In post 44, Val89 wrote:I still think since Not_Mafia is at E-2, we should just go ahead and make him the lim for the day rather than piviot to Lukewarm, though. We can deal with him tomorrow.
In post 44, Val89 wrote:I still think since Not_Mafia is at E-2, we should just go ahead and make him the lim for the day rather than piviot to Lukewarm, though. We can deal with him tomorrow.
Even though my play with Val sample size is one (or rather, playing with anyone), this does seem very uncharacteristic.
Ah yes, as we can all see, I am indeed the only person who took Val seriously.
For the people who have actually seen me play scum, would you describe my play as "over-the-top sensitive to any suggestion early game I might be scum" -- and do you think that this looks like my reaction to shade while scum? (I would say I took a very different approach to Hockey scum reading me lol)
Anyways, I am fully ready to death tunnel Val now
Posted: Tue Jul 06, 2021 5:35 pm
by Val89
In post 99, Val89 wrote:Marci seemed to be taking it at face value in 50
I acknowledged Marci's comments in my post.
Interesting choice of quote from Alstro's 73. Seems like this one would be the one actually relevant to the topic at hand:
In post 73, alstroemerial wrote:As a result, Luke's response threw me off a bit because it seemed to be taking it completely at face value. So I wasn't sure if Luke was, like, playing along, or...?
Are you really trying to spin 73 as Alstro having taken me seriously? I can't speak for them, but I have to say it reads pretty clear to me - if they thought you might be "playing along", then they thought there was a joke of some kind to play along with. I'm sure they can weigh in on the issue.
In post 100, Lukewarm wrote:Anyways, I am fully ready to death tunnel Val now
Maybe someone else can help me out, but I'm not sure how else to characterise this if not "over-the-top sensitive"...
Posted: Tue Jul 06, 2021 5:59 pm
by Lukewarm
I find it difficult to believe that the argument he made in post 99 was genuine.
For starters, he has now backed off of the Not_Mafia scum read -- So his theory appears to be:
**Scum!me saw Val make post 25 where he voted for Not_Mafia, who is not my partner -- and in response, I voted Val (for some reason)
**Then, Val accused me of being scum partners with Not_Mafia AND he says that we should elim Not_Mafia first -- and in response, I became defensive and needed to "lay the narrative that he was scum early" (for some reason)
Instead of, I don't know, being overjoyed? Like, that is the dream scenario for Scum!Me. --- I get linked to a town player, we flip that town player, which subconsciously makes people inclined to believe I am town, and overtly, the argument that "I was defending my partner Not_Mafia" instantly goes away. So why would I ever start pushing him there, instead of just planning to blame him for a Not_Mafia elim tomorrow?
I would like to Uno Reverse Card him here, and say that from my PoV, his entire scum case on me appears to have started immediately after I voted him in post 31
In post 102, Lukewarm wrote:For starters, he has now backed off of the Not_Mafia scum read
???
Posted: Tue Jul 06, 2021 6:15 pm
by Lukewarm
That is what you felt like responding to there?
In post 99, Val89 wrote:I do not think Not_Mafia is actually scum due to any logic I give in 25, I don't think he should be the lim today, and as such at present I would unvote him if another vote came his way
You made it clear that you do not currently scum read Not Mafia -- and as such, your theory behind your scum read in 99 makes no sense.
That being the thing you wanted to respond to, instead of addressing my concerns in regard to your read -- either by explaining why you think Scum!me would act that way or by adjusting your read -- certainly does not make me more inclined to think that your read was ever genuine to begin with
Posted: Tue Jul 06, 2021 6:16 pm
by Lukewarm
Every post from Val just sinks me deeper and deeper into this tunnel.
I'm gonna check out for real this time, and head to bed. If someone thinks that I am wildly off the mark, let me know
Posted: Tue Jul 06, 2021 6:50 pm
by Val89
Yes, that is precisely what I felt like responding to, because your entire argument as to why you feel my read can't be genuine begins as follows:
In post 102, Lukewarm wrote:For starters, he has now backed off of the Not_Mafia scum read -- So his theory appears to be:
But, you are very clear in post 96 that you are aware that it wasn't a serious read. Whatever argument then follows from an obviously false premise is worthless, no?
Trying to tell us you think 'Val is scum because he is trying to sell us an argument he doesn't genuinely believe. He can't believe it because it doesn't make sense to me when you look at it from this chain of reasoning that begins with him backing off his scum read of Not_Mafia' when you've already explicitly said you don't believe the Not_Mafia read was serious, and I've confirmed that to be case, seems borderline trying to insult our intelligence, frankly.
My 'read' in 99, which in actual fact was more "here is something I think might be scummy about Lukewarm, what does everyone else think" than a scumread, isn't predicated on scumreading Not Mafia in the slightest. The thing I think might potentially be scummy is the fact that you took something I thought was obviously non-serious, that you were defending a scum partner, as serious, when at least some other players did not. You've tried attacking the argument by sarcastically suggesting that others DID take me seriously, and used, for example, selective quoting of Alstros post 73 to suggest they thought I was being serious when a read of the whole post makes it clear they did not. When I've pointed that out, you've moved on to trying to frame an argument that my read can't be genuine on a false premise - and when I pointed that out by simply quoting the obviously contradictory parts between 96 and 102, you then attempt to frame me as scum for pointing out that contradiction.
My 99 was simply pointing out something that pinged me as scummy, but I entered into this conversation believing with further exploration it may well turn out to be NAI or even perhaps town motivated. I have to say, your reaction seems somewhat strange. I don't believe you are a bad player, so why you feel the need to resort to sarcasm, selective quoting, and obviously disingenuous arguments as town, I don't know.
I still feel discussing
THIS
is likely to lead to posts that allow us to start forming reads more effectively than discussing some other RVS stuff like Zyla's 10 for instance, so I think inviting others to give their thoughts on the matter is the appropriate way forward here.
Posted: Tue Jul 06, 2021 7:39 pm
by Lukewarm
Spoiler:
Insomnia is a bitch
For some reason, you seem to think that me saying "Val has backed off off of the Not_Mafia scum read" instead of something like "Val has made is clear that they are not currently scum reading Not_Mafia," somehow invalidates the rest of the point, when... it doesn't.
I read post 33, and that does not seem like a genuine stance for you could believe, because the scum motivation you are presenting is nonsense.
I mean, I can even rephrase without the word choice you appear stuck on, just to show that the thing you honed in on is pointless...
---------------------
---------------------------------
Like I said before, each post from you is digging me deeper into a tunnel, because the fact that you want to harp over word choice, instead of the core point is worrisome
Posted: Tue Jul 06, 2021 7:42 pm
by Lukewarm
Tl;Dr
I find it hard to believe that the stance taken in 99 are genuine, because the scum motivation presented are nonsense
and because you claim that my suspicions on you originated because of your suggestions that I could be scum, even though I voted you prior to you ever saying that
Posted: Tue Jul 06, 2021 7:47 pm
by Lukewarm
At this point, I feel like I am drowning the thread. For real this time, I am checking off, and will try not to post again until everyone else has gotten a chance to weigh in
(If I post before then,
Is it pre-flip associations time? Let me get the popcorn.
VOTE: Val
AMA while I read backwards.
Posted: Tue Jul 06, 2021 10:39 pm
by Portia
In post 97, Lukewarm wrote:This newest angle coming from you really just feels like you are trying to weasel your way out of statements that are now being held against you
Obvs Im going in reverse, and was happy to see the preflip associations thing wasnt serious. I have reached two pretty safe conclusions: Im going to be too dumb to follow Val's cases, and Luke is the kind of addictive player who doesnt sign off until 4 hours after they intended to do so. Finally, with the quote, this is a pretty good sign that you are tunnelled and not hearing. Conf bias is a hell of a drug.
In post 11, Pavowski wrote:Since Val and Vote both start with V and linguistic logic will not be denied
portia and pavowski both start with a p, which makes u teammates try to fight this undeniable logic
Why not vote yet in the game - do you normally not RVS.
Posted: Wed Jul 07, 2021 12:37 am
by Val89
In post 113, Portia wrote:Val, if the NM read wasn't real, why have you left your vote there for ages?
I haven't seen a reason to move it just yet. While Lukewarm appears to have taken my post 99 as saying "I read Lukewarm as scum", I'm not all the way there yet.
In post 99, Val89 wrote:Now we know the Lukewarm did take my 33 onwards seriously, we can get to deducing what that means for his alignment. We now have something of substance to discuss - ie: why Lukewarm in particular took me seriously when at least a handful of other players don't appear to have done so
In post 99, Val89 wrote:The consensus may well be that it makes Lukewarm townleaning, or that it's NAI, but I'll open up by saying my initial thoughts are that it leans scummy.
In post 99, Val89 wrote:I know it isn't much in isolation, but it appears out of everything we've got in the thread so far to have the highest chance of actually being alignment indicative, so I would like to explore this.
I felt like taking something that wasn't meant to be serious as serious, if others have correctly deduced that it wasn't meant to be serious
could
be, but isn't definitely, alignment indicative. If it was AI, my initial thoughts on the matter were that it was probably scummy rather than townleaning for the reasons I give - that it may indicate a hypersensitivity to the slightest shade, even if that shade wasn't serious; but I didn't actually know for sure that we weren't bantering back-and-forth until post 86.
This is my 3rd game of mafia, and previously, things that I've considered to be alignment indicative haven't been, and if I have a weakness, it's that once I've decided a slot pings me as scummy I've started to see everything that slot posts as being scummy. It's not impossible - I initially scumread Zyla in 2068, and her responses slowly convinced me that I was wrong, but mostly I've held the view that slots I start thinking are scummy are scummy right up until I see the flip even when others, even basically
all
the others, are reading them as town. I've only played two games, and one of those is still on-going and thus off-limits to examples, but it's been a theme in my play I am aware of and trying to actively guard against.
Because of that, although I had that ping from Lukewarm, and I've seen some issues with his response like I've already identified - the selective quoting, attempting to portray me as susing him because he is voting me etc, but I am actively trying hard to read everything this game through the lens of "is there an alternative explanation for this, could this slot, while doing some things you think are scummy not actually
be
scummy.
If it helps everyone understand where I am, I will unvote here. Whilst I think Lukewarm has started to ping me scummy, I am not throwing my vote down on them and calling them a scumread until I have more reason to do so, in an attempt to avoid another Val v JamesTheNames situation.
Is it pre-flip associations time? Let me get the popcorn.
Let's expand that 106 quote just a tiny bit more:
In post 106, Val89 wrote:The thing I think might potentially be scummy is the fact that you took something I thought was obviously non-serious, that you were defending a scum partner, as serious, when at least some other players did not.
Did you really take that to mean I was making legimitiate pre-flip associations?
Is it pre-flip associations time? Let me get the popcorn.
Let's expand that 106 quote just a tiny bit more:
In post 106, Val89 wrote:The thing I think might potentially be scummy is the fact that you took something I thought was obviously non-serious, that you were defending a scum partner, as serious, when at least some other players did not.
Did you really take that to mean I was making legimitiate pre-flip associations?
Like I said, I’m a bit too much of a dum dum to try to parse all your nested conditional sentences. But I was happy when I got further back and realized it wasn’t serious.
Posted: Wed Jul 07, 2021 3:20 am
by Pavowski
Man. When I left it the Luke/Val thing felt town v town to me, but the fact that it's still going strong makes me .... less convinced. But since that truck seems firmly in the ditch, and I think it's early for anybody to be at e-2, let's try to change the subject a little bit.
In post 11, Pavowski wrote:Since Val and Vote both start with V and linguistic logic will not be denied
portia and pavowski both start with a p, which makes u teammates try to fight this undeniable logic
Why not vote yet in the game - do you normally not RVS.
I was wondering the same thing. Why no vote yet, Marci? You've certainly had the opportunity.
Posted: Wed Jul 07, 2021 3:33 am
by Portia
^^^
*puts vote away
*asks other person y no vote
There’s something about the implicit contradiction in that post that just rings town to me.
Posted: Wed Jul 07, 2021 4:56 am
by Zyla
In post 73, alstroemerial wrote:Ah here we go -- I have my eye on Zyla a bit already because [ongoing games] but it's more of a lean than a read at this point
I'm going to say that I'm a little bit confused since we aren't in any games together. Since we can talk about 2068, which we were both in, does that do anything to help or harm me in your eyes?
In post 99, Val89 wrote:For the record on my part: I do not think Not_Mafia [...] should be the lim today
Why not? Sure we shouldn't eliminate him right now, as it's early in the day, but most people seem to agree that they're hard to read and would be an easy mis-elim, which I at least would rather do the most likely miselim on day 1 and let someone else contribute to the thread
In post 101, Val89 wrote:Interesting choice of quote from Alstro's 73. Seems like this one would be the one actually relevant to the topic at hand:
In post 73, alstroemerial wrote:As a result, Luke's response threw me off a bit because it seemed to be taking it completely at face value. So I wasn't sure if Luke was, like, playing along, or...?
Now hold on a second. If I'm reading this correctly, Luke was saying that Alstro was taking
you
seriously. That doesn't mean they were taking you RVS post seriously. (And yes, it's dressed up and entertaining, but it's still RVS) You both really seem to like taking what the other person is saying out of context
Posted: Wed Jul 07, 2021 5:00 am
by Pavowski
I'm also interested in the Umlaut / Not_Mafia crossvote; even though it feels like an RVS followed by a "no u" retaliation vote, there's this:
In post 71, Not_Mafia wrote:If I were voting seriously at this point, I'd be voting Lukewarm
Which implies either that NM is not voting seriously at this point, or that he's keeping his vote on Umlaut deliberately.
Then again NM claims to be here to troll, so what we can make of his posts must needs be taken with appropriate doses of salt.
Meanwhile Umlaut is on V/LA until tomorrow, I think, so I don't know where any of that goes.
Posted: Wed Jul 07, 2021 5:10 am
by marcistar
In post 119, Pavowski wrote:Man. When I left it the Luke/Val thing felt town v town to me, but
the fact that it's still going strong makes me .... less convinced.
But since that truck seems firmly in the ditch, and I think it's early for anybody to be at e-2, let's try to change the subject a little bit.
which part of it isnt convincing, lukes side or val89s side?
In post 11, Pavowski wrote:Since Val and Vote both start with V and linguistic logic will not be denied
portia and pavowski both start with a p, which makes u teammates try to fight this undeniable logic
Why not vote yet in the game - do you normally not RVS.
I was wondering the same thing. Why no vote yet, Marci? You've certainly had the opportunity.
i just normally dont vote for awhile, i usually wait until theres something that feels like a good vote. ^.^ i think theres only one game i "participated in rvs" in
Posted: Wed Jul 07, 2021 5:12 am
by Zyla
I had just skimmed through marci's ISOs to see her first vote, and I can confirm that