In post 369, MonkeyMan576 wrote:But I still don't hear you town reading your neighbors or them town reading you. So from a town perspective an all scum neighborhood is on the table.
not from mine
Why would it be 100% off the table?
It doesn't need to be 100% off the table
You need to, at a bare minimum, show that it's plausible and worth considering. Why should we think those players are scum? Just saying it is possible is not enough
In post 369, MonkeyMan576 wrote:But I still don't hear you town reading your neighbors or them town reading you. So from a town perspective an all scum neighborhood is on the table.
not from mine
Why would it be 100% off the table?
It doesn't need to be 100% off the table
You need to, at a bare minimum, show that it's plausible and worth considering. Why should we think those players are scum? Just saying it is possible is not enough
I'm not saying they are. It could be an all town neighborhood for all we know. I'm just trying to get some more out of the neighbors themselves.
In post 379, butterchurn wrote:Why did you only now say you were joking after being questioned on it at least 5 times?
I thought it was evident. How could I possibly know the alignment of 3 players on page 15 or whatever we are on?
Saying that the argument is that you knew the alignment of 3 players is a strawman. The question is if it's a serious suspicion, not if it's locking them in as scum. None of your posts on the matter up until now gave any indication that it wasn't a serious read. When explaining it earlier you also gave no indication that it was a joke.
Ain't got a care in the world, but got plenty of beer
Ain't got no money in my pocket, but I'm already here
And now the dudes are linin' up 'cause they hear we got swagger
But we kick 'em to the curb unless they look like Mick Jagger
In post 379, butterchurn wrote:Why did you only now say you were joking after being questioned on it at least 5 times?
I thought it was evident. How could I possibly know the alignment of 3 players on page 15 or whatever we are on?
Saying that the argument is that you knew the alignment of 3 players is a strawman. The question is if it's a serious suspicion, not if it's locking them in as scum. None of your posts on the matter up until now gave any indication that it wasn't a serious read. When explaining it earlier you also gave no indication that it was a joke.
If I showed all of my cards before hand how can I expect to be taken seriously?
The one experience I have with you is you having very good reads (and also, he didn't respond to me when I said hi to him), so I'm tempted. If it's a serious vote, can you explain the reason?
Oh sweet! I vaguely remember your username as being pleasant to play with? Gonna have to go back and look at the game we were in at some point, a boost of confidence is always nice
catboi's entrance feels very... limp? Make a few small comments, kinda game related but noncommittal, so you can't say he's not talking about the game but he's not actually moving anything forward. It's what I'd post if I wanted to start the game without eyes on me.
PEdit: yes, sorry, posting on phone, it likes to glitch
As far as I remember with catboi the small comments isn't out of the norm for him, but then again the game in page 3 so
He seems defensive. My previous vote was a good vote as well.
This phrasing in the second sentence feels over-explain-y and self-aware. And hopping on to what looks like mostly a meme wagon, but doing so with serious reasons?
I think that Save the Dragons and Well Done look the towniest to me so far. Save the Dragons seems casual and relaxed, but very willing to give reads and examine other people's reads. Doesn't feel like mafia posting just to fit in.
Well Done I think is taking a good approach to the game and their lines of investigation and questioning all feel towny. I also agree with the push on MonkeyMan, who I think is likely to be scum responding poorly under pressure.
In post 161, NorwegianboyEE wrote:I'm sure this is the first and only time Tracer and Butter's matching avatars will confuse me and i will never mistake the two again.
I was thinking that same exact thing. I kinda post my reads with avatars not names, so i'm fucked gg.
In post 163, Flavor Leaf wrote:If I was in a neighborhood, would y'all wanna know, or would it be best to hold off on that for now
That would not be normal. I know this is like one step removed, but that + the low-quality bait aspect of that being the actual intent makes me believe the actual meaning was “a Miller that appears as Mafia to Cops”
“Merely by existing, we hurt each other.
But it’s not always intentional.”
He seems defensive. My previous vote was a good vote as well.
This phrasing in the second sentence feels over-explain-y and self-aware. And hopping on to what looks like mostly a meme wagon, but doing so with serious reasons?
VOTE: MonkeyMan
I had the exact opposite reaction to that post lmao.
In a, scum who just wants to help an elim go through wouldn't care, but I could see these exact words resulting in a townie debating between their current vote and their new one, kinda way
I think scum are more likely to feel self-conscious about their votes lacking reasoning and about tracking their own progressions.
In post 198, Well Done wrote:Hey catboi, why did you not respond at all to my response to responding to my werewolf miller claim?
I don't know what I expected you to say, but was surprised that it was actually nothing at all.
My attention wasn't on the game thread when you posted it, ad when I came back it wasn't interesting enough to respond to. My vote on you was entirely non-serious, I believe you're being truthful with the roleclaim.
Multiball games generally have semi symmetrical setups, not exact, of course, and if there's a Werewolf Miller claim, then there should be a Miller. If there isn't, I say we power tunnel Well Done.
last setup had both a mafia miller and a werewolf miller, I'd expect similar symmetry here - I also expect that being a miller is entirely unrelated to alignment. Last time had a mafia miller who was actually mafia. (he didn't claim at all)
Thank you for this, I still think the meaning was as I wrote before but this changes some of the thought process I’ll be applying going forward
“Merely by existing, we hurt each other.
But it’s not always intentional.”
