Newbie 1756: Balloon (Game Over)

[Manuel87]

Why did you care? And why, if you actually did care, did you bring it up precisely never again?

It felt off to start with explaining your reads but when they change you dont explain why.
Accountant pointed it out and so did Tweet so i didnt feel the need to do so at that point.
Later he made a short summary and started to explain things when asked.

All caught up.
Accountant looks more town Day 2. There's some diverse questioning and scum-hunting going on.
Partway through page 28 I wrote in my notes "Norska/thatsit FTW."

VOTE: Norska
Norska is more concerned with being viewed a certain way than in actually finding scum.
Thatsit is newbscum that won't enter the pasture for fear of stepping into something he can't scrape off his boots.

I agree with the 3 points he made.
And he was already my highest townread.

[borkjerfkin]

Votecount 3.7

[5] Not Voting (Accountant, Manuel87, Morning Tweet, mhsmith0, Loopdan)

With 5 alive, it is 3 to lynch.

Let me know if you see any problems.

Deadline is in (expired on 2016-12-30 08:30:00)

[mhsmith0]

@manuel: off the cuff, wrt Accountant's hand-waving of the engagement as town v town, I'd say it's pretty likely that if Accountant is scum, he's scum with either you (Manuel) or tweet, and this would be especially true if Accountant flips goon, since protecting the roleblocker is super important on D1 in this format (some of accountant's D3 stuff is a bit suggestive of accountant-tweet as a team [the "let's lynch tweet or norska, with a more substantive case on tweet, and then pushing norska"], but LYLO with all town PRs dead is a decent time to build false connections so I wouldn't want to read too much into that)

Well i didnt think to much about protecting the RB but thats close to my thoughts on day 1.
But then Tweet voted Accountant and didnt unvote when he was at L-1. Do you think scum!Tweet had a reason to vote scum!Accountant at that point.
The only one i can think of is an attempt of distancing that almost went wrong.
Actually thinking about it if Tweet is RB and we had lynched Accountant there she could still win with the towncredit she gets because cop and doc were already claimed.

It's a reasonable interpretation of what was going on at that point. If Accountant is a goon, bussing for town credit works great as an explanation for the push there, since a roleblocker against outed cop/doc is in decent shape, provided they're a consensus town read and can stay there. The problem (for me, anyway) is that works just as well as an explanation for your push as it does for tweet's, provided accountant flips goon anyway.

You also note that I'm not asking questions of you about your case; what questions do you think would actually be helpful? "Why was your case mediocre?" "Why were most of your responses substantively mediocre?" I could maybe see "Why did tweet catch your eye over the various other possibilities" as a decent question, but for the most part I think that making a substantive read of the back and forth was more useful than just asking random questions.

Something like why did you drop your Tweet read day 2.
Also its not only about my Tweet case. You directed questions at everyone especially Accountant but never asked me anything.
Yet you take my case and defend Tweet by saying some reasons are bad and every time you say i have a valid point you call it minor or null.

I'd like you to clarify this. I'll discuss the specific ones you pointed out below, but you're going to have to specify other things where you think I treated your case unfairly, because I'm not going to respond to the generic stuff.

wrt the asking questions, I didn't think of questions that seemed especially useful for you, so i didn't feel like asking questions just for the sake of asking questions.

"Why didnt you mention this when you unvoted Charloux?"
It's a minor point. Could a townie legitimately have neglected to mention this during the unvote (especially given that Charloux wasn't close to majority)? Of course. So since it's a plausible town process, it's fundamentally a minor point.

I dont think its minor. If i go to the lengths of reading someones last game why not share the information that made you change your mind on him?

Except that townies can be sloppy sometimes. I guess the point about it being weird that she actually did meta work and then never bothered to mention it (implying that maybe she didn't do the work in the first place and just lied about it after the fact?) has some weight, I'm just not especially sold on it being a strong point.

Like, you're accusing me of just throwing out random words, when I feel like the meaning of those words is relatively clear. Moreover, you're exhibiting the same behavior (discrediting my arguments instead of asking questions) towards me that you claim is scummy on my end for how I did it to you. That's especially odd given that your response towards my "discrediting" is to just declare that I've thrown out various words to describe your case/responses instead of actually asking questions to clarify my thoughts or highlight specific areas where you feel like you had actually made good points and that my interpretation was unfair.
So I guess I'll ask you: what of my responses in particular seemed unfair, and why did you think it was unfair? You've accused me of just throwing out random words in my evaluation of your posts, so I'd presume that you have some specific examples where you think that treatment was especially unfair, and I'd like to hear them.

No the words dont seem random at all. They all serve the same purpose of discrediting my case on Tweet.

So here is one question. Point C you say she just explained what i asked. Yet she explained her reads on me and Misa not why she had the feeling that everyone was going to scumread me and her.
And how was her quote in Point D explaining why Accountant is so low? I read that as Accountant posts a lot and is scumhunting. Not really something i would scumread someone for.

What you actually asked was "What made you think it was going into a misa/manuel scumteam scenario?" i.e. why do you think it's a manuel/misa scum team, not "why did you think those were going to be the two people pushed". So she answered what you asked. I guess I can see this as just a poorly worded question that you intended to mean something else, and then just didn't understand why she didn't answer what you were trying to ask.

In point D, what she was saying was that she had substantive reasons to TR transcend (specifically, the similar thought process bit), and that TRing Accountant on the basis of "seems to be scum-hunting, is posting a lot" wouldn't be particularly valid. So in that context, she was basically dropping Accountant off into her leftovers pile (i.e. null), as opposed to seeing something specifically scummy about him. And she'd basically talked about not really having active scum-reads, but that she did have people she wasn't actively town-reading, which seems to hold together as a reasonable thought process.

Spoiler:

@Manuel
I still don't understand why I'd try to manipulate someone I'm arguing with to vote a certain way. I expect I'm the last person you'd listen to on voting.

Out of 16 points, mh uses those words like nitpicky, minor, etc. 4 times. I'd say they define your whole case on Accountant and myself, though.

No i wouldnt listen to you but that was something that wasnt directed at me yet could have influenced the way i vote the way you want me to.

So lets look at his post

1) shaky reasons
- entirely null
- also null
- also null
- a big stretch
- also odd

then
2)
A the difference between the two was obvious
B meh
C literally just explained why
D literally just explained
E thrown-together and hasty
and 394 isn't better
A nitpicking
B it's just null
C mediocre question
D nitpicky reason,
E hasty thrown together case.
F but a minor point

maybe you meant 14?

lol was still 16 (now I'm the one nitpicking )

[Morning Tweet]

@mhsmith 913 wasn't genuine.

Spoiler: Manuel #2

Manuel, 492 is your favourite scum!Accountant post, right? In your own words, what's scummy about it? Perhaps I'm just not getting it.

Its not the post its what lead to that post. Accountant was doing little pushes without joining the wagon. When Transcend pointed that out, post 492 and a vote followed.

This is a case of "Do we take Accountant's word that he thought he was already voting Misa?" Your answer is no, for no apparent reason. This is literally all you have aside from your next point:

The main reason why i was scumreading Accountant though was how hard he pushed Misa when his only reasoning for her being scum was PoE.

I'd have to agree with Accountant that PoE is not inherently scummy, especially when the scumteam is playing well. You put emphasis on how Accountant was pushing hard, but with the end of the day drawing near I'd want to push hard on my top scum suspect, too.

@Accountant: As i said its not the post itself its what lead to the post. You not voting looks scummy.
Saying you just forgot to vote is something we cant prove but the fact remains that it happened.

Again, why are you inclined to believe Accountant had a scummy reason for not voting? How would Accountant act any differently if he had legitimately not realized he wasn't already voting?

Was my response to 944 incorrect and why?

Spoiler: Manuel

So you think Accountant not voting Misa despite pushing on her is not scummy? You see no scum intent in that?

That is misinterpreting the case and my point entirely. Accountant says he thought he was already voting Misa. You don't believe it, that's fair enough but you never explain why. My point is you're using the possibility that Accountant was pushing Misa but hoping no one would notice he's not voting her as a REASON to scumread Accountant. There really is no point in bringing it up at all, it's NAI.

Why should i not view it as soemthing scummy and brush it off as if it never happened?
I am more interested in why you are so willing to believe Accountants word? (Because you know he is town and telling the truth?)

Did I say I believe it? Have I not made it clear that my point is your case sounds fake to me? You're either distancing from Accountant or (originally) trying to win Loopdan and I over to vote Accountant.

I never said he cant really have missed voting. But him not voting there is something that scum would

possibly

do.
Who would be more likely to not vote (on purpose) town!Accountant or scum!Accountant?

You're assuming Accountant is abstaining on purpose, so this is a pretty pointless question.

{thatsit}
{Norska, Charloux}
{Manuel}
{Accountant}
{Transcend}

VOTE: Transcend
I think we need to pull Transcend back into the game regardless of alignment. His hammer still makes 0 sense to me and I'm not willing to let it go just yet.

No Transcend was also your bigest scumread at that time but your pressure on that spot vanished when the thatsit wagon became a thing.

..?
You explained it for me. I voted Transcend before he replaced out, to pressure him on the hammer.

Did you miss this? You could at least say you don't believe me.

Also your thatsit read changed from towniest to scummiest player yet you never wanted to vote him.
What made you change your read so drastically and why didnt you consider voting him?

You probably missed the transition but it's understandable enough. Aside from that, this is your only valid question.

Early on in the game I gave thatsit a newb!town read. Later on I reevaluated when Accountant asked me why I townread thatsit and I couldn't explain why. He fell down to PoE the more and more I doubted my read. He didn't jump back in the game and do anything towny or scummy so he was a null PoE who could be scum with anyone.

If Manuel is town I'd have to admit defeat on my Norska read, most likely.

How convenient that the only way to prove i am town is lynching me. Which means scum would already win before you give up your Norska read.

Back at it again throwing around meaningless arguments. I believe this was addressed to Loopdan, when I was inquiring about his Manuel read. Perhaps you could say what you find unreasonable about it, rather than jumping to the odd conclusion I would never give up my Norska read unless you're lynched.

All Norska did this game was intended to survive. Never in this game did he actually do something that did or could have benefited town.
Yet you keeping a hard townread on this slot without any way to explain it so ppl can understand.

You've changed from "You aren't explaining" to "No one can understand you". Elaborate why my Norska read is incomprehensible? I not once said I read him as town because he was helpful. Do you think it is essential to a townread that the one being read is protown?

On top of that you keep throwing shade at me since day 3 started. And try to convince Loopdan to change his read on me.

I had an open mind, I was considering Accountant/Norska as the most likely alternative. But you're correct, I am fairly sure I need to vote with Loopdan.

UNVOTE:
No surprise counter-wagons from me. Jae is killing it right now imo
I think thatsit has the highest chance of being scum, but I'm having a bit of trouble reasoning who his partner is.

Manuel and Jae wouldn't be. I believe Norska is town regardless.

My Transcend/Loopdan read pretty much slipped away since the replace,

but so far I've disagreed with most of Loopdan's posting.

While I don't have much experience with meta reading, Transcend was demotivated to the point of replacing out. If that isn't something he'd do as scum I see no reason for him to fake it.

Still not townreading Loop/Transcend. That was after i explained why Loop/Transcend is town.

What the fuck

I said my scumread deteriorated and gave a reason to townread him. The actual hell?

No i wouldnt listen to you but that was something that wasnt directed at me yet could have influenced the way i vote the way you want me to.

I still don't know why I'd want your vote or why you'd interpret it that way and drop your Accountant case (that you totally believed in) because of it.

So lets look at his post

1) shaky reasons
- entirely null
- also null
- also null
- a big stretch

1

- also odd

then
2)
A the difference between the two was obvious
B meh

2

C literally just explained why
D literally just explained
E thrown-together and hasty
and 394 isn't better
A nitpicking

3

B it's just null
C mediocre question

4

D nitpicky reason,

5

E hasty thrown together case
F but a minor point

6

maybe you meant 14?

No but I missed a couple, doesn't really change anything because they're still true. im assuming you have a problem with him calling reasons of yours null, but you cut out his reasoning for them being null so it'd be easier to complain about it

[Loopdan]

I'm back but don't really have anything to say until I see mhsmith's final reads.

[mhsmith0]

Current reads state:

Loop - town lean
Accountant - scum lean
tweet/manuel - dunno. Leaning manuel likelier scum than tweet, but I'm somewhat inclined to vote accountant and, presuming he flips goon, cross the RB bridge later.

[mhsmith0]

fuck it
VOTE: Accountant
i will definitely not be paying any attention to this thread for the next few hours

[borkjerfkin]

Votecount 3.8

[1] Accountant (mhsmith0)

[4] Not Voting (Accountant, Manuel87, Morning Tweet, Loopdan)

With 5 alive, it is 3 to lynch.

Let me know if you see any problems.

Deadline is in (expired on 2016-12-30 08:30:00)

[Accountant]

I'm ready to vote as well, given that a vote has already been cast on me. VOTE: mhsmith0

None of the reasons I had for voting Norska have been invalidated in any way with mshmith's replacement, and I can only assume this is a last ditch scum attempt to lynch the player that everyone else has suspected at some point.

[mhsmith0]

Well, either I screwed up and scum will quick hammer soon enough or I actually got it right. Guess we'll see.

[Accountant]

Well, either I screwed up and scum will quick hammer soon enough or I actually got it right. Guess we'll see.

If you actually are town(which I very much doubt, since that would have to involve either Loopdan!scum or a Manuel-Tweet team), we are going to have Words after this game.

[mhsmith0]

Words about what? I don't think loopdan is scum, and Manuel-tweet doesn't really make sense, and you fit realistically with either Manuel or tweet. Deadline is under 48 hours, someone has to shit or get off the pot.

[mhsmith0]

I mean, four hours after I voted in the first place, no one other than you has even shown up to vote me, vote you, and even engage with the situation. Which even for a newbie game is sad. So if you have something to say, just go ahead and say it.

[borkjerfkin]

Votecount 3.9

[1] Accountant (mhsmith0)
[1] mhsmith0 (Accountant)

[3] Not Voting (Manuel87, Morning Tweet, Loopdan)

With 5 alive, it is 3 to lynch.

Let me know if you see any problems.

Deadline is in (expired on 2016-12-30 08:30:00)

[mhsmith0]

Well, either I screwed up and scum will quick hammer soon enough or I actually got it right. Guess we'll see.

If you actually are town(which I very much doubt, since that would have to involve either Loopdan!scum or a Manuel-Tweet team), we are going to have Words after this game.

Fwiw this reads like at least a mild perspective slip

1) smith and accountant don't make sense as both town
2) smith made a horrible mistake

Accountant, what am I missing? You say you agree that we're probably not both town, so what exactly did I do that was some kind of big mistake? Or are you just trying to have your cake and eat it too?

[Morning Tweet]

I don't object to an Accountant lynch as that's where I'd go after a Manuel one, anyway.

I admit I did wait earlier to see if anything unexpected happened, but I'm not really sure what that'd be. Let's see if I'm right about Norska.

fuck it

VOTE: Accountant

[mhsmith0]

Any concerns that it's actually town/town? How sure are you that it's him and not me?

[Loopdan]

Here I am not hammering

[mhsmith0]

Nice. SO accountant is scum or its tweet-Manuel.

[Loopdan]

Or you.

any chance of an unvote here?

[mhsmith0]

Sure there's a chance. Convince me tweet-Manuel is at all reasonable and I'll consider it.

[borkjerfkin]

Votecount 3.10

[2] Accountant (mhsmith0, Morning Tweet)
[1] mhsmith0 (Accountant)

[2] Not Voting (Manuel87, Loopdan)

With 5 alive, it is 3 to lynch.

Let me know if you see any problems.

Deadline is in (expired on 2016-12-30 08:30:00)

[mhsmith0]

UNVOTE:

[mhsmith0]

I see our mod is hanging around. Mild ill feelings from that.

Probably gonna rector later tonight unless accountant or loopdan can make a case for tweet-Manuel tho.

[mhsmith0]

^revote