Mini 788 - Fantasy Mafia [OVER]

[ortolan]

Vote: Andycya

because you've never seen me

[ortolan]

I can get behind that

Unvote
Vote: Sudo_Nym

[ortolan]

Wait, Andy, you judge experience solely based on regdate?

That's a lul-tell

For Shadow Knight's benefit:

1) My vote was not OMGUS

2) OMGUS has never been established as a scum-tell

3) You could not even clearly conclude that my second vote, that for Sudo_Nym; was not merely an extension of the random voting phase (although it happens not to be).

It is ok however, you will be forgiven as long as I see you voting Sudo_Nym in your next post

[ortolan]

Are you threatening Andy to vote how you want him to vote?

Yes!

Geez, I really need to improve my sarcasm skills...

Unvote

Am I forgiven, ortolan?

Not quite, you're halfway there though. We just need to quicklynch Sudo_Nym

[ortolan]

The object of the game is to lynch scum?

[ortolan]

because someone being scum is usually a good indication that you should vote them?

[ortolan]

Empking isn't a bad player and I can already vouch for his towniness 100%

Starbuck- no, there is no reason for him to be particularly likely to be scum, beyond my own whim.

[ortolan]

I am not being "intentionally" scummy so to speak, I was/am merely trying a new approach to the opening game.

I undertook a course of behaviour which is nonsensical, but not clearly pro-town or pro-scum- calling for quicklynches of random players is inherently neutral and, probabilistically, is as likely to hit scum as any other form of non-specific pressure.

I was looking for

1) the target's own reaction to being wagoned (not as important)

2) people who deliberately ignore my actions even though they are quite attention-drawing

3) people who react badly to my inherently neutral actions, especially those providing inconsistent justifications for doing so.

Empking loves easy wagons as scum but at least took the time to question my course of action before laying down a vote; ergo: pro-town.

Sudo_Nym's reaction is a predictable OMGUS but his reaction in 54 is nonsensical. Someone being "deliberately scummy" (although I actually disagree with this characterisation itself) is very rarely a good reason to lynch them.

FoS: Sudo_Nym

My vote however, is reserved for Andycya, who despite apparently making his own joke vote in 24 (well that's what he described it as after the fact), now says:

Empking isn't a bad player and I can already vouch for his towniness 100%

Starbuck- no, there is no reason for him to be particularly likely to be scum, beyond my own whim.

Please, I think we've already gone through the silly discussion phase.

Vote: Ortolan

Basically implying that apparently nonsensical behaviour (although mine had an underlying purpose) does not even deserve discourse, and should be attacked with a vote without any justification.

Unvote
Vote: Andycya

[ortolan]

define "good opening bandwagon"

[ortolan]

Andycya has yet to account for his scummy behaviour, this is frankly unnaceptable.

===[]

Mod: please prod Andycya

[ortolan]

59 is filled with reasons

Long story short 24 looks very much

not

like a joke post but you later claimed it was (in 33), you then tried to hurry through an unreasoned bandwagon in 57. You haven't posted anything of content since.

[ortolan]

Oh I see now. Here's what I meant: I didn't know whether your post was serious or not, but I assumed not, since we were already discussing meatier events. However, You were making a very weird statement (vouching for his towniness). Since we were already discussing non-jokes I read it as stalling other discussions. However, seems like my own vote originated much more discussion topics.

How come you didn't explain this at the time? You just said "please, we've already gone through the silly discussion phase" which implies scum feigning arrogance in order to mask not bothering to do their reading before laying a vote down.

Also, I don't like you claiming credit for starting discussion as a way of defending yourself rather than, for example, trying to better justify your vote on me or attack me further. It's like you attack me, then realise you're not going to get away with it that easily, then withdraw and start defending yourself and try to justify why your vote "prompted discussion" rather than say why you think you voted for scum (me).

Kmd: I'm not really a fan of looking for "distancing" connections between two people, neither of whom have yet flipped; on day one. I'm inclined to think the far more common (and better) play is to either defend one's scumbuddies day one or just ignore them altogether. Arguments over two people "distancing" on day one are too subject to WIFOM and the ones I've seen are almost always wrong.

[ortolan]

^^ that is, assuming the person's lynch is not already a foregone conclusion or at least very likely.

[ortolan]

on precisely that note; what have you done to spark the discussions you're attacking me for supposedly preventing?

you've kept your vote on me since you placed it with similar timing to Andy; later "justifying" it with:

My vote on you has more to do with my belief that your actions made you a good opening bandwagon than any "deliberate scummyness" you have. It usually takes more than the random stage to determine if someone is really being scummy or what.

So you admit your vote one me means little more than a random vote (that's what an "opening bandwagon"implies- if it means something else you needed to give actual reasons for having voted me; which you didn't). Furthermore, your two subsequent posts both consist entirely of irrelevant theory discussion. You're not actually engaging with the game at all (a scum-tell in and of itself), and have failed to move beyond or further justify your "opening bandwagon" vote beyond suggesting I shouldn't attack Andy for claiming to "start discussion" (hardly my only point against him anyhow). Glad to see the FoS wasn't misplaced.

I would like to know whom you suspect Sudo_Nym.

[ortolan]

True. I'm not voting you for any super justified reason; you were largely a target of opportunity to get the game rolling.

My point is not to stop you from discussing, I only wonder why you're so obsessed about an opening bandwagon, which is why I've kept my vote on you.

"I'm voting you for no reason and as you've questioned that I'm going to continue voting you".

As for talking about game theory, that's just how I play. I love to bring it up, because different people respond different- and the same person will respond differently depending on their role. Admittedly, its more of a long term strategy than a short term scumhunt, but its how I've always done it, in RL and online, and I don't imagine that's going to change.

While I agree with you that discussion of theory can be helpful, your two posts 72 and 89 are so abstract and really quite unrelated to either anything relevant which has occurred this game or scumhunting in general. It's not your theory discussion I take issue with, it's the irrelevant and seemingly "filler" quality of it.

Not sure what to make of Goatrevolt vs Kmd at present. Could well be townie vs townie.

lol @ 121.

Mixologist why did you vote Starbuck in 129?

Andycya why did you unvote in 139?

[ortolan]

Not quite, old chum. I voted you for no great reason, true, but it was your suspicious reaction that got me to keep my vote on you. I fully believe you've overreacted to a total of what? 3 votes? And then you try and twist what I've said to the most negative of its connotations.

Suspicious reaction? Please point me to this. Overreaction? It wasn't a reaction at all, it's me attacking you for failing to move beyond a vote you on one hand claim is "random" but then also pretend it's justified as a non random vote because of my "suspicious reaction" (still waiting for clarification) to being voted in the first place. Which is it- do you suspect me, or not? If you do, please give reasons. If you do not, then make a case against someone- we're 6 pages in and a lot has happened- if you can't find anything suspicious you're not trying hard enough. As it is your equivocation about the status of your vote on me is giving you an excuse for not actively participating in the game (as is your discussion of topics irrelevant to either this or seemingly any other game).

[ortolan]

^^ are you talking to me?

my reply wasn't addressed to you

[ortolan]

The only thing that's holding me back on KMD is his vote on Andy, but that still could be a cover. Maybe there's a way that the votes can be redirected and/or deflected, or maybe someone is immune lynch. My reasoning behind thinking this is because I'm currently playing a game on the View Askew forums which is an all power Avengers game and we just finished an all power DC Comics game. I don't know if any of that could come into play in this game, but this is a "Fantasy" mafia game, so anything is possible.

The impression I get is that she is speculating (almost certainly incorrectly) about roles which may or may not be in this game based on her experiences on another site.

[ortolan]

Why?

I have little problem with the idea in principle, I don't see any punisher roles being based on flavour

[ortolan]

that is fair enough. I assume the decision will be made by whoever is alive on day 3 regardless.

[ortolan]

*highfives back*

[ortolan]

I think there are more important things to address right now.

e.g. your lynch. Hop to it guys!

[ortolan]

Hello Zakeri, please vote Andycya

Agreed with myxomatosis that Andycya is nothin' but fluff

[ortolan]

It was a joke Reading is optional before voting Andycya

[ortolan]

Why did you name point 2?

Why would I not name point two? There were multiple things wrong with his argument that I OMGUS'ed therefore I am scum. Firstly the premise that I OMGUS'ed was incorrect, secondly the notion that OMGUS'ing is even a scumtell.

The rest of page 2 gets answered when Orto explains point 3. So I'll get to that then as well.
And some of the posts on this page aren't even important in this game.

Also, you don't want to be a Rena, so say no towards policy lynches!

I fail to see how that could be preventing you from commenting further. Also what's this about policy lynching?

I don't like this, as it gives him an excuse to not give us a read on his allignment.
It also sounds like a trap.

What do you mean? You have plenty of opportunity to read my alignment. And yes, it was a "trap". That was the whole point.

If you haven't explained this yet, why?

Because scum have no motivation to act deliberately scummy unless they are trying to throw the game, which is against site-wide rules.

Wow, now Zazier will be the first replacement in every game I'll mod.

Why is this?

- I am reading Starbucks' "rolefishing" as inexperience with the conventions of this site currently.

- I don't have a problem with Kmd's pseudo-presumption that there are three scum to look for. It is the most common setup in 12-player games.

Zaz, you are accusing Kmd of neglecting me v.s. Andycya but are not actually commenting on it yourself. You seem more interested in me v.s. Sudo_Nym. What is your opinion of Andycya?

As of 203, Andycya is

still

blatantly fence-sitting. No-one is really scummy of the active players apparently, but conveniently I'm the "scummier". No conviction that I will actually flip scum if I am lynched. Where are his attempts to find mafia?

OP vs Empking is meh. One could very well be scum, I haven't been paying much attention to either player slot I must admit.

Mod: Votecount please

[ortolan]

Because according to you, it wasn't OMGUS. If it's not OMGUS, I don't see why you had to add that OMGUS isn't established as scumtell. Seems like an extra unnecessary defence of an accusation against you.

Okay then. Answer this: was my vote on him OMGUS? If you agree that it wasn't OMGUS, why are you even asking this? If my response was valid there is no reason to question the mere fact I accounted for other potentialities. It's what debaters do. They say "

even if

your original point was correct (which it isn't), then your argument doesn't follow for

these

reasons." It was basically me showing him he didn't have a leg to stand on, and that his argument was flawed on not one but two grounds.

Ok, so if I get this right, Sudo re-votes Bear for being delibaretly scummy, to which Bear replies that that's not a good reason to vote, aka the 'too scummy to be scum' argument (or better said, fallacy).

You seem to have missed the subtlety again. I denied that I had acted deliberately scummy, and asked if that was in fact a reason for wanting to lynch someone anyway. Again, it's a two-pronged argument. I firstly denied that what he said applied to me, and secondly denied that what he claimed I had done was a scum-tell. Do you think I acted deliberately scummy? Do you think acting deliberately scummy is a scum-tell?

Siding with Sudo here, as I've seen one game in which Sudo discusses more game theory than scumhunting as town, which makes this point not a scumtell.

A simple size of one means nothing. Also it's a perfectly convenient way from him to hide from contributing to the game with the reassurance that he has done the same as town previously also and so will get by on that basis. Also his theory discussion was about "hypocrisy" I believe, surely something that has little to do with mafia anyway in the way he was discussing it.

I don't look into random votes, and I actually agree that bandwagoning is a good start.

Please explain what this means. You seem to be advocating "bandwagoning" random people out of the random voting stage. What, do you want to get a random person on L-2 until they claim? Or do you just want people to vote around, willy nilly until by your arbitrary criterion a "bandwagon" has formed? Then what?

But he did overreact, based upon the 'OMGUS in not an established scumtell' argument which wasn't necessary to make as Bear said it wasn't OMGUS, and for using the 'too scummy to be scum' fallacy as defence.

Yeah right, being right in an argument is an "overreaction". Do you or do you not think that OMGUS is a scumtell? Do you or do you not think my vote was OMGUS anyway? I think you just wanted an opportunity to claim I'd committed the "too scummy to be scum" fallacy here, which I surely didn't.

I also think the "I don't look for scum pairs day one" could well be a cop-out to explain why you might try to get someone lynched while avoiding having to speculate about who their partners are (i.e. you can target a townie and don't have to explain why no-one fits the bill as their scumbuddy).

Who do you suspect ZazieR?

[ortolan]

lawl, you are using exactly the same nonsensical logic Sudo_Nym is using to keep his vote on me

and for daring to argue with you I get rewarded with addition to your scum-list. Sudo-Andy-ZazieR scumteam anyone?

When you made the vote, I can see why it could be seen as OMGUS as you didn't give any reason why. Later when you explained, I agree that it wasn't OMGUS.
I've noted it down, as I see it as an extra defence. You later proved, when you explained, that your vote wasn't OMGUS. So, point 1 was already valid. Which is why I question the extra defence. Have you done this before:

"even if your original point was correct (which it isn't), then your argument doesn't follow for these reasons."

And if so, can you link the game(s)?

I think I have referred to it before in mafia in at least one game, I honestly cannot remember which. It

may

have been one in which I was mafia (just to insure myself) but it's just a common logical device. I referred to it more to illustrate the point to you than to use it as a form of argumentation. I bet if you asked everyone in Mafia Discussion (after the game obviously) they would say it is entirely valid. It's really no basis for suspicion like you seem to think it is.

In this case, you didn't act deliberately scummy. I've done this in some games as well, and it's a perfect way to look for reactions. And if acting deliberately scummy is a scumtell, depends on the context around it.
But in this case, I find it scummy that you used a fallacy to defend your actions.

I did not use a fallacy to explain my actions, we've already been over this. Did you or did you not think I was acting deliberately scummy? How come you didn't answer this question the last time you posted? Your assertion that I have "used a fallacy to defend my actions" hinges on the supposition that I

did

act deliberately scummy to begin with, which I disagreed with.

Yes, it does. It shows that he has done it once as town, which means that it's not a complete scumtell. I also was planning to check some of his other games. Are you? And if not, why?
And no, it had to do with mafia.

Because I don't believe meta can be used as a tool to catch scum that easily? Note that it's particularly useless against someone with a scummie award (admittedly for Best Newbie ). He himself only referenced one game where he was waylaid with irrelevant discussion. Either way I don't approve- it is not useful and is uncommon and therefore is sub-optimal, anti-town play.

Though I don't see why this is important, I like to bandwagon during the RVS to see the different reactions from other players. Who has what motives to stay on the wagon, or be off from the wagon. Who of the players will be questioned, why are these getting questioned and by whom. Will there be an attempt to start a different wagon, and why. And these are just examples.

Yes, except we weren't in the random phase at the time. Sudo is meant to be voting people he finds scummy. He is being unclear and equivocating between whether he actually finds me scummy or if he is just voting me for a "bandwagon", which seems a convenient way to hide actually justifying his vote.

The overreaction is found in your defence of your action regarding the 'OMGUS'. Not the 'OMGUS' itself.

*Yawn*

Anyway, it depends on the context if OMGUS is a scumtell.

Yet again you dodge the question. In this context, if my vote was OMGUS, was it a scumtell?

Someone being "deliberately scummy"

(although I actually disagree with this characterisation itself)

is very rarely a good reason to lynch them.

The bolded part means that I did

not

agree that my actions were deliberately scummy.

I don't speculate on this, as you'll have to look at interactions as well if you want the right pairs. As you don't know who's scum when nobody has flipped scum yet, this is either impossible, or you can wrongly accuse two townies. The chance that you're corect about two players is very small.

Yes but if someone is scum they behave in a particular way towards their scumbuddies. If you look for a person behaving in a way towards another that only befits them being scum with them, you just found yourself scum.

You are added now as well.

Let's be entirely clear here. At what point, and on what basis, did you add me to your list? And what order is it in, and what are the potential connections between the players? And who are you voting?

[ortolan]

You are saying that he's scum based upon his normal playstyle. This has been stated, yet you still see it as a scumtell and refuse to check if it's true. So what is really the anti-town play in this case?

I don't care if it's his normal playstyle, getting sidetracked into discussions irrelevant to the game at hand gives us no opportunity to read his alignment and therefore is anti-town.

And seriously, why are scummies earned always used against the players who received them?

I'm not using it against him at all. I disagree with the way most people think they can use "meta" on this site, at least against players who aren't extremely new. I deliberately screw around with my meta as town/scum to make it totally unpredictable.

Uhm, with a post like this you should be able to find the answer to that.

I

hate

overreacting as a scum-tell in the way you've used it here. All I did was justify myself and question votes on me etc. which I always do as town and scum. I always dislike votes on me and am particularly allergic to scum voting me (or others) with crappy reasons and not being called into question for it.

The question was:
'Do you or do you not think that OMGUS is a scumtell?'
Which gives me the impression that you asked about OMGUS in general. So no, once again, I didn't dodge your question.
And yeah, if it was OMGUS, it would have been scummy in this case.

You would be a

fantastic

dodgeball player. You have again totally avoided the question. Was my vote in this instance, OMGUS or not? - You have again totally failed to answer my question.

Someone being "deliberately scummy"

(although I actually disagree with this characterisation itself)

is very rarely a good reason to lynch them.

The bolded part means that I did

not

agree that my actions were deliberately scummy.

Did I say that you did?

Well, you know, your whole rant about me using the "too scummy to be scummy fallacy" actually depends on me saying I was "being deliberately scummy",

which I wasn't

. Playing unconventionally in order to attract attention/gauge reactions is definitely

not

"playing deliberately scummy". I'm surprised I need to argue this point with you.

Order I can't say yet. And I'm not voting yet. Both for the same reason.

I predict you are scum and will thus find a way to vote for me within the next few posts, to divert the wagon from your buddy Andy.

EBWOP
Forgot this last time as well >.<

OP vs Empking is meh. One could very well be scum, I haven't been paying much attention to either player slot I must admit.

So what about your town-read you had on Empking at the start of the game?

It stands. Reading over his posts I would still lean town over him, also. However I know with both these players that letting them live through to the late-game without scrutiny can be very unwise. They are equally capable of lurking to end-game as both scum and town.

Shadow Knight your discussion of OMGUS in 276 is irrelevant and is only contributing to ZazieR's attempts to bog the game down in semantics. None of my votes in this game have been OMGUS.

So my question then becomes, why are you so sure that I don't learn anything off my theory opening, yet your "deliberately scummy whatever" is so useful? Is it simply because you do the one and not the other, or what?

*whistle whistle* no-one being deliberately scummy here, sorry. I have never seen theory discussion contribute meaningfully to a game, I have been in one which OP was in also where it made the game extremely large in post-size and entirely useless. Plus your musings on "hypocrisy" aren't really mafia theory anyway, as I already said. Plus I'm not at all impressed with the reads you've produced so far from "using this technique" which seem to consist solely of "ortolan is a good bandwagon", and "ortolan is overreacting", which is a most horrible scumtell.

ZazieR can you please provide a read of Andycya as previously requested, thankyou (this is the third request I've made I think).

[ortolan]

Playing anti-town is not a scumtell. Using anti-town play as reason to vote somebody is a scumtell though.

No it isn't.

And

I'm not even voting him.

Also, didn't you play deliberately neutral according to you at the start of this game?

No, unorthodox.

My point was about Sudo's playstyle, that he has used it as town. Which means that it's not a complete scumtell. Yet, you think it is. It is indeed possible that he uses this playstyle as scum. But because he has used it as town, it it more a nulltell than a scumtell. Do you agree, or not? And why?

I don't care about his meta, useless divergence is anti-town, especially when he's done little else to contribute meaningfully to the game.

And you did use it against him, as you added that meta is useless against someone with a scummie award.

No I'm afraid I didn't. I said it was useless and particularly so because he had a scummie award and is presumably half-decent. I doubt I'd have been bothered metaing him regardless.

What overreaction? I gave a post in which Sudo has stated that he saw you as suspicious. Where's the overreaction?

You have misunderstood. I am saying "overreacting" is definitely

not

a scum-tell.

No, you're question was:

Yet again you dodge the question. In this context, if my vote was OMGUS, was it a scumtell

And look, I did answer that. Once again, you state that I didn't answer something, while I clearly did.
Also, I did answer your question in above quote in the first post of our discussion:

When you made the vote, I can see why it could be seen as OMGUS as you didn't give any reason why. Later when you explained, I agree that it wasn't OMGUS.

No, you referred to a vague hypothetical and said "if your vote was OMGUS...." etc. The fact you've conceded it wasn't makes me wonder why you are labouring this point.

You were accused of acting deliberately scummy. Your defence was a fallacy.
And why are you surprised that you have to argue this with me?

This doesn't even deserve a response.

Or I think you are scummy, and I might vote you for this later?

That's what I was calling you out on it. I suspect you are biding your time in an attempt to appear less scummy.

Also, strange enough, the wagon on Andy is already diverted. So tell me why I as possible scumbuddy of possible scum Andy would do something which has already happened before I got in?

Huh?

Your point of the part behind the part saying you still think he's town?

Huh?

What was the purpose of your vote on Starbuck?

Shadow Knight is being typically useful and attentive. So many scummy people, so little time.

[ortolan]

I am quite sure Sudo_Nym is scum after his last post.

He is trying to justify inherently anti-town play by saying "nah uh, you did it too".

He thinks "voting for someone for a good bandwagon" and "voting for someone for overreacting" are somehow goods scum-tells. This is the worst part. For me it has nothing to do with the fact his attack is directed at me, these are just truly horrible arguments. He also seems to be portraying "overreacting" as the cream of all scum-tells. "What do we gain from bandwagons unless it's seeing their targets overreact?" There are many many things you gain from bandwagons. Plus you saying "well the fact you deny overreacting doesn't mean it's not a scum-tell" doesn't hold water. The obligation is on you to provide a reason the person is overreacting compared to their normal play; or why it inherently looks like an overreaction. You have not done this. You have not done any scum-hunting, actually.

I will happily move my vote to Sudo_Nym to secure a lynch (although I'm not sure if that's a change from my previous attitude ).

I dislike that the most prominent posters are largely the ones giving me strong scummy reads.

Mod: please prod Starbuck, Mixologist, Empking, orangepenguin and TonyMontana; and could we have a votecount please?

[ortolan]

Actually never mind about Starbuck, I missed her post

[ortolan]

that most people agree

3/4 of whom I suspect of having scummy motives, and the other whom I suspect has no clue. I'm impressed with your brazen wagoning with your scumbuddies though.

It's quite laughable that you should describe a gambit such as that I embarked on at the beginning of the game as anti-town, meaning it actively hurt the town. How exactly? Outed power-roles did it? Defended my scumbuddy did I? Attacked someone for no good reason did I? How did it hurt the town exactly? I will enjoy watching you squirm as you try to justify your presence on this most illegitimate bandwagon.

[ortolan]

Alright, I've read up, and to be honest, there's not really a whole lot to sway my opinion. I still think Bear is scummy.

Right back at ya, champ. Your failure (along with Zakeri's, lul) to propose a case for who I'm supposed to be scumbuddies with is itself scummy. Textbook scum trying to get through that mislynch. In other news I was surprised at the last vote count to see I only have 2 votes on me, I thought I had 3 or even 4 for some reason. I am glad only the scum are voting me (and null-tell but anti-town Shadow Knight), you must be quivering in your boots right now.

I find her suspicion of ZazieR interesting, since she doesn't seem to like ZazieR's explosion onto the scene.

This is meaningless filler disguised as commentary. What's this sentence even supposed to mean? And why isn't Starbuck a paragon of towniness? FYI I'm not understanding the votes on Starbuck at all, is she supposed to have done something scummy?

But for clarification, suspicions based upon anti-town reasons are scumtells. Happy now?

No, it isn't. And the irony here of you attacking me for what I did early in the game, which

can

only be described as anti-town rather than actively scummy if either, then saying attacking people for doing something anti-town is a scum-tell, is delicious.

Well, my guess is that you're using this in order to make me look black when I do vote you. But if I don't, you'll accuse me of not following my suspicions with a vote.

Yes, your two top suspects are myself and Starbuck, neither of whom have actually done anything scummy. You can drop the scumhunting charade now.

Please guys, the scum are dominating the game, would you post more.

[ortolan]

Also, ZazieR's rolefishing in 307 is positively hilarious

In my games, it has been proven to be true many times. Links may be requested.
Also, you think that Sudo is scum based upon anti-town reasons.

Unless you're a vig

, you have to vote him to get him lynched. But for clarification, suspicions based upon anti-town reasons are scumtells. Happy now?

[ortolan]

it depends on the circumstances; but yes.

if you are town and playing mafia usually you should be looking for a team of mafia players. If you do not appear to be even making an attempt to do so or speculating about mafia teams then it is far too easy for scum to target townies and when they flip say "oh well you acted scummy". It's the same as using "behavioural tells" or the like which are often entirely subjective.

[ortolan]

QFT. Ort looks to me like he's doing anything he can to try and flip things around on me. If he has to dig deep in the well to find fault, he's going to do so.

Flip things round on you? I've suspected you all game, I don't need the rest of the town to agree with me to know you're scum.

[ortolan]

Also, I've only thrown suspicions at 4 players, of which one (Goat) seems to be wrong. I'll get to that post soon.
I'm pretty certain I have been worse in some games.

What???

She has done scummy things as already pointed out.

I disagree. Can you give me a summary of what exactly she's done which is supposed to be scummy?

Looky, looky. The one who has accused me falsely each time of forgetting a questiong is doing it himself for reals.
But before I respond to this part, are lurking and active lurking anti-town to you and why?

Lurking is anti-town, active lurking is scummy. Also "anti-town" has different meanings in different contexts. If someone willfully engages in behaviour which is anti-town and this has been pointed out to them but they persist; then this becomes actively scummy (to clarify something you might try to pull me up on).

If it wasn't in response to the quote of mine that was included, then why did you quote it?
And if it was in response to that quote, I ask again, what overreaction?

No, what I meant was Sudo_Nym (I'm pretty sure it was him) said I was scummy because I was "overreacting" to being voted. I was saying I hate "overreacting" as a scum-tell. It's totally subjective and any good townie will go to an effort to defend themselves and deliberately appear pro-town anyhow. It's a horrible tell.

Uhm, excuse me?! Check what you asked. It was even quoted by you, but this time I've included some bolding.
Seriously, your question included 'if', so you get an answer with 'if'. And still you're not happy and use it even against me.
And it should be obv why I'm still labouring (whatever that may mean) on it.

Meaningless discussions of the form "You OMGUSed" "No I didn't" are just that- meaningless, and potentially exploited by scum.

Best move if you're scum and have no defence. Very bad if you're town like you say you are.
Oh, and of course other than that, it's very childish.

It was a reaction to you again misinterpreting what I said. You are saying my defence is a fallacy- "too scummy to be scummy". However that is not true because I never acted scummy and never said I acted scummy. In order for me to defend myself with the "too scummy to be scummy" fallacy I would need to say "yes I am scummy but no scum would act as scummy as I did", but I never said that- I said my play was unorthodox, as it was, but not actually scummy. So you were incorrect. Also the "too scummy to be scummy" fallacy wouldn't be applicable here anyway, because it's usually something one uses to defend someone else, not oneself- it's usually used as an internal justification for someone's behaviour- "I think he's acting too scummy to actually be scum, therefore he is town".

Ohh, I love speculation. Well, my guess is that you're using this in order to make me look black when I do vote you. But if I don't, you'll accuse me of not following my suspicions with a vote.

You are the one making leading comments here. You are suggesting I will attack you whatever you do, which I won't.

The Andy wagon has died a long time ago as he isn't scummy. I even wonder if you can actually remember the case against him.

Hypocrisy regarding jokevoting, trying to bandwagon an easy target (me) and then active lurking continually, which he is still doing- he is not naming suspects. But you're right, I may yet change to another wagon

I meant the bolded. What's the point behind that?

That Empking and OP need pressure in case they are scum???

If I wanted it to be known, I'd have told so. Just be patient.

Well I'm expecting something spectacular.

[ortolan]

No idea, I think I forgot. Why are you curious about that?

[ortolan]

more importantly, do you actually have a problem with the responses or are you just grabbing anything you can now?

[ortolan]

this reason for continually withholding seemingly trivial information better be amazing and allow you to catch most if not all the scum instantly

[ortolan]

Short said, I always throw a lot of suspicion around.

No I mean you seem to be implying that Goat is confirmed town here, and I want to know why.

So it seems we just disagree upon this...
Also, I just realised though that you use meta for Empking. So why aren't you doing this for other players?

Which players do you expect me to meta? I've used meta on OP and Empking who I've played with before. As a result I know they always need some pressure. I haven't seen anything scummy from Kmd but know he's harder to read than those players so I'm not making any definitive determinations of his alignment (however there are

much

scummier players anyway, before I'd even feel the need to look at him). TonyMontana is the same- I've played with him before and he's actively fitting his pro-town meta currently. Ergo I don't suspect him ergo he doesn't warrant a mention. Shadow Knight is playing entirely how I'd predict him to play, I have no idea of his alignment. Other than that I've never played a completed game with you or anyone else here. None of the meta-elements of those players warranted discussing as they weren't scummy. This point again looks like you're just trying to grasp whatever you can get a hold of as an excuse to attack me.

Meaningless? You're kiddin', right?
Besides, we're not discussing if it was OMGUS as that was not the main argument against you. It was the defence of Shadow's accusation against you.

Continually repeating this does not a valid point make.

No. Sudo accused you of being 'deliberately scummy'. And for that, you defended with the 'too scummy to be scum'.
Also, bolded why your extra defence this time isn't valid.

No, he accused me of being "deliberately scummy", and I said "no, I'm not". There was also the point that being deliberately scummy isn't a clear scum-tell, which is an independent point. Too scummy to be scum doesn't actually apply to this either. "Too scummy to be scum" would be someone e.g. repeatedly defending flipped scum and attacking townies, and you concluding that no scum would be that blatant about their scumbuddies. However acting "deliberately scummy" is another issue which this fallacy does not apply to. That is aside from the fact I never acted "scummy" to begin with. I'm glad we did this.

Hey, they're your thoughts not mine.
~Always look at the bad sides of thought~
Tudum, tudum, tudum, tudum.
~Always look at the bad sides of thoughts~
And now everybody

No, you suggested I would attack you no matter whether you voted me nor didn't. This is complete speculation and untrue. I drew attention to what I saw as you "signposting" a desire to vote me, which is what scum often do in order to attempt to appear consistent- they can say "oh well I started to get suspicious here, then I voted here". If the signposting seems unnatural, as it did, then it's a scumtell.

First is not true, second is because you're scummy and third is that he can't be still doing it as he got replaced >.<
(Hi Izzy )

Are you going to back up either of the first two assertions? Obviously I was wrong and he has been replaced.

Pressure?! You're saying it's unwise to let them live through end-game! How's that pressure?

It's just a principle that you ensure they contribute their suspects at all stages of the game. I'm not pressuring them currently because they haven't done anything scummy and other people have.

Then give up your hope, as I'll never reveal something spectacular.

Well I'm at least expecting a good explanation for why I needed to wait until Starbuck answered your questions. Otherwise I'm tempted to unvote the replacee in favour of you.

[ortolan]

She is saying that she has thrown suspicion on you but it appears to be wrong? Have I misinterpreted something?

[ortolan]

Also, I've only thrown suspicions at 4 players, of which one (Goat) seems to be wrong. I'll get to that post soon.
I'm pretty certain I have been worse in some games.

This implies that she was mistaken to think you are scum. Which means you are town. Why are you acting so defensively, I was just interpreting what she said, not necessarily disagreeing with it. I do wonder why she seemed so confident of your alignment however.

[ortolan]

I see, I think I am interpreting it as meaning "I was wrong to throw suspicion at Goat" whereas you are interpreting it as meaning "the suspicions I threw at Goat were wrong". Either way she needs to explain it.

[ortolan]

LOL @ ur avatar Tony

[ortolan]

[ortolan]

Still Sudo and Izzy

I dare anyone to quote me one attempt by Andycya to actually find scum for his whole tenure in the game, before being replaced out look a good scum should (check the statistics if you don't believe me). My scumdar is unbeatable, even when it threatens my own safety. I would be very displeased with being lynched, what has led you to join the naysayers Tony?

[ortolan]

I instantly suspect people who claim an impeccable scumdar. I'll give my own scumdar a C+

Do you think this is the only game in which I've given this assessment of my own abilities?

[ortolan]

why Zakeri, why

[ortolan]

That is a basis for suspecting me? Also curious as to why you are still voting for Kmd.

[ortolan]

Still looking for the Mixlogist replacement.

I doubt he will go to night until Mixologist gets replaced and the replacement gets some time in the game.

Those who have not yet commented on my points, at least on Andycya I would like you to do so. Please point me to some attempts my him to actually scumhunt during his tenure in the game rather than active-lurking/lurking as he did so much of (then replacing out).

[ortolan]

Unvote
Vote: Starbuck

A (very) far from optimal lynch but lynching a likely townie is better than no-lynching on day one.

[ortolan]

Hmm, I'm not regretting that vote so much anymore

[ortolan]

Would you self hammer please Starbuck, you are clearly the lynch for today and any lynch is better than no lynch for the town (otherwise waiting for someone else to hammer, or multiple people if required). I know it's hard unvoting me Sudo_Nym but give it a go.

[ortolan]

That statement while obvious seems disingenuous as he specifically drew attention to the fact that you would expect the votes-to-lynch to be reached but it hasn't been:

Yes, this count is correct.

[ortolan]

yes that is a good point actually, wait for someone else to vote her for info. My apologies.

[ortolan]

ZazieR: my intention was for her to out herself as scum by refusing to self-hammer despite the lynch being necessary from a town perspective. That was why I brought it up. However in retrospect as she's going to get lynched regardless it doesn't matter if we find out if she's scum before or after she gets lynched. I'm sure you'll find a way to spin this as scummy either way though, and regardless of what her flip was (I admit I was mistaken on this point though).

[ortolan]

This Starbuck wagon is

terrible

. She seems really clearly newbtown to me, though, no offence intended, she's not playing particularly well, but her motivations look pretty clear to me and her posts around the page 9/10/11 mark (which, correct me if I'm wrong, are the basis of the wagon) seem clearly worded from POV of town. The claim is weird but the last vote count pretty obviously implies that there are some weird voting issues in this game so it's believable (and testable, too).

I agree with all of this.

I'm also suspicious of Shadow Knight (heavy lurking, popped up about p10 saying "just going to skip to the end before i finish my read so I can comment" but the sense of timing to that post, discussing the current issue, was too exact for him not to have been following the thread. strong lurkerscum tell), and Izzy, entirely because of her predecessor (Andy felt slimy, particularly regarding his retrospective taking credit for starting discussion and claiming sarcasm on his end of page 1 vote which did not seem worded that way at all). ortolan might make the list but I need to have time for a more detailed read on his argument with Zazie and Sudo - I just don't have the time before deadline to give this the examination it deserves.

So you're suspicious of

both

sides of the wagon (me and Andy)? That seems a bizarre conclusion to draw.

Actually, if ortolan/Zazie/Sudo get online before deadline again, could either or preferably all of you summarise your cases against each other? That would be a great help.

I find Sudo and Andy/Izzy scummier than Zaz. Andy did nothing the whole game but be hypocritical about joke-voting, then vote me and latch on then never engage in any scumhunting or commentary for the duration of his stay in the game. Izzy seems to be trying his best to continue this trend. Sudo_Nym has been tunneling on me all game and re-reading my own posts I don't think he's been scum-hunting, I don't see why he could think my early game play is likely to come from scum when I have such little motivation to play like that as scum. Again, he ignores my arguments and continues tunneling. He also wagoned Starbuck for little reason. ZazieR is again similar. We got into long drawn out bouts of arguing because she continually used the least charitable interpretations of my arguments she could. Also Starbuck is an easy wagon.

[ortolan]

Is that enough to lynch?

[ortolan]

Can someone else vote her please, I believe that's the same people who were voting her before (CDB replaced Mixologist who was already voting her).

[ortolan]

Sudo's reveal gives me somewhat more confidence in ZazieR's motivations (pairing theory was wrong), but I retain my position on Andycya/Izzy

Vote: DizzyIzzyB13

[ortolan]

wall of text incoming

His vote on Sudo (in his second post) was an "I can get behind that". Obviously not a joke vote, but with no reasons. Easy to say it was "for reactions", but I won't buy that.

What do you think it was for then? Do you really think I'm that arrogant as scum that I think I can just boss people around with their votes, especially with players like you in the game? What do you think I was hoping to do after Sudo_Nym got lynched and flipped town (which I would know he was if I was scum)? Do you think I'd just get away with continually doing that for the rest of the game? Yes, my early play was for reactions, just because I did something you haven't seen me do before doesn't mean it's scummy. This applies to my comments both to Shadow Knight and Andy which you brought up.

Then. Empking is "100%" town? Well, with no Night 0, you only know this as scum. So thanks for scumclaiming.

Honestly, if I was scum the last thing I would try to do is play like I did in Past Ages at the beginning (declaring Empking town), which I'm sure you'd pick up on immediately. Don't tell me you have that little respect for my scum play . And believe me, in my experience I'm seriously good at reading Empking now, and it is helpful to get out of the way at the beginning of the game (see e.g. mod-revealed info in Lynch All Lurkers and Mushroom Kingdom 2, both large themes; although the latter is still ongoing).

- I disagree with you basically reiterating what ZazieR said, basically that justifying myself greatly is scummy. You can ask "why did you say OMGUS is a scumtell if you don't think you did it?" until you're blue in the face but it doesn't change the fact that OMGUS simply isn't a scumtell, in the original instance where it occurred the player that did it wasn't scum. So even if you establish that my vote was "OMGUS", whatever that's supposed to be, it's not scummy. I also denied that it was because it had reasons attached, plus in the scheme of things it was part of my early-game gambit anyway.

Now he votes Andy for voting him (Ort) for being scummy? What? Isn't that a protown reaction? Voting someone who refuses to take the game seriously. But remember kids, OMGUS isn't a scumtell. :teach:. Ort already said so.

Trying an early game gambit like that isn't "not taking the game seriously" at all, if anything it's taking it very seriously because you're potentially endangering your own survival by playing in an unorthodox way to catch scum reactions.

He continues on Andy for a little while and then tells me not to look for connections. Ok scum, I'll be sure not to try to find your buddies.

IIRC it was because you said you suspected I was "busing" Andy, which is pretty ridiculous. I objected to you basically interpreting an attack on someone else automatically as a bus, which has little validity unless you can point to an extra reason why it is.

Not sure what to make of Goatrevolt vs Kmd at present. Could well be townie vs townie.

Making sure to address it, as you yourself said that a scummy reaction to something getting attention is not addressing it. But no solid opinions apart from that it

could

be townie on townie action.

I said "could well be townie vs townie", because that's the impression I got. That is not just saying "could". I do not have perfect information about the game; I do not know your and Goat's alignments but the impression I got was that it was very possibly just a misconceived fight between two townies.

e.g. your lynch. Hop to it guys!

Hello Zakeri, please vote Andycya

Reading is optional before voting Andycya

I thought this was an early game approach for reactions. What do you call it when it's no longer near-RVS?

This point really doesn't make sense. If I had only "located" my gambit in the RVS, then it would have been dismissed as simply another feature of the RVS. It had to be continued beyond it to look somewhat like genuine intent otherwise no-one would have reacted to it and just dismissed it as part of the RVS.

Because scum have no motivation to act deliberately scummy unless they are trying to throw the game, which is against site-wide rules.

Unless they want to set up a WIFOM argument that the only reason for scum to do it is to throw the game which they'd never do. OH WAIT. YOU DID THAT. XD

Well it is just that, WIFOM. In my experience scum have less to gain by drawing attention to themselves at the beginning of the game than townies. Townies can afford to be mislynched more than scum can.

Next, Ort defends Zazie's points and then asks Zazie about her opinions on Andy. Gotta redirect to the easy target now. (Btw, with Ortscum, Andy (Izzy) is likely town)

I do not deny this conclusion but as I am not scum the premise is invalid.

Zazie makes good points on Ort again, and he says "who do you suspect" after defending this time. Again, trying to shift Zazie's attention elsewhere. She didn't bite on your Andy redirection, so now you give her the option to go anywhere she chooses. But it seems clear that she suspects you, and rightfully so. (Btw, Ortscum makes Zazie is likely town.)

Yes, she has said she suspects me, that much is clear. I took issue with her not looking for any other suspects, even though she should be looking for a mafia team of approximately three. I had my suspects very clearly laid out, but both she and Sudo_Nym were tunneled on me. I still think I was in the right, and they weren't justified in effectively tunneling and calling for a policy lynch on me, but we can discuss this post-game.

The pattern continues as Zazie makes more good points, Ort defends some more and then asks about other players, including Starbuck and Shadow Knight, at the end of each post.

What, are you honestly suggesting this is in any way scummy?

Please guys, the scum are dominating the game, would you post more.

Now this is scummy.

How?

Warning, this may not be suitable for children:

?

Unless you're a vig, you have to vote him to get him lynched.

Also, ZazieR's rolefishing in 307 is positively hilarious

1) I fail to see fishing. It's pretty much fact that anyone who isn't a vig has to get a lynch to have their suspect killed. The only exception is an anti town role (or some other kind of killing role. Vig is most common though.)

My point was her saying "unless you're a vig" was totally unnecessary, and possibly an attempt to subtly provoke role info.

2) Oh, wait. Ignore this. OMGUS isn't a scumtell, right?

What???

The vote on Star could go either way. That was the direction we were heading anyway, so I have no problem with the vote itself. What I don't like is how you separate yourself from the lynch by saying she is "very" far from optimal.

Um, what???? I had repeatedly said I thought she was town (which is now vindicated). Of course her lynch was suboptimal. How can you possibly take issue with me saying that? I never wanted her lynched (well until she claimed one more vote to lynch and that she could only hammer; in my experience with completed games the latter feature was only present in a scum fake-claim in Sushi Mafia; which happened after this comment).

And then asking her to self-hammer is just weird.. You say only scum wouldn't self hammer, but why? Town should VERY rarely self-hammer. This was not a time for that.

I was trying to get her to out herself as scum by refusing to self-hammer. My intentions were mistaken, as I later realised, because if she didn't one more person had to vote for her, which would necessarily give us more information. So, yes, I was mistaken. However you don't actually explain how these actions were scummy. What motivation would I have, as scum, for saying something which looks anti-town like that but doesn't actually accomplish anything beyond making people suspect me more?

Vote Ortolan

Extremely scummy. Needs to be lynched ASAP.

This is hypocritical. Part of your case against me was me making statements like this (I do not think it is a scumtell in either case, but you are being a hypocrite by attacking me for it but doing it yourself).

Also, lol at Sudo dying and Ortolan using it to set up Izzy's lynch over Zazie's.

How am I "using it to set up Izzy's lynch over Zazie's."? I always suspected Andycya/Izzy alongside Sudo_Nym. I acknowledge Sudo's flip makes ZazieR look more like she has town motivations. I also acknowledge Sudo's flip makes me look bad, because we had both been attacking one another and I found him very scummy. Also how is "wanting to lynch Izzy over Zazie" actually scummy, anyway? You are implying that Zazie is my scumbuddy, hence I don't want to lynch her, yet you earlier said that if I am scum Zazie is very likely to be town (which I agree with, if I am scum then Zazie

is

very likely to be town; however I am not).

Pretty much your whole case against me relies on the least charitable interpretation of my actions possible. You've also totally changed your tune since day one, you never once actively suspected me then; in favour of totally different people. I think you may well have realised that many people would be prepared to vote me day 1 (based on Empking's poll, for example), and thought you could push through a mislynch with ease. Also, many of your points are rehashes of what ZazieR has already said, even though you didn't even comment on them at the original time she made them. The timing of the case and the fact you really seem to be assuming I play scum far more incompetently than the evidence suggests makes me suspect it is disingenuous.

[ortolan]

Oh well. I only need to convince a majority, not everyone.

The fact that you would attempt to "convince" Goatrevolt is odd to me, didn't you spend the whole first day calling him scum, in which case he would never be "convinced" of anything you say, he could only feign it?

[ortolan]

oh, and check out what Kmd said on the top post of this very page; while accusing me of distancing from Starbuck's mislynch (how is that any different from what I said???????????????)

[ortolan]

well, it was based on the logic that your lynch was inevitable anyhow; so if you refused to hammer at that point you were obv-scum.

However, I admitted my reasoning was wrong after the fact (and, despite what Kmd says, I don't see how saying that that helps me if I am scum)

[ortolan]

I'm willing to bet of Sudo didn't stump me. I wouldn't have been in the write up and would be "alive" right now.

What?

I don't think someone hammering themselves in general is obvscum, but my logic in this case was seeing as you were definitely going to be lynched anyway, if you refused to hammer yourself if it was inevitable anyway this made you more scummy. This might still be true, but the problem with what I said was that if you're going to be lynched anyway then there's no point speeding it up, and not seeing who the last person to hammer is deprives us of a bit of information (as it turned out, you weren't even lynched by the end of the day anyway).

[ortolan]

I'm willing to bet of Sudo didn't stump me. I wouldn't have been in the write up and would be "alive" right now.

What?

I don't think someone hammering themselves in general is obvscum, but my logic in this case was seeing as you were definitely going to be lynched anyway, if you refused to hammer yourself if it was inevitable anyway this made you more scummy. This might still be true, but the problem with what I said was that if you're going to be lynched anyway then there's no point speeding it up, and not seeing who the last person to hammer is deprives us of a bit of information (as it turned out, you weren't even lynched by the end of the day anyway).

[ortolan]

I know all that

[ortolan]

Isn't that obvious from my day one posts? I was extremely confident he was scum

[ortolan]

*zing*

you are making way too many assumptions about a SensFan setup (I am not scum)

[ortolan]

I'm not suggesting the mod lied to you, I am responsible for his death. You are wrong in inferring that I am scum however.

[ortolan]

He might be an SK who is trying to pass himself off as vig.

This is a very interesting post. There was only one death last night. I have claimed responsibility for it. Yet you are assuming I am an SK?

[ortolan]

I think the town should decide whether they want me or Kmd to claim, and who should do so first.

[ortolan]

Kmd's obviously scum

He initially implied he had a tracking ability (which I don't dispute, there's no way he could have guessed that I targetted Sudo_Nym without this ability), but is now also breadcrumbing that he has a cop guilty on me, which is BS because I am town. Plus having both a tracking and alignment determining ability is a ridiculous claim anyway. Plus he in his last post he is seemingly implying he had an investigative ability on me, and guessed I targeted Sudo_Nym, even though it was clear that Starbuck's "death" resulted from Sudo using his ability for anyone who read the reveal scene. Finally, regardless of anything else he's said, he claims he is "tossing up" between whether I am an SK or vig. If he is a town investigative role, and saw me kill Sudo_Nym, the only unaccounted for death, why would he assume I am an SK rather than mafia?

Kmd = scum tracker

Plus, he wants me to "claim first" even though I've already claimed 1) a killing role 2) who targeted Sudo_Nym 3) not to be scum i.e. town-aligned. What more does he actually want me to claim, unless he just wants more fuel for this bizarre fake-claim he's trying to pull off?

[ortolan]

so, Kmd, what is your role please.

[ortolan]

Vote: ortolan

[ortolan]

thanks for the game

The setting and flavour were cool and I liked the original elements of some of the roles.

I don't like the element that even if I'd played scum perfectly my partner still might have decided to double-cross me thereby making it impossible to win, nor did I like the strong kingmaker element to the final night's choices, but I guess that is inevitable with the bastard-modding element to our faction and the multiple scumgroups thing respectively.

[ortolan]

Based on Empking's role PM, specifically the "with a bad reputation" part, I wouldn't have been surprised if the "confirmed" status was asymmetrical.

[ortolan]

(as such I don't think that was bastard modding)

[ortolan]

wait a minute, how come there was only one kill a night on the first 3 nights????????

[ortolan]

also how exactly do I have a vendetta against you Zaz?

You've been scum in the two completed games I attacked you in (and I was scum in this as well).

[ortolan]

why would Zaz cast spells on people instead of just killing them?

[ortolan]

lol, that would be funny

I can understand it happening nights one and two (they would have killed Sudo_Nym intending to make me look bad and then they would have killed Kmd after the cop claim) but if it happened night 3 (orangepenguin iirc) it would surprise me

[ortolan]

he wasn't confirmed though?

[ortolan]

I would have killed the confirmed town mason

[ortolan]

wow that's...interesting play

I originally killed Sudo_Nym as I intended to fakeclaim vig (I knew there was another scumgroup based on my role PM). That kind of got shot when the only other kill was his (I was shocked when that happened). Although it was more shot by the investigation guilty and all

btw, Sudo_Nym's role was extremely powerful. Has that role been in any other games? (I saw the "treestump" role in the game mith's running/about to run but that's different). The best play to me would be to stump the best scumhunters. If they're scum they die, if they're not you get their input for the rest of the game.

[ortolan]

also I guess I was a bit lucky we didn't get lynch threshold on Starbuck on day one cause I prolly would have been stumped otherwise

[ortolan]

yes it was an interesting decision

Zaz, you around? How come you played like that?