Mafia CXXXVII: A Shot in the Dark Game Thread Town Victory!

[Micro98]

@Crunkus: I've looked through Backswimmer's posts and I haven't seen anything that I find to be stronger evidence of having a conclusion then looking for a way to reach it then I saw with Izzmutt. However, I do agree with you about the implausibility of his explanation after the fact of why he didn't question Shirt.

Izzmutt:

You could call him a neutral/scum read. These statements do not conflict. I'm not convinced he's mafia or town, but to rank him I would put him closer to the scum end of the spectrum. Given nine/ten players who are participating, ranking him third seems accurate.

You could call him that, but you haven't. You called him "not convinced mafia" and "don't think he is town" those each have different interpretations to how others read them. I'm curious what you are wanting to let others know about how you feel about BS, because right now you seem to be trying to stay in a very happy middle place and I'm not sure why... although I am starting to get some inklings that you are hopeful his lynch doesn't happen..... but then again you are okay with it since Crunkus's case is so thorough?

This really seems to me like he's found somewhere to make a case before he's found the evidence. What particularly gets me is the line "you seem to be trying to stay in a very happy middle place and I'm not sure why..." where he's essentially trying to make a scum tell about someone not being able to produce more than a vague read on someone else on day 1.

Those are the contributions that you feel BS has made that made you feel alright about his participation.... why do you feel like that was enough to qualify for "some good things" (I am assuming the fact that one of the things you posted being a hypocrite smiley was a joke.... but why did you need to add a joke in this case?)

This here gives me exactly the same feeling, he's attacking for the sake of attacking - the question about needing to add a joke seems stupid to me and I honestly don't see how it comes up naturally. From a town mindset you don't even consider that - someone's made a joke, so what? However, from the point of view of a scum I can see it as someone who has found their target and is now attempting to create evidence to build a case around I understand this, it's someone questioning and questioning looking for something to slip that they can grab a hold of in my view. I am not arguing that he has asked this after consciously thinking that he can find something to get a lynch off of from this particular line of questioning, rather I would imply that when you are in the mindset of a scum this is the kind of thing that I can see being asked as a result of continuing to press for something and not fully understanding what your line of questioning is but only that you need to press for an opening.

Is Keirador laying low in your mind right now? You just said demonstrative was an understatement for him. If mafia/aspirant want to lay back and let the inactivity play out in town chaos wouldn't they just say nothing.... Keirador didn't do what you think mafia would do... yet you are saying he is being scummy....

This here is an example of unrelated rhetoric in an attempt to force through a point, he's essentially asserting that if sf1 admits that Keirador is laying low then it clearly follows that she has made a contradiction in her logic. Granted, I haven't checked to see the validity of this contradiction - that's where I'm off to next - but this is not, in my view, an organic thought process on display here, anything that sounds like it can make sf1 sound scummy is getting thrown together here without the logic that I would expect from a townie making this case.

[Crunkus_old]

@Crunkus: I've looked through Backswimmer's posts and I haven't seen anything that I find to be stronger evidence of having a conclusion then looking for a way to reach it then I saw with Izzmutt. However, I do agree with you about the implausibility of his explanation after the fact of why he didn't question Shirt.

Micro, to be fair, I've said a great deal on the subject. You can see merit in the argument and observations or not. This gives me little more understanding of your position than if you just said, "I don't see it." and voted elsewhere.

I cannot understand how you are prioritizing, because you haven't even acknowledged the topics being brought up with regard to Blackswimmer. I don't know that you even know what they are.

You're doing a fine job ariticulating issues with Izzmund. But I can't appreciate how you are prioritizing without you dealing with the concerns surrounding Blackswimmer. "I looked through his posts and I'm not as concerned as I am with Izzmund..."

OK, you say you read through his posts, and now you want to talk about Izz.

I'm looking at loads of basic outright lying and insincere revisionism. I'm looking at someone who has offered no real reason why he isn't even considering the possibility I might be scum. I'm looking at a limp apology which simultaneously misrepresents the case against him. I'm looking at insincere engagement.

It's a multi-faceted issue with Blackswimmer.

I have no doubt there are issues with other people. But this is fairly well developed. If I'm looking at it wrong, I'd love for someone to explain why...or present issues even more urgent and explain why they are more urgent in a way that recognizes both sets of issues.

[Crunkus_old]

Dwitz, you've now said it is based on your gut, and it's based upon these four reasons.

These four reason are essentially three reasons.

1. Shirt voted for Keirador in his first post for no good reason.
2. Shirt voted for sf2 for no good reason.
3. Shirt says you are his next pick for no good reason.

You still don't understand any substantive difference between this and what others are doing in the game, and you don't think you really need any help.

Based upon your continued view that you don't need any help, I'm not inclined to give it to you.

You didn't restate your case, you went back and quoted it and acted like I'm being ridiculous. Stop humoring me. I have zero desire to push you through this if you have no desire to go through it.

Continue to play your game.

I'm tired of trying to influence closed minded people and be called an asshole for my time.

[Crunkus_old]

For the record, all of your reasons occurred inside of shirt's first 3 posts or so.

So I have no idea what you report you've been doing for the rest of the game.

[shirt]

With regards to his continued push for the (partial) massclaim: he should (and i assume, does) know better and flat out ignores the 'plan breaking flaw' that has already been revealed to him(he even acknowledges the response in question). Genuine push for bad move, or just plain timesink. I don't know but not a single town-mindset-compatible reason comes to mind.

It's not that difficult shirt. Town have different ideas about what strategies are better for the town. Saying you don't understand a single town-mindset for such a plan simply asserts you've never seen a town come up with a horrible idea for a strategy on town one. I happen to know for a fact that isn't true.

It is not the fact he proposes a massclaim (even with SF having already proposed it AND responses to it being in thread)
It is about directly acknowledging there are responses to his plan and pushing his plan without even addressing the plan-breaking-issues mentioned in the very responses he acknowledged

With regards to his flat out lie about my view of my playstyle. Yeah no.

What is your understanding of the meaning of flat-out lie? Seriously.

Stating something as an objective fact (me considering my own playstyle something i would only do as 'aware caught scum') while being fully aware of this not being true (the very source where he got this from 'FotW-aar' stating the exact opposite and he admitted this)

There might be an excuse for, his decision to twist me being quite explicit about a totally different move in the same game into this crap, only to imply 'it must be somewhere else' when being called out on it.
But choosing to delete a response to it, which was already mostly finished, simply for being pissed off at the tone(of which he was fully aware before he started writing, as the entire thing was mostly about that very tone). Yeah not buying that one.
There is no way that scenario is 'at least equally plausible' to 'while writing the response, he realized there was no way out of this lie and decided to go full AtE instead'

I have no idea after this post why you find these things more compelling than the BS lynch. At best it means you aren't even considering it and have tunnel vision. Your posts do not reflect a weighing of the respective merits of either case. That isn't town-optimal. That's not a good way to go about deciding on a lynch. It is less risky play from a scum. I'd like to hear you acknowledge the entire environment of the game a bit more.

I only find keir making the conscience decision to delete his response and claiming an unexpected emotional response is sufficient reason to do this (while remaining calm enough to 'justify' this unexpected emotional response and this 'unexpected' thing being the very topic he was talking about)
comparable to the BS case.

Anything specific you want acknowledgments on?
the 'having nothing on sjg and the replacements, with only the replacements having an excuse for this'?
the 'increase in shadow's play now that she has started answering questions, the clearly reactive bases of her reads and as far as i'm concerned her lynch being off the table (at least as long as the answers keep coming)'

dwilts:
- ' i'll vote in an hour'-posts: active lurking (at best)
- i must say i'm quite interested in why you are disappointed in shadow no longer being a lynch-candidate. (apart from the detail: over 44 hours remaining -> not true)

If you honestly want to convince me to vote for one of your reads over BS, you're going to need to convince me that my reason for voting BS is comparatively not as strong.

If you are concerned with anyone's vote but your own...you'll work on that.

Hmm, it seems dwilts is not the only one overestimating what i was saying here.
The dwilts part, minor (especially the active-lurking-remark)

dwilts:
- ' i'll vote in an hour'-posts: active lurking (at best)
- i must say i'm quite interested in why you are disappointed in shadow no longer being a lynch-candidate. (apart from the detail: over 44 hours remaining -> not true)

Never said I was disappointed did I so before you start taking what I say out of face value which is the fact that you & shadow are no longer real lynch candidates read what I say for exactly what I say with no emotion put into it... because i personally feel its stupid to involve any kind of emotion in any game cuz its just a game nothing more...

You didn't?

I am looking through both cases of the lynch candidates right now to make a vote on either keir or BS as they are obviously the candidates and shirts and shadows kinda dropped off (which disappoints me)

And since you guys determine me now actively lurking

Uhm... i'm calling 'i'll post in 'x' '-posts active lurking: because THEY ARE. Posts with no content what so ever other than 'reminding us you are active' is active lurking.
Do you remember the biggest user of that kind of posts in fable? (****cough**** chosen ******chough****** power-scum*****cough*****)
Is BS's i'm not 'disappearing under pressure, just going to bed' a potential exception to this, sure because 'disappearing under pressure' IS a reasonable criticism to level at him at the moment, but 'i'm not doing anything useful now and i'll make a small post in about 3 posts from now'. empty filler. stop it.

Hey hey hey shadow heres a little insite... IVE ALREADY EXPLAINED MY REASONING FOR VOTING SHIRT LIKE 20 PAGES AGO... so before you speak make sure youve got some insite behind what you are saying like you just tried preaching...

Because as you say it doesnt help you any...

Hey hey dwilts:

Also, if you could explain your process to the town, you might gain support. Cause' right now your shirt vote is pretty useless, even more useless if you have no justification for it but a gut feeling.
~sf1

She is completely correct.
The 'i've already explained'-detail (even if true/we take 'a p16 reaction to a p5 case which is to be completely ignored for no other reason than the existence of a p2-vote' as a reason for a vote past p40) Doesn't change the fact. A vote which you aren't actively pushing, for which you are doing absolutely nothing to get others to agree with you, is completely useless.

Either find something new (preferably non-crap) or PUSH this case.

All im saying here is I think the cases you and shirt built are irrelevent and nonsense and in no way should be tooken as genuine...

What are the cases being pushed?
What makes them completely irrelevant and nonsense?
What of the above is indicative of scum-driven?
(and now reread, what are the cases being pushed?)
bonus question: alternatives? if these cases are 'irrelevant', can you find one that isn't? (anything at all, that might make any contribution to moving this game in any direction?)

Current views?

Actually what i was going for is "why did you answer 'what ARE your reads?' with 'what your reads WERE'?"
That said, responding to this question with an update of reads, great.

I'm not liking Izzmund. His most recent line of questioning on me .....

I'm getting a feeling (ok always had it), the reads others have on you have a massive impact on your read on them.
(try to keep this in mind and yes your keir-vote deviating from this is part why i like it)

[Micro98]

@Crunkus: I've looked through Backswimmer's posts and I haven't seen anything that I find to be stronger evidence of having a conclusion then looking for a way to reach it then I saw with Izzmutt. However, I do agree with you about the implausibility of his explanation after the fact of why he didn't question Shirt.

Micro, to be fair, I've said a great deal on the subject. You can see merit in the argument and observations or not. This gives me little more understanding of your position than if you just said, "I don't see it." and voted elsewhere.

I cannot understand how you are prioritizing, because you haven't even acknowledged the topics being brought up with regard to Blackswimmer. I don't know that you even know what they are.

You're doing a fine job ariticulating issues with Izzmund. But I can't appreciate how you are prioritizing without you dealing with the concerns surrounding Blackswimmer. "I looked through his posts and I'm not as concerned as I am with Izzmund..."

OK, you say you read through his posts, and now you want to talk about Izz.

I'm looking at loads of basic outright lying and insincere revisionism. I'm looking at someone who has offered no real reason why he isn't even considering the possibility I might be scum. I'm looking at a limp apology which simultaneously misrepresents the case against him. I'm looking at insincere engagement.

It's a multi-faceted issue with Blackswimmer.

I have no doubt there are issues with other people. But this is fairly well developed. If I'm looking at it wrong, I'd love for someone to explain why...or present issues even more urgent and explain why they are more urgent in a way that recognizes both sets of issues.

What I meant there was that in that specific case of having the conclusion and then getting the evidence afterwards I could not find anything more compelling than what I found from Izzmund - I probably should have specified that I skimmed his posts and it was not a detailed read through of all of the issues because I felt that you were saying the the specific issues that I had with Izzmund were equally if not more prevalent in Backswimmer's play. I'm not sure if I have the time now to make a full appraisal of the case on Backswimmer as it's 2AM here and I should probably get some sleep sooner or later but if I can't get something substantial out tonight I'll get it tomorrow.

[Keirador]

I'm extending the deadline again, due to popular demand, this time until Monday, February 23, at 11:00 AM PST. This will be the last extension. It should also be the last one needed to get the game back up to full numbers.

I apologize for the confusion,

Condude

Great, I'm back in. As it happens I wasn't actually gone longer than it would have taken me to sleep and go about with my day anyway.

[Keirador]

@Ugluk You appear to have missed my point. You claimed that mafia push and tenaciously pursue weak cases. I haven't pushed any cases, except that we shouldn't even be playing right now with a partly empty roster. SJG, who you also have a scumread on, also has not pushed any cases. shirt has pushed and tenaciously pursued a weak case. So you're not making your scumreads based on your own claim. Are you walking back the claim?

As far as whether I personally believe it, I think pushing and tenaciously pursuing a weak case is only alignment-indicative if it's unusual for the player. As you noted, I just finished a game in which, as town, I pushed and tenaciously pursued a case that turned out to be wrong.

As I have already said, in this game, other games, and general discussions, these are tools. Lenses. Whatever metaphor you prefer. It's not black and white. There are no magic bullets. I am not walking back anything.

OK so what you are saying is that the mafia framework you pointed out to me has, in fact, nothing at all to do with your vote on me. Is that right?

[Micro98]

Ok, what is this whole paragraph supposed to accomplish? All I'm getting from this is that the Aspirant needs to figure out who the other scum are (no duh), and that you think there's unlikely to be another killing role (true, but not relevant to anything at this juncture). Again, what's the aim of all this?

This specifically rubs me the wrong way. He is asking what the point of the paragraph is the pre-emptively dismissing the answer completely unreasonably in my view. Sf1 says that the aspirant has to hunt for scum as well and he's effectively said "what's the point of saying that except to point out that the aspirant needs to hunt for scum as well" - how is sf1 supposed to answer this? I think I didn't really appreciate this on my first read through as this is very similar to the problems that I have with the behaviour of Izzmund.

Unsure what the heck Shadow is calling for, really. It's a soft-push against scumhunting, which I hate. I want more clarification on exactly what she thinks is our optimum course of action.

Once again, I don't like this - he's misinterpreting what Sf1 has said and is setting up an overly forceful response which is designed to look like it's saying really town oriented things - and possibly as a consequence to make it seem like sf1 isn't - when in fact he's adding nothing. The part here that really bothers me is that I don't understand the natural thought process that brings him to the conclusion that there is a genuine danger of people de-incentivising scum hunting. Furthermore the end sentence about clarifying the best course of action appears to me to be a weak attempt at trapping sf1 in a situation where she says "of course we should be scum hunting" and he's already prepared to attack with questions about why she wasn't suggesting that before thus creating an artificial contradiction. I would like to hear from Blackswimmer what answer he was expecting to hear or would have put at ease his suspicions at this point because to me it appears that this question is designed to create something for him to pursue rather than as a genuine line of inquiry.

I think we've played 1 or 2 games together. Nothing stands out in my mind about her, TBH.

I pick this out not because it is particularly scum indicative on its own but because I feel it fits the narrative of Blackswimmer as scum - he's got a target and is attempting to manufacture the evidence for him to make a case as here he's reacting as if he hasn't formed an impression of fs1 so that his impression of her won't damage his case against her whereas town Blackswimmer would be happy to volunteer his impressions of her and compare them to her play this game. I say this because from the impression I have of how sf1 acts in general from what people have said in this game it seems to me that context tells would not support the case against her at this point.

I don't see how you can categorise that as active lurking. Neither do I believe that your meaning was clear from your original post - both Shirt and I appear to have broadly the same interpretation to begin with. And, I would point out, you didn't demand an end to scumhunting - you made a vague statement about how it may possibly be not the best idea. If you wanted to implement that idea that would probably be the best way to go about it.

Having trouble reading that as sincere - who in their right mind thinks that anyone is going to manage to get a universally enforced ban on scum hunting and that there is any way to go about it? This I see as grasping at straws taken to an extreme.

Do you have any ideas on the practical applications of what you posted, then?

This reads scummy to me because if you read sf1's posts and then you attempt to construct a question specifically designed to be hard to respond to based upon them then this would be one that would come to mind - sf1 was talking about ruling something out - specifically non aspirant night kills. It comes off very awkward to respond to this as "I played the foundations for discussion surrounding the use of a potential vig role should we believe we are in possession of one"

BS, shirt, what led you to genuinely believe that shadow was saying we shouldn't scumhunt?

The fact that she said " scumhunting is not necessarily a town thing to do."

Now it's not even subtle - the difference between stating that essentially other roles have been incentivised to look for the scum and we shouldn't scum hunt because it might help other roles is a big leap in logic.

Going to get some sleep now but after reading through this I'm seriously considering changing my vote to Blackswimmer but I'll wait till I'm fully conscious again before making that decision.

[Crunkus_old]

Keirador, you pop on for 2 posts, and that's what you post? WTF