Mini Normal 2115: Fin

[gobbledygook]

VC 1.4

Looker
EeveeLution Army
Wimpy
Ame
Luca Blight (1) - AaronFrost
Alchemist21 (1) - Egix96
Chara (1) - Macabre
Macabre (2) - Alchemist21, Wimpy
insomnia
JTheophrastus Bartholomew (2) - profii, Chara
profii
AaronFrost (3) - insomnia, Ame, Luca Blight
Egix96 (1) - JTheophrastus Bartholomew

Not Voting

(2) — EeveeLution Army, Looker

With 13 alive, it takes 7 to lynch.

Deadline

: (expired on 2020-01-24 16:00:00)[/color]

[Alchemist21]

Here you were agreeing with me about insomnia's 57 but now you've turned it around by saying that my SR of insomnia is disingenuous.

Even in that post you quoted Luca was saying how he kinda didn’t like your push there.

Also I don’t really see how as Town you had a lot to say about Insomnia and Profii when they were taking about my posts but somehow weren’t paying attention to my posts enough that you had to ISO me. It felt like it was maybe some kind of chainsaw defense of me that tried to not look like a defense (this might be what Flavor Leaf calls hatcheting, I can’t remember exactly).

I don’t think your reaction to Luca here is Towny either. It feels like you care more about the fact they’re voting you rather than whether or not he’s scum.

VOTE: AaronFrost

[Alchemist21]

You might need to elaborate bc I'm not sure what you're getting at here

The problem is that I probably said too much.

And then there’s this. I really don’t get what your angle is here. How is it “saying too much” to say something about my post towards Looker?

[Looker]

VOTE: Luca Blight What's your current read of Ame?

@Ame

: What's your current read of Luca Blight?

Spoiler:

AaronFrost (4)

- insomnia, Ame, Luca Blight, Alchemist21

Luca Blight (2)

- AaronFrost, Looker

JTheophrastus Bartholomew (2)

- profii, Chara

Macabre (1)

- Wimpy

Alchemist21 (1)

- Egix96

Chara (1)

- Macabre

Egix96 (1)

- JTheophrastus Bartholomew


Not Voting (1) — EeveeLution Army

With 13 alive, it takes 7 to lynch.

[Ame]

Scum leaning for the same reason as Aaron and another. More in a subsequent post. Also, I very much like the rationale behind your ame-luca theory, but there wouldn't be a need for me to set luca up for a vote switch unless you think I'm also scum with profii (otherwise there wouldn't be a reason to swing the wagon from him which has had town consensus).

[insomnia]

I don't get it. Luca's voting for aaron and I don't really see them scum together? Can you elaborate a bit?

[Wimpy]

Man y’all were busy while I was gone. May take a while but I’ll read up tonight or tomorrow

[Ame]

Doing an ISO dive on you.

I thought your question towards Wimpy was fine. Like maybe you could've been trying to instigate something there but it honestly seemed like you were trying to figure out whether his reaction to pressure would be personality indicative or alignment indicative which is +town points for you (I'm townleaning Wimpy as well btw). I also have similar thoughts regarding profii although I do disagree with you saying insomnia's 57 was townie.

Overall though I think you're pretty townie.

I meant to comment on this before: this conclusion seems unwarranted. Even with the interpretation that Alch's question was non-malicious, it's null at best. Something not being malicious doesn't make it towny. Alch's question and explanation were fairly simple/straigtforward, and something that could easily come from either alignment. How are you differentiating Alch's questioning here as town asking a trivial question from scum asking a trivial question?

btw the not-malicious argument is a straw argument for disagreeing with the accusations made against Alch because no one is arguing that he was being malicious (insomnia retracted that view immediately after suggesting it, and profii denounced the idea that it was strategic in the same post he theorized about it). Note: Chara also used this straw reasoning for justifying his disagreement with the Alch push here. Again, Insomnia's case against Alch is not that Alch was being malicious but rather that [a] his question toward wimpy doesn't actually produce anything of value (based on the reason Alch claimed), and

his erroneous conclusion that wimpy responds well to pressure, suggesting that Alch was coming from the mindset of already knowing wimpy's (town) alignment. If disagreeing with the case, those are the two points that should be addressed.

In 169 you stated that you were caught up but skimmed and would begin isoing. Later in 175 you confirmed a town read on Aaron. (1) Presumably, you went through his iso at this point, yes?

Over two new pages were produced by the time of your next post, 234. Again, 175 indicates that you were caught up with the thread up to 175, or at least with Aaron up to that point. (2) What prodded you in 234/235 to go back and review pre-175? I presume you had not yet caught up with the 2 new pages because in 237 you stated that you were unaware of Alchemist's post on the previous page. (3) Is this presumption correct?

It's just curious to me that you read back through something you had already read back through and formed a solid opinion on, while there was new content available that you had not yet caught up on.

I skim through the thread and then read back in more detail later - that is my usual habit.

Could you address each of the numbered questions. I understand your process, but as mentioned, your 175 indicates that you had already done this. You reaffirmed your view on Aaron at that point. Later in #235 you did this same thing again.

So what are you scum reading me for again?

Mostly for post 56 which felt a little exaggerated and forced to me. Followed by your immediate retraction about two minutes later. To me it read like 'oh shit I said something that might be perceived as scummy better retract it real quick.'

It's not a strong read tbh but it's a start.

I like this thought-process, I think Frost is Town.

What about the thought process do you (did you) like? It's a fairly surface-level accusation. Like with Aaron's read above, the town conclusion seems unwarranted. How are you differentiating town Aaron from making a surface accusation from scum Aaron doing the same thing?

I also agree that his Insomnia SR seemed a bit faked in that he doesn’t really do anything with it and just coasts on it for a while until he is pressured into jumping off.

Yet you town read him for it three times? As shown above, you reviewed his post twice and confirmed your read on it twice.

[Ame]

Ame: i know i need to pay more attention to Frost, but i TR insomnia so i'm giving it some weight.

What do you think about each point specifically (as outlined by Luca here):

I’m having a change of heart on Frost,

(1)

based on his reaction to Insomnia’s pressure which comes across as appeasement.

(2)

I also agree that his Insomnia SR seemed a bit faked in that he doesn’t really do anything with it and just coasts on it for a while until he is pressured into jumping off.

(3)

And thirdly I agree that it looks as though he had been positioning himself to vote Profii for some time before he did so.

VOTE: Frost

@insomnia I'll provide more once I get responses from these last two posts.

[Ame]

I'm not sure what to do at this point.

Providing some reads (particularly scum reads) would be really helpful. Even if you aren't sure on something, just knowing what you find interesting or suspicious would be of value. So far you've only pointed out neutral tells and asked questions which lead to neutral answers.

[AaronFrost]

You might need to elaborate bc I'm not sure what you're getting at here

The problem is that I probably said too much.

Quite the opposite actually.

I'm very confused by your play right now.

[AaronFrost]

Here you were agreeing with me about insomnia's 57 but now you've turned it around by saying that my SR of insomnia is disingenuous.

Even in that post you quoted Luca was saying how he kinda didn’t like your push there.

Also I don’t really see how as Town you had a lot to say about Insomnia and Profii when they were taking about my posts but somehow weren’t paying attention to my posts enough that you had to ISO me. It felt like it was maybe some kind of chainsaw defense of me that tried to not look like a defense (this might be what Flavor Leaf calls hatcheting, I can’t remember exactly).

I don’t think your reaction to Luca here is Towny either. It feels like you care more about the fact they’re voting you rather than whether or not he’s scum.

VOTE: AaronFrost

He didn't say he disliked my push there, he said that it gave him scumpings because I used similar wording that insomnia did, which I addressed earlier.

Again, I am paying attention but often I'll need to go and reread things or do ISO's to solidify my stance or possibly look for things that I missed.

[AaronFrost]

Doing an ISO dive on you.

I thought your question towards Wimpy was fine. Like maybe you could've been trying to instigate something there but it honestly seemed like you were trying to figure out whether his reaction to pressure would be personality indicative or alignment indicative which is +town points for you (I'm townleaning Wimpy as well btw). I also have similar thoughts regarding profii although I do disagree with you saying insomnia's 57 was townie.

Overall though I think you're pretty townie.

I meant to comment on this before: this conclusion seems unwarranted. Even with the interpretation that Alch's question was non-malicious, it's null at best. Something not being malicious doesn't make it towny. Alch's question and explanation were fairly simple/straigtforward, and something that could easily come from either alignment. How are you differentiating Alch's questioning here as town asking a trivial question from scum asking a trivial question?

btw the not-malicious argument is a straw argument for disagreeing with the accusations made against Alch because no one is arguing that he was being malicious (insomnia retracted that view immediately after suggesting it, and profii denounced the idea that it was strategic in the same post he theorized about it). Note: Chara also used this straw reasoning for justifying his disagreement with the Alch push here. Again, Insomnia's case against Alch is not that Alch was being malicious but rather that [a] his question toward wimpy doesn't actually produce anything of value (based on the reason Alch claimed), and

his erroneous conclusion that wimpy responds well to pressure, suggesting that Alch was coming from the mindset of already knowing wimpy's (town) alignment. If disagreeing with the case, those are the two points that should be addressed.

The question itself was null, but his later responses when asked about it come from a town mindset I think.

64 feels like him trying to figure out whether Wimpy's response to pressure is personality-indicative, or alignment-indicative. He did come to the wrong conclusion (which is null in my opinion). 83 and 99 felt townie to me. I think if Alch were scum he would want to leave that angle open to push down the road instead of closing it off and implying he won't push Wimpy for those reasons. I also got the sense that he was trying to work with Wimpy and get a feel for him as a player, not to use against him maliciously, but to use it to sort him.

[Wimpy]

Can somebody tell me what I’ve missed? Kinda don’t want to reread

[Looker]

as for Looker, just an assumption that might be wrong, that's on me

Tbf, when I played a game with Looker before (Big Four) their pronoun changed a couple times iirc.

You don't recall correctly. Can you find the Town in the following line-up? { Luca Blight | JTheophrastus Bartholomew | AaronFrost | Chara }

[Luca Blight]

In 169 you stated that you were caught up but skimmed and would begin isoing. Later in 175 you confirmed a town read on Aaron. (1) Presumably, you went through his iso at this point, yes?

Over two new pages were produced by the time of your next post, 234. Again, 175 indicates that you were caught up with the thread up to 175, or at least with Aaron up to that point. (2) What prodded you in 234/235 to go back and review pre-175? I presume you had not yet caught up with the 2 new pages because in 237 you stated that you were unaware of Alchemist's post on the previous page. (3) Is this presumption correct?

It's just curious to me that you read back through something you had already read back through and formed a solid opinion on, while there was new content available that you had not yet caught up on.

I skim through the thread and then read back in more detail later - that is my usual habit.

Could you address each of the numbered questions. I understand your process, but as mentioned, your 175 indicates that you had already done this. You reaffirmed your view on Aaron at that point. Later in #235 you did this same thing again.

In 234/235, I went back because of Insomnia's 231. I wanted to solidify my read on Alchemist. I had skimmed the recent pages but not read through carefully until 237.

So what are you scum reading me for again?

Mostly for post 56 which felt a little exaggerated and forced to me. Followed by your immediate retraction about two minutes later. To me it read like 'oh shit I said something that might be perceived as scummy better retract it real quick.'

It's not a strong read tbh but it's a start.

I like this thought-process, I think Frost is Town.

What about the thought process do you (did you) like? It's a fairly surface-level accusation. Like with Aaron's read above, the town conclusion seems unwarranted. How are you differentiating town Aaron from making a surface accusation from scum Aaron doing the same thing?

I liked it because it reflected my inital thought-process. I don't have the highest opinion of Frost's scum game (as he knows) so I tend to TR him for little things like this.

I also agree that his Insomnia SR seemed a bit faked in that he doesn’t really do anything with it and just coasts on it for a while until he is pressured into jumping off.

Yet you town read him for it three times? As shown above, you reviewed his post twice and confirmed your read on it twice.

I didn't TR him for it three times? My initial reaction was to SL him for it (165, 167) I later decided I liked the thought process, so to say I

'town read him for it three times'

is bizarre.

Also, in 315 I'm referring to his lack of sorting/pushing of Insomnia after that post; I'm not referring to the post itself.

[Ame]

Right, the point is you re-reviewed him twice and came up with a solid town read twice, but now you find his read to be fake. It's peculiar to me that you made your read so explicit and so early based on something quite weak. It came off to me like you needed to show him your progression for meta purposes, but that it wasn't genuine. Additionally, the "I usually go back and forth" line implies both that you had evaluated more than just his 133 and also that your read was fairly solid. So your turnaround here is vexing.

[Egix96]

You don't recall correctly.

Can you find the Town in the following line-up? { Luca Blight | JTheophrastus Bartholomew | AaronFrost | Chara }

Probably Luca if I had to guess, but that's only because he vibed to me as the townier of the two in the Luca/Aaron exchange.

[Luca Blight]

Right, the point is you re-reviewed him twice and came up with a solid town read twice, but now you find his read to be fake. It's peculiar to me that you made your read so explicit and so early based on something quite weak. It came off to me like you needed to show him your progression for meta purposes, but that it wasn't genuine. Additionally, the "I usually go back and forth" line implies both that you had evaluated more than just his 133 and also that your read was fairly solid. So your turnaround here is vexing.

I've already fully explained my change of heart - I didn't like his reaction to the Insomnia pressure and upon reflection I realised he hadn't actually done anything to advance his scumread, and was instead playing reactively to Insomnia. I'm not sure why this is so puzzling for you.

[Luca Blight]

It's strange because you also agreed with Insomia's reasons for SR'ing Frost, yet you can't comprehend how I could change my mind on Frost based on the same reasoning?

[Ame]

I hadn't really reviewed him up to that point, you did and had a solid town read. The 180 seemed left field. Anyway, thank you for indulging me. My SL has dissolved. Your tone is pretty townie to me.

[Egix96]

You might need to elaborate bc I'm not sure what you're getting at here

The problem is that I probably said too much.

And then there’s this. I really don’t get what your angle is here. How is it “saying too much” to say something about my post towards Looker?

You might need to elaborate bc I'm not sure what you're getting at here

The problem is that I probably said too much.

Quite the opposite actually.

I'm very confused by your play right now.

Okay, after some deliberation, I'm willing to say this much:

I think I know why Looker chose to include me, at least.

[Ame]

I don't get it. Luca's voting for aaron and I don't really see them scum together? Can you elaborate a bit?

I felt they were both suspicious, but unlikely scum together. Wanted to suss out which direction to go. Also wanted for Chara to commit to an Aaron read, but after review, I think he's probably not scum.

After review, I'm sticking with Aaron. #288 is especially scummy.

[gobbledygook]

Yoink

[gobbledygook]

Yoink