Micro 134 (F11) (Game Over!)

[Whiskers]

Ayo. Pony here.
I'm reading the thread, but what do you want to highlight for me as important?

[Whiskers]

Cause I have seen it happen.

Besides I was not saying you are scum. you seem awfully defensive. I still have yet to determine who is scum and who is not.

^this is bad, but it's also bad. This whole conversation, I mean. I side with FourTrouble on this one-- this was a huge discrediting move and you should feel bad, if you're town.

However,

Four is town, D+C are probably town and Jason is likely town too. Maybe this will be easy.

Why

is Four

do you think Four is town here? At this point, he's only complained about being misrepped by Rach.

Hey Rach, what about some game content? Links are fine and good, but they are not game-relevant, and you've been doing precisely nothing for half your posts now.

Woof.

This. I like Rach for scum more and more.

Sixty, the lack of concrete stances is a fair point (although not alignment-indicative for some players)--I didn't like that he asked us that question but never actually said if he had a read on us. But even though he doesn't mention stances on

every

single player (who doesn't?), the questions he's asking are all tied into the directions he seems to be heading in his scumhunting--he's clearly not just blindly poking at people. And call me a sucker for gut and tone, I guess. He says lots of stuff that looks like he's actually scumhunting and thinking about the game.

Agree. To this point, FT'd been focused.

Sorry, I just looked up and realized all of these are about FT and Rach- I'm also following the jasonT story, which is "wat m i doin in dis gaem" I'd like to lynch him. I don't need a specific reason when I have posts like post #153.


Sixty makes me

uneasy

, but I have nothing more than that. And I've experienced that feeling vs the Dog in the past. NTS#168

NTS+173
[End Page Seven]
Looking at the votecount, aaaand...

Vote: RachMarie

[Whiskers]

I especially like your case.

[Whiskers]

No, I just finished Page 8.

Why do you ask?

[Whiskers]

Speaking of Nacho, one of the things that sticks out in my mind plus in research is he tends to hard bus his scum buddy One of the reasons I would like to wait til he can speak is to see if he does that. Would help us get both of the scum in one swoop.

The other reason is I do not feel comfortable with lynching someone who is V/LA

Does it occur to Rach that this is now WIFOMbait and that her reason to wait is no longer one?
Confirmation bias and everything. But this is stupid stuff. Why aren't there more scumreads here?

[Whiskers]

Speaking of Nacho, one of the things that sticks out in my mind plus in research is he tends to hard bus his scum buddy One of the reasons I would like to wait til he can speak is to see if he does that. Would help us get both of the scum in one swoop.

Way to spoil your hand before you even play it!

FourTrouble, yes, we are totally defending Rach, you got us. The slot that is accusing RachMarie of not producing any sort of verifiable content that pertains to the game is the slot that is defending her. Though yes, the RachMarie votes from you and Sotty came into account when voting either of you, but not because you are voting her, but because the votes are

bad

. Your reads in particular amount to "Town: people I agree with; scum: people I don't understand/don't agree with". That's not scumhunting, that's going where the flow leads you. You don't have to AGREE with someone, you have to see if it makes sense coming from Town with

their

point of view, their experiences and their situation. The fact that you are not doing this makes your reads exceedingly superficial, and leads to stuff like "Sixty is defending RachMarie!" instead of looking at the reasoning we have for each vote and read.

And then, things like this.
Is

my

vote bad? Mine was, "Rach is doing scummy things."
Of course, I don't know why you're voting me, so maybe it has nothing to do with that.

[Whiskers]

Thanks for changing CES, it is too early for a lynch, and I have played with FT before it would not surprise me if he came in and hammered without paying attention. I don't know Josh, but I gather from what was said that he too tends to derp.

In this post:
"FT is reckless and absent-minded and would probably quickhammer on page 2, the stupid cunt."

Also sucking up to CES. If I decide not to come back to this point, you can ignore it, it's just here so I don't forget it.

Even better:

Cause I have seen it happen.

Besides I was not saying you are scum. you seem awfully defensive. I still have yet to determine who is scum and who is not.

In this post:
"Whoa, you were actually reading the horrible thing I said and called me out on it. Get off me, before someone notices you're right!"

Is it just how I read it?

[Whiskers]

Well, when you put it like that, Whiskers, I'd better vote Sixty instead!

VOTE: Si-

...wait, then I'd lose my spot on your wagon. I want to look better when you flip!

What? Huh? I don't get it.

A less flippant response (I'm not

always

this obnoxious): read 283. The rest of your play as well as Josh's fits with what scum would do in your shoes (particularly if your partner was jason or Nacho), and the way you're reacting to this vote is scummy, too. But that quote in particular is what

sealed

this read.

Yeah, yeah, everything I've done has

sealed

your read. Don't care, man, do what you will.

Not sure how my scumplay with buddyJason or buddyNacho would be any different than my scumplay with any other player, or why my play here looks like that to you.

Can you tell me about the differences between [Whiskers + Jason/Nacho] and [Whiskers + anypony else]?

[Whiskers]

There's nothing to get but a joke, Whiskers.

Right, it's the joke that I don't get. What in my post would lead you to vote Sixty, even as a joke?

I'm pretty sure no one else (probably not even

FourTrouble

) read RachMarie's posts like that..nor would anyone who wasn't trying to justify his vote after the fact.

Why would I have quoted it, if I were trying to justify my vote

after

the fact?
Or, yeah, I could have gone and written my post starting with the vote at the end, and

then

read the whole game, searching for posts to justify my vote and trying to make it

look

like I'm catching up.
Er, but why would I use that one, since it didn't lead to anything? If I'm trying to look good and "justify my vote," shouldn't I be making points that other people agree with? Shouldn't I just make a wall with "Rach does nothing in

this

post. Rach does nothing in

this

post..."
More likely, I read the thread, and voted after.

And you still haven't shown us the scum motivation of Rach fictitiously calling FT a stupid cunt. Even FourTrouble was attacking Rach because he thought she was misrepresenting their prior history; you seem to have missed that while trying to justify how

scummy

it is to call someone scum in a vacuum.

What? What the hell are you talking about? Who is calling who scum in a vacuum? Rach wasn't calling Four scummy... what?
The scum motivation in the posts is that Rach is discrediting FourTrouble; "Fourtrouble should be brushed aside and ignored because he is a bad player who does stupid things."

But given that you didn't mention Sixty saying

literally the exact same thing about Josh Lyman

, when the only difference is that FT accused Rach of discrediting him and made you think it was safe to pad your case by parroting him...call me sceptical.

I have no idea what you're talking about again. I'll go ISO Sixty, I guess.


Also, I'm totally happy to vote and lynch jason, and I'm very solidly null on Nacho. And even better, I voted Rach over jason

because

jason had more support. Why shouldn't I want my scum reads to both be viable wagons? Then, no matter which gets lynched, I'm happy about it.

But here's a question for you-- you're telling me I need to vote one of the already-formed wagons (such as they are, no player with more than two votes)? Why can't I place my vote where I want it, rather than where you want it? I'm confirmed town to myself, you

aren't

.

[Whiskers]

Yes, jason, let's put an hydra of two good players (whom you have seen as Town before) at L-1 in a game with Josh Lyman, because that's a really bright idea.

This, right?
It's subtler. That doesn't mean it's less scummy, I guess, but I didn't pick up on it. I did pick up on the fact that Rach refers to it in #41, but I didn't feel like I had to worry about it there because Rach wasn't actually making an accusation.

Actually, Sixty wasn't making an accusation either. Rach actually says "it wouldn't surprise me if FourTrouble came in and hammered without paying attention." Sixty I guess alludes to the same thing but it's not the same.

[Whiskers]

Anyway, at this point, I'm trying to defend my stream of consciousness, which is silly.
Lynch away.

[Whiskers]

The game is hardly more boring than it was before I replaced lurkerJosh.
CES, I've seen your Rach read. Why is it town?

[Whiskers]

Like what? Josh went "I'll get to it later".
Like, four times.

Anyway, what is there for me to say about Jason? That stupid isn't a scumtell? Would lynch Jason but wanted to show support for the undersupported wagon, Rach.
Also, you completely failed to answer me,

why do you have a townread on Rach?

[Whiskers]

Why did your mind go to Jason when I said "your scum buddy"?

He's my other scumread, the one I mentioned but largely ignored, and also someone who has a wagon with some support. If I were scum, that's one of the ways I might play-- lightly bus my lynchable scumbuddy but focus elsewhere.

I could ask, "why do you think Rach is not my scumbuddy," but I'd get a non-answer from you. Maybe better, I could ask you why you think I'm scum.
But I get the feeling that would be wasted effort too, since your approach is so weak that you're trying to get me to scumslip. Again, I may as well just roll over and die, if you're going to just roll over and lynch me sans ceremony.

[Whiskers]

I'm afraid poor newfag Whiskers doesn't get it. Supposed motivation was already explained by me, in a post

before

that. Is it that I'm supposed to restate all of me explanations in every post? Did you forget to read my posts before this? Did you fail to realize that the post you quoted is specifically an answer to a question D&C asked me?

But I'm not going to defend myself from nothing. If you've got something to bring against me, go ahead.

Why did your mind go to Jason when I said "your scum buddy"?

He's my other scumread, the one I mentioned but largely ignored, and also someone who has a wagon with some support. If I were scum, that's one of the ways I might play-- lightly bus my lynchable scumbuddy but focus elsewhere.

I could ask, "why do you think Rach is not my scumbuddy," but I'd get a non-answer from you. Maybe better, I could ask you why you think I'm scum.
But I get the feeling that would be wasted effort too, since your approach is so weak that you're trying to get me to scumslip. Again, I may as well just roll over and die, if you're going to just roll over and lynch me sans ceremony.

__
Sorry, I just looked. I that first link I didn't explain the motivation, only that it was discrediting. Here's the scum motivation for discrediting: players will pay less positive attention to the discredited player.
Kind of thought you were too experienced to need me to explain this kind of stuff...

[Whiskers]

CES, you never answered Whiskers' question about Rach. I have the same question, do you mind answering it now?

Nah, it's boring.

Both Whiskers and Josh have committed clear "Nacho is my partner" tells. Just a matter of wrapping up the game now.

Not that we'll ever hear what those tells are...

[Whiskers]

Posting to say that I (Empire) won't be very active this weekend due to this fucking stupid application + work, and also, to say that Nacho should just bus Whiskers already so we can win the game, thanks in advance.

Look at all these arrogant scummers. You can't tell which one is scum because they

all

act like they know something you don't.

Already elaborated on the Josh one in 295; the one you committed was interpreting my "your scum buddy" as referring to Jason despite my Josh-Nacho theory having gotten a good amount of attention.

I don't get it, what does that have to do with anything?
Sorry, I wasn't looking at your theories in order to craft a less-scummy answer. I was referring to a player I thought was scum, who a bunch of other players seemed to think is scum, and one who I was ignoring.

An other problem is, I still don't understand why Nacho is supposed to be scum. I read the thread, nothing jumped out. Had him at null. Is it just the low activity? I'm looking through his ISO and the scummiest thing is that most of his posts are one line, or a bunch of one-line responses.

So so far, we're lynching lurkers.

[Whiskers]

Jason, for reasons that should be obvious (although, I had to explain why discrediting might show scum-motivation...), and Sixty, for gut.

I'm have townreads in You, D&C, and

probably

CES.

FT is town-null, and Nacho is null-null.

[Whiskers]

Posting from my phone to mention that Nacho has basically stopped posting ever since we started piling on Whiskers.

Hold the fuck on. So has Rach. So has jason.
ALL of the other candidates for scum have [Stopped posting ever since you started piling on Whiskers].

Whiskers, did you read the game and vote or did you ISO Rach and vote? I ask because I don't know how you couldn't have missed Sixty claiming Josh was a quick hammer threat.

Read the game. Sixty didn't claim he was a threat, just went, "players like josh" and I didn't pay it any mind.

Also, I'm totally happy to vote and lynch jason, and I'm very solidly null on Nacho. And even better, I voted Rach over jason because jason had more support. Why shouldn't I want my scum reads to both be viable wagons? Then, no matter which gets lynched, I'm happy about it.

I'm not sure this actually makes sense the more I read it. You didn't vote Jason because you wanted Rach's wagon to be viable? How does that help the town? Also, why is your vote still on Rach even after I have unvoted?

Uh? I'm voting a scumread, it helps town? I have to trust myself first, before anypony else. If all of my scumreads are wagons, it's helping town...?

Post 293 makes no sense either. Sixty and Rach basically did the same thing (signaling out a different player for potential "poor" play) and you talk about it not being an accusation? What? I'm not getting your point here.

This is me trying to rationalize why I missed it in the read through. Really though, the best excuse is "I didn't realize it was noteworthy."

So so far, we're lynching lurkers.

Rach last posted in thread: 4 days 1 hour ago

Okay. I get the Whiskers hate now.

That's hardly my fault. It had only been a day or so when I made that first post. Didn't see anything really scummy from Josh in my readthrough, still haven't seen anything scummy from Nacho. What do they have in common? They fucking lurked. Yeah, Rach has been GONE for four days, but I was voting her before that was the case.

[Whiskers]

Vote: jasonT

Here, there's this.

[Whiskers]

Lol, you guys.

[Whiskers]

You guys you guys you guys.

C&D, your beef is that I look like I'm doctoring my posts to look more town?

That I look more town than I actually am? Really?

God, you guys.

Fucking

not

Nacho next, not that I have any cop results yet or anything, but I haven't seen a reason to lynch him yet, either, other than "he could be scumbuddies with x, y, or z!" Not any actually scummy things.
You guys. You guys are all really good at not telling anybody what the fuck you're doing. I guess you've all got secret scumreads, because I still haven't seen any reason for TownRach, I haven't seen any reason for ScumNacho, you haven't lynched jasonT yet, and you

have

lynched me. I'd have tried to defend myself if you'd have given me something to defend myself

from

, but y'all didn't, it's just, "Hey, you replaced a lurker, we're going to lynch you!"

"Ok."

[Whiskers]

I wonder what FT looks like as town. Twice I've played with him, twice I've read him strongly as town, twice I've been mistaken.