More like just an "RC is playing, he must be anti-Town". This is irrespective of whether he is Town or scum. I try to make this weak but every game with RC just confirms it.In post 648, mhsmith0 wrote:Are you saying that your m&m read early in the game was just a play style read? Nothing particular to this game, just an "rc is playing, he must be Mafia" sort of thing?In post 647, BTD6_maker wrote:I agree. RC just says "you're scum" or something along those lines, never with justification, and commonly wron, which has led to my "perpetual scumread" on him. Every time I see RC, I know he's going to be as stubborn as always and detrimental to Town.In post 646, drmyshottyizsik wrote:Ya I don't like playing with RC much either sometimes. RC has a tendency to throw elbows if you know what I mean. It can be fun, but RC has a way of just getting to people sometimes.
In post 636, AlpacaAlpaca wrote:In post 621, AlpacaAlpaca wrote:@BTD why do you think that Smith is scum?
In post 128, Ranger wrote:I could easily!Alpaca wrote:Ranger would you care to elaborate on why you think I'm town for my RVS vote in post 28.
I'm choosing not to. It's a non-issue. Unless you're at risk of being lynched, it's simply not something I need to spend my time on.
...
In post 164, Ranger wrote:Well, tough.Alexcellent wrote: I don't really accept "I don't feel like it/will take too much time" as a good reason to not cooperate on her reads.Of course it's not that hard. I can explain any read on the drop of a hat to at least an adequate level most of the time. In fact, explaining the Alpaca townread would be ridiculously easy.Even if it's kind of flimsy or meh reasoning, surely it's not that hard?
But when I say I don't feel like explaining.
I mean I don't feel like explaining, and no amount of pushing me to explain will change my mood.
...
Walk me through that Alpaca town read you say you have. You'd stated pretty explicitly early on that there were tangible reasons for it, and you were simply choosing not to explain it. Now it's "purely gut". What changed? Did something cause those earlier reasons to disappear?In post 485, Ranger wrote:Alpaca at this point is purely gut.
Ranger, what did you mean by "he claimed scum" here? Did you think that the idea he'd joke around in RVS wouldn't be credible?In post 208, Ranger wrote:BTD6 wrote:So what do you claim?^So basically, he claimed scum.innocentvillager's 2nd post wrote:I am going to go ahead and claim ha u scumfuck rolefisher, cause obviously playing as claimed is easier for town to win. With that I am going to start this game and: VOTE: innocentvillager
He just rubs me the wrong way.
Time.mhsmith wrote: You'd stated pretty explicitly early on that there were tangible reasons for it, and you were simply choosing not to explain it. Now it's "purely gut". What changed? Did something cause those earlier reasons to disappear?
Already did. I don't feel he's scum (gut), and his end of D1 antics suggest town. It is not, however, something I'd bet the game on.mhsmith wrote:Can you talk about your BTD6 town read?
Beyond the EOD1 antics, do you think they've been game-solving in any meaningful way? I find it odd how devoid of menaingful content their ISO is, especially given their bandwagoning.In post 661, Ranger wrote:Already did. I don't feel he's scum (gut), and his end of D1 antics suggest town. It is not, however, something I'd bet the game on.mhsmith wrote:Can you talk about your BTD6 town read?
Sorry if you've mentioned this already, but how did you feel about BTD6's end of day antics? I e gotten a scum one from BTD in almost every other way, except his end of D1 reactions.In post 662, mhsmith0 wrote:Beyond the EOD1 antics, do you think they've been game-solving in any meaningful way? I find it odd how devoid of menaingful content their ISO is, especially given their bandwagoning.In post 661, Ranger wrote:Already did. I don't feel he's scum (gut), and his end of D1 antics suggest town. It is not, however, something I'd bet the game on.mhsmith wrote:Can you talk about your BTD6 town read?
Actually, bandwagoning seems to be a bit of a tell from them (although it's a very limited sample size). In open 638, skimming mod posts ( http://forum.mafiascum.net/viewtopic.ph ... 8#p7909566 ) it seems like they bandwagoned a fair amount D1 (before getting lynched); in their two town newbie games
http://forum.mafiascum.net/viewtopic.ph ... 9#p7845419
http://forum.mafiascum.net/viewtopic.ph ... 4#p7911269
not so much
since you're the one here with meta on them, does that line up with your impression of them from your open game w them?
In post 660, mhsmith0 wrote:Spoiler: current vca
Especially important votes:
Day One
126 - Alex puts Ranger at L-1
127 - M&M moves Ranger off L-1
135 - M&M puts Ranger back to L-1
137 - Alex moves Ranger off L-1
152 - BTD6 puts Ranger back at L-1
186 - Kappy puts IV at L-1
211 - BTD6 hammers IV
Day Two
473 - I put Ranger at L-1
482 - Ranger takes herself off L-1
570 - BTD6 puts me at L-1
586 - drmy takes me off L-1
Notes/thoughts:
BTD6 has been bandwagoning like CRAZY so far this game. They've made a LOT of really important votes, basically none of which were justified in any meaningful sense. Two L-1 votes, AND one hammer vote, and he has NEVER taken the time to own those votes or the reasoning behind them. That's pretty terrible. Consider:
L-1 on Ranger: puts in some reasoning (more than any other vote fwiw), hedges like crazy with "Still only weak-moderate but worth voting on" and "It puts enough pressure on Ranger now"
Hammer on IV: the expressed reason is that he thought it was an IV/Ranger team (in previous posts), and that the VT claim was meaningfully scum-indicative (which is transparent nonsense). Also hedges like crazy with "If you are really a Tree, Town hasn't lost much. You can still be an active scumhunter after death."
The VT claim was intended to rule out the possibility that I am lynching a Firefighter. The comment was just an add-on. Also, I was mentioning that if he is a Tree, Town doesn't lose much. That was not in any way my entire justification. My justification was because he was my strongest scumread.
L-1 on me: Hedges with "Not as strong as M&M, but a lone vote on M&M won't accomplish anything at this stage." Once again, they're casting a super important vote, but the substance behind it is just wishy-washy crap.
Yet again, you are someone I am scumreading. I am willing to lynch any of my scumreads.
Also, looking through his ISO, he basically never has a meaningful opinion, he basically never is asking questions of people (much less interesting ones), and there's no evidence anywhere that he wants to solve the puzzle of the game. He has about 60 posts, and I can't find 10 that are meaningfully game-solving. That's pretty much active lurking right there.
Aren't reads a meaningful opinion? I gave my opinion on IV, Ranger, M&M, and now you. How is this not meaningful?
Also, I still have no idea how anyone town-aligned could possible look at the lengthy back and forth between me and Ranger and have no opinion beyond "it's probably v/w, no real idea which one, let's just lynch them both". There are substantive accusations (going both directions), that practically beg for an actual opinion on them, and essentially just shrugging at and saying "eh whatever lets just lynch them both in whatever order" is, to me, not a credible reaction.
I am trying to build a case on you. Expect it some time today.
Overall: VCA given the lack of flips other than IV seems to point to BTD6 as the most suspicious pattern. OTOH, I still really don't like what I've seen from Ranger so far. I think my lynch pool is {BTD6, Ranger} but want to see what the subs have to say at this point.
That's no excuse to hide the rest of his play.In post 661, Ranger wrote:Already did. I don't feel he's scum (gut), and his end of D1 antics suggest town. It is not, however, something I'd bet the game on.mhsmith wrote:Can you talk about your BTD6 town read?
Thinking about it, this really bothers me. If we lynch a Tree, we're not lynching an Arsonist. Just because they can still talk doesn't justifying lynching trees. Each tree we lunch brings us one step closer to a scum win. I don't know how I missed this Day 1.In post 660, mhsmith0 wrote:"If you are really a Tree, Town hasn't lost much. You can still be an active scumhunter after death."
In post 668, Kappy wrote:Thinking about it, this really bothers me. If we lynch a Tree, we're not lynching an Arsonist. Just because they can still talk doesn't justifying lynching trees. Each tree we lunch brings us one step closer to a scum win. I don't know how I missed this Day 1.In post 660, mhsmith0 wrote:"If you are really a Tree, Town hasn't lost much. You can still be an active scumhunter after death."
VOTE: BTD6
Yeah, this is flimsy logic. Smith's argument was better, but still not great.In post 668, Kappy wrote:Thinking about it, this really bothers me. If we lynch a Tree, we're not lynching an Arsonist. Just because they can still talk doesn't justifying lynching trees. Each tree we lunch brings us one step closer to a scum win. I don't know how I missed this Day 1.In post 660, mhsmith0 wrote:"If you are really a Tree, Town hasn't lost much. You can still be an active scumhunter after death."
VOTE: BTD6
But that's not what you said, now is it? You SAID that your reasons for reading IV as an arsonist were:
is completely ridiculous. WHY was he your "strongest scumread"? One of your two reasons was transparent nonsense (at worst the "tree" claim was null, and in general was likelier to come from town, since mafia is incentivized to fake claim to either delay the lynch or to draw out the actual PR). And the other was mediocre. And yet you thought (or are representing that you thought) that this all added up to enough substance to justify a hammer.My justification was because he was my strongest scumread
But that's meaningless. WHY am I being read this way? Empty reads are just as empty as empty votes. You consistently aren't providing substance behind your read. Without substance, the read is nothing.L-1 on me: Hedges with "Not as strong as M&M, but a lone vote on M&M won't accomplish anything at this stage." Once again, they're casting a super important vote, but the substance behind it is just wishy-washy crap.
Yet again, you are someone I am scumreading. I am willing to lynch any of my scumreads.
Again, empty reads are just as empty as empty votes. You consistently aren't providing substance behind your read. Without substance, the read is nothing.Also, looking through his ISO, he basically never has a meaningful opinion, he basically never is asking questions of people (much less interesting ones), and there's no evidence anywhere that he wants to solve the puzzle of the game. He has about 60 posts, and I can't find 10 that are meaningfully game-solving. That's pretty much active lurking right there.
Aren't reads a meaningful opinion? I gave my opinion on IV, Ranger, M&M, and now you. How is this not meaningful?
Late D2 is pretty late to finally get around to making a case on someone, all the more so since it's mainly in response to pressure on your slot. But sure, make your case. We're waiting on multiple subs. We have time.Also, I still have no idea how anyone town-aligned could possible look at the lengthy back and forth between me and Ranger and have no opinion beyond "it's probably v/w, no real idea which one, let's just lynch them both". There are substantive accusations (going both directions), that practically beg for an actual opinion on them, and essentially just shrugging at and saying "eh whatever lets just lynch them both in whatever order" is, to me, not a credible reaction.
I am trying to build a case on you. Expect it some time today.
But again, that's not what you said. You said at the time that the tree claim was itself scum-indicative (which was nonsense). Your actual hammer vote was, in your own words, due to:In post 670, BTD6_maker wrote:How many times have I made it clear that I was lynching the person most likely to be an Arsonist? A lynch on an Arsonist is great, a lynch on a Tree is slightly bad, and a lynch on a Firefighter is really bad. I am not advocating lynching people who are 100% guaranteed to be Trees. I am advocating lynching the person most likely to be an Arsonist, while acknowledging that they could still be a Tree.
Again, why do we ask for claims before hammering? It's because lynching a PR is worse than lynching a VT. We try to minimise damage done by a mislynch. However, the primary objective is to minimise the probability of a mislynch by lynching the most likely scum. I did both.
What you are doing in this game is looking to stay in the null space. You've consistently been active lurking, you've hedged (multiple of your votes were actively hedging, you hedged in your "one of ranger/mhs is scum but I can't be bothered to decide which" read), you've made bandwagony votes (rarely if ever with any kind of menaingful justification), etc.thewysecat wrote:I have made this point elsewhere often and I shall make it here. If all you have is anti-town behaviours then lynch on those if you must but sadly most anti-town behaviours are town indicative. Upto and including - so it turned out - Petunia's d2 behaviours. This - in my opinion - is what Palin was lynched on and was the basis of all the grief Ugluk took. They did something(s) you did not like and were unapologetic about it. Only a ballsy scum does that. They exist, but rarely. Ugluk to be fair might be one of them. But scum live more usually in the null-space. They are in the corner of your eye on the edges of awareness until suddenly you realise...in time? or too late?Palin just had a daft idea and didn't care what you thought about it.Lynch on pro-scum indicative behaviours - active lurking, hedging, politicking, weird votes or switches in logic, incongruencies in positions held/advocated and actions taken - things they are doing to stay in the null space.
You mean the defensiveness of it or something else?In post 672, drmyshottyizsik wrote:VOTE: btd ^6^ scum post
p-edit
Kappy
s point may be weak but look at BTD's reaction