Sorry for the format of this post in advance. I'm just trying to catchup in a timely manner.
Stels wrote:@Mute: Your last post was scummy as hell. You're just trying too damn hard to get Workdawg onto the noose.
Why do you think that Mute-scum would try that hard to lynch a townie? Why don't you think that Mute would be more inclined to let the town lynch themselves?
Mute wrote:When I tunnel on someone, I do get heated.
Okay, so you know you're tunneling. Why aren't you backing off?
Mute wrote:In hindsight, yes it is. I still have no doubt that dawg is scum.
No doubt? Why isn't he at 100 on your table, then? Don't you think it's unhealthy for town to have no doubt that someone is scum Day 1, page 5, especially since the best of us can't peg scum that early?
Mute wrote:Am I aware of how scummy this is? Yes. I'm also aware of how this can potentially be used to either A) paint me to be scum by actions alone, or B) to give scum ammunition to push for me to be lynched.
If it's scummy, then why do it?
asano324 wrote:lol shows how wrong and new i am, it is Mute and workdawg in currently the most spectulative topspots at the moment. I am leaning towards workdawg at the moment on the grounds that some of the posts he made implied that he could be mafia. I will read again his posts and may change my mind and wont set my vote yet but i will be looking......
Don't just look at the leading wagons for scum, look at anyone who gives you even the slightest tinge of a bad feeling. There's a good chance that there isn't even scum in the top two wagons at the moment.
Workdawg wrote:Why do I keep asking for my rating? Simply because you've said a few times that if anyone asked, you would be glad to tell them their rating... yet when I asked, you just dodged the question up until now.
But why did you ask for the rating in the first place?
TP42 wrote:tl,dr: The table is fine, but I don't like how Mute claims he will be using it. Without regular explanations, it seems like it would be an excellent way to throw suspicion on someone without real reasons.
Well, the easiest way to prevent this would be asking Mute the reasons behind his numbers rather than just asking for numbers themselves, no?
TP42 wrote:I'm a little confused. Which side of the argument do you like?
I like the argument in general, as in, I was getting a town read from everybody participating in it.
Neuky wrote: I would expect more from an IC in terms of sheer scum-hunting
You won't be disappointed. But you have to give me time to destroy the scum; even Zachrulez doesn't begin the steamroll on Page 3.
Neuky wrote:(Hmm.. he really thought that was a hammer?)
In my defense, it was late and I was tired so I missed the unvote.
Neuky wrote:uck, again, who knows what a noob scum is thinking? I actually thought that was not a bad move from Dawg if he was scum who thought he was hammering, it hasen't given him a wagon, let alone lynched (and that was a fail hammer). Surely our IC would see that too?
Hammering like that as newbie scum would take some nerve, and I've certainly never seen a scum quickhammer like that. He also wouldn't be able to predict that a wagon wouldn't form on him, I don't think. That being said, I'm not exactly discounting him as scum just yet.
TP42 wrote:@asano234
Just for future reference, it's probably a bad idea to use the word "buddy" when applying to someone in a favorable way. Generally, scum team partners are referred to as scumbuddies. "Buddy" itself also has scummy connotations to it, specifically certain scum tactics. You can search the wiki for more details on that. For those, you can say someone is "buddying" if they are trying to gain someone's favor for no apparent reason. It won't be used against you now, but I could see some overzealous scumhunters attacking that in later games. They wouldn't realize that you didn't know what using "buddy" implied. Sorry if I seem like I'm jumping on this, but I don't like people being scared away for frivolous reasons.
Have you seen someone get lynched or almost get lynched based on that?
Mute wrote:I have as much reason to think of everyone as scum as much as they are town.
Mute wrote:I'm going to play with the mindset of "scum with medium probability until highly suspected/proven town."
TP42, how do these two sentences contradict?
Re: Stels #148: You have far too many null tells. Can you fix that up?
Workdawg wrote:If you are playing 100% then it seems to me that you'd want to push to get that last vote, rather than save him.
Even if I was a daycop with a guilty result on him, I STILL wouldn't push that lynch through. Firstly, you have to understand that as an IC I'm kind of expecting to get NK'ed, especially if I do my job. So a lynch, especially a lynch on scum, means my immediate death. As a result, I'd much rather stay in the game a bit longer and peg BOTH scum as opposed to just hitting one and then leaving you all to your own devices.
Workdawg wrote:I can see a couple of arguments about why you might have done this,
What were the arguments you were thinking of?
Workdawg wrote:"if that's a valid reason, then don't say I'm scum, otherwise bring it up"
What statement are you talking about here?
Mute wrote:Right now though, you and dawg are my top suspects.
Do you really think that both scum would be attacking you at the moment?
TP42 wrote:You probably shouldn't have even said that much. I'm not entirely sure what counts as "discussing ongoing games," so we'll have to wait for Drench for a ruling.
"Discussing ongoing games" means that you aren't allowed to talk about what's going on in other games. That means that you can't say "Well, Workdawg just quickhammered town in a game that I'm playing in and he ended up flipping town, so I don't really think that he's scum this game." You can say things like "I'm not lurking, I haven't posted in any of my games!" or something like that, but you can never ever ever reference a specific game. If you're unsure with anything like that, PM Drench. Otherwise, he may be forced to modkill you and no mod likes that.
asano wrote:Purely on the basis that i am sick of the arguments about the table.
asano wrote:I will detail my arguments for workdawg and Mute later today as i have to go to work. (it is more than the table).
I have two problems with this. Firstly, this is a contradiction, and secondly, the first quote expresses that you're tired of reading the arguments, not that it points to any sort of scumminess.
Why say that your vote was solely for the table arguments if there was more to the vote?
If you were tired of table arguments, wouldn't that warrant a vote on Workdawg, not Mute, since he was the one that was bringing it up? Why did you think Mute was scummy for his responses to the table argument?
Neuky wrote: I'm sure even Mute would agree with that.
Mute, do you agree with it? (Reference is #147.)
Mute wrote:I myself am a victim of the latter a lot. I only ever read a persons entire ISO post if I'm really looking for something.
I read the person's entire ISO post, usually. The reasoning is that it allows me to get a read on the person itself, usually. And if I find that person as town and capable, then they most likely will have picked up on something that I missed. Mafia isn't just finding the scum yourself; it's also recognizing when someone's found scum. In Stels's ISO for example, I thought that all of the neutral reads and the weaker reads made him more likely to be scum.
Workdawg wrote:(Yes, I realize the above is pretty hypocritical. I did the same thing before, but at least I gave my reasons for doing so.)
Why do you think that asano's vote had scum intent while yours clearly didn't, even though you essentially did the same thing?
Workdawg wrote:Another unvote... I just don't know how to feel about that. It's the experienced players who keep doing it. I can see the argument for keeping the day from ending prematurely, but I just don't like the idea that you're putting your vote out there if you aren't confident enough to see that person lynched. Especially a second time.
There are more uses of a vote than lynching. Occasionally, pressure is the only way to actually be confident enough to lynch someone. I hate lynching someone, seeing a town flip, and going "meh, not surprised". Seeing reactions to pressure is a good way for me to prevent that from happening, ever.
Workdawg wrote:I have to admit, it certainly seems like you've got a strong case against me. You've obviously got quite a bit of experience hunting scum and analyzing posts.
Shouldn't these two sentences contradict one another if you're town? Why would you call him a good scumhunter if he's voting town?
Veridis wrote:I've been asked for my top suspects but will instead give my impression of the top 3 wagons from today, Ty, Mute and Workdawg.
Why exactly would you do this?
TP42 wrote:If we end up lynching him and he flips scum, I'm beginning to change my mind and to think that Mute could be his partner. The sheer amount of time that they are putting in to constantly attack one another is mindboggling. That, combined with the immediate back-down after veridis pointed it out, could indicate bussing/distancing.
Why is it that you believe scum would put more energy into calling one another scum than town calling someone they think is scum scum?
TP42 wrote:Nacho, did you realize that the second quote above says "by Ty" when you said that it was you? Did you mean to say "by Nachomamma8?" Just want to make sure I understand it correctly.
Yeah, that's supposed to say my name, not Ty's. At least I know you're reading
"Playing with Nacho is like playing with a religious conservative." ~UncertainKitten
-- Fate, Vanilla Townie, was brutally stabbed by a throwing sword in endgame.