Mini 692: Boost Mafia (Game Over!)

[Green Crayons]

I'm taking the weekend to read through the thread. Anyone have any specific questions they would like me to answer to any specific situations they would like me to comment upon?

[Green Crayons]

Before I start, I just want to disown Skillit's weird "illogical" argument against Electra that occupied the first few pages of his posts. It was dumb (to be frank), flawed and pointless.

I read the first ten or so pages all the way through, skimmed the enormous spring/Incognito fiasco and then started reading the last few pages in more refined detail. I'll be going over the thread a few more times, skimming the places I read entirely the first time around and reading more carefully the places where I skimmed, but here are my current thoughts:

I really, really like Electra's post 10. I'm glad to see the majority of the town seems to have thought along the same lines and boosted her. While the general feel I get from the remainder of her posts are town, this opening post really cements her town status to me.

The spring/Incognito craziness looks like a two townies trying to rip each other's throats out. The arguments seemed to eventually come to the point where they weren't trying to figure out alignment, just merely show that they were right and the other person was not. Just because someone is wrong doesn't make them scum, so I think this argument was an unfortunate consequence of misguided intentions that became a bit overblown.

As for my general overview, it looks something like this.


--Super-Town--
Electra

--Strong Town--
sthar
TDC

--Leaning Town--
Guardian (springlullaby)
Incognito
iLord

--No Read--
fuzzylightning (RandomGem)
eldarad

--Leaning Scum--
Huntress (Crazy)
Rabbit
Jahudo


This is mostly just pure feeling from posts I've seen. I'll be using this template to base my further review of the thread, but I thought I would at least contribute my general sentiments towards what kind of vibes I'm getting from players.

I am, however, comfortable enough to

un-boost, boost: sthar

. His posts have struck me as solidly townish and I'm confident in putting him in a booster seat (if you will).

[Green Crayons]

Green Crayons: Why do you lean scum on RR?

Pulling quotes from Rabbit's posts that strike me as odd in a reread:

What's more testable than information? It'll be very easy to find out if what she supplies us with is true or false as the game progresses. Definitely easier to test than the unknown effects of boosting anyone else,

Here he is putting forth bad logic. What's more testable than information? Here are two things right off the top of my head: role blockers and night kills. Also, mafia can give information that's more or less useless to the town until

maybe

endgame (e.g. "x number of people did a night action last night"), or information that's misleading but true to a certain extent (and blame it on bastard modding), etc. Bad reasoning to support an otherwise good choice (boosting Electra). Struck me as funny.

I'm not sure the info is as accurate as an investigation result, but if she does claim to have caught scum with this, lynching him is clearly the right move. If he turns town we'll just lynch her the next day.

Then he makes this nonsensical argument. Let's assume the hypothetical situation he's suggesting occurs: Electra

is

scum, the town

does

boost her and - regardless of whatever benefit she receives - she decides to feed the town a "result." Why would she, sans end-game scenario, ever tell the town an innocent as guilty when she would just be putting herself up on the chopping block come the following day? Or, if it

is

an end-game scenario, then his safety net (that she'll be lynched the following day because she's obvscum) is a moot point. Showcasing this as an example why Electra should have been boosted just didn't sit well with me.

I don't really buy you weren't noticing the stuff you wrote, this sorta panicky response looks like scum kicking himself for being suspected.

This starts a really crap-fest half-hearted attempt to slander sthar that snowballs into quite the sizable discussion. First, it struck me on a semi-personal level because I almost always comment freely upon other people's conversations. It's part and parcel of being town: you voice your opinions regarding everything that's on the table and when you see something you don't like I don't believe you should be required to hold your tongue. Granted, there may be points where keeping your own counsel may be beneficiary, but by and large simply hoping someone else brings up your points is a bad town policy. However, I'm more than willing to realize this is a personal preference and was going to let this Rabbit point really just go, but...

Going out of your way to answer questions directed at others isn't a sign of not paying attention. I figure by turning it into a mistake and apologizing you where hoping to make it not appear as a scumtell anymore.

Suddenly he makes responding to questions that weren't directly posed to him a scumtell. I suppose it can be a scumtell if Player X is obviously defending Player Y and not that Player X just has opinions/criticisms/etc of the questions being posed to Player Y. But Rabbit didn't qualify his statement that way; instead, he made what essential boils down to "speaking out of turn" into a scumtell. This stinks of trying to not-so-subtly put a lid on criticism from players who are not directly involved in an exchange. And then...

Maybe the right word is more guiltridden than panicky

He decides to shift his argument. There's a definitive difference than panicky and guilt-ridden (the former could be qualified as defensive, poorly written, incomplete/hasty thoughts while the latter could be identified as... well... filled with guilt and other similar sentiments). Rabbit puts up something resembling an example of why he thinks this way, but it's not made entirely clear as to how his initial accusation was confusion instead of, say, a plotted attack.

Yup, it's how he excuesed it. Answering instead of others isn't much of a tell

Further shifting of argument. First it was what he did that was scummish, now it's not what he did but his response to what he did that is scummish.

A less suspicious response would be "yeah, I guess in hindsight that wasn't the best play..." or "I did that in order to (whatever)". I think going all apologetic at the slightest pressure is a sign of guilt.

I fail to see how his first example of a less suspicious but not conciliatory response is, well... not conciliatory or apologetic. He seems to be blurring the lines of his (now entirely arbitrary?) standard of what constitutes this morphing scumtell.

Yup, scum make an active effort to appear pro town while town are more concerned with looking for scum, so obviously scum have a much stronger sense of guilt when they are called on an anti-town play. For them, it means their town-act failed, while town are more inclined to think it's the other guy's fault for not reading them correctly. ... In addition to what I already answered, turning it into a moral issue which sthar as a good townie felt he was compelled to apologize for takes the matter of him being scum out of the equation.

This quotation is two parts of two different posts addressing the same thing and so I'm putting them together. The first part of this quote is a legitimate theory of mafia/town mindset, but I don't see to what end the latter part of the quote ("In addition to what I already answered...") was even voiced. It looks like it completely disintegrates his previous shifted/modified argument against sthar, that his apology made him look scummy (but it takes the scumminess out of the equation). This just confused me and I couldn't help that it felt like back-peddling (especially after having just unvoted sthar). Rabbit makes some sort of derisive comment to iLord later on, who also seems genuinely confused about this seeming contradiction in philosophy being voiced from the same individual.

Raging Rabbit, would you please go into your reasoning?

Why is that so importatnt to you?

Defensive and attacking someone for requesting something that's beneficial for the town.

This post doesn't look pro town to me, it looks like you trying very hard to appear pro town.

I generally don't like accusations of "that just looks like you're trying to be pro-town" just because they can be so slippery. I usually take them with a grain of salt (and eye the accuser with a bit of suspicion) when they don't explain 1. why said action wouldn't be performed by a town person and 2. how said action makes that player appear town if they aren't. I didn't see Rabbit support his accusations in this way.


That said, there are very sensible points he makes throughout the entire game, so it's not like I'm super convinced he's scum. He has, however, put forth quite a bit of positions that I find highly suspect and so that's why I have him leaning scum.

GC: Why isn't it more logical to have "town with ability, town, scum with ability, scum"?

I never claimed that it wasn't more logical. But since you bring it up, I think we should reflect on the fact that while one is obviously right and the other wrong (though how long it will take to determine which is right and the other wrong may take quite some time), with the information we currently have I find them both to be on equal footing in terms of logic (as I explain further in my response to your second question).

Why wasn't it illogical of electra to not have those categories?

Electra has explained this herself, and her explanation shows that both skillit and Electra were making logical assumptions: Electra, that the mafia were treated as one lumped-together group; Skillit, that the mafia were treated as separated groups of "regular" scum and "power role" scum. Making either of these assumptions are necessary to come to a conclusion - they are reasonable leaps that uninformed players have to make in order to deduce what kind of scenario we are facing. Simply because one player makes one leap while a different player makes the other doesn't make either jump less logical. The players just simply chose to believe a different scenario is in play.

[Green Crayons]

For now I'm just wonderin' why isn't GC voting me.

Because as of now you're the only person from my "leaning scummy" list that I've pulled direct examples of why I feel that you're scummy (the list being compiled based solely off of my feelings from an initial read-through). I don't want to vote prematurely if I find that, as a whole, one of the other two I have as scummish are a better place for my vote.

That said,

unvote

. I initially thought my previous spot-holder wasn't voting, but I double checked and apparently my/their vote had been cast.

Why TDC?

His posts have come across to me as logical, well reasoned, (seemingly genuinely) helpful and coming from a town viewpoint. I can pull direct examples (don't let me forget), but I want to post my issues with the other two I think are leaning scum first.

[Green Crayons]

Still playing catch up.

Just a hi to Green Crayons

Hi.

Roleblocking does little to clear you since you can easily be mafia RB, and kills can be manipulated as well. Info is testable regardless of this. Anyway, I don't see how this theory disagreement makes me scummy.

Information is testible (just like RBing, NKs), but can also be manipulated (just like RBing, NKs). You originally (and still, it seems) didn't make that connection and held the opinion that somehow information is a more refined/reliable town-validation process. Also, I said it stuck me as funny. As in odd. Because there's a seeming gap in the logical structure of this reasoning. Didn't really claim that it's what made you super-scum in my book, just that the argument seemed off.

You have a point, but why isn't lynching him the right move? If she claims a guilty investigation result on scum she's either bussing or town.

What? I didn't state or otherwise imply that lynching the guilty "result" wouldn't be the right move (if I did, please show me where as that was not my intention). You seemed to have missed the point: your whole "safety net" idea is a poor safety net (as I described per example) if Electra was scum.

I get that it's hard to understand my logic here, but I dislike SC raising this matter from the dead as if it's the main thing I did all game. It's just an early game gut vote that got blown way out of proportion.

I was asked by another player to post reasons why I found you leaning scum after a read through of the thread. I think it's quite odd how here you are criticizing me for having taken the time to read through the thread, formed my own opinion about past events which occurred when I was not present and then explained and backed up those opinions when questioned by another player.

Explaining how much of a good town player he is (and especially the link to his case from antoher game) has little to do with his actual alignment here, and just seems meant to paint him in a good color.

If you accept my view that scum actively try to appear town while town aren't as concerned with that since they know they

are

town, I don't see what there is not to understand here. It's a classic example.

I don't accept such a rigid view of the respective mentalities. As such, I think your points against Incog amount to a null tell, as any good townie would want to show that they are town so that suspicion can be focused in a more appropriate place elsewhere. Incog's posts could come from either scum or town.


...And it's GC, not SC.

[Green Crayons]

No need to worry - I didn't fall off the face of the Earth.

This is a highly complex game due to the multi-persona interactions (and the replacements don't help). Due to this, when I go back to reread someone's posts to get a feel for them I ultimately need to first get a feel of other players of whom they are criticizing'being criticized by in order to determine if the original player is off-base or legitimate or whathaveyou. This is normally par for the course, but usually it's a one vs. one dichotomy (such as SL/Incog in this game); here, however, the standard is a wider variety of small "battles" instead of all out "wars" (once again, such as SL/Incog) which requires a larger set of established reads in order to fully appriase a player.

Just giving an explanation as to my prolonged silence (coupled with a busy work schedule right before the holidays). I'm not completely done, but I'm really comfortable with iLord's criticism of jahudo and sthar's/eldarad's criticism of Huntress - moreso than my criticism of Rabbit - mainly because I don't think either jahudo or Huntress respond to their criticism as diligently, thoroughly or convincingly as Rabbit has done (though not to say I still don't find Rabbit suspicious, just that I think jahudo and Huntress' response to being put under scruitiny has led me to believe that they're more likely to be scum).

Another read into the respective jahudo and Huntress threads of conversation is required, but then I'll put my vote somewhere.

[Green Crayons]

I'm writing this after I finished the below, only to say that I went through the thread looking specifically at Crazy/Huntress interactions, claims, discussions, etc. I wrote things as they came to me and found that, upon occasion, someone else would voice my thoughts a few posts after I scribbled them down. As this is the case, I attempted to trim the repeated criticisms down so duplicate lines of accusations don't exist. However, I did leave in notes that were similar to other players' criticisms but which I believed either came from a different direction or voiced a little more clearly.
----

Green Crayons: Are you leaning scum on Huntress based off of her own actions, the actions of her predecessor, or both combined?

I liked Crazy well enough. He had level-headed ideas and a some good notions as to good play/bad play and who was falling into what categories. My read on his play alone is "apathetic townie," where the biggest criticism I have against his play is that he was pretty passive in his activity. By this I don't so much mean a lack of posts (which there was), but instead he didn't really latch on to any firm beliefs. He had a "shotgun approach" hinting at what he thought about everyone - a light smattering of ideas that had a wide spread but didn't really tell us anything significant. There wasn't ever a use of a "rifle approach," where he focused intently on a few individuals who he thought was scummiest. Even if he ultimately ended up revoking his suspicions, this approach would have been much more beneficial for himself in determining who he thought was scum as well as the town to see the fruits of his labor. Granted, he started to hint at leaning towards this approach re: RR and Incog to some extent, but he didn't really follow through.

That said, in hindsight I could see Crazy's act as a (not too uncommon) scum tactic by contributing what amounts to helpful fluff. Or maybe not, as this is WIFOM, but what it does mean is that Crazy's actions were not solidly town and thus does not excuse the actions of his successor.

You've described the benefits of outing the roles here but you haven't answered my question or apparently considered the dangers of outing them. Are you assuming the boost will make them permanently NK-immune?

Her first back-and-forth with Electra didn't sit with me all that well, and I think I can sum it up from the above quotation. Here, we see Huntress following up with her criticism of Electra's proposal that boostie's tell them of their boost powers post-boost in order to determine if they're good for a second boost round. The idea can be legitimately criticized as Huntress does, but my problem comes when Electra explains her reasoning further. Huntress then (per the quote) makes the point that Electra is ignoring some of Huntress' points while

Huntress is ignoring Electra's points entirely

. She was being entirely hypocritical in her accusation. It looks like, to me, that Huntress latched onto the notion that outing powers is bad without taking context into consideration and became infatuated with the notion that she could chase a "legitimate" lead and attack the one player most people were leaning towards being town for her Day One/Page One self-outing. It amounted to Huntress wanting Electra to discuss the idea while not attacking, but Huntress was allowed to attack the idea/person while not discussing.

How do you know that the mafia would not know there could be such roles? They might have similar roles themselves. And how does the fact that you did this so quickly prove anything?

Here Huntress is attacking Electra for not knowing what the mafia might not know. A "you're scummy because you don't know what the mafia knows!" attack, if you will. Followed by another passive-aggressive accusation which ignores the already established discussion surrounding the context of Electra's self-outing. It stinks.

I think you missed this bit. You made a statement that the mafia "would not know" something. How do you know that? It could be infered from what you say that you know what roles the mafia do have.

Here's Huntress repositioning her argument against Electra's ignorance re: what the scum knows. I pulled this mainly to show it directly alongside this next quote (which, funnily enough, comes from the same Huntress' post):

So you called Crazy suspicious based on what

you

decided he meant, not on what he actually said.

Once again, hypocritical. She's doing the exactly same, judging her suspicions on what she thinks Electra means, not precisely what Electra is saying.

I started with Electra because she was the first to catch my attention. I was doing my read on her and getting my thoughts together before she was boosted. What would have been the point of not posting it? I still had questions I wanted answered. Please don't forget that I'm still catching up and didn't have the opportunity to raise these points at the time they originally came up. Remember, there's also the possibility I might not be alive tomorrow. Would you rather my thoughts on her remained hidden?

Here's Huntress responding to sthar's criticism of her heavy-handed focus on Electra. While there are some legitimate points made, the whole post makes it look like Huntress started with her suspicions of Electra and then moved on to the rest of the town where there was a viable lynch candidate (a non-boosted town member). That just simply isn't the case - outside of a few deviations, Huntress has harped incessently upon Electra's "suspicious" qualities from the moment until Huntress joined the game up to this post, just short of ignoring the pool of players who can be lynched for Day One. I'll also note that this was with a deadline looming.

And his current scramble to divert attention from Elderad back to me combined with his desire to supress discussion of my other top suspect obviously doesn't help.

I didn't really see where sthar was "[scrambling] to divert attention from Elderad." I would like that to be pointed out to me.

Contrary to what you are saying, I haven't been spending my time on Electra; I've barely looked at her since writing post 458.

This finished off a post that included the past three quotations I pulled and it's just short of hilarious. Why? Because up until this post, just about any quote that Huntress has pulled and responded to was either directly from Electra or from someone else talking about Electra. The icing on the cake is the fact that in this same large post Huntress spent a sizable portion of her time talking about Electra. Upon furhter reading of the thread I see this also caught sthar's attention, and Electra ended her retort with, "So what is your point here?" Was she willfully ignoring the point or truthfully failed to see that all she did was actual further show that all she had focused upon as Electra?

What is it exactly about my responses that make you think that?

For starters, you don't convince me that you actually believe what you're trying to sell. Be it Electra's scumminess, Eldarad's scumminess, sthar's scumminess, the scumminess of disagreeing with your notion that Electra's initial outing was actually more of a town tell than scum tell but 1. not acknowledging that a majority of the town think this way (she did get boosted, after all) and there already has been a discussion concerning it or 2. explaining why this action (and thinking this action is more town than scum) isn't a town tell, or the scumminess of just about any position that's opposite of your own. Secondly, you don't convince me on any of these arguments and this is mainly because, third, you repeatedly say that you were a replacement, that you weren't able to voice opinions in the moment, but you never really seem to attempt to join this pre-existing conversation. You attack, adding jabs here and there about who is obvscum, but at no point do you lean back and seem to consider the existing dialogue about these things. It's like you charge headfirst into the thread with blinders on, rehashing old points as if they're brand new and calling people scum because they were already able to determine their own notions as to the scumminess of whatever situation you're campaigning against. I think moreso than the specific objections I have highlighted in this post and others have done elsewhere, this is what is really making me lean towards voting you today. It just seems to me that you, in being a person that apparently possesses a sizable sum of intelligence, shouldn't be actively and consciously turning windmills into giants in manner that has been at times opportunistic, negligently anti-town and outright scummy - and that's exactly what you have been doing since you replaced into this game.

vote: Huntress

. I'll need to do a reread of Jahudo tonight/tomorrow if I can find time to do so, but I don't recall him being more scummy to me than Huntress. I do, however, feel comfortable enough with either being lynched today, so if I find that Jahudo is more lynch-worthy than Huntress I'll switch over.

[Green Crayons]

I've been checking in and out so don't think I up and vanished.

I'm waiting for Huntress to respond to my post. Hope it's a killer of an explanation.

Guardian, re: post 672, how were those quotes taken out of context? I find it hard to see how you coming back to "read the game more" equates to a total of 7 or 8 minutes spent skimming three different people. That's less than 3 minutes spent per person skimming. Hardly an in-depth read, and if this is what qualifies as reading more than what you have been doing, I have serious doubts as to the weight any of us should give any of your "changed"/refined reads.

I think iLord's most recent post (674) is exceptionally odd not because it's a push for a Jahudo lynch but rather a push for a not-Huntress lynch. He asks only two people to vote for Jahudo and of those (random?) two they're both on the Huntress wagon.

I'm not to fond of Jahudo asking the town's permission re: 675.

[Green Crayons]

Also, to someone: I spent 7,8 minutes each, approximately. I didn't spend 2-3 minutes on each, that would be more shameful. The reading took me 45 minutes or so but I multitasked, I spent like 30 minutes actually reading, maybe a little less. Just as an fyi.

I guess I'm "someone." I was just going off of what you originally said: "I spent 7-8 minutes skimming Huntress, Jahudo, eldarad." Just made it look like you were applying the whole 7-8 minutes to the board and of that time there was a split into three.

Make no mistake - that's a push for a Jahudo lynch.

Then why did you chose only two people to single out to have them vote Jahundo - and why those two specifically?

[Green Crayons]

I think she should first say what kind of info it is and then we can proceed from there.

I'm pretty sure she already reveled what kind of information she acquires.

I believe the best move is to stay quiet for a bit until electra comes back with her info

I agree that Electra should divulge. This information is pretty useless for everyone until mid/end game so it doesn't hurt to have it out now.

Sthar should claim the effects the boost had on him, as well.

I disagree. I think Sthar should claim only if explaining the effects of the boost would be beneficial for the town as of right now.

If the scum had a booster it would be a reasonable assumption for them to make that the town had one too, so the more info they could get about who people were willing to boost, the better. You asked me that question because I hadn't said who else I was willing to boost. In hindsight I can see a possible motive for it. Even if the scum don't have a booster of their own they might have guessed at the existence of one.

I don't really understand how this follows. If the scum were assuming that the town had a booster because they had one, why would they boost a player based off of your non-existent second boost before they knew you had a boosting ability? And I'm not entirely sure what assumptions you're making re: your boosting ability affecting their decision to boost someone.

[Green Crayons]

Electra posted while I was doing mine. Reading her post threw me off so I went ahead and reread Electra's claim post. I thought she claimed she received information about how many people of the town performed night actions, but apparently it wasn't in that original post of hers. Did my memory just elaborate her initial claim or did this specificity ever occur?

I'd still like to force a claim, in order for us to be able to better reeavaluate sthar. The extra nightkill gives me shivers.

If we're afraid he might be a scumbag with an extra kill, we don't have to reboost him. That said, I don't know if outing potential valuable information that he might not want to divulge yet just because there was a second kill (of which there are more than a single explanation, of course) is necessarily the most prudent of steps to take.

[Green Crayons]

I'd like to hear more from iceman and GC, and get suspicions from everybody.

During the holidays I am skimming the posts but not really reading too deeply. As that is the case, my ideas are hardly finalized and more in a rough draft format. As things currently stand, these are the ideas floating at the surface:

I'm comfortable with sthar still. He can use his boost ability to show he wasnt the extra kill (but as eld says it doesn't confirm his alignment.. a double vote scum would be powerful in the later days, but only because we put that power in his hands - I don't know if Patrick would think this would be excessive, because if we're giving scum a power that is only (truly) useful in the late game it's only speeding up our demise, not really turning the game on its head), though if we truly want to go down that road, that leaves open the possibility that Electra was the extra killer (that being, those two pieces of town info could be something she knows from her (antitown?)role description, Patrick's post 2 or just outright lies). I don't know if I can subscribe to this theory of a boosted second kill as of yet (I still find RR's reasoning behind the notion a bit weak), but since RR was so insistent on the extra kill being boost related, I would like for him to be reminded of this aspect of his suspicion.

Still working from the sthar line of thought, I don't think his mass claim idea would have worked.

And jumping from there, I would like to say that I came to the opposite conclusion of Eld's 712 re: Huntress and role suspicion. I will flush this (and other points) out more post-holidays (the weekend is looking pretty good), but I want people to know my thoughts based on my skimming.


Oh, and Incog: how is it that RR is obvtown?

[Green Crayons]

I was implying that they might want the information to help decide on a night kill, not a boost.

So you're suggesting that regardless of if the scum have a night-booster role ability they would not only assume that the town would have such a role but that you had that role and that you would boost whoever your second choice would be so they might as well kill that player so Eld went about trying to fish for your potential boost night target? ... Really?

I think they begin with the ability they would normally have but might possibly gain a perk if boosted (I guess this could be compared to Electra's claimed information).

Didn't Electra claim mimic this lack of an ability until boosted?

And everyone gets "an ability above and beyond the standard town mechanics for a game" when boosted, so no, that's not a PR (well, according to electra's info it's not everyone, but I still assume most people do and you didn't have that info before anyways).

Special Notes

...

Don't try to determine alignments according to which names, if any, appear in lynch scenes; that's just flavour. Don't try to determine alignments based on wording of role PMs; it's useless in this game and I don't like it as a tactic. Below is a sample role PM. At least one of these exists in the game:

You are an inhabitant of the town.

You win when all anti-town roles are eliminated.

Electra isn't the only one who already told us this information. We had it before the game started.

and why you think proving your double vote will in any way confirm you?

I think that the best use of my role is to claim now and alleviate any suspicions that my new power might be a kill.

This was before Incog outed himself. He has already stated why he would want to display his ability - to show people (namely you) that he wasn't a boosted killer as you suggested from post one of Day Two. It seems odd that you would set up a potential scenario where sthar would be the guilty party and then when sthar suggests a way to show that your scenario isn't true you fault him for it.

Also, eldarad's above post is really scummy.

I felt the exact opposite after reading it. I agreed with all he had to say, except for the last bit concerning Electra's information. It's true that the suggested tactic is the only way to (currently) test Electra's information, but the number of variables that would need to align just right to ensure a viable outcome are too independent of our control to ensure success. Other than this poor suggestion, I don't see how you have come to the conclusion that the entire post was scummy.

[Green Crayons]

Electra claimed to be Vanilla who happened to have this "clause" somewhere within her role PM that informed her of what would happen when she was boosted. sthar8 has claimed to be a Power Role whose power only works upon being boosted.

Rereading the whole Rabbit/sthar exchange dealing with how to classify sthar's role, it's quite obvious that there were some lines crossed. He qualified himself as a power role that needed to be boosted to have the power, but also acquiesced to the notion that he was a vanilla whose power came about when he was boosted.

For example:

Also, sthar, you're saying you're basically vanilla that gets double vote if boosted, right?

I'm a double voter. I have a second, secret vote that I PM to elmo in order to use.

I don't know how to be more explicit.

It's looks to me that sthar is using both "vanilla with boost ability" and "boost abled role" as one and the same. Reading his exchange with rabbit left me with the notion that he's a role who has a power if boosted. That's it, regardless of how you slice it.

That said, I think this is running dangerously close to Patrick's warning which nobody seems to be heeding: "Don't try to determine alignments based on wording of role PMs; it's useless in this game and I don't like it as a tactic."


And, uh, can you at least explain your suspicions so that everyone can actually see the reasoning behind this vote so that we can see just how fabulous (I'm assuming, since sthar's apparently obvscum) the logic is?

[Green Crayons]

Boost: Incog

. Because of:

1) I strongly support the belief that a vig should try and shoot at every opportunity with the possible exception of Night 0 and of course, being careful around near-LyLo situations. I fully intended to claim today no matter what in the hopes of getting boosted and possibly gaining another bullet so that I could shoot again Night 2. I figured we could do some sort of a town-directed vig shooting for tonight so that we could potentially get two lynch opportunities out of today.

I remember walking away from my initial reread with feeling as if he was town, and coupled with the fact that there's no reason for me to disbelieve his claim or suspect any of his later play I don't see why he shouldn't be boosted. I strongly support town directed vig kills - maybe the player with the second highest vote tally at the end of the day or something of that sort.

I still think sthar is town.
My read of Eld is more town than not.
I remember Ice/predecessors as striking me as anti-town when he was last brought up (by Incog, I think), but I need to do a reread to ensure this feeling.
I still don't like Huntress but I'm starting to feel as if she's playing more antitown than scummish.

[Green Crayons]

I'm going up to North Carolina for the weekend. My internet access will be spotty at best until Monday.

I doubt this will affect the game much, since we seem to be still recovering from the holiday season, but just a fyi.

[Green Crayons]

iceman, just exactly how far did you get before you forgot this game and how much did you not catch up on before you posted?

[Green Crayons]

My re-read of Jahudo hasn't changed much apart from lessening my suspicion of Incognito.

I'm sorry, what did this reread entail?

[Green Crayons]

I didn't catch your initial impressions of Jahundo that didn't change apart from a lessening of suspicion of Incognito. Where might I be able to find them?

I think I originally phrased that poorly.

[Green Crayons]

Boost #2: Electra

.

I need to reread the thread to refresh my memory of the different accusations/discussions going on, but I'm confident with this second boost as I'm pretty sure more information is helpful. Either it will be truthful and help us generally, or it will be false and it will help us lynch the bad lying scum (Electra).

[Green Crayons]

vote: iceman

I understand that after mass holiday/vacation times there can be definite lag in terms of a game bouncing back to its previous vitality. However, iceman has shown that he is not only around and available to post (by doing so), but that he is able to make some sort of commentary on what's going on (so it appears that he's read at least some part of the thread).

What really gets me, though, is his 783. It's a post with a minimal amount of game discussion that just reeks of appeasement. A sort of bone he was throwing to the town just to get us to shut up and stop pestering him. As of now, this vote is simply some pressure to get him to actually contribute something more meaningful than a half-hearted attempt and an unexplained boost. His previous play has been less than stellar and questionable, but for the moment this vote is simply here to get him to do something other than feign involvement.



pre-post edit: Oh, I've been prodded. Neat. Well, here I am.

[Green Crayons]

vollkan: Would boosting you a second time reveal any more additional information, or are you already slotted to continue to receive information; also, if we boost you a second time do you know if any of this additional information might be more valuable to the town? Etc, etc... would boosting you a second time produce more/valuable information?


And going through a reread I'm not happy with an Eld vote.

[Green Crayons]

You have two boosts. You can boost both incog

and

RR. Well, now you have one because Incog has been officially boosted for today, but even still these choices are not mutually exclusive. You can still boost RR.


You never said why you wanted to boost RR. As it stands, you've yet to explain why you boosted incog. I could assume it's because you read the thread and liked what incog had to say, but in all honesty I feel that it just might be because he has the most boost votes at the moment.


I'm still comfortable with a vollk secondary boost. At best we'll get really useful information because he's town. Alternatively, at best we'll have another chance to catch him in a lie because he's scum (not too keen on this being a possibility, but the chance still exists). At worst we'll get semi-useless information, but the negative impact this would have would be mitigated by the fact that the boost was "wasted" early in the game, as opposed to a late-night choice where we might be forced to boost him because he's one of the remaining un-suspicious players yet to be boosted twice.

[Green Crayons]

I loled a little at 824. I like my vote.

[Green Crayons]

Care to explain why?

Preferably within the scope of a single post instead of six or so strung together?

[Green Crayons]

My next stint of Mafiascum time will be devoted to do select rereads in this game. Hopefully something useful will come up.

[Green Crayons]

I have admittedly fallen behind. I received a prod and will have something resembling thoughts before the end of Monday, which is plenty of time prior to next Sunday's deadline.

[Green Crayons]

Posting as I read from page 36.

vote: Xtoxm.

Sort of jumping the gun, here. 880 can easily be seen as role fishing if directed towards oneself (which is why I'm assuming Xtoxm voted in 881). Within the context of the larger conversation, I don't really think it is, since the general flow of the discussion is leading up to Xtoxm's role reveal.

Xtoxm is looking like a prime lynch right now, almost as much as Iceman.

Xtoxm looks like a clueless townie. Iceman looks like an active lurker. I think one is a much more enticing lynch candidate.

Just waiting on that pbpa...

From whom? And how will that pbpa help you stop actively lurking?

'Cause sthar was real scummy himself, and xtoxm fucked up his already shady looking claim.

Why was it shady again? I never really understood your suspicions of sthar. After Electra(or whoever her replacement is), I think he was my second candidate for the second boost while I had my head in the game.

How is he more scummy than Sthar?

although an individual read of him made him look more town, my initial read of the whole thread, plus his later posts, make him seem more likely to be scum.

How does an individual read differ from your initial read of the whole thread plus later posts to such an extent that he's pretty much number one scumbag? I don't think 914 really explains this adequately.

Vig a PR if you really want. I still fail to see how anyone can see Sthar as scum.

Yay, appeal to fear. Please refute the claims against you, don't fall on the assistance of trite fallacies.

Vig me instead.

Wow. I like my vote. Unless are we voting who for Incog to kill?

Volkan doesn't get anything though. We may aswell try and give a townie a power.

If he's town, he'll get more information for us. Also - are you suggesting he isn't a townie?

vote iceman
primarily because there is a lack of content, not just from iceman, but from all of the other players who have had that role. Possibly it suggests that

there is something in the role PM that incentivises them to keep quiet

Wow. Super happy with my vote.

Incog, what about Xtoxm completely mucking up sthar's claim? That's as good as scumtells come.

I didn't really see it as "mucking up" the claim. He agreed to what sthar had revealed. I didn't catch where Xtox or sthar claimed that to be the end-all of their role.

What do you think the leadership portion of your role PM means?

Since you seem to be of pretty reasonable intelligence, I would suggest it probably means what I instantly thought it meant - and, therefore, what you probably thought it meant when you put your mind to it. Charisma:double vote; Leadership:_____.

Your claim has more holes than swiss cheese.

Could you please actually spell out these holes with post numbers/quotes? Just because sthar/Xtox have revealed their power peacemeal doesn't make them scum - it makes them a hesitant townie.

Crap. I posted in the wrong game. Ignore the above.

Heh, I was like "Whoa, DGB is in this game? And wtf is KoC?" Ah, silly.

Boost: vollk

. I want more information. It's a win/win situation regardless of Volk's true alignment.
Still super-happy on my active lurker Iceman.

[Green Crayons]

Still super-happy

with my vote on the

active lurker Iceman.

Fixed. My mind operates faster than my fingers.

[Green Crayons]

There are two boosts per person. I don't see how Vollk would not apply to this rule.

Where did Electra say this? I must have missed it.

[Green Crayons]

Well that takes care of our boosting situation.

Can Iceman please speak up, now?

[Green Crayons]

Whoa, I missed the page above me. Pretend 983 was in response to the end of page 39.

[Green Crayons]

unvote

. I would rather lynch iceman tomorrow after he uses his ability. That way we at least have something to go off of, regardless of his alignment. If he doesn't use his ability tonight, I would be equally happy to lynch him tomorrow, as that would be typical scum biding his time.

Still not liking the Xtoxm hate.

I'd like to know why THREE completely separate-minded individuals (fuzzylightning, RandomGem, and now icemanE) have all SUPPOSEDLY had this role and not ONE of them questioned the validity of Electra's early INFORMATION ROLE claim.

Information about the game = information about a single other player? That's neat. (I disagree.)

I'm going to go back with

vote: Huntress

. Something that has been nagging me for quite some time was when it was either her or Jahundo, she didn't want to vote Jahundo because "I don't just want to vote for the other bandwagon." Or something along those lines. And she was applauded by a few other players at the time for taking such a stance. However, hindsight, as they say, is 20/20. Seeing that Jahundo was godfather, I could easily see that sentiment voiced by fellow scum who didn't want their GF to be lynched D1. Furthermore, a townie has two priorities: 1. lynching scum and 2. not lynching innocents. If it's a head-to-head between one player and other, if that player knows for a fact that they are innocent then they should do everything in their power to ensure their survival - including having the other player lynched instead of themself. While they might be "pretty certain" that the other player is town, they are 100% certain of their own innocence and should always attempt to ensure their own survival. Huntress' play and attitude in the head-to-head vs. the GF totally contradicts this philosophy - something a scumbag would be prone to do if placed in such a position.

And that to the general scum vibes I picked up throughout the thread from her play, and I'm happy with this vote.

[Green Crayons]

And we have something a little stronger than meta-tells here, which is how he completely contradicted his predeccesor's claim.

I don't really remember it that way, I guess I would need to go reread the thread. I remember it more as just not exposing the totality of his role.

I'd really like to hear why iceman and GC think he's "obviously town".

Did I say that? (Honest question.) I remember Incog spouting off such strong rhetoric, and me saying something along the lines that Xtox didn't necessarily seem to be scum lying about their role. Though, I'll admit I was a super-strong supporter of sthar - he was more townish to me than his replacement.

GC, Ice fakeclaimed cop when pressed against the wall. A few posts before that he hinted at a post restriction, when that seemed likely to maybe stop some of the suspicion on him. There's no reason whatsoever for such a role to have not used his action yet, and the "I forgot" excuse is laughable cosidering the time of his replacing in. Don't let an obvious PR fakeclaim scare you out of lynching scum.

Here's my issue with iceman. He's played really shitty, that much is abundantly clear. But, to me, it reflects more of a townie whose bored to tears with playing than a scum who is just bad at mafia (the attempted hammer while maintaining his innocence is what changed my opinion to this - usually self-hammering scumbags say something along the lines of "oh well, shit happens."). I also am not too keen on lynching a cop claim with an unused ability, regardless if it's one shot. While I will hammer if we come down to the deadline simply to produce some sort of result for us to work off of come tomorrow, I would be more open to revisiting the iceman lynch tomorrow when we at least have

something

from him. That way we will be in the situation where we gained something: either a 1. lynched scum or 2. a confirmed innocent result.

[Green Crayons]

There is so much I don't like about Huntress' play, and her claim, but I can't see how Huntress can be scum with Jahudo at the moment. I think lynching Huntress Today is premature.

Do you think a scum, if in Huntress' D1 position, would have acted differently?

Xtox: So, is your double vote something you need to activate? Does it last beyond today if you don't use it? Also, do you think your suspicion on RR may just be a defensive knee-jerk reaction?

[Green Crayons]

Then maybe instead of trying to get someone you think is a bad town player lynched, don't you think you should try to move on to those targets who actually may be scumbags?

[Green Crayons]

vote: ice

. Because a no lynch is bad.

[Green Crayons]

unvote, vote: ice

, if that's necessary.

[Green Crayons]

I used that fake softclaim about a post restriction as an excuse for not posting. That doesn't make me scum.

How am I supposed to not vote you after you yourself admitted to lying to the town about your lurking?

[Green Crayons]

A few things.

I'm a male. Stop calling me a female and using female pronouns when referring to me.

boost: incog

. Going through what scenarios there are in my head in terms of potential roles that remain, I think it would be most prudent to have our vig with the ability to kill tonight - even if his track record has been less than favorable.

Anyway, suspicions of GC reincurred. She supports the giving Ice a night to investigates, but when people start pushing Ice lynch depsite this, she changes.

While I will hammer if we come down to the deadline simply to produce some sort of result for us to work off of come tomorrow, I would be more open to revisiting the iceman lynch tomorrow when we at least have something from him.

Your recollection of events is wrong. I supported giving Ice a night to investigate while people were pushing for the Ice lynch. My vote change didn't occur until we came down to "lynch someone or no lynch." Your suggestion that I changed my vote to hop on the bandwagon simply because more people were warming up to the idea of an Ice lynch is misrepresenting what happened. I voted Ice because I thought

a

lynch was infinitely better than

no

lynch - and out of the two leading lynch candidates (ice and Eld), I thought iceman was the less believable of the two.

And if people accept that you're town, then you can't be my theoretical scumbuddy.

I didn't realize anyone still thought Incog was anything but near-confirmed town. Not sure what point you're trying to make here.

For the record, Xtoxm is still town.

For the record, I still think sthar's pro-town vibe is still helping make up for bad Xtox play (such as post 1180)... which makes Xtox's play just bad, not really scum.

[Green Crayons]

Call my play bad if you want

Nice one fucktards. Go ahead, lynch me, I don't care. I guess I must be scum, because there's no way I could have known they were town otherwise.

...Yeah. Insulting the town, then enticing them to lynch you is a picture-perfect example of bad town play. Don't get your panties in a wad just because you responded to the situation poorly.

but you're the one who just lynched Ice

Are you suggesting I single-handedly produced the Ice-lynch, or that I was somehow a driving force behind it? Because I find neither conception an accurate description of my behavior in regards to Ice - his poor play (lying the the town, wanting to be lynched, not using his ability) made him a better candidate to lynch than Eld in a situation where it was lynch someone or there be a no lynch.

throwing away a confirmed town win

I don't see how Ice was apparently the be-all end-all ace in the hole for the town. It looks like you're over-reacting to his death (no surprise there, however, given your previous overly emotional responses). I think that regardless of who we lynch today, Incog's chance of killing scum (if boosted) is much more comforting than his previous record.

[Green Crayons]

Might as well,

Boost: Eld

, to counter the Xtox boost. I'm thinking scum = RR + TDC (I seem to recall RR having some pretty strong support towards TDC whenever the two acknowledge one another, but I need to go back and reread) but Xtox is still in the running to switch out for one of them (another thing I need to go back and reread).

[Green Crayons]

If Incog was anything but vig he would be a sk. Any scum group with a godfather and an extra kill is game-breaking. However, I think the probability of Incog being a sk is next to nil - I never really had any suspicion of him and his vig claim really helped cement the town notion towards him that I was forming.

Why is RR "supporting" me more significant than me "supporting" eld?

For starters because I don't see Eld as a scumbag and I see RR with a strong potential for being one. Secondly, because the interaction between RR and yourself has been almost non-existent (from what I can remember, off hand), but when it occurs, it always seems like RR is giving you some sort of support or praise.

The scum want town to think I have killed Incog, cos he's the only one calling me town.

Reading this made me think of mathcam's strategy (as scum) in Minvitational 9:

In any case, the way I implemented this was, at least at the start, to kill the scummmiest player still alive. Later this morphed into maintaining what I would later postulate were scum's motives -- leaving alive only one natural target to be lynched. By the time this "natural target" came around to be me, I hoped to be able to argue that this was scum's likely plan, and to urge people not to fall into their trap.

Not saying this is the case, but by putting yourself in an bad position, then highlighting the poor position you have placed yourself as a mafia tactic to frame you is exactly the strategy ScumCam attempted to utilize in the minvitational. Reading your above quote instantly made me think of Mathcam.

I actually find it kinda funny that Green Crayons claims that sthar8's play is what's sold him on Xtoxm's towniness but with me, it's actually Xtoxm's play that's sold me on his towniness.

That's because I don't have a history with Xtox. I found Sthar's play to be quite town - Xtox's, not so much. However, one thing I'm 99% convinced of is the fact that you're town. Your constant contention that Xtox's bad play is just Xtox being town (which is, I think, as how your defense of Xtox has summed up) is what is keeping me from rethinking my evaluation of sthar.

[Green Crayons]

I don't entirely believe that your vote was placed as a last minute "preventing a 'No Lynch'" vote.

vote: ice. Because a no lynch is bad.

I think what I said at the time speaks for itself. I'll also note that I had my lynch on iceman before anyone else yesterday, and took it off after things had started to heat up. My vote was then placed on him once again after the deadline was nigh. The claim that I only voted him because I was jumping on the bandwagon is just ignorant - I was voting him

before the bandwagon began

, unvoted to switch to Huntress and only reapplied my vote because I preferred a ice-lynch over an Eld-lynch.

To me, this looks very much like you were warming up to the idea of icemanE being scum. Do you agree or disagree with this assessment?

out of the two leading lynch candidates (ice and Eld), I thought iceman was the less believable of the two.

The one of the reasons I thought iceman was the better lynch than Eld was because:

How am I supposed to not vote you after you yourself admitted to lying to the town about your lurking?

I was warming up to the idea that iceman was more likely scum than Eld. Thus, I voted accordingly as a deadline was breathing down our necks.

I'm thinking on a TDC-GC pair now...

Any special reason why?

I think he makes some ok points, but that post is a lot more wordy than it needs to be.

Welcome to the story of my life.

I'm not big on reading meta, not because it isn't useful, but because it requires me reading through a bunch of games when I have neither the time nor inclination to utilize what free time I do have to engage in such a mind numbing process. So, for you metaheads out there: Xtox's town meta basically boils down to being crappy and his scum meta boils down to him being not as crappy?

And I think I might be putting a vote on TDC. I need to reread his posts to reassure the scum vibes I'm getting, but since I think the scum partner is either Xtox or RR, I would rather go for the constant other player in the scum pair (assuming there are two left, that is): TDC.

[Green Crayons]

I'm a psychic. If I'm boosted, I can determine if someone made a night choice by targetting them. If I'm double boosted, I can determine who that person's target was, if anyone.

[Green Crayons]

I think GC is confirmed scum, seeing as no one else knows their role name.

I never claimed a role name, so I'm not sure where you're getting this from. I said that I'm a psychic. As in, the flavor to my role indicates - and I type this without quoting - that I read people's minds and the like. That sounds pretty psychic to me. I was then given a more firm understanding of what my abilities would be if boosted. Without quoting, something along the lines of "You will learn about someone's night choices." (The quotation marks is the paraphrased portion of the role PM.) Then in my replacement PM I was given, in quotation form, a PM to the mod from skillit about a double boost, and the mod said something along the lines of "You will get more specific information about choices from a target."

There's a mild sense of ambiguity, but it's pretty clear cut in determining how it might play out in a game dynamic. That is, exactly as how I described it.

Green Crayons, can you explain what it was or has been about eldarad's play that had you list him as neutral to begin with and most recently be practically sold on his towniness?

People who I don't get reads on one way or another get a neutral tag stuck to their names. I didn't get too strong of a vibe one way or another regarding Eld in my extensive read through upon replacement. Since that point in time, I think the suspicions of Eld have been confronted, addressed and suffiicently dismissed by Eld to convince me of his town play.

[Green Crayons]

The original role PM said that my power would grow with subsequential boosts. Skillit asked what would happen if he was boosted a second time. I coined this as a "double boost;" that is, boosted a second time.

[Green Crayons]

Green Crayons, the way you've described your role makes it sound like some sort of tracker when boosted the first time and watcher when boosted a second time. I don't understand why you didn't just say that from the beginning instead of, as you say, claiming the flavor behind your role.

I guess it's funny (in the ironic sense, I suppose, rather than the haha sort of way), because I didn't really see another way the semi-ambiguous description of my role could have been interpreted. This just proves me wrong and reminds me that, yet again, making assumptions is a poor play philosophy. In this case, I assumed my role was my first thought as to what it entailed. Sometimes it's just hard to see the assumptions your making until someone else points them out.

Yeah...that isn't really what you meant though, is it?

What? If someone is boosted twice, I would consider them to be "double boosted." I don't know how you're assuming I meant boosted twice within the same day since the mod himself stated in the second post to this game that, quote, "You may not vote twice to boost the same person."

I'm sorry if you didn't read post 2. But, you shouldn't assume I didn't read it either when I come up with jargon to describe game mechanics, and then base a vote off of that limited perception you're espousing.


Oh, joy. A whole post concerned with detailing the evils of assumption within a mafia game. Learning by the mistakes we make and whatnot.

[Green Crayons]

Green Crayons, the way you've described your role makes it sound like some sort of tracker when boosted the first time and watcher when boosted a second time. I don't understand why you didn't just say that from the beginning instead of, as you say, claiming the flavor behind your role.

I guess it's funny (in the ironic sense, I suppose, rather than the haha sort of way), because I didn't really see another way the semi-ambiguous description of my role could have been interpreted. This just proves me wrong and reminds me that, yet again, making assumptions is a poor play philosophy. In this case, I assumed my role was my first thought as to what it entailed. Sometimes it's just hard to see the assumptions your making until someone else points them out.

To put a finer point on this:

From what I understand, your tracker/watcher deduction differs from what I originally thought my boostable power to be. The reason why I described the role in the manner in which I did was twofold: First, because I didn't see it as a tracker/watcher - or, at least, not in terms of the definition for those abilities as I understand them. Indeed, I don't really know if there's a name for the specific ability I was conjuring up in my mind, as it strikes me just as a variation of "investigative role." Second, because I wasn't told "You are X. Your boost abilities are Y." Instead, I was given a short little flavor blurb about psychic abilities that, if anyone read, they could reasonably assume led to some sort of "information gathering" role if boosted. Since I already thought point one, I figured the psyhic part was simply part and parcel of a full disclosure for this Mass Claim of ours since it's part of my role description.

[Green Crayons]

So if I vote RR on Day 2 and on Day 3, is he "double-voted"?
If someone was boosted on 2 Days, I would consider them to be "boosted twice"

So you're arguing semantics of how you would label something? That's what you want to lynch me for? Because

you

wouldn't call it double boosted when someone is boosted twice, that means nobody else would?

As for your question: no, I wouldn't say someone was double voted because that doesn't make sense. A vote is not a permanent status of a player. If someone was lynched two days in a row, I would label them as double lynched. They have, on two occasions, been given a permanent status. They are "double <permanent status>."

As a side note, I like how "boosted twice" and "double boosted" is apparently two totally separate things in your book when, by looking at the actual words, they mean

the exact same thing

. "Boosted" + "twice" = boosted upon two occasions. "Double" + "Boosted" = boosted upon two occasions. They mean the same thing - you're just trying to make your notion that I meant within the same day as opposed to within the totality of the game a fact. Which it isn't. Your assumption is wrong.

Sounds like you are claiming to be "a psychic" and the rest of your claim is describing what that role is.

I already explained that my role flavor strongly hints to me having psychic powers. Someone who has psychic powers usually is labeled a psychic.

It contrasts sharply with Huntress' claim - where she doesn't even name her role, and Incog's claim - where the mechanics of his role is instantly recognisable as a vig. Your claim is of a power that is - initially - unorthodox, but you have felt the need to give it a name.

I didn't give my role a name. And, in order to not quote the mod and simply to paraphrase, I summed up my flavor text - which consisted of hints as to role mechanics and the like - in a word most apt in description. You're seriously faulting me for using a word to summarize my role flavor/description instead of stating it outright? Brilliant.

Skillit replaced out before Electra revealed that we could only be boosted twice. So why would Skillit specifically ask about if he was boosted a second time?

I don't know. I can't read minds. If I were to guess, he probably was all like, "Cool. I like this role by being boosted once. Oh wait. It says my power would grow if I'm boosted more than once. Let me ask the mod what would happen if I was to be boosted a second time." Maybe Skillit didn't think he would be boosted a third time. Maybe he didn't ask about a third time because he was going to see what a second boost would net him first, and then if he got to that point would inquire further. I don't know - I'm not skillit, so I'm not exactly comfortable trying to speak on his behalf for his thought process; but I'm doing it because apparently you're faulting me for the way his mind works.

If your role PM suggests a boost this gives you information on what your targeted player does, and that subsequent boosts would make your action "more powerful" I see no reason why there is any need for the mod to elaborate on that the role PM had not contained that level of detail.

You're infuriating. At the risk of being modkilled, the PM utilizes the word "again" instead of "subsequent boosts." I'm sorry, you'll have to fault me for paraphrasing the mod's PM to skirt around the issue of being modkilled. But, it says it right there in the original role PM: again. As in, If you are boosted again, then X. You should note that "again" is ambiguous (and probably on purpose - otherwise, Electra's information could be deduced by other players): does it mean only once more, multiple times, or what? Skillit didn't know, because he wasn't privy to Electra's information. But he made the assumption that it meant

at least one more time

, which would be a second boost, which is why he asked the mod in such a way.

It just sounds to me that you're subtly altering your claim as you go along

It sounds like you're faulting me for not quoting the mod and for not being able to fully disclose the mental thought process of a predecessor.

I feel we are skating on thin ice regarding rule 11 - since I am well aware of post 1 too - but the point I am making is that, even before #1287, your claim is not consistent with the other claims we have had up till now.

I described my role in terms of summing up the flavor text and putting forth my assumption of what it meant in terms of powers, if boosted. Huntress mentioned her flavor and described her power. Incog mentioned his flavor and described his assumption as to what his boost power would be. I don't see the inconsistency.

On top of that, the "jargon" that you used does not fit with what you are saying you meant - I think because originally you meant something else, or wanted to give yourself latitude to adapt the claim as needed.

This makes no sense. If you look at every time I have used the term "double boosted," it makes perfect sense in the manner in which I meant for it to be interpreted: to be boosted on more than one occasion. There is not a single example where any of my uses of "double boosted" meant "boosted twice within a single day."

[Green Crayons]

I'm not big on reading meta, not because it isn't useful, but because it requires me reading through a bunch of games when I have neither the time nor inclination to utilize what free time I do have to engage in such a mind numbing process. So, for you metaheads out there:

Xtox's town meta basically boils down to being crappy and his scum meta boils down to him being not as crappy?

I'm going to assume that this is the case, Incog?

[Green Crayons]

Try to get over your own crap joke, dickhead.

I'm not joking. I find your play to be incredibly self destructive and exceptionally unhelpful to any town. You're not supposed to make it incredibly difficult for fellow townies to not want to lynch you because you reek of anti-town behavior. Maybe you should grow some thick skin (this is the internet, after all), realize I'm not being a douche-bag just for the sake of it and actually improve your play style. Over-emotional explosive posts, insulting the town en masse, insulting other players singularly, begging the town to lynch you with the inference that it's because they're obviously inferior to your intellect and so you just can't stand to play in the game any more... Yeah. Wonderful town play right there.

GC, did you ever finish your TDC analysis?

No. Since I'm going to get lynched because Xtox hasn't even actually voiced a reason, Eld is interpreting for me how I intended to use a phrase without actually citing any example where I used it supposedly how he thought I intended it to be interpreted, and you're just going to lynch me because I already have a wagon on me - well, let's just say I seem to have lost my will to put much effort into the game.

I still stand by Eld being town - his craptastic reasoning notwithstanding. I just hope you won't vig him and you rethink your stances on the RR/TDC relationships with Jahundo.

[Green Crayons]

You're only at L-1 in a situation where a second person hasn't even been boosted yet

It's not hard to see a hammer and a second boosted person happening pretty quickly. RR is MIA and TDC can easily quick vote and boost with the excuse that he'll be leaving on vacation pretty soon and doesn't want the day to linger on in his absence.

and where we're probably at LyLo

Not with your ability.

and your reasoning for not pushing a TDC-case is because your lynch is inevitable?

It's because I'm too lazy to do work when it'll be

your

responsibility to kill the right person tonight. TDC has been an active lurker until today, his apathetic attitude towards being boosted makes it look like he was trying to not draw attention towards himself (if he's pure vanilla it would be optimal play/beneficial for the town for him to dissuade his boost) which is scummish and he's never undergone any serious scrutiny which makes whatever town vibes people get from him over embellished. I could look up examples, but that's time consuming. It's your job to fix this mis-lynch, so you can review TDC's posts with these criticisms in mind. I've resigned myself to the whims of no reasoning, bad reasoning and really bad reasoning. When you see the error of your mistake, I'm just hoping you'll vig TDC or RR since apparently Xtox is hands-off.

Why do you think eldarad is town?

Green Crayons, can you explain what it was or has been about eldarad's play that had you list him as neutral to begin with and most recently be practically sold on his towniness?

People who I don't get reads on one way or another get a neutral tag stuck to their names. I didn't get too strong of a vibe one way or another regarding Eld in my extensive read through upon replacement. Since that point in time, I think the suspicions of Eld have been confronted, addressed and suffiicently dismissed by Eld to convince me of his town play.

[Green Crayons]

Right. But you're arguing that your lynch will undoubtedly be a mislynch

Obviously.

and you're also arguing that my second suspect is also a step in the wrong direction but you're doing nothing to convince me or anyone else as to why this is the case.

Why do you think eldarad is town?

Green Crayons, can you explain what it was or has been about eldarad's play that had you list him as neutral to begin with and most recently be practically sold on his towniness?

People who I don't get reads on one way or another get a neutral tag stuck to their names. I didn't get too strong of a vibe one way or another regarding Eld in my extensive read through upon replacement. Since that point in time, I think the suspicions of Eld have been confronted, addressed and suffiicently dismissed by Eld to convince me of his town play.

Not entirely sure what else I'm supposed to do. I haven't seen concrete evidence against why Eld is such a grand choice to make that he hasn't been able to easily dispel.

You've pretty much packed it in and keep claiming that TDC is one of the remaining scum but haven't taken steps to demonstrate why this is the case.

I disagree:

I'm thinking scum = RR + TDC (I seem to recall RR having some pretty strong support towards TDC whenever the two acknowledge one another, but I need to go back and reread) but Xtox is still in the running to switch out for one of them (another thing I need to go back and reread).

We have six players. Incog, Xtox, GC, TDC, RR and Eld. Incog is automatically out of the running as a scumbag. If we remove myself - because, naturally, I see myself as town for very obvious reasons - as well as Eld, because I think Eld has done a great job at proving himself as town, I have Xtox, TDC, Eld and RR to choose from as the scum pair. As noted in my above quote, I think RR and TDC have shown links to one another.

And I think I might be putting a vote on TDC. I need to reread his posts to reassure the scum vibes I'm getting, but since I think the scum partner is either Xtox or RR, I would rather go for the constant other player in the scum pair (assuming there are two left, that is): TDC.

Furthermore, as denoted in the above quote, I note that a RR/Xtox scum pair is exceptionally unlikely because of their interaction with one another. That means that a RR/TDC or a Xtox/TDC pairing are the only likely scenarios in terms of a scum team. Since TDC is the common factor of these two scenarios, he's the obvlynch from my vantage point.

TDC has been an active lurker until today, his apathetic attitude towards being boosted makes it look like he was trying to not draw attention towards himself (if he's pure vanilla it would be optimal play/beneficial for the town for him to dissuade his boost) which is scummish and he's never undergone any serious scrutiny which makes whatever town vibes people get from him over embellished.

Not to mention I've already explained why I think TDC is scummy in and of himself.

This is so epic fail. Am I the only townie in this game? If you think I'm being misguided with my suspicions and you're actually of the town you should feel like it's your obligation to try and correct my thinking to lead me on the right track starting with today.

I've already explained my positions. I've restated them above. You're trying to get blood out of a turnip, here.

We shouldn't even be thinking about the night at this time.

When we're at 1-L we should definitely start thinking about night choices to save this town's ass.

How do you define active lurking? I've seen no indication of this.

I define lurking as not paying attention at all to the game and coming back to the thread whenever it suits you. It's a more generic term that can be applied generally to any player who isn't being active. I define active lurking as not contributing to the thread but checking in on it, so that they can jump in here and there infrequently to feign some sort of activity when they're trying to stay beneath the radar. From near the end of November to about mid-January is what I'm talking about in terms of TDC's posting frequency - he started out in a rush of posts and then dribbled off into lurker territory until pretty much the beginning of today.

When did this happen? If you're talking about the Boost-wagon that formed on him during Day 1, I can't think of any reason for TDC to believe that a boost on him wouldn't be productive since we hadn't learned the information that Electra provided to us about how some people will not receive effects from a boost until she presented that information to us on Day 2.

If

TDC is a townie then he would have received a PM similar to this:

You are an inhabitant of the town.

You win when all anti-town roles are eliminated.

TDC hasn't indicated that his PM contained any hints as to a boost ability. He would have had no reason to believe that he would have given a boost ability if he was actually a vanilla. In fact, since he claimed vanilla, he should have assumed that he was

vanilla

. Nothing special happens to vanillas. Ever. To assume that maybe his vanilla role would somehow become non-existent with a boost is to assume he wasn't vanilla. Why would he have assumed his role could easily become the antithesis of his role? It doesn't make sense, even with Electra's information not known. The logical assumption with a vanilla role is to assume you're a vanilla role.

Terrible.

Right. So you're saying that by escaping any sort of heat he hasn't been able to slide by without suspicion, thus making whatever town vibes he has been giving off (which I fail to see) unduly legitimate and an false sense of certainty? By not being openly criticized up until this point, he has been given a free pass under the town's radar. Your quick dismissal of this point is naive.

What's so bad about my reasoning in particular?

Because this is why you're voting me:

What do people think about Green Crayons's post 649?

Upon reading the thread, I didn't like this post at all for pretty much the exact same reasons TDC and Raging Rabbit pointed out. The timing was interesting like TDC mentioned -- it came directly after I switched my vote to Jahudo-GF while Guardian and iLord followed suit with their own Jahudo-votes. It really does look like a last ditch attempt to save the power role scum. The content was interesting as well -- I don't think the length of it was necessarily a bad thing since I know that I often find myself producing fairly lengthy cases as town but really the content and feel is what got me. I didn't see much in that post that was based on gut or "feelings", which I think are things town usually need to determine who's scum. It just looked like a post-by-post dissection that relied almost entirely on logic, which isn't necessarily always a bad thing since you

should

use logic to determine who's scum, but I do think it's bad when it's the sole thing you're using to scum hunt and place a vote.

You're faulting me for contributing to the thread

in my replacement post

. I don't know if you noticed, but I was responding to the previous 25 pages that I had just reread. Your big suspicion is that I was trying to voice my opinion on the previous 25 pages that I just caught up on in a helpful, if relatively condensed (considering the breadth of the source material), manner. Lesson to be learned? Don't try to voice your opinion on the previous game material when you replace /in. Excellent.

I do hope you realize that my reasoning for placing my vote on you has absolutely nothing to do with your claim.

I do realize this.

Interestingly enough, your reasoning for voting Huntress yesterday included very similar reasoning to mine today, which should mean that you do find such actions around a scum-wagon to be rather telling in their own regard. Why have you now classified my reasoning as bad? Did you classify your reasoning for voting Huntress yesterday as bad as well?

You do realize that Huntress was a townsperson, right? My reasoning was very obviously bad if it ended up fingering a town player. You're not only defending my bad reasoning (and heaven help me I don't know why you would back failed reasoning), but you're using it again. Trying to prove that if it apply bad reasoning enough times you'll eventually maybe luck out? What a less than sensible way to play the game at the 11th hour.

I also noticed that you seemed to have read through Minvitational 9 at some point. I feel like that game looks eerily similar to this game in the sense that like this game a Godfather was lynched on Day 1. If you look at the wagon that formed on that Godfather, you'd notice that the first 6 votes that were placed on him were town and the hammering vote was the scum vote. Is there any reason why that game hasn't in any way, shape, or form shaped your thinking about this particular game and the actions around the GF we had here?

I only read the last three or four pages. I wanted to see who was scum and mathcam's explanation caught my attention. Outside of what he described, I actually don't know anything else about that game. Thus, I am ignorant of what implication are you trying to suggest.

P.S. You're now at L-2. I suppose you can start doing stuff.

Har har. I was doing stuff. I just don't like digging through people's old posts. It's more work than I need to do when my lynch is almost all but sealed and there are other townies with eyes of their own in their heads and I've already told them what to look for.



P.S. Happy?

[Green Crayons]

What's so bad about my reasoning in particular?

Because this is why you're voting me:

What do people think about Green Crayons's post 649?

Upon reading the thread, I didn't like this post at all for pretty much the exact same reasons TDC and Raging Rabbit pointed out. The timing was interesting like TDC mentioned -- it came directly after I switched my vote to Jahudo-GF while Guardian and iLord followed suit with their own Jahudo-votes. It really does look like a last ditch attempt to save the power role scum. The content was interesting as well -- I don't think the length of it was necessarily a bad thing since I know that I often find myself producing fairly lengthy cases as town but really the content and feel is what got me. I didn't see much in that post that was based on gut or "feelings", which I think are things town usually need to determine who's scum. It just looked like a post-by-post dissection that relied almost entirely on logic, which isn't necessarily always a bad thing since you

should

use logic to determine who's scum, but I do think it's bad when it's the sole thing you're using to scum hunt and place a vote.

You're faulting me for contributing to the thread in my replacement post. I don't know if you noticed, but I was responding to the previous 25 pages that I had just reread. Your big suspicion is that I was trying to voice my opinion on the previous 25 pages that I just caught up on in a helpful, if relatively condensed (considering the breadth of the source material), manner. Lesson to be learned? Don't try to voice your opinion on the previous game material when you replace /in. Excellent.

I actually misstated the above - I had it typed out before I went back to check if it actually was my replacement post, but got side-tracked and forgot about checking it. It isn't my replacement post (found here), but the reason why I was thinking it was is because it was an extension of my replacement post: it was explaining, along with 583, why I came up with my "leaning scum" list from my "true" replacement post. My memory was spotty (it wasn't the actual replacement post) but it's a post that was an extension of my initial replacement post explaining why I thought the things I did (thus why I was thinking it was my replacement post). I was focusing on Huntress and Jahundo because I had already had them listed as leaning scum (also with RR, I might add) from my initial post.

[Green Crayons]

I've been prodded, but I've said pretty much everything I can at this point.

Recap:
Don't lynch me, I'm town.
The reasons to lynch me are: none stated (Xtox), because a post that was an extension of my replacing in summary of review was long-winded and

logical

instead of motivated from the gut (Incog), because I didn't want to quote my role PM (eld) and because he's a scumbag and is piggybacking off of everyone else's vote (TDC).
All of these reasons are

bad

. But I'm speaking to a brick wall, here.
Don't vig Eld, he's town.
I've stated why I think that he's town several times now. There's no legitimate reason to think he isn't town - every suspicion lobbed towards him has been met, explained and dismissed in a very precise and conclusive manner. Suspicion of Eld at this point is baseless and short-sighted.


If anyone wants anything new from me, just hit me up.

[Green Crayons]

Funnily enough, I dreamt about this game last night, and woke up with a strong urge to boost GC and lynch Xtoxm...

No amount of scepticism and criticism has yet enabled me to regard dreams as negligible occurrences. Often enough they appear senseless, but it is obviously we who lack the sense and ingenuity to read the enigmatic message from the nocturnal realm of the psyche. ... Nobody doubts the importance of conscious experience; why then should we doubt the significance of unconscious happenings? They also are part of our life, and sometimes more truly a part of it for weal or woe than any happenings of the day.

Outside of that, I'm waiting for RR's catch up and Incog's promised imput on my musings.

[Green Crayons]

What about the D1 wagon on scum though and the interactions shown there between your remaining candidates for scum and the only known scum we have in this game so far? Have you factored that into your decision at all? Do you see evidence that would suggest that RR/TDC likely bussed Jahudo?

Admittedly, no. I haven't really payed too terribly much attention to the end of D1 activities in such a light. This game has been massive and the hard fact of the matter is that I (nor anyone else, really) cannot find or use every action within the universe of this game to factor into our equations as to who is scum/innocent. This does not discount the importance of your question, just merely why I have not asked myself to contend with this aspect of the game. In short, it simply just hasn't crossed my mind.

But your question is a very generic one (would scum buss their GF on D1?) and I don't know if there are any specific qualities in this games that would help someone determine their opinion to this question outside of their generic response ("Yes, scum would be willing to buss their GF D1"/"No, scum would not do such a thing"). Are you suggesting there are actions that can be seen that would point an objective observer to an answer more likely than the other for RR/TDC (because if so, I'm all ears)?

Also, Green Crayons, did you even follow the link to your Post 649? Your Post 649 wasn't your replacement post. It was the post where you laid out the massive case against Huntress in the face of a mounting Jahudo-wagon. In between your real replacement post and your 649, you spent part of that time debating a bit with Raging Rabbit who was at the time your top suspect. Then you withdrew your suspicion of him and made 649 to illustrate your case on Huntress.

Also, Incog, did you even read my follow up post 1313 here? Context is everything. I explained that I my replacement post listed had Huntress, RR and Jahundo as leaning scum, and my two follow-up posts were focused on explaining why I felt as if these players deserved my scrutiny. In fact, in my replacement post, I said:

This is mostly just pure feeling from posts I've seen. I'll be using this template to base my further review of the thread, but I thought I would at least contribute my general sentiments towards what kind of vibes I'm getting from players.

Which is why I followed it up with 559, where I voiced my lengthy suspicions of RR at the time. And then why in 563 I told RR:

For now I'm just wonderin' why isn't GC voting me.

Because as of now you're the only person from my "leaning scummy" list that I've pulled direct examples of why I feel that you're scummy (the list being compiled based solely off of my feelings from an initial read-through). I don't want to vote prematurely if I find that, as a whole, one of the other two I have as scummish are a better place for my vote.

That said,

unvote

. I initially thought my previous spot-holder wasn't voting, but I double checked and apparently my/their vote had been cast.

...I was wanting to hold off voting before I explained my suspicions behind Jahundo and Huntress. But before I did that I needed to follow up with my RR's suspicions in 583 for the sake of being thorough.

Also, the post you called into question comes after 612, where I once again voice my support for the Jahudno/Huntress suspicions while explaining that it's a complicated game and a daunting task to replace in on page twenty something.


So, by the time that we

do

get to 649, I'm simply continuing with what I said I was going to do in my very first replacement post: explaining my suspicions of the three scummiest players (in my eyes at the time). As I finished with RR, I moved on to Huntress. And since the deadline was only three days away at the time, I put my vote on Huntress before being able to explain in detail (as I did earlier with RR and there with Huntress) my suspicions of Jahundo. I did, however, add this at the end of my 649 post:

vote: Huntress

. I'll need to do a reread of Jahudo tonight/tomorrow if I can find time to do so, but I don't recall him being more scummy to me than Huntress. I do, however, feel comfortable enough with either being lynched today, so if I find that Jahudo is more lynch-worthy than Huntress I'll switch over.

It wasn't that Huntress was more suspicious than Jahundo, or the other way around. It was just that I only was able to put the large amount of time and effort into dissecting my suspicions of one of those players, and it just so happened to be Huntress. At the same time, I was still open to a Jahundo lynch because in my initial read through of the game I felt as if he, Huntress and RR were all leaning scum.

Which actually puts your beef with my 649 (it being so "logical" and not based off of "gut") in a bit of perspective. I did my read through of the game and it was "...Mostly just pure feeling from posts I've seen" (that's my quote, from my replacement post) that led me to suspect RR, Huntress and Jahundo. It was only after that initial read through where my gut told me who to look at more closely did I turn to a more logical approach. Your criticism of my 649 play takes it completely and totally out of the context of my introduction, approach and activity within the game during that time period.

[Green Crayons]

Xtox has had shitty quarrels with RR, myself and Eld. Like, very-obviously-not-the-same-scum-group conversations. And not the scum trying out a distancing strategy type either. Incog has basically said that he thinks the ground Xtox walks on becomes town just from osmosis. Not something a scum group readily does (plus there's that whole vig thing).

If Xtox flips scum, his only partner would be TDC

.

I don't know why you people keep forgetting about him. He's still in this game!

Lynch TDC. Vig RR/me/Eld/Xtox (preferably not Eld - or me, for that matter). We will find ourselves in either a win or another probable LYLO situation.


Oh, and:

Will be in Florida from the fifth to the eighth. No access.

[Green Crayons]

This is still unanswered.

So you said a few things early game that looked protown and were otherwise smart in that you didn't stick your neck out. Not hard to see that you can easily get lost in 20 some odd pages of 14 plus people (including replacements) bickering at one another.

Mind to point out your "shitty quarrel" with him?

Call my play bad if you want

Nice one fucktards. Go ahead, lynch me, I don't care. I guess I must be scum, because there's no way I could have known they were town otherwise.

...Yeah. Insulting the town, then enticing them to lynch you is a picture-perfect example of bad town play. Don't get your panties in a wad just because you responded to the situation poorly.

but you're the one who just lynched Ice

Are you suggesting I single-handedly produced the Ice-lynch, or that I was somehow a driving force behind it? Because I find neither conception an accurate description of my behavior in regards to Ice - his poor play (lying the the town, wanting to be lynched, not using his ability) made him a better candidate to lynch than Eld in a situation where it was lynch someone or there be a no lynch.

throwing away a confirmed town win

I don't see how Ice was apparently the be-all end-all ace in the hole for the town. It looks like you're over-reacting to his death (no surprise there, however, given your previous overly emotional responses). I think that regardless of who we lynch today, Incog's chance of killing scum (if boosted) is much more comforting than his previous record.

Try to get over your own crap joke, dickhead.

I'm not joking. I find your play to be incredibly self destructive and exceptionally unhelpful to any town. You're not supposed to make it incredibly difficult for fellow townies to not want to lynch you because you reek of anti-town behavior. Maybe you should grow some thick skin (this is the internet, after all), realize I'm not being a douche-bag just for the sake of it and actually improve your play style. Over-emotional explosive posts, insulting the town en masse, insulting other players singularly, begging the town to lynch you with the inference that it's because they're obviously inferior to your intellect and so you just can't stand to play in the game any more... Yeah. Wonderful town play right there.

I think that speaks for itself.

Even if this was actually true, how can Xtoxm flip scum if he's not going to get lynched? I don't see you voting for him. (Nevermind that you've said you think he's town..)

Incog and Eld were discussing potential scenarios if Xtox was actually scum. My using the term "flip scum" was simply going along with their hypothetical. Nice way to try to spin terminology way out of context.

Your reasons for voting me are getting more contrived by the minute (you've just added me being the only possible scum partner of someone you think is town)

What the hell are you talking about? Do you just not read the thread, thinking you can skim by with your scumminess somehow keeping you off the radar? I've stated in the past that I think the scum group boils down to two players out of RR/TDC/Xtox.

(We still haven't seen where I was "active lurking", "not doing anything against a boost wagon" or how you put me into the "strong town" category but now claim to never have seen anything pro-town about me)

1. I already pointed out examples. 2. You didn't attempt to dissuade a boost wagon that had some moderate support when that boost wouldn't help the town at all. 3. See above.

@Green Crayons:

Part of your TDC-suspicion was based on the fact that TDC didn't attempt to push the early TDC-boostwagon off of himself despite the fact that he's now claimed Vanilla. What do you make of eldarad's recent suggestions of pushing for the boosting of a Vanilla? Do you think this makes him look scummy?

It looks like you're trying to correlate these two positions, but they aren't the same because (yet again) you take things out of context. In the early stages of a game, trying to boost an unknown instead of a townie contains more risk (might boost scum) but a better payoff (might boost good town role). In the early stages of a game, if we boost incorrectly by chosing to trust a scumbag, there is plenty of time to make up for the mistake. Now, we are in a potential LYLO situation. A mistake in boosting someone could very well end the game in a loss. Now, the more prudent choice of action would be to boost an established town (or someone we decide on lynching) because we can't afford to be exposed to the risk of an incorrect boost.

Context, Incog. It's everything. I don't know why you keep ignoring it.

[Green Crayons]

Okay, first of all you have to understand the difference in those two bullet points is the town's ability to handle the risk in each situation. Otherwise, yes, I think that sums up my position.

But then you get all whompy with your logic. Here is what my position is. TDC is scummy for not pushing the boost wagon away from a townie when the town could handle the risk of an unknown boost (early on). Eld is not scummy for pushing the boost wagon to a townie when the town can't handle the risk (late game).

Here it is, in easy bullet format:

• ·
  TDC is scummy for wanting the town to not take risks when the town should take risks.
  
  ·
  Eld is not scummy for wanting the town to not take risks when the town should not take risks.

And of course TDC is scummy for the town to not take risks when it should because he isn't town and is scum and thus would want to be boosted.

[Green Crayons]

Here it is, in easy bullet format:

• ·
  TDC is scummy for wanting the town to not take risks when the town should take risks.
  
  ·
  Eld is not scummy for wanting the town to not take risks when the town should not take risks.

To distill the above even further:

• ·
  TDC = bad --> wants negative action in positive environment (bad logic because benefits himself as scum)
  
  ·
  Eld = good --> wants negative action in negative environment (good logic because protects town)

I'm not trying to be a smartass here, so don't take this the wrong way. I just know I have a tendency of being long winded or overly convoluted, so I'm trying to simplify my reasoning into bite-sized pieces if you will.

[Green Crayons]

And (just to expand on that further) since Green Crayons has effectively said that he believes boosts are more dangerous at this point of the game since this is LyLo, I'd have expected him to be even more fuming about your recent suggestions of boosting a Vanilla than he ever would or could have been about TDC's lack of pushing away the early Boost-wagon on himself

...



Are you just not reading my posts?

Boosting a vanilla now is a good thing because it we can't take the risk of boosting a non-townie in the potential end game we find ourselves.

Therefore, Eld's suggestion of boosting a town now is

not suspicious

. In fact, it's the prudent, reasonable, logical, townie thing to do. Jeeze, how many times do I have to repeat myself and why are you suddenly becoming bereft of logical thought? It's unbecoming of your previously established character as a rational human being.

[Green Crayons]

Oh, and:

Will be in Florida from the fifth to the eighth. No access.

And now I"m out. I'll be checking back in Monday.

[Green Crayons]

Good job, Incog. You have successfully twisted the original conversation around to where it no longer is talking about the original point.

You first said:

@Green Crayons: Part of your TDC-suspicion was based on the fact that TDC didn't attempt to push the early TDC-boostwagon off of himself despite the fact that he's now claimed Vanilla. What do you make of eldarad's recent suggestions of pushing for the boosting of a Vanilla? Do you think this makes him look scummy?

Which structured the conversation around a very simple discussion concerning a dichotomy: boosting townies in the early part of the game (as indicated by your reference to TDC's earlier play) versus boosting townies in the later part of the game (as indicated by Eld's later play). Which is more suspicious, when is it more prudent to boost a townie, that sort of thing.

Now, you want to talk about:

If Vanillas don't gain anything from being boosted and if 1 of the 3 Vanilla claimants is likely scum, then it makes logical sense for us to NOT boost one of the Vanillas -- if the person we choose to boost is town, HE WON'T GAIN ANYTHING ANYWAY. If the person we choose to boost is scum, he MIGHT gain something and that's not worth the risk.

What are the chances that a townie is a scumbag and what is the risk involved in boosting a claimed townie.

There's a difference. You originally wanted me to compare my suspicion of TDC's desire of having a townie boosted in the early game with your suspicion of Eld's desire of having a townie boosted in the late game. Now that I've actually explained why there's a definitive tactical difference in the boosting of townies in different segments of the game, you're trying to spin that around and say that I was somehow not answering (or answering incorrectly) a wholly different question.

Maybe you're just bad at actually expressing all what entailed in your original question. Or maybe this new question wasn't really formed until you got about halfway through my explanation and you just tied this branch-off question with your original, assuming that they go hand in hand. Well they don't. And to suddenly presuppose that my answer to a different question suddenly explains this new line of questioning is shortsighted.

For all third parties involved - our fellow town members and spectators alike - (because undoubtedly you won't admit to it), I'll use your own words to show how you've tied up these two different questions as a single entity in your mind:

According to you, you found it suspicious that TDC would expect something upon being boosted because Vanillas shouldn't expect to receive anything from a boost -- they're vanilla. If we're going by the information that Electra gave us in that it's LIKELY that the Vanillas won't gain anything upon being boosted (these are your own WORDS after all), why would it NOT be suspicious for eldarad to suggest that we should STILL boost one of the Vanillas now when one of those Vanillas could be scum and could possibly gain something upon being boosted?

Almost everything from this quote addresses our previous conversation (the tactical advantages/disadvantages of boosting townies and the when of doing so and who would be suspicious depending on when they would suggest such a move). But you tie it up with a new thread of discussion that nobody has even commented upon except for yourself. Right now.

In fact, all of the following (from above) is simply a continuation of our conversation: "

According to you, you found it suspicious that TDC would expect something upon being boosted because Vanillas shouldn't expect to receive anything from a boost -- they're vanilla. If we're going by the information that Electra gave us in that it's LIKELY that the Vanillas won't gain anything upon being boosted (these are your own WORDS after all), why would it NOT be suspicious for eldarad to suggest that we should STILL boost one of the Vanillas now...

" You're talking about my point of how TDC was expecting something from being boosted when he shouldn't have been and thus should have attempted to dissuade his earlier boost-wagon and is thus suspicious. And you seem to be saying this in agreement - you don't really seem to be discounting this position at all. Please keep this in mind when you hand the game to scum by lynching me and vigging Eld. Then you put up your point that if boosting town earlier might be suspicious then boosting town later in the game should also be suspicious. You've made this point over and over again without actually saying why.

But, oh! Here it is - finally, the reasoning why boosting town in the later part of the game should be just as suspicious as boosting town in the earlier part of the game (once again, from above): "

...when one of those Vanillas could be scum and could possibly gain something upon being boosted?

"

...Wait, what?

You go from asking me my opinion upon the tactical difference in the time frame of boosting townies and then take my response to that question and use it to answer the (unasked, implied only through this most recent post) question of "What do you think the chances are that we boost a scum from the pool of claimed townies?"


They're different questions, each with their different parts. Here are the answers to your questions:

First ("Why is TDC suspicious for acting in such a manner that would promote boosting a townie early in the game but Eld not suspicious for acting in such a manner that would promote boosting a townie later in the game?"):
A) It's suspicious to want to boost townies earlier in the game when we have

the mods' own post

and a confirmed townie telling us that there are townie roles that don't get any boosted benefits. The town can afford to take greater risks earlier in the game. Wanting to "play it safe" by wanting to boost one's self rather than another individual is suspicious.
B) From the above, it is less suspicious to want to boost a townie later in the game because the town cannot afford to take greater risks. If you don't understand the concept of risk and the ability to handle risk, I can't help you.

Second ("Why is it not suspicious/good play to want to boost one of the claimed townies at this point in the game?"):
A) The possibility of a scum being one of the remaining claimed townies (RR, TDC, Eld) is 1 in 3. Let's look at this scenario in and of itself for the moment, disregarding any other options. In other words, let's assume that we

have

to boost a claimed townie. In needing to determine who to boost, statistically speaking, we have a 66% chance of boosting a right person. However, when we are usually confronted with a three-man situation, we are doing something totally different: lynching. Our boosting situation is much better than the usual 33% chance of lynching the right person one has when faced with a three-player scenario. The window of opportunity (that is, the opportunity to make the right choice) for our specific need (to boost a townie instead of a scum) is much greater than the general need (to lynch a scum instead of a townie) when players find themselves in a three-player standoff. Why am I comparing the ratios of success for the different scenarios? Because mafia isn't a game solely of numbers. These three players are not equally suspicious. And just like when we're faced with a three-way standoff to vote, we will be using our intuition, logic and suspicions to determine who to boost. This actually makes our ratio of success much higher than 66%, since we don't weigh each of the three options equally. And if towns win with a 33% chance of lynching the right person, we shouldn't have too much of a trouble with a higher than 66% chance of boosting the right player.
B) But, of course, boosting one of these three players is not the only option. We could boost who we lynch (looking like me) or the comical third option (Xtox).
B1) Let's look at boosting the lynchee first. Assuming we're lynching a scum (which we aren't, if it's me, but for the sake of argument, let's assume), then how in the world is it prudent to also boost them? First, how do we know the boost affect would occur before or after their death? This might not be too big of deal, but what if their boost ability is something along the lines of becoming vengeful? Or maybe the ability to mask their true alignment upon death (thus messing up our reads)? Or any other power I could just pull out of my butt on the spot? I think we're needlessly putting power in the hands of scum, but to what end? This option is a big ole question mark being based off the assumption that scumbags being boosted is not a bad thing just as long as they're also lynched. There's nothing except supposition dictating this policy and it's bad play.
B2) Third option of boosting Xtox. You know, I wouldn't be opposed to the idea of boosting a third party (non-claimed townie, not the lynchee), other than the fact that the third party in this situation is Xtox and

he's been acting like a raging scumbag since the beginning of this day

. Seriously. All you had to do was say "Xtox acts incredibly suspicious as town" and he's fashioned that into an iron helm as if you're the Word of Mod clearing him. That in itself is incredibly scummy (!), but since he's not lurking he must be town (since that's the only indication I saw you give of what scum-Xtox does). Heaven forbid you should play with an active scum-Xtox, you wouldn't know what to do with yourself. And while you think that is the case here (that Xtox isn't scum, just super-suspicious townie as always), Eld, RR and myself all have had misgivings of your faith in his "town" behavior. To suggest that this option is somehow safer than a more than 66% chance of picking a non-scum (from choosing solely between the claimed townies) is incredibly thick skulled.

So, there you go. My answers to your different questions. Please don't go fashioning my answer to one of your questions somehow my response to a totally separate question. It's insulting.

tl;dr

:
Wanting to boost town early is suspicious (TDC).
Wanting to boost town later is not suspicious (Eld).
These two deductions are based off of the town's ability to handle risk.
Choosing to boost from a pool of claimed townies is safest (<66% chance of success).
Choosing to boost believed scum-to-be-lynched is reckless and potentially harmful.
Choosing to boost third party (Xtox) is an unknown figure of failure - an all (because he's town) or nothing (because he's scum), which leaves no margin for error. Not to mention you're the only other person (besides Xtox himself) who has really bought his complete, 100% townieness, which should leave

anyone

less than confident when the stakes are this high.

[Green Crayons]

TDC: It all goes to promote the same point - doing nothing to dissuade a "townie" boost in the early portion of the game. It would qualify as bad play under normal circumstances. The fact that it was your own boost wagon is what makes it more suspicious.

Also, there's this neat option of where you can filter a player's posts at the bottom of the page. Do that. Filter for only Green Crayons. Check from the beginning of this game day and actually read the game thread for once instead of continually lurking and popping in with fluff posts. You'll see how my support for sthar slowly evolved into a strong suspicion against Xtox. It only took over four weeks! Surely you'll be able to appreciate the actual workings of a town mind instead of your usual poorly animated marionette show attempting to mimic a town's behavior.

Xtox: Thanks again for misrepresenting how something happened... really helping out your "obvtown" agenda. My suspicions for you didn't occur over night. Great to boil things down to an incorrect tag line, though!

[Green Crayons]

For what it's worth,

vote: Xtox

. I would really prefer TDC, but since nobody pays my suspicions any heed, might as well go with someone else I find suspicious.

[Green Crayons]

Dunno if you noticed, but I was actually questioning TDC on this very page about something I found suspicious about him...

I did notice. I also noticed that the deadline is three days away. I don't feel comfortable on the brink of a lynch with a deadline looming while a single person is just now starting to question another player I have repeatedly said is my number one scum suspect. Even assuming you were to suddenly see the light I've been shooting out of my butt for the past month or so, you plus me is only two and none of these other gents seem too keen on lynching TDC.

I would rather see a lynch of a player who I find suspicious (Xtox) though may end up being town, rather than a player who I know for a fact is town (myself).


If Xtox flips scum (assuming he's lynched), TDC is the go-to scumbag partner. I've already discussed that and the only person who even attempted to dissuade such a notion was TDC... and even then, he didn't really put too much of an effort into it - maybe hoping it would fall by the wayside, akin to most of my points and postings.

That said, if Xtox flips town, the game is in your hands.

[Green Crayons]

If Xtoxm is scum, this would mean that you believe that his buddy is willing to bus him right at this very moment despite the fact that he (Xtoxm) has the support of the near-confirmed townie.

Scum bussing their partners when the ship is sinking isn't new.

words

Glad to see you actually decided to read the thread. Took you long enough. You'll notice that your classification of the thread of my thoughts re: Xtox neglects the fact that I went from support of sthar --> seeing Xtox as bad/anti-town play --> seeing Xtox as potential scum. Your labeling doesn't really account for this, nor would I expect it to do so.

No.. they occured during the day. Or rather I can't find where they occured at all.

It's a saying, and it means a literal night. Not a game night. If you can't see the progression that you just mapped out, you're being willfully blind.

He just started bringing up the idea of a Xtoxm-TDC scum team (where previously it was just RR-TDC) out of nothing.

Out of nothing? Other than process of elimination? Or would you require us to rid ourselves of that scum-hunting tool as well?

[Green Crayons]

The process of elimination is exactly the point where you first denote that Xtoxm could be scum.

Yes. Yes it is. ...And?

Why did you not eliminate him in your process of elimination?

Because scum have an excellent way of sliding under the radar if they're simply dismissed as a "stupid townie." It would be irresponsible for me to disregard his poor play and to make an assumption (that Xtox is town playing poorly) that could hamper my ability to make a rationale decision. Especially when I just came from a game where I made exactly that mistake.

And I don't understand who you're talking about or directing to post 1407.

[Green Crayons]

That doesn't answer why you didn't consider that possibility earlier (and what happened to your RR suspicion for that matter).

Do you just not understand genuine thought progression? Are you some sort of robot who thinks a certain thing is true and then fails to amend, modify or evolve that line of thought irregardless of what else occurs?

And holy crap! You mean I'm not repeating myself in every post? Should I put a tagline at the end of each and every post to remind everyone what my suspicions are even though I have them plainly stated in the thread? Should I really assume everyone else is so thick witted that they can't remember who my suspicion targets are? I mean, I find it pretty easy to remember that Xtox thinks I'm scum, Incog thinks Eld's scum, RR doesn't know what to think other than Xtox has played poorly, Eld thinks I'm scum with Xtox and you're voting me because I started going after you (or insert whatever lame excuse you want to come up with here). I pulled that off the top of my head - and I think it's a reasonable assumption that the other players here don't retain the mental capacity of a two year old.

My suspicions of RR haven't gone anywhere. But you're my number one target, so I'm focusing on you. And because nobody is voting RR, I'm focusing on my other suspect (derived through process of elimination), who

is

receiving some heat: Xtox.

You can chalk your weak attempt at making me somehow look suspicious for not repeating ad nauseum my suspicions of other individuals besides yourself as another reason why I think you're a flaming pile of scumbag.

[Green Crayons]

Unless if your scum buddy is already voting me. Which

TDC

he is.

[Green Crayons]

unboost, boost: Xtox

[Green Crayons]

Incog: I'm curious why you're willing to boost someone who isn't the player you will be voting to be lynched when we've had extensive conversations about why you're against exactly that.

[Green Crayons]

So you're asking Eld to boost someone he's not voting for? I still don't see how that's any different than you boosting Xtox.

[Green Crayons]

One final reminder on where I stand, Incog:

Please vig TDC if Xtox is scum (see: my posts about this).
Please vig TDC if Xtox isn't scum (see: my/your posts about this).
Please vig RR only if you feel the need to not vig TDC (see: process of elimination).
Please don't vig Eld (see: Eld's defense to bad accusations thrown his way).
Please don't vig me (see: my responses to all criticisms towards me).

[Green Crayons]

Oh well. Good game.

[Green Crayons]

Oh, I'm all for revealing the scum QuickTopic. Any reservations, TDC/Jahundo?



Incog: Why were you convinced I was scum?

[Green Crayons]

- Your post against Huntress just seemed a bit over the top in the face of a mounting Jahudo-wagon. It just looked like you were trying your hardest to save the Godfather.

Gah. This was truly due to pure laziness. I mean, there were 20 pages and I just went through them all for RR

and

Huntress! To be asked to do it again for yet another player? Gah. Stomach churning. My ice lynch was pretty sloppy too, I'll admit. Le sigh.

- Then there were your double standards also. I still hold to the belief that if you were town, you technically should have found eldarad scummier than TDC for suggesting that we boost a Vanilla closer to end-game if you truly felt like TDC was scummy for not deflecting away an early wagon on him, a claimed Vanilla. I just thought your insistence that eldarad was town town town seemed weird because of that.

I don't recall the specifics of this argument, other than the fact that it existed and I actually really believed everything I was saying could be true. I don't think I had a real opinion on the matter, so I was just taking up whatever belief I thought would help me at the time. Ah well.


Your other opinions are much appreciated. Jerk (for vigging me, ofc)! :fistshake!:

I didn't want to push for an Incog kill the night before last because him killing another innocent person = good for us. I didn't really think he would become Xtox's secret lover and absolutely refuse to lynch the guy.


QuickTopic for anyone that cares. I don't think there's actually much inflammatory commentary, so nothing too juicy to glean, I'm afraid. Probably my favorite excerpt:

Hi, slightly drunk, but anyway.

Take a number pal.

[Green Crayons]

lol totally just reread the QT. I love being semi-right.

If we killed Incog, though, I remember thinking Huntress really didn't like me. Though, to be fair, I think I could have whittled down Huntress much easier than Incog.

[Green Crayons]

Triple posting. What was TDC saying about consumption? Anyways.

Oh but Huntress would've died anyways. I was of the assumption that Incog wouldn't have vigged Huntress and thus with Incog dead we would have had Huntress to deal with. THe fact that he would have killed Huntress anyways just goes to show we should've kicked his butt to the curb. Lesson learned.

[Green Crayons]

The guy has a pretty good scumdar

Heh. I like how he totally called the TDC/GC scum pair but then offered no follow through. Talk about missed opportunities!

How could you not recall the argument? D: That argument was epic. haha.

Now that I think about it with a more clear head, I actually do remember that argument and remember that what I was saying made complete and total sense. I didn't understand how you took your position at all.

Oh well!