Newbie 958 ~Game over!

[remouk]

/confirm

Ready to go!

[remouk]

vote Coach Travis

It's random (random.org gave me 4, and Coach Travis is 4th on the "Players alive" list).

[remouk]

@remouk- Why did you feel the need to stress the fact you were voting randomly, even going as far as explaining the method you used to pick your target?

Well, I was simply wondering how I could pick someone randomly, I thought about random.org, used it, and then wrote that line without much thinking.

P.S. I forgot to mention that I'm not english, so I may misunderstand or say strange things, do not hesitate to ask if something isn't clear.

[remouk]

But seriously, voting someone with at least marginally non-random reasons is so much cooler. Do you have any current thoughts about anyone?

No. Right now, I don't have a clue... And TBH, at this point I don't know what to ask/say to get evidence about who might be scum or not.

[remouk]

@remouk

With all the questions and poking going around, you don't have any clues? I've been picking up vibes pretty well. Is this you just determined to stay as neutral as possible by evading the question?

I did not evade the question, I answered as clearly as I could. Sorry if I still don't have any lead...

remouk, it's usually just a good idea to just give your thoughts on situations. Let us know what you're thinking, etc. Once you do that, I'm sure the questions will just flow naturally. If you're town, we obviously need to

a)

figure out that you're town based on what you're posting and

b)

maybe notice things that you

yourself

may have noticed that maybe none of us have noticed. By keeping your thoughts bottled up, that doesn't help us at all if you're town, but I could see how it might help you if you're scum.

I totally understand. Don't forget that I did give all my thoughts. The thing is, I still don't have anything to say about your behaviors. Maybe I need a little bit more time than you.

Incidentally, remouk, based on your title of "Goon" I'm guessing you've played at least one other game on here. I haven't looked at the game but were you scum there or town? If you were town, did you have a difficult time figuring out what to say there too?

Yes I played my first game here, just like here I was town. I won and yeah, you can read that in the begining I didn't talk a lot (I didn't know what to say/ask), I observed and it was seen as lurking, they thought it was scummy so I had to explain myself and change my playstyle. I don't want that to happen again because it made the game tough for me, that's why I'm clearly saying that I still don't have any clue.

[remouk]

Sorry for not posting, been pretty busy. I'm going to read it all and post my impressions.

[remouk]

About Earlder1's avatar thing: this was way too much "off-topic" so I understand it looks weird. Personnally, I think it had nothing to do here, but I don't see it as a scum thing. The scummy thing is that he said that he knows it can look scummy... And then, later, he states that he is happy to look a little bit scum... It has been discussed, but I don't think you should be happy to look scum. I totally understand why LordChronos votes him. But I won't: Earlder1 is as noob as me, so this can be "bad playing" (just like I did, saying "I have no clue yet" was worse that saying nothing at all, which was bad too. Lesson learned).

Also, I have a town read about Alta, because he has been "protecting" me while he was still voting me. I think a scum would have try to avoid being contradictory, and would have been more careful. Also, he stated he didn't have a clue, just like I did, and as I'm town I do know it's a town behavior. But now, there is quite a lot of discussions, I think he can try to make up his mind.

Not much to say about the others, except Incognito.

Incognito is interesting: he voted Earlder1, saying that he had very good reasons to vote, but only explained them when questions were asked. There's nothing more scummy than voting without explanation (except when there are none at the begining of the game). Also, I don't agree with that:

Coach Travis, I sometimes don't provide reasoning for my votes to try and see who might be thinking along the same lines as me when I place an unexplained vote. I figure that if a person can see what I see when I didn't even have to explain it, there's a decent chance that the person who has seen what I've also seen is likely thinking along the same lines I am and could potentially be pro-town. I wouldn't realistically leave an unexplained vote on a person up until the point that the person gets lynched, but I do think it's a good initial indicator.

The game is about poiting things. If no one voted XXX when you decided to vote him with no explanation, I don't get how it can change someone's mind to the point that he sees the same thing as you. I see it as a "let's vote XXX, maybe someone will vote him too, I'll agree with his explanations and won't be seen as a follower/scum jumping on a wagon". And I won't forget that Ingognito is an experienced player. I totally understand Coach Travis's reactions to Incognito's posts.

So, Incognito is my top suspect.

unvote, vote Incognito

[remouk]

@mod Nikanor: I don't see ThatTumblweed in your latest Vote Counts!

Oops. Just visualize her name in the not voting list and I'm sure it'll appear. ~Nik

@Coach Travis: Yeah, of course my vote is weak, it's the first day and we don't have much to build a case. I'm not sure at all that Incognito is scum, but he is my top suspect and voting him will make things clearer because he has to answer.

@Incognito: I didn't thought about that strategy and never saw it (I've only played one game before this one). Anyway, I do think that a non-explained vote is scummy (even if good town player already did it), because it's far easier to explain a vote after everyone talked about it, than before. And you can always use the "I wanted to put pressure on him" backdoor.

@ThatTumblweed: I used "protecting" with the quotes. As I said I'm not english so my choice of words may be bad, sorry about that.

[remouk]

@remouk

Do you still find Incognito most suspicious after his reply to your case on him

Yes. That's why I keep my vote there. I do understand the strategy but I still find this scummy for the reasons I explained in my last post.

Am I the only one to think that way?

[remouk]

Aaah, I can finally reach the website! Sorry for the delay, I couldn't join the forum these days. Two pages to catch up and I'll post!

[remouk]

Had an emergency, no time to post right now and I'll be offline until monday. I'm very sorry. So, no time to explain it all, but:

unvote Incognito

[remouk]

I did a fast catch-up, I'll take the time to re-read more carefuly.

First, I don't have a strong scum feeling against Earlder1, so I won't hammer.

Also, I unvoted Incognito because yes, my vote was weak, but it was better than nothing and I wanted to see the reactions. Nothing particular came up, so I unvoted. Beside of that, I agree with his point of view about policy lynching.

I have a bad feeling about Shadow Dancer, but I can't explain it. Maybe because he looks so confident. I'm tempted to vote against him.

[remouk]

I didn't vote Shadow Dancer because I couldn't find what bothered me. I've ISOed him a little bit:

Since the begining, he explicitely said he had a town read on Earl, but then, he suddently votes against him with a case only based on another game, and the fact that he has experience in the IRL game. I played a lot IRL at Werewolves (which is kinda the same thing as Mafia), and playing here is totally different, the forum changes everything. Also, winning your first game doesn't mean your a good player (I won my first game, and considering the suspicions I arise, I can defenitely say I'm not a good player...).

It looked like a weak reason to put him L-1:

vote Shadow Dancer

@Shadow Dancer: I gave my opinion about Earlder1. I don't have a scum read on him. He did a few suspicious things but at this point, I don't see them as scum-tells.

[remouk]

Sorry I meant "implicitely" when I said "explicitely"... And I guess I misunderstood the read Shadow Dancer had on Earl, here are the quotes:

I really did not like Earl openly admitting trying to seem scummy... But his explanation - as naive as believable as it was - gives me the feeling of an inexperienced player.

@ Earlder: OK, you're telling the truth (at least almost, you replaced out of a mini modded by Inco, right?). So I take you as inexperienced for now. Still - if you keep acting intentionally scummy one way or another I'd consider you at least a good choice for a D1 policy lynch, if no real suspect occurs...

That's where I understood you had a noob town read on him, while leaving the door open if he continues to play that way.

- Either you are intentionally lying about what I said.
- Or you are lying about ISO reading me, making all that up from wrong memory with obvious intentions.
- Or you do not really care, do not read carefully and/or do not really follow the conversation.

Each of the three possibilities is pretty much scummy.

Second one of course... Oh, or maybe I didn't lie and said what I understood in your posts?

II.)

[...] but then, he suddently votes against him [...]

Please note this post of mine, where I (i) explicitely describe Earl as scummy and (ii) I officially announce that - and why - I was going to have a meta read on him.

Impression of you which one gets from this is pretty much the same as in I)

It's still sudden to me: I thought you had a non-scum read on him, and then "I'd also put Earl rather in the scummy corner right now", before "metagaming" and voting.

III.)

[...] with a case only based on another game.

Why

only

? Do you think meta reading or past game experience with other players is a illegitimate ground for suspicions for some reasons?

And no: My case on him case is based on

this

game, obviously. I only use that other game as a reference to point out why I think Earl is scum in

this game

.

I'm sorry but when I read your case, I see a big part of it talking about what he did in his last game, and comparing it to what he's been doing here.

IV.)

[...] and the fact that he has experience in the IRL game. I played a lot IRL at Werewolves (which is kinda the same thing as Mafia), and playing here is totally different, the forum changes everything.

I also have quite some RL experience in playing mafia and werewolf - with different setups and different kinds of people.
However, just answer me this question: Would you ever consider intentionally acting scummy/anti-townish and/or openly claiming that you are intentionally acting scummy/anti-townish consider pro-town play in eiter forum or meatworld mafia?

He didn't say he was intentionally acting scummy, but that he was happy not looking "too town". That's a huge difference.

And no: Basically the forum only changes three (or four) things: I) You do not know most people you're playing with personally, Ia) can't look them in the face and II) have the possibility to reread and carefully revise every single one of your own and analyse other peoples posts (which

you

obviously do to a penally low amount). III) Is the obvious fact that games last much longer while being much more slow paced here.

Looks like you agree with me...

V.)

Also, winning your first game doesn't mean your a good player

The fact that Earl

won

that game was one of the less impressive ones that I stated... I am tired of pointing out that you obviously do not care about the case against Earl or what people write in this threat...

I was refering to "So I wonder: Where is all this brilliance in this game?", and the things that led you to this question.

VI.)

(I won my first game, and considering the suspicions I arise, I can defenitely say I'm not a good player...)

Another fact: Not only did Earl not arise much suspicion in that game but he was considered no. 1 target by both doc and mafia in N1, which is a sure indication of his pro town impression in that game. If you would have had a brief look at that game or just read the few facts I stated in my case post you would not compare apples and oranges right now.

You missed my point: I won my first game. But I can't say I'm a good player, because here, as a town, I arise suspicions.

VII.)

It looked like a weak reason to put him L-1

Why is bringing up a solid, backed up case against some one who was rather suspicious all the time, though for prior to that rather weak reasons, a weak reason to vote for some one?

VIII.)

@Shadow Dancer: I gave my opinion about Earlder1. I don't have a scum read on him. He did a few suspicious things but at this point, I don't see them as scum-tells.

Some questins:
- So how do you interpret Earl's behaviour?

I already said this: I don't have a strong scum read on him. That's why I don't hammer and try to find other leads.

- In your book - which relation is there between the words "suspicious" and "scummy"?

I said: "He did a few suspicious things but at this point, I don't see them as scum-tells". Meaning: "he did strange things but right now I can't say if it's scummy or nooby". Does that answer your question?

- What would you consider legitimate scum tells?

I'll tell you when I'll see one!

- What are the reasons (read: objective

reasons

, not just some obscure

feelings

) for your acquittal of Earl? Are they better researched than your case against me?!

I don't defend Earl. I just think he talked too casually ("look my avatar!", "I'm happy not to look too town"), that's not scum-tell to me.

I wonder if I better should have let it go and hammer him...

Anyway, my vote was also here to get reactions, and your reaction looks pretty agressive to me, so I'll leave my vote here for now.

P.S. In ~12h I'll be offline a few days, coming back sunday.

[remouk]

@Shadow Dancer: I don't have the time right now to make a proper answer to your post, but I really don't like the way you ignore my points or make them look stupid when they are legit...

See you sunday!

[remouk]

Was right about Earl... Let's start by replying to Shadow Dancer:

Yeah, WOT-wars continues...

@remouk:

[...] It's still sudden to me: I thought you had a non-scum read on him, and then "I'd also put Earl rather in the scummy corner right now", before "metagaming" and voting.

Let's put this straight: Before meta-ing Earl I considered him definitely clumsy noob.
However, I found out he has a lot more mafia experience than he let us know and is overall a really good and intelligent player, which pretty much nullifies that possibility. And yes: Sudden (or not even that sudden) changes in opinion

can

occur in a mafia game. IMO that's no scum tell, bad reasoning is.

The fact that it was sudden was not the only problem: it was sudden + on a particular timing (L-1) + I did not agree with the reasoning.

[...] I'm sorry but when I read your case, I see a big part of it talking about what he did in his last game, and comparing it to what he's been doing here.

My reason for the vote is obviously what he did in

this

game so far. You have no point here. You also utterly ignore my questions.

What question did I ignore at that point? Also, I repeat: your case is too much based on meta-gaming to me. That's just my point of view.

He didn't say he was intentionally acting scummy, but that he was happy not looking "too town". That's a huge difference.

Yeah, you are right that were his very words.
Now tell me the difference between intentionally acting scummy and intentionally acting less townish. Both means you make it more likely scum hunting will be let astray and useless discussion will be created, thus both is likewise anti-town.
I think my exact word were "scummy/anti-town", by the way.

Perfect example of what annoys me. You make me say things I didn't. I said he was "happy not to look too town": he didn't act "less townish" on purpose. Nothing was made on purpose. He just noticed that he was not considered "100% town" and casualy said he was happy about it.

[...] Looks like you agree with me...

So? You also agree that acting intentionally anti-town is as bad in RL mafia as it is here?

See above.

[...] - So how do you interpret Earl's behaviour?

I already said this: I don't have a strong scum read on him. That's why I don't hammer and try to find other leads.

You avoid my question.

Mmh, I can read my answer, what's the problem with it? Or you want me to c/p once again that I think he was taking it too casually, etc.?

- In your book - which relation is there between the words "suspicious" and "scummy"?

I said: "He did a few suspicious things but at this point, I don't see them as scum-tells". Meaning: "he did strange things but right now I can't say if it's scummy or nooby". Does that answer your question?

No, it awoids my qzúestion again. Instead you twist your own words. Now Earl's behaviour is suddenly just strange, no longer suspicious.

If you're serious and not just here to upset me, please stop this kind of answer. 1) Tell me how did I "avoid" your question, 2) I OBVIOUSLY used other words to make my point clearer. Strange is suspicious. Suspicious is scummy. But it's not scum-tell (-> "because of this I know he is scum for sure").

- What would you consider legitimate scum tells?

I'll tell you when I'll see one!

Abother question you do not want to answer... Pffff...

... I answered... I'm noob. I have no idea of what a scum-tell can be. I won my first game because of the global behavior of the last scum, not because of scum-tells.

I wonder if I better should have let it go and hammer him...

Are you doubting the legitimacy of your point here or are you just more concerned with your own appearance than with scum hunting?

I was worried that I'll draw too much attention and be lynched or NKed because of this.

Anyway, my vote was also here to get reactions, and your reaction looks pretty agressive to me, so I'll leave my vote here for now.

This is just me in hard core scum hunting mode. I know what I am doing, Do you?
And can I evidently assume that agression is a scum tell for you?
Also: Do not underestimate my sense of staginess!

Being agressive by trying to make me look what I'm not, is not scum-hunting.
You can point a finger at me, but don't put false evidence in my pocket to make me look scum. (That's what I think you're trying to do)

Also I am not defensive here, if anything I am on an attack. I totally disassemble renouks post and his hollow reasoning and hand it back to him as the piese of junk it's been from the very beginning.

Thanks.

Sorry, but this is just totally ridiculous. His case is as inexistent as his logic, IMO.

Thanks again.

I think, I know, my case against rem is really strong right now. I would even switch my vote to rem, if we can find a majority for the lynch.

If you're town, let me tell you that you are REALLY bad... I'm as town as Earl was.

It's really interesting how remouk plays world upside down.

I do not want to make your points look stupid, I just point out the inconsistencies in you explanations.

Also It is not

me

ignoring

your

points.
Could it be that you take all this much too personnally?

Tell me what question did I ignore...

[remouk]

remouk, so what is your opinion on Incognito now?

Not sure yet. Sorry, there's a lot of things to analyze, I'm still trying to make things up.

@remouk

Are you still thinking Shadow Dancer is scum?

Yeah. His case against me is very "you attack me, so you lie: you are scum", and I don't think a townie has any reason to react this way. He constantly says that I avoids his questions, but I'd like to know which questions, because I tried to answer them all.

[remouk]

I don't mind that you attack me, I mind that you do not care about telling me or any one else the reasons for that.

Are you serious? You may not agree with my reasons, but I explained them all. How can you say I didn't?

I also mind that you defend Earl but also do not care to find or tell us any convincing reasons for your defense, though Earl was close to lynch and anything that would have allowed us to see his behaviour in another light might have been really helpful - though that close to deadline it was unlikely we'd find another lynch anyway.

I did explain why I was not hammering: what I saw in his behavior was rookie mistakes, nothing more. Nothing scummy.

Your reasoning right now is the same by the way: I am scum because I attack you. Who is OMGUSing right now?!

Never said that...
Also, don't forget that I attacked you first...

I can make you a list. But how's to start with this one:
What are in your opinion legitimate scumtells? (would be good if you could weigh them a bit like strong scum tells, waek scum tells, things that might be scummy in certain contexts)
With that question answered we might be able to find a common ground to discuss about other things.

I still have no idea, I'm not enough experienced... Let's imagine... For example, someone changing his vote with no reason, to join a more successful wagon which leads to a town lynch. I'd consider this as a scum-tell. Does that answer? ...

Also, once again: please tell me which of your question I did not answer.

I would also really ask you to do

yourself

the favour of answering my last question, just to yourself, you don't need to tell

me

:

Are you taking all this personally?

I ask this because from your argumentation style I've got the impression that you are a person that likes to go after feelings a lot and sets value on harmonic personal realtionships. That is not a bad thing of course and not even a generally bad approach to scum hunting - but in the boundaries of a game were you basically have to distrust every one it can be very dangerous.

Of course I take your attacks personally. And I may look upset because of the way you're trying to make me look scum. Maybe it's not the perfect way to play, but I can't let you do it.

[remouk]

To everyone

: what do you think about the fact that Earl was town? Does it affect your read on someone?

[remouk]

@mod: I'd like to be replaced!

Sorry guys, not enough time to play properly. It's been really interestring and I'll try to follow the game, but I can't play anymore.

See you around!