A cold-blooded reptile seems a good RVS target.
I'm guessing you mean "exercise"? I hope it works out for you!
...I might just steal it in future games if it does.
To turn your question around, I do not have any prior experience with eagerSnake. Nor, for that matter, with anyone else on the roster.In post 42, Grendel wrote:Wonderful.In post 30, eagerSnake wrote:@Grendel Sure. I will give it a try.
So do you have any prior experience with anybody on the roster?
How do you feel about VictorDeAngelo and CCC?
No, actually I'm not.In post 51, Square World wrote:let me guess, you're one, right?In post 49, CCC wrote:Three mafia sounds about right to me.
VOTE: CCC
Boring did play a brilliant game. I know I will be far more suspicious of her in any future games; she's going to find it a lot harder to fool me twice.In post 54, Grendel wrote:Actually CCC I've seen both Frozen landscapes, and Wake's role madness. Though my focus when spectating both those games wasn't you, I do recall you struggling with wordiness. And you praising Boring a whole lot.
He was right later - thatIn post 39, Gamma Emerald wrote:I'm betting 3 Mafia, 8 town or 3 mafia, 7 town, and one 3P.In post 32, eagerSnake wrote: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
In post 96, eagerSnake wrote:Could you show me where Jester is dodging questions? I actually read him as town..
That's the best example.In post 53, The_Jester wrote:I asked first so don't you turn this on me and make me answer for you.
I've taken a look over his ISO and I can't. Partially because of that, but mainly because of his thorough explanation here, I am going toIn post 111, VictorDeAngelo wrote:@CCC- Can you give some other examples of Jester dodging questions?
As evidence, I present to you a completed, former game in which I played Town. And in which I mathed it up quite a bit. (I'm trying to tone it down).In post 117, Manuel87 wrote:I would say CCC.
I didnt like the statement about math. He is already making excuses for pushing on town day 1.
Site-wide? Really? I thought it was just this game.In post 123, The_Jester wrote:GN had been absent site-wide since before the game started. How is that scummy?In post 121, CCC wrote: To that list I will now add GreenNope [...] for being completely absent
SquareWorld: So would I.In post 125, The_Jester wrote:@SquareWorld I'd like to see some reads from you.
Why? He's got a good point. The insinuation is there, and asking for more clarification on that point is perfectly reasonable. (I'd rather like to see the answer to Snake's question myself).In post 139, RhazhBash wrote:Snake stop posting.
I haven't seen any where scum was hung D1. I expect to find that, of newbie games (with two scum out of nine players), less than two in nine games have scum lynched on day one. (If the lynches were random, it would be two in nine, but by and large scum will usually try to get town lynched, and on day one I expect that to skew the ratio against Town).In post 143, Grendel wrote:Do you ever read other games? There are garnteed to be games were scum was hung D1 for legitimate reasons.
Insignificantly scummier. I have no significant reads at all.In post 145, Grendel wrote:How much scummier is Box World compared to Pokémon Remake Emerald, and Old Man Victor?In post 121, CCC wrote:
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
Also, stop self-metaing at the drop of a hat.
Yeek.Day one is something like 40 pages.In post 155, VictorDeAngelo wrote:It happens:In post 151, CCC wrote:I guess I am pessimistic about day one. Later days, when there's some decent info to work with, I consider far more useful.
http://forum.mafiascum.net/viewtopic.php?f=53&t=60961
Oh, quite. Don't get me wrong - day one provides a lot of useful and important information for future days, and I really shouldn't minimise that. I don't think much of the day oneIn post 155, VictorDeAngelo wrote:I'm sure there's more. That said games aren't won on day 1. What's important on day 1 is getting that everyone contributes to that all important first lynch. It doesn't have to be well informed (as town's don't have a lot of info) but it in itself provides info in later days.
It's a bit unpleasant for the broken egg, though.In post 155, VictorDeAngelo wrote:If we get a scumflip today that's great. But if we get a townflip, oh well. You can't make an omelette without breaking a few eggs.
What you did was suggest that there were either three mafia, or three mafia and a serial killer. This carries the weak implication that you knew there were three mafia, but weren't sure about the SK. It's a terribly weak case, but I have no even halfway decent cases.In post 159, Gamma Emerald wrote:CCC- I mentioned the part about him being consistent on scumteam size as well, but here’s the interesting part: he attacked me for my comments about it. Got anything to say for yourself, bud?
...let me rephrase that then. I wasn't trying to say "Well I do that all the time so its not AI". I was trying to say "Well, that's how I play as Town".In post 161, Grendel wrote:In the post right after 121 you referenced how you math in other games. And I think you did it a couple other times this game to. By "it" I mean you have said, "Well I do that all the time so its not AI" in response to accusations. I don't like that because it doesn't refute the argument so much as it lampshades it. Lamp shading a problem doesn't make it go away. Saying you do something as either alignment doesn't make you town.
No, I said threeIn post 180, Gamma Emerald wrote:I think your post was worse because you ONLY stated that there was likely 3 mafia, without branching out into other bits of speculation. And I never said it HAD to be a Serial Killer. A Lyncher or Survivor would be perfectly fine.
Believe it or not, this fits my Town meta too. Every game I've ever been Town in, I got lynched day one.In post 182, Gamma Emerald wrote:Well in my last game with Grendel, it was the same for him. I don't think Grendel is scum this time, but I DEFINITELY think you are.
Day oneIn post 185, Gamma Emerald wrote:Say what now? You don't think much of Day 1 lynches? Well I do. You can't throw simply rule out the Day 1 lynch, that's crazy.In post 184, CCC wrote:Believe it or not, this fits my Town meta too. Every game I've ever been Town in, I got lynched day one.
(This may be why I think so little of day one lynches).
Others have suggested things like two teams of two mafia, or two mafia and a SK. You seem suspiciously certain of the threeIn post 186, Gamma Emerald wrote:Well I'm sorry for misinterpreting your post. And I pretty much know there are 3 mafia, because it's a 11 person game. Having a Serial Killer is like having an Independent Vigilante who has to eliminate everyone, not just the mafia. I also assume that because I don't want to have to worry about thinking we're safe to mislynch and then whoops, one extra mafia then I thought, we lose! I chose the logical maximum to account for that.In post 183, CCC wrote:No, I said threeIn post 180, Gamma Emerald wrote:I think your post was worse because you ONLY stated that there was likely 3 mafia, without branching out into other bits of speculation. And I never said it HAD to be a Serial Killer. A Lyncher or Survivor would be perfectly fine.scum. That could be three mafia (and likely is), or it could be two mafia and a serial killer.
Your original post (and now this post supports that) look like you know there's three mafia, and are speculating about what else there might be.
Conflict causes people to talk and interact. From these interactions, reads can be formed, and refined.In post 188, VictorDeAngelo wrote:What do reads list have to do with conflict?
Longer ones will give you more to work with, and give scum more chance of somehow slipping up...In post 188, VictorDeAngelo wrote:Yeah, well I've had longer day 1s. Personally I prefer more shorter/more direct day ones.In post 178, CCC wrote:Yeek.Day one is something like 40 pages.
Yeah, it's part of the game. Personally, I'd rather like to explore one of theIn post 188, VictorDeAngelo wrote:Yeah, I've never liked being lynched early either, but that's part the game and you get a cool dead chat where you can complain about the people who lynched while waiting for a new game.It's a bit unpleasant for the broken egg, though.
You would certainly be able to make an excellent statistical argument to that effect.In post 188, VictorDeAngelo wrote:So if we don't lynch you today, that means your scum right?In post 184, CCC wrote:Believe it or not, this fits my Town meta too. Every game I've ever been Town in, I got lynched day one.
(This may be why I think so little of day one lynches).
In this game, assuming the existence of three scum, the odds of a randomly selected group of five people (if a single known Town player is removed from consideration) containing zero scum is 16.807%. This is the same as the odds of the randomly selected group containing three scum.In post 189, Manuel87 wrote:I generally dont like when ppl say "there are 1-2 scum in this group of people" when the group they are talking about is exactly 50% of the players (self not included)In post 160, Grendel wrote: Do you like/dislike anything else in 102?
Which in return means he also thinks there are 1-2 scum in the other group.
@RhazhBashu: would you mind answering my question in 92
This is the second time you've tried to shut down a line of questioning, the first being here.In post 199, VictorDeAngelo wrote:Do you really want me to explain it. Because if you do, it's probably going to sound quite patronising and not actually lead us anywhere towards catching scum.Why not?In post 142, VictorDeAngelo wrote: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.
I think you and I are reading gerryoat's original post very differently.In post 200, VictorDeAngelo wrote:I think you got cause effect the wrong way around here. The quote here was a response to the idea that readlists create the conflict.In post 192, CCC wrote:Conflict causes people to talk and interact. From these interactions, reads can be formed, and refined.
I can't. Math is a tool, and one that looks like it should be fairly useful once I have decent data to put into it (i.e. after day one).In post 200, VictorDeAngelo wrote: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.
Huh. You're right. So I did.In post 202, Gamma Emerald wrote:CCC, you said MAFIA here, not SCUM.In post 49, CCC wrote:Newbie games have nine players, two of whom are Mafia. Here we have eleven players.
Three mafia sounds about right to me.
I don't know how popcorn reads work. Would playing it get some useful reads out of you?In post 205, Square World wrote:tip: i vote the first non-townread post above mineIn post 125, The_Jester wrote:@SquareWorld I'd like to see some reads from you.
if that's not clear enough, we can play popcorn reads
Victor is shutting down questions aimed specifically at himself. Not only is he not answering them, but he's making statements intended to disparage eagersnake for having asked them in the first place. Not to suggest that snake is scum; but rather to suggest that snake is an idiot.In post 208, Grendel wrote:Wait. So you are scum reading Victor for halting discussion when Gerry basically did the same thing with posts 93 and 109 when he was talking crap about early game reads.In post 201, CCC wrote:This is the second time you've tried to shut down a line of questioning, the first being here.
I'm not sure if this is just how you play, or if it should be taken as indicative of a desire to shut down questioning more completely. But either way, I thinkit makes you look more likely scum than Square World, so...
VOTE: VictorDeAngelo
Why does one ping you but not the other?
I'm trying to signal that if anyone can present what I consider an actual decent case that someone is scum, and I can't refute it, then I'll switch my vote to that case.In post 217, Grendel wrote:The first thing about CCC I want to address is his overt doubt casting on himself. Lower confedance, and second guessing are to be expected on D1, but CCC announces it before all his early scum reads. To the point it is no longer resembling town paranoia, but a fear of commitment.
It wasIn post 217, Grendel wrote:CCC was scum reading Gamma longer then Square. So his square scum read getting brought to the forefront is a little odd. I think it must have been a pressure vote.
I've been disparagingIn post 217, Grendel wrote:But what is so weird is that CCCis super cautions with his scum reads. So I'm trying to figure out why CCC appears not afraid of contradicting himself, but worried about his reads being wrong.
Eh, Victor and Gamma are pretty much equally scummy in my eyes (i.e. more than most, but still not very). But at the time when I posted that, Victor had been the most recent ping on my scumdar.In post 217, Grendel wrote:Here he voted Victor. Once again missing Gamma. Maybe I'm paying more attention to this because I'm scum reading Gamma. AFAIK, CCC never withdrew his suspions of Gamma, had a town read on me and I was dogging Gamma in the last few days. So why didn't CCC show any interest in Gamma lynch?
Hi there, Huntress! Would be glad to have your thoughts. Your slot has made no posts so far, so it would be good to get some data on your slot.
Null all the way, so far.In post 228, gerryoat wrote:@CCC what's your opinion on RhazhBash?
Is your vote the only thing you're doing to push RhazhBash?In post 229, VictorDeAngelo wrote:If you don't think I'm pushing Rhazh you should check my vote.
So noted.In post 229, VictorDeAngelo wrote:To clarify I still have snake as a lean scum read.
I understand that asking him questions and trying to engage with him is an important part of the process.In post 232, VictorDeAngelo wrote:Pretty much, yes. This question seems to imply I'm not doing enough, so I'll ask this. Given how little Rhazh is posting what else do you think I should be doing at this point in the game?In post 231, CCC wrote:Is your vote the only thing you're doing to push RhazhBash?
How? What has he done that's at all townish?In post 253, VictorDeAngelo wrote:I am getting townvibes from Square World.
The "response to the second question" in question being:In post 257, VictorDeAngelo wrote:If you must know, I liked his response to the second question in 250.eagerSnake wrote:@Victor What exactly has Square World done that was inherently townie?
Ummmmm... this is a clear null statement to me. How is this possibly Townish?In post 250, Square World wrote:calm down, i dont get a read on everyone within 2 daysAnd on another note why not a direct response to 229. Should I infer Gerry and Manual are your only scumreads?
Hmmmmmmmmm. Poking through those links, I notice that Square World didn't explain his reads there, either. Sure, he had them, but he maintained his habit of short, near-useless posts.In post 266, eagerSnake wrote: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.
Victor: You posted this quite a while back and, as far as I can see, you have never yet explained further. Have I missed something? If not, then would you like to explain further now?In post 90, VictorDeAngelo wrote:I get more bad feels from this post than anything eager has done though.In post 89, RhazhBash wrote:Now my vote on Manuel is serious. He looks more like he's pushing on low hanging fruit than hunting scum. There's a lot indicative of the type of player Snake is in the thread, but not his alignment IMO.
UNVOTE:
VOTE: RhazhBash
And to pre-empt the next question:
No, I'm explaining further at this time.
I would like to take this opportunity to thoroughly agree with this paragraph.In post 279, eagerSnake wrote: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.
No.In post 281, Square World wrote:isn't the quote auto-explainable there?In post 236, Square World wrote:lolIn post 187, gerryoat wrote:@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
VOTE: gerryoat
Okay,In post 283, Square World wrote:he's being opportunistic
Opportunism is the conscious policy and practice of taking advantage of circumstances – with little regard for principles, or with what the consequences are for others. Opportunist actions are expedient actions guided primarily by self-interested motives. The term can be applied to individual humans and living organisms, groups, organizations, styles, behaviours, and trends.
I like the readslist that you quoted in 287. Thoroughly explained, lots of detail. It has everything. Just a pity it's neither yours nor applicable to the game.In post 289, Square World wrote:i can post my opinions, but not explain them like the quote from 287
Huh. I'm surprised. This is actually a reasonable reason.In post 295, VictorDeAngelo wrote:It's responses are somewhat impulsive. In my experience that comes from town more than scum. Scum need time to calculate their posts whereas town do not.In post 277, CCC wrote:How? What has he done that's at all townish?In post 253, VictorDeAngelo wrote:I am getting townvibes from Square World.
I do think that scum trying to maintain flexibility in reads might want to be slow to commit to a reads list; but again, I can see how a Town player might have this opinion.In post 295, VictorDeAngelo wrote:In addition to what was said above, I like the way in which Square wasn't rattled here. It didn't seem to want to rush or force a read like scum would. This answer in fact would be likely to be unpopular. So ask yourself this, who is more likely to post in such a way; town or scum?
Okay, I'm going to tell you the same thing I've been telling Square World - just because it's obvious to you doesn't mean it's obvious to me. Elaborate, please?In post 295, VictorDeAngelo wrote:Nope, I don't think I explained this further. I'll say this in case it wasn't obvious; the quoted post was the reason I voted Rhazh. Rereading Manuel post's prior this should tell you why I got so many bad feels.CCC wrote:Victor: You posted this quite a while back and, as far as I can see, you have never yet explained further. Have I missed something? If not, then would you like to explain further now?In post 90, VictorDeAngelo wrote:I get more bad feels from this post than anything eager has done though.In post 89, RhazhBash wrote:Now my vote on Manuel is serious. He looks more like he's pushing on low hanging fruit than hunting scum. There's a lot indicative of the type of player Snake is in the thread, but not his alignment IMO.
UNVOTE:
VOTE: RhazhBash
And to pre-empt the next question:
No, I'm explaining further at this time.
Yes, and I can see why Rhazh was scumreading him for them.In post 298, VictorDeAngelo wrote:Quick question, did you reread Manuel's early posts?In post 297, CCC wrote:
Okay, I'm going to tell you the same thing I've been telling Square World - just because it's obvious to you doesn't mean it's obvious to me. Elaborate, please?
Yes, now look at what those five posts were. The first was an RVS vote and approval of Grendel's idea. He then spent two posts describing the benefits of Grendel's strategy, one post speculating on the setup, only one post actually questioning another player ("Can you explain why you think this can be scum?") and then one post complaining about being asked the same thing twice by two separate players without actually answering said question.In post 300, VictorDeAngelo wrote:Wow, that surprises me.
I do not see how Rhahz's vote was reasonable there at all. For starters there's too few posts of Manuel or anyone to form that conclusion (He had 5 posts at the time). I would explain further but I really want why you think it was reasonable. Which posts of Manuel's do you think show him pushing on low hanging fruit?
Well, I'm not sure about the low hanging fruit part, but Manuel reallyIn post 319, VictorDeAngelo wrote:Good. Now take what you said there and reread Rhahz's reason for voting. Here I'll quote it for you.
I even added some helpful bold on the sentence that made me vote him.In post 89, RhazhBash wrote:Now my vote on Manuel is serious.He looks more like he's pushing on low hanging fruit than hunting scum.There's a lot indicative of the type of player Snake is in the thread, but not his alignment IMO.
For the purposes of reading you, it no longer matters how much scumhunting you had done at that point. It's better to consider how much scumhunting you've doneIn post 328, Manuel87 wrote:From my point of view i did more scumhunting then at least 6 other players in the game at that point.In post 327, CCC wrote:Well, I'm not sure about the low hanging fruit part, but Manuel reallywasn'tdoing much scumhunting before that post.
I agree with you. But I can easily see a Town player disagreeing.In post 329, VictorDeAngelo wrote:Ok, we're nearly there. Two things:
1) It's post 90. There's often not a lot of scumhunting from anyone in any game at this point.
Yeah... I wouldn't count either of those posts as 'pushing', either. But if they are, then anyone who could conceivably be pushed so early in the game would be low hanging fruit, surely?In post 329, VictorDeAngelo wrote:2) The low handing fruit part is entirely unfounded. There's no evidence of either snake or Gerry being low hanging fruit, and it's a stretch to think Manuel could have formed that this early. And that's if we were being incredible generous describing one or both of posts 84 could be considered as pushing (I don't think they are and I'm somewhat skeptical that a town player would form that conclusion).
Possible completions include:In post 329, VictorDeAngelo wrote:All in all, the sentence doesn't line up with what's happened in the game. Instead it sounds like a nice set of buzzwords for why someone could be scum. And a disingenuous reason for voting is an idication of ____.
Hmmm. Yeah, you're right. It does become more than a little hypocritical.In post 340, VictorDeAngelo wrote:1.No. Being pushed in the early game does not imply your low hanging fruit. And if it did then Rhazh vote becomes a player didn't do a lot of scumhunting and he pushed some players. So despite your best efforts, you really can't defend this.
Mainly I was playing devil's advocate, to test the strength of your case. Much to my surprise - because I honestly didn't expect this when I started this discussion - you actuallyIn post 340, VictorDeAngelo wrote:2.Sure, technically anything scummy could explained away any number of ways. Perhaps he was tired and completely misunderstood the gamestate. Perhaps he didn't the communication skills to say what he meant so instead he said something different. Maybe he simply misspelt.... no sorry it's too late for me to even find an implausible finish to that sentence.
I don't see any value in continuing this discussion further. You seem to willing ignore your own analyse of the posts (since you state repeatedly that you agree with my assessment of Manuel posts), and instead inexplicable willing to give Rhahz the benefit of the doubt that he must have read them differently, and subsequently it's plausible this all came a townie place even if no one will explain precisely how.
Might I ask why?
After a little introspection, I found that I had higher confidence in the idea of three scumIn post 402, Gamma Emerald wrote:Okay. I'd like to hear what CCC has to say though.
Last time we were in a game together, you also led a wagon on me. You were utterly convinced I was scum, and then it turned out that I wasn't.
Eh, they were pretty much equal. At that point, I could have picked any of the three (and, indeed, my vote is currently resting on the person I mentioned first there).In post 442, House wrote:So instead of vote the player that you implicitly feel the most suspicion for (hence, mentioning first), you vote your second suspect.
Scumdar ping.
I was trying for scepticism, not apathy.In post 442, House wrote:Breeding apathy. Lots of scum motive for that.In post 110, CCC wrote:My experience so far suggests that the entirety of day one is going to be pretty much nullness. I've never been on a game on this site where a Mafia player was lynched on the first day, so I'd be surprised if anyone has anything even approaching a decent read on the first day.
Scumdar ping.
I was trying to encourage him to post. Didn't work.In post 442, House wrote:Scumreading someone that hasn't even posted? How is that even vaguely town?
Opportunistic vote, jumping on his playstyle instead of alignment indicative content.
Scumdar ping.
You know that
As I mentioned previously, I'm trying to signal that I'd be willing to follow along with anyone that can present a halfway decent case on someone.In post 442, House wrote:THIS is what not taking stances looks like.
He appears to be trying to read people, but his "insignificant" reads can change with minimal explanation.
Unlike Square, who is posting reads without going into detail why, CCC is prefacing his reads with an excuse to drop them.
Scumdar ping.
It's not an excuse for scummy play. It's a request to pay attention and be sure of your case.In post 442, House wrote:Brilliant! You make an excuse for your scummy play to discourage others from lynching you because you're not experienced scum so you're trying to play up your newness.
Sorry bro, nice lesson from boring but she ruined that for you.
Scumdar ping.
So........ are you honestly trying to say that Town should strive to avoid any and all arguments? Then how does anyone develop their scumreads?In post 442, House wrote:No. No. No.In post 192, CCC wrote:Conflict causes people to talk and interact. From these interactions, reads can be formed, and refined.
Town fighting town is EXACTLY what scum wants.
If town is busy bickering with each other, scum has plenty of noise to hide in.
HUGE scumdar ping.
Yeah, funny thing, being continually lynched day one every time I'm town has the effect of breeding a certain cynicism about day one reads. Including my own.In post 442, House wrote:2 reads that doesn't have null in them. The one that isn't his own is appended with an "ish", which he can use to justify flipping with minimal explanation.In post 296, CCC wrote:Here's my current list, for example:
1. gerryoat - Null leaning Townish - hasn't stood out, but has been quietly scumhunting
2. Gamma Emerald - Null leaning scummish - more sure of the size of the mafia team than the total number of scum
3. Grendel - Null leaning strongly Town - doing a hefty share of scumhunting
4. RhazhBash - Near complete null, leaning weakly scummish - needs to do more scumhunting
5. CCC - Town all the way
6. Square World - Null leaning scummish - needs to explain himself a little more
7.GreenNopeHuntress - Null for now - needs to post something
8. Manuel87 - Null leaning slightly scummish - don't think he's made a non-RVS vote yet (could be just cautious)
9. The_Jester - Null leaning very slightly scummish
10. eagerSnake - Townish. He's really making a lot of good points and asking a lot of right questions
11. VictorDeAngelo - Null leaning scummish. I don't like how he's shutting down certain questions, and I don't like his inexplicable Townread on Square World.
Scumdar ping.[/spoiler]
Do you have your day two lynch identified for when I flip green?In post 443, House wrote:I have the day two lynch identified as well when CCC flips red.
Hint: If I have my way, his name will be a misnomer
Very well. I'll look forward to it.In post 444, Huntress wrote:I'll explain tomorrow as I haven't had a chance to do it today.In post 420, CCC wrote:Might I ask why?
My history suggests that I fail miserably at number (1), even when I am Town. I'm not doing (2), and I appear to be a victim of (3). As to (4), I'm trying to provide as much information about myself as I can, and answering any and all questions posed to me, so I fail to see how I'm supposed to be falling foul of that one.In post 465, House wrote:When I was an IC in the newbie queue, I did something that I never noticed any other IC's doing... I gave scum advice.
If you actuallyFor Scum:
1. The number one rule of scum is "be town". You want to blend in as well as possible, so try not to do things that draw attention to your alignment.
2. Apathy is your friend. The less town cares about the game, the less they care about finding you. Cultivate ways to subtly breed apathy.
3. Town dissonance is your ally. The more town bickers amongst themselves, the less focused they are on finding you. Learn the art of doubtcasting and instigating.
3a. The above statement is not to be construed as a suggestion to personally attack or insult players. Such behavior can get you banned from the games, and even the site.
4. Information should be a one way street. The more information you can gather, and the more you can prevent town from gathering information, the better off you are.my case, you will notice that CCC does all of these.READ
In the last game I played with House, he was calling me "confirmed scum" on day one. He took his vote off before the lynch, but even without that his wagon powered all the way through.In post 470, eagerSnake wrote:House on a scale of 1-100% how likely is CCC to be scum?
I honestly don't believe I could pull that off.In post 479, House wrote:He's pulling a boring.In post 476, eagerSnake wrote:I guess I just feel empathy for him. I will feel bad if he turns out to be town.
In all fairness, the last game I played with House, this isIn post 483, eagerSnake wrote: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.
That's a step stronger than "Null leaning Town" but a step weaker than "Slightly Townish".In post 495, House wrote:CCC: How can a read rationally be "Null leaning Strongly Town"?