In post 669, Aristeia wrote:I feel like I'm sliding towards a Baltar - Pavo - Toogeloo solve and it feels too easy almost.
The feeling of complacency is hard to shake.
Have you talked about reasonings for Baltar and Toog before this?
I just made a +town for numberQ post and a +scum for Baltar post and have been pushing Pav, and not gonna lie, seeing you present that solve immediately after caused a pit in the stomach sensation.
do I really need to? the difference in their depth of thought is somewhat self evident no?
In post 626, numberQ wrote:I don't see how fake voting makes for more accountability. We're all supposed to be giving reads about the other games anyway (which I've been bad about for the Gate to be fair). This feels like scum coming up with something that appears +town at first glance but really doesn't mean anything in the end. It'd be so so easy for scum to "vote" each other and look good without any real risk if we do this.
I didn't really think it was that bad an idea >_>.
If you are expecting wall posts with player by player breakdowns, that's never been me, I'm sorry to say. You get what you get, I play heavily based on gut and intuition.
I didn't mean my comment as shade, more just ironically noticing that I was posting about you and suddenly you appeared. It was an amusing coincidence as far as I'm concerned. I had forgotten you were vla.
Anyway this is my third apology for it, I don't know you like that and cracked a joke too early, it's entirely my bad, and I'm going to stop cluttering the thread with it.
In post 537, Tanner wrote:
i would like to know what "objective" points you believe you have against baltar.
Okay, I've reread VP Baltar's iso. Here are the things which stood out to me and which I don't think are just me conf-biasing because I have certainty that he's scum.
1. Fake confusion about mech
Spoiler:
I won't bother quoting the posts from the start of D2, instead I'll provide a video of VP Baltar's mindset at the time:
I'll also point out the following:
a. VP has already done this 'I don't know the rules of this game' shtick earlier this game, in relation to his VLA, for example:
In post 12, VP Baltar wrote:Of course, I do have a vacation planned dec.22-27. I think I will be able to post some, but will be semi-occupied during that time. Maybe orientation toward the first or last mini game makes more sense for me?
There are a couple of other posts which echo this idea that the minigames play out in order, e.g.
In post 160, VP Baltar wrote:
Speaking for myself, I don't think I'm very good at mechanics, so as I stated I don't have a strong preference. Because of where my vla is likely to land, I think the first or third minigame might make the most sense for me.
I think town!VP being wrong and getting corrected on this point makes it less likely that town!VP would then still be confused about some other aspect of the mechanics on D2. Wouldn't a town-aligned player put more effort into understanding a modicum of what's going on? Wouldn't someone actively scum-hunting pay attention to whether or not there could be a scum in their mini-game? So I think VP's apparent confusion is fairly objectively fake.
In post 160, VP Baltar wrote:
I will say, I give small +town points to implosion for spouting off his optimal strategy. He talks about it in the scum PT for that old game. Seems like it wouldn't need to be mentioned before I asked for a link if he were scum.
So the idea that today, he still doesn't know scum have to ensure there's one player at each location is really questionable, considering he clearly was paying attention in his re-read since he noticed implosion's strategy post.
There was a post or two somewhere where he called Wall 'tower', also, which again seems a bit much to believe. (It's not what the Wall was called in that previous game he re-read, either.)
2. He tried to rush the Gate vote today:
Spoiler:
In post 499, VP Baltar wrote:Tanner, I am only skimming. Are we certain to have a scum at the gate? If yes, resolving that first makes sense. We can yeet imaginality into the sun.
In post 505, Tanner wrote:i mean, the whole point of the setup is that there's one scum in each of the three locations. and you're going "wait, there's scum at the gate?"
what was your thought process wrt our location when you saw that i was ic'ed?
I thought scum can place wherever they want as long as it's not all three at one location?
If it has to be one at each, then my thought is your imaginality read was right and let's flip it
This is objectively anti-town since VP won't be able to post after Gate is resolved, so if he were town he shouldn't be pushing to yeet me before he's shared his reads etc. in full. Whether or not there'd be value in getting me to post more also before yeeting me is more arguable, wifom etc., but him not wanting to wait to share his reads is not a pro-town mindset.
3. VP has backtracked on his takes under pressure:
In post 111, Toogeloo wrote:Forgive me btw. I just assumed scum would be avoiding getting stacked together, so playing to try and lock 3 scum together seemed like a pointless endeavor to begin with, but people are pushing it anyways.
Are they? My read is people are trying to optimize minis, not lock scum in a position.
I kind of agree with Aris that first movers probably have +scum due to the simple fact scum have more direct incentive to move first.
In post 135, implosion wrote:(and also... keep in mind that in that game scum moved 2nd yes, but the rest of the first 5 people to move were town)
My point is there is more likely to be a scum among the first movers due to the desire to prevent a lockout.
I agree first first mover is probably slightly +town.
Of course, now that we have talked about it, it feels like it all means nothing, so...
VP has earlier said, and will no doubt say again, that this switching of takes is part of his playstyle. However, I think there's a difference between switching because of something you notice as the game progresses, and backing off/qualifying your takes when you're put under pressure.
Another example:
In post 201, Tanner wrote:part of me wants to say that means the team is imaginality/implosion/baltar
In post 244, Lukewarm wrote:Why do you have imaginality as "potential town bloc" worthy right now?
He's most out there with reads. Those reads are probably overstated even, which seems like a riskier move than scum would need to take at like 10 pages.
I'm not confident fully sorting imaginality yet, but that's why I said potentially.
And walks back some more:
In post 256, VP Baltar wrote:
pedit @ Tanner -- it's not that it's hard to fake. it's more to the point you're making. I often see early reads lists get criticized, so that's why I'm saying it's more risky as scum. Anyhow, I am NOT saying I'm absolutely town reading imaginality here. Just saying it seemed +transparency early in the game that was likely to draw heat...which is not necessarily something scum are motivated to do.
This example is interesting because it comes after Tanner suggests putting me with VP
In post 201, Tanner wrote:that post was me questioning implo's read on me. part of me wants to say that means the team is imaginality/implosion/baltar because why else would he mix up you two, but realistically i know it's probably just a mistake.
In post 204, Tanner wrote:hm. i just realized none of those three are assigned yet. we could shove them into the same location.
And the second backtrack is right after VP accepts the idea of me being at the same location as him.
In post 255, Tanner wrote:i unironically want imaginality and baltar at the same location.
That seems fine by me. I don't trust you to call an entire location, but if you want to test your theory in a 2/3, I don't think there is a lot of harm in that.
So I think this is objectively compatible with scum!VP looking to weaken the point he made in my favour, ahead of being in a minigame with me. I think at this point he was expecting/aiming to get us at the Wall, though, and suggested DArby or Tanner as the third person. So I don't see the above posts as evidence of him planning the 1v1 on me well in advance, more just that it's useful to scum!VP to have flexibility to shift reads on someone he's likely to be in a minigame with.
I'd also note that he might have been thinking there's a good chance I might have voted DArby or Tanner if it had ended up with me, him and DArby or Tanner on the Wall, as he'd hoped (if there weren't any swaps). So makes sense he was wanting to stay neutral on me rather than go after me hard at that time.
I'd also note that these backtracks don't look like what happened with Aristeia where he (said he) was applying pressure to read her reaction to it.
In post 170, Lukewarm wrote:So, 3 scummiest goes to the Gate, one becomes an IC, and then that player is left to sort the two scummiest players in the game. So, would be a hard choice.
But if you essentially treat all the group input as the decision, seems like it is actually easy to solve, plus you potentially get the scum to clear a scummy player for you. At least those are the benefits I see. I think in a 50/50, I believe town can figure it out
I'd rather force scum to clear someone who is good at scum hunting as IC, than have scum clear a lurker/bad player. So I'd rather put the strong and towny players in Gate, resolve that early, and then get the players in Wall to listen to those in Gate.
I recognise though that strong and town aren't synonymous, so it's not as simple as this, but I do think if we put someone bad in Gate scum will just IC them and I'd rather scum have to make a harder choice.
5. Poor excuse for lack of D1 scumhunting:
Spoiler:
In post 550, VP Baltar wrote:Probably also worth saying that because we couldn't scum hunt in earnest D1, I could only look at people doing mech discussion mostly. Shrug.
It might be
harder
to scumhunt without votes but it's not impossible.
6. VP omitted the IC possibility when suggesting Tanner go to the Gate early on D1:
In post 141, Tanner wrote:i'm starting to wonder why did i even /in into this game, considering i utterly hate lylos as town and have never won one when i was the deciding vote. i think i might really be a masochist.
Going to the gate means you don't have to do that
It's true I also suggested Tanner should go to the Gate:
In post 314, imaginality wrote:@Tanner: you not wanting to go with numberQ and DArby makes me slightly suspicious that VP and I are both town and you're scum trying to get in with us so there's one scum among us. You saying DArby should be with VP and me if you're not doesn't do much to dissuade me from that concern.
That said, I kind of like the idea of you going to Gate with us because I think if you are town and get IC'ed you'd be a useful voice. And I think the same of VP and me, whereas DArby if town seems less useful if IC'ed.
For the same reason if VP and I are at the Wall I'd rather DArby is with us than you.
imaginality, you *really* wanted me at the gate, huh.
However, I had a pro-town reason for wanting Tanner there (thinking you'd be useful as IC). As well as an unstated pro-town reason (I felt if Tanner was scum I'd be confident in winning a 1v1 with him, or correctly deciding between him and VP). Whereas VP only raised the idea Tanner wouldn't get IC'ed, and not the possibility that Tanner could be made IC and still have to decide. Did he leave that possibility out deliberately to try to tempt Tanner (a self-proclaimed bad deciding voter) to Gate?
...Actually this one is probably a stretch, I'll chalk this one to my confbias. Not expecting it to convince anyone else.
Interactions with/reads of others
I'm not sure how useful the 'reads of' part of this section will be, because of something VP said:
In post 413, Aristeia wrote:ok but what's the point of applying pressure to me?
I am gathering information to make reads off.
I don't really care if the scum think they are going to play off that because I almost never put all my thoughts on the table until I'm ready to push something.
I will go all out tunneling someone to see how they act and then call them town. Ill flip on locktown reads ive had all game if i see something solidly scummy. Good luck to scum trying to plan off my reads, because even I can't do that.
The implication is that he likes to hold back at least some of his thoughts on other players.
I think in this game, especially given there's no future days, VP should give his full and frank reads on all players now. I think it would be objectively anti-town not to do so in the current game state.
VP's interactions with others, though, may be more useful in and of themselves...
...I've drafted some notes for this section but it's 2am here so I'll provide this section tomorrow.
Summary
If you think the above isn't a slam-dunk case on VP, you'd be right. I was leaning town on him D1, and I think he's being playing it pretty well as scum. I think VP actually hoped he and I would be at Wall together so he could use my town-read on him to his benefit, but wasn't opposed to Gate when it came up since he reckoned Tanner's main D1 doubts about him were based on the theory he and I are partners, and he believed Tanner would see me as scummier individually than him once that was proven impossible.
"holy shit this entire time i thought imaginalitys profile was a purple seahorse" - camelCasedSnivy
this is more the approach that i think that the scum team would be taking towards pav / compared to numberQ (again, even if I am wrong)
Can you explain your thoughts here a little more?
Luke I'm not a scumlock on you, I just have my usual skepticism for you. You happen to be triggering it by resisting my every move and read here, but that's okay. Don't worry, Ari has some scum points too.
fmpov one of you or Ari is scum. The obvious solution for me is asking people to vote me, as I know that's a 100% win. That's the outcome I'd prefer.
Are you convinced by this? Of course not, you think me asking for votes is scummy. But what's scummier? Asking for votes directly knowing how it'll be perceived or asking for votes by not asking for them?
In post 312, imaginality wrote:I think for the third person in Keep we should make it someone Ari and Luke agree to vote for in advance. If we can lock them in to that plan it pretty much forces scum to swap the third person if they're town. Hence my questions to them to see who they can both agree on as town.
This hasn't happened, obviously, bit this is a big town ping
In post 314, imaginality wrote:@Tanner: you not wanting to go with numberQ and DArby makes me slightly suspicious that VP and I are both town and you're scum trying to get in with us so there's one scum among us. You saying DArby should be with VP and me if you're not doesn't do much to dissuade me from that concern.
That said, I kind of like the idea of you going to Gate with us because I think if you are town and get IC'ed you'd be a useful voice. And I think the same of VP and me, whereas DArby if town seems less useful if IC'ed.
For the same reason if VP and I are at the Wall I'd rather DArby is with us than you.
This also pings me as towny. The fact that the 2nd paragraph is exactly what happened kinda gives wifom-y vibes but I said I'd keep my takes spicy so I'll stick with townvibes
In post 697, VP Baltar wrote:@pav - I was not mad and you don't need to apologize for hurting my feelings or something. We're cool.
Also, I had just finished a white knuckled drive for 8 hours on an icy interstate, so I was definitely short tempered about what I thought was opportunistic shading. I apologize too.
YOUR AD HERE
Too busy with work to play mafia right now but I shall return some day!
In post 312, imaginality wrote:I think for the third person in Keep we should make it someone Ari and Luke agree to vote for in advance. If we can lock them in to that plan it pretty much forces scum to swap the third person if they're town. Hence my questions to them to see who they can both agree on as town.
This hasn't happened, obviously, bit this is a big town ping
In post 314, imaginality wrote:@Tanner: you not wanting to go with numberQ and DArby makes me slightly suspicious that VP and I are both town and you're scum trying to get in with us so there's one scum among us. You saying DArby should be with VP and me if you're not doesn't do much to dissuade me from that concern.
That said, I kind of like the idea of you going to Gate with us because I think if you are town and get IC'ed you'd be a useful voice. And I think the same of VP and me, whereas DArby if town seems less useful if IC'ed.
For the same reason if VP and I are at the Wall I'd rather DArby is with us than you.
This also pings me as towny. The fact that the 2nd paragraph is exactly what happened kinda gives wifom-y vibes but I said I'd keep my takes spicy so I'll stick with townvibes
same question.
I would think that the talk about leashing votes would be something scum would want to steer away from in most cases.
It's also kinda -scum imo for imaginality to say "here's this thing I'd like to have happen" and then it happens (you becoming confirmed). Granted scum can bold-face their way thru something like that but this is how it struck me.
