In post 587, TheThirteenthJT wrote:So I'm caught up reading. Clark case coming up. At this point it's a toss up for me between clark, Raya and Porkens.
Raya I've stated my early reasons and recent game hasn't been helping for me. Ill go in more detail soon
Clarkbarr has really flagged me recently. Full case coming soon as well so don't end the day.
And Porkens unfortunately for them, would tells us so much about the game.
I want quicks stance asap on Porkens. No hammer without a final claim Or I policy tomorrow.
In post 591, Porkens wrote:Thirteenth, what would my hanging tell us about the game?
I've been looking at vote counts throughout the game. Jamsv has been the most firm on the LL wagon. Hasn't waivered from their stance. Raya agrees with LL early game on Blopp and then distanced by voting LL as the wagon started turning.
Lickety was also pushing hard on LL and dropped a bit after the pr claim. Even with LL backtracking and dropping they have not returned to that wagon. Waiting on them now to further analyze.
Meanwhile counterwagon was 72 who agreed with LL. An LL flip would be the strongest indicator of 72 this game. I am almost certain if LL is town than 72 is scum here. Does not work vice versa. Clark on your wagon just now felt extremely oppurtunistic, again more detail coming.
There's so much to learn from your flip.
And I don't want to give 100% away the tell (you can however meta me to find it.) But it's related to one of my (borrowed) rqs question and Clark gave a result with 100% scum rate. Obviously tools like that are just tools so Ive been trying to watch their game independently from it. If they flip scum that tool will be great for future games and if not Clark becomes the exception.
You should look at the red bit tomorrow. I'm definitely seeing an LL-LQ scumteam.
In post 619, TheThirteenthJT wrote:Post 456 is by far the biggest red flag for me. I feel that up to this point Clark was attempting to slowly turn on LL but this posts felt like such a jump it felt forced. Their attitude towards that slot changed from then on.
This relies on LL town I think.
Posted: Thu Jul 09, 2020 8:02 am
by LicketyQuickety
In post 775, Battle Mage wrote:You should look at the red bit tomorrow. I'm definitely seeing an LL-LQ scumteam.
This is awkward. But if we leave aside the primary awkwardness, I see buddying Looker, and then buddying Clark - both with really weird tone. Not a hint of any actual scumhunting though. Quick at this point, simply cruising on his BM-vote, which is still yet to be adequately explained.
You've missed the point here. The point is that everyone else has seen the same behaviour from you, they just haven't stopped to join up the dots.
Posted: Thu Jul 09, 2020 8:05 am
by LicketyQuickety
In post 777, Battle Mage wrote:This is awkward. But if we leave aside the primary awkwardness, I see buddying Looker, and then buddying Clark - both with really weird tone. Not a hint of any actual scumhunting though. Quick at this point, simply cruising on his BM-vote, which is still yet to be adequately explained.
You've missed the point here. The point is that everyone else has seen the same behaviour from you, they just haven't stopped to join up the dots.
I'm not looking at you WORDS, I'm looking at your ACTIONS.
Posted: Thu Jul 09, 2020 8:07 am
by Raya36
In post 574, Battle Mage wrote:
Less keen on the progression below from Raya. Moves from targetting town to probable scum, only after momentum has shifted in this direction. Easily compatible as a partner for Lucky who decided to start distancing now they are under pressure. Red is gross - despite previously backing the case on Blopp, now backtracks and says the case is weak, but notes (with a hint of regret?) clumsily that if the case was stronger she could move back onto it:
In post 69, Raya36 wrote:Lucky and blopp. Maybe Clark but I'm unsure
Where's your vote then?
My vote is "on" Blopp I just don't want him at L-1
In post 63, LuckyLuciano wrote:Perhaps it is a coincidence, but since being wagoned, Blopp has removed their profile pic. That means they have been onsite and decided not to post. So now we have her ignoring the initial wagon that I started with 72o, despite posting after it began and ignoring my case. In addition, we have her logging on to remove her profile pic and still not posting. Feels a lot like giving up to me.
In post 67, Raya36 wrote:UNVOTE:
I don't want a quick hammer. L-2 is plenty for pressure. Scumlean on Lucky for not removing his vote. Could be hoping for that quickhammer
Is he your only scumlean or do you have more?
In post 69, Raya36 wrote:Lucky and blopp. Maybe Clark but I'm unsure
"I scumlean Lucky for possibly wanting a quick hammer on my other scumlean."
For the record, I'm expecting Blopp not to post again until the slot is replaced, and if the slot claims VT I will be pushing for the slot to be eliminated.
Just because I scumlean him doesnt mean I'm right (I never take associations into account D1. I often have multiple scumread that don't work together). And its perfectly viable to be concerned about someone not removing their vote at L-1 when Blopp hasn't even talked yet.
Actually since I can't vote Blopp right now VOTE: Lucky. I think this is more likely anyway. Your stats case also was reachy and the whole basis of your scumread isn't concrete.
I would accept your case if and only if it was supporting evidence of a much stronger and more viable case.
I was saying that the case is really bad on it's own but if it was used to support a much better case it would be viable. There is no better case so I'm not saying I'd move back to it.
In post 773, JamSV wrote:I decided to do a bit of work for Looker, because I was curious. Based off of mod's vote count posts because I'm too lazy to go through 30 pages. Thank you Nahdia.
Table of who voted for whom voted for whom: https://imgur.com/Cv3ZhUu idk how to include images into a post properly.
A bunch of logic stuff, read if you want, but it's in a spoiler if you don't want to.
Spoiler:
Now as we know, Looker gave Clark a 0% chance to be scum based off of who voted him, and who he voted for. He voted for Looker himself, and Porkens. Obviously he will treat himself as town, that means voting for Porkens does not make you scum at all, meaning Looker scum reads Porkens.
By those standards, myself, LicketyQuickety, and Raya36 should have lower %s by his standards. That isn't the case though. Meaning, those who voted for us, make us scum. In my case, based off of Mod vote counts, nobody has voted for me, yet I'm the 2nd highest to be scum for it, weird. This is strike 1 for his post being nonsensical.
Raya was voted for by TTJT and 72os, and voted Porkens and LicketyQuickety, from this we can assume Looker town reads TTJT, 72os, and LicketyQuickety. However based off of the percentages for me, Raya, lickety, and TTJT, this makes no sense again. This is strike 2 for his post being nonsensical.
LicketyQuickety voted for Battle Mage, Porkens, 72, and TTJT, well, we just worked out TTJT and 72 were town, and a vote on porkens gave ClarkBar a 0%, so this implies Battle Mage is scum. This is strike 3 for his post being nonsensical.
Basically, what the spoiler says is, its nonsense, I could explain more but I got bored. I felt like proving his post about how he got his %s was just a lie. I really would like to see his read list on everybody, doesn't necessarily need an explanation, I'd also like an explanation between the 0% on Clark because his explanation was nonsense, and on the 9% for 72offsuit. Good news though Porkens, depending on how he responds, can change my mind into expecting a ClarkBar/Looker duo.
I suspected it was nonsense but I am not really even sure that makes him Scum, surprisingly. Looker is a strange dude.
I agree this doesn't make him scummy. However, there's a big section I removed last minute so I didn't give him any ideas. Once he responds with him read list / his actual explanation on the 0% and 9% percentages, I'll tell you what my suspicion was and why it might make ClarkBar / Looker a duo, i included porkens because I expect it to be more likely a scum duo than a mason duo but we will see.
In post 660, ClarkBar wrote:In the case of LL/Porkens I would receive such a suggestion with bewilderment and suspicion. Unless of course that player lays out a really compelling case for town!LL. I mean
really
compelling.
Why would they have to view LL as Town? Why couldn't they see LL as Null and then decide they would prefer to lynch a stronger SR?
Quick - Show me where you viewed LL as null? I might post the progression myself, but happy for you to have first dibs!
In post 663, ClarkBar wrote:I’m on mobile so excuse the lack of quotes and stuff. It’s a pain.
@Quick: A null read is fine, but explain why. Also, give me some reasoning on a stronger execution.
@JT13: That’s fine I guess. Is it a little weird for Quick to move off a wagon they were once on when nothing from that slot shows me that LL’s actions were just from a toxic player? Yeah. But I don’t see Quick giving Porkens a clean slate. A fair shake is different than abandoning a read.
@ Both of you: Do you believe that LL’s action were from frustrated town?
In post 663, ClarkBar wrote:@ Both of you: Do you believe that LL’s action were from frustrated town?
One possible way to read LL's actions is that they left with a final "hurrah". I actually don't like that mindset as they could have just as easily posted what they posted without leaving the game. That's the way I am leaning atm. My read on the play is that they left with their cards on the table, which they only did because they would otherwise just want to keep some things to themselves for other reasons which I have listed already.
this is gibberish - what do you actually mean here?
In post 666, TheThirteenthJT wrote:And my mindset early game for them was that I didn't think scum would push that hard so early In the game knowing to it had the potential to backfire which it did.
Maybe BUT this is LuckyLuciano - greatest mafia player the world has ever seen. I'm sure he had the confidence it wouldn't backfire.
In post 668, ClarkBar wrote:Ok, I'm a drunky brewster right now and probably shouldn't be posting at all. BUT! I'm brimming with shit to say. I'll get to it tomorrow. A lot of it would just be me quoting Quick and asking questions as a result.
So far I'm not getting some essential things. Including: people on the LL/Porkens wagon not jumping in at all. I'm not asking for this to bolster my own argument, I feel good about that on its own, but the silence is off-putting. Including: An actual argument that I can buy for LL/Pork actually being town. Including: A case for BM being scum.
Goddammit Porkens, you sly fox. You might dismantle your wagon yet, but you don't get all the credit for that. Just know that I know you're scum and I won't let go.
Ok, I'm seeing two screens and I had some really good points running through my head a couple hours ago and I hope those return tomorrow morning.
A case for me being scum?? I'd love to see that!
Posted: Thu Jul 09, 2020 8:21 am
by Battle Mage
In post 676, ClarkBar wrote:Show me a post where 72 ever really scum-hunts or pushes anything at all, or gives two fucks at all other than being aggravated by Quick and trying to stop a specific claim from LL or defending LL's play?
This is 72o. I've actually been staggered so far this game at how engaged and productive he has been compared to normal.
In post 351, JamSV wrote:Yes, don't let Blair know but I think you were the best player in Newbie 2013.
And this is a really, really poor post.
WTF dude
Just hammering the joke that I'm offended by Jam's low opinion of me in that game. Of course he would have a low opinion of my play and of course you were the best player that game.
In post 351, JamSV wrote:Yes, don't let Blair know but I think you were the best player in Newbie 2013.
And this is a really, really poor post.
WTF dude
Just hammering the joke that I'm offended by Jam's low opinion of me in that game. Of course he would have a low opinion of my play and of course you were the best player that game.
I don't have a low opinion of you Clark, if I did I wouldn't have been saying I want to play with you this game.
Posted: Thu Jul 09, 2020 8:28 am
by Battle Mage
In post 680, ClarkBar wrote:Trying to add a little butter to the Jam eh? If you compliment his "tone" then he's sure to unvote you.
I thought this might be a sore point after your encounter with Burnt Toast and Jam in our last game?
In post 683, Porkens wrote:I’ll take that as a yes. Tell me what you think of this readslist:
Looker replaced Homura: Lurky as fuck. How can I read this?
Battle Mage replaced Blopp: bloop was zero entity, BM is just filling space
72offsuit: scummy as shit, should be lynched today
JamSV replaced individual: arrogant annoying but town
TheThirteenthJT: ehhhh town I guess talks a lot isn’t obviously bad
ClarkBar: town ish I guess
LicketyQuickety (SE) replaced EchoVision: durrrr not too much scumtelling but I dunno
Raya36 (SE) : kinda sheepy? Leaaaaaaanscum
Porkens (SE) replaced LuckyLuciano: total town hero
filling space? I've been positively subdued by peak-BM standards! Quick sorta neutral then?
In post 685, ClarkBar wrote:@72 I will 100% respond to everything tomorrow. Question 4 is kinda on you, but I'll post it.
Off the bat, I'm annoyed by BM's reads list. Two plus days of rehashing old stuff seems like a dodge. Just read the thread (it ain't that long) and give some reads and start participating in current events.
Word to the wise - just because something happened a couple days ago, doesn't make it less relevant. It's a hell of a lot easier to understand the game if you read it properly, and a hell of a lot easier for others to read you if you post your thoughts candidly as you go. It's an unusual approach maybe but I actually like a bunch of players in this game and wanted to make the effort more than a normal replace-in.
In post 274, LuckyLuciano wrote:They really don't, but okay, keep preaching that until you decide to actually play the game instead of continuing to try and snipe me in games so you can keep fascinating over your belief that I'm somebody that I'm not and finding new and unique reasons to vote me because of your hatred for that person.
You've been caught red handed. If this is the best defense of my case, I'm afraid I am going to have to...
VOTE: LL
P-Edit: None of that has anything to do with my case on you.
In post 282, LuckyLuciano wrote:So you are advocating eliminating a claimed power role day 1 when, in claiming, my slot because self-resolving as the game goes on anyway?
No, I'm claiming my case is rock solid and you claiming PR doesn't dissuade me at all given that is exactly what you would do if you were Scum. Like, what is my incentive to believe you are telling the truth about being TPR?
In post 283, LuckyLuciano wrote:EBWOP: So you are advocating eliminating a claimed power role day 1 when, in claiming, my slot becomes self-resolving as the game goes on anyway?
Yeah. I've shown 72 blatantly lied about your meta because there was no way he could have known I would be entering the game to fact check that statement. You never denied such statement, but instead used it to push a no content slot, which is in direct opposition to what I pointed out in the game I listed where you actually unvoted a do-nothing slot.
Like, do you have an argument here on why I am wrong? It seems like you are just trying to convince me I "could be wrong" without actually addressing anything I have said.
To give Town a moment to process what just happened.
Can somebody please tell me if that suggests Quick had a "null" view of LL immediately following the claim? And big BM bonus points for explaining how town-Quick makes this progression from certain scum, to an unvote 'to let people catch up', which is never followed up on.
In post 606, Porkens wrote:It just boggles my mind that LL ended up claiming based on a scumread of three posts.
Porkens.
Read into the relationship between LL and Quick.
LL replaced oit of the previous game he was involved with quick. It was clear to me he was cbf with this game.
LL is not a rage quitter. He is also not a sore loser. I dont see !scumLL replacing out and screwing over his replcement with his fake claim.
Unless....He's scum with his arch-nemesis and doesn't give a crap about screwing him over?
In post 697, 72offsuit wrote:
If you are town, town are not particularly impressed either.
In post 278, LuckyLuciano wrote:If I'm not mistaking, that's 4 votes. I have a TPR. Let's move on.
In post 290, LicketyQuickety wrote:Like, if you are mason with 72, just say so. If you are that would make sense. But it's not really my fault I caught 72 lying about your meta and thought he was Scum for it.
Anyways, if you ARE masons with 72, which I would say is about 50/50 at this point, then I would look at Raya36 for the blatant buddy attempt as well as Thirteen for them affirming LL's meta and budying me. I DON'T think Blopp flaking is actually AI.
In post 278, LuckyLuciano wrote:If I'm not mistaking, that's 4 votes. I have a TPR. Let's move on.
In post 290, LicketyQuickety wrote:Like, if you are mason with 72, just say so. If you are that would make sense. But it's not really my fault I caught 72 lying about your meta and thought he was Scum for it.
Anyways, if you ARE masons with 72, which I would say is about 50/50 at this point, then I would look at Raya36 for the blatant buddy attempt as well as Thirteen for them affirming LL's meta and budying me. I DON'T think Blopp flaking is actually AI.
In post 282, LuckyLuciano wrote:So you are advocating eliminating a claimed power role day 1 when, in claiming, my slot because self-resolving as the game goes on anyway?
No, I'm claiming my case is rock solid and you claiming PR doesn't dissuade me at all given that is exactly what you would do if you were Scum. Like, what is my incentive to believe you are telling the truth about being TPR?
I don’t understand this progression at all
I didn't know you'd done this. Although not hugely helpful posting a "progression" with the steps in the wrong order.
Posted: Thu Jul 09, 2020 8:46 am
by Raya36
In post 519, Porkens wrote:This list is total crap and almost completely upside down.
Lucky
72o
Thirteen
Looker
Quick
JamSV
Clark
BM
Raya
About half the day I’m scumreading 72, although he started to pick up towards the end here. I don’t hate his thoughts on reya tbf.
Raya is townlean tho
Clark and jam are probtown
Bm and quick are probtown
Looker and thirteen are leanscum
72 has no votes? That’s rediculois. VOTE: 72
In post 683, Porkens wrote:I’ll take that as a yes. Tell me what you think of this readslist:
Looker replaced Homura: Lurky as fuck. How can I read this?
Battle Mage replaced Blopp: bloop was zero entity, BM is just filling space
72offsuit: scummy as shit, should be lynched today
JamSV replaced individual: arrogant annoying but town
TheThirteenthJT: ehhhh town I guess talks a lot isn’t obviously bad
ClarkBar: town ish I guess
LicketyQuickety (SE) replaced EchoVision: durrrr not too much scumtelling but I dunno
Raya36 (SE) : kinda sheepy? Leaaaaaaanscum
Porkens (SE) replaced LuckyLuciano: total town hero
P. Edit beetlejuice!
Why did you vote for bloop?
I barely posted since your opening. And I don't remember being sheepy or changing my stance even since then. So how did that read on me change?
Posted: Thu Jul 09, 2020 8:47 am
by Battle Mage
In post 716, ClarkBar wrote:Ok, we have a little cadre here throwing shade at me. No probs, but where's them votes?
I dont see why you are questioning my motivation here.
Let me break it down.
1) I get an initial bad ping, from the smiley face and LAMIST post of blopp.
2) I like to wagon newbies, they are the most likely tl give AI reactions
3) I vote blopp to pressure the slot.
What is hard to understand here?
Maybe if you'd explained it in the first place, you wouldn't be spending more time talking about it now.
Posted: Thu Jul 09, 2020 8:53 am
by Battle Mage
In post 730, 72offsuit wrote:You saying I'm not scum-hunting is a gross misrepresentation of my effort in this game.
I'd agree with this overall, I just wish you'd stop sporadically flinging poop at me.
In post 754, Battle Mage wrote:You also note you find some of my play confusing - can you elaborate? Calling me out for not contributing much, 1 day after I joined, a bit harsh! In contrast to your Quick read, you view my slot with suspicion, although not clear from your analysis why that is the case?
It was a bit harsh, as was 685. Play the game the way you like, I don't know why I got so aggro about it.
I didn't find your play confusing, there were some short posts you made soon after you replaced in that seemed like they may have belonged in a different thread or something. Nothing I consider AI.
Alright we cool dude. I was probably just having some low-effort fun before the work began.
Posted: Thu Jul 09, 2020 8:58 am
by LicketyQuickety
@Battle Mage,
Who do you look at if Porkens flips Town? You still going to go after me? Or is your read on me DEPENDENT on LL?
In post 777, Battle Mage wrote:This is awkward. But if we leave aside the primary awkwardness, I see buddying Looker, and then buddying Clark - both with really weird tone. Not a hint of any actual scumhunting though. Quick at this point, simply cruising on his BM-vote, which is still yet to be adequately explained.
In post 474, Looker wrote:
Hey, Raya. Fuck LuckyLuciano. I'm pretty sure he's just faking his outrage because he has no other tools in his skillset as scum. Him faking a PR was weak.
Currently, flip preferences are: 36% LuckyLuciano or Battle Mage | 26% 72offsuit, JamSV, or ThirteenthJT | 16% LicketyQuickety | 12% ClarkBar | 10% Raya.
VOTE: LuckyLuciano
Thank you
Opinions from those with the most experience on whether or not Lucky should fully claim?
I'm amazed he hasn't claimed already.
Well he was never at E-1 with intent so I'm more surprised there was any claim in the first place. I do find it very scummy that he was willing to claim he was a town PR but refused to claim what PR. I mean now that he claimed he was a PR he was obviously going to be the NK target. So saying his specific role only would've helped town. Actually with this logic Porkens should probably full claim.
