Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[nightcrafter27]

PFP

Yesterday was busier than I expected it to be. I should be able to make a post later today.

[Leafsnail]

You replaced in for someone who people thought was suspicious (I don't have time to trawl for the pressure right at this minute, but will eventually), and yet your first posts never even mentioned this, and rather jumped straight to your attacks.  You wasted no time trying to figure out if the context of Vector's actions made reasonable sense for a townie to take (or if you did you never commented on them) and your pressure on Dem barely touched the surface of what seemed suspicious about him to me, so yeah; hasty and weak.

I answered questions directed to me when I replaced in.  If no-one else was interested enough to ask then there's no point in dwelling on your predecessor's actions.

I explained why Vector's actions only make sense for scum (unless lynching a cop is a townie thing to do), and I think my case on Dem was strong.  If you think there are even more damning points against Dem out there then great!  How about we lynch his slot then?

Sorry for being unclear: Your case was hasty so you could get it out and lynch Vector before she could return.  The rest is speculation on your actions post my voting you.

There was a whole week before Vector's return.  If your accusation is true then there'd be no reason to rush at all (hint I wasn't rushing I was trying to post content as soon as possible to prevent the game from freezing up)

Hmmm... I think I see what you mean.  By not following your example of having exactly two cases that I'm willing to lynch on basis of my reads at this moment I'm unable to jump from tunnel to tunnel as it suits my needs.  Also you are completely correct that I should call people scum at the drop of a hat as that is the most intelligent and well thought out strategy in the game.  Are you mental, or just covering for your shoddy play?

This paragraph is nonsense.  You're accusing me of tunneling, yet you are the one doing so - focusing on exactly one player, declaring them scum, and not even bothering to try and identify the partner that they would need to have.  You're acting like you have to call people scum at the "drop of a hat" in order to have a secondary suspect, which is patently false.  As for what I'm doing, I am trying to give you advice so that you can improve as a player.  Because at the moment your play is appalling.

Look scumbag; I thought I made this clear: Unlike you I DON'T KNOW who the scum are.  As such everyone is suspicious to me, but at the same time everyone is possibly town as well.  I DO NOT consider cases that are based on the interplay of my target and them to be in anyway conductive to actually finding the scum.  It reeks of telling oneself a tale to validate your guesswork; which WILL bias you no matter how hard you try.  Those interactions aren't going anywhere, they'll still be there when we lynch you, as such I will wait until THEN to bring them up.  Anything else is baseless speculation; as such, I'm sorry I posted those reads and sunk to your level of play.

That advice was purely for your benefit and I'm not going to argue it with you.

Could into detail on why buddying is considered a scum tell?  I'm going somewhere with this, so please humor me.

Yes.

Buddying is an attempt to ingratiate yourself with another player.  There are generally two reasons for doing this:
1. So that the player you were buddying feels that you are less of a threat on some level, and is therefore less inclined to vote you
2. So that the player you were buddying is implicated if you die and flip mafia

2. obviously only applies to mafia members.  1. could perhaps be performed by a townie, but being town means there's a much lower emphasis on survival and a much greater emphasis on searching for scum.  Buddying impedes your ability to pressure people and find scum, and in addition buddying up to a mafia member has no benefit - therefore it's not something townies will generally want to do.  So it's something scum wants to do but not something town wants to do, making it generally a scumtell.

[Vector]

It's not necessary to restate any cases.  I'm reading from the beginning of the day ATM.

[Vector]

Also, thank you.  I much prefer being voted to being whined at.

[Lenglon]

Also, thank you.  I much prefer being voted to being whined at.

meh, either you'll post something, or the day will end without me moving my vote. it's... really not very complicated.

Lenglon goes back to waiting

[Vector]

Responses to Leafsnail:

I explained why Vector's actions only make sense for scum (unless lynching a cop is a townie thing to do)

Leafsnail, this phrase reads odd to me.  I'm under the impression that lynching some particular role is only scummy if you know someone has that role--which I didn't.  That would be why I lynched him.

As a quick side note, I found Lenglon's reaction to RangerCado's claim fairly convincing, while Shinigami's seems a little more forced.

Hmm, I hadn't noticed.  More evidence against TWS.

Lastly, I find Vector's silence on this whole matter baffling.  I think she may have been hoping that with Ford quiet, nobody would notice what Dem was doing.

I didn't notice what he was doing!  I'd like to note that most of the arguments through this game against me have been "I expect Vector to play such-and-such way but she did something else," or "I thought Vector was more observant than that."  This is bullshit.  The position of IC has been loaded up with far too much baggage and mythos about how "good" players play and what they do.

No, I am not perfect.  But folks can scumhunt me and reaction test just the same as they would everyone else.

The problem with this is that it pits the ICs against each other, where what is important is not scumtells but the ability to give off the illusion of being perfect.

Well, anyway.  This isn't a complaint at you in particular.

Vector: Why did she keep voting someone even after her (sole) original reason for voting him was shown to be wrong?
My answer is that she realized he was the actual cop, and still had to die.

Because what I thought he did was claim a role that didn't exist in order to save his scummy ass, when he was nowhere near being lynched.  Instead, he appeared to claim a role that does exist in order to save his scummy ass, when he was nowhere near being lynched.  Basically, the difference between making a stupid mistake and being scummy, vs. just being scummy.

Why didn't she bring up Dem's strange willingness to shorten the day?  She mentioned that Dem was scummy earlier for "playing to the crowd", but when Dem brought up the shorten request she simply went along with it.
My answer is that she didn't want to bring up something so damning for her partner.

Because I didn't notice what he was doing.

Looking back on it, I also don't like the "Cado's probably town and the actual cop but we have to lynch him anyway because ~reasons~" thing she's got going on either.  Examples:
In #409 she says that her gut says Cado is town but he should be lynched anyway because
In #443 onwards she says that the most likely scumteam is Ford/Dem, but doesn't bother to question them and instead keeps trying to get someone she thinks is town (and therefore possibly the only town power role) lynched

I didn't question Ford because he was already up for replacement, IIRC, or at the very least had been absent for a very, very long time.  Demdemeh had just replaced in and more of his stuff seemed off than the other players, but I didn't get a really strong scummy feeling off of him.

This game is a balance between the mind and the heart.  I know that sounds like total bullshit, but let me explain.  There's what you think by instinct and feeling, and what you think based on logic.  Gut said Cado was telling the truth.  Logic said Cado was lying.  There was absolutely no evidence I could find for my gut feeling, and plenty of reason to think he was lying, or quite probably could be lying.  And I knew that if he was alive, then this question would probably dominate the rest of the game.  Was he lying?  In another game (Magic Mafia), I had been certain he was telling the truth, instinctively so.  This meant that my gut was not trustworthy in this case.

Beyond that, process of elimination gave me a very small pool of targets.  Cado had been scummiest in his tenure, by far, and every question I asked him made me more logically certain that he was scum.

Maybe you aren't a conflicted sort of person, Leafsnail, but I'm trying to play transparently and go through my entire thought process for those of us who are.  Part of that involves this sort of conflict.  I lynched someone who I thought was scum, but not someone who I felt was scum.  I like these two things to be in accord, because usually when they are, then it's the right lynch.  This time, I was wrong.

a) Several times you state that Ranger is not amongst your prime suspects, and probably is the real cop.  However, you seem to imply there's some kind of hidden reason why you should lynch someone even if you believe them to be the strongest town role in the game.  What is this reason?  Does it really outweigh the fact that you're killing the town's most reliable means of finding scum?

Ugh.  Please see above--I wasn't very clear with my language D1.

You didn't play in Magic Mafia, right?  As town, Ranger lied multiple times--really big whoppers, like "I'm a rolecop, and here are my results on you"!--without anyone having any idea about it.  I had absolutely no idea.  He also had a habit of lying when under fire, again, with no one the wiser.  This caused me to give no consideration to my gut instincts, because even if they're usually right, I had evidence that when it comes to Cado, they weren't worth paying any attention to.  This is something I mentioned multiple times throughout the end of that day.

"Then why mention them at all?"

Well, because I'm ICing and it would have helped my game a lot when I first started to get a clearer discussion of thinking and feeling, that's why.  And also because it wasn't true that I "believed" him to be scum, or that I didn't believe that.  The situation was more complicated than could be adjudicated using that one word.

b) Four other players (birdy51, griffinpup, Griffionday and Lenglon) all arrived at the conclusion that lynching a cop claim day one is not a tactically sound move.  However, not only did you fail to arrive at this conclusion yourself (which I believe you to be more than capable of doing), you also failed to properly engage with any of the arguments these four players made with regards to not lynching a cop day one.  You did jump in with a quick "gotcha" on Griffionday accidentally saying town instead of scum, and attacked the flaws in Lenglon's less developed argument, but you didn't actually attempt to respond to the wider argument about lynching a cop claim day one being a bad move.  Why?

Why yes, it is not a net positive to lynch an important town power role D1!  God, I'm glad I've been playing this game for four years so that I got a chance to say that.

However, you're acting like he was a CT, and we were all standing around going "huh, should we lynch this cop or not?"  Maybe it was obvious to you that he wasn't lying.  It wasn't obvious to me.  Hell, I was pretty convinced he was lying, because why the hell would he panic and claim with only three not-so-serious votes on him if he wasn't scum?  Stupid town?  Then why did he keep saying more stupid, scummy shit the more I pressed him?

The only thing out of line with my read on him was my gut feeling, and I did my best to rule that out because there were very compelling reasons to assume it incorrect.

2. In post #456, you call Dem scummy.  However, why did you only bring up this comparatively minor point when Dem was at that point not voting for someone they had repeatedly stated they thought was the mafia rolecop?  Furthermore, didn't you think it odd that they agreed to shorten at the time they did?

Completely escaped my notice.  Dem felt bad, but there was nothing I could really put my finger on.

The shortening seemed strange to me because they're uncommon, but I figured that hey, the day was wearing on and no one was getting anywhere, it was a good call.  What I didn't notice was where his vote was.



Let me know if there's anything I missed.  I'll get to TheWetSheep soon... my mother has apparently decided we're doing something.

[nightcrafter27]

Lenglon:

Nightcrafter: what do you think of the accusations Vector leveled against sheep?

I agree that TWS seemed to be buddying Leafsnail. As for bandwagoning, I'm not sure. Yes, his reasons look like Leafsnails, but do two votes count as a bandwagon? If so, this is the most minimalistic bandwagon I've ever seen. As for Vector's gut, I have no way of knowing.

Looking back on TWS's posts since he voted Vector, he really doesn't put forth any more reasons that aren't Leafsnails. His case here is that Vector was lying when she claimed to have not known there was a cop. But then in the quote below, he attributes more ideas to Leafsnail, which seem very similar to his arguments.

Vector: Scum, for reasons in my previous post and more. Leafsnail brought up a good point; she should have known not to lynch a cop claim D1.

So TWS, how is your case on Vector different from Leafsnail's?


Griffionday: You say the case on me should not be dropped and that you have evidence that Dem is scum. Where is it?


Vector: Now that you are aware of Dem's actions at the end of D1, what is your view on them?

Also,

Demdemeh had just replaced in and more of his stuff seemed off than the other players, but I didn't get a really strong scummy feeling off of him.

Dem had been in this game from the beginning. He lurked most of the beginning of D1 and suddenly became active late in the day.

[nightcrafter27]

Day will end when I'm asleep. TheWetSheep is my current top pick for scum for buddying Leafsnail and copying his case on Vector. I would have liked TWS to reply to my question, but that's not going to happen in the next ten seconds.

[TheWetSheep]

NightCrafter:

TWS

The way I read the part of your case you linked, its based on her claiming to not know there was a cop, yes? The way I am interpreting this quote from Leafsnail, he is saying the same thing when he says "Vector should know better."

Ah wait.  I missed seeing the sane cops in the above setups.  Fuck me.

All right, explain.  Why are you claiming?

Vector should know better,  and the way she didn't miss a beat after her initial attack was shown to be wrong was suspicious.

Yes, our cases are the same, because that's what makes Vector scummy. You're not actually saying anything about the case in question. You just say I'm parroting Leafsnail's case, but I brought my own evidence to the table. You seem to be operating under the delusion that for two people to be voting the same person, those two have to have completely different reasons for that person's scumminess.

Nightcrafter: Once you've finished reading, what's your opinion on Vector?

I'm having difficulty reading Vector. I see what points you and Leafsnail have in your cases on her, but I also see the logic of the WIFOM created by letting Cado live. I hope to get a better stance on her once she responds to the case made against her.

The whole notion of "there's too much WIFOM in letting Cado live" is crap. Her argument was that the possible jailkeeper would be confused by it, but the scumteam would be too. It causes the exact same confusion for both teams.


That's all I have time for now, I'll throw in a vote for extend. One more vote needed, I'll leave it up to you.

[TheWetSheep]

Oh, and Nightcrafter and Vector: How are your cases on me different from each other's? You both state buddying and bandwagoning.

[Vector]

The whole notion of "there's too much WIFOM in letting Cado live" is crap. Her argument was that the possible jailkeeper would be confused by it, but the scumteam would be too. It causes the exact same confusion for both teams.

That's... not what I'm talking about... nor has it ever been.

I'm talking about the whole "did he claim correctly" (therefore we should keep him alive) or "did he fakeclaim" (so that we would think we should keep him alive), and how that would play out through the rest of the game.

Oh, and Nightcrafter and Vector: How are your cases on me different from each other's? You both state buddying and bandwagoning.

Excuse me?  What kind of shit question is this?

[Lenglon]

Hunuh, well, Lynch vote time.

Vector, individually, still reads as ^%^&#$%^ whenever I read her posts, but Nightcrafter does seem to be following Vector's lead quite tightly, and Vector's actions yesterday were kinda scummy in retrospect.
Nightcrafter attacked Leafsnail on rather weak grounds, then proceeded to follow Vector in voting for Sheep.
Vector has not expanded on her case on Sheep, her accusations of sheep seem rather weak to me, and I'm pretty certain Sheep is town, mostly because of Shinigami's actions earlier.
Leafsnail's theory of a Nightcrafter/Vector scumteam makes a lot of sense
Vector's rapid-vote for Ranger really was quite suspicious
if the people to choose between for a lynch are Sheep and Vector, I know where my vote is going.
I think a two-week-long day is more than long enough, Vector, you've had a week to talk, you've said barely anything, and I dont think your case on Sheep holds well. my vote is staying on Vector tonight.

Pup: Speak up, vote someone, extend if you have too (we're only one vote away), but please participate. day's about to end and you aren't doing anything.

[Griffionday]

I'll Extend for the weekend. 

Leafsnail's right: I need to re-calibrate now that I'm not stressing about finals and can actually hunt rather than just attempt to keep pressure on him and see what develops.

Unfortunately that will have to wait until tomorrow so I can re-read.

[Vector]

Spoiler: Posts 27-37 (click to show/hide)

The one I suggested a while back was

2 of 3
One of the following setups is used:
1. 1 Mafia Goon, 1 Mafia Role Cop, 5 Vanilla Townies, Sane Cop, Jailkeeper.
2. 1 Mafia Goon, 1 Mafia Role Cop, 6 Vanilla Townies, Sane Cop.
3. 1 Mafia Goon, 1 Mafia Role Cop, 6 Vanilla Townies, Jailkeeper.

(Jailkeeper roleblocks and protects their target)

Yeah, that's a pretty good setup. Are you up for that, Tiruin?

Huh, sounds good.

I am for that.

Sounds good to me. How about you, Tiruin?

Shinigami: Why are you trying to make excuses for scummy play you scum?!? dont you dare try to throw up a smokescreen like this!!
 

An emoticon as well as a interrobang?! Do you have no respect?! This is a very formal place where people put important time into this serious game. To be so informal  If anyone is scum, it would be you Lenglon

Actually, no.  I dislike the Jailkeeper because they can do no wrong.

Blocking the cop isn't "doing wrong"?

It's an odd comment since it's actually the only role out of Cop, Doctor and Jailkeeper that can have a negative impact.

Missed it. Oh well, I'm leaving for about a week soon, so that'd be a problem anyway.

Replacement List, but only after June 1.

Yeah, but there's the second setup...

He doesn't know if he's in the second setup.  In any case it's no different from the doctor (his actions never have a negative effect) or a cop (always gets a useful result).

Generally speaking a jailkeeper is stronger than a doctor if there's no cop around (good - a doctor is way too weak on his own) and weaker than a doctor if there is one.  Their power is roughly comparable to a cop (he's good at stopping kills, but his inspection power is pretty weak because he can't tell whether a kill was prevented because he blocked someone or because he protected them).

Okay, that's fair.  No objections.

The important parts are Vector's posts, but I decided to blanket quote.

Ah wait.  I missed seeing the sane cops in the above setups.  Fuck me.

You put that much thought into the setup, but didn't know there was a sane cop? I doubt it.

WetSheep's initial vote on me is as follows: Vector forgot the setup details through the course of playing, therefore she is scum.  It's lazy, stupid, and ignores all of the other argumentation I made against Cado yesterday.


Then, he has the following (bolded orange is mine):

Vector: Scum, for reasons in my previous post and more. Leafsnail brought up a good point; she should have known not to lynch a cop claim D1. Her initial reasons for voting Ranger were erroneous, but she kept it there saying that we had to lynch him to get rid of the WIFOM. This isn't true; I'll explain why below.

Vector:

Now that this has happened we practically have to lynch you in order to lift the WIFOM.

This is stupid. Sure, it forces our jailkeeper into WIFOM, but also the scumteam. Can you explain exactly why you thought we should lynch Ranger?

He acts like he has a big case--the "for reasons in my previous post and more," and then completely whiffs.  Compare his attack with Leafsnail's.  Leafsnail has a cogent array of questions, bringing up specific points of confusion, things which I've legitimately said nothing about.  He has a case.  What TheWetSheep has is "I'm going to call you scum because I can't bother to read what you've already said right after the quote I cherrypicked."

Look, here's the full quotation he grabbed.  It happens to have the explanation attached--and is the first of many similar posts:

You had only three votes on you, you moron, and most of those were there because you haven't been playing your best and because there weren't any scummier targets.  Now that this has happened we practically have to lynch you in order to lift the WIFOM.

If you're town, then you put in an effort to clear yourself.  And you put in an effort to find the scum.  If you're going to be lynched, you go down fighting.  Because you've done none of these, it's just about impossible to believe your claim.

Yergh.

Lazy!  Bandwagony!

Additionally: You lynch the person you think is scum.  I don't give a fuck if he claims cop, jailkeeper, or pink elephant.  If all of his actions read scum but he has a juicy claim, you lynch the fuck out of him.  You don't leave scum alive to whisper poison in your ear, you KILL them.

We may disagree on philosophy, but if you think I am wrong, that by no means makes me scum.  And I'm right, by the way.

2. Yes, if I had to pick a scumteam it would be Vector and Dem. You bring up a really good point there, and in my reads post I go into a bit more detail on his jumping on Griffion.

Griffinpup:

... OK.  TWS, what's your current opinion on Leafsnail and his case on Vector, his communication with Griffy, and my current discussion with him?  I've been trying to get you to participate, so hopefully this works.

I completely agree with his case on Vector, as can be seen by me voting her as well. Because I agree with him, I think he is more likely to be town.

Here's where the buddying starts up.  "I agree with him, therefore he is town."  "I am voting Vector, which demonstrates that I agree with his case."  This post is all about how his vote for me undergirds his relationship with Leafsnail, and not having a damn thing to do with anything relating to me.

Not "I am voting Vector, which demonstrates that I think Vector is scum," or "I am voting Vector because I agree with Leafsnail."  No.  His vote on me demonstrates that he agrees with Leafsnail's opinion of me, which in turn demonstrates that he's a fucking scumbag.

Look at what he's brought to the case: pretty much nothing.  He has two original points, one based on "Vector is scum because she forgot something," and the other a pseudo-argument.  Then he goes straight into full-on riding-Leafsnail's-argument mode.

Nightcrafter: Once you've finished reading, what's your opinion on Vector? How about Leafsnail?

This isn't especially telling, but I thought I should include it anyway.  Given all the rest of it, it looks to me like he's searching for more supporters for his non-extant case.  If he gets Nightcrafter to prop up Leafsnail, then that in turn props him up.


Now, let's look at where TWS finally jumps in.  When he has time for a real argument.  Here we go:

If by "buddying" you mean "agreeing" then yes, that's what I'm doing. If he asks me for my reads then I'm going to them along with their reasoning. And that's what you see me doing. I'm not going to change my reads because somebody has the same ones.

This sounds like... well, let's break this down.

"When you say buddying, what you mean is agreeing." -> Let me recontextualize your allegations so they don't mean anything.

"If he asks me for something, then I'll do it."

"And that's what you see me doing." -> This is a hard one.  First: he says "that's what you see me doing," not "that is what I am doing."  Second, he takes the above obvious statement and tells us that that's what he's doing.  Nothing to see here!  It's another recontextualization.  He provides a false framework, and then agrees or disagrees with it without looking to the actual situation.

"I'm not going to change what I see because someone else sees the same thing." -> More recontextualization.

Asking when somebody will have the time to contribute is softballing? Why don't you ask Vector whether you think griffinpup was softballing with this too?

Vector, when will you be able to post some content?

There's a smooth deflection here.  "We asked the same question, therefore they mean the same thing independent of context."  This is a pattern for TWS: he pulls someone else's argument and claims it, and its context, for his own.  In this way he gets away with posting absolutely no worthwhile content.

Actually, I do have a case on Vector(it hasn't been answered yet though):

Oh, and in the next post, another bit on Vector and a case on Demdemeh:

"Look!  Look, I have a case!  No, it's not what you're asking for, but there's two posts softballing Vector.  Hence I have a case, so there!!"

Demdemeh:
That's a pretty big inconsistency, isn't it? Why did you say he basically claimed mafia, then say "he may very well be mafia"? Also, the first bold part seems like a scum capitalizing on a town's unlucky slip. This meshes with my scum read on Vector pretty well, actually, since Vector was the first person to point this out, and that's the kind of thing a scumpartner would say to give extra weight to the case.

I didn't really realize the significance at the time, but if Vector's scum the last point there is pretty telling, in my opinion.

Oh, sorry.  There's also this remnant of his case, from the same post.  "If Vector is scum, then she might have caught out Griffionday saying something in order to help Demdemeh!  This is significant because she was the one who noticed it!"  First I'm scum because I'm not observant enough, and then I'm scum because I'm too observant.

I mean, look at this.  "My case is as follows: she forgot something, she was wrong about something if you strip away all context and misinterpret at will, and if she's scum then this one thing she said would be telling."

Vector:

Buddying? No. Agreeing? Yes. I don't think they're the same thing. See my response to NightCrafter.

Bandwagoning? I provided reasoning that was independent of Leafsnail's. Reasoning you haven't answered yet. (I'm not trying to rush you, sorry if it feels that way)

I looked through my posts and couldn't find the one you describe.

This post feels like you're just pulling scumtells out of a hat and throwing them at me. I await your "actual posts".

Darling, throwing such superficial reasoning my way by no way means that you're not bandwagoning, and you need to get one hell of a lot better at reading through your, what, four posts.

Also--how could I be pulling things out of a hat and throwing them at you if other people noticed the same things?  Why does my random selection cohere to those of other folks?

Leafsnail:

I agree that Dem wanted to see Cado lynched while not voting him.

That is also the reason why Dem, and by extension you, are scum.

The reason why he didn't want to switch to Cado was because he didn't want to be seen as the last person bandwagoning on someone he knew to be a cop.  He knew him to be a cop because he was a mafia member.

If he was town and genuinely thought Cado was the mafia rolecop, he'd have no reason at all to fear being on his wagon.  Because he was scum, he did.

The italicized part boils down to "No no no you're scum". The other part is faulty logic. You're assuming that a town Dem would have been absolutely sure that Cado was the mafia rolecop. Since that probably wasn't the case, he would be justified in being nervous about being on the wagon.

Which we top off with blatantly chainsawing his scumbuddy.

First he declaws Leafsnail's argument by mischaracterizing it.  Then he decontextualizes the "faulty logic" portion by

a. ignoring previous posts from Leafsnail that imply Demdemeh quite firmly thought Cado was the mafia rolecop
b. eliding the "genuinely thought" from Leafsnail's post into "absolutely sure," then implying that there's no evidence for any interpretation (see point a.).


Ladies and gentlemen, I present to you: the scumteam.  It's TheWetSheep and Nightcrafter.

[Lenglon]

Nice case on Sheep there Vector, but this part at the end bothers me:

Ladies and gentlemen, I present to you: the scumteam.  It's TheWetSheep and Nightcrafter.

you're going back on the philosophy you listed Day 1, about not chaining lynches, and why we should look for the scumteam one member at a time.
and I could simply have missed it, but I dont see your case on Nightcrafter. Could you please explain that one to me?