Mini 956: The Quayside (Game Over)

[NabakovNabakov]

A question for all; if you were scum, how would we tell?

I wouldn't post close to deadline. It's my biggest hang-up as scum, and it's more pathological than tactical, so it's a hard habit to break.

Vote: Ectomancer

[NabakovNabakov]

Oh I got on such a rant. As for this game, Patrick looks suspicious. Whoever starts pointing the most baseless fingers in the RVS looks fishy to me. But I hope I'm not omgussing.

Isn't that the first guy to post (who is typically the first one to vote). What could be more baseless than that?

How do you feel about Elmo?

On a more serious note, I think pops is scum. My vote wasn't random. Something about his first post rubbed me the wrong way. I felt like he was trying too hard to appear casual/joking and it came off as forced. Then he tried to joke when I called him scum, but it felt forced again, and hell, he didn't deny it.

You mean like how your wife beating joke was forced? RL D1 of D1 of an invitational (basically) is a tough crowd, and while I have reasons for looking at pops, it's not because he's a bad comedian.

/agree with Incognito. Non-rookie scum aren't jumping at the chance to increase their profile during RVS.

[NabakovNabakov]

/agree with Incognito. Non-rookie scum aren't jumping at the chance to increase their profile during RVS.

This is WIFOM. If people think like me, then it is a profile raise to point fingers in RVS, and he won't do it. If they don't think like me, they can do it and get away with it. But he definitely wouldn't do it if we knew we'd catch him doing it right? silliness.

I'm not really sure what you're saying here. The issue of whether or not pointing fingers will raise profiles (which is an issue dependent on

your

perception of the game) is valid, but it isn't really WIFOM. The WIFOM comes in the question of whether or not profile-raising is a good tactic. Insofar as it's widely considered to be a bad more for scum, they shouldn't do it, but that always leaves the door open for doing it anyway in an attempt to appear town.

Can you answer my two questions now?

[NabakovNabakov]

On a more serious note, I think pops is scum. My vote wasn't random. Something about his first post rubbed me the wrong way. I felt like he was trying too hard to appear casual/joking and it came off as forced. Then he tried to joke when I called him scum, but it felt forced again, and hell, he didn't deny it.

You mean like how your wife beating joke was forced? RL D1 of D1 of an invitational (basically) is a tough crowd, and while I have reasons for looking at pops, it's not because he's a bad comedian.

Meh. Meh. I have reasons for looking at pops beyond him being "a bad comedian" as well. Why not bother to address that? You pulled out a small part of my post, said you don't buy it, said you have differing reasons to be suspicious of the same player I am, and then ignored the rest of my post where I also gave additional reasoning. Weird...

But that's what started this. You made the second post of the game, and you've claimed that the vote in that post wasn't random. All you would have had to go on at that point was pops' bad joke. Additionally, the post you're getting on his case about now can also be read entirely as a bad joke. The "I don't know if he's scum" part is essential to set up the "but he beats his wife" part. The joke, as a continuation of the "do you still beat your wife?" method of identifying a loaded question, emphasizes the absurdity of basing a vote on anything other than a scum read. By extension, it accuses Goatrevolt's loaded question and vote of being absurd. It is thus more akin to Ecto's paraphrase of SC than it is to pops' later qualifications about Patrick-suspicion, which I certainly do find to be suspicious.

So... now you know someone who likes explaining jokes.

[NabakovNabakov]

You're missing the point. You're putting undue emphasis on why I initially went after pops and ignoring any of my later reasons. Do you tend to go back to page 1 reasoning on day 3 and say "well that's what started this?"

Well, my last post dealt with the bad comedian and the two instances of qualification. You're right to say I haven't mentioned the note about him leaving your wagon. The self-conscious comment is more general and tied in with the bad comedian point, and I'm dealing with other parts of the Patrick section myself.

You're acting like I'm attempting to take apart your case piece by piece. Am I not allowed to say: "I'd like to pursue this point, but I don't like that point."?

@NabNab, which qualifications about his suspicions of me do you dislike? I've fairly often seen players say that they're worried their read of someone might be coloured by OMGUS.

My main problem with the post was the inconsistency in only identifying you as the player "pointing the most baseless fingers." Your random vote hadn't been very content-rich, but neither had Jahudo's or Elmo's. Why single you out? Now that I think about it, that could be an effect of OMGUS, but then why pop up to say "Hey guys, I thought I had a read, but it turned out I didn't."?


Hm... maybe the whole thing wasn't as bad as my initial reaction.

[NabakovNabakov]

Nab: Do you think OMGUS is a scum tell?

More fallacy than scumtell. If we're talking OMGUS as an unconscious response to a threat (as we are in this situation), marking a person who is attacking you as scum is more indicative of a townie mindset. If it's a conscious tactic where you're essentially driving your own chainsaw defense, then it's a mild scumtell.

surefooted

lol

[NabakovNabakov]

Nab has earned my vote via this:

RL D1 of D1 of an invitational (basically) is a tough crowd, and

while I have reasons for looking at pops,

it's not because he's a bad comedian.

People who say 'backup reasons I will not express' ping my scumdar.

Umm... they're not a secret. I was interested in why pops was giving undue attention to Patrick as opposed to Elmo or Jahudo, who all had equally low content-levels in their random votes, thus the prodding about Elmo in the very same post your quoted. I didn't want to lay my case completely on the line at that moment, because I was concerned about tainting pops' response about Elmo, but I've been very straightforward about my thinking since then.

[NabakovNabakov]

Goatrevolt is moving the game forward and part of me wants to say he's slightly townish, but I don't know if it's warranted. I wonder if Elmo could comment on this.

He's prolly town

unvote vote ectomancer

(this is me not making a waffle post since you found that scummy last time fwiw)

Oh, hi Elmo, nice of you to show up 8 minutes after someone first asked for your opinion on something. Care to elaborate on... anything?

@Goat: If you're still set on pops being scum, you must be

really

set on SC being scum. Why haven't you said anything to his 71?

[NabakovNabakov]

Well, I'm clearly not happy with Elmo's contribution so far. An unaccompanied random vote I can handle, but staying entirely out of discussion until somebody specifically asks for his opinion is just bad form. Even when he gives his opinion, as with his vote, there's nothing to support it.

I'm also suspicious of McGriddle. His first move of the game is to play the bad scum card (as well as an implied "I'm the only non-invited player in an invitational" card), and his play since then has been almost purely reflexive. The one thing he's taken initiative on was 59, where he claims pops can't have be a power-role. At first, this just struck me as some sloppy analysis, but things really get interesting in 80, where he sneaks in a declaration of pops' scumminess when the post in question had only dealt with PR status regardless of alignment. These two elements (the sloppy analysis and unsupported accusation, that is) combine to:

And if he claims a PR I am more inclined to think he is lying than say if his meta didn't disagree.

A "Semi-Knowledgeable" vote eventually follows.

So, assuming McGriddle's suspicion of pops' is based on goat's case or some derivative of it, his only real contribution to the game has been a reason to preemptively doubt any non-vanilla claims pops might make. Funny how this obtuse piece of analysis just happens to play into the dominant wagon.

Unvote; Vote: McGriddle

[NabakovNabakov]

I think it would be fairly difficult to answer

as the only player who didn't join this game by invitation, how do you feel about the player list?

without playing an implied "I'm the only non-invited player in an invitational" card.

Point taken. I had seen his EBWOP below that and not the fact that he included that line in the first post.

@McGriddle:

Nobody asked you if you were bad or good scum. Username asked you how he would know if you were scum. You took that as an

opportunity

to declare that you were bad scum.

Untrue, I have been doing what I can to help town, and also answering any questions I have been asked. Could you tell me how that is scummy?

Most of your posting has been a reaction to things Username, Jahudo, RedCoyote, Incog, Goat, and (just recently), I have said about/asked of you. It was the Incog one that got me the most, considering that he wasn't even asking you anything. It put me in mind of a player skimming the thread for questions being asked of them and little else. Ultimately, this is scummy because no townie is ever going to catch scum by talking about himself, but scum have much more of an interest in controlling their image.

I didn't sneak anything in, I was explaining my reasoning about said post. I was telling everyone that my reasoning behind it was not so we knew who had/didn't have a PR, but that because of this he is more likely to be scum, and less likely to be detrimental.

Well, this might be an issue where the sloppiness of your analysis comes into play. So you have had an encounter with pops were he was a PR (which other players, including pops, have since identified as atypical anyway). How would you know that isn't how pops always acts? How do you know that pops doesn't react that way to having a town alignment (including vanilla)? How do you know that pops doesn't react that way to having a night action (including a scumkill)? There are so many moving variables related to this one piece of information, that any conclusion about the pops alignment that comes from it is extremely tenuous.

So are you really trying to tell me that your vote on pops is based entirely on that type of meta-analysis and had nothing to do with a goat-style case? Otherwise, why didn't you, at the very least, cite somebody else's case in 80? Even so, there's really no getting around the grammar of the thing:

I was only saying my opinion

that

he is not a PR

and that

he has a good chance at being scum

Red indicates that these were statements you have already made. Green is identifiable in 59.

Where did Purple come from?

@Elmo: Because I want to know what you're thinking, and I don't want to have to drag it out of you. When you do that, it comes out all guarded and gross, and who wants that?

[NabakovNabakov]

wtf is guarded and gross about answering questions?

Someone else has defined the parameters of your posting for you, and that gives you something to hide behind. I learn far more from a player who comes out of the blue to say "goatrevolt is prolly town" than I do from a player who is making the same comment in response to a question. Thinking about why a player posted the things he does (like why McGriddle jumped on Incog's not-really-a-question) gives insight into motivations. If your why is always "because I was asked," that's a big curtain over your motivations.

Independent of that, it's a pain to have to summon Elmo's opinion with a question mark every time something important happens. Why can't you just volunteer it?

[NabakovNabakov]

How am I supposed to know what you consider important?

Exactly. I would only know to summon you when something struck

me

as important. The only way I'll know what's important to you (and I want to) is for you to post without prompting.

[NabakovNabakov]

To clarify. When I was talking about the first thing McGriddle did, I meant the very first paragraph of 21, where he primarily responded to the "How would I know if you were scum?" portion of username's question. He later EBWOPed a more specific response to the question directed just at him. This is why I didn't notice that both questions were quoted in 21. I was mainly interested in McGriddle's posting, so I glossed over and thought the first question only was quoted in 21.

For the record, it was only that response I was identifying as the "first thing," and insofar as it is a response

only

to the "how would I know you are scum?" question (and the fact that he EBWOPed in the later answer would indicate that McGriddle was only answering this question here), it still played the invitational card.

[NabakovNabakov]

Reading over Nabakov's case against McGriddle, I found it unconvincing. I thought McGriddle's bad scum card read fairly naturally and not like something put in to try and lull people into a false sense of security (also, based on a small snapshot, I think it's true). The first point has a bit of a cooked up feel to it.

I don't agree with Nabakov's McGriddle case over the "bad scum" and "only non-invitation" points. They looked like normal responses, nothing to gain or lose.

The issue of McGriddle pre-making excuses isn't the heart of my case. How about his sneaking onto the pops wagon?

[NabakovNabakov]

When asked to clarify, he declines to do so.

Dunno where this is true.

Technically correct. All requests to clarify or elaborate on your opinions have been ignored rather than declined. Though I don't really know if that counts for anything.

Even though I agree with you in principle the only reason why I can't get behind this is because I happen to be well aware of how McGriddle came to his conclusion. He isn't wrong, and his meta of pops as a leading figure isn't something he pulled out of thin air. That being said, the way he's gone about voting him is awkward to say the least, and especially this quote above (post #124) where I'm sensing a resistance to really do more than dip his toe into the game.

So you're saying McGriddle is going beyond "pops is a leading figure when he is a town PR" to saying "pops is a leading figure when he is town." What about the fact that pops' leading role in that game was to break it, something that isn't really possible in this game at this point?

[NabakovNabakov]

I can still get behind the idea of finding Elmo hard to read, when he doesn't explain what he's thinking, but Nabakov's method is questionable upon a second look. His question here:

Oh, hi Elmo, nice of you to show up 8 minutes after someone first asked for your opinion on something. Care to elaborate on... anything?

Looks like a setup to confirm his suspicion in the second post here...

Well, I'm clearly not happy with Elmo's contribution so far. An unaccompanied random vote I can handle, but staying entirely out of discussion until somebody specifically asks for his opinion is just bad form. Even when he gives his opinion, as with his vote, there's nothing to support it.

No matter how Elmo would have responded or not responded. He asks Elmo to elaborate on his opinions then says Elmo is only contributing when people are asking him to elaborate on his opinions.

If you're trying to prove your theory, it would make more sense to actually wait and see if Elmo contributed on his own. What wold have been the acceptable response?

After you get a read that a player isn't contributing, waiting to call them on it in order to build some kind of case is counterproductive. Getting Elmo to elaborate >>> Nailing him on not contributing. I've already said that I'm interested in what he thinks, and I stick by calling his play bad form rather than scummy (this whole issue is probably playstyle difference). However, the message that Elmo doesn't feel like telling me what he thinks certainly got through in 145, which is why I haven't really bothered to ask why he's voting me.

-------
I guess the problem I'm still having with McGriddle is that I really don't see where there's an ounce of suspicion in this post:

Well, I have played a game before in which pops was a high PR, and I was also town, and from my experience, pops was a huge leader in that game, and posted a lot of good content. Something I see lacking in here. I think it wise to look into that, meaning, I don't know neccesarilly if he is scum, but he could either be scum or vanilla townie, I can't see him as a PR.

So smuggling suspicion into that post (like McGriddle did in 80) is suspect. McGriddle has since provided more explanation of that meta, and maybe the lack of expressing suspicion in 59 was just an oversight.

I don't really get why he unvoted pops in consideration of voting me or Jahudo. He's said that it's his suspicion of me that has increased, and his suspicion of pops has remained constant. Unvoting only has bearing on pops, so unvoting when his position with respect to pops hasn't changed doesn't make sense. Further, if he really thinks I'm more likely to be scum than pops, why the hell isn't he voting me? Maybe making the 5th consecutive reasonless vote on this wagon seems like a dangerous play if this whole things goes belly up.

[NabakovNabakov]

Note: This post has been ninja'd by 203-209. I will address them at a later date.

One really key interaction I noted was the one between SerialClergyman and Nabakov. If Nabakov ends up as scum, I bet SC is as well. SC called out Nabakov, but didn't vote him in that post. I found that really odd at the time, and then when called out on it by Red Coyote, he votes for Red Coyote next, and never goes back to Nabakov, which I also found odd. When the Nabakov wagon picks up, SerialClergyman jumps on immediately. Distance, distance, distance! There is a strong chance the two are scum together.

Don't forget how I pushed at your vote on SC in such a way that you removed it. That would seem like the biggest tell to me.

As soon as the pops thing died out, Nabakov basically just kind of stopped putting any pressure on pops anymore.

My line of thinking kind of petered out in 54. I had noticed that pops was giving undue attention to Patrick, and my initial reaction to pops' OMGUS qualification was suspicion. But then I thought about it and realized the two things canceled out.

Suspicion of players is relative, so even if someone's thoughts on a player don't change they can still become more suspicious of someone else. I don't see anything unusual about what McGriddle did.

The observation that suspicion is relative would have bearing in an "unvote; vote..." context. But like I said, when you are only talking about an unvote, the only factor involved is suspicion of the player being unvoted. When Germany moves troops from the Western to the Eastern front, it's because they consider Russia a larger threat than France. But when Russia moves troops from the front, it's because they don't want to fight any more.

As for Nab, I don't have time to post a case right now, but I'll try to get on that today or tonight. The general gist involves our interactions at the beginning of the game, his vote on McGriddle, interactions with Elmo, and attitude toward the wagon on him. The McGriddle vote felt like an attempt to frame a possibly scummy McGriddle as scum rather than a legitimate feeling that he was scum.

And

I support the wagon on NabakovNabakov but not going to put him at lynch-1 now. His attack on McGriddle looked less like he was interested in his alignment and more like he just wanted to make a case against him. If he's scum there's a possibility he was trying to turn attention away from RedCoyote or pops with this.

To be perfectly honest, I had no idea I was going to make a case on McGriddle when I decided to sit down and give a serious answer to the question of who I thought was suspicious. I iso'd him because I had no read on him. When I did that analysis, I saw pre-excuses, I saw reflexivity, I saw a contradiction, I saw a suspicious vote. Did that convince me 100% he was scum? No, and I've never been a "diescumdie" sort of player anyway. But why would I go through all that effort of examining McGriddle, come back reasonably assured he was scum, and not subject my results to public scrutiny?

So that might be part of the problem here. My case doesn't read like someone convinced his target is scummy because I didn't begin collecting information under the assumption that McGriddle was scummy. There was no big tip-off that got me going in this case. Instead, it's a collection of details, and a case like that certainly

can

come from a player who is trying desperately to cobble together a case for some ulterior motive, but it can also come from someone who likes to look at the details and thinks that's where good scum hide.

So with that in view, I'm not quite sure how to convince anybody that this is an example of the latter and not the former. The main thing to zero in on might be the idea of my having ulterior motives. I will admit that there was an element of forced motive to "make a case" for its own sake, both because that's a skill I've been working on recently (my town play, which is rarely lynched but also rarely right about who's scum, generally settles into a role of commenter/historian if I'm not careful) and because in this game specifically I didn't have any strong reads or particular affinities with current cases.

There wasn't one strong case on RedCoyote so much as three weak ones (username's vote was RVS, SC's was... OMGUS?, and Ecto's seemed to be a punishment for not understanding goat's case in the larger context of the game). I was getting strong town vibes from Goat. No real read on Ecto, and I didn't want to vote Elmo so much as give him a time-out. I've already said that my suspicion of pops had played itself out.

I think this also plays into the second thing that has been floated as an ulterior motive, which would be attempting to divert attention from a scumbuddy in trouble. RC's wagon didn't have a unifying theme, and the unifying theme of pops wagon was that he was unrepentantly drawing attention to himself. The first wouldn't need my help and the second wouldn't want it. Either way, it seems the main criteria for identifying my scumbuddies (we're up to pops, jahudo, SC, and RC now ,right?) is whether or not it makes me look more suspicious.

At the same time, NabNab started egging you to push on me, and then attacked Elmo and McGriddle, the two easiest targets in the game.

Eh, I think that's a questionable claim. Elmo knows what he's doing, I just happen to disagree with it. McGriddle may be the least experienced player here (?), but he's also played 14 games. At that level of experience, base vulnerability really only comes down to playstyle. I mean, I'm the first person to give an inexperienced player the benefit of the doubt, but that's why I balked at McGriddle's first post. When a player who's been around the block opens with a post that screams "Go easy on me," I tend to think my sympathies are being played.

[NabakovNabakov]

@Incognito: Frankly, I was curious as to how large this wagon could get before someone articulated even the most basic case for it. I typically put up a huge fight against wagons on me (and as you can see, that fighting instinct has begun to kick in even though the experiment isn't really over), but I thought it might make the game a little more interesting to let things travel along the path of least resistance. I've responded this way to absurd wagons before, except that was a case where a player posted a ridiculously thorough case rather than a ridiculously sparse one.

For those keeping score at home. This wagon is currently at 4 days and 5 votes, and of those on the wagon (surprisingly enough, players

off

the wagon have been significantly more vocal about it) username has provided the most thorough justification of his vote in 354. Goat and McGriddle have both admitted to a lack of justification (though promised some to come in the future); Elmo and SC have largely been silent on the matter since their vote.

For what it's worth, I don't see Jahudo's turnaround on me/McGriddle to be all that scummy. It's plausible that reading McGriddle's meta changed his opinion on my case. Knowing that I'm town, that would put Jahudo-scum and me in a "defender of a lost-cause" relationship pre-turnaround. This is actually plausible (especially for a professed busser), but there would be no reason for him to jump off that reverse-bus at the time he did. Thus, Jahudo-scum appears unlikely.

@Elmo: Pretty, but I don't see a pattern. Also, post count has always been a terrible metric of actual contribution.

[NabakovNabakov]

post count has always been a terrible metric of actual contribution.

What do you think of iamausername & Jahudo's level of contribution?

I feel like Jahudo's contribution has been decent, but there might be some bias there considering that most of the things he has posted have somehow involved me or my case on McGriddle. I think username's contribution has been subpar, but I would rank it close to that of McGriddle or SC. On the other hand, I think RedCoyote has had a significant impact on the game with a smaller number of longer posts. My problem with post-count isn't even so much one of quantity over quality as it simply being a poor metric even for measuring quantity. It can give just as much weight to 1 word as it does to 1000.

You haven't mentioned anything about what your rainbow has told you.Care to share?

[NabakovNabakov]

I've responded this way to absurd wagons before, except that was a case where a player posted a ridiculously thorough case rather than a ridiculously sparse one.

I didn't read the whole case but knowing Mastin, I'd hazard a guess that about 90% of what he wrote wasn't even relevant and maybe that's why you decided it wasn't worth the response?

Bingo. When there's nothing to really respond to, I take a "we don't negotiate with terrorists" position.

@McGriddle: You know, in all that time you spent typing color tags, you could have been playing the game. I mean, your list functions perfectly well as a list. Elmo only color-coded so his votecount would make sense. Do you see why I occasionally feel that you're being disingenuous?

@Incognito: How dependent on my being scum is your read on Jahudo? I know you're citing external factors like unpostiness, but I'm kind of confused as to the overall dynamic of your thinking about him and McGriddle. Jauhdo's shift on McGriddle strikes you as too fast and loose. Why was Jahudo scum on McGriddle at that point? Why would he want to change?

(RL) Day 6, and I'm still waiting on a case.

[NabakovNabakov]

I've responded this way to absurd wagons before, except that was a case where a player posted a ridiculously thorough case rather than a ridiculously sparse one.

I didn't read the whole case but knowing Mastin, I'd hazard a guess that about 90% of what he wrote wasn't even relevant and maybe that's why you decided it wasn't worth the response?

Bingo. When there's nothing to really respond to, I take a "we don't negotiate with terrorists" position.

@McGriddle: You know, in all that time you spent typing color tags, you could have been playing the game. I mean, your list functions perfectly well as a list. Elmo only color-coded so his votecount would make sense. Do you see why I occasionally feel that you're being disingenuous?

@Incognito: How dependent on my being scum is your read on Jahudo? I know you're citing external factors like unpostiness, but I'm kind of confused as to the overall dynamic of your thinking about him and McGriddle. Jauhdo's shift on McGriddle strikes you as too fast and loose. Why was Jahudo scum on McGriddle at that point? Why would he want to change?

(RL) Day 6, and I'm still waiting on a case.

That took like 30 seconds because I am not a noob.

Well, it's just that you've said time happens to be short for you (which is why we're still waiting on the first reason why I'm scum), so I just felt the time would have been better spent justifying/explaining/discussing your list rather than making it look pretty, but I suppose the choice is yours.

[NabakovNabakov]

My frustration over McGriddle's rainbow is that it's a post that (again) isn't hesitating to reiterate his suspicion of me but makes no effort to justify it. McGriddle has appealed to finals week to beg off posting even the most cursory explanation of why he thinks I'm scum (in related news, Goat's headache seems to be going on strong... at least when he isn't thinking about RedCoyote). It's McGriddle who framed this whole issue as one of him being strapped for time, and that's why I'm flaring up at evidence of busy work.

A more general note:
Unless the people on my wagon are so utterly

convinced

I'm scum that they'd be willing to close this thread and not open it again until the 26th, they have to do me the common courtesy of posting why they think I'm scum. Now that we seem to have hit the stopping point for reasonless votes, I'm ready to fight this wagon like hell. Even if it doesn't prevent my lynch, I want to fight this wagon because that's the best thing I can do for the town given the position I'm in. If people are going to kill me, they're gonna have to say why. And for any townies who are on my wagon or harboring suspicion of me, that's exactly the way you should want it too. All I want is a chance to play the game.

[NabakovNabakov]

Just pulling this out of recent posts.

As for Nabakov, it's half gut, half logic. I play a lot with my gut and then back it up with logic, at least early on. I thought Nabakov was scummy from the get-go when he tried to tear apart my pops case by attacking a small part of it he found wrong, but yet also agreeing that pops was suspicious and pushing different reasons on pops. It's just weird for someone to push suspicion on a player and yet try to refute arguments someone else is bringing up against the same player. Since then he did no scum hunting period until the McGriddle case, which wasn't scum hunting at all. That's when the wagon on him picked up, which he ignored, and as town I would expect him to be like "No guys, you're wrong, it's McGriddle not me" but instead he was more apologetic for his bad McGriddle case. I've still yet to see something from him that at all suggests he's legitimately looking for scum.

Pops:
This is something we've been over before, but my position bears repeating. I just don't know how it is so implausible to you that I could disagree with some points you made about pops while also advancing my own. Goat says: A and B. NabNab says: Not A, yes B, new C. I was thinking at the "point" level. Can that sort of behavior be contradictory at the "case" level? Yes, but let's think for a second about what case level thinking implies. Case level thinking puts results over truth. It demands that I ask "Will advancing this point help or hurt the pops case?"

before

I ask "Is this point true?" When I went both ways on pops, I was examining the individual truths of individual points rather than working for the good (or ill) of the case as a whole.

This isn't to say that case level thinking is inherently scummy. Especially in RVS, starting a case for the sake of a case (which was certainly an aspect of your early posting) can be helpful, but we cannot advance beyond that if nobody is willing to get down to point level analysis.

Since then he did no scum hunting period until the McGriddle case, which wasn't scum hunting at all.
<snip>
I've still yet to see something from him that at all suggests he's legitimately looking for scum.

This requires justification. My clash with you over pops came on Monday, the very first day of the game. I posted light on Tuesday, but I don't feel it lacked insight. My very next post (Wednesday) was the McGriddle case. Whether you think that case was good or bad, I really don't know where you come off saying that it isn't scumhunting. I will admit, however, if you cut out all the work I've done building a case on McGriddle (you know, the guy I've thought was scum for over half the game), then my scumhunting is indeed a bit sparse. I, like others, have limited time, and recently, most of it has been spent on damage control.

"No guys, you're wrong, it's McGriddle not me":
Take a look at my 140, 149, and 156. Each one syncs up pretty nicely with each of the first three votes on my wagon, and that isn't an accident. Following each of the votes on me with a continuation of my McGriddle case

was

my way of saying "Yeah, whatever. I'mma go scumhunt." Obviously, my mistake was thinking that this message would get through clearly.

[NabakovNabakov]

Claim plz.

Role Cop, town aligned. I can investigate a player and are told if they have any special power but not their alignment. Townies and scum show as vanilla, everyone else shows as their role. Now that I've revealed it, it's pretty much worthless, as the only really useful thing I would think to do with it is catch scum in a lie.

Whether you lynch me or not, I've now damaged the town's chances of winning with my poor play. Sorry about that.

[NabakovNabakov]

Whoops. I meant that goons show as vanilla. A scum roleblocker would show as "roleblocker."

I suppose keeping me around would limit the range of scum fakeclaims, but the real power in the role struck me as one of being able to check up on claims that have been made by players who don't know they'll be checked up on.

[NabakovNabakov]

He's given up kinda early. Usually if I have an iffy claim I try to combine that with a defense rather than apologizing for my lynch like it's a foregone conclusion.

Well let's not kid ourselves. My lynch

is

a forgone conclusion. It's been nearly a page since I've claimed and we haven't seen a single unvote. That's a wagon that isn't budging. Either way, my apology was because this could shake out two ways:
1) I'm lynched and the town loses a town aligned player with a powerrole
2) I'm not lynched and my role is substantially less useful than it was before.

Either way the town is worse off, so I'm sorry.

@Goat: I don't think you fully understand the role. I can't "catch scum roles" with it. Yes, somebody I investigate to be a roleblocker could be a scum roleblocker, but they could just as easily be town aligned. If I come out and say "Player X is a roleblocker", the only faction that benefits is the scum, because they'll be able to add the critical alignment factor and actually take action on the situation. I also think it is

highly

unlikely I could successfully investigate a godfather. An investigation returning that a player is investigation immune is a contradiction in terms.

For what it's worth, this game was a bit of an experiment for me. I am very rarely lynched (I think this might actually be my first D1 lynch in 3 years, 4th or 5th overall) because I generally have a knack for watching the thing things I say and making sure they're agreeable and convincing. This is, of course, an excellent talent when I play scum, but it doesn't do anything for scumhunting when I'm town. That's why I decided to play this game with a bigger focus on presenting what I felt to be the unvarnished truth even if I

knew

it wasn't going to be popular. It obviously didn't help the survival aspect of my play, and we'll just have to see what it did for scumhunting. Overall, I didn't really like playing this way, so in future, you can expect the return of NabNab the snake-oil salesman.

[NabakovNabakov]

Hate to say I told you so...

but I kinda' did. (At least about McG)

Oh well, gg.