Excalibur [Endgame]

[Auro]

What? * really confused*

A few people are scumreading me, and DVa is hard scumreading me for my having engaged her and pushed her on that meta FoS.

If you read that, processed it and kept me at null, it means that that didn't convince you enough to think I'm actually scummy for doing it.

It doesn't matter now since you said you're processing it right now, which I appreciate. We good?

Pedit: You did imply I was hard scumreading because of "seriousness", when I stated it was a weak FoS, so how is not you putting words in my mouth?

[Auro]

although I thought being too “serious” in a games seems like a really bad reason to

hard scumread someone.

[Nancy Drew 39]

Not having ever played with scum!DVa, I can’t put too much stock on a meta case based on “seriousness” or the lack thereof. I did say that UT had been pinging me but now I’m feeling better about him. I didn’t like Arianne’s post misrepping me and I would like her to quote where exactly she thinks I was actually advocating for numerous vigges by players who don’t know they’re Arthur. I want to determine if she actually just misread my post or deliberately misconstued it.

But it’s important to me, to be “accurate”. If I feel I have a strong case on anyone, I won’t hesitate to push them.

I'll just say that I heavily relate to you here. I don't think I can read people any good especially in D1, I'm just coming from a town game where I horribly misread a couple slots.

I generally push based off pings/leans, etc to engage and help develop a read, but that doesn't mean I'm hard scumreading someone if I'm pushing them.

Also, thanks for the stances. Stances don't require you to read slots, they're simple agreements or disagreements with stuff others say. Can you see where I'm coming from, WRT the expectation of stances and not necessarily strong reads?

Not really and why you’re directing this to me, specifically. Again, to you Cakes and who the fuck ever:

I rarely have strong scumreads this early and I gladly invite anyone to ISO a single towngame of mine, that contradicts this.

[Auro]

Not really and why you’re directing this to me, specifically. Again, to you Cakes and who the fuck ever: I rarely have strong scumreads this early and I gladly invite anyone to ISO a single towngame of mine, that contradicts this.

Stances and opinions and pings and agreements and disagreements ≠ Scumreads or townreads

That's all I'm trying to say. It's the former that I'm asking you to give not the latter. I'm sure you don't have strong scumreads this early.

[Nancy Drew 39]

What? * really confused*

A few people are scumreading me, and DVa is hard scumreading me for my having engaged her and pushed her on that meta FoS.

If you read that, processed it and kept me at null, it means that that didn't convince you enough to think I'm actually scummy for doing it.

It doesn't matter now since you said you're processing it right now, which I appreciate. We good?

Pedit: You did imply I was hard scumreading because of "seriousness", when I stated it was a weak FoS, so how is not you putting words in my mouth?

Yes, you did say that, however you saying I was “putting words in your mouth” is inaccurate because it read to me that you were hard pushing her despite saying that. That isn’t “manipulation” but my honest interpretation of your posts. If you honestly don’t see that, then reread them.

[Auro]

Yes, you did say that, however you saying I was “putting words in your mouth” is inaccurate because it read to me that you were hard pushing her despite saying that. That isn’t “manipulation” but my honest interpretation of your posts. If you honestly don’t see that, then reread them.

I was engaging with her on that basis, while maintaining that it was a weak case and just an FoS. Did you not read the posts where I said that?

I'm also saying I honestly interpreted your sentiment as a scumread (or maybe "lean" or "ping") on me, or that you seemed to be generally agreeing with people who did. Even if I was wrong, am I not allowed to make an interpretation *at all*? Couldn't you have just corrected me, rather than call me manipulative, and threaten to hurt me, and also threaten to gladiate me?

[Auro]

And pushing someone ≠ hard scumread. Also I've mentioned other reasons I was getting pings off her. You're saying that the entirety of my push on her, and my own read on her, was informed by something I myself called weak.

I'm not saying you couldn't have honestly interpreted my actions as a hard motivated push based off "serious play". You're allowed that window of interpretation, and it's healthy. Let me have that too, and not be afraid of you threatening me when I want to.

[Nancy Drew 39]

although I thought being too “serious” in a games seems like a really bad reason to

hard scumread someone.

Just because you

said

it was a weak FOS, doesn’t change the fact that you were hard pushing her about it regardless. That is exactly how it came across to me anyhow. Maybe you aren’t aware of how your posts on her came across but that in no way means that I was misrepping you because I wasn’t.

I think that you are really not seeing how your posts came across but wrongly accusing me of “putting words in your mouth” is bullshit because I never misquoted you. My statement was based on my interpretation of your posts. For you to unfairly accuse me of doing something I absolutely did not do, isn’t really sitting well with me.

[Auro]

I think that you are really not seeing how your posts came across but wrongly accusing me of “putting words in your mouth” is bullshit because I never misquoted you. My statement was based on my interpretation of your posts. For you to unfairly accuse me of doing something I absolutely did not do, isn’t really sitting well with me.

I'm not accusing you. I'm drawing a parallel of how you immediately reacted to my "scumread me or not, and why" post. I never misquoted you either, I was going by my interpretation.

If my "accusation" now is unfair, your accusation and threats on me definitely are.

[Nancy Drew 39]

Not really and why you’re directing this to me, specifically. Again, to you Cakes and who the fuck ever: I rarely have strong scumreads this early and I gladly invite anyone to ISO a single towngame of mine, that contradicts this.

Stances and opinions and pings and agreements and disagreements ≠ Scumreads or townreads

That's all I'm trying to say. It's the former that I'm asking you to give not the latter. I'm sure you don't have strong scumreads this early.

I do that organically wheneve I see a post I dislike and I think I have been doing that?

[Nancy Drew 39]

Yes, you did say that, however you saying I was “putting words in your mouth” is inaccurate because it read to me that you were hard pushing her despite saying that. That isn’t “manipulation” but my honest interpretation of your posts. If you honestly don’t see that, then reread them.

I was engaging with her on that basis, while maintaining that it was a weak case and just an FoS. Did you not read the posts where I said that?

I'm also saying I honestly interpreted your sentiment as a scumread (or maybe "lean" or "ping") on me, or that you seemed to be generally agreeing with people who did. Even if I was wrong, am I not allowed to make an interpretation *at all*? Couldn't you have just corrected me, rather than call me manipulative, and threaten to hurt me, and also threaten to gladiate me?

Seriously, you need to take at least some responsibility for your part in these misunderstandings. It is not my responsibility to assume you mean something different than you’re actually saying.

[Nancy Drew 39]

Yes, you did say that, however you saying I was “putting words in your mouth” is inaccurate because it read to me that you were hard pushing her despite saying that. That isn’t “manipulation” but my honest interpretation of your posts. If you honestly don’t see that, then reread them.

I was engaging with her on that basis, while maintaining that it was a weak case and just an FoS. Did you not read the posts where I said that?

I'm also saying I honestly interpreted your sentiment as a scumread (or maybe "lean" or "ping") on me, or that you seemed to be generally agreeing with people who did. Even if I was wrong, am I not allowed to make an interpretation *at all*? Couldn't you have just corrected me, rather than call me manipulative, and threaten to hurt me, and also threaten to gladiate me?

Seriously, you need to take at least some responsibility for your part in these misunderstandings. It is not my responsibility to assume you mean something different than you’re actually saying.

What you actually should have done is, ASK me for my read on you, or ask IF I’m currently townreasing or scumreading you?

I would have reacted quite well to that, I assure you.

[Auro]

Seriously, you need to take at least some responsibility for your part in these misunderstandings. It is not my responsibility to assume you mean something different than you’re actually saying.

>I make an honest interpretation that you seem to be scumreading me or that you're agreeing with people who are
>I ask you to give me a read on my slot, "scum" or "not scum" (null/town)

"Not scumread" objectively covers a nullread as well, and it's reasonable for me to expect you to understand that. If you don't feel I said that, nothing stops you from questioning me on it, which is the point of engagement in the first place.

But calling my post "highly manipulative" and threatening to hurt me, and also to gladiate me if I don't retract it? That feels pretty dishonest and overreactive.

If you can take that back, I'll accept my part in the misunderstanding.

[Auro]

What you actually should have done is, ASK me for my read on you, or ask IF I’m currently townreasing or scumreading you?

I would have reacted quite well to that, I assure you.

God, "Scumreading or not" does not mean "Scumreading or townreading". Now that I've clarified on the exact phrasing, please take back the stuff about manipulation and stuff. That's not useful at all.

[Nancy Drew 39]

I actually think that your complete lack of awareness in how you’re actually coming accross is going to get you gladiated and rn Im thinking you might well be entirely unself-aware town who is going to get himself possibly mislynched. I really think that you really have no awareness of how you’re coming across to people here.

[Nancy Drew 39]

Seriously, you need to take at least some responsibility for your part in these misunderstandings. It is not my responsibility to assume you mean something different than you’re actually saying.

>I make an honest interpretation that you seem to be scumreading me or that you're agreeing with people who are
>I ask you to give me a read on my slot, "scum" or "not scum" (null/town)

"Not scumread" objectively covers a nullread as well, and it's reasonable for me to expect you to understand that. If you don't feel I said that, nothing stops you from questioning me on it, which is the point of engagement in the first place.

But calling my post "highly manipulative" and threatening to hurt me, and also to gladiate me if I don't retract it? That feels pretty dishonest and overreactive.

If you can take that back, I'll accept my part in the misunderstanding.

No, I can’t take that back, because that would be dishonest on my part. That is how you came across to me and how I interpreted it.

Did I may be have overreacted to it a bit? Possibly? But “dishonest”? Not not even a bit. That was my honest reaction to what you said. To deny that would be disingenuous on my part.

[Auro]

It's my style.

I honestly don't care that much for getting mislynched. I'm not the one making attacks on people, I just push and engage based on things till I'm satisfied. If I *do* get lynched, there's a pretty good utility for town WRT analysing prior sentiments towards me, anyway.

If you replied with "Do you think I either have to scumread or townread you, and can't keep you at null?", I would've easily clarified that null is a fine position to take and that "scumread or not" did include that.

I don't like that you chose to instead call me manipulative and threaten me with various things, but I think you probably do these kinda things often. *Shrug* hence this exchange is pretty useless.

Pedit: Yes, an overreaction is something I was considering, I would've felt it was dishonest if this was isolated AND you kept tugging at it.

Thanks. Can we attempt to work together a bit more now?

[Nancy Drew 39]

What you actually should have done is, ASK me for my read on you, or ask IF I’m currently townreasing or scumreading you?

I would have reacted quite well to that, I assure you.

God, "Scumreading or not" does not mean "Scumreading or townreading". Now that I've clarified on the exact phrasing, please take back the stuff about manipulation and stuff. That's not useful at all.

I’m not even sure of what you’re even asking of me now. I have nothing to take back. I reacted genuinely on what Iread to me as extremely manipulative and and unfair. If I have misunderstood you on that? That I can change but you’re not asking me that and that isn’t fair.

[Auro]

I mean take back the stuff about me having to retract or otherwise you'd gladiate me or hurt me or whatever.

[Varsoon]

@Gamma: It's only a multiple-use cop if a non-arthur role gets the sword and suicides with it. Odd-night non-loyal telegraphed-in-thread vigilante isn't cop no matter what way you want to spin it.
I'm going for the sword no matter what.

[Nancy Drew 39]

It's my style.

I honestly don't care that much for getting mislynched. I'm not the one making attacks on people, I just push and engage based on things till I'm satisfied. If I *do* get lynched, there's a pretty good utility for town WRT analysing prior sentiments towards me, anyway.

If you replied with "Do you think I either have to scumread or townread you, and can't keep you at null?", I would've easily clarified that null is a fine position to take and that "scumread or not" did include that.

I don't like that you chose to instead call me manipulative and threaten me with various things, but I think you probably do these kinda things often. *Shrug* hence this exchange is pretty useless.

Pedit: Yes, an overreaction is something I was considering, I would've felt it was dishonest if this was isolated AND you kept tugging at it.

Thanks. Can we attempt to work together a bit more now?

Like I said, that was

exactly

how it read to me and you shouldn’t be asking me to drop it. What you should be doing, instead of unfairly accusing me, is to

listen

to what I’m telling you or this is going to continue to keep happening to you.

So, yes, I did and do read your initial “question” to me as manipulative and scummy and had you not clarified it and kept pushing me, I absolutely would have “HURT” you. That said, I’m reading your reaction to it as townie because I doubt scum!you could have faked that degree of conviction - especially under pressure.

[Nancy Drew 39]

I mean take back the stuff about me having to retract or otherwise you'd gladiate me or hurt me or whatever.

You already did retract it, didn’t you? So, this is a non-issue.

[Auro]

Umm, okay then. Glad to know.

[Something_Smart]

I'm going for the sword no matter what.

Do you still think Arthur's more likely to get the sword if more people go for it?

[Varsoon]

It's my style.

I honestly don't care that much for getting mislynched. I'm not the one making attacks on people, I just push and engage based on things till I'm satisfied.

So, like, a few problems I have with this:
1. I can't read that for shit. It's not transparent to me. I misread you in that recent Newbie and I have no idea what your alignment here is.

2. What does you being 'satisfied' even entail? That's such a nebulous outcome that it seems so damn easy to hide behind as either alignment. I don't think your engagement with either D.Va or Nancy here has helped me read any of the slots involved and, if anything, I find myself glazing over those back-and-forths more than anything.

3. How do you plan on actually netting a town win with this strat? You being 'satisfied' doesn't equate to read accuracy and none of this points towards you doing anything to convince others of who scum/town is.

@S_S: Yes. Your projections on probability are flawed.
Yes, an INDIVIDUAL has 1/12 chance of being Arthur, and, therefore, will always have 1/12 chance of getting Excalibur when moving to claim on N1.
That said, when you take the entire data set in at once, the probability of ARTHUR getting the sword when 12 individuals exist that could be Arthur drops for every one of the 12 that doesn't go for the sword. Yes, you could argue that this is offset by the increased probability of Arthur getting the sword if he is in the pool, but that creates far too much of a risk factor of Arthur being outside of the pool.