Let me put it this way, scum do not follow a "set of rules" therefore, they could be anywhere on or off that wagon. Hell, they could be on the other side of the earth. There's this thing called WIFOM, and it will point that out clearly. Scum have nothing to lose switching to frank either.
Oh, have I not? Oh, i guess all I've done is throw points at him the whole time huh? Just never put them all together in one post as a "case"
Well if it's better for you I will do a consolidation post when I have time (probably not till tonight or tomorrow)
Haha, I have to work on my reading comp? Funny because the way you wrote it, it could easily have been taken that way. But now reading it again, I understand what you meant.
No, you don't get it. There's no rules, I know that, hell I used to spend half my time in mafia discussion arguing that very point (more accurately, I used to argue against reading by rote - that you use a lit of scumtells and go down them one by one to see if someone has committed them. Did they WIFOM, did they OMGUS, are they lurking, were thye on a townie lynch, etc. etc. The problem is not that these aren't good tells per se - the problem is that they omit context. But I'm getting distracted.) What I am looking at is motivations. Why would Wraithscum decide to start attacking Frank in that scenario? The obvious reason - that he wanted to help lynch a townie - seems to me to be countered by the damage that would do to his reputation. There's definitely something for him to lose by switching there - partly, he's aware that the switch itself will be seen as scummy, but moreover it stops him from using the fact that he defended a townie in his own defence when he was inevitably going to be suspected the next day (that is, today.) Whereas with town, the motivations are much clearer, much less subject to this kind of calculation - the most basic possible one being that he simply changed his mind. I don't think that's true either because of the way he did it, but I do think it looks like he was, in a way, "bullied".
So how does this make his actions there a towntell? Well, something is a scumtell if mafia are more likely to do it than town - or to put it another way, if a player is more likely to perform that action when they're scum than when they're town. Looking at the motivations, I deduce that he's not likely to do that as scum, but is likely to do that as town - hence a towntell.
And you haven't made a case. Let's look at all you've posted wrt to Wraith (to keep this post which is turning into an epically long one short, I'm stripping them of context. You can find the context by searching out each phrase in xite's Iso and then clicking the little white post token at the beginning of each post, which will take you to the relevant place in the thread):
There are so many textbook tells in just that post. Just sayin
followed by a QFT of prozac calling out Wraith as having a "really bad voting fail". I don't mind this - it's the closest Xite comes to delivering anything relevant about Wraith and although it's not strong by itself it's a perfectly legit early day case.
The OMGUS was an obvious RV. Don't piggy back on my case, make your own. I don't remember when 1 happened.
This however is a perfect example of what I mean by snarky comments overshadowing actual points. Presumably this was supposed to be saying that Wraith's post was scummy because he was justifying his vote by lifting stuff from you - which is blatantly false (and besides, you just partially piggybacked on prozac's case yourself). When this becomes a pattern of behaviour it becomes scummy, because of reasons I've already explained vis hiphop - it makes it hard to actually get a read on a player. But I think we can definitely say that that's not true of Wraith who has made a number of points himself and has differentiated himself from the crowd with his position on Frank.
I note you later spell out the textbook tells explicitly. What you don't say is why they're tells. For example, asking for a votecount, making "a comment unrelated to the point I get at at the end of my sentence, then use an obvious Joke vote as what made me positive he's scum." The first part of that sentence is LOLWAT, the second part is iffy but ok. Also note - this is the third time you've used this post to attack him. I'll come to that later.
@Wraith's last post;
1) Your plan to fool the town is not working, at least with me.
2) If dana is at L-2, maybe it's time for a claim?
Again, snarky comments.
I'm gonna stop here because there's just too much material to cover - but see how much of this is smoke and mirrors! It's just so easy to repeat that a guy is scum and then people start to believe you after a while. There's a smattering of legit points, a smattering of iffy points and a lot of "well wraith is obvscum" and repeating the same points over and over again - this is a problem, it's actualy possible to cinvince people simply by repeating the same stuff over and over again (which is why the reuse of that one post multiple times concerns me). Now anyone who doesn't agree is wrong, (or according to dana, scum.) The case is not bad, but it is overblown - and there are so many tiny towntells mixed in with his play as well as the big one I've already noted. Stuff like: "*confusing self with thought*" which is a problem I often get as town - thinking myself in knots - but not so much as scum.
Dana: it's important because that kind of impression doesn't go away. If you lynch Wraith today and he turns up town, I'd bet that you would come back tomorrow with a very similar suspect list and a note saying "well I know Wraith was town but x is still scummy anyway..."
Please note, I don't think Xite is scum. But I do think he is heavily tunnelvisioned.
Also note: I think there are better cases made against Wraith by the likes of ConfidAnon. But I still don't think he is scum. The thing about Wraith that strikes me is he seems to be a very honest player - he says what he thinks and damn the consequences. He also seems like an emotional player - things get him worked up and he's not good at dealing with it in a rational way. The combination of these traits makes him selfvote under pressure, then suddenly change tack and post huge walls of text attacking players and so on. It also explains his relentless defeatism, which frankly is doing him no favours.
@_@ I think he's genuinely not claiming, because then why would he ask us to take his scumhunting seriously? Also it makes no sense with the rest of the post.
So who is scum? Porochaz, for one, though I can't pursue him until a couple of things I need to deal with fall into place. Expect a case later this day. Also getting vibes from Gorrad. Hiphop I'm worried about though I'm not so sure he is scum, but i can't tell if he never goddamn posts anything useful, hence pursuing him avidly as long as possible. It hasn't helped, though, so I'm reduced to just hoping he contributes on his own steam. I'm also getting increasingly worried about UA, who since the danawagon seems to simply be sitting above the fray and sniping rather than helping out.
.
