So I re-read mail-mi (not much there...) the scummiest things I see are:
major lurking, even moreso than me. (mail-mi 59 posts, ahop 63), ok only by 4 posts, but when you consider that 8 posts were before the game started, and 7 posts were about ridiculous RVS and deli meats, that puts him around 44 posts. Whereas me: 3 posts pre-game and 1.5 posts about deli meats. putting me around 58 posts. add into this that mail-mi's posts are really short and not that helpful (as per usual mail-mi though...) and it doesn't look good to me. But that's not really enough to lynch him with since that's a known town!mail-mi thing (see mean girls and my case on him there).
But here, he also flips his vote around a lot and is sheeping a lot too. See recently, where he flips flops his vote around eevee and efhw (who he is presumably still re-reading). now let's look at his one meaty post:
Okay, I'm going to reread xeiron and all of his 9 whopping posts.
Yay for a new game.
First post, included for completeness (also because I don't want to take out a whole 1/9th of content.)
vote: raerae
Not RVS.
Nice explanation, Ash. Totally a compelling case.
I agree this is the most compelling case we have so I will sheep Ashersky and vote: Raerae.
I don't know if this vote is RVS or if he thinks ash is soft claiming an investigative role, and since ash has claimed that it was just to gauge reactions, and xeiron has yet to unvote, pretty scummy.
I still want to hear why Ashersky's post in any way implicates Raerae as scum - I must be missing something.
I am not sure if it was intentional but this could be seen as a softclaim:
Results? Hmmmm. Remember when I was scum and claimed I tracked mcmc and caught scum? That was awesome. Here's the thing; if folks had just listened to my hinting without forcing me to claim, we would have lynched scum a power role AND not outed a power role scum. So my general belief if to NOT claim results from investigations/watching/tracking/etc. unless you have to, even if you caught scum. Instead, just vote and make cases.
This is a wierd post that I don't get. Just because I don't understand it, slight scum read.
I still want to hear why Ashersky's post in any way implicates Raerae as scum - I must be missing something.
I am not sure if it was intentional but this could be seen as a softclaim:
Results? Hmmmm. Remember when I was scum and claimed I tracked mcmc and caught scum? That was awesome. Here's the thing; if folks had just listened to my hinting without forcing me to claim, we would have lynched scum a power role AND not outed a power role scum. So my general belief if to NOT claim results from investigations/watching/tracking/etc. unless you have to, even if you caught scum. Instead, just vote and make cases.
If you think it's a soft claim, why are you pointing it out? Now, if it's true, you've put Ash in a bad spot! I figured he was just speaking generally, but dang, you could be right, but I wish you hadn't have pointed it out.
I fail to see how I put Ashersky in a bad spot. Yes, He might be a PR, but since this is role madness there should be no shortage of power roles. If he has an investigative role and already know raerae is scum, I do think he should claim so sometime during D1. If he don't, and we lynch raerae based on softclaims/cases from Ashersky and she flips town, we won't know if he is scum or just mistaken town. Remember that in his exemple he flipped the alignments. Had we lynched mcmc in that game without ash needing to claim, we wouldn't have caught him(ash) as scum.
My general belief if to DO claim results from investigations/watching/tracking/etc. unless you do not have to, if you caught scum. We probably have one or more doctor/protection role so it is not instant death to claim cop.
I did point it out because it is the among the most interesting things I have found in this game by now, because it might mean Ashersky is building up for a claim. If he is, that claim may be a fake, just as likely as a real one. Ashersky just had huge success with preparing for and then fakeclaimimg as scum. He would probably consider doing something like that again.
Theory talk, null read.
We should not itemclaim any more, because itemclaiming is roleclaiming. That is, roleclaiming of our future roles. The OP says items combination do make sense and should not be easy to guess. Meaning if I say I have a first aid kit, but wish for medicine it is not hard to figure out I am/can become a doctor. We should avoid claiming roles at this point.
I think the best way to maximize powerroles is for everyone to send items they don't nead to their biggest townread.
I like the conclusion he comes to, so townish read here.
I have reread spiritbears and he seems to me like good old town spiritbears.
I have also got atownread on Theorel and Ashersky.
Null.
Theorel are you sure on your numbers? I think assuming 3 scum it's about 55/45 that there's a scum. (9/12 * 8/11 of no scum). Higher if there's only 2 lower if 4. I think you are assuming fights are town v town far far too easily...
I wasn't removing myself, nor was I removing the first town player (i.e. I was just doing (10/13)^2). The second one of those is obviously terrible. The first is arguable (it's not using all information available to me/any town player, but it is still an accurate calculation for an impartial observer).
So, from an impartial observer it should be ~58%. From a town player's perspective it's ~54.5%, and from scum's perspective they already know which it is. I wouldn't say 60% is far far too easily. I mean it's only ~5% more likely.
I apologize for my bad maths.
I just noticed this post by Theorel, and I have some problems with it.
1. I wasn't removing myself, nor was I removing the first town player . The fact that you forgot to remove yourself makes me wonder if you do not automaticly see yourself as town.
2. (i.e. I was just doing (10/13)^2). How do you know for sure that there is exactly three scum?
I don't like the way he worded No. 2. "How can you be sure that there is exactly three scum?" can be interpreted more than one way. 1) there could be more than three scum, or the more incriminating 2) How do you know there's three scum (on my scum team)? One is more curious, one is more inquisitive (if you get what I mean). Slight scum read here.
Theorel are you sure on your numbers? I think assuming 3 scum it's about 55/45 that there's a scum. (9/12 * 8/11 of no scum). Higher if there's only 2 lower if 4. I think you are assuming fights are town v town far far too easily...
I wasn't removing myself, nor was I removing the first town player (i.e. I was just doing (10/13)^2). The second one of those is obviously terrible. The first is arguable (it's not using all information available to me/any town player, but it is still an accurate calculation for an impartial observer).
So, from an impartial observer it should be ~58%. From a town player's perspective it's ~54.5%, and from scum's perspective they already know which it is. I wouldn't say 60% is far far too easily. I mean it's only ~5% more likely.
I apologize for my bad maths.
I just noticed this post by Theorel, and I have some problems with it.
1. I wasn't removing myself, nor was I removing the first town player . The fact that you forgot to remove yourself makes me wonder if you do not automaticly see yourself as town.
2. (i.e. I was just doing (10/13)^2). How do you know for sure that there is exactly three scum?
1. He didn't remove himself because he was presenting the case to other players, who don't for sure know that he's town. I can see that, although I disagree with it.
2. 3 scum is pretty standard for a game of this size, I think. I would guess 3 scum.
I have added Theorels post below where he originally calculates this.
1. He does not present his calculations to the other players, only the result in the form: more that 50% chance they are both town. So I am not convinced he would bother to put it in our perspective.
With the phrasing "given any 2 players at random" I agree it makes sense to include himself, but when he uses this to figure out whether efhw and shraeye are both town, it makes more sense not to.
The way he did it makes me think he was focused about calculating "any 2 players at random", not "EFHW - Shraeye". Could be because he is scum and thus not really scumhunting.
2.. I agree 3 scum is pretty standard. I would guess 3 scum as well. But when calculating something I would probably consider other scum distributions as well. Ta does so here:
Theorel are you sure on your numbers? I think assuming 3 scum it's about 55/45 that there's a scum. (9/12 * 8/11 of no scum). Higher if there's only 2 lower if 4. I think you are assuming fights are town v town far far too easily...
Theorel seems to be very sure that we are dealing with three scum since he do not address other possibilities.
In this case, that's spiritbears. And although I don't think it's by any means conclusive, he does come off scummier here (IMO) for adding fuel to the fire. It seems inherently scum-like to try to alienate players from each other if both are town. Doing so helps to ensure that town will not unite against you. OTOH if efhw-shraeye are not both town, then spiritbears (if scum) was either taking a position against a team-mate, or immediately alongside a team-mate. That I think looks relatively unlikely, scum would be more likely to just try to pull attention elsewhere in that case...perhaps pushing the town v. town angle. Since, at this stage, given any 2 players at random, they are more likely both town than either scum I'm going to go ahead with this making spiritbears slightly scummier (probably taking him just past neutral. Say scumScore=26).
Null read here.
X looks scummy for his analysis of Theorel's math - he says right there in the post why he didn't remove himself. Maybe xeiron didn't read carefully?
I wasn't removing myself, nor was I removing the first town player (i.e. I was just doing (10/13)^2). The second one of those is obviously terrible. The first is arguable (it's not using all information available to me/any town player, but it is still an accurate calculation for an impartial observer).
I just noticed this post by Theorel, and I have some problems with it.
1. I wasn't removing myself, nor was I removing the first town player . The fact that you forgot to remove yourself makes me wonder if you do not automaticly see yourself as town.
2. (i.e. I was just doing (10/13)^2). How do you know for sure that there is exactly three scum?
I agree with this, and didn't pick up that theorel had put the reason right into his calculation post. I initially was just going to inform xeiron, that theorel is very calculating like this and likes for his calculations to come from an impartial position. But xeiron jumping on theorel without even fully reading the post really doesn't look good.
Vote: xeiron
I did read Theorel's post, and it reads to me that he did forget, not chose, to to exclude himself, but argues afterwards that it is no big deal (In contrast to not excluding the first person, which is just wrong math.). His post answering my case seems to support this.
I am, by the way, statisfied with his answer so I do not plan on pushing this further.
And this is his last post. You don't seem to be planning on pushing anything further.
Now, I know xeiron always looks scummy. But 9 posts in 27 pages?!?!?!?! And I think the scummy outweighs the towny, and he really needs to get back here. vote: xeiron.
the part where he says "I like the conclusion he comes to here, townread" feels a little strange to me. Just because you like the conclusion doesn't make it a townread. Scum is trying to make you like their thoughts as well. You need to look past the conclusion and look at the motivations behind what they are saying. Granted this is talking about theory talk and actually probably shouldn't give much of a read since it's just theory talk, and really this is a miniscule sticking point kind of feeling like ash's nitpicky scumslip he found on EFHW, but still. It's something that feels strange to me.
overall I think it's a pretty weak case on xerion, the biggest point being that he's a lurker (very much like himself). I would agree with others who have voiced this that it seems like he was being lazy and just picking the guy with the least posts to re-read and trying to make it look scummy. Also, mail-mi, for all the talk early game about you seeing ashersky as scummy, it did seem to die pretty quickly and you never really picked it up again. What have you thought about ashersky's play since the beginning of the game?
PPE:
nice catch nkirbit about his post count accusation. I would agree that mail-mi does just try to glide on by and find the easy way out. I think it's time to put some pressure on him and see how he reacts now. Although, it is getting up to that soft deadline we set...
Author
Topic: RMM8 Innovation Inc. (Plagiarists Win!) (Read 196355 times)