Newbie 1052 - Endgame

[Neuky]

RE: Nachomamma: I mentioned this in an earlier post, as I was having difficulty trying to read him in my post 123.
Hence this iso look at the posts leading to my post saying I was confused by him...

0: RV, then the question to Ty

"Ty, how does my answer to any of those questions allow you to get a gauge on my alignment?"

1: The interesting point here is the question to Dawg about his change from FOS to Vote on Mute - this was a good point - it prompted Dawg to explain about the time stamps on the posts.

Then voted Ty - I can see now how this was a "pressure" vote, as was explained to me later.

2: Acknowledges Dawg's explanation, though questions the time it took to do the vote post.
More theory mainly, but then in his preview edit gives a very calm admonishment to Dawg for his over- eager "non-hammer" vote.

3: OK, I've already commented on this post, but to me it just rung as stating the obvious. Hardly a big scum-tell, but it's just that thing that made me think he was trying a bit too hard to look townie. And I know I have to balance that with the fact that he thinks we're all crack monkeys anyway.. The final part of the post

"I don't like that he realizes that the hammer looks scummy after the fact. It seems he's slightly regretting the hammer, but not because he thought of the chance that Ty might be town, but instead because the scenario might make him look scummy."

- I accept is a good point. I acknowledge I didn't comment on this part the last time.

I think the fact I was expecting a bit of a town dynamo as the IC rather than his more laid back approach had influenced me when I made that (slightly beer fuelled) post. [Neuky=alcohol monkey?]

[veridis]

Ok finally up to speed, so many walls of text, took far longer than I expected for 7 pages. 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.

Mute - Table is a silly idea that is essentially meaningless, but he's not today's lynch because of it. I really don't care about the table, nor the exact argument why it's BS. We all know the numbers are made up and while being vaguely ordinal, are definitely not a proper interval or ratio scale and have no real mathematical basis, can we please move on. Instead I shall focus on Mute's votes, his Ty vote was pretty good. His HoS:Workdawg and reaction to the failhammer were also good, but once he and dawg get bickering over the table and the rules the case becomes a bit too personal. Early on I thought there was a chance of some Mute/dawg bussing, but the argument got far too heated for that.

Workdawg - The failhammer was terrible, the D2 target/NK speculation was no better, "mayor of townsvilleland" is cheap attempt to openly claim town, as are the "we'll see when I flip" comments. However I'm hesitant to call any of this scummy however because first and foremost they are terrible decisions. Apart from the hammer I'm simply saying dawg has no clue about how to defend, and using erroneous logic is more a newb tell than a scumtell.

Ty - Only 9 posts so should be a quick ISO, it isn't. First 3 posts he tries to get rid of our IC for no good reason, and does a fine job of impersonating an IC himself. Looks like someone is trying a little to hard to come across as obvtown. But the expected Nacho vote doesn't come, despite Nacho being criticised in all of Ty's first 5 posts. He avoids voting until ISO 5, at which time he jumps on the largest wagon. Ty's first case comes a week into the game, on a player who has 2 votes, and 4 pages after the failhammer. Ty backs away from his hard targets but come out swinging for the soft ones. It's interesting that Ty starts out being everyones teacher, but attacks dawg for newbie errors (WIFOM and deflections). The claim that he is the "most vocal scumhunter" is laughable. He's made a case on 1 person, though he certainly has been very vocal if we judge by post length rather than content.

VOTE: Ty This wagon got spooked by the failhammer, it's time to get it started again.

[Mute]

I see both Mute and Workdawg online. I look forward to a reply. Thanks.

OH GOD THE WALL IT IS LIKE RUNNING UP A 75 DEGREE INCLINE WAAAAAAH.
</sarcasm>

The reason I said you are active lurking is the time between your posts and their size. In ISO #4 you address in your first point that

Frankly I don’t understand how the length of my posts makes me scum, in fact one would almost argue that it would be to the scum’s advantage to make shorter posts. More writing means more opportunities for a slip that could be potentially harmful.

However I would ultimately say it’s a null-tell.

It is from my first game that I've learned walls of text that are hard to read are easy for scum to use to insert fluff, weak arguments, and misdirection, and while it behooves them not to make slips they do use long walls of text to obfuscate the truth.

Either your definition is wrong, or you’ve been skimming over my posts. I’ve gone head to head with Nachomamma and now Workdawg while scumhunting, and I’ve determined with a fair amount of confidence that Workdawg is scum.

I’m sorry I’m not messing around with a table that serves no purpose, bickering with Workdawg, or posting such insightful analysis as “Stels: recently has caught my attention.”

Once again there's your snappy wit out in view again.
As for skimming, I already admitted I tend to skim. I said that here specifically. In fact I asked a question there that I'd still like an answer to, so I'll repost the question.

Question to all since I've still got the mouth to speak with:
Whenever anyone posts an ISO post of several people, do you read all of it, or just the part that is directed towards you, and (slightly) skim over the rest (if at all)?

---
As for a detailed post for why I feel Dawg is scum and deserves the lynch today...
Eh, Ill format it and post it later on. Waiting for someone to pick me up to get my car. Above that line I had written last night, and beneath of it was after, and starting with neuky's post on page nine.

@Veridis:

the Ty wagon wasn't necessarily spooked, it was redirected to Dawg.

[Workdawg]

@Mute

I would hardly say the wagon against Ty was redirected to me. Only a single person who voted for Ty is now voting for me (it's you, actually). I think you'd need more than just one person to call it the same wagon.

[veridis]

Somehow me voting Ty becomes Mute and dawg arguing with each other again. I'd like you guys to try an experiment, 2 posts each without mentioning the other person.

oh and Mute, it was spooked. Workdawg backs off pretty quickly(but leaves his vote for a while), Nacho unvotes "just in case" and Stels unvotes "to be safe for the night".

[Mute]

Somehow me voting Ty becomes Mute and dawg arguing with each other again. I'd like you guys to try an experiment, 2 posts each without mentioning the other person.

oh and Mute, it was spooked. Workdawg backs off pretty quickly(but leaves his vote for a while), Nacho unvotes "just in case" and Stels unvotes "to be safe for the night".

Yes it is ironic that he continues to stick to me instead of other people, even when I am not addressing him at all. I do not like being shadowed. Isn't that considered a form of tunneling in this game? I don't know, but I agree it is funny he butts in there.

Also (why do I keep starting with also? :self-facepalm:) I can see your reasoning there. However I still wouldn't consider it to have been "spooked off." He did back off quickly but only to try and appear as newb-town instead of over-eager-scum, which I still say is the case. (It's been said back and forth, over and over there was no town-friendly motivation for wanting to advance the game as quickly as dawg attempted to.)

[Workdawg]

You are right veridis; but It seems like every time Mute mentions my name, its some sort of jab or attack on me and so I feel the need to defend myself.

I would say we are both guilty of that, but in any case, I'll try and cut back on it.

[theplague42]

Ok there are too many walls for me to quote everything. I'll do my best to pick out a couple things that irk me.

asano

there has been 4 official vote counts thus far (i am sure you will be quick to point out if i am wrong) of those i have recieved a vote from you on 3 occasions

I'm quite confused by this. Can you specifically tell me the numbers of the posts where I supposedly voted for you?

Ty

Every time I scroll down, your wall just regenerates. My eyes were watering by the time I finished it. I can't find a single flaw in your argument against Workdawg. However, I do disagree about the table as a nulltell. The table is a nulltell in itself, yes. But the way in which Mute is using it seems very much like an easy cover-up for any inconsistencies/wild accusations that Mute may do. He just posts the table with some random numbers that support his views, and says "well, look at my points. he's obviously scum."

Workdawg

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. At this point, I'm not sure what I can even say to you that will convince you I'm town.

I will straight up say it, I am a townie. Any actions that you think are scum-tells are simply my ignorance at how this game is properly played. I feel like I made one major mistake and have been unable to adequately defend myself from the inquisition that's been imposed on me as a result.

Why are you claiming so early? You are nowhere close to L-1, even with my soon-to-be vote. And yes, there isn't much way to defend against an attempted hammer two meatworld-days into a game-day, much less Day 1

Once again, time really played no role in my vote against you other than that I was simply anxious to do something good for the team. The evidence against you I felt was strong enough.

Considering both of the other experienced players also placed a vote against you for their own reasons, I don't see how it's unreasonable to assume that a newb town see's some things he doesn't like and then jumps on the band wagon as well; especially considering that the two experienced players are already on board.

I do not believe you for a second on this. You specifically stated that time was the main reason for voting Ty. You later frantically defended that by saying that you couldn't stand waiting two more weeks for the day to be over. Later, you switch track by saying that you have other "evidence" for voting Ty. Yet you never once give a concrete example (parroting Ty a little here) of why you voted him.

Before you voted, you said that you thought Mute was scummy. Yet you tried to hammer Ty two days into the day. Therefore:

Unvote

Vote: Workdawg

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.

Although if Workdawg is town, then I still think Mute could be scum, but my suspicion would be greater than if Workdawg is scum. Now that I say this, I'm not exactly sure why I want Workdawg lynched before Mute. But I do, if just to eliminate all chance of another "miscount" and pseudo-hammer. Lynch all Liars! Yes, by that statement I mean that I believe that Workdawg lied.

Mute

Walls are only helpful to scum if they don't contain any real information. Ty's walls are progressing from SE-voice to player-voice as the game goes on, which seems completely consistent with the amount of in-game content to work with.

veridis

I do agree that the wagon got spooked, but I'm not sure if it deserves to be reinstated. I think that both Mute and Workdawg are both scummier than Ty. If I see townieness in their play later, I would be willing to investigate Ty more fully.

Neuky

I too am surprised by Nacho's lack of content. From the games I've read and my one played game, ICs universally seem to be the most aggressive posters. Its strange that he A. hasn't really provided much content recently, and B. seemed to have absolutely no emotion when dealing with the attempted hammer. He said that he didn't want to scare newbies away, but there are ways to express disbelief and anger without being scary. Although, QTF for the final comment you quoted. After re-reading Workdawg's reaction, I can see where that tell comes out.

Hopefully I can get a couple ISOs in over the weekend. With that huge storm coming up the east coast, I foresee lots of time inside in the near future.

[asano234]

asano

there has been 4 official vote counts thus far (i am sure you will be quick to point out if i am wrong) of those i have recieved a vote from you on 3 occasions

I'm quite confused by this. Can you specifically tell me the numbers of the posts where I supposedly voted for you?

Well if you recall i have replaced angry scientist and you voted for me in: Post 30,72,115 and 146. The last 2 counts 168 and 199 you did not vote probably becuase you thought i would go insane and quit. Dont worry yourself about it.

I hope that helps your confusion.

[asano234]

Welcome to Veridis!

[asano234]

Although if Workdawg is town, then I still think Mute could be scum, but my suspicion would be greater than if Workdawg is scum. Now that I say this, I'm not exactly sure why I want Workdawg lynched before Mute. But I do, if just to eliminate all chance of another "miscount" and pseudo-hammer. Lynch all Liars! Yes, by that statement I mean that I believe that Workdawg lied.

The well presented arguments by you and Ty have done nothing but convince me that it is possible that Workdawg and Mute have the potential to be our scumteam at work. The way they have both conducted themselves is scummy to me but what do i know?. My gut feeling told me that there behaviour was scummy and i make that clear when i tried and failed to justify my vote for mute and because i could not properly justify it to the rest of the team i go heavily criticised. I have made mistakes since joining this site and where you are keen for workdawg to be lynched before mute i would want to know why if possible. Further to that I would like us to be absolutely sure that workdawg and scum (or as sure as we can possibly be) before we go and make a decision that we could regret. If they both end up flipping town we end up with egg on our faces and only the mafia benefit.

[asano234]

The well presented arguments by you and Ty have done nothing but convince me that it is possible that Workdawg and Mute have the potential to be our scumteam at work. The way they have both conducted themselves is scummy to me but what do i know?. My gut feeling told me that there behaviour was scummy and i make that clear when i tried and failed to justify my vote for mute and because i could not properly justify it to the rest of the team i go heavily criticised. I have made mistakes since joining this site and where you are keen for workdawg to be lynched before mute i would want to know why if possible.

Further to that I would like us to be absolutely sure that workdawg and scum (or as sure as we can possibly be) before we go and make a decision that we could regret

. If they both end up flipping town we end up with egg on our faces and only the mafia benefit.

[/quote]

Ok should have proof read it first before sending it out. Should have read Further to that i would like us to be absolutely sure that workdawg and Mute are scum (or as sure as we can possibly be) before we go and make a decision that we could regret.

[Nachomamma8]

RE: Ty

Logical Fallacy #2: Appeal to Authority “I am the IC of the game, therefore I teach you, and you do not teach me.” I don’t recall saying I didn’t/couldn’t learn from you, but you felt the need to say so anyways, making sure to note that you have more power in this game.

You're warping the point. You said:

Look I’m trying to help you Nachomamma8 but all you’re doing is hurting yourself.

And I responded by saying that I was the IC of this game, and thus

I'm

meant to help

you

, not the other way around. This is NOT an Appeal to Authority because there is no scum motivation behind it, and I am not using to to prove a point. I was noting the condensending tone you took in the quote above, and telling you that it was unwarranted.

Logical Fallacy #1: False Dilemma. You clearly state that either I’m a townie not voting you making me look like scum, or if I do vote you I am scum. If you want to call it “advice” as a euphemism, go ahead, but it’s still presenting me with a false dilemma.

Looks like I have to pull the quote out again. I said:

You've failed to explain in your post why not answering your questions has any scum intent behind it. You also failed to answer my question. Instead, you posted a case on me which is concluded with a question: why shouldn't you lynch me? Well, if you're town you don't feel confident enough to put a vote with that case, so you'll only end up making yourself look like scum. But if you ARE scum, then go ahead. I'd love to see you try to lynch me.

...which is a direct response to your question "why shouldn't I lynch you"? I answered that if you were town, you shouldn't try to lynch me since you clearly weren't confident enough in your case to even put a vote on me, and thus your attempt would be weak. I also hinted that if you were scum and you tried to lynch me, you'd look scummy and get yourself lynched. No where in that post did I provide you with an ultimatum. I did not post ANY absolutes whatsoever. There isn't even a command in there; I'm just answering your question. So, instead of linking me to a wiki I've already read, try explaining why you're seeing a false dilemma.

You state in Post 43 that “You've failed to explain in your post why not answering your questions has any scum intent behind it. You also failed to answer my question.” as your sole reason for voting me. If failing to answer questions (which you admit to doing in the sentence below) were scummy, shouldn’t you be the scummiest suspect currently playing in the game?

You don't have to answer my questions if you don't see merit in them. Also, why would doing one scummy thing make me the scummiest suspect currently playing in the game? Do you believe that everyone else has behaved perfectly towny, and not done anything wrong at all?

I hope I’m not the only one that noticed Nachomamma8 contradicted himself in the same sentence.

How so? I said I wasn't going to provide my top

two

suspects, but I did end up providing

one

.

I've explained the questions you ask at the end of the bit on me already.

[theplague42]

asano

there has been 4 official vote counts thus far (i am sure you will be quick to point out if i am wrong) of those i have recieved a vote from you on 3 occasions

I'm quite confused by this. Can you specifically tell me the numbers of the posts where I supposedly voted for you?

Well if you recall i have replaced angry scientist and you voted for me in: Post 30,72,115 and 146. The last 2 counts 168 and 199 you did not vote probably becuase you thought i would go insane and quit. Dont worry yourself about it.

I hope that helps your confusion.

Ohhhhhhh I see what is causing the confusion. I think you are reading the votecount backwards. The list of people on the left are the people being voted. The number tells how many votes are on that person, and the people placing the votes on that person are on the left. Example:

John - 2 - Bill, Alex
Bill - 1 - John
Alex -

In this example, Bill and Alex are voting for John. John is receiving two votes. John's vote is placed on Bill. Alex has nobody voting for her. What had happened in this game was that Angry Scientist had voted for me in RVS. Therefore, it could be mistaken that I was voting for him. Hope this helps.

[theplague42]

Logical Fallacy #1: False Dilemma. You clearly state that either I’m a townie not voting you making me look like scum, or if I do vote you I am scum. If you want to call it “advice” as a euphemism, go ahead, but it’s still presenting me with a false dilemma.

Looks like I have to pull the quote out again. I said:

You've failed to explain in your post why not answering your questions has any scum intent behind it. You also failed to answer my question. Instead, you posted a case on me which is concluded with a question: why shouldn't you lynch me? Well, if you're town you don't feel confident enough to put a vote with that case, so you'll only end up making yourself look like scum. But if you ARE scum, then go ahead. I'd love to see you try to lynch me.

...which is a direct response to your question "why shouldn't I lynch you"? I answered that if you were town, you shouldn't try to lynch me since you clearly weren't confident enough in your case to even put a vote on me, and thus your attempt would be weak. I also hinted that if you were scum and you tried to lynch me, you'd look scummy and get yourself lynched. No where in that post did I provide you with an ultimatum. I did not post ANY absolutes whatsoever. There isn't even a command in there; I'm just answering your question. So, instead of linking me to a wiki I've already read, try explaining why you're seeing a false dilemma.

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.

[Stels]

Spoiler: Mute-Part-1

@Mute: FoS for not saying that you're at L-2? Really? L-2 isn't as serious as L-1, therefore I don't think that I will announce that anyone will be at L-2, L-3 or L-4. I do keep track of who does what (voting) after the latest vote count. If I put someone at L-1, I will announce it.
Going through your response:

Stels wrote:
Mute
ISO #5, creates table.
One part I don't like about the table is that

Mute wrote:
B) I feel your play is worthy of either a high or a low score.

I just don't like what he said here. So, instead of just scum-hunting and putting his findings into that table, he also lets our playing-style get in the way... I just don't like that. Or would you like to clear this misunderstanding?

So... wait, lemme see if I have this right now: both you and Dawg are operating with the thought that play-style isn't the things a person posts in the game? See, to me, play-style is a persons posting/posts and how they are interpreted by others. So, with the mindset I'm using, which is that, how is my using a person's style of play not scum hunting?
So, what of the whole ordeal isn't clear yet? I've said what I feel is enough about the table.

Play-style in my definition doesn't equal the same thing as what the post contains. In my definition, play-style is defined as posting in all-caps; changing votes from 1 person to another in almost every other post; playing aggressively; passively; etc.
I see how some of the factors come into rating the posts, but doesn't the motivation behind the posts and not the way they are presented matter more? Sure, you pursue Workdawg aggresively, but the thing is, there is nothing to pursue him by, thus I voted.
The buddying up, is not that in each post of your ISO my name appeared once, meaning you were buddying up to me in each individual post, but in that putting all those posts together, I get the feeling and picture that you were trying to buddy up to me. I may have presented that in a rather incorrect way, therefore I am correcting it now.

Not having a bad case... from a single post out of many... Of which yes most of those points were bad, though I should let you know that I already addressed that those two posts were made by plague, and not Dawg.

Yet, you did not know that those points were made by plague at first, but by Workdawg, but

the fact that I paired it with another quote

that you previously mentioned, you contradicted what you said to Workdawg. You told him to spill the beans, but then you say that you find that information misleading, still thinking that it was Workdawg who said it (TP42 said it though), meaning that you don't really care what he says, you just want him lynched.

------------------------------------
Addressing your second part of your broken up wall.
------------------------------------

Spoiler: Mute-Part-2

It's a number arbitrarily given by me. Why was it such a huge deal that my rating on someone was different from everyone else? What is the big deal when the numbers I give on the table don't amount to anything by themselves, are dictated by the reads and vibes I get from the players? What reason is there for you to have not just discarded it as needless fluff, what purpose do you have in bringing it up, what motivation could there be?
I speculate the same reason why Dawg is so knit-picky about it; finding an easy town-lynch so you two can proceed to spread confusion and win the game for yourselves as scum.

I'm actually don't care for the numbers that come out after you gave us the first table out into public. The initial numbers were the problem, that's it. Sure, it's your opinion about someone, it's your table, I am not here for you to correct what has already been made, but Jesus Christ, you give someone a slighter less-chance-of-being-scum to someone who hasn't said anything helpful to the town at that moment, besides helping you create a table.
The fact that Nacho already has an advantage at that time towards his number being less than ours (more town) is either because you're scum and you know who everyone around you is, or you're somewhat anti-town'ish despite being aligned to town (expect the unexpected/everything is possible). Yes, I know that you played a game with him previously and you're not convinced that he's scum twice in a row, but try to see it from my perspective.
-------------------------------
Stels/Dawg scum-team? And you're not the only person who thinks so? Go ahead, I just don't care.

I understand why you put me at a FoS now that I read farther into your posts, but understand this: Newbie Games =/= Mini Games. Mini games start out with 2 less people than newbie games. Therefore I understand why it is that people scream at you there for not doing so. Newbie games are more slow-paced than the Mini games which are supposed to be more fast-paced.

@Asano234: I don't intend for you to feel less than the other people here, and I certainly don't mean to offend anyone here. The fact that all you said was thanks for the welcome in more than 75% of your posts does arouse some concern towards your read. Having nothing to say? Fair enough, I often also have nothing to say, therefore I won't just sit there and try to make stuff up. Glad you at least mentioned that you don't have any input at the moment.

Spoiler: Neuky

@Neuky: Yet there is a vote count that follows Asano's vote. I think that suffices just as fine as an L-1, since the mod shows clearly that he is at L-1.
---------
1st Part: Ok, true, I misunderstood what you said about looking for town. Yes, you can't limit what he says on his table, yet, doesn't that instill fear into Mute since you're against his town-reads? Fear of a vote being cast onto him.
2nd Part: I think that WD said almost the same thing that you mentioned in your response to him. The fact that WD says that it would be easier to look at 2 people who you think are scummy instead of looking at the rest as town by default, but judging whether there are more people that look scummy as well. Basically, you vote him for almost saying the same thing as you, cancelling it out, meaning you vote him based on him disliking the table. I accept your response and don't at the same time.
3rd Part: You still vote him because of the table, even if it is an RVS. Meaning you disliked something about it initially, since you then proceed to criticize the table later.
4th Part: OK, after reading your post a few times, I would like to apologize. I see where I misunderstood what you said. Mute didn't sway you to vote Workdawg, I see now. What I meant in my wall-o-text before about you was that I thought you justified your RVS to be non-random, therefore in combo with the 4th part to your response to me, it made you contradict yourself, appearing scummy in my eyes since you tried to appear town, as well as saying that only scum will be trying to appear town. I'm sorry. You may disregard my response to your 3rd part now, although I don't wish to fix anything, so you can see what I thought at the time.
5th Part: I guess it might have been a tongue in cheek, although I hardly notice these things until they are pointed out.

@Mute: I read everything, not just the parts directed to me. I don't see why anybody would only read the parts that concern only themselves. I think that's something that most scum do as opposed to town.
------------------------------------------

No time left today, will finish this step-by-step, although I'll try to do so ASAP.

@Workdawg & ThePlague: I unvoted Mute since I was reading his response to what I thought about him when I rummaged through his ISO. I felt that it was necessary for me to at least give him a chance for me to read what he has to say before making a final choice to lynch him, if a lynch would occur. As I still haven't read the thread to the last post, I am gonna leave that vote in the air until I finish reading. Hope this clears up your frustration.

[Stels]

For reference, I am at post #177, which is 38 posts away from my previous post... I'll try to read through this wall-o-rific thread ASAP. Good Night.

[Nachomamma8]

Sorry for the format of this post in advance. I'm just trying to catchup in a timely manner.

@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?

When I tunnel on someone, I do get heated.

Okay, so you know you're tunneling. Why aren't you backing off?

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?

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?

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.

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?

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?

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.

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.

(Hmm.. he really thought that was a hammer?)

In my defense, it was late and I was tired so I missed the unvote.

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.

@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?

I have as much reason to think of everyone as scum as much as they are town.

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?

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.

I can see a couple of arguments about why you might have done this,

What were the arguments you were thinking of?

"if that's a valid reason, then don't say I'm scum, otherwise bring it up"

What statement are you talking about here?

Right now though, you and dawg are my top suspects.

Do you really think that both scum would be attacking you at the moment?

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.

Purely on the basis that i am sick of the arguments about the table.

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?

I'm sure even Mute would agree with that.

Mute, do you agree with it? (Reference is #147.)

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.

(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?

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.

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?

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?

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?

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

[theplague42]

Actually, this format is quite nice for taking out specific quotes

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?

I've done this several times, haven't I? I've repeatedly asked for concrete examples as justification for his numbers, telling how many points were added/subtracted for each post/comment. He has failed to do so. His "gut" can't possibly give him concrete numbers. The whole point of using a table is to add and subtract points by judging individual posts. It gives a better overall view of a person than looking at their arguments as a whole. Changing numbers at your whim using "vibes," I consider a cover-up. Did my number-psychology bit make any sense? Or was it me just overthinking it?

[quote="Nachomamma8]

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.[/quote]
Gotcha.

@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?

No, I have not. But I do think that it could lead to accusations of WIFOM, which is an often-used reason for lynching.

I have as much reason to think of everyone as scum as much as they are town.

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?

Maybe I interpreted the first sentence wrong. To me, it seems as if the first sentence claims that Mute will look at everyone as neutral at first. This is also supported by his beginning numbers for people in the table. But in the second sentence (and at least one other time), he says that he will view everyone as scum until proven town.

Maybe the first sentence was a response to someone saying that their view was "town until proven scum." Mute may have been saying that people had just as much reason to be viewed as scum than town. Is my point coming across clearly? I can try to explain it more if not in another, longer post. It's one of those things where it's difficult to explain while speaking, much less typing. Basically, I think that he was saying that he would view neutral. But I may misinterpreted the wording; the wording really meant "I think that people have as much reason to be viewed as scum than town."

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.

I'll do that from now on, thanks.

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?

Because the town can never be sure whether someone is scum or not, cops and such excepted. I don't think that scum are more likely to call someone scum than town, per se. My points is that the incessant tunneling by both Workdawg and Mute, when combined with their other scumminess, could point to newb-scums trying to appear as scum-hunting savants if/when one of them is lynched.

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

I try

[Workdawg]

I'm still catching up here, but I wanted to point out that TP42 put me at L-1 in post #207. So yeah...

[Mute]

I'm still catching up here, but I wanted to point out that TP42 put me at L-1 in post #207. So yeah...

He pointed that fact out.

Workdawg

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. At this point, I'm not sure what I can even say to you that will convince you I'm town.

I will straight up say it, I am a townie. Any actions that you think are scum-tells are simply my ignorance at how this game is properly played. I feel like I made one major mistake and have been unable to adequately defend myself from the inquisition that's been imposed on me as a result.

Why are you claiming so early?

You are nowhere close to L-1,

even with my soon-to-be vote.

And yes, there isn't much way to defend against an attempted hammer two meatworld-days into a game-day, much less Day 1

Once again, time really played no role in my vote against you other than that I was simply anxious to do something good for the team. The evidence against you I felt was strong enough.

Considering both of the other experienced players also placed a vote against you for their own reasons, I don't see how it's unreasonable to assume that a newb town see's some things he doesn't like and then jumps on the band wagon as well; especially considering that the two experienced players are already on board.

I do not believe you for a second on this. You specifically stated that time was the main reason for voting Ty. You later frantically defended that by saying that you couldn't stand waiting two more weeks for the day to be over. Later, you switch track by saying that you have other "evidence" for voting Ty. Yet you never once give a concrete example (parroting Ty a little here) of why you voted him.

Before you voted, you said that you thought Mute was scummy. Yet you tried to hammer Ty two days into the day. Therefore:

Unvote

Vote: Workdawg

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.

Although if Workdawg is town, then I still think Mute could be scum, but my suspicion would be greater than if Workdawg is scum. Now that I say this, I'm not exactly sure why I want Workdawg lynched before Mute. But I do, if just to eliminate all chance of another "miscount" and pseudo-hammer. Lynch all Liars! Yes, by that statement I mean that I believe that Workdawg lied.

See the bold and the underlined, specifically.
Also I'm working on a response to Ty's request for a specific reason why I want Dawg lynched. So far I'm up to ISO 21.

[Workdawg]

Preview edit

@Mute

that bolded statement sounds very much to me like he is saying I'm NOT at L-1. If he were putting me at L-1, he would have just said so. Instead he says I'm NOT at L-1, and I won't be after his vote.

You are nowhere close to L-1, even with my soon-to-be vote.

"You are not L-1, even with my vote."

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?

Because I wanted to if he was going to construct a reasonable argument for whatever my rating was. I didn't really care (and still don't) what the number is, but getting the information out of him would tell us a great deal about how he's really using the table.

If he posted up a number and said "you are 79, and here is why... reason 1.... +x points, reason 2.... -x points" etc, that would have gone a long way to defending his position in my mind.

Instead, we get his gut feeling about everyone "as corrected by evidence". This statement leads me still to believe that he's pretty scummy. Other people seem to have also found his reply interesting. Whether we are misguided in our thoughts on it or not, the information is out there because I asked, and information is power for town.

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.

That makes sense to me.

I can see a couple of arguments about why you might have done this,

What were the arguments you were thinking of?

I hadn't really thought about you getting NK'd right away. My main thought was just to get as much information as we could out of day 1. If the pressure had remained on Ty, we might have been able to discern any potential scum partner from that pressure.

"if that's a valid reason, then don't say I'm scum, otherwise bring it up"

What statement are you talking about here?

You said this in #108, in response to me when I asked for your reason for unvoting Ty.

(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?

His post does not seem to have been made in haste, like mine was. He took the time to address Stels and to explain that he had to leave, but he couldn't be bothered to post up to say that he didn't like the table and he wanted to cause a stir?

I didn't run off for nearly 12 hours to let my vote simmer without a reason.

I also never said I thought his vote had scum intent, only that I was a bit suspicious about the circumstances surrounding his vote. I'm not denying what we did was similar (I wouldn't have made mention of it if I were), but the circumstances are quite different as well.

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.

I can see this reasoning, but as Ty has so successfully demonstrated, you can also apply pressure without a vote.

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?

I guess I don't really see the difference between scumhunting in the manner he is doing it, and building a case for a mislynch against town. Whether you are looking scum tells to prove someone is scum, or you are looking for null tells or mistakes to build a case for a mislynch, it's pretty much the same thing. In both cases, you are analyzing your targets posts and looking for inconsistencies and tells that indicate the designation you are looking for.

[Workdawg]

Workdawg

Once again, time really played no role in my vote against you other than that I was simply anxious to do something good for the team. The evidence against you I felt was strong enough.

Considering both of the other experienced players also placed a vote against you for their own reasons, I don't see how it's unreasonable to assume that a newb town see's some things he doesn't like and then jumps on the band wagon as well; especially considering that the two experienced players are already on board.

I do not believe you for a second on this. You specifically stated that time was the main reason for voting Ty. You later frantically defended that by saying that you couldn't stand waiting two more weeks for the day to be over. Later, you switch track by saying that you have other "evidence" for voting Ty. Yet you never once give a concrete example (parroting Ty a little here) of why you voted him.

Before you voted, you said that you thought Mute was scummy. Yet you tried to hammer Ty two days into the day. Therefore:

Unvote

Vote: Workdawg

I'm gunna pull a Mute here: Link Link 2, etc.

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.

Although if Workdawg is town, then I still think Mute could be scum, but my suspicion would be greater than if Workdawg is scum. Now that I say this, I'm not exactly sure why I want Workdawg lynched before Mute. But I do, if just to eliminate all chance of another "miscount" and pseudo-hammer. Lynch all Liars! Yes, by that statement I mean that I believe that Workdawg lied.

You aren't sure if you want me lynched before Mute, and your only reason for that is to avoid another miscount and hammer? Come on now, I've obviously played pretty badly here, but if I were to make that mistake again, I would be gone in a heartbeat even if I lynched a scum player.

[Mute]

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.

Mute

Walls are only helpful to scum if they don't contain any real information. Ty's walls are progressing from SE-voice to player-voice as the game goes on, which seems completely consistent with the amount of in-game content to work with.

:scoff: Letting down? I want scum-Dawg hung up and made an example of. After the line, I'll be responding to Ty and it ties into that statement.
And I am not calling into question the content of Ty's posts right now, just the delay in time between them and the length in them. Yes that he waits so long means there's more to post about so it'd make sense for his posts to be long, but I feel there's fat in them that can be trimmed, or at least a summation of his posts that can be made.



---
@Ty: You want solid reasons of mine why Dawg is scum and needs to go? Alright. I'll post it next. I'm up to ISO #38, and instead of just bogging down a single post with that, my next post will contain the case I'm presenting against Dawg within a spoiler. Links to his ISO's will be provided, as well, within each comment therein. I feel that, at 38, I've got enough to use as my case against him, but I'm going to end the post at his ISO #41 as anything after that is recent.

[asano234]

@The plague. I see i was mistaken and read it wrong. I apologize for that.
@stels if i have something concrete to add to the thread i will, but like you i wont just make things up to post something.
@Nacho I am not just looking at the leading wagons but the evidence given thus far seemed reasonable. I have not posted a vote as it is crucial that we dont make a mistake and lynch a townie and whilst i am sure that Mute and Workdawg are probably our scumteam. Part of me thinks that a reason they are the leading wagons at the moment is because they have both been the most active in the thread and the team have little to go on the others.