Mini 1121: Nexusville Mafia.

[Empking]

In order to make this readable I'll only tyalk about his most recent posts.

I'm not sure how to respond to Saint's posts. The thing is, I actually agree with most of his reads and content. But after looking closer, I don't like the way he's presented them.

"Z but also not Z" - Dol I need to explain it.

Hello active lurking.

Got nothing exciting to add today that hasn't already been said, so ...

I'm replacing out.

*headdesk*

This postsd are consecutive on his ISO. Yeah.

Saint, I swear to God I would lynch you right now if you had a wagon. If you don't see how your catchup was scummy then you have apparently not read pretty much everything anyone has had to say about you since you replaced in.

We all know how this is scummy.

THIS IS THE TOWN:

@Saint: A few things. First, why is neko SK? Isn't that a huge leap of logic and/or speculation? Second, why do you find my list and/or anything else scummy? I'm not sure if that's iioa, but it's something like that... giving reads and not explaining them. Also, mb "explained _over9000" in his ISO 4. It didn't "sell" me, it's just that _over9000's scumminess had already been explained in a previous post.

Whats with the sudden jokeyness? Perhaps it is you who is the serial killer! Since you seem so convinced there is one and once you mention your read for the SK your posting style changes to be much more jokey.

I do share in the other players’ questions of your read on serial killer neko—Implosion’s note that it is a huge jump in logic, and KTS’s as to why you are so convinced that there is an SK in the setup.

I’m also curious about your read on Mongoose—you say in #224 that he lurks as scum, but you also say in your very next post that you played with Mongoose and this wasn’t his scum play—but Mongoose has spent a lot of time lurking or just not being around (including, I would consider, the present moment, with him having checked in some time ago, but w/ still no content). This looks odd.

Wow, buddy much?

Again... Buddy much? And on a post I thought was complete crap too. Nice.

I'm not sure how to respond to Saint's posts. The thing is, I actually agree with most of his reads and content. But after looking closer, I don't like the way he's presented them. A couple of times he pads his posts out with meaningless promises or his belief in the town. The way he buddies up with people who agree with him is obviously excessive, and makes me wonder if he's not just borrowing ideas from and appealing to the more active players in order to appear town himself. I rather suspect the hostile reaction to my vote of neil (+ what DarthYoshi said in #238 re. his Mongoose read) is only for the sake of defending his own replacee's inactivity - which shouldn't be necessary if Saint plays well. And no, I don't know where the heck his neko = SK read came from either.

Saint, what causes you to believe that he is more likely to be an SK than scum with the information we have?

I see where Nameless is coming from with his analysis of Saint's tone, and will pay close attention to any further buddying that he does.

The rest of his posts thus far--I do not at all like how easily he claims mongoose and zdenek to be town. Call me scum for being "nervous" if you want, but blindly following others means you likely know something we don't.

Saint's newest post- how exactly is that a slip? I meant "what"-- over made a completely pointless request for q21 to explain his typo, and I couldn't (and still can't) imagine what he could possibly have been going after.

Seems a bit to eager to accuse anyone of anything. He also seems to just...ignore any scummyness his predeccesor had. Like, not ignore the suspicions, just flat out trying to explain away the stuff as if it was nothing at all, even when nobody is calling him specifically out on it.
Oh, just rereading and Saint asks Neko what his (saint's) read on Neko is about. How could anyone know whats up with someone elses read like that? Unless they can read minds or something...

Reeks of having too much information and of buddying.

An SK read, before there are multiple kills? This seems like a scummy attempt to distract the town from scum hunting or to seem pro-active and townie by looking for all sorts of anti-town characters.

Saint-- I really don't see anything suspicious with mb's asking why such and such makes him scummy. This is a completely legitimate question to ask. Possibly the most important one--people need to back up their claims of what is scummy. Also, I hate to be the fluff police (I really don't mind it when it's marginal), but does 264 merit its own post? That whole sequence of posts really doesn't amount to much. In general, the cases you are trying to build are attempting to be novel but are based on really inconsequential details (or no details at all), as though you're trying to appear to be helpful.

This is terrible. You just essentially said "I feel like you are all just pushing the scummiest looking player", and had an undertone that it is scummy to do so.

This doesn't even make sense. He is voting you because you "know" he's scum with implosion?

If you don't see how your catchup was scummy then you have apparently not read pretty much everything anyone has had to say about you since you replaced in.

Your play is getting more attention, and I can definitely see why. I'm prepared for some impulsive posting from you based on my previous experience with you, but posts like these are bad, bad, bad.

THIS IS SAINT:

Why are there still votes on me?

This is scum trying to mislead.

Aww, look at the cute little scumbuddies, aren't they adorable? (BTW, don't think I'm not noticing you either, Setael.)

Weak argumenty is

weak

scummy.

[DarthYoshi]

Alright, this post is a bit of a wall. Just a head’s up.

Emp posts I find particularly scummy:

#249: Empking’s scumscale, with no analysis at all, and after this town jumped on two players for posting scumscales. Claims to have seen said reactions, doesn't seem to care.

#253: His vote on Nameless, after 10+ pages of material is based on nothing but “gut.” Same in #267. Also—if a scumscale is there to remind you, why post it publicly? Letting people know your scumreads, sure, but all your reads?

#308: Lack of analysis is to the extent that some of his points are nonsensical. Also, you call KTS out for IIoA and non analysis? You’re providing almost no analysis. This is the post that sparks the most recent round of back-and-forth between you and KTS, and it goes nowhere. If it is scumhunting, it isn’t very effective scumhunting, hence why it looks contrived. But it also looks contrived because your vote isn’t even on the guy, it’s on Nameless, and you gave no explanation when you switched.

Empking’s defenses:

Why is that scummy?

(Actually howe isn't forthright. My read on Nameless is gut. I say that its gut.)

You say your Nameless read is gut when I think we’re past the point of going solely on gut. Not offering other reasons on a pretty active player looks like a weak vote at best, and an anti-town one at worst, because there is nothing for us to analyze—no reads, no slips, no nothing.

How am I asctive lurking?

You are active lurking by pretending to contribute scumhunting (on KTS) and by posting a lot, but with very little content in your posts. I have no beef with the frequency of your posting, but the lack of analysis makes it come across that way.

Strike the lurker voting, it did not mean what I thought it meant—at first I was thinking of staying on someone’s wagon w/out reasons—ie, lurking, as opposed to voting a lurker.

Now give us some in depth analysis of how you know that I'm only "pretending" to scum hunt?

The things you have accused KTS of--IIoA, lacking analysis, etc (see above) are being employed in a way that comes across as distracting the town. That you are paying way more attention to KTS despite your vote being elsewhere also makes your case on him look less than sincere.

Seriously you complain about me using icky gut voting and then you talk about "feels". BS. Complete BS.

Way to take that out of context. Even though it shows I’m actually giving reasons for my feels.

That's just nonsense.

It isn’t nonsense. If we’re going to allow for L-1 rituals like claiming, blah blah blah, then we need a wagon in the next couple of days to have time for that. I’m not the only player noting that we need to come to a consensus soon (Ice in #348, Setael in #361, Pie in #363). I decided that if I'm going to say I suspect you as much as I do, I should be willing to vote for you.

And, just a heads up, right now, you and Implosion are about neck-and-neck on my scumscale. Saint isn't far behind.

[Empking]

That you are paying way more attention to KTS despite your vote being elsewhere also makes your case on him look less than sincere.

Why would scum do that?

It isn’t nonsense. If we’re going to allow for L-1 rituals like claiming, blah blah blah, then we need a wagon in the next couple of days to have time for that. I’m not the only player noting that we need to come to a consensus soon (Ice in #348, Setael in #361, Pie in #363). I decided that if I'm going to say I suspect you as much as I do, I should be willing to vote for you.

It wouldn't surprise me if I've been in more games that all of those combined (even Setael). We do not need to wagon this early.

Letting people know your scumreads, sure, but all your reads?

Yers. Its called optimum town play.

because there is nothing for us to analyze—no reads, no slips, no nothing.

Seriously. You're moaning on one hand about me providing all my reads and on the other about providing no reads. (And of course there aren't slips. Slips are a newbie tell.)

My discussion with King has given me a 100% scum read on him. Can you say the same about me or Implosion?

[mb53]

I've read all of the posts that have been made since, I last posted, but I don't have time to say much except that I'm happy with a saint or empking lynch.

[KingTwelveSixteen]

...
My discussion with King has given me a 100% scum read on him. Can you say the same about me or Implosion?

1. YOUR VOTE ISNT ON ME.
2. 100%? Impossible. This is mafia.
3. He can't for the reason listed under "2."
4. Seriously! Point one! Why?
5. You said during our argument that arguments rarely ever are scummy, and now you say that it was my arguments against you that confirmed me as scum.

[Nameless]

My discussion with King has given me a 100% scum read on him.

I don't believe this for two seconds. You were basically trolling him; there is no other way to put it. Even assuming you believe your game theory, you know fully well that the majority of players don't. Attempting to argue it in the middle of an ongoing game - where you have already been accused of not providing specific analysis - is never going to increase your townie standing. And when you start acting sarcastically towards the first player to disagree with you ... It's clear you were choosing to get a rise out of King.

I can think of several possible reason for this but nothing of them are good. You could be scum, using this as a distraction to avoid answering harder questions or draw attention away from a wagon on a scumbuddy, maybe waiting to jump on the first player who snaps and makes a mistake. You could be arrogant IRL, in which case stop and think a little further ahead before you post next time. For all I know you could just be an actual troll who needs to play to their win condition or gtfo.

But you could not be both town and stupid enough to believe that you're playing optimally for your situation in

this

game.

Setael: I honestly haven't been paying THAT much attention to your posts, since I'd rather see implosion or Saint lynched D1. In general, I'm not buying your accusations but they don't jump out as scummy either. The comment about noticing you referred to the fact that you as well as implosion were keen to defend Saint. You know, despite the WALL OF EVIDENCE that Saint still refuses to EVEN ACKNOWLEDGE THE EXISTENCE OF.

DarthYoshi: I wouldn't have been reluctant to cast an early or initial vote on Saint, it just would have been inefficient since I'd need to unvote from the larger wagon on another scum? Not really sure how to further explain this.

Empking:
* What I meant in regards to Saint was that I agreed (mostly) with who he stated to be scum/town, but I found his buddying, fluff, unprovoked defense of lurkers etc. scummy. These are entirely different things.
* Making one or two lazy posts out of ~30 regular contributions does not a lurker make. Typing a scumlist and the word "gut" after 250 posts and then sitting back with a smug look on your face

does

.
* Imma use a quote for this one:

People have faulty memories. Also not a scum tell.

* What is misleading about my TOWN / SAINT post? Those are all direct quotes referring to Saint, exactly zero of which Saint had acknowledged.
* Given the context, I disagree; implosion's shenanigans with _over9000's wagon are well documented, and that he continues to hedge around Saint's wagon - despite his initial protests of 'not enough to read!' now being null - is significant. I could have elaborated instead of joked, but DarthYoshi already asked him the obvious question in #346.

[neko2086]

Emp-- is it too late in the day for MC, then? As soon as you replaced in, I was sure there was going to be another early MC debacle.

I'm going to have to take some time tomorrow to sort through this exchange between Emp and King. Like King, I really don't like Emp's asserting that he's on the right track. He has no reason to think so. But then again, he has an overinflated ego, and that really isn't a scumtell. King seems to have gotten preoccupied in this discussion, and frankly, I don't think either of the two are helping the town at the moment. But as I said, I need to look through this in more detail.

Zedenek- You say there are better lynches than Ice today. Is this implying that otherwise, Ice might be a good lynch?

mb- what about implosion? Not too long ago, you had him leaning scum.

More later.

[implosion]

Also @ Implosion: why does 3-4 people seem like a lot for someone to be open to lynching on D1?

It feels like it could be an attempt to set up future mislynches.

You've said over9000 is scummy, repeatedly, but you don't believe he's scum? How is this not a contradiction? How can you find someone scummy but not have a read on their alignment? What does it even MEAN to find someone scummy? This is absolutely a contradiction, one of severe fence sitting. Highly scummy.

Maybe if you... idk... read what I said, you'd have an answer to this without asking the question? _over9000 said too little to get an accurate read on his alignment.

Well, what do you think about the cases being made on Saint? You state that with Saint's predecessor _over that there wasn't enough material to analyze for scumminess, but that isn't the case with Saint.

Saint doesn't read as particularly scummy to me. After considering it a bit more, Saint's play doesn't really give me vibes that are necessarily scummy. Kind of strange, but I don't think scummy. So I'd lean town on that slot at this point.

Implosion: Why not so many people? There are gonna be 3-4 scum players in the game, so being willing to lynch any of my top 3-4 suspects seems normal. Listing them explicitly is helpful in case a wagon falls apart close to the deadline and the town needs to quickly decide a new one.

Eh, see above. I mean, it's not like there's no possible town motivation for it, but the scum motivation for it makes more sense.

@Zdenek's question in 362, it made me laugh. Doesn't really count as evidence though.

Emp has provided one post, 357, with what I feel are reasons to legitimately vote someone. And I'm pretty sure a fair amount of those are made-up. Emp, can you provide specific cases where the people you are accusing have done the things you are accusing them of? It isn't acceptable to say "Hey guys, x is scum because of y, now all of you should find evidence to support what I said."

[ICEninja]

Alright, I definitely feel like Emp is a bit on the scummy side, but just look how implosion is taking advantage of the town's push against Emp. I'll take an Emp lynch over a no lynch, but I really feel like I've got such a commanding case against implosion that I just don't want to move off of it. Whats more is that a scum lynch on either Saint or implosion gives us so much information on the other, and that is just too sweet for me to pass up.

I feel like King is probably the most town right now that his slot has ever been, which is pretty much just under neutral.

The case against Emp is decent, and there are definitely points against Mongoose as well. I still just don't think he's as likely to flip scum as implosion.

That being said, I do agree with a couple of your other points—especially him not calling out Implosion after the scumlist.

Come on man, I had lots of respect for you. Why is it scummy to not call someone out for something that I don't think is particularly scummy? Yeah it is anti-town, but how he oriented his scum list was just so much scummier. MB did the same thing, even worse, but I don't think he can be scum if we get an implosion scum flip, as no scum buddy would follow their partner in a connection like that. This is an even further reason to lynch implosion, in my mind.

I admit I'm not 100% fully caught up to the game at the moment, I'm still a little bit behind, but I'll be fully caught up on Saturday, before the deadline.

[Nameless]

Saint doesn't read as particularly scummy to me. After considering it a bit more, Saint's play doesn't really give me vibes that are necessarily scummy. Kind of strange, but I don't think scummy. So I'd lean town on that slot at this point.

You know what I notice about this answer? It doesn't comment on or even acknowledge (hey that sounds familiar) a single aspect of the case against Saint.

Doesn't really count as evidence though.

Okay, so if a whole wall of over half a dozen players all pointing out scummy aspects of Saint's play and asking questions that - again - Saint refuses to acknowledge (*inhale*) does

not

count as evidence, what actually does? Or would you like to go through the list and defend against each point individually?

Or I guess you could just go ahead and wave your hands some more, if you feel like that's helping.

[Empking]

Emp has provided one post, 357, with what I feel are reasons to legitimately vote someone. And I'm pretty sure a fair amount of those are made-up. Emp, can you provide specific cases where the people you are accusing have done the things you are accusing them of? It isn't acceptable to say "Hey guys, x is scum because of y, now all of you should find evidence to support what I said."[/quote

Provide me with a quote for how I haven't provided quotes for what's happening.

I don't believe this for two seconds. You were basically trolling him; there is no other way to put it. Even assuming you believe your game theory, you know fully well that the majority of players don't. Attempting to argue it in the middle of an ongoing game - where you have already been accused of not providing specific analysis - is never going to increase your townie standing. And when you start acting sarcastically towards the first player to disagree with you ... It's clear you were choosing to get a rise out of King.

This is just stupid.

King admitted that he wasn't trying to scumhunt.

I goty King to admit to not trying to scumhunt or to put ity into other words I got King to admit to being scum. What have you done today?

[Nameless]

Empking, I actually read those exchanges between you two as well. That's an outright lie.

UNVOTE: Saint
VOTE: Empking

[Empking]

Post 25-37 are all talking to me. Why is he talking to me?

Question; Why are you having this argument?

Which argument? The ridiculous one that not explaining anything is pure townie or the one about attitudes that refuse any reasonable discussion?
If its the second one it is because I absolutely despise that attitude.

[KingTwelveSixteen]

...

King admitted that he wasn't trying to scumhunt.

...

Lies, I said no such thing.

[Empking]

...

King admitted that he wasn't trying to scumhunt.

...

Lies, I said no such thing.

"I will ignore the quote where I admitted it. I didn't really think that one through."

[mb53]

1. People change opinons quickly all the time. That's not a scum tell.
2. People have faulty memories. Also not a scum tell.

I'm going to have to agree with Empking here.

Nice AtE.

Funny, because basically your case is "He's scum, just trust me on this one I have a god gut read."

mb- what about implosion? Not too long ago, you had him leaning scum.

He is still leaning scum, but emp and saint I think would be better lynches today I think.

[Empking]

Is that nice AtE me/ Because I've given a case on King and Nameless.

[KingTwelveSixteen]

If your "he admitted to not be scumhunting" thing is in reference to that quote where I describe the arguments then I really don't think you've thought it through enough.

The first case is ridiculous because not giving explanations is crazy anti-town and bad. It goes against the entire point of the game. The second one I only brought up because you were so general and unspecific in your question asking, (like a lot of what you've posted so far) so I wasn't sure if you were counting my explanation how stupid and horrible and terrible that attitude is as an argument or not. Or if you were talking about it. Thats why I asked you what you were talking about. In fact you never have specified what you were talking about then. Or responded to most of the other points in the post where that second thing came about. You just immediatly ended the entire discussion and claimed I had admitted to not scumhunting, something that didn't happen. At all.

P.S. When I was arguing the big ridiculous case I was trying to figure out if you were merely playing teribbly or scum. That counts as scumhunting.

[Empking]

P.S. When I was arguing the big ridiculous case I was trying to figure out if you were merely playing teribbly or scum. That counts as scumhunting.

Really, I could have sworn it was:

Question; Why are you having this argument?

Which argument? The ridiculous one that not explaining anything is pure townie or the one about attitudes that refuse any reasonable discussion?
If its the second one it is because I absolutely despise that attitude.

King did not misremember that. He's lying to trick the town.

[Empking]

I'm going to claim in order for us to lynch the obvious scum rather than being shamelessly manipulated by them. Mason here. Now let's vote Nameless.

[Empking]

Yeah my theory was correct. Neko is the third scum.

1. He's on the scum-leading position on the Saint wagon.
But more importantly,
2. Neko is a good player. He is not playing like a good player because he can just watcvh this town self-destruct.

[InflatablePie]

Yeah, I don't believe you. Nor do I see King lying about anything. It's also really funny how you're saying King is "100% scum", but you're not even voting him. Darth already pointed this out, though.

PEdit: lol

[Empking]

Yeah, I don't believe you. Nor do I see King lying about anything. It's also really funny how you're saying King is "100% scum", but you're not even voting him. Darth already pointed this out, though.

PEdit: lol

1. Why don't you believe me?
2. When asked why he was having an argument he said (in no uncertain terms) that it was not to scumhunt but because he didn't like the attitude I had. When called upon it he made up some cockamany excuse. Why don't you consider that a lie?

[KingTwelveSixteen]

P.S. When I was arguing the big ridiculous case I was trying to figure out if you were merely playing teribbly or scum. That counts as scumhunting.

Really, I could have sworn it was:

Question; Why are you having this argument?

Which argument? The ridiculous one that not explaining anything is pure townie or the one about attitudes that refuse any reasonable discussion?
If its the second one it is because I absolutely despise that attitude.

King did not misremember that. He's lying to trick the town.

Ok, I honestly have no idea what you're even talking about anymore.

I'm going to claim in order for us to lynch the obvious scum rather than being shamelessly manipulated by them. Mason here. Now let's vote Nameless.

Still you push the case on Nameless. Not me. Not the apparently 100% scummy person. And you are claiming in order to push that case.
So, are/is your mason partner/s going to confirm you?

...
2. When asked why he was having an argument he said (in no uncertain terms) that it was not to scumhunt but because he didn't like the attitude I had. When called upon it he made up some cockamany excuse. Why don't you consider that a lie?

Ok, THATS what you are talking about.

As previously stated, I only brought that thing up as a possible thing you could be talking about because I wasn't sure what you were talking about. The attitude thing had two posts about it and the second was immediatly after the first and did nothing but clarify why I hated that reasoning so much.
The reasoning being that you are right because you just are. The whole thing was me saying that that attitude and the actions and "reasoning" that result from it shove any and all debate straight into the ground and that you had better not be using those actions and reasoning to try and justify yourself, because no, that is not how it works. AT ALL. EVER. You have to give

actual

reasons other than "because its true" if you want people to believe you. Or be able to debate with you. Or say that you are right. Or really do anything at all.

To be more specific and helpful and whatnot I shall spell it out: the reason I made that big seperate thing calling the attitude terrible and useless is because I DESPISE that attitude. Otherwise I would have just made a single little point like: "Thats not how it works" or "Try giving a real explanation instead of just saying that you're right" or something like that. The reason I made the huge thing that could make that qualify as a seperate argument is because I so severly dislike everything there is about that attitude. Everything.

[Empking]

Ok, I honestly have no idea what you're even talking about anymore.

Ok, THATS what you are talking about.

Same post. Rhetoric rather than scumhunting.

Still you push the case on Nameless. Not me. Not the apparently 100% scummy person.

When Darth Yoshi compromises that's A-OK. When I do that's unambigious evidence of my being scum. Why the contradiction? Oh, yes. Because you're scum.

As previously stated, I only brought that thing up as a possible thing you could be talking about because I wasn't sure what you were talking about. The attitude thing had two posts about it and the second was immediatly after the first and did nothing but clarify why I hated that reasoning so much.
The reasoning being that you are right because you just are. The whole thing was me saying that that attitude and the actions and "reasoning" that result from it shove any and all debate straight into the ground and that you had better not be using those actions and reasoning to try and justify yourself, because no, that is not how it works. AT ALL. EVER. You have to give actual reasons other than "because its true" if you want people to believe you. Or be able to debate with you. Or say that you are right. Or really do anything at all.

To be more specific and helpful and whatnot I shall spell it out: the reason I made that big seperate thing calling the attitude terrible and useless is because I DESPISE that attitude. Otherwise I would have just made a single little point like: "Thats not how it works" or "Try giving a real explanation instead of just saying that you're right" or something like that. The reason I made the huge thing that could make that qualify as a seperate argument is because I so severly dislike everything there is about that attitude. Everything.

Or to put it into less passionate terms. "I was active lurking because I'm scum."