Mini 648 - Shytown - [Game Over]

[Untitled]

Post 54 is a little off, at least as regards the misunderstanding of Untitled's point which seems so blatant as to be deliberate.

just to be clear, which point are you talking about?

At that point he was no longer at L-1 (Nudude had unvoted) and his FoS on TPT in post 31 could be seen as an implicit comment on TPT's post. (At least it shows he noticed it.) However, to describe TPT's behaviour as 'way scummy' but not push harder for a vote against him is indeed odd. In fact, that's probably one of the most significant things to stand out from Untitled's play so far, for me.

this kind of ties into wanting to hear from tpt again. like you said, his post could be taken two ways and I wanted him to commit to one or the other before I put my views forward. I expected him to respond a lot faster than this, though. as for not pushing harder, a vote from me at that point would have put tpt at lynch-1, which I didn't think was a good idea for (hopefully) obvious reasons.

(Incidentally, regarding my posts 28 and 45, I think the discussion about whether my post was fishing for reactions or making a case misses the point that a post can do both. I.e. it was early days, the case was weak, so how people reacted to my post was as significant a reason for posting (in my eyes) as the case itself. When I said in post 45, "I do think that it's unlikely all three players who were voting Untitled at that time (molestargazer, Nudude and The Pope's Tiara) are town," that was based on their actions after post 28 as well as before.)

I agree with this, but I think that calling it a "trap" is a reach by darkdude.

[imaginality]

Post 54: where mole said

You're trying to say that you find it odd people writing TPT off as inexperienced because we're also trying to find scum?

(And also in that post, I found his attempt to justify his early defensiveness as deliberately reaction-seeking a little dubious.)


Re. not pushing for a vote; I don't mean you should've voted him already (I agree that would be too hasty), just that I was surprised you didn't pursue the case against him.

[Shy Guy]

Votes #2

Untitled[2] (molestargazer, The Pope's Tiara)
The Pope's Tiara[2] (imaginality, Nudude)
imaginality[1] (darkdude)
molestargazer[1] (Untitled)
Nudude[1] (Greasy Spot)

Not Voting[0] ()

---

Recall that a colon (:) is required for voting and unvoting.

[darkdude]

Unvote:

Vote: The Pope's Tiara

my problem is with his use of the phrase "scum hunting" - in this context it's totally meaningless because the hypothetical scum in question is me

Scum hunting also includes decent understanding of what other players are pushing for. I'm saying that IMHO it was obvious from an objective point of view what mole was saying, so for one to not notice it would mean their play is not so normal.

if it was a trap then the first person it caught was imaginality himself, because he's stated that he actually believed what he said. you need to explain a little better why I'm scummy for agreeing with a genuine statement from someone that you have expressed no suspicion of (that I can recall)

I do not see how you can justify your reaction to the post simply because he did not intend for it to trap anything. And imaginality had even said that he did consider fishing for reaction.

On the related topic: I was wary of Imaginality since the post where he said the Untitled bandwagoners are likely to contain scum. As you may note, I did not agree with this point. The original post seemed to me like a 100% mock post of TPT. In fact Imaginality's attempt to make a mock case AND a real one simutaneously is not something that seems like a good idea to me.

His latest posts also is giving me some doubts, but I have not the time to review everything and pinpoint them yet.

[darkdude]

Seems like we have two lurkers, Greasy and TPT

[Nudude]

Nice post imaginality, I feel a lot better about you now =).

You make a good point about Greasy Spot, he has been fairly inactive.

Mod: Request a prod on The Pope's Tiara and Greasy Spot.

I'm not entirely comfortable having TPT at L-1, and I'm definetely against a hammer, but if that doesn't motivate him to post then nothing will.

After we've established TPT abandonment of the game, or he starts contributing, if greasy spot hasn't contributed something by then, I'd probably be looking at him next.

When he talked about not taking the first page seriously, it showed that he's had experience with mafia games, and so would surely understand the need to post and contribute.

[Nudude]

I also look forward to hearing darkdude's thought's on imaginalities post.

[Greasy Spot]

Oops! Sorry about going AWOL there. I didn't have this game on my watch list yet. Fixed! Let me read and I'll post my thoughts later.

[imaginality]

I also look forward to hearing darkdude's thought's on imaginalities post.

Likewise. It would also be good if he could give his reasons for voting TPT to L-1 (he had previously said that TPT looks scummy for being silent, but had also said that Untitled's post 31 was 'the most notable scumtell we have yet').

Nudude, you said, "I'm not entirely comfortable having TPT at L-1," and I agree with you. I find it interesting that TPT has been on L-1 for a day or more now. If TPT is townie, scum could plausibly hope to get away with hammering him, so the fact that no one's hammered him makes me feel he is likely to be scum, if that makes sense.

Even so, I don't feel good about keeping him on L-1 when he may just have flaked, rather than be lurking. We should at least give him (or his replacement) a chance to reply before we lynch.

So

Unvote: The Pope's Tiara

temporarily, just so there's no chance of a mislynch.

But

TPT, we really need to hear from you soon.

I have unvoted for the moment out of courtesy, but right now you're still my lynch target for today.

[darkdude]

Hey guys, sorry my post will have to wait for next day I got some sudden urgent issues today and I'm tired as hell so I don't feel like posting tonight.

[Shy Guy]

Prod sent to The Pope's Tiara, who has not posted in over 4 days.

[darkdude]

First of all, I was looking for more replies to my quote of Untitled's post which initially drew my attention. Since I didn't get any I'll directly ask, starting with imaginality.

I think it's interesting that darkdude (post 27) didn't comment on TPT's L-1 vote at the time. As I mentioned in post 45, TPT's post 26 is a very convenient one for having it both ways, with experienced players likely to read it as a joke post at the tail end of the random vote stage, but the possibility of newbie players taking it seriously and perhaps even voting. No, I don't think it's definitely scummy, but I do think it (combined with the lack of posting since) is suspicious enough to warrant further explanation. To be clear: it's not just that TPT put Untitled on L-1 that led me to vote him, it's the way he did it, with an ambiguous post like that, neither clearly joking nor clearly serious.

I'm not sure what you're trying to get at here. TPT was clearly being serious. No town in the right mind would joke like that. I keep my joking in mafia minimal because it messes with people's reads. For example, I wholeheartedly agree with your parody in post 28, but it was not the best way to react to the post. Town players do not want to joke too much because it just fogs up everything and make it harder to pick out scum.

Basically, if it was a joke it would be scum trying using WIFOM to mess with town. And that wouldn't work because a real town player would avoid the WIFOM altogether.

My conclusion is that if TPT is inexperienced, then it is null tell. If TPT is experienced, it's scum tell. It is not between joking/serious, but rather level of competence.

And as for my view on putting someone at -1 to lynch, I think at this point it is totally safe to have players at -1. Similar to the above reasoning: no town would hammer without first providing good reason and attempting to convince others. Scum can hammer and try to shake it off with WIFOM, but since town would avoid it altogether it is still scum tell. Therefore scum wouldn't dare to hammer, and if they did it is a good trade off for town.

I think the discussion about whether my post was fishing for reactions or making a case misses the point that a post can do both.

Not really. Actually this goes against your point earlier in the same post; this is scummy due to ambiguity. Such a post could be defended with a variety of reasons, so it would not be seen as scummy even if the players interpret it differently. If I ever made such a post, it would clearly be a parody of TPT, not with my own case hidden in. How do you expect players to weed out the fact from fiction? It is just a convenient way to put something down which can become the jumping board for a wide spectrum of future arguments IMHO.

Untitled and molestargazer: I think at most one of them is scum. If one is scum, right now, I'm leaning towards Untitled, at least until he explains his post 46. I think molestargazer has driven the case against Untitled hard and

perhaps too hard

- I think it's fairly possible

they're both town

. I'm not ruling out molestargazer being scum, and want to reread his posts again soon to make sure I'm not missing anything.

You're being ambiguous in this one again I think. First you're saying "at most one is scum" implying that you do not think it is likely that they are scum buddies. Hm...well that is very informative . I don't see how you drew that conclusion just because one is pushing a case against another. Second, you point out some possible scum tells but then say "it's likely they're both town". And then go on again to say that mole can still be scum even though you pretty much leaned town on him.

To me that's just a lot of flip flopping and giving yourself loads of slack without a concrete opinion to help town.

imaginality: Pretty sure he's town.

This goes again with my dislike of redundancy. I believe Untitled was asking about this too (sorry, forgot about this point earlier), so I'll be general:

I don't like redundant statements because I find that often scum don't want to take sides so they just make posts like "uh...I'm not sure...I just know I'm not scum" and "I'm not sure about this argument...settle it out yourselves". Normally town players more often than not focus their attention of the most worthy arguments, while scum, being the case that they must fabricate arguments, would chose to show some degree of input, but often they don't make real contributions for fear of taking sides.


So yeah, basically I think imaginality's posts are too ambiguous. They leave lots of slack room, and he's not particularly devoted to any cases at the moment. Slight-to-average scum tell IMHO, and gives me gut feeling against him.

[darkdude]

Pffft. Forgot to stress my initial question.

Imaginality, what do you think of my case against Untitled (that he worked up your case in post 28 immediately to attack TPT)?

[imaginality]

I already answered that pretty much, in post 74:

However, to describe TPT's behaviour as 'way scummy' but not push harder for a vote against him is indeed odd. In fact, that's probably one of the most significant things to stand out from Untitled's play so far, for me.

I was less concerned with him attacking TPT in itself, but I found it more suspect that despite describing TPT's post and vote as "

way

scummy" he didn't vote TPT, only FoSed him. (Yes, as Untitled notes above, it would have put TPT at L-1 but it would be a genuine reason for doing so compared to TPT's ultra-weak justification for his L-1 vote on Untitled.)

The fact that Untitled's post 31 could be seen as an attempt to deflect attention onto Nudude and TPT is a fair part of why I find it more likely that he would be scum than mole. It's true that I said I only thought at most one of them is scum - but that was

not

(as you suggest) because one was pushing a case on the other, it was because if both of them were scum, both TPT and Greasy Spot would be town, and that seemed less likely to me.

[Untitled]

My conclusion is that if TPT is inexperienced, then it is null tell. If TPT is experienced, it's scum tell. It is not between joking/serious, but rather level of competence.

this makes no sense.

scum stand to gain more from fast lynches than town (particularly fast mislynches, but my alignment is yet to be proven). putting someone at lynch-1 at the top of page 2 is therefore an anti-town action, and will be seen as such by most players.

assuming that scum want to avoid obvious anti-town behaviour, experienced scum are

much less

likely to do this than inexperienced scum. experienced scum know that the act is anti-town, and thus avoid it. inexperienced scum do not know that the act is anti-town, and thus may do it because they stand to gain from it.

an experienced player would only ever place a fast lynch-1 vote for wifom purposes, and that definitely isn't a strong scumtell, otherwise they wouldn't do it in the first place. they are, by definition, experienced enough to know what's a scumtell and what isn't.

to conclude that tpt is town we must assume both that he didn't know that his vote was against the best interests of his faction

and

that he didn't know that it would be viewed as suspicious. if he's scum then we only need to assume the latter. as such, it is more likely that he's scum than town, because it requires fewer assumptions about his motives. how much more likely is a matter of personal opinion, but it's not a completely null tell.

And as for my view on putting someone at -1 to lynch, I think at this point it is totally safe to have players at -1. Similar to the above reasoning: no town would hammer without first providing good reason and attempting to convince others. Scum can hammer and try to shake it off with WIFOM, but since town would avoid it altogether it is still scum tell. Therefore scum wouldn't dare to hammer, and if they did it is a good trade off for town.

but what if the player who hammers is inexperienced? by your own logic, that wouldn't be a scumtell.

Normally town players more often than not focus their attention of the most worthy arguments

would you say that an argument about the meaning of the word "argue" is worthy? that was the entire point of my comment: to indicate that I thought your discussion with greasy spot was a waste of time.

[Nudude]

It's so interesting. After reading darkdude's analysis, it had me thinking that it might be worth taking a look at him, but then I read this.

I already answered that pretty much, in post 74:

However, to describe TPT's behaviour as 'way scummy' but not push harder for a vote against him is indeed odd. In fact, that's probably one of the most significant things to stand out from Untitled's play so far, for me.

I was less concerned with him attacking TPT in itself, but I found it more suspect that despite describing TPT's post and vote as "

way

scummy" he didn't vote TPT, only FoSed him. (Yes, as Untitled notes above, it would have put TPT at L-1 but it would be a genuine reason for doing so compared to TPT's ultra-weak justification for his L-1 vote on Untitled.)

The fact that Untitled's post 31 could be seen as an attempt to deflect attention onto Nudude and TPT is a fair part of why I find it more likely that he would be scum than mole. It's true that I said I only thought at most one of them is scum - but that was

not

(as you suggest) because one was pushing a case on the other, it was because if both of them were scum, both TPT and Greasy Spot would be town, and that seemed less likely to me.

This was untitled's post:

lynch-1 and being ok with lynching someone this early is

way

scummy. wonder whether nudude would have pulled his vote so fast if imaginality hadn't nailed him?

Unvote

FoS: the pope's tiara, nudude

Even though it was questioning my alliegence, it's a valid concern that's could just as easily have been made by a townie fishing for reads as it could have been from a scum trying to sow dissent.

Why are you using it to paint untitled as scum?

Unvote:

Vote: imaginality

[Nudude]

My conclusion is that if TPT is inexperienced, then it is null tell. If TPT is experienced, it's scum tell. It is not between joking/serious, but rather level of competence.

this makes no sense.

scum stand to gain more from fast lynches than town (particularly fast mislynches, but my alignment is yet to be proven). putting someone at lynch-1 at the top of page 2 is therefore an anti-town action, and will be seen as such by most players.

assuming that scum want to avoid obvious anti-town behaviour, experienced scum are

much less

likely to do this than inexperienced scum. experienced scum know that the act is anti-town, and thus avoid it. inexperienced scum do not know that the act is anti-town, and thus may do it because they stand to gain from it.

an experienced player would only ever place a fast lynch-1 vote for wifom purposes, and that definitely isn't a strong scumtell, otherwise they wouldn't do it in the first place. they are, by definition, experienced enough to know what's a scumtell and what isn't.

to conclude that tpt is town we must assume both that he didn't know that his vote was against the best interests of his faction

and

that he didn't know that it would be viewed as suspicious. if he's scum then we only need to assume the latter. as such, it is more likely that he's scum than town, because it requires fewer assumptions about his motives. how much more likely is a matter of personal opinion, but it's not a completely null tell.

And as for my view on putting someone at -1 to lynch, I think at this point it is totally safe to have players at -1. Similar to the above reasoning: no town would hammer without first providing good reason and attempting to convince others. Scum can hammer and try to shake it off with WIFOM, but since town would avoid it altogether it is still scum tell. Therefore scum wouldn't dare to hammer, and if they did it is a good trade off for town.

but what if the player who hammers is inexperienced? by your own logic, that wouldn't be a scumtell.

Normally town players more often than not focus their attention of the most worthy arguments

would you say that an argument about the meaning of the word "argue" is worthy? that was the entire point of my comment: to indicate that I thought your discussion with greasy spot was a waste of time.

You spend alot of this post trying to get more of a read on TPT. At this point, unless your psychic, we don't have enough info to tell which side TPT is on.

But still your pushing for investigation on someone that might have abandonded the game. How knows what TPT was thinking. We'll have to wait for him to show up, or grill his replacement. As for now, why continue a WIFOM debate? Time is on scum's side here, and WIFOM's are a great time sink.

You avoid my vote for now, but only

just

, beause I can only vote for one person at a time.

FOS: untitled

[imaginality]

The fact that Untitled's post 31 could be seen as an attempt to deflect attention onto Nudude and TPT is a fair part of why I find it more likely that he would be scum than mole.

I said it 'could be seen as (suspicious)'. I didn't say it definitely was. If I thought it definitely was, I would have voted Untitled already.

I think my questioning Untitled's reasons for that post is as valid as Untitled questioning you in that post. I'm not painting him as scum, just saying that that was the main thing that stood out for me, and was why I felt he was relatively more likely to be scum than molestargazer. Note: not 'likely', just 'more likely than'.

In fact, I think Untitled makes some good points about TPT in post 89 above. I agree with that post. And my suspicion of TPT makes me

less

inclined to think that Untitled is scum.

[Nudude]

Oops! Sorry about going AWOL there. I didn't have this game on my watch list yet. Fixed! Let me read and I'll post my thoughts later.

Define "Later". Later could be a few days from now, and in a game where time is of the essence, I'd hate to think that your trying to stall for time.

[Nudude]

The fact that Untitled's post 31 could be seen as an attempt to deflect attention onto Nudude and TPT is a fair part of why I find it more likely that he would be scum than mole.

I said it 'could be seen as (suspicious)'. I didn't say it definitely was. If I thought it definitely was, I would have voted Untitled already.

I think my questioning Untitled's reasons for that post is as valid as Untitled questioning you in that post. I'm not painting him as scum, just saying that that was the main thing that stood out for me, and was why I felt he was relatively more likely to be scum than molestargazer. Note: not 'likely', just 'more likely than'.

In fact, I think Untitled makes some good points about TPT in post 89 above. I agree with that post. And my suspicion of TPT makes me

less

inclined to think that Untitled is scum.

Fair enough.

Unvote:

Vote: untitled

I know this put's him at L-1, but I agree with darkdudes sentiments that if scum were to hammer, 1 townie for 1 scum is a good trade.

[darkdude]

scum stand to gain more from fast lynches than town (particularly fast mislynches, but my alignment is yet to be proven). putting someone at lynch-1 at the top of page 2 is therefore an anti-town action, and will be seen as such by most players.

Correct, but as you state below, rushing for lynch so obviously is not something scum wants.

an experienced player would only ever place a fast lynch-1 vote for wifom purposes, and that definitely isn't a strong scumtell, otherwise they wouldn't do it in the first place. they are, by definition, experienced enough to know what's a scumtell and what isn't.

You miss the point here. The point is that scum MAY OR MAY NOT decide to do this (the more you argue that it is unlikely the more it is subject to WIFOM), while an experienced town WOULD DEFINITELY NOT do this. Thus, if we assume TPT is experienced, only explanation would be that he is scum.

to conclude that tpt is town we must assume both that he didn't know that his vote was against the best interests of his faction and that he didn't know that it would be viewed as suspicious.

No one is trying to conclude he is scum or town (perhaps except you), so I don't see your point.

He needs not to know both of your suggested points either. If he is inexperienced, he would try to push for lynch the moment he thinks he has a decent case on someone, town or scum. If he is town obviously he does not know this is bad for town. If he is scum he does not know this is bad for town thus he does not expect it to land scum tells on him.

would you say that an argument about the meaning of the word "argue" is worthy? that was the entire point of my comment: to indicate that I thought your discussion with greasy spot was a waste of time.

Yes, because I think Greasy was trying to bullshit me. And if true, that is not pro-town.

but what if the player who hammers is inexperienced? by your own logic, that wouldn't be a scumtell

By the time I said this, I have already concluded that none except TPT seemed nooby enough to do such a thing. I do not think we run any risk of having someone prematurely hammer if TPT is already devoted on his vote. If someone does do this it would be out of character and cannot be explained by inexperience.

[Untitled]

scum stand to gain more from fast lynches than town (particularly fast mislynches, but my alignment is yet to be proven). putting someone at lynch-1 at the top of page 2 is therefore an anti-town action, and will be seen as such by most players.

Correct, but as you state below, rushing for lynch so obviously is not something scum wants.

not if they're experienced, no.

an experienced player would only ever place a fast lynch-1 vote for wifom purposes, and that definitely isn't a strong scumtell, otherwise they wouldn't do it in the first place. they are, by definition, experienced enough to know what's a scumtell and what isn't.

You miss the point here. The point is that scum MAY OR MAY NOT decide to do this (the more you argue that it is unlikely the more it is subject to WIFOM), while an experienced town WOULD DEFINITELY NOT do this. Thus, if we assume TPT is experienced, only explanation would be that he is scum.

if experienced town would

never

do something then experienced scum would never do it either, because they know that doing so would reveal them to be scum. wifom doesn't come into it if you make that asumption.

to conclude that tpt is town we must assume both that he didn't know that his vote was against the best interests of his faction and that he didn't know that it would be viewed as suspicious.

No one is trying to conclude he is scum or town (perhaps except you), so I don't see your point.

my point is that he is more likely to be scum than town. I'm not saying that he's definitely 100% sure to be scum, but I think that inexperienced scum are more likely than inexperienced town to do what he did.

He needs not to know both of your suggested points either.

If he is inexperienced, he would try to push for lynch the moment he thinks he has a decent case on someone, town or scum.

If he is town obviously he does not know this is bad for town. If he is scum he does not know this is bad for town thus he does not expect it to land scum tells on him.

the bolded passage is not a correct assumption. newbies are often hesitant to push a case on someone early in the game. you have to ask what motivated tpt to do so in this game - presumably he saw some advantage in doing so. you need to think about what that advantage would be. I'd recommend that you have a look at the other game that tpt's in and see how his behaviour there compares with here.

would you say that an argument about the meaning of the word "argue" is worthy? that was the entire point of my comment: to indicate that I thought your discussion with greasy spot was a waste of time.

Yes, because I think Greasy was trying to bullshit me. And if true, that is not pro-town.

I disagree. you and he were arguing over nothing. my differing opinion makes my statement on this subject less than "redundant".

but what if the player who hammers is inexperienced? by your own logic, that wouldn't be a scumtell

By the time I said this, I have already concluded that none except TPT seemed nooby enough to do such a thing. I do not think we run any risk of having someone prematurely hammer if TPT is already devoted on his vote. If someone does do this it would be out of character and cannot be explained by inexperience.

true, this doesn't apply in this situation. I disagree with the principle of newbness excusing all errors, though.

[darkdude]

I disagree. you and he were arguing over nothing. my differing opinion makes my statement on this subject less than "redundant".

You did not state this opinion initially, but rather wrote as if you did not care what became of the argument.

if experienced town would never do something then experienced scum would never do it either, because they know that doing so would reveal them to be scum. wifom doesn't come into it if you make that asumption.

Experienced scum can pretend to be inexperienced in this case. But whatever the reason, if we know that the player in question is experienced and he makes this move, it would be most likely a scum tell. You can assume that no experienced player will do this as well, which would lead to the conclusion that the player must be inexperienced.

The main point is, if the player is inexperienced, this situation is a null tell.

the bolded passage is not a correct assumption. newbies are often hesitant to push a case on someone early in the game.

I think I worded that wrong. I'm saying that following a newbie who's line of thinking is "see scum, lynch scum", he would push for lynch ASAP regardless of alignment. I suggest that this is the specific case for TPT, not all newbies in general.

[Shy Guy]

The Pope's Tiara picked up the prod I sent but has not posted. I am searching for a replacement, and if The Pope's Tiara does not post within a day, or before I find a replacement, he will be replaced.

Notice to all players: chronic inactivity or minimal activity will get you replaced with little warning, at my complete discretion.

[Shy Guy]

Filler post.