Newbie 1757 - Game Over

[nn30]

VOTE: accountant

I knew an Accountant once. I didn't like him.

[nn30]

UNVOTE: Accountant

You guys are sheep lol.

Let's not leave room for scum to barrel us into a turbo lynch D1.

[nn30]

@Vijarada - whoever hammered would have barreled into suicide, yes.

Scum hammering like that - suicide.
Town newbie hammering like that - totally possible and still suicide.

A was attempting to avoid the second situation.

[nn30]

There was no change of tune.

There was, however, a clarification of tune.

My post 10 does not assume scum would have been the hammer. Your post 11 implies scum would be the hammer - I respond with that assumption in mind in post 12 and mention that both town and scum could be the hammer.

You're leaping to conclusions based on an incorrect assumption about my post 10.

[nn30]

"you're right but i stand by my unvote because of new town hammers" would have been fine

I did exactly this.

You're just reading it in a different way.

Kindly unvote me now, thanks.

[nn30]

VOTE: nn30

My post 10 does not assume scum would have been the hammer.

In post 10, you claimed to be afraid of scum barrelling us into a turbi lynch. How do you expect scum to do this, if not by hammering?

Vijarada, do you mind if I ask how much mafia experience you have? You're listed as a newbie on the player list, but you talk about new scum players as though they were a separate group from yourself.

By being 3rd or 4th on the wagon and leaving room for newb town derp hammers.

Hammering is also possible but as vijarda pointed out such a move would be suicide.

[nn30]

I don't think that could be reasonably described as "barrelling" us into anything. It would be more along the lines of allowing newbtown to make a mistake of their own accord. Why did you choose to use such a forceful word - with implications of strong-arming, even - if you thought scum was merely going to set up an opportunity and wait? This isn't just pedantry; your word choice gives us a clue into what you were thinking when you made the post, and that doesn't matchup with what you claimed to be thinking. Can you explain this discrepancy?

At the time that I used the word 'barrel' I was only considering scum hammers, hence the forceful term.

I considered newb hammers as an additional wrinkle once it was pointed out that scum hammering in this way would be suicide.

[nn30]

So post 10 referred to scum hammers, post 11 enlightened you as to the unlikeliness of scum hammers, and in post 12 you revised your stance to account for newbie hammers as well? Is that correct?

Yes.

[nn30]

UNVOTE: Accountant

You guys are sheep lol.

Let's not leave room for scum to barrel us into a turbo lynch D1.

Here you mention "not leave room for

scum

to barrel us into a turbo lynch D1"

@Vijarada - whoever hammered would have barreled into suicide, yes.

Scum hammering like that - suicide.
Town newbie hammering like that - totally possible and still suicide.

A was attempting to avoid the second situation.

Here you say "was attempting to avoid the second situation", where second situation refers to "

Town newbie hammering like that

"


Inconsistency much?

Inconsistency =/= scummy.

[nn30]

So post 10 referred to scum hammers, post 11 enlightened you as to the unlikeliness of scum hammers, and in post 12 you revised your stance to account for newbie hammers as well? Is that correct?

Yes.

In post 12, you wrote this:

A

was

attempting to avoid the second situation[the second situation being a newbie hammer].

Emphasis and square brackets mine. This implies that you had thought about the possibility of a newbie hammer and were attempting to avoid it all the way back in post 10, whose contents you were justifying in 12.

How does this reconcile with your claimed explanation that post 10 was only about scum hammers and you only looked at town hammers after 11?

You have indeed found an inconsistency.

I play, and write, quickly when I play mafia scum. As a result, my posts lean towards 'stream of consciousness' rather than 'carefully considered and reread to deduce possible implications.'

When I unvoted you in post 10 I was doing so because I didn't want scum to have the opportunity to hammer you. Just because this is what was on my mind at the time of that post doesn't mean that I can't point back to it and say 'well other scenarios exist which would also be disadvantageous to town.' Raising the possibility of a townie being the hammer is one such consideration.

The real question is whether or not inconsistencies are scummy. In and of themselves, I don't believe them to be.

If you're looking for inconsistencies, look for inconsistencies in reads. Say on one page I have someone listed as a town-lean and on another page six days later that same person is a scum-lean. If I've offered no reason as to why that read has changed, and that person hasn't done anything worth changing a read over lately, that's scummy. It implies I don't have a consistent read list and that I'm pretending to have one instead.

Finding inconsistency of stated logic from post to post is NAI. It implies that I'm human - a mistake both town and scum can and do make.

@ Accountant - Do you agree with these competing versions of inconsistency, and why?

P-edit: @Xnadrojx - I'll ask you the same question. Do you agree with these two versions of inconsistency. Why or why not?

[nn30]

@Accountant - go check out XnadrojX's newbie 1731. His first post, as town, is a statement that the game is still in RVS.

The statement is probably just indicative of his personality. I'd assign a 95% chance of it being NAI, a 4% chance of it suggesting that he's town and a 1% chance that he's aware of this 'meta' of his and he's using it advantageously as scum.

[nn30]

VOTE: nn30

I don't agree with Vijarada that it's necessarily super duper scummy, which is why I'm not voting you yet.

I understand that you've already moved your vote, but you

already voted me

for being inconsistent. You're scum reading me for my inconsistency, but you're being inconsistent yourself! Do you see how stupid this is?

What is more concerning is your attempt to justify and cover it up.

There was no cover up. Only my attempts at clarification. Stop trying to throw shade at me.

Also, I'm interested as to why you felt the need to defend XnadrojX so badly that you even went to the trouble of calculating percentages and going through his past games. Why not let him speak for himself?

You can think of the percentages as a reaction to you and vijarada reading so deeply into my posts. If you'd like to re-interpret them as subtle middle fingers, feel free!

[nn30]

Reading previous games isn't stalking - it's meta diving. Use with copious amounts of salt - meta is notoriously difficult to use correctly.

@Vijarada - I encourage you to re-evaluate your interpretation of post 12. I was not reacting to pressure and trying to explain myself (as you suggest I would do as scum). I acknowledged that you were correct, and offered another reason for unvoting Accountant to be valid.

Beyond that, I can see what you're getting at. In that light the scum read is justifiable.

That said you've basically scum read me for my play style. Should I... not... defend myself when you and Accountant vote for me? Is that what you'd prefer to see?

I'm going to play like this all game. I care how town views me. Whether or not I'm town read impacts how much credence my thought processes should get from the rest of town. I like to talk a lot, and I like to be listened to when I do.

If you're going to scum read me for my play style, leave your vote there and encourage the rest of the town to lynch me right now. My playstyle isn't going to change.

[nn30]

Wait what I'm still on copper? oops lemme fix that real quick

UNVOTE: Copper

and yes I count that as stalking

PEdit: There was a cover up. You clearly stated "scum" in 10 followed by "newbie town" in post 12. There's nothing to clarify

This definitely reads as scummy. Especially the part where you didn't put your vote on me...

VOTE: xnadrojx

[nn30]

I understand that you've already moved your vote, but you already voted me for being inconsistent. You're scum reading me for my inconsistency, but you're being inconsistent yourself! Do you see how stupid this is?

How am I being inconsistent?

Like this.

Spoiler:

First - you vote me, and ask a line line of questioning which is hinting that you see an inconsistency.

VOTE: nn30

My post 10 does not assume scum would have been the hammer.

In post 10, you claimed to be afraid of scum barrelling us into a turbi lynch. How do you expect scum to do this, if not by hammering?

Which you follow up on here.

So post 10 referred to scum hammers, post 11 enlightened you as to the unlikeliness of scum hammers, and in post 12 you revised your stance to account for newbie hammers as well? Is that correct?

Yes.

In post 12, you wrote this:

A

was

attempting to avoid the second situation[the second situation being a newbie hammer].

Emphasis and square brackets mine. This implies that you had thought about the possibility of a newbie hammer and were attempting to avoid it all the way back in post 10, whose contents you were justifying in 12.
How does this reconcile with your claimed explanation that post 10 was only about scum hammers and you only looked at town hammers after 11?

And then you say that being inconsistent isn't super duper scummy.

Oh, definitely. I've been inconsistent as town myself. It's a perfectly natural thing to try to save face by changing your explanation to make more sense - or more charitably to be careless and muddle up trains of thought. I don't agree with Vijarada that it's necessarily super duper scummy, which is why I'm not voting you yet.

You imply that you see an inconsistency in my reasoning, you vote for me, then your line of questioning is still poking at an inconsistency. Which is it? Scummy, or not? Cause you are acting one way and saying another.

I understand that you've already moved your vote, but you already voted me for being inconsistent. You're scum reading me for my inconsistency, but you're being inconsistent yourself! Do you see how stupid this is?

No, before that - do you think that an inconsistent person cannot identify inconsistency in others?

Of course an inconsistent person can identify an inconsistency in others. I'm arguing that this type of inconsistency is NAI - pointing it out is a waste of our time. It isn't a worthwhile scum hunting tactic.

[nn30]

There was no cover up. Only my attempts at clarification. Stop trying to throw shade at me.

At clarification? You admitted yourself you were being inconsistent. You mean your attempts to make your inconsistency look

not

inconsistent? Because I consider that a cover up.

We're getting into bullshit semantics.

I've acknowledged the inconsistency. There is no cover up.

[nn30]

Excusez-moi? The percentages were a direct response to me calling out XnadrojX for participating in RVS after it was over. What do they have to do with me and Vijarada analyzing your posts?

Apparently they aren't clear enough for you, the percentages are a way of adding in such 'clarity.'

[nn30]

[quote="In post 50, Accountant"]Here is a question for you. When you were first confronted about your inconsistency all the way in post 13, why didn't you immediately say "I apologize. I was mixing up my trains of thought and retroactively adding reasoning after seeing your post 11", rather than insisting that "there was no change of tune"?

Dunno. Good point.

[nn30]

Of all the scummy things I did this is the one that asks you to lynch me? Me moving off my RVS vote after forgetting about you is scummy? What in that post suggests I had intention to vote you?

Of all the scummy things you did? So you're acknowledging that you've done scummy things - which ones?

Post 52 doesn't need to imply an intention to vote me. Your posts 26, 31, and 35 imply a scum read on me. Not voting your scum reads is scummy.

Moving your vote off of someone, when asked, is scummy. It implies that you want to be 'cooperative' with the town members.

[nn30]

VOTE: nn30

My post 10 does not assume scum would have been the hammer.

In post 10, you claimed to be afraid of scum barrelling us into a turbi lynch. How do you expect scum to do this, if not by hammering?

Vijarada, do you mind if I ask how much mafia experience you have? You're listed as a newbie on the player list, but you talk about new scum players as though they were a separate group from yourself.

So post 10 referred to scum hammers, post 11 enlightened you as to the unlikeliness of scum hammers, and in post 12 you revised your stance to account for newbie hammers as well? Is that correct?

Yes.

In post 12, you wrote this:

A

was

attempting to avoid the second situation[the second situation being a newbie hammer].

Emphasis and square brackets mine. This implies that you had thought about the possibility of a newbie hammer and were attempting to avoid it all the way back in post 10, whose contents you were justifying in 12.

How does this reconcile with your claimed explanation that post 10 was only about scum hammers and you only looked at town hammers after 11?

@Fruitsman - what are your thoughts on what has happened so far?

[nn30]

1) I understand that you've already moved your vote, but you already voted me for being inconsistent. You're scum reading me for my inconsistency, but you're being inconsistent yourself! Do you see how stupid this is?

2) There was no cover up. Only my attempts at clarification. Stop trying to throw shade at me.

Numbers are mine.

1) I'm frustrated that we're spending time on inconsistencies which I view as NAI, so I take a tone with you.

2) The language used when - especially when persuasion is the goal - is very important. Take the following example:

The truth - the politician did nothing wrong. However they stand accused of doing something wrong and were being investigated for it.

News headline options:

"Politician meets privately with FBI investigator amidst controversy."

"FBI director instructs politician to come to FBI headquarters for meeting amidst controversy."

Both versions describe the same circumstance - a meeting between a politician and an FBI director. The first headline implies that the politician is doing something wrong while the second headline reads more neutrally. Depending on which version of the story ends up dominating will determine whether or not the politician, who did nothing wrong, needs to defend themselves (first headline) or not (second headline).

You calling what I've done a cover up implies wrong doing which implies scum. Since I'm town, I obviously don't want my actions to be seen in that light. I used an aggressive tone with you for this reason.

[nn30]

You imply that you see an inconsistency in my reasoning, you vote for me, then your line of questioning is still poking at an inconsistency. Which is it? Scummy, or not? Cause you are acting one way and saying another.

I didn't vote you for being inconsistent. I voted you because it was the first non-RVS wagon in the game, had decently solid reasoning and I wanted to keep the pressure on you as I continued questioning you. Afterwards, when it became clear XnadrojX was a better vote, I switched.

This sums up my thoughts on inconsistent reasoning:

I do think that it is at least somewhat scummy and something to point out and take note of. Even if you are town, being clear on our trains of thought can only help us.

Acknowledged and understood. I misinterpreted the post in which you voted me.

[nn30]

I think nn30 and Vijarada are town now. Vijarada especially seems to me like a townie who is excited that he has caught someone with a smoking gun and wants to jump on them.


@nn30: You've attempted to justify a clear inconsistency in your actions. You admit this. Can you see why people would see this as an attempt to cover things up?

Yeah sure.

[nn30]

@Fruitsman - do you have any reads so far?

@Xnad - other than me, what are your current reads?

[nn30]

His post in 64 was the most substantive thing he's done so far.

I've seen it exactly once, so you know grain of salt, but the only time someone posts a summary 'here's what happened so far' they've turned out to be scum.

The reason the summary post is scummy is because analysis is hard to do as scum (the game is already solved for you) whereas summary is easy. No pretending to analyze the game state required - just state what people have done so far and viola!

[nn30]

@Wyvernite - are you just pressuring or do you actually find xnan scummy? If so, why?

[nn30]

Disagree - Analysis is easy to fake as scum, precisely because you already know who to target. I'm not convinced by this line of argument at all. Moreover, I've seen the summary done as town.

If we end up agreeing to disagree here, that's fine.

The target of the analysis isn't the problem. It's the substance of it. Pretending to 'analyze' the game requires scum, who know their analysis is wrong, to find something that a townie has done and communicate effectively the 'scum motivations' behind it to the rest of town. It's hard to do, especially for newbies.

Of course, they could also scum read their partner, in which case it becomes quite easy because they can just tell the truth, but that happens less often than them scum reading a townie.

[nn30]

Current reads:

Town leans:
Vijarada - I agree with Accountant's assessment. He's scum hunting and prodded fruits man into making a substantive statement. These feel like town contributions.
Accountant - His exchange with me indicates he was trying to sort me. Scum in his position could have latched on and never let go without fear of consequence. I will continue to be wary of this slot purely because Accountant is an IC, but town lean for now.

Scum lean:
Fruitsman - scared to contribute. Summary post. Feels like scum unwilling to do something for fear of having to argue the point.

Scum:
XnadrojX - behavior surrounding his read on me but lack of vote on me. If you believe someone to be a liar, you lynch them. 99% of the time town will not have a valid reason to lie - therefore scum. He also unvoted copper when prompted, suggesting he's trying to be

too

cooperative.

Null:
Everyone else.

[nn30]

I've never been so confident
in a lynch 5 Pages in, lets go boys

Same.

[nn30]

Yeah I was holding off on scumreading Xnadro but his vote on accountant and his subsequent justification is just horrific. Like, his analysis all game has been garbage, his scumreads have been a popularly pressured person who Xnadro refused to vote, followed by someone who did nothing other than vote Xnadro, his post-hoc stuff is probably worse than nn30's. I didn't think his RVS vote was scummy, I thought his play after that for a while was only a little scummy, but after this latest stuff I'm absolutely happy to lynch him.

Put your vote where your read is!

[nn30]

@Vijarada

Honestly didn't even consider that your vote was still on me. Now that I'm aware, I still don't really care. Take my statement at face value - you should put your vote where your scum read is. Doing otherwise, without a good reason, is weird.

I was scared of 3 votes on page 1 because a lynch based on an RVS wagon is worthless whereas one based on post-RVS activity is actually worth something.

Shannon said exactly why they didn't want to vote for Xan - because she wants to give more people an opportunity to chime in. If you want to piggy back on that reasoning, I won't fault you for it. But don't look at me sideways for asking you to put your vote where your read is when you hadn't given that reasoning yet.

[nn30]

I am guilty of tunneling sometimes, but I'm not sure this is it. It is not the scummiest post ever but to pressure someone for not putting someone at L-1 while NN himself has shown caution around this

Sure, I'll give you this; it's worth pointing out.

The reasonings were totally different though. You're comparing apples and oranges. RVS l-1 is totally different than post RVS l-1.

[nn30]

He also unvoted copper when prompted, suggesting he's trying to be too cooperative.

Ffs I explained this already, it was my RVS vote that i forgot to get off before exiting RVS. Is it that hard for you to understand?

I found that your explanation insufficient to change how I feel about it.

[nn30]

What kinds of input are we looking for from the lurkers?

[nn30]

Welcome!

[nn30]

@Keyenpeydee - I disagree with a lot of your opinions on the game. Basically, what your stances on things tell me is that you think opinions are more important than objective truth.

Until we're in end game and our alignments (and therefore motivations) are no longer in question we can talk more about this. For now we're going to have to agree to disagree with your 149, 153, and 157.

I'm town reading you because you appeared to post a stream of consciousness regarding xnadrojx which naturally went from 'I town read this slot' to 'wtf?' to 'yeah totes scum.' If you were scum, the only reason for this line of play is that you read the writing on the wall and decided to bus your partner. I'm discounting this line of play for now because I believe your posts to be genuine.

[nn30]

Sup Peydee.

[nn30]

My GOD this entire page is yours. I thought I was a spammy player haha.

@ArcAngel9 - just waiting on you to chime in. Then we can hammer sir nads.

[nn30]

Can we lynch yet?

[nn30]

It's very surprising to me that we've gotten off the XX train. What has he done to remove suspicion? Nothing. The conversation just moved past him.

Don't let him get away with that.

[nn30]

Your vote is on XX, Fruitsman. You should want the conversation to go there too...

VOTE: Fruitsman

[nn30]

@Wyvernite - which post of Fruitsman's are you referring to in 215?

[nn30]

Wait what I'm still on copper? oops lemme fix that real quick

UNVOTE: Copper

and yes I count that as stalking

PEdit: There was a cover up. You clearly stated "scum" in 10 followed by "newbie town" in post 12. There's nothing to clarify

This definitely reads as scummy. Especially the part where you didn't put your vote on me...

VOTE: xnadrojx

Of all the scummy things I did this is the one that asks you to lynch me? Me moving off my RVS vote after forgetting about you is scummy? What in that post suggests I had intention to vote you?

I just had a quicky look at XX's iso, and prior to this post where he refers to himself as doing 'all of the scummy things', I can't actually see anything scummy that he's done.

In 26 he makes a quick point about NN (case is too strong a word), and then builds on it in 35 , clarifies it in 43.

In 47 NN calls 43 scummy, especially that XX didn't put his vote on NN. And then XX responds with his 'all the scummy things' line. This is the bit where I think we've gone wrong. I dunno if I can explain this clearly but let's have a go.

If say, the team was NN and XX, and *someone else* called out XX for scumreading NN but not voting him, then that's legit. We've identified that someone is faking a read or maybe avoiding voting a partner.

But for NN himself to say that it's bad for XX not to vote him... I can't see why that makes XX scummy unless it's bussing, and NN has been too pushy on XX for it to be that.

(Like I think at the moment, if those two are a team then NN should be easing off XX and letting the conversation go away from him).

I think it's entirely plausible that XX just wanted to ask more questions before voting, and I don't think that's AI.

Given the tone of his 212 I think it's actually possible that Scum NN has just distracted us by leaning on XX over bullshit.

VOTE: NN

I would encourage you to look at the motivations behind what I've done rather than the exact wording of what I have / haven't done. Consider a town perspective as well as a scum perspective.

I'll now ask a loaded question (since I clearly have decided on an answer already - one which I hope you can come to as well).

Let's presume XX and I are actually the scum team. Why would I respond to pressure on myself by bussing him? Wouldn't I try to start literally anywhere else? I could even EBWOP Accountant or... whoever scum read me on page 1. Can't remember their name and I'm not interested in looking atm (wine - ho!!!)

Scum win conditions are predicated on

survival

. Any day that town mislynches is a win. Any day one of us (or our partner) is lynched is a bad day.

Given that bussing my partner, on day one, when he doesn't actually have a 'this is lynch is definitely happening' amount of pressure, is bad.

I also bolded a statement from your quote - My behavior definitely disagrees with this assessment. I've actively asked the town to refocus the conversation on XX today, which directly contradicts your line of thought in the above quote.

I've discounted your thought that XX and I are scum

together

. As far as my being scum

alone

all I want to say right now is that everyone is building a house of cards based off of a page 1 scum read. If your house is built on sand... well... I'll let you figure out the rest.

[nn30]

You're right vijarada, I misread.

[nn30]

Please note I want to come for Fruitsman tomorrow.

[bote]XX[/vote[

L-1.

[nn30]

VOTE: XX

[nn30]

It's very surprising to me that we've gotten off the XX train. What has he done to remove suspicion? Nothing. The conversation just moved past him.

Don't let him get away with that.

You'd like us to get back onto that, while also keeping the attention off yourself!

(Am I doing this right?)

Quite Opportunistic for you to throw shade on someone who is just as incriminating, you over-analytical scum!

Your vote is on XX, Fruitsman. You should want the conversation to go there too...

VOTE: Fruitsman

Can we talk about this?

Fruitsman had his vote on XX at the time that he called me opportunistic for wanting the conversation to go there.

In sumary:

1) Fruitsman voted for XX
2) Fruitsman believed in 'the consensus' surrounding XX.
3) Fruitsman argued against someone (me) who argued that we should be lynching XX

while still voting for XX

He threw shade on me for doing something that he should presumably be agreeing with.

VOTE: fruitsman

This should be today's lynch.


Those of you who believe I should be today's lynch - consider this:

nn30 <----- Null leaning scum, not scumteam with Fruitsman

If you believe XX's train of logic (that I'm not scum with Fruits) - we should lynch Fruits instead of me. Reason being, if Fruits flips scum we get a town-pseudo clear (me).

Lynching in the other order (me then Fruits) comes with no comparable upside.

[nn30]

My response to Fruits. Spoiler tags so that I don't take up much space.

Spoiler:

Yes, let's talk.
NN you stated that you were going to go after me in post 235. This was BEFORE XX's final vote.

I don't see how this is relevant.

Spoiler:

NN you did not list a reason as to why you voted for XX.

Actually I did: 47

Spoiler:

Then proceeding to not address the accusation of being opportunistic, and using my vote for XX to try and point out that me as scum.

I didn't see a reason to react to you calling it opportunistic. I did, however, see a reason to ask why you were disagreeing with me pushing the very person you were voting for.

Spoiler:

I believed that XX was scum. I was wrong. We were wrong.

You're right -

we

were wrong. We know that today. Yesterday you called me scummy for pushing the very person you were voting. I don't see how your point defends yourself from this.

Spoiler:

But, NN basically accepted that XX's lynch was inevitable and unavoidable by just adding to the vote instead of listing doubts. You too, then must have agreed with me and others that XX was scummy.

Yep.

Spoiler:

Now he is stating that it isn't a downside to lynch a town.

Of course it's a downside to lynch town. However, my argument is

entirely based on the pre-supposition that you're scum

. If we lynch you, and you flip town, that's very bad. I just don't think you'll be flipping town...

Spoiler:

Now he is stating that it isn't a downside to lynch a town.
...For what? A "

psuedo

" clear to his name.

If you flip town I get no pseudo-clear. Your statement here indicates you misunderstand my argument. Only if you flip scum do I get a pseudo clear.

Spoiler:

Accountant <------- Slight Scum

XX also claimed that Accountant was scummy. Is Accountant next once you find out I'm town after a failed lynch?

I said no such thing. The scope of my statement only discusses what XX had to say about the relationship between myself and you.

Spoiler:

Also,
1. You have said so yourself that it is scummy to summarize what is going on, instead of analytically moving forward. <- Ironic

I summarized your behavior in order to build a case on you. Your summary from eariler in the game was 'this happened and then this happened and then this happened. I still don't have any idea who is scum or town. The end.'

Spoiler:

2. You have been quick to cast shade on others and have even admitted to scummy behavior, and you ALSO voted for XX.

Who have a cast shade on other than you and XX?
Yes, I voted for XX, as did a number of town members. This game includes only two scum - five people voted to lynch XX. That means that

at minimum

three townies also voted to lynch XX.

The fact that you and I voted for XX is not the point here. The point here is that you were voting for XX at the same time that you scum-read me for pushing an XX lynch. Your vote, and your behavior, do not match.

Spoiler:

3. And because I have said that I did not want attention to fall off you, you are now throwing me into the ring for being lynched.

You are misunderstanding the chronology if this series of events.

Spoiler:

You have been making claims and assertively attempting to lay down a foundation of credibility throughout your posts, while deflecting calls of being scum by simply reposting what you put and trying to claim that it's okay. You have done ALOT of back-tracking.
I want more thoughts on this.

Please be more specific.

[nn30]

Hey! Weigh in fam. Game doesn't move forward unless we talk about stuff.

[nn30]

@Keyen - please rephrase. I've read your sentence 3 times now and still don't know what you mean.

[nn30]

I didn't suspect Accountant or Vijarada (they led the discussion against me early game).

Fruits can have other scum reads. I'm saying that his

reason

for scumcreading me is contradictory. Further, I'm suggesting that this contradiction is indicative of him faking his reads.

[nn30]

@Fruitsman - np, life > game

[nn30]

Its the way you played the game.I understand that it is not set or written on stone that you play against your win condition if you're an IC but i am not satisfied with the way you played game on Day1. the IC's aligned to town are usually focus on everyone and tries to give more time on day1 and you didn't do that Xnandarj. He is just new, You could have let him take a breathe and come back with better way to defend himself and the mean while you could have really tried to divert this town to if there is anything else that required the attention.

1) You're assuming that there is a one size fits all for IC town play, 2) that all town aligned IC's play this way, 3) that Accountant didn't play this way and that 4) that the result of Accountant not playing in this way (in your estimation) means he is scum.

Re: 1 there is no one size fits all for town IC play.

Re 2: Even if there was a one size fits all for town IC play, there's nothing that necessitates that Accountant has to play this way to be town aligned.

Re 3: Frankly, he

did

play the way you want him to - just not with XX. He did so with me. He saw the logic behind people scum reading me, picked at it, allowed me to defend myself, and then backed off from me. This is well in line with your 'ideal' of town IC play. You scum read me, and see me buddying with Accountant, so you are blind to his occurring and tunneling on the fact that he didn't treat XX the way you wanted him to.

Re 4: He isn't scum for differing from your ideal. He's human - this is a NAI trait.

[nn30]

@Accountant - why do you want a Wyvernite lynch today?

[nn30]

@Vijarada - If you got to choose, would you lynch Wyvernite over Fruits? Why or why not?

[nn30]

@ArcAngel - my post towards you was not to list reasons I town read Accountant. I was pointing out that your reasons you were scum reading him which were flawed.

[nn30]

My brain isn't working right now. That grammar was SO bad. My goodness.

[nn30]

@Accountant - why do you want a Wyvernite lynch today?

If we argue that fruitsman should be lynched for not contributing much except fruit seller jokes, then Wyvernite should go as well - he's contributed even less than fruitsman, and with an odd cockiness - perhaps because he knows the player's alignment already.

Perhaps.

Though my read on Fruitsman is for reasons beyond his not contributing.

[nn30]

@Vijarada - please see 272 and 285.

Not included in those - I think his summary post from earlier in the game is scum - oriented.

Lastly, I'd like to ask if you're town reading fruits because he is also scum reading me?

[nn30]

Then I really have to ask why you're town reading Fruits.

His actions have, at best, been NAI.

[nn30]

I'm generally pretty active. That said I've already decided on Fruits scum, so until someone wants to talk about that one way or another I don't have much to say.

[nn30]

General Feeling

Spoiler:

T.T

I DON'T KNOW YET.

Then why post? All this post is, is fluff. No reason to post it, it just clogs up the thread, which only helps the mafia, so stop.

Hah,

Funny story. My first game on this site I sas scum. During this game my partner made some convoluted BS phaux-analytical post. Town didn't see how bad it was but I certainly did.

I 'scum read' her for making such a poorly analytical post.

The rest of the game her analysis was impeccable. I knew who was town and even I was beginning to scum read town slots.

Mission accomplished.

Wyvernites post feels to be in a similar vein; scum coaching scum.

Obviously wyv could be town but just a wrinkle to consider... Continuing my wyv / Deer ISO..

[nn30]

@Vijarada
@Accountant

Can you tell me why you're scum reading Deer / Wyv?

[nn30]

@Deer - if you want me on an Accountant lynch you're going to have to convince me off of Fruits. Dude has been off the charts with scum pings for me. There may be some merit to an Accountant scum read - but I see so much more from Fruits. It's so bad that I don't see any reason to vote for anyone but him rn.

[nn30]

The way he interrogated me and came to the conclusion I'm town.

Now that you make me say that out loud, I may have been snowed by it.

*shrug*

I'll ISO him and see if I can find a reason unrelated to me to town read him. One moment.

[nn30]

Well done in 344 Arc.

VOTE: Accountant

@Keyden Re: 340

Look... If I were scum I'm not going to admit to town reading someone for town reading me. My post, which you quote in 340, is my attempt at transparency as town. Admitting the source of my bias does not make me scummy.

[nn30]

CRAP I didn't know that was hammer.

Shoulda checked

Still - that was a good case Arc.

Bartsimpson.jpg:

I will not lol hammer again
I will not lol hammer again
I will not lol hammer again
I will not lol hammer again
I will not lol hammer again
I will not lol hammer again
I will not lol hammer again
I will not lol hammer again
I will not lol hammer again
I will not lol hammer again
I will not lol hammer again
I will not lol hammer again

[nn30]

Arc - state your town read on Fruits. Cause just saying that is not going to get me to not come after him tomorrow.

[nn30]

Fair enough.

I understand if this is weaker than your town read on Fruitsman - where should we begin tomorrow (if you die)?

[nn30]

I'm willing to go first if that's where people's reads of me have me.

I'm looking at a scum team of Fruitsman/Deer.

[nn30]

I take full responsibility for that. I should have made sure I wasn't lol hammering.

[nn30]

Okay.

VOTE: deer

Why are you scum reading me keyden?

[nn30]

Whelp.

I was never even close all game.

[nn30]

Yeah... I wasn't thinking properly.

Won't make that mistake again.

[nn30]

GG scum.

@Shannon - I did a bad