Mini 478- Simenon's Too Much Scum: Game Over

[Rishi]

I love how Guardian casually claims (sort of) to open Page 2.

Though Guardian's odds aren't really 50/50 of hitting scum. Even if he is pro-town, there are still 7 other players... 4 town, 3 scum.

So, Guardian... bad at math or do you know something we don't know?

[The Fonz]

Oh yeah, because claiming to be pro-town is

such a dead giveaway

.

[Rishi]

Oh yeah, because claiming to be pro-town is

such a dead giveaway

.

Yup. The Mafia never lie. I don't really see what the advantage would be.

[creampuffeater]

Hi i am the mod (simenon left on vacation) so ya >.>

[Guardian]

with each non-me lynch I have an

almost

50-50 shot at hitting scum

So Rishi... bad at reading, or do

you

know something we don't know?

Rishi, it seems like you were trying to throw suspicion in my direction... just because you thought you could. Coincidence that I just voted you?

I'm happy with my random vote (well, as happy as one can be with a random vote) .

[AlSleet]

Hello new mod.

And I don't begrudge Rishi his reading error. I've done the same before and it never meant i was scum.

[Guardian]

AlSleet, your defense of Rishi when you had no reason to defend him

yet

-- he has not yet responded himself and his wagon is at lynch -3 -- has been noted.

Giving him reassurance that he is safe(r) because you don't find him scummy is just bad play.

I don't

think

you as scum with Rishi would be that obvious, but think before posting, especially when responding to things aimed at other players.

Hi cpe .

[AlSleet]

AlSleet, your defense of Rishi when you had no reason to defend him

yet

-- he has not yet responded himself and his wagon is at lynch -3 -- has been noted.

Giving him reassurance that he is safe(r) because you don't find him scummy is just bad play.

I don't

think

you as scum with Rishi would be that obvious, but think before posting, especially when responding to things aimed at other players.

Hi cpe .

I was just merely giving my opinion about what he said because I noticed it was causing a little bit of discussion. I'm not doing going overly out of my way trying to protect him if that's what you think.

[Rishi]

AlSleet, your defense of Rishi when you had no reason to defend him

yet

-- he has not yet responded himself and his wagon is at lynch -3 -- has been noted.

Giving him reassurance that he is safe(r) because you don't find him scummy is just bad play.

I don't

think

you as scum with Rishi would be that obvious, but think before posting, especially when responding to things aimed at other players.

Hi cpe .

It was just a reading error. I was skimming the post a little fast. Besides, I was mostly kidding when I threw some suspicion at you.

However, I will take note that you're being kind of aggressive and defensive today. Hmm. Have we already exited the joking phase? That was fast.

[Guardian]

AlSleet, your defense of Rishi when you had no reason to defend him

yet

-- he has not yet responded himself and his wagon is at lynch -3 -- has been noted.

Giving him reassurance that he is safe(r) because you don't find him scummy is just bad play.

I don't

think

you as scum with Rishi would be that obvious, but think before posting, especially when responding to things aimed at other players.

Hi cpe .

It was just a reading error.

OK. I wish AlSleet hadn't mentioned that it could have been just a reading error, but that can't be helped.

I was skimming the post a little fast. Besides, I was mostly kidding when I threw some suspicion at you.

That I take issue with. You are backtracking from your suspicion... and how did you give any indication that you were joking? First, you imply that your suspicion was real (and is now gone because you misread), and then say that you were just joking. That doesn't sit well for me.

However, I will take note that you're being kind of aggressive and defensive today. Hmm.

Aggressive? Sure -- being aggressive and pressuring players helps find scum imo. Defensive? I get defensive if I need to, but I don't see how I am being defensive in this game, yet. Where do you see that?

I again note how you are casually throwing suspicion at me by saying "oh look at Guardian. hmm, aggressive

and

defensive. let's be careful with that one."

Have we already exited the joking phase? That was fast.

I love joking, but I really dislike the joking phase. Games I am in tend to move fast .

[SirWario]

Damn, i didn't know the thread started already.

Vote:Guardian

for being too aggressive over Rishi's reading error

[Guardian]

SirWario, again, why defend Rishi?

By saying I am being too aggressive you make him feel even safer still. I accepted at face value that his reading error was just a reading error. I am now asking him questions for other reasons.

How is being aggressive in scum hunting scummy?

[AlSleet]

SirWario, again, why defend Rishi?

By saying I am being too aggressive you make him feel even safer still. I accepted at face value that his reading error was just a reading error. I am now asking him questions for other reasons.

How is being aggressive in scum hunting scummy?

There's being agressive and being anal. You were being kinda anal before with the reading error.

But I can see why you're pressing him now after he kinda made a questionable post.

Besides, being really agressive can be you covering for the fact that you're scum yourself.

[SirWario]

Guardian, I assumed we were still in the haphazard voting stage.

But i understand the need to press people to find scum.

I'll keep my vote for now though.

[Guardian]

SirWario, again, why defend Rishi?

By saying I am being too aggressive you make him feel even safer still. I accepted at face value that his reading error was just a reading error. I am now asking him questions for other reasons.

How is being aggressive in scum hunting scummy?

There's being agressive and being anal. You were being kinda anal before with the reading error.

He hadn't yet said that it was a reading error. I wanted to see what he said in response to my aggression.

But I can see why you're pressing him now after he kinda made a questionable post.

Thanks for not giving Rishi a cover as you did earlier .

Besides, being really agressive can be you covering for the fact that you're scum yourself.

Eh, it can. Your reasoning is not bad.

Slops for again responding to a question addressed to someone else before they had a chance to address it though, in this case SirWario. .

---

Guardian, I assumed we were still in the haphazard voting stage.

That's odd, as you gave a reason for voting me.

But i understand the need to press people to find scum.

Me too . You seem to be backing off that being aggressive is scummy -- are you, or no?

I'll keep my vote for now though.

Hm. Why? I agree you should pretty much always keep your vote

somewhere

day one, to indicate who your most likely scum candidate is -- am I your most likely scum candidate? Why or why not?


SirWario, you have not addressed either of my questions directly. Why defend Rishi? And why is being aggressive scummy?

[SirWario]

Guardian, i wasn't defending Rishi. In my opinion his mistake didn't seem too important, but you made a case about it anyway.

I only think aggression is scummy when it is over something trivial like a reading error. You could be trying to bring suspicion on to Rishi. Those were my thoughts.

[Guardian]

Guardian, i wasn't defending Rishi.

Maybe you didn't know you were, but by saying my attack of him was scummy, you were easing the pressure on him.

In my opinion his mistake didn't seem too important, but you made a case about it anyway.

I disagree. He found me scummy because of his mistake. People finding other people scummy and their reasons for doing so is

very

important. Also, at the time I made the case, I had no way of knowing if it was a reading mistake or not. You are all inferring that it was a reading mistake -- what if he had responded "eh, well almost 50/50 is pretty much the same as 50/50, and you are wrong". Then we would have a whole avenue of things to explore.

I only think aggression is scummy when it is over something trivial like a reading error.

Again, we didn't know that it was a reading error. I thought it could have been, and I also thought he could have been making a weak case even though he understood me.

You could be trying to bring suspicion on to Rishi. Those were my thoughts.

I am trying to bring suspicion or Rishi right now (pending his response), though not for the reading error anymore. Is that a bad thing?

Also, you have not responded as to if I am your main candidate, and why/why not? Do you have a strong feeling about me, or anyone else in the game?

[Rishi]

OK. I wish AlSleet hadn't mentioned that it could have been just a reading error, but that can't be helped.

It wouldn't have changed what I said. I might have used different terminology if AlSleet hadn't said anything, but the gist would have been the same.

We're having a conversation out in public here. I'm not asking anyone to jump to my defense, but if anyone has an opinion, I invite them into the discussion. I'm not sure why you just want a response from me and me alone.

That I take issue with. You are backtracking from your suspicion... and how did you give any indication that you were joking? First, you imply that your suspicion was real (and is now gone because you misread), and then say that you were just joking. That doesn't sit well for me.

The indication that I was joking comes from the fact that my logic was completely and utterly ridiculous there. Being bad at math is not a scumtell. That's like saying, "Oh.... typo. Let's lynch him."

Aggressive? Sure -- being aggressive and pressuring players helps find scum imo. Defensive? I get defensive if I need to, but I don't see how I am being defensive in this game, yet. Where do you see that?

I again note how you are casually throwing suspicion at me by saying "oh look at Guardian. hmm, aggressive

and

defensive. let's be careful with that one."

I think you're being defensive because you're attacking the first person who said anything remotely negative about you. I always view aggression as a form of defensiveness. But, that might not be fair. You admit you're being aggressive. I will reserve judgment on whether or not you're being defensive.

I love joking, but I really dislike the joking phase. Games I am in tend to move fast .

Fine with me. I think we get along well enough that we can skip past the conviviality. Though I'm not sure how Simenon will react when he returns if he finds that the game is already over.

[SirWario]

I wasn't intending to ease pressure on Rishi, but if it may have appeared to be defending, then it was accidental.

I realize now that you didn't know at the time that it could be a reading error when you posted your suspicions. You're also right that he could be lying.

I thought you were the most scummy, but I now know that i misconstrued your statements.

Unvote

: I now need to look over things again

[Guardian]

OK. I wish AlSleet hadn't mentioned that it could have been just a reading error, but that can't be helped.

It wouldn't have changed what I said. I might have used different terminology if AlSleet hadn't said anything, but the gist would have been the same.

OK. I see no reason not to take this at face value. One question though -- how might have your terminology been different? I'm curious.

We're having a conversation out in public here. I'm not asking anyone to jump to my defense, but if anyone has an opinion, I invite them into the discussion. I'm not sure why you just want a response from me and me alone.

Envision a scenario for me: I am town, and I want to figure out your alignment. You do something that could be seen as scummy, and I ask you why you did it and if you support it and what your mindset is when you did it.

Then, another player jumps in and says "oh, well Rishi obviously did that because of XXXX, his post wasn't scummy at all, move on." You could be scum, and hadn't even thought of XXXX. This other player just provided you with an easy defense when he had no reason to do so (unless you are scum and you are his partner).

So, when I ask people questions (or when anyone asks anyone else a specific question) it is generally a bad idea to comment upon that question before the person it was asked to gives a response. It is fine to comment on whether you find someone scummy (or not scummy -- but only if they are under attack -- in small games with no doctor randomly saying you find someone pro-town is very bad!), but not to address questions asked of them before they have a chance to address them.

That I take issue with. You are backtracking from your suspicion... and how did you give any indication that you were joking? First, you imply that your suspicion was real (and is now gone because you misread), and then say that you were just joking. That doesn't sit well for me.

The indication that I was joking comes from the fact that my logic was completely and utterly ridiculous there. Being bad at math is not a scumtell. That's like saying, "Oh.... typo. Let's lynch him."

I am not seeing that -- you found my mistake suspicious, and directly said you wondered if my mistake stemmed from being scum and not having a clear perspective on how things would look from a townie perspective.

I am really not seeing how it was a joke. That being said, I will consider the possibility that you meant it as such... Just saying that it "was a joke" is an easy way to back away from something. Again, this is why I hate the random phase.

For the record, from my perspective, the random phase is definitely over now. Any future "jokes" must be clearly labeled as such, or I will view them as being serious.

Aggressive? Sure -- being aggressive and pressuring players helps find scum imo. Defensive? I get defensive if I need to, but I don't see how I am being defensive in this game, yet. Where do you see that?

I again note how you are casually throwing suspicion at me by saying "oh look at Guardian. hmm, aggressive

and

defensive. let's be careful with that one."

I think you're being defensive because you're attacking the first person who said anything remotely negative about you.

Eh, that is somewhat reasonable, but I didn't defend myself hardly at all -- I pointed out that your attack was bad and attacked you for having such a bad attack. Whether or not I am being defensive or not is not

particularly

relevant to me, so whatever.

I always view aggression as a form of defensiveness. But, that might not be fair. You admit you're being aggressive. I will reserve judgment on whether or not you're being defensive.

That is very reasonable.

I love joking, but I really dislike the joking phase. Games I am in tend to move fast .

Fine with me. I think we get along well enough that we can skip past the conviviality. Though I'm not sure how Simenon will react when he returns if he finds that the game is already over.

I'd love to see the look on his face. If we can do that

and

get a town win, I'm all for it.

[Rishi]

OK. I see no reason not to take this at face value. One question though -- how might have your terminology been different? I'm curious.

Perhaps I would have said, "Oops. Looked at your post too fast. Sorry." I guess I'm just talking about semantics, though.

Envision a scenario for me: I am town, and I want to figure out your alignment. You do something that could be seen as scummy, and I ask you why you did it and if you support it and what your mindset is when you did it.

Then, another player jumps in and says "oh, well Rishi obviously did that because of XXXX, his post wasn't scummy at all, move on." You could be scum, and hadn't even thought of XXXX. This other player just provided you with an easy defense when he had no reason to do so (unless you are scum and you are his partner).

So, when I ask people questions (or when anyone asks anyone else a specific question) it is generally a bad idea to comment upon that question before the person it was asked to gives a response. It is fine to comment on whether you find someone scummy (or not scummy -- but only if they are under attack -- in small games with no doctor randomly saying you find someone pro-town is very bad!), but not to address questions asked of them before they have a chance to address them.

Fair enough, but there is always value in seeing who jumps to another's defense. That sometimes is worth more than the answer to the original question. I always note it when someone comes into an argument that isn't theirs. I think that often says more than the rhetoric that some folks toss around.

I am not seeing that -- you found my mistake suspicious, and directly said you wondered if my mistake stemmed from being scum and not having a clear perspective on how things would look from a townie perspective.

I am really not seeing how it was a joke. That being said, I will consider the possibility that you meant it as such... Just saying that it "was a joke" is an easy way to back away from something. Again, this is why I hate the random phase.

Okay, fair enough. We can tuck this away for a while, for now. It's fair if you want to bring it up again, but I think we should drop it.

For the record, from my perspective, the random phase is definitely over now. Any future "jokes" must be clearly labeled as such, or I will view them as being serious.

I have a dry sense of humor sometimes. But I'll try to be careful.

So, The Fonz, you've been quiet through this discussion. What do you think?

[The Fonz]

So, The Fonz, you've been quiet through this discussion. What do you think?

Well, no ______ sherlock. It happened overnight.

A few thoughts- firstly, being aggressive is not a scum tell, and never has been. Also, can't see how Guardian's posts have been 'defensive' at all.

I really don't like Wario thus far. Stating as fact that Rishi's '3/7 is not 50/50' was a reading error doesn't sit well.

Besides, being really agressive can be you covering for the fact that you're scum yourself.

Don't like this one bit. How exactly does it 'cover up' for that fact? Being aggressive draws attention to yourself. I don't exactly consider it a town tell (because most players are either aggressive or not depending on playstyle, regardless of alignment) but it does make for better games imho.

[Guardian]

I really don't like Wario thus far. Stating as fact that Rishi's '3/7 is not 50/50' was a reading error doesn't sit well.

Why not?

Besides, being really agressive can be you covering for the fact that you're scum yourself.

Don't like this one bit. How exactly does it 'cover up' for that fact? Being aggressive draws attention to yourself. I don't exactly consider it a town tell (because most players are either aggressive or not depending on playstyle, regardless of alignment) but it does make for better games imho.

Point well made.

[The Fonz]

I really don't like Wario thus far. Stating as fact that Rishi's '3/7 is not 50/50' was a reading error doesn't sit well.

Why not?

Because he couldn't know for a fact what another player's motivation/ thought process is. This means that he is jumping to conclusions at best.

[Guardian]

I really don't like Wario thus far. Stating as fact that Rishi's '3/7 is not 50/50' was a reading error doesn't sit well.

Why not?

Because he couldn't know for a fact what another player's motivation/ thought process is. This means that he is jumping to conclusions at best.

Hm.

Do you also find AlSleet scummy for the same reason? He also said Rishi definitely misread.

Also, do you think that it was unreasonable of SirWario to think Rishi's mistake was a misread?