What seems "off" about being put at L-2? It wasn't a naked vote, and I disagree it was random.In post 232, chazary wrote:I do agree that putting me at L-2 seems off but I can't totally argue against that because if there was someone I found suss and wanted to hear from I could see myself doing the same.
That's why you don't use a reaction as the sole reason for doing something. Wagons are great for information, especially later on. Maybe this is a playstyle thing, but refusing to vote because "wagons" denies us of information to analyze you and others with.In post 254, Ph0enix wrote:Oh no, it's not player-related. I'm just not a fan of them during RVS, I don't believe they do a good job in providing people with information, and in our case, considering we're in a Newbie game, some players who are less experienced and are at the receiving end of a wagon may panic and slip up because of that, regardless of alignment, which, considering the ratio between Town and Mafia players, is not in Town's favor.
I won't dispute your method of reading me, but I was on V/LA for the weekend sitewide so...In post 261, CheekyTeeky wrote:PP becomes easier to read as the day goes on as I've found he struggles to stay genuinely engaged as scum. I'm becoming suspicious.
You misquoted a statement that made it seem I was directly defending Cheeky when I was actually disagreeing with her. You haven't explained that yet either.In post 265, EspeciallyTheLies wrote:How the fuck is t unfounded when I SHOWED EXCATLY WHAT POSTS GAVE ME THAT IMPRESSION?
Do you really think that ETL and Cheeky could be scum together?In post 278, chazary wrote:-scum-
ETL; I mean, what needs to be said that hasn't been said already. First theres the Cheeky vote with no explanation. Then the, like I've said, nit picking of her gameplay. Now gettingveryheated because they're being questioned for their Cheeky vote. Why get so aggravated suddenly? Because Cheeky, the person you're pressing so hard, is defending herself?
Cheeky; much less concerned with her than I am with ETL. Again, the Arthur vote is the only thing making me suspicious. She also has a tendency to explain her gameplay in the following format; "if i'm town i'd do this because A. If i'm scum I'd do this because B." Sounds like she's pulling the self-aware card in order to keep from seeming too suspicious. Also might just be trying to explain for the newbs, i.e. myself.
Not really. It's an easy way for scum to try and come back and say "I told you I thought that slot was scummy" after a flip even if they weren't on the wagon or really pushing the slot.In post 282, EspeciallyTheLies wrote:Lots of people discussing how scummy I am and not voting me. That’s scum driven 100%.
Well that surely tipped the scales:In post 288, ArthurConyl wrote: For the third time, I voted for Chazary because I found him suspicious. Its not like I was trying to jump on the bandwagon to get him lynched. Now he's answered some of the questions and I don't find him as scummy, I'm unvoting him. I'd vote for EspeciallyTheLies now, but some idiot will probably think thats scummy as well.
I'd also rather people not get the wrong idea about me from misunderstanding my vote. UNVOTE: Chazary
PenguinPower wrote:Why aren't you voting one of these?In post 230, Ph0enix wrote:Possible scum: Farren, Arthur, Chazary
(you in the quote referring to ETL)Ph0enix wrote: Again, I'm just waiting for Arthur to answer my question and see whether he'll slip up more than you already have, which, considering the fact that you continue being super defensive despite not having a lot of votes on you, is not that likely.
Fair statement.In post 301, PenguinPower wrote: That's why you don't use a reaction as the sole reason for doing something. Wagons are great for information, especially later on. Maybe this is a playstyle thing, but refusing to vote because "wagons" denies us of information to analyze you and others with.
Everything I have posted has been honest and exactly what I was thinking at the time. My frustration comes from people treating me like what I’m saying is craziness when I have an excellent track record for Day Ones. Even if you didn’t know that it’s like no one has truly bothered to see my side of the conversation. I can’t work on a town bloc like that and fighting to be heard is far more effort than I’m able to devote.In post 285, Farren wrote:Two things:In post 282, EspeciallyTheLies wrote:Lots of people discussing how scummy I am and not voting me. That’s scum driven 100%.
I don’t care anymore. When I flip look at my reads please and stop being thickheaded.
1) Is this an emotional outburst, or a genuine attempt to identify scum? I'm inclined to think the former - "lots of people" means more than one; you've already got a strong scumread on Cheeky (who is voting for you); there are only two scum in this game. "Scum driven 100%" sounds very much like hyperbole given the first three points. But if it's the latter, please list names - and then start trying to puzzle out which of your scumreads is wrong.
2) I have seen times in games where the correct course of action for scum is to stop caring. I have never seen times in games where it's the correct course of action for Town. If you're Town, take a breather. Chill. Come back later.
I like your explanation re: the bikini vote.In post 291, chazary wrote:Well this also has to do with why you weren’t in my scumreads either. The only thing making your Arthur vote suspicious is Cheeky’s following vote and her knowing your reason for voting Arthur as well. I understand the reasoning you gave for Arthur, although I think it was a little harsh given how quick you were, but that seems to be your play style. But when Cheeky came in immediately and also voted for Arthur is when I raised my eyebrow at both of you guys. Then she answered for you as to why you voted the way you did. Eyebrow raise x2. Then she gave a separate reason (if scum probably bc she knows she can’t say for certain your reasoning and back it up w/o your input first) but hers was a reach to say the least. Eyebrow now practically a second hairline.
And as for the bikini vote on me. It was only my second vote. Mit pointed FoS at me and voted me to press me for a response. Given your play style you probably also wanted to hear more after reading Mits read on me. Fair enough. Plus, I had a vote on me in the beginning too from Ph0enix I think it was (can’t remember bc they retracted it just as fast and I’m on mobile, not searching for it rn) but I didn’t respond to it. So clearly I’m not the kind of player who feels pressure from just a single vote. Therefor you gave me a second vote. To make sure I’d have to respond. Nothing suspicious about that from what I can tell.
More votes would be interesting indeed. Why votes in particular, though?In post 292, ArthurConyl wrote:@Farren his posts since then have leaned more towards scum. I'm not sure about ETL vs Cheeky. In a few posts he seems to be getting emotional. Still need more votes from ETL to decide, but definitely leaning scum.
Optics are about how you are seen by other players. Being concerned about optics means worrying about what other players will think of you based on your actions / votes / whatever.In post 296, ArthurConyl wrote:What's optics? I think the meaning of half your post was lost on me.
The day some Town players decided that lolhammers, derphammers, and "I'm really sure about this one, guys! Not going to bother with intent!" hammers were acceptable actions outside of deadline crunches.In post 300, PenguinPower wrote:When did L-2 become the new L-1?
No worries, when you get a chance, a take on ETL vs Me would be appreciated.In post 322, Mitillos wrote:Sorry, been a bit busy preparing/grading exams.
I also like seeing Farren and Ph0enix at work and don't want to interrupt.