In post 1112, TheThirteenthJT wrote:So I'm not defending BM here because it does look bad. Is his position plausible? Yes. I was actually thinking scum or pr for Clark. The way BM was pushing made me think he was breadcrumbing a PR and wanted to test out Clark's reaction to l-1. So I voted. Anyways I'm trying to think of all possibilities to this but gambits like usually end up in an elimnation and at this point BM just make best to help us town out.
Anyways updated rankings scum to less scummy
BM
72
Raya
Looker
Jamsv
Clark
Also ps clark maybe next time you are cop don't out a town unless 100%needed.
My vote on BM is pending Raya cc.
Also did not like Lookers vote on Raya after pushing Jamsv. Potential last attempt to divert wagon but I actually think it's too obvious for it to be really the case. If BM flips town Looker is scum and we go Looker 72. Maybe Raya.
I'm going to put more combos now that we confirm no masons. I suggest we all do this now to make a potential Elo easier.
Dude, please read post 1149 and tell me how you don't think this is completely typical of my town play, and what you know first-hand of my penchant for a gambit
If you're voting me here, I'm basically done I think. Despite not seeing any convincing reason, I figure my goose is cooked with 2 prob conf-towns voting for me, only 4 to lynch, and before 2 days of successive LyLo.
In post 1138, ClarkBar wrote:At the risk of seemingly always agreeing with Jam I want to weigh in here...
This site seems to be brimming with players who like to foster some kind of persona/playstyle for... reasons. Maybe to have a chaotic meta, probably because they think they're super intelligent and cool. In both Newbie games I've been most slots got replaced, probably because of my toxic, insulting, and belligerent tone. Those slots have been filled by players who are
not
newbies. In some cases those players have completely hijacked these games with play whose purpose seems more to serve their own ego than their win-condition.
And maybe they're right, and I don't appreciate their brilliance. Regardless, this is a newbie game. In theory players should be here to learn the basics. Looker posts infrequently, does not respond to basic questions, and does not use reasoning when presenting reads or placing votes. He isn't even reading the thread. To a new player (or any reasonable person) his behavior is anti-town, and verging on trolling. And that leads to this problem:
At this point in the game we should be voting for people for reasons outside of "that's the way they are". If Looker is town he is providing wonderful cover for scum. And given that this is a newbie game I think that's unfair.
I think this is an unfair assessment. I've played seemingly dozens of games with Looker, and he's one of a minority of people who always strives to be respectful and courteous. He's basically a good dude and doesn't flip out, or get overly emotional. For that reason, I would happily have Looker in all my games (although not sure he'd say the same given our history!). I don't think his frequency of posting is an issue - I've not long finished a game with TTJT where we had an SE who deliberately and openly lurked his way to a victory as scum with his only posts being versions of "Oops, got prodded again, will post later". This has been a particularly active game. Generally Looker responds to most things I think, although he's a bit of a maverick too. You won't find many people with more experience with him than me, and I can't tell scum-Looker from town-Looker. The inference that his playstyle gets him lynched early is factually incorrect - Looker normally survives late into games, which is why I adopt a blanket policy across all games of "deal with Looker in LyLo" unless there's a strong reason to the contrary. Incidentally he's the sort of player I'd be checking if I was a cop. I also don't think Looker is an ego player at all - especially compared to someone like me. If we're talking about a good example for newbies, I think Looker has some very positive attributes, without perhaps being the prototype mafia player. In fact, if Looker is town he's only providing cover for scum because he's being pursued with a silly case about using %s in lieu of a more standard readslist.
He isn't being "pursued" because of him using %s, it's literally just for him to explain his reads which he ain't doing.
Posted: Thu Jul 16, 2020 10:51 am
by ClarkBar
I'm actually gonna UNVOTE: Battle Mage for the time being. I'm gonna be outta the house and I don't want anything to happen in my absence. I also want to see his reads/arguments. And I
also
want more people to weigh in on the question I asked, so far only one has (unless I missed something).
BM, if you are scum then when this game is over I will PM you my address so you can send me a bottle of your favorite booze as consultation for fooling me and causing me to lose yet another game. I think you have me in your corner for now.
Posting from mobile so I’ll leave it at that for now. Fuck.
Posted: Thu Jul 16, 2020 12:01 pm
by Looker
In post 1112, TheThirteenthJT wrote:Also did not like Lookers vote on Raya after pushing Jamsv. Potential last attempt to divert wagon but I actually think it's too obvious for it to be really the case.
No one's going to flip JamSV. I don't know why, but the consensus is that he's stolidly town. The intent is to build enough credibility to flip the other. It doesn't really matter which one goes first.
Also, I saw the acronym in several posts; it just wasn't spelled out. And, yeah, I've skimmed a couple of the pages; I focused more on votecounts.
I actually replaced in to win, despite belligerence and insults. These are some awkward scumhunting tools. I think that might explain why your replace rate is so high.
And Raya hasn't been here. You can't really do anything with 0 reaction.
Once again still haven't explained the %s
. I already debunked how silly it is to apparently go off of votecount~
Is asking for an explanation of reads so immeasurably insane or something?
I honestly did it that last time because i thought you were being rude. I explained why I suspected you and Raya earlier, but, since Dunnstral's replaced in, I'll go further. The fact that no one's voted you at all and you were on a townflip increases your likelihood for being scum. I don't see why Porkens's wagon wouldn't be the first place to look, especially with him and LQ flipping town. Clark is claiming Cop and an innocent on Thirteenth, so his slot should be self-resolving. 72offsuit didn't eliminate town. Raya/Dunnstral pushed Echo/LQ and Porkens, both who flipped town. Blopp/Battle Mage could be scum as well.
In post 1132, JamSV wrote:I've looked over your games, all you do is post single sentences with little impact to fly under the radar, regardless of alignment.
Are these things not hurtful to you people?
Is Clark accusing me of being a bad SE? You guys killed the SE's, and the one you have left you're arguing with over playstyle.
Also, I'm posting as much as I can in this game that I play to relax. I have an actual job, though, and actual loved ones, so snark doesn't compel me to "try harder" regardless of whether you think I'm scum or not. I
do
try my best, though, which is why insulting people's intelligence and literacy isn't impressive to me.
Going to be hard for me to do that when I've only just replaced in
I need to know what parts of Raya's play people had a problem with
Posted: Thu Jul 16, 2020 1:56 pm
by Dunnstral
In post 997, ClarkBar wrote:I think I'll just kinda do a rundown of players and update my thoughts on them. I'll try and be somewhat brief to avoid a huge wall of text. LL's absolutely insane (he was trolling, right?) play from yesterday makes the wagon against him a little tough to dissect. LL sunk that slot to a point where scum could happily and justifiably sit on that wagon/join the push. That makes things tough, but there are other things to consider in when updating reads.
JamSV:
The Blopp E-1 with the hammer invitation comes as no surprise to me based off of previous experience. The back and forth with LL is a tough hang, but I think I buy Jam's vote. Jam spent virtually all of D1 engaging with that slot, often for his own reasons. He doesn't seem to sheep anybody else, but I did breeze through his iso a little. His arguments seem genuine and largely make sense. Then we get to the end of the day and that whole bizarre sequence. I think I don't see it as a scum!Jam move. He then votes for me today and is pushing a Me/Looker scumteam. Which is cool and all, but where's that coming from? No case or reasoning is something that I typically suspect, but I've come to expect it from Jam. I'll address Jam's views on Looker when I get to him. For now I lean slightly town on Jam.
TheThirteenthJT:
Also a town lean. He feels I'm scummy, and points out what he considers are contradictions on my part. I'm not entirely sure exactly what he means or what my scum-motivation would have been. I answered his questions as best I could and he seemed to be satisfied, or at least enough to drop it. I appreciate that my turn on LL seemed sudden, but to be fair LL's behavior shift was itself pretty sudden and extreme. Reading through again I just think the points that 13JT bring up are valid and he's engaging and following-up with people on those points. Nothing seems forced.
Looker:
It appears Looker replacing in was the match that lit LL off. They have some history, and Looker indeed votes LL. Which is tough to criticize, that slot was going off the rails at that point. The percentages thing is fine, his reasoning for it after I asked is fine. Putting me at a 0% flip preference is strange, as if he knows I'm town with certainty, which only scum could know at that point. But I don't think that's what the 0% is implying. I'm basic? I suppose I've been called worse. The spat with Jam is interesting. Looker feeling that Jam (and correct me if I'm wrong here) hammering when he did implied he didn't care about Looker's response to the percentages thing. I strongly disagree that Jam has skated under the radar. The vote for Jam almost seems OMGUSy, but other reasons are provided. This back and forth kinda feels like two townies feeling each other up, but I'll still read with great interest. There's not a ton to go on with Looker, for me right now I think he's at a null.
Battle Mage:
Things get a little more murky here. Having both of his top scum-reads both flip town isn't without some comedy. Obviously Porkens was a wagon anyone could get on, but the Quick thing never really went over with me. BM accuses me of having my blinkers on, but I never found anything really compelling about scum!Quick. So is BM's push on Quick genuine or an attempt to test the waters for an alternate wagon? Well given the NK of Quick such an effort would have been for nothing. Also, BM NK'ing Quick after he made him an avatar would be pretty rude. Porkens votes BM near the end of D1, and some of his reasoning resonates with me. I have only one completed game, and in that scum came in as a replacement and did a bunch catch-up posts that were essentially fluff that appeared pro-town/high-effort. I think BM's takes are slightly better and he has some real takes, as horribly wrong as they turned out. Anyways, we get to D2. I appreciate that my posts and questions early on may have seemed a little cryptic, they weren't meant to be. I certainly don't think they were scummy. My 959 could certainly have been worded better, but I'm not ducking anything. I guess I'm walking you through 954 right now. Certainly don't think I was being dodgy. All of this is to say that BM's vote on me (a player he has consistently given at least a weak town-read to all game) seems to come out of nowhere and the reasons backing it seem thin. He says he has a theory he wants to test. I had a guess as to what that might be last night, but on second thought I might be projecting a bit there. Seems so many players have their little tests that seem to go unexplained. It may be connected to 988 and the pressure comment. Pressure to do what? What are asking of me that more pressure will deliver? I think this slot is a null for me for now, but I have some serious apprehension.
72offsuit:
Well, a lot of the takes I had on 72 from 465 were dependent on a scum flip from Porkens. town!Porkens does not equal town!72, but 72's disdain for that wagon and the role-claim discussion certainly has aged well. It could be argued that scum!72 was able to oppose the Porkens wagon while having some confidence it would go through anyway, and used the opportunity to build some town cred. Skimming through his ISO though doesn't give me that feeling though. Godammit, 72 might be town. I'm a scum-read for 72, and I can appreciate that me going from defending LL's Blopp reasoning to wanting the slot lynched seems opportunistic. But, as I've said, LL went from 0 to 60 fast, and had a lot of interactions to work with. I simply could not see that progression and actions from a town player. I can't defend any more than that. If 72 has further reasoning for me being scum I'm happy to talk about that. 950 has some questionable logic.
Raya36:
The things I didn't like about Raya in the early game can be found in 399. My opinion of that hasn't changed, though Raya made a few posts that made me feel her push on LL may have been authentic. If Raya is scum then LL's freak-out was a gift from the heavens, because her original case against him was not working for me at all. She defended it well enough, and others had similar issues, but I thought the Blopp wagon was ok. Now I'm going harp on this again because I've just reread this part of the game and it's pinging me hard. Raya is on the Blopp wagon with Lucky and Homura. JamSV comes into the game with his swinging dick and puts Blopp at E-1 with no case or questions but an invitation to hammer. I knew Jam well enough to not let this bug me too much, but does Raya have that same insight? Raya unvotes because E-1 was too much pressure (especially if the player in question may be your partner and your little early game distancing got to a dangerous point) and doesn't want a quick hammer and gives shit to LL for not unvoting. Why not have a problem with Jam for the vote? Why not have an issue with Homura for not unvoting despite being active after the E-1 vote? Why not move to vote LL right away? Why say that you find both LL and Blopp scum (perhaps so her move away from Blopp doesn't look too sudden)? LL makes a good point in 72. Pocketing in 107...I mean Jam just made that E-1 vote that led Raya to hop off the wagon. Naturally after the LL claim it became much easier to simply ride the wagon.
Yes I have some concern of BM being her partner, but I need to reread their interactions more closely etc. Plus partner speculation doesn't seem very helpful yet, but what do I know.
VOTE: Raya36
To start with, post 107 isn't pocketing, it's a pretty simple reads post
Posted: Thu Jul 16, 2020 2:03 pm
by ClarkBar
A simple read? Of a slot that put a player at E-1. And then to pursue a player that didn’t place an E-1 vote for not being more careful? And ignores Homura who did nothing different? Do you think E-1 is inappropriate, ever?
Posted: Thu Jul 16, 2020 2:04 pm
by ClarkBar
In the future feel free to just quote necessary bits.
Posted: Thu Jul 16, 2020 5:10 pm
by 72offsuit
In post 1161, Dunnstral wrote:It's going to be hard to defend myself when nobody can articulate why I'm mafia in the first place
It's not rocket science. Did you not read my posts regarding raya?
In post 67, Raya36 wrote:UNVOTE:
I don't want a quick hammer. L-2 is plenty for pressure. Scumlean on Lucky for not removing his vote. Could be hoping for that quickhammer
LAMIST. Scumlean on Lucky for not removing his vote... lol. Feels like a forced post.
In post 69, Raya36 wrote:Lucky and blopp. Maybe Clark but I'm unsure
Where's your vote then?
My vote is "on" Blopp I just don't want him at L-1
In post 63, LuckyLuciano wrote:Perhaps it is a coincidence, but since being wagoned, Blopp has removed their profile pic. That means they have been onsite and decided not to post. So now we have her ignoring the initial wagon that I started with 72o, despite posting after it began and ignoring my case. In addition, we have her logging on to remove her profile pic and still not posting. Feels a lot like giving up to me.
This is a bad case and very reachy.
In post 71, TheThirteenthJT wrote:Also can you all look back at my two questions (rqs) I asked. I really want to know the answer for the first one.
In post 67, Raya36 wrote:UNVOTE:
I don't want a quick hammer. L-2 is plenty for pressure. Scumlean on Lucky for not removing his vote. Could be hoping for that quickhammer
Is he your only scumlean or do you have more?
In post 69, Raya36 wrote:Lucky and blopp. Maybe Clark but I'm unsure
"I scumlean Lucky for possibly wanting a quick hammer on my other scumlean."
For the record, I'm expecting Blopp not to post again until the slot is replaced, and if the slot claims VT I will be pushing for the slot to be eliminated.
Just because I scumlean him doesnt mean I'm right (I never take associations into account D1. I often have multiple scumread that don't work together). And its perfectly viable to be concerned about someone not removing their vote at L-1 when Blopp hasn't even talked yet.
Actually since I can't vote Blopp right now VOTE: Lucky. I think this is more likely anyway. Your stats case also was reachy and the whole basis of your scumread isn't concrete. I would accept your case if and only if it was supporting evidence of a much stronger and more viable case.
In post 183, 72offsuit wrote:Why are you asking me for a read on lucky in the middle of your reads list?
I like to ask questions on players I'm unsure of. Sometimes I stick it in my readslist. My readslists are mostly just reference for myself. Could you answer please?
Isn't it Scummy for 72 to ask that?
How so?
Why aks that? Never heard or seen that it is or should be Scummy to ask a question in the middle of a readslist. Like, it's totally something I can see Scum asking to try and look like they are Scum hunting, but not something I can really see Town asking that thinking, "Hmm, seems pretty out of the ordinary you ask a question mid RL. I bet if I ask them why they did that they couldn't come up with an answer if they are Scum." Yeah, not really seeing that coming from Town. Unless 72 has a gob of experience, but even then there are way better things to talk about than something that doesn't really seem Scummy inherently. 72's follow up doesn't really look good either.
72 has seemed evasive. But I'm not sure what to make of that
Can you post specifically in which posts I was evasive?
In post 69, Raya36 wrote:Lucky and blopp. Maybe Clark but I'm unsure
Where's your vote then?
My vote is "on" Blopp I just don't want him at L-1
In post 63, LuckyLuciano wrote:Perhaps it is a coincidence, but since being wagoned, Blopp has removed their profile pic. That means they have been onsite and decided not to post. So now we have her ignoring the initial wagon that I started with 72o, despite posting after it began and ignoring my case. In addition, we have her logging on to remove her profile pic and still not posting. Feels a lot like giving up to me.
This is a bad case and very reachy.
In post 71, TheThirteenthJT wrote:Also can you all look back at my two questions (rqs) I asked. I really want to know the answer for the first one.
In post 67, Raya36 wrote:UNVOTE:
I don't want a quick hammer. L-2 is plenty for pressure. Scumlean on Lucky for not removing his vote. Could be hoping for that quickhammer
Is he your only scumlean or do you have more?
In post 69, Raya36 wrote:Lucky and blopp. Maybe Clark but I'm unsure
"I scumlean Lucky for possibly wanting a quick hammer on my other scumlean."
For the record, I'm expecting Blopp not to post again until the slot is replaced, and if the slot claims VT I will be pushing for the slot to be eliminated.
Just because I scumlean him doesnt mean I'm right (I never take associations into account D1. I often have multiple scumread that don't work together). And its perfectly viable to be concerned about someone not removing their vote at L-1 when Blopp hasn't even talked yet.
Actually since I can't vote Blopp right now VOTE: Lucky. I think this is more likely anyway. Your stats case also was reachy and the whole basis of your scumread isn't concrete. I would accept your case if and only if it was supporting evidence of a much stronger and more viable case.
Isn't most Day 1 early cases reachy? I really hate this argument
Also I see you join The Luciano wagon after I printed you to vote and someone else joined before you. I don't like this. I could argue myself that your case on him is reachy but again my case is reachy here no? Finally your case is more repreat what was already aid to give you a reason to join the wagon. While not Al we always scum indicative it's a good start.
Once I catch up my read here I will chiose where my vote goes but you are definitely setting off alarms.
Most cases D1 are reachy but Lucky's case on Blopp is beyond reachy. I mean look at the case I just posted and tell me how that's a good case. And another concern is usually reachy D1 cases are used to create more discussion (mainly from the player being cased) so we can later get better reads and make better cases. But in this case Blopp isn't here to talk and Lucky keeps pushing her. Lucky isn't playing to get more info. Lucky is playing to get a lynch.
I will respond to your readlist post next. I NEED to respond to this first. Is case on Blopp was from what 2 pages worth of posts? Wouldn't that have to be reachy? Do I agree it's a good case? Weird yes but not really screaming confirmed scum for me and thus my vote is not on Blopp. For an elimation to be made 5 players have to agree it's a good enough case to do so. If an elimation were to occur based on that it would be so telling for the rest of the game. Making a case on a player might not get info on the player ryou are pushing but can give Intel on other players in the wagon. Why did they join the wagon? Did they explain themselves well. If it was bad reasoning, what purpose did they have joining that wagon? Miselimnatiin or bad play? So much can be told by these situations.
Overall it has provided discussion to a slow early game and thus has actually been a very beneficial wagon.
I agree with this but it would be much more beneficial to push a player that's active. You would get much more info from that. And also I don't like how Lucky seems to have 0 interest in Blopp being replaced. He just wants Blopp lynched and doesn't appear to care about whether or not Blopp actually is scum or care about getting more info that could help make that decision.
What gives you the impression LL "just wants Blopa lynched"?
In post 239, LuckyLuciano wrote:Raya, your positioning WRT Blopp is odd. I was okay with the sheep vote in 39 because you seemed genuinely interested in the case. Somewhere down the line the same case you found worth pushing you have decided is worth scumreading for having been pushed. 45 is odd in retrospect. You say that you won't move your vote from Blopp to Clark because you want to hear from Blopp, but you also concede that we're not going to get info out of Blopp's responses anymore because Clark addressed my case for her (47). If Blopp has had an out provided to her already, what's the point of keeping your vote on her?
Nice attempt at discrediting me. Not gonna work. I was interested in the case but when Blopp went MIA and no replacement was coming in the near future AND he got to L-1 I saw that the scumminess actually came from within the wagon. I did join the wagon to see what came of it just like I said and what came of it was I found out you're scum. As for Blopp having an out, taking my vote off was going to give much less info and I talked to Clark without using my vote and got responses that lead me to believe he is town. I did not abandon what I said about Clark and also did not abandon the wagon on Blopp at the same time. The point of keeping my vote is because the vote wasn't just to get a response to what you said. It was also for the reaction to a wagon.
In post 239, LuckyLuciano wrote:67 is also really weird. Why is there a scumlean on me for not removing my vote on someone that I scumread and not a scumlean on the player who replaced in, put Blopp at E-1, and invited a quickhammer? It feels like Raya's setting up to push me later for this and doesn't feel at all like a genuine read. In 106 you call a 2-line post that I prefaced with "Perhaps it is a coincidence" in 63, "Bad and reachy." Why did you consider my speculation a case at the time? What sort of content did you expect 63 posts into the game that would push the game forward while not being, to some degree, "bad and reachy"? Further, in 67, you scumleaned me for not unvoting but said nothing about 63. Further, you keep calling my push reachy. What about being reachy is scummy? Do you believe that my goal D1 as town is to find an elimination target that has an >Random chance of being scum? Even if my stance on Blopp is reachy, do you not believe that it represents scum equity in the Blopp slot that is >Random? You yourself have continually scumread Blopp
the entire game
while simultaneously pushing me for scumreading her. Why do
you
scumread her? Your initial vote on the slot was a sheep vote, which you yourself admitted was only cast to "see where this goes." Blopp never responded, therefore it never went anywhere, yet you progressed into constantly calling her slot scummy while illustrating none of that progression publicly. And despite you insisting that I'm pushing a mislynch, you hold that you think her slot is scummy.
The difference is Jam was open and clearly stated it was L-1 and their intents etc. You came back and were quiet about it. I really don't see scum coming in, putting someone at L-1 and then inviting the mislynch. Maybe case wasn't the best word choice but I do consider anything with multiple reasons to scumread someone a case. You're nitpicking on wording. There's early game bad and reachy and then there's just bad and reachy and yours was bad. I don't see a town thought process, I see scum trying to make something up out of nothing. I don't see the problem with not saying anything about 63 then.. Reachy is scummy because scum are trying to make scumreads when they are informed and know they're scumreading town. That means they need to make up reasons for why that person is scum which can lead to reachiness. Yes I believe that's your goal as town. I no longer scumread Blopp. Thought I made that clear, sorry. Reactions from Blopp didn't go anywhere no, but the wagon is telling as well.
In post 239, LuckyLuciano wrote:Why did you ask 72o if his thoughts of Blopp had changed at all in 148 when Blopp has been MIA since his initial vote? Why would his thoughts have changed, and why did you have a special interest in hearing his thoughts on the Blopp slot rather than others, like the slot you have been pushing: me? Your stance on Blopp honestly feels like you tried to distance early and are not awkwardly trying to defend her (anyone else hear the distant revving of a chainsaw) while maintaining your early, unexplained scumread on her to appear consistent. In 181 you have decided that the
only
reason Blopp is scummy is lack of content. This seems to be a deterioration in your read on her since your earlier scumlean on her 67. What reason did you have to scumlean Blopp in 67, and why did it disappear by 181. She hadn't been gone for long enough for lack of content to be a reason to scumlean her, and it was early enough in the game that other slots had just as little or less content. So please, educate me on your thought process here.
I forgot Blopp hadn't posted since then. His post was early game and I never referred back to see when Blopp's last post was. How is that even scummy...
But I'm not maintaining my scumread on her. I seriously think she's a mislynch and I said that you're pushing a mislynch several times which clearly means I'm townreading her. Keep in mind when reading my 181 that it was written during a reread. And in my reread I decided that you're likely scum and Blopp is town.
In post 239, LuckyLuciano wrote:Let's move on to 182. You say that my case is scummy because I'm pushing a spot that isn't around to respond, but my case is premised on
why
that slot isn't around to respond. Do you believe it is possible that I believe in my reads? If so, why is my push scummy? Do you stop pushing a scumread because they leave the game or choose not to respond? Later on your argument against me more clearly becomes that you believe I'm pushing a miskick (218). How do you differentiate town pushing town from scum pushing town? What about my push on Blopp indicates that it is a push I would make as scum but wouldn't make as town? If you are still holding Blopp as scummy, how can my push so obviously be a miskick? I can only clearly be pushing a miskick if I'm pushing an obvtown slot, no? Please explain to me how you know I'm pushing a miskick on a slot you scumread.
Your push is scummy because you seem to want it lynched regardless of whether there is or is not a replacement. And your whole case is on the premise that they're not here but you're not considering the MANY other possible reasons for that and you're ignoring me when I ask you about them. I've already explained many times why your push seems like scum pushing town and not town pushing town. (bad case, reachy, not caring about the replacement, stated you'd want to lynch if the replacement claims VT, not considering other possibilities for being MIA, pushing someone who currently doesn't have a voice, etc)
In post 239, LuckyLuciano wrote:On to 228. The first thing you do is appeal to authority with Homura. That's laughable because I have more experience than Homura, so if you are using experience as a reason to accept or deny my push, you should be taking my side. Moreover, it's not that I haven't considered other possibilities for Blopp flaking. It's that among all possible explanations, I believe that the explanations leading to scum!Blopp hold more equity than those leading to town!Blopp. I think the deletion of her avatar answers back
many, if not all
of the NAI explanations for her flaking, and when left with only scumAI and townAI explanations for a newbie dipping after getting immediate pressure from multiple players in response to a post they made, my experience leads me to believe that there are far more prevalent scumAI explanations than townAI. Further, you say in the same post that you don't find Blopp's behavior particularly AI. Again, explain to me your earlier scumread on Blopp if her behavior suddenly isn't AI.
You don't have experience in Newbie games on this site though. Your experience can not be compared in this context. Explain to me why Blopp couldn't have just came in, deleted her avatar with intent to get a new one, then just never did and siteflaked. Tell me why Blopp couldn't have just decided they want nothing to do with this site regardless of alignment and deleted their avatar and siteflaked. This is why I don't find it AI. You're telling me this player should be lynched regardless of what the replacement says (if they claim VT) when all you have is a flimsy case with several counter-arguments.
In post 228, Raya36 wrote:So basically what you're saying in that second line is unless Blopp slot is a power role you won't consider anything the replacement has to say and won't reconsider your read.
Yeah. That's pretty much what I'm saying. The goal D1 is always to find a slot that has a >Rand chance of being scum and voting there. The goal D1 is not to solve the game. If a slot with high scum equity claims VT, you eliminate them. You don't go searching through slots with lesser scum equity and get more claims, either outing a TPR or further limiting the pool of TPR for scum to choose from for their NK. It's called best practical play.
I do agree that once a player claims VT it's probably for the best to lynch them unless they suddenly become very obvtown, however your wording is making me think that even before the replacement claims anything you won't care about what they have to say. They'll only claim once they get to L-1 with intent, so what if that never happens?
In post 228, Raya36 wrote:I'm not 100% convinced Blopp is town. I just don't trust your case on her and I don't believe it to be a good case with good intentions. The more I believe you're pushing for a mislynch the more I believe Blopp is town though. And yes Blopp flipping town does give info but why should I push for a flip on Blopp when I'm sure you're scum pushing for a mislynch on Blopp.
Either you think I'm scum pushing for a miskick or you don't. If you are so convinced that I'm scum pushing for a miskick, why would you say that you are not 100% convinced Blopp is town. Even if it is a true statement, what compelled you to throw it out there. It feels a lot like building a safety net for Blopp being kicked, either today, or tomorrow if I were to be kicked today. At some point that slot
will
flip, and when it does you need to have already saved face, and this is part of you trying to do that.
Because I don't 100% know you're scum. I just really really think you are. If you're not then I wouldn't be 100% convinced Blopp is town. My basis for Blopp being town is you being scum and I don't do D1 associations during D1.
In post 239, LuckyLuciano wrote:Also, anyone who doesn't read this as scum is a joke of a player,
In post 228, Raya36 wrote:If you're so happy with flipping town and you're actually town why not let us flip you. We'll get more info from that than Blopp's flip.
Just saying that it's inconsistent to be willing to flip town for info but be unwilling to flip yourself when that would give us even more info.
See bolded part ^
The "I forgot" line. It's scummy because this sort of play doesn't come from a town mindset. From what I gather Raya's scumread on LL appears to primarily revolve around his vote on Blopa. Town in general is more balanced and open to re-evaluate their reads as town does NOT know alignments. I think !TownRaya here, would focus more on Blopa's posting (or lack of), to follow-up on the veracity of their reads.
Thus, I think the "forgetting" that Blopa hasn;t posted since, as Raya has said here in 354
AND
Raya's questioning myself on the progress of my read on Blopa in [post]148[/post] , speaks volumes.
Need more votes on the Raya elimination locomotion.
Choo choo choo
Hop on board the Raya express, no ticket required to ride this train!
In post 278, LuckyLuciano wrote:If I'm not mistaking, that's 4 votes. I have a TPR. Let's move on.
Not sure if this was discussed yet but if you have a tpr you need to claim the exact role. That's why we have a matrix setup. So we can confirm/deny it was a cc
No....
Noone has claimed intent to hammer. Why would we get an exact role claim?
In post 242, TheThirteenthJT wrote:I went back to analyze the Blopp flake and it's so bizarre. I can see newbie players leaving for a bit and returning to see 4 votes on then as a bit overwhelming but I felt the pressure up to the point they removed their avatar was not that high. I've seen (and done so myself) people drilled early game as newbies which would cause enough frustration for a rage quit. This early wagon was rather tame. But at the same time why return at all to remove your avatar? Clearly no intention of returning and thus rage quit possibility over just not returning/forgetting about the site.
So here's the final scenario I have in my head. Blopp comes back because they remember they are in a mafia game, see 4 votes on them, says screw this, removes avatar and leaves forever.
Ok but this same reaction can come from town too.. It's not scum indicative.. It's NAI
And thus why I didn't join the Blopp wagon. I was giving the benefit of the doubt but at the same time understanding why someone would push it. I felt I had bigger fish to fry over the Blopp and Luciano case and had said I wouldn't really weigh in and focus elsewhere until a replacement came in.
Similarly now that BM has replaced in I want to see were Luciano goes from there.
This is good and town thinking. Scum would likely choose a side I think even just lightly.
Another scummy post from Raya.
Why is BM's post "good and town thinking"?
Scum 101 tactic is to hedge bets, fence-sit and to simply wait and see where the chips fall, to see what vote is most advatageous for scumagenda, before making their play with more information available. Just like sitting on the button in poker - Last player to act has more information to make their move.
Good question, and I'll admit I'm confused about the confusion...
In post 409, 72offsuit wrote:Scum 101 tactic is to hedge bets, fence-sit and to simply wait and see where the chips fall, to see what vote is most advatageous for scumagenda, before making their play with more information available. Just like sitting on the button in poker - Last player to act has more information to make their move.
I can dig the "scum 101" thing. How do you square that with how Raya has been playing? She has been virtually solely focused on LL, and has given generous town-reads. That doesn't sound to me like a player who is fence-sitting or simply waiting for things to fall into place.
No. I never said Raya was fence sitting.
I am saying TTJT's stance on Blopp (as stated by TTJT himself in post 369 if anything, was fence-sitting and I dont see it as a reason to townread TTJT, as raya does.
What I'm saying is I disagree with Raya's post 397 where he TRs TTJT.
In post 428, Raya36 wrote:I think my whole case and how reactionary Lucky acted in response is enough on its own
I don't believe the claim at all. Scum ALWAYS claims a PR in this situation. So why are we just blindly trusting Lucky's PR claim when we don't even know the specific role and can just get by without a counterclaim
In post 429, 72offsuit wrote:It feels to me like his wagon got run up, he doesnt want town wasting town focussing on him, and doesnt care all that much about this game, so isnt that fussed about being night-killed.
I don't know where you're getting the don't care about the game vibe because those wall posts about me seemed like caring
Why are you disputing what I said when it's obvious my read on him was correct. He is replacing out is he not?
So unless you think I am EXACTLY scum-teamed-with-LL, why question my read?
In post 428, Raya36 wrote:I think my whole case and how reactionary Lucky acted in response is enough on its own
I don't believe the claim at all. Scum ALWAYS claims a PR in this situation. So why are we just blindly trusting Lucky's PR claim when we don't even know the specific role and can just get by without a counterclaim
Who is the "we" that you refer to in this post?
We as in town in general
I'd like you to be more specific. WHICH particular players in particular werer you referring to?
In post 501, 72offsuit wrote:Raya's 428 is the scummiest post in this game. Please everyone take the time to follow this exchange.
In post 504, 72offsuit wrote:Not only does he include himself in the "we" of town, which is independently scummy, but more importantly,
also does not specifically refer to the specific players that stated believed LL's claim was genuine.
In post 507, ClarkBar wrote:72, did you read my summation of my feelings about you? Why were you on a wagon for a player and then later say the wagon was garbage? I need more from you regarding your read on Raya. Why do you consistently apologize for LL? Seems to me you find LL to be totally town, so how can you simultaneously dislike the Blopp wagon and yet find BM scummy and the LL slot town?
Because you've stated your disdain for the Blopp wagon despite being briefly on it and dismissing criticisms of its primary architect. BM is in that slot now, and BM is scummy to you. What impact does this have for you in terms of the Blopp wagon?
428 is the scummiest post of the game? Do tell! I'm a big dummy and can miss the obvious.
No i didn;t recall any particular summation or any outstanding questions. Please post the post number. It's hard enough following the thread without links or a number. If its something you really want answered or responded to, the easier you make it, the more likely someone will do it.
It's the scummiest post, because not many people have actually come out and said they believed LL's claim was real, despite raya saying
"So why are we just blindly trusting Lucky's PR claim"
Why didn;t raya just direct that towards me?
It gives me the impresssion raya knows I;m town and has extrapolated my view onto "town" in general.
The fact raya disappeared, after I challenged her, is pretty telling in its own right.
Everything should be spoilered, except for that last line.
Posted: Thu Jul 16, 2020 5:20 pm
by 72offsuit
I'm still more convinced: Re: raya/dunnstral over BM, but if most of everyone prefers BM thats fine.
Posted: Thu Jul 16, 2020 5:39 pm
by Dunnstral
In post 428, Raya36 wrote:I think my whole case and how reactionary Lucky acted in response is enough on its own
I don't believe the claim at all. Scum ALWAYS claims a PR in this situation. So why are we just blindly trusting Lucky's PR claim when we don't even know the specific role and can just get by without a counterclaim
Lucky Luciano WAS fakeclaiming, though, no? The logic was correct
Posted: Thu Jul 16, 2020 5:46 pm
by ClarkBar
^Unsure how to feel about this argument. If you do know a pushed slot is town and is doomed (again, LL really did this game a disservice) then all the town cred is there for the taking. It's like a white knight thing.
