Newbie 1988 | Octopus | Over

[Ph0enix]

yoink

[LuckyLuciano]

"Why? How does not answering this question benefit the town?"

How does it do? And quite frankly, it is such a broad question that I don't know what answer you expect.

I expect a two-part answer. First, how do you define town cred? Second, why is it important? Generally if you don't know why answering a question would help the town, but there isn't reason for it to harm the town, you should answer the question. If it is not harmful to the town to take a course of action, then the result must either be zero sum or net-positive.

"We only discovered recently that an extension was being granted. At what point were you planning to advocate a no lynch? In particular, when Titus moved their vote to Cheeky, putting her at L-1, in 307, you questioned the motive. When she stated it was due to the deadline, why did you not begin advocating a no lynch?"

Should've been more clear, I meant NL on my part, as in, me not voting, not no lynching in general.

What's the point of advocating a no lynch if you are just going to watch a lynch happen in front of you that you do not necessarily agree with?

"Is your vote on me because my reasoning is incorrect, or because it feels artificial?"

The former. What do you mean by artificial?

Why is being incorrect scum? Have you ever been wrong as town before?

When I use the word artificial - or fabricated - to discuss the detail's of a player's action, I mean to call into question whether a town player would naturally find reason to take that course of action. Often times when scum do things they have to contrive a reason for doing so. So when I ask if you find my push on you to be artificial, I am asking if you believe a town player might naturally make that push for the reasons in which I decided to do so, or if only a scum player would make that push on you. Consider this, if the majority of the town is town-reading you, why would I start a last minute push against you as scum instead of just night-killing you? Why does it make sense for scum!Lucky to start a random push on you when it would require convincing so many people that they are wrong about you? Short of scum!Cheeky + scum!Lucky it makes more sense for scum!Lucky to not stir up discussion and just let town!Cheeky get lynched, no? (Yes, I know this is mad WIFOM, but I consider WIFOM scenarios a lot when I play as my reads are made by looking at motivations).

[LuckyLuciano]

Is it questionable to think that a player might be scum because they take a course of action that contradicts how they claimed to play the game as town in the past? I understand that you are claiming you have changed your views on early wagons, but do you really believe that finding such a change in behavior suspicious is questionable?

Given the fact that said player does not have a defined style of play and you are judging off of two games alone, yes.

So are you claiming that reading someone as scum without absolutely certainty is questionable? What degree of certainty is required for a scum-read to be reasonable?

[LuckyLuciano]

In addition, why is it that my push on TSE was not reason enough for you to vote me, Phoenix? By the reasoning you are providing now, my push against him should be equally as questionable as my push against you. It seems that the only difference between the two, to be frank, is that one of them accuses you of being scum, and the other does not.

[Ph0enix]

"First, how do you define town cred?"

For people to think you are Town, I guess.

"Second, why is it important?"

Because people make their decisions in part based on who they TR?

"What's the point of advocating a no lynch if you are just going to watch a lynch happen in front of you that you do not necessarily agree with?"

Can you stop saying I'm advocating for a NL? If there's a lynch happening that I don't agree with and I can't convince the people on the wagon that there's about to be a mislynch or that there's a better lynch alternative, what am I supposed to do?

"Why is being incorrect scum? Have you ever been wrong as town before?"

It isn't necessarily. When you base your push solely on things that are incorrect, though, I think a line should be drawn.

"So are you claiming that reading someone as scum without absolutely certainty is questionable? What degree of certainty is required for a scum-read to be reasonable?"

Reading someone as scum should be justified.

"In addition, why is it that my push on TSE was not reason enough for you to vote me, Phoenix? By the reasoning you are providing now, my push against him should be equally as questionable as my push against you. It seems that the only difference between the two, to be frank, is that one of them accuses you of being scum, and the other does not."

Cause I reread your case on TSE only when I already had voted you as I pointed out in 304.

[LuckyLuciano]

"What's the point of advocating a no lynch if you are just going to watch a lynch happen in front of you that you do not necessarily agree with?"

Can you stop saying I'm advocating for a NL? If there's a lynch happening that I don't agree with and I can't convince the people on the wagon that there's about to be a mislynch or that there's a better lynch alternative, what am I supposed to do?

I must have missed it, can you show me where in this DP you ever tried to convince somebody that there was either (A) a better lynch alternative than Cheeky, or (B) that a no lynch would be better than lynching Cheeky. You literally watched the wagon build up and now you are saying that all you could do to stop it is /shrug and throw your hands in the air.

"Why is being incorrect scum? Have you ever been wrong as town before?"

It isn't necessarily. When you base your push solely on things that are incorrect, though, I think a line should be drawn.

It is incorrect that your play as town in another game contradicts your play as town in this game? By stating that you have changed your style are you not conceding that your current play contradicts your former play?

"So are you claiming that reading someone as scum without absolutely certainty is questionable? What degree of certainty is required for a scum-read to be reasonable?"

Reading someone as scum should be justified.

Which means what, exactly?

"In addition, why is it that my push on TSE was not reason enough for you to vote me, Phoenix? By the reasoning you are providing now, my push against him should be equally as questionable as my push against you. It seems that the only difference between the two, to be frank, is that one of them accuses you of being scum, and the other does not."

Cause I reread your case on TSE only when I already had voted you as I pointed out in 304.

So you only found my case against TSE questionable after I said you are scum? Interesting. I really am enjoying this exchange. You know that shovel I gave you a few hours ago when this conversation started? I would appreciate it if you could return it to me for future use after you are lynched.

[Ph0enix]

"I must have missed it, can you show me where in this DP you ever tried to convince somebody that there was either (A) a better lynch alternative than Cheeky, or (B) that a no lynch would be better than lynching Cheeky. You literally watched the wagon build up and now you are saying that all you could do to stop it is /shrug and throw your hands in the air."

A) I don't know if there is one (apart from the obvious)
B) I don't know if that's true, either

"It is incorrect that your play as town in another game contradicts your play as town in this game? By stating that you have changed your style are you not conceding that your current play contradicts your former play?"

I already conceded that my current play contradicts my former play?

"Which means what, exactly?"

It says it right there, I think it's pretty straightforward.

"So you only found my case against TSE questionable after I said you are scum? Interesting. I really am enjoying this exchange. You know that shovel I gave you a few hours ago when this conversation started? I would appreciate it if you could return it to me for future use after you are lynched."

I'll pretend you aren't using me rereading the thread more carefully when I have time instead of reacting to everything right away against me.

[Plotinus]

Official Vote Count 1.12

Baaaaby octopus just hatched!

---

Lynching

With 9 votes in play, it takes 5 to lynch.

CheekyTeeky

(3): Non Imh, Crush, Titus

LuckyLuciano

(2): Homura, Ph0enix

Ph0enix

(1): LuckyLuciano

Titus

(1): Karnage

Karnage

(1): TrueSoulEnergy

TrueSoulEnergy

(1): CheekyTeeky

Not Voting

(0):

None.

Deadline:

(expired on 2020-03-08 12:00:00).

Mod notes:

Non Imh is the new Tapiocaphobe[/area]

[LuckyLuciano]

@Phoenix, at this point I'm really just waiting for others to chime in. I feel that I've made my point. The one thing you have going for you is not hammering Cheeky when you had the chance, but that's partially off-set by what could be scum!Phoenix trying to get a good reason to hammer from town!Titus. Either way I've convinced by the extent to which you find the mere possibility of somebody viewing you as scum repulsive that your play this game is either bad!town or !scum.

[Ph0enix]

@Phoenix, at this point I'm really just waiting for others to chime in. I feel that I've made my point. The one thing you have going for you is not hammering Cheeky when you had the chance, but that's partially off-set by what could be scum!Phoenix trying to get a good reason to hammer from town!Titus. Either way I've convinced by the extent to which you find the mere possibility of somebody viewing you as scum repulsive that your play this game is either bad!town or !scum.

Okay.

[Titus]

We need to start coalescing on wagons. If majority isn't reached in a day and a half, we no lynch.

[Titus]

I'm also not reading Phoenix v LL or voting either one today.

[Ph0enix]

@TSE: Could you answer 253 and 255?

And 304 as well. Quote posts if I've missed them.

[Ph0enix]

@Titus: Are you voting Cheeky solely because of her voting you for breaking RVS or there's also something else?

[Homura]

Is this valuable information? Why?

Short answer: yes, and I'll elaborate more once TSE answers.

[Homura]

Spoiler:

Fair, I suppose.

That’s fair

Ah.
Fair Point.

Fair.
And I’m actually not great at communicating.
I’m better at getting good reads/solves.

So you say you lean scum on Karnage yes?

Fair.

Fair enough.

fair enough I guess

Okay.

Think I've found my problem with this game.

Too much acquiescing going on. There's not enough energy in most pushes. Players back off too easily. Two options:

1.) Town are finding each other and mindmelding. Falls apart on a closer glance at the interactions I've quoted above, where Karnage and TSE in particular respond as such to players who are scumreading them.

or, more likely:

2.) Scum are taking advantage of the gamestate being in stasis and the lack of a coherent wagon to dissolve pushes and cause either 1.) a rushed mislynch or 2.) a no lynch entirely.

[Homura]

There's a fine line between obstinately hard-tunneling on a read and being completely complacent on a read, and the latter is far more scum-indicative. Scum want to keep their options open, scum want to look as if they're pushing but not actually pushing, scum want to seem town. The only caveat is that the complacency surrounding the pushes can be attributed to general apathy towards the game and has a higher+rand chance of implicating town. Reevaluating my reads taking that into consideration:

TSE — My biggest strength, if I had to name one, would be my ability to discern between newbtown play/poor logical play and scumplay. It's not something I'm able to articulate, but I'm seeing that crucial difference on the town side for TSE. My townread on him lost a bit of strength since I replaced in, but this is still the only read I'm even slightly confident about. Despite his stated apathy towards the game, see that he's still trying to solve and has reads.

Karnage — Didn't like a lot of his posts, nor his insistence on Titus elaborating on her theory, which I thought was already well-explained. 64, 70, and 147 in particular are iffy, and I'm not getting a sense of an actual reads progression, or reads in general. Dislike the lack of a response to my 295. The caveat might apply more for Karnage here, however; feel like the apathy comes more from town!Karnage and that scum!Karnage would effort a bit more.

Ph0enix — 16 feels like an awkward LAMIST attempt to take the game out of RVS — what was Titus supposed to make of it? 47 and 65 are fluff, and I dislike his fixation on QQ's slot. Didn't like the reaction to Luciano in 252 and the vote. 302 feels shade-y on my slot, but even if unintentional was an odd question to ask. WRT the Luciano-Phoenix interaction, Phoenix never elaborated on why he's not able to see Luciano's push objectively from a town POV. The last "okay" is the worst offender of my complacency theory. He evidently considers Luciano his biggest scumread to the point of wanting him to be the lynch in 356, but not enough to push him? There's also a lack of a read progression on any other slot as well, similar to Karnage.

[Homura]

VOTE: Ph0enix

Prefer to go here today.

[Homura]

I don't mafia lean your slot because of meta arguments, I just don't like meta arguments. Especially not in a newbie game because I, and probably more people, have never played with players in said meta read. I can't evaluate meta based arguments because I have no indication of their meta, so for me meta arguments contribute null to the game. The main reason I lean mafia on your slot are the posts made by LunarRest regarding the Titus vote switch after RVS, it seemed like she was reaching for the sky. I dislike the entire theatre around that vote switch.

Run that through me again. I wasn't present during LunarRest interactions. Have you mistaken me for their slot?

[Ph0enix]

"16 feels like an awkward LAMIST attempt to take the game out of RVS"

So what's the problem with that?

"302 feels shade-y on my slot, but even if unintentional was an odd question to ask."

I didn't want a vote you possibly don't know is there be there, what's so strange about it?

"Phoenix never elaborated on why he's not able to see Luciano's push objectively from a town POV."

His push is opportunistic. So what if I'm playing differently from another Town game of mine? And the statement that everything that is not reads equals not contributing, it's just - what???

"The last "okay" is the worst offender of my complacency theory. He evidently considers Luciano his biggest scumread to the point of wanting him to be the lynch in 356, but not enough to push him?"

How have I not pushed him, exactly?

[Homura]

Also about the first part of #291 , I don't think most of my reads are null since I do lean (if only slightly) on most players. If you would interpret that as me null reading everyone that's fine, but don't expect me to develop all in reads D1 like LL does. I would also like to remind you that my vote on Cheeky made that wagon the leading one, I could also have voted for the equally big TSE and LL wagons.

Spoiler:

Karnage is still kinda whatever to me

TSE feels meh to me

To me the Phoenix slot isn't that noteworthy right now

Saw these as nullreads. You did elaborate on some of them, but I find it strange that you scumlean me over them from your explanations. Especially considering it amounted to "I don't like meta arguments" and something I wasn't even present for.

WRT the leading wagons — pressure was on Cheeky from Titus when you repped in, so I saw that as a sheep. My vote had also been a dead vote, so the Luciano wagon isn't applicable. Can you elaborate which direction your leans are on for the reads I quoted?

[Titus]

Spoiler:

Fair, I suppose.

That’s fair

Ah.
Fair Point.

Fair.
And I’m actually not great at communicating.
I’m better at getting good reads/solves.

So you say you lean scum on Karnage yes?

Fair.

Fair enough.

fair enough I guess

Okay.

Think I've found my problem with this game.

Too much acquiescing going on. There's not enough energy in most pushes. Players back off too easily. Two options:

1.) Town are finding each other and mindmelding. Falls apart on a closer glance at the interactions I've quoted above, where Karnage and TSE in particular respond as such to players who are scumreading them.

or, more likely:

2.) Scum are taking advantage of the gamestate being in stasis and the lack of a coherent wagon to dissolve pushes and cause either 1.) a rushed mislynch or 2.) a no lynch entirely.

VOTE: Ph0enix

Prefer to go here today.

Or maybe some players are encouraging pointless spam wall fights and ignoring the townies who say it needs to stop. Just saying.

Cheeky and Karnage are good votes.

[Titus]

@Titus: Are you voting Cheeky solely because of her voting you for breaking RVS or there's also something else?

Smh, the general hostile attitude Cheeky has taken towards me feels fake.

[Homura]

"16 feels like an awkward LAMIST attempt to take the game out of RVS"

So what's the problem with that?

It's in the quote.

I didn't want a vote you possibly don't know is there be there, what's so strange about it?

Why do you care where my vote is, especially on a wagon no one else was on?

His push is opportunistic. So what if I'm playing differently from another Town game of mine? And the statement that everything that is not reads equals not contributing, it's just - what???

How it was opportunistic? Luciano was the only player to scumread you at that point — you were the biggest general TR by everyone else. Opportunistic would be if Luciano jumped on you for little cause just to scumread you, but he expressed a scumread even before your reaction vote and your argument.

How have I not pushed him, exactly?

Because throughout your interaction with Luciano, you haven't once attempted a push back. You've only defended yourself the entire time. You obviously scumread him, so why aren't you pushing him? Why did you back off when he did even though you're scumreading him?

[Non lmh]

UNVOTE: cheeky[
I'll post something soon