Print

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

[UmbrageOfSnow]

Okay, just over 3 hours to the soft deadline and we don't even seem to be trying to make it.  Are we just giving up on this?  I'm fine with that, but if so, why did we all agree to it?

Anyway, I was trying to figure out why the votes all land where they did.  Here are the reasons for voting, as best I can figure, and some comments on ones I happened to find more interesting.

Twistedarcher still lists Ashersky as his top scumread and has not moved off him.

Eevee says Robz-Mcmcsalot interactions look weird, thinks one is scum, hasn't changed his vote since Monday, has made 3 short posts in this game since.

Robz has been parked on Voltaire since Saturday.  He posted 13 times between then and his post on Tuesday which clarified why he voted for Voltaire: because he was cautious and reactive.  He  then called chairs scummy for having a reasonable, defusing explaination for semi-lurking, Twistedarcher for saying "humor me" (implied) and has posted a fair amount today altough not in this thread, and not saying anything more about Voltaire.

Shraeye has been on Voltaire since Tuesday.  For Volt policy-voting Ash I think?  I'm not entirely clear on shraeye's exacty reasons.

chairs moved off his top scum read of Robz for lack of gut-instinct and because his "gut alarm" went off for Voltaire  voting for Robz.

mcmcsalot is voting for Voltaire for reasons I already disagreed with above, but basically for "scrambling" and voting for Robz.

I'm on Robz for the reasons I explained here.

I think Robz is currently my top scumread though.  First for his continually baffling example of that previous game in his first post, where he seems to mis-explain just about everything if I'm reading the followups right, and where he uses "We made a plan, then a bunch of complicated shit happened which didn't relate to the plan, therefore plans are bad.", for his voting Volt based of TA's minor-calling-out-of-Volt and then without further comment escalating that into him being "manifestly the scummiest player".  He seems to bring up the Volt case a lot without expanding on it until 481 where he says there were a bunch of other examples without pointing them out.  Also for ignoring me asking about this back in 395.

And dismissing Chairs' entire defense by calling it reasonable, therefore scummy in 517 is a nice way to keep pushing a potential mislynch without engaging in the reasoning in any way.

And as Ash points out in 521, Robz keeps saying that he sucks at being town.  I think this could be a good way to push a mislynch and set us up not to assign too much blame for it later.
Vote: Robz

Voltaire is on Robz for my reasons, and from his post here.

Ashersky is on TwistedArcher for "nkirbit posting about liopoil" style post.  Which I assume refers to nkirbit's scummy vote on liopoil for saying what he would do were he scum.  However, the TA post Ash quotes seems less scummy to me in that it isn't some new, far-out accusation of Ash as scum, it's just explaining why TA still believes it.  Can you clarify your vote on TwistedArcher, Ash?

nkirbit is on chairs for repeatedly hopping on wagons without good reasoning. and said this about chairs' earlier vote on Ash

Chairs is the scummiest for me, though.  Voting someone, and in the same post saying something like "hope I'm not wrong!" gives me the impression that you're covering for when it goes wrong.  And who knows it's going to go wrong?  Scum!

Liopoil has never voted thus far in this game. (Why not?)
Jimmmmm unvoted from Ashersky and never revoted.
raerae unvoted from Liopoil (recently) and never revoted.

If we aren't even going to try to discuss our votes, why don't we just say we don't need to have a soft deadline?

[UmbrageOfSnow]

P.S.  I'm leaning toward "let's not bother with this stupid deadline" since I think we all need more time to carefully consider a good lynch rather than rushing.  But I feel like people are just waiting around for me to keep posting (on the night we all said we'd be on to hash this out) so that the posts from earlier today can go unanswered (except for by Ashersky).  Maybe I'm paranoid.

Earlier today I realized that I now consider 6 people scummy!  This means I must be wrong about half of them!  This is unsettling.  Fortunately there are levels.

Most wanted lynch: Robz.
Would be happy to lynch: Mcmcsalot.
Would have no problem with lynching: chairs, nkirbit, Shraeye, Ashersky.

I'd rather go with one of Robz or Mcmcsalot as my top reads, but any of those 6 have a 50% chance of being scum from my point of view, which is much better than my guess at the odds on anyone else.

Am I correct in assuming that our logic here should be voting for the best viable lynch that is one of our scumreads, rather than pushing on our top lynch at the expense of a townread getting lynched? Because that's the logic I'm using when I say I'd be okay with lynching chairs, nkirbit, Shraeye, or Ashersky.  I'm not going to sit here building cases on them, but I find them all scummy enough that I think a case on one of them and a wagon that did not reek of scum manipulation would make me okay with voting for any of them compared to the other players.

Whereas I'm actively hoping we can lynch Robz or Mcmcsalot at this point.

[ashersky]

UoS, I agree that mcmcsalot or Robz would be good lynches.

I prefer mcmcsalot, though.

You and I could put Voltaire to L-1 right now if we wanted.  Not saying we should, just that we could.

I have the following popsquiz:

Want to lynch: mcmc, Robz, TA, Volt
Would lynch: Eevee, liopoil, chairs, nkirbit, Jimmmmm
Won't lynch: me, UoS, raerae, shraeye

As for our logic...push for your top scumreads, be willing to vote for lesser scumreads if it means ending the day at a good time.  Don't vote for townreads, even if we need to end the day.  (That last bit is my own thinking, having done that so often to bad effect.)

[nkirbit]

Ash, can you say why you want to lynch TA, again?  I disagree with him in that I don't think you're scum, but I absolutely get where he's coming from with your argument.  The only case I've seen you present is that scum!TA = emotional!TA, but I don't get the sense that he's being emotional here.  Certainly less so than he was in Pirates.  Maybe a little frustrated, but I would by no means describe him as emotional here (although maybe that's just because I have the benefit of knowing him).  And you described his points on you as "valid"... do you have any more explanation for your read that that?

[shraeye]

Shraeye seems off

Ooh, please do explain!

[shraeye]

Vote: Voltaire

I'll reread tonight to see if I can point out why the gut alarm went off.

This is the second time that we've seen Chairs hop on a wagon without a good reason to do so.  I was unconvinced by his reasoning for voting Ashersky, and here we don't even have an explanation, just a "gut feeling".

Vote: Chairs

Ch-ch-ch-chainsaaawwww!

But seriously, my scumreads are nkirbit and Voltaire.

[ashersky]

Well, I really still think Ashersky is scum. He's getting the exact reaction I'd expect him to get from this gambit as scum. Some suspicion, but ultimately there's enough people who either don't want him lynched (teammates) or have seen this before (vets), to say "No, this is town Ashersky".

With all the people saying "This is town Ashersky", he's cleared himself from any suspicion D1, basically. When someone looks at Ashersky, it will be really difficult to get past this gambit and hunt for actually scummy behavior.

He was defending himself the entire time he had his vote on himself! That's not the behavior of someone who actually wants to get lynched because the game is silly. That's the behavior of someone trying to make a point, and trying to get towncred for it.

Literally no one responded to this.

I think you are half correct that, if I was scum, and I did this, this is the resolution I'd want.  I mean, I've sat at L-2 a few times for awhile, and survived.  I don't think it's what scum wants overall though.  Lots of attention, the very real possibility of dying on D1 (we know that scum losing someone on D1 is almost always fatal), it's not great.  Sure, it allows for bussing, but who's going to get free towncred for supporting my lynch if I were scum?

I will say, your final sentence is important.  I was trying to make a point.  I think I did.

It also resulted in some discussion/reactions/behavior that I think will help us catch scum.  It may not have rubbed everyone the right way, but it was useful.

I'll vote: Twistedarcher for now.  This is a "nkirbit posting about liopoil" post, and worth a vote.

Here's the post you linked, in which I voted for TA.  I'll say up front I don't think TA will get lynched today.

What I meant was that I felt TA's post quote there, and others like it, were written with a specific aim--that of painting me as scummy where scumminess wasn't actually present.  That's something nkirbit did when he quoted a liopoil post and called it super scummy even though it wasn't.

A possible scum tell is trying to paint otherwise towny/null posts as scummy, and building a case around it.  You need to get town to believe other townies are scum so they get lynched, right?

I think that TA's constant refrain about me is him trying to push my lynch by painting things as scummy.  Yes, there was plenty in my posts that folks reacted negatively to, but being annoyed with me is different than actually thinking I'm scum.

His last paragraph in the quote above, where he makes the argument that "that's not the behavior of someone who actually wants to get lynched" is the best example, I think.  He's making the point that I have to be one or the other; annoyed to the point of wanting to be lynched (and therefore town) OR scum.  It's clear to most that I was trying to make a very loud point.  If I absolutely wanted out of the game, I could just /out.  So I don't think the characterization that he uses with that argument is a towny one.

I don't know about the emotional vs. not.  He seems to be pretty invested in me being scum and annoyed that folks have backed off of me.  That's more emotion than I normally see from him.

[shraeye]

((while talking about ash))
I still agree with you that a scum gambit makes perfect sense and I have no trouble believing it.  If he were to flip scum, I wouldn't be shocked.  If the Ash wagon were to get going and I had to choose between Ash and another player, I'd often choose Ash.  It makes plenty of sense for scum.

If you were to flip scum, I wouldn't be shocked.

[shraeye]

Shraeye has been on Voltaire since Tuesday.  For Volt policy-voting Ash I think?  I'm not entirely clear on shraeye's exacty reasons.

You could probably read my posts and figure out why, if you want.

[liopoil]

oh my, soft deadline soon. ugh. I don't think we should try to meet it, just lynch soon after. I am gonna have to leave soon, so won't be around at midnight. And I haven't really gotten into this game at all, and haven't voted or contributed much in terms of reads.

Well, my reads so far:

townreads: UoS, ashersky, probably most people not listed anywhere in this post
maybe scumreads, but I would need to actually read their posts again: nkirbit, voltaire, robz, raerae, mcmcsalot.

So yeah, pretty weak. Probably won't have a ton of time to catch up tommorow or the weekend though, but I'll do what I can.

[Voltaire]

Shraeye has been on Voltaire since Tuesday.  For Volt policy-voting Ash I think?  I'm not entirely clear on shraeye's exacty reasons.

You could probably read my posts and figure out why, if you want.

Your posts have not been super clear or helpful.

His last paragraph in the quote above, where he makes the argument that "that's not the behavior of someone who actually wants to get lynched" is the best example, I think.  He's making the point that I have to be one or the other; annoyed to the point of wanting to be lynched (and therefore town) OR scum.  It's clear to most that I was trying to make a very loud point.  If I absolutely wanted out of the game, I could just /out.  So I don't think the characterization that he uses with that argument is a towny one.

I don't know about the emotional vs. not.  He seems to be pretty invested in me being scum and annoyed that folks have backed off of me.  That's more emotion than I normally see from him.

It was clear to me you were trying to make a very loud point, but not at all clear to me that you were doing so with the best interests of town in mind.

I don't like your case on TA one bit. I don't see anything emotional at all in what TA is saying. Wouldn't you trying to keep a wagon on your top scum-read going if it got up to 5 votes? I sure would! I think TA is being completely reasonable here.

Would lynch: chairs, Robz, ash
Wouldn't lynch: UoS, TA, shraeye, raerae
Could be convinced by super-strong cases: everyone else

[mcmcsalot]

One thing I've noticed a little bit in past games is that Robz giving Mcmc a towny read for little reason = a little bit of a scum tell for Robz, and Mcmc giving Robz a towny read for little reason = a little bit of a scum tell for Mcmc. This makes me a little suspicious of Mcmc.

The only issue is you told me this in our scum qt, so I had full knowledgeof that.

Also drunk AMA

[nkirbit]

I try to post my honest opinion about why I think people are scum or town, in a "this is how I think" kind of list so I actually attempt to make sense instead of being an incoherent "actilurker" who just sounds sheepish, and that makes me scum? 

I don't understand you people at all. I try to move away from the theory into "real" scumhunting (even though I felt the theory discussion was honestly helpful in my attempts to understand how I felt about various potential scum) and then I'm scum for trying to share my opinions.  If they're bad opinions, tell me why, help me help you lynch mafia.  The theory talk had me excited, but this feels like it's just devolved into name-calling and scumreads that I just don't understand the logic of at all.

I think only voltaire has been saying you're scum because you're "acti-lurking".  Maybe others have too, and i missed it.

But what I remember of chairs is somebody a bit more self-reliant than the "if I'm wrong tell me why, help me help you" line you have here.  I remember you telling Robz that you'd gladly eat your own hat over a scumread before.  I'm slightly suspicious of you for the kind of "relying on others to confirm your efforts" feel that i'm getting here.

That's all fair enough.  I think in part that's because in back to basics I was convinced that Robz was scum.  Here, I'm floating, because ashersky's ploy is so very anti-town to my mind (if he's town) and so ridiculous (if he's scum) that I'm finding it extremely difficult to even really focus on anybody else, particularly given that I'm also fairly stressed IRL (wrecked my car).  I think you'll see "I'll eat my hat" chairs again, but only when I'm sure I'm right - normally I"m very consensus-builder, even if it wasn't something obvious in that game.

This is the sort of reasonable, defusing, mild-mannered explanation I expect scum to deliver.

This post gave me an uncomfortable feeling.  It's similar to his post about me in B2B.  In that game, Robz was scum and I was town:

Part of my suspicion on nkirbit is that he IS playing well. He's handling pressure well, not panicking, etc. And I know he's relatively knew but I think he has the makings of a great player. So I'm looking for some decent newbie scum play from him, and I think I may be seeing it.

I'm not sure what to make as Robz as a whole.  I've seen both scum and town Robz, but I've never seen anything like him in this game.  He's much more cryptic here, posting messages such as "...how indeed?"  It doesn't match either my perceptions of his scum or town metas.  Early in the game, he stated "metas are easily faked", meaning we shouldn't trust meta arguments, but he's going into this game with the intention of playing in a different way.  Has he ever been this cryptic before?  Or is this completely new?

If it's completely new, I would be wary of a player who says "metas are easily faked" in the same game as he changes his meta noticeably and (seemingly) deliberately.

[raerae]

One thing I've noticed a little bit in past games is that Robz giving Mcmc a towny read for little reason = a little bit of a scum tell for Robz, and Mcmc giving Robz a towny read for little reason = a little bit of a scum tell for Mcmc. This makes me a little suspicious of Mcmc.

The only issue is you told me this in our scum qt, so I had full knowledgeof that.

Also drunk AMA

You gave reads a couple days ago (or was that just yesterday?) and said you'd explain them...care to actually do that?

[raerae]

shraeye, be helpful or do the dishes please.

[Voltaire]

I'm not sure what to make as Robz as a whole.  I've seen both scum and town Robz, but I've never seen anything like him in this game.  He's much more cryptic here, posting messages such as "...how indeed?"  It doesn't match either my perceptions of his scum or town metas.  Early in the game, he stated "metas are easily faked", meaning we shouldn't trust meta arguments, but he's going into this game with the intention of playing in a different way.  Has he ever been this cryptic before?  Or is this completely new?

If it's completely new, I would be wary of a player who says "metas are easily faked" in the same game as he changes his meta noticeably and (seemingly) deliberately.

It's not new to me, but I've played with scumRobz more than townRobz (1 town 2 scum I think?). He's usually somewhat cryptic and comes across as unhelpful, which makes sense when he's scum. Eevee once had a rule that Robz acting towny is a scumtell for him and he's stated he doesn't put as much effort in when he's town. Take it for what you will.

[shraeye]

Vote: ashersky

Policy vote.

We cannot encourage intentional anti-town play. We cannot allow self-voting. That's not fun, and it does not help town win (by definition). UoS has a very good post summarizing why ash may also, in fact, be scum. Hence, my comfort in casting this vote, though it is mostly based on the fact that town does not benefit long-term by this sort of nonsense.

I've gotten enough reads out of today that I think town doesn't lose too much in this specific game, and I'm comfortable with the long-term gain.

Ash, I asked you to start playing how you'd like us to play. You didn't change your style. I cannot see how you are possibly helping town in this game if you are town.

This is an absurdly scummy vote.  It justifies his vote entirely and possibly too much "this is policy", "I've gotten enough reads today", "hence, my comfort in casting this vote".  Yet his stated reason for doing this is that  Voltaire "cannot see how ash is possibly helping town".  This basically is just a weak echo of what Umbrage has been loudly saying. (backed up by other folks, names I'm not recalling right now).

Hey look, I found it for you guys.  Here is a major reason that I'm voting for Voltaire, and nobody has responded to this at all.  Cool.

Also, there is the bit where I voted as well.

See, the problem is that you aren't even answering the question ashersky is asking.  You're just jumping up at the opportunity to triple-validate your vote on him and also encourage others to see ashersky as scummy.

In response, Voltaire says that instead of blaming ashersky for the thread stopping, he should have blamed me.  Brace yourself for a barrage of "you're misrepresenting me!" posts from Voltaire, but please also do me the favor of rereading mine and Volt's previous exchange.  We had some misunderstanding there, but Volt leaves main points unanswered while attacking the minor details (like where I didn't see he had answered a question; the missing-answer to that question wasn't really the main point of any of my scumread)

[ashersky]

Shraeye has been on Voltaire since Tuesday.  For Volt policy-voting Ash I think?  I'm not entirely clear on shraeye's exacty reasons.

You could probably read my posts and figure out why, if you want.

Your posts have not been super clear or helpful.

His last paragraph in the quote above, where he makes the argument that "that's not the behavior of someone who actually wants to get lynched" is the best example, I think.  He's making the point that I have to be one or the other; annoyed to the point of wanting to be lynched (and therefore town) OR scum.  It's clear to most that I was trying to make a very loud point.  If I absolutely wanted out of the game, I could just /out.  So I don't think the characterization that he uses with that argument is a towny one.

I don't know about the emotional vs. not.  He seems to be pretty invested in me being scum and annoyed that folks have backed off of me.  That's more emotion than I normally see from him.

It was clear to me you were trying to make a very loud point, but not at all clear to me that you were doing so with the best interests of town in mind.

I don't like your case on TA one bit. I don't see anything emotional at all in what TA is saying. Wouldn't you trying to keep a wagon on your top scum-read going if it got up to 5 votes? I sure would! I think TA is being completely reasonable here.

Would lynch: chairs, Robz, ash
Wouldn't lynch: UoS, TA, shraeye, raerae
Could be convinced by super-strong cases: everyone else

I believe you have a bit of a bias against me at this point, so you won't like any case I make on anyone.

[ashersky]

I'm not sure what to make as Robz as a whole.  I've seen both scum and town Robz, but I've never seen anything like him in this game.  He's much more cryptic here, posting messages such as "...how indeed?"  It doesn't match either my perceptions of his scum or town metas.  Early in the game, he stated "metas are easily faked", meaning we shouldn't trust meta arguments, but he's going into this game with the intention of playing in a different way.  Has he ever been this cryptic before?  Or is this completely new?

If it's completely new, I would be wary of a player who says "metas are easily faked" in the same game as he changes his meta noticeably and (seemingly) deliberately.

It's not new to me, but I've played with scumRobz more than townRobz (1 town 2 scum I think?). He's usually somewhat cryptic and comes across as unhelpful, which makes sense when he's scum. Eevee once had a rule that Robz acting towny is a scumtell for him and he's stated he doesn't put as much effort in when he's town. Take it for what you will.

I've seen this Robz before too.  It was town!Robz.  So he could be faking it this time for that cred, or he's just town again.

[ashersky]

One thing I've noticed a little bit in past games is that Robz giving Mcmc a towny read for little reason = a little bit of a scum tell for Robz, and Mcmc giving Robz a towny read for little reason = a little bit of a scum tell for Mcmc. This makes me a little suspicious of Mcmc.

The only issue is you told me this in our scum qt, so I had full knowledgeof that.

Also drunk AMA

This could be a fantastic gambit by mcmc.  Loving it.  Also, still my #1 lynch choice.

[Voltaire]

Brace yourself for a barrage of "you're misrepresenting me!" posts from Voltaire, but please also do me the favor of rereading mine and Volt's previous exchange.  We had some misunderstanding there, but Volt leaves main points unanswered while attacking the minor details (like where I didn't see he had answered a question; the missing-answer to that question wasn't really the main point of any of my scumread)

Then let's try this again, if you'd still like an answer. I'll give it my best shot. What's the question?

[UmbrageOfSnow]

I don't like your case on TA one bit. I don't see anything emotional at all in what TA is saying. Wouldn't you trying to keep a wagon on your top scum-read going if it got up to 5 votes? I sure would! I think TA is being completely reasonable here.

I believe you have a bit of a bias against me at this point, so you won't like any case I make on anyone.

That may be, but it still would seem worth either explaining your vote or moving it to Mcmcsalot (or whoever) and explaining that vote when we probably get back into it tomorrow.  I'm honestly not clear on it either, although it gives me a null read on you rather than a strong desire to vote for you, I think it's still worth talking about.

[ashersky]

I don't like your case on TA one bit. I don't see anything emotional at all in what TA is saying. Wouldn't you trying to keep a wagon on your top scum-read going if it got up to 5 votes? I sure would! I think TA is being completely reasonable here.

I believe you have a bit of a bias against me at this point, so you won't like any case I make on anyone.

That may be, but it still would seem worth either explaining your vote or moving it to Mcmcsalot (or whoever) and explaining that vote when we probably get back into it tomorrow.  I'm honestly not clear on it either, although it gives me a null read on you rather than a strong desire to vote for you, I think it's still worth talking about.

Really?  Did you miss my explanation post that is also on this page?

[UmbrageOfSnow]

Really?  Did you miss my explanation post that is also on this page?

So you did.  And I read it and I thought it was reasonable, while disagreeing with it.  And now I feel like an idiot.

[raerae]

For what it's worth, I took what Jimmmm said as a joke, I laughed at it anyway.  I suppose that isn't really worth anything of course, and we have nothing else to go on.  Only thing I'm sure of is that communism is a red herring.

I'm more eyeing his flavor claim suggestion. Only possible way it's not scummy is if he himself was trying to bait people into agreeing with him.

I have a stronger town read on you right now, simply because I can't see mafia coming out of the gate with a plan to help town keep/use a power role to the best of its ability.

Hey, volt, I'm on your reread now...can you explain the bolded part?  I feel like that's pretty much the definition of scummy...