Gamma Emerald asked for a votecount and here it is; so who are you going to vote?
Why did CFJ ask me to move my vote but not RCEnigma? Why are players ignoring RCEnigma?
Why didn't you move your vote at the time you made this post?
This is especially relevant as moving to shelly at this point would have caused her to be hammered (the demand was there: #826, #827, #830), and if you preferred the Walter wagon, there was demand there too. You could probably have pushed either wagon over the finish line, but instead you waited and Nosferatu made the decision.
(Although deadline had been paused – at 2½ hours, so we were effectively in a "go offline and day could randomly end before you can react" situation – it was still very unlikely than anyone other than Shelly or Walter would be town's choice at that point.)
This might be a point against Looker? I had a scum game offsite recently where I missed deadline for voting like 5/7 days, and put out fake outrage about it quite a bit. So I think it might be a vaguely similar thing happening, since the root of the complacency was I believe not wanting to pull through a vote on a buddy while also not wanting to seem like you’re deflecting. The fact Looker didn’t vote here could be scum who didn’t want to take a stance that might not end well for him.
Posted: Thu Sep 10, 2020 10:18 am
by Gamma Emerald
Anyone else notice Looker is self-voting for no reason?
Posted: Thu Sep 10, 2020 10:20 am
by Gamma Emerald
VOTE: Looker
I checked the context of that vote and that’s a whole crateful of yikes.
: Have you forgotten your screenfuls-long posts on Nosferatu? #255 and #288.
By comparison, you did basically nothing to push shelly. You had a mild scumread in #488 and didn't make any cases for a stronger read all Day (and admitted as much in #784). The only actual pushing you did was #854, very late in the Day (it's after the deadline freeze had occurred).
You're currently posting as though you had a super-strong read on shelly throughout, but your day 1 posts don't match that very well.
"Cinderblock", a mafia short story by Frogserking, V2.
______________
D1
Frogster: *Pushes moderately for a BW on shelly, now confirmed mafia goon.*
CFJ: *Tries hard to pull BW off of shelly, now confirmed mafia goon.*
D2
CFJ: "I reread Frogster and his reads are bad, he seems town tho hurr hurrr."
Have you forgotten your screenfuls-long posts on Nosferatu? #255 and #288.
By comparison, you did basically nothing to push shelly. You had a mild scumread in #488 and didn't make any cases for a stronger read all Day (and admitted as much in #784). The only actual pushing you did was #854, very late in the Day (it's after the deadline freeze had occurred).
You're currently posting as though you had a super-strong read on shelly throughout, but your day 1 posts don't match that very well.
"Cinderblock", a mafia short story by Frogserking, V2.
______________
D1
Frogster: *Pushes moderately for a BW on shelly, now confirmed mafia goon.*
CFJ: *Tries hard to pull BW off of shelly, now confirmed mafia goon.*
D2
CFJ: "I reread Frogster and his reads are bad, he seems town tho hurr hurrr."
______________
VOTE: CFJ
Also: did I miss something here--
when was Nosferatu confirmed to be town?
Looks like a scum slip to me. How are you able to argue with confidence that my reads are inaccurate when the only confirmed read was right? Seems like you could only do that if you already know the alignment of the other players.
Posted: Thu Sep 10, 2020 10:41 am
by callforjudgement
Nosferatu isn't confirmed town. He is very likely town, though, especially given that a) he was the person who decided the D1 elimination and b) he should be an easy slot for scum to push given the general playstyle, and yet we haven't seen serious pushes on it from anyone since early Day 1 (such slots are nearly always town in practice).
Also, this is what I mean by your reads being bad; in this game, you've already shown a tendency to jump to conclusions and then stick to them / overblow them even when they don't make much sense, like you did on Nosferatu. Even if he does somehow turn out to be scum, your read on him will
still
have been a bad one, because it wasn't convincing to anyone else.
Posted: Thu Sep 10, 2020 10:50 am
by Gamma Emerald
I’m not a fan of how cfj is interacting with frogster, feels like discrediting. It seems like cfj wants to smear frog’s reputation just on principle
Posted: Thu Sep 10, 2020 11:02 am
by callforjudgement
How do you define "discrediting" / "reputation" in this context?
From my point of view, Frogster is tunnelling on me. I'm reading him as town, and town vs. town tunnels are one of those things that has a tendency to lose games that should be very winnable. (I once lost a game in a 4:1 ending where I was confirmed town and I had strong setup-speculation/mechanical reasons to think that two of the other players were also town, but unfortunately they were tunnelling on each other and nothing I could do or say would persuade either of them to believe that the other was town; I guessed wrong as to which of the possible-scum players were scum, scum nightkilled me and they crossvoted, and even though one of them turned out to be Vengeful town
still
ended up losing.)
I take #1029 as particular evidence that Frogster is tunnelling, because he's taken something very minor / non-alignment-indicative, and is acting as though it's a highly convincing scumslip, together with bold underlined size 150 font.
Posted: Thu Sep 10, 2020 11:02 am
by Tayl0r Swift
what are the odds that cfj vs frog is TvT here? pretty low i reckon. in any case scum is suddenly doing a good job of muddying the waters, and some townies are helping them.
From my point of view, Frogster is tunnelling on me. I'm reading him as town, and town vs. town tunnels are one of those things that has a tendency to lose games that should be very winnable. (I once lost a game in a 4:1 ending where I was confirmed town and I had strong setup-speculation/mechanical reasons to think that two of the other players were also town, but unfortunately they were tunnelling on each other and nothing I could do or say would persuade either of them to believe that the other was town; I guessed wrong as to which of the possible-scum players were scum, scum nightkilled me and they crossvoted, and even though one of them turned out to be Vengeful town
still
ended up losing.)
I take #1029 as particular evidence that Frogster is tunnelling, because he's taken something very minor / non-alignment-indicative, and is acting as though it's a highly convincing scumslip, together with bold underlined size 150 font.
I think you’re trying to generalize the Nos misread as a sign of being a bad player, that’s what comes off as discrediting. The reputation thing is that it seems like, no matter what Nos flips, you’ve expressed an opinion that allows you to push frog. So I think you’re just trying to make him look untrustworthy, which with him pushing you takes out the points of someone who is against you.
Posted: Thu Sep 10, 2020 11:11 am
by Nosferatu
In post 1023, Gamma Emerald wrote:Okay. Why are you voting to sort rn? I don’t think it’s wrong to do that, but why?
there was momentum at the time
Posted: Thu Sep 10, 2020 11:12 am
by callforjudgement
I'm not pushing frog. As I said, I think he's town-aligned.
I do think his reads should generally be ignored, though, so I'm trying to discredit him in that sense. His current read on me is incorrect; I'm hoping that he will see that, and even if he doesn't, that the rest of the town will see that. I am definitely trying to take out the points of someone who is scumreading me, because a) I would much prefer that scum dies toDay rather than me and b) even though this is probably not intentional, they're generally making scumhunting harder for the town by pushing an incorrect narrative.
In post 1000, Raya36 wrote:
How is that an over defense of Taylor? I think the claim is genuine and I don't like the shade you're putting on it. Yes we should confirm the claims by the end of the day. But putting shade on them right now does no good.
That's not making sense to me. "confirm[ing] the claims by the end of the day" requires suspicion. Why would my suspicion upset you
Suspicion is fine but you claimed to have suspicion on all of the claims and it read more like scum trying to gently push the claimed PRs before they become confirmed
CAN ANYONE READ THIS SENTENCE AND TELL ME WHAT THIS MEANS
Also, are we not going to concede that my suspicion was warranted? RCE false-claimed. Surely this must be obvious to more than just me.
In post 1017, WaltertheDunce10 wrote:I am here but am sick and then fell asleep for 12 hours. Have some work to do but I would be fine with cfj raya or looker.
This would be more believable if you added why
Is Gamma really trying to call me out for being off-wagon when they were off-wagon as well? They said "where are the votes right now?" and then vanished - a coward's way out or scum's way out. Either way, I don't see them having a leg to stand on.
Also, does anyone know what "a whole crateful of yikes" is or how that correlates to scumminess? Thanks in advance.
Posted: Thu Sep 10, 2020 11:29 am
by ItalianoVD
In post 1033, Tayl0r Swift wrote:what are the odds that cfj vs frog is TvT here? pretty low i reckon. in any case scum is suddenly doing a good job of muddying the waters, and some townies are helping them.
Actually I believe that there’s a pretty good chance it is TvT.
Can you elaborate on your second sentence?
Posted: Thu Sep 10, 2020 11:31 am
by ItalianoVD
This is not a defense, but all those suspicious of Looker, were you suspicious of SJReaver?
In post 1033, Tayl0r Swift wrote:what are the odds that cfj vs frog is TvT here? pretty low i reckon. in any case scum is suddenly doing a good job of muddying the waters, and some townies are helping them.
Actually I believe that there’s a pretty good chance it is TvT.
Can you elaborate on your second sentence?
the gamestate was in a really good spot 24 hours ago. we had good leads and the game felt under control. now it feels like chaos, which is partially scum driven im sure (either a wagon was going somewhere they didnt like or they were just being slowly cornered. but its also partially town driven. there are townies stirring shit up which is bad. now suddenly the game feels much less certain and sure - im not confident in where to apply pressure anymore. that suggests that wherever pressure was going 24 hours ago was the right direction
Posted: Thu Sep 10, 2020 11:34 am
by Tayl0r Swift
In post 1039, ItalianoVD wrote:This is not a defense, but all those suspicious of Looker, were you suspicious of SJReaver?
i certainly was
Posted: Thu Sep 10, 2020 11:34 am
by callforjudgement
In post 1002, callforjudgement wrote:After rereading Frogster (and thinking about the nightkill somewhat), I think that Frogsterking is town. Not_Mafia's play was, whilst not actually scummy, very anti-town (and Frogster picked up on that). So I'm pretty sure that Frogster would consider Not_Mafia's presence an asset to scum, and there's pretty much no way that a hypothetically scum Frogster would make that kill. (Sometimes scum make non-obvious kills for WIFOM purposes, but I don't think that a hypothetically scum Frogster would expect town to reason "Not_Mafia dead → Frogster town", so this would only be useful for WIFOM if he had a buddy point it out, and this hasn't happened.)
I was townreading Frogster anyway, though, even before the nightkill (his reads are bad but that doesn't make him scum).
Also, @
Not_Mafia
, just in case you're reading this from the dead thread:
In post 736, Not_Mafia wrote:Can flashwagon Walter please, italiano is a vig kill not a lynch
Even D1, some players were picking up on the possibility that Italiano was a confirmable power role (I saw Mason as a possibility, but thought that scum was a stronger possibility, and of course if Italiano was on the point of elimination as a Mason he would be able to claim out of it so that was no reason not to push him). He was, in fact, a confirmable power role. Those players are the worst possible slots to vig because if you wagon them and they claim, now you can let them confirm themself overnight and you get a second town-controlled kill; but if you nightkill them as town, then they don't get a chance to demonstrate why you're wrong about them. (This is especially important because players who are confirmable as town tend to put less effort into showing themselves as town through their dayplay!)
I'll be hopeful that you have a good explanation for this postgame. If it was just pure trolling, then you were playing quite heavily against your win condition.
Given that it had the opposite of the desired effect, I probably should explain this post.
The Not_Mafia kill N1 was outright bizarre, and combined with the surprising shelly flip D1, left me very confused as to what was going on; it felt like scum were intentionally trolling rather than trying to play normally (why doesn't scum shelly turn up and crossvote Walter? why kill the least useful townie in the game?) One explanation that neatly explains those two events is for Walter to be scum, but it doesn't seem to fit well with the rest of the gamestate.
As such, I was wondering whether the N_M kill was a vig kill rather than a scum kill (with the scum kill having been somehow prevented). I generally prefer to choose players who are being widely scumread as vig targets, but many players prefer to "policy vig" useless or lurky townies, and N_M really stands out as a vig kill when chosen on that basis.
I also suspected that the most likely Vigilante was Frogsterking (who was one of the players most strongly concerned with the N_M slot, and #809 looks like a breadcrumb to help town deduce Frogster's actions post-flip), leading to a townread (Vigilantes can't be scum), and a lot of alarm, because
I'm the Vigilante's top scumread
, which bodes pretty badly for N2. So I posted #1002 in an attempt to send a signal that would be picked up by a hypothetical vig Frogster, saying in effect "I think you made the kill last night, I was townreading you anyway but am townreading you more strongly because of it", hoping that he would realise that I was town as a consequence (if I'm vigreading someone and I'm scum, I could just shoot them and nobody would figure out it was me who had vigread them; although I only formed the vigread on D2, if I were hypothetically scum I would have the information to do this N1). I also included, in the same post, a discussion of vigilantes in order to clarify what the signal was about. Unfortunately, this sort of signal has to be quite subtle to stop scum pickign up on it.
Instead, Frogsterking started tunnelling me, which is not the reaction I expected and is pretty harmful to the gamestate. (It also rather increases the chance that I'm wrong about him being a Vigilante.)
In post 1027, Gamma Emerald wrote:VOTE: Looker
I checked the context of that vote and that’s a whole crateful of yikes.
In post 1031, Gamma Emerald wrote:I’m not a fan of how cfj is interacting with frogster, feels like discrediting. It seems like cfj wants to smear frog’s reputation just on principle
Great misdirection.
Posted: Thu Sep 10, 2020 11:35 am
by callforjudgement
In post 1039, ItalianoVD wrote:This is not a defense, but all those suspicious of Looker, were you suspicious of SJReaver?
I townread SJReaver (not early on on D1, but I had a growing townread as the day went on, up until the flake). I would have a rather stronger scumread on the Looker slot if not for my townread of SJReaver offsetting it
In post 1027, Gamma Emerald wrote:VOTE: Looker
I checked the context of that vote and that’s a whole crateful of yikes.
In post 1031, Gamma Emerald wrote:I’m not a fan of how cfj is interacting with frogster, feels like discrediting. It seems like cfj wants to smear frog’s reputation just on principle
Great misdirection.
yeah thats a really bad sequence from gamma who has been pretty lurky all game.
In post 1000, Raya36 wrote:
How is that an over defense of Taylor? I think the claim is genuine and I don't like the shade you're putting on it. Yes we should confirm the claims by the end of the day. But putting shade on them right now does no good.
That's not making sense to me. "confirm[ing] the claims by the end of the day" requires suspicion. Why would my suspicion upset you
Suspicion is fine but you claimed to have suspicion on all of the claims and it read more like scum trying to gently push the claimed PRs before they become confirmed
CAN ANYONE READ THIS SENTENCE AND TELL ME WHAT THIS MEANS
Also, are we not going to concede that my suspicion was warranted? RCE false-claimed. Surely this must be obvious to more than just me.
In post 1017, WaltertheDunce10 wrote:I am here but am sick and then fell asleep for 12 hours. Have some work to do but I would be fine with cfj raya or looker.
This would be more believable if you added why
Is Gamma really trying to call me out for being off-wagon when they were off-wagon as well? They said "where are the votes right now?" and then vanished - a coward's way out or scum's way out. Either way, I don't see them having a leg to stand on.
Also, does anyone know what "a whole crateful of yikes" is or how that correlates to scumminess? Thanks in advance.
I explicitly didn’t want to vote Shelly out of the available options. So being off wagon isn’t as bad for me as it is for you. And the “crateful of yikes” I mentioned is you self-voting after posting something that looked like calling yourself scum. That could be a town screw-up, but is that something I wanna take a risk on? Not really. Looks too suspicious.
In post 1027, Gamma Emerald wrote:VOTE: Looker
I checked the context of that vote and that’s a whole crateful of yikes.
In post 1031, Gamma Emerald wrote:I’m not a fan of how cfj is interacting with frogster, feels like discrediting. It seems like cfj wants to smear frog’s reputation just on principle
Great misdirection.
yeah thats a really bad sequence from gamma who has been pretty lurky all game.
Pretty sure I had the MOST posts D1, so this is a bad take.
