Mini 1073: Autumn Mafia - Game Over!

[Llamarble]

Vote: FeRnAnDo

For getting Lady Gaga stuck in my head

[Llamarble]

Unvote; Vote: Oso

[Llamarble]

Questions:
Timezone- Pacific.
Experience- one mafiascum.net game and a lot of live games.
Post frequency- Pretty often.

Do you really believe a scum would think making a third vote on someone this early could lead to a lynch?
That seems extremely dubious to me, and making a statement you don't believe in is scummy.
Ice agreeing surprises me as well. Maybe he's just being opportunistic.

My early votes are both intended to apply pressure. Discussion beginning -> Future votes will be based on my reads.
Pressure comes from bandwagons so I put my vote on one and then moved it when a bigger one presented itself.
That Netlava provided a reason for his vote also influenced me, since votes + a reason = more pressure and is more likely to produce discussion.

[Llamarble]

Vote: Zinive

Where did this come from? You seem to have taken his colorful analogy way too seriously. Since when is it confusing to list which suspicious player looks slightly more suspicious?

Oso's post had actually confused me too, but the more recent clarifying post makes sense of it.
Basically, what was confusing was not that he was listing "which suspicious player looks more suspicious."
He mentioned that both of us seemed to be seeking to end RVS (which I interpreted as him seeing us as pro-town).
Then he said that Net's vote seemed "worse" than mine (a choice of words which I felt indicated him seeing us both as suspicious).
That was what seemed contradictory to me.
The clarifying post (saying he was answering "who on the bandwagon is most suspicious") makes the word choice "worse" sound more appropriate.

Ice is entirely correct that we will have less information to go off of.


It's hard to hunt scum with so little real information on the table, but to preempt the same question Oso did
(I realize I don't have a wagon, but there are three players who seem suspicious of me):

Since several people seem to share the view that a mafia member might go for a quicklynch by moving their vote to a nascent RVS bandwagon,
I no longer strongly suspect all of you of not believing that statement.
I still personally believe that it isn't a scummy play unless the wagon grows to a dangerous size and the player does not retract their vote.

Zinive said:

I also thought that the 3rd vote was scummy since this is most of the times the point where random voting can turn into a bandwagon. The reasoning given for why also doesn't satisfy me. Oso is talking currently adding pressure now just seems odd.

Sure Oso was talking, but at the time of my post it was all sweet nothings and a random vote.
A few votes hopefully gets people to produce useful game content like examination of the motives of the people of their bandwagon.

Zinive is the third player to go after me. (Opportunism)
He tries to add to the reasoning against me so it looks like he's not just following the most promising lynch (Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't this a common scum technique?)
But his added reason seems very weak to me. (running into the "scum say things they don't believe" situation again)
The fact that he doesn't vote me after stating suspicion and adding a reason makes it seem like he wants to lay low and avoid looking opportunistic.
(Scum want to avoid notice while pushing the town toward false lynches; stating suspicion and not voting lies in this vein.)


This earned my first suspicion based vote.

[Llamarble]

@Xine:
There's not a whole lot of information yet, so I think it's useful to analyze small things like suspicion-wagons.
Certainly if the scum are playing well they won't make many mistakes and we shall have to catch them at minor slips.
I think it's always useful to explain yourself if somebody is suspicious of you as long as you're not just being repetitive; content is good.

@ Iceninja:
I'm just a little confused by your most recent post (not in an "it's suspicious" way but rather an "I'm not sure what you mean" way).
Could you clarify which of my votes you liked?
When you say "Zinive's didn't really make sense to me," are you talking about his expression of suspicion? He didn't actually vote me.

Also, I agree intentionally being scummy to get us out of RVS isn't a good move.
I hadn't expected suspicion for adding my vote to Oso, hence my surprise when suspicion was expressed.

I agree that one important place to look for scum is at people who look like they're coasting on RVS / "standard" play.
Particularly in the case of a short day, it seems like an easy way to lay low until somebody else accrues suspicion.
On the other hand, pumping out a lot of birds-eye-view analysis is another way to draw attention away from your self,
so nobody has earned a town read thus far.

I do want to hear more opinions of Zinive.

[Llamarble]

While "going deeply into analysis" doesn't prove somebody is town, it is at least a pro-town behavior since it lets people examine you and helps with examination of others.
And a playstyle of making posts that don't have a lot of content is not really substantially better than lurking, so it's still worthy of being pointed out as not pro-town.

The exchange between Shattered and Ice feels a little bit more like artificial distancing to me than legitimate back and forth.
Both have made accusations that seem unlikely to get the other into real trouble while showing some animosity for each other.
If one flips scum I'll be suspicious of the other.

[Llamarble]

"There's nothing interesting yet, I'll come back later" seems like a very anti-town attitude.
It gives mafia an excuse to wait for somebody else to be in danger before entering the fray.

To help all of you who haven't posted anything useful yet find something to say, what are your opinions on:
* The case I made against Zinive
* The suspicion surrounding my early bandwagon vote change
* Fernando's hedgy-looking and late random vote
* The exchange between Shattered and Ice/others and Shattered's accusation toward Ice
* The players who have yet to contribute anything useful despite the day being already ~10% over

Simply agreeing with a perspective already mentioned on each issue would be useful.


I guess I'm ready to make a most-least suspicion rank, though it's a pretty tight pack.
I would appreciate similar rankings from other players.

1. Zinive
2. Fernando
3. Cruelty
4. Perardua
5. Me=Weird
6. Shatteredviewpoint
7. Iceninja
8.Equinox (I'm assuming his V/LA is legit so this is pretty much where neutral is.
9. Netlava
10. Xine
11. Oso
12. Llamarble

[Llamarble]

Why are scumlists anti-town?
It seems to me like they just carry information about your opinions and thus help people read you.
I do acknowledge that there's very little to really rank people based on at this stage, hence my statement that the pack is tight.
But there's little to do anything at all based on at this stage.
If everyone waited for something "relevant" to happen we'd never get anywhere.
I don't see how your attitude is different from the attitude I described.
"Nothing interesting yet" seems completely equivalent to nothing relevant yet.
In each case you prepare a scum-friendly wait-and-see approach while avoiding helping the town to move forward.
In order to get meaningful discussion going,
we have to start with stretchy accusations and progress to more concrete ones as scum make mistakes.
While I have no particular aspirations to "lead the town" (whatever that means)
I have been consistently making an effort to move us toward useful discussion.
Once we're getting somewhere I'll just present cases and evaluate the cases of others like everyone else.

On putting myself on my scumlist: me being at the bottom is equivalent to me not ranking myself.
I didn't know it was unusual to do that and I won't next time.

[Llamarble]

@Zinive: At some point you promised a slightly longer post, but that hasn't happened yet.
I'd appreciate your views on M=W's discussion of Cruelty and Oso's case against Ice.

I do agree that Xine's question about how long to wait before unvoting is a little strange
@Xine: Could you explain the aim of that question?

I agree with M=W's post, except I don't see Netlava's vote on Fernando as particularly scummy.
I was kind of frustrated with lurking too, and while Ice's argument against him isn't terribly weighty,
it was enough to differentiate him as most suspicious of the lurkers.

@Fernando
Why you were second: the pack of lurkers came right after Zinive, and you were top of that pack.

I didn't like this statement of shattered much:

You're trying (a little too hard, IMO) to draw attention away from yourself by deeply going into "analysis" so early in the game (yeah, yeah, it's not that early what with the microscopic deadline and all). I'm reasonably sure you're scum.

"Reasonably sure" suggests a much greater degree of certainty than makes sense at that point.
I don't think he means the level of certainty he represents, so the post sounds insincere to me.
It looks like an intentional show of animosity, which could mean distancing.

[Llamarble]

I asked to hear more about Zinive because I had pointed out a post of his I found scummy and wanted to know what others thought of it.

My take on Oso's case vs Ice:
Supposing Ice is scum, even if the plan Oso described hasn't managed to lynch a lurker,
he has at least found a pretty low-risk vector for contributing and looking pro-town.
On the other hand, it's not false that town should be concerned with lurkers given short days.
Thus the issue from my perspective is more the degree to which Ice relied on the short deadline to produce posts.
While he mentions the short deadlines a lot, he doesn't spend much time actually pressuring lurkers until he votes Fernando.
He also discusses enough other topics that mentioning the deadline doesn't feel like a crutch.

I do still think his interaction with Shattered was strange on both ends.
I'm surprised Ice didn't come down harder against Shattered for some of the more ridiculous things he said.
Ice said the funny sounding "You'd better impress me extremely quick with some very insightful analysis."
But followed up by defending himself against an accusation of "trying to hard to go into analysis" and then leaving Shattered alone afterward.

[Llamarble]

You're right, I actually made the active decision to not pursue Shattered for a short while. I did this because the fact that he voted me for bad reasons combined with how much of an elitist player he is making himself, I would have a very difficult time attacking him without getting overly flustered, which would distract the town at this point. I am, however, definitely watching him carefully and as soon as I feel like I have a solid case on him, believe me you'll hear it.

Yikes, this bothers me a lot.
If Ice thought Shattered was scummy he should have accused him and pointed out his reasons.
Prioritizing not getting flustered over scumhunting shows a scummy focus on appearance.
The "it would distract the town" excuse is dubious, it's not like we're in a room together where only one person can talk at a time
and we were low on content anyway, so a couple of players going at it and the reactions of others to the situation would have been helpful.
Ice's sentence about watching and intending to deliver a case later sounds like he already has an opinion on Shattered's alignment.
It doesn't say he wants to read Shattered, but rather that he wants evidence.
Scum care about evidence / opportunities to lynch rather than reading, for obvious reasons.
Ice's post explaining how there will be less content looks like an overreaction to Netlava's "your excuse is invalid" post.
That post could have gone
"There's a lot less time, so assuming vaguely comparable post rates, we'll have less information. Everyone please make an effort to post a lot."
Instead it's several paragraphs long.
Another consideration is that Ice has been spending a lot of time mentioning how soon the deadline is;
if there was a case to be made against Shattered it should have been made immediately so that we could discuss it fully
Rather than delayed until the town would have to analyze and vote on it hastily.

Ice/Shattered scumteam is looking more plausible now...
This most recent Ice post sounded like preparation to bus a scumbuddy if he gets into trouble,
but leaving him alone for now in case a town player gets fired upon first.
Shattered refused to participate in RVS and then made a basically unfounded angry vote against Ice.
The tone/wording of that exchange smelled strongly like distancing or something similarly fishy to me.
Making an unfounded angry vote also seems to contradict the spirit of avoiding RVS in favor of well thought out accusations.
The rest of his posts have basically been to act obnoxious toward other players.
Of course, there's his absurd "Xine isn't scum from meta even though she has never played as scum" claim.
Though I suppose it's possible he really does know that Ice is scum because they're scumbuddies and that Xine is innocent because she isn't with them.

I haven't picked up any substantial further nastiness from Zinive's recent posts (though I still haven't heard nearly enough from him), so I'll go ahead and

Unvote; Vote IceNinja

I think but am not certain that this is the third vote on Ice.

[Llamarble]

Looks like I missed the equinox vote last night when I was counting.
@Ice:
Your attitude toward Shattered makes more sense to me after a night of sleep;
If you never found him scummy, but merely irritating, then it makes more sense to leave him alone.
My impression was that you thought his actions scummy but were avoiding a hunt anyway.
The tone of that paragraph still bothers me though.
Making a decision whether to pursue someone based on anything other than the evidence against them feels like a scum thought process.

@Shattered:
If you think he's town then why is your vote still on him when he's at L-3?
The timing of your flip-flop is odd too, right after I've attacked a statement of Ice's.
Yet you provide no justification for your opinion.
In fact, you haven't posted any actual content, just "Player X is scum/town" with no reason and "I'm obnoxious whee!"
Smells like active lurking to me.
And yet you deny lurking in one of your posts.
That makes four contradictions of yourself:
Refusing to participate in RVS but making an early unfounded vote anyway
Active lurking but saying you're not lurking
Saying you're sure Ice is scum and that he's town without taking your vote off.
Also the one Net mentioned about you being rude but saying you're just confident.
I don't see how you can think what you're doing is helping the town.

Both of Cruelty's posts have sounded bad to me.
I completely agree with the reasons several people have mentioned for voting him.
Perardua has failed to participate for a long enough time that I'm truly suspicious of him, too.
Hopefully Equinox will show up soon.

Fernando's push against Shattered (or anyone's) could easily be scum going after a weak town player,
but his irritation could also be honest.

Oso, Xine, M=W and to a lesser extent Zinive have all stayed fairly aloof and logically jumped on a few players.
It's hard to read that sort of playstyle, but so far the cases made have been worth making.

Netlava hasn't posted a lot of real value, but he has made a number of posts.
I don't have a confident read on him.

[Llamarble]

@M=W:
Zinive hasn't really jumped on anyone, and Xine hasn't done so to the extent of you and Oso,
but like you and Oso they have mostly been aloof and reasonable.
It's hard to read because you've all acted in a basically pro-town fashion
but in a way that I don't think it would be difficult for a scum to emulate.
Essentially you're all playing pretty well but your playstyles mask alignment easily.
Ice and I sort of "dove into the trenches" earlier with some reachy accusations to get the ball rolling,
Which provides additional opportunity to read us.

@Shattered:
You're welcome to sig that.

Now time to read Equinox's post.

[Llamarble]

@Equinox:
I didn't think Oso had been acting particularly antsy, and also don't think "being antsy" is necessarily associated with being scum.
I did feel that him giving any reason at all would raise the pressure of a small RVS bandwagon enough to hopefully get some kind of reaction.
The "soapbox" posts were mostly in response to previous posts, i.e. Xine mentioning me explaining myself despite not a whole lot of pressure.
I said that my list was a "tight pack," if that's what you mean by discounting it. I was just trying to be clear.
Cruelty then said it was ridiculous to make a scumlist on page 3, so I reiterated that I understood there wasn't much information but thought it might help.

I did rethink the case I made on Ice somewhat (and said so in a post earlier today).
I still feel that one of Ice and Shattered flipping scum would make the other more suspicious,
and the paragraph I attacked earlier still bothers me,
but I can understand better now how a town player could have written it.

[Llamarble]

The Perardua situation is really strange.
Maybe he didn't think we'd notice he's logged in recently?
I see no reason for town to act like that.

On people saying meta -> Shattered is town:
If somebody has a meta as distinctive as being obnoxious as town and calm and helpful as scum,
They probably established it so that they can take advantage of people putting too much faith in it.
If you're going to say he's town, do so based on the merits of his play this game.

[Llamarble]

How do I do links?
@Oso:
I don't specifically care about the number three. If only scum ever voted third, it would be impossible to lynch scum without their buddies' help.
Being in the middle of the formation of a wagon may imply a scum is hoping to push a lynch while avoiding suspicion with an earlyish vote.
It may also imply a town player has become suspicious of someone and believes they merit a vote.
In fact, most reasonable actions can have a scum motive or a town motive.
When trying to distinguish between the two, I look at the context.
If you look at my post 32 (quoted by oso) I gave reasons why Zinive's statement was one where being in the middle looked scummy.
Thus it's not a contradiction for me to find his middle vote scummy and make middle votes myself.

The entire paragraph from my post 100 containing the statement about me and Ice is a discussion of playstyle in answer to a question from M=W.
Obviously, if a person always uses the same playstyle the fact that they're using that playstyle is a null tell, so I don't imply Ice is town in that post.

I think that resolves both of the situations where you thought I contradicted myself.

[Llamarble]

See, I knew that the number three would get the main focus. Would have happened no matter what position was actually used.

Main point of the first half of my votepost on Llama wasn't that the vote/suspicion was the third spot but rather he felt using voting or casting suspicion at at certain point was off enough to add to a case on another player and indicates that player might be scum. Yet he doesn't apply that same standard to himself.

Did you even read my previous post?
I'll reiterate for you.
As I said there, I don't believe town players should never vote in the middle of the wagon.
I also believe scum can enter a bandwagon at any point.
Hence I look at context to distinguish whether a player's motives are scummy.
The question to answer is whether the action the player took makes more sense if they are scum than it does if they are town.
When a scum votes third, they are often doing so because of opportunism and a wish not to be seen as opportunistic;
They want to take advantage of a building wagon with reduced risk of suspicion should the wagon succeed.
When Zinive did it, he piled a weak additional reason onto an existing reason, which is why I thought his vote looked opportunistic and thus scummy.
If you think my mid-wagon (the one on Ice was actually 4th; I missed Equinox's vote when I was counting) votes look opportunistic,
as apparently Ice does, then that's one matter (which we've already discussed),
but thinking that my mid-wagon votes are scummy because I think scum sometimes make mid-wagon votes is not reasonable.

[Llamarble]

@Oso:
Okay, I think this is what has you confused:
"Zinive is the third player to go after me. (Opportunism)"
This isn't a statement that being the third player onto a bandwagon is intrinsically scummy.
It's a statement that Zinive's third vote (well, in this case expression of suspicion) in this situation looked like opportunism to me.
The rest of that paragraph explains why it looked to me more like opportunism than legitimate suspicion.

It's actually Zinive who said:
"I also thought that the 3rd vote was scummy since this is most of the times the point where random voting can turn into a bandwagon."
So if anything your reasoning works better against him than it does against me, except he didn't actually vote.

[Llamarble]

There are a lot of people looking pretty scummy to me right now.

In no particular order:
Perardua has been online but hasn't posted.
Cruelty hasn't done much at all except make a very weakly reasoned accusation against me.
Zinive looked scummy to me earlier, and Equinox's discussion of him seems pretty well reasoned.
I also dislike the general lack of aggressive and insightful scumhunting in Zinives posts,
and there's an uncomfortable amount of unwillingness to commit to anything.
Shattered for contradictions and general lashing out / anti-town behavior.
His interactions with Ice continue to bother me.
Particularly his recent claim that his post voting against ice was intended to "caution Ice" not to get in a fight with him.
That post was very provoking toward Ice, making a reachy accusation and then claiming reasonable certainty that Ice was scum.
Hardly sounds like cautioning. Also "cautioning" is kind of a scummy word and something one scumpartner would do to another.
Fernando has also not contributed much, made a hedgy vote, and in his second post did some fence-sitting on a few issues while being defensive about others.

Ice is still on my radar, but after explanation of the paragraph that bothered me, he doesn't seem scummier than those I listed above.
If Shattered flips scum though, he'll shoot back up to the top.

Unvote; Vote Perardua

[Llamarble]

Llama, I believe the point is that you seem to be thinking 3rd votes are opportunistic and scummy, when you made a third vote.

Haha, this is getting really repetitive.
I understand that Oso believes I think third votes are scummy and yet made 3rd votes, contradicting myself (or at least implying my own actions were scummy).
I don't think 3rd votes are intrinsically scummy, so it's not a contradiction for me to make third votes.
I do think that sometimes scum opportunistically make 3rd votes, avoiding getting on a wagon later and thereby earning more suspicion.
But town can also make 3rd votes if they suspect somebody who has two votes on them.
Figuring out which is where the science comes in.
(I call it science because the process of scumhunting basically amounts to figuring out whether the scum or town hypothesis better explains the available data)
Zinive's statement looked like the former case (or something equivalent, giving him an excuse to vote later and say he felt suspicious earlier)
So I pointed out that it looked like Zinive was making an opportunistic third vote and explained why I thought so.
My votes weren't opportunistic since I'm not scum, but obviously it's up to everyone else to analyze and figure out whether they think that's truth.

This is the 3rd or 4th time I've had to explain exactly the same thing; is it really that hard to understand?

[Llamarble]

I already addressed that too when I said:
"The entire paragraph from my post 100 containing the statement about me and Ice is a discussion of playstyle in answer to a question from M=W.
Obviously, if a person always uses the same playstyle the fact that they're using that playstyle is a null tell, so I don't imply Ice is town in that post."

[Llamarble]

In fact, most reasonable actions can have a scum motive or a town motive.

Would you elaborate on this, please?

It seems pretty self explanatory to me.
One way to analyze a play such as a making a vote or a case is to ask
"why would a scum do this" and "why would town do this"
Usually both questions have reasonable answers (hence the statement you asked me to elaborate on).
If the specifics make one answer look more believable than the other, then the statement is a tell.

Right now I want to hear from the players I think are scummy.
I think Net's case against Fernando is reasonable; it focuses on the fence-sitting I mentioned I found scummy earlier today.

[Llamarble]

I strongly agree with Ice's post 143.
We need to hear more from these players who several of us believe are scummy to figure out who actually merits the lynch.

Arrgh, apologies for how long this next part turned out, but I want to leave none of this nonsense unrefuted.

In response to Xine:
First of all, I'll clarify a couple of things:
Shattered being late to unvote Ice despite Ice being at L-3 isn't exactly a titanic pillar of my case against him.
The timing of unvoting somebody isn't usually a big deal for me unless a wagon actually threatens to lynch, but in this case I thought it worth mentioning
because Shattered had outright said he thought Ice was town so it was one more in a pattern of contradictions.
Basically I do agree that having your vote on somebody you believe is town is indeed a way of contradicting yourself,
but something I can easily imagine a town player doing if they simply haven't picked some other choice for their vote yet.

My position on Ice has gradually moved towards "less scummy" since my vote on him.
For example, in my post 91 I say his post still bothers me but I can see better how it could have been written by town.
This is not saying "I think Ice is town;" it's saying that my suspicions are decreasing.
Post 100 has nothing to do with my opinion of Ice, it's simply an answer to M=W's question that uses him as another example of the "dive-in" playstyle.
I changed my vote when I organized my thoughts and came to a decision about which of the remaining players I believed it belonged on.
At that point Ice was still "scummier than average" for me, but there were several players distinctly scummier than him so I thought it was time to change.
(I picked Perardua because I demand an explanation for being online but not posting so much as a "sorry guys, I'm busy")

Now on to the specifics of Xine's post:
"Firstly, I cannot see any reason he would mention Ice at all in response to said 'question about playstyle'"
Ice used one of the playstyles I was comparing, so I gave him as an example to help explain what the playstyle was.

"Which is pro-town, right? Other then to point that out, why would you even mention it?"
Yeah, it's pro town, but it's a pro-town playstyle which I already explained is a null tell if consistently used.
The reason I mentioned it is because it helped me answer a question of M=W. I've said that already too.

"This implies that he has changed his mind about his suspicion already ^^^ confirmed in post #100"
False.
It implies that my suspicions are not as strong as they were but still exist.
Hence my statement in that post:
"The tone of that paragraph still bothers me though.
Making a decision whether to pursue someone based on anything other than the evidence against them feels like a scum thought process."
Please read more carefully.
And my attitude toward Ice is irrelevant to post 100, as you acknowledged when you said
"Llam implies here that, at this time, he believed Ice to be scum (as evidenced by his vote) and was simply mentioning a null tell."
Now you're the one contradicting yourself. (You understand my post 100 discussed a null tell yet say it confirms I changed my mind about my suspicion)


"Here we go with contradictions again"
None of the "contradictions" mentioned so far have really been contradictions...
I don't like that you are acting like any of them actually stuck.
Please read more carefully; I don't like repeating myself.
It's truly exasperating to spend my game-time going through and refuting the same poorly thought out accusations over and over instead of scumhunting.

[Llamarble]

I agree that Fernando is scummy because of his lurking, fence-sitting, and hedging behavior.
The discussion of Zinive does seem like fence-sitting to me, and could indicate scumbuddies.
So yes Net, I tend to agree with your case on Fernando and want to hear more from him.
I do think there are a couple of other players with strong cases against them whom I have mentioned before and I want to hear from them too.

@Xine and Oso:
Oso's latest post telling me I'm not giving your "cases" enough credit is useless and again sounds like he didn't bother reading my rebuttals.
If somebody thinks I have contradicted myself, I go back and look to see if I did.
If I had indeed contradicted myself, I would have explained how that had happened.
In these cases I didn't contradict myself, so I said so and explained why the "contradictions" were bogus.
I sound defensive because I am irritated with you for wasting my time with your logical fallacies and then ignoring their refutation.
How on earth is it relevant whether I think my playstyle is easy to read or not?
I mentioned that because M=W wanted to know why I said his playstyle was making it trickier for me to read him and several other players.

[Llamarble]

I've been having a lot of internet trouble today that has made it difficult for me to post today.
When I started this post my vote was L-3, then I lost internet and couldn't put it up and then had to add things...
I kept seeing new things when I would get wireless again and then losing internet before I could put down my updated post haha.
Now it's L-1.

Wall time.

UNVOTE; Vote Zinive this is L - 1 so let's wait for a claim before someone hammers

The discussion that comes near the end of the day is valuable.
I would also be fairly comfortable with a Fernando lynch, but I do prefer lynching Zinive.

In answer to M=W:
To paraphrase Fernando: 'What Zinive did is suspicious, but it seems like a silly thing for a scum to do for reason X'
That looked to me like scumbuddy trying to protect his partner without saying outright "I don't believe Zinive is scum" but also hedges again hoping it doesn't look like obvious team-play. Fernando scum wouldn't as likely bother half-defending town Zinive (though it's not unimaginable), and town Fernando wouldn't likely be hedging/fence sitting so much. I also am unimpressed by Fernando's reason X; he says it's too early for scum to be looking for a lynch, but what Zinive did doesn't mesh with that goal. Instead of voting me Zinive approves of the case against me in a way he can use later on.
It also seems very reasonable to me that Fernando would want to reduce attention on his scumbuddy by redirecting attention
to a badly behaved townie (Shattered).

Zinive also says this about Fernando:

"To FeRnAnDo
His rhetorical question seems odd to me as I thought at that point the RVS had ended already since a discussion had started which is for me the aim of RVS or RQS. His vote on shattered is interesting. People that play like willing and knowingly like assholes are often abused by scum if they are not scum. However as I have stated I am willing to vote on shattered since I consider this kind of play as distracting for the town and thus its a playstyle (shattereds) I consider scummy. If I had to decide now I still would think FeRnAnDo is a townie given the timing of his push against shattered seems unfavorable."

First of all, this is more fence-sitting. You present evidence against Fernando but say you don't believe in it.
You do give a reason for this, but I don't buy it. How is this timing unfavorable? That doesn't make any sense to me.
It also is the same "what my scumbuddy did is suspicious, but seems like a silly thing for scum to do because of reason X" (in this case the timing)
that Fernando does on your behalf.

I am increasingly convinced we have a Zinive/Fernando scumteam given that they're two of the scummiest players individually and their statements toward each other all smell like scumlinks to me.

My reasons for voting Zinive as an individual are mostly covered by other players, but I'll list the most important ones here.
* A pattern of passivity / lack of scumhunting in his posting
* Going after Shattered, who seemed like the obvious lynch-target for scum to pick on (he actually pointed this out himself)
To be fair Shattered has done some scummy stuff, and if Zinive does turn up town my suspicions will be focused there.
* Opportunistically approving suspicion of me when it looked like that might go somewhere
* Fernando also seems scummy and it would make oodles of sense to me if both of them were scum
* The cases made by other players have been by and large quite good
* This last post of his talked too much about less relevant stuff and didn't focus on the meatier arguments (for example he glosses over his abandonment of the case against cruelty, then suddenly jumps back to voting cruelty/AH at the end.)

I'll include my reasons for suspicion of Fernando here too
* On but not posting despite low post count (I check in just to look a bunch, but I also post a lot)
* After Shattered, who looks like scum targeting-bait.
* Hedged his late RVS vote
* Fencesat on Zinive
* Zinive's scumminess and the apparent scumlink
* When I read his posts they make more sense to me if I go in assuming he's scum.

Things I want from Zinive:
A claim
A thorough explanation of your attitude toward Fernando and the statements you two made about each other.
A "things I want the town to remember if I flip town" post might be useful too, if you're actually town.

[Llamarble]

Jailkeeper does seem like an ideal scum RC, especially for a mafia roleblocker who can easily make it look like he is indeed jailkeeping.
This claim therefore doesn't reduce my suspicion of Zinive (actually increases it by Bayes' rule, since a scum in his position would probably claim a PR whereas a town player has a smaller chance of doing so), but because lynching PRs is bad it does make Fernando look like a better lynch.
The case against Fernando isn't weakened because Zinive is as suspicious as ever and this

Now to my thoughts on Fernando. The possible connection many of you see is non existent since I'm not scum therefor this case against him has no substance. I believe he made a simple mistake and therefor I think he is a townie.

looks like the attitude a scumbuddy would take.
He says "I'm town, so there can't be a scumlink. Anything that looks like that is just mistakes."
Okay, fair enough; if you're town that's simply true.
Then he says "therefore this case against him has no substance"
Uh, even if I believed your roleclaim Fernando has still:
Logged on but not posted despite a very low post count.
Fence-sat on you and hedged his late RVS vote.
Gone after Shattered, the easiest apparent target.
Yes, the scumlinks with you are a big deal (for me anyway), but to say the case "has no substance" without them
is to ignore evidence against another player, something town players don't do very often because we're trying to figure out who the scum are.

Every post you've made about Fernando has gone further toward convincing me you're scumbuddies.

@Ice:
Fernando's last post was Wednesday, his last visit was Sunday.
I personally also saw him log in, stay awhile, and then leave without posting earlier in the day and took a note that he had done so.
I didn't say anything immediately because I thought it might continue, and it apparently did (though I didn't see him when he logged in Sunday).
The same is true for Perardua, actually, but I don't know what to think of him at this point.

UNVOTE; VOTE FERNANDO

[Llamarble]

Oops, should've previewed that

UNVOTE; Vote Fernando

[Llamarble]

I want Zinive to explain why he thinks Fernando is town, Shattered to make the post promised for yesterday, and Fernando to claim.

Fernando's long disappearance is giving me doubts. Would scum really think disappearing completely would improve their chances of winning?
Maybe last time he visited he decided it was safe to drop until night?

I'm having second thoughts about our choice not to lynch Zinive.
After his claim, he's now easily the scummiest player for me (scum Zinive almost certainly claims a PR to avoid an otherwise guaranteed lynch whereas town Zinive has maybe 1/3 or 1/4 chance of doing so).
Also, the powerrole Zinive claimed is very scumclaim friendly, making the odds even better that he's scum.
Assuming three town PRs and 3 scum, he's at least 50-50 to be scum if we consider claiming a powerrole to be the only thing against him, whereas everyone else is closer to 10%.
The fact that he claimed a scumclaim-friendly PR and was the scummiest player before doing so means I think his chances of being scum are closer to 75%.
Is it worth giving up that good of a chance to hit scum due to fear of lynching a PR?
After all, whenever we're about to lynch scum they'll probably claim a PR unless it's somehow obvious they're not one, so we'll have to lynch claimed PRs eventually. And couldn't scum force us to lynch him down the road in a worse situation by simply not killing him?
Also if we don't get a claim from Fernando we could accidentally lose a PR anyway.
And I don't see how night actions will help us figure out whether he's actually scum.
He doesn't even need to be a roleblocker himself, just needs to have one on his team to make it very unlikely for us to figure him out based on night actions.

I've only played a couple of games of online mafia, so I'd appreciate more experienced players' opinions on what to do in this situation.
I guess at this point we may not have enough time to get the necessary votes together anyway.

[Llamarble]

I actually hadn't thought of that particular point as a big deal.
When I said Zinive was the third to come after me, I felt the action was comparable to joining a bandwagon since it sets up a vote for later. Several other players and I ended up discussing it in those terms (it's simpler to say "voted" than "expressed suspicion toward," even if they mean different things) later anyway.
That said, I do believe Fernando was a good choice to lynch for reasons I have previously expressed.

[Llamarble]

I don't find the lynching wagons that scummy since I definitely approved of both lynches.
Unfortunately all of the town players now dead seemed scummy to me, so it will be hard to see who was just scumhunting and who was framing.
I guess I need to reread all the cases against Fernando, Shattered, and Zinive to figure out which ones look like their author was just making stuff up.
I'll do so later today.
@Ice: Defeatism at this stage isn't helpful at all. Things haven't gone well, but if we manage to lynch scum today we're vaguely back on track.
I also find your belief that Shattered was a terrible shot choice odd, both for the reasons above and because you, Zinive, Fernando and I (and maybe others I've forgotten) had all expressed suspicion of Shattered.
You also waffled back and forth on him, at one point intentionally not making a case against him (which you did more-or-less satisfactorily explain) and then making one later.
That said I'm not convinced enough to make a vote yet and I'll place one somewhere after I reread and decide who I think is scummiest in light of the flips we've seen.

[Llamarble]

I'm tired, so this won't be as long as I planned.
I'll do my complete reread holding the identities of the flipped players in mind soon.

My take on all the defeatism:
I plan to continue to do my best, simply taking into account that it's probably almost mountainous now.
Sure, the odds aren't great, but it's all the more glory if we somehow manage to win.
I hope the other town players will take a similar attitude, since we'll all have more fun (it is a game after all) and a much better chance of winning.


It looks like Perardua will just get modkilled.
If he is going to get modkilled, we should let it happen and lynch somebody so we get as many opportunities to hit scum as possible.

Oso:
I appreciate your willingness to continue playing.

You acknowledged yourself that the case you made against Ice yesterday looked like he was just trying to help generate content
Now you're trying to use that case as evidence against Ice again?
Explain.

Actually, it looks like M=W is trying to use it too.

The end of your post sounds even more like ATE than Ice's.
Then again Fernando's post against Shattered sounded pretty similar, so I guess town say things like that sometimes.

I can't make sense of most of Oso's post in defense of himself properly right now.

I think I agree with Agar and Equinox that Ice is town, but sleep will tell.
If I had to guess the scumteam right now I'd say Oso M=W and Xine.

[Llamarble]

@M=W:
By both lynches I meant the Zinive lynch (which never actually happened) and the Fernando lynch (which did).
If I had said "both wagons" instead it would have been clearer.
Basically I was saying I didn't think either of the wagons that got close to lynching were scumdriven because they were legitimately based on scummy actions of the players they targeted.

Haha, I am aware Agar is the mod. I blame the tiredness I was experiencing at the time.

I'm going to do my reread soon and hopefully will have something new to say.

[Llamarble]

In the end I wasn't sure which of them was a better lynch.
I thought claiming a PR implied a ~50-50 chance of scum, made higher by Zinive's scummy actions.
On the other hand, I thought Fernando was scum too, and figured it would be less damaging to be wrong about him since he hadn't claimed a PR, so I was okay with lynching him instead.

[Llamarble]

Sorry, I'll try to be clearer:
I believed Zinive and Fernando were scum.
I also understood that it was possible I could be wrong.
Thus when choosing which of the two to lynch, I thought Zinive claiming a power role made Fernando a better lynch.
That way in the event that I was wrong and Zinive was telling the truth, we would not have lynched a power role.

[Llamarble]

@Net:
Issue 1: Going after Fernando when Perardua was also visiting but not posting.
I actually did have my vote on Perardua for awhile,
but I wasn't sure what to think of a player who actually just wasn't playing.
I said as much in one of my posts.
Fernando seemed scummy before his disappearance.
Fernando seemed to intend to continue to play, then checked in without posting a couple of times.

Issue 2: Pointing out a potential scumlink between ice and shattered early
I'm just trying to figure out who the scum are;
I don't see how looking for scumlinks is scummy...
Could you explain your complaint further?

Issue 3: Accusing more than half of other players
Again, I'm just trying to figure out who the scum are.
How is it scummy to be examining the potential cases against everyone?

Issue 4: Defensive
I'm town, so me not dying and the town not wasting too much time trying to lynch me is good.
Therefore I defend myself promptly when attacked.
I was a bit harsh with Xine and Oso because I found repeating myself several times to be a nuisance.
What's the complaint here?

Issue 5: Started Fernando Wagon
Didn't you (well, other net) do that?

Issue 6: Didn't think Fernando wagon was particularly scummy
Well, I thought the reasoning behind the wagon was good.
Sometimes the player giving off the most scumtells turns out to be town.

[Llamarble]

In my experience, scum will often call a scumgroup early or throw out a wide variety of accusations early in order to avoid being called on the carpet as not producing content. Generally speaking, these arguments are extremely weak and tend to be grasping at straws. The point is that he can't believe that everybody that he has accused thus far is scum, and he's thrown out a lot of cases which are simply attempts to make it look like he's attacking without providing a credible threat to that person's continued existence in this game.

I think I mentioned at some point that early accusations have to be at least a little reachy because there's little to go on at that stage.
They absolutely do help produce content.
Then, as more information becomes available, it's possible to make stronger cases.
Looking for scumlinks is helpful because one of the reasonably detectable differences between scum and town is that the scum know who the other scum are and thus may treat them differently.
When I accuse somebody, it's because I find something they have done suspicious.
If a lot of people do suspicious things, I'll make accusations of a lot of people.
I realize not all of them can be scum, but that's no reason to ignore anyone.
When I support a lynch it's because I believe one player is more likely to be scum than anyone else, as Zinive and Fernando seemed.

[Llamarble]

@Chesskid:
Claim please.

I agree with the general suspicion of Oso/chesskid. I'm willing to hammer him after a claim, but I think the deadline is Sunday not Friday and I'll want to spend some more time analyzing before dropping my vote.

Primary reasons I find Oso suspicious:

He has targeted me and Ice.
I have a town read on Ice, though I don't like the "I can't be scum because if I were I wouldn't be able to pull this off" thing.
I really wouldn't want to lose to a scum who said something like that.
Assuming scum are more likely to target town rather than their scumbuddies,
Since I have a town read on Ice and know I'm town, that makes Oso/Chess scummier.

I was unimpressed by his approach to the Zinive/Fernando bandwagons.

The cases he made against Ice and I yesterday both felt to me like the type of thing scum seek to wield against townies.
Sometimes town players do contradict themselves or have double standards, and town players also sometimes go after lurkers.
Of course, scum do these things too, which is why a case can be made on that basis, but in each of Oso's cases he was pointing out something that would be scummy if it were true except it wasn't really there.

His withdrawal of his case on Ice after it was pointed out (by me?) that Ice didn't seem to be using pressuring lurkers as a crutch to make content did seem honest to me. The fact that he brought it back out today does not.

Chess has mostly lashed out at the same people Oso was targeting.
A townie would be more likely to have fresh ideas.

Potential scumbuddies for Oso:
Oso and Xine have showed some teamwork; both of them went after me yesterday with similar cases.
Xine pointed out that Oso's wagon wasn't bothering him in a way that made it sound like she was trying to set him up as innocent.
Xine went after Antihero for similar behavior to Oso's and has largely ignored suspicion directed at Oso.
Xine's "look at him defending himself, he's totally scum" post sounded like evil cackling to me.

I don't see particularly convincing links to anyone else.

[Llamarble]

Hrm, I thought if he were scum he'd likely claim vig to try and out the real one.
Hopefully he's scum and just didn't think about it much.
And his flailing doesn't feel like a townie flailing.

I don't think there will be a better candidate.
Here goes nothing...

Vote: Chesskid3

[Llamarble]

Hopefully you're not shaking with excitement over being almost sure of winning as scum.
I'm with you on Xine.
Everybody else seems pretty reasonable to me.
Maybe Perardua actually is scum; that would be pretty nice.

I guess Antihero would be my next option, with a plan possibly formed overnight to go bustastic.
He never really gave a reason for being on the Fernando wagon, and Zinive's point that he was diverting attention after Cruelty's scumminess may have been right. Xine went after him with dubious reasoning at the beginning of today, so this possibility seems to involve a lot of bussing by the scumteam.

Tomorrow will be interesting (hopefully there will be one).

[Llamarble]

I too am happy to see Antihero gone.
One kill could be for any of the reasons Ice mentioned, or another PR interfering, or the vig being of the one-shot variety.
I am also on board with lynching Xine, though we should certainly wait at least a bit for her to claim/etc. before going through with it.
I would like to see everyone's points on her (and I'll put up my own soon) if only to help me read everyone else.
We should also think about who might be Xine's scumpartner.
Also do people get modkilled if day 3 is short and they never talk? Given that it's mylo, if we can kill Xine and one of the players who hasn't talked yet by lynching her faster that would be better than doing no lynch tomorrow, right?
It does seem like kind of an abuse of the ruleset though.
To prevent quickhammering -> victory by the scumteam, we shouldn't put another vote on until we're ready to lynch regardless.

Time to look over Xine's activities.

[Llamarble]

Okay, having reread rule 12 the "lynch somebody fastish so we effectively get 2 lynches" plan doesn't work.

Anyway, on to Xine:
"It does look like it's true of shattered's meta that he is probably town in this game"
Scum don't usually hand out town reads to scummy townies, so this is hrrm.
She asks a lot of questions that seem like small prods toward various lynches but hasn't done much scumhunting.

I didn't actually find much new and interesting beyond what I posted before, which I'll repeat here:
Oso and Xine have showed some teamwork; both of them went after me yesterday with similar cases.
Xine pointed out that Oso's wagon wasn't bothering him in a way that made it sound like she was trying to set him up as innocent.
Xine went after Antihero for similar behavior to Oso's and has largely ignored suspicion directed at Oso.
Xine's "look at him defending himself, he's totally scum" post sounded like evil cackling to me.

I'd appreciate others pointing out things Xine has done that I forgot about.
I came into my reread with a strong scum impression from Xine but going back through it's not so obvious.

I don't see as much from Xine as I expected to, so maybe we should actually just do our no-lynch today?

[Llamarble]

@Xine:
I do think we should claim earlier than normal since if the scum have some kind of quicklynch signal players can get quicklynched from L-2 (assumes 2 scum are left) to end the game. That said I don't think you should claim at L - 3 unless a enough players to lynch you have expressed readiness to vote.

Equinox / Ice's tones made me feel like the plan was just to get on with lynching you, which I agreed with at the time but felt should not be done to hastily.

I do want you to tell me who you think is scum and why.

[Llamarble]

The two players I've trusted most so far agree we should massclaim.
I really don't see the reason though.
If another player other than Xine agrees then that's probably at least two townies agreeing and I'll obey (and go first, since Equinox wants that for some reason which I'd also like an explanation for afterward) despite my confusion.

@Equinox:
Sorry if I confused you;
My stance on Xine is that I'm still moderately confident in my scumread on her. I don't have a better candidate right now.
She was one of the two players not on the Oso lynch, the other being netopalis.
She also kind of ignored the Oso lynch while it was happening.
I forgot about that while reading her in ISO.
I came into today thinking Oso scum implied Xine scum almost certainly, so I was okay with lynching her despite it usually being optimal in Mylo for town to no-lynch simply to get better odds the next day, and I'm no longer as sure that's what we should do.

[Llamarble]

It sounds like everyone RCing only helps us if we have a vig who can shoot tonight.
So maybe we should say "Any vig with a shot left should claim"
And if nobody does then we no-lynch?

[Llamarble]

Where are Net and M=W?

@Equinox
I don't see why a 1shot vig would have claimed yesterday or today.
We would just no lynch, the scum would kill them, and we'd be no better off.
Is there any reason we should massclaim even if we don't have a vig with shots left?
If not I don't see any reason to avoid the "Vig-claims-first" approach I proposed.

[Llamarble]

Okay, fine.
I trust you enough to proceed without understanding.

Role:
Town One-Shot Vigilante

I shot Shattered night 1.
I took that action because I
1. Thought he was scum
2. Thought he was the most likely lynch regardless and wanted to give the town a chance to hit someone else with a bit more information available.
3. Thought that waiting longer would increase the chances me dying before shooting or of a scum PR (i.e. Zinive roleblocker) interfering with my kill.
4. Thought my action could give us more information about Zinive's alignment. If he claimed to target Shattered and my kill failed I'd have reason to believe him.

At the time, I thought these pros outweighed the con of higher hit probability from a later shot.
I looked around for a guide on how to play 1shotvig but couldn't find one, so I did what seemed logical.
Now that I see how useful my shot could be here I'm not so sure that was the right play.

I hadn't claimed before today because I thought we might get to a 3 player situation where I claim and scum did or didn't counterclaim.
Either way that would leave one townie certain who the scum is (me if they counterclaimed, the other town player if they don't), which is better than either townie being able to get it wrong and lose the game for the town.
I figured claiming yesterday would just make us no-lynch and the scum kill me, not really improving our position.
The same is true today, hence my "but what if there's no vig with a shot left" posts.

[Llamarble]

I'd like Xine to go next; I think it's best for scummy players to have less information when they claim.

[Llamarble]

On page 3 Xine says she finds my scumlist-request scummy, then half an hour later unvotes me and says she thinks I have been playing in a pro-town fashion. All that happens in between is a post from Ice saying he doesn't find my list scummy and has a town read on me so far, which doesn't conflict with either of Xine's accusations (that I asked others to put up scumlists and voted third on Oso with no explanation, so I'm not sure what her logic was.

@Xine: Please explain your thoughts at that point.

To add to Netopolis' latest, Equinox specifically wondered whether Xine was a night 2-missing vig.
I don't see why she would think the person she found scummiest more likely to be a town PR than anyone else.
@Equinox: Why her?

Net remains somewhat suspicious for me on the basis of his predecessor Net's actions. At one point Netlava told Xine to choose one of Fernando and somebody else to vote for when she said she could vote for either. There was no mention of waffling being scummy, so if we're right about Xine then that might have been a bit of coaching. I'll be more specific and find/link that post later.

[Llamarble]

Well now I guess we see if somebody quickhammers and makes us lose, or if we're right and in pretty reasonable shape to win.
I'll hammer Friday sometime if it doesn't seem like much discussion is left, Saturday if it looks like people are still talking.
I don't have a problem with someone hammering before I get a chance to since this is my "when I die, look at..." post.

Since I'm probably dead tonight, here are my thoughts:

I recommend a no-lynch tomorrow since it gives us 1/3 chance of hitting instead of 1/4 with our final lynch.

my first suspect should we be right is Netopalis.
In addition to his "then pick one" post toward Xine, Netlava also used the following reasoning against Fernando.

"Oh, one important part I left out: Fernando says that Zinive was wagoning when Zinive hadn't even voted at that point. If I were scumhunting and I find someone suspicious for reason X, I would, you know, have to see reason X to find that person suspicious."

I feel like this is the kind of mistake scum love to catch townies at. Saying Zinive voted when he merely had expressed suspicion is an equally easy mistake for either side to make, but Netlava bolds it as a particularly big reason for his vote.

Netlava's early RV on Oso and Oso's response saying he specifically doesn't find him (or me) scummy for the votes in retrospect looks like it may have been an early play hoping to make both of them look town.

Netopalis attacked me, and since a scum is slightly less likely to attack their buddies (as opposed to a townie) heavily before it's necessary, that means it's slightly more likely he's scum (I've never thought OMGUS was particularly bad for this reason). The fact that I'm confirmed town now means this logic works for everyone else too, and it can be applied to his attitude toward the Oso wagon (would support in deadline situation but wanted more discussion) as well. He's also late onto the let's lynch Xine train (not that he posted much before it gained steam).

Second suspect would be M=W. He almost completely ignored Xine and Oso D1 and early D2. I think it's actually a little odd that Netopalis picked out Equinox over him for this accusation. He's not too late on today's Xine wagon, but several players had already made it clear where their suspicions were and I could see him catching on that it was pretty inevitable. Obviously, Xine's scumbuddy (if she's scum) is bussing her, and I think it looks like one of Net or M=W is responsible.

When M=W joined Oso's wagon yesterday, he made reference to a number of posts that happened before a previous post of his. That previous post said merely that he was "starting to agree" with the wagon on Oso, a very neutral statement that could easily be intended to lead into bussing later while also giving Oso a chance to defend himself and not make bussing necessary. It focused more on discussions of other players and could be seen as hoping to lead the town away from Oso. 50 posts later, after Oso was pretty clearly the day's lynch, M=W brings up a few additional points, many of them available before his "I'm starting to agree" post but not mentioned in it, and makes vote L-1. Thus I wouldn't be surprised if M=W were bussing there and brought up things he noticed before but was hoping no one would mention.

He also didn't quickly see the possibility of a mafia roleblocker when discussing Zinive, which would make sense if he were scum and knew whether they lacked one, but obviously that could simply be having the insight later as well.

Equinox and Ice are suspicious for not being dead when they looked the most town coming into today, but I suppose the scum may have been vig-hunting. Net's case against Equinox is at least interesting, and it still seems a bit strange that she would expect a counterclaim to come from Xine specifically, but she's been pretty reasonable in general. Ice too isn't clear given his apathetic attitude. I think these two are town, but I think it's worth the no lynch tomorrow anyway since that will make things a bit clearer.


I feel funny writing "bussing" so much. It used to refer to kissing.
I guess the kissing is done more fiercely now and with tires.

[Llamarble]

Well, let's find out. I meant to wait, but I said what I wanted to and I'm probably tonight's death, so everyone else can talk later. Also I'm curious.

VOTE: Xine

[Llamarble]

@Antihero: My being happy about your death wasn't because I thought you were bad but more because I expected to lose one of my town reads. After you died I thought the next deaths would be Ice and Equinox, leaving me in position to make my claim with 3 players left. That would turn a 1/4 chance for town (two townies have to make a 50/50 guess correctly) into a 1/2 chance, since after the scum either CCed or didn't one town player would know who the scum was. The massclaim negated that plan, which was my reason for disliking it. Eventually I felt like I would have to give my role away to prevent a massclaim anyway, accomplishing nothing, so I gave in.

Reading the scum QT was interesting and gave me a bit more of an idea what kind of strategies scum are using.

How does one play one shot vig well?
Should the shot actually be saved for later on or used early?
Were there any other aspects of my play I should improve on?
I'll probably stay away from early scumlists and giving away town reads in the future and write them down somewhere.
I'm also going to try to be very clear and concise with my logic.


I plan to play in another mini normal right away, so maybe I'll see some of you there.

[Llamarble]

You know, in retrospect town may have come closer to winning than I thought.
Before I hammered I had the idea that if Xine wasn't scum, the lack of a quickhammer meant two of her wagon were.
I quickly rejected the idea because of my town reads on Ice and Equinox (and the fact that Xine being scum explained the issue just as well if not better) and hammered, but given there was still time left in the day, I should have at least considered the logical alternative.

If I had:
Since Ice was almost definitely town in my mind for both his initiation of the attack on Oso and his earlier posts, that would have meant an Equinox and Me=Weird scumteam.
I still probably would have lynched Xine since the odds of our wagon being on scum seemed way higher to me than the odds of both scum being on our wagon.
But I would have at least gone through and read things from a "Oso/Equinox/M=W" scumteam perspective, and starting with the right assumption might have gotten me to the truth...

So note to self: Never be lazy! And if this specific situation comes up again, I'll look a lot more closely into the possible scumteams on the bandwagon. I'm not sure it effects scum strategy too much unless you think a player who is logically certain of who the scumteam are can convince the rest of the town. Your votes are on them in the first place because they're the likeliest lynch.

Xine could actually have used this same logic even better than I could have,
since without a quickhammer she could determine for certain there were two scum out of the three players on her wagon.
(Quickhammering is the absolute dominant strategy for scum not on the wagon since it just wins instantly)
From there she could build cases against players who from her perspective were almost certainly scum (2/3 probability even if she chose completely randomly).

I guess she didn't get a chance because I hammered her too soon.
I hammered kind of fast because I didn't feel like there was enough activity for anything really interesting to happen in the interim, so I guess it kind of goes back to what Oso said about town being demoralized.