Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Robz888]

I think it's an interesting observation too, I just have no reason to believe it's accurate. Maybe he just didn't put scum/scum because it's the most easily disqualifiable scenario.

[ashersky]

I think it's an interesting observation too, I just have no reason to believe it's accurate. Maybe he just didn't put scum/scum because it's the most easily disqualifiable scenario.

I don't have any data to back it up, either.  Just something of interest to note.  I've seen it in other games, too, where we argue the possible pairings, and usually all options are included.  Here they weren't.  That was all.

[Jimmmmm]

Hmm. Hmm hmm hmm.

[Jimmmmm]

Okay, time to collect my thoughts on ash.

Wagon analysis!  7 on wagon, Jorbles was town.

We have six others on wagon.  How many scum rode the known (to them) mislynch of a PR?  2?  Hilariously, if the traitor isn't recruited, they don't know if they are on wagon together or not.

Off-wagon: Walrus, manda, Jimmmmm, faust, Morgrim

At least one scum was off-wagon, I'd say.  Mathematically, easier to hit scum off-wagon today, I suppose,from an outsider's perspective, but from my own, up to 2 out of 4 on wagon with me were scum, so that's slightly higher chances there.

Anyone else with some wagon analysis?

This was the post that started everything. I disagreed with this at first because assuming scum will act in a certain way is always dangerous.

Then I remembered ash's plan in a recent scum QT to stick together on or off the D1 wagon:

"Another thing, I think it'd be great if we were all on or off lynch wagon on D1. Wagon analysis invariably turns to were they on or off, and usually falls on a split. If we are all together, it helps survive later in the game."

My point was not that this must be what ash is doing. My point is that if ash is Town, he must know better than to make assumptions how scum will act, given that he deliberately goes against these very assumptions as scum.

Immediately ash showed that he didn't like what I was saying about this:

Are you waiting for me to pull something straight from my Mean Girls performance, too?

Shall I go copy and paste things from LOTR1 and match them up with things you do here?

He seems to be assuming that scum didn't recruit. He said later that this is because people said they probably wouldn't Recruit if scum. I'm now thinking they probably would, but I wouldn't assume it in the way ash seems to be:

You also forgot to take into account something key -- the scum team can't plan to be all together because one of them is scum all by his/her lonesome.

It is impossible for them to plan to be on/off wagon together, unless they recruited.

He makes his first point of saying he thinks I'm Town.

I think this makes you more likely to be town, though, since I don't think scum would make that mistake.

He then starts giving reasons why I could be scum:

My guess is that it is 2 on, 1 off, yes.  I could be wrong, and the scum team is you, manda, and Walrus.  Actually, that sounds very possible.  AND you remember my note about how it would be pretty awesome for a scum team to be able to stay all on or all off wagon.  So perhaps you planned it?

manda was again viewing this thread, and again had nothing to say.

Vote: manda

Prodding your partner to post?  Didn't select daychat, I see.

Then reminding me of his Townread on me:

Like I said before your ridiculousness, your missteps made you seem more likely town to me.

And in the next post, arguing I could be scum:

manda was again viewing this thread, and again had nothing to say.

Vote: manda

Prodding your partner to post?  Didn't select daychat, I see.

This is also a valid point, in my opinion.  A safe vote for someone for something you knew would be rectified, a vote you didn't really mean.  Scum wants to do this.  They want to put down votes on their partners but be able to take them off without drawing suspicion.

Look, that's what you did.

And then again reminding me of his Townread on me:

Again, for the third time, I most recently said that you seemed MORE LIKELY TOWN to me.  You are OMGUSing my slight town read on you?  That makes no sense.

And again:

And Jimmmmm, why in the world are you trying to scum your way out of a town read?  I really do not understand you.

Does anyone read this as anything other than, "Please stop talking about me. If you don't, I'll have a scumread on you."?

And again:

I mean, you're going back and forth giving reasons why I'm scum and reminding me you have a Townread on me. Which is it?

Slight townread, which you are chiseling away via scummy actions and posting.  Like I said, it feels like you are being intentionally obtuse and combative.  You are either scum trying to drive me insane or town playing at some odd plan.

Unless I missed it, he didn't mention what my "scummy actions and posting" was, he simply stated that I had them.

So yeah. That's the main parts from Day 2. In summary:
-Assuming scum will do something he has deliberately not done as scum.
-Threatening me to stop what I'm saying about him by reminding me of his Townread on me.
-Going back and forth on me from Townread to scummy.
-Throwing out words like "scummy" and "obtuse" and "combative" without explaining what he means by them.

I also want to look at his Day 1 at some point. I do remember him being much more agreeable than I would have expected from him.

[Jimmmmm]

Thoughts/responses on my ash case?

[Jimmmmm]

This I agree with as well as the most recent interaction between ash and jimm in which jimm awkwardly pushed ash about wanting to "sweep things under the rug" which to me looked like jimm trying to make ash look scummy for something null.

vote: Jimm

Go back and read ash reminding me of his Townread on me and tell me that wasn't him trying to stop me from talking about him.

[ashersky]

This I agree with as well as the most recent interaction between ash and jimm in which jimm awkwardly pushed ash about wanting to "sweep things under the rug" which to me looked like jimm trying to make ash look scummy for something null.

vote: Jimm

Go back and read ash reminding me of his Townread on me and tell me that wasn't him trying to stop me from talking about him.

It wasn't.  My town read came from before our conversation started.

[faust]

I guess it is because I feel like it would make no sense for them both to be scum. I do not by any means think it meanse they ouldn't be scum together. I jut doubt it.

I for one find it far more of a scum-tell when people say that arguments are likely scum/town, as most arguments are certainly town/town. So null tell here on mcmc because of it, because in this situation, I could definitely see either Jimmmmm or ash being scum.

Actually, that's not really true.

P(argument is town/town)=6/9*5/8=41,67%
P(argument is scum/town)=6/9*3/8+3/9*6/8=50%

Just saying.

[faust]

Okay I have to post while it's still fresh in my mind.

Jimm, I really think is scum.

First off, this is a level of activity I've never seen from Jimm, or least not in recent memory. Jimm is usually town, he usually is pleasant, psuedo-lurking. He's very active here, and this questioning strategy, I've never seen from him. I've been on him since the beginning because of our exchange over me being considered an IC.

And... what was the rest of it... well, I think ash is town. As always. I think Jimm had a better argument there, and kept driving it home to score easy "win points" if that makes any sense.

Let's see, Jimm keeps trying to draw the circle wider (Teproc is too, by the way).

Oh! And yeah, his stance on the Morgrim thing raised major red flags. Seemed like a likely stance scum would have.

Vote: Jimm and I feel pretty good about it.

As for activity, Jimmmmm has been equally active in RMM11 I think, and was town there.

Why is Jimmmmm's stance on the Morgrim thing scummy? I never really got that, because I pretty much shared Jimmmmm's sentiment there.

[Voltaire]

I guess it is because I feel like it would make no sense for them both to be scum. I do not by any means think it meanse they ouldn't be scum together. I jut doubt it.

I for one find it far more of a scum-tell when people say that arguments are likely scum/town, as most arguments are certainly town/town. So null tell here on mcmc because of it, because in this situation, I could definitely see either Jimmmmm or ash being scum.

Actually, that's not really true.

P(argument is town/town)=6/9*5/8=41,67%
P(argument is scum/town)=6/9*3/8+3/9*6/8=50%

Just saying.

Isn't that what I said? That any generic argument is most likely town/town?

[Voltaire]

Why is Jimmmmm's stance on the Morgrim thing scummy? I never really got that, because I pretty much shared Jimmmmm's sentiment there.

Jimmmmm's stance is the easiest/most "tempting" one for scum to pick. Because if scum thinks Morgrim really is the tracker (if, say, they recruited), they realllllllllly want that lynch to go through on a town PR, but they don't want to get caught red-handed if it becomes clear Morgrim is telling the truth (which never happened because Morgrim, but it has on lynches that turned out to be terribad in the past). So scum hedges/goes for cred.

If that's the opinion you yourself hold then yes sure there you go town can hold it too. One of those "probability" things.

So I like Robz's case on Jimmmmm because it gives reasons to my gut scummy read on Jimmmmm - but my gut is usually wrong. My vote stays on Walrus but I could switch to Jimmmmm I think.

Robz's reads seem to match my reads exactly and so I am nervous about sheeping but willing to ride it out right now.

[Jimmmmm]

Okay right. I'm scummy. I could be scum. Whatever.

What do people think about ash?

[Voltaire]

Okay right. I'm scummy. I could be scum. Whatever.

What do people think about ash?

You are completely right that he felt different D1. I pointed this out yesterday. But I don't find anything compelling in the "town read/scum read" part of your argument. I do completely agree that ash treated it as a personal argument out of nowhere. But I find you scummy so your case is a null to me right now.

[faust]

Actually, that's not really true.

P(argument is town/town)=6/9*5/8=41,67%
P(argument is scum/town)=6/9*3/8+3/9*6/8=50%

Just saying.

Isn't that what I said? That any generic argument is most likely town/town?

No, this is saying a generic argument (at our current game state and assuming the argument doesn't include me) is a little more likely to be scum/town than town/town.

[Robz888]

Okay right. I'm scummy. I could be scum. Whatever.

What do people think about ash?

I think he's town. I mean, you'll just never persuade me, "Ash is not backing up his cases! He's retaliatory and OMGUS! He must be scum!" This is always town ashersky.

I mean, I actually have something of a bad feeling about him here, I don't think he's his quintessential self. A little off. Maybe you're fight WAS scum/scum!

[Voltaire]

Actually, that's not really true.

P(argument is town/town)=6/9*5/8=41,67%
P(argument is scum/town)=6/9*3/8+3/9*6/8=50%

Just saying.

Isn't that what I said? That any generic argument is most likely town/town?

No, this is saying a generic argument (at our current game state and assuming the argument doesn't include me) is a little more likely to be scum/town than town/town.

Oh, interesting. I wasn't seeing the comma and thought it was 67%, not 42%.

[Jimmmmm]

Okay right. I'm scummy. I could be scum. Whatever.

What do people think about ash?

I think he's town. I mean, you'll just never persuade me, "Ash is not backing up his cases! He's retaliatory and OMGUS! He must be scum!" This is always town ashersky.

I mean, I actually have something of a bad feeling about him here, I don't think he's his quintessential self. A little off. Maybe you're fight WAS scum/scum!

What does scum ashersky look like?

[2.71828.....]

Jimmmm- I am not convinced by the case against him.  Especially when it comes to the whole Ash-Jimmmmm exchange.

1) Ashersky gets frustrated that Jimmmmm brings up a previous game and then implies that Ashersky would behave similarly in this game.  It is called meta analysis.  It is not a big deal.  Nothing to get upset about anyway.

2)

Also, you just proved MY point.  We have to analyze the wagons.  We have to decide if scum is more likely on or off.

You also forgot to take into account something key -- the scum team can't plan to be all together because one of them is scum all by his/her lonesome.

It is impossible for them to plan to be on/off wagon together, unless they recruited.

I think this makes you more likely to be town, though, since I don't think scum would make that mistake.

Jimmmm points out that this seems to be Ashersky assuming that scum would not recruit the traitor.  Ashersky's response is that "it was the general consensus" that scum would not recruit the traitor.  However, when I read D1, I find Ashersky putting down recruit the traitor as one of the 3 scum options that he would choose.  Also, 4 people select it as a reasonable scum choice.  That is 1/3 of our players.  Not really the "general consensus" that Ashersky makes it seem like it is.  Plus, we know mafia chose at least one PR since morgrim flipped tracker.  (well, I know.  The rest depends on if you guys believe my claim)  So I think it is entirely reasonable to think that scum may have recruited the traitor.  Now, Faust was a little harsh to recruiting in his analysis by saying that "it didn't have many fans."  In fact, it had just as many fans as Role Cop or JOAT.  Each of these three had 4 votes.  So basically I do find Ash a bit scummy for this.

3)

Walrus at 28 seems really low.  I guess he was really inactive on D1 (comparatively). 

Manda needs to step it up.  Everyone else is basically fine.

And then you accuse me of singling manda out?

For a vote, yes.

Was the problem that I singled her out or that I voted for her?

You singled her out AND voted for her, but it wasn't for lurking.  I pointed out that she lurked the most and needed to start contributing.  You pointed out that you spied her here and didn't post.

It was odd to suddenly know she was online, know she was viewing the thread, and be able to swoop in and vote her.

So I have just outlined in point 2 why I think Ash was on a crash course of scummy behavior in regards to discussing PRs, so what does scum do?  Change the topic.  You accuse Jimmmmm of being scummy because you find it "odd to suddenly know she was online, know she was viewing the thread, and be able to swoop in and vote her."  Ash, have you never looked at the "who's online" page?  Have you never looked at the little thing in the top right of every topic that says "X members and Y guests are viewing this topic."  Have you never been curious as to which members are viewing this topic?  I know I have.  So I go to "who's online" and it tells me what every member is doing on the forum at that time.  You and Jimmmm were having a back-and-forth.  Jimmmmm sees extra people viewing the thread.  Goes to "who's online" to see who it is.  Sees it is Manda.  Wants to make sure everyone knows that she was viewing the thread but hadn't posted, which would be deserving of a vote if she hadn't posted.  She does post, and he goes back to looking at you. 

Then you storm away from the argument.  Now, after returning, you state

It's the "ash is the type of person to do X" stuff that isn't cool.  I was doing it to you too, at the time, in retorts, and so I stepped away (albeit angrily).  Present the case.  You aren't the first person with a mistaken scum read, you won't be the last.

I do agree with Ashersky that Jimmmmm's original Ashersky vote made no logical sense, and Ashersky could very well get frustrated by it.  Getting super annoyed and having the frustration build to a breaking point, I can get it.  But what I am most concerned about your back-and-forth with Jimmmmm was the interesting comment about scum definitely not having recruited the traitor.  Then shifting the conversation away from that as soon as you saw the opportunity with the Manda thing.

Anyway, I think that Ash actually "lost" that little back-and-forth and comes out scummier.

PPE- I wrote this before the last 8 posts.  I was writing then had to step away for about an hour for a meeting.

[Robz888]

I too thought the general consensus was that scum would recruit the traitor.

[Robz888]

I too thought the general consensus was that scum would recruit the traitor.

Would NOT**** recruit the traitor.

[Voltaire]

What does scum ashersky look like?

The only time I ever played with scum!ash was Monster Madness. Pretty sure I thought he was town.

[Voltaire]

I too thought the general consensus was that scum would recruit the traitor.

Would NOT**** recruit the traitor.

It was. e's statement that 1/3 of us "chose" it proves this point. But WIFOM on if scum told the truth through that whole exercise.

[2.71828.....]

So the general consensus was that scum chose one PR, and that was daychat?  Because if they chose any more than one, I see there being equal likelihood (according to what people chose) of them having JOAT, recruit, or role cop.  In that order with JOAT being most likely, but that it would not be out of the question for them to recruit

[Robz888]

I really think Jimm is scum, guys.

[2.71828.....]

I really think Jimm is scum, guys.

Based on his level of activity, drawing a wider circle, and morgrim stance?  Is that your argument that brings you to that conclusion or is it part gut feeling with the argument?  Please expand on your argument.  I see the point about his Morgrim stance, and if he is scum this won't be the first time I have defended scum, but I just don't see a really great argument against Jimmmm.