VOTE: profii
Cute dog in your avi
Wake is that you?In post 9, JTheophrastus Bartholomew wrote:VOTE: Exix96
I am not a fan of day 1.
I will be keeping up with the thread but don't expect any long detailed reads lists.
And that concludes this year's MGDQ (Mafia Games Done Quick). Congratulations to Mini Normal 2115 for breaking the world record for the 13 player mini normal category. See you all next year!
Absolutely nothing, but if I get early gut reads from someone then I'm gonna voice it and see how others react to it.In post 38, insomnia wrote:What has Macabre posted in here that he couldn’t post as scum as well?
Your read is awfully rushed. What’s the basis for your read?
VOTE: Aaron Frost
What was the point of bringing attention to it? I don't like how overexaggerated this post is. It was just a simple question.In post 56, insomnia wrote:What was the point of this post by the way? It made me sick to my stomach actually. It feels really weird and it's like against the grain with the thread state. What were you hoping to achieve with this? I get you know he replaced out of games, but what was this achieving? I felt it really unnecessary.In post 49, Alchemist21 wrote:You’re not going to replace out just because people suspect you are you?In post 40, Wimpy wrote:Does that phrase have a secondary meaning I’m not aware of?
It's totally off-topic and I interpreted it as a personal attack rather than an attempt at figuring out anything.
Mostly for post 56 which felt a little exaggerated and forced to me. Followed by your immediate retraction about two minutes later. To me it read like 'oh shit I said something that might be perceived as scummy better retract it real quick.'In post 81, insomnia wrote:So what are you scum reading me for again?
There doesn't have to really be a progression on you since we're still early in the game but I like to use my vote to pressure slots of interest. I can then look at reactions, see who agrees/disagrees and move forward from there.In post 82, insomnia wrote:Right now I’m trying to understand Aaron’s vote. It also seems forced, like his Macabre read. I do tend to scum read my voters because I think I’m fairly townie. But I don’t really understand what his progression on me was.
RVS is useful in getting people to talk, which eventually leads to discussion and people forming reads. Most games I play tend to move out of RVS pretty quickly and while RVS itself has no impact on my reads, it does get people talking which is useful.In post 87, profii wrote:Aaron how do you typically feel about the RVS stage of the game?
Explaining the reason for you read would be pretty helpful thoIn post 147, Wimpy wrote:Well I don’t explain. It’s in my sig.
It’s apparent reading the game why. Maybe less fake post restriction and more reading
Just trying to figure out your reason behind the read to figure out if it's a genuine or fabricated read. Your reasons feel pretty genuine to me.In post 154, Wimpy wrote:It wouldn’t call it a scum read but yes that was the reason. I don’t know why people are asking about it.
What are your thoughts on profii right now?In post 157, JTheophrastus Bartholomew wrote:People seem to have reads on Profii already. I don't like how Egix96 implied a town read on profii in post 68 and threw shade at those voting him. I think there's a strong chance that if one of profii and Egix96 flip scum, the other one will too
Hey LucaIn post 167, Luca Blight wrote:I disagree with Alch that 57 bleeds Town - I could easily see self-correction coming from scum who worry about leaving themselves open to attack.
That reminds me though that while I agree with Frost's 75, I got a scum ping because he basically just repeated what Insomnia said in his 'correction' post.
I mean it was a pretty generic question so I'm not sure what you were expecting either?In post 181, profii wrote:but looking back
He made a 'serious scum read' which seemed quite quick
So I asked, dont really know what I was expecting but like his answer was quite... generic?
If he said something like 'RVS is really important because X or Y happens and that means Z' - I'd take a serious scum read more seriously
But because he made a serious scum read and then was quite passive about his attitude to RVS, I dont really take his vote as seriously as he claims and I'll be looking at how he deals with that slot as we go forward.
Probably more towards null territory but still a scumlean. He's the second highest poster in the game right now but I feel like he hasn't said much of value.In post 195, Egix96 wrote:Imagine for a moment that profii is someone you've never played a game with before - what do you think of him now?In post 184, AaronFrost wrote:I kind of agree with you on profii. Last game I played with him he felt pretty obviously town. Granted I was scum in that game so I didn't exactly have to read him too much but I could never push him either. Not quite getting the same vibes from him here as he's been mostly under the radar.
I wasn't trying to imply that you retracted the read so sorry if it came off that way. What I didn't like was how you acknowledged that it was overblown. It felt like you were trying to do some early damage control.In post 204, insomnia wrote:To clarify the last arrow, I didn't retract anything, I was just apologizing for making him look like a malicious person, not because of my scum read on him. That's maybe where you and the others found it scummy and where I didn't really explain a lot on, mainly because I thought it would be obvious.
Which also explains why my vote is still standing on Alch. I never retracted my read, I just apologized for blowing that out of proportion.
SureIn post 218, Ame wrote:@Aaronyou stated in 184 that you hadn't seen insomnia's retraction when you made your vote in 75, but in 133 you referenced his retraction as a part of why you scum read him:Could you clarify.In post 133, AaronFrost wrote:Mostly for post 56 which felt a little exaggerated and forced to me. Followed by your immediate retraction about two minutes later. To me it read like 'oh shit I said something that might be perceived as scummy better retract it real quick.'In post 81, insomnia wrote:So what are you scum reading me for again?
It's not a strong read tbh but it's a start.
It's a weak read mostly based on gut tbh but he comes off as honest if a little blunt.In post 227, Alchemist21 wrote:Please elaborate on your Wimpy Townread too.
I mean yeah he could push him for other reasons if Wimpy were to do something scummy but if he were to then push Wimpy for flailing or responding poorly to pressure then that would look super disingenuous. I suppose scum!Alch could also use that to avoid pushing that angle.In post 242, insomnia wrote:Why though? I think this is a... what do you call it? Flimsy trust tell?In post 225, AaronFrost wrote:Like maybe you could've been trying to instigate something there but it honestly seemed like you were trying to figure out whether his reaction to pressure would be personality indicative or alignment indicative which is +town points for you
Again, just because he asked if Wimpy's easily falling to pressure doesn't mean that :
a) He's not gonna push him
b) He's actually gonna consider this at some point
Asking him if he falls easily for pressure is literally pointless here. I don't see why it's worthy of town points. It's not sorting Wimpy's role and he didn't even come to the right conclusion with regards to pressure.
I guess the best way to put it is that Alch is really methodical in his approach to what he chooses to focus on out of his own volition. The town read on me, the pressure thing with Wimpy.
Again, asking someone whether they are easily pressured is not an indicator for figuring them, since it's asked in a way that's NAI.
Realistically speaking, when are you ever going to stop pushing someone that you think is scum just because they flail as either alignment? lol
Are you townreading him regardless of the fact that his push has had no resistance? Like what are your thoughts on his posting right now?In post 247, Egix96 wrote:I am, and it's for something similar to what you've pointed out here - I think that he's been under too much suspicion for too little reasoning (or, to put it another way, I see people voting him but I don't find the reasoning to be all that compelling). I would be very surprised if he flipped red.In post 217, AaronFrost wrote:One thing I find interesting about this wagon is that no one has really jumped to profii's defense. Most people seem to have him as a scumread and/or are voting him right now. Is anybody townreading him right now? If so why?
You might need to elaborate bc I'm not sure what you're getting at hereIn post 249, Egix96 wrote:I don't like the direction you're taking with this question. Hopefully I should not be needing to elaborate.In post 224, Alchemist21 wrote:Why did you pick these names for this question. Why did you vote Luca out of all of them?In post 203, Looker wrote:Okay, I think I'm here now. First, the simple approach.
@Ame / JTheophrastus Bartholomew / Luca Blight / Egix96 / profii:Who among you is town? I don't really expect any of you to know, but it's good for managing consistency in the future. I personally have no idea.
VOTE: Luca Blight Votes keep the game moving
UNVOTE:
VOTE: Alchemist
Dearest crow, if I may interject, this bug-slayer is actually condoning the acts of they one-eyed one. I believe they and most others in this village have condemned the chimera for his actions.In post 279, Macabre wrote:Furthermore, One-eye has stolen a term from the scarf boy to make a case in defense of the Chimera! Yet, this One-eye does not combat scarf boy directly. It acts without conviction. Careful!
Funny that you posted this bc I was literally about to switch my vote to profii.In post 286, insomnia wrote:I think Aaron’s scum as well, he literally has no reason to have his vote on me at this point. Not only is he not accomplishing a thing by keeping it on me, but he’s also directly going against his belief that rvs is made to generate pressure and discussion, get people’s thoughts on someone and see what happens from there.
There’s virtually no attempt from aaron to even figure me out, he placed a vote for something that would look scummy and then never came back to this read.
His questions are also not figuring anyone out.
And where did I ever imply that I didn't intend on switching my vote? Egix is townreading profii so why would I need him to clarify his townread on profii in order for me to vote for profii, who I am currently scumreading.In post 301, insomnia wrote:And now you weren’t gonna switch your vote to profii “just now”, you wanted to get egix to talk on it first, but my post prompted you to do just that.
I have been, but I'll often revisit ISOs and read through stuff again in order to solidify my reads.In post 307, insomnia wrote:In post 291, AaronFrost wrote:I think I am starting to lean town on you a bit atm butI'll need to do an ISO dive at some pointwhich I don't have a lot of time for atm.So you haven’t really been observing them.In post 297, AaronFrost wrote:Do I need to comment on every single one of your posts? Just because I haven't commented on them doesn't mean I haven't been observing them or taking them into consideration.They way you respond to the vote is what's telling and I think in general you've responded fairly well to it.
I've also responded to your cases so
I like how you called me out for using insomnia's wording here yet you just did the same thing with this post.In post 315, Luca Blight wrote:I’m having a change of heart on Frost, based on his reaction to Insomnia’s pressure which comes across as appeasement. I also agree that his Insomnia SR seemed a bit faked in that he doesn’t really do anything with it and just coasts on it for a while until he is pressured into jumping off. And thirdly I agree that it looks as though he had been positioning himself to vote Profii for some time before he did so.
VOTE: Frost
Eh not really, I think Ame's question is fair. Usually I try to get caught up as much as I can before I comment on stuff but I think that's a just a playstyle thing.In post 319, Looker wrote:@Macabre / AaronFrost / profii / Alchemist21:UNVOTE:
- Do you find this interaction suspicious?
- Do you feel that either of these players is town?
The timing of your vote is pretty convenient too.In post 325, Luca Blight wrote:And why hadn’t you mentioned the ‘lack of Town vibes’ until now? Again, it seems convenient timing.
What I meant was, you subsequent posts AFTER 56-57 have read as townie to me. I don't think I had ever commented on your reaction to my vote up until then.In post 326, insomnia wrote:Also, valuable thing to point out :
> he scum read me for commenting on the whole situation and how it was blown out of proportion
> when I defended myself he said he scum read me for how I retracted my vote
> now he says I initially reacted townie to his vote
Bruh
Yeah that was the first time I had talked about your reactions to my vote.In post 330, insomnia wrote:In post 297, AaronFrost wrote:They way you respond to the vote is what's telling and I think in general you've responded fairly well to it.
I didn't comment on your initial scumread of me.In post 333, Luca Blight wrote:It’s convenient indeed how they weren't worth commenting on when I was TR’ing you but suddenly are when I start SR’ing you.
You’ve not exactly had other strong SR’s this game, so it seems strange that you wouldn’t even mention that you felt that way about me.
Also this was the only reason you gave for why you were townleaning me which isn't really a strong reason. Agreeing with someone's logic doesn't necessarily mean that person is town.In post 235, Luca Blight wrote:I like this thought-process, I think Frost is Town.In post 133, AaronFrost wrote:Mostly for post 56 which felt a little exaggerated and forced to me. Followed by your immediate retraction about two minutes later. To me it read like 'oh shit I said something that might be perceived as scummy better retract it real quick.'In post 81, insomnia wrote:So what are you scum reading me for again?
It's not a strong read tbh but it's a start.
Starting off with a scumread on me which you don't really elaborate on.In post 165, Luca Blight wrote:Catching up now.
Slight SR's on Profii and Mr Frost, as of the start of page 4.
Followed by a townlean which you do elaborate on but with weak logic. These two in itself are fine (again, it's Day 1, lack of strong reads blah blah blah). This is the part I don't like.In post 175, Luca Blight wrote:I'm usually quite back and forth in my sorting of Frost but I think he's Town atm.
Using insomnia's logic to sheep his read on me. The timing of this feels super convenient. If you had notice my supposed positioning to vote profii earlier then why didn't you comment on it? I already explained like three times why I didn't vote profii.In post 315, Luca Blight wrote:I’m having a change of heart on Frost, based on his reaction to Insomnia’s pressure which comes across as appeasement. I also agree that his Insomnia SR seemed a bit faked in that he doesn’t really do anything with it and just coasts on it for a while until he is pressured into jumping off. And thirdly I agree that it looks as though he had been positioning himself to vote Profii for some time before he did so.
VOTE: Frost
Here you were agreeing with me about insomnia's 57 but now you've turned it around by saying that my SR of insomnia is disingenuous.In post 167, Luca Blight wrote:I disagree with Alch that 57 bleeds Town - I could easily see self-correction coming from scum who worry about leaving themselves open to attack.
That reminds me though that while I agree with Frost's 75, I got a scum ping because he basically just repeated what Insomnia said in his 'correction' post.
Quite the opposite actually.In post 343, Egix96 wrote:The problem is that I probably said too much.In post 280, AaronFrost wrote:You might need to elaborate bc I'm not sure what you're getting at here
He didn't say he disliked my push there, he said that it gave him scumpings because I used similar wording that insomnia did, which I addressed earlier.In post 351, Alchemist21 wrote:Even in that post you quoted Luca was saying how he kinda didn’t like your push there.In post 338, AaronFrost wrote:Here you were agreeing with me about insomnia's 57 but now you've turned it around by saying that my SR of insomnia is disingenuous.
Also I don’t really see how as Town you had a lot to say about Insomnia and Profii when they were taking about my posts but somehow weren’t paying attention to my posts enough that you had to ISO me. It felt like it was maybe some kind of chainsaw defense of me that tried to not look like a defense (this might be what Flavor Leaf calls hatcheting, I can’t remember exactly).
I don’t think your reaction to Luca here is Towny either. It feels like you care more about the fact they’re voting you rather than whether or not he’s scum.
VOTE: AaronFrost
The question itself was null, but his later responses when asked about it come from a town mindset I think.In post 357, Ame wrote:I meant to comment on this before: this conclusion seems unwarranted. Even with the interpretation that Alch's question was non-malicious, it's null at best. Something not being malicious doesn't make it towny. Alch's question and explanation were fairly simple/straigtforward, and something that could easily come from either alignment. How are you differentiating Alch's questioning here as town asking a trivial question from scum asking a trivial question?In post 225, AaronFrost wrote:Doing an ISO dive on you.
I thought your question towards Wimpy was fine. Like maybe you could've been trying to instigate something there but it honestly seemed like you were trying to figure out whether his reaction to pressure would be personality indicative or alignment indicative which is +town points for you (I'm townleaning Wimpy as well btw). I also have similar thoughts regarding profii although I do disagree with you saying insomnia's 57 was townie.
Overall though I think you're pretty townie.
btw the not-malicious argument is a straw argument for disagreeing with the accusations made against Alch because no one is arguing that he was being malicious (insomnia retracted that view immediately after suggesting it, and profii denounced the idea that it was strategic in the same post he theorized about it). Note: Chara also used this straw reasoning for justifying his disagreement with the Alch push here. Again, Insomnia's case against Alch is not that Alch was being malicious but rather that [a] his question toward wimpy doesn't actually produce anything of value (based on the reason Alch claimed), andhis erroneous conclusion that wimpy responds well to pressure, suggesting that Alch was coming from the mindset of already knowing wimpy's (town) alignment. If disagreeing with the case, those are the two points that should be addressed.
What's scummy about that?In post 372, Ame wrote:I felt they were both suspicious, but unlikely scum together. Wanted to suss out which direction to go. Also wanted for Chara to commit to an Aaron read, but after review, I think he's probably not scum.In post 355, insomnia wrote:I don't get it. Luca's voting for aaron and I don't really see them scum together? Can you elaborate a bit?
After review, I'm sticking with Aaron. #288 is especially scummy.
The fact that the majority of your ISO is talking about how annoying you find Macabre's posting.In post 387, Wimpy wrote:What makes you think I’m not sorting people?
It's pretty hard to advance your scumreads when like all the active players are scumreading you and make little to no attempt to engage with me or understand my play here.In post 431, Luca Blight wrote:Frost's attitude towards me mirrors his earlier attitude towards Insomnia - it doesn't seem like he really believed in either read, and is doing nothing to either advance his case or progress his read on me. It feels like he's waiting for someone to get cold feet about his wagon and take up a case against someone else.