Newbie 2070 - Airplanes | GAME OVER

[ClarkBar]

I'll reword that. The analysis didn't get nearly as much attention as it should have. It reads like someone saw their buddy get scum read and redirected attention onto somebody else.

I should have been less flippant. It got the attention it deserved. It was not dismissed, least of all by myself. Can you clarify the last sentence?

[ClarkBar]

aw man i posted too much no one is taking note of my blurryx read

Now we're talking! I have no idea why Blurry got ignored after Psyche made their analysis on them.

I'll reword that. The analysis didn't get nearly as much attention as it should have. It reads like someone saw their buddy get scum read and redirected attention onto somebody else.

Wait and ye shall receive.

[Roden]

I'll reword that. The analysis didn't get nearly as much attention as it should have. It reads like someone saw their buddy get scum read and redirected attention onto somebody else.

I should have been less flippant. It got the attention it deserved. It was not dismissed, least of all by myself. Can you clarify the last sentence?

I think more attention was put on an argument that was full of miscommunications instead of on an analysis that made some good points. Reading the last few pages, I seriously don't think Nancy vs Val should've gone on for as long as it did.

Like, am I just reading it wrong, or is there just miscommunication going on between them?

[ClarkBar]

Like, am I just reading it wrong, or is there just miscommunication going on between them?

Doing this running commentary on the spat between Nancy and Val and watching the temperature rise between them is interesting. Clash of personalities? Something doesn't seem organic here.

I don't want to be overly paranoid, but we got quite a bit out of very little.

[Psyche]

call it a personal weakness but my eyes glaze over when i try to dig into the nancy val exchange. i really really hope there's nothing alignment-indicative in there.

[LunarRest]

UNVOTE

Will be back later. So many posts with so many words…

[Nancy Drew 39]

Nancy, do you think you could explain the "alt thing" for us? Because even after reading through the thread I'm not sure what in particular it's referring to at this point beyond the fact an alt exists. I feel like the argument has morphed this bit into something unrecognizable, to the point where you and Val might not be arguing about the same thing anymore.

I also don't like that you're refusing to engage with someone just because they're pressuring you. I don't think Val is being toxic here, they're just pushing on you hard and you haven't really addressed much of their read on you. If you're town, you should want to defend yourself and prove them wrong, not ignore them.

I never said they were “toxic”, I said and stand by that I felt bullied by the way they interacted with me. I was on the verge of possibly being toxic myself because the way he chose to engage with me -pretty much. “you’re scum unless you do what I think you should do”, is not something I will ever put up with and if you have an issue with that, oh well.

[Nancy Drew 39]

she doesn't need to explain the alt thing.

it should be self explainable -- its not that hard to understand.

she townreads me because i am playing the same way i played in a game where she was scum and mislimmed me in.

that game she was on an alt.

and i probably know who she is talking bout -- nd can confirm this did happen.
val and nancy were just going bout either side triumph regarding all that i just epxlained above and it go no where.

yall r both town anwyays

No, we were both town in that.

[Nancy Drew 39]

she doesn't need to explain the alt thing.

it should be self explainable -- its not that hard to understand.

she townreads me because i am playing the same way i played in a game where she was scum and mislimmed me in.

that game she was on an alt.

and i probably know who she is talking bout -- nd can confirm this did happen.
val and nancy were just going bout either side triumph regarding all that i just epxlained above and it go no where.

yall r both town anwyays

Nancy should explain it enough to clarify the situation so everyone can be 100% on the same page. She doesn't need to go into full detail or out the alt.

What do you want me to explain more than I already have? W were both town and I miselimed him. I was extremely shocked when he flipped town in that game.

[Nancy Drew 39]

I believe Nancy was on the alt Emily but I might be wrong. Gramma, posting style, and time zones match.

No that wasn’t me but if you do figure it out, please don’t out it, thanks.

[Nancy Drew 39]

I believe Nancy was on the alt Emily but I might be wrong. Gramma, posting style, and time zones match.

no lol

Btw, that PT with you and Emily was probably one of the funniest things ever.

[Nancy Drew 39]

I believe Nancy was on the alt Emily but I might be wrong. Gramma, posting style, and time zones match.

I initially thought the same. But of the 3 accounts that mislimmed Grandpa - Loki Dokie, Hopkirk, Emily (see here); only Hopkirk was also on the bugspray wagon, as per Nancys 146. GrandpaMo also has reason to think the Nancy Alt flipped scum (not sure where that comes from, but OK), and Hopkirk is the only other one to fit that description too.

Interestingly, the briefest of looks at that ISO throws up red flags as far as a theoretical scum!Nancy=Hopkirk goes - I can see the "I'm hurt and you are a meanie" attitude coming through from the very first post. That would be a very good reason right off the bat why a scum!Nancy in this game wants to be coy about her scum game in 1009, if we are right about the identity of the alt.

That is why I don't get it. If you aren't scum in this game, why do you need to protect your scum meta from scrutiny? If protecting the alt important to you, then just don't mention the information you gleaned from your alt play, just say "I found this game of Grandpa's, and this is what I see" and don’t mention you were actually in it; or else say "I played in this game under alt X", and just roll a new alt for your next game. Trying to hide the existence of a game you played as scum only makes sense me to me if you also rolled scum this game.

I was town which meant I obviously couldn’t be Hopkirk but I really don’t understand what purpose it serves to trying to out my alt. Please just stop. If I wanted it outed, I already would have done it myself. :/

[Nancy Drew 39]

Grandpa, I would accept your waterfowl epithet for me with good grace if "I carried a mislim on grandpa" was in fact what Nancy said, but it wasn't. It was:

Wrt to Mo, I miselimed him in a past game.

No mention of "carrying" involved.

Town says that to town? Yes, they bloody well do - I say I mislimmed you in our game (sorry about that, old chap), and we were both town.

In any case, if you are right that only scum says that, then that's only further confirmation that Hopkirk and Nancy are one and the same; given that Hopkirk was the only scum on your wagon in 1009.

Please don’t let Hopkirk know that. lolololol

[GrandpaMo]

she doesn't need to explain the alt thing.

it should be self explainable -- its not that hard to understand.

she townreads me because i am playing the same way i played in a game where she was scum and mislimmed me in.

that game she was on an alt.

and i probably know who she is talking bout -- nd can confirm this did happen.
val and nancy were just going bout either side triumph regarding all that i just epxlained above and it go no where.

yall r both town anwyays

No, we were both town in that.

shh im tryna confuse them

[GrandpaMo]

I believe Nancy was on the alt Emily but I might be wrong. Gramma, posting style, and time zones match.

no lol

Btw, that PT with you and Emily was probably one of the funniest things ever.

yea that alt played me well lmaoo

[GrandpaMo]

wait so why is blurry scum

[Val89]

LunarRest

Null read. Sorry I don't have anything more interesting than that for you folks. I can't find anything on which to base a read at the moment. Others have suggested #79 is alignment indicative, which Psyche says is "fine in terms of alignment-indication" (162), which I take to mean 'seems town', but I can see that post being just as likley to come from a scum!LunarRest as it can from town. Others have suggested that it shows a town mindset that's hard for newbscum to fake, but even if I agreed with the premise that newbscum are typically fairly poor (I don't, I've read games where newbscum play some amazing games - one of those in this game, as an aside) , the central argument - that Psyche asking if they should unvote is a little dodgy - was already alluded to by ClarkBar before 79, so they could have just taken that and ran with it.

I don't think there is anything scummy in it, but I have zero confidence in saying anything there is town either; hense I cant give any reading other than a straight up Null.

I'll let you know if that changes.

[Val89]

BlurryX

I'm more than a little concerned about this taking off as quickly as it is.

Thing is, I do largely agree with the points Psyche makes in 160, and agree with the conclusion that the post of Blurry's we have is "all over the place". Psyche goes to say they are "stuck trying to figure out if the post is a mess because of inexperience", and I think they are right on the money with the suggestion that the post seems scummy, but may well come down to confused newbtown with little experience and having difficulty communicating their thoughts in a way that makes sense. I often find the same "all over the place" logic in Grandpa's writing, but we aren't in any rush to chop them, are we?

That said, I

definitely

disagree with the idea we should be limming BlurryX over this one post, as expressed by Psyche in 279, particularly as the slot is basically AFK at this point. The was a newbie game that completed recently where a Town PR was limmed on D1 while MIA, let's not go repeating that here, please.

Turning to the actual substance, I have nothing additional to add to Psyche analysis, and I think the later part of it offers some food for thought that BlurryX needs to respond to, but I do disagree with some of the takes:

So the read doesn't really engage substantially with the interpretive challenge or take us as a town anywhere beyond the fact of its communication.

I find the same sort thing evident in some of ClarkBar's postings, and I've written there (237) why I think that could go either way as far as indicating alignment. I'm not immediately convinced this is scummy without evidence that this becomes a pattern over a longer period therefore, and I am disregarding it when weighing up my overall read.

One thing that did strike me was in

As Psyche themselves note, this is self-evidently incomplete. The thought that was intended to go there may well have gone on to give something other than a null read, so I don't really think it's fair to draw a conclusion on that without seeing what that section was

supposed

to say.

Comment about me is off. I think I've done a lot of substance so far! I feel personally responsible for the E-1 he celebrates a paragraph earlier. Of course I disagree with the idea that only my #67 can be analyzed or that I was being performative in it.

Fine. I accept what Psyche says with respect to their 67, and I had already come to the conclusion it could be considered an attempt to provoke discussion and move the game along. Problem is, BlurryX wasn't alone in thinking it might have been some dodgy motivation behind it (or at least wondering out loud as to it's motivation). Both Clarkbar and LunarRest had already done the same, and neither of those get the same "comment is off" treatment. If the issue isn't with #69 and instead with the "lack of substance", I have to say I think that could be a conclusion a town player could have come to, looking at Psyche's posting prior to when BlurryX made this 137 post. Clearly, that has changed since, but I don't see any basis to suggest Blurry's comment on Psyche was 'off' that couldn't also be applied to at least two others.

The points made about the T3 and Grandpa reads are fair, and require explanation. As such, if you put a gun to my head, I would say my read on BlurryX is a little on the red side of null, call it a slight

scumlean

but certainly until we have heard more I don't think there is enough to place my vote over it, and I vehemently disagree we should be limming over it.

[Nancy Drew 39]

she doesn't need to explain the alt thing.

it should be self explainable -- its not that hard to understand.

she townreads me because i am playing the same way i played in a game where she was scum and mislimmed me in.

that game she was on an alt.

and i probably know who she is talking bout -- nd can confirm this did happen.
val and nancy were just going bout either side triumph regarding all that i just epxlained above and it go no where.

yall r both town anwyays

No, we were both town in that.

shh im tryna confuse them

It apparently worked very well then.

[Nancy Drew 39]

LunarRest

Null read. Sorry I don't have anything more interesting than that for you folks. I can't find anything on which to base a read at the moment. Others have suggested #79 is alignment indicative, which Psyche says is "fine in terms of alignment-indication" (162), which I take to mean 'seems town', but I can see that post being just as likley to come from a scum!LunarRest as it can from town. Others have suggested that it shows a town mindset that's hard for newbscum to fake, but even if I agreed with the premise that newbscum are typically fairly poor (I don't, I've read games where newbscum play some amazing games - one of those in this game, as an aside) , the central argument - that Psyche asking if they should unvote is a little dodgy - was already alluded to by ClarkBar before 79, so they could have just taken that and ran with it.

I don't think there is anything scummy in it, but I have zero confidence in saying anything there is town either; hense I cant give any reading other than a straight up Null.

I'll let you know if that changes.

I suppose that’s fair. I played extremely well in my first scumgame.

[Nancy Drew 39]

Sorry, folks. It was a busy weekend for me so I wasn't particularly active, but I read through the last few pages and I have some thoughts I want to get out there:

We have 8 days guys, no need to rush anything. Wrt to Mo, I miselimed him in a past game. He could be scum here or limbait. Some people are naturally scummy players. It would be nice if we had some time to actually see he’s really the best elim or not.

He isn’t playing extremely differently here from the game I miselimed him in so I’m wary.

This post suggests town to me. If someone were scum, I don't know if they would be wanting to inject doubt into the primary bus this early on. It could be waffling, but to me the more likely scenario is town trying to play carefully and make sure that they aren't just getting rid of someone who is unlikeable but isn't scum.

The E-1 early on is probably a good thing, because it's the catalyst that is getting people talking (provided no quick-hammer). Without it, I'm not sure people would be talking as much this early on in the game (although I'm not super familiar with how the early games really go usually).

Thoughts on some other players:

@Psyche

Hasn't really posted anything of substance. Hopped on the wagon early (I guess technically started it, was he 2nd vote on Grandpa?) but I feel like RVS doesn't go anywhere without those first few steps. A few jokes, but nothing that can really be analyzed other than #67. Writing that, but not unvoting could be a way of distancing himself from any blame if wagon ends up lynching town. Kind of like a "see, I'm not a scum who was pushing the wagon, I had doubts about it".

@Clarkbar

Contributing more of substance than the others. I buy his reasoning for putting someone to 4 votes, as has been proven, it is a good way to provoke discussion, which gives more information to work with. I don't think there's anything I want to specifically highlight in his posts, he seems to be asking questions and sharing his thoughts, but I don't think there's anything I can see that tells me anything about his particular leanings.

One thing that did strike me was in

@T3

Similar to Psyche in that there wasn't much substance there, just hopping on the wagon and pressing it. Could be Psyche/T3 scum team (can two SEs be mafia in the same game?) but that would be kind of convenient.

@Grandpa

I don't interpret him voting for himself as scummy as you others do. If I could summarize his defense it is: nobody has built a convincing case on me yet and hammering me early cuts off any further discussion for the day, neither of which tell me anything one way or another. I'm curious to see how this develops over the course of the day.

@LunarEclipse

Self-deprecation aside, they've had one post of any substance #79. I'm not as convinced as Nancy is that this is a town-leaning post, because I think that assuming someone can't put themselves into the mindset of town just because this is their first game on this forum. I think I need to see more posts from them before I develop any ideas of leaning.

I think that covers everyone so far. For now I think keeping Grandpa as the lead contender for the guillotine is the right move, as they do have an erratic posting style that may cause confusion later in the game, but hopefully there is something more substantive to base a day 1 lynch off of in the next few days, and we haven't yet heard from the two AFK players.

It’s the sign of the apocalypse that I’m actually in agreement with Val over absolutely anything. I’m also tend not sr anyone who correctly reads me but in tm recently we miselimed Zor for making a very similar kind of post. This really doesn’t read like busywork to me. It’s not a confident read at all but I read it - without more input from Blurry as NIA for now.

I need to hear a lot more from this slot before I can confidently read it one way or another.

[Val89]

is there just miscommunication going on between them?

If there is, getting it cleared up now would seem to be best way to move forward because right now I have Nancy as strong scum and that's unlikley to move while this still hangs over us.

I thought she did, but again, not everyone seems to be on the same page atm and Val could be talking about something else involving the alt.

To be clear - I don't think Nancy addressed the point at all. She screamed that I was misrepresenting her several times, she clarified that she had an alt again, and explained that she outted the fact she played under an alt with Grandpa previously because she was being asked by Grandpa and Clark where the meta info was coming from, and said that she would have prefered it if she had played that game under the Nancy account.

None of that addresses the point I made that saying "I have a meta read on X, but I'm not telling you where it is from, you will just have to trust me" feels scummy. If you want to protect the alt, why not just say "I have a meta read on X, here is the game he played in and here is what I think it tells us"; trying to muscle in the fact you were playing in it under an alt seems like a way to try and bolster not very good reasoning with "I was there" cred whilst at the same time trying to hide your own meta tells. You know who worries about thier own meta tells in a mafia game? Scum! Who cares if you get meta read as town if you are town, right?

In any case, regardless of the merits of the inital points, I think her reaction was more telling than anything in my inital read. I can buy that a particulary sensitive individual might perceive my forceful tone as some sort of personal attack, and if I thought that was what was going on I would explain and retract, but are you really going to suggest someone who choses "Thing with Nancy is we just need to tread carefully because if you slip up around her as scum she notices and will tear your spine out and slap you to death with it." and "I'm slightly scared of Nancy" as her signature quotes, and says the things you identify as RED FLAGS in your 236 to a newbie slot is some sort of sensitive snowflake who doesn't go after her own scumreads forcefully herself?

I don't. Performative seems an excellent word for it, and I don't see any town justification for putting on such a performance. However, if you do think this can reasonably chalked up as "miscommunication", lets thrash it out and get it sorted now.

[Nancy Drew 39]

If you’re actually town with that wild read, you shouldn’t expect any scummie noms anytime soon. No I won’t address this anymore than I already have. Your welcome to your silly read on me. I’m more interested in actually trying to parse slots. Sr that if you like. I don’t have to satisfy you. I know I’m town and if you’re also town and need a building to fall on you to see it, then that’s a you problem.

[Nancy Drew 39]

One last time:

I was in a game with Mo. We were both town in said game. I miselimed him under an alt account I didn’t want outed.

Should I make this colour-coded or what tf more aren’t youcomprehending?

[Val89]

what tf more aren’t youcomprehending?

If you want to protect the alt, why not just say "I have a meta read on X, here is the game he played in and here is what I think it tells us"; trying to muscle in the fact you were playing in it under an alt seems like a way to try and bolster not very good reasoning with "I was there" cred whilst at the same time trying to hide your own meta tells. You know who worries about thier own meta tells in a mafia game? Scum! Who cares if you get meta read as town if you are town, right?

^ This.