishi]

The 4 instead of 3 was in regards to the number of players Spy would have to confirm as town, and not the number of scum. I also didn't append anything to my original quote. It was there all along. You just overlooked it.

:( I suck. You're right. I genuinely thought I spotted a slip, and thought you were then trying to cover it up.

So, never mind.

[bionicchop2]

@Rhinox - My apologies for stepping on your toes by answering a question directed to you.

@Rhinox & Rishi - My reasoning stems from suspicions of Rishi and I felt he should be pressed on his question since you had already been explicit on your thoughts of number of scum in a game. I have also recently re-skimmed my first game on the site and saw scum doing a similar "only scum would know the number of scum" type thing to try and lynch somebody, so it is fresh on my mind. I don't have enough backup for this to determine if it is more often done by scum, but it certainly is an easy way for scum to jump on somebody.

[CF Riot]

Re: Redcoyote case: no one seems to understand my special treatment of RC. He's like K7, in a different way, evidence shows that i can't read him. In this case it's not because he won't post, it's because he's too good at this game. Since i became 99% sure of the incorrect result one time when he was scum, it's safe to say that my general scumhunting analysis of him is useless. The only hope i could have is a meta analysis.

This is pure BS, but I'll pretend it's not for a second. If you admittedly have a hard time reading RC as a player and you're handicapped to a 1 game meta, why would he be your top suspect D1?
----

there is no way to defend against my main offense (AtE) without using more AtE

Ok, I'm about sick of this line. What is wrong with you saying, "Hey guys, I got a little heated and stopped being logical for a bit. I'll try not to do that in the future."? It's not that you

have to

respond with AtE's, you're

choosing

to.

I don't see how any answer RC would give me would help me determine anyones role

Ok, so say you asked RC that. RC says, "Well I think the town Banana Peeler should use his powers N1 on someone who's staying neutral because Banana Peels are more effective on SKs and I think neutral people are more likely SKs." You may (as scum) infer from this that RC knows the town has a Banana Peeler. Or you may infer that RC is not a Banana Peeler because he wouldn't openly choose his own role for the example. Or you may be hoping that someone else answers your question for him, talking about some other random role. I don't really care how you

could

interpret it, I'm just saying that it has the potential to draw PR tells, and I really think you already know that.

RE: Accidents vs Mal-intent. What you did doesn't look like something that can be explained as, "Whoops, I missed something you wrote." You directly quoted something he said, and described it in a way that I felt was misrepresentative of the quote. I don't see how anything else he said earlier or later could make that an "accident" on your part.

If I were pushing the RC wagon from the sideline, why would I just speak up against it knowing that I'm looking like the sure lynch if RC isn't lynched?

Well for one, this is WIFOM again, but the easy answer is to gain town cred if the RC wagon does go through. You're giving the town an alternative place to look for scum tomorrow if RC flips town, which takes heat off you and gives you something to add to any vote you make on someone who was on RC's wagon.

The way you say "flips" scum makes it sound like you would be suprised if I were scum - sounds a little odd coming from someone who strongly believes me to be scum.

Hahaha. Would you rather me say "after you flip scum, which I'm 100% sure of,"? SpyreX already tried that and you don't seem to like that either.

[popsofctown]

I do indeed think there are; I think pops sticks out like a sore thumb.

Then why are your posts 90% focused on me, and very little focused on pops? I know... because you don't think you can convince the town to vote for pops, and you think that getting me lynched is the only way to prevent your own lynch...

Money ball^^^. RC's odd interaction with me is another tell i have that i keep forgetting to mention. He had a very delayed reaction to my claim that i had a meta tell, and in the past few pages tries to give off the notion that he's been on my case the whole game when he hasn't at all, he's barely thrown any text my way. Maybe he's trying to line up lynches that way, or maybe he doesn't want us to realize that he's being opportunistic. Either way it's weird.

Rhinox's explanation of the overreaction to misreading the thread is pretty good, but it's several pages late. And sorry Rhinox, the unpressed Vanilla claiming definitely gives off the appearance that you are a newbie.

@iamausername- at least someone understands it. I don't think i'm going unnecessarily overboard with it, like i said, these things i'm picking up on are tells anyway, just put into a special context. And just one game is a very unfit diminutive.. it was a very, very long game. And it was actual one game + a bit of another one that isn't over and i can't really talk about.

[SpyreX]

Holy Postcount Batman! Quick, to the post-chopter!

Do you think Spy will move his vote before the deadline, should it come to that? Will you?

Just so there is no doubt - yes, I accept that I could be wrong about my reads so YES of course I'll move my vote before I let it go to a damn nolynch. The only player at this juncture would be myself that I wouldn't vote for to stop a nolynch.

3. He won the game linked as scum. There would be no incentive to modify the style that previously was successful.

We'll get more into this later, but allow me this WIFOM: Considering he played a successful game as scum and with the sheer amount of people that weigh in on meta... wouldn't, if he were scum again, playing that same way raise flags (much as playing like he did as a town is lowering said flags).

This, of course, is why I hate meta.

What you're talking about is playstyle. I have been known to occasionally get emotional, but that's increasingly rare. I try to play with my head and not my heart.

And my suspicion of RC was there all along. Usually, if I'm asking questions to someone, it means I'm suspicious. In any case, even if I didn't articulate my suspicion since my first post on RC, it was still there.

Ok, I'll give this to you. This could be a difference in playstyle. However, of course, I'll get to my problems with you later.

Dude, I'm right here. Other than that one post that I voted for RC, you still haven't given any reasons for thinking I'm scum. It's like you think if you repeat that I'm scum enough that people will believe it. This is actually a fun experiment you can try in any game. You keep listing a particular player on your "scumlist" and keeping saying "This player bothers me but I'm not sure why." The player doesn't have anything concrete to defend himself against, so can't really respond to the accusations. Soon other people put the player on their scumlist and start scrutinizing the player's posts and voila! That player is lynched. At this point, I don't really think you're scum, but after this game, I think I'm going to nominate you for a title: "Confirmation Bias Poster Boy."

What happened to head, not heart? Or does little snide quotes and smarm come from the head now?

But, allow me to retort:

I have given reasons for thinking you are scum. I will lay them out in a nice clean fashion but don't pretend that I've just said OHH RISHI you cad. You want concrete problems with your play, I'll give them.

Or, to follow in the very cordial steps you've just laid forth - your "play".

Ok, Spyrex is really miffing me off. He's being a total loser and not fulfilling his responsibility to this game. You aren't supposed to play a mafia game for the sake of fulfilling a vendetta against certain playstyles, or proving "yoohoo, i can make this group of people lose with me every game they play with me until i pound them into submission". That's not what you're supposed to be here for. My understanding is that you bring nothing into the game, and you play the game with no goals beyond the game you're playing, playing it to win. If you're town Spyrex, your win condition for this game is not prove a point to popsofctown. It is not punish popsofctown if he does something you don't like. It is lynch popsofctown if he's scum and leave him alive if he's town.

My meta is available to you, BionicChop has brought it up. I don't defend myself with my meta, like has been said you can manipulate a meta and use it to your own advantage, so bringing it up myself would be ridiculous.

But to flout your sig as being serious, that you play games and lynch people on policy instead of real scumhunting ticks me off. That's not what you owed me when you signed up for this game. You owed me to try and win this game, not follow a policy.

If you can show why his meta is bad, why in this instance meta isn't accurate on me, fine, fine. That's what RC is saying about himself. That's fine. RC wants to win this game. I know he does. But saying, oh, yeah, i bet he would do X whether he was town or scum, but i hate X so i'm just gonna lynch him is ridiculous and violates the commitment that you made to this game, unless i don't understand the point of the mafia games on the site i've been playing for quite a while.

Ok, first off - I like the giant appeal to emotion here. I am the big bad SpyreX, just hewing through the unprotected with my powers! Or, not. Thought that appeals to emotion were a bad thing.

But, onto the crux:

1.) No matter how many times you say it, there is no huge vendetta. I find your play to be scummy, hence I am voting for you. Its as simple as that. The conjecture of "if you played like this every game" is responded to with "if he played like this every game, then I would find him scummy every game, thus I would be voting for him every game". Is NOT a vendetta.
2.) I bolded a bit up there, because...really? You can't say that you wont use meta to defend yourself when you are using what someone else is saying about your meta to defend yourself... you see, that is still using your meta to, in fact, defend yourself.
3.) Again, read what I said: My policy lynch is lynching players I find scummy. Hence, I lynch scum (just, sadly, sometimes they aren't mafia). If you're going to accuse me of "not scumhunting" thats fine - but you better be able back that up (because we're going to see some hypocrisy with that in my next post, guarantee).
4.) I still can't believe we're doing this dance with this. I am saying I find X scummy. You (and Bio) are saying that X is an action you do as, and only as town

in other games

. I am saying, simply, that I dont care what you did in other games, that does not change the fact I find X scummy.
No where have you tried to tell me X is NOT scummy, just that X is ok because you've done it before as town. (Not to mention based on your sig there is a sample size of FOUR, lord).

I'm going to leave some other posts for the meggaaaapost I have coming up that I promised Bio. But, this deserved mention right now.

This is why its misleading... when you say 100%, that means that if we lynch all 3 of them in a row, we will hit at least 1 scum. If we lynch all 3 of them and they're all town, then obviously the chance of 1 of them being scum is not 100% right now. You can think very strongly that 1 of those 3 is scum, but you can't be 100% sure right now. if you still say you are, then I would refer you back up to your point 1) and start wondering why you are absolutely confident, without leaving any room to be wrong.

So its not a matter of my confidence in my reads of those players, its the expression of that as 100% right? Well...I'll take it up with management.

As I asked Rhinox (and didn't get an answer, btw), who exactly is doing this?

I'll go dig through if I have to, but its more of a feel of the votes. I'm hard pressed to find a lot of "THIS IS SCUMMY, HENCE YOU ARE SCUM." versus a "well, SK talk is very unhelpful and thus could potentially maybe be scummy well gotta make sure welp".

I'm pretty sure he just said RC posting content =/= towntell. Are we going to get into another "not assuming/assuming not" argument now? That'd be tiresome.

No, it was a "RC does this as

scum

." This is part of his meta read and, thusly, if he is saying that he does it as scum AND as town thats a different issue. Either way, I don't like it.

It's your fault for saying "100%", really.

Well, its been brought up to management. Expect a response incoming shortly.

At least I managed to get caught up.. wait.. what are you doing? GET AWAY FROM MEEIOHAOHARHRhhhghhhh.....

---

EMERGENCY BULLETIN: SPYREX INDUSTRIES

Ladies and Gentlemen,

It has recently been brought to my attention that there has been an attempt by one of my employees to maliciously undermine the high standards of quality SpyreX Industries brings to the ScumhuntingTM community. Rest assured that this problem will not happen again - that employee has been executed.

Futhermore, to stop any further issues in regards to this, let me make the stance of SpyreX Industries abundantly clear: we take pride in our job, but we are not, in fact, prescient. So, if any employee of SpyreX Industries in the future utilizes the term "100%" please accept that there is an implied +- 5% margin of error*.

Again, I humbly apologize for any confusion or apprehension this may have caused. Please accept these delicious cookies as a small token of my apologetic nature. Hopefully I will not have to step in again and this new employee can, in fact, help eliminate the scum plaguing your land.

Warmest Regards,

Sir William Rutherford III, Esq.

* This margin of error does not apply to the percentage chance that an employee of SpyreX Industries is, in fact, town. In addition, it does not apply to how awesome employees of SpyreX Industries are.

[Rhinox]

CF Riot 354

Ok, I'm about sick of this line. What is wrong with you saying, "Hey guys, I got a little heated and stopped being logical for a bit. I'll try not to do that in the future."? It's not that you have to respond with AtE's, you're choosing to.

*head scratching* Didn't I try that?

Seriously though, I realize the idiotic irony of both my attacks, and my current defense of them. Nothing to do about it now except promise to do better, if you guys don't lynch me

I really wasn't thinking about the number of votes I had... based on the situation, I think a "oops, my bad, wasn't paying attention, didn't remember what I said, sorry" type of response was very apprpriate... maybe you have more of a problem with the wordiness of my statement rather than the actual content?

Further, I think the implication behind no trying to defend the AtE anymore is that I realize that I got a little flustered, and that I'm trying to put it behind me and do better, and avoid the use of emotional appeals in the future.

Ok, so say you asked RC that. RC says, "Well I think the town Banana Peeler should use his powers N1 on someone who's staying neutral because Banana Peels are more effective on SKs and I think neutral people are more likely SKs."

1) You may (as scum) infer from this that RC knows the town has a Banana Peeler. 2) Or you may infer that RC is not a Banana Peeler because he wouldn't openly choose his own role for the example. 3) Or you may be hoping that someone else answers your question for him, talking about some other random role. 4) I don't really care how you could interpret it

, I'm just saying that it has the potential to draw PR tells, and I really think you already know that.

I think you're really starting to stretch for this point now...

1) The only way RC would know whether the town had a banana peeler is if he was the banana peeler, which contradicts #2. Also, WE KNOW WHAT TOWN ROLES ARE POSSIBLE ALREADY. RC mentioning, for example, a jailer in this case wouldn't indicate any knowledge of the presence of that role. In a closed game, a mention of a role that we had no reason to believe was present might imply knowledge of the presence of that role.
2) Contradicts #1, which just goes to show that I wouldn't be able to come to a reliable conclusion about anybody being the banana peeler.
3) Actually, I want an answer from RC. If anyone else chose to answer, then A) it still wouldn't tell me anything about anyones role, and B) wouldn't be my fault since I'm specifically asking RC
4) Right... you don't care how its role fishing, only that it is, because you say so, because I'm scum, and saying that its rolefishing makes me seem more scum, even though you can't show how any PR tells will be outed, only that they might, so I'm scum.

*sigh* Remember that my argument is that no town players actions should change if they assume an sk D1, because there is no proof that there is an sk. If the banana peeler suggestion was a real suggestion, I would counter that the banana peeler should use his power on whoever was scummy, because even if an sk is more likely to be neutral, there is no way to know there is an SK right now, so its just as likely if not more likely that the banana peel would be wasted on a town player.

RE: Accidents vs Mal-intent. What you did doesn't look like something that can be explained as, "Whoops, I missed something you wrote." You directly quoted something he said, and described it in a way that I felt was misrepresentative of the quote. I don't see how anything else he said earlier or later could make that an "accident" on your part.

So, earlier korts accused pops of posting for the sake of posting, and thought it was scumy. Then, korts posts a "placeholder" post, which I interpret as posting for the sake of posting. Then Korts said he already explained why he makes placeholder posts, and that its not just posting for the sake of posting. To which I reply, "My bad, I missed that post."

So... what exactly did I misrep?

Well for one, this is WIFOM again, but the easy answer is to gain town cred if the RC wagon does go through. You're giving the town an alternative place to look for scum tomorrow if RC flips town, which takes heat off you and gives you something to add to any vote you make on someone who was on RC's wagon.

So, you now think RC is town and I'm going for town cred by speaking out against the wagon, since I know RC is not scum? What if RC is scum... I suppose that makes me his scum partner since I'm trying to "derail" his lynch. But according to OGML, it only makes sense that one of us is mafia and the other is sk... so see what I'm getting at? you've already spun conclusions tied into RC, that makes me scum no matter what RC's allignment is. In other words, I'm scum, so my actions are scummy aka circular logic. This is whats frustrating me the most. Everything I'm saying is pretty much being looked at through "Rhinox is scum" glasses - instead of looking at what I'm saying and determining my allignment from what I'm saying. Its easy to rationalize how an action could be scummy if I'm scum, but thats completely different than saying that same action indicates I am more likely scum. In this specific situation, in order for speaking out against the RC wagon to indicate that I'm scum, you would have to show that scum-me would only speak out against the wagon, while town-me would be for it. I don't think you can make that case.

Hahaha. Would you rather me say "after you flip scum, which I'm 100% sure of,"? SpyreX already tried that and you don't seem to like that either.

My interpretation is that someone only "flips" an allignment if you don't believe they are that allignment. For example, I think playerA is town, but he's getting wagoned. He ends up being scum. Next day I comment that I have to re-read, because my analysis are all messed up due to player A flipping scum when I thought he was town. Alternatively, I think player B is scum, and he ends up being lynched scum. I wouldn't say "oh, he flipped scum". It wouldn't be a flip, it would be exactly what I thought.

So when you say, "if Rhinox flips scum", instead of "if rhinox is really scum" it makes me think you would be suprised if I were scum - thus, implying inside knowledge that you know I'm not scum.

-----------------------------

Pops 355

Rhinox's explanation of the overreaction to misreading the thread is pretty good, but it's several pages late. And sorry Rhinox, the unpressed Vanilla claiming definitely gives off the appearance that you are a newbie.

I can't even shoot down my own newbie card... well I'll run with it then. I'm just a newbie making newbie mistakes, everybody should cut me some slack.

^^^ not AtE, just sarcasm.

Maybe you're right about the claim being premature... but it stemmed from frustration of feeling like everything else I was saying was digging me a bigger whole, and I felt out of ways to defend myself. Maybe it was a newbish thing to do. If that makes me a newb, so be it. I'm always the first to admit theres still a lot I have to learn.

-----------------------------

@Spy: ROFL Thanks for the humor. I needed that.

-----------------------------

I realize IAUN has some more questions I have to answer. I might be able to get to them later tonight, or tomorrow.

[bionicchop2]

@ Rhinox - "flip" is fairly common terminology, so you are reading too much into that IMO. It refers (at least I think) to flipping over a card and revealing the information on the other side (in this case - alignment). Might have started from live mafia (do they use cards)?

Anyway, I have used flip before as town and I think your interpretation of it having a more complex meaning is wrong.

[iamausername]

@ Rhinox - "flip" is fairly common terminology, so you are reading too much into that IMO. It refers (at least I think) to flipping over a card and revealing the information on the other side (in this case - alignment). Might have started from live mafia (do they use cards)?

Yeah, I'm pretty sure that is where it comes from.

[popsofctown]

Ok, first off - I like the giant appeal to emotion here. I am the big bad SpyreX, just hewing through the unprotected with my powers! Or, not. Thought that appeals to emotion were a bad thing.

I'm not trying to manipulate anyone's feelings. I'm trying to explain how disgusting your play is to you. It's not anti-town. It's anti-game. You're basically saying that you would totally ignore evidence just because it doesn't exist in this game's thread.
[/quote]
I'm not bringing up my own meta to defend myself. It's a seperate issue where one of the players in this game is saying he's going to intentionally lynch people for action X even if he has reason to believe action X isn't scummy in this instance. Tantamount to saying you don't play games to win condition, which ticks me off.

Tell me if you actually think meta is 100% useless in determining someone's alignment. If that's really how you feel, i won't be ticked because that means you're actual trying to play the game to win (either scumhunting or pretending to). You'd be pretty wrong, but you wouldn't be a tool. But your example about lynching a player consecutive games in a row for the same action seems to imply that you acknowledge its application and choose to flout it and policy lynch people.

No, it was a "RC does this as

scum

." This is part of his meta read and, thusly, if he is saying that he does it as scum AND as town thats a different issue. Either way, I don't like it.

Did you read the post?
I said @whoever said RC-posts-content is a town tell: RC posts content as scum. So, if he also does it as town, its a null tell. This is probably the case. If he doesn't post content as town, which would be bizzare, it's a scumtell. Either way, it's not a town tell. I only wished to refute someone saying it was a towntell. It's definitely not a towntell here.

[popsofctown]

You guys need to play meat mafia.

Pretty much everyone uses card. Usually we do number cards=townie, ace or king is cop, queen is doctor, and the jacks are mafia.

[SpyreX]

I'm not trying to manipulate anyone's feelings. I'm trying to explain how disgusting your play is to you. It's not anti-town. It's anti-game. You're basically saying that you would totally ignore evidence just because it doesn't exist in this game's thread.

YES. That is exactly it.

How in the name of everything holy is my playing the game within the confines of the game anti-game FFS.

I'm not bringing up my own meta to defend myself. It's a seperate issue where one of the players in this game is saying he's going to intentionally lynch people for action X even if he has reason to believe action X isn't scummy in this instance. Tantamount to saying you don't play games to win condition, which ticks me off.

Ok, you giant pile of strawmanning. This is way above and beyond.

Show me, somewhere, anywhere, where I have said this is a policy lynch AND I DO NOT THINK YOUR ACTIONS ARE SCUMMY.

Trying to paint it like I'm saying "Ohh yea, Pops is hella town but isn't playing like I want to." is absolute garbage.

Let me make this abundantly clear:

I do not care what your meta is. I want you lynched because I find your play in this game to be scummy. Period. There is no policy lynching behind this unless you want to call the policy "lynching players I find the most likely to be scum."

And, you, not me, made the statement I bolded before. It's bad enough trying to use meta to defend yourself. Its even MORE ridiculous to say you're not because someone else is (and then pointing to it).

Tell me if you actually think meta is 100% useless in determining someone's alignment. If that's really how you feel, i won't be ticked because that means you're actual trying to play the game to win (either scumhunting or pretending to). You'd be pretty wrong, but you wouldn't be a tool. But your example about lynching a player consecutive games in a row for the same action seems to imply that you acknowledge its application and choose to flout it and policy lynch people.

No, meta is not 100% useless in determining someones alignment. However, the amount of usefulness is about 5%. However, again: meta is not a shield. Scummy play should not be hidden behind meta.

And, not surprising, you left out a key quantifier on my statement. The word scummy. If someone plays scummy (i.e. performs actions that appear to benefit the scum) in every game I am with them then yes I will think they are scum and thusly want them lynched.

If THIS is what you keep harping on as my "policy lynching" and this is a bad thing welp I can't help you.

I said @whoever said RC-posts-content is a town tell: RC posts content as scum. So, if he also does it as town, its a null tell. This is probably the case. If he doesn't post content as town, which would be bizzare, it's a scumtell. Either way, it's not a town tell. I only wished to refute someone saying it was a towntell. It's definitely not a towntell here.

So, you are simply saying that RC posts content as scum. You have no knowledge of whether he does as town - you are simply saying that content, in and of itself, is not in fact a town tell. Fine.

I'll try to get to your case later but honestly this game makes me so irritated when I participate that its hard to want to devote any more time to it today. OHH NOES APPEAL TO EMOTION THATS AGAINST HIS META ZERG HIS ASS UP NOW.

[popsofctown]

maybe i miss understood you.

you are naturally abrasive.

[CF Riot]

@Rhinox on the rolefishing argument: I think you're really being thick. I don't know if it's staged or legit, but our discussion is getting to the point now that I don't feel comfortable taking it any further with you. I think what you did

was

rolefishing for the reasons I've listed. You disagree, naturally, but your counter-points have not convinced me.

Then, korts posts a "placeholder" post, which I interpret as posting for the sake of posting.

You're interpretation seemed way off, to the point that I don't think you as town could have possibly read it that way. It was also pointing to Korts scum, so that gave scum-you motive. Therefore I read it as intentional misrep.

What if RC is scum?

Then I admit I was wrong and we continue from there. I think most of what you have done is scummy regardless of RC's alignment, but if he flipped scum I would reconsider all my reads taking the new information into account. I'm not assuming RC is town

because

I'm assuming you're scum. I have a scum read on you, and a town read on him, and I'm using those as a base of information when reading your posts.

The "flip" thing has been addressed, and I apologize for being snarky in responding when you just didn't understand the word. Also, I don't think you claimed too early given the circumstances, but then again, I also think you're lying.

[Huntress]

Trying to catch up again but you guys post far too much

I'm up to post 349 and stopping for now as the words are starting to swim in front of my eyes. I'll do the rest in the morning and post my comments then. I should have more time available from now on so hopefully I won't get behind again.

[Jahudo]

I'll catch up tomorrow after I get all the booze and birthday cake through my system.

[SpyreX]

Happy Birthday Jah. Enjoy the cake.

maybe i miss understood you.

you are naturally abrasive.

Funny thing is that, normally, I'm not abrasive. I become abrasive when I'm dealing with shit like "I'm anti-game" or "a tool" or what have you.

I'm not "abrasive" with the majority of this game. Just a few of you. Wonder why that is.

@Bio, et al:

I just dont have it in me to give a "real" case on either of them. So, I'm done raging against the machine for Day 1.

I'm still holding by my group of three having at least A scum in there. And, ohh yes, expect a whole lot of "I told you so's" when this awesome wagon flips town (whichever it is).

So, yea, I'm takin it quiet for the next few days. Lynch whomever, I'll check in and throw my vote if it looks like we're going to hit a NL.

[Vi]

Vote Count:

Rhinox (L-2) ~ Jahudo, RedCoyote, OhGodMyLife, CF Riot, popsofctown

RedCoyote (L-3) ~ Huntress, bionicchop2,

popsofctown,

Rishi, iamausername
popsofctown (L-5) ~ SpyreX, Moriarty147
OhGodMyLife (L-6) ~ Rhinox

Minimum (L-7)

[size=0]bionicchop2 - 0 | Huntress - 0 | iamausername - 0 - PROD1 4 | Jahudo - 0 | CF Riot - 0 | Moriarty147 - 0 | OhGodMyLife - 1 - PROD1 11 | popsofctown - 0 | RedCoyote - 0 | Rhinox - 0 | Rishi - 0 | SpyreX - 0 PROD1 3[/size]

Second Deadline Review: Wednesday, Feb 18 2009

--PASSED--

Final Deadline Review: Sunday, Feb 22 2009
Current Deadline: Thursday, Feb 26 2009

-----

I'm really impressed that everyone's living up to my high activity standards. My compliments.

[RedCoyote]

2. I have not said definitively anywhere that I have a town read on Rhinox based on meta. Please identify where I have.

1)

My unvote at that time was to emphasize to RC how underwhelming I felt his case was. It was paired with a reduced suspicion level of Rhinox.

2)

If someone claims to play exactly the same as town and scum, then they are unwittingly saying you can never trust them. All the talk about "why would I do X as scum?" WIFOMY stuff becomes negated. On one hand [Rhinox] says there is no reason for him to act a certain way and be so openly honest about acting like a VI if he is scum. Then he goes on to later say he plays the same for both alignments. That then leads to the possibility he could intentionally be making the play he would make as town to keep his meta identical.

3)

Aparently nothing I can say to stop it, since my defenses are overrated ::eyeroll::

That is a little extreme, but I think you know that.

4)

Now, I currently don't have Rhinox in the top of my suspects, so I will address his wagon.

...

I have many of the same 'tells' listed for Rhinox as others have expressed, but they are not conclusive enough for me.

No, you've never specifically said you have a town meta read on Rhinox, but the way you have been posting about him leads me to believe that you feel very safe about his status as a townie. Moreover, because you said at some earlier point in time that meta reads were an important determining factor to your scumhunting approach, that necessarily leads me to believe that you've found nothing to indicate Rhinox's status as scum based on his meta, ergo you get a townie read off of him.

1) Your reduction of Rhinox suspicions, this is self-explanatory.
2) Rhinox's VI comment led you to believe he could intentionally be trying to keep up with his meta town read, but you weren't sure one way or the other.
3) With special emphasis on

I think you know that

. I realize from the context that you two have just finished a game together, and I understand that, but that also means that you've gotten to opportunity to see Rhinox as whatever his role was in said game, which is now part of his meta. The fact that you assumed his appeal there was already recognized suggests that you think this is comparable to his town meta.
4) Reinforces the #3 quote, that you think these appeals are not conclusive

specifically

in Rhinox's case.

---

Usually, if I'm asking questions to someone, it means I'm suspicious. In any case, even if I didn't articulate my suspicion since my first post on RC, it was still there.

Then you don't ask questions of those who you deem town? Why not?

Good job explaining why you wrote four instead of three in a few different ways. Nice job appending the line "which I always do in a mini, FYI" to your original quote. The fact that you felt the need to explain it so many ways makes me feel as though you're getting defensive about something.

Another argument I've been swishing around in this noggin of mine is how come Rhinox is on such pins and needles over being lynched as a vanilla townie today. On the one hand, his determination gives me some doubt about my vote, but on the other I really starting to worry if he's not taking serious the possibility that he could be lynched today. What I mean to say is, I'd really like to see him giving this town his own interpretation of the game outside of defending himself, should he be lynched and come up as town. For him not to bother making a few predictions, at least in addition to his defense, is a tell to me. I don't think what he's said about OGML is good enough, and I think there are some players he has neglected to really address.

Other than that one post that I voted for RC, you still haven't given any reasons for thinking I'm scum.

Not to speak for Spy, but he's also brought up your inactivity.

---

@RC- where have i not answered you're questions? I'm sure it hasn't happened extensively, you can repeat them like anyone else would instead of whining about me not answering your questions after just one or two instances.

Actually, I'm going to retract this. Upon rereading, I spoke a little too soon. The reason I was thrown off a little is because you never responded to my question in post 281, but I'm taking it back because I thought I had asked you twice specifically, but I had asked Huntress the second time, not you.

Although I would like an answer to it:

I've never seen something like this before. Yes it makes me nervous, and if he's scum it's a pretty good tactic because i'm at that medium level of suspicion that the tie would get me D2 lynched pretty easily based on connection.

Do you mean to say that "tying you up" means that I, as scum, am trying with my last few posts to sever connections with pops by throwing suspicions toward him?

Can someone enlighten me what "tying up" means? I'm under the impression it means like buddying up to someone.

And yes, you did answer my other question with this (348) post.

But I do appreciate your compliments of me, even if you use them against me.

---

Let me go at this from a different direction... would a town player be manipulative, or try to "cloud the rational judgment of another person."?

Well, if you want to get technical, every player in the game, regardless of their role, has to be manipulative to the degree that they have to "manipulate" scum to showing tells.

The second question, no, I don't see a reason for a townie player to try to cloud rational thought and judgment.

Seriously though, is this not an appeal to emotion? is this not meant to manipulate us into feeling sorry for you for being on a different posting schedule? Is this not meant to make us give you a little extra room since you are so inherantly at a disagvantage because of where you live?

If you want to consider it that way, but I don't mean for it to be.

I mean, unless you want to argue that it is advantageous to be able to post once a day around 1-4 AM CST?

I meant more to explain why it was people may consider me "pushing arguments that have already been discussed".

If someone wants to take a hardline and say that isn't a good enough reason, then that's tough. I think, in general, people will see that this is regular across any game I'm particpating in though.

Personally, I would love to see you lynched - but I'm not sure it would be for appropriate reasons (read: I'm not sure I would be voting to lynch scum).

Either I'm misreading this completely, or this is just a bad approach to the game.

You would love to see me lynched, yet you don't think I'm scum, yet you can't analyze me objectively, yet you think there is merit in the case against me...

It's making my head spin Rhinox. It's apparent that you think I'm concoting these points to make you look bad, when in reality

I just don't understand all the things you say

. This all seems contradictory to me, and it's a struggle to keep up with what your actual intentions in this game are.

Why do you think I should consider you over OGML? Did you just admit to being scum? Did you just admit that you think you are scummier than OGML?

1) Huh? I

don't

think that; this is a loaded question. I asked you why OGML is a better lynch than me because you were voting him. Additionally, you've stated that you don't think I'm scum. Because of these two positions, I asked you why you thought OGML was better to be lynched today than I was.
2) No.
3) No.

Then why are your posts 90% focused on me, and very little focused on pops? I know... because you don't think you can convince the town to vote for pops, and you think that getting me lynched is the only way to prevent your own lynch...

Because, frankly, I think you are getting away with a lot.

90% is obviously an exaggeration, but I'm more confident in my suspicions of you than I am in pops.

I'm not going to deny I'd rather lynch you that myself, do you expect me to? This doesn't change the fact that I think you are scummy and that I was the

first, non-random vote

on you. Your misrepresentation of my motivations just reinforces my vote.

Sure, I've said I'm not sure your scum, but that doesn't mean I think you're town either.

What does this mean? How is this not doublespeak?

How can I be neither town nor scum?

I think another viable option is that I'm just having a bad game. The problem with claiming to be having a bad game is that if I were scum, I would always make that claim. I would never admit to being scum. The counter argument I would propose is, what other argument, if not that I'm just having a bad game, would I say as town?

So.

...which I'm pretty sure thats not what I was doing, then you're basically saying that I can OGMUS my way into getting the town to lynch whoever I want, just because someone voted for me? Do you really think that the town would go for that?

much.

If I were pushing the RC wagon from the sideline, why would I just speak up against it knowing that I'm looking like the sure lynch if RC isn't lynched?

WIFOM!

---

This question was not directed at me, but yes.

Some people will be more inclined to give in, some will keep fighting until the noose is around their neck. I don't think it has anything to do with their alignment, generally.

This likely stems from my real-time mafia experience. username, almost like clockwork, you get a bandwagon on scum, and so many of them are so quick to say "wow, town fail...".

I've seen it time and again, either they get upset or they get hostile, it's all emotionally derived. An attempt to get their attackers to feel bad about what they are doing with hopes that they will tug at enough heartstrings to get them to move.

Townies usually don't, or they try not to at least. Most times they try to explain why it is their attackers are wrong and explain who it is the lynch should be.

I'm not going to say personality isn't a significant factor, I'm certainly not going to say this is foolproof, but it's worked for me countless times, and I think I'm getting better and better at telling the differences between townie appeals and scum appeals. Rhinox very much falls into the latter category for me.

I understand it, but I think you're going way overboard with it. I mean, if I'm convinced that someone is town in a game, and they ultimately turn out to be scum, then I'm going to be wary of them in future, I understand that part. But saying that RedCoyote fooled you once as scum, therefore you cannot possibly read him, ever; that's really overstating the significance of that one game.

I agree with this, this is my main problem with pops' (former) vote of me. I just do not like the whole "I cannot possibly hope to read RC, therefore he should be lynched" attitude. It is absolutely not the way townies should cast their vote, even if it is a bit flattering.

---

RC's odd interaction with me is another tell i have that i keep forgetting to mention.

I don't think it's my odd interaction with you, I think it's your completely crappy reasons for voting me.

Listen, pops, I know how we can resolve this. Just assume I'm town all of the time, that way you'll win at least half the time. XD

---

*head scratching* Didn't I try that?

Yeah, you did.

But you forgot to mention you completely tied your apology to one big WIFOM.

You basically said, "I'm sorry for doing this... but this means I'm town doesn't it ".

Of course you leave those parts of the quote out because you know you're guilty of it.

So, you now think RC is town and ...

Did CFR say that?

(Taking a page from Huntress with this one. )

---

Happy Birthday Jahudo

[popsofctown]

Happy Birthday Jahudo!


Tying means, making it seems like i'm your scumpartner. As in, creating connections to me that lead people to believe we are partners.


I'm reading you within a limited capacity RC (basing you're alignment off my experience from just one game). But if i couldn't read you at all, i would certainly lynch you immediately. That's how people deal with K7, that's how you deal with any unreadable player.

I'm voting Rhinox right now though, because of the vanilla claim. If he's town you're next. If he's scum, I'd be surprised at your accuracy enough to at least wait. I actually put Rhinox at even money right now (back at starting point 0), from BC's testimonies and his consistency with the WIFOM logic and AtE. He's consistent to himself. But afaik, unless someone has more developed theory concepts than me, we need to lynch him because of the claim. And i think his flip would be quite an info mine.

[bionicchop2]

confirm vote RC

for everything he just wrote regarding me and reading Rhinox's meta. You wrote absolutely nothing that indicates I have a town read on Rhinox

based off of meta

. You managed to write a rather decent amount of nothingness to spin your original statement to somehow make sense instead of admitting I only got a town read of pops based off of meta.

town meta read + MOTR game play = current town read for pops.
neutral meta read + semi scummy play = Rhinox not in the top of my suspect list
neutral meta read + excessive scummy play = RC top suspect.

You made an initial statement/question, for whatever purpose. (A leading question with an assumptive premise to boot).

Why does pops and Rhinox's meta evoke a general town read and my meta not have a factor?

When the initial statement in the question was pointed out as incorrect, you decided it was best to spin into a whole side thing about how I am reading Rhinox and because I use meta as a factor, I must have a town meta-read on him.

[bionicchop2]

EBWOP - I somehow got an extra quote tag in my post. "bionicchop2 wrote" should not be there since that text is all new.

Fixed. ~Vi

[bionicchop2]

This is just straight, gut fueled opinion talking here, but I really think it would be a mistake to lynch RC over Rhinox today.

Catching up on some stuff I didn't get to read too closely over vacation and I caught this. Extremely scummy comment IMO. You push that they are both scum and are pushing which of the 2 is more important scum to lynch.

How is this scummy? Who would benefit from a statement like this? I think scum would.

Scum A stating 2 players are scummy. Both could be town, 1 could be scum, most likely both are not. If a partner is in the 2, scum would cast suspicion on both (cover them self by screaming their partner is scum) and nudge everybody in the direction of the person who isn't scum. Of course, the WIFOMy reverse could be used by scum. Nudge towards your partner so if anybody picks up on it, they lynch the other one.

I don't think I can gather anything about Rhinox or RC based off your statement, but I think it bumps you up the scummy scale a bit.

[Rhinox]

@ Rhinox - "flip" is fairly common terminology, so you are reading too much into that IMO. It refers (at least I think) to flipping over a card and revealing the information on the other side (in this case - alignment). Might have started from live mafia (do they use cards)?

Yeah, I'm pretty sure that is where it comes from.

That actually makes sense. I didn't think about it like that.

@CFR 364:

I guess we agree to disagree then.

So, yea, I'm takin it quiet for the next few days. Lynch whomever, I'll check in and throw my vote if it looks like we're going to hit a NL.

What exactly is pro-town about this philosophy?

------------------------------------------------

Another argument I've been swishing around in this noggin of mine is how come Rhinox is on such pins and needles over being lynched as a vanilla townie today. On the one hand, his determination gives me some doubt about my vote, but on the other I really starting to worry if he's not taking serious the possibility that he could be lynched today. What I mean to say is, I'd really like to see him giving this town his own interpretation of the game outside of defending himself, should he be lynched and come up as town. For him not to bother making a few predictions, at least in addition to his defense, is a tell to me. I don't think what he's said about OGML is good enough, and I think there are some players he has neglected to really address.

Huh? are you telling me I should roll over and play dead because I'm just a townie and I shouldn't care if I get lynched D1, or are you accusing me of doing nothing but defend myself? I think I've been doing a good job of doing things besides defend myself. I have a case on OGML, I've been talking with Spy about his list of 3, I've tried making other cases... Even after this post:

I'm sure there will be something wrong with this explanation as well, but whatever... I feel a common fault of townies under pressure is that they become 100% defensive, and stop making cases. Then, right before they're lynched, someone throws on top "you haven't even been scum hunting all game, you've only been focused on not getting yourself lynched" as sort of a nail in the coffin. Its understandable thought... its hard to get a word out when you're getting screamed at from every direction. Despite being under enormous suspicion, I was at least trying to continue scumhunting, but even that turned out to be total phail due to an oversight on my part.

...you go ahead and accuse me of exactly what I said I was actively trying to avoid...

The second question, no, I don't see a reason for a townie player to try to cloud rational thought and judgment.

Thank you. So, AtE is only an attempt to cloud rational thought and judgement if I'm scum. So it is circular reasoning. "I'm scum, so I'm attempting to cloud the towns judgement and its scummy" not, "an AtE is an attempt to cloud judgment, so I'm scum".

If you want to consider it that way, but I don't mean for it to be.

I mean, unless you want to argue that it is advantageous to be able to post once a day around 1-4 AM CST?

I'm arguing that it doesn't put you at the disadvantage you're trying to make it seem. not disadvantage != advantage.

Either I'm misreading this completely, or this is just a bad approach to the game.

You would love to see me lynched, yet you don't think I'm scum, yet you can't analyze me objectively, yet you think there is merit in the case against me...

I think you're misreading, but I'm not sure how to explain any better. We're clashing right now. You're voting me, when I know I'm town. Because of that, I can't analyze you objectively. I don't know whether my points have merit or not. I feel if I voted for you, it would basically be OMGUS and not because I think you're likely scum. So I'm consciously fighting the urge to do that.

1) Huh? I don't think that; this is a loaded question. I asked you why OGML is a better lynch than me because you were voting him. Additionally, you've stated that you don't think I'm scum. Because of these two positions, I asked you why you thought OGML was better to be lynched today than I was.
2) No.
3) No.

My point is, why would you ask me to explain why OGML is a better lynch than you? That would be like if asked asked bio why you are a better lynch choice than me. It basically feels like an admission that you realize you're being scummy. When I read your question, it says to me that you don't think I should be voting OGML, and instead should be voting you.

Anyways, why did you ask me if you already knew the answer? I said I'm njot sure you're scum and don't trust myself to analyze you objectively. I gave reasons for suspecting OGML. Whats the point of even asking me?

Because, frankly, I think you are getting away with a lot.

90% is obviously an exaggeration, but I'm more confident in my suspicions of you than I am in pops.

I'm not going to deny I'd rather lynch you that myself, do you expect me to? This doesn't change the fact that I think you are scummy and that I was the first, non-random vote on you. Your misrepresentation of my motivations just reinforces my vote.

It just seems like you're playing from a position that only my lynch today will cause you to not be lynched. I wouldn't expect you to accept your own lynch over anybody else, but I would much rather be sure you were voting for who you thought was most likely scum. Your posts on the subject have been misleading. I get the feeling that if you weren't being wagoned and close to a lynch, that you would much rather be voting pops. Your posts give me the impression that you don't think pops can be realistically lynched today, so you'd rather see me lynched because that means you're not getting lynched. You've clarified that you say I'm your top suspect, but I still think you've been misleading. I get the feeling that you're only acting out of self preservation, than voting for who you think is most likely scum.

Keep in mind that if I were playing by your philosophy, you'd have already been lynched. You were at L-1. I could have hammered you, or at least pressured you into claiming and then hammered you, instead of speaking out against your wagon. I don't care who cries WIFOM, but scum-me wouldn't try to stall your wagon when it was obvious I would be the next lynch choice (unless we're both on the same mafia team).

What does this mean? How is this not doublespeak?

How can I be neither town nor scum?

i'm really getting tired and annoyed at arguing semantics... not scum != town. It just means, I haven't come to a conclusion that I think you're more likely 1 side more than the other. In other words, I have a neutral read on you right now. I don't think your scum, but i wouldn't call you town.

I'm not going to say personality isn't a significant factor, I'm certainly not going to say this is foolproof, but it's worked for me countless times, and I think I'm getting better and better at telling the differences between townie appeals and scum appeals. Rhinox very much falls into the latter category for me.

Well then at least after I'm lynched, I can take pleasure in knowing that I'm completely wrecking yours and everyone's meta on what is and isn't scum/town tells. Except for the 3-4 of you that are scum and know I'm town already.

I'm voting Rhinox right now though, because of the vanilla claim. If he's town you're next.
-------------------------------------
But afaik, unless someone has more developed theory concepts than me, we need to lynch him because of the claim.

Pops, can you please explain why you feel you have to have a policy to lynch vanilla claims on D1?

When the initial statement in the question was pointed out as incorrect, you decided it was best to spin into a whole side thing about how I am reading Rhinox and because I use meta as a factor, I must have a town meta-read on him.

I think if everyone took a look at RC's posts without the "Rhinox is scum" pretext, then you'll notice that RC's posts are full of manipulative spin.

I'm starting to think more and more that RC is scum, but I'm still not willing to trust my own judgement about RC.