Open 471: Zombie Attack! (GAME OVER)

[Rob14]

Vote: ThAdmiral

- How do you misspell "the"? Also, why put lincolm at L-2 before you even have a majority of people posting?

Vote: SD

- For both the annoying name and his signature. Not a huge fan of claiming that all your scum-tells should be avoided in your sig.

Vote: Cheery Dog

- You're stalking me.

[Rob14]

EBWOP:

avoided --> ignored

[Rob14]

Somewhat V/LA until the morning of the 27th due to Festivus travel plans.

[Rob14]

[url=http://forum.mafiascum.net/viewtopic.ph ... 5#p4427625]The past Double Day Unlimited[/b] that I found suggests that the flip occurs immediately after the majority is reached for the lynch.

[Rob14]

EBWOP

The past Double Day Unlimited that I found suggests that the flip occurs immediately after the majority is reached for the lynch.

[Rob14]

I plead the fifth.

[Rob14]

No, I was not. His name was quoted as Siv in one post and I did not realize who was being referred to in that vote. I thought it was L-2.

Unvote: SD

for obvious reasons.

[Rob14]

Did some meta digging on Cheery on a hunch and I came up with something interesting. Here are the first posts from his last five completed town games that he was in from the start.

Spoiler: Town Games

Wow. Miller claim already.

Seems legit. BC=Obvtown

.

I was mostly commenting on how he was claiming miller in first post, and that's like one of two schools of thought on how to play Miller. But it was so to the letter it was just kind of funny.

I also wasn't sure if it was a legit claim or not.

These two posts do not equate.

This.
VOTE: zabriel

VOTE: zabriel
People who lack any capatialisation in their name may turn out to be scum, or not we shall see.

VOTE: Klick

I don't trust your gambits, and therefore I will have to assume you are scum for doing hits.

VOTE: klick

VOTE: NumberQ

This vote is still clean and I assume you want it because it's not grimy.

Howdy everybody! Let's get this started with some random voting, shall we?

Hello to you as well. I shall join in with a random vote

VOTE: Wiibox3

Note all the votes.

Here is his first several posts in his only completed scum game:

Spoiler: Scum Game

/confirm
The other SE is here, but hopefully you're all clever enough that you won't need our help anyway.
I will try to help when I kno explainw answers though, just be warned now that I do sometimes over explain things and they end up being more confusing, be sure to then ask for out in simpler terms

/confirm.

Your most noobish noob.

/confirm

I disagree, I am your most newbish newb according to join date =D

If we go with that, Shrimp is the most newbish newb by 6 hours.

which means it's only SB left to confirm before this game gets underway.

Already asking questions and were not even playing yet. lol

Do you have a problem with us asking about stuff? We all have our roles, so what we say does count/for against us.

I have a stat saying that out of 9 living players, Cheery Dog has a 2 in 9 chance to be maf. Hence, if we kill him, the next accusation will be 2/8 likely to be maf. Killing Cheery will increase our odds of finding the mafia YAY FOR LOJIKS AND NUMMBIRS!!11!

But if I am scum then it's only 1 in 7.
You are correct that lynching me would only serve purpose towards lowering the chance of the next person you lynch has of being scum.
However lynching randomly as you suppose would be bad for the town as we would gain no information from the lynch

I take my games seriously.

Especially when I've just woken up.

Because you are able to contribute to it?

Rvs is something that isn't needed in the games - here we are able to start discussions with what has already been said, we should be able to vote seriously.

I'll use my vote when I get onto my computer and review the whole thread, I find it too annoying to use bbcode from my phone. Getting my words out correctly is hard enough

Ok at the computer now, I have early townreads on Shrimp & captain.

Not liking PM saying that there is already a confirmed JK, nor any of the people that have been random voting.

VOTE: PMysterious

He didn't place a vote until page 3. While I do have a very limited scum meta to work with, it seems that he is much more hesitant to use his vote early as scum than town. He didn't place a vote in his first post in this game. Based on his meta, I find this suspicious.

Vote: Cheery

[Rob14]

And just what exactly are those reasons?

I've had multiple instances recently where people were stupidly quick-lynched in the games I've been in. I can point to these if you would like me to (at least the instances that are in completed games). I do not want this to happen here. Not only does it normally result in a mislynch, but it gives no information because the hammer is often town in my experience (even though their actions are anti-town). I've seen enough stupid quick-hammers that I'm becoming hesitant to put someone at L-1 unless I'm willing to see them lynched.

[Rob14]

Was I voting Cheery? This unlimited voting is confusing at 2AM.

Unvote: Everybody

Vote: Cheery

That makes things easier.

@Voided: I think five consecutive town games where he participates in RVS in his first post and then a combo breaker where he doesn't as scum is a significant difference in his meta. Maybe I was a bit premature in posting this observation so early, but it's worth getting out of RVS in my opinion.

P-edit: I know Latin. Is that helpful?

[Rob14]

Was I voting Cheery? This unlimited voting is confusing at 2AM.

Unvote: Everybody

Vote: Cheery

That makes things easier.

@Voided: I think five consecutive town games where he participates in RVS in his first post and then a combo breaker where he doesn't as scum is a significant difference in his meta. Maybe I was a bit premature in posting this observation so early, but it's worth getting out of RVS in my opinion.

P-edit: I know Latin. Is that helpful?

[Rob14]

@Voided: I think five consecutive town games where he participates in RVS in his first post and then a combo breaker where he doesn't as scum is a significant difference in his meta. Maybe I was a bit premature in posting this observation so early, but it's worth getting out of RVS in my opinion.

Though, as Cheery notes after this double post, he has a later game where he doesn't post according to your theory. Does that change your stance at all?

Yes, it does. It means that I'll have to re-evaluate his meta once a day or so has gone by (game day, not RL day) to see if his voting patterns match his town or scum meta. There isn't enough data in this game to draw even a weak conclusion on his alignment if his recent town meta has even one instance of not participating in RVS immediately.

[Rob14]

@Admiral - Why ask about the L-2? Reactions. As for analyzing yours, I'm not fond of it. I already explained the L-1. Ignoring that and claiming that I intentionally voted someone to L-1 while calling you out for L-2 is essentially a misrep. I don't buy the not paying attention thing in RVS (unless you weren't reading at all, which is another thing entirely) because the post above yours explicitly mentioned that lincolm was near a lynch. You either didn't read that or were aware that placing your vote on lincolm pushes him close to a lynch. To be clear, the latter isn't scummy - there's no problem with L-2 in RVS. But I don't like your response to the question very much because I think it implies you weren't reading at all, which town can't afford to do.

[Rob14]

Vote: Admiral

[Rob14]

@Admiral - Why ask about the L-2? Reactions. As for analyzing yours, I'm not fond of it. I already explained the L-1. Ignoring that and claiming that I intentionally voted someone to L-1 while calling you out for L-2 is essentially a misrep. I don't buy the not paying attention thing in RVS (unless you weren't reading at all, which is another thing entirely) because the post above yours explicitly mentioned that lincolm was near a lynch. You either didn't read that or were aware that placing your vote on lincolm pushes him close to a lynch. To be clear, the latter isn't scummy - there's no problem with L-2 in RVS. But I don't like your response to the question very much because I think it implies you weren't reading at all, which town can't afford to do.

So you are allowed to fail to note how many votes a player has, but if I do it I'm scummy for it? How does that work?

Failing to note how many votes a player has isn't scummy. Not reading at all (considering that the post above yours explicitly stated that the person you voted for was nearing a lynch) is scummy or at the very least anti-town.

Regardless you were apparently aware you were putting someone to -2 (siv, as indicated in pos 24), yet you ask why I would put someone to -2. Does that not smack of hypocrisy?

Nope. If you had given a valid reason for putting him to L-2 or even stated "Who the fuck cares if he was at L-2? It's RVS." I would have been totally fine with it. I don't believe the reason you gave, however. I already explained why.

I think there are 2 major things to take from all this:
1) In a game with 9 people you only need 3 votes to get someone to -2. This is going to happen a lot, and if you are going to call someone out for doing it you are going to be a busy man. (although I note you haven't hassled anyone else about putting someone to -2, which begs the question "why single out me?")

Because it's not a scum tell, but reaction testing can give me stuff to work with (as it has). By page two, I had a better place to work with in Cheery.

2) As I said: in the rvs stage people often don't notice the amount of votes people already have on them. This is particularly exacerbated in this game since people can vote multiple times.

Again, your case was unique because the poster above you stated they weren't voting for the person you put at L-2 because they would be close to a lynch. When someone says that, I tally up the votes on that person to check if they're at L-1 before voting to be safe. The only way I can see someone NOT doing that is if they didn't read the comment at all.

I literally didn't look at what had happened in the game so far when I voted (I often do this for my first post), although I was aware it wasn't very far in to the game and therefore knew only a few people had posted before me. Perhaps that was reckless of me in a game with so little people and so much voting, but I didn't think it would result in anything drastic like a lynch. Which it didn't...

Not reading is scummy, even on the first page. Town wants to find a reason to get out of RVS as soon as possible. Scum doesn't need to do that.

[Rob14]

You asked if I consider there to be multiple levels of reading. Yes, I do. There is not reading, skimming, and full active reading. I consider not reading at all at any stage in the game to be scummy (I'll explain that below a bit more). I consider full active reading at any stage in the game to be alignment neutral, as both sides have reasons to do it. I consider skimming at the beginning of the game to be alignment neutral as well. You stated you were not paying attention. I took that to mean you read but did not pay full attention, meaning that you were skimming. I did not believe that because the post prior to yours stated something that most (if not all) people skimming the game would have paid attention to while skimming because it is significant and yet you claimed to miss it. You later corrected me and stated that you were not reading at all. My prior argument about skimming is irrelevant now. I misinterpreted your response.

As for why I find not reading to be scummy: I don't assume that all town are trying to get out of RVS. I don't assume that all scum aren't trying to get out of RVS. I think that town has more of a motivation to get out of RVS than scum, and so they'll at least put in the effort to skim, at the bare minimum. Not reading at all before posting means you have zero chance of finding scum or seeing something amiss. That's not pro-town. It's not something that town has any motivation to do at all.

You're acting like I'm calling you definite scum. I'm not. I'm saying you did something suspicious. I originally pressured you because I thought you had lied about reading the game, but I misinterpreted what you said instead. Now I'm still voting you because you didn't read the game at all.

That reaction test was not a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation as you claim. Based on the vote you made, I would have expected that town-you had read the game and seen something that made you think lincolm was suspicious (doubtful at that point in the game) or that town-you had read the game and didn't care about putting someone at L-2. Either response would be fine in my opinion, so I wasn't asking you a loaded question. Are you damned either way (telling the truth or lying) if you didn't read? Yes, because I consider that scummy. But you wouldn't have given me any reason to be suspicious of you if you had read the game.

[Rob14]

@Mod

- My V/LA is over early. No more travel plans because of a giant snow storm.

[Rob14]

Rob, could you be a leeeeeetle bit more concise in why you suspect ThAd? Just to make it a little bit easier to understand your position?

Also, please don't ever do something like post 58 again. Please. I personally hate having to deal with quoting or reading such posts.

Acknowledged. I've done it in the past and no-one's complained, but if you don't like it, then I'll spend more time formatting.

My original suspicions were based on the fact that I thought he claimed to have skimmed, but I didn't think that was truthful because he should have noticed the part of your post #7 where you mentioned that Lincolm was getting close to a lynch even if he was skimming (as a note about someone +approaching a lynch is something most people would notice when skimming).

This is no longer relevant because ThAdmiral clarified that he had not read the game at all. I was incorrect in my interpretation of what he had written in response to my question.

My current suspicions are based on the fact that he didn't bother to read the thread before posting. Even in RVS, I would expect town to at least skim the thread because they can't find anything scummy or anything to get us out of RVS without reading. Town has to read in order to progress towards winning.

These were my suspicions in a nutshell. I think I've reached a dead end with them to be honest, so I'm going to re-read tomorrow morning and see about getting a list of preliminary reads to run off of.

Note to self for after my re-read: Look at Sleepy's meta.

[Rob14]

Unvote: All

Vote: Greygnarl

I still need to re-read from the start, but the exchange between Voided and gnarl leaves Voided looking like town and gnarl looking decidedly hypocritical. I'm content to sheep Voided here. Also:

Sounds like Admiral needs some help. Not sure if I've got a town or scumread on him but we'll see.

I don't like this post, especially the first sentence. My first thought is that inside knowledge is required in order to state that you need to "help" a specific person without even having a read on them.

[Rob14]

@Mod

Was looking over your ruleset and had a question:

15. If you are dead, that is it. Do not post. Not even a "Bah" post.

Are the lynched allowed to speak during Twilight in your ruleset or are they considered dead as soon as the hammer is cast?

[Rob14]

Unvote: greygnarl

Did not realize that was L-1. His last post didn't change anything for me, however.

[Rob14]

Responding with a meme is equivalent to destroying your case? Huh?

[Rob14]

I would like to hear from SD, Cheery, and Lincolm (the three that haven't posted in over a day) before any lynch.

[Rob14]

Vote gnarl

I listed some of my reasoning earlier. His most recent votes aren't good either. Vote on Krew just because he asked for reasoning for an unvote, which is a perfectly legitimate question to ask. This vote strikes me as a kind of indirect OMGUS - Gnarl seems to have voted only because Krew questioned someone for unvoting Gnarl. Vote on Siv seems to have the purpose of creating a counter-wagon for the sake of a counter-wagon, not because Gnarl thinks Siv is scummy. Do you have any specific reasons for voting Siv? You certainly haven't given any, since you didn't mention him at all before your vote.

[Rob14]

That is L-1, for the record.

[Rob14]

@Krew - New content strengthened my read on him. I'm more willing to vote/lynch him now than I was a page ago.

[Rob14]

@Cheery: At the time, the meta stuff gave me a weak scum read and a direction to explore. It was a dead end (since you had a recent completed town game not on your wiki that went against the pattern), but it was the best thing to look into at the time.

[Rob14]

And how can he be "sheeping" us when his FoS is based on a post I (at least) haven't focused on that much?

I did post about that post way back when I first expressed my own concerns about gnarl, so he would be sheeping me, not you. I don't think that Cheery would pick probably the weakest part of the case against gnarl to justify a sheeping vote, though. That seems kind of nonsensical.

Also, what does DDU mean?

[Rob14]

And now I feel like an idiot.

[Rob14]

Town are more likely not to read flavor in my (limited) experience. If it's alignment indicative at all, that last post would push Sleepy closer to town for me.

[Rob14]

Town are more likely not to read flavor in my (limited) experience. If it's alignment indicative at all, that last post would push Sleepy closer to town for me.

Really?

IIRC from my experience off-site, yes. If this site's overall meta is different, then I'm not aware of that, but in the (distant) past when I played games on another site, scum tended to be the ones that knew everything about the flavor while town would occasionally skip over that in favor of jumping into the game.

[Rob14]

I agree. That's why I said "if it's alignment indicative at all". At the moment, I have no reason to believe it is, but if it is, I would think it would push the read towards the town side of things.

The point of my post was that ignorance of the flavor is not scummy and does not warrant the vote that Siv gave. His post feels like something out of RVS, and we're very far past that stage at this point in the game. He seems to be distracting us from the main wagon for some reason.

In fact, the more I think about that vote the less I like it.

Unvote: Gnarl

FoS: Siv and Gnarl

For all intents and purposes, consider my votes on Siv and Gnarl, but I don't want to keep people at L-1 while Lincolm votes are inflating the counts. I'm less than pleased that he left a vote on everyone while V/LA, making it harder to apply votes for pressure.

[Rob14]

I think you have misunderstood me, Cheery. Top of page 2 was when I posted my meta case on you. That was the "better place to work with." That lead was better when compared to my question to Admiral on page 1. Indeed I am back to where I started on you.

Oh yeah, um.

UNVOTE: Sleepykrew

It was a rvsy vote... I guess infinite votes went a bit to my head. Although, if it was a distraction it definitely worked. Well done, siv! You distracted them a bit from greygnarl... Now what exactly were you going to do after that? Get lynched also?

Actually, I'm sure I've seen lincolm posting elsewhere... VOTE: lincolm until he takes that stupid massvote off. Also,

VOTE: greygnarl

Back at L-1, everyone.

Your response doesn't satisfy me. Why did you create a RVS vote on page 6 when we haven't been randomly voting since page 1? And why did you, after dropping this RVS vote, essentially perform another one by voting for someone who's on V/LA?

[Rob14]

You had no problem with L-1 just a little bit ago.

Sorry, missed this question first time around.

L-1 has its various uses. One of them is pressure, and this is the one I used it for earlier. That yielded nothing on Gnarl because he just seems to ignore it completely, which is apparently in his meta. Because of this particular meta, I have no reason to keep Gnarl at L-1 at this time. I also believe that I already have seen the extent of Siv's response to pressure in his last post.

I do not think it is desirable to put either of two competing (or possibly complementary, considering Siv's interactions with Gnarl) wagons at L-1 when we're essentially waiting on Lincolm or his replacement to get in here and give his opinions. I've already seen Siv's response to pressure and Gnarl's lack-thereof. If I don't want a lynch yet, why keep/put either or both at L-1?

[Rob14]

Actually, I'm sure I've seen lincolm posting elsewhere... VOTE: lincolm until he takes that stupid massvote off

We know where it is. We know it.

Could you explain this a bit please?

Also, I have issues with Lincolm's catch-up post as a whole. It's artificially long while not providing any new content at all. Not a single shred of analysis is present, but he did feel the need to include a joke or two as well as comment on some of the most irrelevant things that have happened in the game. Jokes are fine, but if you have time to joke, you have time to provide your reads and analyze the game so far. The fact that you chose to use your time only to joke and rehash a little bit of the argument against gnarl in order to justify hopping on the wagon worries me.

Having said that, I'd like to hold off on the gnarl hammer for at least a little bit while I wait for a response from Lincolm (and opinions on his catch-up post from the rest of the game).

[Rob14]

Re-read gnarl to see if anything stuck out that gave me reason not to hammer, but nothing did. Intent to hammer. Give your final thoughts, gnarl.

[Rob14]

Why are we even discussing my meta case on Cheery? He already supplied a game that wasn't yet on his wiki that breaks the pattern I identified. This makes my case irrelevant. Why are we wasting time discussing it?

And yes, Cheery's V/LA has nothing to do with my case.

[Rob14]

The meta case is no longer relevant. It was weak from the start (although the strongest thing at the time), but it has been adequately refuted. Comment on something else.

[Rob14]

Do you believe this is indicative of alignment?

[Rob14]

So why mention it? If it gives no information about alignment and only relates to a case that no-one is (or should) be pushing anymore, then what's the point in arguing semantics?

Gnarl has been modding/participating in Marathon games instead of posting here. Ignoring this game makes him look even worse in my eyes. Anyone opposed to the hammer being cast now?

[Rob14]

Stifling discussion? There's a distinction to be made between useful discussion and useless discussion. Talking about the particulars of a case that everyone has agreed is no longer relevant is silly and useless. It's an excellent way for scum to float by seeming like they're contributing when in reality no scum-hunting is occurring. Do I want to stifle

that

type of discussion? Hell yeah.

Asking for permission to vote? No. Unless someone does it before me, I

will

hammer gnarl. What I'm asking is if anyone thinks it's worthwhile to wait for his final thoughts when he appeared earlier to be ignoring this game while posting elsewhere and modding an entire Marathon game. Since no one has expressed thoughts that it is:

Vote: Gnarl

You suggest I'm tunneling on greygnarl. Have you been reading the game? I've posted substantial (in my opinion) suspicions about Siv and Lincolm as well (which for the record, isn't exactly stifling discussion - it's starting it). Why are you not offering any alternatives if you are wary of the greygnarl lynch? Why are you not voting anyone?

Bah. I have too many scum reads in this game.

[Rob14]

Vote Lincolm

for a fluffy catch-up post. I discussed this a little bit earlier. The only vague scumread he gave was gnarl, but he unvoted him in the same post. He hasn't contributed to anything since he's gotten back.

[Rob14]

Siv is under suspicion for making a semi-rvs vote and lincolm because his catch-up post had jokes in it.

Straw man of the highest degree I've ever seen on this website. If anyone would like me to explain this further, I will. I think the post speaks for itself, though.

Vote Admiral

[Rob14]

Straw man of the highest degree I've ever seen on this website. If anyone would like me to explain this further, I will. I think the post speaks for itself, though.

Congratulations you have learned the "hyperbole" achievement!

No, seriously. I have never seen a straw man this blatant on this website before. I admittedly haven't been here that long, but your post just blew me away.

This is your case on siv based on your comments on him in the game:

The point of my post was that ignorance of the flavor is not scummy and does not warrant the vote that Siv gave. His post feels like something out of RVS, and we're very far past that stage at this point in the game. He seems to be distracting us from the main wagon for some reason.

Your response doesn't satisfy me. Why did you create a RVS vote on page 6 when we haven't been randomly voting since page 1? And why did you, after dropping this RVS vote, essentially perform another one by voting for someone who's on V/LA?

You also mention his interaction with the gg wagon (implying he was distracting from his scumbuddies wagon), but since gg flipped town that aspect of your case is invalid.

You say that my case is only about a semi-RVS vote. In reality, it's that his semi-RVS vote

on page 6 with a wagon at L-1

indicates a larger problem; he hasn't and continues not to scum-hunt or contribute. I will admit that my case is substantially weaker now that we know that GG wasn't scum, which means that he wasn't trying to distract us from that wagon.

This is your case on lincolm based on your comments on him in the game:

Also, I have issues with Lincolm's catch-up post as a whole. It's artificially long while not providing any new content at all. Not a single shred of analysis is present, but he did feel the need to include a joke or two as well as comment on some of the most irrelevant things that have happened in the game. Jokes are fine, but if you have time to joke, you have time to provide your reads and analyze the game so far. The fact that you chose to use your time only to joke and rehash a little bit of the argument against gnarl in order to justify hopping on the wagon worries me.

Vote Lincolm

for a fluffy catch-up post. I discussed this a little bit earlier. The only vague scumread he gave was gnarl, but he unvoted him in the same post. He hasn't contributed to anything since he's gotten back.

Those cases are a fucking joke.

You say that my case on Lincolm is just because his catch-up post has a joke. No, it isn't. It's because his catch-up post is filled with jokes

but not real content.

He doesn't offer alternatives to a GreyGnarl lynch. He kind of almost gave a scum read on gnarl with no new reasoning or analysis, and that's the most that he did. He didn't offer up opinions on any other players. He didn't scum-hunt. He didn't contribute. This particularly was what I was referring to as the worst straw man I've seen on this site. You went from "He had time to make jokes but not to post reads, scumhunt, or offer analysis." to "You're voting him because he made a joke." Just no.

You can vote 2 people at time. Why not vote Siv? 1 vote better than 2?

I kind of addressed this earlier in this post, but my case on Siv would have been stronger had Gnarl flipped scum. Since Gnarl flipped town, it's not strong enough to warrant a vote more than Admiral and yourself. One vote can be better than two when I'm looking specifically to apply pressure to you.

Vote Lincolm for a fluffy catch-up post. I discussed this a little bit earlier. The only vague scumread he gave was gnarl, but he unvoted him in the same post.

Oh come on! Bad play =/= scummy! That's why I only have vague scumread to Grey! His scummy based on his play and his meta!

You just want weak townie get lynched, don't you? Let me tell you, this setup have 2 lynch at day, scum only have 1 kill at night, meaning scum try the best at day for miss lynch. I think you want to do this.

Vote : Rob

Bad play isn't inherently scummy, but writing long walls full of nothing is in my book. If town isn't going to contribute, they don't try to make it look like they are. Scum do. Scum are trying to deceive town into thinking that they're scum-hunting when they aren't, so they have a stronger motivation for writing a large wall that screams

EFFORT

so that people won't look their way.

[Rob14]

there was a whole wagon to potentially dissect and analyse, interactions between people and gg (I plan on looking at these myself some time tomorrow), and instead if doing any of that you just vote for your carry-over suspect from the day before

Maybe I haven't been articulating myself properly on why I'm voting Lincolm right now. In this instance, I think who

wasn't

on the wagon is more telling than who

was.

The only vague scumread he gave was gnarl, but he unvoted him in the same post.

Okay, here's where I probably didn't explain my analysis as well as I should have.

Lincolm got off the wagon and voiced support of it in the same exact post. He never pressured Gnarl either. What's the town motivation for not pressuring and unvoting your scum-reads? I don't see any.

Scum motivation: Distancing himself from a town-flip while still trying to make sure it happens.

[Rob14]

Vote; Voided
Vote: SK

- His actions wrt the grey lynch look like posing to me.

Could you explain both of these in more depth?

[Rob14]

To summarise: before he was scummy because he used poor reason to enable himself to get

on

the wagon, after he was scummy because he got

off

it. Wat?
You're just using whatever reason is most convenient at the time.

I expected him to hop on the wagon (probably as hammer) eventually when I made the first post. That didn't happen.

Anyway you don't "distance from a town-flip" by supporting the wagon but not getting on it - that's terrible scum play as it gets you no closer to lynching town, and also you don't get to say "I told you so" the next day. You distance by saying - "you know what, I think gg is town". Especially in a situation like yesterday when it looked all but certain he was going down.

Do you see how you came in at the start of the second lynch phase? You came in and said let's look at the wagon and analyze that. That's what a lot of people do. Not having his username on that list benefits him if he's scum - it puts him below the radar if you come in with just the wagon analysis attitude. While this is only speculation, I think that he still voiced some support of the wagon because so many people was specifically waiting for his input and he didn't want town to take his comments and go in a different direction because scum needs mislynches in a double-day setup.

[Rob14]

@ThAd - Bussing exists?

[Rob14]

I didn't mention it because we didn't have Gnarl's flip. Bad reasoning is indicative of scum regardless of whether it's used against town or scum. You're twisting my words and blatantly making things up to justify a push on me because I'm being critical of you (i.e. I never said in my initial suspicions of Lincolm that he was trying to secure a mislynch).

[Rob14]

My reads are independent of each other. From several games worth of speculating scum teams from Day 1, I realized it doesn't work - at all. I've never accurately guessed a scum-team on Day 1, but I often do find at least one scum among my initial scum reads. I've been burned enough times from assuming a flip when compiling a read on someone else that I've stopped doing it. Again, Lincolm's process/logic in reaching his Gnarl read is what's scummy. The fact he unvoted his scum read as well is scummy.

So your two alternatives (either lincolm was trying to wagon town or scum) aren't how I do things. That's not how I formulate reads. I formulated my read on Lincolm by looking at his catch-up post and realizing he spent over half of the time joking around and posting fluff for the sake of lengthening his post and the other half-assing a case on Gnarl while at the same time unvoting him. And that's not something that's town motivated.

What is your current read on Lincolm, Admiral?

[Rob14]

Walls are themselves null. Walls full of nothing but fluff are scummy, though. You're ignoring that bit. You're talking about walls when I'm talking about fluff. I'm taking issue with the fact that you said a whole lot of words without offering anything new or really any analysis at all. No scumhunting.

Bussing by definition is scum voting scum. I think you took it to mean sheeping, which is following the reads of others.

[Rob14]

My reads are independent of each other. From several games worth of speculating scum teams from Day 1, I realized it doesn't work - at all. I've never accurately guessed a scum-team on Day 1, but I often do find at least one scum among my initial scum reads. I've been burned enough times from assuming a flip when compiling a read on someone else that I've stopped doing it. Again, Lincolm's process/logic in reaching his Gnarl read is what's scummy. The fact he unvoted his scum read as well is scummy.

So your two alternatives (either lincolm was trying to wagon town or scum) aren't how I do things. That's not how I formulate reads. I formulated my read on Lincolm by looking at his catch-up post and realizing he spent over half of the time joking around and posting fluff for the sake of lengthening his post and the other half-assing a case on Gnarl while at the same time unvoting him. And that's not something that's town motivated.

What is your current read on Lincolm, Admiral?

There's something that doesn't add up about your posts. The above may be true, and does sound reasonable, but if so why didn't you just explain this before? Why did you post in 227 "bussing exists?" when that wasn't actually something you thought was happening at the time.

Reaction test.. It was a purposefully weak response, mostly to try to read Voided who has been very close to me in his responses. Trying to see if he was sheeping. I still have to take the time to analyze his response, but the fact that he commented separately on the bussing response and my actual one and didn't comment on the contradiction makes me worried that he's buddying/sheeping me a bit. Prior to this I had Voided at a rather strong town read, but I tend to be too generous to people who sheep me when I think I've found scum, so I need to re-read him and see if I notice anything new.

Your response, on the other hand, was kind of what I was hoping to get from voided to confirm my town read on him. This makes me much more conflicted on you. Certainly not today's lynch.

Unvote: Admiral

[Rob14]

I have nothing to add at this point, since nothing has really been posted recently.

I want to hear more from Empking and more from SleepyKrew.

Moar votes on Lincolm, please. He's scum.

[Rob14]

Also want more from Siv, btw.

[Rob14]

Why? If you don't believe me about the reaction-test, then there isn't anything I could say to change your mind. You either believe me or you do not.

If you have any specific question or something you want clarified, I'll answer it, but I'm not going to type just for the sake of writing words. That's not conducive to accomplishing anything.

[Rob14]

Sheeping a townread is perfectly fine. Sheeping someone who is giving off scummy vibes is another thing entirely. I purposefully gave off scummy vibes in order to see if he continued sheeping or not. That is the difference between sheeping a townread (what I did on page 3) and sheeping whoever best advances your agenda with no care for their alignment. The first is alignment neutral, the second is absolutely scum motivated. If he were town, he'd be willing to reevaluate his read on me based on new information and would call me out on it. That didn't happen.

I suppose that leads into my next point. As town, I constantly re-evaluate my reads. I don't give a player a complete pass just because they were an early town-read for me. I'm going to try to generate as much information from ALL players in the game in order to try to determine their alignment with as much certainty as I can. From what you wrote in #262, I think you're suggesting it's unlikely that someone would reaction-test someone who was a town read. That's simply not true.

I was most recently burned by

not

doing this in a newbie game that just completed. JasonWazza was an early strong town read of mine and I didn't really evaluate any of his posts beyond the first half dozen pages. He was scum. He won. I never even talked about the possibility of that being the case. I'm forced to realize that giving anyone a complete pass at any point in the game is bad play, and I have to adapt my style to correct that.

And in response to continuing to argue my point, why on earth would I not do that? If I'm going to pull a bit of a gambit to get a read by trying to insert a weak point, I want to make sure there's a pay off of information. Defending my point almost guarantees that Voided will participate in the discussion surrounding it, and also increases the chances that Town-Voided would realize the point was weak. Notice that I defended my point until Voided made a response. Once that response was in and I got what I was looking for, I never defended the point again because it was no longer necessary. If I'm going to gambit, I'm not going to half-ass it.

[Rob14]

What new information, may I ask? Dirigible from Lincolm's mouth?

No. My own weak response.

Your words spoke true to me, and arguably were better put than I could do, thus I agreed with them. If I'm going to have to go one way or the other (intentionally or not), I do try not to half-ass myself unless I'm SERIOUSLY conflicted on the player in question. And there is no such conflict here.

That's totally fine. It's not fine when you gloss over points that would make the player you're sheeping look bad. I intentionally threw a weak post out there to see what you would do with it. And you did nothing. That bothers me.

Also, sheep is sheep, no matter where it's done. Me agreeing with your Lincolm case and effectively joining my vote with yours there is no different than you joining your vote with mine on GG.

The same action can have very different motivations depending on its context and what else is going on. Just because both actions fall under one buzz word doesn't make them identical in motivation.

Also, I have no idea what you're talking about in regards to a contradiction, or I've been staring at my book too long to see. Please help me and point it out?

Not sure what you're referencing here.

[Rob14]

I asked NS who scum was as soon as I died. This was hinted to in the Dead QT when I mentioned that I would bring something up post-game (the reason why I thought Rach was killed).

[Rob14]

Post #12 in the Dead QT by me: The Rach kill was a great one, I think. Will explain more post-game when I can talk about the scumteam.

Clearly states that I knew the scumteam. Every post, other than that one, in the dead QT was made to avoid giving away the scumteam because NS hates it when people do that in the Dead QT. He wants it 100% spoiler-free, as mentioned in the first post in that Dead QT.

For reference, this is the game I'm talking about: Newbie 1302

[Rob14]

Grr...lost my post before, so this will be more brief.

I wasn't concerned with your read of me at all, Admiral. At the time, you were my second scum read along with lincolm (who needs to be looked at heavily once you folks have my flip). Why should I care about the opinion of my scum-reads towards me?

If Voided had called me out on my post, then I would have explained the gambit much like I did. I did not anticipate the backlash that it caused because it's clear (at least to me) that the "Bussing exists" post is entirely outside of how I post, my typical playstyle, and how I react under pressure as scum. To me, anyway, there is also a clear town motivation to what I did. Evidently, I was wrong, and it will unfortunately cost us a mislynch.

@Cheery - I'm not going to post impressive post-game analysis at 5:30 in the morning when I've been entirely unable to get to sleep all night long. Sorry, but it's not going to happen. I pointed you to a post that clearly stated I had knowledge of the scum-team. If you can't accept that, then I doubt your alignment.

If I'm lynched before I post again, check out lincolm, Voided, and possibly Cheery in future days. Mostly lincolm, since I'm almost positive he's scum (who's nicely lurking right now and letting this wagon run its course, btw).

[Rob14]

I mean, i'm not saying i didn't find a weak point, but i don't understand what weak point you're referring to.

The single post where I said "Bussing exists?" was intentionally weak and rather nonsensical because I wanted to see your reaction to it.

Im sure it is.

Please clarify your point in this post. Are you suggesting something?

[Rob14]

I mean, i'm not saying i didn't find a weak point, but i don't understand what weak point you're referring to.

The single post where I said "Bussing exists?" was intentionally weak and rather nonsensical because I wanted to see your reaction to it.

I see. And yet i replied and rightfully called it weak. Why does where i call it such matter, again?

You called it weak, but you didn't do much with it at all. You acknowledged it and moved on. You then commended the reasoning in #236 without noting any contradiction or referring back to the first post. I don't consider that to be calling me out on it, and it certainly wasn't any type of pressure on me.

[Rob14]

And Sleepy is looking unbelievably town. Glad he finally got something up.

[Rob14]

Do you not see how this looks more like you could've done a LOT better?

It's very possible (and in light of the events since, probable) that my play was not ideal. Bad play is not scummy play, though. Look for a scum motivation in what I did. I posted outside of my posting style, outside of how I post as either alignment, and asserted an absurdly weak point while doing so. Regardless of whether this play was good, was it scum motivated? If you don't have reason to believe it is (and I don't think there is such a reason), then it's time to re-evaluate the wagon on me.

[Rob14]

It's very possible (and in light of the events since, probable) that my play was not ideal. Bad play is not scummy play, though. Look for a scum motivation in what I did. I posted outside of my posting style, outside of how I post as either alignment, and asserted an absurdly weak point while doing so. Regardless of whether this play was good, was it scum motivated? If you don't have reason to believe it is (and I don't think there is such a reason), then it's time to re-evaluate the wagon on me.

Posting outside your normal posting style is scum motivation. You would require a new way to attack after successfully getting someone mislynched, you also as scum want to be able to set town against themselves and not have to lead all the wagons. Now what is the town motivation in deciding to post outside your normal posting style? As far as I can currently tell, there isn't an obvious town motivation for doing this. (if you flip town, then I'm missing whatever it was, but that possibility isn't sticking out to me right now, other than what you've apparently claimed to have done, which I don't believe)

Posting outside my normal posting style to try to elicit a response can be either town or scum. It depends on context. Doing so to appear blatantly weaker than normal does not have a scum motivation because it would make me look scummy. I've explained my town motivation for doing what I did. As I said earlier to Voided, you either believe it or you don't.

I don't understand your argument for scum motivation. You're saying that scum has to post outside their normal play style to get mislynches. I don't agree with that.

[Rob14]

Town often lead wagons that result in mislynches and continue onward with the same play style without losing credibility. Whether someone hits town or scum on the wagons they lead is irrelevant to their alignment because mislynches happen when townies lead wagons too. What matters is the process. I would keep a consistent play style through a game as both town and scum. There's no reason to change it as long as the process I'm using is town motivated (or, when I'm scum, appears to be town motivated).

The tell you're using is a null tell.

[Rob14]

Explain this to me. Here's my post in the Dead QT:

"The Rach kill was a great one, I think. Will explain more post-game when I can talk about the scumteam."

First of all, this comment states that I won't be able to talk about the scumteam until after the game. If I hadn't asked NS about the members of the scum team, then I would be able to speculate (as he specifically says is allowed in the first post of the Dead QT). If I do know the scumteam, then I cannot talk about them because NS forbids talking about insider knowledge of the game setup in the Dead QT. Therefore, me stating that I will be unable to talk about the scum team until post-game heavily suggests that I know the game setup.

Secondly, I use the word "scumteam," which heavily suggests that I'm referring to the entire team, not just Nero.

Why would I post and state that I have a high opinion of the Rach kill and want to explain but won't do it until post-game if not because I

can't

explain it due to restrictions on what can be talked about in a NS's Dead QTs? What would be the point of that post if I didn't have something restricting me from speaking? Your argument makes literally no sense in light of that post.

[Rob14]

From what I started to read of that wall, it was mainly a rehash. As such, I did not read it (nor will I). If there were questions for me in there, please post them separately so I can respond.

[Rob14]

Explained what you claimed I had not in post #236.

Had you not called me out on the contradiction in #244, I was going to leave it for a while before announcing my gambit to see if Voided kept sheeping me shamelessly. I would have gotten more info from Voided's response if I let it be for a few more of his posts.

[Rob14]

^^^ That was in response to #324, didn't realize we had a page 14. Reading now and will respond to anything if necessary.

[Rob14]

You'd do well to read it in it's entirety. There be new gems in there (or so ThAd says).

I'm not reading 99% rehash to get to 1% of what I need to respond to, which is why I asked him to ask me any questions or quote new material that he wants a response to. He said read the last bit, and I responded to that. I don't have the time or patience to read through that long of a wall, however.

[Rob14]

You'd do well to read it in it's entirety. There be new gems in there (or so ThAd says).

I'm not reading 99% rehash to get to 1% of what I need to respond to, which is why I asked him to ask me any questions or quote new material that he wants a response to. He said read the last bit, and I responded to that. I don't have the time or patience to read through that long of a wall, however.

His is a chronology, not an outlined case. Unless you think he wouldn't be biased at all toward himself, I don't see why you wouldn't try.

I'm entirely sure he's biased towards himself, and I trust those who read it to be able to identify that. As for me, I do not have the time or patience to read a post of that size. Maybe if there were a few more hours in a day.

@Pirate mollie - I played a few games a 1-2 years ago off-site, but other than that I've played no where else but here. This is the only place I've played recently. I'll post something about all my reads on Sunday (I'm traveling all day Saturday).

The quote in my #331 is Voided's #325. Sorry, will ensure I keep names in my quotes. I normally do, but forgot.

Explained what you claimed I had not in post #236.

Had you not called me out on the contradiction in #244, I was going to leave it for a while before announcing my gambit to see if Voided kept sheeping me shamelessly. I would have gotten more info from Voided's response if I let it be for a few more of his posts.

uhuh.

So when you said "I defended my point until Voided made a response" was that yet another lie, or am I just misunderstanding you again?

Nice rhetoric, but you just took two unrelated points and smashed them together claiming a contradiction. I defended my point until Voided made a response. I had no need to defend that point after that, because he had already acknowledged it. The only thing I still wanted to see was if he continued sheeping me. That has nothing to do with my point at all. This two things are entirely unrelated. But seriously, nice rhetoric. You're great at turning nothing into something.

I'm not reading 99% rehash to get to 1% of what I need to respond to, which is why I asked him to ask me any questions or quote new material that he wants a response to. He said read the last bit, and I responded to that.

No you didn't.
This was the last bit:

Note: rob still hasn't cleared up the original contradiction before the whole "bussing exists" malarkey began and confused the issue. For reference that is:

So you were initially suspicious of lincolm because he was vague about gg. In particular you were suspicious that he would try to jump on gg's wagon at some point for the hammer and therefore secure a mislynch of a town.
But then you hammered gg, because you thought he was scum?
Your suspicion of lincolm

makes no sense

if you thought gg was scum.

This is scum reasoning

. It shows you had a contradictory stance and were just going with whatever line of argument supports who you wanted lynched at the time.

So you didn't even read that. You fucking liar. I am getting so sick of your bullshit.

Except in the post that

you yourself quoted

, I said this:

Explained what you claimed I had not in post #236.

I'm getting sick of

your

fucking bullshit and maybe you should read

my

posts. You're tunneling on me like no tomorrow. This by itself is a null tell in my experience, but the fact that you're starting to misrep me and use rhetoric rather than logic is bothering me a great deal. At this point, I am absolutely convinced that no matter what I post you will attack me for it. I could say anything at all and you would claim it was scummy, because that's what you've been doing all game. You're twisting things that are nothing into something because it supports your agenda, which seems to be to lynch me rather than find scum.

And your next post is even better. Your reason for your town reads are because they're attacking the same person as you. You haven't offered analysis for your town reads. You just like the people who are agreeing with you.

Unvote: Lincolm

Vote: Admiral

The amazing tunneling here can no longer be town motivated with the way you're acting more recently.

[Rob14]

Example 1: Rob thought lincolm was scum day 1 because he used wishy-washy reads in order to jump on the gg wagon. However after gg was lynched rob flipped his opinion on lincolm, who was now scum because he had

not

got on the wagon.

I explained this already in #236.

Example 2: Following on from this Rob shows he had a contradictory read of gg day 1 (who he apparently thought was scum, and indeed hammered). If rob thought lincolm was scummy day 1 because he was trying to get on the gg wagon and secure a mislynch, how could he have ALSO thought gg was scum?

This is the same as your example 1, and gets the same response. I thought lincolm was trying to get on gg's wagon without going through the process of scumhunting. This could mean bussing or going for a mislynch. I don't know which without a flip. My reads are entirely independent of each other pre-flip on Day 1.

Example 3: To cover for this contradiction (which he still hasn't explained btw) he claimed that maybe lincolm was trying to bus, even though he had never mentioned that possibility before.

I already explained this ad nauseam. Keep ignoring it.

Example 4: When he is called on this point he says that he was just reaction testing. Whether this is true or not is up to you. Personally I find it highly suspect.

The least biased point of your post. I agree that it is up to the rest of the people in the game to decide.

Example 5: He says he is suspicious of voided now, since voided didn't call him out on his weak "bussing" post. In fact voided

did

call him out on his "bussing" post, calling it weak.

He did not call me out on it. He called it weak, then moved on and kept sheeping me without trying to pressure me at all. I explained this in #287, which, by the way, you didn't bother to address.

Example 6: He also shows a contradictory stance on sheeping: he was happy to sheep voided earlier in the game, but when voided "sheeped" him it shook his townread on voided.

I explained this in the first paragraph of #264. Thanks for A) not responding to it and B) completely ignoring it. Seriously, you're not bothering to address my defenses because you can just keep talking louder and posting bigger walls and people are content to sheep you. It doesn't make the defense go away.

Example 7: Rob says he only defended the "bussing" post until voided weighed in on it, and then dropped the facade. In fact rob posted once after voided had weighed in on it, and

didn't

drop the facade. It was only after I questioned him yet again about it a couple of posts later that he said it was a reaction test.

No, I didn't say I dropped the facade when he stopped posting. Quote me the post where I said that. You just misrep'd me big time. I only said I stopped defending that point. I did. I needed to ensure Voided noticed the weak post and responded to it, which he did. After that, I didn't need to draw attention to it at all by defending it. I still wanted to wait to see if Voided would keep sheeping me. I explained this in #329.

I've already explained and defended against all of your points. You ignored those defenses because, frankly, I haven't played a good enough game to force you to. It still doesn't mean they disappear. You're acting like I've contradicted myself. I haven't I've explained everything that you've claimed is a contradiction already and you've just ignored it.

[Rob14]

I acknowledged this earlier, but would like to do so again because I think this is clouding some reads of me.

My gambit was not good play. Clearly. I do not stand by the play as being a good move at the time.

I do, however, stand by the fact that there was little scum motivation for doing it and plenty of town motivation. It was a bad play, but I did it for the right reasons. Don't evaluate the quality of the gambit. Evaluate the potential motivations behind it.

Also, while I know self-meta is frowned upon here, I feel the need to highlight that I have a history of gambits as town. See this game: NY 159: RUST

On Day 2, I claimed that, among my JOAT abilities, I was a 1-shot Gunsmith who had a guilty on a claimed miller (who would return as not having a gun in a normal game). I claimed to have the result of having a gun on the miller to see if he would stand by his claim or change it to vig. This gambit is highlighted in my posts #983 and #1143 (among others). I gambit as both alignments. Not alignment indicative. I've never experienced this backlash from a gambit before and will be adjusting my play in the future accordingly.

P-edit: I've run out of time and can't keep up with this wall posting. Will read and respond to the two posts above me tomorrow.

P-P-edit: three posts above me

[Rob14]

BACK FROM THE CLUB. Slightly drunk. Mega-wall time tho!!!!!!!

Ok so if you wanted to see if he continued sheeping you why didn't you continue to defend the point, to see if he continued sheeping you?
I know you said that you dropped the facade after I pointed out the contradiction in 244, but wasn't that the point? To see if voided still sheeped you even though the contradiction was clear to see?
Also why would you drop the facade after

I

pointed out your contradiction in 244 - didn't you claim you didn't care about my opinion?

After you pointed it out, I considered it appropriate to drop because the risks of continuing it at that point outweighed the benefits. If I had waited until pages later to announce the gambit after you (presumably) continued pressuring me on it for many pages, I would be mislynched quickly for sure. Too risky to continue.

Had you not called me out on the contradiction in #244

Actually, remind me, what contradiction in 244? Or are we supposed to talk about 2

3

4?

Contradiction is the wrong word. I meant inconsistency. My bad.

Nice rhetoric, but you just took two unrelated points and smashed them together claiming a contradiction. I defended my point until Voided made a response. I had no need to defend that point after that, because he had already acknowledged it. The only thing I still wanted to see was if he continued sheeping me. That has nothing to do with my point at all. This two things are entirely unrelated. But seriously, nice rhetoric. You're great at turning nothing into something.

Forgive me if I'm tired of the misreps and having my words twisted.

I'm entirely sure he's biased towards himself, and I trust those who read it to be able to identify that. As for me, I do not have the time or patience to read a post of that size. Maybe if there were a few more hours in a day.

So you say, yet you don't deign yourself to read it anyways? PHAH!

Why should I believe what you'll crow when I've read it myself? Or would you like to tell me my own eyes lie to me, too?

*sigh* If I must, I will read it on Sunday and respond if necessary. I'm traveling tomorrow and I'm going to bed after this post tonight.

Except in the post that you yourself quoted, I said this:

that doesn't answer anything, and 225 says everything anyways?

My ire is growing, Rob.

Not sure what you're going on about here. The post I linked to absolutely explains why Admiral's post in #225, which essentially claims that I contradicted myself by having both lincolm and gg as scum-reads, is false based on the way I construct my reads early on.

He did not call me out on it. He called it weak, then moved on and kept sheeping me without trying to pressure me at all. I explained this in #287, which, by the way, you didn't bother to address.

I did call you out. Simply because I paid it no more attention than it deserved does NOT mean the same as never addressing it.

In short, you're a liar

Liar? No. But maybe I need to reconsider if the way I constructed this gambit gave me any information at all. Based on how this gambit turned out, I need considerable work and way more experience before I ever try to gambit again, especially as town. It's very possible (probable?) that where I thought I was getting information, I was actually gaining very little. I'll need to think on this a bit more.

I am looking at rob's join date and how freaking awkward he looks. chalking a lot of it up to newbish behaviour and maybe I am giving him a pass when he really doesn't deserve one. I have a soft spot for newbs. could he be newbscum, not sure, which is why I am waiting for his responses. going after low hanging fruit is something I will need to determine once rob has answered my questions and I get a better feel for rob.

Rob is one of the most outspoken and active players in this game. If he is a new player he doesn't play like one.

Check my meta (in wiki). I've been outspoken and active since my first game. It's just the way I play. I try-hard in most games (to varying degrees of effectiveness).

I do, however, stand by the fact that there was little scum motivation for doing it and plenty of town motivation. It was a bad play, but I did it for the right reasons. Don't evaluate the quality of the gambit. Evaluate the potential motivations behind it.

So I should veil my eyes to poor play simply because it

may

be something a townie might do? Purest intentions do no absolve terrible blunders, Rob, and while we could debate on the intentions, I will not veil my eyes to the blunder.

As for the motivation itself...I fail to see the good there.

Absolutely not telling you to ignore the gambit I performed. That would be bad play on your part if you did. I'm just asking that you look past the fact that it was stupid (as both alignments) and look into why I would do such a thing. Essentially, give me a fair shake in analyzing the action despite it being entirely stupid to perform no matter what my alignment is.

Also, while I know self-meta is frowned upon here, I feel the need to highlight that I have a history of gambits as town. See this game: NY 159: RUST

On Day 2, I claimed that, among my JOAT abilities, I was a 1-shot Gunsmith who had a guilty on a claimed miller (who would return as not having a gun in a normal game). I claimed to have the result of having a gun on the miller to see if he would stand by his claim or change it to vig. This gambit is highlighted in my posts #983 and #1143 (among others). I gambit as both alignments. Not alignment indicative. I've never experienced this backlash from a gambit before and will be adjusting my play in the future accordingly.

If it is alignment-null, why then should I care about motivations? The play would then decide things, not why you did it or when you'd be so inclined to.

My point in bringing that up is that my meta for gambits at this time is very different than the typical player's in that I have gambited as town in a fairly foolhardy way in the past. For most people, it is true that they are much more likely to gambit as scum than as town. If you look at my meta, that is not the case for me.

-snip-

I gave nearly 24 hours between the last Gnarl post and my hammer and explicitly asked if anyone wanted me to hold it during that time. During that time, Gnarl was posting elsewhere in the site and ignoring this game. I was almost certain he was scum, and therefore I hammered.

I could not understand what Lincolm said, and therefore could not abide by it.

I do, however, stand by the fact that there was little scum motivation for doing it and plenty of town motivation. It was a bad play, but I did it for the right reasons. Don't evaluate the quality of the gambit. Evaluate the potential motivations behind it.

I'm not sure you understand my stance here.
I don't believe you gambitted as scum. I believe you are lying about the gambit in the first place to try to cover your tracks.

Oh, I apologize. I hadn't considered that that could be your stance. I must have been misinterpretting what you said.

I gambit as both alignments. Not alignment indicative. I've never experienced this backlash from a gambit before and will be adjusting my play in the future accordingly.

Gambit example from you as scum please.

Not sure if this even qualifies as a gambit, but I killed off my only "scum read" in a scum game going into LyLo where I was scum so that I could try to play the WIFOM card ("why would I leave myself with two strong town reads in LyLo if I were scum?") card. It was in Newbie 1295. Note that some other people thought I might have committed a gambit in that game when I soft-claimed VT. This was not an intentional gambit. I actually accidently fake soft-claimed, if that makes sense. It was an epic fail. I mentioned it was an accident in the post-game at post #1063.

@Mollie - Missed your question before, sorry. I was being sarcastic. I said "@Admiral - Bussing exists?" (possibly with a different abbreviation on admiral's name, but that was the gist of the post). I was trying to give a flippant, weak, and somewhat inconsistent response to gauge Voided's reaction at the time. As for my reads, which you also asked for, those will come Soon (TM). It's my bed-time.

The Voided/Mollie exchange makes Voided look more town, imo. Unsure about mollie.

@Everybody - I will not be here Saturday. I am traveling 3 hours to see family and then traveling back. I'll be leaving early in the morning and getting here late at night. Expect me to post by Sunday afternoon.

[Rob14]

Why are you doing very little this game, Empking?

[Rob14]

I don't consider it a gambit to have killed off my scum read, but others in that game did. Specifically, the person who counted (buldermar) considered it a gambit and largely voted the wrong way because he thought it too unlikely that I performed both that gambit and the (nonexistent, although he didn't know that) one regarding the fake claim.

Besides, the supposed slip you're talking about wouldn't really make sense. If I were scum in this game, then the gambit I preformed wouldn't be a gambit at all. If I were scum, that would mean I made everything up, in which case my play wouldn't be a gambit, but rather an absurd amount of crazy backtracking for no apparent reason.

[Rob14]

And @Admiral - Same from me, I wasn't exactly civil myself at times.

[Rob14]

I cannot wrap my head around the sentence you just wrote for some reason. Will try again later.

[Rob14]

@mollie -answered ur question in 369 @ the end. Please read kthx. Same @ you voided. You're complaining about Mollie not reading but you didn't even know I had already answered that question

Posting from iPod will explain the reads I got from Mollie v void when @ comp

[Rob14]

I don't think Voided ever took it as an actual question. It was clearly rhetorical. If he did, then I missed it.

[Rob14]

Thought so. Mollie's giving me weird vibes at the moment. Not sure what to make of it at all. I'm going to pay close attention to her when I give reads tomorrow.

[Rob14]

Sorry for not having a post up by now folks, slept a lot of the day away. Writing my reads now.

[Rob14]

^^^ I had to take a break multiple times because my brother just got a new laptop today and he's totally crap at setting it up and using it. I'm still writing now. I'm writing up detailed rationale with every read, which is something I've started doing in all my games recently, so it's taking a bit. Sorry for the wait. Looking to have it up in an hour.

[Rob14]

Sorry again for the wait. Here's the reads, folks. As always, I will include my typical disclaimer that the order is based on the playerlist in the mod's first post. Don't read into it. I'll answer any questions about them tomorrow, most likely, since I need to go to bed.

Lincolm/Maestro -

NULL

This read has weakened a lot over time. The major contention I had with Lincolm is that he came in Day 1, Lynch 1 after being away for days on V/LA and made a catch-up post that sounded like he was trying to give some weak reasoning to later join the GreyGnarl wagon. It lacks the type of process that I normally want to see by which town reaches their reads. I'm willing to say that I'm reading this wrong, however, because it's more difficult to see the "town" frame of mind in a catch-up post. In that post he also doesn't comment on anything new at all, but does find the time to post an unhealthy amount of fluff and jokes. This seems decidedly anti-town to me. There's plenty to discuss regarding other people and even just GreyGnarl, but he instead chooses to post like 3 lines on GreyGnarl and use the rest of his post (over half) to comment on insignificant things. This could possibly be noobtown, but it doesn't quite read that way to me. I'm going to let Maestro's actions decide my final opinion on this slot.

Voidedmafia -

STRONG TOWN

Early on Voided looked decidedly town for me. For example, post #74 has great reasoning for voting greygnarl and #76/#82 continue it with some good call outs. My one hang up early on was it seemed like he was sheeping a lot of what I said. That's not a bad thing in itself, but that's what led to my gambit that tried to test if he was sheeping me because I was a town read or he was sheeping me because it furthered an agenda. I've since discarded the results of that gambit after thinging further about how it was constructed and how far it got because they weren't reliable enough. My read got kind of clouded when he pressured me because some of the things he was doing (missing my answers to questions, for example) seemed like he was deliberately misconstruing what I was saying. After considering this further and seeing how Voided has been acting in his verbal slap-fight with mollie, I think that my thoughts on Voided were more OMGUS than anything, which I sometimes slip into as town and need to drag myself out of. The interactions between Voided and mollie show that Voided is trying to generate discussion by forcing mollie to read and get involved with things that have happened already instead of getting all reads through direct interaction.

I do not agree with mollie's criticism that he may be feeding the shit at all. I didn't view the debate as between ThAd vs me. I viewed it as ThAd and Voided vs me. Voided did not shy away from getting his hands dirty with that debate. He was a central figure in it and therefore it does not at all look like trying to subtly urge on a town v town fight. If that was the goal, then Voided certainly needs to work on subtlety. As it is, I think he's an advanced enough player to know how to properly accomplish that goal if he had wanted to.

Cheery Dog -

WEAK SCUM

Cheery had a good response to my early meta stuff, but it's kind of gone downhill from there. In #118, his vote on Lincolm is entirely unexplained. In #154, the delayed explanation is not at all adequate. Different thought process =/= scummy thought process. If you think that voting everyone in a Unlimited Double Day is a null tell, then this vote was not substantiated well at all. This vote is lacking a town thought process. He never followed up on his Empking vote from #214/246, but unvoted in #273 to pursue the easy target.

His arguments against me are weird and leave a bad taste in my mouth. In #267 and beyond, he's accusing me of lying about my actions in an entirely different game in an example I gave that I could have left out entirely without weakening my point in #264. He never bothered to examine why I would have any motivation as scum to lie in that scenario, which I wouldn't. I could have used literally any case where I was wrong about scum early on as an example in that scenario and it would be just as effective of an example. Everyone's wrong about scum at least once in a while. Where's the motivation to lie? This strikes me as looking for a reason outside of the "normal" ones already given to pop a vote on my wagon and not look like he's sheeping, and you can kind of see the move in action where Admiral gets a town read off Cheery because he reaches the same conclusion as him with different reasoning.

ThAdmiral -

WEAK SCUM

I've been suspicious of ThAdmiral for quite a while, and I've posted a decent amount in the past about him. Check out my #55 for my earliest suspicions of him, which were refined in #66. Moving on from there, we have post #187 where he waters down my suspicions of Siv and Lincolm in order to dismiss them. The most blatant straw man I've seen yet on this site, as I said in my #189. He's also tunneled on me in a way I do not typically see from town. He's claimed contradictions and lies where there are clearly none and he's ignored a fair amount of my posts when they aren't easy to explain away. I explain some of this in my #344 and #348.

I'm not calling this a strong read because I'm having difficulty figuring out the scum motivation behind pushing my lynch so hard when it could blow up in his face when I flip town. He could have tried giving Voided a slight push towards taking over the wagon once he joined it, but as is, he's held no reservations about taking the front on this wagon. This is his wagon and he will most likely be held accountable for its result. I'm not getting why scum would do something that could spectacularly blow up in thier faces Day 2.

pirate mollie/Siv -

NULL

I'm very, very conflicted on this slot. On one hand, Siv was downright scummy. His #129 looked like an attempt to drag the town back into RVS. I explained my rationale for this when I FoS'd him in #137. His post #139 made his action look even worse when he outright admitted it was an RVS vote. The whole post reads very nervous. Later on he kind of dropped off the face of the earth. I don't think he was necessarily lurking since he was replaced entirely, but still, I don't like drops in activity. Not necessarily scummy, though. I would have probably been pressuring Siv a lot harder today had he been posting and had I not been pre-occupied with the pages long argument with Admiral and friends. I looked through Siv's meta a bit and did note that in a town game, his Newbie 1300, he came out and stated in his first post that he doesn't make cases and does sheep a lot. This kind of accounts for some of the stuff we see in this game. Still, I would be giving this slot a weak scum read off of only Siv.

On the other hand, we have mollie. At first I didn't know what to make of her. The direct interaction stuff is foreign to me. I've never seen someone replace into a game like this. I took a look into her meta, though, and this isn't new to her, so I suppose it's a null tell. Only recently have I started to see some stuff that makes me think she's looking more town-like. The development of her read on Voided looks natural to me, and it looks all the more real because she came in with the opinion that Voided was town and the read has slowly changed. Her explanation of her questions directed at Voided, probably best summarized in #414 when she says that she wanted to lean on Voided as a strong town-read to bounce ideas off of, has me nodding my head. I do that as town a lot of the time. I still have reservations about the slot because of Siv, but I think that mollie hasn't looked scummy at all so far. Overall, I'm calling the slot null because there's such a disconnect between my read of Siv and my read of mollie.

SleepyKrew -

WEAK TOWN

This read was tough, because SK shows a lot of things that are anti-town but aren't necessarily alignment indicative. It was tough to wade through those. For example, the looooooooong wait for the admiral case that wasn't even that long was anti-town. He needs to do better than that. I also don't like the 100+ post lurk that has been going on since he last posted way back in #308, but I don't think that's alignment indicative because he as scum doesn't have much to gain from lurking. He's already fairly below the radar and he had very little pressure on him, so I don't see why he would take the risk of lurking as scum.

Anyway, I like his Admiral case as being town motivated in #279. I like the fact that he hadn't yet commented on the case against me even more. I would expect scum-him to throw some logs on the fire and watch the townie burn, not attack the main leader of that wagon. It just wouldn't make sense from a scum perspective.

Empking -

NULL

Wait - empking is in this game? Who would have known?!? Seriously, though, you need to contribute. You haven't posted any cases or given any reads based on anything more than gut. You didn't post for a huge period of time, but you were suddenly back when some people asked you questions. Since you've been back, you've been essentially active lurking. Give some opinions. Analyze some stuff. I'm chalking empking up as null for now, but if there's scum in the people that have lurked through portions of this game, it's gonna be empking.

[Rob14]

I was suspicious of his #129 because it looked like an attempt to derail the GG wagon and drag us back into RVS, but post-flip, scum wouldn't be motivated to derail a wagon on town in that way. My case on Siv was based on different things than my case on Lincolm, and so was treated different post-flip.

Let me re-read SK and analyze Admiral's case. I'd much prefer a ThAd or Cheery lynch, but with deadline approaching I'm willing to compromise if I see some merit in the case.

[Rob14]

All my reads are independent of each other. A flip isn't a read, though. It's a known, mod-verified fact. I would be foolish not to take into account something I know for 100% sure to be true after someone flips town or scum. In other words, I never make an assumption about one player's alignment when trying to determine another's. I don't assume that one of my reads is correct when developing a different one. I do, of course, take into consideration all things that I know for sure are correct (such as the flips, for example). Whether or not those flips affect my reads, which they did in Siv's case but did not in Lincolm's case, depends on many, many variables. I explained earlier what those were and why my read on Siv changed post-flip while my read on Lincolm did not.

Is that explanation clear?

[Rob14]

It was mostly the way in which he derailed the wagon that got Siv increased suspicion from me. Derailing a wagon is not scummy pre-flip if you provide a good reason to do so. Going back to RVS is not a good reason at all. Post-flip, though, I just can't see the scum motivation being there.

I don't really get what the second part of your question is asking when you talk about lincolm in relation to GG. My read of lincolm was independent of GG's flip both pre-flip and post-flip because the thing I picked up on in Lincolm's post was a lack of town thought process. The basic level of my thoughts on Lincolm was that he wasn't scum-hunting at all. This was shown in that his post was mostly fluff with some weak reasoning to support a GG lynch without bringing anything new to the table or commenting on anything. I didn't know pre-flip if he was bussing or trying to push along a town wagon, but it didn't matter to my read because either way he wasn't scum-hunting at all.

Do scum reads count towards reads but not decrease other reads?

I'm stumped on what you mean by this question. Please explain it a bit. Maybe it's just too early in the morning for me.

If you're doing indepenent reads,

I assume that you're not team hunting at all

, and therefore everyone must be like Dan.

I should note that I definitely do a lot of hypothetical team hunting in my head, but I don't speculate in thread. I think it's anti-town to waste the town's time with hypotheticals until twilight. The main discussion of a day should focus on what's happened so far, not what might happen maybe if a flip goes the way I expect it to. Town can waste a lot of time talking about "what-ifs" that never occur. So I definitely speculate to the degree that I think, "Ok, well because of post #X, I think that if Player A flips scum, I should look hard at Player B," but I wouldn't let it influence my read of Player B unless the "if" statement has already happened AND I wouldn't bring it in thread until twilight after Player A has been hammered at the earliest.

This is a whole lot of theory and not a lot of finding someone to lynch by deadline, though. I think we should pick up this discussion in the next day or possibly even post-game, depending on whether or not you think it is alignment indicative of me.

Reading SK in a little bit after breakfast.

[Rob14]

Oh, ok. I kind of get what you're asking, but I think I've already covered this. Neither my Siv read nor my Lincolm read affected the GG read at all because of the way I form independent reads before flips.

The more I think about it, the more I don't think my read on Lincolm was as substantiated as I one time thought it was, actually. I'm not sure that I can rely on looking for the town thought process when I'm evaluating lincolm's posts because of his communication difficulties. It's very possible he was coming from the right place and not communicating it properly. This doesn't explain the issues that I had with the fluff or the fact that he didn't comment on anything new, but it does somewhat weaken the amount of info I can get from the comments he made on GG. He could have approached that in a town way and just not communicated it well. I definitely want to see Maestro in action before I commit one way or the other with my feelings on that slot. Hopefully he will be easier to read. Speaking of Maestro:

@Mod - Prod Maestro, please.

[Rob14]

(Siv's a guy)

It wasn't the fact that he derailed the wagon. It's how he derailed the wagon. Taking any wagon or major discussion and going "Welp, time to randomly vote" is scummy.

[Rob14]

Is there any extension available due to the replacement?

[Rob14]

I doubt it. maybe if we were one day away, but probably not three.

I kind of doubted it too, but it can't hurt to ask.

How does this recent convo change your read on Cheery, Rob? It doesn't feel like he was trying to intentionally miscontrue things you said, but was honestly mistaken, and I don't feel like we should be hanging him today or for 2.0 (flips of others pending, of course).

He's not the lynch for today, but I never really thought he was. My read hasn't really changed a whole lot. This interaction wasn't scummy, but it also wasn't town. A misunderstanding can occur when you're either alignment - I don't consider it alignment indicative. The fact that he wasn't misrepping me here doesn't get rid of the stuff I've picked up on him doing in the past.

idk but that's not why I feel like collapsing

Tip: When you can't remember how many games you're in, you're in too many.

----

I do not like Admiral's SK case. It seems like he's going for the low-hanging fruit, so to speak. He targeted a lurker who was on the verge of replacement and was most likely either going to come back and post very little or be replaced, which makes it impossible for the replacement to defend past actions of the slot. The case popped out of no where as SK was being replaced, and that makes me uneasy.

Something interesting that I've noticed about krew is that he has basically sheeped the entire game.
- he jumped on cheery after rob made his meta case on him
- he "super hos'd" gg after he was put -1 (note: he never actually got on the wagon)
- jumped on lincolm day 2 (i.e. after lynch 1), after rob had voted him
- although he had voted me previously (without giving any reason at the time mind you) he became more enthusiastic after rob had voted me

In order:

- You did too.
- Would you rather he hammer? What's the significance of him not joining the wagon when it's at L-1.
- I'll concede this. This was a bit odd.
- I read that as a direct response to your #188, not a response to my vote.

A few other of his posts give me bad vibes as well.

unvote

can you link me to some of your scum games, particularly ones you got lynched in early?

Why the unvote?

I don't like the question here, as if he wanted grey to remain at -1.

Questioning an unexplained unvote is not scummy. It's forcing people to be accountable for their voting as well as trying to see the process by which they're developing reads, which are both things that can be town motivated.

Why would you put him back to L-1? Didn't you unvote off of L-1 earlier?

(to rob)
I don't like this either. He said he was happy to lynch gg/put him at -1 so why was he questioning other people who were doing the same?

He wasn't questioning the fact that a random someone put GG at L-1. He was specifically questioning

ME

that

I

put GG at L-1 when I unvoted off of L-1 earlier. He was questioning a flip-flop on my part with regards to whether GG should be at L-1. This is a fine question.

Hey Siv, why is grey scum?

This is completely hypocritical because sleepy himself never gave a reason why he wanted to lynch grey.

Eh. Hypocritical, yes. Scummy, no. His meta shows that he does this as town.

Furthermore his case on me came way, way too late, and he has been hard-lurking since (note: he has been posted quite a bit elsewhere whilst ignoring this game for the most part)

He replaced out, so this is now a null tell.


-----

In general, this case is not substantial and seems more to me like an attempt to push an easy lynch close to deadline when the slot can't properly defend itself due to pending replacement.

[Rob14]

Why, Empking? Who on the wagon do you think is scum? Give us reads. Do something. kthxbye

[Rob14]

For the record, by reads, I meant reads that you support with cases. You know, with quotes and stuff.

(At least you gave A reason besides gut, that's a start!)

I know, right?

[Rob14]

Are you willing to disclose who you are an alt of?

[Rob14]

As for SK, well, I agreed with his reasons

and I gave my own

.

Not so much. You took the majority of your post to explain why your original town read on him wasn't as strong as you thought, not to explain why he was scummy. You tossed in some weak reasoning in the sentence before the vote. As for the reasoning you did provide, I don't find it that scummy. Fluff from him isn't scummy because SK just seems like a lazy player all the time. Look at some of his past games. He often gives unexplained votes and doesn't bother giving reasoning or contributing all that much.

Before someone complains about a contradiction that isn't there (looking at you, ThAd), this is in sharp contrast with the way Lincolm normally plays because Lincolm doesn't tend to post fluff in the other places I've seen him play, which is why I considered the fluff from him suspect in combination with the other things about this first post.

The only other original reason you gave was that he delayed his ThAd case. Again, that's the laziness showing. Beyond that, it seems he didn't have much time to put into this game in general. See his unintentional replace-out (as evidenced by the after-replacement post). That wasn't scummy.

I just don't get all the hub-bub about SK. Is he the towniest of townies? Hell no. But he hasn't done anything to make me think he's scum and he has done little things here and there to give me the weakest of town reads on him.

[Rob14]

VOTE: voided

wat

And why should that bother me much?

This game, he hasn't done anything. This game, he hasn't often explained his votes. This game, he hasn't contributed.

This game, he has been acting anti-town at best. Past games do not matter. (If you haven't gotten the memo already, I'm not one to be held to meta.)

You have a player who does exactly what you've complained about him doing (i.e. nothing) all the time, regardless of his alignment. If you lynch him every time for doing this, you'll be wrong the majority of the times. You can argue over how effective meta can be in some situations, but this really isn't one of them. His past games very clearly show that he does the exact behavior he's doing now in both alignments. Null tell.

[Rob14]

If you grant that he's been this way in past town games, then that shows that he acts this way as town and therefore the action isn't inherently scummy when used by him. If you're still pushing for a lynch after that, then you're trying to policy lynch based on his actions, not actually determine his alignment.

[Rob14]

ISO Lincolm and look at his catch-up post. That's been a topic of some debate.

[Rob14]

Oh, missed page 22.

You need to read those walls because it's highly important for getting a read on me and ThAd.

Don't replace in if you don't want to read stuff...

[Rob14]

It's his #153.

Can't succeed if you don't try to read....you need to read to get any insight at all and then you can work from there.

[Rob14]

that doesn't look like an omgus at all

hint: you were not who I was going after

If I'm not mistaken, the bolded was his explanation, Voided. It wasn't very thorough, but it was there and I can easily infer what he was doing from it.

[Rob14]

So...that doesn't really explain anything anyways? Like who it was for, what he was wanting, etc.?

I'm not saying that he explained it well, but I wasn't sure if you noticed it because you never really acknowledged it. If you did, I missed it.

@mollie - You do need to explain the reasoning behind your Voided vote much more. To refuse to do so is extraordinarily anti-town and scummy. I do not think Voided has done anything at all here that warrants your vote to still be on him. Requesting explanation for a sudden vote is not scummy in the slightest.

[Rob14]

anti-town does not equate scumminess hth

Never said it did. They're different things, but not mutually exclusive. The action is both anti-town and scummy.

I want to see your examples.

[Rob14]

I literally understand

less

now than before I asked the question.
Anyone else?

I know what he's saying.

You've said that one of the reasons you think Cheery is town is because he reached your conclusion with different reasoning.

He's claiming that him reaching the same conclusion as you shouldn't be a town-tell before your conclusion (me) flips scum because it could still possible be scum-Cheery hopping on the wagon you started with different reasoning to get a townie lynched.

Make sense?

[Rob14]

He's more or less arguing my point of view in forming reads, in my opinion. You shouldn't allow your read on Cheery to be influenced just because he's voting your scum-read because your scum-read hasn't flipped yet. You can't be sure they're scum.

[Rob14]

^^By the way, that last post was a slight leap of logic, but I think it's correct from what Cheery's wrote. If I got that wrong, let me know Cheery.

[Rob14]

And suddenly Mollie grows quiet.

This is not accurate. She was quiet for like 12 hours. That's not even remotely against site meta wrt time between posts. If you had said this to me, my response would have been essentially "lol" as well, because it's a rather absurd point to make.

Mollie - You've already announced that you were looking for reactions with your Voided vote, so you aren't going to get any more reactions. Tell us what you expected to see, what you did see, and your conclusions BEFORE the day is over.

[Rob14]

28 hours to deadline....please either vote the leading wagon on ThAd or clearly explain why you do not think doing so is a good idea AND provide a viable alternative.

[Rob14]

Wall of previously posted ThAd reasoning by various players:

ThAdmiral -

WEAK SCUM

I've been suspicious of ThAdmiral for quite a while, and I've posted a decent amount in the past about him. Check out my #55 for my earliest suspicions of him, which were refined in #66. Moving on from there, we have post #187 where he waters down my suspicions of Siv and Lincolm in order to dismiss them. The most blatant straw man I've seen yet on this site, as I said in my #189. He's also tunneled on me in a way I do not typically see from town. He's claimed contradictions and lies where there are clearly none and he's ignored a fair amount of my posts when they aren't easy to explain away. I explain some of this in my #344 and #348.

I'm not calling this a strong read because I'm having difficulty figuring out the scum motivation behind pushing my lynch so hard when it could blow up in his face when I flip town. He could have tried giving Voided a slight push towards taking over the wagon once he joined it, but as is, he's held no reservations about taking the front on this wagon. This is his wagon and he will most likely be held accountable for its result. I'm not getting why scum would do something that could spectacularly blow up in thier faces Day 2.

But "destroying my fauzcase" =/= "calling out why my post was bad"

vote: grey

unvote: everyone but grey

Seeming very confident that grey is scum. Putting him at L-1.

unvote

can you link me to some of your scum games, particularly ones you got lynched in early?

Oh suddenly doubts.

I've seen that statement (the "when I die, the people are attacking me are town"), and similar ones, a lot more from town than from scum. I do want to check his meta, however, to see if he pulls gambits like this when scum.

If you actually cared, you would have done this prior to putting him at L-1.

Reviewed gg's meta.
I note that he is happy to make gambits when close to lynch as scum:
- he voted himself in open 437
- in Name of the wind he said he would be happy if he were targeted by the rolecop, and pleaded with the town to lynch someone else first and then lynch him if the person flipped town
- voted himself to -1 early in the game in open 454

He also seems pretty good at faking the sort of defeatist stuff town say when they know they are going to be lynched, so his 97 is not necessarily the towntell I thought it was.

@ grey: I browsed through some of your town games and you didn't seem to gambit anywhere near as much. Do you have examples of town games in which you pulled gambits (such as self-voting, fake-claiming, acting scummy/beligerant to get attention/responses etc.)

Again, should have been done prior to L-1.

To be honest right now I am leery of the lynch because there has been so little opposition/pushing of alternatives. I understand that with only two scum it would be dangerous to try to defend your partner if they were in danger of being lynched so this doesn't apply as well as to a game where there is a larger scumteam, but I am wary nonetheless.

Look at this backpedal. Just look at it. He went from unvoting and asking for meta to being "leery" due to no other cases, even though the same was true when he put grey to L-1. Very noncommittal WIFOM here.


All done with posts prior to the grey lynch. Now I need to see what this ruckus with Rob is all about.

Why, Empking? Who on the wagon do you think is scum? Give us reads. Do something. kthxbye

I'm always giving reads. It's like the only think I post. The people I think are scum are VM and Thad who are playing squash to control the lynch and get not-them lynched (the collapse of your wagon being followed almost immediately by the rise of SK's is the best illustration).

Look at the Rob wagon, look at the unvoting of the Rob wagon, look at the SK wagon. You can also see the Siv wagon.

I don't think the Siv wagon means much since that's from early game, but I can see the Rob wagon and dropping off seemingly just from Rob doing the complete post of his reads.

UNVOTE: Kuribo
VOTE: ThAdmiral

Also in the weakness of his town read on me. Going after the same person with slightly different reasons (which aren't even agreed with) doesn't make sense for a top town read.

[Rob14]

Rob, if you have a weak scum read on both ThAd and Cheery Dog, why aren't you voting for both of them. Is it because your read on Cheery has changed?

It's because I want to concentrate on viable lynch targets with like a day left on our deadline. Cheery is not one of them for today. With one day left, the proper play is to vote on an established wagon. Also, I'm not a huge fan of the unlimited votes thing, to be honest. I prefer one. It was novel for the first few days, but now I majorly understand why this isn't a mechanic in every game.

My read of Cheery is still lean scum.

[Rob14]

^Why?

[Rob14]

Empking is that he called a thad/voided team, and now have both flipped town.

And you think he would want to highlight that his push on Ad/Void was entirely incorrect by killing Void? That literally makes no sense. I don't think you're doing kill analysis. You targeted two of the weaker players in the game currently (Kuribo because he just replaced in, empking because he doesn't post all that much and had both his scum targets flip town). You weren't even able to back up the Kuribo vote and the empking rationale makes no sense. You targeted the weak players because they're weak.

This + what I posted yesterday about Cheery =

Vote: Cheery

Also, HD - Why did you not allow ThAd to get final thoughts in? That's extraordinarily anti-town...

[Rob14]

Vote: Human

because wht is up with that kill.

Does "kill" refer to the lynch of ThAd or the NK of Void?

[Rob14]

Have you fully read the entire game yet HD?

[Rob14]

Actually, that isn't really a misrep, imo. It's the first thing I noticed when I read your post, HD. I'm not getting your points against Mollie.

[Rob14]

This is what I get for sleeping. The thread explodes. Catching up starting...wait for it...NOW!

#628 - This is actually very, very possible from looking at mollie's ISO. Holding off any votes for most recent vote count, but if people weren't prolifically posting, I would probably shift votes to Mollie/empking right here. Kuribo looking town as well based on his thought process here.

#629 - lol

#634 - What? HD dropped his Cheery vote with no explanation to hop on board the latest double-wagon of which he doesn't care which is lynched, presumably. I'm leaning VI on this one, but seriously, wat?

#636 - That seals the deal. Mollie is our lynch today. First of all, we cannot agree that empking is cleared by being the thrid vote on a mislynch. That is just lol. It might not be a good scumtell, and I don't think it is to be honest, but it doesn't clear someone as def-town. That's just plain silly. Then the bit at the end of the post about "woah is us, this setup makes it hard for town to win at this point. OH THE HUMANITY!" is so non-genuine that it's laughable.

up to #656 - Haven't commented on any posts in a while, but mollie is flailing, kuribo is town, and Cheery could possibly be bussing at this point.

#658 - Useless post is useless. Why aren't you commenting on the mollie-flailing after your original votes? You're awfully silent...this makes me worried about you.

#661 - lolno. Why does that make him town?

#668 - This, on the other hand, definitely makes him look scummy.

up to #675 - Yeah, kuribo's so town.

Conclusion:

Intent to hammer mollie.

She is so ObvScum this day it hurts.

[Rob14]

Oops, I dun goofed.

Next to #668, it was supposed to read town, not scummy.

[Rob14]

Mollie, final thoughts and reads please. I stated intent to hammer in my last post.

[Rob14]

Vote: Empking

For some really, really weird interactions with mollie since the time she replaced in. I'll try to get a case up later, which will probably be tomorrow.

[Rob14]

I want to hammer, but it's probably better to not do it yet. (since rob wants a case for something we already all believe is likely)

But hurrah for us even if we lose for doing the best in a saulres game.

This post...

Now I'm not so sure who is scum between {Empking, Cheery}. Mollie's interactions with empking are downright bad, and since empking is practically unreadable in this game, I think those interactions are the best way to read him.

But Cheery just keeps coming in with these types of scummy posts.

First line seems downright annoyed that I want to post a case. Why would town be annoyed that I want to flesh out a read? Scum on the other hand would be annoyed coming off their partner being lynched and possibly a bit ticked that my call for fleshing out the read is delaying the potentially quick mislynch.

Second bit is commenting on how good/bad a kill was for the town. That's a fairly standard scumtell. I'm unsure whether I believe that there are really any correct "standard" tells, but I know that what Cheery posted does not read as genuine to me.

Now I'm conflicted.

Unvote

for now.

[Rob14]

I write cases half to convince others of what I think and half to work things out in my head. This is why I've also started giving a lot of detail when I write reads lists recently, like the one earlier this game. It helps me work out my thoughts and make sure that I'm going in the right direction. I don't like to do a major wagon without it because when I go to write up a case, I could always find something that makes the person look town, and then that could change my read. It's my way of double-checking to see if my read was made in error.

rob is sitting out as being too town.

That's silly reasoning, and you know it.

[Rob14]

ie with both scum at L-1 and with herself as the obvious lynch anyway, she could have hammered "Emp-town," and just allowed herself to be the second lynch of the day while ensuring her buddy lives into night.

but she hammered herself because Empking is that buddy

Hadn't thought of that at all. That makes very perfect sense.

Vote: empking

L-1. Probably won't write a case now because I can't see anything upsetting my read in the face of the evidence that kuribo brought to the table. It would just waste my time at this point.

[Rob14]

There were specific things in past days that that mollie said in relation to empking that stuck out to me as associative when I looked at her ISO. That was what I had planned to look at and write a case on. It would be from before the last day.

I'm fine with it, kuribo.

[Rob14]

As I said, it wasn't entirely for convincing others. It was also to work my thoughts out and ensure that I had got things right. Writing down my thoughts helps me to form better and more comprehensive reads.

[Rob14]

I hadn't developed that type of play yet in NY 159 or Mini 1398, so you were correct the first time when you said that I was writing them to convince others. I can't reference you to any games other than this one where I've started to write things as much for myself as others, because the game that led to me developing this style of play is still ongoing and I've only used the strategy in other ongoing games so far. If one of them ends before this game does, I'll circle back and explain this more if necessary.

[Rob14]

Question, Cheery. If you're okay with the hammer, why didn't you cast it or state intent to? I just realized you weren't currently voting and that seems weird to me.

[Rob14]

Fair enough, didn't know those details of your meta.

[Rob14]

Vote: Cheery Dog

[Rob14]

In short, I suppose I should have just raged as always.

No. You played a great game from the second you replaced in. The kill was an obvious choice because you were ObvTown and were probably smart enough to figure out it was me.

@HD - In 3p LyLo, you never vote early because one bad vote can lead to scum quick-hammering, which is what happened here. Your pre-conceived notions coming into LyLo don't matter as far as this goes. LyLo is the one time where you should probably use all the time given to you (or most of it at least) in the deadline, even if you're 95% sure you know who the scum is. The only exception is when claims clear a person or you have a cop-guilty on someone, but neither of those came into play here.

@Mod - Just so you know, what I meant in the scum QT was that it seemed to me like checking online statuses was more mod action than holding the submission of my action until a certain time, which is why I thought you would be more likely to be willing to do the latter. I did a piss poor job of communicating this, though, and I probably shouldn't have tried to communicate my opinion at all because, in hindsight, it came across as calling out your decision. I apologize for this.

[Rob14]

@Kuribo - Try to find a happy medium by playing aggressively but civilly. I like to play aggressively most of the time (this game was somewhat of an exception after the first lynch because I was on defense for a large portion of the game and then trying to lay somewhat low). I make sure never to get to the point of screaming or insulting players, though. Aggressiveness finds scum better than being passive, in my experience, but you reach a point where becoming any more aggressive (screaming, insulting, etc) just makes people filter you out. You want to fit in just a little before that point.

P-edit: I was telling the truth, Cheery, and I was so unbelievably frustrated that I had no way to prove it. I was trying to defend myself without looking like scum caught for the wrong reasons, but I was having a hard time doing so. I'm amazed that you didn't call me out as being caught for the wrong reasons because in hind-sight I didn't respond to your pressure well.

Where did I react weirdly with Siv?

[Rob14]

By the way, the lack of deadline extension on the first day was a good call. The replacements had 72 hours, which is enough time. They had both caught up as much as they ever really did by the end of the deadline. I would have been kind of pissed if the deadline had been extended. I am admittedly biased on this, though.

[Rob14]

Oh also those little blurb things at the top of votecounts were amusing

Saulres for best flavor text (if scummie noms weren't closed).

Also, who's bright idea was it to start posting walls in the dead QT? Like seriously. What in the flying fuck.

[Rob14]

I still think optimal scum strategy would have been for mollie to hammer Empking and make us work harder for her lynch

I agree. Her hammering empking would be a 100% guaranteed empking kill. She did a great job of buddying up to empking, but leaving him alive still leaves the remote chance that he'll weasel his way out of being lynched. It leaves something up to chance when it just isn't necessary.

[Rob14]

^Which is why I would have liked him to have posted something.

Yeah, lol.

[Rob14]

You should all go sign up for Open 475 because it has me in it and I'm awesome. (but mostly because I'm in the mod queue for opens and I want to reach the top more quickly)

[Rob14]

Saulres for best flavor text (if scummie noms weren't closed).

OH HEY. Just realized the 2013 Scummie Nominations are already opened. I've went ahead and nominated Saulres for best flavor text. This is by far the best I've ever seen flavor done outside of a theme game, and it beats most theme games too. The Zombie-related factoids in the vote counts were funny and had me cracking up at time.

By the way:

I can't believe I didn't mention Urban Dead, an online MMO about a zombie apocalypse that's free, easy, and fun to play. Or at least it was when I played it years ago.

This game sucks, you liar. I played it years ago and it was terri-bad.

[Rob14]

Yeah, we made a good team.