I've seen two-man scum teams in a twelve-player game, but more common is three, just so you know.Apothecary wrote:With this number of people, I assumed that there'd only be two.
Uhh... Last time I checked, not claiming your role when you're at L-1 will only serve to get that warrant signed faster since a refusal to claim is a scum tell. That's why some people demand that people at L-1 "claim or die". There is also rarely any danger in lynching a claimed vanilla, which is why I said that for a doc to claim vanilla is suicide.Apothecary wrote:But a power role should keep himself concealed. To reveal yourself at Day one is just like signing your own death warrant. You've practically doomed yourself, regardless of whether or not you are a power role!
I lost the option to keep my role a secret when I got to L-1. I am forbidden from protecting myself, as most docs are, so that's not an available option either.Apothecary wrote:And if you are the power role, then congrats. You just reduced your value for the town. You'll have to choose whether to protect yourself at night, or to risk your life for someone else. If you had remained secret, you would have been a damn sight more useful.
May be partially true. I forget who said it but it was "One of Llamas main problems is that he thinks everyone should play like him as town". Regardless, I think abandoning the Atlas case at the time you did is definantly a scum tell.Ythill wrote:So your suspicion boils down to the fact that you suspect me because I do not play like you do. Also, I didn't stop suspecting Atlas. He's moved down my list due to some of his defenses, but he's still a suspect.Llama wrote:I'm stubborn when I think im right, so when people stop suspecting someone who they obviously have at their top pick, it really bothers me.
Bringing information that does not further a lynch on a suspect does nothing but make your weak caser and more then likely, not get the player lynched. This makes you look active, yet there is no mislynch blame. I have used this tactic before as scum in a very large game, and flew under the radar for a long period of time without people suspecting me given that I was scumhunting.Ythill wrote:Actually, I misunderstood you. And again, your suspicions can be traced back to our difference in play. I believe that honesty in mentioning a tell that could be either scum- or null- is important because it helps to avoid mislynches.Llama wrote:Nice way of making my wording null my point. When I said that, what I ment was that I see no town motives for weakening your own case.
There is never any real "proof" in this game. You make arguments about who is scum given their actions, and eventually their connections as well. I have come up with reasoning as to why I think you are scum, presented it, you have defended it, and now we just do the back and forth dance. The main difference of what I have presented against you and what you have presented against Atlas is some wording. If I cut out all of the "feel" and "seems" and put things like "is" in, it would be pretty similar.Ythill wrote:No, I am not. I will not seriously address an accusation based on your feelings, your gut, or what "seems" to be happening.Llama wrote:...again, you are dodging my points due to wording.
You have hypothesized why I might act as I have as scum. I have explained why I acted as I have as town. Now, either you or wrong or I am lying, but the burden of proof lies with you here. Simply repeating that you still "feel" a certain way is not a factual argument.
I dont know what it was for. That action you took to meYthill wrote:Again, looking at me in the scummiest light. You have concluded that I am scum b/c of crap reasoning and now will accept any evidence to prove that conclusion. Look what you have done here, shifting your argument. First, I was scummy for supposedly setting up an attack for later. Now that I have explained my actions as intended to avoid a potential mislynch, you accept my general explanation but attribute scummy motives to it.Llama wrote:By saying they are more aids for you then for others, you bring down the ammount of blame that can be put on you for mislynches, but still claim credit for any scum lynch.
Why didnt you try to move the SC voters at least? Assumptions over peoples actions regarding your top suspect, especially assumptions that people wont listen, dont make any sense.Ythill wrote:Repeating your flawed theories does not make them true. Atlas was my #1 but nobody was interested in putting pressure on him. Rx was my #2 but did something scummy. I moved my vote from Atlas to Rx right after he did the scummy thing. That's the whole story, the motives you are attibuting are fantasy.Llama wrote:There were people who were looking for a new top suspect, and you comprimised to a new wagon.
Why is overdefensiveness a scum tell?Ythill wrote:Llama wrote:I kind of more was hoping for a bulleted list type argument.These are the tells
- other factors voiced previously (I'd have to look these up again, b/c I don't remember them exactly, I just remember that I agreed with others' points made before I replaced in)
- lurking
- timing that demonstrates that his claims of not knowing what is going on are false
- overdefensiveness in that he defended himself against an attack meant for someone else
- suspicions that do not seem genuine
beforemy vote. Things have happened after my vote to make me even more suspicious but, since we're talking about my vote here, I'll refrain from listing them. Another reason for my vote (second post in the quote) was that we needed a few more wagons to build the record and there were a few people who suspected Rx.
I dont think its scummy when someone plays different from me exactly. When someone does something I see scummy though and uses "its my playstyle" type defenses I dont like at all. Apoc does look a little odd I will admit, and is definantly not my top pick for town, the actions that others have taken though make me think he actually might be town. Still dont quite understand how suspicions arent "genuine". If I have learned one thing from this game, some people are really bad at making cases and couldnt make one to save their life (literally in some cases), there are some people who are pure follower, backing down is a point though. Determining if the case is just bad or BS is the bigger thing here to me.Ythill wrote:A big stretch? Hardly. His suspicions do not follow the flow of evidence, they are not backed up by a reasonable line of thought, and he is quick to retract/reinstate them when it benefits him in an argument. I can't believe that you, of all people, don't agree with me. After all, you are a self-admitted stubborn player who thinks it's scummy when people play differently than you and Rx is a flag flapping in the wind.Llama wrote:You have been saying I am looking at things in the scummiest light, but to say that his efforts are fake is a big strech to make anything he does look scummy.
Also what is your scale? It seems low is town and high is scum, but what is the upper end of the scale?
I said that about Corvus. Is that what you mean?Llama wrote:I forget who said it but it was "One of Llamas main problems is that he thinks everyone should play like him as town".
Which has no bearing whatsoever. If you want to reference past games, how about looking for whatLlama wrote:I have used this tactic before as scum...
Take "proof" lightly if you will, but something stronger than empty repetition. The burden is still on you. I can only tell the truth. As accuser, it is you who must convince others that your theory is more likely than my explanation.Llama wrote:There is never any real "proof" in this game.
Look at what you've said. You think I'm scum, right? So my case against Atlas must be contrived. Yet you claim that your case isLlama wrote:The main difference of what I have presented against you and what you have presented against Atlas is some wording. If I cut out all of the "feel" and "seems" and put things like "is" in, it would be pretty similar.
Awesome. First it was one theory. Then another. Now it could be either one. Your case is falling apart before our eyes.Llama wrote: dont know what it was for. That action you took to meis[/s] scummy, and it can be used for one of the two mentioned reasons. Setting up mislynches, lessing responsibility for a case or thinking out loud. The last one just seems perposterous to me, especially compared to the other things that you have done.
Why don't you come up with questions I haven't already answered? It's still empty repetition if you rephrase it.Llama wrote:Why didnt you try to move the SC voters at least?
In most cases it is not. However, in this case, Rx was responding to an attack made against someone else. It was stated that someone else's particular behavior was scummy, Rx then made a defense for that behavior even though nobody had pointed out him doing it. It made him sound guilty.Llama wrote:Why is overdefensiveness a scum tell?
What actions?Regarding Rx, Llama wrote:...the actions that others have taken though make me think he actually might be town.
Why would you say that making a weak case is a null-tell while giving ground in an argument? Hmmmmmm...Llama wrote:If I have learned one thing from this game, some people are really bad at making cases and couldnt make one to save their life...
Found where someone said it about me, but game is ongoing so I will withhold for now.Ythill wrote:I said that about Corvus. Is that what you mean?Llama wrote:I forget who said it but it was "One of Llamas main problems is that he thinks everyone should play like him as town".
I am just making a point that its a pretty valid and successful tactic to be playing, and I saw some reminence of it in your play.Ythill wrote:Which has no bearing whatsoever. If you want to reference past games, how about looking for whatLlama wrote:I have used this tactic before as scum...I'vedone as scum.
Not too many have been giving input one way or another which is frustrating me to no end here. I would be much happier even if everyone just said "stop being stupid" to me so I know if I need to try and explain things another way or just give up for now. Being ignored when I am attempting to make a point is not something I am good with.Ythill wrote:Take "proof" lightly if you will, but something stronger than empty repetition. The burden is still on you. I can only tell the truth. As accuser, it is you who must convince others that your theory is more likely than my explanation.Llama wrote:There is never any real "proof" in this game.
Let me explain this very carefully. I am getting annoyed that you are casting aside parts of my case due to word use, if I just dropped all the "emotional" words from it, my case looks similar in wording to your case on Atlas. If I added in "emotional" words to your case, it would supposedly invalidate most points to you.Ythill wrote:Look at what you've said. You think I'm scum, right? So my case against Atlas must be contrived. Yet you claim that your case isLlama wrote:The main difference of what I have presented against you and what you have presented against Atlas is some wording. If I cut out all of the "feel" and "seems" and put things like "is" in, it would be pretty similar.notcontrived by saying it is similar to my case on Atlas.
Dont get this really. I called you town because by adding "emotions" to your case I can make parts of it "invalid"?Ythill wrote:Not only is this an invalid statement about your case, but it heavily suggests that you know me to be town, because you are arguing from the Yth-town point of view against supposed Yth-scum. This is the first real scum-tell I've seen you make, but it's a big one.
I dont understand at all how you can call that move pro-town. I have tried looking at it from multiple angles and I dont buy that it was just you "thinking out loud". The other two theories look a whole lot better to me. Nice to say my case is crumbling though when this is not the only point against you.Ythill wrote:Awesome. First it was one theory. Then another. Now it could be either one. Your case is falling apart before our eyes.Llama wrote: dont know what it was for. That action you took to meis[/s] scummy, and it can be used for one of the two mentioned reasons. Setting up mislynches, lessing responsibility for a case or thinking out loud. The last one just seems perposterous to me, especially compared to the other things that you have done.
Probably because I dont understand it, at all. Period. When someone does something that goes against all logic that I can come up with, and shifts a wagon at an odd time, something is wrong.Why don't you come up with questions I haven't already answered? It's still empty repetition if you rephrase it.Llama wrote:Why didnt you try to move the SC voters at least?
Still dont get it a whole lot. As any alignment I try and kill any suspicion coming against me pretty early, and it works out well. What post was this in?Ythill wrote:In most cases it is not. However, in this case, Rx was responding to an attack made against someone else. It was stated that someone else's particular behavior was scummy, Rx then made a defense for that behavior even though nobody had pointed out him doing it. It made him sound guilty.Llama wrote:Why is overdefensiveness a scum tell?
Timing mostly. I pushed the wagon a bit when I replaced in to get him kickstarted in helping us out. Someone joined the wagon with me, and it stalled out in favor of the SC wagon. What happened next is what makes me start thinking he is town though. No one really pushed him hard while the SC wagon was going on, but there was no real rejection of the wagon. When the SC wagon died, there was aYthill wrote:What actions?Regarding Rx, Llama wrote:...the actions that others have taken though make me think he actually might be town.
I dont think that I am giving ground here. I am saying that Apoc might not be a great case maker, we all have played with players who arent. People who cant make good cases not being able to make a good case is a null tell. People making a bad or BS case is a scumtell.Ythill wrote:Why would you say that making a weak case is a null-tell while giving ground in an argument? Hmmmmmm...Llama wrote:If I have learned one thing from this game, some people are really bad at making cases and couldnt make one to save their life...
In what dialect is "we should probably lynch one of these two people today" wishy-washy?Ythill wrote:Elmo's #470 exemplifies the phrase wishy-washy.
I faked tracker in Mini 624 and seer in Open 96. I was scum in both games, and got lynched in both. (For the latter one, my Day 3 play is controversial, but I was confirmed scum upon bussing my buddy with my claim. Talking about it gives me a headache, so please don't bring it here.) As for the games where I was scum and didn't fake-claim, you're on your ownCephrir wrote:Unvote.
SC, do you have any games in which you have been scum and were lynched or nearly lynched, and/or in which you fake-claimed a PR?
I have a Wiki page. Read it. You have made no such point. All you have done is made an appeal to experience, and an ancedotal one at that. Your argument makes several assumptions (1) you are an expert at playing scum (2) the specific situation in another game included the same variables as in this game (3) I am an expert at playing scum with strategies similar to your own. I have already shown that my strategic views differ from yours.Llama wrote:I am just making a point that its a pretty valid and successful tactic to be playing...
I'm glad you reiterated, because you have confirmed that you meant exactly what I thought you meant. Which is a smoking gun. Congratulations on reaching my suspect list.Llama wrote:Let me explain this very carefully. I am getting annoyed that you are casting aside parts of my case due to word use, if I just dropped all the "emotional" words from it, my case looks similar in wording to your case on Atlas.
Llama wrote:Dont get this really. I called you town because by adding "emotions" to your case I can make parts of it "invalid"?
QFT, but it could be something wrong with your logic, your perceptions, or your alignment.Llama wrote:When someone does something that goes against all logic that I can come up with, and shifts a wagon at an odd time, something is wrong.
Read what I bolded. The suspicion wasn't "coming against" Rx, it was "coming against" Mac. The original suspicion was posted by Corvus in #217 and discussed by others afterwards. Rx's response came in #227.Llama wrote:Still dont get it a whole lot. As any alignment I try and kill any suspicioncoming against mepretty early, and it works out well. What post was this in?
This is 100% WIFOM.Llama wrote:No one really pushed him hard while the SC wagon was going on, but there was no real rejection of the wagon. When the SC wagon died, there was a really quick move to him. If he was scum I would think that someone would at least of tried to deflect from him a bit.
You called my case on Atlas valid and are considering points of my Rx case to be true. You are most certainly giving ground.Llama wrote:I dont think that I am giving ground here.
Are you capable of making a good case? Am I?Llama wrote:People who cant make good cases not being able to make a good case is a null tell. People making a bad or BS case is a scumtell.
In #470, Elmo wrote:I am not really too hot on LF's thing, but then I haven't really read it properly.
Flip-flop much?In #484, Elmo wrote:LF: Ythill's stance looks daft to me, from what I recall.
The dialect where you say it by naming MM and SC as buddies, and weighing the identity of the third between me and Rx, and decide Rx based on LF being either wrong or scummy (you were vague), and then concluding that we should hang MM or Rx.Elmo wrote:In what dialect is "we should probably lynch one of these two people today" wishy-washy?
This logical fallacy is the result of some weird wording on Llama's part, I think. Unless he was actually intentionally saying that his case and yours were of roughly equal calibur. More importantly, to say that scum don't make valid cases is a bit odd. Scum are perfectly capable of creating well-reasoned cases that are pretty convincing and can, in fact, be true (if they're bussing).Ythill wrote:No worries, I'm sure others understand what I meant. Let me simplify, just in case.
Your argument: If we remove "feel" and "seems" from your case on me, it is just as valid as my case on Atlas. So let's ignore "feel" and "seems". We now have two equally valid cases. Either they are both valid or they are both invalid.
If they are both invalid, then you have no reason to continue suspecting me, but you do still suspect me, so this cannot be true. Therefore, they must both be valid.
So you are saying that I (who you assume scum) have made a valid case against another player, in your opinion. Since scum, by their very nature, do not make valid cases, you are saying that I am town. But also that I am scum.
To the penut gallery: I really want to hear others' opinions about this specific point.
If you can tell me why scum are more likely to be bored by certain exchanges than town, be my guest. I'm sure I'm not the only one who eventually just couldn't bear the walls of words.MM wrote:Ceph....I'm not really sure what to do with you here. I have asked you to elaborate on why you don't think that not fully reading is Scummy and you have not answered.
And whathave you done that's so very protown?MM wrote:Your actions may not be Scummy but, there are not pro Town.
Well yeah, that's because I thought I had already unvoted. I don't know why you would find it scummy had I just left the vote on, though... are you saying that you totally believe SC?MM wrote:And the topper for me is that you are voting for the preson who is claiming to be our Doctor (I know that you took the vote off now but, it was there for a while after he claimed). I'm just not getting any good feelings from you!
Vote Ceph
I'd say QFT, but I'm trying to work out Elmo's thinking. It seems that I either dropped lower on Elmo's list of suspicions (I don't remember him believing my claim) or am now off it entirely. I kind of see how LlamaFluff played a factor in picking Apothecary over you as scum, but I'd like to see quotes.Ythill wrote:The dialect where you say it by naming MM and SC as buddies, and weighing the identity of the third between me and Rx, and decide Rx based on LF being either wrong or scummy (you were vague), and then concluding that we should hang MM or Rx.Elmo wrote:In what dialect is "we should probably lynch one of these two people today" wishy-washy?
Which fallacy is it, and why? I don't buy the "wording" theory. First Llama said, "The main difference of what I have presented against you and what you have presented against Atlas is some wording. If I cut out all of the "feel" and "seems" and put things like "is" in, it would be pretty similar." Then he reiterated by saying, "Let me explain this very carefully. I am getting annoyed that you are casting aside parts of my case due to word use, if I just dropped all the "emotional" words from it, my case looks similar in wording to your case on Atlas." That sounds pretty clear to me.Ceph wrote:This logical fallacy is the result of some weird wording on Llama's part, I think. Unless he was actually intentionally saying that his case and yours were of roughly equal calibur.
I'm not talking about whatCeph wrote:More importantly, to say that scum don't make valid cases is a bit odd. Scum are perfectly capable of creating well-reasoned cases that are pretty convincing and can, in fact, be true (if they're bussing).
Question is... is Llama now arguing that my case was valid (like his is) or that his case is invalid (like mine was) if the "emotional" words are removed? Fact is... it doesn't matter. The simple existance of the question reveals that his arguments are either fabricated or wrong.In #421, Llama wrote:Quickly Ythill launched an attack on Atlas for what seems to be key points of; slinging mud (which was later written off as possible null), buddying, theory discussion, trying to get Primate lynched on alignment instead of uselessness, using a false dellima and abandoning the wagon.
First off, I think theory discussion being put as a scum tell is just stupid. There is nothing wrong at all about discussion theory in a game, even in the early stages. Using theory to distract from a larger point is, but that did not occur. Buddying is weak at best too, town tries to hook up with town in order to get more pull in the game, or at least it is something that I always attempt to do.
Calling someone for slinging mud and then "temporarily" writing it off is something that I really dont like. If its a tell, its a tell. Bringing something up early, dismissing it, but still leaving it as an option to return to just sits bad. When you dismiss it due to not knowing his playstyle, it is fairly simple to pick up again later when needed. Things should either be called a scumtell and pushed, or just not mentioned at all. Creating things that are weak or can be used later in a case feels like padding, and a failsafe for later if its ever actually needed.
I also dont know how much you can prosecute people for about how they acted about the Primate situation. There were points when I was catching up where I would of just prefered a policy lynch type attitude over anything else. This also somewhat can be put into the "is anti-town meta scummy?". There are players who always are scummy, and are lynch bait, Primate is obviously one of them. If I knew that Primate was never going to be replaced and would continue acting like that, I would of pushed that lynch as the right one since keeping him around hurts the town.
Going through the entire Atlas WoW argument they had and continually picking out why I dont like the case is something I wont do, but basically I think the Atlas case that Ythill has been pushing is weak, and some parts like the mudslinging were designed as fodder for a case if ever needed.
LlamaFluff wrote:Quickly Ythill launched an attack on Atlas for what seems to be key points of; slinging mud (which was later written off as possible null), buddying, theory discussion,trying to get Primate lynched on alignment instead of uselessness, using a false dellima and abandoning the wagon.
Wow, you seriously are missing my point this much? Multiple times you have dismissed parts of my case because of my word choice, not because of what I am agruing. This really pisses me off because I get the feeling that you are trying to take down my case by refuting how I am presenting it instead of what I am saying.Ythill wrote:Llama doesn't think I'm bussing. He finds Atlas townie (too many cites to list), and don't forget that, when he voted me, Llama had this to say about my case on Atlas...
<cut>
Question is... is Llama now arguing that my case was valid (like his is) or that his case is invalid (like mine was) if the "emotional" words are removed? Fact is... it doesn't matter. The simple existance of the question reveals that his arguments are either fabricated or wrong.