Scum mafia: On Cecil pond [Game Over]

[special_ed]

@peekercpa

and ed maybe this is where we get caught on semantics. to me lying and mischaracterization are for all intents and purposes the same thing. except… maybe mischaracterization could be worse. you don’t get caught in an outright lie but you come across as insightful and helpful. well, i know you lied once and mischaracterized a couple of times. that is not very town motivated. so if lynching non town motivations is a reason for a vote you should be voting for yourself by definition.

And that’s a lovely misdirection.

Your accusation of lying is wrong. You changed your story from it being a random vote to a Scum trap. I didn’t lie about that. You can continue to call it a lie, but that would be a…mischaracterization.

And you yourself seem to have defined my mischaracterization as accurately describing your gameplay. I think mischaracterization is when someone is inaccurate. To say that I’ve described how you always play and label it a mischaracterization is bewildering.

[quote=“peekercpa, post:518, topic:526202”]

and just another couple of quick observations.

@peekercpa

so you admit that it could be a “lame scum trap”. well, fuck dude lame or not at least i am hunting scum.

Yes, I admit that it could be a ‘lame scum trap’

One of the reasons I voted for you is that the "scum trap’ reason that you gave didn’t come up until more than 100 posts after you started to defend yourself.

And are you now trying to say that you were actually making a lame scum trap? Because my making that point was precisely where you called me a liar!

@peekercpa

the rest of your post seems to be, hell i don’t know how to say but yeh, you are kind of quoting what i said but certainly not with the intent. so i singled out z for a crap ass vote. you make it sound like an indictment when it can also be taken from a town responding to a total bullshit connection. sersiously, a banana is a fruit. an orange is a fruit and is citrus oriented. that does not mean a banana is citrus. so to call someone, including you out, on faulty reasoning is bad? seriously, that is about as anti town a stance that i have seen. so, once again, by your logic, we should all vote for you?

Huh?

I make it ‘sound like an indictment’?

I believe it was a main point in my case against you. I suppose that fits the definition of an indictment.

So, you are equating my case against you with your case against Zeriel?

and you’re trying to now imply that making cases is a Scum tell?
Seriously, I’ve tried to be very clear in my case against you. I’ve laid out the points. I’ve pointed out your inconsistencies.

And you compare my case to your case against Zeriel, which amounts to an OMGUS phrased as, ‘Fuck it, You’re either incompetent Town or Scum.’

[special_ed]

@peekercpa

also, total metagame.

ed loves to get in my grill. s’okay.

but he also only does it when he’s kind of sure of picking off low hanging fruit.

I think you’re still a little bit upset about NSFW on Giraffe where I did get in your grill. Oh, wait, you were Scum, weren’t you. And I was Town. And I pushed for your lynch, didn’t I?

Because I don’t recall another game where I made a case against you and stuck with it despite you arguing against me. (Though, I’m certain it may have happened, I do like to get into people’s grills.) I will admit that I do quite often develop a suspicion and then poke at it until I’m satisfied one way or another.

[Chronos]

Since we haven’t had a count in a while,
Vote total:
Spawn 18
peekercpa 7
Scuba_Ben 4
Freudian Slit 2
Zeriel 1
fluiddruid 1
DiggitCamara 1
storyteller0910 1

1: special_ed – peeker (353), Spawn (353)
2: ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies – Spawn (193)
3: Drain Bead – Spawn (191), fluiddruid (316)
4: Oredigger77 – Spawn (194), Scuba_Ben (482)
5: storyteller0910
6: Meeko – Spawn (182), [del]fluiddruid[/del] (334-386), [del]peeker[/del] (386-507), Scuba_Ben (507)
7: Mahaloth – Spawn (209), peeker (209)
8: Freudian Slit – Spawn (183-314, 441), peeker (282), [del]sachertorte[/del] (314-441)
9: USCDiver – Spawn (246), peeker (509)
10: Alka Seltzer – [del]Spawn[/del] (249-470), DiggitCamara (419), storyteller (470)
11: peekercpa – Spawn (186), [del]story[/del] (186-229), Zeriel (229)
12: Natlaw – Scuba_Ben (460)
13: Zeriel – Spawn (204-277, 345), peeker (204), [del]sachertorte[/del] (277-345)
14: DiggitCamara – Spawn (285), Freudian (326)
15: amrussell – Spawn (247), Scuba_Ben (428)
16: KellyCriterion – Spawn (374)
17: Scuba_Ben – Spawn (225)
18: sachertorte – Spawn (202), Freudian (489)
19: fluiddruid – Spawn (296), peeker (296)
20: TexCat – Spawn (198), peeker (488)
21: Rysto

[Meeko]

@special_ed

Welcome back, Meeko

:smack:

Do I want to ask ?

[ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies]

@Natlaw

To be honest Cookies, rereading now that you brought it up I think Scuba was just confused by your run-on-sentence:

Also your ‘dismissive of all other things’ is really a sneaky summary of the reasons you quote. They don’t like sachertorte dismissing a dual player lynch specifically and not suggesting sachertorte is dismissing all kinds of things except his own way like you seem to imply.

The actual quotes:

[Will Turner]In the category of things not suggested…[/Will Turner] was the very case that all three of those posts seemed to be so worried about. No one had suggested that two living Spawn is so egregiously problematic that it mandates daily split voting. No one had promoted a spawn lynch every Day without question. No one had proposed to dismiss the lysing of two players entirely such that the proposition would need to be declined.

The player who was at that point most associated with the topic of lysing spawn was sachertorte. It was not much of a leap to infer him or his strategy as the bogeyman implied in their statements, which is what I did. Is it a clear-cut case of scummy behavior on the part of story, ed, and scuba? No, but it is a data point to consider about each of them when considering other evidence, imho.

[ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies]

NETA: No one had suggested that lysing two living Spawn is so egregiously problematic, etc.

[ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies]

Also, I already stated that Scuba expressed confusion about my run-onstatement shortly after I made it, at which point I clarified the intent of my post. If he was still confused or concerned about it he has yet to say anything further.

And, most importantly, none of that has anything to do with Scuba feeling inclined to go back to that exchange and yet ignore the other players who have voiced explicit suspicion of him, voted for him, etc.

[Stanislaus]

@Freudian_Slit

They often do go away, you’re right about that. Do you think that that’s a “scum tell” as it were or just a townie trying to get by?

I feel like in the past when I’ve been scum, I’ve been pretty defensive about it on quite a few occasions which snowballed. Are scum more likely to be defensive because they know a vote on them could be a bad thing? I can’t help thinking that a townie, esp a vanilla townie, would be a bit more, “Whatever” if they only get a vote or two because they figure it’s bad but it’s not the end of the world. Whereas if a scum dies there’s all the info we can see from voting patterns and whatnot.

It raises my hackles a little, because I think town should be as open and informative as possible, and not try to cut conversation short, whereas it’s usually in scum’s interests not be the focus of attention. On the other hand, I can totallly understand why, if someone knew they were town, they would rather get on with the job than spend time on what, to them, is clearly a waste of our collective effort. It’s a very tempting line of thought, even discounting a natural survival instinct.

So, I can see both town and scum motivation for this behaviour. The same is true for pretty much everything Scuba’s caught suspicion on. And while any one of them would be at best food for further thought, collectively there’s enough to push for an explanation.

On preview - Cookies’ is right that Scuba is not even simply “getting by” - he’s explicitly said that he’ll come back and deal with an issue. Just not the issue(s) that have won him votes. Is this an attempt at distraction? Engaging with a minor issue in the hope we forget the others? But if so, why telegraph it rather than just do it?

[KellyCriterion]

I don’t feel there’s much of a case to be made on anyone yet. The alleged Alka “slip” looks fairly tenuous to me. The case against peeker looks equally flat, but I have no idea what to make of (his?) emotional reaction to the heat he was drawing. If peeker turns up town… then dude, relax. “It’s just a game”.

I don’t feel it’s fair that I’ve kind of sat on the sidelines watching all this heat getting thrown around, the worst that’s come my way so far is someone asking whether I am still following the thread.

I can understand that this game obviously relies on proper player participation, and those who go with the “play it safe and avoid confrontation” game style are either townies wanting the end-game glory, or scum hoping to passively coast through. But I think passive play probably favours the scum more… so in the spirit of Mafia Day 1 recklessness and with openly declared provocation-based intent, I cast a vote at Scuba_Ben purely to close the gap on the vote leaderboard, just so I can watch him sweat:

vote Scuba_Ben

[Rysto]

@Mahaloth

Storyteller, Rysto, and Natlaw, forgive me if you explicitly stated it earlier(I think I rememeber it…maybe), but do you have any reason for not voting to kill our only Spawn on Summer One?

I just haven’t bothered because I haven’t voted yet. As the deadline is tomorrow I will place a vote by the end of today

[Freudian_Slit]

@amrussell

It raises my hackles a little, because I think town should be as open and informative as possible, and not try to cut conversation short, whereas it’s usually in scum’s interests not be the focus of attention. On the other hand, I can totallly understand why, if someone knew they were town, they would rather get on with the job than spend time on what, to them, is clearly a waste of our collective effort. It’s a very tempting line of thought, even discounting a natural survival instinct.

With that in mind do you think it’s anti town to not vote at all? We only have two people who haven’t: storyteller and Rysto. Rysto seems to have been a lot quieter than usual this time, too…

[Mahaloth]

@KellyCriterion

… so in the spirit of Mafia Day 1 recklessness and with openly declared provocation-based intent, I cast a vote at Scuba_Ben purely to close the gap on the vote leaderboard, just so I can watch him sweat:

vote Scuba_Ben

snipped

I actualy agree with the majority of your post, but do you have a reason to suspect ScubaBen, or are you actually voting only to close the gap and watch him sweat? Do you agree with the suspicions of those who have voted him already?

Basically, if you think the cases on others are weak, what is stronger about the case on ScubaBen in your opinion?

[fluiddruid]

@peekercpa

he smells like scum real bad since he would then know that i am town. i think he wants me to claim something that i am not. in the absence of that he will be more than happy to take a town niller down on Day 1.

I don’t buy this at all, peeker. This seems like an OMGUS reaction to me. Think rationally; you were already under suspicion previously and Special Ed provided a detailed and (from my reading) accurate recap of your posts. His accusations towards you were at least well-founded and persuasive. You’ve in turn accused him multiple times with practically no rationale. Yes, he’s poking you for response, as you freely admit you are yourself doing with others. This makes him scum? He’s pursuing a substantive case against another player on Day 1, which is about the best you can expect out of any townie.

If you have something on him, you need to defend it, especially since you’re saying to kill him if you turn up town. Even if you turn town, I just don’t see your case, and I’d really like to know if there’s any meat to your claim.

To me, sticking his neck out this far to get an already-suspected-by-multiple-players townie killed on Day 1 doesn’t strike me to be a more likely possibility than simply that he is persuaded that you’re not being consistent and thus are a good vote target. If anything, the opposite it true. I’d certainly agree (and obviously have, by my vote) with such a conclusion myself.

[Freudian_Slit]

We only have a day left so I went back to look at some of peeker’s posts. Overall, to me, it’s not so much the stupid vote for story but the fact that he completely loses it and can’t seem to defend himself or do much else besides scream, “I’M TOWN, you’ll be sorry, vote special ed when I die.”

@peekercpa

pond. when i flip plankton, remeber what i have posted.

i already, said that i was going to vote for story or sach depening on who posted first. now, i have to assume that anyone who has played this game knows that this is a placeholder vote. and to be honest with rl stuff coming up i kind of have to die quickly. so stirring the pot is the best i could do for town. hopefully i have given the rest of the town/pond some stuff to look at. the only thing i would continue to caution is that this could truly be town on town stupidity. don’t think so in its entirety but some of the folks not engaged are most definitely not town.

Repeatedly telling us, “When I flip town,” or “When I’m plankton” isn’t convincing, dude. Your placeholder vote thing is hella lame to me, but whatever, it’s not nearly as bad as your defensiveness. Can’t you just admit it was a lame play?

@peekercpa

btw. ed is lying. when i flip town please lynch him.

This is an insipid play. You can’t just assume that if someone doesn’t like the way you play, they’re scum. You can try to prove they have no case but you haven’t done that–because you don’t seem able to. Even if you ARE town, special ed or anyone who has voted for you could be a townie thinking you’re just playing weirdly or badly. Or they could be scum jumping on a bandwagon but there’s just no way to know.

@peekercpa

<snipped>

well since you are making shit up will you take your vote off. i said i would vote the way i voted. that’s it. for goodeness sakes.

seriously, if you town folks are going to let other folks make shit up to justify their reasoning this will be a short game. and z your scum is showing. you just can’t make shit up and hope that other people don’t call you on that lame nonsense.

and yaknow tell me where the logic breaks down, my friend. i know i am town and i know that there are strong players. i would like to kind of fucking figure out whether they are on my team or not. that’s a fucking bad play?

shit, you play a different game than me.

This is coming off really vague–I’m not seeing any proof or evidence–just stuff like, “Z, you’re making shit up.” And “i know i am town”? Well, yeah, we all “know we’re town.” I’m just not convinced. You’re defensive but don’t tell us you’re town, SHOW us. Do some post analysis. Throw out some math. Something. This doesn’t convince me.

@peekercpa

see tha’s the way scum like to play this game. mix in a little fact with a whole bunch of spin and voila you’ve got a case. hey, do i play optimally all the time. nah. and to be honest getting rid of me doesn’t really hurt town too much. and to some extent the fact that you are at least reading gives you a little bit of credence for spinning the way you do. but remember, i have also played scum with you in the past and you can be just as much as a conniving little shit as others who will remain nameless. but i think if you are town that spinning stuff to reach an already reached conclusion is mas dangerous. you come off looking kind of reasoned, almost pro town, all the while stabbing us in the back.

I read that quote, and it didn’t look like there was any “spin”–I’ll go back and check, but it’s just odd to me.

@peekercpa

also, total metagame.

ed loves to get in my grill. s’okay.

but he also only does it when he’s kind of sure of picking off low hanging fruit.

he smells like scum real bad since he would then know that i am town. i think he wants me to claim something that i am not. in the absence of that he will be more than happy to take a town niller down on Day 1.

and chronos no disrespect but i am just accustommed to the Day/Town/Scum convention that i don’t even think about the whole Summer/Pond/Scum thing until after i have posted.

because i really like the set up.

and ed you and everyone else can argue and point out whatever you want. it won’t change the fact that i am just a common plankton. all i can do is try to help the folks left in seeing how wrong you are.

He does repeat the whole, “I’m totally vanilla” over and over again. It makes me think–wouldn’t a scum just totally avoid the issue? Then again, it does ring of “Protest too much.” But it also rings of just plain peeker–either way, to me he’s coming off scummiest so far.

[Stanislaus]

@Freudian_Slit

With that in mind do you think it’s anti town to not vote at all? We only have two people who haven’t: storyteller and Rysto. Rysto seems to have been a lot quieter than usual this time, too…

Finishing a Day/Summer without a vote is always anti-town, because it’s avoiding accountability. Not having a vote at this point in the Summer isn’t a problem (IMHO) - some people like to vote early, others like to lay out their suspicions and participate in the debate but only vote once they’ve seen the whole Day’s play.* A mix of both is probably a good thing - no early votes and we lose an element of pressure, too many and we risk a pile up pf role-claims.

*Obviously waiting until the very last minute is a bad idea too - people need a fair crack at defending themselves.

[Mahaloth]

@Freudian_Slit

With that in mind do you think it’s anti town to not vote at all? We only have two people who haven’t: storyteller and Rysto. Rysto seems to have been a lot quieter than usual this time, too…

It’s absolutely anti-town to not vote. “Vote early, vote often” is a advisable for early Days, especially. Last minute “first votes” are not very useful, especially if one has not commented on their thought processes leading into that vote.

Has anyone been lurking, by the way? I haven’t really noticed it, yet, if anyone has, but it is hard to tell with 21 players.

[Freudian_Slit]

I haven’t noticed a huge amount of posts from Rysto and TexCat–they have posted, just not all that much. Not sure if that qualifies as “lurking.” Rysto hasn’t voted yet but TexCat has.

[Mahaloth]

Looks like amrussell and I think the same about the voting thingy.

[sachertorte]

How can it be that I’m so far down on the post number list? It’s an abomination I tell you. I need an argument with someone stat!

Freudian Slit 52
peekercpa 50
Meeko 50
special ed 44
ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies 33
Zeriel 32
sachertorte 28
Alka Seltzer 26
storyteller0910 25
Mahaloth 24
Scuba_Ben 19
Natlaw 18
Drain Bead 12
Oredigger77 11
USCDiver 10
amrussell 9
Rysto 9
fluiddruid 8
DiggitCamara 7
KellyCriterion 5
TexCat 4

I think the single digit people need to step it up a bit.

DiggitCamara, What is your opinion of peekercpa?

KellyCriterion, do you feel it wise to press on Scuba_Ben and push him into danger so that he must claim? Do you want Scuba_Ben to claim?

TexCat, what are your feelings about the cases presented regarding peekercpa and Scuba_Ben?

Alka Seltzer, why do you feel privileged to vote for two separate players while everyone else is voting for one (or none)? How do you justify nearly everyone else voting along the strategy you advocate (spawn) yet you do not? What makes you so special? If you could only vote for one player, who would it be?

[special_ed]

@KellyCriterion

I don’t feel there’s much of a case to be made on anyone yet. The alleged Alka “slip” looks fairly tenuous to me. The case against peeker looks equally flat, but I have no idea what to make of (his?) emotional reaction to the heat he was drawing. If peeker turns up town… then dude, relax. “It’s just a game”.

I don’t feel it’s fair that I’ve kind of sat on the sidelines watching all this heat getting thrown around, the worst that’s come my way so far is someone asking whether I am still following the thread.

I can understand that this game obviously relies on proper player participation, and those who go with the “play it safe and avoid confrontation” game style are either townies wanting the end-game glory, or scum hoping to passively coast through. But I think passive play probably favours the scum more… so in the spirit of Mafia Day 1 recklessness and with openly declared provocation-based intent, I cast a vote at Scuba_Ben purely to close the gap on the vote leaderboard, just so I can watch him sweat:

vote Scuba_Ben

So, basically, you have no reason to vote.

You just want to cast a vote to apply pressure to someone, but have no accountability?

And the vote moves someone closer to a potential lynching, yet you make no case against him