Wizards at the Sorcerers' Den - Endgame

[implosion]

VOTE: Soben
gandalf and WC and ABR are all probably town.

ABR, why would you advocate what is essentially a form of massclaiming in a game where we have been specifically told by the moderator that massclaiming will be harmful?

[implosion]

Unvote, vote icey
unvote, vote soben

[implosion]

Because I'm trying to figure out its heads and I want to be more certain, and eliciting a reaction to a vote will help with that.

[implosion]

Katy, I answered that question at the bottom of last page.

[implosion]

WALLPOST

So you have hydra-hunting prioritized over scumhunting? :/

It was early game with little to go on, so I may as well have looked for the hydra heads while there was relatively little to do.

Vote: Ricebaltail

Why vote this scumread instead of a scumread that you had commented on?

@Soben: You know that I'm scum from one post, namely a RVS post? You know... there are two kinds of people in this world: those that can extrapolate data from inconclusive information and...

Why is this phrased so indirectly? Why don't you give an opinion on Soben's read on you in this post except for an indirect, implied "your read on me is bad" statement? What do you think of Soben him/their self?

Plus, Implosion was and still is coming off as more scummy than SGR. I don't understand why he cares so much about the who the hydra is. How are their identities relevant to their alignment?

Well first of all, based on Soben's name/avatar it was likely that I knew at least one and probably both heads, and it's helpful to know who they are in order to read them. Second of all, curiosity.

implosion has played strangely so far. Hydra-hunting as a first priority and no scumhunting, despite being around.

See above.

21- SGRaaize

[Healthy]

(6) - ManaKu, chesskid3, gandalf5166, Dryfit, LynchMePls, WrathChild

There absolutely has to be scum on this wagon. It built way too quickly and on only mediocre grounds for there not to be. I'm going to do an analysis of how it developed later (though I wouldn't mind if someone else took on the task, busy today, members of the BW need not apply) to see if I can spot the opportunists/bussers.

My read of SGRaaize remains wholly ambivalent. I can see both Town and scum motivations for what he's done so far, none of them strong. If I had to commit, I'd lean a little to the Town side based on the wagon speed.

:goodposting:. The scum is also most likely late on the wagon, or possibly multiple scum early and late.

Started writing this yesterday then kept getting distracted lol.

Oh..... I uh...... missed the imp vote afterwards.

Unvote
VOTE: Cupcake
Unvote
VOTE: LMP

This is a strange thing to miss. Missing it implies that you weren't really reading to fully see what people are saying, but rather to find evidence against people, which is scummy.

LMP, do you usually put so much emphasis on getting out of RVS?

SGR isn't reading particularly scummy to me. I don't see anything wrong with him having a lot of nullreads in his analysis, either.

So Soben keeps calling us town, yet steadfastly refuses to treat us as such.

does not compute

This is notable. Soben's justification is that it isn't worth the risk; but would there really be a role that has such a drastic effect from having people vote for it? Doubtful. Plus,

if it *is* third party, it would likely have had some kind of disincentive from claiming that it's jester-like

(I looked at another S_B game and there was a protown third party that had negative effects from claiming).

Basically, if Soben thinks Icey is town, Soben has little reason not to vote Icey like Icey asks because Icey clearly has reason that they can't reveal for asking for votes. If Soben's reason not to vote is the stated above, then I've debunked that. If it's because Soben isn't sure if Icey is town, there's still little reason not to because Soben has a townread on Icey, meaning it's more likely that there will be positive effects from voting Icey than negitave effects.

How would it have a drastic effect on the game? They would leave. We would GET RID of an anti town role with no negative effects. Plus if they have any teammates, they leave too. HOW IS THAT A BAD THING

Soben's point is that there could be negative effects - why are you assuming that there would be none?

My strongest scum read so far was on LynchMePls. Mostly he has seemed situationally like he has been trying to seize the opportunity to make people look bad without actually investigating his suspicious. Also a scum tell of mine personally is explaining the game mechanics as a defense mechanism to take attention off myself for my actions. I see him doing that in a post. I'm really bad with quotes and formatting stuff so bear with me and it should be pretty obvious whether its me or Regfan posting.

I saw something like this on reading him. I wasn't really able to synthesize what I was finding scummy, but I do kind of have a gut scumread on LMP. This is a good explanation of it, I think, specifically the part about not really going after his suspicions, and also his strange obsession with ending the RVS.

I think Icey is either town or a cleric-like third party, by the way.

on page 15, posting what I have so far because I've somehow managed to not post in 3 days and I've been prodded while posting before so more coming shortly.

[implosion]

@Amrun, I think that Soben is town overall, but don't understand or disagree with their refusal to vote icey. Also, I don't see why a person couldn't find someone else scummy yet at the same time agree with reads that they've stated. Just because a person is scummy, it doesn't make their reads wrong, especially in a complex theme game where there are likely multiple third parties.

Still reading.

[implosion]

'Obv, he's biased against his own wagon. As he knows his faction *rolls eyes*. He's still alive, so if he's town, he's the only one who can analyse it with a complete 100% 'SGR is town' - thought behind it. In his eyes, this is catching scum. When a vote is placed, says a lot, which destroys his second reason (This time is an exception though, due to Chess's reason). And everybody can get angry when he's attacked by reasons he thinks are stupid. But as my future-telling abilities have shown me, he later sees part of SGR's 'overreaction' as town-tell.

This. If a bandwagon forms on a pro-town player on day one, that is an opportunity for that protown player to analyze that bandwagon because they know that it's on town. It is not suspicious to analyze a bandwagon on oneself while assuming that oneself is town, because people know their own alignment.

I fucking hate using Meta and I hate when Meta is mentioned anywhere in a Mafia game. There's nothing I'd love more than complete anonymous Mafia playing, but if everyone else can use it, you can bet your ass I'm also gonna use it if it means I don't get lynched.

Meta is a necessary part of the game. If two different people exhibit the same behavior as opposing alignments (for example, one is aggressive as town while the other is aggressive as scum) then it nullifies using something like aggressiveness on its own as a tell without supplementarily stating whether the person in question is aggressive more as scum or town.

By the way, I think the pine wagon is a ML too. Pine's frustration reads as genuine. AtE is not a good scumtell - you have to look at whether it's genuine or manufactured, and it looks genuine.

As I'm thinking about it, I'm ambivalent about ABR's mass-shooting plan. It is obviously possible if we just select one target for scum to protect if they have any sort of protection, and if we select multiple targets same thing since they're unlikely to all be scum, plus scum could be able to protect or redirect attacks on one of the targets if one of the targets is scum. I still kind of like the idea, though. If scum only has a limited amount of protective ability, this could use it up. If they don't have any, well, it could eliminate scum roles. Plus, if we target any third parties, they are less likely to be defended.

I intend to self-vote and push my lynch when I finish. I have nothing to lose, and Town has everything to gain from this tactic.

Hell, if I'm NOT lynched and flipped to confirm the validity of my reads, it's an exercise in futility.

^an example of something that looks genuine. Pine is probably town. But needs to stop being so apathetic.

[implosion]

Oh. VOTE: gandalf for now. Forgot to do that.

It was early game with little to go on, so I may as well have looked for the hydra heads while there was relatively little to do.

See, I have two problems with this:
1) You've already stated you believe our heads are obvious thus I don't understand the need to hydra-hunt.
2) If you really were that interested in our heads you would check to see where I've posted and then instantly notice I account-slipped in another game.

1) That was somewhat sarcastic. Regfan was pretty likely, the other is a bit more unsure.
2) I didn't even know that you were in any other games, and didn't check.

Why vote this scumread instead of a scumread that you had commented on?

Simple. I know you can react to pressure quite welll, especially coming from one of us two therefore the reaction we obtain from you would be minimal compared to voting an alternate scum-read.

You didn't vote for me, you voted for Riceballtail.

Basically, if Soben thinks Icey is town, Soben has little reason not to vote Icey like Icey asks because Icey clearly has reason that they can't reveal for asking for votes. If Soben's reason not to vote is the stated above, then I've debunked that. If it's because Soben isn't sure if Icey is town, there's still little reason not to because Soben has a townread on Icey, meaning it's more likely that there will be positive effects from voting Icey than negitave effects.

You really want to continue pushing this? I see the possibly of roles such as a cult-recruiter who is only allowed to recuit if he obtains x number of votes a day in the game thus there are indeed risks to voting him while no risks in not doing so.

Fair enough, I guess. I still disagree to an extent, but arguing over it is mostly pointless.

That's not exactly true. There were already a few things that could have been commented at the time - Icey's claim for one and ABR's seeking to hear from those with damaging abilities. There were various people's reactions to those two things as well. You chose to vote for someone who hadn't posted at all yet in the interest of finding out who it was.

I'm also not sure why his vote is still on soben if he finds Soben to be "town overall' and to have a scum read on LMP. Even if you don't have much to go on, why wouldn't you take your vote off someone you think is town, that you didn't really have reason to vote for in the first place, and put it on the person you think is scum, even if it's just gut for now?

I guess I just didn't really feel like commenting on them. I find the beginning of games somewhat awkward, and it's difficult for me to establish reads until other people have, to an extent. I didn't plan to move my vote until I'd finished reading.

[implosion]

Misread part of that. Why RBT instead of Katy, whose scumread you'd explained?

[implosion]

A week in, and I'm already chronically procrastinating. I'm probably going to wind up making a lot of wallposts, lol, but I'm not *that* far behind. It didn't take me too long to read the 10 pages that I had missed before, so it shouldn't take me too long to catch up, but I'm going to do it tomorrow. I'm going to sleep now.

[implosion]

Implosion, what's your thoughts on the Amrum vs Beefster argument?

Not much, frankly. I don't find it particularly notable. Or at least I didn't at this point of writing this post. Now that I'm reading over the post, Beef looks fairly bad. Not sure if it's from this particular argument. There's plenty to look at though.

OK, All caught up. I about to drop my vote on Pine. Meta defense is WIFOM and AtE. Threatening to self-hammer/give up is crap. If you know you're town don't freakin get yourself lynched. Our #1 priority is to kill scum, if you are town and resign yourself to a lynch, you deny your team an opportunity to do so.

This is a bad conflation of anti-town and scum. Selfvoting (or threatening to do so) is obviously anti-town; AtE is probably anti-town; however, if this was your reasoning for justifying a Pine vote, then this reasoning is terrible; just because someone acts anti-town, it does not mean that they are scum, as I explained earlier. You have to look at intentions and whether or not a given appeal looks genuine or contrived.

Im back, I need to read back properly (Ive skimmed thus far) but Pine's claim for self voting is horrible. I learned my lesson from that, I don't care what situation you are in

self voting is scummy whether you are town or not.

Bolded emphasis is mine - how can something be scummy when you admit that it can come from either alignment? Something is defined as scummy if it is indicative that the alignment of the person in question is scum. How can something be scummy "whether someone is town or not?" If it can come from town or scum, why pay attention to it at all?

@Implosion
Your wallpost is terrible. You mentioned that you were hydra-hunting, because there was little to go on. But in that same post, you agreed with Pine that there was scum on the SGR-wagon, which already existed when you looked at the hydra. This needs an explanation.

I explained this at the end of post 447.

First of all, if you think Icey is town, why aren't you voting for them before you vote for other people. Secondly, THE RULES SAY SO. If a faction wins and their wincon doesn't directly conflict(which a wincon of getting voted for WOULD NOT) then the game gos on as normal.

Well... actually, i did vote for them. Did you accuse me of not voting for them without actually checking to see if I had voted for them, or did you somehow miss it? Also, you're really stretching what's written in the rules. The rules just state that the game will keep on. They don't state that the game will keep on as if nothing happened. Assumptions like this reek of scum who either has extra knowledge (probably not in this case) or just wants to make assumptions like this so that they can more easily defend positions without having to consider the ramifications if said assumptions could be wrong.

I think it would be wise to focus on other players for now. It's nice to use D1 as an information day. If we get through other players and still think Pine is scum, then we can vote him for real.

What did you mean here by "get through other players?" Why would we push on other players to the extent where we could force them to claim just to go back to pine?

I've been missing some from skimming, but I'm in agreement with pressure on beef at this point. His attack on Pine didn't look good either. A lot of the attacks on pine were really bad, actually.

On page 22. Will do more tomorrow. I'll probably wind up catching up a bit every day and then do everything on the weekend, unless I can stop delaying this and actually do it at a reasonable hour of the day.

[implosion]

I'm going to post this in increments to prevent it looking like SGR's mile-long walls of death.

On the pine kill; it could be a modkill, but it was probably either a scum kill or a third party kill. Either way, it isn't necessarily true that the scum/third party would have to activate the ability every time someone nameclaims. And even if they do, there could be other negative effects other than just a town member dying every time it happens. I doubt it was a modkill. I doubt that pine would be modkilled for nameclaiming. It was probably a mechanic of the game, an ability like "target any player, if you know their rolename, they will die." Essentially, we don't know enough about the mechanic to merit a plan like SGR's. Besides, SB would probably take steps against allowing the game to be broken.

^: Forgot to justify:

1) Voting Soben at the start of D1 before he even posted to Hydra-hunt (What?)

2) Changing his town-tell on Gandalf to a scum-tell for, basically, very mediocre reasoning (viewtopic.php?p=3064825#p3064825)

The first one, I've explained. The second one, iirc, I never even explained the town-tell on gandalf, it was just a minor gut thing.

Katy, why did you do the vote unvote icey thing twice?

The plan about claiming was flawed from the beginning because it is an attempt to outguess the mod, and it ignores the fact that this is a complex setup.

Hmm, how about we have the next serious wagon that's going to be the lynch (I don't mean L-1, I mean intent to hammer and everything) claim and see what happens? If he instantly dies, we may be on to something, if he doesn't and he's scum, we may be on to something, if we don't and he's town, we're probably wrong.

Stop trying to outguess the mod. It's entirely possible that (WARNING: SPECULATION):
-there is a third-party role that gets more powerful every time it kills someone that nameclaims
-there is a third-party role that wins if it kills enough people through nameclaims/kills related to names
-the mafia get more powerful every time they kill someone through nameclaims
-every nameclaim gives scum/thirdparty a kill that they can use on anyone
etc. We don't know how the mechanic works. A plan like this (or any plan related to the mechanism) is bound to fail. Nobody is nameclaiming. Ever.

I am not outguessing Snow_Bunny when Snow_Bunny is basically making sure everyone knows CLAIMING MEANS DEATH.

You are outguessing Snow_Bunny when you speculate that the cause of this death has no other negative effects towards the killed, and that Snow_Bunny wouldn't have thought of something like this being possible when making the game.

Nice town reads. You got any scum reads?

People (like Amrun) that attacked this are right. It's ridiculous to attack someone for not posting scumreads in one post when they have posted scumreads in other posts, especially since it was a request to post reads on those players.

tl;dr most (not all) of this post: stop trying to use game mechanics that we do not know the details of as a basis for a plan that would shape the entire game. It's stupid and foolhardy, and S_B probably has something in place to stop it, and S_B even warned us SPECIFICALLY not to try to break the game.

[implosion]

@Wrathchild: Why is this issue so important to you? The plan was killed in the water by the mod before you even started arguing about it. A bad plan isn't scummy, and I tend to think that trying to create strategies is something town players do more than scum (even if they are bad strategies) because it's really hard to successfully make a fake plan as scum that doesn't hurt you somehow. Even if you think it's scummy you are generating a lot of really distracting noise in the thread that makes it hard to read for relevant info.

Agreed with all of this.

This is vaguely a scum slip- it's definitely a stretch. Proceed with caution...
Typically, townies don't read very meticulously because they just need to go with gut reads and the gist of things. Scum tend to be more observant- and they tend to nitpick.

I, for one, have not been reading closely. Take my words with caution. It's not a catch-all rule by any means.

Meticulousness depends more on the player than the player's alignment.

This post is definitely accurate, and Baby Spice's post is really bad. Her reasons for attacking him are really bad.

On beefster: a lot of what he's done appears to have scum motivation, or well, to be illogical and in many cases just downright scummy. My read on him, however, at this point, after all of the pressure on him, is null leaning town. Like with Pine, it must be looked at whether or not Beefster's continual calling himself town is genuine or contrived, and it looks genuine enough. A lot of what he's doing can be construed as very scummy, but his actions and how laid-back he at certain points make me think he's town.

No. It just doesn't work. Keep in mind that we have nightkills, too. Nights will be more productive than wild goose chasing with a plan that may not necessarily work. If you attack the player with the role that enables the claim-kill, then the method won't work anymore.
I'm telling you, it will lead to more mislynches than scum lynches.

This is assuming that the scum have no redirection or protection abilities.

Post #897 by Implosion - Really dislike the attack on Snake for something trivial, there's a difference between scummy and a scum-tell, selfvoting is scummy but it's not exactly a scum-tell so Snake is indeed correct here.

I think we just have different definitions of scummy and scum-tell. Saying that it isn't a scum-tell (by your definition) is what I'm saying when I say it isn't scummy. To be scummy, IMO, something has to be indicative of scum.

He tells Wrath that his vote and reasoning behind the Pine vote was terrible because people have to look at the intentions behind the persons actions to attain a real read of what allignment they are, he does this without attempting to read Wraths intentions at all which contradicts the main point he's trying to get across.

Sort of, but not really. Part of this was correcting or commenting on faulty reasoning. I would also say that it is scummy, because going after someone for doing something like selfvoting is a scummy tactic - it's a way to attack someone for something that isn't actually indicative of a scum alignment even though it appears to be, which is obviously something scum benefit from. It's a good way to justify a fake attack.

Here he states that he agrees with pressure towards Beef without adding any extra pressure himself, he then states that peoples attacks on Pine were bad without stating any specific names or moving his vote to one of them.

I only have one vote. How can you criticize me for voting for not voting for people like this when I am voting for one of my scumreads?

This is incredibly opportunistic, it's a known fact that a scum-tell and a scummy action are two entirely different things, there are things that can be percieved as scummy however unallignment related thus his attack on Snake reads as "Attack the lurker" on a completlely incorrect basis.

Again, I think you're misconstruing definitions. I explained the definition of scummy that i was using... in the post in question, actually. And how does it read as "attack the lurker" when I wasn't attacking him for lurking? If I was attacking lurkers, wouldn't I just throw vague/general suspicion at people like snake/dryfit/peregrinev?

Even if it could backfire, I kind of like the idea of attacking lurkers. Even if scum do have some kind of redirection/etc ability, it's a good motivator.

[implosion]

Implo, Amrun, gandalf made the top 3. Choose who dies.

My order of preference:

CryMeARiver
implosion

Hey there. Provide your case on me asswipe.

SGR too, please. You said two things about me (neither of which was really that significant and both of which I've responded too), agreed with something that Soben said (which I debunked last post), and then basically just kept saying you wanted to lynch me. You've ignored... probably 90-95% of what I've posted.

Mana-Ku: i think something is wrong with your quote tags in 1020, and I can't figure out what.

Regfan, someone just told me you're Maxwell :O
I am now 50000000000 times more afraid of you.

This would be even funnier if you knew who scumhunter is (I asked girallon and he told me lol)

43 pages for a D1 lynch is beyond overkill for a swingy game like this.

Not when you realize that it's only been 10 days...

[implosion]

1- CryMeARiver
2- gandalf5166
3- chesskid3
4- Albert B. Rampage
5- Riceballtail
6- Katy
7- Bunnylover
8- IceyCupcake
9- Amrun
10- Dry-fit
11- SnakePlissken
12- WrathChild
13- Soben
14- Beefster
15- PeregrineV
16- BabySpice
17- LynchMePls
18- Zdenek
19- Mana_Ku
20- inHimshallibe
21- SGRaaize
22- implosion
23- Feysal

Fairly positive town

: chesskid, mana-ku, iceycupcake, soben, sgraaize.

Town reads

: CMAR, Beefster, zdenek.

Scum reads

: gandalf, RBT, snake, baby spice.

Rest are overall null, have done things that look conflicting to me, or are too lurky without enough content that tells me their alignment.

gandalf is still the best lynch, and I'm making a case on him next post because there needs to be more pressure on him.

[implosion]

Huh. I also meant to edit the list out before posting that >_>

Anyway, gandalf case:

Extend vig request to include Gandalf, please. WIFOM on page 1 is unappealing.

Are you retarded?

I claim scum in about half of my games in RVS. It's my shtick. I wanted to do it in this one, so I found a way around the restriction. I wasn't going to let the rules affect my shtick. Joking around in RVS is NOT grounds for vigging, sorry.

His first few posts are null to me. This is the first scummy post. It's really overdefensive against such an early attack. It seems like he's trying to justify himself too much, like he's nervous that things he says are going to seem scummy. It's also an overjustificaiton of it being his "shtick" - if this is true, he could just say that and be done with it. The first two sentences of this post are equivalent to the entire post - the rest of the post is just repetitive overjustification. Pine also caught this, and gandalf's response to this was, and I quote: "Fuck overreaction." Yeah, way to sidestep the actual argument.

ISOs 7 and 8 are fluffposting

ISO 9/10: "Actually, I've caught far more scum in RVS than out. And generally, I frown upon those who try to end it early. They tend to flip scum." As I recall people saying, this is a strange generalization to make. Also, correlation does not imply causation. Again, it's strange for him to be so strongly advocating that LMP is scum for such a minor thing as wanting to end the RVS. I remember a game a while ago where someone (don_johnson i believe) did something intended to quickly end RVS, and he was town. OMG I GUESS LMP MUST BE TOWN! it's the only logical conclusion to make. If one random person did something as some alignment, then OBVIOUSLY everyone who does the same thing in a different game has to be the same alignment!!!! Basically, it's a horribly justified attack, and town has no reason to do such a thing.

11 means nothing, 12 is a random breadcrumb that also means nothing.
13 and 14 also mean relatively nothing.
15 and 16 are also basically meaningless.

The inHim post that gandalf responds to in his ISO 17 is also a good point.
ISO 18 continues his bad attack on LMP for trying to end the RVS. Unless gandalf can show a direct link between wanting to end the RVS and being scum, this attack is meaningless.

19 is meaningless, 20 is stating something fairly strongly that he hasn't commented on once before without reasoning. 21 he states that too many people are ignoring LMP and inHim to be town... in a 24 player game, this is also a horrible reason to think anything.

22-29 ish: I commented on before, I believe. Basically, he makes an assumption that he has little reason to assume. It's probably an attempt to not have to deal with what would happen if that assumption were false. This is a way to ignore a possibility without actually responding to what would happen if that possibility were true. Town would consider all possibilities, and not just pretend that they can't be true. Scum on the other hand would just ignore it either because of role info (probably not in this case) or because he does not want to have to justify what would happen in that case.

30-31: after earlier announcing that pine is OBV MISLYNCH BAIT he proceeds to vote him for not posting. First of all, he completely leaves behind his supposedly strong LMP/inHim reads to vote someone who he had a townread on before... who, i might add, was being wagoned and who we now know is town. Oh, and I might also add that

Pine posted 33 minutes prior to gandalf calling him out for not posting.

Sure, he said that he was removing the game from his bookmarks, but he posted less than an hour freaking before gandalf votes him for not posting. This vote of gandalf's is an attempt to push a mislynch wagon that he thinks is going places. Simple as that. Pine's next post was, for reference, slightly over an hour later and corrected gandalf on his possible misinterpretation of pine removing the game from his bookmarks. If it was a misinterpretation, it was a scummy one, especially when combined with the vote that left people who gandalf had indicated as strong scumreads prior to the vote change. Plus, EVEN WHEN PINE KEPT POSTING, it took gandalf 2 or 3 days to change his vote. And the vote change was after pine's wight claim.

32: the second and third points are kind of neutral. The first one is a retroactive (after the fact) justification of his pine vote, and a weak one at that.

33: gandalf says, after pine has continued to post, that he stopped posting under pressure. FACTUAL. MISREP. SCUM. LYNCH. PLUS, he dodged half of Zdenek's question (zdenek asked why gandalf thought pine was town in the first place, which he STILL has not explained). Also, moar retroactive justification. He makes more of the "sticking to his guns" thing in this post, without really explaining why it's scummy.

34 is fluff

35 ignores the fact that I voted them already (MORE factual inaccuracy / scummy misreading), and it also continues the generalization of the rules by adding the qualifier "as normal," which does not appear in the actual rules. This is also the unvote of pine, saying that his claim makes him town - again, without justification.

36-40 is all either fluff or unimportant. 41 makes a decent point that we probably can't break the setup, but there's no reason that that point couldn't come from scum (either it's town trying to stop people from breaking the game/saying that there's no point because it won't work, or scum who doesn't want people to try to break the game/etc, and the second is likely especially since he said that he was "thinking that there has to be some reason that this plan won't work." That diction makes it seem like he wants there to be a reason.)

42-48 are generally meaningless. There's some setup speculation and some talk about the game break. Not a whole lot to see. 49 is pointless sarcasm. 50-51 mean little. 52 is defense of something Zdenek said, doesn't really seem particularly scummy or towny. Amrun said that it gave her bad vibes, and I can see what she means, but there's a lot more scummier stuff that he's said. 53 means nothing.

54: out of nowhere, a wild beefster vote appears. His vote had been sitting on LMP for a while now (who, I might add, he hadn't mentioned since he voted pine). The ONLY time he'd mentioned beef before this was to say he had no read on Beef. After voting (55), he justifies it by saying beef isn't defending himself, which is an okay reason to vote. A fairly bad vote, with, again, retroactive justification. gandalf is giving very little justification for pretty much anything. He never gave any justification for Pine (except for bad logic and some lies), and his reasoning on LMP was flawed as well.

56-58 have little in them, except for an attack on Peregrinev. Which, I might add, IS ALSO BASED ON LIES. Peregrinev stated a few scumreads in his list. Either gandalf doesn't actually pay attention to what the people he's attacking are saying for some reason, or he's scum. Idk, but i'm going with the second one. Probably the first too. This is

at least

the third time that he has given a blatant factual misrepresentation and used it as the basis for an attack (see: pine isn't posting, implosion didn't vote iceycupcake). He's also done similar things in terms of misrepresenting SB's rules. The guy is scum.

59, another unjustified vote hop on to RBT this time. In fact, he still has given zilch reason for this vote. His vote hopping is also a scumtell because he gives no reasoning for any of them until after he votes. 60 is null, 61-63 are more setup speculation blah blah blah.

[implosion]

Amrun, I said RBT is a scumread in the post before yours. I could go into why, but so far it's primarily gut feeling about the way that he/she's posting.

[implosion]

Oh. and I just saw your P-Edit. lol. It might just be RBT's meta, but it is kind of the way that they're posting. I could elaborate on it if I felt like it, but I just spent around an hour on a gandalf case.

[implosion]

Mod, I'm voting gandalf.

[implosion]

When somebody is that obviously scummy, I usually don't bother justifying my votes.

When you say "sombeody" are you referring to pine, beefster, or RBT?

[implosion]

Implosion, I can see where you're coming from, we do indeed have different definitions of what scummy means. So do you believe WC's attack was scummy, do you believe WC's attack makes him likely to be mafia? This is something you continue to refrain from responding to.

That post alone would give me a scumread, but his other posts have looked like town to me. I put him in my list of town reads a few posts ago. One post I remember off the top of my head that gave me something like that was the one where he reasoned out the shift from the beefster wagon to the Amrun wagon, which looked like a town thought process to me.

As for your vote, you haven't changed your vote from out slot since game-start even though you've stated suspicion of multiple players, check the vote counts. Attempting to go through someones ISO like you did to gandalf doesn't help whatsoever, what do you believe he's done that is scum motivated or is the entire case on him that he hasn't done much throughout the game? If so there are multiple other players who are in the same boat.

Actually, I voted gandalf on page 18 >_> S_B apparently just missed it, and I never noticed that until now. I've given clear scum motivation for many things that he's done, like:
-his vote on Pine, an opportunistic jump that had no basis in reality with a jump off that had barely any more basis in reality as others were jumping off
-his retroactive justification of pretty much all of his votes, which displays more opportunism
-his downright lying in several instances, which means he either completely misread the thread at least 3 times as town, he didn't read closely enough because he was going for attacks on people and didn't care about details as scum, or he intentionally misread as scum. It's probably the second, possibly the third, and the first is just ridiculous.
-his vote hopping throughout the game, which apparently left stronger scumreads to go to weaker ones as they got wagoned (for example LMP -> pine, and LMP -> beefster, and even beefster -> RBT)
Did you read my case and miss all of these?

I also sort of understand what you're saying about the lurker point, but I'm not saying that all the lurkers are town. If they're town, hopefully they'll be motivated. If they refuse to stop lurking, then they're probably likely mislynches anyway. If they're scum, then woo, dead scum.

[implosion]

oh goddammit.

Unvote, vote: gandalf

1. His vote had a reasonable basis, Pine stopped posting when pressured and he pointed that out.
2. Changing of reads and releasing information of why you're chaning your vote isn't a scum-tell.
3. I need to re-read into this more and have a discussion with S about it, but it looks like a valid point.
4. Vote hopping is certaintly not a scum-tell if anything it occurs more from town as scum don't like the attention it gives them. I don't see voting your weaker FoS over voting your stronger one a scum-tell, there's close to no scum-motivation for doing so.

1. No, he did not stop posting.
2. Opportunism is a scumtell, and only explaining his votes after making them illustrates that he may have just been following other people when he first made them. It's a way to be able to bandwagon without having to justify your own votes.
4. Look at his Pine vote. He had been talking about LMP for most of the game, with only one mention of pine in the past (to call him town) and then switched votes. Later, he changes from LMP to beefster (again, he talked about LMP a fair amount in early game but had been ignoring him for some time at this point) with only one previous mention of beefster. He then explains his beefster vote. He

still

hasn't explained his RBT vote, just that he's "that obviously scummy." In other words, he's sheeping without justifying his own votes. The key to the scum motivation in it is that he voted them as they were bandwagoned (e.g. opportunism), combined with the fact that in exactly one of his votes had he mentioned the person he voted for before the voting post. He's

making

these scumreads up on people that are being bandwagoned so he can join the fun, not voting for people that he thinks are wizards.

You were saying that attacking lurkers is a good idea even though there's redirection, the fact that the players getting attacked are lurkers changes nothing and would lead to the following occurances:
1. Attacked lurker is town, they die we don't hit mafia.
2. Attacked lurker is mafia, they attack is redirected, we don't hit mafia.

Well first of all, there isn't even a guarantee of redirection (plus the only type of redirection that would really matter would be bus driving, as opposed to direct redirection targeting a single person's action). I've also (I think somewhere) expressed the possibility of limited-use protective abilities in scum hands, which could make this plan a good thing. The worst thing that happens is that we injure or lose a town-looking town-aligned player but learn about scum abilities. However, we could also have benefits (like pushing lurkers to post more, avoiding mislynches, killing scum, making scum use limited-use abilities). Essentially, it's setup speculation. But I feel like it isn't as risky as, say, the "claim at L-1" plan.

[implosion]

@Implosion: Gandalf is town. I suggest someone else.

Why?

[implosion]

@Implosion: Gandalf is town. I suggest someone else.

Why?

Because lynching town is a bad idea?

/ICE

Why do you believe that gandalf is town? Why did you sidestep my question, which was obviously directed at the first half of your sentence?

[implosion]

Bold - Protown. You're asking why someone finds someone that you find scummy to be protown.
Underline - You're painting Iecy out to be scummy for something that really isn't that scummy. That post would have been fine without the underlined portion. You're spreading out scumminess over multiple people for simple acts like that rather than focusing on one person.

The second part was to see how icey would respond to it. I don't believe that Icey is scum, which I've stated multiple times. Just because I ask someone a question, it doesn't mean that I think that they're scum.

1. Read iso
2. ???
3. PROFIT!

I like all of the logic in this post.

[implosion]

Yeah but at the same time it allowed you to spread the idea of scumminess upon Iecy

But I'm saying that Icey is town...

[implosion]

See posts 1086 and 1088.

[implosion]

Soben's last post

Removing this game from my bookmarks at least until morning, probably later. I don't think I can reply rationally to you people right now.

Okay, he honestly just stops posting under pressure? I think I might have had a townread on him before, but this is ridiculous.

I stopped posting and removed the bookmark in order to prevent me from breaking my laptop during the paroxysms of anger and frustration I was beginning to experience when reading this thread. Apparently removing it from my bookmarks wasn't enough, as I manually sought it out.

Still wanna tell me he stopped posting? There was a span of less than two hours between his posts, and a span of less than 40 minutes before gandalf jumped on pine for not posting like a hawk.
As for point two, gandalf has never said anything once about any of his votes being for reactions, before or after the votes. All of his votes have been because he claims to have found the people he was voting for scummy. And why are you saying that he's doing this to test for reactions? Why are you defending him so hard? Why are you trying to justify his actions and his votes? Isn't that

his

job? Aren't you interfering with

my

ability to see his reaction to my vote? If gandalf flips scum, IGMEOY. This could be a chainsaw.
Your points in point 4. are

irrelevant

to the argument I'm making. The argument I'm making is that gandalf voted for these people as their wagons appeared. You can either construe this as sheeping the largest wagon blindly, or choosing scumreads based on who's being voted for. He also hasn't mentioned LMP at all (or very little at least) since his initial giant scumread on him.

This is just a really long way of saying you wouldn't care less if lurker-town died which makes no sense considering the fact you haven't attempted to push any of them for information. Not once have you attempted to question any of them.

First of all, lies, I've definitely questioned

at least

snake. And would you rather lurker-town be nightkilled or lurker-town be mislynched? Also, why are you straw-manning what I was saying? How does "killing them at night is better than using lynches on them and we might hit scum too" translate to "implosion couldn't care less if lurker-town died?"

[implosion]

Dry-fit I really don't care how that vote looks like, my point is I don't like little cliques in games. They soon grow a supremist attitude and ruin the game.

Can you link a game you were in where this happened?

[implosion]

So I'm not allowed to change my reads when new information comes up... cool, cool, that makes sense. I guess I'll keep those reads for the entire game no matter what happens. According to you, Soben, that would probably make me look like town...

Honestly, the last paragraph of your last post is just insulting. Saying that I'm scummy for changing my reads as new info pops up. I know you know how to play mafia better than this (both of your heads)... stop tunneling me. Step back for a moment and look at the reasons that you are attacking me. If you are town, then look OBJECTIVELY at your case, and you will hopefully see how none of it makes any sense.

If you read the above as overdefensive, I really don't care. Your tunneling on me is really irritating me, and distracting me from other people.

So... onto the other thing that you're doing that's probably irritating me even more. Wanna stop defending gandalf and let him actually respond to my case

on his own?

Why the hell do you have such an obsession with answering his case for him, ESPECIALLY when he's acting too lazy to answer it himself?

Every vote is for a reaction, you watch how they respond, either change your opinion on them or keep your vote.

Do you know, for a fact, that gandalf thinks this way? This may be what

you

think about votes when you vote; that does not mean that it's what gandalf does.

Yes, you've questioned Snake, placed him on your scum-list and avoided adding any reasoning behind it. I rather lurker-town don't get ML'd or night-killed to be perfectly honest, I'd much rather have my FoS's lynched/nightkilled and I find it hard to understand why you don't believe the same. I translate it to that because you openely state that you don't mind them being killed at night.

How do you know that the same thing isn't happening here as in cold war mafia? If people continue to lurk, they're likely to become lynches regardless of their alignment. This is still a strawman because you're completely ignoring the reason why i'm "okay" with them being killed at night; because it's better than the alternative.

I'm not responding to the first point because it's beating a dead horse. I personally think that attacking someone for not posting 40 minutes after they stop posting is scummy.

[implosion]

Alright, you haven't attempted to state that any of my last posts are scummy however you turn around and say if your leading FoS flips scum, which you would expect then a player you read as town is someone you'll be keeping your eye out on.

Either you find my last few posts suspicious ignoring Gandalfs allignment or you don't. That's all it comes down to, there's no middle ground.

Not true,

at all.

If gandalf were to flip town, I wouldn't find anything overly suspicious about your giant defense of him. If he flips scum, then I would. You stating that there's no middleground is a false dichotomy.

Yes, Gandalf is a chronic vote-hopper he moves his vote around very often in every game.

This does not answer the question of whether he thinks votes are for reaction purposes. It's also

even more

defense of gandalf. I like how you ignored that point.

Are you honestly attempting to say "Lurker that are town have been lynched in the past so it might happen again", seriously? A player is not lynched due to the amount of content he produces but rather how scummy he is percieve. Lurkers are prodded, questioned, interrogated and if they continue to lurk replaced.

I'm saying that lurkers are more likely to be lynched, even though lurking is not indicative of alignment. Sort of what you're saying, except in a way that doesn't make it sound stupid. You can't deny that fact, that lurkers are more likely to be lynched. You also probably won't deny that lurking alone is a nulltell.

[implosion]

This I don't understand. Either you find my defence of him to be reasonable and legitimate or you don't. There seriously is no middle ground.

The common tells for the mafia break down into two categories:
Stand-alone tells
Associative tells.
Stand-alone tells are most accurate and useful early in the game and the associative tells are useful later in the game (when at least one mafia has been exposed)

I'm saying that I see a possible associative tell between you and gandalf.

This DOES answer your question. He changes vote whenever he finds a strong suspect or he gets a reaction needed from the person he's voting. This is a FACT. Sure, it's entirely possible that he could be scum opportunistic voting, but the fact he voted Pine and Beefster is how he plays as town. I'm not "ignoring that point" there's no need for me to state why I'm defending him, it should be obvious, neither S or myself are sold on Gandalf being scum.

Rather than respond to this, because it may be partially true, I'm going to ask you the following: why do you feel the need to state this FOR gandalf? Why can't you let gandalf defend himself?

Yes, lurking alone is a null-tell.
Yes, lurkers have a slightly higher chance of getting lynched.
No, this does not mean they should be NK-fire targets, your FoS's should STILL be.

If people are doing a mass-attack strategy, then fosses will differ and it would be impossible to both mass-attack a small group of people and have everyone attack fosses. Attacking lurkers would be a way to compromise with someone that everyone can agree about (while scumminess is subjective, lurkiness is objective).

[implosion]

OUT OF NECESSITY, EVERYONE NEEDS TO EITHER BE VOTING IMPLOSION, GANDALF, OR RBT. NOW.

Why is this necessity? it's 9 days to deadline. It's not like if we don't lynch someone in the next 30 minutes, the world blows up.

[implosion]

Tired of quoting.
First thing, because it's there and noteworthy.
Second thing, do you realize that by defending gandalf for him you are interfering with my ability to scumhunt? Why is a gandalf lynch the last thing you want? Are you really that confident of his being town?
Third thing, maybe, I don't have a hugely strong opinion on it anyway. This argument stemmed from some minor point that I made a while ago. I don't have a really strong opinion on the plan. I have a feeling it's going to fail in some way shape or form anyway (I'm still okay with it happening to see what happens).

[implosion]

Yes, it's something I wanted to bring up. I don't see why that's strange.
I'm allowed to disagree with people that I read as town.
I have no strong opinion because we really don't know what's going to happen, and in a way it's a guessing game in the end. Even if we assumed that the plan were to work perfectly I still see benefits and downsides to both possibilities.

[implosion]

1, I don't see them as such serious flaws, and the suspicion is because you are defending him so hard when he has not defended himself at all. Are you aware that (at least on forums) you're generally supposed to let people answer their own questions?
2, Just because two people are both town, it doesn't mean that they'll have the same opinion. I've made a case on gandalf, and he has not responded to it. If he himself does not respond to my case in such a way that makes me think he is town, I am going to continue voting him.
3, I agree, there's no way to work it out perfectly. Again, pressuring lurkers has advantages of forcing them to post more. And again, in the end, it's a moot point because in the end we have no idea what will happen anyway.

[implosion]

Hey soben, one of your town reads is saying you're wrong... you had better reconsider everything eh?

This language reads like someone trying to keep a mislynch open. "Everything he's done is scummy, but after the presure I have him null". WTF is that shit?

Null leaning town, I said. I later put him on my town list. How is that an attempt to keep a mislynch open? Also, you've been calling me town the entire game... now I say one thing and I'm at the very bottom of your list? How the hell does this one line warrant a change from your third-strongest town read to your strongest scum read? In fact, just 5 days ago (the last time before this post that you mentioned me) it was to ask Soben why he thought I was scum. If anything does, shouldn't

this

read as trying to keep a mislynch open? Turning literally on a dime on one of your apparently strong townreads, as a wagon is forming on him, to vote him and put him as your strongest scumread?

gandalf votes are a good thing

I'L CONVINCE EVERYONE TO LYNCH YOU IF YOU TRY TO KILL ME.

Is this serious?

@SGR and CK3: STFU you're both town.

This.

[implosion]

He then progressed to saying you're on okay lynch but nice jab attempt.

I was talking about ABR, and see no such thing said.

I was making my point while demonstrating it. I usually start getting abrasive when people suspect me, especially early or late game(midgame, I usually don't care for some reason).

My point remains.

I might have been a bit unclear: whenever I said something was meaningless, I meant in terms of determining your alignment, not that the post was devoid of content.

http://mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopic.ph ... 6#p2605466 - townie saying it's protown to end the RVS in a game I remember where it was a semi-major point. I mentioned it earlier. It was lewarcher, not don_johnson. Can you logically justify that it is scummy to end the RVS?

[implosion]

2 counters to that:
1) In the RVS, there is almost never any risk of lynch, and therefore almost never any actual pressure. When scum are not under pressure and when there is no risk of lynch, they are free to interact in ways that would make people think that they are not scum together. Basically, because it is random and rarely has long-lasting effects, scum can do anything without fear.
2) I've shown you (at least one) example of a town player who actively tried to end the RVS, and who said that ending the RVS is a protown move.

Your opinion that there are benefits to the RVS can be valid (although I disagree), but your point that ending the RVS is a scumtell is invalid. I personally think that post-RVS is more helpful for town. There are town members who will act to end the RVS. It's logically impossible to justify attempting to end the RVS as a scumtell when there are town players who will actively do it. Regardless, I do better understand the justification of your LMP vote. It's an acceptable justification, though logically flawed. Waiting for responses to the rest of the case.

[implosion]

Implosion: Voting Soben (LOL)

Early RVSish vote that I forgot to unvote when i voted gandalf. I thought I had been voting gandalf.

All these show that;

1. Implosion doesn't like setup speculation however is perfectly fine trying something to "See what happens" even if it leads to town-looking town players dying at night.
2. He understands that redirection mean that we're less likely to hit scum yet still wants to create a mass-target system.
3. He understands and states that lurking is a null-tell however still wants to push for lurkers to get targetted rather then his actual reads.

1. It will also tell us a lot about the setup if it does so. Again, it's a moot point, and I think the best move is to try it and see what happens. If it fails miserably, we don't do it again.
2. There's no guarantee of redirection, and even if there is redirection, it could be limited-use or a redirecter type redirection, as opposed to a bus driver type.
3. I have not pushed for lurkers to be targeted. I stated at one point that I thought it might be a good idea. I have since become ambivalent about the best plan of action with regards to who to target.
Basically, I'm okay with doing the plan tonight and seeing what happens in the morning.

[implosion]

Another RBT mislynch brought to you by ScumFuel!

Seriously.

Other than stated gandalf and Amrun, who on your wagon is scum fueling it (if you can respond before modpost)