Newbie 1074(Game Over|Scum Win!!!)

[Silver1337]

VOTE: Nachomamma8

Also @Hoppster: Well I'm not against it but I'm not exactly for it either, since you have a greater chance of lynching a town-aligned player.

@Verbs: I do "actively scumhunt", but probably in a different way than most people.

[1joe60]

@ 1joe60: According to the site, you joined almost 2 years ago?

Yeah I got semi-interested and was going to try it out but I forgot about it and never gave it a go. Glad I'm trying it now its purty kewl

[Hazard with a Glove]

OH SH-
No one told me the game began. I'll read through everything ive missed shortly.

[Robocopter87]

Lol I told you to bookmark the topic, that shows you whenever someone posts, meaning you would have seen my post, and you would have seen the Game title change.

Anywho,
__________

:

|

Vote Count

|

:

1joe60 [1] Hoppster
desiderata[0]
drewoftherushes [0]
Silver1337 [1] desiderata
Verbs [0]
Pine [0]
Hazard with a Glove [1] Verbs
Hoppster [1] 1joe60

Nachomamma8 [2] Pine, Silver1337

:

|

Not Voting

|

:

drewoftherushes, Hazard with a Glove, Nachomamma8

:

|

Amount to Lynch

|

:

With 9 Alive it is 5 to Lynch.

:

|

Deadline

|

:

Midnight of March, 26^th, EST.

__________

[/color][/b]

[Pine]

VOTE: Nachomamma8

J'accuse!

The advertised reason of my vote against Nachomamma was his mildly suspicious lack of confirmation, with the added benefit of provoking a potential lurker into action. While this action was entirely valid and reasonable, there was an ulterior motive to this action as well: to set a trap. Congratulations, Silver, you've fallen into it.

Prompting a lurker does not require multiple provocations to be effective, and thus the only well-reasoned purpose to adding a second vote to someone who has not had a chance to defend themselves is to arbitrarily get them lynched. And this, sir, is a very scummy thing to do, especially in light of the following:

Nachomamma8 seems suspicious since he/she was the last one to send in confirmation, if at all. However, I will wait to vote.

Why, then, did you change your vote? Perhaps it was because others in this thread prompted you not to hold back, and you followed their advice in order to blend in. But then again, you do not explain your sudden change of heart. In my experience and in my observation of more veteran players, rare is the Townie who votes without even a modicum of explanationYou say you've played in this format before, so I am not as willing to ascribe to inexperience what can be adequately explained by

malice

.

The case against you, sir, is far from airtight, but this kind of blunder most certainly deserves to be further investigated.

UNVOTE: Unvote
VOTE: Silver1337

[Silver1337]

VOTE: Nachomamma8

J'accuse!

The advertised reason of my vote against Nachomamma was his mildly suspicious lack of confirmation, with the added benefit of provoking a potential lurker into action. While this action was entirely valid and reasonable, there was an ulterior motive to this action as well: to set a trap. Congratulations, Silver, you've fallen into it.

Prompting a lurker does not require multiple provocations to be effective, and thus the only well-reasoned purpose to adding a second vote to someone who has not had a chance to defend themselves is to arbitrarily get them lynched. And this, sir, is a very scummy thing to do, especially in light of the following:

Nachomamma8 seems suspicious since he/she was the last one to send in confirmation, if at all. However, I will wait to vote.

Why, then, did you change your vote? Perhaps it was because others in this thread prompted you not to hold back, and you followed their advice in order to blend in. But then again, you do not explain your sudden change of heart. In my experience and in my observation of more veteran players, rare is the Townie who votes without even a modicum of explanationYou say you've played in this format before, so I am not as willing to ascribe to inexperience what can be adequately explained by

malice

.

The case against you, sir, is far from airtight, but this kind of blunder most certainly deserves to be further investigated.

UNVOTE: Unvote
VOTE: Silver1337

T'was because others were voting and I felt like it was best to vote.
I can still change it, so why not vote earlier?

[Pine]

Apparently, what I said was not concise enough for you. Here's the TL;DR summary for you:

Jumping on a bandwagon, or in your case starting one, without actual evidence, particularly against someone who has yet to defend themselves against the initial suspicion, is very

scummy

.

A wise Townie would instead select a different target to shake the tree of. This is called scum hunting. Wagoning without adequate reason is a notable scum tell.

[Silver1337]

@Pine Tree: And... how would I know YOU'RE not scum?

[Pine]

See, now you're actually using your head! Suspect everyone, and

investigate.

Unfortunately, deflecting onto one's accuser without actually engaging their points is just as scummy as your initial error. Thus, you solidify my points.

Hazard With a Glove (may I call you Hazard?):

No one told me the game began. I'll read through everything ive missed shortly.

What, exactly, is preventing you from following through on your promised response? You were merely the 27th post, four or five of which were from the mod and at least half of which were only a line or two in length. Thus far, you've contributed roughly nothing to the discussion. I invite you to remedy that lack.

[1joe60]

@Pine Tree: And... how would I know YOU'RE not scum?

I don't claim to know too much about the mechanics of this game but defending yourself like that isn't going to get you anywhere.

[Hazard with a Glove]

First if all, I read through but didn't post because I had to go eat, and then forgot afterward. Also, were on the second page, calm down.
Now, normally I'd Eva, but I guess we won't be having anymore of that. So

vote pine

.

[Pine]

Care to actually provide a reason? It was my impression that the job of the Town is to actually call people on this sort of thing, and point out those who either do not follow through or fail to adequately contribute. It also does not escape my notice (and I am not hesitant to point this out) that not only did you not answer the challenge, but you too deflected onto the person shaking your tree.

...Now, normally I'd Eva...

What does this mean?

[Robocopter87]

Nachomamma8 has confirmed. All players are confirmed.

[Nachomamma8]

Hello, I'm here and I'm alive.
Unfortunately, I'm also tired, so you'll have to wait for my input until tomorrow if you want anything worth reading.

[Verbs]

@Verbs: I do "actively scumhunt", but probably in a different way than most people.

Please elaborate. Pine has a case against you, and on top of that your dodging my questions about scum hunting. How do you scumhunt without voting (this is what you were doing before) OR making your vote count (what you just did, bandwagon a non-confirmed player)?

~~~

@Hoppster: Should have mentioned before, my other game was off-site.

~~~

This game is getting off to a good start but we need everyone to participate in discussion. Keep this game active folks.

[Hazard with a Glove]

@pine. That should have said rvs, but my phone auto corrected it.
Reasoning: I have a feeling your Scum trying to play town leader get town credit. unfortunately, I barely have reads on anyone because of my quick skim through the thread.

Also, ohai hoppster and nacho.
I'm almost certain hoppster is town, when I played with Jim before he was Scum and very quiet, but we'll see.

[Pine]

Your suspicion is laudable, though I do not concur with your assessment. My refutation of your suspicions, however, is flawed in that I am not able to view it from an outside perspective, and in that I know for certain that I am pro-town. I would, however, invite the rest of the players to evaluate Hazard's accusation for themselves and make their own decisions.

In that same line, I find his assertion of Hoppster's innocence to be a major red flag. It is

far

too early to be even moderately certain of

anyone's

innocence, and smacks of something very akin to the classic scum tell

information instead of analysis

.

[drewoftherushes]

Glove - to be "almost certain" of something on just the 40th post of a game is pretty incredible. Was hoppster lynched as quiet scum when you played together?

But Pine's verbosity and feigned expertise feels almost as scummy - sounds like scum trying to take advantage of newbies seeking guidance, especially so early on.

[Pine]

I don't care whether you want, need, or are willing to be guided. I also don't care that many people in this game are newbies. My play style, both in live games and in the one other forum game I've played, is very aggressive and paranoid. Suspicion is the town's life blood.

You will notice that I have not, and likely will not, attempt to give you advice, counsel, or make recommendations. I'll voice my opinions on the situation, shake trees, provoke responses, and scum hunt until I go blue in the face. I will turn this critical assessment on every single one of you, because while Town may flinch under scrutiny, scum tends to panic and make mistakes.

And as for verbosity...since when is that a crime or indicator of

anything

? I pack my posts full of information

and

analysis

and

explanation. If the rest of the Town can't follow my train of thought, how can I expect them to get a good analysis of me?

Town

wants

to be analyzed, critically examined, and investigated. Scum attempting to use that strategy are playing with fire at best, because with an aggressive style, one slip and you're screwed.

I play loudly and aggressively. Deal with it.

On an entirely unrelated point: @Verbs, can you go into your User Control Panel > Profile > Gender and set yours? I hate not knowing which pronoun to use, and hate guessing even more. Thanks!

[Pine]

Also, @Nacho: I like the way your avatar subliminally suggests virtue and therefore innocence to your audience. Clever.

[Hoppster]

I can sense that this will be an interesting game.


@ Silver: I'm inclined to side with Pine here. I would have expected at least a line or two of explanation, even if it were something as simple as "Okay, why not".

@ Nacho: Don't worry. Your first post was totally worth reading. Please don't feel obliged to post more.

@ Pine: So Hazard's 'almost certain' assertion of my innocence (which I'll admit is a tad early) brings up a major red flag, but not one enough to make you reconsider your vote?

@ drew: The other mafioso and I actually survived and won. http://www.mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopi ... 43&start=0 <- link for anybody interested.

I disagree that a loud, aggressive player is a sure-fire tell of either town or scum. It could work either way (although, granted, it is probably more risky as scum).

Town

wants

to be analyzed, critically examined, and investigated. Scum attempting to use that strategy are playing with fire at best, because with an aggressive style, one slip and you're screwed.

I play loudly and aggressively. Deal with it.

UNVOTE:
VOTE: Pine

My sources tell me good things will happen if I do this.

[drewoftherushes]

@Pine - You basically just said, "It would be crazy of scum to be as vocal as I'm being, so I must not be scum." You haven't even had serious heat, but you're already setting up your lynch defenses. I don't buy it.

VOTE: Vote Pine

[Hazard with a Glove]

@Pine
So you expect us to just get out of the way and play a game of Follow the Leader with you?

Diserata: What do you think of Pine so far? (sorry if I missed spelled your name)

Also, yes you can call me any form of my name you wish.

[Silver1337]

Sorry, I was tired. I will explain more now.
So, everyone has figuratively said that "It's okay to vote now, besides, you can change your vote." That is why I have started voting. How I scumhunt is basically I inspect the posts to see if anything is awry. Examples of Mafia-aligned terminology and activity is the following:
- Using the word "lynching" excessively, except to place a vote on someone.
- Not paying attention to previous posts.
- Going ONLY with what others say.
- Posting too often
- Rarely posting
- Using too proper grammar or no proper grammar at all.
-

SPOUTING NONSENSE.

I agree that my methods are probably not the best, but they work for me. I wouldn't have won my game on another site if it wasn't for this.

Also, I'm keeping my eye on Pine and Nachomamma8.

[Pine]

Well holy crap, people. Go to bed and come back to an avalanche predicated on the very thin logical fallacy of "Too Townie, so he must be scum!"

I will respond to each individually.

Spoiler: Hoppster's Points

@ Pine: So Hazard's 'almost certain' assertion of my innocence (which I'll admit is a tad early) brings up a major red flag, but not one enough to make you reconsider your vote?

Of course it made me reconsider. I considered it, and with two red flags from Silver, and one from Hazard, I stayed with the former. If you'd like my suspicions in a more formal presentation, here they are-

FOS: Hazard With a Glove.

Preview Edit: Silver's ninja response have actually allayed some of my suspicions against him. That has re-aligned my opinions regarding Silver vs. Hazard, and as such-
UNVOTE:
VOTE: Hazard With a Glove

I disagree that a loud, aggressive player is a sure-fire tell of either town or scum. It could work either way (although, granted, it is probably more risky as scum).

Despite this, you're still willing to pile on to a forming bandwagon?

[quote="Hoppster]

Town

wants

to be analyzed, critically examined, and investigated. Scum attempting to use that strategy are playing with fire at best, because with an aggressive style, one slip and you're screwed.

I play loudly and aggressively. Deal with it.

UNVOTE:
VOTE: Pine

My sources tell me good things will happen if I do this.[/quote]
You

just

said that you don't find it likely that scum would play this way, but you overcome those doubts to pursue someone trying to lay all of his cards on the table?

Spoiler: drewoftherushes' Points

@Pine - You basically just said, "It would be crazy of scum to be as vocal as I'm being, so I must not be scum." You haven't even had serious heat, but you're already setting up your lynch defenses. I don't buy it.

No, I was setting up a defense of my play style, which is in your face and deserves to be explained right up front, especially, no offense, in a newbie game. Further, I did

not

say "I must not be scum." Only scum deals in absolutes regarding innocence and guilt, because only the scum knows for certain who is and who is not scum. Indeed, I welcome and appreciate investigation of my claims and positions, provided you actually reason them through.

Spoiler: Hazard's Points

@Pine
So you expect us to just get out of the way and play a game of Follow the Leader with you?

Umm, no. Precisely the opposite, in fact. I have repeatedly stressed the importance of every player conducting their own investigations, draw their own conclusions, and

think for themselves

. Put words in my mouth at your own peril, because it is damn close to lying and misrepresentation. And as you seem somewhat experienced, I do not think I need to remind you what common wisdom suggests we do to people who do that:
Lynch All Liars

[spoiler="Silver's Points]

Sorry, I was tired. I will explain more now.
So, everyone has figuratively said that "It's okay to vote now, besides, you can change your vote." That is why I have started voting. How I scumhunt is basically I inspect the posts to see if anything is awry. Examples of Mafia-aligned terminology and activity is the following:
- Using the word "lynching" excessively, except to place a vote on someone.
- Not paying attention to previous posts.
- Going ONLY with what others say.
- Posting too often
- Rarely posting
- Using too proper grammar or no proper grammar at all.
-

SPOUTING NONSENSE.

I agree that my methods are probably not the best, but they work for me. I wouldn't have won my game on another site if it wasn't for this.

Also, I'm keeping my eye on Pine and Nachomamma8.

Posting too often and using proper grammar? Excuse me for having an opinion and being educated. And there is no such thing as "too proper grammar." It's either correct or not correct.

While I applaud your suspicion, operating with unusual methods based on a previous game, just because they worked then is very hazardous. I direct you to this logical fallacy: 7 For 7

On the other hand, actually responding to the challenges laid against you instead of deflecting or panicking is what I was looking for. Though you are far from cleared of suspicion, you're no longer my public enemy number one. See above for this being reflected in my vote.[/spoiler]

In short, I have laid all of my cards on the table, my detractors have not. Indeed, they have vilified

me

instead of providing satisfactory answers to the points I have made against them, which is merely a sophisticated form of deflection.

To pre-empt continued efforts at distracting the quieter players away from the real issues, in favor of condemning my efforts at self-preservation, I direct you to the following link:
Do Not Go Quietly Into That Good Night