Newbie 1961 | Trees II | Over

[Plotinus]

Official Vote Count 2.06

---

Lynching

With 7 votes in play, it takes 4 to lynch.

Zenith

(1): tictac

Vorkuta

(1): skitter30

Karnage

(1): Vorkuta

skitter30

(1): january

Not Voting

(3): DrDolittle, Karnage, Zenith

Deadline:

(expired on 2019-11-05 07:45:00).

Mod notes:

Karnage is the new Suspicious[/area]

[skitter30]

a) articulate what the phrase 'demandign scumpt screenshot levels of evidence' is being applied to. tell me in your own words where and how i'm doing that, don't just quote vork

So would you like to answer this now, zenith?

[skitter30]

2. I never believed you didn't understand the phrase.

You were literally just pushing me on this basis

[Karnage]

Have only read through the mason PT and checked jam and suspicious‘s ISOs to double check they had claimed already. I’m guessing this will be a quick game for me

Will try to get caught up on everything else tonight

[Zenith]

2. I never believed you didn't understand the phrase.

You were literally just pushing me on this basis

No I wasn't..

[skitter30]

The point is that you know what the words: "demanding scupt pt levels of evidence" mean. It means demanding concrete proof. You have been repeatedly told what it means. You do know what it means.. And yet for some weird reason, me trying to get you to admit that you understand basic english, you act like I'm trying to pull out your teeth or something. WHY?

i mean ...

would you like to respond to 851 now?

[Zenith]

i mean ...

would you like to respond to 851 now?

Why?

[skitter30]

i'm proving a point

[skitter30]

can you answer it or not

[Zenith]

What point? I never claimed that you were demanding any level of evidence. So I don't see where you are going with this.

[skitter30]

can you articulate what vork was accusing me of, yes or no?

like can you actually describe where i was demanding scumpt screenshots levels of evidence?

i don't care whether or not you accused me of this rn, i just want to know if you can coherently answer this question ^

[Karnage]

hey! this is great. I'm confirmed town and will die N2. I can't be mislynched and if my reads are wrong I won't be around to find out lol

so here's my order of preference for lynching:

vork > zenith > tictac > january

VOTE: vorkuta

just got a bad vibe off him the whole read. zenith was bad too. I used the mason PT for a sort of stream of consciousness as I read through so I don't have a prepared case ready to go but I can go more in depth tomorrow. too tired tonight

tictac and january were both sort of sinusoidal but I feel good about them. I'd be open to lynching either if a strong case is made.

fancypants was all but confirmed town to me. the good dr hasn't been great but I'm not going to consider lynching him today

ceejay was good once he actually started contributing and skittles has townspewed all over. Will not lynch him.

[DrDolittle]

I'm feeling it rn here I go

[skitter30]

a) articulate what the phrase 'demandign scumpt screenshot levels of evidence' is being applied to. tell me in your own words where and how i'm doing that, don't just quote vork

So would you like to answer this now, zenith?

january and/or tictac if either of you can do this that would be cool too

[skitter30]

also i'm a she

[Karnage]

ceejay was good once he actually started contributing and skittles has townspewed all over. Will not lynch

her

.

ebwop

[Zenith]

can you articulate what vork was accusing me of, yes or no?

like can you actually describe where i was demanding scumpt screenshots levels of evidence?

i don't care whether or not you accused me of this rn, i just want to know if you can coherently answer this question ^

Just skimmed your iso. I've seen you disagree with and dismiss things, but I haven't seen you blatantly demand scum pt screenshot levels of evidence. If you have done such a thing, I've either missed it or it's subtle, because I only see it coming from the re-wording in Vork's narrative, and even there it isn't blatant.

Also, this jumped out at me:

- if you think you caught my newbie partner why are you voting me. This whole thing reads like you found a narrative to push so you are, not like you actually believe a me/january team

VOTE: Vork L-1
@Vork
Please respond to #805.

[skitter30]

I've seen you disagree with and dismiss things, but I haven't seen you blatantly demand scum pt screenshot levels of evidence. If you have done such a thing, I've either missed it or it's subtle, because I only see it coming from the re-wording in Vork's narrative, and even there it isn't blatant.

yes, thank you this is the point i'm trying to bring out ^

vork's been accusing me of this, and everyone's been nodding along and going 'oh yeah, that makes sense' but i *haven't actually been doing that anywhere*

this is why i was saying i dont' understand the accusation, because in context of what i've been doing it's irrelevant and meaningless

and when i spent like forever pointing out that the argument is nonsense and designed to make me look bad, i got wagoned

[skitter30]

plz no hammer till everyone is caught up and on the same page

[Karnage]

that vote feels like a bus

also you may want to double check that link

p-edit: this was for zenith's 856

[Zenith]

Very strange, i wanted to link to post 805 in my last post. I used the post tag, but maybe because I included the # is why it links to some other thread??

[DrDolittle]

<3

Distancing from your scum partner- I dig it

Ok. So I thought I was going to vote vork right away from this post, because it did come out of nowhere. However, after reading his next post 716 with the little bit of nonsense ft Jan asking for a new partner, and keeping skit, I could see that it is possible it is town!vork coming from good faith attempt.

*sighs*
I'm pretty sure it was self-implied, but fine
It's concerning because it doesn't have (or at least I can't find) the markings/intentions of "town-solvey" skitter.

[snip]

Now for the meaty stuff, which is what I was hoping for
I don't like how the crux of your defense is "a mechanically optimal or otherwise perfect player wouldn't do any of the things" and how you're shifting the definitions. I am presenting a very plausible scenario, backed up with bits of evidence, slightly liberal assumptions, and my own personal experience.

Whereas you're basically demanding "screenshots of their scumPT" levels of evidence necessary for my points to have any validity in your eyes.
Which is a scum!skitter play

Again, I found [snip] could be in a good faith response... and putting myself into vork's shoes, I can see where he's coming from. I can see a world that he is town. Even though, I really don't like the subsequent push using GB's reads. GB's eod reads were hot garbage as he even voted suspicious.

Either way, bailey's dying declaration is not the crux of my read,

more like a convenient detail that I'm choosing to incorporate into my narrative.

a) can you, like, quote this declaration
b) i find the bolded to scummy

why do you find the bolded scummy?

Continuing on...

[DrDolittle]

although right now vork is just flat out imagining stuff...
i think it's just that he genuinely believes it though bc i don't see mafia wanting me lynched so bad that they just make stuff up

There is a world difference between making up stuff and coming up with a plausible scenario that one believes in. This is why I'm having such a hard time sorting vorkuta because both of these are possible.

I dont know what you're talking about
I dont know what 'demanding scum pt screenshot levels of evidence' means exactly, or how i'm meant to be doing that

I don't think it's that hard to understand at all. Feels a bit gaslight-y. Sure vorkuta's case is not 100 percent watersealed but I feel like what you are doing is asking a bunch of questions and trying to catch him off guard rather than responding in good faith idk... It's different than [redacted] evidence.

I think one of the ways scum!skitter plays is by shutting down lines of questioning.
Town!skitter is much more openminded, willing to make the logical assumptions/leaps to see where a train of thought would lead for the sake of scumhunting- ie "talk to me more about XXX", and deals with disagreements pleasantly in the form of "I'm not sure that...." or "I don't think...."
Scum!skitter is more interested in redirecting the gameflow and SUBTLY shutting down uncomfortable lines of inquiry and one of the more effective ways I've seen her do it is by inflating the level of proof/evidence necessary for her to acknowledge a claim to a level that is much higher than what town!skitter would require to join along on the journey.

I buy this. Actually up to this point, I felt the same way in this exchange, in that the burden of proof that you place on vork is absurd, where as he is really in good faith trying to engage you.

in case I wasn't clear previously: if it's down to lynching skitt or vork, I currently prefer lynching skitt.
it does occur to me tho, that with nightkills being tied up with getting rid of the masons, lynching town!skitt is 100% what scum!vork would need to do if doesn't want to be at lylo w her, which he would not want.
so i guess what I'm trying to say is: skitt & vork. If ya guys are in a tvt, ya need to work it out cause it's fairly disasturous to gamestate if that's the case.

my good man, if you do succeed in getting me lynched today i'm going to do everything in my ability to make sure you're next, just letting you know

I'll add that I don't think threats like this are constructive if ya town.
Ya in a category of players whose reads I actually would listen to postmortem if ya flip town.
I need them to accurately represent your view on what is true.

this was a really really big post about nothing at all. Actually its a bit worse in that it feels like tictac is trying to butter up to both sides. I actually scumlean tictac here.

[DrDolittle]

with regards to 798

skit - i get why you say you have an ethical or whatever dislike for tic’s read on jamelia. i don’t think i ever agreed with the actual read, but my evaluation was based on whether I thought tictac would make that argument as town or as mafia. basically, even if u find the read to be bad or unfounded or immoral - do you think he would have made that argument as scum?

not to me, but scum makes these type of arguments more often IMO because its easy and objective and doesn't require a whole ton of thinking?

i think vork's arguments are kinda ridiculous and nonsensical and i'm not sure why i'm the only one who sees that; i'm kinda confused why people are treating them like they have merit

There are nuggets of merit in vork's post. I think I'm concerned about other ~reasons~

i think 791 was moonlogic and word salad, but ok

> Explain?

Fair enough, i hope you feel better soon, plz take care of yourself

thank you, that's really kind of you.

I think this would be more what I'm looking for. Ya always informed about your own align so can't really compare attitudes w ya defending Jam there.
I don't at all doubt that ya do in fact have moral views that affect yer play.
I'm specifically looking for that tone we spoke of from yer townself.
Sorry if I was unclear earlier.

Other than that, I think I'll wait for a doc-cathup before proceeding.

I'm here. I don't understand why my being here matters, or what's the purpose of the rest of 842?

VOTE: Vork L-1
@Vork
Please respond to #805.

Explain why the change?

[DrDolittle]

I'm not hammering anything before the replacer catches up, fyi.
doc being quiet rn is worriesome.
more from me later tonight, hopefully.

Tomorrow plz:

- vork
- focus on ddl, i think it's scummy of him to be so quiet rn and not take a stance
- zenthi because he's strawmanning to the point that i think he's deliberately misunderstanding me

is there any other reason why you are scumreading me?

i actually want to flush this out a bit more.