It does not have to "dominate" the progression, but it should either be answered or not asked at all until day 2 when the strategy actually applies. The way you suddenly act like it is classified information for seemingly no reason pinged me as someone under panic.In post 92, Keyser Söze wrote:Miss-repping what I said.
I don’t give a **** ifyou allwant speculate past page 1 about the setup or best way to play it.
But I won’t be. That’s pre-game talk and shouldn’t dominate early game progression.
No, this is what happens when I start writing a post noncommittally and then become more convinced as I am writing this.Bad reason, bad vote. I am in no way obstructing town to discuss “forbidden” topics. I don’t understand how you get to scum-keyser after that limp scum case. I hate the timing of this vote.
In post 91, 2 718281828459 wrote:Hmmm.
Keyser seems scum for now. Why is Keyser wanting to limitthe forbidden topicto page 1? (And why not wait until day 2, whenthe forbidden topicactually becomes a thing that can be done?)
Reundo's 46 is a little annoying but I can forgive that. 50 is much better because he looks at multiple different people even after only coming to a read on one of them.
I kind of am concerned about Keyser, so VOTE: Keyser.
I am not in that good of a mood, so do not expect any more reads from me at this time.
Just the way that Reundo looked at NSG and GNB. This early in the game, three reads can be a fair start, especially for someone who is inactive.In post 95, Keyser Söze wrote:Which observations from Reundo strengthened your good feel about him? (“Like”)In post 91, 2 718281828459 wrote:Reundo's 46 is a little annoying but I like how he looked at everyone.
I don’t have town points on him yet.
Something's not "irrelevant" just because you say it is. I didn't like you calling your posts "non-alignment indicative" as soon as someone alluded to them being scummy, and comparing your question to "a player asking if there is day chat", something that I didn't think was "non-alignment indicative" at all, only irked me more, so it felt important enough for me to address.In post 51, Keyser Söze wrote: - choosing to chip in with an irrelevant snippet over a non-issue (does it even matter? Is cesq town for saying this, is my reaction scummy/irrational?) what was the goal of your post...to say I am a liar?to say I am scum?
I brought it up again because there was something in your post that bothered me that wasn't really addressed. Why should I care that you personally thought it was a waste of time if it was something that you yourself posted that pinged me?In post 51, Keyser Söze wrote: - failure to see how I think arguing over non-alignment/irrelevant items are a waste of time... but still wanting to start it all back up again...
But the thing was it seemed like you were "driving discussion away" from discussion that put you in a bad light. Like, the first time you said "let's stop talking about this" was when you were in an argument with northsidegal, and then the next time was when I responded negatively to one of your posts. It could just be coincidence, but in these cases it would be pretty beneficial for you as scum to change the subject.In post 51, Keyser Söze wrote: - presuming "defensive"/""driving discussion away" is scum alignment indicative (my action was pro-town). Discussing whether I think I could gain town cred for post #13 is laughable and inane.
Yes, because I thought it was a dumb excuse to cover up your mistake. Why would you even suggest hypoclaiming if you didn't know we were guaranteed to have a power role that would benefit from hypoclaiming? Fine, maybe you did just forget we were in an open game, but then the way you tacked on "obviously" at the end didn't read like you were earnestly admitting your mistake, instead trying to boomerang it back to me to make it seem like it was my fault I didn't catch something so "obvious".In post 51, Keyser Söze wrote: - me forgetting that this is an open set-up RE: scum day chat is a talking issue...?
I was disagreeing with the notion that your questions aren't alignment-readable. I wasn't really set on voting you until your follow-up.In post 51, Keyser Söze wrote: - "I don't think it would be too unreasonable for someone to town-read you for trying to strike up conversation" is this you disagreeing with me or you saying I am scum, or both?
I can't answer these questions the way you phrased them, because I don't believe that you can't do any of the above as town, but I highly doubt your scum game consists of only things you can't possibly do as town. Yes, I believe town!you can view my entrance as "hideous" and "lazy", but I believe that scum!you can absolutely do this too, and in this case attacking someone who attacks you has obvious benefits as scum. Town!you can regret making post #13, but it would also make sense for scum!you to regret it too when players start hounding you for it. I don't know about the last point tbh. I admit, this would be a pretty unorthodox playstyle from you if you are scum, and I'm still trying to figure out whether or not this is outside your scum range, but basically there's not much you've posted that really shoots yourself in the foot if you are scum, and a lot of what bothers me also happens to benefit you from a scum perspective.In post 51, Keyser Söze wrote:Now tell me why town-me can't think your entrance can be hideous and lazy (you called me "weirdly defensive").
Tell me why town-me can't regret making post #13 in the first place, and that we should move on swiftly.
"sorry to disappoint but I don't really have any "charged feelings" about anything else".. tell me why that shouldn't frustrate/intrigue town-me.
(if you can explain to me scum motivation for all three points I'll be more convinced of your scum read of me. please make your reply more coherent than mine)
Why did you feel the need to "remind" us not to townread you for posting a mathematical proof? I find it a bit odd to automatically assume that people would give you free towncred just for that one early game contribution. I get your point about people making the mistake of townreading based on effort alone, but I really don't think it was necessary to explicitly say that you don't deserve towncred for sharing a mathematical proof.In post 22, GameNBurger wrote:Also nobody dare TR me for that I did a bunch of shitty math only to come to the conclusion that its business as usual as far as claiming goes
in my last game a bunch of people town read me simply for effort and It blew my fucking minds as to why
I put up with it because I was town and people were having a hard time reading me but I'd like to get it out there that effort is not a one to one correlation with scuminess
a lack of effort is a good indicator of scum but a presence of effort does not indicate town
Anyways let that be a lesson to never do gametheory math late at night because youre bound to make idioitic mistakes, theres still a not great part of the stupidly simple model i used that doesn't account for the fact that T contains M in it, I should have broken it into P=t+M for more generalized use to make the death equation a bit easier to see the relationships
Ok, you're not as close-minded as I first thoughtIn post 103, Reundo wrote:I don't believe that you can't do any of the above as town
But your list of scum tells are still terrible 
Yeah, we kind of already covered this? It's on one of the three pages between the post you quoted and the post you wrote. There's nothing else you'd like to comment on?In post 104, volxen wrote:Why did you feel the need to "remind" us not to townread you for posting a mathematical proof? I find it a bit odd to automatically assume that people would give you free towncred just for that one early game contribution. I get your point about people making the mistake of townreading based on effort alone, but I really don't think it was necessary to explicitly say that you don't deserve towncred for sharing a mathematical proof.In post 22, GameNBurger wrote:Also nobody dare TR me for that I did a bunch of shitty math only to come to the conclusion that its business as usual as far as claiming goes
in my last game a bunch of people town read me simply for effort and It blew my fucking minds as to why
I put up with it because I was town and people were having a hard time reading me but I'd like to get it out there that effort is not a one to one correlation with scuminess
a lack of effort is a good indicator of scum but a presence of effort does not indicate town
Anyways let that be a lesson to never do gametheory math late at night because youre bound to make idioitic mistakes, theres still a not great part of the stupidly simple model i used that doesn't account for the fact that T contains M in it, I should have broken it into P=t+M for more generalized use to make the death equation a bit easier to see the relationships
When you say you don't "buy into" it, do you mean you don't believe people who say it or you just think it's bad play from town?In post 108, GameNBurger wrote:And I don't buy into that shit of "act bad then attract scum who try and attacks you or buys into it" because town has every right reason to call you out on that as scum does so its just a big showy waste of everyone's time that will cast doubt on ones self to the rest of the town
In post 55, GameNBurger wrote:Keyser if you haven’t played wih sesq before from what I rmember sesq has a laizefair attitude and tone to their posts and keeps to themself or atleast that’s how I rmember his playstyle looking
Have you played with town-sesq displaying the same "laizefair attitude and tone"/"keeps to themselves" or was that just scum-sesq?In post 55, GameNBurger wrote:Although to be fair I played scum with them I think the last time I played with them
In your previous games with him, or this current game: do you think it would be rational to expect for a townie to be "stiff" in reaction to sesq's posts?In post 55, GameNBurger wrote:I think keyser is being a bit stiff on all the sesq stuff
Good observation. I agree that NSG has been scumhunting
I personally wouldn't jump to town lean/read yet. I wanted sesq to open up about their s/read of me, because right now I'm wondering if he actually realises his scum read/vote of me is not actually supported with anything tangible, and not possessing the town-humility to unvote (...states reasons why I'm town, but then posts "vote stays")
Didn't like him describing his own play/posting as "nuanced", as if he's super aware of it (that's probably just a pet-hate of mine though). He remains near null for me. Let's see if he can share more solid thoughts/reads.I must put my hand up and admit the development of his scum read does look town-iesh
But I I think you're the first person to understand my defensive disposition this game. Well done. Can I jump in your pocket?
If Dunnstral flips red I would actually wanna put Irrelephant under closer inspection (i.e ill-timed/ill-formed distancing attempt). Or vice versa. I've enjoyed talking to Irrelephant11 so he's on the green side of null so far.
Yup yup yup. Wouldn't mind some more pressure on Reundo. I don't know what and why Reundo is arguing. I realise I'm an easy player to provoke, but he's got to start looking at the whole playerlist, and be less fixated on this
I mean it's not worse than a regular game at 3 people aliveIn post 53, GameNBurger wrote:We have a watcher no matter what and a base 1/3 of finding scum is in fact worse than 1/2 bass chance of finding scumIn post 23, Dunnstral wrote:We end up at 4 people alive but 1 person is confirmed town (watcher) or there's a cc
So it's not worse
Unless you’re talking about something else I’m not reading because this doesn’t exactly communicate the idea clearly
This is bad preflip stuff and you have to jump to a lot of conclusions to get to this point - also it's not warranted at this timeKeyser Söze wrote: If Dunnstral flips red I would actually wanna put Irrelephant under closer inspection (i.e ill-timed/ill-formed distancing attempt). Or vice versa. I've enjoyed talking to Irrelephant11 so he's on the green side of null so far.
its because i changed my mind but i dont like providing reasons why i scumread people because i find the reactions more interestingIn post 115, Keyser Söze wrote:Good observation. I agree that NSG has been scumhuntingvery softlyso far (not even one vote yet?). But perhaps nothing has pinged her scumdar very strongly yet. Something to keep an eye on.
I personally wouldn't jump to town lean/read yet. I wanted sesq to open up about their s/read of me, because right now I'm wondering if he actually realises his scum read/vote of me is not actually supported with anything tangible, and not possessing the town-humility to unvote (...states reasons why I'm town, but then posts "vote stays")
I must put my hand up and admit the development of his scum read does look town-ieshcannotget past him saying "Why is Keyser wanting to limit the forbidden topic to page 1?" as if that was scum alignment indicative. I'm not convinced 2.718 is town yet. I'd like him to explain what he meant when he presented this narrative about me being scum-in-panic-mode...?
Yes, of course town can do all of the above, but my point was that I thought your posts would favor scum!you more than town!you. Like for the first point, it would be more productive from a town POV imo to explain your reasoning behind your post and let Sesq decide for themselves whether or not it was scum indicative instead of straight up telling them they "shouldn't see it as an attempt to look townie" and that it's "non-alignment indicative", and it seemed to me like you were being more defensive than the situation called for. Of course you could be defensive as town, but being defensive naturally has more benefits for scum who lose a lot more than town by being suspected -> voted -> lynched, and when it was combined with something I saw as anti-town (calling your own post "non-alignment indicative" read to me like you were trying to force a certain interpretation of your post instead of leaving it open to discussion) I was inclined to read it as a scum defense. I could probably do the same with a lot of the other points you listed, but I don't think it would be worth it. Honestly, my scum-read of you has been waning steadily, and I think a lot of your later posts do read as genuine scum-hunting (the slight backpeddling of your 2.17 read especially caught me off-guard), but you have to understand that not everyone's going to view you as town and that it's not entirely implausible for me to see your actions coming from scum. If you think I'm "arguing over fluff" then so be it, but all you've said to dispute that is saying that your actions can come from town, which wasn't my point at all and doesn't dispute the fact that your actions could come from scum as well, so if you are town then do a better job of proving me wrong.In post 105, Keyser Söze wrote: - town can call their own posts non-alignment indicative when accused of being scummy.
- both town and scum can ask if there is day chat.
- a town player can show concern if they think going down an avenue will be unproductive.
- a town player can be very concerned about being put in "bad light" for unjust causes.
- a town player can stubbornly push to try to change the subject if they think it won't help find scum.
- townies can make dumb mistakes and provide incorrect examples.
- town can "attack" the player attacking them.
I can accept a townie adopting a playstyle whereby they wait for reactions... however, please now share your conclusions of the reactions from your s/read of me.In post 118, Sesq wrote:its because i changed my mind but i dont like providing reasons why i scumread people because i find the reactions more interesting
your behavior is really bad but i dont know if its scum bad or town bad. leaning the former
weird choice of posts to share comments on:In post 117, Dunnstral wrote:I mean it's not worse than a regular game at 3 people aliveIn post 53, GameNBurger wrote:We have a watcher no matter what and a base 1/3 of finding scum is in fact worse than 1/2 bass chance of finding scumIn post 23, Dunnstral wrote:We end up at 4 people alive but 1 person is confirmed town (watcher) or there's a cc
So it's not worse
Unless you’re talking about something else I’m not reading because this doesn’t exactly communicate the idea clearly
----
Keyser I don't think I caught you in the game we played, not sure why you think I should be "taking lead" today either
This is bad preflip stuff and you have to jump to a lot of conclusions to get to this point - also it's not warranted at this timeKeyser Söze wrote: If Dunnstral flips red I would actually wanna put Irrelephant under closer inspection (i.e ill-timed/ill-formed distancing attempt). Or vice versa. I've enjoyed talking to Irrelephant11 so he's on the green side of null so far.
VOTE: Sesq
This is a good place to put a serious vote
I guess I kinda like his "don't townread me for mathing" thing; I agree with this- I think scum very much like to hide behind mechanics generally- and it makes sense that if something annoys him he wouldn't want it in the game, even if it's helpful to him personally.