Newbie 1859 (Game Over)

[Oxy]

@skitter30
However you get around to town reading me is fine. I don't have a preference.

I was trying to explain why his actions look townie to me, and they look townie to me because I'm town and I went through the same process.
She wanted to put pressure on someone who had not spoken yet, and wanted that pressure to be effective. Therefore she chose the inactive person most likely to see the vote and respond. She's clearly not trying to avoid conversations with people. Why would I doubt this thought process?

As for Ofrhz, the misunderstandings later are not related to the one I'm giving him town cred for. He did not bring the first one back up.

[ruru]

I'm still really confused why you found eth0s sketchy for not posting tbh given the short timeframe. I kinda feel like you're making a mountain out of a molehill. Like you're conflating 'not being on-site for two hours before the game started' with 'lurking', when they're totally different things.

I chose my random vote based on what I thought was most likely to generate useful information. I didn't find eth0s particularly sketchy.

I found defending eth0s

based on an argument that I consider anti-town in general

to be sketchy.

Yes, lurking can be sketchy, but to label eth0s as a potential lurker for not posting after two hours before the game started is just really flimsy reasoning imo, and you used that to push eth0s, and as a springboard to push ofrzh for enabling/encouraging/supporting the anti-town behavior of:

Because as an unqualified statement it both encourages poor town play and also helps lurking mafia avoid pressure.

And say lurking is actually a scumtell (like I said earlier, I kinda disagree with this premise). Why is ofrzh scummy for saying it isn't? Yes, I agree that lurking is anti-town. But why is it *scummy* that he thinks that lurking isn't a scumtell? Why isn't he just town who holds a different opinion on lurking than you?

Am I scummy for thinking that lurking isn't inherently AI?

At this point three people are saying that lurking is not scummy. Considering that it is three and not two, maybe I'm just wrong about what is good play. But to me the idea that lurking is completely neutral is strange. (And I realize PRs might have reason to lurk, but in 7/9 setups town PRs are 1:1 mafia and in 2/9 setups town PRs are 1:2 mafia, so lynching a random non-VT player should be a good thing.)

[skitter30]

@skitter30
However you get around to town reading me is fine. I don't have a preference.

I'm not townreading you right now. I'm not explicitly scumreading you either, but you're definitely not a townread.

The thing I quoted about the image was kinda LAMIST-y (Look At Me I'm So Town) - I felt you were trying to give people a reason to townread you in an artificial-y way. Like you were using the fact that you posted that image as a way to bolster your towniness, and it felt like you were *telling* me to townread you for something kinda NAI and unverifiable, instead of showing me that you're town through your ingame actions. Like you're introducing something kinda irrelevant as a reason to townread you, so it felt like you're looking for towncred and/or are eager for people to townread you. That isn't inherently scummy, but it does make me question your motives.

As for Ofrhz, the misunderstandings later are not related to the one I'm giving him town cred for. He did not bring the first one back up.

Do the later misunderstands affect that read?

At this point three people are saying that lurking is not scummy. Considering that it is three and not two, maybe I'm just wrong about what is good play. But to me the idea that lurking is completely neutral is strange.

Oh, I never said that lurking was good play or pro-town behavior. I just don't think it's *inherently* AI - townies can and do lurk too, for a variety of reasons: they don't find the game interesting, trying to avoid the nk, busy irl, in a timezone that makes it hard to post, etc, etc, etc. Lurking is anti-town, sure. That doesn't mean that it's scummy.

Even so, there are however scummy ways of lurking imo. For example, I would find lurking *just* as a wagon builds up on you to be sketchy. That would likely make me scumread you, especially if you hadn't been lurking before that. I don't think this game has gone on long enough for me to try to differentiate between different types of lurking.

Bad/anti-town behavior isn't quite the same thing as scummy behavior - the point of the game is to try to figure out which is which

so lynching a random non-VT player should be a good thing.)

I mean, I guess theoretically? But in practice at any given moment you don't know who all the non-VT players are (ie if you're town you don't know who scum is), so lynching at random within that group is kinda difficult given that you don't actually know who's in that group.

We don't really want to lynch PRs, which is why we always want to ask people to claim before we lynch. If someone claims PR, we have to decide if the claim is credible and if their behavior supports the claim or not.

[Oxy]

@skitter30
Their misunderstandings have not caused me to change my reads on them.

[Scioness Sajj]

It was a timeline, you just mixed up the order of events. Even right here you're mixing up my words if you think I said it wasn't a timeline.

Here's a hint: There wasn't an error in my timeline.

I never thought that your timeline was wrong, it just had to be if you really thought that what Ruru did and you wanted to do were the same thing. But they aren't.
mindset: make meaningful first post to create content by engaging particular player
Ruru: thinks lurking is bad -> looks for potential lurker -> makes a post
Oxy: makes an image to engage player in rvs manner -> checks activy -> chnages approach to active player

Additionally, I have expressed no expectation that if you were to understand them that you would agree with them.

They are town reads, not scum reads. I'm not pushing a lynch on them, so

I don't really care if you share them.

I understand the bold part as you suggesting that if I understood your town reads I would come to the same conclusions as you.

I don't understand what you mean about being held accountable? My words are indelible.

You have this generic gut read on me that you want to push that you can't really explain. If I were to be mislynched today and players were looking for scum on my wagon Day 2 there's nothing that they can pinpoint to you. Reasoning is important. First piece of evidence you have posted was 44 but you backed off immidiately.

Upon re read, that interaction did not go how I remembered it. Please excuse me for 44. That being the case, I'm going to come back to your slot tomorrow.

It's fine. By 'go back' you mean engage me again or reread what I have written and make a case again?

[Oxy]

@Scioness Sajj
This is splitting hairs. We both chose someone who hadn't posted but had been active in the last 24 hours rather than a week ago. I can see the distinction you are making, I just don't think it is substantial.
I plan on evaluating you from a fresh perspective tomorrow. So yes, I'll be re reading your posts and, if you're willing, engaging you in conversation.

[Scioness Sajj]

The devil is in the details. You've wrote 'exactly the mindset' and I have went from there. I agree that it's not substantial by itself, all the things around it can be, though.

[Oxy]

Fair enough. I guess I could have been more precise in my language.

[ofrhz]

I fail to see hypocrisy in my behavior. In 16 you say you don't have opinion on RVS, so I asked you why not vote. And then you have switched it around by saying I'm suspecting (?) you for something I did myself but that's not the case. I didn't ask you why you have moved past RVS, and I couldn't know that you did becuase you didn't cast a vote nor mentioned it.

In my first post, I was responding to something someone else had said. Soon after, in my second post, 17, I was more interested in following up with what ruru posted instead of placing a random vote. At this point, I didn't think anything ruru said was scummy, so I didn't vote for her. I guess I could have also followed up with a vote on a random person, but I didn't and don't really have a reason why. I didn't think too much about it.

I didn't realize you were asking me this question bc I said I didn't have an opinion on RVS. I thought you were only asking me bc I had posted but didn't throw out a random vote.

You also posted this, though, which reads like an absolute statement to me:

Oh what my last post didn’t take

I don’t think lurking is a scum tell and the game just opened so wanting to hear from people who’ve been “afk for a long time”? That’s just grasping at straws

Saying "I don't think lurking is a scum tell

when

the game just opened [...]" would be a bit of a different story to me.

You're harping on me for using the word "and" instead of "when?" I thought my meaning was obvious given the context of the rest of my post/sentence. I can kinda see where your confusion is coming from, but it still feels like too much of a stretch, and I still think you were building a strawman here.

[...]

Still, I don't really see it as an attempt by ruru to make herself look townie

, and I disagree with Oxy's townreading her for it. I figured it was a reaction test or something but that would have fallen apart by now, it seems. There's not much info to work with yet.

VOTE: WestenVOTE:
Post.

At first glance it look to me like forced lamist attepmpt.

*ding ding ding*

@eth0s - what made you change your mind about ruru's motivations between these two posts?

[ofrhz]

And then I looked at everyone's last time online, realized how long it had been since they had logged in, and decided to switch RVS votes to someone more likely to be active early.

Scum!Oxy would have likely used the original image, had he bothered to make an image at all

, since it would give him an excuse to passively wait for his RVS target to show up.

Why does spending time to make a picture make you more town? Isn't scum more likely to be more careful and spend more time on their posts?

[Oxy]

I think you could make an argument for both sides - Mafia is more careful and spends more time OR mafia is faking it, so they put in less effort overall.

I am not arguing that you should think I am town because I made an image, or typed that. Frankly, Sajj's comment about it was one of the two parts I liked about her critique of my reads.

[Oxy]

However, just like I told Skitter when he asked me about this, you're more than welcome to town read me for whatever reason your heart desires ;P

[ruru]

You're harping on me for using the word "and" instead of "when?" I thought my meaning was obvious given the context of the rest of my post/sentence. I can kinda see where your confusion is coming from, but it still feels like too much of a stretch, and I still think you were building a strawman here.

Based on this and other responses I don't find you particularly scummy, not enough to leave my vote overnight.

UNVOTE: ofrhz

[eth0s]

@eth0s - what made you change your mind about ruru's motivations between these two posts?

where did I change my stance?

[eth0s]

At this point three people are saying that lurking is not scummy. Considering that it is three and not two, maybe I'm just wrong about what is good play. But to me the idea that lurking is completely neutral is strange. (And I realize PRs might have reason to lurk, but in 7/9 setups town PRs are 1:1 mafia and in 2/9 setups town PRs are 1:2 mafia, so lynching a random non-VT player should be a good thing.)

umm. actually lynching a scum or VT would be the best bet. Why would you say that lynching a PR is better than lynching a VT?

[eth0s]

I know that high effort =/= town, but still, starting to get the feeling that there's a scum in the 2 that haven't posted just based on the behavior of most of the speaking players.

[eth0s]

Very early to say but I wouldn't mind a wagon on one of the lurkers at some point today tbqh

[eth0s]

Oh there's 3 that haven't posted. Even better

[Scioness Sajj]

Oh there's 3 that haven't posted. Even better

Why?

[Assemblerotws]

Vote Count 1.02

Not Voting [6]:

westen, callitwhatyouwant, eth0s, Drixx, Scioness Sajj, Oxy, ruru

ruru [1]:

ofrhz

Oxy [1]:

skitter30

Westen [1]:

eth0s

With

9

alive, it takes

5

to lynch.

Day ends in (expired on 2018-04-03 09:00:00) on

April 3, 2018

.

[Oxy]

Based on this and other responses I don't find you particularly scummy, not enough to leave my vote overnight.

UNVOTE: ofrhz

obvtown

[Oxy]

At this point three people are saying that lurking is not scummy. Considering that it is three and not two, maybe I'm just wrong about what is good play. But to me the idea that lurking is completely neutral is strange. (And I realize PRs might have reason to lurk, but in 7/9 setups town PRs are 1:1 mafia and in 2/9 setups town PRs are 1:2 mafia, so lynching a random non-VT player should be a good thing.)

umm. actually lynching a scum or VT would be the best bet. Why would you say that lynching a PR is better than lynching a VT?

@eth0s I don't think we should lynch a random lurker, but your response - misunderstanding or purposeful mischaracterization?

[Oxy]

Oh there's 3 that haven't posted. Even better

Why?

@Scioness Sajj - Serious question?

[Scioness Sajj]

@oxy - what makes you think it's not serious/a joke? (don't answer original question please)

[ofrhz]

@eth0s - what made you change your mind about ruru's motivations between these two posts?

where did I change my stance?

Post 33 you say that ruru was probably not trying to look town based on her actions from earlier and there was not enough info at this time. I take this to mean that you think her earlier actions were NAI.
Post 36 Sajj says her initial assessment of ruru’s actions seems like forced lamist which could be AI
Post 45 suggests you agree with Sajj’s assessment but someone can’t at once not be trying to look town and lamist, the two are contradictory