Print

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

[Toaster]

Imp:

Are you guessing, or actually maybe recalling correctly, that the zombie goes if the necromancer goes?  That would have had to have been something you discussed with Meph in PMs - did you ask that then?  How do you know that the zombie was not voteable - is that certain, or a guess?  ... If I missed or misunderstood publicly available stuff that you remember, would you link it or at least provide clues for finding it myself?

I was guessing about the zombie dying, but a double check of Necromancer chat confirms that indeed the zombie dies if the necromancer dies.  I was certain that the zombie is unvotable (but targetable), because I did dig up an old PM from Meph on that point.

A few questions for you:  Jim is quiet.  How concerned are you about that, and how (what direction(s)) are you concerned about?

What flavor of Scum or known Third party do you consider most dangerous to Town?

And I'd asked this question of Kleril, he never answered so I'll pass it to you now -
Imagine your role made you be a Devil in this game.  If you had to pick right now, which other player would you first approach to deal with, and why would you choose that player?

Jim is my bestest Mafia bro, so I've played with him enough to trust him to actually play and not just lurk the day away.  I'm not sure what you're asking about directions, but I'm not terribly concerned about him post volume just yet.

The most dangerous is probably the converter Vampires.  While they did get quite lucky in Super3, they won a devastating victory.  Any alignment converter makes for an insidious threat, since they can pick and choose their allies.

Devil, eh?  Well, as the Super1 devil, I can offer a bit of experience.  I went for people I expected to both accept my offer and not claim publicly that they got the offer.  I chose well for the first pick... except he picked a kill and used it on me.  It'd be one of the less experienced players most likely... Caz or Persus, maybe Nerjin.


Persus:

Uhhhhhhh, no. I believe NQT's saying put your money where your mouth is, with vote instead of money.

Really?

Max White:

Seriously, do people still think they need to use red to get questions noticed?

Also you haven't actually done much at all since dropping that 'pressure vote' to try and pressure other people, so that story doesn't really check out. We still have plenty of time left in the day, why aren't you using it?

Well, that's what people used it for in the BM I played and previous Supernatural games.
And I dropped it because I didn't need it anymore, and because I might use again not to pressure someone else. You're just disappointed because it meant NQT lost a vote.

Why not vote Max here?  What is your opinion of Max in terms of scummitude?

Herp derp you said why you didn't.

Max, you're arguments are making you seem very scummy. The only reason I'm not voting you is because you did something similar in S4 and were Town.

To what extent can he get away with scummy play because of something that happened over two years ago?  This is a weak reason when it's applied against a recent game- trying to stick it to an old game when the person in question hasn't played in quite some time just doesn't hold water.


ToonyMan:

@Toaster

Toony:

Also I'm voting Imp for voting a player who doesn't exist, you should know better.

Since when is derping out a valid reason to vote someone?

When it's my first post of the game and I prefer not asking RVS questions.  I don't feel particularly keen on moving it right now, maybe Tiruin for being defensive (that vote on Caz was pretty bad) or Nerjin for going for easy targets (first Imp with me, now Max White with somebody).  Max White and NQT seems like too much of a gamble since either or both is/are likely town I feel.

So you put what amounts to an RVS vote on him and just stick it there with no backup reasoning other than "no one else is that scummy?"  Really, Toony?  That's the best you can do?


Max:

NQT bought it up to try and justify having an especially good wincon.

This is false.

I wish I had a bike that could peddle backwards.
Seriously, you were NKed twice as town on the first night, and suddenly you are feeling optimistic?
No, after that wincon comment, you don't look like town buddy.

I'm not a cop and this isn't a BM. I am town and I'm still quite optimistic about a win. I can see everything you said, but I don't see how any of it amounts to me being scum.

He just said he was optimistic and that his wincon wasn't impossible.  How is that "an especially good wincon?"

Why are you so ready to believe that he's not a cop?  In fact, your argument here is bass-ackwards.  You're saying claiming non-cop is bad, because scum prefers to NK cops and therefore won't NK him.  Ergo, he's scum.  However, if he's scum, then he's not a town cop at all, completely negating the danger from him claiming that.

I don't think he is a cop, I think he is scum who claimed to be cop.
Claiming your role, even inverse claims, are bad and not something town should do, but it is something scum might be willing to do in their own defense.
If he was town then ok, sometimes mistakes happen. Not everybody just understand the maths involved without thinking about it or being told. Maybe town non-cop NQT really just did not understand what he was doing... Except then instead of admitting he had made this mistake like he said he likes to do, he lashed out and declared himself above town convention and that there are no mafia commandments to go by. There are lots of things best avoided by town, but apparently they don't apply when NQT has a defense to make.

I disagree.  NQT has enough experience to know what he's getting in to by risking a "Not To Be Done" town maneuver.  Sure, there are some terrible, terrible things to do (worst offender that comes to mind is a non-cop townie fakeclaiming a guilty inspect to push his agenda) but there are some lesser things (like this) that could be worth a risk.  That said, I don't even see his claim as a bad thing in the first place.  If I was scum, I'd treat it as null.

Spoiler: If you're looking for a positive example... (click to show/hide)

In one Paranormal, Town Org fakeclaimed doc.  He drew a nightkill... that killed the dopp attacking him, because he was actually a PGO.

Org could really get away with some incredible things.

Attacking him because he dares ignore the "norm" is a poor reason.  In fact, what exactly is your case on him?  Could I get it in a concise and neat package, because it's really murky.


NQT, I'll get to you in a bit.

[notquitethere]

Toaster

In fact, what exactly is your case on him?  Could I get it in a concise and neat package, because it's really murky.

He laid it out in alphabetised points for Jim, about three pages back.

[Mephansteras]

The Scribe's Tally Sheet
Cmega3: Tiruin
Imp: ToonyMan
Max White: Cmega3, Nerjin
Nerjin: Caz, notquitethere
notquitethere: Max White
Persus13: Jim Groovester
ToonyMan: Imp, Toaster


Day has been Extended to ~5pm Pacific Wednesday

[Nerjin]

Nerjin— You're right about Max being wrong, but that doesn't mean you're not scum. As far as I can work out, you've only pressed questions on three players so far this game. This puts you on the same tier as two newbies and a player that has been mostly absent. You haven't been absent, and you're not a new player. It's okay to miss things from time to time, and your case on Max is understandable, but how can you be sure it's the best case you could be pursuing when you haven't even pressed the majority of your fellow players? Could you even give me a considered assessment of scumminess of all the other players?

Are you serious right now? How many players are there? Think about that for a second. Should I pursue the person I think is most scummy OR should I go after EVERYONE at once? I'm going to let you think about that for a while. As for wanting my assessment of the scumminess of all the other players... No. I think I'll keep that information to myself.

Nerjin:

Bold is my emphasis:
To Imp:

NQT is playing dumb not scummy

To Tiruin:

I don't think NQT is playing dumb. I think NQT is playing in a manner that isn't optimal. He's not playing well is what I mean but I don't think he's scum.

To Caz:

BUT the mistakes, for they are there, that Max is claiming are irrefutable proof of NQT's scummyness don't prove anything at all and honestly just seem like bad play to me....It's human nature and what NQT has done, while dumb as hell, doesn't seem particularly scummy.

Umm.... what are you doing?  It looks like you're flipping back and forth between saying NQT is playing/being dumb, saying he's not, then saying he is again.  Are you actually doing that?  Why are you doing this?

Playing dumb is a colloquiallism for pretending not to know something "No officer, I never saw three men in hoodies outside my neighbors window." I was saying Playing Dumb as in: Playing like an idiot. I realized that after the first post, clarified that in the second post [right after that bold you put there], and then reiterated it in the third.

Also, to comment on your answer,

Because you were putting it on a player who wasn't even in the game. I guess in retrospect it's not that big of a deal but voting on someone who literally CAN'T be lynched is basically abstaining.

I assure you, once I was certain that I was voting for someone who was not a threat to Town (and also could not be lynched, but my focus was the perceived threat to Town), I stopped having any interest in what may appear to you to be 'abstaining' from voting.  My vote was not placed with any intention to do anything but to make the most use of it I could see any possible way to use.  Had the typo not been there, or had I realized it was a typo and not an intentionally placed clue to go with a long series of other clues all seeming to me to point in a very clear and very threatening direction, my first use of my vote would not have been placed as it was.

and I've stopped pressing you on it once that became more apparent. As I'm sure you've noticed once the issue was resolved and I found someone doing something more scummy I went for them.

[. . .] one of the less experienced players most likely... Caz or Persus, maybe Nerjin.

... My feelings... You have hurt them.

As for my case, I really have nothing new to add. Max continues to push a case that makes little sense and seems to be fabricated over nothing.

[notquitethere]

Nerjin

Are you serious right now? How many players are there? Think about that for a second. Should I pursue the person I think is most scummy OR should I go after EVERYONE at once? I'm going to let you think about that for a while. As for wanting my assessment of the scumminess of all the other players... No. I think I'll keep that information to myself.

I took a moment to consider it. And yes, I don't think it's unreasonable to at least make a stab at querying even just most of the other players. I agree that you should pursue the person you find most scummy, but how are you to ascertain who that person is if you haven't even seriously considered more than three targets? Also, what pro-town reason do you have for not revealing your reads? I suspect you don't have any reads because you haven't meaningfully engaged with more than a handful of players.

What I'm asking isn't that unreasonable Nerjin: most of the players in the game have asked questions of most of the other players already. If you are town, then maybe I'm pushing you outside your usual comfort zone for playing. Do you usually limit your enquiries to a very small handful of players? Do you find tunnelling a particularly effective town-tactic?

[Toaster]

NQT:

Oh look, now you are trying desperately to polarize the town. Seriously, we could technically both be wrong, yet you want people to vote based off the fact that somebody is making an argument they may or may not agree with? Technically we could both be right (Were not, but from an outside point of view) and I would be trying to bus you right now. This attitude that 'Either you agree with his argument or you lynch him!' is total scummy bullshit.

You mischaracterise what I'm doing. You explicitly stated that I am scum. I deny this. I fail to see how we can both be right about this! I'm trying to get town to appraise your arguments and make a decision. I don't think they should lynch you if they disagree with you: I think you're wrong about me but you're hardly the scummiest player.

See, no, that's not what you said.  Allow me to quote you again:

Now, there's two serious votes in the game: Max is convinced I'm scum, his argument is there for all to read. Nerjin claims Max is seriously over-reacting. Well, who is right?

These are two separate possibilities.  You could be scum, AND Max could be overreacting to a minor tell.  It is totally possible that both claims are correct- they are NOT mutually exclusive.  And your other...

Max has an argument against me, Nerjin disputes that argument. They both can't be right and both of them have backed up their positions with lynch-votes. The game has left the RVS and there is now substance to discuss. Can you understand why I'd want players to discuss matters of substance in the game? Is Max or Nerjin correct?

If Max is right for the wrong reasons, then again, both arguments can be correct.  Don't try to set them up as opposites when they are not.

(Also they could both be wrong.)

Toaster

Now, there's two serious votes in the game: Max is convinced I'm scum, his argument is there for all to read. Nerjin claims Max is seriously over-reacting. Well, who is right?

Who is to say they aren't both right or both wrong?  You should know better that to set up something like that, NQT.

Well I'm to say! Max's argument is that my behaviour conclusively shows me to be scum. He really is quite certain. I know that this is wrong. How can this admit ambiguity?

I was never talking about YOU being right or wrong alongside Max.  I was talking about Nerjin, which is what the original quote said.  Don't put words in my mouth.

You are scummy, Max is scummy, Cmega hasn't got a grasp on hunting scum yet.   Toony and Nerjin are worth another look.  Jim is quiet.

'Scummy' is a bit nebulous. I don't think Max is particularly scummy, he's just pursuing the wrong case. Town do that all the time. You're right about Nerjin, and I'm looking forward to getting content when Toony is less busy.

Scummy is indeed nebulous.  Did you expect a bulletproof lynch case on my first post of the game?  You can read my responses to them (especially my last post where I voted Toony) for more details, but right now the mortar that holds those blocks together is gut feeling instead of logic.

I disagree on Max though- I don't like some of his arguments in presentation, as well as some of the premises.


Nerjin:

[. . .] one of the less experienced players most likely... Caz or Persus, maybe Nerjin.

... My feelings... You have hurt them.

To be fair, I realize you have more experience than the other two, but I was mentally comparing you to, say, Jim.

Are you serious right now? How many players are there? Think about that for a second. Should I pursue the person I think is most scummy OR should I go after EVERYONE at once? I'm going to let you think about that for a while. As for wanting my assessment of the scumminess of all the other players... No. I think I'll keep that information to myself.

So it's late D1, and you only have one suspect?  Interesting, because that's pretty weaksauce.  I'd like to see at least two more names of people you suspect.

[Jim Groovester]

I wasn't really trying to lynch Persus, I was just wanting him to explain himself. The vote was from the RVS and has only stayed there because he's been lax at responding to this thread.

So why did you wait until now to change your vote if your vote on Persus13 was pretty much dead weight when you decided that the time was right to focus everybody's attention on Nerjin and Max White?

Why Nerjin, anyway? Suspecting him because he hasn't done his lip service to asking everybody questions strikes me as a weak reason for a vote.

He is allowed to bring it up, and I'm allowed to question him on it, but if he wants to claim that he bought it up because I questioned him that is an outright lie. I'm suggesting that claiming that he initially bought up his defense because it was in a reply to a question I asked is a fabrication.

This is bullshit and it doesn't even answer my question.

You accused him of being scummy for jumping in to question you about your question to Tiruin. What should NQT have done in response to this?

4500 word wall of text

I am not reading this.

A few questions for you:  Jim is quiet.  How concerned are you about that, and how (what direction(s)) are you concerned about?

Fuck you, pal. I am not quiet because I don't regularly shit out walls of text.

[ToonyMan]

PFP

ToonyMan:

@Toaster

Toony:

Also I'm voting Imp for voting a player who doesn't exist, you should know better.

Since when is derping out a valid reason to vote someone?

When it's my first post of the game and I prefer not asking RVS questions.  I don't feel particularly keen on moving it right now, maybe Tiruin for being defensive (that vote on Caz was pretty bad) or Nerjin for going for easy targets (first Imp with me, now Max White with somebody).  Max White and NQT seems like too much of a gamble since either or both is/are likely town I feel.

So you put what amounts to an RVS vote on him and just stick it there with no backup reasoning other than "no one else is that scummy?"  Really, Toony?  That's the best you can do?

No.  I do not make RVS votes, you misinterpret and I am severely lacking the time and energy to be more coherent.  I find Imp scummy for being verbose and misleading and try to figure out what they are even saying to me in this WoT.  And in the very post you quote me giving reasons on other suspects like Tiruin or Nerjin who I would easily vote if I wasn't particular to Imp right now.

Like seriously I literally don't even have time to write more in this post I have to leave in 15 minutes.  Yeah it's shitty, whatever.

[Nerjin]

[. . .]
Nerjin:

[. . .]

Are you serious right now? How many players are there? Think about that for a second. Should I pursue the person I think is most scummy OR should I go after EVERYONE at once? I'm going to let you think about that for a while. As for wanting my assessment of the scumminess of all the other players... No. I think I'll keep that information to myself.

So it's late D1, and you only have one suspect?  Interesting, because that's pretty weaksauce.  I'd like to see at least two more names of people you suspect.

It is pretty weak-sauce. I do have other suspects. One person, as mentioned, I have a moderately decent case on. Nothing to bring up because it's along the lines of "This seems scummy, but I also feel that it could just as easily be poor play." and the other is "Hm... I think something is up here."

I'll share their names when I have cases that bare sharing. If you MUST know the two are NQT and Imp. I won't go any further on them right now because, as I've said, my cases aren't particularly strong on them.

[Nerjin]

Nerjin

Are you serious right now? How many players are there? Think about that for a second. Should I pursue the person I think is most scummy OR should I go after EVERYONE at once? I'm going to let you think about that for a while. As for wanting my assessment of the scumminess of all the other players... No. I think I'll keep that information to myself.

I took a moment to consider it. And yes, I don't think it's unreasonable to at least make a stab at querying even just most of the other players. I agree that you should pursue the person you find most scummy, but how are you to ascertain who that person is if you haven't even seriously considered more than three targets? Also, what pro-town reason do you have for not revealing your reads? I suspect you don't have any reads because you haven't meaningfully engaged with more than a handful of players.

What I'm asking isn't that unreasonable Nerjin: most of the players in the game have asked questions of most of the other players already. If you are town, then maybe I'm pushing you outside your usual comfort zone for playing. Do you usually limit your enquiries to a very small handful of players? Do you find tunnelling a particularly effective town-tactic?

Is it tunneling if I pursue the person who seems scummiest to me? Do I have to carry the whole game? Every other player is questioning everyone else. Me re-asking the same question would accomplish nothing more than inflating posts. Wall'o'texts aren't legible as a rule. I'm paying attention to everything everyone is saying and I do have a few suspicions and a moderately decent case for another player outside Max. But it's just that: Moderately decent. I don't feel that it's strong enough to merit mention. But as a whole: Yes, I do try to stick where I need to in order to not gum up the works of the game. No, tunneling [when it IS tunneling] is not helpful.

[[This was supposesed to go above the post above... Sorry.]]

[Imp]

A few questions for you:  Jim is quiet.  How concerned are you about that, and how (what direction(s)) are you concerned about?

Fuck you, pal. I am not quiet because I don't regularly shit out walls of text.

Buuuuut Jim....

What about this quote, which you have been... quiet about?  Bold is my emphasis.

Toaster
When you've caught up and read the thread could you tell us your initial reflections?

You are scummy, Max is scummy, Cmega hasn't got a grasp on hunting scum yet.   Toony and Nerjin are worth another look.  Jim is quiet.

When I questioned Toaster, I didn't quote him directly, I just asked.  But the words "Jim is quiet" came directly and recently from him. 

My question was -not- intended to stress that you're being quiet (if you are, you'll stress that yourself just by being so, methinks; if you're not that again will be shown by you doing what you do) but because I wanted more detail about his interpretation of what he wrote.  I think I understand what Toaster means about what he said about everyone else he mentioned, but I didn't get what 'Jim is quiet' meant to him, especially compared to what he'd said about everyone else he spoke of at the time, so I asked for more detail.

Now - Why does my saying and asking about the words 'Jim is quiet' rate a double dose of profanity from you, when the first time those words were posted you were... completely quiet... in reaction to them?

[Persus13]

Max, you're arguments are making you seem very scummy. The only reason I'm not voting you is because you did something similar in S4 and were Town.

Do you suspect him or not?

If you do, then why aren't you voting him?

Yeah, you're scum. You want to look like you have targets but because you're new you lack the commitment to put your neck on the line and say for sure one way or the other. That's why you're doing this halfway statement with the blue text.

And it's not like your vote is on somebody else; you still haven't cast it.

I suspect him but I'm not sure whether this behavior is normal for him or not. Is this normal behavior of Max? I believe you also ignored the section that says I'm not getting good reads on people.

Jim:

So, at that point in time you had nothing to ask about, except to remind your partner to cast his unvote against notquitethere.

Ah nice strategy you have of making a statement implying I'm scum to get me angry and make a slip-up. How often does this work?

This isn't a denial that you and Cmega3 are scumbuddies. In recognizing that I was implying you are scum to get you angry and make a slipup, you made a slipup!

THE IRONY

THE TERRIBLE, TERRIBLE IRONY

As for your question, it works sometimes, like it did just now. It's also a pretty standard tactic; you should get used to it happening a lot.

I fail to see how that's a slip-up. Thanks for the tip though. By the same implication any insult thrown at me that I just ignore is true. And if I have a technical question I'm going to ask it and not care about how scummy I look.

Anyone:

Apparently you are though.

You're FoSing notquitethere for saying exactly what you're saying.

I'm sorry, can someone explain this argument to me? I can't follow where this is going.

What, is asking me out of the question? Am I really that scary?

notquitethere said something. Caz misread it, cast an FoS at notquitethere, and then said the exact same thing as if it were a correction to what NQT said. I called Caz dense for it.

End of story.

Thanks for the clear-up. I asked anyone because multiple people were involved, not just you.

Persus

Uhhhhhhh, no. I believe NQT's saying put your money where your mouth is, with vote instead of money.

I hadn't even said I suspected him at that point, but he sure assumed I was saying he was scum. What do you think that sort of defensive paranoia is indicative of?

Well when it seems like you doubt his story going on the defensive seems valid to me.

Yeah, but the fact is you're still tunneling NQT. Jim, Caz and Tiruin all made posts, yet you seem to have found nothing questionable about their posts, while every time NQT makes a post you seem to turn it into another nail of his coffin.

Three people made posts, and because I didn't really go for the throat on any of them I'm just focused on one person? I think some people are having somewhat interesting lines of questions going and I don't really want to fuck with that, it can be counter productive. If I think a point is going unpressed I will go for it.

Okay, you were still tunneling. But that didn't mean you were ignoring people, just not pressuring them.

That isn't WIFOM, Nerjin was making a counter-example to your WIFOM.

Please, that sort of "Oh, then people are actually the OPPOSITE of what ever they say they are!" is the embodiment of WIFOM. An analysis of the numbers behind why we don't claim what we are not (And also why vanilla townies should never claim) isn't.

Yeah but your analysis had several flaws that Nerjin pointed out in the game. And that's ignoring the point that we don't have a cop in the game so him claiming not cop is like me claiming that I'm not a nuclear missile. It's true, and while there is an analogue to cop it's not as explicit.

Max, you're arguments are making you seem very scummy. The only reason I'm not voting you is because you did something similar in S4 and were Town.

Ok I'm most likely doing myself a disservice here, but fuck it. These games are even more slower than I remember, with people sitting around until suddenly the day draws short and then everybody suddenly has time to shout "EXTEND!!!" but not provide any real content. My ability to give a fuck decreases by the hour, so if this gets my lynched then kudos to you I guess.
That is a kinda shit excuse to not vote somebody. The org mentality that somebody is too bad to lynch is as dangerous as the Jim mentality that somebody is too good to lynch, the difference is that Jim gets NKed for his trouble. I'm not saying vote for me, because I think your reasoning is lacking and I know it will be bad for the town, just that you are giving a bad reason to not vote for anybody.
[/quote]I don't know your playstyle. Are you always like this? And my reasoning isn't based on my comments. I pointed out things that I thought no one else has mentioned.

Persus— I'm glad you're back. If you had to vote anyone now who would it be? Also, how are you going to get reads on people when you don't even ask them all questions?

I'm glad I'm back too. At the moment I'd vote Max, but until someone answers my questions on playstyle I'm going to wait. I'm doing what I normally do, look for things I find confusing or wrong and ask questions on them or just point them out. This sometimes gives me good reads. Is being defensive, attacking someone defending you, and analyzing people asking questions normal for you?

Persus13:

Your game this game is majorly different from the current BM going on. You seem less talkative and asking a lot fewer understandable questions then in BM (though this game may just be much more active) and have come up with a crazy theory for a GM mistake. Is this Scum Imp playing?

No.  Keeping in mind that one's apparently not supposed to discuss an ongoing game... at least you're dead in a game that lacks resurrection, so maybe you can talk more freely.  I don't know.  But I'll try to respond without saying 'too much'.

Other than this game having some differences from the ongoing BM, in roles, unknown role status, tone, the attitude and experience level of most of my fellow players, and a history connecting to some degree with previous incarnations of the game (roles to possibly expect if nothing else) - to me there's not much difference in how I'm playing here as there, and those differences are situational.
[.....]

There's a few differences in your play this game than in the BM too.  Is Scum Persus13 playing now?  In the BM you seemed to have in general more confidence.  Once you replaced in, you really seemed to help get everyone talking with each other more, you asked about things (repeatedly when not quickly answered) including questions about how people were interacting with each other and what people meant when they said things, and you never seemed at a loss for questions to ask or impressions to offer.

Well, I shouldn't have the question if I had known you were going to post a huge wall of text. It's just it seems that you are unusually wordy this game with not as much to say. As for my "confidence" level, the big difference this game is that I played this from the start and with people not as newbie as me. In BM I replaced in with an outsider's perspective, questions at the ready and had plenty of targets to pick and fire away at. Here I don't have a lot of previous experience with many of the players in Mafia. It's also more active. (Also, impressions? I offered them when I had them but they constantly changed.

Persus:

Uhhhhhhh, no. I believe NQT's saying put your money where your mouth is, with vote instead of money.

Really?

Sorry, what?

Max White:

Seriously, do people still think they need to use red to get questions noticed?

Also you haven't actually done much at all since dropping that 'pressure vote' to try and pressure other people, so that story doesn't really check out. We still have plenty of time left in the day, why aren't you using it?

Well, that's what people used it for in the BM I played and previous Supernatural games.
And I dropped it because I didn't need it anymore, and because I might use again not to pressure someone else. You're just disappointed because it meant NQT lost a vote.

Why not vote Max here?  What is your opinion of Max in terms of scummitude?

Herp derp you said why you didn't.

Max, you're arguments are making you seem very scummy. The only reason I'm not voting you is because you did something similar in S4 and were Town.

To what extent can he get away with scummy play because of something that happened over two years ago?  This is a weak reason when it's applied against a recent game- trying to stick it to an old game when the person in question hasn't played in quite some time just doesn't hold water.

Well I assumed this was his usual playstyle. Does he normally play like this?

I think there is definitely a pretty clear Day One tell. I'll reveal it after the RVS.

I may have missed this, but have you revealed this yet?

[Imp]

notquitethere:

What do you think would clue you in to there being a cult?

Seeing someone's roleflip as a Cult-Scum type is the clearest clue I can imagine now.

The lack of a night kill could be a clue; though the presence of other killing roles (or roles that can give one shot kills) could mask that in one way and successful use of defensive/preventative abilities or a choice to not use a killing ability might mask it another

Behavior changes in those converted, and how the rest of the cult interacts with the converted (and not yet converted) might offer the clearest consistent clues that there is a cult.

What are your thoughts on how to detect a Cult?

[notquitethere]

Toaster

These are two separate possibilities.  You could be scum, AND Max could be overreacting to a minor tell.  It is totally possible that both claims are correct- they are NOT mutually exclusive.

If Max is right for the wrong reasons, then again, both arguments can be correct.  Don't try to set them up as opposites when they are not.

A fair point given my specific wording. Not actually being scum, I had already discounted that possibility, but I can't expect you to take that on faith. A clearer way of formulating it is: Max claims that my actions thus far have been enough to mark me out as scum. I know this is incorrect, but I'd much rather players appraise his arguments and come to the rational conclusion on their own.

You're voting Toony and I agree his case on Imp is weak. Do you think other people should follow your vote? (I only ask because Day one often ends with the vote split between half a dozen candidates, a situation that makes it easy for a mislynch to occur.)


Jim

So why did you wait until now to change your vote if your vote on Persus13 was pretty much dead weight when you decided that the time was right to focus everybody's attention on Nerjin and Max White?

Well I still wanted to hear Persus's response. Perhaps weak pressure voting is a bogus strategy and shouldn't be encouraged, still if I do have such a vote it doesn't do to undermine it by switching it before I even get a response. If Persus had evaded or given a more suspicious response I'd have kept the vote on him and pursued it further.

Why Nerjin, anyway? Suspecting him because he hasn't done his lip service to asking everybody questions strikes me as a weak reason for a vote.

No it's more than that. I wouldn't care if he didn't ask random/hypothetical questions at the beginning of the game. Functionally, that stuff is mostly just to get people posting. No it's more than that, he hasn't actively engaged more than three people in the entire game. I counted. He's playing almost completely passively, answering questions and pursuing a single case. Also, as I will go on to explain to Nerjin below, this behaviour fits completely with his recent scum-meta and is completely contrary to his recent town-meta.


Toony

And in the very post you quote me giving reasons on other suspects like Tiruin or Nerjin who I would easily vote if I wasn't particular to Imp right now.

I just don't buy your case against Imp. She mistakes the game for a Bastard and harmlessly pursues that line until she's proven mistaken and then she immediately switches to engaging everyone with questions and playing the game as normal. In what way is that a scum-tell?


Nerjin

Is it tunneling if I pursue the person who seems scummiest to me? Do I have to carry the whole game? Every other player is questioning everyone else. Me re-asking the same question would accomplish nothing more than inflating posts. Wall'o'texts aren't legible as a rule. I'm paying attention to everything everyone is saying and I do have a few suspicions and a moderately decent case for another player outside Max. But it's just that: Moderately decent. I don't feel that it's strong enough to merit mention. But as a whole: Yes, I do try to stick where I need to in order to not gum up the works of the game. No, tunneling [when it IS tunneling] is not helpful.

I just don't believe you. I took a moment to reflect and I thought, maybe Nerjin is really just quite lazy about scumhunting. There are such players (*cough* Ottofar *cough*). So I looked back at some of your previous games.

The last game you played town in you asked everyone questions in your first post. There were eight other players, and yet you have trouble when there are just two more? Well, thought I, what does Nerjin look like when he played scum, so I looked and lo and behold, in your first post you passively answer the questions posed to you and then press a single question.

Okay, maybe that was just coincidence, thought I, so I looked at another recent game where you played town and again there are eight other players and again you ask everyone questions. Hmm. Well, let's see how you play as scum in yet another game. Surprise surprise, your first post is passive answering of questions and the pressing of a single case.

This all isn't really very surprising: in general scum struggle to earnestly scumhunt and prefer to passively react. I've detailed all this elsewhere. Your whole play this game is screaming scum-Nerjin and the only way I'm going to be convinced otherwise is if you start upping your game and demonstrating that you've actually examined all the players and are genuinely hunting scum.

And yes, Nerjin, each town player does have to try to carry the game: they cannot rely on any one of their fellows doing it for them.


Persus

I'm glad I'm back too. At the moment I'd vote Max, but until someone answers my questions on playstyle I'm going to wait. I'm doing what I normally do, look for things I find confusing or wrong and ask questions on them or just point them out. This sometimes gives me good reads. Is being defensive, attacking someone defending you, and analyzing people asking questions normal for you?

I looked back and didn't spot a question on play-style, where did I miss it? Being defensive is very normal for me; attacking players that are suspicious is good play and you should never be swayed by the fact that they're defending you: buddying is the oldest trick in the book of scum; analysis is mostly how I form reads: players rarely make fatal slips, but the shape of their over-all play can give them away. People don't tend to like my analysis and it's nowhere near as infallible as I'd like but I believe I hone in on more relevant factors with every game. Scum, third-parties and poor town players generally keep a low profile and don't press many cases, good town players genuinely suspect everyone and press a lot of cases. I was able to use this fact to 100% identify who was town (if not who was scum) in the recent Witches game.

I think there is definitely a pretty clear Day One tell. I'll reveal it after the RVS.

I may have missed this, but have you revealed this yet?

Chiefly what I was just saying, but more specifically, players who don't follow up on the answers to their Day 1 questions are often scum or third party just going through the motions. Hopefully, if I get the time, I'll try and chase up whether everyone chased up.

Imp
[/quote]

Seeing someone's roleflip as a Cult-Scum type is the clearest clue I can imagine now.

[...]

What are your thoughts on how to detect a Cult?

Detecting a cult is much easier if you're scum, because you can rule out your fellows and can more clearly watch for patterns of tacit collusion in voting (cult members typically won't bus each other and will tend to enable the lynching of non-cultists), but regardless of alignment, looking for teams in the voting over the course of the game is hard given the unstable/growing membership of a cult. I'll give it a bit more thought.

Cult-hunting in general, while there is no evidence of a cult, is pretty scummy behaviour as it detracts from what town's main focus should be.

On that note: your vote is on Toony. Several other players believe his vote on you is generally weak, but why does that make him more likely scum than any other player?

[Persus13]

Persus

I'm glad I'm back too. At the moment I'd vote Max, but until someone answers my questions on playstyle I'm going to wait. I'm doing what I normally do, look for things I find confusing or wrong and ask questions on them or just point them out. This sometimes gives me good reads. Is being defensive, attacking someone defending you, and analyzing people asking questions normal for you?

I looked back and didn't spot a question on play-style, where did I miss it? Being defensive is very normal for me; attacking players that are suspicious is good play and you should never be swayed by the fact that they're defending you: buddying is the oldest trick in the book of scum; analysis is mostly how I form reads: players rarely make fatal slips, but the shape of their over-all play can give them away. People don't tend to like my analysis and it's nowhere near as infallible as I'd like but I believe I hone in on more relevant factors with every game. Scum, third-parties and poor town players generally keep a low profile and don't press many cases, good town players genuinely suspect everyone and press a lot of cases. I was able to use this fact to 100% identify who was town (if not who was scum) in the recent Witches game.

I asked the same questions on playstyle in that very post, and I asked Toaster and Jim. Would you compare your analysis to sabremetrics in baseball? (Just I haven't really seen something like that before)