Newbie 1024 -- Minimalist Mafia (Game Over)

[Mastin]

For reference, when I said "Kayi's Points" above, I was--of course--referring to her Trendall ISO.

Spoiler: Response to Kayi's ISO of me

Analyzes the RVS (a little too much for my taste) even though he said he doesn't like the RVS.

This might need clarifying. I HATE the RVS. It quite frankly makes me sick. However, I feel like--even though it's the RVS--information can still be gained from it. Did you know in my second game on-site, I nailed both scum on page 2 using just the RVS? Yeah, it was mostly by luck, but still, you get the idea. I hate it, but it's still useful, contrary to what many believe. ("Oh, the RVS is just the RVS; everyone knows it's invalid." Nope, not to me.)

At this point he seemed almost certain I was town,

Well, you

are

, aren't you? :P I think that "almost certain" is far too strong a word for me. If I actually used that, it was probably my arrogance getting through. When I'm arrogant, I tend to make things seem better about me, and make all my reads far more confident than they actually should be. "This person is CERTAINLY scum!" "There's no way this person is anything other than town!" "Look, I'm a good scum hunter! *waves the best examples of my scum hunting for all to see*." Arrogance is another weak spot in my style I need to work on, 'cause as you can see from those extremes, it's far from true. :P Arrogance and Humbleness are largely day-dependent. On a good day, I'm most likely humble. ("This person I find far more likely to be scum", "This person reads town to me", "I'm a mediocre scum hunter at best *waves the average example of scum hunting*.") On a bad day, I'm arrogant. :P It's something I must apologize for, so I'll try to control my attitude so far. (The above post, I was in a sorta bad mood, 'cause I thought I'd have access on Wednesday but didn't.) How am I doing so far? :) ("Not so good, Mastin." Okay, in

this

post, ignoring the above one? :P)

He says that multiple people defend me and that I defend multiple people. There's no analysis attached to this, which makes me wonder why he brought it up.

Broader observation. I thought I did bring up points of it either before or after this, but dropped the idea when it was shown to not be true.

He mentions that he had brought my "not liking the RVS" as a possibility I'm town. May I ask what has to do a personal preference with my alignment?

I think you misinterpret. I was saying that I don't like the RVS, and that my viewpoint on you might be biased towards town because you share that belief.

Also, you mention SEssions as being fluff. I have never said they weren't. SEssions are supposed to teach, not supposed to be used as play content.

At this point he admits relying a great deal on his gut to choose a suspect.

I stick by there being nothing wrong with this, by the way. Instinct and intuition should work together. If instinct is tied between two suspects, try using intuition between those two. If intuition shows two people as roughly equal, use instinct to determine a vote. It's simply good play to me.

To address 191: I don't believe I was attacking Mute. (I don't remember that well, but I don't believe it was one.) I think that was a furthering of my SEssion to Mute about lurking and how it's a bad idea, and how if he continued to lurk for much longer, it would be suspicious. Not that he was suspicious currently for lurking.

196 was--similarly--a warning on Mute to try and not follow down my path. :P

His defense? ...He says he doesn't have much time at the moment but writes a lengthy paragraph that could have been summarized by a "you're wrong."

Well, that doesn't sound nearly as impressive... :P
More seriously, I didn't have much time at the time, so I wanted to briefly put to rest people's concerns, before later elaborating on it, which I did.

but I find it worthy of mention that he states he thinks Trendall is town, despite having found his reluctance to hammer scummy, and attacking him a bit on that same post.

This was because I saw several other players as more suspicious, at the time. Beef, You, Jay, might've been one or two others as well. Trendall was near the bottom of my suspicions, because--again--I was looking elsewhere, mostly. You can think someone's scummy while still thinking they're town. In this case, Trendall had a few town points I saw and I was focusing elsewhere, so didn't really notice a great deal of what Trendall did which was scummy at the time.

It's worthy of noting that a lot of my stuff which is fluff is either a SEssion--teaching--or debating over semantics. I've since tried to fix the latter and not discuss things I see as semantics-only. If they're semantics, there's almost no way either side will be convinced otherwise.

[1]Reads as an ISO, not as a case. [2]The "random-voted the doctor" is a bit weird, as many others have pointed out.

[1]Yay, finally someone gets it! :D 2: ...But not this part. D: As I've explained in the past, "random-voting the doctor" can't possibly be scummy by logic, and in no circumstances could it be a tell. But a gut read (what I had) acted up, anyway, because gut doesn't operate by logic, which tells fall under. There's no briefer way to explain it. (Okay, there is: "Gut's gut." :P But, you know, no briefer way to explain it well.)

Is it me, or his playstyle is heavily influenced by his gut?

Ironically...?
...Yes. :P

I'm far more well-known for 'logic' (if one can call it that) than gut, and I

prefer

intuition over instinct, but by irony, I use gut more often. I've never denied this to be the case.

I would like to point out that every single point in my follow-up on Jay was a question. (Well, other than the gut part.) I was asking for clarification. Jay gave it, I found him more town because of it. No case being built. Just simple inquiries to get a better read on him.

Brings up that Trendall is using Burden of Proficiency against him (personally, now that I'm more into this case, I don't see it.)

You don't see it?!?

Trendall

admitted

he used it!

I'll have to track down the exact post, but he definitely has said that, yes, he used it.

Admits that often his arguments are weak.

They're stronger in my head... :P
Really, I'm not going to lie and say my arguments are the strongest out there. Quite frankly, it wouldn't matter if I brought out some of the best points in the game; I'm so bad at conveying them, they're instantly weakened. It's something I've always known to be a problem, and have constantly tried to fix. (Obviously...not with much success. :P)

And what? Did he just say that Trendall saying he was being over-defensive was a personal attack?

Huh? Was that the other one? *checks the post*

Ah, Kayi, you misinterpreted. I was not taking offense to being called over-defensive. I was admitting to being over-defensive. I was taking offense at something else, which Trendall saw as me being over-defensive, and I explained why I was being so defensive.

I don't see where I used this against Trendall, either; mind bringing it up? (You seem to think the next post, 364, is me accusing Trendall of being over-defensive. I don't see that at all; was that what you meant?)

And after all those long-winded posts, I'd expect you to come up with more than pure gut.

I have. My case on Trendall would be AT LEAST 80% intuition, not instinct. It could go as high as 95%. My gut defense was almost entirely about my read on Jay. My gut acted up, I questioned him. He responded, and logically, he looked better; by logic, he dropped down on my suspect list. So, nope, not pure gut anymore.

Why do you keep walling about things you've clearly stated before? At this point, your walls even seem anti-town.

'Cause I was being irrational, of course. I was suffering from the very explosion I was trying to stop, but I think--right now, in this post, at least--I have gotten better. It WAS anti-town. But key note, there's a difference between anti-town, scummy, and scum-tell. Anti-town is counterproductive to the town, but not an indicative of alignment. (I had--and apparently still have >_<--an anti-town playstyle, for example.) Scummy is something suspicious. Scum-tell is something more likely to be done by scum, and therefore, more suspicious. (Scum-tells are almost always scummy, but scummy things are very rarely scum-tells.)

The immediately next post is... again on gut? What the...? I don't even...?!

Summarized the whole rant on gut, with my intention to never return to the subject again, because by that post, I was beginning to become more level-headed. (Not entirely, though; that'd have to wait.)

Not a bad explanation, but it still leaves me wondering.

Can you explain why?

...How is the Burden of Proficiency thing scummy again?

It's a logical fallacy. By itself, that wouldn't be scummy. That Trendall admits he has experience with it (and yet, still uses it) is what makes it scummy. The contradiction is more scummy than the fallacy itself.

[1]You say you're not a good scumhunter, so what am I supposed to think of your case against Trendall? [2]And if you think you're good at getting town reads, why don't you focus on that?

[1]It's my best effort. I'm not the best scumhunter, but that by no means means I'm automatically wrong. It simply means I'm bad at presenting my cases in a matter which seems logical to others, even though they make perfect sense to me. [2]'Cause it's generally frowned upon to give a long list of town reads. (I think I can pull up the logic from previous games which explains it. [This was another ICs logic, not mine, but I remember agreeing at the time.]) More than that, most of my best town reads were on gut, actually, and I don't like relying on it too much, as I prefer to use logic. It's also harder to find three town than two scum. (Eight alive, three [including self] eliminated, five left, two of them scum.) Town-hunting works by Process of Elmination, and that's generally far more time consuming and often less reliable than simple scum hunting. I might be better at getting town reads reliable, but they're not easy to get said town reads.

...Ack. That's another example which made more sense in my head. >_<

So wait. What you previously said was your case is not your case now? What? When? And again with the Burden of Proficiency thing. Jeez.

Huh? What the heck are you talking about, here? :/ I honestly have no clue what you're saying; I don't get that at all from my post. I was explaining why my case was valid, not invalid.

Post #412: ...Again with the Neruz and I agreeing thing. This is unbelievable.

Yeah, I'm currently not very happy at my gut. :P
I mention that it made me uneasy. I ignored it, 'cause logic shows that it's far more likely to be false. In hindsight, I suppose it was fluff and didn't need to be posted.

---

An ocean of fluff with a short intermission of fencsitting in between. I can't live with that.

My, my, looks like you're combining the main features of two other players! :P
(Fluff-->common accusation against me. Fencesitting-->One of my key points against Trendall.)

For reference, this is not doing Nacho any favors; he seems to ignore these things in me and Trendall (though that might just be that he didn't mention them there--will need to refer back to his previous posts). 'Sides, I have a town read on Neruz.

Spoiler: Responding to Neruz

Severe lack of content. Mastin doesn't seem to actually be posting anything of worth until about page 14 - 15. His prior posts contain one or two points here and there, and the rest of the posts are primarily meaningless fluff.

I admit the SEssions and semantics are fluff, but whenever I ask a question, it most likely is NOT fluff. (Okay, too general. :P When I ask a question directed at a specific player, it means I want more information from them, ie, to get a better read from them, as in, to better be able to scum hunt. And that's not fluff.) I ask a lot of questions in quite a few places, throughout the game. I give my opinions on a great deal.

However, I do admit that my first true case was on Trendall, and that probably did start at around 14-15. But just 'cause I didn't have a case didn't mean I wasn't scum hunting.

For Neruz's point about gut, I would again like to point out that my case on Trendall has a MAXIMUM of 20% gut in it. So it is not, in fact, my defense mechanism. Gut's one of a good scum hunter's tools which I admittedly use a bit too often. There's nothing more to be said on the subject, however; I have concluded that Gut is a semantics argument, and only fluffs the thread up further.

Third: Hypocrisy.

As much as my post above might've gotten emotional, I still feel that I defended against this one quite well. There's no hypocrisy when you take things into context and see that I've backed up my points with evidence, where I believe that Trendall has not; that difference is what makes it not hypocritical.

Hypocrisy IS a scum tell. But I have shown why I don't think what I did was hypocritical.

Finally: Escape routes. Mastin is constantly leaving himself escape routes.

Not intentionally. I hate defending myself with Meta, but it's an emotional reflex of mine to do so. If someone questions my natural play, I naturally--without thinking--defend it as me just being me, but because I feel I need evidence and people won't believe me, bring up previous examples of the behavior--meta--to back it up. Call it a bad habit. (I don't

think

I've done so in this post, so progress? :P)

I saw Neruz's vote on Nacho, and my first thought was "OMGUS", but upon reading Neruz's case, I feel it is not. He basically sums it up here:

You're looking a lot like an opportunist here Nacho. Rather than poking the lurkers to try and get them to post more (and thus contribute to town discussion), you pull up a case on me, based on two days of discussion after i had already admitted i was losing interest in the game. This seems to be contrary to my prior experience with you, and is definitely contrary to any form of town logic.

You sir, are scum. You're not looking for scum, you're looking for targets.

I'll look at Nacho's response, and it looks like a read of Nacho will be needed before I form a more solid conclusion, but right now, I'm agreeing, and think Nacho looks more like scum.

Now, of course you might argue "lat isn't playing anymore, it's nacho now;" to that I say "that may be the case, but it's just another player underneath that role.

This is a GREAT attitude to have. You'd be surprised JUST how many people are willing to excuse a previous player's actions when a new player takes that slot. It seems the logic behind this is generally, "the replaced was just a newb/VI; we should discount all these scummy things and judge by the new player", but 1: Lat wasn't a new player; he was an SE, and 2: Even if Lat was a newb/VI, there'd be ways to read him.

So, Mute, I approve of your attitude. :)

Mastin stated doing an ISO read of kayi here, even though in my mind Kayi is town.

This was 1: While I was away and didn't have access (but did have the page loaded, on a Kayi ISO), so I did a read, and--at the time--I didn't like what I saw. And 2: Done during the night. Upon further revelations, I realized I was almost certainly wrong.

This post by Trendall seems oddly scummy to me. Maybe my logic isn't in line with the norms of the site here, but I see this as a minor scum-tell.

I think generally it isn't, but I'm probably not the best one to ask. My only experience with someone asking about the standoff was me, when I was scum, and there were four alive and it didn't look like I'd be able to lynch anyone and was at risk of being lynched, but I asked by PM.

Point 2: If I was making a case, I would have made a case.

Hmm...
I know Trendall didn't believe that when I made my ISO, it wasn't a case, but I seem to also recall Nacho not believing it...

If so, blatant hypocrisy, anyone? (Though, again, I haven't read Nacho; it's obvious I need to.)

In case you don't see what I am getting at here, you've posted NOTHING in this post. Absolutely nothing whatsoever. All you've done is gone 'I think X is scummy. Here is a post that X is made', and expected everyone else to make the link between those two things.

Hmm, sounds familiar...

I seem to recall similar accusations against me, though slightly different.

In a nutshell, Mute fosses everybody who disagrees with him about anything, and thinks that anybody who agrees with him about anything is town. That's the sole basis of every single one of his 'arguments'.

Yeah, this is DEFINITELY familiar. :roll:

Basically, you've fossed everybody who considered no lynching.

Didn't both Neruz and Yenros support No lynching as well? I don't see suspicion towards those two.

Now, is anybody still considering no lynching here? I still think it's strategically the best option.

Nonononononono! This is wrong on SO many levels. (Okay, only two, but who says "wrong on two levels"? :P) 1: What are you voting for, Trendall? Is it a No Lynch?

...No. It's me. You're advocating for a No Lynch, while voting for me.

2: We've already given the stats as to why No Lynching today is statistically identical to lynching today. The only difference? Today, we have an extra opinion: Mute. And who's Mute suspect?

...You. Nacho, first, obviously, but you're a HoS, Mute's second vote.

See the problem with this, Trendall? I do. You argue that Mute hasn't contributed anything. Perhaps he hasn't explained things in a logical manner, perhaps his case isn't that strong, but he's made his opinions quite clear, suspecting you and Nacho, and has given all the evidence he can to support it.

I definitely want some answers from Mastin.

And I hope I have provided them, here. :)

If I wasn't so worn out by the Mastin ISO (took hours, no joke) I'd do it right now.

Sorry! D: Really is quite the pain, overcoming bad habits. >_< I do appreciate the effort you put into it, though. The fact that you managed to basically summarize a lot of what happened accurately also allows for me to far better summarize my answers. :)

The link between Trendall and Nacho continues to grow...
[hr]90][/hr]
Again, I must apologize for the length, however, I hope it's 1: readable, and 2: puts doubts to rest. This has taken me since 10:30 (it's 1:40 now), including my above post.

[Mastin]

Alright, some new stuff came up obviously while I was typing my post. People, keep in mind, if I say that I'm done with one page, I'm probably going to write another post of roughly the same length for the next.
(Actually, last post was probably longer, considering I exceeded the 12-smiley limit. )

[1]Why no comments on my ISO on Trendall, considering that he's your main suspect? [2] (Also considering that you like to teach, and I'd also appreciate comments as a SE.)

[1]I did. See the "Kayi Response" part I have spoilered. [2]I am very reluctant to teach when I've shown in recent history that I've become emotional. If I manage to keep a cool head for a prolonged period of time, I probably shall resume if the need arises. (Less teaching is needed as a game wears on, because the players get better.) In ways, you'll note that I do teach here and there in my posts, but it's not nearly as concrete and I'm not going to mark it as a SEssion until I'm confident I'm not being emotional or throwing heavy opinion into it.

As for that part about not commenting on outdated stuff: How was I supposed to know you had a huge ISO on me on the next page? I thought it was still up to date, and that page 18 would most likely be short. (Previous times I've been on the second-to-last page have shown that the next page generally only has around 5-10 posts which tend to be a few paragraphs maximum.) 'Sides, I don't see how that can have any indication on alignment. Anti-town, perhaps, but anti-town!=scummy.

I don't appreciate the fact that you waste time and space defending yourself against petty... well, not even accusations... when you could be doing something more useful. Like scumhunting. Or "getting town reads" which is what you claimed you're good at.

The latter explained. I've got a narrowed down suspect list, sure, but it's still a lot of work and not very accurate. (I believe--thinking off the top of my head--that of the five possibles, two I have down as solidly town, narrowing it down to three suspects. Trendall is one, and Nacho is the other, but that's mainly due to the association of the two.)

As for me defending myself...well, there are basically three kinds of defenses--1: Personal defense. Defending against personal attacks and semantics arguments. Worthless. THIS, I admit, should be avoided. 2: Defense against people's points against me. This needs to be addressed, because if I leave something unanswered, then people will bring it up, only more suspicious than before because I ignored it the first time. I don't like wasting time on it, either, but it's a necessary evil. 3: Defending my offense. This is the most critical of all. A defense of my offense is itself an offense. If you see this, it's not a waste of time. It's rather a furthering of my attack. Granted, I'd rather be scum hunting by bringing up fresh arguments, but this is still scum hunting, albeit almost always not as good.

---

I think that answers everything. Now, if you don't mind, my mouth is dry from typing these all up, so I'm going to get a drink of water and resume afterwards, hopefully, FINALLY, continuing things on. >_<

[Mastin]

EditBWOP:
"Trendall is one, and Nacho is the other, but that's mainly due to the association of the two.)"
"another", not "the other". I have three (as mentioned, 8-3 = 5, -2 town reads = 3 possibles), and Trendall and Nacho are the stronger of the three, but the third could (in theory) be scum.
Just in case that'd be confusing.

[Mastin]

For reference, I've got Trendall's posts in ISO (both pages), as well as both his previous games. I might not get a lot out of it (well, other than what I have already), but I'll see what's there.

[Mastin]

3.) Logical fallacies. Read them. Learn them. Love them. Lynch people who are guilty of them, especially if they are guilty of a few of them in rapid succession. Be aware that some of them are scummier than others, though, and as human beings we are all occasionally guilty of logical fallacies, no matter how towny we are. It is not so simple as, "OMG, you used Appeal to Authority, you are DEFINITELY SCUM," although that would make things easier.

You need not read further to understand this. Trendall claimed that Burden of Proficiency never came up. When I said it would have, he instead said that it had, but that he didn't think it was a scum tell. Yet the IC in this game linked Logical fallacies in her first post. I dunno about you, but when the IC posts links, I read every one of them because chances are, they're common newbie mistakes which should be avoided. I shall continue my reading, in the off 1/100 chance that Trendall has a valid reason for this being excused.

[Mastin]

...Actually, read that whole post, everyone in this game, and look at Trendall's play this game. It pretty much violates half of those. Perhaps others here are different, but me? I took the lessons of my first few games REALLY seriously.

Especially

from the IC. Trendall's either completely forgotten the fundamental lessons of his IC there (I find it hard to forget earlier games than later games), has a valid reason to disregard them (why I shall continue reading), or is intentionally ignoring them. (As in, is scum.)

[Trendall]

I'm done with defending myself against these ridiculous arguments. I also think that Mastin is probably town.

UNVOTE:
VOTE: Yenros

[Nachomamma8]

I'll explain everything out a little more since Jay's a bit confused.

My original vote on Neruz was due to his active lurking for the past couple of days before I attacked him. If you read the posts quoted in #428, you'll see that none of his posts in that span had any game-related content at all; it was talk about Mastin's playstyle with the single exception of a post where he fencesits on Mastin/Trendall, where he interestingly enough finds that one of them is probably scum, a statement I find scummy as hell because it's unfounded, and scum love to create fake connections in a group of two people where "at least one is scum" because then they get two mislynches and not just one. I will find active lurking scummier than lurking every single time. Everyone lurks, but it's usually in scum's best interest to post a lot and say a little.

I'm keeping my vote on Neruz because of his reaction to my vote. He first tries to deflect blame of his lack of posting onto Mastin by saying that he wasn't interested in the game because he didn't want to read Mastin's long posts. So, I offered him three alternatives if Mastin's posting was affecting him so thoroughly, one of which was lynching him. Neruz, of course, decides to ignore the rest of my post except for the part that said "Lynch him", and then tried to twist my post to make it appear that it was the ONLY thing I had said.

Then, when deflection and misrepresentation don't work, he results to OMGUS. Of course, he still FoSes Mastin and makes sure that his transition onto the largest Mastin wagon is smooth if the whole Nacho thing doesn't work out.

In addition, after I post a response to his "case" against me, he ignores it and simply goes on his merry way.

It would be really bad in my eyes if Mute and him hadn't brought out several good points against Nacho.

Good points? What did you have in mind, exactly?

Furthermore, i find it a little concerning that you're apparantly willing to jump on me for fence sitting a bit and willingly admitting that i'm not hugely interested in the game right now, but havn't paid any attention at all to the rather large quantity of lurkers this game possesses. Jay has at least chimed in once during that period with some content, but Yenros posted nothing at all during that same period and as far as i can tell Mute hasn't posted anything of worth for an entire week. (Yes i know he claimed Doctor, but that doesn't give him a pass to just cease participation in the game) and in what is perhaps the perfect example of blatant hipocrasy, where's your content Nacho?

In this point, he basically calls me scum because I attacked him opposed to everyone else. He attacks me for not attacking Yenros, even though Yenros was on a V/LA at that time, and I already prodded him before. He also seems to expects me to be responsible for prodding lurkers. The only problem with this is that I'm not; I'm not going to waste my time twisting people's arms to post. If you're not posting, however, I'm not going to be shy in looking for scum intent behind your lurking. The content I have provided since my entrance in this game should be obvious; first, I pushed a no lynch, which is what I believed was the best course of action today, and then I pushed someone who I thought was scum, Mastin. This, like you've already mentioned, has triggered a decently-sized case/wagon to form on Mastin. If that isn't content, then what is?

One example. That's it? Blanket statement 'you use terrible arguments' and then one example? And that last sentance doesn't even make any sense inside or outside of context.

Or, is this the good point? He's criticizing me for not providing more examples than just one. Surprising, since I thought Mastin's ISO was so daunting and so terrible, I figured that everyone would understand if I didn't back my point up with 20 examples. The last sentence is a doozy, but let me give you a hand. If you aren't self-voting and you're random-voting the doctor, it means you aren't the doctor.

Next post, you bring up the Jay thing again, or should i say still? Since you were basically having a little fight with Mastin over whether or not he had made a case on Jay.

Erm, it was a valid mindset to attack Mastin to see whether the Jay thing actually WASN'T a Jay case, or he was just trying to squirm out of his weak case.

Rather than poking the lurkers to try and get them to post more (and thus contribute to town discussion), you pull up a case on me, based on two days of discussion after i had already admitted i was losing interest in the game.

This is a good example of what I mentioned earlier about him expecting me to get the lurker's to contribute. And I don't know what you admitting you've lost interest has to do with anything at all. If I say I've lost interest in the game, does that give me a free pass to active lurk my ass off?

This seems to be contrary to my prior experience with you, and is definitely contrary to any form of town logic.

Now he brings up meta. The last game we played together, I lurked until LyLo as town, made a case on both scum, and defended myself adequately enough to give us the win. This meta should suggest that I don't really find lurking scummy, since I did it. It should also suggest that I'm probably not going to be the one who makes lurkers contribute, since I'm sometimes a lurker myself. In other words, his "meta" point doesn't actually make sense and is weak padding to his case. The "definitely contrary to any form of town logic" is crap rhetoric.

Mute's points are based on bias.
First of all, he's had confirmation bias of me being scum as soon as I entered this game. He was convinced my predecessor was scum, and there's not a whole lot I can do to change his mind. This is demonstrated easiest by the simple fact that his case on me is just her old case against Lat, which he hasn't quite let go of yet, and further demonstrated by his case on me, which his only point is based on a misunderstanding that could've been avoided, had he read my posts.
His second bias is against aggressive playstyles. This is obvious when she calls #314 "too aggressive to be town", even though Trendall was just commenting on the odd timing of her claim. It's also no coincidence that her town read other than Kayi is an extremely passive person, and Trendall and I are two of the more aggressive players in the game.

As soon as the player he was voting for got what it seemed a decent case/wagon on him, two/three days before the deadline he suddenly decides that he's not the scummiest person out there and changes his vote.

The Mastin wagon was moving of its own momentum; I didn't need to push it along anymore. So why not push someone else while the Mastin wagon develops?

He seems willing to vote anyone whose playstyle annoys him.

Read #429 - #432 again. You're falling prey to Neruz's misrepping tricks.

Nacho, do you really think Neruz is more likely to be scum than Mastin? If so, why?

Yes, and I think now that I've expanded more on my case, you see why.

Seemingly unrelated but not at all... please do explain to me the quote on your signature. Since it alludes your play, I think it would allow me to get a better read on you.

It refers to an ongoing game I'm not at liberty to discuss.

For reference, this is not doing Nacho any favors; he seems to ignore these things in me and Trendall (though that might just be that he didn't mention them there--will need to refer back to his previous posts). 'Sides, I have a town read on Neruz.

I disagree that Trendall is fencesitting. And am I reading this wrong, or are you seriously trying to call me scum because I didn't call YOU out on fluff?

I'll look at Nacho's response, and it looks like a read of Nacho will be needed before I form a more solid conclusion, but right now, I'm agreeing, and think Nacho looks more like scum.

Right. So you agree with him without reading the posts he's talking about?

If so, blatant hypocrisy, anyone? (Though, again, I haven't read Nacho; it's obvious I need to.)

I didn't believe you because you were backpedaling from your Jay suspicion and onto a Trendall suspicion. Neruz was simply criticizing the strength of my vote on him.

[Jay]

@Trendall: I can see where you are coming from, but could you explain your Yenros vote a little more, just in case I'm missing something. I assume it is because you have answered many of those suspicions/arguments already, but... I'm not sure.

Then, when deflection and misrepresentation don't work, he results to OMGUS. Of course, he still FoSes Mastin and makes sure that his transition onto the largest Mastin wagon is smooth if the whole Nacho thing doesn't work out.

I don't necessarily think Mastin's case was OMGUS, because it was based on more than just you voting for him. The part that Mastin cited as making him feel more comfortable about whether it was OMGUS or not, talks about other reasons, as well.

Or, is this the good point? He's criticizing me for not providing more examples than just one. Surprising, since I thought Mastin's ISO was so daunting and so terrible, I figured that everyone would understand if I didn't back my point up with 20 examples.

Providing one example and writing a huge wall of text are not that different, because they are both unsatisfying. You are always left wanting something, whether it be more examples or less words. Maybe there's something in the middle that'd work better?

---

Tomorrow, (hopefully) when I get more time to post I'd like to look more into my Mastin suspicion. That'll take some time, and the thread had been growing rapidly recently. With the deadline only two days away, I hope, when I get back, there are not three more pages left to read...

[Neruz]

where he interestingly enough finds that one of them is probably scum, a statement I find scummy as hell because it's unfounded, and scum love to create fake connections in a group of two people where "at least one is scum" because then they get two mislynches and not just one.

I remain open to be convinced otherwise, but until you turned up the only people i had any sort of reasonable scumread on were Trendall and Mastin, 'one of them is probably scum' seems like a fairly logical conclusion.

And how, exactly, do you get two mislynches just from that? Obviously if i conclude that there is likely to be scum within a group i am going to analyse the group very carefully, work out which one is scum and attempt to lynch that one. You seem to be implying that if that person flips town the correct response is to go "Oh that means the other person must be scum!" But without having conflicting accounts that is not even remotely the logical choice. If you conclude that there is probably scum within a group, pick out the person within said group you believe to be scum, lynch them and find they flip town, the correct conclusion is that

you were probably wrong about there being scum in the group.

I will find active lurking scummier than lurking every single time. Everyone lurks, but it's usually in scum's best interest to post a lot and say a little.

Not really, it's been my experience that ISO's are so common on MS that active lurking is

far

more dangerous than normal lurking. I've repeatedly seen people get off lightly on normal lurking, but active lurking always draws attention. The fact that you think that my discussing things like logical fallacies and posting styles instead of directly scumhunting is a scumtell however proves that you either weren't paying attention to me in our last game or are deliberately trying to make me look scummy.

To help you out, i'll be clear and concise: I was disinterested in the game, combine this with the fact that i tend to reactively scumhunt instead of proactively and it should be pretty obvious why i wasn't really contributing all that much.

I also find it interesting that you're

implying

that i've been active lurking the entire game, instead of for less than two days. You're basing quite a lot on very little there Nacho.

He first tries to deflect blame of his lack of posting onto Mastin by saying that he wasn't interested in the game because he didn't want to read Mastin's long posts.

I'm sorry.

What?

Mastin's long posts put me off the game, this is true, but how in the hell is that

Mastin's

fault?! I provided a reason for my lack of content, i did not deflect blame on to Mastin. It's

my

fault that Mastin's posting style puts me off, i'm not incapable of reading his posts, i just don't want to. Mastin cannot be blamed for the fact that i dislike his posting style.

So, I offered him three alternatives if Mastin's posting was affecting him so thoroughly, one of which was lynching him. Neruz, of course, decides to ignore the rest of my post except for the part that said "Lynch him", and then tried to twist my post to make it appear that it was the ONLY thing I had said.

The

first

of which was lynching him. And it doesn't actually matter that you offered other alternitives,

you said that lynching someone was a viable reaction to disliking someone's posting style.

I don't give a wooden nickle if you provided

other

options as well, one of those options was "I dislike how X posts, i should lynch him because of that." which is quite possibly one of the most anti-town reasons to lynch someone i can think of. I cannot see

any

reason town would

ever

want to lynch someone for that under any circumstances.

Then, when deflection and misrepresentation don't work, he results to OMGUS. Of course, he still FoSes Mastin and makes sure that his transition onto the largest Mastin wagon is smooth if the whole Nacho thing doesn't work out.

This would seem to indicate that you don't actually know what OMGUS is. If you genuinely think my vote on you is OMGUS, then you seriously need to go read the wiki. Since you're a reasonably experienced player i find it highly unlikely that you actually believe this, so nice try. I'm hesitant to label this as a misrep, because in context it feels a whole lot more like a blatant lie.

In addition, after I post a response to his "case" against me, he ignores it and simply goes on his merry way.

If you're talking about #436, i didn't respond to it because i wasn't sure what points your post was directed at. Since rather than quote my points and respond to them you instead chose to just go "Point 1", i had difficulty trying to understand what exactly you were responding to, as i did not number my points. In addition, after i did a quick reread of my post i couldn't see how it actually applied to the points i'd brung up, so i decided to pass it over.

In this point, he basically calls me scum because I attacked him opposed to everyone else. He attacks me for not attacking Yenros, even though Yenros was on a V/LA at that time, and I already prodded him before.

I wasn't aware that Yenros was V\LA, so i'll drop that point. The rest still stands.

He also seems to expects me to be responsible for prodding lurkers.

No, i expect you to be responsible in scumhunting.

Or, is this the good point? He's criticizing me for not providing more examples than just one. Surprising, since I thought Mastin's ISO was so daunting and so terrible, I figured that everyone would understand if I didn't back my point up with 20 examples.

If you're going to use someone else's points to back up your own, you could at least pay us the respect of referring to them at some point instead of expecting everyone to just magically make the same connections you do.

The last sentence is a doozy, but let me give you a hand. If you aren't self-voting and you're random-voting the doctor, it means you aren't the doctor.

Yes, and i'm trying to work out why that is relevant, or even meaningful.

Next post, you bring up the Jay thing again, or should i say still? Since you were basically having a little fight with Mastin over whether or not he had made a case on Jay.

Erm, it was a valid mindset to attack Mastin to see whether the Jay thing actually WASN'T a Jay case, or he was just trying to squirm out of his weak case.

What? I think you're taking that line out of context. (You really seem to like doing that), this line was referencing the fact that you

still

hadn't brought up more than on example of 'Mastin's terrible arguments' which you apparantly based your vote on. You referred to multiple terrible arguments, but only ever referenced

one

argument,

repeatedly

.

This is a good example of what I mentioned earlier about him expecting me to get the lurker's to contribute. And I don't know what you admitting you've lost interest has to do with anything at all. If I say I've lost interest in the game, does that give me a free pass to active lurk my ass off?

Oh yes, lowered participation for

two days

is

definitely

active lurking my ass off. I mean, my god, that's just

so much

active lurking, i should be voting myself because i active lurked so much.[/sarcasm]

Again, you blow the fact that i didn't contribute much over two days way out of proportion and imply i active lurked

far

longer than i actually did. If i'd been active lurking all day this argument might hold water.

Now he brings up meta. The last game we played together, I lurked until LyLo as town, made a case on both scum, and defended myself adequately enough to give us the win. This meta should suggest that I don't really find lurking scummy, since I did it. It should also suggest that I'm probably not going to be the one who makes lurkers contribute, since I'm sometimes a lurker myself. In other words, his "meta" point doesn't actually make sense and is weak padding to his case. The "definitely contrary to any form of town logic" is crap rhetoric.

Actually after rechecking that game, i'll retract the point about your personal meta. I had you confused for someone else, for which i apologise.

The contrary to any form of town logic is most definitely not rhetoric however. Town are looking to find scum, you find scum by looking for scum tells,

you cannot find scum tells if a player is lurking.

[RedCoyote]

Vote Count 8

• Nachomamma8

  (Neruz - Mute)

  
  

  Trendall

  (Mastin - Yenros)
  
  
  Mastin

  (Kayi)

  
  

  Neruz

  (Nachomamma8)

  
  

  Yenros

  (Trendall)

  
  

  Not Voting

  (Jay)

With eight alive, it takes five to lynch.

Current Deadline: Dec. 11th, 2010 at 5:00 AM

[Nachomamma8]

I don't necessarily think Mastin's case was OMGUS, because it was based on more than just you voting for him. The part that Mastin cited as making him feel more comfortable about whether it was OMGUS or not, talks about other reasons, as well.

By calling it OMGUS, I'm not saying that his case on me was "oh my god you suck", but rather that his case on me was inspired on the fact I was voting him.

Providing one example and writing a huge wall of text are not that different, because they are both unsatisfying. You are always left wanting something, whether it be more examples or less words. Maybe there's something in the middle that'd work better?

What do you suggest?

I remain open to be convinced otherwise, but until you turned up the only people i had any sort of reasonable scumread on were Trendall and Mastin, 'one of them is probably scum' seems like a fairly logical conclusion.

And how, exactly, do you get two mislynches just from that? Obviously if i conclude that there is likely to be scum within a group i am going to analyse the group very carefully, work out which one is scum and attempt to lynch that one. You seem to be implying that if that person flips town the correct response is to go "Oh that means the other person must be scum!" But without having conflicting accounts that is not even remotely the logical choice. If you conclude that there is probably scum within a group, pick out the person within said group you believe to be scum, lynch them and find they flip town, the correct conclusion is that you were probably wrong about there being scum in the group.

No. What making fake connections between townies does is set up for the mislynch; before the first mislynch, you say that one of the two is probably scum. Mislynch the first one. That sets you up to make a case against the other one the next day without people criticizing your position as much the next day. Thus, two mislynches. You wouldn't say that there's probably scum in a group if you were going to drop it the second one flips town.

Not really, it's been my experience that ISO's are so common on MS that active lurking is far more dangerous than normal lurking. I've repeatedly seen people get off lightly on normal lurking, but active lurking always draws attention. The fact that you think that my discussing things like logical fallacies and posting styles instead of directly scumhunting is a scumtell however proves that you either weren't paying attention to me in our last game or are deliberately trying to make me look scummy.

My experience shows different. We're stuck in gridlock, moving on.

I also find it interesting that you're implying that i've been active lurking the entire game, instead of for less than two days. You're basing quite a lot on very little there Nacho.

Where did I do this? Last I remember, I said something exactly like this:

My original vote on Neruz was due to his active lurking

for the past couple of days

before I attacked him.

Obviously I'm talking about REAL LIFE days, since the game hasn't lasted more that a couple game days. So, where are you finding your little implications?

I'm sorry. What? Mastin's long posts put me off the game, this is true, but how in the hell is that Mastin's fault?! I provided a reason for my lack of content, i did not deflect blame on to Mastin. It's my fault that Mastin's posting style puts me off, i'm not incapable of reading his posts, i just don't want to. Mastin cannot be blamed for the fact that i dislike his posting style.

It felt like you were trying to blame Mastin for your inactivity since you had been complaining so much about him lately.

The first of which was lynching him. And it doesn't actually matter that you offered other alternitives, you said that lynching someone was a viable reaction to disliking someone's posting style. I don't give a wooden nickle if you provided other options as well, one of those options was "I dislike how X posts, i should lynch him because of that." which is quite possibly one of the most anti-town reasons to lynch someone i can think of. I cannot see any reason town would ever want to lynch someone for that under any circumstances.

Did you think ignoring was a viable option?

This would seem to indicate that you don't actually know what OMGUS is. If you genuinely think my vote on you is OMGUS, then you seriously need to go read the wiki. Since you're a reasonably experienced player i find it highly unlikely that you actually believe this, so nice try. I'm hesitant to label this as a misrep, because in context it feels a whole lot more like a blatant lie.

Perhaps you should venture outside the wiki every once in a while. OMGUS doesn't have to be "you're voting for me, so I'm voting for you"; it can also be "you're voting me, so here's my case on you".

If you're talking about #436, i didn't respond to it because i wasn't sure what points your post was directed at. Since rather than quote my points and respond to them you instead chose to just go "Point 1", i had difficulty trying to understand what exactly you were responding to, as i did not number my points. In addition, after i did a quick reread of my post i couldn't see how it actually applied to the points i'd brung up, so i decided to pass it over.

Instead of asking me to explain my response to your case against me, you just ignored it? So are you really so confident about me being scum that you don't even give a shit about my defense?

No, i expect you to be responsible in scumhunting.

It's not my job to prod all the inactive people. It's EVERYONE'S job.

What? I think you're taking that line out of context. (You really seem to like doing that), this line was referencing the fact that you still hadn't brought up more than on example of 'Mastin's terrible arguments' which you apparantly based your vote on. You referred to multiple terrible arguments, but only ever referenced one argument, repeatedly.

No one needed another example. No one asked for another example. They FOUND the other examples. And I scumhunt by prodding first and making cases second, which means I don't come out with a bunch of examples at first. You know this. Remember, when I made small general points for why you were scum and asked you a few questions, then dropped the case completely?

Oh yes, lowered participation for two days is definitely active lurking my ass off. I mean, my god, that's just so much active lurking, i should be voting myself because i active lurked so much.[/sarcasm]

Again, you blow the fact that i didn't contribute much over two days way out of proportion and imply i active lurked far longer than i actually did. If i'd been active lurking all day this argument might hold water.

It's called using hyperbole to demonstrate a point. Don't act like it's new to you.

The contrary to any form of town logic is most definitely not rhetoric however. Town are looking to find scum, you find scum by looking for scum tells, you cannot find scum tells if a player is lurking.

But. I did make an effort to convince some of the lurkers to participate; the only one I DIDN'T focus on was mute. I don't remember you prodding any lurkers; did you?

[Neruz]

No. What making fake connections between townies does is set up for the mislynch; before the first mislynch, you say that one of the two is probably scum. Mislynch the first one. That sets you up to make a case against the other one the next day without people criticizing your position as much the next day. Thus, two mislynches. You wouldn't say that there's probably scum in a group if you were going to drop it the second one flips town.

If you come to a conclusion: A person in group X is scum, you then determine that person Y is the scum, you lynch person Y and he flips town, you've obviously made a mistake somewhere. It would seem to be that the logical conclusion is that your initial premise was in error. At the very least you would need to reanalyse your conclusion that there was scum in group X.

I just cannot fathom how any reasonable town could possibly let someone get away with that without pointing out the obvious and glaring hole in logic.

I also find it interesting that you're implying that i've been active lurking the entire game, instead of for less than two days. You're basing quite a lot on very little there Nacho.

Where did I do this? Last I remember, I said something exactly like this:

My original vote on Neruz was due to his active lurking

for the past couple of days

before I attacked him.

Obviously I'm talking about REAL LIFE days, since the game hasn't lasted more that a couple game days. So, where are you finding your little implications?

Right here Nacho:

You're killing me, man.
That was your ISO.

An ocean

of fluff with a short intermission of fencsitting in between. I can't live with that.

It felt like you were trying to blame Mastin for your inactivity since you had been complaining so much about him lately.

Well then all i can say is that you are mistaken. I was trying to get myself interested in the game again by engaging in discussion, unfortunately it wasn't working.

The first of which was lynching him. And it doesn't actually matter that you offered other alternitives, you said that lynching someone was a viable reaction to disliking someone's posting style. I don't give a wooden nickle if you provided other options as well, one of those options was "I dislike how X posts, i should lynch him because of that." which is quite possibly one of the most anti-town reasons to lynch someone i can think of. I cannot see any reason town would ever want to lynch someone for that under any circumstances.

Did you think ignoring was a viable option?

I wasn't sure what viable options there were. I knew i could replace out, lynching him was obviously not a viable option so i was searching for alternitives. I felt that in the grand scheme of the entire game, two days of low scum hunting wouldn't be all that relevant. People go AWOL entirely for longer than 2 days and it doesn't impact the game much.

This would seem to indicate that you don't actually know what OMGUS is. If you genuinely think my vote on you is OMGUS, then you seriously need to go read the wiki. Since you're a reasonably experienced player i find it highly unlikely that you actually believe this, so nice try. I'm hesitant to label this as a misrep, because in context it feels a whole lot more like a blatant lie.

Perhaps you should venture outside the wiki every once in a while. OMGUS doesn't have to be "you're voting for me, so I'm voting for you"; it can also be "you're voting me, so here's my case on you".

...
How is that a scum tell?

If you're talking about #436, i didn't respond to it because i wasn't sure what points your post was directed at. Since rather than quote my points and respond to them you instead chose to just go "Point 1", i had difficulty trying to understand what exactly you were responding to, as i did not number my points. In addition, after i did a quick reread of my post i couldn't see how it actually applied to the points i'd brung up, so i decided to pass it over.

Instead of asking me to explain my response to your case against me, you just ignored it? So are you really so confident about me being scum that you don't even give a shit about my defense?

The only point in there that seemed relevant at all to the case i'd brought against you was the first one. And you may notice that in my next post addressing you i retracted the Mastin point. The other two points seemed irrelevant (and still do), so yes, i ignored them.

No, i expect you to be responsible in scumhunting.

It's not my job to prod all the inactive people. It's EVERYONE'S job.

Which means it's still your job. Just because everyone has the same job doesn't lessen the fact that you have it too.

What? I think you're taking that line out of context. (You really seem to like doing that), this line was referencing the fact that you still hadn't brought up more than on example of 'Mastin's terrible arguments' which you apparantly based your vote on. You referred to multiple terrible arguments, but only ever referenced one argument, repeatedly.

No one needed another example. No one asked for another example. They FOUND the other examples. And I scumhunt by prodding first and making cases second, which means I don't come out with a bunch of examples at first. You know this. Remember, when I made small general points for why you were scum and asked you a few questions, then dropped the case completely?

So rather than just making your point clear and concise by taking a few moments to point out some examples, you just decided to fuck it and let everyone else do your work for you. Wow.

Oh yes, lowered participation for two days is definitely active lurking my ass off. I mean, my god, that's just so much active lurking, i should be voting myself because i active lurked so much.[/sarcasm]

Again, you blow the fact that i didn't contribute much over two days way out of proportion and imply i active lurked far longer than i actually did. If i'd been active lurking all day this argument might hold water.

It's called using hyperbole to demonstrate a point. Don't act like it's new to you.

Uh, i'm not acting ilke hyperbole is new to me, i'm acting like it's a scum tell, because it is. Hyperbole is used to create a stronger impression than would normally be gotten from simply referencing the facts, now tell me Nacho, in a Mafia game, who would want to create a stronger impression than normal towards something. Which side would want to exxagurate in order to manipulate people into seeing something as better or worse than it really is? Hmm...

The contrary to any form of town logic is most definitely not rhetoric however. Town are looking to find scum, you find scum by looking for scum tells, you cannot find scum tells if a player is lurking.

But. I did make an effort to convince some of the lurkers to participate; the only one I DIDN'T focus on was mute. I don't remember you prodding any lurkers; did you?

Nope, i was too busy trying to solve my own problems.

[Kayi]

Guys, I'm V/LA until tomorrow night. I don't want deadline to come onto me unexpectedly. I can't make much response and analysis now, but I'm staying true to my word based on what I've observed.

UNVOTE: Mastin

VOTE: Nachomamma8

[Mastin]

Huh? What in the name of--
That vote makes zero sense at all. (Seems quite similar to Nacho's Neruz vote, actually. Hmm...)

I'm not sure I'm fully understanding points on both sides by Nacho and Neruz. So, uh, forgive me if these are either 1: misinterpreting, or 2: already addressed.

Spoiler: The Massive Neruz v Nacho Debate

Everyone lurks, but it's usually in scum's best interest to post a lot and say a little.

Hmm, and who else has done that, Nacho? Why are you not voting me, instead? Especially with your earlier suspicions of me.

In other words, his "meta" point doesn't actually make sense and is weak padding to his case.

It does to me. If you lurked as town and aren't right now, chances are with such a small window between the games, you're scum this time. Makes sense to me, that logic.

So why not push someone else while the Mastin wagon develops?

At the beginning of the day? Sure, why not?
A few days before deadline when we need a lynch?

HECK NO. That's the

last

thing we need, another wagon forming near the lynch date. It only decreases our chances of getting a successful lynch in.

And am I reading this wrong, or are you seriously trying to call me scum because I didn't call YOU out on fluff?

Yes, you read that correctly, Nacho. If you were town, I would expect you to have called me out on more than you have.
You haven't.

Your hypocrisy makes me think that you're far more likely to be scum.

Right. So you agree with him without reading the posts he's talking about?

For the moment, yes. His case is more convincing than yours, going on just the posts alone. I'll need to go and actually check for myself to make sure, though.

What? I think you're taking that line out of context. (You really seem to like doing that),

For reference, this is something I consider to be a scumtell, nowadays. (Okay, I used to do it myself all the time regardless of alignment, but hey, it should be obvious I wasn't exactly the most popular player. ) Of note is how both Nacho and Trendall have done this, in my opinion.

you cannot find scum tells if a player is lurking.

Actually, it depends on the type of lurking. There are three. 1: Casual lurking--on the site, elsewhere, and commenting, but ignoring the thread. 2: Active/Normal lurking--Not posting at all, but reading the thread. 3: Passive lurking, posting, but not giving content. If you can identify which type of lurking it is, you can learn to read their inactivity. It's hard, but possible.

Perhaps you should venture outside the wiki every once in a while. OMGUS doesn't have to be "you're voting for me, so I'm voting for you"; it can also be "you're voting me, so here's my case on you".

For reference, OMGUS gets thrown around pretty much every time someone makes a case against someone who suspects(/ed) them. Does that mean that their case is automatically invalid? Heck no. They often bring up perfectly valid points against said person, and it's a BAD idea to ignore it all as "OMGUS". I saw Neruz's case against you, and my first thought was OMGUS...then I read it, found there were valid points in it, and concluded that it was not. It had many points perfectly valid in my mind, therefore, not OMGUS.

And I scumhunt by prodding first and making cases second. Remember, when I made small general points for why you were scum and asked you a few questions, then dropped the case completely?

Hmm, sound familiar? It should. It's a good strategy, but I need to check to see Nacho's attitude on my ISO on Jay, again, because if he was against it (like I seem to remember off the top of my head), this is hypocrisy.

[Mastin]

Also, I have to leave at 2, today. It's 11. I won't be on tomorrow, so if I need to change my vote, it needs to be done within that timeframe.

[Yenros]

Trend, that really looks like OMGUS when you don't explain, so may Io ask why?

Mastin, I always thought active lurking was when someone was posting just enough to keep from getting prodded, but not posting content.

[Jay]

What do you suggest?

I don't really know - I guess just enough examples to give them a good idea of what you mean but not enough to smother them.

Actually, I've been liking Mastin's defenses a lot lately. In the beginning when people first called him out for the ISO of me I thought the case on Trendall was rushed, but now I think this was probably because he was eager to prove that it was not a case on me, and show every one his more serious suspicions. Even though I still don't really agree with the fencesitting business, you did a good job of explaining to me

how

it is a scumtell. Some of his earlier behavior seemed scummy, mainly the ISO of me, and Trendall's points about hypocrisy and that deal with looking back on things that did not seem scummy, but saying they are now - but, ever since then he has seemed less suspicious to me. So:

VOTE: Nachomamma8

[Mastin]

Whoops, got the two reversed. "Active lurking"-->Posting, but not posting content. (This is more commonly seen as posting one-liners such as "sorry, will catch up", "x is scum", etc., rather than a lot of words but all fluff. Both

technically

fall under this.) Passive Lurking (something I came up with 'cause I was guilty of it a lot)-->Posting elsewhere, but ignoring the thread. (Different from Normal Lurking, in that they really haven't checked the thread.) Normal lurking-->Reading the thread, but not posting anything.

Anyway, do you think I should continue my Trendall read, or switch to a Nacho read? (That 2o'clock deadline is only an hour and a half away.)
(Remember, at 2, I have to leave, and won't be back until...actually, probably Tuesday. :/)

[Mastin]

Vote Count 8

Nachomamma8 (Neruz - Mute)

Kayi and Jay have both voted for Nacho, so that's 4/8. Nacho, you're at L-1.

[Mastin]

Hey, Nacho, could you do me a favor and give me a link to a recent game of yours as both town and scum?

[Trendall]

Anyway, do you think I should continue my Trendall read, or switch to a Nacho read? (

...I thought that you were pretty much 100% confident that I'm mafia?

[Mastin]

Preview response to Trendall: Right now, I'm still highly suspicious of you, but feel like Nacho is AT LEAST equal to you, if not surpassing you. I'd probably switch my vote, if it weren't the hammer. Anyway, partial collection of your first game below; I have not finished it.

Spoiler: Trendall's First Game Continued

Just a warning, this'll probably contain a lot of info, but not much analysis; I need to compile it all in one place before I can form conclusions from it. Also, once I post it all, I can have a good comparison to his play this game.
I noticed Trendall accused someone of twisting words here. Has relevance. He defends against a general note on the same subject here. He continues to push Beanman in that game, and also agrees with the active lurking suspicion, something which he was--for a while--guilty of this game.

So far, I've noted He voted early (Beanman for being lazy), but after the RVS, didn't vote as much.

Cleared up a previous misconception here, so it makes me wonder why it was so hard to do so this game with him. He was mentioned positively in this post

Trendall - I like how he's not sheeping on foilist's case and is trying to sort of mediate the argument, and I can't find any blatant scumtells.

...Showing how he was in the middle. I recognize not all fencesitters are scum, though there are different types of fencesitting. (I would explain, but, I, uh, am not sure I can. :/ It makes sense in my head, that there are subtle differences between town-fencing and scum-fencing, but it's very difficult to find the words to show the difference.) Very subtle, but existent; I need to determine which type Trendall was in that game compared to this game.

Trendall posts this at least three days after his last post, and says he's reading through the posts, but hasn't had the chance to post. (AKA, lurking, somewhat.) He also mentions thinking Bean is flipped-out town. This doesn't quite fit his attitude towards me this game, I don't think, but I'll need to check this later to make sure.

Here, Trendall expresses that he doesn't see AGM and Friend's, well, friendship, to be suspicious. Interesting.

He shows up days later and posts almost nothing. An alarming

Trend

, eh?
More seriously (without the puns), Trendall, this might be a style thing for you, but considering I recall that attitude in this game--if it proves to be consistent--you may want to consider becoming more active. (But, again, I only recall this info from the top of my head; you might be posting more frequently than I'm remembering off the top of my head.)

Takes the middle (fencing) in the scummy vs newbie debate. It would appear Trendall wasn't lying when he said he fencesat a lot. However, again, I feel like I can tell the difference between town-fencesitting and scum-fencesitting, so I'll be comparing his fencesitting in that game to his fencing in this game.

Furthering his "in the middle" stance, Trendall calls out Black and White logic on a robot. Recognizes that someone can be scummy without being scum. He defends fallacies as not being 100% fallacious and that they occasionally have merit. (True. They're not 100% accurate...they're only, oh, say, around 90-99% accurate.)

Town players change their opinions on things all the time.

This is interesting, considering his stance on Beefster this game...
His last vote in that game at this point was still his RVS vote, so indeed, he was being cautious.

Places his first vote, outside the RVS.

Of course it will change my mind. By pointing out these things, I'm inviting you to say 'no, you've got it all wrong, this is how it actually is'. That's how you find out information in this game.

This quote seems to have relevance. I recall thinking this sort of thought applied to Trendall, but off the top of my head right now (braindead), I can't remember if this works in his favor or against.

I had something in mind for 413 and 414 from Trendall in the game I'm reading, but I seem to have forgotten what at this moment.

Trendall takes an interesting stance, which 1: would explain Beefster suspicion in a way (we should be suspicious of everyone, if I read that post correctly), and also, 2: Just because people make the same conclusions doesn't mean they're actually linked, essentially. Interesting.

Unvotes later. Does not replace it.

Trendall is not fond of self-preservation voting.

Ack, it's 2. I have to leave, but will continue this later. I feel like I can learn a lot about Trendall from this game, so this has to be continued.

[Trendall]

Cleared up a previous misconception here, so it makes me wonder why it was so hard to do so this game with him.

What on EARTH are you referring to here?

[Jay]

Does this mean that no one is lynched Day 2?