Marvel Avengers Alliance - Game over

[Squirrel Girl]

Vote: Yates

Edit: Gah
Edit Edit: Gah, gah!

[Squirrel Girl]

[Squirrel Girl]

Maybe he's Dr. Decibel.

[Squirrel Girl]

I almost went with Dr. Bong, but figured that was too esoteric. Can I claim Howard the Duck though? I should have called dibs on Howard. I'm softclaiming 'Quak-fu' it's a one shot power, anyone who tries to night kill me ends up feeling awkward and silly.

[Squirrel Girl]

The worst Marvel character...Turner D. Century? US Archer? Bird Brain?

[Squirrel Girl]

Rufflig looks town.

I feel like this begs explanation. I don't think he's done anything indicative of alignment. What am I overlooking?

[Squirrel Girl]

It's amazing how far one can go in the RVS with people 'randomly' not managing to place a second vote on a given player.

[Squirrel Girl]

Vote: Bulba Fenix

Hi-diddly-dee, a wagon it doth be!

[Squirrel Girl]

Sheeping is convenient. -for scum. How about I promise to vote exactly opposite on every one that you vote for except for the times that I come to the conclusion on my own that I should vote on the same person that you are voting for. And even then, it will be voting in opposition.

[Squirrel Girl]

Rufflig looks town.

I feel like this begs explanation. I don't think he's done anything indicative of alignment. What am I overlooking?

His early posts, particularly this one:

It was a reference to the show called "The Awesomes" (catch it on Hulu - it's quite good), Aronis. The main character of which is Professor Doctor Jeremy "Prock"

Awesome

.

I must bow to Squirrel Girl's superior knowledge of comic book minutiae.

all felt quite relaxed and "bantery". Doesn't seem at all nervous or forced.

I was the one bantering with him - did my banter seem nervous and/or forced?

Vote: Mozamis

If I'm right then Ruffling is probably obv. town also.

[Squirrel Girl]

Why are you so quiet this game Squirrel?

I don't think I have been. The game has been open for about three days. Not counting this post I have 10 posts, meaning I'm posting about 3.5 posts a day. I am the 5th most active player in the game from post count according to the little counter thing meaning there are 19 people I'm being more active then and making me top 25% for activity. I think you're actually just being silly or paranoid in thinking I'm quiet - or are applying unreasonable standards to how active I normally am.

Why do you think I'm so quiet, and how do you draw that conclusion?

[Squirrel Girl]

In our last game you seemed sorta spammy. Talk to me about Yates and Piggey.

How did I seem spammy? In this game, at the point you called me out, I had 10 posts in 3 days. Last game we played together I took 8 days to get 10 posts. Looking at my habits I appear to post, on average, about 2-3 comments a day unless I get into something. That is all exactly in line with what I'm doing here. So, again, where are you getting this vibe from,a nd is there any actual value in it in your opinion? Or is it a fake presentation you're pushing on me?

I don't particularly have any read on Yates or Pidgey. I would call them both null. I don't agree with the scum case on Yates, but I don't think he's done anything townish either. I don't have much of anything to off Pidgey on, but will admit to a slight gut townish on him moreso than Yates simply because he appears to be trying to scumhunt right out the gate which Yates did not. I would neithe rparticularly support nor oppose either being lynched at this stage.

What's your read on those two, and what would you like to talk about?
Also, what's your read on Mozamis?

[Squirrel Girl]

It's amazing how far one can go in the RVS with people 'randomly' not managing to place a second vote on a given player.

You could have fixed this, deary, by voting one of the players already voted at that point in time.

That's probably why I was voting one of them at that time, sweetie-poo dearie, and had done so quite quickly as soon as the opportunity presented itself.

I know it sounds like a stupid point but it actually

does

have too many smilies and its disconcerting. It feels false/trying to appease.

I'mma gonna be in trouble this game.

So... noticing that someone is trying to hyper-meta and subsequently pointing that out isn't scum hunting to you? Conversely, care to share which of pidgey's posts looks like scum hunting to you? I checked his ISO. It's short. It's also pretty devoid of anything I recognize as scum hunting so it really begs the question about how you arrived at this determination...

No, I don't find pointing out the hyper meta to be scumhunting. Functionally you were attacked and defended yourself. Defense isn't scumhunting. I don't find this act scummy either, defending from an attack is pretty null, but it's not scumhunting. You rolled in and defended yourself and then spent some time trading barbs.

I would say his iso is about 50% scumhunting, and I feel like you know this because when you quoted his iso you cherry picked the front half and ignored the back half. I found him giving early town reads, clarifying a scum read without prompting and poking at someone to all be indicitive of scumhunting. No, it is not a town tell to follow to the ends of the Earth, but it is scumhunting and is certainly enough effort to have the read I expressed on him.

Why do you have such issue with this read that you're attacking so aggressively?

It is to scum's advantage to push wagons?

It is to scum's advantage to push wagons that are not on them or their team.
It is to town's advantage to push wagons that are not on them or their team.
One side has a bit of an easier time knowing which is which.

[Squirrel Girl]

so you understand that emoticons, excessive friendliness, and terms of endearment like "sweetie-poo dearie" will be seen as scummy, yet you amp it up and make a mention of how you're going to be in trouble this game

You're drawing attention to yourself, so then you can say "oh no I'm not scummy, that's just the way I post". Why? To get people off of pidgey?

One thing's for sure, what you're doing is anti-town, and it seems delibrate. Explain yourself please.

I'm aware that one person made a comment that they found excessive smilies to be a scumtell and said I'd be in trouble. A glance at any of my other games should show that my "smilie usage amount" is pretty consistent and constant, and I was making a joke about that. I am not aware of anyone calling 'excessive friendliness and terms of endearment' to be scummy. If the former...well, that person is probably just a sad person. And if the latter then they'll lynch the syrup lady long before they lynch me, so at least I'll have warning about it and can change my ways.

I don't think using smilies, being friendly, or using cutsey names is "anti-town" and reject your question based on that being a ridiculous stance to even take. I might as well suggest that everyone who is snarky, sarcastic, or rude is anti-town, and I would have probably more validity to the claim, but it would still be wrong.

Except if you actually read the posts, you'll see that my beef it isn't a defense - it's noticing meta. I would have said pretty much the same thing if he did this to about three other people off the top of my head. So, again, you're just wrong.

I can understand that's your stance. I disagree with you.

I "cherry picked" the front half because you said he was scumhunting "right out the gate" and his first 4 posts [you know - the ones "out the gate"] were zero content and an RVS vote. We also obviously define scum

hunting

quite differently. Giving reads without context is not the same as advancing the game. And I'm not saying this because I have a scum read [or any read] on pidgey but specifically because you are making claims that do not hold up under scrutiny. This is pertinent because this is what ACTUAL scum hunting looks like and I was afraid you wouldn't recognize it.

Further, I asked you point blank for specific posts that indicated pidgey "scum hunting" to you and you failed to do so. There are only two qualified statements in his entire ISO, in fact, and those are simply qualifying a read on displaced. So how you quantify that as "50% scumhunting" remains a mystery.

Okay...let's be specific for you then.

Post 125 is scumhunting - he is taking stances and pressing scum reads.
Post 135 is scumhunting - he is presenting a stance and seeking reactions.
Post 136 is scumhunting - he is clarifying a read and providing reasoning.

He has a grand total of 7 posts. I feel that calling 3 of them scumhunting qualifies me to call it 50% though I will agree the specific math would be 42.857%
I do find your presentation to be cherry picking since all of his posts came on the same day and within 4 hours but you apparently decided that only the first half were "out of the gate" That was a sketchy distinction to make and looked like you trying to massage the evidence to fit your claims.

I don't care about the reads right now - I just want to know how you claim to have arrived at them. I want to know because I'm not following your purported logic. Any statements you have made that I have inquired about are problematic for me because I don't understand your posts or motivation. If I don't understand those two very important things then I can't read you. If I can't read you AND I disagree with your reads? I want you dead. Because like any good Renaissance Man, I fear what I do not understand. That's just how I roll.

I feel you're more excited to attack me than to try to figure out what I'm thinking. I believe this is shown in your theatrics and cherry picking. Like, take the "out of the gate" thing. You apparently decided that could only mean his first 3 posts for some reason...why? What lead you to that? There's no reason to believe that and 'out of the gate' hardly means I couldn't be assessing all of his posts (which were all made in one day in a short span of time) as his out of the gate posting. But you didn't even care to ask me what I meant, you drew your own conclusion for what I meant and attacked it immediately - and even the attack. i have called Pidgey null with a very slight town lean as compared to another null read.

That's...not exactly a "this is town!" call. That is a null read that is more town than a different null read call. Yet, somehow, you want me to try to make and defend a case for calling one null read more townish than another?

It doesn't make sense to me - please clarify why this deserved to be attacked since you apparently don't even find him scummy?

[Squirrel Girl]

Vote: Yates

And I'm here now too.

[Squirrel Girl]

I know you don't think it's anti-town or scummy. But you know that other people do think that. So why would you want to draw attention to it? I can't think of any town motivation.

Again, let's clarify that only one item on your list of three is possible for me to be treating in this way - and I find it odd you're not defending your stance or agreeing with mine on that point. Secondly, people think wagoning is scummy - I still wagon. People think asking too many questions is scummy - I still ask a lot of questions. People think posting pictures is scummy - I still post pictures. Just because I'm aware that people have issues with something doesn't meant hat I agree with them nor that I will immediately adjust my play for them, because my play does seem to work (except for getting people to listen to me - apparently ).

I didn't have town or scum motivation in the comment I did. The comment was a joke - if anything it was a motivation to suggest that his playstyle is silly. That could come from me regardless of my alignment because I do find it silly as a tell. It's about the same line as saying someone who doesn't use capital letters is scummy.

also I love the progression from this:

Except if you actually read the posts, you'll see that my beef it isn't a defense - it's noticing meta. I would have said pretty much the same thing if he did this to about three other people off the top of my head. So, again, you're just wrong.

I can understand that's your stance. I disagree with you.

to this:

Vote: Yates

And I'm here now too.

from "you're wrong but I see why you would think that" to "you're scum" in two posts.

I feel you ignored the bulk of the rest of that post, wherein I did not express much agreement with Yates or what he was doing. If you go back and read that I tink the progression will make a lot more sense to you. Let me know if it doesn't and I'll point out things for you to help you understand why I think he's scum.

[Squirrel Girl]

As of this post I will have 12 posts. They are all written in English and fairly succinct for the amount of information they each posses. Feel free to read them and arrive at your own conclusions. I don't mean to be a prick but if I'm going to run up and down squirrel's back for having poor reads, and I'm going to call into question the efficacy of pidgey's scum hunting without providing reasons for reads, I certainly can't provide you with any more information than what I have already presented you with in order to enable you to come to your own conclusions.

[Squirrel Girl]

I pretty much agree that squirrel girl calling me a super scum hunter for my first posts is weird

I agree, that would have been weird as heck for me to do.

[Squirrel Girl]

Do you still have a scumread on Moz?

Yeppers!

[Squirrel Girl]

My guess is alt account, and at that stage the conversation is already a dead end. I dealt with that one myself for a while...I may still be dealing with it, honestly, but I think I'm starting to have people react to me as me and not my other account.

[Squirrel Girl]

At least I stopped them from calling you sakura!

That is true. I think I became someone else at that stage though. Frankly, I'm not sure if there's a female on site that I haven't been called, denied being that player, and then have the accusser decide to read me as that player regardless and start asking me to defend how I'm not playing to my main's meta.

The joke will be on them in 2015 when I finally reveal...I'M A MAN!

[Squirrel Girl]

Do you still have a scumread on Moz?

Yeppers!

k y?

Basically using double standards in his reads. i don't actually think he's doing that, mind, I think he's faking reads - which gives the appearance of double standards because he's just tossing out things to justify stances. But calling it 'double standards' basically gets across what I mean.

[Squirrel Girl]

- The main crux of my problem with you is that I didn't think you were being consistent with YOUR standards.
- You claim you saw pidgey scum hunting out of the gate.
- I challenged you on that.
- You were unable to adequately justify your stance because you were just tossing out posts that you claim indicated pidgey was scum hunting.
- Pidgey has since come in and basically said, "I have not yet begun to scum hunt." [click spoiler for exact words]

Spoiler:

I pretty much agree that squirrel girl calling me a super scum hunter for my first posts is weird lol dunno if its town or scum but it does look like trying to get allies and getting on my good side?

- So pidgey wasn't scum hunting [by his own admission], I was and continue to be scum hunting, and you appear to have faked reads on my slot and pidgey's slot.

THAT is where we are at. Ball is in your court.

1. Okay.
2. Yes, I did claim this.
3. Yes, you challenged me on it.
4. I guess I was unable to do so in your opinion, but feel I did justify my stance.
5. Actually his post doesn't say that he wasn't scumhunting at ll - that's either you trying to read into it a lot or just sort of twisting his words and choosing to run with it.
6. Pidgey was scum hunting. I don't think you were. I did not fake my reads.

The ball has already left my court because I'm voting you and continue to be pretty happy with that vote. I think you're pretty wildly trying to rephrase the nature of the debate because I'm on to something with you, and that makes me more focused on my vote. It's especially good for me because now people can click that spoiler and see what you're calling "basically saying that he's not scumhunting" and should be able to draw their own, very clear, opinions about which of us is looking fake in what they're selling.

[Squirrel Girl]

Quite frankly, Yates, you not noticing how badly Pidgey is misunderstanding what I said about him, and then using that as part of a case on me, looks like rock solid PROOF that you're scum.

Let's make the day about that.

[Squirrel Girl]

Lets not. The pissing matches between you and Yates and Nero and Yates are primarily semantic and definition-based in your case

I disagree with this. Please do me a favor - go read the spoilered text in Yate's last post and then read what he says it says. Then come back and tell me if you think he's dealing straight with his stated stance on what it's saying. I don't think it's an issue with definitions, I think it's a pretty obvious presented mistruth, but would like your thoughts on it.

[Squirrel Girl]

Didn't someone mention that's pretty in line with Umbrage's playstyle? Or is your stance that he's doing so to fake said style? Or did you not consider that issue?

[Squirrel Girl]

Umbrage tends to give early town reads that cause him trouble later in the games. It looks like he seriously cares about mislynching and is reducing the number of wagonable suspects.

Actually, maybe that doesn't include 'weird town reads' just generically town reads. So I recalled that wrong. I don't find Umbrage's town call for XXCYD any more or less thin than any of his other town calls though - just as a compare/contrast consideration.

[Squirrel Girl]

pidgey essentially had said that he thought your assessment of him being a "super scum hunter" was inaccurate, and Yates had said that he had said that he wasnt scumhunting. This is an inaccurate statement based on what pigdey had said but it is the kind of exaggeration that I expect from Yates when he is frustrated based upon my previous games with him.

Okay...but, now go with me here, I actually never said *anything* like "Pidgey is a super scum hunter". Pidgey, as Yates must be well aware, was already exaggerating the issue - then Yates exaggerated the exaggeration and acted like I was a dip-head for disagreeing with him about it. Yates had already exaggerated stuff, and I took that in stride, but to exaggerate on a gross exaggeration as part of his case? No, this isn't just a habit, this is an agenda.

[Squirrel Girl]

I don't particularly have any read on Yates or Pidgey. I would call them both null. I don't agree with the scum case on Yates, but I don't think he's done anything townish either. I don't have much of anything to off Pidgey on, but will admit to a slight gut townish on him moreso than Yates simply because he appears to be trying to scumhunt right out the gate which Yates did not.

Just for reference - this is what I actually said, and this is what Yates took exception to.

[Squirrel Girl]

I feel you ignored the bulk of the rest of that post, wherein I did not express much agreement with Yates or what he was doing. If you go back and read that I tink the progression will make a lot more sense to you. Let me know if it doesn't and I'll point out things for you to help you understand why I think he's scum.

I read the rest of the post but would still like you to explain the progression of your thoughts.

Spoiler: Hidden wall with explanation of my thought process in the post

Except if you actually read the posts, you'll see that my beef it isn't a defense - it's noticing meta. I would have said pretty much the same thing if he did this to about three other people off the top of my head. So, again, you're just wrong.

I can understand that's your stance. I disagree with you.

This is basically him wanting to nitpick a debate with me as regards whether his defense post also qualified as scumhunting. I really didn't care much one way or the other and saw no real win in havving the debate as obviously neither of us were going to cede our stances. Therefore I just accepted that was one way to look at what he did. It was not my way, but it is a potentially truthful interpretation. I did take pains to note that I didn't agree with it - I just chose not to debate it. Later you and Umbrage will somehow take this as a town call and call my vote weird...

I "cherry picked" the front half because you said he was scumhunting "right out the gate" and his first 4 posts [you know - the ones "out the gate"] were zero content and an RVS vote. We also obviously define scum

hunting

quite differently. Giving reads without context is not the same as advancing the game. And I'm not saying this because I have a scum read [or any read] on pidgey but specifically because you are making claims that do not hold up under scrutiny. This is pertinent because this is what ACTUAL scum hunting looks like and I was afraid you wouldn't recognize it.

Further, I asked you point blank for specific posts that indicated pidgey "scum hunting" to you and you failed to do so. There are only two qualified statements in his entire ISO, in fact, and those are simply qualifying a read on displaced. So how you quantify that as "50% scumhunting" remains a mystery.

Okay...let's be specific for you then.

Post 125 is scumhunting - he is taking stances and pressing scum reads.
Post 135 is scumhunting - he is presenting a stance and seeking reactions.
Post 136 is scumhunting - he is clarifying a read and providing reasoning.

He has a grand total of 7 posts. I feel that calling 3 of them scumhunting qualifies me to call it 50% though I will agree the specific math would be 42.857%
I do find your presentation to be cherry picking since all of his posts came on the same day and within 4 hours but you apparently decided that only the first half were "out of the gate" That was a sketchy distinction to make and looked like you trying to massage the evidence to fit your claims.

However, further into the post there's a HUGE issue to my mind. He is flat out presenting a false case and doing the literal definition of misrepping, which is to present only part of the info with the express goal as to paint it bad. AsI described, the Pidgey posts happened in 1 day, within 4 hours of each other. I don't even think I posted anywhere inbetween them, meaning I read them all in one go. But, somehow, in Yates' view, it's illogical to call those posts "out of the gate" no, no, no "out of the gate" can ONLY mean the very early intro posts, and CERTAINLY not the later posts that contained...well...y'know, scumhunting.

It's a strategic misrep, and the more I thought about it the less I could see it as an accidental one. I don't think he went into an ISO of 7 posts and just grabbed the first few. he did it on purpose. Then, he crows at me when I "fail" to rebut him. He was trying to set me up.

I don't care about the reads right now - I just want to know how you claim to have arrived at them. I want to know because I'm not following your purported logic. Any statements you have made that I have inquired about are problematic for me because I don't understand your posts or motivation. If I don't understand those two very important things then I can't read you. If I can't read you AND I disagree with your reads? I want you dead. Because like any good Renaissance Man, I fear what I do not understand. That's just how I roll.

I feel you're more excited to attack me than to try to figure out what I'm thinking. I believe this is shown in your theatrics and cherry picking. Like, take the "out of the gate" thing. You apparently decided that could only mean his first 3 posts for some reason...why? What lead you to that? There's no reason to believe that and 'out of the gate' hardly means I couldn't be assessing all of his posts (which were all made in one day in a short span of time) as his out of the gate posting. But you didn't even care to ask me what I meant, you drew your own conclusion for what I meant and attacked it immediately - and even the attack. I have called Pidgey null with a very slight town lean as compared to another null read.

This is a continuation of the realization that I'm not talking to someone who appears interested in understanding where I'm coming from. He's not waiting for my answers. He's not saying "It's interesting that you think he's scumhunting...can you describe what you think is scumhunting?" or even a "I think i did scumhunt because these specific acts will glean for me info - why do you think that's just defense"
No, he's just attacking me. Moreso, he's attacking me over calling him null and Pidgey null with a slight gut town. It doesn't make sense, why in the world would he freak out that I find his play null? Why would he try to attack me over a town read he disagrees with...when the townread is expressed as exceedingly weak and null in nature? Basically, I realized he was trying to call me scum simply because he thought he could bully me and that my play looked weak and exploitable to him. Unless you think I should believe that he's worried scum is lying and fabricating cases to express mild null reads? I mean, y'know, as scum does...

That's...not exactly a "this is town!" call. That is a null read that is more town than a different null read call. Yet, somehow, you want me to try to make and defend a case for calling one null read more townish than another?

It doesn't make sense to me - please clarify why this deserved to be attacked since you apparently don't even find him scummy?

This kind of occured to me at the end and I just tossed it out there, and I address this a bit above, but it's my realization that his stance just makes no sense. After I posted the thought was there rumbling in my head, and that's why I then voted, because I just didn't believe he was shooting straight with me.

That's my thoughts in kind of a play by play during the post, at least as best as I recall them. What's your read on Yates?

[Squirrel Girl]

For the record, if any of you are in North America - lunar eclipse y'all.

[Squirrel Girl]

I can follow. I completely agree with your point about him strategically misrepping you, but I could possibly see that from overzealous town trying to push a case. However your follow up point that he wasn't interested in where you were coming from but was rather just interested in attacking/slandering you makes me lean towards scum on him.

I'm don't want to move my vote currently, but yates is definitely in my suspect pile.

I feel like this is a total tone reverse of how you were talking to me earlier.

2. Of course I picked the first four on purpose. It made your argument look as silly as possible. That's the point.

I was going to actually quote stripe this wall, but on getting to this point I realized debating you is of no value.
Admitting that what you're doing is scummy and that I was right does NOT preclude that it was scummy and I am right. You are claiming scum in thread, and need rope.

I don't really get this. He looked town for his style. He stood out, you didn't.

How do you draw the distinction between what he did and what I did?

[Squirrel Girl]

I "cherry picked" the front half because you said he was scumhunting "right out the gate" and his first 4 posts [you know - the ones "out the gate"]

Here is Yates other reply about the cherry picking. He admits to no cherry picking at all and is DEFENDING that his "out the gate" deal qualifies them as valid quotes.

Compare to today when he's all "well, yeah, I was trying to make you look bad." which he only cottoned to when I made it clear he was trying to misrep the situation.

These are not the same thoughts! This is the cover up.

[Squirrel Girl]

I'd also like to note - he was "trying to make my argument look as silly as possible" when my arguemnet was - Pidgey and Yates are null.

THIS IS SCUM THINKING.

[Squirrel Girl]

I will ask you again - what specifically did I misrepresent?

Are you serious? Like, you don't understand what I've said you misrepresented? Didn't you just admit to doing the misrep (oh, I'm sorry, 'functional counter debate point') in your last post?

But, seriously, you don't know?

[Squirrel Girl]

If your argument was "Pidgey and Yates are null" we wouldn't have had a problem.

But that wasn't your argument, was it?

You said Pidgey is Town because he did X and Yates is not Town because he didn't do X.

I don't particularly have any read on Yates or Pidgey. I would call them both null.

I don't agree with the scum case on Yates, but I don't think he's done anything townish either. I don't have much of anything to off Pidgey on, but

will admit to a slight gut townish on him moreso than Yates

simply because he appears to be trying to scumhunt right out the gate which Yates did not.

[Squirrel Girl]

Stubborn refusal to yield to facts? Scum.

[Squirrel Girl]

SERIOUSLY WHY THE FUCK ARE PEOPLE VOTING YATES

HE'S WRONG AS SHIT BUT THAT DOESN'T MAKE HIM SCUM

What about the

way

that he's wrong? I agree that being wrong doesn't equate to scum - but does he actually go and be wrong like this as town? Like, he cherry picks and intentionally builds bogus cases and acts like it's legit and bully people as town?

[Squirrel Girl]

Yay for reality!

[Squirrel Girl]

THAT SAID, i do still find it a bit weird SG called me town (though apperantly she didnt, or at least she is saying i was null back then now)

I've quoted what I said multiple times. If you can get a quote of me calling you town then I'll defend the accusation that I called you town. I know Yates *wishes* to present that as what I said, but it's provably another mistake/lie/misrep on his part to try to spread misinformation.

[Squirrel Girl]

Is it not too blatantly scum thinking, though?

I don't think so. He chose to attack over a null read to the point of calling it faked - that's because he thought it looked easy to exploit. The way he's going about exploiting it is, I believe, more playstyle, and I'll agree it's blatant and not normal, but I bet it's normal for Yates. But the core logic of why he launched the attack? That's actually pretty subtle and manipulative - and that's the scum mentality at work. the rest is just evidence that it is scum mentality over town mentality.

Ok, So changing the subject, I'm still a little hung up on this guy. Are there some people here who have played with him before?
It really looks like he's flying under the radar here compared to his more active play in other games.

I have.
Currently I don't think he's looked much either way. I don't think he's flown under the radar though, I just think the people above the radar are being loud and, to some degree, spammy, so to be above the radar you have to be squealing pretty loud around here. So I don't think that's a fair aspect of the case.

Is his activity different from his town games though? I haven't noticed but that ould be a valid tell if you had evidence to support the claim.

[Squirrel Girl]

you keep on saying it's intentional bad behaviour, when there is nothing whatsoever to indicate that

I feel that I have described on more than one occasion why I believe it to be intentional. Indeed, my previous post (339 - the one right before yours) has me explaining why I believe it is intentional. Feel free to call my logic bad and stupid, but don't act like I'm not even saying it!

[Squirrel Girl]

I am uncertain how to make any more clear that all I said about Pidgey was that he was null, with more of a gut town lean than another null read of mine. I don't think my comment is remotely unclear about applying a null read to Pidgey at the time.

[Squirrel Girl]

Yates is right about one thing: you do say some weird shit.

What is the tone change?

You went from 'that's a good pickup that ol' SG is having a weird switch in her thoughts' all the way to 'totally follow SG's line of thought'.
You don't think you shifted stances at all?

lookit dat omgus

I actually agree with Pidgey. I think his two comments look quite workable as the same line of thought and don't see the change that Ruffling is talking about. What are your thoughts on this?

[Squirrel Girl]

I happen to think it's not nearly as dramatic a change as it's being made out to be.

I don't even think it's a change.

[Squirrel Girl]

I'm bugged that people are choosing to dismiss how I caught Yates by just calling the conversation "silly" without actually providing any validity to the claim that it's silly.

I CAUGHT SCUM! Why does everyone always ignore me?

[Squirrel Girl]

Why does everyone always ignore me?

Because you are scum. Or because you are pedantic. I'm going to read you based on your performance going forward since apparently [and inexplicably] I'm the only one that makes a distinction between giving reads and scumhunting and that doesn't discount defenses as scumhunting. *shrug*

It's like he's almost sort of admitting to being wrong, and is trying to get a semi-truce called. No deals.

Honestly, from what I remember of playing with Yates, this is exactly the kind of play I expect from him. I understand from your viewpoint this probably looks differently, but I do have a townread on him.

Can you suggest any extra-curricular reading for me to let me see town Yates at play doing similar stuff?

Oh, Rufflig was supposed to be on my scumread list as well, but then I forgot.

VOTE: Rufflig, only major wagon I support.

Catching up, but saw this and have to say if there is a major wagon on rufflig then I think that's a mistake.

My thoughts on this interaction remain the same.

No, I just thought he looked town and you didn't really stand out at that stage.

Can you describe what made his banter stand out or mine boring?

[Squirrel Girl]

[Squirrel Girl]

What is the tone change?

You went from 'that's a good pickup that ol' SG is having a weird switch in her thoughts' all the way to 'totally follow SG's line of thought'.
You don't think you shifted stances at all?

Are you forgetting the whole part where you explained your train of thought? Do you think you did a bad job and that I shouldn't be able to follow your train of thought? In any case I didn't/don't agree with everything you said.

Yeah, but that's the point though. i think all I did was basically re-state what was already contained in that post, and you didn't even seem to buy half of it, but suddenly your demeanor went from 'can lynch SG' to 'pals with SG' it didn't feel like a legit mental shift considering the interaction. That's why I called it out.

It's like he's almost sort of admitting to being wrong, and is trying to get a semi-truce called

Don't press your luck. I'm willing to admit that I don't know wtf you people are thinking saying giving reads = scumhunting while disproving points - even in defense - is not. I also like how you missed the Nero quote where HE claims defending is scumhunting when it was pressed on him in another game but in this one he's pretending like my doing it isn't. So in the interests of sparing this game more of this BS, I'm moving on. You probably should too.

I'll drop it after we drop you from a gallows.

[Squirrel Girl]

I'm bugged that people are choosing to dismiss how I caught Yates by just calling the conversation "silly" without actually providing any validity to the claim that it's silly.

I CAUGHT SCUM! Why does everyone always ignore me?

Silly is an opinion. Yates calling the conversation silly doesn't mean it is silly, nor does it mean he's scum.

Silly is an opinion - it should still be able to be supported if it has validity. Yates is not calling it silly, other people are. I didn't say the people calling it silly were scum or town for calling it silly, I complained that they were unhelpful to me and the gamestate.

[Squirrel Girl]

What? I didn't flame anyone and neither did I back off from anyone. Am I really that crazy here? Did I actually go and call Yates scum for calling me silly and then backed off at some point? I feel like everyone is reading a different game than I am!

[Squirrel Girl]

Reading it again, that comment doesn't even feel connected to what I had posted in the quoted post.

[Squirrel Girl]

Yeah, but that's the point though. i think all I did was basically re-state what was already contained in that post, and you didn't even seem to buy half of it, but suddenly your demeanor went from 'can lynch SG' to 'pals with SG' it didn't feel like a legit mental shift considering the interaction. That's why I called it out.

K. I mean does it make you think I'm scum or not. If not I don't really see the point in bringing it up.

And I've been debating this, but I suppose my answer is - yes, yes it does make me think you might be scum. Mostly because it doesn't feel like a logical mental shift, which makes me feel like the presented stances from you are false because they don't flow logically. I also feel like you're being evasive in this discussion.

[Squirrel Girl]

You got into a flame war with Yates and made the important stuff in the DP nearly unreadable, and at the bear minimum really, really hard to look up.

You shouldn't get into flame wars, or continue the flame war with Yates. (I don't care if he did call it silly). There is more in the DP than his opinion of your opinion about whether or not he was or wasn't scum hunting.

I don't think I made anything unreadable, and if I did you can just skip it. It's like you are skipping it, because he never called it silly and I never said he did, and I just made a post clarifying this fact that you decided to take time out of your day to suggest was poor play on my part while clearly not reading it - I guess because I make things unreadbale.

I also don't think I have failed to comment about other issues, but if you think there's an issue that needs my attention feel free to name it.

[Squirrel Girl]

[Squirrel Girl]

OK. How do you feel about KidA, chandra and rufflig

Null, town, town.

[Squirrel Girl]

how the hell do you have a town read on ruffling?

If I had to try to put it in words it's the way the wagon on him formed and how Yates decided to start supporting it from the sidelines while still voting me while also saying he was moving past me and ignoring what I'm saying - but still leaving his vote sit.

[Squirrel Girl]

Yeah, but that's the point though. i think all I did was basically re-state what was already contained in that post, and you didn't even seem to buy half of it, but suddenly your demeanor went from 'can lynch SG' to 'pals with SG' it didn't feel like a legit mental shift considering the interaction. That's why I called it out.

K. I mean does it make you think I'm scum or not. If not I don't really see the point in bringing it up.

And I've been debating this, but I suppose my answer is - yes, yes it does make me think you might be scum. Mostly because it doesn't feel like a logical mental shift, which makes me feel like the presented stances from you are false because they don't flow logically. I also feel like you're being evasive in this discussion.

cool

how Yates decided to start supporting [the Ruffling wagon] from the sidelines

You know what? Before I lose my crap, why don't you tell me how I supported the Ruffling wagon from the sidelines. Because, again, I think we have VERY different interpretations. I'm assuming you mean post 569, yes? The post where I jumped square in the middle of the ring and refereed? If so, I think you'd have an easier time mischaracterizing that as a defense/buddy post. Just saying.

It would be a defense of Pidgey, not Ruffling - you saying Ruffling has no value in what he's saying and attacking him as useless during a wagon build on him is support from the sideline.

Vote: Yates

[Squirrel Girl]

I have Ruffling as town now.

[Squirrel Girl]

Bulba, you are the best, thank you for that.

@BC: I'll get to you later.

I have Ruffling as town now.

I don't know how this is possible.

Post 652.

Basically I am defending him and attacking his attacker. His response is, in a conversation he's not even part of, to come in and disagree with me and defend his attacker. I don't understand how that would come from scum, do you?

[Squirrel Girl]

Bah, I suppose that's a defensible position. I'm not gonna take it, though.

[Squirrel Girl]

Chainsaw Defense. Busted!

Bro, do you even scumhunt?

Squirrel- Lately i dont know how to feel about you.
I dont like the fact that you said you'd keep the ruffling eve if he was scum because this could be multi group, which i do agree is more than likely, but that's still a wierd as fuck thing to say.
I dont get how you got a town read on him, this i need explanation because i did not understood the 664 explanation, how can you take that with any kind of value after the multiple times he has been shown to misrep what i've posted and conviniently ignored certain call outs?
Im thinking you could be his partner if he ends up being scum.

I didn't say I'd "keep Ruff" (ewww) even if he was scum. you must be thinking of someone else - I haven't even discussed the multiball question because I don't think there's a point to till after a Night Phase at the very least.

I just explained the town read - here's the link; http://forum.mafiascum.net/viewtopic.ph ... 9#p5837589 It makes sense because there's no scum gain in doing what he did.
I am not ignoring your points, I just don't fully agree with them - by the same logic you're ignoring my points on Yates, which I find to be stronger points.

If me ignoring your case on Ruffling makes me his buddy - then everyone is Yates' scumbuddy by the same logic. I actually just get the feeling we have a lot of passionate people here who are refusing to read each others' cases and/or not comment on them. A bit of an eye opener because it's how I feel about my Yates situation, where basically people were all telling me to shut it. As far as your case on Ruffling goes, I actually disagreed with him that your stance moved - I said as much in thread. That said, I didn't think what he was doing was an obv. misrep - I think he just read it silly. That he has chosen to drop that angle of attack after being shown he's wrong and is still willing to talk to you about it feels okay to me. What do you think the current issue is beyond that?

Also, would you be willing to vote for Yates? I'm really pretty sure on my Ruff town read - do you have a Yates town read you'd explain to me, or be willing to move over and vote Yates?

[Squirrel Girl]

I think an open claim at this stage reeks of him likely being town.

[Squirrel Girl]

I currently think yates is more likely town than scum, yeah. He could be scum but not really feeling that at this point because he is actually not spewing clarant bullshit like other players.

I think he is easily top five for the spewing accusation. Is that the main thrust of your case for town him 'less poo flinging than others'? It doesn't seem like much to go on.

Also, would you be willing to vote for Ruff? I'm really pretty sure on my Ruff scum read? :p

I have a town read on Ruffling for the reasons I presented. I'm serious - why would he say hat if he was scum. If he was scum he either had a townie defending him, in which case, yay, go townie! Or I was his scumbuddy defending him, in which case - why attack me for defending him? Or...I dunno, maybe both Yates and him are scum and he was annoyed I was attacking his buddy? In which case let's just lynch Yates. Am I missing something here? It feels like a good case.

[Squirrel Girl]

And I thought yates if anything was playing really "on point"? Like even if he is town i dont feel he is spewing crap and lies. I really havent read your case in detail though.

I'm not sure what Yates has even done if you haven't read any of his interactions and comments about me I feel like you're saying you based the read off, like, 30% of his iso at best.

This is a ridiculous case, I'm town and I defended him, there for he's town too?

That's...not even the case.

The case, if you really need it boiled down that simply, would look like this;

I'm town, I defended him and attacked his attacker, he attacked me and defended his attacker - therefore he's town.

Does that make more sense?

[Squirrel Girl]

Also, quite frankly, it could even be; I'm town, scumbuddies with him, or SK, or multiball other scum, I defended him and attacked his attacker, he attacked me and defended his attacker - therefore he's town.

The point is - what scum would ever bother attacking someone defending him and attacking his attacker? That's a town mindset because he cares about the truth as he understands it.

[Squirrel Girl]

I'm not sure what Yates has even done

How do you feel about having a "double voter" drone? And how do you feel about that drone being Kid A?

ok i have decided that Squirrel Girl is a doublevoter for the rest of day 1

I feel okay with him town reading me, and I have no problem with sheeping as a play strategy - I do it myself.
I don't have a scummy read on Kid A beyond those acts, so I'm actually pretty happy to have the backup.

[Squirrel Girl]

I am really not comfortable with the Rufflig wagon. I don't think I'm going to be down with his lynch unless he does something that is actually scummy. Imagining that there's likely at least one or two scum on his wagon at this point.

QFT

At Squirrel Girl, your point about Rufflig seems good but I couldn't find the post where Rufflig attacks you. Do you mean p652 where he disagrees with you? I understand oyu rlogic - why would Rufflig scum attack you when you were defending him, but I can't see where he WAS attacking you?

Attacking my logic and attempted dismantling of my purpose is an attack on me. If you'd like to call it something different we can - a rebuttal of me, a disagreement with me. I think the point holds regardless.

If SqG is on one of the Mafia teams, do you think the "Pidgey scum hunting right out of the gate" comment was an indicator that Pidgey's displaced vote was spot on.

Quick Quesiton for anyone that cares to answer. Has multiball been confirmed?

Because if not we're powerlynching the fuck out of Josh_B right now.

It hasn't (I can't even figure out how it could on Day 1) - but I fail to see how that is a more questionable take than anyone else who has been theorizing multiball.

[Squirrel Girl]

I do not claim to be objective towards Chandra. Given how much Chandra and I have yelled at each other, I do not expect anyone to take me at my word on matters pertaining to her.

Why do you feel justified voting her then? And why dress it in a case first?

[Squirrel Girl]

SqG seems to be back peddling on not such a weak target.

Who am I back peddling on?

[Squirrel Girl]

I think this post decently sums up the entire argument between Yates and SqG. and to think it all started with

I don't have much of anything to off Pidgey on, but will admit to a slight gut townish on him moreso than Yates simply because he appears to be trying to scumhunt right out the gate which Yates did not. I would neithe rparticularly support nor oppose either being lynched at this stage.

It was very peculiar for SqG to say Pidgey was scum hunting at that time, and the "[he] doesn't say that he wasn't scumhunting

at all

disclaimer looks like back peddling. The "right out of the gate" scum hunting claim was negated.

I have never changed from my opinion as expressed there. The disclaimer you're talking about is something Yates said I believe - not something I said. The 'right out of the gate' was not negated except via Yate's misrep.

[Squirrel Girl]

I was literally asked to give my read on him.

[Squirrel Girl]

In our last game you seemed sorta spammy. Talk to me about Yates and Piggey.

Yeah, really weird that Squirrel would offer her thoughts on Pidgey at that stage.

[Squirrel Girl]

"scum hunting right out the gate" It isn't scummy that you responded to NeroCain. It's scummy that there are no grounds for the claim you made about Pidgey's activity. Since you haven't shown any reason to make such a claim, and multiple people have asked you about it, there must be information that you aren't sharing. i.e. you made a slip.

As far as I am aware only one person asked me about this, Yates (and now you, so two) who are the others who are part of the multiple?

Also, I answered it here;

Okay...let's be specific for you then.

Post 125 is scumhunting - he is taking stances and pressing scum reads.
Post 135 is scumhunting - he is presenting a stance and seeking reactions.
Post 136 is scumhunting - he is clarifying a read and providing reasoning.

He has a grand total of 7 posts. I feel that calling 3 of them scumhunting qualifies me to call it 50% though I will agree the specific math would be 42.857%
I do find your presentation to be cherry picking since all of his posts came on the same day and within 4 hours but you apparently decided that only the first half were "out of the gate" That was a sketchy distinction to make and looked like you trying to massage the evidence to fit your claims.

So I'm still confused what you're on about - I don't feel like you actually understand the situation because it feels like you're bringing up weird points.

[Squirrel Girl]

So I'm still confused what you're on about - I don't feel like you actually understand the situation because it feels like you're bringing up weird points.

Ok, This should have been brought up before. What's your read on Displaced?

I don't even know what you're talking about anymore.

I have a null read on Displaced. I think it's best I don't say anything about gut reads or leans or compare him to the strength of other null reads because then another derpstorm will start up.

[Squirrel Girl]

@displaced, SqG. Pidgey says that the reference that was made to his scum hunting was from another game where he hit scum on his first vote. SqG's comment would indicate that Pidgey hit scum again on his first try. But how does SqG know that? We have been talking about whether she thinks Pidgey is town and the actual thing that we're questioning is How does putting a weak, early vote on Displaced identify townness, or indicate scum hunting more than anyone else?

If it isn't about Pidgey, then it must be about Displaced, but why? Is it because she already knows that he is scum?
After two days of talking about this, SqG's response concerning Displaced is empty and null. But at the same time, she seems ignorant that such a connection was indicated by her post.

This is not a functional response to me. It's like half a thought, and the half that I'm seeing doesn't make sense.

You think Pidgey made some comment about some other game he was in...okay.
Somehow I made a comment relating to this game...? What? When, how, where?
Me making that comment would make Displaced town...?
But then I'm not aware that it has...(well, *duh* because I didn't make it about some other game about clearing Displaced, I never even commented about Displaced)

I'm still not sure what game you're playing, but I feel like you're trying to be so clever that you've created a game on top of this one where people are talking about things they aren't talking about, and then you're drawing connections off that and then acting curious that people have no idea what you're talking about.

[Squirrel Girl]

4. Pidgey says that he thinks "2" was a reference to Disney Princess Mafia that he played with SqG

Okay, this is the leap off the deep end. It didn't happen. I searched Disney in Pidgey's iso and that comment was about Umbrage and also had no reference to #2. In that same post he does talk about #2 - but only insomuch as thinking I said something which I didn't say, which he then later realizes when talking to me.

Why am I continually in the middle of people attributing from or about me things that are easily provable to just not have happened?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=llgY3VBwTAo

And also i want to know how Arnois stabbed? Do we have a day VIG?
Are they any claims? If so, who and what are the claims. Thank you. I ll ISO each player as necessary

The only claim is the claimed killer of Aronis, who, yeah, is claiming Vig. You could probably just read the game if your plan is to ISO each player.

[Squirrel Girl]

and what's the yates deal?

A single post sums it up pretty well.

http://forum.mafiascum.net/viewtopic.ph ... 4#p5821154

What do you think about that post?

[Squirrel Girl]

Do you think Yates is scum? and Pidgey is town?

At this point? Yes.

[Squirrel Girl]

I read your argument to his post. What is your strongest accusation to call him Scum? I am not going to use meta reference on Yates because he usually plays like this weather he is town or scum but based on his current play style, i dont see his arguments scummy at all infact they are townish. I hardly assume anyone who aligned to mafia would pull a play like that. Well, It is not impossible but scum usually play smart not agressive.

So, basically you read him as town because he's being aggressive? I don't agree with that.

I think Josh has been doing a good job recently of pointing out many of her inconsistencies.

I have literally been proving that Josh is totally wrong in what he thinks about what I'm doing! I literally JUST DID IT AGAIN!

[Squirrel Girl]

Josh isn't even calling me scum, he's arguing that I'm town due to things that didn't happen!

[Squirrel Girl]

I want a deal on the crazy pills, i must be making them a mint.

[Squirrel Girl]

I read your argument to his post. What is your strongest accusation to call him Scum? I am not going to use meta reference on Yates because he usually plays like this weather he is town or scum but based on his current play style, i dont see his arguments scummy at all infact they are townish. I hardly assume anyone who aligned to mafia would pull a play like that. Well, It is not impossible but scum usually play smart not agressive.

So, basically you read him as town because he's being aggressive? I don't agree with that.

Why are you pointing pieces from my post? I said more things about his play than one. Its not just agressive, there are more events in his game play which i feel townish at this moment. Can you prove it to me why you think he is scum?

That *IS* the entire post.

Here's a link; http://forum.mafiascum.net/viewtopic.ph ... 1#p5847541

The only thing I trimmed out was you quoting me - I then quoted your entire post. How can that be me only addressing part of a post?
I'm still taking crazy pills apaprently because Yates agrees with you...oh, wait, he's scum and doesn't care, he just wants to call me scum without scumhunting.

As to why I find Yates scum, you said you read my post. That post *is* why i find Yates scum. I note that he calls me for misrepping and whatnot all the time - but I couldn't tell you what he thinks I've misrepped. Meanwhile I think that post does show his misreps and does show how he actually doesn't care about scumhunting right now, he cares about being able to make a stand and attack people that he thinks are weak. That's what I'm calling him scum for and that is the case on him. If you don't like it, that's fine, but if you don't understand it you need to tell me what part I'm losing you on - just asking me for my case twice in a row...I don't know what I'm supposed to say to you. I also don't know what I'm supposed to say when you complain that I'm not addressing your whole post when I did address your whole post. Your post only said you didn't find him scum because you thought he was aggressive, and I was telling you that I don't think that's a good reason to not find him scum. CLearly he's aggressive no matter what his alignment is - but I'm not calling him scum for being aggressive and I also don't think he's being aggressive in a way scum wouldn't be - I actually think the way he's being aggressive is the way scum would be aggressive simply because he doesn't care about answers.

[Squirrel Girl]

I note that he calls me for misrepping and whatnot all the time - but I couldn't tell you what he thinks I've misrepped.

Right. Because I never told you what I thought you were misrepping in any of my posts.
post 286
post 300
post 659
post 855

286 - is a weak attempt to rephrase your own misrep.
300 - you already admitted to selective choice of the posts after I had suggested you had made selective choice of the posts - what is my misrep there?
659 - Does not actually ay what I misrepped.
855 0 does not actually say what I misrepped.

I stand by my original comment.

JoshB, SG, Anyone asking- No the Disney Mafia post was regarding Umbrage, nothing to do with SG and thats mixing things up. What I said about SG is that it was weird that she pointed out i was scum hunting right out of the gate. I think you both have a misunderstanding there.

If you read what I said about it you'd understand that I had no misunderstanding.
Yes, I understand that Josh misunderstood it.
I am the queen of crazy pills still.

[Squirrel Girl]

I stand by my original comment.

Great. And do you stand by the misrep presented in that very same post? The one about me picking on weaker players?

That's not a misrep, that's something you disagree with.

You saw weakness and attacked - that is a fact. Now you can try to argue that you are town and thought I was weak scum, but the fact that you attacked weakness aggressively is a fact, and I personally think that you didn't care about the scumhunting is also obvious enough to be considered a fact.

[Squirrel Girl]

vote:Yates

sheep me noa, Beast.

I approve of this nut.

[Squirrel Girl]

Like literally in post 635 you are calling him scum and in post 636 you are calling him town.

I looked this up because it seemed like a good catch.
It does not appear to be true. Did you get the post numbers wrong?

[Squirrel Girl]

That is why towreading you is of questionable wisdom, deary. A town you is no moron, and evidence of derp play is evidence of a scum PM. However, you are correct that I need to refresh my knowledge on the specifics of your scumplay.

I mean, for you to be correct - this has to be a scum read on Yates. It doesn't really read as a scum read on Yates.

[Squirrel Girl]

So, I need stronger case from you than what you shown so far to call him scum. You said, he is not scum hunting.. He is calling you scum and have his reasons. So where is the fact in your statement?

It was in the original post I linked to you and you were responding to. i can link to it again if you didn't see it, but if you just don't agree with it you should be telling me why you don't, not acting like I didn't do it in the first place.

I didn't say he is my strong town read. If you read back my post, i said he is very cunning player and its going to be very hard for me to read him as i cant base meta on him like how i apply it on others. However, based on his game play here i am assuming he may be town for now. There are far more players we can try to lynch today. so this is what my statement was. I never said i read him town because he was aggressive.

I will admit I misunderstood that - it felt like you were calling him town.

If you want to have him lynched today. Build a proper case. Period

I feel I have.

@Squirrel

- Comments on players other than Pidgey, Yates?

I've called the following town and still believe that; Ruffling, Nero, Chandra, JKlash

I've called the following scum and still believe that; Josh, Umbrage, Displaced, TheAdmiral

I will admit my read on Mozimas is getting wonky. I like a lot of what is being said there, I still don't like the early play. I guess call it a nullish to scum read now. I have a generally positive vibe towards Aunt Jemina though she feels hard to read. Basically I feel like she could fake me out easily. I sort of generically am okay with the pushes on ZZZX, beast, and maybe even Unfriendly (though that last one I would be hard pressed to describe the case, but the sort of recriminatory lashing out response feels dirty to me) Most of the rest of the crowd I don't think I have a very good feel for, a lot just feel like they...well, exist. I ean, they've done stuff but they don't feel like they stand out. I am pretty much content with the idea of flipping one of my scum reads until I hit a scum and then reassing at that point thogh, because otherwise I can't figure out how you're supposed to sort this many people - there's too much we don't even know yet.

[Squirrel Girl]

Wow! SqG, this post totally flipped my read on you... except I can't find where you called any of those people scum. Can you link to it? Because...

In this post I discuss 8 people who I gave reads on already.
You point out that 3 of them were not clearly stated...and are not actually even correct, I had a number of flat out clear comments that you just didn't even find, making me not even sure you even managed to show that I didn't...and I'm not sure what it shows even if you did. Mostly I think you're scum though.

[Squirrel Girl]

I've even called you out repeatedly on presenting info that wasn't true - did you really think my read on you was town or something?

[Squirrel Girl]

If I'm reading correctly,
1. Mozamis calls Ruffling town
2. You ask him to explain why.
3. He says that Ruffling's early posts felt relaxed and bantery
4. You vote Mozamis, and say if you are right (about Moz being scum, I assume), then Ruffling is obvious town.

I really don't get how you got from 1 to 4.

I think scum are more likely to hand out nonsensical and quick town reads to actual town because they already have it in their head that the other player is town. it's the same effect that makes them freak out over scumbuddies acting too scummy while the rest of town doesn't even notice it happening.

So, yes, it seems it's there, although some parts of it are hard for me to grasp.

I'm cutting down the rest of your post to this because you quote me a lot, but it almost feels like you answer your own question. Was there anything you wanted me to respond to there? I don't even get the purpose of the post.

WHERE ARE THE CLEAR COMMENTS? I WANT YOU TO SHOW THEM TO ME! nac

I specifically asked you about displaced earlier and you called him Null. Now all of a sudden he's scum and you've called him scum before. Were you talking to people in the DP when you said it? cause you have people on you right now saying that your reads post is bogus.

I'll happily respond to this as soon as you tell me the scumtell. is your idea really that somehow I'm in a theory daytalk scum QT theory scumhunting for theory other scum? That doesn't even make sense and leaps over a few hurdles to even get to a place where it slightly looks like a scumtell.

I'm very happy with my scumread on you, and endorse the wagon as full of nutty goodness. Is Yates your buddy, or is he part of the other scum team you're hunting in your Daychat QT?

[Squirrel Girl]

Thinking about scum teams is fairly common, and Josh merely voiced an opinion based on earlier setup spec. I don't see how that was so unusual. He essentially said that he had scumreads on both SG and Yates, and that he didn't think they were scum together. Based on the earlier multiball spec, it was pretty natural for him to imagine that the fight might be scum/scum, where they were both on separate teams. Heck, I've actually considered that possibility. I don't see how that automatically makes Josh scum.

Out of curiosity - how did you react to his case (now dropped and ignored like a bad habit as soon as I pointed out how unsupportable and weird it was) wherein he advanced the theory that I had recalled which reads I'd stated in thread or not by mixing them up in a scum Daychat discussing my scumreads with my scumbuddies, wherein we're apparently hunting scum there. Did that seem like a logical advance to you in the same vein, or does that lend support to the idea that he's taking scum theorizing a little too oddly specific and is therefore scum?

SQG is not an open-book for me. Has to be one of the most complicated players for me to read just in general. I misread SG in a recently opened game and managed to throw a mislynch on her for not contributing as much. The game that NC was referring to was most likely my charmed game that just finished and SG replaced in. She did not come off 'spammy' that game even though she was town & a PR.
I haven't figured out how to approach SQG in order to get a better read off that slot. Engaging doesn't do it for me and neither does meta.

I respond well to nuts...just saying.

[Squirrel Girl]

Of the current wagons, I dislike the Ruffling one, I dislike how it's also growing to try and overtake the Yates wagon. I support the Josh wagon, but it seems to have a lot of haters. I'd vote for the Neighbor one to avoid a Ruffling wagon.

I'd like more Yates votes.

@Mozimis - why pick Ruffling over Yates when you claimed equal willingness to lynch either and Yates had more votes? That seems nutty.

[Squirrel Girl]

@ SqGirl- No, I didn't claim equal willingness. I said the Yates wagon was a joke. I refuse to vote him. Likewise Josh. Ruffling may well be town, but there is a small chance she's scum, so it's the lesser of the evils.

My bad, mixed it up with UN in my head there. WOuld you switch to UN then? I have a fluffy tail.

[Squirrel Girl]

Of course, YOU lynching us means you're committing suicide, character wise, but eh?

I refuse to accept that I'm not a BP, Sane Cop, Vig. I should not be in the same power class as lightweights like Thor!

I also am pretty happy with what just happened.

[Squirrel Girl]

@Unfriendly - That was a 'yay! Yates votes!" post.

Out of curiosity - how did you react to his case (now dropped and ignored like a bad habit as soon as I pointed out how unsupportable and weird it was) wherein he advanced the theory that I had recalled which reads I'd stated in thread or not by mixing them up in a scum Daychat discussing my scumreads with my scumbuddies, wherein we're apparently hunting scum there. Did that seem like a logical advance to you in the same vein, or does that lend support to the idea that he's taking scum theorizing a little too oddly specific and is therefore scum?

Yeah, that was kinda weird. Although, admittedly, I couldn't really follow what he was saying with some of those abbreviations.[/quote]
Could I define some of the abbreviations to get a more solid response out of you on the issue? You're town reading and defending the guy over this issue, and I think that's a pretty weird post that speaks *directly* to the question of him seeming too aware/convinced of multi scum (and other things) and yet you don't seem to be coming out with a clear response about his townishness in regards to it. He presumes two scum teams, okay, that's believable from town, I suppose, though I personally think it's a bit of a stretch (maybe a 50/50 in larges? I dunno - making up numbers here). Then he makes the jump to daytalk, which from what I can tell is hardly a given on this site (call it another 50/50 - and I failed/never took statistics, but that's probably a 25% or so theory game he's created in his head...that he's *using to scumhunt with*). Then he goes a step further and is like, scum are scumhunting with each other in their QTs. Which...I don't think I've ever seen, and though I guess it could be happening it...y'know, is weird. Like, first off, what sort of accusation is that to even throw at someone? What can I even say about it? And why does he believe it enough to state it with confidence? That moment made me basically as happy with a Josh lynch as a Yates lynch - and I didn't think that was going to happen today. I was pretty happy in my tunnel (and don't think it's anti-town even though it makes others grumpy). Can you tell me the town thought process here? Is it just "lulz, paranoia!" because that seems rather unlikely. What are your thoughts?

[Squirrel Girl]

I'm an idiot. That still seems legible though. Right?

[Squirrel Girl]

Josh_B
PeregrineV,
UniversalSlutBus,
Malakittens
The Rufflig
Yates
ArcAngel9

Pretty sure that's the list of people who ought to have a new vote within the next 8 hours or so. I think it wouldn't hurt us to have a chance to talk over the roleclaim either...though we may already be past the point of that happening.

[Squirrel Girl]

Because I know he's scum. If that freaks you out you can move to Josh, I'd be pretty happy with that lynch too.

[Squirrel Girl]

I could understand the multiball spec, although I found the QT spec weird. To be honest, I wasn't sure whether it actually was QT spec, as Josh was using a different abbreviation. It wasn't QT or PT, but something like DP or the like, which made me wonder if he might be talking about something else. In fact, he seems to be using DP to mean Day Phase, so I'm not so sure he's talking about day chat at all.

He said, and I basically quote "were you talking to people in the DP when you said it?"

I agree DP means Day Phase, that makes sense and is my read too.
Now...who are the people I'm talking to if they are not people posting in the thread and in the Day Phase?
Right - scum in my scum chat.

I stand by my take of what he said. I'm not sure how you're getting anything else from it. Can you tell me what you think he was saying if it wasn't about a scum QT? I'm open to other ways to take what he's saying, i just don't think there are any.

@Ruffling - thanks for the help. Oh...wait...

@Umbrage - I'm so tired of people calling me stupid every time I turn around. My accuracy of reads rating seems to be pretty decent in the grand scheme of things. I feel people just don't understand my method and decide the best solution is to just constantly belittle me for some reason. Why? Do I look like I need to be told how stupid and bad at the game I am constantly or something?

[Squirrel Girl]

Even look at that, Josh isn't even caring about the situation, he's fine with Bulba defending him from what I'm saying, and he quick lazy wagons at the same time. Add him to my list of 'I can't believe people are not just not-scumreading him, but are town reading him.'

He joins Yates.

[Squirrel Girl]

Seeing as how he's asking for you to provide evidence that showed how your read on Displaced changed, I think he's referring to you talking to other people in the game, i.e. was the read change part of a conversation.

I really don't see anything in what he said that supports that belief.

As long as you aren't responding to my question, I can't see why people aren't scum reading you. Where's your evidence? You can't just tell us that you've said something before and then not say when you said it. I'm still waiting for you to respond.... it's been pages and you still keep talking about me asking you to prove yourself, but you haven't shown anything. LOOK IN YOUR ISO, and show me where you said the people on your list are scum.

I already answered that I hadn't shown some and had shown others, and stuff that i hadn't explicitly stated was, like, reads on you and stuff like that, that mostly should have come as no surprise.
I also said I'd provide evidence for each that existed.
However - before doing so I asked *YOU* to explain the scumtell of what I'm defending against. You've failed to do that, and basically walked off, and now that i called you on it you're acting like I am dodging something. Well, what is it? What's the scumtell I'm dodging? The evil one where I say I presented 8 reads clearly and only presented 6...that's a scumtell? Explain it to me, please and thank you.

Look everyone has said the would mind voting rufflin or that they think he is scummy. Only like SG is saying he is town.

That's true, and if he's town do I get all the credit and a sheep tomorrow? Because I want Yates to be lynched. People are literally starting to defend the slot with 'well he can't claim' as opposed to 'I don't think he's scum'. The defense is scummy, and when he flips scum we'll have like another buddy or two in that group also. Come with me on this adventure, there are nuts!

[Squirrel Girl]

@ Everyone that's saying the reason they won't vote Yates 'cause he can't claim-dl is in 14 hours, lets say we run Ruffles up and get a claim...what is the point 'cause I don't think we'll have time to rewagon and then the onlt viable wagon after Ruffling is Yates so....what is the point in getting a claim?

I think that's a good point too. I'll pretend like I also thought of it.

[Squirrel Girl]

I mean, Ruffling came through, with the wagonslooking like they're looking and DIDN'T VOTE YATES and people still think he's scum?

Why? It doesn't make any sense.

[Squirrel Girl]

SqG and Rufflig, you both buddied Displaced pretty hard. How do you feel about him being on the table so long after your deaths?

I was fine with it - the point is to leave a poison bullet in town's head. I don't need it to go off at any particular time, I just need it there.

Although I didn't care about her alignment - she was a pain in the arse and had to go - I thought Squirrel Girl was almost certainly town. So her getting killed was harsh.

It's hard not to fall into the allure of my avatar's cuteness quotient.