Musical Chairs Mafia, Town Wins, the Mod Loses

[Strege]

The part about me trying not to vote inactives eez true (though I make exceptions, and I am sure to do so this game given the quantity of inactives) though I guess the more relevant bit would be that those people didn't really have content IIRC. Do you still find my quantity of early D1 scumreads scummy? (I still dunno if I can defend against it, but I'm just not certain what your read on me looks like atm.)

Bolded the word I forgot to write, go me.

[Strege]

Things that irk me about scorri's Terra case:

-saying Terra misrepped Elie without providing scum intent, and when Terra brings that up scorri doesn't address it.

-calling out Terra for backing off on "the bit with Elie" when he really only backed off on the Elie-SB interaction observation

-suggesting Terra diverted discussion because he asked the mod a question (but didn't follow it up, so where is the diversion there?). All of Terra's content has been somehow related to roles as well, so I don't see this as a diversion (this part is mostly me disagreeing but w/e)

I'm becoming a bit less confident in my scorri read. My second point here isn't great, and rereading I'm feeling a bit better on tone. Still a scumread, but not super strong.

Well, Terrador was distancing himself from his own vote a lot and I don't think he's really done a lot of scum hunting; but Scorri's case on him is pretty bad though and I feel like he would be an easy target to try and mislynch due to his generally all-over-the-place play.

Lynch priorities for me are Elie > Scorri >Terrador >>> Prims.

I took issue with this when I read it but apparently didn't say so in thread for some reason. kirsche says scorri's case on Terra is bad without saying why, and in fact I wouldn't call scorri's case "bad" in general. It has worthwhile points in it, but I had pointed out issues with smaller parts of the case that I thought were bad. The point that Terra could be an easy target is true I suppose, but not strong material either. What do you find wrong with the case?

More stuff incoming; I lost track of what I had multiquoted so I stopped, but I've at least skimmed through everything.

[Strege]

Not a big fan of Gregor's content tbh. His vote on Terra was pretty safe at the time, as everyone found him a bit scummy, and he kept it all phase. His secondary scumread (?) on SB looks kinda weak -- based on an issue with keeping his vote on Wallcrab (not really grasping the point of the post he quoted in post 182) and basically disagreeing that SB's plan was the best way to go (acknowledging town benefit and intent and than assessing that scum benefit outweighs it is disagreeing, not showing that the person who proposed the plan is scummy or w/e). It looks like his SB read disappeared late into the phase, which is better than holding onto it without justification but isn't really explicit especially given that the roletalk continued, but that just leaves him with the Terra read, an "[Objection] seems a little suspicious but not enough to vote" (very slightly paraphrased), and saying kirsche sheeped but not looking into it despite having enough time for walls of roletalk that he says isn't that important at the bottom of post 233.

*breathes*

So basically I find Gregor fairly scummy. I was also looking at kirsche (wrt my last post I did see that as kirsche piggybacking my suspicions) and Refa but I have to step out and I promised Refa an explanation of my suspicions of her so HERE WE GO:

Post 130 - My reasoning is shaky -- fair, but not clear if I'm being scumread or why. Doesn't acknowledge or discuss Wallcrab's reasoning of "SB backed off quickly" (fwiw I don't agree with that reasoning but that part of the vote isn't addressed here). Refa says that Wallcrab's vote being weak is okay with "sure, it's day 1, and it's not like anyone has particularly spectacular reasoning, but then why didn't he vote earlier in that case?" indicating his vote was really (at least mostly) based on Wallcrab voting then but not before, which is hardly fair as Wallcrab got flak for not voting earlier (from SB and I at least). The last line of the post looks distance-y, but given that this is his first vote early in the day I find it very slightly suspicious at most (it's just something that pinged me when I first saw the post).

Post 190 - I can never pull reads from roletalk, and I don't understand the BPV comment anyway, but saying the vig should hold up when the vig was claimed (assuming Prims is town; yeah, I know, associative reads) is posssssibly scary. Also Refa lumps me in with Gregor and Wallcrab in terms of our suspicions of SB (a minor thing, as he points it out, but he says "well strege not so much because iirc he voted SB for another reason altogether" instead of not mentioning me because I'm not associated with it. I guess this is mostly worth mention as an explanation of the evolution of my read on Refa, because it's something that pinged me but I couldn't push). Caps it off with the requisite scumread on Terra.

SIDENOTE: Actually Gregor's response to this is quite bad, only saying that he isn't voting SB which isn't really the point.

Some posts with a little roletalk and lifetalk - I can't pull anything from them.
Post 210 - The only specific thing he mentions about Objection isn't accurate iirc (he didn't say "I'll let you slide", but rather "I'll let this slide".) Says Objection is scummy but doesn't vote for him pending additional content. Considering how weak the Wallcrab vote actually is, the hesitation here looks really bad imo. It doesn't ask a question or attempt to develop a unique perspective, and just looks like fencesitting for the sake of looking like he's really considering all options when he's actually not pushing Objection or anyone else.

Post 219 - Refa explains that his main reason for scumreading Objection is his stance on Elie.
Post 226 - Objection has now explained (reiterated?) that his stance on Elie was based on consideration of personal issues, and I don't think this gets a response from Refa in this post. Here are some quotes from this post, though:
-" If lack of activity was solely what I was rallying against, I'd be almost as suspicious as you" This pings the heck out of me because of the weakness of Refa's position on Objection.
-"2) Insinuating that I can't has multiple reasons to think you're scum is silly. Not to mention that you're misinterpreting my second reason (lack of activity." um what. What are these reasons? Lack of activity isn't a good one imo.
-"3) I'm not calling you out on lack of activity. Heck, you have as about as many posts as me. I'm stating that it's harder to do a scum read on you than say, elieson, but that shouldn't be a reason to put you in the clear." uh, what about the above quote?
Then says Objection's response was a "knee-jerk reaction" (which was actually two sentences and a vote) and says his attempts to discredit him are bad (still two sentences and a vote, which are partially composed of an apparent misunderstanding and a legit criticism that Refa's position was only based on Objection's stance on Elie). Also, Refa's post here is so long that it feels like an overreaction / padding reasoning to vote now rather than before.

I then criticize some of Refa's stuff, and she responds. I don't feel I need to recap that stuff because I already had my hands on it. She continues to miss/ignore the basis of Gregor's suspicion of SB though.

My suspicions are with Refa, Objection, kirsche (will explain when I get time), scorri, Gregor, and Kay (will look more into later, but I noticed some stuff and agreed with BBM's arguments at first glance). I apologize for any overaggressiveness I might have displayed in this post -- I'm just trying to ramble out my suspicions because I have to leave my house, which should have been five minutes ago.

[SB.]

strege who is the most scummy

you haven't put down a vote yet i think.

[Shinori]

Anyone wanna explain to me what's happened so I can be lazy and not read? That sounds like a good idea. Someone do that.

[SB.]

shinori was your role day 1 doc, if so who did you target

[Strege]

Scummiest is between Refa, Kay, and Objection I think. Didn't vote last post because legit rushing (on bus now). Need a quiet moment to organise my reads into an ordered list, but I think Refa is most scumny ATM (also most likely to respond by the time I'm at a comp next (6-17 hours idk))

##unvote, ##vote: refa if this isn't bold blame my phone and my lack of post tag understanding, going underground so not fixing it

[Zkirsche]

Scorri's case on Terra was:

He starts off by saying that he finds Elie/SB scummy because he thinks they're too smart to be doing what they're doing

I don't see the scum intent in this. Reads much more newbtown than scum.

misreps Elie's "claim"

Calling it a misrep is a misrep in itself as it was clear FMPOV that Terra simply misunderstood Elie and the misunderstanding isn't completely unreasonable. The last point about being waffly is something I agree with and have said as much.

This, in addition to what you said, is why I disliked Scorri's case. As for why I was vague, I kinda burnt myself out of this game with all that planning and that's why I've been procrastinating making a content post.

Refa's post here is so long that it feels like an overreaction / padding reasoning to vote now rather than before.

I don't think I like how you are criticising someone for making a long post. Can you find anything there(when you have time) that looks like padding?

Decided to reread Darros and Kay. Darros' Terrador vote looks really weak, with this one paragraph being all he has to say on the matter:

Terrador isn't looking so good to me right now, after saying he has no reads, and talking about weak gut reads.It's Day 1, we don't have much else other than gutreads. And then when people found him suspicious he tried to handwave it with "oh I play bad earlygame also I can't read between the lines". What.

This is all true, but it was said before and he didn't expand on this at all despite the fact that he held the vote until phase end. In fact the only other suspicion he gave was against SB which was kind of a misrep as SB wasn't the one who wanted everyone to use all their actions it was me. It seems really weak and I woudl definitely like to hear more from him and who he finds suspicious. Also:

Prims please don't start a turbolynch on me again while I'm away

Is this a reference to a previous game, because it looks pretty paranoid to me?

As for Kay, she needs to be more active, but I can't fault her vote because that's exactly why I was suspicious of Elie (not to say my suspicion has been doused though).

##Vote: Gregor

Opinions please.

I'm not claiming until Objection claims because I want to hear his hook target before he just points at a vanilla and goes "yeah I hooked him". He could just say he hooked a scummate if he was maf but I want to see what he says first regardless.

[SB.]

darros is on skype right now and should totally post

##Unvote

##Vote: Darros

he's also a maflord

[Darros]

You guys are the worst for making me post I just want to sleep for the next million years and not think ever aurgh.

The reason I voted for Terrador and held it there was because he was going on about "oh my gameplay is weak" and using that as a reason for people not to find him suspicious, and after that I didn't see him post in the thread for the rest of the day until.. uh. that. That was pretty damn fishy to me. To meit looked like he was mafia trying to get people to purposely ignore him by claiming that he played earlygame bad, so there was no real good reason to vote him. Then ofc he flipped town cop. ;/

Is this a reference to a previous game, because it looks pretty paranoid to me?

Yeah, it is. Last game I played with Prims I was away for a good chunk of time and was going to miss the phase end. I posted that in the thread and after I left Prims started a turbolynch on me and I ended up getting lynched Day 1 as doc. Again.

Also Strege just pinned half the players left in this game on his scumdar. The hell?

I'm too tired for this, dudes. I'm off to work shortly, again. I'll try to get more in tomorrow.

[SB.]

Yeah I'm happy with keeping my vote on Darros for now.

[Refa]

-Objection is scum and claims next: he could botch it by saying he roleblocked someone whose action went through.

How would that work? If Objection was indeed scum, he could just claim he roleblocked BBM, who has already claimed vanilla. Regardless, you'd think if he wasn't the roleblocker yesterday, then the person who was could claim it, thus throwing suspicion on Objection in a much easier and less roundabout manner. If noone else steps up, I'd find it rather hard to believe he was lying yesterday.

errbody should out their targets, but people who were vanilla last day should not claim I think.

Why not?

Post 130 - My reasoning is shaky -- fair, but not clear if I'm being scumread or why.

You're over-thinking this, I just found your reasoning shaky.

Doesn't acknowledge or discuss Wallcrab's reasoning of "SB backed off quickly" (fwiw I don't agree with that reasoning but that part of the vote isn't addressed here).

This is ridiculous, give me a good reason for why my RVS vote needs more explanation than the rest.

Refa says that Wallcrab's vote being weak is okay with "sure, it's day 1, and it's not like anyone has particularly spectacular reasoning, but then why didn't he vote earlier in that case?" indicating his vote was really (at least mostly) based on Wallcrab voting then but not before, which is hardly fair as Wallcrab got flak for not voting earlier (from SB and I at least).

Why is agreeing with previously held views "hardly fair"? Especially when said views had not been refuted satisfactorily?

Post 190 - I can never pull reads from roletalk, and I don't understand the BPV comment anyway, but saying the vig should hold up when the vig was claimed (assuming Prims is town; yeah, I know, associative reads) is posssssibly scary.

I don't know about the meta, but I think it's hardly fair for you to assume that I took Prims seriously when he was all like I'M VIG GUYS LET'S KILL US SOME BEARCLAW. In addition to that, if I did indeed take his statement seriously, why would I have voted for bearclaw? Surely I would've assumed he'd be shot?

Also Refa lumps me in with Gregor and Wallcrab in terms of our suspicions of SB (a minor thing, as he points it out, but he says "well strege not so much because iirc he voted SB for another reason altogether" instead of not mentioning me because I'm not associated with it.

I named off everyone who was suspicious of SB, you were definitely associated with it. Then I gave a reason as to why you were not suspicious, doesn't that seem wierd? If I was scum, what possible motivation could I have for mentioning that you're not suspicious? It would've been a lot easier to just omit that part entirely. The only explanation I can come up with incriminates both of us.

Post 210 - The only specific thing he mentions about Objection isn't accurate iirc (he didn't say "I'll let you slide", but rather "I'll let this slide".) Says Objection is scummy but doesn't vote for him pending additional content. Considering how weak the Wallcrab vote actually is, the hesitation here looks really bad imo. It doesn't ask a question or attempt to develop a unique perspective, and just looks like fencesitting for the sake of looking like he's really considering all options when he's actually not pushing Objection or anyone else.

It's not specific, it was a general paraphrasing of his argument...

The Wallcrab vote was an RVS vote, and the chances of him actually getting lynched were pretty damn low. In contrast is Objection, who people were already beginning to lobby against, and I wanted to make sure that voting for him was the right choice.

Your fencesitting perspective is implausible. I've primarily pushed two people. The only time I've ever mentioned others is in off shoot comments. Prove me wrong.

Post 226 - Objection has now explained (reiterated?) that his stance on Elie was based on consideration of personal issues, and I don't think this gets a response from Refa in this post.

I didn't think it merited a response. It would be insulting to suggest that Objection wasn't really being considerate of his personal issues.

-" If lack of activity was solely what I was rallying against, I'd be almost as suspicious as you" This pings the heck out of me because of the weakness of Refa's position on Objection.

Now you're trying too hard. My point was that lack of quantity of posts is not an issue in and of itself. By relating that supposed issue to myself, I'm stating that voting on that alone is an absurdity, as why would my position ever be "I'm suspicious as fuck". How does this reflect badly on me?

-"2) Insinuating that I can't has multiple reasons to think you're scum is silly. Not to mention that you're misinterpreting my second reason (lack of activity." um what. What are these reasons? Lack of activity isn't a good one imo.

Lack of qualitative posts, his shaky stance on Elieson.

-"3) I'm not calling you out on lack of activity. Heck, you have as about as many posts as me. I'm stating that it's harder to do a scum read on you than say, elieson, but that shouldn't be a reason to put you in the clear." uh, what about the above quote?

You're repeatedly misinterpreting me (whether intentional or not), lack of activity in and of itself is not a reason to be suspicious, but it is certainly NOT a reason to put someone in the clear. You'll remember that I used the same reasoning against bearclaw, and even then, I had other reasons to vote him (whether you agree with them or not).

Then says Objection's response was a "knee-jerk reaction" (which was actually two sentences and a vote) and says his attempts to discredit him are bad (still two sentences and a vote, which are partially composed of an apparent misunderstanding and a legit criticism that Refa's position was only based on Objection's stance on Elie). Also, Refa's post here is so long that it feels like an overreaction / padding reasoning to vote now rather than before.

Firstly, I never considered the criticism on my position to be an attempt to discredit me. Of course I find the criticism itself to be flawed, but it was I was referring to the part below, where he said I was making a cheap excuse to jump on his wagon. And then later on where he said I changed my opinion a lot.

I then criticize some of Refa's stuff, and she responds. I don't feel I need to recap that stuff because I already had my hands on it. She continues to miss/ignore the basis of Gregor's suspicion of SB though.

Elucidate me, then. What is the basis of Gregor's suspicion of SB?

ughhhhh...i think this post could use like 50 more revisions but i've spent like almost 2 hours on this whyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy just posting whatever

[SB.]

devoted pretty much the whole post to defense with one line on actual reads and doesn't drop a vote, he's not really filling me with confidence atm

[SB.]

oh hello there great wall of refa

i will read you in the morning

[Zkirsche]

Lord and Int thinks I'm bad when it comes to quote bombing. CBA to trawl through all that atm but something jumped out at me:

How would that work? If Objection was indeed scum, he could just claim he roleblocked BBM, who has already claimed vanilla. Regardless, you'd think if he wasn't the roleblocker yesterday, then the person who was could claim it, thus throwing suspicion on Objection in a much easier and less roundabout manner. If noone else steps up, I'd find it rather hard to believe he was lying yesterday.

It's kinda fishy if he picks the only claimed vanilla. Also he could be scum and received the roleblocker role.

Don't know who you find suspicious either, please vote someone.

[Zkirsche]

Totally missed darros' post; still need more from him though.

[Refa]

It's kinda fishy if he picks the only claimed vanilla. Also he could be scum and received the roleblocker role.

Don't know who you find suspicious either, please vote someone.

I thought scum couldn't use town roles?

Also, blarghhh, voting someone. Despite wasting a herculean amount of effort on Day 1, I...don't really think that Objection is the mafias, and SB seems cleared too. My head hurts, I'll give more reasoning later.

##Vote: Gregor

[Refa]

also i really think we should claim past roles now, otherwise we'll just be wasting time throwing a bunch of suspicion onto people who may have had such a role, and are thus less suspicious

[Zkirsche]

No they can't, but the point is that they can have hooker and claim they used it on a vanilla. This way Objection! has a chance of saying he used it on a PR and get caught or something.

[Refa]

If you...say so...I'm still kind of confused, but I think I get the basic gist of it....probably.

[BBM]

It would be highly silly for scum!Objection to pick a random target instead of picking me or one of his buddies. Yeah, he could be caught in a lie, but tbh I don't think he will be. Objection also is not very active, and waiting around for him to come while letting people attack potential clears is a waste of time IMO.

[Strege]

Anyone wanna explain to me what's happened so I can be lazy and not read? That sounds like a good idea. Someone do that.

If you were a tracker or roleblocker last phase, tell us what you were and who you targeted (and what results you got if you were tracker). Otherwise get your read on, dawg.

Also Strege just pinned half the players left in this game on his scumdar. The hell?

Huh, I didn't really count them but I guess 6 is kind of a lot. I'll try to measure them relative to one another in a post or two. Also, I can't tell if you find this scummy and BBM hasn't said if he still finds it scummy. I suppose I'll try to explain myself: I think that the reason for this is that I've yet to participate in a clean town win, only winning off of a surrender and being bad enough to cause my scumbuddies to surrender in C9++. I also just broke a losing streak with a scum win, so I'm quite motivated to win as town now. It's also part of why I've been resorting to controversial (maybe just flat-out suboptimal) methods of reading people -- I've yet to see the standards methods really work. ANYWAY that jazz aside, if you find me scummy for it I'll try to find some words in my defense that aren't holistic and sorta-meta; just wanted to explain what I think is causing me to be weird this game because some people have pointed out my weirdness.

No they can't, but the point is that they can have hooker and claim they used it on a vanilla. This way Objection! has a chance of saying he used it on a PR and get caught or something.

@Refa: ^This was the idea. Basically scum!doc can claim they targeted any old person and unless the tracker targeted them they're fine. If scum!tracker claims results on someone at random (probably "They didn't visit anyone") they could be refuted by hooker or doc, and scum!hooker claiming a target could be refuted by roleblocker or doc. If I'm not mistaken it's statistically the better option to have someone other than the doc claim their target first.

Full responses to Refa, kirsche, and Gregor will come in the following posts of mine.

[Strege]

Actually I did forget that a scum!roleblocker or scum!tracker could say they targetted oen of their scumbuddies (and I forgot about it in my above post, even). Might as well claim then, since the benefits of not doing so are slim and I'm tired of waiting.

I docced Prims last night, because a claimed one-shot vig in an open setup seemed like the safe choice for my first time as doc. I didn't take Prims's claim at face value early D1 because, well, he's known for fakeclaiming early on D1 and being enthusiastic about vigs, but by the time night rolled around with no one being cagey about his claim I figured he was legit. I should probably ISO him at some point since I treated him as soon-to-be-confirmed town for most of D1.

Objection and the tracker should claim now, in any order, as soon as they see this.

[Refa]

I was vanilla town yesterday.

[BBM]

I decided that the "too many scumreads" thing wasn't that great. I'm not a fan of your posts about Objection near the end of last phase, but something about the tone of your posts this game reads more likely to be town to me. You sounded a lot more... serious? in C9++ and Drafters than you do here. Not exactly sure how to explain it. I don't agree with the Refa case though.

Additionally, my feeling is that the mafia chose to use Ninja last night, since the plan was for T/W to act last night. This required them to outpredict the Doc, and as Refa was, I think, the person most people in the thread thought was town, they chose to go for Prims, who also looked town IMO. So I think there's a pretty decent chance you blocked the NK.