Open 598: GAME OVER

[Green Crayons]

I think Anti is playing pretty solid, but I can see why you might think differently.

[BBmolla]

I find it funny how anti and BB are coming for others about playing awful when they're both being pretty terrible atm.

I'm just whining cause people are whining about semantics.

[Newbie]

What do you think of Persiv, Newbie?

I think there's a big chance that Persivul is scum as well. And I'm not voting him. It's kind of weird that you didn't realize my vote was on you, GC.

[Green Crayons]

Meh. I immediately ISO'd you as soon as I asked what you thought of Persiv, and just word searched "Persiv" in your ISO which got me to your Persiv vote. I happened to skip over your vote on me (I think I was searching backwards), but obviously I was aware of it when you did it like an hour ago.

[Green Crayons]

So why do you think Persiv is scum?

[Newbie]

His effort has been pretty underwhelming so far. The most I've seen him do was during the talk of game mechanics.

[Newbie]

@Persivul:

YGS's Persivul suspicions are credited.

Also Persivul's Post 271 is a muddle. Post 281 and Post 283 is an equally confusing follow up. Like, Persivul is reaching to attack his voter kind of muddle.

Ugh. I don't like anything on Page 12.

@GC Can you explain this Persivul read a little more?

[Antihero]

gc's surliness is (once again) making this a fucking headache

[BBmolla]

I disagree on your persivul read anti

[Green Crayons]

gc's surliness is (once again) making this a fucking headache

For a self proclaimed asshole, you whine about other assholes way too much.

[Green Crayons]

@Persivul:

YGS's Persivul suspicions are credited.

Also Persivul's Post 271 is a muddle. Post 281 and Post 283 is an equally confusing follow up. Like, Persivul is reaching to attack his voter kind of muddle.

Ugh. I don't like anything on Page 12.

@GC Can you explain this Persivul read a little more?

Sure. Let me review and see if I can better put my finger on what it is that I don't like about those posts.

[Green Crayons]

@Newbie:

1.

YGS's Persivul suspicions are credited.

Spoiler: these posts

Alright, I'm rereading.

Something feels off here; Persivul votes ika (it looks like another RVS vote?)

VOTE: ika

I presume our mayor was just murdered or some such...and you just want to chat around the fire?

Then, Newbie questions him about jumping on the ika wagon;

^
What compelled you to jump on the wagon?

Without responding to Newbie, Persivul quietly jumps back off the ika wagon (with another RVS vote?);

Damn lurkers

VOTE: sthar8

Hey green funyuns, who were you quoting?!?

32 - Lane, here you vote GC for 'forced attempts at scum hunting'.

34 - Yet here, you compliment the ika wagon and vote us.

Was your original vote on GC a serious one? If it was, what did we do that was so scummy to make you change your vote?

100 - Another bad vote from Persivul. That's four so far.

104 - Molla, I disagree on Newbie. I can understand his push and the motivations behind it.

107 - Lane, given you think wagon hopping is scummy, what is your read on Persivul?

109 - Persivul, what makes you think that an early wagon will lead to a lynch? Do you suggest we have a page/post limit before we're allowed to have a wagon reach L-2/L-1?

Further, if you have an early scum read, do you propose holding onto this read until we reach a certain point of the game as well? I mean, your whole argument basically says 'don't do things early game that involve scum hunting because it's scummy' and this is absurd.

121 - Despite what I just said to Molla, I don't like Newbie giving up on his Lane push. If he genuinely believed in what he was pushing, I don't know why he would back off because his scum read is getting frustrated. This doesn't make sense.

I'm thinking it actually has more to do with the resistance to Lane getting wagoned.

2.

Also Persivul's Post 271 is a muddle. Post 281 and Post 283 is an equally confusing follow up. Like, Persivul is reaching to attack his voter kind of muddle.

- Post 271: the "effort =/= alignment, why are you suspecting low vote count people?!" is a very blunt attack of "Misconception X should not be a basis for a vote, therefore I will attack your suspicions as if they are based upon Misconception X"

- Post 281: follows up on Post 271, which is bleh; also states a pointless truism (paraphrased: "scummy posts are scummy") in his attack on Newbie; also talks about Newbie doing associative tells, which I still don't know wtf. All of which = bad push against Newbie.

- Post 283: having been called out on the "Newbie is using associative tells" out of left field, gets defensive with a nonsense response: (quote here to emphasis defensiveness) "Point is that since you're just voting on shit I'm not real concerned about it."

3.

Ugh. I don't like anything on Page 12.

- This was me being lazy because I didn't want to type out my response to each post other on Page 12 that bothered me

- Post 284: comical misrep-by-question of ika. Looking at it now I could see how Anti would be like "ah, yes, newbtown black-and-while bluntness!," but there's more manipulation that that, as indicated by the Fox News questioning format. E.g., "Hey is it true that you beat your wife? I'm just asking questions!"

- Post 287: this is part of Persivul's string of posts about town night action strategy that I don't like; here, he's a wise master about what we should do, when earlier in the game he was all like "what is game breaking?" and "this night strategy thing seems legit". There's more nuance to it, in terms of the various messages Persivul has put forward on the night action strategy, but I'm several beers in at this point and nobody really cares.

- Post 289 / Post 292: I didn't like this vote originally because it was on BB and was dumb. I still feel that way, but I don't know if it makes Persivul scum, necessarily, and tends to favor Anti's "black and white newbtown" narrative.

[Antihero]

gc's surliness is (once again) making this a fucking headache

For a self proclaimed asshole, you whine about other assholes way too much.

asshole =/= hard to read

[lane0168]

Cool. I reread persivul. Like that lynch much more than gc or newbie

VOTE: persivul

[lane0168]

Especially after gc's last pOst. I think he paints a solid picture.

[Newbie]

@Newbie:

1.

YGS's Persivul suspicions are credited.

Spoiler: these posts

Alright, I'm rereading.

Something feels off here; Persivul votes ika (it looks like another RVS vote?)

VOTE: ika

I presume our mayor was just murdered or some such...and you just want to chat around the fire?

Then, Newbie questions him about jumping on the ika wagon;

^
What compelled you to jump on the wagon?

Without responding to Newbie, Persivul quietly jumps back off the ika wagon (with another RVS vote?);

Damn lurkers

VOTE: sthar8

Hey green funyuns, who were you quoting?!?

32 - Lane, here you vote GC for 'forced attempts at scum hunting'.

34 - Yet here, you compliment the ika wagon and vote us.

Was your original vote on GC a serious one? If it was, what did we do that was so scummy to make you change your vote?

100 - Another bad vote from Persivul. That's four so far.

104 - Molla, I disagree on Newbie. I can understand his push and the motivations behind it.

107 - Lane, given you think wagon hopping is scummy, what is your read on Persivul?

109 - Persivul, what makes you think that an early wagon will lead to a lynch? Do you suggest we have a page/post limit before we're allowed to have a wagon reach L-2/L-1?

Further, if you have an early scum read, do you propose holding onto this read until we reach a certain point of the game as well? I mean, your whole argument basically says 'don't do things early game that involve scum hunting because it's scummy' and this is absurd.

121 - Despite what I just said to Molla, I don't like Newbie giving up on his Lane push. If he genuinely believed in what he was pushing, I don't know why he would back off because his scum read is getting frustrated. This doesn't make sense.

I'm thinking it actually has more to do with the resistance to Lane getting wagoned.

2.

Also Persivul's Post 271 is a muddle. Post 281 and Post 283 is an equally confusing follow up. Like, Persivul is reaching to attack his voter kind of muddle.

- Post 271: the "effort =/= alignment, why are you suspecting low vote count people?!" is a very blunt attack of "Misconception X should not be a basis for a vote, therefore I will attack your suspicions as if they are based upon Misconception X"

- Post 281: follows up on Post 271, which is bleh; also states a pointless truism (paraphrased: "scummy posts are scummy") in his attack on Newbie; also talks about Newbie doing associative tells, which I still don't know wtf. All of which = bad push against Newbie.

- Post 283: having been called out on the "Newbie is using associative tells" out of left field, gets defensive with a nonsense response: (quote here to emphasis defensiveness) "Point is that since you're just voting on shit I'm not real concerned about it."

3.

Ugh. I don't like anything on Page 12.

- This was me being lazy because I didn't want to type out my response to each post other on Page 12 that bothered me

- Post 284: comical misrep-by-question of ika. Looking at it now I could see how Anti would be like "ah, yes, newbtown black-and-while bluntness!," but there's more manipulation that that, as indicated by the Fox News questioning format. E.g., "Hey is it true that you beat your wife? I'm just asking questions!"

- Post 287: this is part of Persivul's string of posts about town night action strategy that I don't like; here, he's a wise master about what we should do, when earlier in the game he was all like "what is game breaking?" and "this night strategy thing seems legit". There's more nuance to it, in terms of the various messages Persivul has put forward on the night action strategy, but I'm several beers in at this point and nobody really cares.

- Post 289 / Post 292: I didn't like this vote originally because it was on BB and was dumb. I still feel that way, but I don't know if it makes Persivul scum, necessarily, and tends to favor Anti's "black and white newbtown" narrative.

Cool, so why aren't you voting for Persivul then?

[lane0168]

early predictions here, I'll go with ika, persivul scum team. But don't worry. Ygs can attest I'm terrible at finding scum

[Green Crayons]

Cool, so why aren't you voting for Persivul then?

Because looking for most viable lynch from my lynch pool.

Folks listen to Anti, so atm it's probably whoever he pushes.

Unless if you want to revitalize the Persiv-wagon? I may be tempted to defect.

[Persivul]

@Newbie:

2.

Also Persivul's Post 271 is a muddle. Post 281 and Post 283 is an equally confusing follow up. Like, Persivul is reaching to attack his voter kind of muddle.

- Post 271: the "effort =/= alignment, why are you suspecting low vote count people?!" is a very blunt attack of "Misconception X should not be a basis for a vote, therefore I will attack your suspicions as if they are based upon Misconception X"

You’re attacking this analysis because it’s a blunt application of conventional wisdom.

1. I’m new to the game. What’s surprising about blunt application of conventional wisdom?

2. I’m new to this site. A lot of you seem to have played together before. That means you know each other and can make more subtle reads. I don’t have that. Again, blunt application of fundamentals should not be a surprise.

3. What’s wrong with the analysis itself? Blunt and fundamental do not equal bad. When I have a problem in my golf swing, it usually turns out to be a fundamental.

I didn’t make up the facts. Everyone he listed as suspects were the lower post counts. I asked him if that was because he disagrees with the conventional wisdom. The possibilities I see are:

- He disagrees with the conventional wisdom and thinks that yes, effort is indicative of alignment. If so, he should just acknowledge it – but if he doesn’t apply it consistently, it could be problematic for him later.

- He disagrees, but he’s scum and wanted to point fingers at people who were less likely to fight back.

- He disagrees consciously, but unconsciously applies it. This would be like my golf swing. He’s just gotten lazy on a fundamental but doesn’t realize it.

- It’s just coincidence. That’s why I also asked “Is this just coincidence?”

Instead of a substantive response, he just said, “Effort can be indicative of alignment when accompanied with scummy posts.”

Well no shit, Sherlock.

Can high effort be indicative of alignment?
Yes, if it includes scummy posts.

Can long posts be indicative of alignment?
Yes, if they’re scummy.

Can short posts be indicative of alignment?
Yes, if they’re scummy.

His response completely dodged the subject with a pointless truism (more on this next).

- Post 281: follows up on Post 271, which is bleh; also states a pointless truism (paraphrased: "scummy posts are scummy") in his attack on Newbie;

This was a sarcastic response to his pointless truism that “Effort can be indicative of alignment when accompanied with scummy posts.” Since you don’t know my style, in hindsight I see I should have added a [/sarcasm] or something after that statement to make it clear that I was being sarcastic.

also talks about Newbie doing associative tells, which I still don't know wtf. All of which = bad push against Newbie.

Elsewhere I’ve made associatives on D1 and been told that they’re generally considered useless before a flip. So, I find his associatives on D1 suspicious.

- Post 283: having been called out on the "Newbie is using associative tells" out of left field, gets defensive with a nonsense response: (quote here to emphasis defensiveness) "Point is that since you're just voting on shit I'm not real concerned about it."

Yes, I thought people would see garbage charges for what they are. Indeed, some people have, and are reading me as newb town. But, since some people want to see a response, here it is.

3.

Ugh. I don't like anything on Page 12.

- Post 284: comical misrep-by-question of ika. Looking at it now I could see how Anti would be like "ah, yes, newbtown black-and-while bluntness!," but there's more manipulation that that, as indicated by the Fox News questioning format. E.g., "Hey is it true that you beat your wife? I'm just asking questions!"

I took “scum reside in ZZZX/TGS/Newbie” to mean that he had scum lean reads on that group. Now I take it that he meant those were just what’s left after process of elimination, but he wasn’t specifically reading them as scum yet. This was just a newbie terminology mistake.

- Post 287: this is part of Persivul's string of posts about town night action strategy that I don't like; here, he's a wise master about what we should do, when earlier in the game he was all like "what is game breaking?" and "this night strategy thing seems legit". There's more nuance to it, in terms of the various messages Persivul has put forward on the night action strategy, but I'm several beers in at this point and nobody really cares.

Again, the question on “game breaking” was a question on terminology. OTOH it doesn’t require knowledge of the jargon to analyze the proposed methodologies – anyone with paper and pencil can do it – and so that part of my posts comes across as less newbish.

I’ve gone back and forth on the ethics or desirability of such strategies. Part of me says it’s not in the spirit of the game. Part says that anything within the rules is permissible, so why not? But, the only strategy I’ve seen which makes sense is that everyone should target their best town read (forget who said it). That way we are most likely to at least protect our people. The methodologies designed to actually gain information appear to have flaws which give more advantage to scum than to town.

- Post 289 / Post 292: I didn't like this vote originally because it was on BB and was dumb. I still feel that way, but I don't know if it makes Persivul scum, necessarily, and tends to favor Anti's "black and white newbtown" narrative.

From what I’ve read and heard it’s generally accepted that D1 lynches are good for town. So, I thought YGS’ bolding of molla’s suggestion of a no lynch was YGS pointing out something scummy from molla. I really don’t understand molla’s point on the no lynch and how it would be helpful, but apparently no one thinks it’s scummy. So, I’m going to take my vote off him and move it to Newbie, based on the arguments above.

VOTE: Newbie

[Green Crayons]

Maybe I could have been more clear with respect to the first half of what your post addresses.

Newbie never said that she was suspecting players because of their low post content. But you said that she did, and then attacked her for it. That is what is suspicious.

Newbie never voiced associative suspicions. (Unless if I have missed it somewhere? I don't think so.) But you said that she did, and then attacked her for it. That is what is suspicious.

[Persivul]

Maybe I could have been more clear with respect to the first half of what your post addresses.

Newbie never said that she was suspecting players because of their low post content. But you said that she did, and then attacked her for it. That is what is suspicious.

No, I didn't say that. See 271 and 281. If you still disagree, please quote me.

Newbie never voiced associative suspicions. (Unless if I have missed it somewhere? I don't think so.) But you said that she did, and then attacked her for it. That is what is suspicious.

You're right. I read 72 too fast. Actually in that and preceding posts Newbie was getting on someone else for making associatives if I'm reading it all correctly.

[Green Crayons]

271:

"your scum reads are the four players (excluding yourself) with the lowest post counts"

+

"I've heard on here that effort is not indicative of alignment." / "Is this just coincidence?"

=

Accusation that Newbie is suspecting players because of low effort.

[Persivul]

271:

"your scum reads are the four players (excluding yourself) with the lowest post counts"

+

"I've heard on here that effort is not indicative of alignment." / "Is this just coincidence?"

=

Accusation that Newbie is suspecting players because of low effort.

WTF? Where in there do I say that "

Newbie

[

never

]

said

that she was suspecting players because of their low post content"?

I don't know if you're purposely misrepresenting or just sloppy with your wording, but what you quote in 471 doesn't support the charge you made in 469, at least not to anyone who's reading it carefully.

[Persivul]

In case you still don't get it:

Newbie seems to be making reads based on effort.

and

Newbie

said that

she is making reads based on effort.

Are two different charges.

I made the first one, and have since explained why I made it, and why her response to it was crappy. (BTW I thought Newbie was a

he

in that post, apologies for any confusion).

I did NOT make the second one, but that's what you charge in 469:

Newbie never

said that

she was suspecting players because of their low post content. But

you said that she did,

[Green Crayons]

Jesus fuck

"But you said that she did," where the "did" was referring to "suspecting players because of their low post content," not whether or not Newbie ever

said

she was suspecting players because of their low effort.

You're (wrongly) arguing a pedantic point about grammar, when it's clear that I am and have been saying you made up a basis for Newbie's suspicions (low effort) and then attacked that made up basis.