As much as I still don't consider you scum, completely ignoring Spin's reasoning and accusing him for actively participating in the game we're playing is the least town thing EVER!
Understood. I do tend to lose patience with people who I believe to be either:
1) Playing incredibly poorly for their team consistently and despite multiple chances and requests to improve (this is Max if Max is town)
2) Obviously not town.
See, to my observations, Max is so extremely scum-revealed, it's really worrisome to me if they're actually town. A newbie I'd challenge differently, but Max has possibly participated in more than 50 games in this forum, and appears to be commonly considered a strong player.
The goals of a town player
should be a town win. And Max is simply not showing this, not moving towards this, in any post made yet since this game started.
Max post 1: Here, Max proposes we lynch 2 folks based on their image selection, which I already explained I found concerning because of connection/bias risks. Otherwise, it's decent opening for either town or mafia, but the rest of what's said doesn't really move towards a town win. And it's scum that wanna waste time, time favors scum in these games (as days pass, not within the same day).
Max post 2: Max goes for the dog in the know, starting the framework to try and get that player to 'reveal by having everyone else confirm they're not'. I've already discussed why I feel this helps scum, not town, especially on day 1. Max's later posts go
intensely into complex and almost distracting-level explanation of why this supposedly would benefit Town, and frankly, the arguments don't address my concerns or clearly state the benefit, to me it looks like 'technobabble' of a sort. Scumplay.
It seems really important to Max that the Dog in the Know be revealed. Perhaps because Max at this time has no better strategy, or because Max actually agrees with me that the scum want to know, (cause he's scum and wants to know) and is trying to help as many town participate because it sounds like something town would want to do (no, town, this is a poor idea to cooperate with - or please explain why you think it's a good idea for town for that to happen, on Day 1.) However, to all my evaluation and understanding, this doesn't help town, but does help Max if he's scum. It's decent scumplay, except that it only barely looks like townplay and doesn't provide much cover. Unfortunately for Max, scumplay that doesn't look like townplay looks like scumplay.
Max post 3: Here Max makes the claim that he's sleepy and doesn't want to talk much (maybe he just talks a lot later even though he doesn't want to? But he totally doesn't follow up on.) He also suggests we lynch our completely silent person. Which isn't a bad move, it's an obvious call, especially if the town doesn't have anyone actually scummy to lynch, as 'complete silence' can be scummy or not. Except really, consistently, Max is scummy, and 'lynch this other target' is decent scum play. Note how much Max talks though later, about what Max cares about, getting the Dog in the Know to reveal. Max puts several hundred words into this across a few posts. And again, I evaluate knowing who the Dog in the Know is to be of value and interest to the Mafia, not of deep use to the town on Day 1 (not worth the risk to that dog, for sure!)
Max's post 4: Asked who Max thinks is most likely to be town, besides themselves, names someone not even a player. Totally useless for any use other than distraction. Also means Max doesn't have to think or explain his thinking - which if he's scum, it's harder to do - as Scum, Max knows who the town are, so having a 'towniest pick' is harder to think about, and harder to care about. His 'towniest pick' might reveal his scum thinking and observations, so as scum, naming Tric is a protective joke - if we let him get away with it.
Max's post 5: Here Max sort of supports Cry's weird logic about endless loops. His claim doesn't move towards a town win, and weirdly both Cry and Max seems to think that if town nolynchs day 1, then town is 'trapped' into nolynching day 2, and they both suggest this could lead to an endless cycle... really weird thinking. Why would town, who have one power, the vote, endlessly no-lynch? Why would we even expect that to happen? That's not town thinking. It could be confused newbie thinking. Max supposedly isn't a newbie. However, for scum, anything that doesn't help town move effectively towards a town win is useful. I continue to see a pattern of 'not useful for town' actions and choices from Max, and that alone looks scummy (but it's not alone, there's also the various pro-scum actions)
Max's post 6: Here Max starts to explain why town should give up the dog that knows, and why the dog that knows should also permit this. I explain why I think this is a town-terrible idea
here. I'm still interested if anyone besides Max is willing to discuss if they see any problems with my logic. Max, as scum, has problems with me pointing to the hole in his donut, which is also a rather scummy thing to do.
Max's post 7: Here, Max declares 'Everything about your reasoning is fundamentally screwed up' to me. Pretty lazy thinking, again as a scum it's harder to do the mental work to explain as town and ignorant might. Also, he doesn't need to debate, reason... he has one goal as scum, just keep enough town confused to make his scum job easier. He goes into a defense/attack against my reasoning that really talks around my concerns, and continues to protect scum interest in that kinda confusing way.
Max's post 8: So here, Max declares he only answers questions if he feels like it. How does this help town, ever? Sure helps scum though. And he calls it 'one of his rules'. Been one of his rules for long, this Max who's participated in what seems to be more than 50 games on this forum? Who cares, really. It's not the first false claim made this game, and it
does not help town, as nothing this player has said yet has worked towards trying to help town.
Max's post 9: Here, Max simply insults more directly those whose questions he hasn't answered, and again fails to help town in any way.
Max's post 10: Sometimes called OMGUS, or oh my god, you suck, in response to post explaining my increased suspicion of Max, and identification of who I think Max's partner appears to be, he votes his accuser with reasonings mostly around 'you suck and you are accusing me'. His reasoning? That I'm ignoring his argument (wait, isn't he's the one who said he only answers questions that he chooses to?) and shading people for not playing right - well, consistent poor play, especially from non-newbies is exceedingly scummy.
A reasonable town behavior is to explain oneself, or just keep hunting for scum. Not to OMGUS, which doesn't actually help anyone, but a trapped/revealed scum might not be able to think of anything better to do, I guess. OMGUS is definitely a well-recognized scumtell.
Max's post 11: focuses on things Cry recently said, which might help obscure the possible, and perhaps likely, connection between Cry and Max as scum partners.
Max's Post 12: This one I don't have a firm stance on. It doesn't clearly support town to me, and I
am still open to Max being town and making choices that don't support town over and over and
over again, though I'd need help to see and understand this.
Scum thrive on confusion and distraction. Town don't. I'm not super motivated to chase Max's claims and confusions past where I already did.
completely ignoring Spin's reasoning and accusing him for actively participating in the game
There comes a time when I stop debating with super scummy players, and you might have that point too.
I can't know if you're there or not without you talking about where your thinking is. I was done talking to Max - he's looking, sounding, and acting so obviously scum, I don't see what's left for me to say to him.
Cry's looking seriously scummy to me too, though less completely, but so much so that I decided to stop probing and turn to you all with my concerns. I see this stuff clearly - I have no idea what you do or don't see.
Why I am on Max about his participating,
he is the one who claimed, in
his post 3: that he's sleepy and doesn't want to talk. Yet he stays and talks, for hours, and talks a lot about stuff of interest, frankly, to scum, and without trying to help town. Not doing what you say is scummy. He doesn't want to talk about the stuff that would help town/hurt him-as-scum. That's what I'm calling him out on - it's actually also another basic scumtell: "FTD - Failure to Deliver, also known as Toaster's #1 Scumtell. The act of promising to post more information at a later time, and then failing to do so. A very difficult action to justify as town, because it means you are either lazy or lying, it is therefore seen as a pretty solid scumtell." From
Spoiler: CEAs (Commonly Encountered Abbreviations) and Other Terminology Commonly Found in Bay12 Mafia Though in this case, the failure to deliver is making the claim he doesn't want to talk now, and then talking up a storm - about stuff not helpful to town.
Now, where do my observations appear incorrect? Can you guide me to see how he looks less scummy to you, than apparently my most scummy ever statement did?
I stopped being 'uninformed' the moment people started posting. I'm not 'informed minority'. I'm town, but I'm me, with all that means and the information's flowing with every post every one of us makes, and once we post, what we didn't say is also a screamingly loud statement of information about our intentions, goals, and comprehension. That I am me and what I am, how I think, might make me hard to understand - but I am willing to discuss with you and those acting pro-town for days, as well as listen to you and attempt to see as you see to the best I can.
I did that with Max, trying to see from his stated viewpoint, until I felt like I could see nothing but scum - and with that viewpoint as I try to feel and understand him, hey, I'm done with Max. But I do get that you're not there in your thinking, so please, let's discuss.
Author
Topic: Catfia: Dogs vs Cats Untitled Cat Game (Mafia Victory) (Read 15441 times)