Newbie 1953 | Zooborns IV | Game Over

[Micc]

Oobsy, how come you never addressed the part of my post where I talk about the game going from 3 to 2 mislynches regardless of a day 1 lynch happening or not?

Because I gave up trying to understand. It's as if you're implying you could mathematically prove

Town

loses nothing by lynching one of their own today.

The community you learned the game from balances games a lot differently than this site. You’re advocating for a game with heavy emphasis on nighttime play while this site places a heavy emphasis on daytime play. In general, our games don’t have as many PR’s as I’m assuming your used to. There will not be enough information from PR’s to solve the game entirely on night actions.

I don't expect to solve the game with nothing by clues shared by power roles. But I don't expect to gain an advantage over

Mafia

with a random Day 1 lynch either.

It's really not that hard to prove mathematically...
Day 1 Town lynch > 6 vs 2 > Night 1 Town death > 5 vs 2 > Day 2 Town lynch > 4 vs 2 > Night 2 Town death > 3 vs 2 > Day 3 Town lynch > 2 vs 2 > Game Over
Day 1 No Lynch > 7 vs 2 > Night 1 Town death > 6 vs 2 > Day 2 Town lynch > 5 vs 2 > Night 2 Town death > 4 vs 2 > Day 3 Town lynch > 3 vs 2 > Night 3 Town death > 2 vs 2 > Game Over

The game ends after a Day 3 mislynch in both scenarios.
By lynching Day 1 the town was 7/9 * 5/7 * 3/5 = 33% to lose at this point.
By no lynching Day 1 the town was 6/8 * 4/6 = 50% to lose at this point.

Also, you seem to be willing to use non PR supplied information to decide on a lynch Day 2 but not Day 1. I don't understand what the difference is?

[skitter30]

Start lynching tomorrow. Did you really think I was asking everyone to go the entire game without lynching anyone ever?

ok sure, say we don't lynch today
we're almost for sure going to lose a townie overnight

so tomorrow we're down a townie
and we still need 5 people to lynch, but now out of 8 instead of 9, making it that much harder to get a lynch on scum through

[skitter30]

You have Norwegianboy and I as your only two scumreads. Does that mean you think the two of us are the scumteam?

i don't like this question

[skitter30]

I think your chemist push is awful, and misrepy, and scummy

K, lol.

VOTE: NBEE

Yeah okay

This is a frozen reaction

i'm not sure i agree

[Jamelia]

I still think

Chemist

's initial post was harmless. (This is going back to page 1). I find it more suspect that

skitter

originally voted for

Leucosticte

right after Micc did it. If you were going to do a random vote, I would assume it would be for a different person, especially since no one else had posted besides Chemist at that point. (Reading to page 5, post 124 - Micc also says this).

I think that

Norwegian's

original take (Post #66) on the first two votes being RVS while Chemist's wasn't RVS is scummy. I don't see any clear indicator between the first 3 votes on Page 1. However, Chemist's responses to him being asked about these votes (Post #78, 80) I am speculating as scummy. He isn't really answering the question. He is saying the takes are "not true" but not elaborating on why, but turns it around and makes accusations towards Norwegian.

I understand Farren's thoughts about my "This is Fun! LOL" post (94), specifically for him on post 149. I will do a better job of trying to "defend" people but rather be more analytical on what their intentions were.

Also, how can Chemist forget my name? There's literally only 9 of us. Weird LOL.
---

Questions:
Dyrenz: You've changed your "scumleads" quite a bit. Going from me, wanting to vote for Chemist but "didn't want to jump on the scum train" (Post #92), then having Leuco as Scummy (Post #171) then having him in town (#221), voting for Farren and then changing your vote to Norwegian. I understand a fluid flow of external communication, but I am curious about your process of constantly changing your mind and votes especially on Day 1.

Chemist: To me, your posts seem pretty agitated and frustrated. Are you upset from people voting from you at the beginning, or that some people (including myself, Micc and Norwegian) believe that your reasoning for a simple RVS vote wasn't communicated properly?

Oobsy: You have mentioned a few times that you would be fine with a No Lynch, but that inherently helps the mafia IF we don't hit properly. With this information and the disagreement with the other people in this game, would you still want to No Lynch? If not, who are you leaning towards and why?

Farren: On post 139, you had me down as a "slight scumlean". I'd like for you to explain then why you are more heavy on Dyrenz being voted out first over me.
--

I don't really have questions for the other players at the moment.

please do not judge my intelligence on how I talk when I'm tired

also with regards to agitation, I tend to get annoyed when I feel the reason(s) I'm getting pushed for aren't valid and given that I'm being tunneled off of the timing of an RVS vote I think it's at least a little justified

Another defensive post, but why do you think I’m judging your intelligence? I am saying based on my perception that you get easily agitated and aren’t contributing as good of content as others are. Obviously I haven’t contributed much myself, but if I’m judging based off of everyone else’s posts, yours comes off as either defensive with no explanations, or just completely unhelpful at all.

If we want to be rude.

[skitter30]

Um that’s some pretty advanced thinking there buddy. All i did was sarcastically rebut Skitter30’s attempt at pathos.

i don't particularly agree that i was attempting pathos there

[skitter30]

I find it more suspect that skitter originally voted for Leucosticte right after Micc did it. If you were going to do a random vote, I would assume it would be for a different person, especially since no one else had posted besides Chemist at that point. (Reading to page 5, post 124 - Micc also says this).

i feel like casting the second vote on someone (ie as opposed to starting a new rvs wagon) in general generates more discussion, which helps move the game out of rvs

[skitter30]

micc why exactly are you scumreading dyrenz again?

[Chemist1422]

I still think

Chemist

's initial post was harmless. (This is going back to page 1). I find it more suspect that

skitter

originally voted for

Leucosticte

right after Micc did it. If you were going to do a random vote, I would assume it would be for a different person, especially since no one else had posted besides Chemist at that point. (Reading to page 5, post 124 - Micc also says this).

I think that

Norwegian's

original take (Post #66) on the first two votes being RVS while Chemist's wasn't RVS is scummy. I don't see any clear indicator between the first 3 votes on Page 1. However, Chemist's responses to him being asked about these votes (Post #78, 80) I am speculating as scummy. He isn't really answering the question. He is saying the takes are "not true" but not elaborating on why, but turns it around and makes accusations towards Norwegian.

I understand Farren's thoughts about my "This is Fun! LOL" post (94), specifically for him on post 149. I will do a better job of trying to "defend" people but rather be more analytical on what their intentions were.

Also, how can Chemist forget my name? There's literally only 9 of us. Weird LOL.
---

Questions:
Dyrenz: You've changed your "scumleads" quite a bit. Going from me, wanting to vote for Chemist but "didn't want to jump on the scum train" (Post #92), then having Leuco as Scummy (Post #171) then having him in town (#221), voting for Farren and then changing your vote to Norwegian. I understand a fluid flow of external communication, but I am curious about your process of constantly changing your mind and votes especially on Day 1.

Chemist: To me, your posts seem pretty agitated and frustrated. Are you upset from people voting from you at the beginning, or that some people (including myself, Micc and Norwegian) believe that your reasoning for a simple RVS vote wasn't communicated properly?

Oobsy: You have mentioned a few times that you would be fine with a No Lynch, but that inherently helps the mafia IF we don't hit properly. With this information and the disagreement with the other people in this game, would you still want to No Lynch? If not, who are you leaning towards and why?

Farren: On post 139, you had me down as a "slight scumlean". I'd like for you to explain then why you are more heavy on Dyrenz being voted out first over me.
--

I don't really have questions for the other players at the moment.

please do not judge my intelligence on how I talk when I'm tired

also with regards to agitation, I tend to get annoyed when I feel the reason(s) I'm getting pushed for aren't valid and given that I'm being tunneled off of the timing of an RVS vote I think it's at least a little justified

Another defensive post, but why do you think I’m judging your intelligence? I am saying based on my perception that you get easily agitated and aren’t contributing as good of content as others are. Obviously I haven’t contributed much myself, but if I’m judging based off of everyone else’s posts, yours comes off as either defensive with no explanations, or just completely unhelpful at all.

If we want to be rude.

is it wrong to feel like I need to be defensive when I get three votes for an RVS post?

and with regards to the intelligence thing that was about me forgetting your name

[Micc]

micc why exactly are you scumreading dyrenz again?

He seems overly conscious of how his posts are being portrayed. I think it comes from a mindset of scum who doesn't want to be lynched. I didn't like that he resorted to deflection instead of engaging with me about that original push. I also thought his reads list in post 220 was really off point and reeked of being done with the intention of getting me off his back instead of finding scum.

[Dyrenz]

Nobody ever answered my meta question about reads vs probing ._.

[skitter30]

what was the question ?

[Dyrenz]

Also, a meta question. Are analytical reads as important as I am making them out to be? The SEs are all, from what I can tell, more focused on narrower lines of inquistion instead of broad analysis.

[skitter30]

i think different strokes for different folks
and different things are right for different stages of the game

i think to get the game out of rvs it's helpful to focus on small things
whereas in like lylo, it might be better to focus on the game as a whole. holistically

[Farren]

You have Norwegianboy and I as your only two scumreads. Does that mean you think the two of us are the scumteam?

i don't like this question

What are you trying to accomplish here?

[skitter30]

Sharing that i didnt like that question

[Farren]

He seems overly conscious of how his posts are being portrayed. I think it comes from a mindset of scum who doesn't want to be lynched. I didn't like that he resorted to deflection instead of engaging with me about that original push. I also thought his reads list in post 220 was really off point and reeked of being done with the intention of getting me off his back instead of finding scum.

Which of Dyrenz's reads did you think were off-point, and why?

[Farren]

Sharing that i didnt like that question

Congratulations on your rousing success, then.

Or was there more to it than that? By which I mean, I think there was more to it than that; please share.

[Jamelia]

You have Norwegianboy and I as your only two scumreads. Does that mean you think the two of us are the scumteam?

i don't like this question

What are you trying to accomplish here?

You have Norwegianboy and I as your only two scumreads. Does that mean you think the two of us are the scumteam?

i don't like this question

Can you answer the question then? You might not like it but I also think it’s important

[Farren]

Jamelia: I wasn't asking skitter. I was asking Dyrenz, and I think since then Dyrenz has since changed his read on me.

[Mr Oobsy]

Night 3 Town death > 2 vs 2 > Game Over

Unless someone gets healed.

Also, you seem to be willing to use non PR supplied information to decide on a lynch Day 2 but not Day 1. I don't understand what the difference is?

If I ever seemed willing to consider today's posts tomorrow, it was because I was allowing for the possibility of some egregious slip-up that would become obvious in retrospect of the nightkill. For now, I will consider today's votes as meaningless. Likewise for the discussion surrounding them.

[Plotinus]

Official Vote Count 1.08

baby rock hyrax

---

Lynching

With 9 votes in play, it takes 5 to lynch.

Dyrenz

(2): Micc, Farren

Farren

(2): skitter30, Mr Oobsy

Chemist1422

(2): NorwegianboyEE, Jamelia

NorwegianboyEE

(2): Chemist1422, Dyrenz

Mr Oobsy

(1): Leucosticte

Not Voting

(0):

None.

Deadline:

(expired on 2019-09-04 23:00:00).

Mod notes:

[/area]

[Micc]

Also, a meta question. Are analytical reads as important as I am making them out to be? The SEs are all, from what I can tell, more focused on narrower lines of inquistion instead of broad analysis.

I find it more useful to look for many small reasons to inform my reads than one big reason. There's always a counter argument when the scope is large, but if you can narrow the scope down and find something that can be explained from one alignment and not the other, then you have something useful. Put a bunch of those small things together and you'll have a way more powerful read than if you had started with a wide scope.

That's my take anyway. Hopefully I explained it ok. Your mileage will vary.

He seems overly conscious of how his posts are being portrayed. I think it comes from a mindset of scum who doesn't want to be lynched. I didn't like that he resorted to deflection instead of engaging with me about that original push. I also thought his reads list in post 220 was really off point and reeked of being done with the intention of getting me off his back instead of finding scum.

Which of Dyrenz's reads did you think were off-point, and why?

I'll list the especially egregious ones below, but in general the format of

NAI thing player has done in this game - read

isn't doing it for me.

Mr Oobsy - "Actively applies pressure with voting instead of sitting on an empty vote." frankly is just not true at all and I have no idea how he arrived at that conclusion.
Leucosticte - this is just a list of anti town things that Leucosticte has done this game with the conclusion being town.
chemist - "Looking back on it, probably used initial RVS to bait an unwary scum voter." No, and he's said as much multiple times.

[NorwegianboyEE]

Micc, can you post your reads?

[Leucosticte]

Chemist

- Looking back on it, probably used initial RVS to bait an unwary scum voter.

I don't support the practice of acting scummy to try to bait scum, if that's what he was doing. It just ends up causing more confusion for town, as we waste time trying to figure out who's more sus, the baiter, or the baited. #LynchAllBaiters