Print

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

[Witherweaver]

It's much weirder that Wither agreed with you and strengthened it to "something only scum do" especially without actually voting for me.

Vote: Witherweaver

I'm not really sure what you're saying now.

I don't remember seeing town do it.  I remember seeing ADK do it, as scum, twice.  These two things are facts, and I don't see why it's an issue.

[UmbrageOfSnow]

WW:  Why have you a couple of times now tried to reduce my reason for voting for you to being about you not voting for me?  Did you find my initial post unclear on that point?  (Non-rhetorical question, I'm serious.)

I had thought that was the point.  If I had voted for you instead of saying "Hey, good point here", would you have voted for me?

I mean, it was an additional part of the point, but not the main one.  But I'm realizing that might not have been clear enough.  Yes, I would have also voted for you if you voted for me.  So if you had missed that, then would you agree that Teproc's explanation helped establish the case on you more clearly?

[Witherweaver]

WW:  Why have you a couple of times now tried to reduce my reason for voting for you to being about you not voting for me?  Did you find my initial post unclear on that point?  (Non-rhetorical question, I'm serious.)

I had thought that was the point.  If I had voted for you instead of saying "Hey, good point here", would you have voted for me?

I mean, it was an additional part of the point, but not the main one.  But I'm realizing that might not have been clear enough.  Yes, I would have also voted for you if you voted for me.  So if you had missed that, then would you agree that Teproc's explanation helped establish the case on you more clearly?

No, because his explanation was in regards to results that happened after that point.

[silverspawn]

Vote Count 1.4

Seprix (1): Awaclus
Witherweaver (6): Hydrad, UmbrageOfSnow, Teproc, A Drowned Kernel, Joseph2302, chairs {L-1}
mail-mi (2): pacovf, Seprix
chairs (1): skip wooznum
Teproc (1): Witherweaver

Not Voting (1): mail-mi

With 12 alive, it takes 7 to lynch. Day 1 ends on June 28, 3 PM forum time.

[skip wooznum]

I don't want to lynch ww this early and I dont like how chairs joined this wagon

[UmbrageOfSnow]

No, because his explanation was in regards to results that happened after that point.

Some of it was, but this sentence in particular:

He's encouraging suspicion based on dubious reasons without actually taking part

Is what I was trying to say.  I found that helpful, and his additional point about your reply went beyond sheeping, but even if he'd sheeped me, his reexplaining my point more clearly was apparently helpful.

Why didn't you read my post where I voted for you closely?

[UmbrageOfSnow]

Mail-mi is online.  Have any post-RVS opinions Mail-mi?

[Witherweaver]

No, because his explanation was in regards to results that happened after that point.

Some of it was, but this sentence in particular:

He's encouraging suspicion based on dubious reasons without actually taking part

Is what I was trying to say.  I found that helpful, and his additional point about your reply went beyond sheeping, but even if he'd sheeped me, his reexplaining my point more clearly was apparently helpful.

Why didn't you read my post where I voted for you closely?

Okay, I see, but I don't consider the reasoning to really be dubious; the suspicion was good.  I don't feel bad about encouraging it, either. 

So if the argument is that I'm scum fanning flames, that makes some sense, as I get to watch town hurt themselves and don't have to get directly involved myself, which is kind of nice because then I would be less accountable.  But, I'm not sure fanning flames is as productive to lead to lynches as that might suggest.  A better argument would be that it's an easy thing to say to make it look like I'm involved in the game.

To the latter question, work and two other games.  Sometimes I check things on my phone, too (I don't recall if I did in this case), and that tends to lead to more scanning.

[Teproc]

I asked this already, but it seems to have been lost in the shuffle : can someone explain the case of mail-mi, if there is one ?

[Seprix]

Seprix, what's your reasoning about Mail-mi?

He's only posted in this game a total of 3 times. It's almost like he's lurking. Also, his first post was about being scum partners, which I would let slide, as it's not evidence on it's own. But then his next two posts are just voting for Hydrad, an then unvoting for Hydrad, and nothing else. He hasn't contributed at all, he's totally lurking too because he posted a lot in the other Mafia game he's in, but not posting here? Hrmmm...

[pacovf]

3 posts:
RVS-scumjoke for hydrad
unvote Hydrad
hedgy defense of skip

The unvote is suspicious, looks like "hey guys I am active!" and it's doing absolutely nothing.
The defense sets off alarms for its extreme hedging, "I am going to defend skip but I don't want to commit to anything".

mail-mi tends to not post much, so you have to read between the lines much more than for other players. ]

[UmbrageOfSnow]

WW:  I'd consider stirring up town-on-town antagonism much based on something you don't truly believe (which is my opinion about your scumtell here) to be much scummier than trying to appear active.  I won't claim to be any kind of expert on your meta but you didn't appear to be faking activity in the scum game of yours I skimmed.  Do you think you do that as scum?

I mean I realize that's a loaded question, so maybe it's better if other regular players answer that too, but I was not under the impression that fake activity was what I should be looking for from WW.

Also, if you don't know why scum should be more likely to do a thing than town (due to differing win conditions or psychology) why would you suspect that thing to be a scumtell?  If it's based purely on your own experience, why say this:

New_Player_001's point on Snow was a good one, not sure why people don't see it.

?

PPE: 2

[chairs]

I did know it was L-1.

I appreciate all the reactions.

vote: Teproc.  Sorry to worry you, WW, I just wanted to see what Teproc would do to an unannounced L-1

[pacovf]

3 posts:
RVS-scumjoke for hydrad
unvote Hydrad
hedgy defense of skip

The unvote is suspicious, looks like "hey guys I am active!" and it's doing absolutely nothing.
The defense sets off alarms for its extreme hedging, "I am going to defend skip but I don't want to commit to anything".

mail-mi tends to not post much, so you have to read between the lines much more than for other players. ]

To be fair the case was from before this whole discussion exploded, so I should reexamine where my vote is. But I don't want mail-mi to get off with it so easily either.

[pacovf]

I did know it was L-1.

I appreciate all the reactions.

vote: Teproc.  Sorry to worry you, WW, I just wanted to see what Teproc would do to an unannounced L-1

Bah.

[mail-mi]

I have been lurking indeed; yesterday was busy. I should be on more today to answer any questions.

No that was not a hedge defense of skip, I just wanted to see what ADK's reasoning is.

I think Teproc and WW are of the same alignment. Whether that's town or scum, I don't know.

[Witherweaver]

I have been lurking indeed; yesterday was busy. I should be on more today to answer any questions.

No that was not a hedge defense of skip, I just wanted to see what ADK's reasoning is.

I think Teproc and WW are of the same alignment. Whether that's town or scum, I don't know.

If Teproc is scum, Mail-Mi is highly likely to be scum as well.  It is known.

[Seprix]

Yep, it's L-1. chairs, did you know it was L-1 ?

Obviously don't hammer, need more time to discuss etc.

Uh, Chairs? Why is this scummy?

[UmbrageOfSnow]

So chairs, what reaction from Teproc would have led you to thinking he was town?

[Witherweaver]

WW:  I'd consider stirring up town-on-town antagonism much based on something you don't truly believe (which is my opinion about your scumtell here) to be much scummier than trying to appear active.  I won't claim to be any kind of expert on your meta but you didn't appear to be faking activity in the scum game of yours I skimmed.  Do you think you do that as scum?

I mean I realize that's a loaded question, so maybe it's better if other regular players answer that too, but I was not under the impression that fake activity was what I should be looking for from WW.

Also, if you don't know why scum should be more likely to do a thing than town (due to differing win conditions or psychology) why would you suspect that thing to be a scumtell?  If it's based purely on your own experience, why say this:

New_Player_001's point on Snow was a good one, not sure why people don't see it.

?

PPE: 2

I'm not sure the relevance to my meta here.  In general, scum tries to appear active and that's a scum tell.  Individual metas change that, but I wouldn't expect you (having never played with me) to be making a metaheavy argument on me.

If every time X has happened (or even some majority of times), Y happens, what's wrong with being okay with Y when X, even if you don't know why?  (That was a cool sentence.)

[UmbrageOfSnow]

I've never played with you, but I made a point to read a scum game of yours last night, and I'm trying to do that with everyone.

You're right that I've never played with you, which is a much better way to get a feel for these things, which is why I want other people to chime in on this.  But I don't expect trying to fake activity from players with your attitude/style/whatever anyway I think.  I could be crazy here, but it's just not the main thing I'm looking for.  And applying general purpose scum tells to players where that would not seem to fit their personality doesn't seem really great.  I find it strange that you want me to do that instead.

And what I'm getting at is that if it's your personal experience rather than something psychological/strategic (which I believe are the only scumtells that make sense, but that's not an argument we need to have right now) then why would you be surprised that other people didn't agree with you?

[UmbrageOfSnow]

The larger point I'm driving at here is that WW's actions seem inconsistent with thinking about actual scumhunting and more consistent with stirring up shit.

[Witherweaver]

I've never played with you, but I made a point to read a scum game of yours last night, and I'm trying to do that with everyone.

You're right that I've never played with you, which is a much better way to get a feel for these things, which is why I want other people to chime in on this.  But I don't expect trying to fake activity from players with your attitude/style/whatever anyway I think.  I could be crazy here, but it's just not the main thing I'm looking for.  And applying general purpose scum tells to players where that would not seem to fit their personality doesn't seem really great.  I find it strange that you want me to do that instead.

And what I'm getting at is that if it's your personal experience rather than something psychological/strategic (which I believe are the only scumtells that make sense, but that's not an argument we need to have right now) then why would you be surprised that other people didn't agree with you?

Ah, well, good point.  It's hard for me to see things from not me perspectives.

[chairs]

Yep, it's L-1. chairs, did you know it was L-1 ?

Obviously don't hammer, need more time to discuss etc.

Uh, Chairs? Why is this scummy?

Teproc appeared to be really, really pushing WW to me (maybe your impression will be different). I'm of the opinion that if you're pushing a wagon, you don't throw the brakes when the wagon gets to the edge of the cliff.

As far as WW's behavior - it's generated a lot of interaction on D1. That's something we reliably struggle with, imho, to the point that I almost ignore D1 in Normal (not RMM) games out of habit. Sure, he's been abrasive, but abrasive has led to a lot of opportunities for us to review each other on later Days after flips, which is the best part of forum Mafia, right?

[Witherweaver]

But about faking activity, etc., I think it's kind of a universal scum tell, some people are just better at it.  It's hard to post as scum, you have to say things, you have to worry about how those things will be said, you second guess yourself a lot, etc. Posts have a tendency to come out contrived.  Do mine come out contrived?  Well, I have no idea.  Obviously to me they do, because I'm the one that contrived them.  I'm always surprised when people don't see things I do that I think are really scummy as blatantly scummy when I'm scum, and even more surprised when people suspect me when I feel so naturally in my town state of mind.  I can't really generate enough of a neutral perspective to really read how much of my town state of mind and scum state of mind come out in a given game.