Mini 1830 - Game Over

[eagerSnake]

I would post a random vote here, but instead I'll not post a random vote here.

[eagerSnake]

@Grendel Sure. I will give it a try.

@Gerryoat I am eagerSnake on EM.

@Gamma Emerald Who are you on EM?

[eagerSnake]

Do we know how many scum we're looking for?

11 players I'm assuming there's a few possibilities here...

3 teamed mafia, 8 town
2 teamed mafia, 1 3rd party (not cult), 8 town
2 teams of 2 mafia, 7 town

[eagerSnake]

I'm not finding any setup information anywhere.

[eagerSnake]

Trying to establish scumteams isn't relevant until the first scumflip anyway.

I disagree. Establishing scumteams is a great way to POE people into your town block. For example, we will number players 1-11. Everyone starts off as scum in your book. Over the course of the day, numbers 5-11 have all earned town points, and you have moved them into your town block. Numbers 1-4 are still in your scum block as they have not earned any town points. Number 1 has scumtold, and is the scummiest of the block. After reading interactions between 1 and 2, you determine that it couldn't be scum interaction, so 2 is moved to your townblock. Etc.

[eagerSnake]

I have 2 people in my town block, and 1 person I know is scum.

I don't have any relevant experience with anyone in this game. I have off-site chat mafia experience with Gamma and gerryoat, but not enough to deem useful.

VOTE: Gamma Emerald

Kudos to anyone who can explain how I know this is scum based on his 5 posts.

[eagerSnake]

Why would 39 be incriminating?

[eagerSnake]

To me 39 seems like you are part of a 3-man mafia team and possibly worried about a 3rd party. 3 mafia and 1 3rd party wasn't even an option that I was giving as that would be mafia-favored.

[eagerSnake]

There shouldn't be.. unless there is only 2-3 VTs and 4-5 town PRs.

[eagerSnake]

Not sure what you're asking me..

I'm saying I didn't even give 3 mafia and 1 3rd party as a possibility, and that you came up with that one on your own.. It feels like you inexplicably know there is 3 mafia but are only unsure about the 3rd party... if that is what you're asking

[eagerSnake]

Gamma feels like town here.

VOTE: Unvote

Someone else's turn now. Fiance is getting mad that I'm on here too much tonight.

[eagerSnake]

Snake's quick unvote after being so convinced his target's scum when Gamma didn't even provide much of a defense seems like poor attempt of trying to appear active which I don't like. Could be seen as scum soft pushing scum to distance themselves but it's too early to say. I must commend Snake for his observation though.

It was more of a feel. Do you know how when you start up a conversation with someone or call them out for something (something weak, not something that's damning) and you are trying to determine if it came from scum or town? Well when conversing with him I got this strong feeling I was engaged in a TvT and I didn't peg a scum, so I decided to end it before it blew up. I was hoping I pegged a scum but I don't think I did.. Hence the unvote and proclamation of his towniness.

My vote on eagerSnake is now a serious vote.

This, however, can only be a few things:

A lazy town
A scum
A town with an ulterior motive

[eagerSnake]

Why does Gamma feel like town? I feel like what he's said is basically what I've said when it comes to the setup. Also, I still think it's not needed to talk about what kinda PRs we have

Yeah, sorry, I explained this in my last post but to reiterate it was the feeling I got when engaging him about his alignment. From my shoes it was a really townie feeling, not a scummy feeling.

Probably a good time to tell you all that I have Asperger's so I may not be able to completely convey my thought process and therefore you may not completely understand my postings but you can rest assured I always put plenty of thought into it. Hopefully knowing this fact will help you read my posts better and maybe understand why I post what I post when I post it as you now understand where I am coming from. I should probably just put this fact in my signature.

[eagerSnake]

Scum do this because if they get away with it they can push for a town lynch without having to actually build a case themselves. I think scum hate building a case against town. When they build a case against town, especially this early, they know it would be forced and full of misreps and would therefore make them look scummy. They tend to more so piggy-back off others and they much more prefer to subtly swing momentum towards a town lynch without having to make any personal statements as of why they think that player is scum. Notice how it came 5 minutes after The Jester's post and how there is no comment as to why it is now serious.

[eagerSnake]

Why are you more concerned with me explaining why I think that could possibly be from coming scum, than him explaining why his vote on me is now serious?

[eagerSnake]

In my last game I had scum at L-1 on page 3.

[eagerSnake]

Could you show me where Jester is dodging questions? I actually read him as town..

[eagerSnake]

@mod: Can you prod GreenNope? He hasn't posted in the thread yet.

[eagerSnake]

I actually think Victor is the worst of those 3.

VOTE: VictorDeAngelo

[eagerSnake]

Yeah I have been debating with myself over who is scummier between Victor and Rhazh

[eagerSnake]

I think one motive for pushing people off of scum reading early would be if your partners are coming under a lot heat

Not saying that's what gerry's motivation is because a lot of people just plainly don't like developing weak reads early on for whatever reason, just like a lot of people don't like setup spec.

[eagerSnake]

My vote on eagerSnake is now a serious vote.

This, however, can only be a few things:

A lazy town
A scum
A town with an ulterior motive

I reckon I could probably take a random post in this game, make the same statement and it would probably hold up.

So you admit to be one of the 3 things I mentioned. Which one are you?

[eagerSnake]

I also played about 1000 games of IRC mafia about a decade ago.

[eagerSnake]

Why would you assume it isn't serious?

By saying that you "could take a random post and it would hold up" insinuates that you feel it holds up in my post. So I ask which one is it?

[eagerSnake]

Just noticed you all get most of your posting done late night/early morning EST, when I'm not awake. I will post substance one I have the sufficient coffee in me.

[eagerSnake]

once I have sufficient* lol

[eagerSnake]

@Grendel let's play a game. I'll say someone's name

in italics.

in your next post you say what you think of that person and then say someone else's name. In my next post I'll say what I think of THAT person, and so on.

VictorDeAngelo

[eagerSnake]

I really don't understand that bit about the random post holding up. Could you explain a little more, Eager?

If he says that it would probably hold up against any random post, then he is insinuating it probably holds up against his post, too.

If I have an ulterior motive I'm not going to admit to it. If I'm lazy I'm not going to admit that either.

Why not?

@Snakebuddy, Do you still think Gamma is town?

I think there are better lynches for today than Gamma, I still tr him more from earlier than others.

Can't you both just post readlists? It would create much less noise pollution.

Readlists are boring. We'll try not to be too noisy. We'll only do like 4-5 people.

[eagerSnake]

Victor is something of a null read for me. His town read on Gamma bothers me, but It seems most ppl are cool with Gamma so that tr might not lead anywhere, (that is assuming Gam is scumz). His interaction with CCC is weird in a way I can't seem to pin point yet. I think the worst thing about Victor is that he hasn't pushed the person he is currently voting, Rhazbash, at all. Instead opting to have this convo with CCC that doesn't appear to be going anywhere. So a few odd things, but nothing condemning. And no, I really don't agree with you proposed case on Victor. In fact I can even see how he wasn't bought with you Gamma unvote, you dropped that scum read fast dude.

I agree with Victor not pursuing his scumread on RhazhBash, or pursuing any other scumread for that matter. Which is funny because he says this:

Well perhaps, but I'm not one to rely on scum slipping up. I'd much prefer to root them out.

Post-by-Post Analysis of VictorDeAngelo:
12 RVS vote on eagerSnake
40 Setup spec, asks eagerSnake for reads
74 States

vote on eagerSnake is now serious
90 Gives reason for vote being serious "shifts reads easily." states he "gets more bad feels" from RhazhBash's post 89, votes RhazhBash
111 Asks CCC for more examples of Jester dodging questions, now thinks Grendel is town, disagrees with Grendels scumread on Gamma
126 Asks Gamma if he finds CCC's post suspicious
137 Assumes my question isn't serious
142 Explanation of his assumption, says he won't admit to being lazy or having an ulterior motive
155 Talk about what is important D1
188 Asks gerryoat what readslists have to do with conflict, states he reads RhazhBash's 87 as defending eagerSnake from him, Asks an unsensible, and unreasonable question to CCC
199 States his answer to eagerSnake's question will be "patronising and not actually lead us anywhere towards catching scum"
200 "I'm not one to rely on scum slipping up. I'd much prefer to root them out."
204 Says eagerSnakes question is not sensible or reasonable

@Grendel will get you my read on gerryoat next

[eagerSnake]

You've already said that your cool with Gamma. So how about...

Gerryoats, and or Rhazbash

I kind of like gerryoat so far. He has been consistent, hasn't done anything inherently scummy. He has opened himself up to attacks from others more than once, he clearly states his opinions on others. Some things could be taken as buddying, but I don't think it's the case. I would like to see him push his scumreads more, would like to see where he goes with them. I don't think he'd be a good lynch for today.

Post-by-Post of gerryoat
15 RVS comment
16 Asks eagerSnake if he's from EM
44 Asks Manuel about avatar
45 Agrees to do study buddy with Gamma
46 Off-topic with eagerSnake
47 States a policy of not taking anything serious for first 4 pages
48 Setup spec, discourages talk about PRs
65 Really doubts 3 mafia + 3rd party combination
72 Asks eagerSnake why Gamma feels town, when he feels like he's said the same things, repeats self about PRs
75 Asks Victor why his vote is now serious, asks for an explanation
93 Calls BS on anyone who has a serious scumread 4 pages in, accuses anyone with a hard FoS of fake scumhunting
100 Calls RhazhBash's 87 the "worst post so far"
109 Tells Grendel he doesn't see how he gets all of those reads 3 pages into a game
130 Votes RhazhBash based on what he said earlier in 100
158 Discourages talk about meta, says to focus on game
167 Explains to Grendel why he is weary of the early reads people claim to have, states he doesn't scumread grendel, brings up his vote placed on RhazhBash
168 He likes how easily Gamma changes his read on him, Agrees with Grendel that he hasn't done anything to warrant a townread
169 He likes Grendel trying to get conflict in the game, slightly townreads Grendel, states Grendel's actions and words are off
187 An FoS on RhazhBash, repeats his vote placement, Says Grendel has had townie lines, says he's confident lynching RhazhBash most right now

Ok, now do

CCC

[eagerSnake]

As for RhazhBash, there isn't much going on in this slot. I didn't like the short-posting opening, or the switch of votes with no reason, or the townread on Jester for no reason. I didn't like the part about Gamma/Snake being 100% fluff. I didn't like 139 obviously because it was directed at me. I'm agree with not scumreading Gamma, and I can see why they say the distancing with me is complete BS because obviously I know they have no reason to create distance between us. I don't like how they, like others, aren't pushing their reads. Overall I'm not getting good vibes from the slot, but it's mostly non-alignment stuff and I hope to see more come out of this slot. I would be willing to lynch this today if I don't see more come out of the slot.

Post-by-Post RhazhBash
4 "Sup nerds" RVS vote on The_Jester
27 Naked vote on Manuel
29 Gives reason of "still in RVS"
36 Only says "Liking Jester so far"
87 Calls page 3 Snake/Gamma is 100% fluff, doesn't see how Victor is scumreading snake for it, discourages setup spec,
89 Vote on Manuel now serious, reason "pushing low hanging fruit," states Snake's posts indicate player type but not alignment
133 Asks Snake about mafia experience
135 States Snake's 131 are a townread, states if he reads someone as inexp and then tryhard it's towntell
139 "Snake stop posting"
154 Talks about experience
176 Not scumreading Gamma, calls part about distancing with Snake complete BS

Manuel87

seems like a good place to end our game, don't you think?

[eagerSnake]

Code: Select all

Ultimately, I'm still very null. I've seen how he eats rope in two other games. He gets lynched early a lot. his poor rhetoric, and awkward pushes make him an easy target. I am not going to vote CCC today.

I've noticed a trend in people who use mathematics in their game. I'm not sure why, but they tend to get MLed more than any other type of player on D1. I am having to remind myself not to mislynch him and to just give him a good reread later. I agree with not lynching him today, at least as of this moment.

On another topic, can anyone actually point to a forum mafia game that has been solved mathematically. I've heard a lot of talk about probability/randomness etc from people, and I wonder if there's something I should be reading.

Ever heard of Texas Justice Mafia? http://www.mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopi ... 14#1134214

That's regarding a broken setup, though. As far as normal game goes, I've seen math catch 1 or 2 scum before, but usually it isn't convincing enough to even get the scum lynched. Adel was one person known for using math in his game. Another person had created a formula for finding scum based on a few key data points. However I have found that it was as likely to find scum as a random guess would be.

[eagerSnake]

@Square World can you explain your reads in a bit more detail?

[eagerSnake]

VOTE: Square World

Well I'm not going to allow an environment where scum can active lurk and post just short of prodges and not have to explain anything. We already have enough of that going on.

[eagerSnake]

It would be nice if you could explain how it sucks instead of just doubtcasting

[eagerSnake]

simple, you aren't trying to discern his alignment

How do you figure? Because I am trying to discern his alignment, so that is a bs accusation. There isn't much to discern his alignment from, which I stated that, so I have them naturally as someone who I would be willing to lynch. So that's a total misrep.

[eagerSnake]

@Victor What exactly has Square World done that was inherently townie?

[eagerSnake]

While i think he has a valid point that its not really an analysis but rather a summary of what said player posted that game,

I post my analysis of the player before the summary of their posts. This is obvious if you are reading the post. Some people do it different, where they link the post number and then put their thoughts on that post next to the number. I could do that, but that's not the way I did it that time.

[eagerSnake]

@SquareWorld

- Why have you gone from posting nothing to suddenly spamming the thread?

real life

And on another note why not a direct response to 229. Should I infer Gerry and Manual are your only scumreads?

calm down, i dont get a read on everyone within 2 days

So this post only comes from town now?

[eagerSnake]

He's not a townread, more null. Simply put, while he hasn't done anything particularly townie, he is contributing and hasn't done anything scummy IMO so I'm not concerned about him at this moment in time.

This is Victor's read on Gamma. How does he have a town read on Square World based off the one post quoted above, but only a null read on Gamma? Doesn't make sense.

[eagerSnake]

While i think he has a valid point that its not really an analysis but rather a summary of what said player posted that game,

I post my analysis of the player before the summary of their posts. This is obvious if you are reading the post. Some people do it different, where they link the post number and then put their thoughts on that post next to the number. I could do that, but that's not the way I did it that time.

Yes but why bother to summarise what he posted when you dont tell us your thoughts on those posts but only your over all read on him?
Also your post summary on Victor has only on short comment on you liking him not pushing his scumread on Rhazh.
But in all 3 i see no real read from you. I could assume that you think Gerry is Null and Rhazh is slight scumlean but you never said that.

Why do you like that he isnt pushing his read on Rhazh?

Here's a peak into the spinning gearwheels of my brain:

I start off wanting to kill everyone. Everyone is scum.

As people do things I feel are townish, I move them down the list of people I want to kill. People who don't do townish things stay at the top.

Then I do my best to get the people at the top of the list killed.

If I say "I don't think this is a good lynch today" then I feel like they've done something townish at some point, or at least more so than others, and they aren't at the top of my list.

If I say "I would lynch them today" then they are still near/at the top of my list.

So now I'm not allowed to form different opinions on different players?

Oh sure. But you sure were quick to make your vote on me serious when I said I townread Gamma based on his response, right? Convenient.

[eagerSnake]

I'm calling BS on anyone who townreads Square World.

Spoiler: All of Square Worlds posts

let me guess, you're one, right?

VOTE: CCC

RVS

VOTE: Manuel87

try to guess why

no explanation

tip: i vote the first non-townread post above mine

if that's not clear enough, we can play popcorn reads

still no explanation

rhazhbash is probtown because there are opportunistic scum on him

needs more explanation

lol
VOTE: gerryoat

no explanation

town

no explanation

do you wanna play Scum Crush Saga?

what?

no

no explanation

btw, your post by post analysis on rhazh sucks

no explanation

simple, you aren't trying to discern his alignment

BS

mean't qo quote 243

blank

5 RVS null
12 questions X null
35 sheeps Y scummy
68 prodges null
71 pushes Z towny

is this discerning alignment?

What is this?

real life

calm down, i dont get a read on everyone within 2 days

Oh really? See below.

hydras aren't allowed in normal games

In his last game he had a scum or town read on every player in the game, 1 day after gamestart. This post is 2nd day after gamestart.

[eagerSnake]

eagerSnake
if you meta'd me, you would notice i usually don't explain my posts

Oh-oh-oh-oh-oh! Oh-oh-oh-oh-oh-oh!
Caught in a bad lie

I don't accept metagame defenses that allow people to get away with always being scummy.

[eagerSnake]

However I find it surprising that once again your pulling me back towards my vote on you. What percentage of your scumread on me is based on 74?

Based on 74 alone? None. Like I said when I first called out 74, it could come from scum or town.

You think RhazhBash is scum, but if you seriously think that, then you are doing nothing to advance the town's cause besides placing a vote and saying, "No, I'm not explaining", that draws my attention. It's a refusal to make a case on someone, which I stated before is inherently scummy. Town should be worried that the town will mislynch, and should push their reads.

Question for both VictorDeAngelo and Square World: Do you think that posting your honest opinions will hurt you? Why, then, do you refuse to explain things?

[eagerSnake]

Which is more convenient: A self-proclaimed metagame that allows someone to get away with always being scummy, or a policy against it?

[eagerSnake]

Which is more convenient: A self-proclaimed metagame that allows someone to get away with always being scummy, or a policy against it?

So are you policy voting him or are you voting him because you think he's scum?

You can't have it both ways.

I've found that "guilty until proven innocent" works better in this game.

When Square World posted, he didn't even try to explain anything. Frankly, I think your townread on him is inexplicable. His response to my accusation was then a self-proclaimed metadefense of always being scummy, which doesn't help and never will. Like I said, I have a policy of not accepting metagame defenses that allow people to get away with always being scummy. His responses, therefore, did not manage to alleviate even my original suspicions.

My perspective: Scum do scummy things more often than town do scummy things. Thus scummy things are scummy, even if townies do them too. People who deliberately play in a way that is scummy hurts the town should be lynched for it, repeatedly, until they stop.

Posting your honest opinions of things only helps the town. Partly because it helps us not misread you, partly because we can check for changes in opinion, and partly so we can check for people who are avoiding expressing concrete suspicions. The only other side of this is when town hides their thoughts because they have the ulterior motive of gauging a reaction. This is sometimes useful, but should be retroactively explained.

[eagerSnake]

You didn't explain AT ALL. What are you talking about? Where have you explained anything? At all?

ninja'd: No, it's not "auto-explainable." I don't see how that makes gerryoat scum, and I don't think anyone else does either. If you were town, you would want us to see it.

[eagerSnake]

While i think he has a valid point that its not really an analysis but rather a summary of what said player posted that game,

I post my analysis of the player before the summary of their posts. This is obvious if you are reading the post. Some people do it different, where they link the post number and then put their thoughts on that post next to the number. I could do that, but that's not the way I did it that time.

Yes but why bother to summarise what he posted when you dont tell us your thoughts on those posts but only your over all read on him?
Also your post summary on Victor has only on short comment on you liking him not pushing his scumread on Rhazh.
But in all 3 i see no real read from you. I could assume that you think Gerry is Null and Rhazh is slight scumlean but you never said that.

Why do you like that he isnt pushing his read on Rhazh?

I think you misunderstood my post. I actually didn't like the fact he wasn't pushing his RhazhBash!scum read. I wasn't the one analyzing him, Grendel was, I was agreeing with a point that Grendel had made, and gave the PbP as supporting evidence of that fact.

Snake, are you policy voting SquareWorld or are you voting him because you think he's scum?

I still think he could be scum. He's still at the top of the list of people I think should be lynched today.

[eagerSnake]

VOTE: RhazhBash

At this point I don't feel like we should have to extract explanations by force

[eagerSnake]

Also if Huntress doesn't post at least an "I'm up to page X, this is what I think so far...." I would vote the slot

[eagerSnake]

@ eagerSnake: - Why feel the need to tell everyone (in 6) that you're not making a random vote? And why attack Victor for his vote in 74 rather than ask for an explanation?

I opened the way I did to give people something to talk about and maybe get discussion started. I said that Victor's 74 could come from scum or town, and gerry had already asked for an explanation.

This, however, can only be a few things:

A lazy town
A scum

A town with an ulterior motive

What ulterior motive might town have?

Examples?

1 example:

The only other side of this is when town hides their thoughts because they have the ulterior motive of gauging a reaction. This is sometimes useful, but should be retroactively explained.

[eagerSnake]

Partly as a note to myself, partly because I was trying to get some discussion around Victor so I could get a better read on him. His response was not the pro-town response I was hoping for, so I voted him.

[eagerSnake]

Huntress, are you fully caught up?

[eagerSnake]

Yeah we also had the reverse side of that jealousy:

Newbie games have nine players, two of whom are Mafia. Here we have eleven players.

Three mafia sounds about right to me.

Why did NO ONE call him out for the reasons they called me out?

[eagerSnake]

It seems everyone decided to go my way and just decide there's 3 mafia. Interesting.

It's the safest assumption for now, I think.

[eagerSnake]

When I called you out for that I was mostly gauging what your defensive behavior would be. Certain types of defensive behavior are scumtells. Not defense in general, but specific types of defense. You didn't have that type of defense.

[eagerSnake]

VOTE: Huntress

I don't like this opening at all. It feels like just stalling and trying to avoid suspicion. The questions feel weak, and I don't see where their line of questioning is going either. They didn't have any questions at all for CCC, who they ended up voting for, and who is supposedly their top scumread. Nor any questions for House's slot, or Gamma's slot, who they also are supposedly scumreading. The only question for me was stuff from RVS which is weak.

[eagerSnake]

Do you find Huntress suspicious?

[eagerSnake]

I just don't know about him being obvscum. His playstyle makes it feel like mislynchbait.

CCC is the type of player that relies heavily on a mathematical approach to the game. I have seen this type of player specifically lynched D1 often before there is enough data to incorporate math. More often than not they are town.

[eagerSnake]

I forgot Jester was in this game...

prod please

Ninja'd: Disagreeing with you is scummy?

[eagerSnake]

I haven't even analysed your case... My response to your desire to lynch CCC has nothing to do with your case or your points.

[eagerSnake]

I will tonight, just not this second. I skimmed over it, but didn't analyse it or anything. It's looks like you believe you have a solid case there.

I want to be able to analyze it with a clear mind and without distractions, partly in respect to the time I know you put in it.

Surely this is what you would want.

[eagerSnake]

House on a scale of 1-100% how likely is CCC to be scum?

[eagerSnake]

I don't understand why you won't answer that question. Also, if I doubtcasted your case it wasn't intentional, I hadn't read your case and was just stating my opinion on the lynch choice, and that it wasn't my top choice. If your case convinces me he is as obvscum as you state he is then I will be voting him.

[eagerSnake]

I guess I just feel empathy for him. I will feel bad if he turns out to be town.

[eagerSnake]

Borrrrrrrrring

[eagerSnake]

I should note that House is aggressively defensive about his case on CCC.

If CCC flips town and I die he should be looked at with impunity.

[eagerSnake]

If I'm alive, I will be personally looking at him with impunity. I put the note so the rest of you will know where to look in the event that I do die.

[eagerSnake]

That's not a lot of hostility.

[eagerSnake]

It's useful to occasionally look at what is being argued first and then look at the arguments.

[eagerSnake]

Your case does bring up a lot of valid points.

[eagerSnake]

Partly because I was trying to get a better read on you, partly to be transparent about how I felt, and partly to see if/how you would defend your case.

Besides it takes 2 to create noise so if you say I'm creating noise by responding to you, then you're creating noise by responding to me.

[eagerSnake]

Letting unfounded accusations go unanswered would only have served to undermine my case undeservedly because it'd have simply been drowned out.

There is no scum motivation in defending one's case.

Which is exactly why I wanted to see if you would defend your case.

[eagerSnake]

How is voting someone who hasn't posted scummy? I wanted to kill them because they were lurking. Is that so bad? Usually it helps get some info out of them. Which it did.

FoS: Manuel

You haven't posted much, either. I have given you benefit because it seems that when you do post it is something you think is meaningful. Now I am starting to feel like you are coasting off your initial reads.

[eagerSnake]

If he doesnt post how do you come to the conclusion he is scum?

I already came to the conclusion he was scum before he posted. Are you even reading the thread?

[eagerSnake]

So why did you feel the need to inform us about his scummy meta in 266?

That's not even what 266 was about..

[eagerSnake]

If he doesnt post how do you come to the conclusion he is scum?

I already came to the conclusion he was scum before he posted. Are you even reading the thread?

How did you come to that conclusion?

If he doesnt post how do you come to the conclusion he is scum?

I already came to the conclusion he was scum before he posted. Are you even reading the thread?

And just how did you do that?

A recent study showed that people tend to interpret a lack of information about another person in the most favorable way. I counteract it by wanting to kill everyone at first and taking silence as a sign that someone is trying to hide something. In short, everyone is suspicious by default, and lurking means you're not doing anything to make yourself less suspicious. I think I've explained this already.

[eagerSnake]

Your case does bring up a lot of valid points.

If his case brings up a lot of points, how come you want house to be lynched if CCC flips town? I mean, it's possible for town to mislynch someone here. Not everyone can be 100% in their reads. But, if the reads make sense, what is the problem?

I never said to blindly lynch House if CCC flips town.. I said to look at House with impunity.

[eagerSnake]

So to finish up I'd like to hear your hypothetical scum team.

Manuel is throwing suspicion on Square, but not voting or FOS'ing. That makes me suspect a Manuel/Square scum team is a possibility.

VOTE: Square World

[eagerSnake]

Why wouldn't it be scum casting shade on town?

I suppose it could be, but I feel like he wouldn't have chainsaw-defended him and would have more than just a 'null' read on the slot if that was the case.

Also why would i throw suspicion on him if he was my scumbuddy?

And this is a classic WIFOM defense.

[eagerSnake]

And this is a classic "i dont know an answer"

There are plenty of reasons for why scum would throw suspicion on their buddy, and it's almost impossible to know which reason it is. I think you know that already. So why even ask that question? And then why doubtcast me just because I didn't drink your wine?

[eagerSnake]

You doubtcasted me by saying I "don't know an answer" to why you would cast shade on your partner, even though that question is apparently WIFOM, as I stated.

You've left yourself open to voting them later for town-credit, while at the same time chainsaw-defending him, and also fence-sitting the slot.

Why would i throw shade on my buddy in that situation?

So you could say exactly this?

[eagerSnake]

And yes, it could also be buddying. If you're scum and square's town, then it makes sense for you to keep yourself open to lynching him later (via shade-cast and fence-sitting), while at the same time chainsaw-defending him (buddying).

[eagerSnake]

VOTE: Manuel87

I'm lynching in Manuel and Square today. One or both are scum.

[eagerSnake]

If Square's town: You would cast-shade on Square if he's town because that leaves yourself open to lynching him if you have to. You would chainsaw-defend him to buddy him because if you don't have to be a part of lynching him you could say "I was defending him."

If Square's scum: You would also cast-shade on Square if he's your buddy because that leaves yourself open to lynching him if you have to for town-credit. You would chainsaw-defend him to keep him from being lynched.

[eagerSnake]

Then, when called out on it, you take immediately to the WIFOM, almost as if you had already pre-planned to say "why would I do it as scum?"

Fact is your interaction with Square makes absolutely no sense, and leaves yourself open to change stances, and I would be very surprised if that's coming from town.

[eagerSnake]

Manuel, you should add [wifom] tags for clarity.

Examples:

[wifom]Why would i throw shade on my buddy in that situation?[/wifom]

[wifom]Also why would i throw suspicion on him if he was my scumbuddy?[/wifom]

[wifom]if i wanted to distance myself from him i would voted him[/wifom]

Also, you are more concerned about looking suspicious than determining his alignment.

Actually if i changed stance on him right now that would be suspicious

My reasons for you being scum are clear, and Square also.

[eagerSnake]

Other then you i will not lynch someone for his playstyle. Your argument about everyone starting as scummy is just an easy way of excusing a push on more passive players.

So for you, everyone starts with no suspicion, and they accumulate it as they post? That line of thought will lead to scum lurking their way to a win.

[eagerSnake]

At best it would be suspicious if i voted for him when he is getting lynched for sure after that.
Do you say my argument is wrong that its awkward to only mention your read on Rhazh?
Other then you i will not lynch someone for his playstyle. Your argument about everyone starting as scummy is just an easy way of excusing a push on more passive players.
How is that buddying? Also keeping myself open for lynching him later is bullshit since that would be suspicious af.
I am still confident in my Jester vote but i think Eager is the best lynch for today.
UNVOTE: The_Jester
VOTE: EagerSnake

^^ Scum need to come up with bogus arguments for calling townies scummy.

[eagerSnake]

Also, I notice that Manuel seems to re-actively post only when someone mentions him, instead of pro-actively posting. Nearly 1/3 of his posts in this game are on this page, after I pointed out his association with Square. I'd say at least 2/3 of his posts if not more are similarly reactive. So I ask:

How much does he seem to care about finding scum?
How much does he seem to care about not getting lynched?
My answers are "barely if at all" and "quite a lot", respectively.

From my point of view i did more scumhunting then at least 6 other players in the game at that point.

Also this.. "at that point" refers to post 84. These are all his posts before 84 (4 posts), which doesn't look like he's doing much scumhunting to me:

Spoiler: Manuel's "scumhunting"

VOTE: Grendel

Sounds awful

VOTE: The_Jester

I like the idea

And what exactly do you like about it?

Well its similar to something i do when i play RT-Mafia with friends. I generally look for someone i know talks a lot and discuss ideas and speculations with that person while others can listen to it and argue if they disagree on something or agree with me/us. Its basically a way to keep the game going when you play with people that like to listen more then arguing.

And what exactly do you like about it?

Well its similar to something i do when i play RT-Mafia with friends. I generally look for someone i know talks a lot and discuss ideas and speculations with that person while others can listen to it and argue if they disagree on something or agree with me/us. Its basically a way to keep the game going when you play with people that like to listen more then arguing.

Yeah but the game hasn't even started rolling yet. I could see that strat used when people run out of ideas/motivation and the game goes silent but it doesn't seem like a valid opening.

Hmm i think you got a point. If you choose a random person at the start you might end up with someone that isnt really active and the idea is ruined.
On the other hand it might motivate the chosen player to be more active dont you think so?

is your avi log horizon? it's my fav anime lol

Yes it is.

For setup speculation my guess would be 3 maf and 3 town PRs.
2 maf would probably mean a 3rd party or our PRs are weak/limited to one-shot.
3 maf and 3rd party seems unlikely.

[eagerSnake]

I dont see any reason other then both of us presenting good arguments against you so please enlighten me.

"Good arguments?" I haven't seen any from you.. or him.. your sole argument for scumreading me throughout this game has been that my vote on Square was "very bad," which is basically calling me scum for scumhunting. Why not use the same logic for the other people who voted Square?

CCC also voted Square, why aren't you scumreading him for it?
Gamma Emerald also voted Square, same question.

[eagerSnake]

I'd love to see it.

[eagerSnake]

CCC voted him way earlier and explained it was to get him to talk so its very different from what you did.

You might want to look at why I voted Square again.

@Square World can you explain your reads in a bit more detail?

@Square World can you explain your reads in a bit more detail?

no

VOTE: Square World

Well I'm not going to allow an environment where scum can active lurk and post just short of prodges and not have to explain anything. We already have enough of that going on.

How is my reasoning not the same as CCC's?

[eagerSnake]

Gamma voted him because he didnt like his posts not for his playstyle so how does that compare to your case on him?

I didn't like his posts, either. Especially the post where he tried to use an excuse of "always not explaining himself." I will never accept that, and neither should anyone else.

calm down, i dont get a read on everyone within 2 days

Also, this is the reason I brought up his meta. He said he doesn't get a read on everyone within 2 days, so that is easy to check if it's true or not. I pulled up one game, flipped through the first couple days of his ISO, noticed he had a read on

every player

within 2 days, so as it turns out he was lying. I called out the lie.

[eagerSnake]

I am having a discussion with one of my scumreads. So why wouldnt i reply to you if i got time?

The question is: Why do you pretty much only reply when someone calls you out?

[eagerSnake]

Also, you are so quick to reply when mentioned that it seems that you are actively watching the game without posting unless it benefits you to post. That's called active lurking.

[eagerSnake]

Can you explain to me again why my vote on Square was so bad that it makes me scum? He literally refused to explain his reads, so I voted him.

[eagerSnake]

Your case does bring up a lot of valid points.

If his case brings up a lot of points, how come you want house to be lynched if CCC flips town? I mean, it's possible for town to mislynch someone here. Not everyone can be 100% in their reads. But, if the reads make sense, what is the problem?

I never said to blindly lynch House if CCC flips town.. I said to look at House with impunity.

This is one that I don't like. What does "look with impunity" mean?

"Exemption from punishment or freedom from the injurious consequences of an action."

[eagerSnake]

Have you noticed that he only ever voted for one person, including in RVS? As if he'd decided before the day started who to vote for...

Knowing you take the mathematics approach to the game I think this should help you. I was going to make a flowchart of the votes but haven't gotten around to it.

Spoiler: List of all votes

gerryoat - (130) RhazhBash
Gamma Emerald - (5) Grendel; (159) CCC; (267) Square World; (468) CCC
Grendel - (103) Gamma Emerald
RhazhBash/House - (4) The_Jester; (27) Manuel87; (353) Gamma Emerald; (442) CCC
CCC - (13) eagerSnake; (95) The_Jester; (121) Square World; (201) VictorDeAngelo; (225) Gamma Emerald
Square World - (51) CCC; (119) Manuel87; (236) gerryoat; (263) eagerSnake
GreenNope/Huntress - (345) CCC
Manuel87 - (17) The_Jester; (314) The_Jester; (613) eagerSnake
The_Jester - (14) Grendel
eagerSnake - (59) Gamma Emerald; (99) VictorDeAngelo; (242) Square World; (331) RhazhBash/House; (449) GreenNope/Huntress; (600) Square World; (614) Manuel87
VictorDeAngelo - (12) eagerSnake; (90) RhazhBash/House; (273) eagerSnake; (319) RhazhBash/House

[eagerSnake]

So to finish up I'd like to hear your hypothetical scum team.

Manuel is throwing suspicion on Square, but not voting or FOS'ing. That makes me suspect a Manuel/Square scum team is a possibility.

VOTE: Square World

Eurgh. This is backwards.

There are two people here. Manuel and Square. If Manuel is Town, then of course there is no Manuel/Square scum team. If Manuel is scum, he might be deliberately associating himself with an innocent Townie, to try to push a future mislynch.

In short, if the reason that you think Square is scummy is because Manuel said something that makes you suspect a Manuel/Square scum team, then you must logically have a higher probability of Manuel being scum than of Square being scum. Therefore, voting for Square is... questionable at best.

The association to Manuel wasn't the reason I thought Square was scummy, because I didn't have a particularly scummy read on Manuel. I thought Square was scummy initially,

then

looked into any associations with him for who might be his partner, found that one.

[eagerSnake]

Then

I looked more into Manuel, and found him extremely scummy.

[eagerSnake]

Now you're misrepping me. When did I say I don't care about his alignment?

[eagerSnake]

I stand by that quote, it was a push to get him to contribute, explain himself, and not play deliberately scummy. Like I said, scum do scummy things more often than town do scummy things. Thus scummy things are scummy, even if townies do them too. I scum-read him for his scummy behavior. I never "didn't care about his alignment," I pushed and pushed him to explain himself, he gave me no reason to town read him, so in my book he was still scum. That's a good twist on my words, though.

[eagerSnake]

- Square posts his vote
- You question him
- he refuses to answer and presents an argument against you
- you vote him for not explaining his vote and call his argument doubtcasting (you do that a lot instead of arguing about what was said)

What argument? "btw, your post by post analysis on rhazh sucks" That's not an argument. That's doubt-casting my read on RhazhBash. I could've just ignored that if I wanted to, but I wanted to know why he thought that, and why he was just saying that instead of explaining why it sucked.

- he explaines his argument
- you call it a missrep
- he explaines again

If you consider "simple, you aren't trying to discern his alignment" a real explanation. That's a misrep because

I know

I was trying to discern RhazhBash's alignment. He didn't even explain why he thought I wasn't trying to discern his alignment.

- he says he doesnt get a scumread on everyone in 2 days
- you push others a little to scumread Square
- he votes you

Which was a blatant lie that I checked on and called out.

I asked "@Victor What exactly has Square World done that was inherently townie?" Because, and other's agreed, he had an inexplicable town-read on him and I wanted him to explain it. How is that pushing others to scum-read Square?

you explain that you want to kill lurkers

I actually just explained that everyone starts off as scummy, equally. Yes, by that process lurking will not get you anywhere. Why do you want to defend lurkers and liars?

- you present a case thats summarised to: He didnt explain his reads, his argument against me is BS (it is not) and your metaread that in other games he had reads on everyone in 2 days (he stated that he was busy with real life)
- Gamma reads your case and votes him
- Square explains that you didnt mention how his playstyle is always like that (so far it seemed that was the reason you and Gamma voted him not the readlistargument)

His argument against me was BS because all he said was "you're not trying to discern alignment," when I clearly was. I didn't look enough into his meta to know he never explained things, nor would I care as I would never accept that defense anyway. I will never let anyone get away with not explaining things and acting scummy based on their meta.

I simply looked to see how quickly he gains reads, as that is what I was questioning. I found he was lying about how quickly he gains reads, so I brought it up. It's ridiculous that you would try to turn that around on me.

- you dont accept his defense and still want to lynch him while not caring about his alignement

Again the "not caring about his alignment" is not true. I wanted to figure out his alignment, that is why I was questioning him, that is why I wanted him to explain himself. If he refuses to answer questions, I take that as a sign that he has something to hide.

- you ask a silly question to try to get out of the situation. The answer is simple a policy lynch is more scummy
- again you argue about him playing scummy ("People who deliberately play in a way that is scummy hurts the town should be lynched for it, repeatedly, until they stop.")

You're talking about this post:

Which is more convenient: A self-proclaimed metagame that allows someone to get away with always being scummy, or a policy against it?

I never advocated a policy lynch. I did state my policy of not accepting his defense of "I never explain myself." That gives him ample opportunity to explain himself.

I still don't see how you find- not explaining oneself, and lying, to be pro-town. Or why you feel it necessary to chainsaw-defend the slot.

Yes Gamma voted him for the same reason of not liking his posts but he didnt push on Square with the argument it doesnt matter if he is scum or town we need to lynch him.

If someone is refusing to answer questions, and then states the reason for it is "I never explain myself" I think they are more likely scum than town. I never "didn't care about his alignment."

After arguing he reconsidered his read on Square and put him in Null while you still want to read him scum for him playing the way he always plays.

You mean I wanted to lynch the guy who still wasn't really explaining himself? You mean I still wanted him to explain himself? And... How does that make me scum?

If you like meta reads so much check mine and you will see i always play passively and when i have an argument with someone i post more.
So much for your brilliant case on me do you have more?

What makes you think I like meta reads so much? How much have I actually brought up someone's meta this game? Also nice attempt to get away with an "I always active lurk" meta, but I'm not buying that either.

You are missing the main problem that is you still pushing on him after you found out he plays the way he always does and dont care about his alignment.

You mean after I found out he was refusing to explain himself, and even worse, claiming an "I don't ever explain myself" meta, I was still pushing him? Again, how does that make me scum?

I wanted to push him to actually explain himself so I could get a read on him. You obviously don't need him to do this because you already know his alignment.

[eagerSnake]

All of your arguments are bogus.

[eagerSnake]

Bad assumption is bad.

How is it a bad assumption?

[eagerSnake]

It's not even an assumption. It's a fact.

[eagerSnake]

Something gets to be considered "scummy" because, in general, it has been shown that it comes from scum, more often than town.

Else, if it was done by town more than scum, it would be townie.

Else if it is equally done by town and scum, it is NAI.

I'm not saying that doing something scummy makes you scum, I'm saying that scummy things are scummy because they are done by scum more often than town. How else would it get to be considered scummy in the first place?

For example: Is lying scummy? Yes. Because it has been shown that scum lie more often than town. However, doing so doesn't mean you are 100% definitely scum, just that you did something scummy. I have seen plenty of cases where town have lied (which is horribly bad in most cases), but more cases where scum have lied. Thus, lying is scummy, even if townies lie too.

[eagerSnake]

And instead of attempting to discern the reason he's doing these so called "scummy" things (lol), you paint those actions as an excuse to lynch him on their own merits.

Between the two of you, I'd lynch you over Manuel without hesitation.

Then you're either a fool or scum. Or both.

[eagerSnake]

I'm Exhibit A of

town that plays like scum

a horrible player.

I lolhammer.
I fake claim.
I naked vote.
I tunnel with derp reasoning.

So you're Exhibit A of a horrible townie, awesome. [sarcasm] Glad to have you with us. [/sarcasm]

May I ask why you aren't doing these things in this game?

[eagerSnake]

I don't have a handle on Gerry yet, but I can get behind a Manuel and Gamma team (from individual reads, not associatives).

What happened to this?

[eagerSnake]

@Grendel: What is your read on Square?

In post 254, Manuel87 wrote:
I dont like how Square world playes but its not a reason to lynch him.


If Manuel flips red, I'll be rather interested in him.

Your thoughts mimic'd mine, what happened here?

[eagerSnake]

I have been leaning slightly scum on Gamma also, but I don't think he's the right lynch for today. He is, at the very least, responsive. I can't say that about everyone here.

[eagerSnake]

May I ask why you aren't doing these things in this game?

If you don't see them happen, it's because I don't have to.

What are you doing to do about it? Flood the thread with buzzwords and call me scum?

I'm SO skurred.

Buzzwords is a buzzword.

[eagerSnake]

If the word fits, use it. There's a reason these words have become collectively known and used. There's a reason we use acronyms like "WIFOM" "AtE." There's a reason we use words like "distancing" "buddying" "shadecasting" "doubtcasting" "lurking." Because they've been proven to come from scum more often than town.

Now, if you can explain why the words don't fit the accusations, I'd like to hear that. If not, then you can stop doubtcasting my case by randomly throwing out the "buzzword" buzzword.

Are you salty because I didn't vote for CCC or something?

[eagerSnake]

I have realized that flip-floppy voting may be a sign of towniness.

Voting, bandwagoning, and/or changing your mind are not alignment indicative actions.

[eagerSnake]

Gamma, I have to ask, why are you always "on V/LA" even though you are active?

[eagerSnake]

@House it's not buzzwording if the word fits the accusation.

[eagerSnake]

Lol you are horrible

[eagerSnake]

Because they've been proven to come from scum more often than town.

Wrong again.

Actions are not alignment indicative.

Period.

Literally laughed my ass off at this post.

[eagerSnake]

Spoiler: A few actions that are scumtells

Not doing anything pro-town.
Actions not matching claimed motivations.
Claiming to have town motivations, but doing nothing to advance the town's cause.
Hiding.
Avoiding digging or giving opinions.
Fear of drawing attention.
Deliberate lurking.
Worrying over whether they look scummy.
Discouraging discussion.
Refusing to make a case on anyone.
Asking lots of questions, but not doing anything with the answers.
Making judgements about how you yourself would play as scum.
Defense based on an always being scummy or anti-town meta.
Pushing others to contribute opinions without contributing their own opinions.
Not finding anyone scummy.
Trying to avoid attention more than help find scum.
Thinking that posting their honest opinion will hurt them.
Coming up with bogus arguments for calling someone scum.
Aggressively defending themselves.
Being more worried about not being lynched than about finding scum.
Deliberately playing in a way that hurts the town.
Intentionally not being useful.
Claiming survivor.
Thinking X is being dumb town and staying off their wagon despite X's scumminess.
Faking a PR.
Encouraging the town to just lynch randomly.
Not taking a close look at anyone but one person.
OMGUS arguments.
Calling people scummy because they disagree with them.
Doing something scummy and then later trying to pass it off as a "joke."
Lying.
Disbelieving an argument on a townie but jumping on the bandwagon anyway.
Softclaiming.
Attempting to stall their lynch by stating they have a case to post later.
Self-voting.
Asking to be lynched/killed.
Censoring their own posts.
Stating will post later.
Claiming a non-town win condition.
Obviously stupid night action claim.
Expressing confusion.
Jester speculation.
Unprovoked softclaim.
Why me?
Changing role claim.
Voting X for something while saying that one of the others voting X must be scum.
Claiming an unproveable role.

The list goes on.

[eagerSnake]

I regularly do 90% of them as town.

That list is as garbage as you.

That's because you're garbage town. Why would you do these things as town? Do you think it's cool? You want to be "Dr. House?" You're not.

Also, another bogus argument to call me scum.

[eagerSnake]

Reads thus far:

The_Jester
Grendel
Manuel87

gerryoat
Square World
Gamma Emerald
eagerSnake

Huntress
VictorDeAngelo
CCC

Can you explain these reads? Some of them you have, but not all of them. Manuel, Jester, Victor, for example.

[eagerSnake]

Your attempt to direct the game into a lynch on an easy target is not going to work.

How am I doing this?

[eagerSnake]

Yeah no. Try again.

Actually they are all more likely to come from scum than town, with exceptions.

The ones you striked out:

1. Making judgements about how you yourself would play as scum. This is WIFOM. When you make judgements about how someone else would play as scum, that's scumhunting. When you make judgements about how you yourself would play as scum, that's WIFOM.

2. Aggressively defending themselves. An aggressive defense says that you're more worried about not being lynched than about finding scum.

3. Lying. Comes from scum more often than town. Town have exceptions for doing it, but usually they don't do it right and end up getting lynched for it. Scum have more motive to lie than town, usually.

4. Stating will post later. This is in reference to when they are close to being lynched but they state something like "Oh wait I have a awesome post I'm making but it will have to come later." This comes from scum more often than town, but town does it on occasion. It's stalling.

5. Expressing confusion. Expression confusion is scummy. Townies are normally confused at the start of the game, scum are more surprised when they're confused. If townies are normally confused at the start of the game, then

they will find that unremarkable

and not mention it. Whereas scum will find it unusual, and they'll want to emphasize it to seem more town, so they point it out.

6. Why me? This comes from scum more often than town. It falls into the 'more worried about getting lynched than finding scum' category.

[eagerSnake]

As for the one's you commented on:

Spoiler: Explained

1. Not doing anything pro-town.(Could be Village Idiot) Could be, but it's usually just scum. Even idiots can figure out how to express their thoughts in a way that is pro-town.

2. Doing something scummy and then later trying to pass it off as a "joke."(Not sure on this one) I've seen scum do something scummy and then try to pass it off as a "joke" multiple times. I hardly ever see townies do that.
Town Thought Process: "Hey, it would be really funny if I said I'm a cop as a joke here. Wait, someone might think I'm serious. I should put in a [joke] tag or something so no one will get confused."
Scum Thought Process: "Hey, it would be really funny if I said I'm a cop as a joke here. Wait, someone might think I'm serious. But that's good for me; if people believe it I can keep the claim, and if not I can pass it off as just a joke later."

3. Self-voting.(Self hammering, sure.) This one deserves it's own post. Getting yourself lynched as town cannot possibly help the town more than staying alive and trying to contribute would.
The latter is better because...
(a) If the town thinks you're scummy, you get lynched anyways, but you contributed more and more importantly you made the scum work harder to get you lynched, which gives the town extra information.
(b) If the town doesn't think you're scummy, you're much better off staying alive. Dying not only deprives the town of one pro-town voice, it also takes the scum one step closer to their win condition. Getting yourself lynched when you wouldn't have been otherwise is an "own goal."
(c) Even if you think you're going to be lynched, you can't be certain until the actual lynch, so you should keep playing to give the town a chance to come to its senses and decide not to lynch you.

Given the above, there are only three reasons someone could want to actually self-hammer:
(a) They are scum trying to cut off discussion or support a bus.
(b) They are a noob who doesn't know any better.
(c) They are a self-centered jerk who thinks that if the game isn't going the way they want, they should just take their ball and go home.

If someone asks to be lynched, there are a few possibilities:
1) They are scum. Lynching them is good for the town.
2) They are town.
- 2a) They have a protown reason for being lynched. Lynching them is good for the town.
- 2b) They don't have a protown reason for being lynched, and so are playing against their own win condition.

4. Asking to be lynched/killed.(Seen VT do this. Sorry.) See above.

5. Censoring their own posts.(Clarify please) "I was gonna do/say X but I thought it might look scummy, so I didn't do it." Intentionally trying to avoid scum tells as town usually just ends up making you look scummier. Usually, though, people trying to avoid scum tells (censoring their own posts) are just scum.

6. Changing role claim.(I thought of claiming tracker when I was cop in Matrix6 to fish a mafia Roleblocker. Nope) There are occasions that town do this as a gambit, like you did, but scum will do it more often if their claim ends up not fitting with the setup and they catch scrutiny for it. I've seen scum change their claim much more often than town, and I think it's horrible that people let them get away with it.

Obviously nothing is "only scum do X," but rather, "scum do X more often than town do."

[eagerSnake]

VOTE: Square World

@CCC, alas, it looks like we're lynching the lesser of the two evils today.

[eagerSnake]

@3: There's this role on EpicMafia called Oracle that reveals a persons role if the Oracle is killed. I've seen an Oracle get lynched intentionally Day 1, although since it was Daystart forum mafia, the role had to be modified to work Day 1.

See - 2a) They have a protown reason for being lynched. Lynching them is good for the town.

[eagerSnake]

@Mod: Anything from The_Jester? No posts in over 4 days.

[eagerSnake]

Catching up, will post in the evening.

He's alive!!

I think that this is a case of Town vs. Town, personally. I haven't seen either of you present any serious arguments that the other is scum.

That's because I'm not trying to present an argument that he is scum, and I don't think he's trying to present one that I'm scum. If he is, I can't find it. If he does, it's bogus, and I'll probably leave it alone this time. Eventually someone else will point out the flaw(s) more convincingly than I could. You are correct, that continuously calling someone scum but not being able to come up with one reason why = usually town vs town. I don't think that applies here, as I'm

not

continuously calling him scum, and I

can

think of reasons for why he could be. However, I feel more like he is just trying to prove some convoluted point for his "own" goal.

I liked his posting at first too, but don't stop thinking critically. House is not a noob. He, as scum, is definitely more than capable to post the way he did here when he started. He will look townie at first, he will manipulate you, so don't let him ride on an early townread. Could scum!House do this? I definitely think he could.

I would be aware that he jumped on my wagon as soon as he saw an opportunity for a ML (Square's absentee vote, Manuel's vote, Huntress said they'd vote, his vote), while then tomorrow he could jump back on his CCC case. Remember, he was

100% sure

that CCC was scum, and nothing was going to change his mind. I would be very surprised if he doesn't bring the CCC case

back up

on D2. It's called setting up MLs.

[eagerSnake]

Alright, then. Can you show it to us?

If he actually had incredibly strong evidence, and based his vote off that evidence, don't you think he would've included the evidence? Anything that comes after this point is him having a bias, and then creating a rationalization. Morphing the evidence to fit his accusation.

[eagerSnake]

Square World, have you fallen behind?

[eagerSnake]

Eager's posting felt off from his very first post. Most people who want to do something other than rvs to start discussion just do it. Eager made a point of drawing the players attention to what he was doing.

I did "just do it." Not sure what you are getting at here. Trying to bring up RVS on page 30+ to build a case? I have plenty of content, and that is the best you have? You're reaching, far. Trying to make the evidence fit the

gut

bias.

He was too quick to call Gamma town in 70, especially in view of his statement that he starts with the assumption that everyone is guilty until proved innocent.

Gamma had dropped down on my list of people I wanted to kill, thanks to his openness to discuss the suspicion I had on him without cracking or getting frustrated.

I didn't like the second part of 80. If he thought Victor might be town with an ulterior motive then he should have waited to see what came of it rather than point it out. Either way it would have been better to wait for Victor's explanation first.

So, because I wanted to engage someone because they were active at the time? Alas, I kept that scumread a little longer as his initial reaction to my accusation did not manage to alleviate my suspicions.

His vote on Square in 600 was for an extremely flimsy reason. It was also for something that Manuel did, not Square.

My vote on Square was not for something Manuel did. I've already explained this, and now you are repeating what CCC said, which I already explained. I was trying to find an association to Square, and found Manuel, that is why Manuel was brought up in the first place. Square was the initial scumread, hence the initial vote on Square, not Manuel.

He's throwing the words "doubtcasting" and "WIFOM" around far too much and adding distracting stuff like 697.

Now you're leeching off Jester's argument. The words fit the actions so I used them. If you can explain how the words didn't fit, we'd like to hear that. Do you want me to explain my case in a way that will be easy to understand? Well that involves using words that are widely used in mafia, I don't feel like I over-used them, since they were all used properly.

[eagerSnake]

page 23 question
who uses fos?

I use FoS when I want to state a firm suspicion on someone who is not the person I want dead next.(Because I vote who I want dead next)

[eagerSnake]

Why wouldn't it be scum casting shade on town?

I suppose it could be, but I feel like he wouldn't have

chainsaw-defended

him and would have more than just a 'null' read on the slot if that was the case.

Also why would i throw suspicion on him if he was my scumbuddy?

And this is a classic

WIFOM

defense.

And this is a classic "i dont know an answer"

There are plenty of reasons for why scum would throw suspicion on their buddy, and it's almost impossible to know which reason it is. I think you know that already. So why even ask that question? And then why

doubtcast

me just because I didn't drink your wine?

You

doubtcasted

me by saying I "don't know an answer" to why you would cast shade on your partner, even though that question is apparently

WIFOM

, as I stated.

You've left yourself open to voting them later for town-credit, while at the same time

chainsaw-defending

him, and also

fence-sitting

the slot.

Why would i throw shade on my buddy in that situation?

So you could say exactly this?

And yes, it could also be buddying. If you're scum and square's town, then it makes sense for you to keep yourself open to lynching him later (via

shade-cast and fence-sitting

), while at the same time

chainsaw-defending

him (buddying).

I used 4 "buzzwords" here, but they all explained perfectly what Manuel was doing.

1.

He absolutely was

using a WIFOM defense.
"Also why would i throw suspicion on him if he was my scumbuddy?" "no if i wanted to distance myself from him i would voted him" "Why would i throw shade on my buddy in that situation?"

2.

He absolutely was

shadecasting Square.
"As i said i dont like his playstyle mainly because its easy to play the same way as scum."

3.

He absolutely was

doubtcasting me.
"And this is a classic "i dont know an answer"" (because I didn't answer the WIFOM question)

4.

He absolutely was

fence-sitting Square.
"Null: Square: As i said i dont like his playstyle mainly because its easy to play the same way as scum. His argument against Eager was good but as i said before it was awkward that he only referred to the Rhazh analysis." "I dont like his playstyle but i dont think thats a reason to lynch someone."

Now if you can argue that he wasn't doing those things, I'd like to hear it.

But you can't. Instead, you're trying to throw out evidence simply because it involves commonly used mafia terms. Terms that have been proven to describe mafia behaviors. What's worse, you're trying to take the fact I was calling out his behaviors, and turn it against me, with only the reason of "buzzwording," rather than actually looking at his behavior and deciding if he's guilty of what he's accused of, which he is.

[eagerSnake]

How is Manuel town? I don't see it.

He's coasting. His "readslist" is literally a copy+paste of stuff he said already in his older posts into a new post. I don't see the dynamic character I would expect from a townie. I don't see the town motivation in his posts. His character is flat, and that is indicative of scum. He's active lurking. Only popping in to post as soon as he's mentioned, otherwise absent. His defenses are completely indicative of scum defense.

One of the differences between the town POV and the scum POV is that townies are searching, while scum are hiding. That means that townies tend to dig for info, look at various players, and give opinions. Scum tend to avoid digging or giving opinions, for fear that it will draw attention. Which of these two fits Manuel?

[eagerSnake]

what do you think there?

I think your recent posts seem to be more of a pro-town attempt to move the game forward, rather than a scum attempting to avoid their lynch - you gave opinions, looked for scummy people, read the entire game, your read-progression seems genuine, and makes sense. You didn't crack or get frustrated from the pressure. You didn't get so caught up in your own defense that you stopped looking at other people. You actually managed to alleviate my suspicions, and you do seem to be trying to find the scum.

VOTE: Manuel87

[eagerSnake]

I agree mostly with Eager on Square, but I don't like his flooding of the game.

I wish he would've put it all into one post, and obviously explained more, but my theory is that he was probably phone-posting using the quick-reply feature at the bottom of each page as he read through them.

[eagerSnake]

Why does House jump on your case for assuming things, but he doesn't seem to care that Square also assumes things. Square assumes that everyone knows exactly what he means, without an explanation, and that everything he says is "auto-explainable." Shouldn't House be calling him out for this, like he did to you? Or did he only attack you for it because it was convenient for him? How did it feel from your POV?

[eagerSnake]

281 is where he says it's auto-explainable if he quotes something.

Spoiler: Square not explaining things, because to him it's all auto-explainable

VOTE: Manuel87

try to guess why

@Gren

I fos RhazhBash , hence the vote. I think you have had townie lines like i've explained. I don't see the rush in making reads when we aren't even 10 pages in yet. But, I'd be confident lynching RhazhBash the most right now

lol

VOTE: gerryoat

In my previous post, I suggested that VictorDeAngelo and Gamma Emerald were pinging as very slightly scum. To that list I will now add GreenNope and Square World; the first for being completely absent, and the second for providing extremely short posts with no reasons for his votes. From these four, I will elect to park my vote (for the moment) on:

VOTE: Square World

How much scummier is Box World compared to Pokémon Remake Emerald, and Old Man Victor?

Also, stop self-metaing at the drop of a hat.

town

@Square: Why do you think Gerry is scum?

maybe you have to learn to see the post i quoted

@Gren

I fos RhazhBash , hence the vote. I think you have had townie lines like i've explained. I don't see the rush in making reads when we aren't even 10 pages in yet. But, I'd be confident lynching RhazhBash the most right now

lol

VOTE: gerryoat

isn't the quote auto-explainable there?

don't want to lynch Grendel, House, CCC, eagerSnake and VictorDeAngelo

anyone else just call me and i'll join

page 4
not really thinking manuel is scum anymore

gerryoat + the_jester maybe?

page 8
still think ccc is town

page 11
k guess victor is more towny there

page 12
ccc's reads are terrible

page 15
house and gamma strong town

page 16
feeling like everybody in this page is town

page 17
okay, gonna doubt my ccc townread

page 18
manuel town
gerryoat and his excuses
huntress still scum

page 24
ccc town
huntress not so scum anymore

i'd say scum is in huntress, the_jester and victor, though maybe i accidentally excluded one scum from this list

Basically from Square's POV if he tells us what he's talking about (A) and then what his conclusion is (B) we should be able to fill in the explanation of how he came from A to B.

[eagerSnake]

He's assuming we know exactly what his thought process is. Didn't House have a huge problem with you assuming things?

[eagerSnake]

Which is worse?

[eagerSnake]

Eager, having just read this page I'm tempted to vote you purely for what I've read here, but I'll refrain for now as I still prefer to lynch CCC.

I'll be writing up my notes on you after dinner so I'll have more to say then.

Okay, so based on this post, we're expecting to see some reasoning behind why that page is so bad, right?

My read on eager is mainly a gut read but I'll try to pin it down a bit.

Here, she tries to play off her bad or non-existent reasons by throwing "gut" in there.

Eager's posting felt off from his very first post. Most people who want to do something other than rvs to start discussion just do it. Eager made a point of drawing the players attention to what he was doing. He was too quick to call Gamma town in 70, especially in view of his statement that he starts with the assumption that everyone is guilty until proved innocent. I didn't like the second part of 80. If he thought Victor might be town with an ulterior motive then he should have waited to see what came of it rather than point it out. Either way it would have been better to wait for Victor's explanation first. His vote on Square in 600 was for an extremely flimsy reason. It was also for something that Manuel did, not Square. He's throwing the words "doubtcasting" and "WIFOM" around far too much and adding distracting stuff like 697.

These reasons don't match up with what she said originally. At first, she claimed it was because the page with Me & Manuel. Then later made up a bunch of reasons, threw "gut" in there, and added one horribly bad point about that page at the end, which was piggy-backing off of what Manuel and House had already said.

Remember what I said earlier about scum making cases against town?

Scum do this because if they get away with it they can push for a town lynch without having to actually build a case themselves. I think scum hate building a case against town. When they build a case against town, they know it would be forced and full of misreps and would therefore make them look scummy.

They tend to more so piggy-back off others and they much more prefer to subtly swing momentum towards a town lynch without having to make any personal statements as of why they think that player is scum.

.

Her reasoning:
1. RVS (She's reaching, pulling straws, trying to spin an attempt to start discussion into something scummy, and admits to conf!bias by saying "I read your first post as scummy, so then I read the read of your posts as scummy, looking for easy lynch)
2. Quick to call Gamma town (She's piggy-backing what other's said, and grave-digging, I explained why I changed on him already)
3. 2nd part of 80 (She's calling me scum for making valid points/taking stances/engaging players)
4. Vote on Square, use of "buzzwords" (She's piggy-backing off of Manuel and House)

[eagerSnake]

Lol.

This is House's case.

[eagerSnake]

House keeps linking people to this page because he thinks it's full of the best possible advice for town: http://wiki.mafiascum.net/index.php?tit ... afia_Q%26A

Well, if you scroll to the bottom of that page, there is another link from the same author here, about scumplay: http://wiki.mafiascum.net/index.php?tit ... _on_MS.net

Use AtE and self-meta. If someone calls you out on the AtE/self-meta, [Laugh]. (A "lol" should suffice.) You are now unlynchable.

Lol you are horrible

VOTE: eagerSnake

I've had enough of your noise pollution.

Can you explain these reads?

Nope. I'm done talking to you.

My read is solid and I have no further use of our interaction.

Thanks Snake. You're on my would lynch list, but that explanation helped you quite a bit.

Lol.

Lol.

Why is he using the "How to win every scum game" strategy?

[eagerSnake]

Forgot the part about self-meta:

I'm Exhibit A of town that plays like scum.

I lolhammer.
I fake claim.
I naked vote.
I tunnel with derp reasoning.

According to your worthless theory, I'd have been lynched in every game I'm town, and lived in every game I was scum (where I don't do those things).

You need to sit back and stop preaching from in high like you have all the answers, because your read is garbage.

Spoiler: A few actions that are scumtells

Not doing anything pro-town.
Actions not matching claimed motivations.
Claiming to have town motivations, but doing nothing to advance the town's cause.
Hiding.
Avoiding digging or giving opinions.
Fear of drawing attention.
Deliberate lurking.
Worrying over whether they look scummy.
Discouraging discussion.
Refusing to make a case on anyone.
Asking lots of questions, but not doing anything with the answers.
Making judgements about how you yourself would play as scum.
Defense based on an always being scummy or anti-town meta.
Pushing others to contribute opinions without contributing their own opinions.
Not finding anyone scummy.
Trying to avoid attention more than help find scum.
Thinking that posting their honest opinion will hurt them.
Coming up with bogus arguments for calling someone scum.
Aggressively defending themselves.
Being more worried about not being lynched than about finding scum.
Deliberately playing in a way that hurts the town.
Intentionally not being useful.
Claiming survivor.
Thinking X is being dumb town and staying off their wagon despite X's scumminess.
Faking a PR.
Encouraging the town to just lynch randomly.
Not taking a close look at anyone but one person.
OMGUS arguments.
Calling people scummy because they disagree with them.
Doing something scummy and then later trying to pass it off as a "joke."
Lying.
Disbelieving an argument on a townie but jumping on the bandwagon anyway.
Softclaiming.
Attempting to stall their lynch by stating they have a case to post later.
Self-voting.
Asking to be lynched/killed.
Censoring their own posts.
Stating will post later.
Claiming a non-town win condition.
Obviously stupid night action claim.
Expressing confusion.
Jester speculation.
Unprovoked softclaim.
Why me?
Changing role claim.
Voting X for something while saying that one of the others voting X must be scum.
Claiming an unproveable role.

The list goes on.

I regularly do 90% of them as town.

That list is as garbage as you.

[eagerSnake]

Anyway, we need to lynch Manuel.

[eagerSnake]

Here's an unofficial VC:

Spoiler: Unofficial VC

Not Voting: The_Jester
Gamma Emerald (L-5): Grendel
House (L-5): VictorDeAngelo
eagerSnake (L-3): Manuel87, House, Huntress
Manuel87 (L-4): eagerSnake, CCC
Square World (L-4): gerryoat, Gamma Emerald

[eagerSnake]

Funny. You cast all the shade on me that you can because I want you dead (you thought I was o so town before I caught you), but you want Manuel lynched?

Setting my mislynch up for tomorrow, are you?

You're saying this because of:

You are correct, that continuously calling someone scum but not being able to come up with one reason why = usually town vs town. I don't think that applies here, as I'm not continuously calling him scum, and I can think of reasons for why he could be. However, I feel more like he is just trying to prove some convoluted point for his "own" goal.

I liked his posting at first too, but don't stop thinking critically. House is not a noob. He, as scum, is definitely more than capable to post the way he did here when he started. He will look townie at first, he will manipulate you, so don't let him ride on an early townread. Could scum!House do this? I definitely think he could.

1. That post came after you started this tunnel on me. Not the other way around. I didn't adjust my read on you simply because you want me dead. I am, however, still thinking critically and speculating about your alignment.
2. Where do you get out of this post that I am saying you are: 'o so town?'

I'm glad you're talking to me again, though.

[eagerSnake]

This is a prime example of morphing evidence to fit the read.

You should re-read: http://wiki.mafiascum.net/index.php?tit ... Conviction

[eagerSnake]

Are you salty because I didn't vote for CCC or something?

So you

are

salty that I didn't vote for CCC. Well, I'm sorry you feel that I derailed your power-wagon, I did say you brought up a lot of good points, but I'm not the only one who has doubt that CCC is scum. I'm not the only one who doesn't want him lynched today.

[eagerSnake]

Once eager flips red, we need to powerlynch CCC.

When I flip blue, you're still going to try and powerlynch CCC, so this post is literally pointless.

You think you're slick, but you're not. You're just trying to push easy lynches, setting up mislynches. It's funny, you accuse me of trying to push easy lynches, when

you're the one guilty of that

. Nice projection.

[eagerSnake]

You are obviously mad that I didn't vote for CCC, and it's obvious you have a grudge against me for it. How is that a misrep exactly?

You are accusing me of "pushing an easy lynch," when you are the one trying to do that. You have enough site experience to know that the site meta loathes buzzwords. (I use them anyway. If the word fits, use it.)

Here is your push: "He used buzzwords lynch him." Considering site meta, that makes for an easy push which doesn't require much explanation.

[eagerSnake]

1. I

interpreted

your words, and action. (Bringing up a RVS post and trying to spin it as scummy).

2. I'm not suggesting you do that, at all. Again, I am interpreting your words from my POV.

3. Why would I wait? I had a reason for calling it out in the way that I did. As nothing had led me to believe that Victor was town by that time, I was assuming he was scum, and I wanted to engage him on his bad post. He (accidentally) admitted to being one of the 3 I mentioned, but alas wouldn't admit to which one. I wanted him to admit to one of them so I could follow-up with him on it, and see how he responds. I wanted to see what his defensive behavior would be. Aggressive? Indignant? Indifferent? Here are some follow-up questions I may have used:
If he claimed ulterior motives: So you're claiming a non-town win condition?
If he claimed he's lazy: Why are you deliberately playing in a way that hurts the town?

4. Unfortunately, there is no way to prove this one.

[eagerSnake]

So what will your reaction be when I flip blue?

[eagerSnake]

Manuel is at L-1 in case you haven't noticed.

[eagerSnake]

You're actually blatantly trying to lead the town into multiple mislynches with horrible reasoning.

[eagerSnake]

Yeah. Now I'm calling you scum. I'm going to personally make sure you see the rope tomorrow.

[eagerSnake]

If I'm dead, please avenge my death by powerlynching House. Don't let him talk his way out of it. It's pretty obvious he's scum here.

[eagerSnake]

Why do you hate me so much?

[eagerSnake]

Because I'm

Nothing personal,

scum.

Care to explain?

[eagerSnake]

I can officially say that neither House nor Eager is a Desperado. Carry on.

I can officially say water is wet.

Carry on.

Blatant lies are still blatant.

[eagerSnake]

Why are you predisposed to be hostile towards me? Because it furthers your SCUM AGENDA?

[eagerSnake]

Challenge: House

Everyone can only vote for me or House now.

[eagerSnake]

It's a joke lol

[eagerSnake]

But i think The_Jester could be the one scum off the Wagon.

Would you be willing to lynch The_Jester today?

[eagerSnake]

But i think The_Jester could be the one scum off the Wagon.

Would you be willing to lynch The_Jester today?

Not with you thats for sure.
It will also depend on his reasoning when he shows up.

I'll also be taking a good look at Jester if Manuel flips red.

[eagerSnake]

Why are you predisposed to be hostile towards me? Because it furthers your SCUM AGENDA?

Calm down, Eager. You're becoming irrational.

I was dealing with someone who is being irrational. That sort of behavior is, well, toxic.

[eagerSnake]

On Huntress: I can't really see anything scummy in her ISO. Why do you scumread her, Square?

Probably because her reason for voting me is horrible. She claims to have done meta reads, I'd assume she would prioritize those on her scumreads, but I don't think she did, I think she was just trying to look like she was doing something as an excuse for not posting. Anyway, I'll let you guys do the meta read on me, here's the 2 games I drew scum on this site.

3 months ago:
http://forum.mafiascum.net/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=67153 (Newbie 1722)
http://forum.mafiascum.net/viewtopic.php?f=94&t=67154 (Newbie 1722 Mafia PT)

Last month:
http://forum.mafiascum.net/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=67932 (Mini Normal 1823)
http://forum.mafiascum.net/viewtopic.php?f=94&t=67933 (Mini Normal 1823 Mafia PT)

[eagerSnake]

Wrong again.

[eagerSnake]

More AtE, House?

[eagerSnake]

If the word fits, use it.

You're guilty of buzzwording anyway. Ironically, you are guilty of everything you accuse me of.

[eagerSnake]

1. House has used more buzzwords than I have.

2. He baited me into using the buzzwords, so then he could accuse me of using them.

These are just some of the ones I picked out of his ISO. Go ahead and read his ISO for yourself, you'll see exactly what I mean.

No good will come of my wagon.

AtE

I guess we'll see after I'm dead.

AtE

scum blatantly white knighting

Buzzwords

white knighted Huntress out of the blue

Buzzwords

You'll learn... Abrasive House is Town House. Scum House is much friendlier.

Self-Meta

(Look at me! I'm being abrasive so I'm town!)

Please tell me why CCC and Square are scum.

Needs help finding a reason to push CCC here, follows with a push on CCC the next day

"Scumdar ping."

Buzzwords

He says this 8 times, in bold, in one post. But I'm the one buzzwording, okay.

Misrepresenting my case to cast shade and defend scum is scummy.

Buzzwords

immediately doubtcasted

Buzzwords

scum motivation.

He says this so much they might as well be a buzzwords. He's tried to portray himself as some kind of oracle who is the only one who knows how to seek out scum motives. There's plenty of scum motive for that.

slinging mud and creating noise <snip> cast shade

Buzzwords

It's an easy AtE to make as scum.

Buzzwords

Your scum motive is shining like a beacon in the night.

Buzzwords

lol... didn't see this shade coming.

Buzzwords

Moar AtE prz. What does that have to do with what you're responding to?

Buzzwords

you are on the fence

Buzzwords

casting shade

Buzzwords

This is actually the page that he is calling ME out for using buzzwords. Almost as if he baited me into using these words, so he could accuse me of using them. Smart.

Buzz buzz buzz

Buzzwords

This is next post after that post, so yeah, it was baiting me to use the words so he could then use this against me.

[eagerSnake]

This dude is literally guilty of everything he's accusing me of. Whats more, he baited me into using buzzwords, and then accused me of using the buzzwords on that SAME PAGE.

[eagerSnake]

1. House has used more buzzwords than I have.

2. He baited me into using the buzzwords, so then he could accuse me of using them.

These are just some of the ones I picked out of his ISO. Go ahead and read his ISO for yourself, you'll see exactly what I mean.

No good will come of my wagon.

AtE

I guess we'll see after I'm dead.

AtE

scum blatantly white knighting

Buzzwords

white knighted Huntress out of the blue

Buzzwords

You'll learn... Abrasive House is Town House. Scum House is much friendlier.

Self-Meta

(Look at me! I'm being abrasive so I'm town!)

Please tell me why CCC and Square are scum.

Needs help finding a reason to push CCC here, follows with a push on CCC the next day

"Scumdar ping."

Buzzwords

He says this 8 times, in bold, in one post. But I'm the one buzzwording, okay.

Misrepresenting my case to cast shade and defend scum is scummy.

Buzzwords

immediately doubtcasted

Buzzwords

scum motivation.

He says this so much they might as well be a buzzwords. He's tried to portray himself as some kind of oracle who is the only one who knows how to seek out scum motives. There's plenty of scum motive for that.

slinging mud and creating noise <snip> cast shade

Buzzwords

It's an easy AtE to make as scum.

Buzzwords

Your scum motive is shining like a beacon in the night.

Buzzwords

lol... didn't see this shade coming.

Buzzwords

Moar AtE prz. What does that have to do with what you're responding to?

Buzzwords

you are on the fence

Buzzwords

casting shade

Buzzwords

This is actually the page that he is calling ME out for using buzzwords. Almost as if he baited me into using these words, so he could accuse me of using them. Smart.

Buzz buzz buzz

Buzzwords

This is next post after that post, so yeah, it was baiting me to use the words so he could then use this against me.

[eagerSnake]

This dude is literally guilty of everything he's accusing me of. Whats more, he baited me into using buzzwords, and then accused me of using the buzzwords on that SAME PAGE.

[eagerSnake]

This dude is literally guilty of everything he's accusing me of. Whats more, he baited me into using buzzwords, and then accused me of using the buzzwords on that SAME PAGE.

Did you even read his case summary at all?

I think we were building at the same time.

[eagerSnake]

Regardless, what ever his "case" is, it's bogus. If he had a reason to call me scum, why didn't he do it a long time ago, when he said he was going to? Instead he just said "Lol." and waits until last minute wagon formation.

[eagerSnake]

Just read his case, it's bogus stuff I've already answered to and I'm not going to answer to it again. Not sure why you're voting me Gamma.

[eagerSnake]

I just don't know about him being obvscum. His playstyle makes it feel like mislynchbait.

CCC is the type of player that relies heavily on a mathematical approach to the game. I have seen this type of player specifically lynched D1 often before there is enough data to incorporate math. More often than not they are town.

I haven't even analysed your case... My response to your desire to lynch CCC has nothing to do with your case or your points.

I will tonight, just not this second. I skimmed over it, but didn't analyse it or anything. It's looks like you believe you have a solid case there.

I want to be able to analyze it with a clear mind and without distractions, partly in respect to the time I know you put in it.

Surely this is what you would want.

It's useful to occasionally look at what is being argued first and then look at the arguments.

If you're going to quote my response to your case, quote the whole thing. I was already suspecting you, I had voted RhazhBash right before they had replaced out. I was more worried about your slot, and engaging you, than CCCs. I also wanted to see how/if you would defend your case.

[eagerSnake]

He literally waited until last minute deadline rush to dig up this bad case. Not only that, I won't be here tomorrow for deadline, at all. I have classes to attend, and don't expect to be home until after 6PM tomorrow.

[eagerSnake]

Among other things, you're guilty of tunneling with bad or non-existent reasons.

[eagerSnake]

I actually have lots of homework I need to get done by midnight. I don't know what you're thinking, Gamma, but you're going down a bad road.

[eagerSnake]

Nice spin on my words. Guilty of tunneling ME with bad or non-existent reasons.

[eagerSnake]

Gamma, if you're town you're going to mess this up for us. Put your vote back on Manuel. I'm not even sure why the wagon on him dissipated.

[eagerSnake]

There's a difference between not sharing and not having.

So you're trying to tell us that you had what you thought were good reasons for voting me, but kept them to yourself, let a wagon build up to L-1 on someone you thought was town, and still didn't share them, until less than 24H until deadline? Where is the town motivation in that?

[eagerSnake]

Why should I vote Manuel? I would think you'd want to form a wagon on House.

I don't trust enough people to vote House before deadline.

[eagerSnake]

You literally said you had meta reads to do. If you thought I was scum, you would have prioritized doing a meta read on me.

[eagerSnake]

To sum it up: He says we were scum theatering, and that you have been following my votes.

Funny that he agrees with you about CCCxMe, but then tells others it's YouxMe.

[eagerSnake]

Your case on me had been either no reasoning, or bad reasoning. The statement has nothing to do with your case on CCC. Now you've misconstrued my words.

[eagerSnake]

To sum it up: He says we were scum theatering, and that you have been following my votes.

Funny that he agrees with you about CCCxMe, but then tells others it's YouxMe.

You forget there is the possibility of a 3 mafia team.

How do you get that out of that?

Anyway, Gamma, you have about 5 minutes to unvote me. At that time I am going to start my homework. I probably won't be back until after 6PM tomorrow, as stated, and I don't trust leaving at L-2 all the way to deadline with House here.

[eagerSnake]

I'm a town PR.

I crumbed, too.

Trying to establish scumteams isn't relevant until the first scumflip anyway.

I

disagree. Est

a

blishing scu

m

teams is a great way to POE people into your town

block

. For example, we will number players

1-11

.

Count the letters, then count the words.

Way to go, Gamma.

VOTE: House

[eagerSnake]

It's a roleblocker crumb I learned from DLA.

http://forum.mafiascum.net/viewtopic.php?f=83&t=67900

[eagerSnake]

Doc is on me tonight.

[eagerSnake]

Now he is trying to lynch claimed PR. Stop listening to his bullshit, will you?

I have more pressing matters to attend to. I will likely not be back until after deadline. I'm blocking Manuel tonight.

[eagerSnake]

Scum is still taking this game regardless.

Damn you, House. I should have flipped onto Square. I knew he was a PR when he said "Don't worry, I'm not getting lynched today." That's why I flipped off him and went for Manuel, I was as I was just going to NK him. Unlucky he turned out to be my CC. Also, that was a crumb I made up after the fact, obviously. Probably should've just claimed PR and diappeared. :fp:

[eagerSnake]

My scum game still needs work, but I feel like I did better than my last 2 games as scum. Had most of you convinced, anyway, instead of the whole town rallying to lynch me and AtE shitting my way out of it.

[eagerSnake]

[eagerSnake]

Loving this twilight discussion. Keep it up!

[eagerSnake]

I 100% guarantee a scum win.