↑Riddleton wrote:Yes, the vote had a purpose. As I said in the post you quoted, "Unvotes just after RVS are scummy. It's an unnecessary defensive move that looks like "Hey, I'm doing something" when there's no need to.". It's a serious vote.
What's your read one Elle now? I found it weird that you voted her for something that you say is scummy, did nothing afterwards with regard to her, and sheeped a wagon. But when asked whether the vote had a purpose and if you were satisfied with the result, you said the vote was serious.
Still scummy; but not as much so as Corpses. I guess you could say a minor scumread.
I know you've seen Fairies' suspicions of you, as you have responded to her about other things. Why shouldn't I understand your avoidance of her suspicions as a scum tactic?
What merit is there for me to respond to Fairies' suspicions against me?
Posted: Sun Dec 28, 2014 1:39 am
by Riddleton
I agree with swag, most of dave's posts have been light-hearted questions that don't spark too much discussion. However, I'm inclined to think it's playstyle as in some people like to start games taking a passive stance and don't get too involved into later on in the game.
Posted: Sun Dec 28, 2014 1:48 am
by Whatisswag
↑Riddleton wrote:I agree with swag, most of dave's posts have been light-hearted questions that don't spark too much discussion. However, I'm inclined to think it's playstyle as in some people like to start games taking a passive stance and don't get too involved into later on in the game.
Hmm, dave starts out more positively in the prev game:
Why? 1 possible reason I think is still because this is early stages of the game.
@davesaz
hope you contribute with opinions and not questions. That will get my scum read off you.
Posted: Sun Dec 28, 2014 1:50 am
by Riddleton
Cheetory
, I meta'd Swag myself and I disagree with your conclusions on his playstyle. I'll post more later on, I'm eating now
Posted: Sun Dec 28, 2014 2:56 am
by Whatisswag
↑Riddleton wrote:The ideas and thought process from swag, while not always correct, shows a townie way of thinking. He's pretty town, and I doubt that read will be shaken in the near future.
How do you know it would not be shaken in the near future when (in a situation) masons recruit me and fail? Also, I dont see why scum would change their townreads. This is scummy.
↑Riddleton wrote:I'd recruit a null read. Because there's no weak modifier (ie. I don't die if I misrecruit) it basically acts as a 1-shot cop.
How long did it take for you to come up with this response?
Not so long. I've been thinking about this before the game began.
Why have you been thinking?
1) you are vt. Then ok... I dont think this is possible.
2) you are mason trying to know who to recruit. But if this is the case, this crumb is a bit too obvious
3) you are scum trying to predict who the mason will recruit.
↑Riddleton wrote:Yes, the vote had a purpose. As I said in the post you quoted, "Unvotes just after RVS are scummy. It's an unnecessary defensive move that looks like "Hey, I'm doing something" when there's no need to.". It's a serious vote.
What's your read one Elle now? I found it weird that you voted her for something that you say is scummy, did nothing afterwards with regard to her, and sheeped a wagon. But when asked whether the vote had a purpose and if you were satisfied with the result, you said the vote was serious.
Still scummy; but not as much so as Corpses. I guess you could say a minor scumread.
↑Riddleton wrote:I agree with swag, most of dave's posts have been light-hearted questions that don't spark too much discussion. However, I'm inclined to think it's playstyle as in some people like to start games taking a passive stance and don't get too involved into later on in the game.
Hmm, dave starts out more positively in the prev game:
Why? 1 possible reason I think is still because this is early stages of the game.
@davesaz
hope you contribute with opinions and not questions. That will get my scum read off you.
Comparing early game activity to a replace-in where there were 470 posts to respond to at the time of my first post...
The quality and trajectory of the discussion will have an impact as well.
They are serious questions, and the answers should tell me things about the players who respond. Lack of response will tell me things about those who don't. This is different from how others are approaching it, but different does not imply scummy.
↑Grib wrote:I like for my first vote to be on someone I've played with before.
And why is that not me? I feel so sad.
Well, I can only vote for one person at a time.
Why are you worrying about the Masons and tossing around self-meta? It's more distracting than anything else.
Seems like Grib does not care about the presence of masons, which makes him look town.
But also, I see the Grib completely ignores elle and Corpses. Possible scum team?
I think this is a bit of a misrepresentation of Grib's post. What Grib said implied nothing about whether he cares about the Masons. What he said was that discussing masons and self-meta is distracting. I happen to agree with that.
I can't help but notice that you're looking for associations pretty much continuously. This setup is one where it's anti-town to do too much association pre-flip. In fact, stating associations and seeing what you get for reactions is one of the scum tactics for dealing with masons. Note: since you went to the effort to find my previous game in this setup you'll note that I got it wrong in that game. I'm a fast learner.
In case you haven't figured it out from my other posting, my vote is not currently an OMGUS. I'm seeing scummy things that have nothing to do with you incorrectly scum reading my playstyle.
↑Riddleton wrote:I'd recruit a null read. Because there's no weak modifier (ie. I don't die if I misrecruit) it basically acts as a 1-shot cop.
How long did it take for you to come up with this response?
Not so long. I've been thinking about this before the game began.
Can you clarify that a little? How far back were you thinking about it?
Posted: Sun Dec 28, 2014 6:32 am
by Cheetory6
davesaz wrote:Analysis to follow, as I get more time to actually do the research and not just skim.
Is Swag where most of your analysis is going to be focused on or are you intending to do a more general sweep of the playerlist at some point in the near future? I'd certainly be interested as to where your head is at with regard to more of the playerlist. If not, I'd like you to at least look over Elle and tell me what you think of her play thus far.
Posted: Sun Dec 28, 2014 6:34 am
by Cheetory6
Also, what do you make of Swag scumleaning on Riddle?
↑Green Crayons wrote:Telling masons to be "dropping tells that they're not masons (not enough to be scummy ofc)" has no actual value because that is the obvious, logical play of being a mason. However, it's an action that looks like it has value because Corpses is supporting a play that benefits masons staying alive. So it looks like Corpses is taking action to look like he's advocating for a protown strategy, when really he's just advocating for basic game play.
Okay, so you think it doesn't have any value. That's fair. But if you actually go back and look at the interaction as it occurred, Corpses' post was in response to what he perceived as Masonfishing on Whatisswag's part. It wasn't an unprompted "hey guys Masons should totally
not
act like Masons duh" post.
Yes, I know. I think the context in which this particular action of Corpses's arose is also suspicious. I don't like Corpses's interaction with swag, remember? His fight with swag over the hypoclaim is part of why I'm voting him.
Do you see them as both scummy from that interaction, and you're just voting the more scummy?
I know you've seen Fairies' suspicions of you, as you have responded to her about other things. Why shouldn't I understand your avoidance of her suspicions as a scum tactic?
I see that Riddle replied to this, so a couple followups.
Why do you think ignoring / not responding to suspicions, especially isolated ones which are not pursued, would be more likely to come from scum than town?
Is there other behavior regarding suspicions that someone had raised that would reinforce your thinking that ignoring/not responding is scummy? Things that would reduce/offset it?
Green Crayon wrote:I don't know to who you are referring that was pinging me as slightly scummy?
Poorly phrased on my part. Why did you keep your vote on Riddle while saying you were slightly scumreading other people? Too lazy to pull up quotes right now but I know you said other scumreads in between your votechange.
I was slightly scumreading other people? I don't know if I was prior to my switch away from the Riddle-vote.
To the extent I was, it wasn't to any degree whereby there was a large difference between a slight scumread on another player and my nullish read on Riddle that compelled me to switch my vote.
I know you've seen Fairies' suspicions of you, as you have responded to her about other things. Why shouldn't I understand your avoidance of her suspicions as a scum tactic?
What merit is there for me to respond to Fairies' suspicions against me?
If you are actually town, then (1) getting her to see that her position is flawed (Fairies hasn't played in such a way that it would make such an exercise futile) and (2) convince other people who are following her suspicions that those suspicions are wrong.
Posted: Sun Dec 28, 2014 10:20 am
by Green Crayons
@dave:
↑davesaz wrote:Do you see them as both scummy from that interaction, and you're just voting the more scummy?
No. Simply from the Corpses/swag interaction regarding the hypoclaim, I read Corpses as suspicious and swag as lean town.
I know you've seen Fairies' suspicions of you, as you have responded to her about other things. Why shouldn't I understand your avoidance of her suspicions as a scum tactic?
I see that Riddle replied to this, so a couple followups.
Why do you think ignoring / not responding to suspicions, especially isolated ones which are not pursued, would be more likely to come from scum than town?
I don't know if it would more likely come from scum than town.
That said, I can certainly see a scum positive in not responding to suspicions (letting them die), and a town positive in responding to suspicions (noted above in response to Riddle). I also see a town positive in not responding to suspicions that sort of intersects with the scum positive, but that's why I asked Riddle to tell me why I should see his play as coming from town instead of scum.
Is there other behavior regarding suspicions that someone had raised that would reinforce your thinking that ignoring/not responding is scummy? Things that would reduce/offset it?
I'm not entirely sure what you're asking. If you're asking have I seen scum ignore suspicions directed at them before, I don't recall any specific instance.
-----
↑davesaz wrote:I can't help but notice that you're looking for associations pretty much continuously. This setup is one where it's anti-town to do too much association pre-flip. In fact, stating associations and seeing what you get for reactions is one of the scum tactics for dealing with masons. Note: since you went to the effort to find my previous game in this setup you'll note that I got it wrong in that game. I'm a fast learner.
I think this is a pretty good line of suspicion. However, what's your theory as to why swag-scum would vocalize this associative analysis if it's being used simply to out the masons?
I liked his question to me when I put him at L-2. I've liked his posts since then, with the exception of 177 and 185.
Posted: Sun Dec 28, 2014 11:05 am
by davesaz
↑Green Crayons wrote:
I think this is a pretty good line of suspicion. However, what's your theory as to why swag-scum would vocalize this associative analysis if it's being used simply to out the masons?
Scum could try to associate townies to see which ones resist being associated with each other. Of course it probably wouldn't work if the masons are smart about it...
Is there other behavior regarding suspicions that someone had raised that would reinforce your thinking that ignoring/not responding is scummy? Things that would reduce/offset it?
I'm not entirely sure what you're asking. If you're asking have I seen scum ignore suspicions directed at them before, I don't recall any specific instance.
Player A says B is suspicious. B ignores / doesn't respond to the suspicion. I think you were also saying that B was interacting with A regarding other topics.
I was asking if there are other things B might do that would increase / decrease whether it's scummy to ignore/not respond.
