The irony is killing me. 
…
Are you referring to Cecil Pond here? I actually was thinking of that when I made my first Oredigger vote.
You might recall that that the only reason that I picked up any votes after Day Two of Cecil Pond was that I “must” have been scum bussing Kelly.
Yes, I copy/pasted my post from the Night. I changed the numbers from 6-4 to 5-4 but forgot to change toMOrrow to toDay.
The point about Zeriel’s vote for Drain is a good one, but there are several possibilities.
- I’m wrong about Drain
- I’m wrong about Zeriel
- Zeriel and Drain were engaged in some Scum on Scum distractions.
Interesting.
If you go back and read my post from last Night and not just skim other people’s responses to it, you’ll see I was pointing out our worst case scenario being lynch or lose toDay. (granted my first post toDay I forgot to change it)
but even so, the rest of both posts goes on to discuss other scenarios.
So you think I’m displaying PIS by describing all of the possible situations?
Ha! I had to go back an re-read Cecil Pond to understand the reference! If anyone doesn’t know or have the time, Drain singled out Rysto as scum for bussing a fellow scum (Kelly), pushing him into a tie with a claimed vanilla townie. Drain’s argument was that there must have been at least one scum on the Kelly wagon as all the previous voters had flipped town. Rysto was scum. Nice.
@ Special Ed, the copy/paste answer makes sense.
@ Red Skeezix, we lost two players yesterDay due to lack of activity. This seriously hurt Town as we have no idea as to their alignment. You haven’t posted in exactly 7 days and (I guess) risk being mod-killed. I maintain my suspicions of you although your defense to my case yesterDay slightly reduced my certainty of your scumminess. We cannot afford to lose another player with no reveal information, especially one I think is scum. For now:
Vote Red Skeezix
Yeah…the reason I thought he “must” have been Scum in that game was because every other voter for Kelly was Town. The circumstances aren’t the same here, so far as we all know.
So. I’m going to try to do a thorough reread this evening; even if I can’t, I’ll do what I can and place a vote.
I think Drain has too much optimism to be Town. I feel she is also too Teflon. By that I mean, she has an answer to everything, that incidently covers everything that others find scummy.
So, she’s able to defend herself therefore she must be Scum?
Drain Bead (1): special ed 1225
Tom Scud (2): Drain Bead 1227, Mahaloth 1232
Red Skeezix (1): GuiriEnEspaña 1246
So, the case against me boils down to…I can find Scum, and I can defend myself.
I can see people saying someone is “too Townie.” If I were that, I wouldn’t have admitted in this thread to skimming Meeko and earlier, to being so unable to follow the game that I was suggesting asking for a sub.
I’m not perfect, but at least I’m not trying to make cases against people for doing well, you know?
Guy: I owe you a response to an earlier question. My case against Tom is still pretty much confined to the post in which I voted for him a few Days ago. He also seems to have been more quiet since almost being lynched. Coming in as a sub and trying to get my bearings the game, Tom’s voting record and pursuit of Texcat really stuck out to me. The perfect information I had caused his play to show up like a beacon, consistently functioning as an anti-town force.
I’m still willing to put my vote back on him, but am certainly up for further discussion.
To clarify, by “anti-town” force I mean literally acting against Town, not the softer interpretation of the phrase and its use as a hypothetical yardstick.
I can see the second part being Meeko’s case against you. I agree that it’s silly.
Are you implying that the first part “You can find Scum” is my case against you?
Did you skim my case against you? Or are you just trying to mischaracterize it and dismiss it with a handwave?
Granted my case isn’t as rock solid as I’d like it to be, but it can not be summarized as “She’s good at finding Scum.”
But let’s go with a few points which I’ve brought up.
- You complained that I didn’t make a case against you when I was commenting on the players who had gotten votes back in Day 2 (I think)
- Then there was your Day 1 case against Oredigger which I found weak.
2a. This didn’t really ping me at the time, but later it struck me as something a Scum might want to do, have a one-off vote on a teammate who wasn’t under pressure. I know it’s something I’d consider - Then there was your case against Oredigger later for his weak vote of Chronos.
3a. This case had some substance, but, in the end, you were voting for the same person that Oredigger was…and this never came up in your discussion.
3b. This was before Oredigger had gotten any votes on Day 3, so it would look good later if either of you got killed. - My Day 1 case against you still stands.
4a. You didn’t seem to be paying attention to the case against peeker, and yet you were complaining about it in a manner that would allow you come back and say “I told you so”
In the end, it just strikes me as oppportunistic voting, a Scum strategy I’ve seen used many times.
My play is frustrated by the fact that you guys rarely understand me. If that puts me in a different place to look at other players, so be it. If you want to say that you are that good of a player (After kinda saying you weren’t) say it. Being a good player when town is good. Being a good player when scum (for scum’s sake) is even better.
I’m not so sure that you can associate your habits (or lack thereof) in reading my posts to this game in particular.
I think you can, and do, skim me in all games.
Therefore your defense here is decidedly weak.
I do get the subbing / mod kill issue, I think it was a tad heavy handed to do, let alone the additional blow of not knowing alignment.
**
“Not trying to make cases against people for doing well” **
This doesn’t fly with me. Scum can do weller than town. If we can’t point to optimism and other assessments or assessment by-products of someone elses play, I think we would lose many opportunities to find PIS.
I think you kinda knew it was coming, but I think its more of a place holder for right now.
**Vote Drain **
Ed, hopefully since we (apparently) agree here, we can be constructive.
elaborate on “Opportunistic Voting”, does this come from, or does a version of Opportunistic Voting come from Scum PIS?
Opportunistic
seems to be THE word for scum play-style over the past few games that have been dominated by scum.
I’m not sure that we agree, but we have come to the same conclusion 
By Opportunistic, what I mean is that a Scum can take advantage of various opportunities to appear to be more Townie. In this example it means this:
-
Drain voted for Oredigger on Day 1 when there was no danger of either being lynched. Had either eventually been lynched, it might have looked like the other person was more Townie since they voted for/were voted by a Scum. (Think back to Consipracy 3 where I tried to do that with you on Day 1…despite how miserably that failed)
-
Drain took another opportunity to attack Oredigger’s vote while failing to point out that she was voting for the same person. In much the same way that we are both voting for Drain, but at least I’ve been clear in pointing out that I am voting for Drain while not agreeing with your points. Also, at that point, Oredigger had no votes and was in no danger of being lynched. Later in the Day, he gained 2 votes, but he wasn’t lynched until Day 4.
-
There are other ways to be opportunistic, jumping on and off bandwagons, voting for player who are lightning rods for votes, etc.
I suppose opportunistic voting can come from Scum PIS, since they’ll know everyone’s roles.
I also think a little Scum PIS came into play when Drain defended peeker on day 1 while not really even understanding the case against him. She would have known he was Town.
Snuggling is a valid Scum technique–it makes a Townie trust you a bit more, and then if you go down before they do, it makes them look bad by association. I don’t recall the exact circumstances of my complaints, but if you should have found something wrong in my behavior based on your issues with others and didn’t, that’s problematic in my book. So I pointed it out.
Find me a strong Day One case and we’ll talk. Until then, this seems like post hoc justification for your case against me.
And all I can do is point in the direction of both Screamers and Cecil Pond, in which I had similar early-game votes against Scum, and picked up massive heat for them…usually by Scum, who felt threatened. I’ve used the bussing technique exactly once in my tenure as Scum (in Colorless), and that’s because Freudian wholeheartedly deserved it. I’d have made the same vote against her as Town. On the other hand, as Town my Day One cases tend to be based on hunches and conjecture more than anything else.
My ASS I never brought it up. I refer you to my post 992, in which I called Digger out for his weak-ass vote. In that post, I say, and I quote, “Even if Chronos comes up Scum, which I think he is at this point, I still find this vote incredibly suspect.” I say “I think he is at this point” precisely because I am voting for him. To try to insinuate that I didn’t bring up the fact that I was voting for him, when anyone who reads my post for comprehension can see that I did bring it up even if I didn’t say the actual words, reads of deliberate misinterpretation to me.
And if I’d one-off voted him then, you’d be complaining that I made a one-off to make myself look good, just like you did above. This all happened relatively late in the Day.
Again, I point you in the direction of every game I’ve ever been in with peeker, in which I make the same complaint about the inevitable Day One case against him. I’ve done this as Town and Scum, so it’s essentially a null tell–I complain about the case against him because it’s usually personality-driven, which I generally don’t like.
One man’s opportunistic is another man’s “Scum voting for Town because they are good at finding Scum.”
What is it to the third man?