Mini 572 - Packrats (game over)

[Mizzy]

Let me make my point a bit clearer. I do see your point about there being a chance of them actually knowing due to some sort of night action. However, just out and saying, "I think so-and-so is scum" without actually presenting any evidence or case doesn't really do anything. We have no way of knowing whether or not they are a power role who found valid info or if they are scum hoping to kill a townie right off the bat.

I also find it scummy that people are putting words into my mouth, assuming I'm expressing opinions that I am not, and putting pressure votes on me for questioning someone's highly-questionable post. I think they are, as it was said, just scumhunting, but that doesn't mean I have to find their approach effective or un-scummy.

So, I'm going to ask nicely...if you're trying to get a read on me or pressure me, that's fine, that is good scumhunting and I will gladly respond to any questions or comments you might have, but please don't misrepresent me.

[hasdgfas]

It seemed to me like you were saying "Let's not worry about the early pages" when you said:

Damn, we went from fun little random votes to "I think such and such is scum and here's why." What the hell?

It's page 3.

I don't think anyone has any basis to think anyone is scum yet.

That seems to me to be saying that the early pages don't matter because it's hard to find scum during them. While that may be true, I feel that it's important to get out of the "random voting stage" as early as possible. Saying that it's page 3 and we have no basis to think anyone is scum is, to me, like saying that those pages don't matter very much and we shouldn't pay attention to them. So any misrepresentation of you was simply because that's how I viewed your post.

[Mizzy]

It seemed to me like you were saying "Let's not worry about the early pages" when you said:

Damn, we went from fun little random votes to "I think such and such is scum and here's why." What the hell?

It's page 3.

I don't think anyone has any basis to think anyone is scum yet.

That seems to me to be saying that the early pages don't matter because it's hard to find scum during them. While that may be true, I feel that it's important to get out of the "random voting stage" as early as possible. Saying that it's page 3 and we have no basis to think anyone is scum is, to me, like saying that those pages don't matter very much and we shouldn't pay attention to them. So any misrepresentation of you was simply because that's how I viewed your post.

No no no, that's not what I meant at all. Sorry if it came off that way. What I meant was, "How can anyone be so sure yet? Let's see some proof!" No pages in a game should ever be discounted.

[Mizzy]

I'm confused also by your "The game only identifies vanilla townies."... that strikes me as wrong, because Strappado was not a vanilla townie.

Secondarily, if the scum were allowed to kill n0, then the investigative roles were allowed to target as well.

I'd like to introduce some meta into the game regarding strappado, me, rotten snitch, zindaras, and others. I don't have to but it might be worth stimulating discussion with.

Firstly, I'd like to see some of the meta information but for discussion purposes. I hope we won't try making a case out of pure meta, but I think meta here might be helpful.

Also, I have a thought on N1 actions. It was pointed out by a couple of people that N1 night actions might have happened. We did get a N1 kill, so obviously someone was allowed to do SOMETHING. However, re-reading the background text:

"Once we disposed of them all, another brilliant man--her grandfather, incidentally--

thought to plant wolfsbane all over the village. And the smell has kept the wolves out...for good."

I kind of came into this thinking that scum are werewolves based on the flavor text, but I have to wonder now if I was wrong in that assumption. I see no reason that wolfsbane would suddenly stop working, so if the scum ARE wolves, then how could they get into town to kill?

It kind of makes me remember the movie The Village where the "monsters" were actually people.

Thoughts, please? This is the first game like this (a really detailed theme game) I've played and I have no idea how much to read into the flavor text and I don't want my imagination running off with me.

[Ether]

3 Rotten Snitch (Mizzy, Rotten Snitch, Elmo)
2 Capricious (Zindaras, Sir Tornado)
2 Mizzy (hasdgfas, Andycyca)
1 Skruffs (eldarad)
1 Y (Capricious)
1 Zindaras (Skruffs)

1 Unvote (Y)

11 alive; 6 to lynch.

[Zindaras]

Unvote, Vote : Zindaras

I'm not going to give you the chance to NK me again, And after the last three games in which you were scum, I think an early strike against you is more beneficial to town.

FoS: Skruffs

This is beyond any kind of the crap logic I've seen you use before.

1: NK you again? When did I NK you before? I don't have a policy of killing you on Night One.

2: For one, I haven't been scum the last three games. For two,

that has absolutely no influence whatsoever on this game

. It's preposterous to suggest that, based on my alignment from the past three games, I am now scum and should be lynched.

Thoughts, please? This is the first game like this (a really detailed theme game) I've played and I have no idea how much to read into the flavor text and I don't want my imagination running off with me.

I don't think there's any use in coming up with theories about this now. It's not a question we can answer right now anyway.

[Skruffs]

I didn't say it did Zindaras; however, I did point out that you acted the exact same way at the beginning of California Trilogy, and you were scum in that game, and all you did in response was correct the title of the game and ignore it otherwise. That's a big tell, on you, for me.

I *was* NK'd in that game, and NK'd in the game with Ripley in it after we mislynched him at enggame, and you WOULD have NK'd me in Meadows of Sorrow if you had been alive to be able to do that.

I never inferred you had a policy of NKing me night 1 - when did you infer that?

And I didn't say that you were scum in this game BECAUSE you were scum in the last three games we played in together, I am inferring that you are acting NOW like the scum you WERE in those games.

[Sir Tornado]

Also, I think Zindaras is scum. He's trying to buddy up with Mizzy right now. The last time he did that with someone in a game with me, he was scum.

Dude, seriously?

Like I said in Big Love:

[18:46:38] Sir Tornado 88: Esp because of the buddying he did with Ether AND Sacred D1

You may have been right, but this really isn't a scumtell for me. I <3 Ether and Sacred. I enjoy playing with them a lot.

This is like saying last time I saw Battle Mage as scum, he kept putting all his quotes at the bottom of his posts (which is obviously why he's stopped doing it). You're really reaching here.

But, neither Ether nor Sacred are playing in this game, are they? Or do you buddy up with Mizzy in all of your games too?

[Zindaras]

I didn't say it did Zindaras; however, I did point out that you acted the exact same way at the beginning of California Trilogy, and you were scum in that game, and all you did in response was correct the title of the game and ignore it otherwise. That's a big tell, on you, for me.

I did otherwise respond to it, even though you claim otherwise.

When was the last time I started an early day one wagon on you? You mean California? For one, that was ages ago. For two, compare the follow-up post in this game to the follow-up posts in California. And note the differences.

Important, here. Let's look at the follow-up posts.

California:

Clearly, only a foul scumbag, cursed by the powers that be (read: mith) into being a god-forsaken, evil semblance of a man, would, at this point in the game, use Condorcet voting.

Confirm Vote: Skruffs

Y should I?

The similarities are impressive only in their complete absence (and note that the second post was made before you said anything. If I was pushing the 'wagon there, I'd have said "Y aren't you voting Skruffs?" at the very least).

That's just one argument. An even simpler argument would be that you simply haven't learned: there is a difference between personality and scumtells. Like Sir Tornado, you go on this ridiculous crusade based on a personality tell rather than a scumtell. You're going all guana, saying that one post and one vote is a clear attempt to start a 'wagon on you.

Quite frankly, it's ridiculous.

I *was* NK'd in that game, and NK'd in the game with Ripley in it after we mislynched him at enggame, and you WOULD have NK'd me in Meadows of Sorrow if you had been alive to be able to do that.

I never inferred you had a policy of NKing me night 1 - when did you infer that?

And I didn't say that you were scum in this game BECAUSE you were scum in the last three games we played in together, I am inferring that you are acting NOW like the scum you WERE in those games.

Well, obviously, I would've nightkilled you at some point in every game, since you're even assuming that endgaming is nightkilling here, and scum has to kill everybody. So that's very impressive.

Also, there's no friggin' way you're going to compare this to Open 20. In Open 20, my entire play was based on massive distancing from Aimee. In Meadows, my game was completely different as well, as I was one of the few people who was actually trying to catch scum (since I assumed two scumgroups). In California, my play was different as well.

You can stop running from shadows now.

[Zindaras]

But, neither Ether nor Sacred are playing in this game, are they? Or do you buddy up with Mizzy in all of your games too?

*sighs*

My personality is very happy and fuzzy (though that could be because of the whole kitten thing). Therefore, I'm going to be happy and nice all around. Especially with people I haven't played with before. They need to get a nice, fuzzy, first experience with me, so that they will forever associate me with niceness (and fuzziness).

Yay for Pavlov.

[eldarad]

I'm really trying to get into this game, but I really don't see the relevance of the conversation that is going on at the moment.
Skruffs, do you really think this is a useful avenue to pursue this early?

Also

unvote

[Zindaras]

But, neither Ether nor Sacred are playing in this game, are they? Or do you buddy up with Mizzy in all of your games too?

*sighs*

My personality is very happy and fuzzy (though that could be because of the whole kitten thing). Therefore, I'm going to be happy and nice all around. Especially with people I haven't played with before. They need to get a nice, fuzzy, first experience with me, so that they will forever associate me with niceness (and fuzziness).

Yay for Pavlov.

Actually, it's even simpler. If you admit that it wasn't a scumtell in Big Love, then the comparison is void simply on that basis.

[Sir Tornado]

Actually, it's even simpler. If you admit that it wasn't a scumtell in Big Love, then the comparison is void simply on that basis.

No, it isn't. Buddying up is generally a universal scum tell. (although, I retract the "Zindy is obv scum" sentence, still IGMEOY)

[Mizzy]

But, neither Ether nor Sacred are playing in this game, are they? Or do you buddy up with Mizzy in all of your games too?

iu

He and I haven't had the pleasure of playing together before now, actually.

[Mizzy]

EBWOP:

But, neither Ether nor Sacred are playing in this game, are they? Or do you buddy up with Mizzy in all of your games too?

iu

He and I haven't had the pleasure of playing together before now, actually.

Sorry, kitten sat on my keyboard.

[Zindaras]

Actually, it's even simpler. If you admit that it wasn't a scumtell in Big Love, then the comparison is void simply on that basis.

No, it isn't. Buddying up is generally a universal scum tell. (although, I retract the "Zindy is obv scum" sentence, still IGMEOY)

That's what they said to pablito in Kingmaker II too.

Buddying is an extremely weak tell, if it even is a tell, and it's completely worthless on me, given my personality.

[Elmo]

I got accused for buddying-up once because I said I was amused by someone's signature. So I'm not massively wild about this kinda deal, especially when Zindy is, you know,

nice

. Sir T, why do you think it's a scumtell, as opposed to null?

[Y]

I actually think this all meta-game analysis is leading us nowhere (It really bores me, actually).

[Zindaras]

I actually think that we should be voting Capricious right now.

Also, <3 Elmo. ^_^

[eldarad]

I was just going to call Capricious out actually.

[Sir Tornado]

I agree with Capricious vote.

Elmo, buddying up is generally a scum tell. If someone is overtly hostile, he is more probable to be under intense scrutiny or get lynched on D1, get inv N1, and is less likely to be followed. (yes, you can deny all you want, but it's true).

[Mizzy]

Elmo, buddying up is generally a scum tell. If someone is overtly hostile, he is more probable to be under intense scrutiny or get lynched on D1, get inv N1, and is less likely to be followed. (yes, you can deny all you want, but it's true).

I've seen lots of townies buddy up, too, though. Quite a bit, actually. So wouldn't that make it a null-tell?

[eldarad]

I guess I should put my vote where my mouth is then

vote Capricious

[Capricious]

I guess I should put my vote where my mouth is then

vote Capricious

This is bad, remember what happened last time you did this? Scum piled on as the L-2 and L-1 votes and I got lynched at deadline. Roles weren't revealed, so it didn't matter that I caught two of the three scum. Nobody would believe me. Conclusion from meta-game: Capricious Vote always bad.

[eldarad]

So, your defence is "in the last game I played with you, I wasn't scum"
Do I have to point out to you how meaningless that is?

As to the rest of your post, I'm not going to respond here because it isn't the place to so so. I'm certainly not going to get into a meta-game discussion with you based on a single game.