In post 248, Datisi wrote:i think i'm going to ignore pressure as best as i can
Dat's explosion aside, I find skitt's interaction around this post interesting. Skitt asks whether or not to apply pressure, then asks if Dat needs a chance to towntell, then puts on pressure while Dat is exploding, then unvotes to remove pressure.
@clidd: last I saw you had a townlean on Wu. Why are you suddenly cautious about him specifically?
@trq: why is your entire case on dat is based on joke votes and other games? Especially after you pushed to move away from joke votes. Has anything else from this game stood out?
In post 450, Marashu wrote:Dat's explosion aside, I find skitt's interaction around this post interesting. Skitt asks whether or not to apply pressure, then asks if Dat needs a chance to towntell, then puts on pressure while Dat is exploding, then unvotes to remove pressure.
ok, and what do you take away from this?
does it affect ur read on me?
'skitter is fucking terrifying' ~ town-bork about scum-me
'Skitter [was] terrifying to play against ngl' ~ scum-bork about town-me
'Going into lylo against scum!skit unprepared is like having someone force feed you dull razor blades. It's painful, and once it starts, you're pretty much dead' ~ NMSA
'Skitter you're a spirit animal's spirit animal' ~ slaxx
I'm reading Datisi as town after all this. My reasons are that he's not feeling pressured to make new reads even though he was accused of the fact that he's not pushing anyone at all being scummy in him. Not reacting is also a reaction, if that makes sense. He's also keeping the options open, but not in a fence-sitting way, since he has expressed two people he firmly believes as town and excluded them from the equation to further narrow the PoE.
And the anger thing, as I said in my reply to TRQ, I think is something scum would have breathed deeply and tried to keep hidden if it puts them further into SR territory for being out of character for their town selves.
In post 427, Menalque wrote:can I just say dats that if you have faked this then I think I might need a break from playing games with you for a while
Menal also got my attention here because he made a comment of this nature after commenting that he's uncomfortable because Datisi's post felt like emotional manipulation, yet he's appealing to emotions here too right after that. Feels like an emotional response to justify the unvote (if he needed said justification). Unless I'm misunderstanding the tone, which is entirely possible.
I'm pumping the brakes on this for a moment. It was brought to my attention (rightfully so) that with the game being 20 pages long pulling from the queue probably isn't the appropriate course of action.
Last edited by Karnage on Thu Mar 19, 2020 11:53 am, edited 1 time in total.
'skitter is fucking terrifying' ~ town-bork about scum-me
'Skitter [was] terrifying to play against ngl' ~ scum-bork about town-me
'Going into lylo against scum!skit unprepared is like having someone force feed you dull razor blades. It's painful, and once it starts, you're pretty much dead' ~ NMSA
'Skitter you're a spirit animal's spirit animal' ~ slaxx
In post 447, Maduisha wrote:So, Datisi is playing with two people that know how he plays. Even if he's legit upset, don't you think scum would try to cover that up, especially if those people that know him are aware that he usually doesn't get upset like that when he's playing town?
i got the sense from menalque and datisi that datisi doesn't get this upset as either alignment and is more likely to do so as town, so why would scum hide that?
In post 449, Maduisha wrote:Huh... wait, were you trying to get a town read for yourself from Datisi by confronting him with the opinion of one of his town-locked players? Or are you just trying to get him to unvote you? Trusting a player's capabilities doesn't mean sheeping their opinions completely, just a reminder.
Also, do you still believe the accusation you made on Datisi is reasonable, or has the popular opinion made you disengage from it?
neither, i was trying to gain more information about how datisi was viewing the game, while also potentially gaining information about their view of skitter and marashu.
i haven't completely disengaged from it but i wouldn't make it again without more information, since i know not all of the people who think its completely illogical can be mafia. i was hoping someone would help me investigate it, but that seems unlikely.
'skitter is fucking terrifying' ~ town-bork about scum-me
'Skitter [was] terrifying to play against ngl' ~ scum-bork about town-me
'Going into lylo against scum!skit unprepared is like having someone force feed you dull razor blades. It's painful, and once it starts, you're pretty much dead' ~ NMSA
'Skitter you're a spirit animal's spirit animal' ~ slaxx
In post 460, team rocket queen wrote:it seems a lot less likely to me now but i can't say i've completely given up on the idea either.
also, if i am wrong about the breadcrumbing it doesn't mean that datisi isn't mafia or that i'm mafia, but i know you know that. datisi immediately saying i die for it still feels off to me.
In post 442, team rocket queen wrote:
sacrificing the likelihood of winning any given game to increase your winrate in future games is definitely not okay.
Why not ? I've seen some players doing this, and consistently avoiding trust-tell.
The margins:
2/9 chances to be scum
and
7/9 chances to be town
weigh more for the benefit of strengthening the
town meta
.
Statistically, the tendency is that you will play more games as town than scum. So improving your chances of winning as a town should significantly improve your overall winratio.
In post 437, Datisi wrote:
I did, sorta. My one theory, "easy game", meant scum is in marashu/trq/empty-slot.
like if only one scum is in gw/madu/clidd the afk slot ~could~ be scum but? eh? i'm kinda gonna worry about it once they're here
ok so town can only mislynch twice and they have to lynch twice correctly to win right
if the lynching poe is 4 players
and both scum is not in those 4 players
then it is a losing poe
since the town will lose if they lynch those 4
I believe that one of your problems is having Menalque and Skitter as
lock-town
in your perspective of PoE resolution. This speculative line would have more weight, for me, if I shared the same view on these two slots (which is not the case).
Another problem is that your theory does not include the existence of a
scum afk
, which has not yet verified the topic. This would make the aforementioned combinations unfeasible, and create a problem: let's say that Madu is
town
and GW is
scum
, but both had similar impressions of you. It would be difficult to correctly classify who is acting in bad faith and who is not. Therefore, it would be more plausible if you used the time available to collect information about the slot that is inactive, before proceeding with the conclusion of your theory.
In post 438, Datisi wrote:
i am not sure what you mean by this? like yes the roles are randomly distributed? i don't see how is that connected with what i've said?
It's basically the fact that the alignments are distributed at random, that is, poorly players can be selected to be
scum
with other poorly players.
In this scenario,
scummy
players can be scum together with other
scummy
players, even though this appears to be too obvious to be true.
do you think there is scum in mena/skitter?
it doesn't wholly include cum!afk yet because it's almost impossible for me to know. I can't collect information about something that is not here.
and yes i am aware that scummy players can be scum but the thing is i never had a game where the scummy players were scum and the game was easy. so i'm not exactly having high hopes of that.
In post 439, Datisi wrote:
i think it applies to Town!Datisi meta bc i don't think i've ever done it as scum
but also i don't think i've had the opportunity to do it as scum
so
yeah
You
think
?
I suppose if it were used by
scum!Datisi
here, it would brutally lose credibility in future games, correct ?
So, it would be logical to assume that you would remain in the town line using it, to be more successful when rescuing that meta to win townread in other games.
i said i think because (1) i don't exactly remember if i ever used it as scum (i think i didn't)
(2) i'm not sure if i ever had a meltdown quite this size as town before (i may have, but again i don't think it was this bad)
and not quite because that would be a trust tell and that is Very Bad and Shitty and also against the rules
and i'm explicitly saying that i maybe could/would use it as scum
obviously not in this game because i am town in this game
but ya know
''
do you think there is scum in mena/skitter?
''
- There is a chance for one/both being. These chances are low, but still exist. When you have someone as lock-town it means that there are no more doubts about the slot, and that you will not reflect on it later. This is problematic, and I believe you know why.
''
it doesn't wholly include cum!afk yet because it's almost impossible for me to know. I can't collect information about something that is not here.
''
- Yes, I understand it. My suggestion is that you wait for the slot to be replaced/return to continue your theory. The inconsistency I mentioned was in relation to not include that slot in your PoE.
''
and yes i am aware that scummy players can be scum but the thing is i never had a game where the scummy players were scum and the game was easy. so i'm not exactly having high hopes of that.
''
- Me neither, but it was an example to make it clear that combinations like that can occur.
''
and not quite because that would be a trust tell and that is Very Bad and Shitty and also against the rules
''
- I believe that it is valid to establish some small standards from one meta to the other, but I confess that it is something not so fun and morally correct. The '' emotional '' factor does not fit into the trust-tell category, unless it is something very explicit and repetitive. In your case, as it is something new to me, you seem more inclined to the town side given those reactions with Menalque.
- People are not always thinking of usage of their current position for future games every time they make a play in a game, even if it ends up impacting them later on.
-
If
what you're implying is true, doesn't it also open the possibility that the meltdown was not a weapon to get people to unvote him, and was just, in fact, a real meltdown and that's it?
- Yes, I agree.
- His history suggests a similar tone as town, but does not include overreactions as we saw in posts 376, 378 and 386. This particularity implies a deviation from his standard conduct as town, which indicates an alignment depending on your interpretation of it. Particularly, I believe it was spontaneous, especially due to the response time he had to the posts directed to him. So yes, I agree that it may have been a meltdown.
In post 248, Datisi wrote:i think i'm going to ignore pressure as best as i can
@clidd: last I saw you had a townlean on Wu. Why are you suddenly cautious about him specifically?
- I had two reasons:
*
Progression that started in post 76, where he questioned whether I was attacking Skitter and had a sequence in posts 256, 265 and 272, where there was again a teasing using the same term, demonstrating that he has a weird degree of paranoia about me.
*
The point that Datisi raised about his post 282, considering that he could be anticipating Datisi's flip, as if he knew the slot was town in advance.
Spoiler:
- In any case, my
TL
on him remains, but with an "observation" underline, in case I notice other similar or strange attitudes.
In post 462, clidd wrote:Why not ? I've seen some players doing this, and consistently avoiding trust-tell.
The margins: 2/9 chances to be scum and 7/9 chances to be town weigh more for the benefit of strengthening the town meta.
Statistically, the tendency is that you will play more games as town than scum. So improving your chances of winning as a town should significantly improve your overall winratio.
this is extremely shitty to your mafia partners if you roll scum and can definitely be viewed as not playing to your win condition.
In post 462, clidd wrote:Why not ? I've seen some players doing this, and consistently avoiding trust-tell.
The margins: 2/9 chances to be scum and 7/9 chances to be town weigh more for the benefit of strengthening the town meta.
Statistically, the tendency is that you will play more games as town than scum. So improving your chances of winning as a town should significantly improve your overall winratio.
this is extremely shitty to your mafia partners if you roll scum and can definitely be viewed as not playing to your win condition.
In post 442, team rocket queen wrote:
sacrificing the likelihood of winning any given game to increase your winrate in future games is definitely not okay.
Why not ? I've seen some players doing this, and consistently avoiding trust-tell.
The margins:
2/9 chances to be scum
and
7/9 chances to be town
weigh more for the benefit of strengthening the
town meta
.
Statistically, the tendency is that you will play more games as town than scum. So improving your chances of winning as a town should significantly improve your overall winratio.
on a different website I have actually randed mafia more than town (I think)
In post 462, clidd wrote:Why not ? I've seen some players doing this, and consistently avoiding trust-tell.
The margins: 2/9 chances to be scum and 7/9 chances to be town weigh more for the benefit of strengthening the town meta.
Statistically, the tendency is that you will play more games as town than scum. So improving your chances of winning as a town should significantly improve your overall winratio.
this is extremely shitty to your mafia partners if you roll scum and can definitely be viewed as not playing to your win condition.
no it's not
actually, I'd be glad if I ended up with a mafia parter who's losing on purpose.
Especially in those closed games with lots of power roles I could kill my own mafia partner (if it's allowed) and then tell everyone I'm a vigilante or something.
I could also bus him really hard and get towncred
In post 442, team rocket queen wrote:
sacrificing the likelihood of winning any given game to increase your winrate in future games is definitely not okay.
Why not ? I've seen some players doing this, and consistently avoiding trust-tell.
The margins:
2/9 chances to be scum
and
7/9 chances to be town
weigh more for the benefit of strengthening the
town meta
.
Statistically, the tendency is that you will play more games as town than scum. So improving your chances of winning as a town should significantly improve your overall winratio.
on a different website I have actually randed mafia more than town (I think)
Source ? this is very unlikely to be true on a scale of 10 ~ 20 games.
