In post 508, Carrot and Stick wrote: In post 381, Mathdino wrote:because she's already set herself up with "Assembler pulled me in at the wrong time, I suck D1" and is likely to default to "WOE IS ME MY READS SUCK" after my flip.
Nahhh. I expect to live to see D3. I'm not getting lynched this game I can guarantee you that. I might be the nightkill, be it reputation, accuracy, or the best combo of "unlikely to be protected/watched while still being a good idea to get rid of", but my plan is to either be so right that I'm someone scum think the doc/watch will be on or so wrong that scum keep me around hoping I'll get mislynched/lead the town towards mislynches even though I know I won't be.
Ugh, this feels super town.
In post 513, Carrot and Stick wrote:
Of course, I was dissatisfied with that. Which is what continued reading was useful for and continued effort to try and sort the slots and narrow it down. (Because again, scum try to widen the lynchpool; town try to shrink it.) Given that I currently have exactly three scumreads no more no less? I'd say I was highly successful in that endeavor. I am at exactly the spot I need to be at for D1.
Agreed with the first part, but you don't see how it looks a little convenient that you posted an ambiguous list that appeared to show a large portion of the game as possibly on your scum-radar, which you could then theoretically draw from later on and claim you had an early read to that effect?
In post 513, Carrot and Stick wrote: In post 400, acryon wrote:Is scum!Dino this blatant about a PL, especially on someone that he would know is town?
Absolutely, yes, and it is specifically BECAUSE he knows they are town that it is so blatant. (This is a preview for the
real
reason Mathdino's policy lynch on InfernoBrafin is a scumclaim.)
Hmm ok.
In post 513, Carrot and Stick wrote:my reason for jumping on InfernoBrafin in the first place was RVS. I stayed on because it's produced some good pressure and content I think.
Well aside from your RVS vote being a scum-RVS vote, I don't dispute that it was an RVS vote. (It WAS an RVS vote, it's just that it was an RVS vote which is a scum-RVS-vote rather than a town-RVS-vote.) It's the staying on which is the real problem though because "it produced good pressure and content" != "InfernoBrafin is scum".
In fact, quite the opposite. Stating you stayed on because it produced good pressure and content is giving you an out: if InfernoBrafin was mislynched with you on the wagon, you could say "I didn't scumread InfernoBrafin incorrectly, it was a pressure vote for content!". Now, pray tell, which alignment is motivated to act in that way?
Are you of the opinion that pressure does not help mature everyone's reads but causing players to respond?
In post 514, Carrot and Stick wrote: In post 513, Carrot and Stick wrote: In post 400, acryon wrote:my reason for jumping on InfernoBrafin in the first place was RVS. I stayed on because it's produced some good pressure and content I think.
Well aside from your RVS vote being a scum-RVS vote, I don't dispute that it was an RVS vote. (It WAS an RVS vote, it's just that it was an RVS vote which is a scum-RVS-vote rather than a town-RVS-vote.) It's the staying on which is the real problem though because "it produced good pressure and content" != "InfernoBrafin is scum".
In fact, quite the opposite. Stating you stayed on because it produced good pressure and content is giving you an out: if InfernoBrafin was mislynched with you on the wagon, you could say "I didn't scumread InfernoBrafin incorrectly, it was a pressure vote for content!". Now, pray tell, which alignment is motivated to act in that way?
The word I was looking for here was "accountability".
acryon stating he kept the vote on because "it produced good pressure and content" is a way of leaving himself with no accountability for the vote on a player which we undoubtedly will learn later in the game is town.
To give a counterexample: I am incredibly accountable for my Mathdino and acryon scumreads (I'd lump Momrangal in there but while I've voted Mathdino and acryon I haven't voted Momrangal so she's not as strong an example).
I have stated my reasons for voting there, I have indicated strongly my scumreads, and if these prove incorrect, I hold responsibility for them having been incorrect. I've been rather unambiguous about this.
Instead of stating that he held InfernoBrafin to be scum (something he'd be held accountable for), he is denying accountability by stating it was a pressure vote producing content.
Which alignment, I ask, has a stronger motivation for this?
I would hope no one is putting too much weight on the reasons people pushed players on D1, which scum can generally play with their eyes closed. I think your points ring very true later in the game especially, but I think putting such an emphasis on accountability D1 is loose.
In post 517, Carrot and Stick wrote:
In post 422, acryon wrote:327 starts with garbage. Saying 4 of the 5 people are scummy as of post 20. This should be the first red flag.
I'm not going to requote myself for why that's incorrect, but I have a DIFFERENT reason for quoting this.
What makes you point out my list, and yet...
In post 276, Mathdino wrote:Could be scum, wouldn't be surprised: {Bujaber, LUV}
Would lynch: {Paradox, IB, N_M}
...Ignore this from Mathdino?
This is a false equivalency. [My interpretation of your post was that] you were saying 3/4 of the 5 people who had currently posted are likely scum. Mathdino is posting much later on in the game and simply offering reads on 5 players. Surely you see the difference here.
In post 517, Carrot and Stick wrote:Acryon is treating my readslist in
330 as if it were the final product, when it was the first prototype and one I self-confessed in multiple ways was flawed and I knew it to be flawed. So I worked on fixing it. He's acting as if I didn't.
Except the problem is you posted it. Final product or not, this could be drawn upon later in the game as "some initial gut scum-reads" that you build upon as needed.
In post 519, Carrot and Stick wrote: In post 423, acryon wrote:I would've loved to have been the first to vote C&S, but unfortunately they were active during times when I don't play.
Oh?
In post 414, acryon wrote:I think opportunism being scummy requires some amount of trying to look like it's something it's not. I was pretty up-front in my sheeping. I suppose you're welcome to not believe that I actually felt what I felt, but calling it opportunistic when I was so open about it seems
opportunistic
.
I'd love to hear your explanation for how these two stances aren't mutually exclusive with one another.
I'm not sure how you see these as opportunistic, unless you believe I'm lying about IRL availability, which I take a very hardline approach on and view as unethical (which I suppose you can separately disbelieve). If I'm scum, I will gladly lie about whatever I need to in-game, but lying outside of game crosses a line IMO.
UNVOTE:
Have a hard time believing C&S is scum here after this recent flurry of posts.
In post 534, Iconeum wrote:Easy solution here.
Carrot already provided it.
Let's wagon acryon here, MD. You already expressed you are willing to lynch there...
VOTE: acryon
Care you provide your reasons here?
In post 542, Mathdino wrote:right so that entire post is summed up by
1. i'm either softclaiming PR or am too awesome to ever be lynched/wagoned (which i'm pretty sure is scum-indicative)
(i'm comfortable calling that a blatant PR softclaim because if i saw it immediately, scum fucking DEFINITELY saw it; feel free to not respond to this)
Can we not talk about who we do or don't think is softclaiming?
Are you incapable of making a case? And why are you asking someone who doesn't even scumread me to make a case? Sound like you just
want
him to come up with reasons to scumread me. How is that town play?
In post 574, Mathdino wrote:
I don't like the push on Beefster. It seems like middle-hanging fruit. Go after a good player with a scummy playstyle instead of a bad player who gets scumread by everyone. Makes you look like you're doing something. Beefster's trajectory is consistent with town there. Need to talk this over with acryon.
Hold on a second Math. Surely most people would say low-hanging fruit is scummy, but now
middle
-hanging fruit is scummy? So unless people pursue the most difficult leads, it's scummy?
In post 574, Mathdino wrote:
@acryon:
1. Your townping on Bujaber in
142 is undeveloped. Please elaborate on this and give an updated read on Buj.
This is gut since I've played with him recently. To be honest I still don't feel much from BuJ. No posts of his particularly strike me as scum-motivated, and gut tells me it's genuine.
In post 574, Mathdino wrote:2. In
186 you claimed LUV's posts had too much merit to disregard on gut. Elaborate.
Obviously this was quite early on so there isn't much in general, but ]post]126[/post] and
127 seem like posts that are helpful for town. 127 specifically seemed like town-analysis.
In post 574, Mathdino wrote:3. In
207, you said you weren't interested in having a discussion on hydrae, yet almost 50% of your game-relevant posts are about hydrae. What was your motivation in returning to that point in
200?
I returned to it because it seemed to become clear that it
was
becoming an issue. Was happy to move on from it if it didn't become an issue, but it appeared it had at that point.
In post 574, Mathdino wrote:4. bro wtf does this mean and how does it actually relate to the conversation beefster and the worst were having:
In post 400, acryon wrote:"Scum usually". I think it's just as likely scum recognizes Math as very "townie" and would like to kill him for towncred.
It's an attack on any argument using the phrase "scum usually".
In post 574, Mathdino wrote:5.
IS
scum!Dino blatant about policy lynches on town? You never continued that train of thought.
That was a question to C&S, who seemed to think they believed it from you. I thought it was clear from the tone that I didn't believe that to be the case.
In post 574, Mathdino wrote:6. You're at the point where you're gonna have to give a full reads list. Your ISO is nearly devoid of stances on players. Here's a jumpstart:
Going through the posts in which people scumread/vote/shade you, who seems to genuinely believe you're scum, and who seems insincere in their push?
IIRC, these are:
Mathdino
Momrangal
mastina
Almost50
Beefster
Iconeum
Bujaber
I certainly don't have the time to play as much as I used to, so I generally try to make a decent catch-up post and then a handful of smaller posts throughout the day, but you likely won't see paragraphs of a case from me.
Mathdino - If anything, your potential scumread of me feels like it's jumping on the train (or being forced on by Icon). Personally, I just have a connection to you because I like your playstyle. I'm not sure if that's causing me to give you a pass up until now, but it's possible.
Momrangal - Mom is a fairly null slot to me, although gun to my head I'd say sincere/Town.
C&S - Didn't like the entrance, haven't really played with the slot, but feel pretty confidently now that the slot is town.
Almost50 - Feels very obvtown. Really like his posts.
Beefster - Likely scum.
Icon - Felt like obvtown at the beginning, but when he started pushing you so hard to try and make a case on me, it really rubbed me the wrong way. I now think he's loosened up his play a bit after being widely townread. Starting to feel insincere.
BuJaber - Already touched on this a bit, but most early posts felt sincere. But this last couple pages or so have been
weird
. All of his posts on the last couple pages have been bad. Icon has already touched on this it looks like, which to me makes me think that both Icon and BuJ are likely not scum.
For full-disclosure, here is a full list:
Almost50
the worst
Carrot & Stick
Not_Mafia
InfernoBrafin (James Brafin + Inferno390)
Momrangal
Null
Kthxbye
Mathdino
TheGoldenParadox
Iconeum
BuJaber
Beefster
VOTE: Beefster
