Reading Jack Slater's last post on Doug, I was like "what he's only pushing inactive people? and then jumping off of them when they become active? why that does indeed sound scummy, let me look into it!"
The thing about this kind of accusation is, without evidence it's impossible to know how accurate of a characterization it is, and how much it's an impression influenced by a pre-existing scum read or confirmation bias.
With that I now present some actual evidence from Doug's filter.
I'm inserting the conclusion at the beginning, as a tl;dr. Then, I go through Doug's filter looking for places where he changes his mind. Finally, I leave the conclusion where it was initially typed, and talk a little bit more about Jack's accusation.
First, Doug's scum reads jump around like a fucking mexican bean. Usually, reads jumping around is perceived as scummy because it lets scum be noncommittal and morph their positions later. However, in this setup scum can just morph their positions by taking someone's skin like a suit, so I'm not sure what these jumping reads do other than make it easier for scum to pretend to be him later.
Second, Doug sometimes provides reasoning for his reads changing and sometimes doesn't. I was hoping this part would be clearer one way or the other, but there's a lot of times when he just puts up one or two sentences about why his read changed, and those sentences could be genuine or they could be excuses.
Third, the reasoning for some of Doug's strongest scum reads is quite weak. For example, his read on Ben first came about because "he was treating Harry like he's town (scumslip?)", and went away because he agreed with Alex's post on Ben and because he thought Ben's first post was townie. His read on Jack Slater was because of one post he found scummy where Jack was inconsistent, and then the read sort of died down, and then came back because of another specific post he found inconsistent.
There are a few times where this doesn't hold, but by and large his scum reads don't happen because of overall impressions or trends, but rather because of single specific posts that he finds scummy or hypocritical. However, those specific posts he does call out seem to be important ones, so I'm not ready to say "he's looking for scummy behavior but not for scum". It's a possibility.
As of the point where I'm starting this post, I haven't made any conclusions, so you can learn with me as we go along! Won't this be fun?
I'll use spoilers for the sake of my own sanity when I proofread this.
+ Show Spoiler [Doug's first suspicion of someone] +On October 18 2012 02:46 Douglas Quaid wrote:Show nested quote +On October 18 2012 00:30 Alex Hesse wrote:
I like the idea that we just vote. Everybody knows by now that we need to be careful of scum hammering and then he doesn't have to take any responsibility because he'll just be gone the next day so just let people do what they want to. This is not a newbie game, I imagine that every townie in this game is smart enough to figure things out on his own.
With the no hard deadline thing we have around 72 hours though and there's no reason to end the day within the first 24. While we have 72 hours, it's worth talking about the instant-lynch mechanic in a previous game (GSL Mini II) in regards to the deadline length. The 72 hour day made people really complacent about contributing early (and leading to last-minute deadline scrambles), which should be avoided at all costs this game. We have time, but don't be afraid to contribute early and often. @ Ben RichardsThat thing by Alex Hesse you pointed out is really off. It's a "too scummy to be scum" read, and is questionable logic at best. The entire post is just strange - he seems to be half-accusing you of being scum and then overall disagreeing with the scumread on you. Show nested quote +On October 17 2012 23:44 Alex Hesse wrote:On October 17 2012 15:48 Alan Schaefer wrote:
Longer posts don't make the thread more readable. Clearly you've never played with gonzaw.
[...] ROFL I'm not going to lynch you, you're funny. I wanted to bash Ben Richards for all the things he wrote but I see that Harry Tasker has done this for me. The only thing I disagree with is the conclusion; I don't think that Ben Richards is scum right now because it makes no sense for scum to push scum agenda in their first post. It's simply barely ever worth it to stick your neck out like that and say obviously wrongs things like "Don't use posting style for analysis". I think it's a little scummy that he's just repeating me on his "Be careful of lynch-a-lurker policies because scum will just not lurk then", the consolidation thing could be said by either alignment but as Harry Tasker pointed out it's probably not going to be a problem. This is a 7 player game, not a 80 player beast, and it's going to be easy enough to read by everyone. Not doing 20 page one-liner tunneling fests and consolidating isn't the same thing at all. I also think it's townie for him to say that scum can easily fake things like posting style and activity patterns because I don't think that's true at all. People have sleeping patterns and they have work and school, most people have only around 2-4 hours where they are really active on mafia. I consider this a townie thing to say because generally townies think it's a lot easier to be scum than scum think it is. Consequently, I disagree with the scum read on Ben Richards. I don't agree that Harry Tasker wants to "roleplay" his character at all though. I want Alex Hesse to be me, because scum will have an easier time faking me faking Alex Hesse than they will have faking just good old me. Also, I have no clue who most of these guys are even though I get the theme of "Arnold Schwarzenegger characters". Read the red/bolded line then read his conclusion. It makes no sense for him to include that in his analysis. In addition, the whole post is just incredibly over-justified for this point in the game.
He's suspicious of Alex for giving "too scummy to be scum" logic and for over-justifying an early post.
+ Show Spoiler [oh I guess he was serious about that] +On October 18 2012 06:55 Douglas Quaid wrote:
Oh the joke thing was totallly confirmation bias on my part, though my other points still stand.
But yah, Alex be 'scummin up this thread with 'dat vote.
Not posting a full-out case but definitely putting on some pressure.
+ Show Spoiler [off alex, onto Jack Slater] +On October 19 2012 02:16 Douglas Quaid wrote:Couple of things Regarding the John Matrix lynch - I'm all for a policy lynch on someone who hasn't posted, but there's no point in voting/pressuring him now. We have a lot of time to lynch him (36 hours), and it's best if we not focus on what his rationale could be and simply pressure the players that actually post. Regarding Alex's Defense - Seems calm and reasoned, and he gets some townie points. Though, I would like a more thorough explanation of Ben Richards being his "biggest town read." Show nested quote +2: I am not agreeing with the scum read. I am acquitting him of the bad things while pointing out the good thing. He is probably my biggest town read right now. @Jack SlaterI found this post horrendously scummy: Show nested quote +On October 18 2012 23:45 Jack Slater wrote:
I am starting something new
I don't think that Alex is scum, he has vehemently argued against lynching an easy lynch candidate. I don't recall too many times that scum pushed that hard AWAY from lynching a lurker. I mean, even if John flipped scum after the NK, Alex would be the top of the lynch list d2.
Harry in all likelyhood is not scum either. He has provided way more paranoid reasoning than necessary to push this lynch.
This leaves Alan, Doug, John, and Ben as possible scum candidates for my initial reads right now.
Alan has still yet to talk about anything but the setup and how it affects play.
Doug has been scummy to me since the start of the game
John needs to fucking post.
Ben has basically only mentioned alex and setup, he could get my vote right now if I was voting.
##FOS Ben Makes no damn sense. I've been scummy to you since the beginning of the game, and your top suspect is Ben? Also, for someone who's suspicious of me, I haven't seen you push your suspicions at all. You interacted with me a little bit when I was explaining policy and the like, but that's it. You have never posted a single thing about why I'm suspicious after the initial burst of posting - yet you still have a scumread on me. I call bullshit.
He "likes Alex's defense." No real explanation why, but alright.
+ Show Spoiler [next, on ben] +On October 19 2012 04:09 Douglas Quaid wrote:Show nested quote +On October 19 2012 02:47 Ben Richards wrote:
I know that Harry's style is easy to emulate and logic would dictate that's one of the requisites for NKs. Add to the fact that I'm town, and I'm going to FLIP town, and the ideal place for a scum to hide would be among the loudest voices in my opposition #1. Why? Because it doesn't make any sense! Because why would scum do that? That's EXACTLY how I play scum, because most people are only interested in searching for the "optimal play"#1 1) How do you know mafia's going to do this? Sure they could, but it's far from set in stone. Also, there's this guy named Jack Slater who has a strong town read on you. What do you think of him? http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=374903¤tpage=7#1352) So you have an active scum meta... but a lurky town one? Show nested quote +It was a playful jab intended to make you consider the ramifications of continuing to tunnel me #3. I'm trying to find scum, whether you believe that or not. Obviously it's my job to MAKE you believe it, regardless of my alignment. Rest assured that I fully intend to do so - but it's hard to do that when there are people in the game who just think I'm scum regardless what I do or say. Call that an excuse, at this point I don't care. 3) Playful jab, sure, but you're still treating him like he's town. "Ramifications" only apply if he's town - he could be scum tunneling you no? Show nested quote +I'm keeping my vote on John because honestly, at this point it like HAS to be intentional. And there's no town motivation for joining a game and proceeding to intentionally not post #4. 4) Let's focus on people who are actually posting for now. Why should we waste precious time tunneling someone who isn't here? We have ~30 hours of time left in the day, and I'd much rather it be spent pressuring other people. I'm all for lynching John, but our time for now is better spent elsewhere.
Here he asks ben some questions, but doesn't make it into a full-on scumread. That's fine - asking people questions like that, or pointing out their inconsistencies and asking them to react, can be a good way to pressure.
+ Show Spoiler [now, a "reads" post] +On October 19 2012 08:39 Douglas Quaid wrote:
He might have a real reason, but I haven't seen it. His initial defense seemed fairly calm/logical, but I still have some major questions about his lack of rationale for just about anything else.
His strong town read on Ben is the thing that gets to me the most - Ben's recent posting has been off (treating Harry like he's town), and I haven't seen any rationale for the read at all.
Also, to clarify exactly where I stand, my scumreads are (in no particular order):
Ben - for treating Harry like he's town (scumslip?)
Alex - for lack of rationale of all his reads
John Matrix - For not posting. If John continues to not post into tomorrow, he has to be lynched. There's simply no excuse for not posting in a game that you PM'd the host to enter.
Some interesting stuff here - Ben and Alex are his scumreads, rather than Jack Slater - no real reasoning for dropping that; ben transitions from minor pressure to one of his main scumreads; and he brings back Alex as a scum read. The latter of those two is fine - I had been making a (pretty fiiiine) case on Alex in the thread at the time. His reason for moving Ben to a full-on scum read is "for treating Harry like he's town (scumslip?)"
+ Show Spoiler [oh okay now he talks about Jack again] +On October 19 2012 09:15 Douglas Quaid wrote:
On why I'm not pursuing Jack - I have outstanding questions on several players right now, it's impossible for me to keep track of all of them. But thanks for reminding me, and I would like a response from Jack.
Secondly, I am very non-committal in regards to the Ben lynch, and I believe rightfully so. I'm surprised you aren't as well (if you're town). We have a player who hasn't posted yet, and there is a risk that he's scum. We can't ignore this, or mafia gets a huge D1 win and we have nothing to hold them accountable for.
I have scumreads yes, but nothing set in stone. I find Ben scummy, but I think there are possible ways for him to explain his actions if he's town. Alex and Jack as well. I want to wait for responses rather than jumping the gun on inconclusive evidence.
Forgetting to mention the person who was his main scum read sounds odd, but it is in line with how his filter actually looks. He is pushing several people at once.
+ Show Spoiler [ben and the top two?] +On October 19 2012 09:15 Douglas Quaid wrote:
On why I'm not pursuing Jack - I have outstanding questions on several players right now, it's impossible for me to keep track of all of them. But thanks for reminding me, and I would like a response from Jack.
Secondly, I am very non-committal in regards to the Ben lynch, and I believe rightfully so. I'm surprised you aren't as well (if you're town). We have a player who hasn't posted yet, and there is a risk that he's scum. We can't ignore this, or mafia gets a huge D1 win and we have nothing to hold them accountable for.
I have scumreads yes, but nothing set in stone. I find Ben scummy, but I think there are possible ways for him to explain his actions if he's town. Alex and Jack as well. I want to wait for responses rather than jumping the gun on inconclusive evidence. On October 19 2012 08:47 Douglas Quaid wrote:
Oh geezus I'm starting to confuse names. Gimme one sec to sort things out.
I do want to vote Ben, however, I also want to give him a chance to explain himself, as well as give a chance for John Matrix to post. I don't want to rush things when we have 24 hours to go. On October 19 2012 09:30 Douglas Quaid wrote:
I want to hear from Jack before I make a determination on him. (I'm also curious if you found my point on him to have any merit)
For now, top two lynch candidates are Ben and John.
But for emphasis - I really want to wait to see if John posts before we lynch anyone. There's absolutely no reason to rush things, and it benefits town the more discussion we can generate on D1.
"top two lynch candidates are ben and john" - doug has posted a bunch about ben but not with too much more info or reasoning, but keeps bringing him up.
+ Show Spoiler [next up, ben's off the menu] +On October 20 2012 01:55 Douglas Quaid wrote:A couple of things: I'm against lynching Ben Richards for nowI took a look at Alex's read on Ben and largely agree with it. Ben just isn't thinking as if he was mafia. His NK comment seems absurd for mafia to post, and suggesting Harry's posting style is easy to emulate strikes me as very town. It's not what mafia would think. Combined with his first post (which I still read as "try-hard"), I think he's town. My top two reads are Jack and JohnJohn for not posting (duh). Jack for what was a very unsatisfying response to my initial query: Show nested quote +On October 19 2012 11:45 Jack Slater wrote:
@Alex, why are you all of a sudden apathetic about the lynch, changing your mind about John after vehemently arguing against the idea of lynching him. Why do you have a town read on Ben Richards.
@Ben, can you please elaborate on your Alex scumread and any other reads you have?
@Alan and DQ would you both be willing to vote Ben?
Also, DQ, I think my initial read on you was hastey and it clouded my judgment. Upon re-reading I have moved you back to the neutral zone Firstly, I don't like how he's "testing the waters" in regard to voting Ben. Why should it matter if we're willing to vote Ben? If he's suspicious of him, he should be throwing down his vote. Secondly, he didn't even respond to the question I asked him and completely dodged it. http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=374903¤tpage=7#135He was suspicious of me in that post, yet he FOS'd Ben instead. What his read is now has no bearing - I'm interested in the logic of that post, and he still hasn't responded to it.
So there's two interesting things here: he's persuaded on Ben by Alex's post, because "ben isn't thinking as if he were mafia and his nk comment is weird from mafia," and he also feels townie about Ben's first post. What I don't like about this is, if Doug felt townie about Ben's first post, then why did he just casually consider Ben the main non-john-matrix lynch candidate for so long without mentioning that he had reservations?
Then there's the revival of the Jack scumread. I'm not saying I find Jack's filter incredibly townie, as I said in my last post he's one of the people I'm pretty suspicious of. However, I didn't agree with this characterization.
+ Show Spoiler [torn between two scumreads] +On October 20 2012 03:13 Douglas Quaid wrote:Show nested quote +On October 20 2012 02:47 Alex Hesse wrote:
It seems totally arbitrary to go for Jack Slater over Alan Schaefer. Alan Schaefer is "testing the waters" a lot more than Jack Slater is doing in that quote. Jack Slater ignoring you isn't a scum tell at all. Both of your lynches seem like semi-policy lynches and still you don't have the guts to actually do anything. Two people voting John Matrix, he's your scum read (don't know how he can be a read when he hasn't said anything though), around 4 hours until deadline, but you're still not voting. What's it take?
Yea I changed my opinion on Douglas Quaid because of this post. Him and Alan Schaefer are my scum reads for today. Gotta say I'm not too hot on this no-deadline-no-activity-requirements thing. Firstly, there's no goddamn deadline. Secondly, you can say whatever the hell you want about "guts" but I'm torn between two scumreads and I'm not sure which one I want to lynch over the other. Lastly, for emphasis: Show nested quote +Two people voting John Matrix, he's your scum read (don't know how he can be a read when he hasn't said anything though), around 4 hours until deadline, but you're still not voting. What's it take? DAFUQ son? You were voting for John at the time of this post. GTFO with that hypocritical shit, and I'll have to take another look at you as well.
I guess at this point he means he's torn between john matrix and jack slater. Okay, then.
... blah blah blah, still on Jack, starts to talk about me
+ Show Spoiler [switches to me] +On October 20 2012 04:07 Douglas Quaid wrote:
Ok, reading through Alan's filter again, there's not much of substance in it. Even his case on Alex, while directed at his accuser, isn't much. He isn't confrontational with Alex at all, and he's not generating any meaningful content.
##Vote Alan Schaefer
Interesting - one of his points is that my case on Alex isn't very much, despite the fact that it persuaded him to make Alex one of his top scum reads for a while.
+ Show Spoiler [off me] +On October 20 2012 05:11 Douglas Quaid wrote:
Having read Alan's recent burst of posting, I'm not comfortable lynching him. He's thinking the exact same way as I am about the John Matrix thing, especially his hesitancy between John and his top scumread (Alex). That's my mentality to a T, and I'd be insane to lynch him for that.
That being said, I think we have no choice but to lynch John Matrix today.
There are two situations:
1) John Matrix is scum. If we lynch him, yay! If we don't, mafia gets a free NK an we're at lylo.
2) John Matrix is afk town. If we lynch him, shit. If we don't lynch him, we'll be horrendously distracted by him tomorrow, and chances are he won't be back to post.
I also think it's fairly reasonable that John flips scum here. This is an unusual setup and you had to PM Palmar to /in the game. I find it unlikely that a townie showed enough interest in the game to PM Palmar and promptly peace out. I also think a townie would have called for a replacement if he/she was afk for 3 days.
##Vote John Matrix
Then it's off me and focused on John Matrix.
+ Show Spoiler [Now the conclusions again, in their pr…] +
First, Doug's scum reads jump around like a fucking mexican bean. Usually, reads jumping around is perceived as scummy because it lets scum be noncommittal and morph their positions later. However, in this setup scum can just morph their positions by taking someone's skin like a suit, so I'm not sure what these jumping reads do other than make it easier for scum to pretend to be him later.
Second, Doug sometimes provides reasoning for his reads changing and sometimes doesn't. I was hoping this part would be clearer one way or the other, but there's a lot of times when he just puts up one or two sentences about why his read changed, and those sentences could be genuine or they could be excuses.
Third, the reasoning for some of Doug's strongest scum reads is quite weak. For example, his read on Ben first came about because "he was treating Harry like he's town (scumslip?)", and went away because he agreed with Alex's post on Ben and because he thought Ben's first post was townie. His read on Jack Slater was because of one post he found scummy where Jack was inconsistent, and then the read sort of died down, and then came back because of another specific post he found inconsistent.
There are a few times where this doesn't hold, but by and large his scum reads don't happen because of overall impressions or trends, but rather because of single specific posts that he finds scummy or hypocritical. However, those specific posts he does call out seem to be important ones, so I'm not ready to say "he's looking for scummy behavior but not for scum". It's a possibility.
So I was hoping this analysis would either corroborate or deny Jack Slater's accusation, but it doesn't. I have spent way more time on this already than I can afford right now, but to be completely comprehensive someone would need to go through the posts from Doug's filter where he changes his mind and look at them each in the thread context, to see if there's been a corresponding change in activity in one of the people he has a scum read on. That would be the next step, but I can't promise I'll do it tonight because of work.
|
EPT
