Newbie 1030 - Game Over

[Purple Orange]

It just seemed so obvious a potential breadcrumb that I pointed it out to get other townies to see it. If I were the final scum, it would've been better for me to ask the cop to claim instead of asking for a Nacho-claim because I know that Nacho did not investigate me, so there's not any scum motivation behind that singling-out action. Not saying that me saying that would mean that I = scum because of the WIFOM argument, just saying that it is not anti-town to state the cop-read. And I'm sure that if I wanted a cop claim, I would have to be asked why, and then I have to bring up the Nacho case to support my claim anyways. So to me it felt like claiming Nacho-cop-read was justified.

Hum - agreed, I think, that there's no case to be made in the singling out argument.

Why did you feel a need to get the other townies to see it, at that point, though? You also say a bit later in the thread that you think I'm possibly a power-role -- why did you also voice that?

Why did you not state that fact here:
[...]
This is the second time you are talking about the abcde casework thing, and it seems as if you are changing your standpoint, from saying that it would be awkward to saying that it was not anti-town.

I'm confused as to what you're asking - help? Those quotes are answering two different questions; yours was why I included my name along with yours, while Hopp's was why I had come to the buddy-saving conclusion. I thought the answer I gave was fitting to each -- again, though, I'm not entirely sure what you're asking here.

Where in that post do I relate to Idle's posts? If you are saying that me saying Idle is active lurking is your analogy, you should note that I pointed that out for muh even more so and first. If you are saying that my 15 games comment, muh brought that up before I did. I only picked it up because muh said something about it.

And about the replacements thing, I don't see any relation at all.

I saw parallels between these two parts:

Replacements should not be judged starting with a clean slate. Unless the replaced didn't really do anything substantial. [...] Why? Scummy behavior is scummy.One might not be able to get the opportunity to question the replacement on what the replaced did, but they should still such information to help them.

A mafia slot is a mafia slot- doesn't matter if it's Hanzo or LordChronos.

=====

Also, forgot one thing:

[...]

You are saying that if I am scum, then I made a ridiculous risk for the muh roleclaim.
[...]

So I took a ridiculous risk, but I also knew what I was doing?

The ridiculous risk refered to scenarios in which Idle is town (d and e). It's a more understandable decision if Idle is scum, though still not terribly wise. Either way, a bad decision (and even a ridiculous risk) can still be executed well. Cruddy analogy...driving your truck off a cliff might be a bad idea, but it can still be done deliberately and with a bit of precision.

From your deadline posts, you appeared active, involved, and like you knew what you were doing -- muh asked about a self-hammer, and you agreed, and gave certain conditions in which he should do it or not do it.

And I set a trap here:

I never really fully liked Hoppster's doc claim and actions, but I wanted to see how he would react to this: He reacts by buddying hard with me, to the point of FoS'ing PO, which is a big tell in my opinion because before hand he never mentions anything about my posts being townie.

UnFoS: Purple Orange, FoS x2: Hoppster

...darn, well, so much for my "Newbie is scum, and voting for me because I strongly FoS'd him off the bat, and he doesn't think he can change my mind as easily as he can change Hopp's" train of thought I had going for a bit. :/

With Hopp, I

am

rather suspicious of claims of traps and gambits. But your switch of vote once you had Hopp over on your side, FoSing for me, doesn't seem to make much sense as a scum move, barring you playing this a level or two of WIFOM deep (knowing I'd react this way), or unless you're trying to get me over on Hopp as well as Hopp over on me before you made a move.

[Purple Orange]

I also think you are reading far too much into this whole soft claim thing. I genuinely didn't feel that it was a soft claim in any sense. If anything, it's slightly scummy. According to the wiki, it's a scum tell.

^ LOL, this. That was my first thought when I saw it the "oh, darn" that day...certainly not doc-or-cop-softclaim. If it really is a softclaim, it's a pretty bad one, as it's ambiguous enough to mean pretty much anything, so I've just been dismissing it as null. (With maybe possibly maybe a bit of scummy, ala the wiki link, and your whole post today about how you were worried about how you were "meant to react." )

[Newbie2010]

Why did you feel a need to get the other townies to see it, at that point, though? You also say a bit later in the thread that you think I'm possibly a power-role -- why did you also voice that?

Power-roles, especially cops, claiming before LYLO is usually better than them claiming in LYLO just because of the guaranteed information gained from their alignment. I thought you were pushing the Nacho-cop thing a bit too much, because you wanted a scum-Nacho to possibly claim cop when you were cop, which would be game over. Of course, you 180'd on that in your next posts, so there goes my PR-vibe. I might be wrong in theory, but I think with a 1 scum in 5 people setup, a PR claim would really help things a lot, and a fakeclaim would be caught easier.

I'm confused as to what you're asking - help? Those quotes are answering two different questions; yours was why I included my name along with yours, while Hopp's was why I had come to the buddy-saving conclusion. I thought the answer I gave was fitting to each -- again, though, I'm not entirely sure what you're asking here.

I'm just wondering why you got all defensive in your last post and didn't do so in your previous posts about your ABCDE casework.

If I were scum, I would never have stated a theory like this, knowing that it could possibly be turned around and used on me like this. It would have been pretty blatantly suicidal. I voiced it because, even though I saw that it could possibly implicate me as well, I thought it pointed to Newbie as scum. (If people thought it was a decent argument, but I ended up getting lynched for it instead of Newbie, I hoped people might continue it and get Newbie with a later lynch). As scum, I would have every motivation in the world to try to steer discussion away the deadline matter, and certainly to avoid naming buddy-saving as a top suspicion of mine. As town (and a powerrole-less town at that), however, I would not have motivation to avoid it, if I thought it was likely the truth. Which I did think it was, because I thought Idle was very likely scum, and as I saw no town motivation (at that point) for Newbie's actions.

Sounded rather defensive to me...

I saw parallels between these two parts:

D'oh!

The ridiculous risk refered to scenarios in which Idle is town (d and e). It's a more understandable decision if Idle is scum, though still not terribly wise. Either way, a bad decision (and even a ridiculous risk) can still be executed well. Cruddy analogy...driving your truck off a cliff might be a bad idea, but it can still be done deliberately and with a bit of precision.

Understood.

With Hopp, I am rather suspicious of claims of traps and gambits. But your switch of vote once you had Hopp over on your side, FoSing for me, doesn't seem to make much sense as a scum move, barring you playing this a level or two of WIFOM deep (knowing I'd react this way), or unless you're trying to get me over on Hopp as well as Hopp over on me before you made a move.

So it isn't anti-town. Go on?

With Hopp, I am rather suspicious of claims of traps and gambits.

Traps always make you look suspicious, only because you can blame any of your scumslips on "oh this is a trap". But I think that because of it, even though your opinions weren't really affected, it got me a step further in finding the scum.

^ LOL, this. That was my first thought when I saw it the "oh, darn" that day...certainly not doc-or-cop-softclaim. If it really is a softclaim, it's a pretty bad one, as it's ambiguous enough to mean pretty much anything, so I've just been dismissing it as null. (With maybe possibly maybe a bit of scummy, ala the wiki link, and your whole post today about how you were worried about how you were "meant to react." )

Well if it were a softclaim it would've been rather effective, because I got the same reaction (see where I said I didn't feel PR from Hopp's speculation)
But I might be trying too hard to look for softclaims from the PR and focusing on the PR more than the person I think is scum.

[Newbie2010]

Anyone have anything else to say? I'm ready to vote personally.

[Purple Orange]

A bit; I didn't have time this afternoon to post like I thought I would.

Err...and you're ready to vote after saying this in your 116?

I would hate for this game to deadline right now,

[Purple Orange]

I'm just wondering why you got all defensive in your last post and didn't do so in your previous posts about your ABCDE casework.

<snip>

Sounded rather defensive to me...

Oh, veo. I saw it as taking off the gloves for a moment and being more blunt than usual, but I can see how it reads like defensiveness. :/ And the high proportion of WIFOM that ended up in the post doesn't help matters.

Moroever, I

was

defending myself, and to a degree I didn't feel had been necessary in response to your question about including my name with yours. Your question seemed to deal more with the mechanics of my posting. (I thought it related to your approval of Idle on D2 for making cases based on his alignment, and disapproval of Hopp and me for our "neutral" posting). I'm sure you had some reason for asking it that would relate in some way to some possible case on me, but I wasn't seeing it yet.

Hopp's post was different; it was actually incorrect of me to say in that last post he'd asked me why I brought up the buddying thing in the first place. What he made was an accusation, with a question that was only implicit, if it was there at all:

I also find it interesting that in PO's ISO #31, the scenario she sees as most likely is the one where the last scum tries to save their buddy Idle. Perhaps it's just an immensely good analysis, but I wouldn't have thought that most likely at all (as it would have been more discrete for scum just to let Idle be lynched imo), however, PO, rated that as her most likely scenario (and it turns out to be correct). From PO's perspective, I'm doubtful that I would have read Newbie as scum helping Idle. His mindset seems to be of town who also assumes PO is town.

I suppose what most got to me was the shift from him asking questions about stuff, to just straight out (soft)accusing...I hadn't seen any preparatory questions leading up to this, from him, like I think we'd all been doing for the past couple of pages. Just bam, out of the blue - and he seemed to use it as a large part of the basis of his FoS on me. (I think I BAM-laid down some accusations myself myself earlier in the thread, though, so I suppose I can't really fault him for it).

With Hopp, I am rather suspicious of claims of traps and gambits. But your switch of vote once you had Hopp over on your side, FoSing for me, doesn't seem to make much sense as a scum move, barring you playing this a level or two of WIFOM deep (knowing I'd react this way), or unless you're trying to get me over on Hopp as well as Hopp over on me before you made a move.

So it isn't anti-town. Go on?

Translate it however makes sense to you? I'm still not the same wavelength with you in terms of vocabulary and terminology. I'm saying that it makes you look considerably less scummy to me: the thing I would have

expected

you to do, if you were scum, would be to try to solidify Hopp's position against me, now that he was on your side when it came to lynching me. Not to switch and FoS the guy who'd just added his future vote to yours. There's WIFOM in there, sure, probably on a couple levels. But seems more a town action to me than a scum action.

Traps always make you look suspicious, only because you can blame any of your scumslips on "oh this is a trap"

.
Agreed.

But I think that because of it, even though your opinions weren't really affected, it got me a step further in finding the scum.

Actually, they

were

affected to some degree, ala the paragraph 2 above this one (like I said yesterday).

But I might be trying too hard to look for softclaims from the PR and focusing on the PR more than the person I think is scum.

? Does this mean you're back to thinking Hopp's claim is correct?

[Purple Orange]

Still, I definitely get more of a town read from your interaction with him D2..out of time at the moment to finish the analysis I was doing of your interaction (and Newbie's) with him, but short version is that any possible coaching/buddying I DO see you do with him (both on Days 1 and 2) tends to include a vote against him that has a decent chance of contributing to his lynch.

^I've had the longer version of this finished for a bit, but wasn't sure there was much use in posting it unless people had questions, as there's some WIFOM and speculation in it. (And I didn't really see anything new when it came to Newbie).

One thing, though, is that I was wrong about Hopp's vote Day 2 being one that could possibly lead to a lynch. It's the first vote on Idle, and it draws attention to him, but I think Idle was going to get a lot of attention that day anyway, so it doesn't really do anything to shift any momentum.

Is actually most of the momentum that shifted the muh wagon to the Idle wagon. Not that bussing is a huge scum-tell, because it didn't really hint to relations between Hoppster and Idle.

In my read a while back, I concluded that it was Nacho's vote and case that shifted the momentum, and I still think that's the case. Rag switched her vote from muh to Idle shortly thereafter. Then Hopp switched and put him at L-1 (his ISO 12), after first putting his vote on Song (ISO 10), and being told by Rag that it was useless to do so. Hopp had already sort of dismissed muh as a suspect in ISO 5, so it wasn't terribly likely he was going to go back there.

@ Newbie: Why are you seeing it as a bus rather than just as an "I think this person is scummy, I'm voting for him" town post? Or was that sentence just written with an assumed "if Hopp is scum...[then what he did there was a bus]" in mind?

[Newbie2010]

Obviously I'm being unclear, sorry.

Err...and you're ready to vote after saying this in your 116?

Because of my inactivities and the general slow-pace of the game. But after that one day of no posting, it just felt like everyone has finished their cases already.

I suppose what most got to me was the shift from him asking questions about stuff, to just straight out (soft)accusing...I hadn't seen any preparatory questions leading up to this, from him, like I think we'd all been doing for the past couple of pages. Just bam, out of the blue - and he seemed to use it as a large part of the basis of his FoS on me. (I think I BAM-laid down some accusations myself myself earlier in the thread, though, so I suppose I can't really fault him for it).

I think he himself said that he would coinflip or something for the FoS. Though I still think him FoS'ing PO was an attempt to buddy buddy with me and get me to vote PO.

? Does this mean you're back to thinking Hopp's claim is correct?

No, I'll just pretend that Hoppster didn't claim doctor because although his play doesn't make sense, I feel like I'm trying too hard to use his doctor fakeclaim as a part of my case, and I should drop it and look at my Hoppster case from a different perspective.

@ Newbie: Why are you seeing it as a bus rather than just as an "I think this person is scummy, I'm voting for him" town post? Or was that sentence just written with an assumed "if Hopp is scum...[then what he did there was a bus]" in mind?

I'm seeing it as a bus because I'm more convinced that Hoppster is scum. Like I said the bus case is still doubtful and weak, but it does seem viable that Hoppster bussed. The bussing thing isn't part of my case, just me showing that Hoppster's late vote on Idle was not a contradiction to my thought that Hoppster is scum.

Overall read is Hoppster-scum still.

[Hoppster]

You misunderstand me. Why would I push a case I don't have faith in? While what I could see made me suspect you as scum, taking Nacho's views into account I was swayed into thinking I had made mistakes. As I've said, my previous cases lack much detail.

Why'd you vote for me at the start of Day 3? Were you reaction-fishing?

Mainly due to your lack of reaction from the Idle scumflip, which nobody else seemed to think was scummy oddly (to me anyway). As I said previously, I think I have a tendency to sway from view to view as posts crop up. That (your absence of reaction) appeared to me as scummy, so I voted to show my opinion on it and to try to get more of an insight into your behaviour. I did think about just asking without a vote but I didn't think that you'd take it seriously (and you still didn't really seem that concerned even with my vote imo).

quote]2) Um, everything? Why take unneccessary risks? Of course, if you're scum, you'd be the better one to advise in scum strategy, so please go on and enlighten me if that's the case.

Why did andrew94 fakeclaim cop in Newbie 1020? Do you think his risk paid off? And besides, scum taking risks can lead to this exact WIFOM that we are discussing about almost every case.[/quote]

Okay, maybe I'm wrong about this, but there seems to me to be no additional benefit from sticking to your guns in a move largely seen as scummy by town than blaming it on the pressure/time-constraints. Indeed, PO's hand in the matter seemed to go largely unnoticed by everybody else while there was a little bit of a hoofah over your policy self-lynch etcetera.

Anyone have anything else to say? I'm ready to vote personally.

I'm certainly not ready to vote. However, I've nothing against you voting if you really think you're ready. For one thing, it'll either show you up as scum or I'm dead. In either case, if I'm dead, well it sucks, but at least it's not my fault (apart from maybe playing badly today) that we lose. If you're scum, well, provided I convince PO then yay, town wins. If I don't, I'm dead, and as mentioned previously, it's not my fault for mis-lynching. (It'll be your fault, PO. I hope you're happy.)

I suppose what most got to me was the shift from him asking questions about stuff, to just straight out (soft)accusing...I hadn't seen any preparatory questions leading up to this, from him, like I think we'd all been doing for the past couple of pages. Just bam, out of the blue - and he seemed to use it as a large part of the basis of his FoS on me. (I think I BAM-laid down some accusations myself myself earlier in the thread, though, so I suppose I can't really fault him for it).

I think he himself said that he would coinflip or something for the FoS. Though I still think him FoS'ing PO was an attempt to buddy buddy with me and get me to vote PO.

You haven't addressed my point (unless I've missed it) that only that one post out of three following your 'trap' could be possibly be construed as 'buddying' up to you.

? Does this mean you're back to thinking Hopp's claim is correct?

No, I'll just pretend that Hoppster didn't claim doctor because although his play doesn't make sense, I feel like I'm trying too hard to use his doctor fakeclaim as a part of my case, and I should drop it and look at my Hoppster case from a different perspective.

I like how you've established my supposed fakeclaim as a fact. Only scum (or possibly cop) can play with that level of certainty (even if in this case you would be lying).

I suppose what most got to me was the shift from him asking questions about stuff, to just straight out (soft)accusing...I hadn't seen any preparatory questions leading up to this, from him, like I think we'd all been doing for the past couple of pages. Just bam, out of the blue - and he seemed to use it as a large part of the basis of his FoS on me. (I think I BAM-laid down some accusations myself myself earlier in the thread, though, so I suppose I can't really fault him for it).

I think he himself said that he would coinflip or something for the FoS. Though I still think him FoS'ing PO was an attempt to buddy buddy with me and get me to vote PO.

Yeah, I did. I won't be doing that now it seems likely you'll vote me as if PO's scum, I'm dead, and if PO isn't scum then I'm voting you. You scum.


@ Newbie: So is your case on me (removing the 'bussing' and 'fakeclaim' related stuff) based on my constantly changing views?

Also, if you see my reaction to your 'trap' as buddying, why don't you think I buddied up to PO who FoS'd you right off the bat?

[Newbie2010]

Mainly due to your lack of reaction from the Idle scumflip, which nobody else seemed to think was scummy oddly (to me anyway). As I said previously, I think I have a tendency to sway from view to view as posts crop up. That (your absence of reaction) appeared to me as scummy, so I voted to show my opinion on it and to try to get more of an insight into your behaviour. I did think about just asking without a vote but I didn't think that you'd take it seriously (and you still didn't really seem that concerned even with my vote imo).

Why was my lack of reaction to Idle scumflip scummy? Think about if you were town in my position, having defended Idle throughout D-2. Wouldn't you want to forget that Idle ever existed and start over with your reads?

Okay, maybe I'm wrong about this, but there seems to me to be no additional benefit from sticking to your guns in a move largely seen as scummy by town than blaming it on the pressure/time-constraints. Indeed, PO's hand in the matter seemed to go largely unnoticed by everybody else while there was a little bit of a hoofah over your policy self-lynch etcetera.

So if you saw it scummy, why did you not vote me because of it? You commented at LC expressing agreement that you were annoyed muh got lynched, but beyond that you make no attempt to make my muh-switch seem scummy, instead going after Song and then Idle. Besides, as you probably already know, I still feel that it was the right move as town and kept pushing the fact that I got my top scum suspect lynched D-1, even though I was wrong. That it wasn't a mistake on my part to push muh to self-hammer.

I'm certainly not ready to vote. However, I've nothing against you voting if you really think you're ready. For one thing, it'll either show you up as scum or I'm dead. In either case, if I'm dead, well it sucks, but at least it's not my fault (apart from maybe playing badly today) that we lose. If you're scum, well, provided I convince PO then yay, town wins. If I don't, I'm dead, and as mentioned previously, it's not my fault for mis-lynching. (It'll be your fault, PO. I hope you're happy.)

I'm not ready to vote if you still want to defend yourself (like you are right now). I wanted to vote because the thread seemed inactive and I felt everyone has presented their cases.

You haven't addressed my point (unless I've missed it) that only that one post out of three following your 'trap' could be possibly be construed as 'buddying' up to you.

Wait, I didn't think that you were saying that my trap is invalid.

From #605 (where I FoS PO) I start the trap (buddying to you to see your reactions)

ISO #62 and #63 were asking PO questions. #64 and #65 were asking me questions.

Of course, it could be that Newbie's just more observant/thoughtful town in which case the other town (it's me ) and scum were just a bit less creative with their thought process or whatnot.

This seems to be pretty clearly buddying. You make a case on how my Nacho-cop speculation is scummy with the reiterating "I'm town" thing, then you dismiss it with me=town.

#66 and #68 were clarification more than anything.

Next we have your case against PO because you don't arrive at the same conclusion as she does:

From PO's perspective, I'm doubtful that I would have read Newbie as scum helping Idle. His mindset seems to be of town who also assumes PO is town.

Next you have #70 which is yet again a clarification post. So here we have 9 posts, out of which two posts where you buddy to me, zero where you buddy to PO, and two questioning posts.

Now let's take your ISO before I set the trap, for this I will take posts #51 to #61.

#52:

Immediately following the nightkill I admit that I was suspicious of you due to the fact that you hadn't been killed. You've pretty much countered my suspicions though. So, um, that leaves Newbie.

This is the exact opposite of #64. You say that you suspect PO but follow that up immediately with "she's town".

#51 and #53 were question-posing and answering while I was away.

#56 was questioning me, but not exactly calling me scum.

It could be possible that, if I'm scum, it's a clever ploy by Newbie to lure out a fake claim (ie. both you and he would be PR's).

Here you are calling me town in a case, but the case is only valid if you are scum! So this isn't a valid buddy-point towards me.

And the bottom part of #60 could be construed as you buddying with me to see if I forgot my case or not, but at that time I am already talking about PO more than you, so it could be a buddy-point towards me.

So out of these 11 posts, one of them buddys to PO, one of them (potentially) buddys to me, and some questioning posts that are fairly evenly spread to PO and I.

Do you see my point now?

Also, if you see my reaction to your 'trap' as buddying, why don't you think I buddied up to PO who FoS'd you right off the bat?

You did in one post, and came dangerously close to doing so in another #56, where you say PO is right and all.

I like how you've established my supposed fakeclaim as a fact. Only scum (or possibly cop) can play with that level of certainty (even if in this case you would be lying).

No, I was talking about my case where I concluded that you are more likely to fakeclaim than claim when town purely because of your night actions and how they match up to your play.

Yeah, I did. I won't be doing that now it seems likely you'll vote me as if PO's scum, I'm dead, and if PO isn't scum then I'm voting you. You scum.

Is this calling me scum now for being ready to vote or something? Or is "you scum" directed out of frustration because of me wanting to vote you?

[Hoppster]

Why was my lack of reaction to Idle scumflip scummy? Think about if you were town in my position, having defended Idle throughout D-2. Wouldn't you want to forget that Idle ever existed and start over with your reads?

Yes, perhaps, but in that case you should probably make a clarification post along the lines of "Okay, guys, I messed up big time. Starting my cases from scratch again".

So if you saw it scummy, why did you not vote me because of it? You commented at LC expressing agreement that you were annoyed muh got lynched, but beyond that you make no attempt to make my muh-switch seem scummy, instead going after Song and then Idle. Besides, as you probably already know, I still feel that it was the right move as town and kept pushing the fact that I got my top scum suspect lynched D-1, even though I was wrong. That it wasn't a mistake on my part to push muh to self-hammer.

That's not my point. In fact, if anything, I'm saying scum would be more likely to take PO's approach - laying low.

<buddying case>

Do you see my point now?

I do see what you're getting at now, but don't you think that is consistent with my style of play? You've been calling me out for being wishy-washy in a sense with my comments on who is scummy etc. before but now in this paticular case it's buddying.

No, I was talking about my case where I concluded that you are more likely to fakeclaim than claim when town purely because of your night actions and how they match up to your play.

Sorry. It's just that your phrasing strongly implies that me fakeclaiming is a fact.

Is this calling me scum now for being ready to vote or something? Or is "you scum" directed out of frustration because of me wanting to vote you?

You always quote me out of context in terms of smilies. It was a joke. It was partly out of frustration due to my seemingly imminent death but it's mainly a joke. PO and I have been doing that sort of thing for a while now, calling each other scum (usually in hypothetical scenarios) followed by some sort of smiley. In this case, the hypothetical scenario was that you vote me and PO doesn't hammer.

[Newbie2010]

Yes, perhaps, but in that case you should probably make a clarification post along the lines of "Okay, guys, I messed up big time. Starting my cases from scratch again".

So perhaps your gut reading could be justified.

That's not my point. In fact, if anything, I'm saying scum would be more likely to take PO's approach - laying low.

So why did you say it? Who does it implicate?

Sorry. It's just that your phrasing strongly implies that me fakeclaiming is a fact.

Ok, thanks for all the clarifications.

I do see what you're getting at now, but don't you think that is consistent with my style of play? You've been calling me out for being wishy-washy in a sense with my comments on who is scummy etc. before but now in this paticular case it's buddying.

Wishy-washiness wasn't scummy until you switched exactly how I thought you would after I called you town.

[Purple Orange]

I think he himself said that he would coinflip or something for the FoS. Though I still think him FoS'ing PO was an attempt to buddy buddy with me and get me to vote PO.

For clarification: you thought that if Hopp were town, his FoS of me over you was based purely on a coinflip? (Between his bit on you in 631 and his bit on me 636?)

[Hoppster]

Apologies for the delay.

So why did you say it? Who does it implicate?

Umm, well I thought it was clear from the context I was suspicious of PO.

[Purple Orange]

Summary of what I've got so far.
* Newbie's answers to my questions have made me to reconsider and mitigate some of my points against him.
* Hopp's voting the first and second day reads scummy to me. (continuation of thoughts from here)
* Newbie's flip of FoS I can really only see as coming from town.

Below, I've attempted to go through and bullet-point all the points I've made I still think apply, and any additional conclusions from the questions I've been asking. The slights/moderates/strongs are how strong I currently feel the points are.

Case for Newbie

cf the last paragraphs of my 621

• deadline push (slight) - your answers have made me mitigate my stance on this quite a bit
  
• "self hammer" gambit (moderate) - trying to look sacrificial, ready to die, and town, when he knows we'll tell him not to do it
  
• clarifies/helps Idle case on D2 (moderate) - other buddying stuff I'm pretty willing to dismiss as null. This much familiarity and help with a case, not so much.
  
• cop drawout/rolefishing (moderate) - I
  can
  see your reasoning, but it's still reading to me like reaction-fishing, trying as scum to confirm your suspicions about a power role. I would have thought that if you were town, you would have waited and let the power roles claim for themselves.
  
• asks for reads but doesn't give own first (slight) - still a bit hard for me to see this being in good faith

Against:

• N3 kill makes less sense from his PoV (slight)
  
• D4 switch of FoS VERY town (strong). More on this below. It's basically made me have to rethink my entire read on Newbie.

Case for Hopp:

• Day 1, after Nacho presents pivot-case, he first tries to vote for Song to try to steer away wagon on Idle. (moderate)
  
  Spoiler: more

  Newbie's mentioned bussing, but it's the Song vote more than the Idle vote that I see as possibly pointing to scum. His ISO 5 has him thinking that muh may not be scummy anymore, so if he

  was

  scum trying to redirect the wagon, the vote for Song would have been that attempt, as backtracking to muh would have been difficult. Finding the Song track useless Hopp gave up and switched over to Idle in ISO 12 (giving maybe a bit of advice to him in the process, but I think the case on that bit is pretty weak)
  
  
• Day 2, similar - back to Song. Until Idle shoots himself in the foot with his post. Then goes back to bussing. (moderate)
  
• Sheeping the IC (slight)
  
• sets up "lynch Nacho if Song is town" deal (slight) - see below, where to me it implies town. Its effects would have been self-serving and scummy, however, so including the fact of it up here.
  
• Votes Song over Newbie even while saying Newbie is scummiest read (slight) - his explanation makes some sense, but it's hard for me to just drop this
  
• N3 kill makes 100% sense from his PoV. (slight)
  
• Waiting to FoS until both of us had posted (moderate) - though obviously someone has to FoS last, he had many opportunities to do so before he did. Implies scum waiting, not wanting to take a stand until both sides commit.

Against:

• Doesn't appear to understand Idle case D2 (moderate)
  
  Spoiler: more

  Hopp apparently misunderstands or doesn't get Idle's case. Which I think points AWAY from you two being a scumteam together, as I would assume that scum would talk during the night, and maybe try to coordinate their strategy and cases the next day with one another...see the Newbie case, where I list this as a point against him. (Though I

  have

  been scum in other games where my scumbuddies have been decidedly unhelpful and close-mouthed, believing that too much nighttalk and coordination of cases would betray itself the next day. So this isn't a slam-dunk they're-not-a-scumteam case)
  
  
• "Lynch nacho if Song flips town" reads more like town oversight than scum plot to me (strong)

============================
You can turn the slights/mods/strongs into numbers ala Nacho, and I think they end up with Hopp having like one more blip against him than Newbie at this point. Hopp hasn't had as much opportunity to debate me back and forth on some of these things as Newbie, though, particularly the Song-voting thing, so some of my moderates and slights on him are less certain than are my ones on Newbie, and I take the numerical difference with a grain of salt,

But sometimes there's posts that change and color one's whole perceptions of everything else, and for me, that's Newbie's switch of FoS in 644.

I'm saying that it makes you look considerably less scummy to me: the thing I would have

expected

you to do, if you were scum, would be to try to solidify Hopp's position against me, now that he was on your side when it came to lynching me. Not to switch and FoS the guy who'd just added his future vote to yours. There's WIFOM in there, sure, probably on a couple levels. But seems more a town action to me than a scum action.

I've mucked around thinking through this a while longer, and I think my initial, "WHAT THE HECK?? TOWN!" reaction was right. I do NOT see scum doing what he did, switching and putting his FoS on the guy who just sided with him, especially with

me

still FoSing him strongly.

In fact, one of the things that was confirming Newbie as scum in my mind earlier was the fact he'd FoS'd me over Hopp today, after calling me townier than Hopp all game. Sure, he might have done it because he honestly thought I was scummier (and maybe he still does), but it would also be the natural scum reaction to counter-suspect the person suspecting them, and try to convince the more undecided person to their side. So when he sidled up to Hopp and FoS'd me, he was doing exactly what I thought he'd do as scum, and I intended to bring that up when I made a final case against him. :/

But then to do what he just did, and flip and FoS

Hopp

, who'd just sided with him? THAT IS NOT A SCUM THING TO DO. (Says me from the limited number of lylos I've been in or witnessed, but I'm pretty damn convinced of this). The scum thing to do is keep coasting along convincing Hopp to lynch me -- not rock the boat, not provoke the guy who's agreeing with you (or at the very worst undecided), not look into the lion's mouth and create a ring-around-the-rosey FoS-Vote, like we have now. Especially not when the other person (me) looked set on voting for Newbie.

So I'm left seeing town who did what he did because he believed in his case, and/or he was looking for reactions to gauge. He's admitted he's using gambits now, so for all I know, he still suspects me more than Hopp, and the whole switch has been a way to double-judge reactions, or some such thing. But either way, I'm left reading what he did as town, not scum.

I've got 48 hours or so to reconsider this, and maybe I've

still

missed something. And if I manage to knock the above argument out from under me, I'll be darn confused, and the decision harder, and I'll probably lean Newbie-scum again, even with the mitigated suspicions on some things. But for now, 644 is the tipping point, and to me it's yelling that Newbie is town.

UnFoS, FoS: Hopp

[Hoppster]

Oh, woe is me.


PO, I'll agree with you that the whole change of mind thing seems town. That's the only reason I didn't swerve randomly back towards Newbie-scum after he revealed his so-called trap. Got a few questions for Newbie though before I can make a full defence:

1) Did you ever actually suspect PO at all today or was it all from the word 'go' an extremely elaborate (not to mention

ridiculously

cunning) trap?
2) What would you done had I not responded as you expected to your trap?
3) How long have you been scheming over this trap? Due to it's immense complexity, I wonder whether your whole gameplan has just been to find a suitable candidate D1 to lure into your trap D4?
4) Why did you even feel the need to set a trap? And why for me rather than PO?

(Number 3 is a joke. Don't answer.)


@ PO:

1) Which post is it you're referring to where Idle shoots himself in the foot?

2) Do you not think that N3 had I been mafia I would have left Nacho alive? It would have given me some sort of chance perhaps at getting people to believe my auto-lynch Nacho idea, or at least support the case with some kind of evidence (that admittedly I don't have at the moment, but I'm sure I would have thought of something had I been mafia).

3)

Especially not when the other person (me) looked set on voting for Newbie.

You admit yourself that you look set on voting for Newbie. Why would Hoppster-scum thus switch from one pretty much certain lynch to another? There's no real benefit to it. Essentially, using similar logic to what is a strong town point for Newbie (his FoS switch) should (perhaps to a lesser extent) mean I get a town point as well. Which would cancel out that one extra scum point I have at the moment.



Also... it's a bit of a small thing really, but I'm suspicious of the "FoS

x 2

" Newbie used in combination with him revealing his trap, and then the clarification he felt that he had to do "FoS

x 2

means more than FoS". It felt like a pretty tacky way of proving that it was a trap (ala "Look, this trap which I just totally set has made me so suspicious of you I'm going to put a

x2

at the end of my FoS!"), and something that scum would do to try to look town. It's hard to explain. My general feeling is that town possibly would not have felt it necessary to add the x2, and anyway, if they did, certainly wouldn't need to explain it. The explanation could also be a way of looking town, but I'm less confident about that.

[Newbie2010]

Sorry, RL came up again. (Hmm... this is the fifth time or something RL has come up, really sorry for all the lack of posting)

For clarification: you thought that if Hopp were town, his FoS of me over you was based purely on a coinflip? (Between his bit on you in 631 and his bit on me 636?)

Pretty much, yes. I mean, he wasn't really making a case on you, and he mentioned somewhere that he is really stuck on the situation.

clarifies/helps Idle case on D2 (moderate) - other buddying stuff I'm pretty willing to dismiss as null. This much familiarity and help with a case, not so much.

This one I can't really defend myself on, other than "I thought Idle was town". Though you probably have heard this from me many times and don't expect me to reply

D4 switch of FoS VERY town (strong). More on this below. It's basically made me have to rethink my entire read on Newbie.

I wouldn't say that this is strong. Once again, take my gambit however you want to, but scum has taken risks that proved successful.

"self hammer" gambit (moderate) - trying to look sacrificial, ready to die, and town, when he knows we'll tell him not to do it

I directed this mostly at LC and Song, because LC argued me all of D2 on theory and Song, well, she was inactive and just randomly voted me.

asks for reads but doesn't give own first (slight) - still a bit hard for me to see this being in good faith

True, I should've expected someone to ask me for my reads.

Newbie's mentioned bussing, but it's the Song vote more than the Idle vote that I see as possibly pointing to scum. His ISO 5 has him thinking that muh may not be scummy anymore, so if he was scum trying to redirect the wagon, the vote for Song would have been that attempt, as backtracking to muh would have been difficult. Finding the Song track useless Hopp gave up and switched over to Idle in ISO 12 (giving maybe a bit of advice to him in the process, but I think the case on that bit is pretty weak)

If Hoppster were scum, him jumping on the easiest target (Song) at that time wasn't really scummy. It just seemed as if he contributed nothing to the Idle case, and just placed his vote there for distancing. Even his D-1 Idle vote post, he started by making a case against Song and eventually went to Idle instead. This is scummy because scumpartners would have no incentive to make cases against each other and propel the wagons, and Hoppster's vote was the 6th vote or willing to vote at that time. (Unless I messed up my counting and forgot about someone) The Song point I don't feel is as strong, mainly because Hopp-scum didn't really know that IT would be on the chopping block when he voted Song, so him attacking Idle at that point would really be better, because he would have gained more town-cred if he bussed before the bus was inevitable. I mean, I don't see a townie voting Song randomly anyways, but I just don't feel it as scummy as the Idle straightforward bus.

Sheeping the IC (slight)
sets up "lynch Nacho if Song is town" deal (slight) - see below, where to me it implies town. Its effects would have been self-serving and scummy, however, so including the fact of it up here.
Votes Song over Newbie even while saying Newbie is scummiest read (slight) - his explanation makes some sense, but it's hard for me to just drop this

These three points seem to be really one big problem with Hoppster's play, his complete trust that Nacho couldn't flunk a town-read of the day.

N3 kill makes 100% sense from his PoV. (slight)

For some reason, I still fail to see this.

Doesn't appear to understand Idle case D2 (moderate)

I think he just overextended himself in an Idle-bus, and ran out of points to supply his initial case.

"Lynch nacho if Song flips town" reads more like town oversight than scum plot to me (strong)

This still about complete trust in Nacho.

In fact, one of the things that was confirming Newbie as scum in my mind earlier was the fact he'd FoS'd me over Hopp today, after calling me townier than Hopp all game. Sure, he might have done it because he honestly thought I was scummier (and maybe he still does), but it would also be the natural scum reaction to counter-suspect the person suspecting them, and try to convince the more undecided person to their side. So when he sidled up to Hopp and FoS'd me, he was doing exactly what I thought he'd do as scum, and I intended to bring that up when I made a final case against him. :/

But then to do what he just did, and flip and FoS Hopp, who'd just sided with him? THAT IS NOT A SCUM THING TO DO. (Says me from the limited number of lylos I've been in or witnessed, but I'm pretty damn convinced of this). The scum thing to do is keep coasting along convincing Hopp to lynch me -- not rock the boat, not provoke the guy who's agreeing with you (or at the very worst undecided), not look into the lion's mouth and create a ring-around-the-rosey FoS-Vote, like we have now. Especially not when the other person (me) looked set on voting for Newbie.

So I'm left seeing town who did what he did because he believed in his case, and/or he was looking for reactions to gauge. He's admitted he's using gambits now, so for all I know, he still suspects me more than Hopp, and the whole switch has been a way to double-judge reactions, or some such thing. But either way, I'm left reading what he did as town, not scum.

Like I said, you can build a case of me double-WIFOMming you, but that once again is the whole point of a gambit. It could be an excuse to cover up a bad move, (in this case if I were scum the PO FoS would've been a bad move for me) but as town at least I got some insight into who is scum. I really honestly had no idea of who to FoS so I just used the interaction tell on PO, but I purposely left out one of the most telling interactions between Sevei and Idle, one that would make Hoppster's interaction case much worse than PO's. I am getting more and more convinced that Hoppster is scum, so I will supply my vote to prove that I am not gambitting on a second-level and plain feel that Hoppster is scum.

1) Did you ever actually suspect PO at all today or was it all from the word 'go' an extremely elaborate (not to mention ridiculously cunning) trap?
2) What would you done had I not responded as you expected to your trap?
3) How long have you been scheming over this trap? Due to it's immense complexity, I wonder whether your whole gameplan has just been to find a suitable candidate D1 to lure into your trap D4?
4) Why did you even feel the need to set a trap? And why for me rather than PO

1) I suspected PO for all those interaction tells and pretty much nothing else. Once I reveal the Sevei-interaction tell you will see why it is stronger than the PO interaction tells.
2) I would have reanalyzed my cases, and knowing that I would be on the chopping block (you and PO FoS'ing me) I would eagerly await a case from you.
3) ...
4) You were my top scum suspect other than Song ever since my ISO #48.

1) Which post is it you're referring to where Idle shoots himself in the foot?

Quite honestly, I didn't feel that #377 was really scummy, other than "I'd like to say that Hanz/LC is a good suspect", which sounds forced.

Also... it's a bit of a small thing really, but I'm suspicious of the "FoS x 2" Newbie used in combination with him revealing his trap, and then the clarification he felt that he had to do "FoS x 2 means more than FoS". It felt like a pretty tacky way of proving that it was a trap (ala "Look, this trap which I just totally set has made me so suspicious of you I'm going to put a x2 at the end of my FoS!"), and something that scum would do to try to look town. It's hard to explain. My general feeling is that town possibly would not have felt it necessary to add the x2, and anyway, if they did, certainly wouldn't need to explain it. The explanation could also be a way of looking town, but I'm less confident about that.

FoS x2 was written in my notes, but I accidentally just wrote that out loud. I didn't really think that you would understand, so that's why I clarified what I meant by FoS x2. My FoS on PO was really pretty weak (interaction tells) so it might've been obvious anyways.

Sevei + Idle case:

Basically, IT...you're fence-sitting is hugely anti-town. If you aren't scum, you're still an excellent lynch because you are doing nothing and making it possible for scum to keep attention off themselves and on you. You are also contributing nothing in the way of reads, and your "aw shucks, what do I know?" attitude is making it possible for you to post a lot and say nothing, which is commonly known as active lurking, a scum-tactic.

If we can't agree on scum by the end of the day, IT would be a completely viable lynch imo.

Sevei puts the case on Idle, her second suspect, before the case on Song... even though the case on Song (in her opinion) was stronger? And the last sentence is clearly a fake accusation. (Sort of the accusation that I did on muh throughout D-1) If IT flipped town, this wouldn't have been a big point, but because of Idle-scum, Sevei's post here seems like distancing while at the same time not deflecting the Song-wagon.

The reply is even more scummy, however:

Okay, I'll take Sevei's opinion of me with a smile. It makes sense- I don't really understand how or even if I'll defend against that, so if you want my defense, it's a few pages back.

Acknowledgement, while at the same time not mentioning the case or less-fencesitting at all.

VOTE: Hoppster

PO, if you were scum, good play.

P.S. One final point:

Although Nacho called Hoppster -46.55 for D1, note that PO got a score of more than the boundary, less than -50. And out of the five points that I disagree with, two were from Hoppster: The +2 for first intention being getting a read is scummy in my opinion, and Hoppster didn't really back down in #270 because he didn't really have a scum, rather anti-town case on muh.

That puts his +5 total at a -2 instead.

[Purple Orange]

VOTE: Hoppster

[Purple Orange]

Seriously, though - everything I said in the last post I believed 100%. If I were town, Hopp was definitely scum.

[Newbie2010]

[Newbie2010]

Idle getting PO's gender wrong doesn't seem like two scum chatting in a QT, especially considering Idle has gotten all the other genders right in all his 47 posts. Not really something anyone could defend against, just something I noticed.

Did IT intentionally get your gender wrong to distance?

[Newbie2010]

Wait, Hoppster was seriously doctor? Or did he do a VT fakeclaim? I still can't get over the fact that Hoppster protected PO over Nacho N3.

[Purple Orange]

Holy Moses, you guys were

hardcore

today -- I had hoped you'd just FoS/vote one another right off the bat, and let me make the deciding vote...but LOL. You folks went through the thread with a fine-tooth comb, asked me questions that hit WAY too close to home, and there were so many times I thought I was doomed, that it wasn't even funny.

Hopp was really the doctor, far as I know, 'cause I'm a goon.

I don't believe I had my gender listed on the board at that time. (But I wasn't about to tell you that, obviously...).

[Newbie2010]

Wait did you talk with IT in the quicktopic? I really didn't see a PO - IT scumpair not talking in the QT at the start of D-1.

hardcore

I think the better word for me would be V/LA
Sorry for my what 5, 6, 7 V/LA's...

and there were so many times I thought I was doomed, that it wasn't even funny.

My main counter-trap for you was if when I questioned you you would shift the attention to Hoppster and show that you knew that I was town or something, but you never did that And Hoppster did exactly what I expected.

Yep, that means that Hoppster was the doctor then. Like I said I didn't treat the Hopp protect N3 as a tell, it just didn't seem right (in my opinion) I've probably not gotten the whole picture though, and yea, the tunnel-vision on Hoppster ever since D-2 sort of doomed me.

[Nocmen]

Vote Count!

Hoppster - 2( Purple Orange, Newbie2010)

Not Voting - 1(Hoppster)

Hoppster was lynched. He was a

town doctor

Looking around, Purple Orange silently stabs Newbie2010 in the back as they mourn the death of the doctor.

The scum (Purple Orange and Idle Thoughts) win!