Ensemble Mafia - N5

[charlie_]

I never said I had you down as scum via association. Let's make that clear now. It was just a hypothetical I used to try and make sure kirsche got where I was coming from because idk if I'll be around to properly talk to him and clarify it if he doesn't get it.

The first time I read the thread after RVS it was like 10 pages of spam that I didn't want to read.

After I actually skimmed through it (I'm not wasting brain cells on that shit) I decided you were okay.

After examining your Refa case it felt like you were trying to pull literally every reason you could to find him scummy. This is the same impression I'm getting from you now.

I don't have a solid opinion on Refa, yes. Why do I need one? The game started less than 48 hours ago and I think Refa's content has been motivated heavily by emotion rather than his alignment considering the outburst, even if I think the outburst itself makes a little bit more sense from town.

[Elemina]

Blitz: Right now if you don't believe me, then we won't see eye to eye. You'll just have to see the rest of my play and decide from there. I think SB is trying to play you though, and it seems it is working since you give him a pass for just reading.

[charlie_]

?

How have I tried to appeal to Blitz for anything? I literally asked him for one read and that's it.

[Kriemhild]

Note About My Activity: I'm generally really busy on Mondays and Fridays, and for today in particular, I have a midterm to deal with. So I won't be too active today, sorry.

Finally, Ryker decided to be productive and post his actual thoughts on the players. He's finally contributing to proper discussion and posting actual reads, which is great. I still strongly disapprove of his prior behavior, however.

[spoiler=Why I disapprove of Ryker's behavior; RYKER READ THIS]But I want to make something clear, Ryker. Prior to the wallpost, your behavior has still been very detrimental to the Town. I've already explained why it's terrible to draw attention to reads without any justification, and your wallpost revelation doesn't change that at all. All the conclusions that you derived could have easily been acquired without being an unproductive jerk all game. There was no reason for you to withhold ALL your thoughts until this point.

Your behavior was opposing meaningful discussion, and we can't get proper reads on you with all this flip-flopping. Mafia is not a one-man show; the Town needs to work together through productive discussions in order to lynch the Mafia. Even if you manage to make some useful deductions on your own, it's not worth the cost of sabotaging the effectiveness of the game discussions. The Town as a whole suffered because of your behavior.

So please, please, PLEASE don't pull this kind of crap again. Don't be a jerk, express your thoughts and reads properly, and contribute to the discussions productively in order to catch the Mafia.

As for Ryker's reads themselves, I'm skeptical of the ones that are based on reactions toward himself. For example, I agree that Spinal's tunneling was a result of his own personality, but I do think scum!Spinal would behave just the same way, because Ryker was deliberately baiting him to do so, and scum!Spinal had a great opportunity to tunnel Ryker with solid justified reasons. Likewise, for me and Kirsche to turn against Ryker would be easily justified regardless of whether either of us are Town or Mafia.

Although I strongly disapprove of Ryker's behavior, his explanation for it sounds like something I can see from an unproductive Townie who secretly thinks his plan of deliberately pissing everyone off will generate useful data. That being said, such behavior is, indeed, very detrimental to the Town, so it's also plausible that he's scum that's deliberately trying to shut down productive discussions and hoping to get away with it. If Ryker decides to contribute to discussions productively by expressing his thoughts and reads from now on, I would be happy with that and would not want him lynched because I could see his actions coming from a Townie.

##Unvote: Ryker

[spoiler=My Reply to Ryker's post about me]

-First post denies responsibility while trying to establish something that otherwise looks like a vote he had a reason to place, thereby rendering it useless.

I explained this already. If you were constantly lynched D1 for an RVS post while you were AFK, you'd understand.

-Insists that I'm scummy because I typed Irony instead of Blitz by mistake. Is INSISTENT that a typo couldn't be the cause. Assignment of guilt there astounds me.

First of all, you didn't say it was a typo until much later. In fact, it was AFTER my wallpost where I called you out on it. And if it was a typo, as I pointed out already, then you contradicted yourself. Add in the fact that you never (prior to your wallpost) explained your vote on Blitzy, can you really blame me for finding your vote scummy?

-Keeps every door open to read players as scum. In the spoiler, he talks about Irony being a possible scummer because he could be faking his new player status and that while he agrees with Spinal, he could be scum. In his #178, his reads list boils down to scum or null. No town reads whatsoever. Nothing even leaning toward town. While pointing out that someone town considers to be town could still be scum, leaving ALL the doors open lets scum go back and lynch other players at any stage of the game. This bothers me immensely.

Yup, I like being cautious. I don't present townreads unless I have a strong feeling about them, which didn't (and still doesn't) apply to anyone in this game.

-In that spoiler, states that I wouldn't draw such negative attention as scum, but then goes on to vote me and insist adamantly that I'm scum (weak, will cover in the next section).

Allow me to present some quotes:

[spoiler=Self-Quotes]

I agree that Ryker has been handling his "scumhunts" pretty badly, but I'm not sure whether that actually makes him "scummy". His behavior feels more like unproductive Town than Mafia to me, because it really draws a lot of justified negative attention.

I thought you were unproductive Town before this point, but when you forget your own votes and scumreads it really sounds like you're fabricating reads in an attempt to look Townish, when you don't actually think that your targets are scum. In other words, you look really scummy right now.

You freaking admitted that you were sheeping Elemina, what more are you asking Spinal to "figure" out? I think Spinal made his perspective pretty clear about why explicit sheeping with no independent thoughts was scummy (which I disagreed with, since I didn't actually think you were deliberately sheeping... until you outright admitted it). Seriously, Ryker, you're looking really suspicious at this point.

If this looks weak to you, I don't think I can convince you otherwise. It sounds like you're declaring that it's bad for me to change my thoughts on a player as I read through the thread.

The fact I can see his thought process developing in his post makes me feel much better, but the gross assignment of guilt and the way he refuses to let out a positive read outweigh that at the moment.

> gross assignment of guilt

You were deliberately trying to piss people off and were deliberately declaring reads and votes without any explanation. Do you really think it would be gross to call you out on it before your explanation?

> refuses to let out a positive read

Welp, I guess your vote will be stuck on me until we get a miraculous confirmed Town via role results.

Rainbow, in #178, you say clearly that you can see Irony's posts coming from newbscum rather than from a more experienced player faking scum. Can you go through and show me where you are getting this conclusion from?

No, I did not clearly say that, nor did I even mention the possibility of her being a "more experienced player faking scum". What I did say, however, is that it sounded like newbscum. As for why I didn't consider experienced!scum, well, I do certainly think it's plausible, but the components that make her seem scummy (like the emphasis on being uninformed) seem like stuff I would expect to see from a new player. I can't imagine an experienced player going "I have little to no information on who is a member of the Mafia and who is a member of the Ensemble. Therefore, I am going to wait for some more information".

Also, her general posts feel like her lack of experience is genuine.

I have a meeting right now but I intend to read through the rest of the thread and make at least one post to convey my thoughts based on recent developments.

[Elemina]

The first time I read the thread after RVS it was like 10 pages of spam that I didn't want to read.

After I actually skimmed through it (I'm not wasting brain cells on that shit) I decided you were okay.

After examining your Refa case it felt like you were trying to pull literally every reason you could to find him scummy. This is the same impression I'm getting from you now.

That's the point of a case, you outline their whole play and show what feels off. It's town because I was confident in my vibe on Refa being scummy. Your read on me is not founded well because you have yet to deconstruct my case which you say is a kitchen sink. Why go off a simple vibe instead of looking at why I believe those things and then decide my intent from it? You continue to use work and late nights to excuse yourself from giving content. You are in thread right now, but you aren't giving reads on other slots. Since you are not in thread, I want you to contribute. (Also this is how I always make cases, so it's null)

Now tell me. How would you make a case as opposed to me?

[Elemina]

Now I have to be back later, going to eat now.

[Ken Masters]

Spinal didn't use his RVS vote at all, which shows he didn't care to progress the phase at that point.

No. This is why Assumptions of Intent will always lead to mistakes.

I just didn't participate on RVS. It only shows that I don't like RVS. The leap to say "Not RVing = Not wanting to progress" is huge, and unfounded, SO YOU CANNOT USE IT AS A VALID ARGUMENT

You have been making this sort of baselss assumptions all day long, which is incredibly scummy and worthless on the long run. Stop it.

[Elemina]

Before I go, Spinal I want your reads now, and I want you to answer my question. Bye.

[Elemina]

When I come back from eating, I will give analysis of rainbow and GPS for Ryder and Kirsche. Want to see more content from Refa to further read him.

[Ken Masters]

Before I go, Spinal I want your reads now, and I want you to answer my question. Bye.

Get down your pillar and adress the points I raised before daring to ask me anything in that tone.

PS: Putting "Bye" at the end of your sentence for shocking value, loses its effect quite quickly if you immediatly post after it. Refrain to do so because it only makes you look desperate to establish yourself on a high ground.

We're all on the same mud pond here.

[Elemina]

Give me reads. I asked you before and you said soon. Give me reads.

[Elemina]

It's a bad habit. You keep bringing up assumption of intent but to find scum you must look for intent. Have you stated this in previous games as either alignment? I want your reads.

[Ken Masters]

Give me reads. I asked you before and you said soon. Give me reads.

"gib reeds"

I've been giving reads all day long. Just none directed at you.

So instead, use those (you will have to read my posts for that) my opinions haven't changed much, except maybe that now I find your attitude extremely obnoxious.

[Elemina]

Terrible idea.

I would only lynch Hober because I explained my reasons to believe him scum, not because low activity.

You could accidentaly Lynch a PR, and it would be an easy justification for the Mafia to explain the lynch on "we agreed on a random inactive"

Blitzer, thoughts on this?

[Ken Masters]

It's a bad habit. You keep bringing up assumption of intent but to find scum you must look for intent. Have you stated this in previous games as either alignment? I want your reads.

Wow, slow down.

Of course you have to. But you're so desperate to jump the gun for X reason (be it that your're scum trying to get a good a target, or a Townie desperate to have a solid argument) that you have totally missed what I've said.

I say:

When sustaining an argument, the evidence presented should be held under this value:

"ACTIONS > POSSIBLE INTENTIONS BEHIND ACTIONS"

Example:

If you constantly bait and distract someone, effectively distracting and frustrating a player, to only get a result that's already 76% possible at the start of the game, you have caused harm to the Town. Now, There are 100 and more possible explanations to justify that, but by my rule ACTION(harming the Town) > POSSIBLE INTENTION (helping Town) that person should be hanged.

This also applies when presenting evidence to sustain a case.

You vote a player because he has explicitly said he will not adress points raised by you via subjective justification. There's a clearly harmful action there.

You vote a player because you think that he's reading someone badly, on purpose; to create a myslynch. That's an assumption. It has no weight if you can't back it up with actions made by that person that prove it. SO, it's not evidence.

[Elemina]

Also, it is bad that your opinions have yet to change, Spinal. You have not given reads. You have pushed Ryder and Mallow and that is it. You also stated you would do a Refa post as I insisted but you never got to that. So you are being unhelpful.

[Elemina]

I can agree with that. Does it seem like I am not looking at Refa's actions to you? If you could break this down with actual game examples, that would help.

[Elemina]

Kirsche, talk to me about Spinal meta. Scum and town. Am considering your green poet case.

[Ken Masters]

Also, it is bad that your opinions have yet to change, Spinal. You have not given reads. You have pushed Ryder and Mallow and that is it. You also stated you would do a Refa post as I insisted but you never got to that. So you are being unhelpful.

Opinion. Not a valid argument.

I find it horrible that you flip flop all the time, yet I've never said that it's a bad thing, because it's not inherently true or false.

Why would I give a read on ;allow and Ryker, when I have been clearly against them? That's redundant and serves no purpose. On the rest, I have given reads on Refa, I called her not scummy and explained why, curiously enough, on a post directed at you.

A read doesn't have to have a huge sign on top of it saying "READ" to be a read.

I do aknowledge that I said I would direct my reads at you. And will do so. But please. Stop with the "gib reeds" chant because it's A) spamming, and B) annoying.

If I don't gib reeds, then take it as what it is, a desinformation action, and use it as evidence against me. But please, stop it.

[Elemina]

Then do what you have promised to me. More later.

[Ken Masters]

Then do what you have promised to me. More later.

I do aknowledge that I said I would direct my reads at you. And will do so. But please. Stop with the "gib reeds" chant because it's A) spamming, and B) annoying.

If I don't gib reeds, then take it as what it is, a desinformation action, and use it as evidence against me. But please, stop it.

Why do you have such a passion to 1) Ignore absolutely everything I bring to you, and be 2) be extremely redundant?

What was the point of that post? Coercing me into doing it? I said I will, so shut up. Don't try to Meta me with unrelated posts and witty lines. You said you were leaving (even left a "Bye") like 7 posts ago. Why? Can't you engage me without recurring to meta?

[Elemina]

If you say you will then do it. What are you saying I am in ignoring? Please show me so I can engage you.

[Elemina]

Also why are you concerned about me using meta on you? You should have nothing to hide.

[Elemina]

Reason why it is bad that you have not changed your opinions:

Townies have more reason to constantly change their reads, since they should be constantly re-evaluating. They don't *know* who is town and scum so it's important they re-evaluate every once in a while. This in turn makes it harder for scum to naturally change their reads because they focus on targetting a player and to have to change course as scum is hard. (Needs to have good town skills to be good at scum and faking townieness)

That's why I say it's bad and flip-flopping isn't bad at all.

---

My read on you is falling to null-scum since you misrepresent me saying I "constantly misrepresented Refa" when I have only just brought out a case on Refa. You also make promises to me with reads and Post on Refa but you never actually do this and instead just reject my Refa case without actually breaking it down. This is why I want your reads now and I will continue to badger you for reads until you give them. You haven't answered me as to if I was looking at Refa's actions or not.

[Elemina]

So there, I think that's everything. I want your reads. I won't ever stop.