In post 126, Deltabreedy wrote:
I think it's NAI, but dropping the 'Newbtown' as a qualified when discussing my play will only serve to delegitimise reads and arguments that I develop further down the line. I'd appreciate you recanting and reconsidering the wording.
UNVOTE: Delta
Town response to a townread (this is one of my pet tells)
In post 143, Bingle wrote:Representative careful posts [by patchwork]. Overall, you seem hesitant to commit to anything. There's a lot of questioning and not a lot of actual explanation. There's a lot of emphasis on trying to figure things out and not a lot on sharing your conclusions.
The thing is that scum who aren't immediately confident in their scumgame (either because they're playing with new people or because they've never played before) are slightly more likely to play this way. The longer someone has been in a meta, the less this tell matters.
I can buy this as a legit read but I think this is a very weak tell at best. Low confidence and hesitance to give conclusions can come from town just as easily. Or, like, nearly as easily anyway.
In post 144, Bingle wrote:
In post 103, Dunnstral wrote:
HURT: Keychain
I am a bit concerned that I don't like some of your posts and I feel better about patchwork and KawaiiKame than I do about you right now. I am reading KawaiiKame's posts differently than you are (they should explain what they are doing though)
^chainsaw post.
This on the other hand is a bad read
In post 150, Deltabreedy wrote:
It's ridiculous that you're complaining that I 'drag people out of RVS'. RVS is a useless stage that the scumteam will seek to prolong as long as possible.
The post I SR'd you for intimates that I oughtn't be trying to game-solve early in the game which is absolute tosh.
I agree about RVS but I disagree that that's what patch was doing.
In post 162, northsidegal wrote:
for me personally it always puts me in an uncomfortable position when i'm playing with players for whom i have no expectations of their ability to play scum (i.e. alts or newer players).
i also find it helpful to think about this game in terms of whom to exclude, rather than to include. to repeat myself, outrageous things don't immediately make someone scum, but i do genuinely think that kame's behavior so far gives a decent argument for exclusion. in
108, kame claims to have read the entire game up to that point, come to townread the people they healed, and already have decided that they're not going to get in the coalition that eventually passes. bluntly, even if this is true, i find it strange that kame would have done all that and not actually commented on anything while reading through
I like this post, kind of how I was feeling about them too though I was waiting to see more from them first.
In post 172, Bingle wrote:Overall, Dunn doesn't seem like he's pushing a narrative or playing with an agenda, and while he's certainly capable of faking this as scum (or used to be) I think this is page 3 town.
I like how Bingle is not taking a one-sided position on Dunn, I may have misread the above "chainsaw post" as a more serious scumread than it actually was.
In post 176, Bingle wrote:
If I were to make a coalition right now it'd be me, delta, dunn, nsg, umlaut. Yes, I'm aware that this is not the 5 people I think are towniest.
Don't really understand this... I can think of reasons why you would pick a coalition other than the five towniest people but I don't know if they're the reasons you have.
In post 181, patchwork wrote:
In post 175, Bingle wrote:
In post 167, patchwork wrote:
i took what you said as criticism lol not like "omg this is what people want me to do so i am doing it now"
As an aside, trying to change your playstyle to satisfy the expectations of others is likely to cripple your scumhunting effectiveness and not worth the time. Do what you need to do to find scum.
it's not supposed to satisfy you, you pointed out i was being conservative (no, not in the republican way) when i was unaware of that so i went ahead and tried to chaneg that, idk how youre reading it that way
This feels genuine to me.
I was going to say "I don't have much read on Kame, could be scum but need to see more" but after looking closer at what's there I actually think they're looking kind of scummy to me.
120 and
123 are both unpleasantly conciliatory and the other posts are really saying nothing about the game state...
108 in particular seems to be responding to a question about their coalition picks by justifying
why they are playing this way
instead of explaining why those people are town.
In post 188, Keychain wrote:
HURT: Umlaut
More because I'm feeling an absence atm than anything else.
Rude!
(I get it but it's annoying to take one night off Mafia and see people react this way)
In post 214, Deltabreedy wrote:
Honestly after the coalition phase, if you continue like this I'll advocate for a policy lim on the basis that this play is anti-town and unreadable. At least then I'll be able to focus without any noise and scumhunt.
I'm always happy to policy N_M but realistically we are probably limming out from the coalition if it fails.
(Also the wording here is funny but I'll worry about that later)