Mini Normal 2148 (Post Game)

[Green Crayons]

Now this, votato, is scummy:

Again!? Beating a dead horse here pal. I suppose you wouldn't know if my scumread was legitimate or not, because you haven't bothered to ask me or probe my explanation, you've just set up an implausible strawman.

- I've raised this point several times, both to generally to the thread to explain my vote and to specific players to try to get them to engage with it. That's not "beating a dead horse," but he tries to discredit normal mafia play.
- I don't need to know whether his scumread was legitimate because he already gave his reason for voting you, and it was not an AI reason. Thus the reason as he stated was not legitimate. (lol and now he's taking his time to try to justify his vote to create a new reason)
- Calling strawman, when there's no straw man here, to deflect from his scumminess

[stungun0404]

you're awfully defensive GC. your tone doesn't seem very town to me.

in fact, you remind me a lot of mathblade!scum. If others aren't sold on GC so far outside of the ones on his wagon, I can show you similarities between GC's game this game and a game I played where Mathblade was scum, because in some ways they have been strikingly similar.

[Green Crayons]

It's like you're scum and taunting me.

see your taunts directed at me

I taunt bad cases on obvious town.

[Green Crayons]

stun, you're a lost cause. enjoy some kite flying.

[Green Crayons]

He reads votato as scum only because of your meta analysis. But your meta analysis specifically said it was a wash on alignment, and so wasn't AI:

The fact Stungun doesn't think it's AI, doesn't mean I don't think it's AI. I believe I said, as above, "I like the analysis", as opposed to "I agree with the analysis in it's entirety and share Stungun's resulting conclusion". I did in fact think it was AI, and voted for that reason.

Why is it AI?

I'll answer that when I've caught up.

just lol

Adding onto this BM trying to come up with a real reason to justify a votato vote

is that BM shaded me for not trying to engage him for why he voted votato

so then when I point blank asked him about that reason

he said "hold on let me come up with a reason"

[stungun0404]

It's like you're scum and taunting me.

see your taunts directed at me

I taunt bad cases on obvious town.

What makes you obvious town? idgi

[Green Crayons]

^^^ the hypocrisy is AI because he's coming up with reasons to vote me and then those reasons crumble as he backs down

[Green Crayons]

What makes you obvious town? idgi

It's partially a joke. I'm obvtown to myself. The joke is that votato can't know that.

[stungun0404]

OK,

assuming you are by chance town, the only possible alternative I can see at the moment is BM in the corresponding scum slot that I think you are in now. It is a very clear either/or situation to me, because nothing makes sense without one of you being scum. So your best bet is probably to try and sway me on why he is scummier than you.

I still am heavily biased towards thinking you are the scum there, though.

[Green Crayons]

Neat.

I've already tried to get you to engage with my BM suspicions. You've ignored me. I also just expounded on them. You're ignoring that as well.

[Green Crayons]

in the corresponding scum slot

Also, I cannot express enough how bad it is to try to fill up scum team slots in D1. Associative suspicions are practically worthless in D1 without flips.

[stungun0404]

Neat.

I've already tried to get you to engage with my BM suspicions. You've ignored me. I also just expounded on them. You're ignoring that as well.

Just a minute. I will look over it.

in the corresponding scum slot

Also, I cannot express enough how bad it is to try to fill up scum team slots in D1. Associative suspicions are practically worthless in D1 without flips.

Things like this have worked for me before on D1. I can remember a few times I have done it before off the top of my head, but there probably are more somewhere.

viewtopic.php?p=10269994#p10269994

I made a hot take that all scum were in a group of 4 players, which actually ended up being correct, because all three scum were in that group of players.

Now granted, I replaced out of that game early, but when I get a strong intuition about scum on D1, my past games have proven that I am best to follow it.

Also did it in another game on D1 here
viewtopic.php?p=10373659#p10373659
And my later intuition that Kokichi was clearly the scum between the two after analyzing everyone on D1 was correct.

I can remember another game on another site that I had really really strong reads on all the scum on D1, so all I am saying is if I get really strong intuitions that something is the case on D1, I have yet to see/don't recall that it has been proven wrong. I have been consistent in how I have formed those reads too; it seems it has helped more than hurt town.

[geraintm]

in the corresponding scum slot

Also, I cannot express enough how bad it is to try to fill up scum team slots in D1. Associative suspicions are practically worthless in D1 without flips.

I like this post

[stungun0404]

If it works for you though, it can be a good thing. It's up to your playstyle IMO.

Others might not see where I get my logic from, but I am confident in the source of how I obtain it.

[stungun0404]

Also, it's not that I am looking for associatives in the sense of who is working together, but more I am looking to make sense of the game from the standpoint of "the game only makes sense if one of these players is scum", and the alternative makes absolutely no sense.

There are ways to read into that on D1, such as vote pushes for example.

Now I will look into your bm suspicion, GC.

[Green Crayons]

I made a hot take that all scum were in a group of 4 players, which actually ended up being correct, because all three scum were in that group of players.

This is different than associative tells, right?

You say: these four players are scum based on my gut read/how they did suspicious things. That's not association based.

That is different than: these four players are scum based on how they're acting with each other. That's association based.

Saying you've got X-number of scum slots, and you're filling them up with either/ors, makes it sound like you're using associative suspicions.

[Green Crayons]

Also, it's not that I am looking for associatives in the sense of who is working together, but more I am looking to make sense of the game from the standpoint of "the game only makes sense if one of these players is scum", and the alternative makes absolutely no sense.

I guess that's a distinction, but I don't really see the difference except in the phrasing.

[bob3141]

I remember the first time I played with you where getting a read on you was like trying to get blood out of stone.

What was his alignment?

He was town that game but it was hard to tell if he was town being stubborn or simply scum that didn't want to commit. If he is scum this game, on that I wouldn't expect him to really differ that much from his town meta though. As his town meta is so strongly anti day one it would be such a uturn if he did.

Since i've really only ever done a quick skim of his scum meta. I can't really say for sure if this is germa being stubborn town again or if this scum germa and he is simply stubborn all round.

[votato]

GC youre right that BM is scummy. BM is literally always scummy though. and bad at scumhunting. this is actually better than what ive seen elsewhere. so im not sure what to make of that. but isnt it true that old meta meant juminess/defensiveness was a big scum tell, and so if GC is old meta, then this is a scumtell?

GC is also chainsaw defending me, which is interesting.

[stungun0404]

OK, so I am going to try my best to summarize GC's case on BM from what I gather, because I have been having a little bit of trouble interpreting it fully on the surface:
first, GC suspects one of the votes on the original Votato wagon to be scum between me, ns, Bob, mala, and BM, because the votes were lazy on that wagon.
GC finds BM scummy because his vote on Votato looks made up, because BM said he liked my meta analysis on Votato which said what he has done so far is NAI, but because BM thought Votato was scummy for what I analyzed. So GC finds BM to voting Votato there not because he thinks Votato is truly scummy, but instead extending my NAI read on Votato to mean he is scummy? In some ways, I can understand this logic here, but in other ways this seems a little bit of a stretch, so I'm conflicted looking at this reasoning? BM could have just voted Votato on the basis of not seeing anything scummier to that point, so I feel like the better argument would be that he's not properly scumhunting, and thus he is scum assuming your vantage point is town. He simply is feeding off of my read, and interpreting ~ to be scummy based off of that, using my analysis to both shield him and pocket me.

So, yes I will concede overall to GC that is a little bit of a poor push, which is what aided me in concluding that one of you has to be scum because conceivably that push could be an instance of scum not truly scumhunting, but faking it. OTOH, you know I have already felt strong about you, GC, and so from my perspective seeing BM's push together with my read on you, I can't possibly see a gamestate where neither of you are scum.

OK, you also have a fair point in the fact that BM is conflicting himself in 404 by keeping his vote on Votato while saying "last time I saw something like this, it flipped town, but what can you do about it?" That is honestly weird, but in your case I noted the same thing with you voting BM while pushing Dunnstral, so I have seen this in effect from both of you, and thus by this logic too it does not make sense that both of you are town.

I am just honestly stuck in a situation right now where I am not yet convicted enough in BM's scumminess yet to move my vote off you, especially since something you have done ended up being a reason you are pushing BM.

525] You also made a case against BM here, but I am having trouble understanding this push, so it will take a little extra parsing, but I will attempt to understand what is scummy about it from your vantage point as soon as I can.

[Green Crayons]

GC finds BM scummy because his vote on Votato looks made up, because BM said he liked my meta analysis on Votato which said what he has done so far is NAI, but because BM thought Votato was scummy for what I analyzed. So GC finds BM to voting Votato there not because he thinks Votato is truly scummy, but instead extending my NAI read on Votato to mean he is scummy?

Yeeeeeeeeeeeeeees, thank you.

In some ways, I can understand this logic here, but in other ways this seems a little bit of a stretch, so I'm conflicted looking at this reasoning?

BM could have just voted Votato on the basis of not seeing anything scummier to that point

, so I feel like the better argument would be that he's not properly scumhunting, and thus he is scum assuming your vantage point is town. He simply is feeding off of my read, and interpreting ~ to be scummy based off of that, using my analysis to both shield him and pocket me.

Good point, but complete hypothetical.

BM has since clarified that he thought your meta read was good, but instead of agreeing with NAI, he found it AI. So BM has wedded himself to saying that his basis for voting votato was because your meta read was actually AI.

That means, way back at the time he voted votato, he thought your meta analysis was AI.

So I challenged him on it. How is it AI?

BM's response: "um give me a minute"

Right here:

Spoiler: I already quoted this

He reads votato as scum only because of your meta analysis. But your meta analysis specifically said it was a wash on alignment, and so wasn't AI:

The fact Stungun doesn't think it's AI, doesn't mean I don't think it's AI. I believe I said, as above, "I like the analysis", as opposed to "I agree with the analysis in it's entirety and share Stungun's resulting conclusion". I did in fact think it was AI, and voted for that reason.

Why is it AI?

I'll answer that when I've caught up.

just lol

If he already thought it was AI, he could just say why instead of delaying to come up with a reason.

[stungun0404]

Yeah, that's strange, I'm ngl... I will need explanation for that.

[bob3141]

you're awfully defensive GC. your tone doesn't seem very town to me.

in fact, you remind me a lot of mathblade!scum. If others aren't sold on GC so far outside of the ones on his wagon, I can show you similarities between GC's game this game and a game I played where Mathblade was scum, because in some ways they have been strikingly similar.

I've never played with mathblade scum and think only one town game for one day. So it's a bit hard to get the tell tale signs that you've seen in math that you claim to believe that green is also exhibiting this game.

Are you saying you can see scum motivation behind some of greens actions that mirror what a mathblade would do in this game. Or more general thing.

[stungun0404]

you're awfully defensive GC. your tone doesn't seem very town to me.

in fact, you remind me a lot of mathblade!scum. If others aren't sold on GC so far outside of the ones on his wagon, I can show you similarities between GC's game this game and a game I played where Mathblade was scum, because in some ways they have been strikingly similar.

I've never played with mathblade scum and think only one town game for one day. So it's a bit hard to get the tell tale signs that you've seen in math that you claim to believe that green is also exhibiting this game.

Are you saying you can see scum motivation behind some of greens actions that mirror what a mathblade would do in this game. Or more general thing.

Multiple things -- tone seems similar, for one. And two, lots of filler posts saying "Ew/gross/this looks bad", but not really elaborating on them, simply pointing them out.

I found it weird that Math did that in that game, and knowing now that he was indeed scum (although a lot of people wrongly townread him), it makes me wary of GC.

Here was my suspicion in that game, which turned out to be right:
viewtopic.php?p=10351600#p10351600
essentially, this part: "@mathblade, what is eww about my post. why should i shield that we’ve won a game together before? also gives her a hint of what to expect regarding my townplay —> even though the game we played together was micro and this is much different as it is a large game.

scum could easily say ‘eww’ to something just to bring attention to it

—> so explain what you have bad feelings about please."

Meaning that those "looks bad/gross/this is bad logic/etc." posts are merely filler meaning to draw attention to certain posts, without really explaining anything. I swear, mathblade did that a lot in that game, and I have seen similar from GC in this game.


They both have been similar in activity level too. Mathblade had way more posts than any town member even after replacing into the game (1385, while a scum mate also had 1380, and the most any town player was 1264).

Here, GC is similarly dominating with far and away more posts than anyone else right now, and quite a bit of filler especially in some of his posts.

He has 97 posts, whereas 2nd most is NS at 75, followed by me with 56 after this one.

Because of all these similarities, I find it will be hard for me not to believe GC is scum.

[votato]

yeah metareads can often be problematic, but i dont like the idea of using meta from one person to read another person. do you have evidence so suggest that they have similar scumgames or similar towngames?