Page 32 of 35
Posted: Wed Sep 11, 2019 11:05 am
by Jamelia
Could you link me a wiki article that shows questions I can and cannot ask? I don’t want to ruin the meta by asking questions that don’t get explanations.
Posted: Wed Sep 11, 2019 11:25 am
by Farren
In post 754, Leucosticte wrote:One might say, "Oh, if you think Micc is just following blindly instead of being malicious, that indicates you think he's town, so therefore you shouldn't vote to lynch him" but the reality is, we can afford a mislynch and he's already not in my top townreads. If you don't have any strong scumreads, though, sometimes it's best to just think, "Hmm, which player would be the most likely to inadvertently be an asset to scum," and just go ahead and lynch them so you can be rid of them and then pursue the scumhunt without their getting in the way.
Some of the same people who make formidable town opponents can also make formidable scum opponents, so that's something to be aware of; just because Farren seems high-effort and so on doesn't mean that he's town.
On the other hand, some might say, "Wow, Farren can make these brilliant connections" but don't discount too, some of these lead him astray, like in post #562 where he thought Oobsy and I were a scumteam. Well, what about, say, post #680; do you still stand by your analysis from that post, Farren, where you reached those conclusions about Jamelia's towniness based on his scumreading Mr Oobsy after Micc had started the wagon on Chemist?
Farren has some cool Mafia theory that he expresses well but it doesn't mean he's town, so don't give him too much of a halo just based on that; you still have to challenge him and see what he's really about. Otherwise, you're potentially just giving scum a free ride.
The point is to lynch scum, not Town. Yes, mislynching one player today doesn't cost us the game. That doesn't mean we should be actively aiming to mislynch, or just trying to lynch the weakest player just because they're the weakest player. If we know the player that's most likely to assist scum, then that probably means we also know who scum is - and thus should lynch the scum.
Post
562: yes, I was wrong about Mr Oobsy being scum. I stand by Mr Oobsy's behavior being bizarre.
Post
680: the logic still makes sense to me. Scum can only shoot themselves in the foot for the purposes of looking townie so many times before they bleed to death. I think that scum|Jamelia taking that tack would have been shooting himself in the foot, as it puts Jamelia in danger - who is currently the better positioned scum of the two in scum|Jamelia world - without doing much to help Chemist. I think that's unlikely behavior as scum - ergo, evidence that Jamelia's Town.
Challenging me is always encouraged. Attacks that show someone is actually reading what I'm saying, analyzing it, and finding things to question is another way of finding Town players. Conversely, attacks that attempt to misrepresent what I'm saying, assault positions I don't endorse, or that flat out ignore facts about the game - that's another way of finding scum players.
Posted: Wed Sep 11, 2019 11:39 am
by Farren
In post 755, Jamelia wrote:I can agree that Leuco COULD have done this with a scum intent, but I don’t think it was with intent to gain credit from the flip, especially when we all chastised Oobsy for hammering early D1 on a TOWN. We know that Chemist is mafia, and maybe Leuco knew this too, but chances are that hammer doesn’t happen since Micc admitted that they would have unvoted if they saw the L-1.
I addressed the possibility of Micc's unvoting in
706 as well.
If Leucosticte is scum, then there's no question that he knew Chemist was also scum.
Leucosticte trying to put the hammer in the best possible light:
- Post
711: "The hammering itself was not a big deal;"
- Post
668 (pre-flip): "Well, judging by [Chemist's] iso, he probably wasn't going to have much more to say anyway pre-hammer, and at any rate, he can probably get a few more words in during twilight if there are some useful thoughts/insights/perspectives/analyses he wants to offer."
- Post
695: "Idk, the hammering probably shouldn't have happened the way it did, but on the other hand, had we waited, it's still technically possible that maybe people would've changed their minds and not lynched him.
So, perhaps it ended up being for the best
". (underlining added)
- Same post: "I voted Day 2 to hammer a scum, so that makes me even townier than Mr Oobsy, from a certain perspective."
Leucosticte did not think the hammer would be seen in a negative light. That idea's out.
That last line right there also shows attempt to claim credit from the flip.
Posted: Wed Sep 11, 2019 11:46 am
by Micc
Jamelia wrote:Could you link me a wiki article that shows questions I can and cannot ask? I don’t want to ruin the meta by asking questions that don’t get explanations.
I don't think that such an article exists. I don't think the community is anywhere near a consensus on this, but I have a hard time answering questions that give more meaningful information to scum than they do to town.
In the current example, you're essentially asking me to explain where I'd vote in lylo. It's not fair to me because I don't have all the information that I'd have if we actually got to lylo (who was on the D3 lynch wagon, who got nightkilled, ect). It's not fair to you that my answer is less precise than you desire. The only person it benefits is scum, who now has a slightly better idea of how lylo might play out, and can use that information to decide who the best nightkill and mislynch targets are.
Posted: Wed Sep 11, 2019 11:50 am
by Farren
In post 760, Leucosticte wrote:I'm still trying to figure out the best order to do this in.
Should we lynch Micc today and Ferren tomorrow, or Ferren today and Micc tomorrow?
I haven't figured out whether Micc is the low-effort scum or Farren is the high-effort scum, but I've pretty much narrowed it down to those two.
Putting the cart before the horse here.
Not sure if this is scummy or not, though.
Posted: Wed Sep 11, 2019 11:55 am
by Micc
It's scummy.
There's only one scum left. Why is he planning for there to be a tomorrow when he should be looking for the lynch that wins the game?
Posted: Wed Sep 11, 2019 12:29 pm
by Farren
In post 745, Jamelia wrote:For example, voting for Dyrenz after Skitter had suspicions of them
When did skitter show suspicion of Dyrenz?
Posted: Wed Sep 11, 2019 12:56 pm
by Jamelia
I honestly don’t even know why I said Skitter, because she didn’t show suspicion of Dyrenz. My apologies.
Posted: Wed Sep 11, 2019 1:10 pm
by Farren
Closest thing I can see to any suspicion on Dyrenz prior to Micc's vote is Mr Oobsy asking Dyrenz a question or two.
Micc was not following the crowd there.
Posted: Wed Sep 11, 2019 1:16 pm
by skitter30
In post 743, Leucosticte wrote: In post 738, skitter30 wrote:hmmmm
kinda makes me think that the hammer wasn't as careless as you may have portrayed it being
Who really cares? Were you wanting to be the one to drop the hammer, so you could claim townpoints for it?
me, since that's a rather important factor in my read of you
Posted: Wed Sep 11, 2019 1:21 pm
by skitter30
In post 745, Jamelia wrote:The "start" of the chemist train was actually started by you, but Micc was the first one to vote for Chemist, correct. However, this vote wasn't held on any merit.
well, i was talking more about day2, about the wagon that directly led to chemis getting lynched - micc started it and went awol while it was building, and it all in all is not how i view a partner interacting with a scum wagon
i'm not sure i'd really give my post 14 observation of chemist that much merit; i think micc's interactions with the wagon day2 are much more significant than my rvs with him
Posted: Wed Sep 11, 2019 1:23 pm
by skitter30
In post 749, Leucosticte wrote:This approach of, "I'm just going to see which way the winds are blowing and then be the first to vote that way" just doesn't seem very helpful. It would be better to base it on one's independent analysis rather than just blindly following others' lead.
VOTE: Micc
this post kinda epitomizes exactly what you're accusing micc of
Posted: Wed Sep 11, 2019 1:26 pm
by skitter30
In post 760, Leucosticte wrote:I'm still trying to figure out the best order to do this in. Should we lynch Micc today and Ferren tomorrow, or Ferren today and Micc tomorrow? I haven't figured out whether Micc is the low-effort scum or Farren is the high-effort scum, but I've pretty much narrowed it down to those two.
? why are you acting like farren is a sure-thing? or like even a viable lynch rn? i *highly* doubt he's lynchable today
Posted: Wed Sep 11, 2019 1:27 pm
by skitter30
In post 766, Micc wrote: In post 765, Micc wrote:oh Jamelia pointed this out already. Props to him for his independent thinking on that point...or something.
You know, because he woke up before me and got to post first. Because everyone knows that sleeping in and missing the chance to give your opinion first is a scum trait.
??? the tone in this is really weird
Posted: Wed Sep 11, 2019 1:28 pm
by skitter30
In post 769, Micc wrote:I'm frustrated because the case being built around me essentially comes down to, people expressed opinions and Micc shares those opinions, but didn't have the chance to post them first. I
t's like I'm being punished for not being online playing this game 24-7,
which is stupid, because playing mafia 24-7 is incredibly unhealthy.
i think this is misrepresentative of why people were scumreading you
i don't get the vibe of the bolded like at all
Posted: Wed Sep 11, 2019 1:30 pm
by skitter30
In post 770, Jamelia wrote:I didn't claim that Skitter's claim was the definite start. Notice me putting it in "start" because you're right, they were just saying it was an early scumread. But, I think Skitter's "fact" that YOU started the train to get Chemist lynched was incorrect, because you eventually change your mind off of Chemist and then oppose their lynching later in the day.
to clarify, i was talking about micc's vote at the start of day2
Posted: Wed Sep 11, 2019 1:32 pm
by skitter30
In post 775, Jamelia wrote:Could you link me a wiki article that shows questions I can and cannot ask? I don’t want to ruin the meta by asking questions that don’t get explanations.
i'm not sure there's a wiki article with this sort of thing, but i think all the questions you've asked are fine and fair game; feel free to ask if you've got any questions about this sort of thing
Posted: Wed Sep 11, 2019 1:33 pm
by skitter30
i think jamelia is townie again, actually
i think scum is in {leu/micc}
leu is probably scummier than micc i think
Posted: Wed Sep 11, 2019 2:40 pm
by Micc
In post 789, skitter30 wrote: In post 769, Micc wrote:I'm frustrated because the case being built around me essentially comes down to, people expressed opinions and Micc shares those opinions, but didn't have the chance to post them first. I
t's like I'm being punished for not being online playing this game 24-7,
which is stupid, because playing mafia 24-7 is incredibly unhealthy.
i think this is misrepresentative of why people were scumreading you
i don't get the vibe of the bolded like at all
I'm welcome to hearing a more accurate representation of the case as you see it.
From my point of view "people expressed opinions and Micc shares those opinions, but didn't have a chance to post them first" is pretty damn accurate, at least for Leocosticte. Jamelia started thereabout and then transitioned into being about my read progression, and then didn't have anything more to say when I showed how misrepresentative he was being of what happened on day 1.
Posted: Wed Sep 11, 2019 2:43 pm
by Jamelia
In post 793, Micc wrote: In post 789, skitter30 wrote: In post 769, Micc wrote:I'm frustrated because the case being built around me essentially comes down to, people expressed opinions and Micc shares those opinions, but didn't have the chance to post them first. I
t's like I'm being punished for not being online playing this game 24-7,
which is stupid, because playing mafia 24-7 is incredibly unhealthy.
i think this is misrepresentative of why people were scumreading you
i don't get the vibe of the bolded like at all
I'm welcome to hearing a more accurate representation of the case as you see it.
From my point of view "people expressed opinions and Micc shares those opinions, but didn't have a chance to post them first" is pretty damn accurate, at least for Leocosticte. Jamelia started thereabout and then transitioned into being about my read progression, and then didn't have anything more to say when I showed how misrepresentative he was being of what happened on day 1.
I didn’t have more to say because I don’t have anything to respond to. This isn’t being right/wrong it’s just an opinion.
Posted: Wed Sep 11, 2019 3:09 pm
by Micc
Wise words indeed. I have to remind myself that arguments aren't about winning or lossing, but coming to a better understanding pretty regularly. Props to you for understanding something that many players never come to terms with.
Posted: Wed Sep 11, 2019 3:12 pm
by Farren
In post 794, Jamelia wrote: In post 793, Micc wrote:
I'm welcome to hearing a more accurate representation of the case as you see it.
From my point of view "people expressed opinions and Micc shares those opinions, but didn't have a chance to post them first" is pretty damn accurate, at least for Leocosticte. Jamelia started thereabout and then transitioned into being about my read progression, and then didn't have anything more to say when I showed how misrepresentative he was being of what happened on day 1.
I didn’t have more to say because I don’t have anything to respond to. This isn’t being right/wrong it’s just an opinion.
I'd say you do have something to respond to. Micc's made comments on his progression. The only part of post 773 you responded to was to his answering your question about his reads. The rest of it deserves your attention too.
Posted: Wed Sep 11, 2019 3:23 pm
by skitter30
In post 769, Micc wrote:It's like I'm being punished for not being online playing this game 24-7, which is stupid,
@micc i'm confused where you're getting this from
Posted: Wed Sep 11, 2019 3:23 pm
by Jamelia
In post 796, Farren wrote: In post 794, Jamelia wrote: In post 793, Micc wrote:
I'm welcome to hearing a more accurate representation of the case as you see it.
From my point of view "people expressed opinions and Micc shares those opinions, but didn't have a chance to post them first" is pretty damn accurate, at least for Leocosticte. Jamelia started thereabout and then transitioned into being about my read progression, and then didn't have anything more to say when I showed how misrepresentative he was being of what happened on day 1.
I didn’t have more to say because I don’t have anything to respond to. This isn’t being right/wrong it’s just an opinion.
I'd say you do have something to respond to. Micc's made comments on his progression. The only part of post 773 you responded to was to his answering your question about his reads. The rest of it deserves your attention too.
I think his comments speak for themself. He doesn’t find his own progression scummy, and I think his explanation makes sense. I think that the safer bet right now is Leuco, but I just wanted to throw out my opinion on a progression that wasn’t explained well to me. It was explained and I understand it, whether I think it’s scummy or not.
It’s up to y’all to agree or disagree with me. I agree with the reads on leuco, as well. If that’s the direction we want to go.
Posted: Wed Sep 11, 2019 4:21 pm
by Micc
In post 797, skitter30 wrote: In post 769, Micc wrote:It's like I'm being punished for not being online playing this game 24-7, which is stupid,
@micc i'm confused where you're getting this from
I reached the same conclusion about Leucosticte's vote in post 749 as Jamelia and you did. Jamelia happened to post about it first, then me, then eventually you but not until after I made this post. The situation resonated with me because the same logic being used to push a case against me could be applied to this too. Micc shares an opinion with someone else, but didn't post it first so he's being opportunistic/bandwagon/ect. In this instance I didn't post my opinion first because I was literally sleeping, and scum reading me for that is punishing me for not watching the game 24-7. That's really frustrating to me and my intent was to explain that feeling.