I think that if a player does so while the game is in full swing, and everyone is contributing, it's indeed very likely to be scummy. However, ~36 hours after the start of the game, it felt completely stalled. No activity at all for 10 hours, and then a complete fluff post. Given those circumstances, I felt - and feel - justified in dragging the game away from RVS in any way necessary. I believe it has been successful. Yes, I'm in the strange position of not yet being universally town-read by the middle of D1, but we also have a lot of useful secondary interactions to look at and draw conclusions from, e.g. trent and blotunga probably aren't a team (modulo WIFOM). Worth it on balance for the game, even if slightly uncomfortable for me.

On the broader topic, though, I like how you've responded here and explained your reasoning. Slight town-lean for you. (Still defying the odds, eh?)

As I just explained to Phaolo, trent's read and the reactions to that was just the clearest example to provide to Phaolo of something happening on D1 that he could react to.
As far as I'm aware, you haven't asked me to directly. Obliquely you posted:
which I even responded to:
But, since you asked, what I think of trent's statement is still percolating through my mind.
In sequence it's gone something like, "interesting that trent would townread me. He also did so in #67 (putting me in his "town core") to then promptly NK me", but after mulling that over for a bit, I still felt good about it, and thus about trent. Then blotunga's post pulled me out of that with the buddying angle (which I'm now doubting; trent is not really someone to deliberately buddy, afaik). I liked the way he pointed out what could be a genuine scum-tell for me. (but - see realisation I just had in response to dedo's questioning - overlooked that that doesn't actually make since wrt his town-read in this current game!)
I think he's saying things that make sense and reflect my own thinking in #149 and #176. I *know* it's not alignment indicative for him to say these things, but it still made me want to not send him to lunch.

I'm very interested at this point in how he's going to square his explanation for the difference between town- and scum-me, with his town-read of me based on my actual actions.

See above.

Concrete knowledge. I was tragic lovers with Joe, who was nominally on the mafia team (with the team having a power structure to try and make certain Joe wasn't in charge of NKs), so could inform me about team composition (and then ZFR shortcircuited that by just giving me read access to mafia-chat, which was seen as tilting the balance too far in our favour).

You've semi-retracted several things after our back-and-forth discussions. Could you sum up what's left at this point which makes you believe me to be a worthy lunch target?
I'm particularly interested in this willingness, given earlier statements like:
What changed?

We also played together in #67 - Mamlakat al Shams, where yes, I was nightkilled early on, but we had quite some interactions on D1, and in #59 - Previously on Mafia..., where we both played together for the entire game until Pooka and dedo trounced us.

You didn't respond to the other question I asked you:
Could you please still do so?

Things have developed a bit since then. I still feel something weird about his statement, and with the dynamic I just meant that, not much else.

Anyway seems like things are moving finally, Nmillar does have a point, in RVS it's mostly random, so it's like 3-1 chance of hitting scum because most post are meaningless in the grand scheme of things. Town is clueless and scum is pretending to be.

Hm, I feel like made a post where I asked you already among other things. I either forgot to post it or just dreamt it up.
It confuses me a bit.

It obviously works. :-)

What are your thoughts on other things?
You are very reactionary and defensive so far and that's not your usual self.

So what did you say?
It reads to me like you warned dedo to not judge gogtrial based on how often he was(n't) scum while he hasn't done anything like that up to that point. So I don't know what spurred your remark and the warning seems quite off.


It is nice of you to provide this explantion yourself instead of letting trent do it.

But speaking of it, I spent a lot of time yesterday reading #55 while I should be reading this one and that's exactly the word that came to mind and how I felt about it. In hindsight most of your questions seemed very leading and not only in regards with scene but with all of us, when you were trying to get us lynch the "correct" person.

I think that's a fair characterization, particularly for the late game where I needed trent to be "correctly" lynched before he could come to the conclusion that he should NK me (and I think probably also for Ixam's lynch).

Interesting. I think it was a valid observation, that in a game with certain rules concerning what counts as a vote those it is reasonable to assume those rules actually apply. But the main part I didn't like about Micro's post was the attempted FoS. But he defended that with a valid argument. With a vote active that you stand by FoS is less scummy. That's true.

Now I wonder: why does that feel like shading to you? I didn't say or even imply that anything was scummy about your question. I just asked why you felt the need to ask that question. ... You said you had a reason to do so. Fair enough. But now you see my question as shading, which makes me wonder: are you a bit oversensitive? ... Yes, NOW there is the implication that you might be scum. Otherwise, why react so negatively to a question?

It's also interesting that you rate Joe as scummy. I, for once, don't have a scum read on him yet and usually he looks quite scummy to me. This time, not so much. Not towny either, but I wouldn't put him as one of the scummiest players.

So you didn't read again? Here's what I wrote:
(Emphasis added) So I clearly stated, that I am aware that dedo made no such implication. Quite the opposite of what you accuse me of. I just asked a the question why he wanted to know gogtrial's faction history. Because for me that is a question whose answer has no relevance whatsoever for this game.

But it is interesting that you feel the need to defend dedo. Usually he is quite capable of doing that himself. Are you buddying up to him? Or are you actual buddies?

Yet, while you said to him you don't think that's what he doing, you first felt to the need to warn him about doing that.
Why if you didn't think it was where he was heading with it?
You haven't included the "That's not how chance works." in your quote and that reads like you are arguing with him yet it is not what you thought?

The reality is you and Joe were really a separate Mafia team, even if y'all were labeled Neutral Lovers. Joe was a traitor on our Mafia Team and both of y'all played it extremely well.

That I get and mostly agree with. The remark about the accidental hidden vote felt forced to me and I didn't like it.

You know perfectly well that in this game it's not always necessary to point out something as scummy. In some cases it's just enough to mention something and it brew in other people's head hoping that someone else would make a bigger thing out of it and doing the dirty work for you.

Not now. It was my first reaction and I'm sure you can sense my dislike of your questions in my very first response. I only didn't vote for you back then but since you specifically asked me about voting I did.

Sure. Also, heh.

Because your questions weren't called for. I didn't give any indication about the stuff you brought up. You've played with me for I don't know how many years now. I may not be the greatest player alive but I'm pretty sure you know well I'm also not the newest nor the dumbest one either. There was no need nor a foundation to assume I was going to base anything on fallacies and odds. That line of questioning was redundant and served no Town-beneficial purpose, in my opinion, hence the negative reaction.

Eh, I expressed some opinions right before at post 169

Eh, in this game that reasoning could be bull**t too.
You basically caused a slight suspicion for no reason.
Anyway, you're probably in the clear about it either way, according to what Lifthrasil explained

I kinda agree. And D1 shouldn't last this long IMO.

A didn't assume that you based anything on fallacies. That was exactly my point. You wouldn't ask such a question for fallacious reasons, but I didn't see any other reason. So I asked. You say that you had a reason, but you didn't say which.

I think we are talking past each other (can you say that in English?). 'Aneinander vorbei reden' in German.

Yeah, I stopped at the page 3 so post on next page got kind of ignored.

Did trial's response change anything in your view of him?

Yeah, so he was basically third party. If I understand it right, he never was proper mafia in that case so I am even more interested to know what you based your comparison on.

The following is a full quote of your post, broken down in lines by me for clarity:

If you weren't assuming I was asking gogtrial about the times he was mafia previously in order to correlate that with the odds of him being scum this time what was the purpose of lines 1 through 3? If that wasn't the reason you thought I was asking for you could have simply asked the question on line 5 (although that would have been somewhat impolite as it didn't really concern you at that moment but never mind that). Yet you made an effort two write 3 sentences that absolutely feel like you were lecturing me preemptively about the traps of basing an argument on statistical fallacies. Line 4's purpose to me is to serve as an excuse for bringing up 1-3 without a proper reason to do so.

As I said earlier we've played together for quite a while now. We mostly know what each other is capable of and more often than not we have very similar thought process and perspective on various things. Was there a need to write all this if the point was to make it clear that there is no way I'm doing it?

This looks bad to me and your apparent inability to see how it can (and does) look on the other side doesn't make it better.