Newbie 982 - Shadows of Death, Game Over!

[Guybrush]

From statistic point of view (also Akira's point of view), I explained the 14-1 odds, but then added that not all options are equal, since Bazz-2003 pairing looked possible, in contrast to Aurorus-2003 for example.

My view on 2003 went like this:
-His first encounter with you was scummy. I was confused about his play. I thought he might be scum.
-Then my suspicion towards him decreased during afternoon 1. It was mostly my STRONG gut feeling. And I didn't want his lynch.
-And then came #434 and #438 after which my read on him as town was increased ... a lot.
-Now he only needs to answer couple of questions and he'll be all town in my eyes.

My "read" on Bazz being scum in this context was completely related to 2003. I have almost no opinion about Bazz ATM.
There was this event from day 1 which crossed my mind (Bazz shifting suspicion), and I pointed it out as a possibility.

[AurorusVox]

Gotcha. I thought that would explain it based on your #448, but I figured I may as well make sure that I'd understood, since I'd already typed out the post anyway.

[2003041]

http://www.scorehero.com/forum/viewtopi ... highlight=
My UN is the same there as it is here.

[2003041]

EBWOP: I replaced user FingerQuick in that game.

[Guybrush]

I'm done asking 2003. I actually stumbled upon some other thread on that site that matched all the prerequisites. All but that the person who replaced in was anything but inexperienced player. That would be an auto-lynch for 2003.

Aurorus, you're choosing between 2003 being noob scum or noob town.
I'm choosing between good scum and noob town.
Why? Because of this quote:

Plus, during nights and even befor the games, when the scum have the chance to talk, the SE would be able to tell the newb what not to say and also let them know if they screw up too much, they won't cover to look like town.

Scum

knows this ain't true. The only reason scum would say it is to appear townish. Which would imply he knows exactly what he's doing.

Town

wouldn't know this from experience, only from reading the rules. In his last game, he was scum and it began with night scum talk.

So, let's judge from his previous game is there a chance it is all an act.
The link he provided (including scum QT) gives me no reason to doubt his noobiness.
He appealed to emotions, didn't know how to ask the right questions and was unfamiliar with most of game concepts.
I'm pretty sure he's a genuine noob, and if you're not sure I would ask you to reread both his games.

I'm done with 2003 and my defense of him ATM. I'm pretty convinced he's not scum, and I would rather we focus on somebody else.
I'll do my reread, in hope to find something new, since both my top suspect and possible scum turned out to be VTs.

[AurorusVox]

If its between newb-town and good-scum, then I'd agree that he's definitely newb-town. I'm just going off into V/LA now though so I'll re-read everything when I'm done and see if there's a chance he could be excellent-scum (though I doubt it) or newb-scum (it could still be possible).

Have fun while I'm gone

[Guybrush]

@2003

One more thing.
I stated that I think your logic is pretty bad.
But however, maybe your gut feeling could help. (doesn't hurt to ask)

Could you give me your short opinion based ONLY on your gut feeling, without using logic or overthinking it.
Pick 2 players:
1. one person from whom you get a townish vibe the most
2. and one which your gut tells you is scum the most

And rate it for me please - on a 1 to 10 scale of how strong is that gut feeling for both scum and town reads.
(10 being the strongest)

For example, I'm looking for something like this:
Aurorus - town (5/10)
Guybrush - scum (3/10)

@Aurorus

You have fun as well.

[2003041]

AV - town 2/10
omnino - scum 4/10

[Guybrush]

Hm. OK, thanks.

[Hinduragi]

Spoiler: Epicly Long Wall of Text(Spoilered to Reduce Clutter

Forenote: This is going to be a wall of text catchup post. It's customary for me and I can't help it.(Don't worry, my regular posts are as terse as possible) I figure it's easier to go and give my opinions on things as I read through so, yeah. If you don't want to read it, there may or may not be a vote at the bottom depending where we are exactly in the game. Also, apologies to not being able to finish my re-read yesterday. Expect an aggressive playstyle from me, btw. Sometimes, people get put off by it. I'm not going to go around calling people idiots, though.

...This thread is a piece of work. You guys have wall o' texts springing up like wildflowers. I think what bothers me most is that alot of these walls aren't discussed with concision even though the subjects are partially blatant. =/ Take this as just a future note to you guys to try and cut down on this type of discussion so early in the game. It's done alot and then further on in a game you can tell how the walls deteriorate in length which is the exact opposite of how it should be.(However, I find the content later on in the game is much more terse and justified) Literally, we've got quote wars and we're only three pages into the game. Anyways, I just thought I'd let you guys know I find it much easier to go back and look up Day 1 evidence if the data is concise.

Preview Edit: I can see that you guys cut down on these a lot by page 5 so don't pay mind to the above for now.

I thank you for making me re-read. Go back to #67. When did I ever say "i want to vote for someone"? I have never said anything of the sort and my questioning for you was trying to get something from you. I said earlier I'd rather vote someone after scum-hunting rather than RVS and lose a townie right off the bat.
Vote: AurorusVox

...Really? You're going to vote him without any reasoning except that you don't fully understand the reasons for his vote being on you? I read this as not only OMGUS but tunneling and nervous behavior. You later admitted you just went on a rant... interesting.

2k3, you unvoted AV after he unvoted you? What? To honor his unvote? You just admitted earlier he was the only person you had subjected to your scumhunting methods.

Vote: zauper

You have got to list more reasoning than simply "Ahh, a bandwagon on me. They must be scum". .-.

Zauper's case seems very weak yet two people are voting for him. Eh, we'll see if it gets any better with the added pressure or not.

At the same time though, I don't strongly believe that avoiding good discussion is that much of a scum-tell

How is it not a scumtell? What does town have to think about when they avoid good discussion? Not contributing and/or avoiding saying something is a scumtell.

I'll go ahead and wait my turn, you have other people's questions to attend to.
Actually, there's no need to discuss it any more.
In the end you admitted your choice of words was poor.
And I think it was a gigantic scum tell.

If it's gigantic, why wasn't your vote on her at that time?

I don't think anyone has noticed this, but, at the time when everyone was suspicious of him, zauper failed to justify his vote on 2003. He completely ignored it. He concentrated on debating with others, answering questions, and, generally, was avoiding anything to do with voting or possible scum. The case on him may seem weak to me since everyone's primary reason is "He agrees with people" but this is something I think that is a much stronger tell than that.

2) Vote Valk out of the game instead of waiting for a replacement. This game just seems too long for someone to try and catch up to for just a Day 1 situation. Omnino might be able to shed some light on that.

I lol'd. Yes, let's screw the week and a half that's left and vote someone who may be a townie on v/la right out of the game. This is probably the scummiest thing I've seen stated in the entire duration of my re-read.

You're missing a very important option, 2003: trying to get a lynch organized on someone we are suspicious of.

Michel had the right idea here.

I'm willing to support a lynch of 2003. No matter how often I read his early posts, I simply fail to see an indication of scumhunting in them. The only thing I see is a tendency to attack anyone who attacks him, and unvoting as soon as they remove their vote. Also, the way he started supporting BAZZ's case against Zauper doesn't sit well with me.

I'm willing to support a lynch of Akira, though I don't want to push it at this moment. Something feels a bit of with the way how he leaves his vote on Zauper when he goes on V/LA.

Incidentally, I feel exactly the same way Michel did at this point in my re-read. Akira feels 'off'. I'm not sure what it is about him but the way he posts is just incessant in its

I knew my post would get conversations going again. Let's keep it up.

This doesn't explain why you just wanted to lynch Valk out of the game at all. Did noone else notice that he failed to answer that? Oh, he explained it as an option.(Why?) Sure, she's lurking, but you should be able to wait for a replacement.(She would've been replaced 24 hours from the time of his suggestion) So why make that week and a half so short? Why not Loaka who had been gone for so long?

In regards to the posts on this page involving the allegations against Akira, I agree with Vox and Omnino that Akira's last few posts were townie but I sure as hell don't agree with Omnino that Akira should be given a "Pass Go" ticket out of this lynch. A couple of town posts doesn't take him off the chopping block.

I thought this would be a towntell someone spotted. I guess not.(According to the fact that he was lynched N1. Trust me, this lynch is going to have scum aboard it. seth's acting makes it perfect to bandwagon on.) However, I saw his case on zauper as bullshit.(Wait, he didn't even vote. Wtf?) I just wish someone had saw this towntell. Don't get me wrong, though, seth's reaction to you guys was uncalled for.

There is something about Guybrush's case on Valk that just seems artificial. Like she's his top suspect even though she was gone, came back, answered his questions, and then left. I don't get how that is justifiable to make her a top suspect. I didn't see very much incriminating evidence towards the 80% valk vote either. It just doesn't feel like a tangible reason.

Uh-oh, I don't like this. It's the stage where town ignores alot of outside discussion and focuses on a select few. This isn't good. The entire last 2-3 pages have been all "Seth seems scummy.(Mainly due to valk) I don't like his case on zauper" or "Seth seems scummy but zauper is scummier".

Getting a bit tired of looking for a prod or a replacement and we're very short of time... Vote:Zauper.

If I saw that crap, my vote would be on you ASAP. Putting someone at l-1 instead of just waiting till a deadline decision was reached or waiting for them to be prodded/replace is scummy. It shows you're looking for a quicklynch and aren't open to other options. I have epic tunnel vision when it comes down to this type of action. Your explanation for taking said action was, put bluntly, shit.

Had someone taken the bait, as you call it, we would almost certainly have had a dead pro-town player, without any direct indication that the player placing the hammer was scum. I've seen inattentive pro-town players place the hammer accidentally way too often for that strategy to work.

^This. The entire zauper case has been built on what I can only describe as weak reasoning. One of the main contentions being "because he agreed with people".

Okay, this is just weird. You have various questions to answer, and what do you post? An order to zauper/theperson to claim?? Is this some kind of distorted form of humor? Seriously, this makes me think you and him as the two scums.

I'm disconcerted with you alot right now. Your one question to seth was what his experience was. You mentioned to Bazz to wait for his reply. You just called them scumbuddies without any logic backing it. You had said you wanted someone to vote earlier and they'd be scum for hammering. Now you say you found seth scummy for voting. Kind of weird. I know it's not meant that way but it's interesting to compare the two. Then you FoS'd seth but kept your vote on zauper. Your vote was only on zauper beforehand because you wanted to keep it there because of your V/LA. Don't get me wrong, seth's play is pretty bad but this has that air of oddity I mentioned before.

Sorry, I don't have as much time as expected today, and this is NOT an easy game to read.

Tell me about it. It's been almost a good 8 hours of reading and I've still got 100 posts to go.

Pinch myself, wake up from that bizzarre nightmare, and then see that you did flip scum?

If only mafia worked like this. =/

But seriously, if you are a mislynched townie, then there'd be things to consider, but why should I out these now, and tell scum where my suspicions would lie so that they can avoid doing those suspicious things?

When you're back from V/LA, I'd like to know what you meant by things to consider.

2k3, I find it odd you had no contentions with seth when he initially made his post but now you are accusing him of being scum. "I was scum and very defensive". Well, he's kind of aggressive in the manner he demanded a claim and he calls alot of accusations "bullshit". I don't get how he is defensive at all. He just reacts badly to those who place votes on him.

Omnino, you FoS'd Michel and unvoted zauper. I don't get that either. He made perfectly valid points as far as I'm concerned. Also, I don't get why you unvoted zauper. You haven't replied to his replacement at all nor asked him questions.

I really don't get why seth didn't mention his opinion of theperson's claim at all when he voted him. And oh god, I see we're back to walls of text.

Michel once again shows that his suspicions are similar to mine. Just in case anyone was wondering where I stood so far at this point in my post.

@seth: Do you 100% deny that you have acted scummy?

I might end up withdrawing my vote and voting for you, seth, but I'll wait for that.

I don't get it. He answered your question. It was his first game. You had little to nothing that you suspected him for beforehand. Now you're ready to hammer. This is all fluff. 100% fluff. His answer is going to be no because he's aggressive and has been calling everyone on his case an idiot. This is just going to be basically a placeholder for a vote.(If you voted now, seth would be lynched. If you hammer, though, well, we'll see. I am largely thinking this is going to turn into a hammer. Yeah, we'll see later on.)

I believe I'll keep my vote on theperson, but if one vote is missing to lynch seth, I'd change my vote. I personally don't like the idea of letting scum act first.

One vote is missing to lynch seth. Is this hesitiation to vote?

seth has done little to no scumhunting, and his vote has made me start to agree with Michel that theperson is looking like an easy mislynch for the scums.
If theperson was scum, he would have almost definitely voted after providing those good reasons to suspect seth.

So I'll unvote and VOTE: seth.

I won't say I didn't see this coming...

Holy crap, now there's a surprising night choice.

Why? I personally thought Michel had very good reads of every player.

Wow, that was a surprising NK.

Now you're just copying Guybrush. =|

Plus:-
Power role

intact.
Higher chance of hitting scum on Lynch 2.

Minus:-
Closer to defeat.
Takes many people back to square one in terms of investigation.
Loss of an analytical player.

Now this is wrong. For one, there may not even be a power role in the game. Also, noone is back to square 1. Hell no. We've got vote count analysis' and the scumhunting results of people we know were townies from day 1.

Also, I really think that, unless someone wants to claim being role-blocked, I believe the setup

Let's not even mention claims. You were implying someone may want to and that could influence them to do so. That would then lose us a possible cop/doc overnight.

Also, to everyone, why does it seem so impossible for an SE to be part of a scum team as well?

There are 4 SE's. It is likely since we have 7 players left, yes. That doesn't exactly limit our options, though, now does it? Trying to outguess the mod in terms of roles, pm times, etc. is just a guessing game that gets us nowhere. You are either the best scum gone VI player I've ever seen or the games you've played before aren't anything like MS games. Oh, Guybrush saw your other game. Yeah, ok, I can see you being VI.

Alright, I'm done. Now I'll ask some questions.(I know I asked some above but I feel I need to give some others)

Guybrush

-
Do you think theperson is scum? Could you reclarify a few of your suspicions of valk for me? I don't think I picked up very well on them.

theperson

-
What about zauper seemed scummy to you when you read his posts? If you can, linking posts would be fine. Put yourself in the position of another townie. Would you have voted for seth if he hammered you?

Omnino

-
Would you hammer theperson if he stopped posting for two days at L-1 right after you found a big scumtell on him?

AurorusVox

-
What are your thoughts on 2k3? You focused on him early in the game but then kinda left him out of your posts later on.

2k3

-
Be honest: Would you have hammered seth if Akira hadn't?

Akira

-
Why did you switch to seth so suddenly? Everyone ganged up on him and you went from theperson to hammering in a heartbeat. =/

Well, as I said at the beginning of this post, depending where we are in the game, I may or may not have a vote at the bottom of my post. I know exactly where I want my vote.

Vote: Akira

[Hinduragi]

EBWOP

Well, it's time to go. Everyone, have a good game. I'll definitely follow the game once I get back.

...Lame, he is getting replaced.

[Haylen]

Vote Count

Akira: Hinduragi

Not Voting: Everyone else

* 2k3 - Roles and setups are randomized before the game starts. To not randomize them and the setup is against the List Mod's rules. We could get banned from modding newbie games for it.

[Guybrush]

@Hindu

(1) Do I think theperson is scum

Thepreson replaced zauper, and I don't think zauper is (was) scum.
You can hear my updated opinion after my re-read, since I don't have any suspects ATM.

(2) Reclarification of my suspicions of Valk

Which part do you want me to reclarify? I summed up my suspicion of her in #196 and continued the discussion in #348.

(3) Why wasn't my vote on her at that time

The "gigantic tell" post contains these 3 quotes as well:

"You can comment your change of attitude if you want"

- I didn't want to discourage her commenting with my vote

"I don't use FoS, but you'll probably receive my vote in near future"

- and (s)he did receive it

"I need to observe 2003 a bit more"

- my vote was on 2003 at that moment, and I had a discussion with him during that post.

(4) Valk being my top suspect

It had all to do with the know\think slip I thought she made, and not with her coming and going as you suggest.

(5) (Not so) Surprising night choice

I was surprised because some people expressed their concerns about him. Scum could have let us be confused about him for another day.
Later I realized why it made sense to get rid of him. Probably the same reason that Aurorus was thinking about in his #419.
But as he proposed - we shouldn't discuss it.
So that choice doesn't look to me surprising any more.

[theperson]

What about zauper seemed scummy to you when you read his posts? If you can, linking posts would be fine. Put yourself in the position of another townie. Would you have voted for seth if he hammered you?

Well, I'm going to answer the question about seth first because I can just answer it now before going back to get posts. I would vote him, because when I was at L-1 and he was the #2 suspect, it would have been incredibly opportunistic considering the amount of time we had left and the mixed feelings on me. I think it just would have been a desperate move.

As for when I found zauper scummy:

In his ISO #6 he seems like he really wants to go at 2k3, and said he's not contributing to the conversation. I didn't really feel that way, it seems like he's trying too hard at this argument. I guess, knowing his role, he might actually have felt that 2k3 wasn't doing any scumhunting.

He was agreeing, as others said, but I don't think it was that bad. Not nearly as bad as everyone was making a case of, anyway.

Then in his ISO #9 he accuses BAZZ of bandwagoning with no evidence. This one, I really can't explain.

Finally, a large part of it is disappearing when put under pressure. It could just be that he doesn't really want to defend against all the arguments. He might just have gotten bored. It's hard to say in a case like this.

Feels kind of weird making accusations against someone when you know their role...Anyway that about sums it up.

[2003041]

@Hindu: Yes, I really would've hammered.

[AurorusVox]

Surprise availability of internet for a few minutes!!

Brief responses to Hindu's questions;

"Things to consider" - well, I'd like to think I've already been "considering" these things. I was just referring to the basic stuff like "who hammered", "who voted when", "interactions with Seth", "reasons for voting for Seth/Valk", "2k3's actions" and so on.

"My opinion on 2k3" - I think that I let my pressuring of him lessen late D1 because I didn't want to split the vote between him and Seth. But as I've said in D2 a number of times, I think he's the scummiest player off-wagon. I find much of what he's said and done scummy, but it could also be newb-townie as GB has raised. However, I'll need to re-read to see if I think he could be newbie-scum; Guybrush has read his other game, and I haven't, so I'm willing to give 2k3 the benefit of the newb-doubt until I get a chance to do the reading myself. But he's definitely not off the hook.

In fact, I was thinking about this, and I would like to say to Guybrush before I go, because it's pertinent to how he looks at 2k3 for the next week;

I've been in games where scum are allowed to talk in their QT during the confirmation stage just like 2k3 suggested (here, here and here). The first link (the one taking you to a QT) has this topic (here) in which the role PM

didn't

state whether or not you could speak during the confirmation stage, but the QT states that you can.

It's not impossible that, if 2k3 is scum in this game, he may have been allowed to talk during Confirmation Stage, and your read of him needing to be a good-scum could in fact be a slip coming from a newb-scum. What I mean is, he might not be tricking us by "saying something that he knows scum would know is wrong," but actually saying something that was true. It's something to consider.

[Guybrush]

@Haylen - question for you down there

Newbie 929 and 940 contain rules about starting with a scum discussion.
And yes, newbie 961 does not say anything about it, but yet it happened. It's weird IMO. I think mod should have said so to everyone.
(My games also started with a pregame discussion, but it was always mentioned in the rules\roles)

So, we can check -

Haylen

, were scum allowed to talk pregame in this game or not?
I figured out from "

1. The game is a Day Start.

" rule that there was no pregame scum discussion.

@Haylen - question for you up here

[Guybrush]

I checked some of Haylen's latest modded games.
All of them didn't contain public info about pregame discussion, but allowed it anyway in QT.
Haylen, could you confirm anyway about this one, just in case?

Scum are always allowed to talk pregame in any of my games and in everyone elses games on site . ~ Hayl

[Haylen]

Avox. You're V/LA is fine.

mastermind replaces Akira as of now.

[theperson]

Well, back to where we were before on 2k3...

[mastermind]

Hi everyone! First, thanks Haylen for letting me replace into this game. Just wanted everyone to know that I am still reading this, but it's past 2 am so I should probably sleep instead of making funny accusations on people. If there's anything anyone wants me to try to explain regarding Akira, I'll try to answer to the best of my ability.

[Hinduragi]

Guybrush-
Those posts were enough for me. Seems I just only saw one at a time and by the time I got to the next one, I'd forgotten about the other.

theperson-
Thanks. I'm satisfied with that.

2k3-
Who is your top suspect and why? What do you think of the cases on you and the defense made for you?

AV-
What do you think of theperson/zauper?

mastermind-
Don't rush yourself reading or you'll miss alot of stuff. It was alot for me to take in. Anyways, when you get to it, I'd like for you to answer the questions I addressed to Akira in my catchup post.


Also, where's Omnino?

[AurorusVox]

Despite my phone provider saying that they were cancelling our phoneline on 1st August, it seems that they've forgotten, and/or I (somehow) have internet access, for an unknown duration. I'm otherwise occupied this week, but I am able to get on to read and keep up with what's going on, so I might be able to get a post off every few days

Hindu

- IMO, theperson is most-likely town off-wagon. I'm open to the possibility that the NK was a WIFOM gambit and theperson is a clever scum. I saw the case against Zauper and thought that his play was suspicious D1, but with Michel's flip I'm more inclined to agree with his assessment that the wagon had opportunistic votes from potential-scum on it (I'm looking at Akira mostly, and Omnino to an extent)

[mastermind]

Alright, I just finished reading and I'm just going to explain my top 2 suspects before I go on and answer any other questions you have for me. So at this moment, my top 2 suspects are Guybrush and ooBAZZoo/Hinduragi. I haven't finished giving my reasons as to why I think Hinduragi is scum, so this post is just going to explain why I think Guybrush is. So when you're reading this, I seperated each post into 2 paragraphs. The first one is some kind of paraphrase as to how I interpreted that post, which I think is going to be helpful so that I know I fully understood what was written. The second paragraph was basically why I thought the post was fishy.

Guybrush

ISO #1

• Guybrush makes a request that if someone asks a question directly to someone else, nobody should comment until after that person has answered, because it's important to hear the initial reaction.

• This isn't helping the town, but limiting it. Regardless if that person had answered the question, it gives info on the reactions of other people. If somebody comments before the selected person says anything, that person could be accused of buddying up, which is usually a scum tatic which would help the town. Also, while you might not get their "initial" reaction, their response after somebody comments on the question can also give info.

ISO #2

• Guybrush makes a comment that he plays in 1 full game, so everyone should "take that in consideration when thinking about his SE status."

• I believe this comment was intended for newer players to appeal to him, because he is of SE status, which would help him persuade his comments more smoothly. This is unnecessary, because every player (new and experienced) can see the same information and will form different opinions. If newer players just simply rely on more experienced players, their opinions are thrown out, which is bad for the town.

ISO #6

• Guybrush clarifies some cases relating to what he said in ISO #1. He says that it is ok to "add fuel to the fire, but do not remove it before defendant tries to do it him/herself." He gives the example that it would be ok for C to add fuel while waiting for B to answer to A's accusations, but it's not ok for C to defend B when B hasn't responded.

• I still think that this is limiting everyone's opinions. The opinion that Guybrush gave that wouldn't be ok for C to do still gave the information that C was defending B. It would have also been interesting to see what B's response was to A's accusations and C's defense. Hypothetically, B could have been lurking so that he could have bounced off of someone's comments, which could be deflecting.

ISO #9

• Guybrush is confused that Valkryie "KNOWS" whether Michel would make the mistake of outing the scum team. Guybrush states that Valkryie knows his allignment, so if Valkrie's scum "then he KNOWS if michel is scum and whether he made the mistake of protecting his partner" and if Valkryie's town, "then he KNOWS that michel is not protecting scum."

• I find this to be an interesting accusation because Valkryie never stated that he actually knew michel's allignment, just his thought on if michel would out the scum team. Guybrush then goes on in his post and says he is confused because Valkryie, "off all people - KNOW whether michel made that mistake or not." I find this accusation to contradict Guybrush's reason as to why he likes RQS. Back in ISO #4, he says that "some questions might help you to better understand people around you." If we want to better understand other people's gameplay, we have to draw some hypothetical conclusions, which is what Valkyrie was trying to do. My conclusion on what Valkyrie posted was that Valkryie thought that if michel was scum, he wouldn't out his partner.

ISO #10

• Guybrush states the options that: 1. Valkyrie and michel are both scum 2. michel is scum and valkyrie isn't 3. everything is irrelevant (michel is town, and valkyrie's alignment doesn't matter). Guybrush rules out option 3 because valkyrie has concerns about michel, and rules out option 1 because valkyrie "can't discuss having the same concern as Guybrush" which leaves option 2.

• I find this to be a false dilemma because Guybrush never pointed the option that both valkyrie and michel are both town, as option 3 stated that it was irrelevant. This is strangely ironic since this option was discovered to be true; however, Guybrush never brought that up. He just ruled out the other options based on what valkyrie was saying.

ISO #15

• Guybrush brings up quotes about michel's accusations and finds that he is inconsistant. Guybrush states that michel's arguement about aurorus trying to stifle discussion wasn't meant as a weak accusation, as michel said so himself. He concludes by saying that because michel was looking for anything "including valk in his accusations would fit perfectly into that description."

• What I got out of the two quotes michel was saying was that in his first post # 30, michel strongly accuses aurorus of trying to stifle discussion. In the other quote, michel says that "early in the game I look for anything that can be turned into an accusation...The result is that I'll usually make a pretty weak accusation to which I'm not very committed..." Guybrush says that these two are inconsistant, but I disagree. Michel had already found what he believed to be a strong accusation, and he just wanted to point out that usually in a game he'll make a weak accusation. I found that Guybrush was trying to draw a conclusion from two different posts.

ISO #22

• Guybrush makes the point that 2k3 was "feeling very confident" about zauper and aurorus being scum, but that 2k3 was not feeling as confident about aurorus as he previously thought. He then brings up the question that if he's "less suspicious of AV today, shouldn't he then be less suspicious of zauper as well?"

• Although 2k3 mentioned that he had a strong feeling that zauper and aurorus were scumbuddies, he goes on later in his quote to say that "I still can't decide who the other real scum is or could even be" That tells me that 2k3 is feeling less certain about the possiblity of them being scum, but still feels like zauper is a strong candidate. Guybrush made the assumption that since 2k3 thought those two were connected, that if one were to be less scummy the other should also be less scummy. I find this to be bad reasoning because 2k3 even mentioned that he feels zauper is scum, but is not buddies with aurorus.

ISO #25

• Guybrush gives his read on akira. He points out that he thought akira's post #5 was scummy because he made it look like an accusation, but waits for others. He then comments that it is "not such a big deal. It could indicate his insecurity, but it could certainly be a scumtell."

• What Guybrush failed to mentioned was that akira's post #13, Akria states that "...my post was simply an attempt to get something going, and to have a better idea of who I should suspect. I don't really suspect him that much." I was confused as to why Guybrush thinks that making an accusation and waiting for others opinion is scummy, especially when he already stated that this was not a big deal.

ISO #29

• Guybrush responds to Valk about their previous conversation, to which he felt that Valk was trying to trick him because "Valk placed herself in his perspective." Guybrush then goes and saying that when Valk responded that she thought michel was smarter, Guybrush's realized that "it was a weird thing for her to say, since she knew the answer."

• Those last couple of words, "since she knew the answer" stuck out to me. I found it interesting, because previously when Guybrush kept accusing Valk, he kept on using the word "know" and I saw that valk never used the word "know." What is also striking is that he admits that he knows valk is telling the truth because she "knew the answer." I'm assuming that he feels this because he thinks that Valk is scum. I'm also curious as to why he didn't vote for valk at that time if he feels that valk is scum.

ISO #38

• Guybrush answers to 2k3 when 2k3 asks if there was a problem with giving a "small list of ideas to restart conversation." His answer was that it would be a problem if he gets lynch and flips town. He says that he "wouldn't brag about moving the conversation if I were you, because it made you look suspicious even more." And then, when when he claims that 2k3 was checking for the reactions, he gave two options: "If we agree - you get yourself a free mislynch. If we disagree - you say you were trying to get the conversation going. (under assumption you're scum, and Valk is not, of course)"

• What I didn't get was when guybrush said "If we agree - you get yourself a free mislynch." He said that "Had our reaction to your suggestion been "Yeah. Let's vote her out. I vote: Valk", then you would've voted for Valk as well." It seemed like Guybrush already knew that lynching valk would have resulted in a "free mislynch" which is ironically what happened.

ISO #41

• Guybrush gives his list on who he would/wouldn't support a lynch. He explains that he has a "mild hunch-like suspicion towards Michel for his inconsisencies and him not being what I would expect from a SE."

• While I saw somewhere that this reasoning was disputed, it was mentioned that it is an invalid assumptoin that experienced players are expected to find scum. Thus, if someone attacks that player because the player has not yet found scum, they themselves are more likely to be scum, which isn't 100% true. So, while michel might have played more games than other people, it is illogical to think that he is scum because he has not found scum.

ISO #49

• Guybrush clarifies to seth how he found the tell regarding valk and michel. He says that valk "went too far while stating that she THINKS that michel wouldn't reveal his buddy like that. But in fact she KNEW if that was the case or not."

• I am still confused at how Guybrush knew that valk knew if michel wouldn't reveal his buddy. He later gives an example that "scum pretending to be town would insert 'but I'm not sure' or 'I think' or 'if he flips...' every now and then." I can't imagine how the town cannot say any of those examples when trying to expain something, as they would then be caught as knowing somehting the rest doesn't.

What also concerns to me about Guybrush is his sudden reaction to 2k3. For example, what was post #456 all about? You wanted to see what his "gut reaction" was, and then you completly throw it away, why?

[Guybrush]

First of all -
I apologize for losing us couple of days with that 2003 defense. I was expecting that everything is written in the rules, and I was wrong.
I'm back to "I don't think he's scum, I think he's noob town. But I'm not that sure as I thought I was." opinion about 2003.
I was hoping that reread will help, but it will have to wait again.

@mastermind

OK, I went responding post by post, but I noticed that mass source of confusion is the KNOW\THINK argument.
So I am going to restate it again, and then you tell me what is not clear.
If everything is clear, then I will respond to all of your points except KNOW\THINK ones, since it will be all clear.

...

Michel accuses Aurorus for something, but not Valk for doing the same.
Guybrush: "From my perspective there's a possibility that both you and Michel are scum, which would explain why he didn't scold you for doing the same." (#63)
I asked Valk what she thinks about it.
Valk: "I don't THINK Michel would do something as stupid as outing the scum team" (#64)
And that is the whole problem.

2 cases:
1. Valk is scum - she KNOWS if Michel is her buddy, and she KNOWS if it was his slip
2. Valk is town - she KNOWS that Michel didn't out his buddy (since she IS NOT SCUM)

She used a word THINK.
When she should have used KNOW.

Scum adds "I'm not sure" and "I think" every now and then, to appear to be without information.
(Town uses that as well, but they should use it when they really don't know something)
She placed THINK where she shouldn't have.
If you place something where it doesn't belong, then I suspect that it's because you're sloppy scum.

In her #160, Valk admits that it was a poor choice of words.

...

That was my whole point, which made me doubt Valk and her alignment.
If something is unclear, ask me.
If everything is now clear, then I'll skip your ISO #9, ISO #10, ISO #29 and ISO #49 comments for most parts and respond to the rest.