Mafiascum.net

In post 180, BROseidon wrote:

In post 174, Amethyst Snowflake wrote:Ok.
So you think L-1 wagon is too early at this stage?

Multitasking. We can apply pressure to multiple people at once.

This doesn't answer my question.

The answer is yes.

That post was reasoning that would justify a yes answer but not a no answer. You seem to be being intentionally obtuse.

In post 188, goodmorning wrote:Suspects currently: one of the neg. utility claims, still haven't figured out which yet but leaning towards TMTOL, and you.

Interesting. In 92, you were already suspicious of either AS or MC for the negative utility claims. Do you think TMT's claim makes them more likely to be telling the truth? Can you explain your read on me?

In post 189, BROseidon wrote:And yes I'm aware that announcing a vote as a pressure vote defeats the purpose. However, I don't believe that any vote made within the first few pages can be anything other than a pressure vote. What're you going to do, lynch someone on page 3?

I think we're beyond "the first few pages". And pressure vote doesn't imply that there is or isn't solid reasoning behind the vote. That's why your explanation of "pressure vote" seems like a bit of a cop-out. It's not really a reason if you think all votes are pressure votes.

In post 199, MC RIDE wrote:I'm in limbo. Limbo sucks.

I hope I'll see something clear from this ff vs gm

In light of TMT's claim, what is your opinion on AS/TMT?

am still behind with this game... my reads will up by tonight

In post 201, BROseidon wrote:That post was reasoning that would justify a yes answer but not a no answer.

It wasn't that clear to me. And I doubt that it is because of my English.

In post 203, ArcAngel9 wrote:am still behind with this game... my reads will up by tonight

I'll be waiting.

In post 204, Amethyst Snowflake wrote:

In post 201, BROseidon wrote:That post was reasoning that would justify a yes answer but not a no answer.

It wasn't that clear to me. And I doubt that it is because of my English.

In post 203, ArcAngel9 wrote:am still behind with this game... my reads will up by tonight

I'll be waiting.

What is it that you think I am laid back about?

I'm curious if it's the thing I'm wondering why nobody has asked me about.

In post 201, BROseidon wrote:The answer is yes.

That post was reasoning that would justify a yes answer but not a no answer. You seem to be being intentionally obtuse.

No, it really looks like you're dodging the question there until the clarification.

But, since you qualified: I want to know how you got all the way from your initial reason for KDub over GM which was the [third-vote thing that you mentioned] to the point where you're retroactively explaining it with an assertion that a breadth first approach to pressure is better than a depth first one?

In post 198, fferyllt wrote:

In post 197, goodmorning wrote:What substance? He's not said much more than "I don't like where he voted" and "I kinda wanna pressure him." What initially sparked the read, he said, was "gut." I fail to understand what of that you think is substance.

And this makes you feel how about his vote and his alignment? Is it part of the basis of your VI assessment?

It is most of the basis of my VI assessment. The vote is silly. The alignment? I've no effing clue.
/ridiculous pun

@MC: Do you have any solid reads at all?

In post 202, Kdub wrote:

In post 188, goodmorning wrote:Suspects currently: one of the neg. utility claims, still haven't figured out which yet but leaning towards TMTOL, and you.

Interesting. In 92, you were already suspicious of either AS or MC for the negative utility claims. Do you think TMT's claim makes them more likely to be telling the truth? Can you explain your read on me?

Them as in AS and MC? Not necessarily.
My read on you? Mainly it consists of the fact that you seem to fly under the radar in spectacular fashion without saying all that much of use.

Why is it you think the TMT claim is the most dicey?

Oh wait. I misread that post. Better question is which claim do you think is least believable?

If it were the claims alone, I'd say miller:
"oh btw, I'm going to investigate as guilty, but it's not because I or anything, oh no"

But it isn't.

In post 186, fferyllt wrote:

In post 184, Kdub wrote:BRO's explanation seems like a bit of a retcon. Protip: Announcing that your vote is a pressure vote defeats the entire purpose of a pressure vote.

fferylit makes a good point in 177 and 179 regarding goodmorning.

goodmorning: What is your read on BRO? Who are your suspects at the moment?

In post 150, Amethyst Snowflake wrote:

In post 149, Amethyst Snowflake wrote:

I really like this post. It's a little unsettling having you in my town pile at all, much less on page 4.

It's been a while since I played with solo fery but I can't remember if she was usually generous or salty at giving out townread early.

Um this was supposed to be a PM to my other head >.>

This was an interesting post that I had glossed over before. Looks like a town tell if genuine. Who are the two heads of the AS hydra again and which head made this post? I'd be interested to see if meta confirms the sentiment in this post.

The two heads are Ms Marangal and Guy in Freezer. I think it was Ms Marangal who posted that.

Was it? IDK

In post 211, Amethyst Snowflake wrote:

In post 186, fferyllt wrote:

In post 184, Kdub wrote:BRO's explanation seems like a bit of a retcon. Protip: Announcing that your vote is a pressure vote defeats the entire purpose of a pressure vote.

fferylit makes a good point in 177 and 179 regarding goodmorning.

goodmorning: What is your read on BRO? Who are your suspects at the moment?

In post 150, Amethyst Snowflake wrote:

In post 149, Amethyst Snowflake wrote:

I really like this post. It's a little unsettling having you in my town pile at all, much less on page 4.

It's been a while since I played with solo fery but I can't remember if she was usually generous or salty at giving out townread early.

Um this was supposed to be a PM to my other head >.>

This was an interesting post that I had glossed over before. Looks like a town tell if genuine. Who are the two heads of the AS hydra again and which head made this post? I'd be interested to see if meta confirms the sentiment in this post.

The two heads are Ms Marangal and Guy in Freezer. I think it was Ms Marangal who posted that.

Was it? IDK

You didn't answer my question.

In general.

In post 214, Amethyst Snowflake wrote:In general.

That is just about the last answer I would have expected.

I can't follow this conversation.

AS, that was a weird segue into a Kdub vote - explain?

In post 216, borkjerfkin wrote:I can't follow this conversation.

AS, that was a weird segue into a Kdub vote - explain?

Sort of like my wondering at the lack of in-thread reaction to AS's miller claim on page 1, I'm now wondering about the lack of reaction to MY lack of in-thread reaction to the claiming of 3 negative town roles. I thought AS' "laid back" comment might be in reference to that. Evidently not.

So now I'm really curious why no one seemed to notice that I was pretty laid back about the claims, or cares what I actually think about them.

In post 217, fferyllt wrote:So now I'm really curious why no one seemed to notice that I was pretty laid back about the claims, or cares what I actually think about them.

I don't think lack of mention is at all equivalent to nobody caring what you think, and I think that's especially evidenced by the entire game being unanimous in not having brought up the (very specific) issue of your reaction in particular yet. Where are you trying to take this observation?

Since you brought it up: what you think of the 1) viability of 3 anti-town roles at all and 2) the likelihood of truthiness to the individual claims?

In post 218, borkjerfkin wrote:

In post 217, fferyllt wrote:So now I'm really curious why no one seemed to notice that I was pretty laid back about the claims, or cares what I actually think about them.

I don't think lack of mention is at all equivalent to nobody caring what you think, and I think that's especially evidenced by the entire game being unanimous in not having brought up the (very specific) issue of your reaction in particular yet. Where are you trying to take this observation?

Since you brought it up: what

do

you think of the 1) viability of 3 anti-town roles at all and 2) the likelihood of truthiness to the individual claims?

3 comes close to stretching my credulity to the breaking point.

I'm finding reasons to take all three individually at face value, so I'm a little worried that I'm missing something, but for now credulity is intact. I'm having the most difficulty articulating those reasons wrt TMT, but I can't get past having a town-sense about his posts so far.

In post 206, borkjerfkin wrote:

In post 201, BROseidon wrote:The answer is yes.

That post was reasoning that would justify a yes answer but not a no answer. You seem to be being intentionally obtuse.

No, it really looks like you're dodging the question there until the clarification.

But, since you qualified: I want to know how you got all the way from your initial reason for KDub over GM which was the [third-vote thing that you mentioned] to the point where you're retroactively explaining it with an assertion that a breadth first approach to pressure is better than a depth first one?

Reading between the lines is hard, let's go shopping >.>

Initial driving reason to voting kdub was the third vote reason, the breadth approach being secondary to that by a substantial margin. Kdub points out that he had been on the wagon earlier, so I leave my vote on kdub for the secondary reasoning.

The lack of trajectory on AS voting ffery has me concerned.

In post 220, BROseidon wrote:

In post 206, borkjerfkin wrote:

In post 201, BROseidon wrote:The answer is yes.

That post was reasoning that would justify a yes answer but not a no answer. You seem to be being intentionally obtuse.

No, it really looks like you're dodging the question there until the clarification.

But, since you qualified: I want to know how you got all the way from your initial reason for KDub over GM which was the [third-vote thing that you mentioned] to the point where you're retroactively explaining it with an assertion that a breadth first approach to pressure is better than a depth first one?

Reading between the lines is hard, let's go shopping >.>

Initial driving reason to voting kdub was the third vote reason, the breadth approach being secondary to that by a substantial margin. Kdub points out that he had been on the wagon earlier, so I leave my vote on kdub for the secondary reasoning.

The lack of trajectory on AS voting ffery has me concerned.

That's an interesting comment to make considering where AS' vote is right now.

Because I should never question my early reads ever. Remember that newbie game you replaced into where my early reads were horrible and the scum ended up being in slots I read as town early? Because I sure do.

Especially given that 1/2 of the AS hydra is the person I townread and turned out to be scum >:C

In post 222, BROseidon wrote:Because I should never question my early reads ever. Remember that newbie game you replaced into where my early reads were horrible and the scum ended up being in slots I read as town early? Because I sure do.

Especially given that 1/2 of the AS hydra is the person I townread and turned out to be scum >:C

My point was that AS' current vote is unsupported as well. Or is that ok, since it's on the same player you are voting?

In post 217, fferyllt wrote:So now I'm really curious why no one seemed to notice that I was pretty laid back about the claims, or cares what I actually think about them.

Bit self-important, ffff. I assumed you didn't bother because you didn't really think it was relevant at this point.
Besides, didn't you mention something about a game with two millers? Or was that someone else?

@AA9: What happened to your reads you were going to post?