Mini 1725 - Game Over

[Soapbar]

EBWOP: So unless Supercool is also Scum, there is no reason for me to pull a fakevig gambit as scum

(got nuked in my post for some reason)

[Soapbar]

It's a pretty dangerous situation to townread me this early in a game.

you may live to regret it.

So are you saying your Scum? Or are you just trying to make Nosferatu stop townreading you for whatever reason?

[Glork]

I have never been in a game with revalista before. Isn't revalista replacing out though?

So how did you know what their avatar looks like when you've never played with them and they haven't posted?

@Glork, Annadog has posted actually, in RVS, Post #4.

You're right, I missed that. Still, she's lurking up to this point.

2) I, as scum, used to fakevig to try and save my scumpartner.

Or to try to get an easy D1 claim from a protown player. "Crap, I'm dead? I was a [Doctor/Townie/Cop/etc]."
You could easily be scum with him as town. Don't try to pull shit BS on us.

[Glork]

A supercool/revalista/Sopabar scumgroup would actually be pretty hilarious.

[Glork]

@Glork, Annadog has posted actually, in RVS, Post #4.

You're right, I missed that. Still, she's lurking up to this point.

2) I, as scum, used to fakevig to try and save my scumpartner.

Or to try to get an easy D1 claim from a protown player. "Crap, I'm dead? I was a [Doctor/Townie/Cop/etc]."
You could easily be scum with him as town. Don't try to pull

that

BS on us.

Fixed (and sorry for another triple post). IDK wtf autocrrect was doing changing a typo of "that" to "shit." Point remains.

[MarioManiac4]

RVS ended as soon as RC voted you

I view RVS as sort of an ice breaker. It allows people to talk and make mistakes. When a person makes a mistake, then that is when RVS starts to end.

What kind of meaningful mistake can be made when everyone is simply making a joke vote?

They don't make mistakes from the votes themselves (unless they say they are voting using a system like random.org or something, drawing attention to them) but when conversations arise from the votes that is when mistakes can easily be made.

But how do conversations arise from the joke votes?

Why are you trying to get a RVS debate?
And why are you putting yourself into a conversation between two other players?

RVS ended as soon as RC voted you...

...But how do conversations arise from the joke votes?

Well isn't how this game has turned out? I made an RVS vote that caused RC to vote me which caused a conversation. Hopefully I am explaining this well...

This almost makes me reconsider my townread on Super. What's the purpose of the last bit?

I'm pretty sure RC was just reaction testing. Nothing about your RVS vote was particularly scummy to me.

But I can't speak for her.

What was the point of Garciaing this?

You know what, I'm just going to save people the time

Dayvig shot at Supercool898

What was the point of this gambit?

Welp, back to waiting a week for a new game. I wasn't scum. So far I think RC and Slandaar are town. I guess Soap is conftown then. Btw when do I die? At the end of the day, or when Chaos comes back?

This reaction seems somewhat town? Super seems like a bit of a freshman here that didn't know about the gambit.

Welp, back to waiting a week for a new game. I wasn't scum. So far I think RC and Slandaar are town. I guess Soap is conftown then. Btw when do I die? At the end of the day, or when Chaos comes back?

UNVOTE:

OK, real talk, I'm not a dayvig, that was a complete and total gambit. I decided to do it because I didn't think the wagon would yield any results on anybody else outside of you so it didn't help us.

so basically everyone who has talked is town?

Yep

This is like the horrendous logic you comndemned Super for? This seems like a post planned for covering up the gambit unless I'm missing something?

1) Because I had already started confronting him before. What does me questioning a player who made questionable moves have to do with anything?
2) Read what you quoted dude, SC thought that he had been voted because of his RVS vote, when it was pretty obvious RC was reaction testing. (At least I think it was pretty obvious he was, he gave no stated reason for the vote and said it was non-rvs)
3) Two Reasons: First is, With the line of questioning we were heading down, any results from said questioning would only tell about him, and if a wagon started to form then it would be pretty easy for scum to get on it and coast on it for an easy lynch. Second is if he was scum then it would be a quick confession in case he bought the trick.
5) What does my logic and Super's logic have to do with each other? I condemned Super for pulling arbitrary logic out of his ass to justify his reaction to RC's vote. That has nothing to do with a fakevig. And what reason do I have to cover up the gambit? What motivation do I even have to do that as Scum? Your townreading Super (I guess?) but if I'm scum then Super has to be Scum also, since the only reason I would pull that fakevig as Scum would be to save his ass.

1)- The distinct possibility you're scum pushing on something that isn't scummy?
2)- So because you knew it was a reaction test, everyone else knew?
3)- You are making no fucking sense. How does it matter if one line of questioning tells us about one person? Why do you think it'd only tell us about Super?
4)- First bit is strawman. You're saying I said that your gambit is the same as what super did, whereas I just used it to emphasise the logical fallacy.
The movitation as scum is to collect towncred or get a claim (like Glork told us.), and it makes no sense that you would only do it with a super!partner.

[supercool898]

I have never been in a game with revalista before. Isn't revalista replacing out though?

So how did you know what their avatar looks like when you've never played with them and they haven't posted?

I saw his avatar in the sign up thread.

[Glork]

But you signed up before him?

[supercool898]

But you signed up before him?

That doesn't mean I can't look back at it does it? After around the 5 day mark I wanted to see how many people signed up. I knew that I would be playing with Soap and RC (these and MM are the people I have experience with) before the game even started.

[Glork]

No, it doesn't. I'm just seeing if everything checks out. If there was some kind of major anomoly, I'd be all over you and relavista but I'll leave it for now.

[Glork]

Wait a second. Soapbar hadn't signed up after 5 days. At that point, the most recent signup was RC early on September 30. (You signed up on September 25.)

ANOMOLY DETECTED

Unvote
Vote: Supercool898

[Glork]

For those who are failing to connect the dots, I think that supercool saw revalista's avatar in the Scum Private Topic, and slipped up when he made his RVS vote.

No prior experience with revalista.
Signed up 7 days before soapbar.
Claims he checked the queue thread 5 days later (***BEFORE Soapbar signed up***).
Yet somehow knew he was playing with Soapbar?

His explanation doesn't add up.

[supercool898]

*sigh* I never said I checked only once. I said I started checking after around the 5 day mark right? Well it took 7 days after I signed up before the game began, and I know I checked like 5 times (I checked at least once to look for if the list mod had seen the game was filled up) looking at the signup thread.

[supercool898]

Btw, if revalista never confirmed his role, wouldn't he not be in the scum topic either?

[Glork]

I already said I think he confirmed his role.

The only person who didn't confirm was CreerperWhateverHisNameWas, who has been replaced. Revalista isn't being replaced, so they very likely confirmed their role, and just haven't posted.

Not buying the changes in your story. Die, scum.

[Glork]

Why not just say "I checked the queue thread multiple times" to begin with? Why wait until I found a hole in your story to change said story?

[Glork]

You didn't explicitly state that you checked only once, but you certainly implied it. If you had actually checked several times, you would have said so up front.

[RadiantCowbells]

For those who are failing to connect the dots, I think that supercool saw revalista's avatar in the Scum Private Topic, and slipped up when he made his RVS vote.

No prior experience with revalista.
Signed up 7 days before soapbar.
Claims he checked the queue thread 5 days later (***BEFORE Soapbar signed up***).
Yet somehow knew he was playing with Soapbar?

His explanation doesn't add up.

Wow, someone actually figured out why I voted him.

kudos.

[supercool898]

Searching for replacements for KTthecreeper and revalista who both failed to pick up their role PMs.

what are you talking about revalista not being replaced?

as for implying that I only checked once in my post on the topic, I thought that in stating that I knew soap was in the game would let you know I checked more than once. There shouldn't be anything in that post that implies that I only looked once.

From what I can tell the only part that could imply that I only looked once is this sentence:

After around the 5 day mark I wanted to see how many people signed up.

Does this somehow signify that this was the only instance of looking? Just because this is the first instance of looking doesn't mean I wouldn't want to look again in the future.

[Glork]

Oh, you're right. I never saw that post at all. Humm.

Unvote

[Soapbar]

@Glork, Annadog has posted actually, in RVS, Post #4.

You're right, I missed that. Still, she's lurking up to this point.

2) I, as scum, used to fakevig to try and save my scumpartner.

Or to try to get an easy D1 claim from a protown player. "Crap, I'm dead? I was a [Doctor/Townie/Cop/etc]."
You could easily be scum with him as town. Don't try to pull shit BS on us.[/quote]

Sorry, I didn't consider that possibility. Wasn't trying to pull BS.

RVS ended as soon as RC voted you

I view RVS as sort of an ice breaker. It allows people to talk and make mistakes. When a person makes a mistake, then that is when RVS starts to end.

What kind of meaningful mistake can be made when everyone is simply making a joke vote?

They don't make mistakes from the votes themselves (unless they say they are voting using a system like random.org or something, drawing attention to them) but when conversations arise from the votes that is when mistakes can easily be made.

But how do conversations arise from the joke votes?

Why are you trying to get a RVS debate?
And why are you putting yourself into a conversation between two other players?

RVS ended as soon as RC voted you...

...But how do conversations arise from the joke votes?

Well isn't how this game has turned out? I made an RVS vote that caused RC to vote me which caused a conversation. Hopefully I am explaining this well...

This almost makes me reconsider my townread on Super. What's the purpose of the last bit?

I'm pretty sure RC was just reaction testing. Nothing about your RVS vote was particularly scummy to me.

But I can't speak for her.

What was the point of Garciaing this?

You know what, I'm just going to save people the time

Dayvig shot at Supercool898

What was the point of this gambit?

Welp, back to waiting a week for a new game. I wasn't scum. So far I think RC and Slandaar are town. I guess Soap is conftown then. Btw when do I die? At the end of the day, or when Chaos comes back?

This reaction seems somewhat town? Super seems like a bit of a freshman here that didn't know about the gambit.

Welp, back to waiting a week for a new game. I wasn't scum. So far I think RC and Slandaar are town. I guess Soap is conftown then. Btw when do I die? At the end of the day, or when Chaos comes back?

UNVOTE:

OK, real talk, I'm not a dayvig, that was a complete and total gambit. I decided to do it because I didn't think the wagon would yield any results on anybody else outside of you so it didn't help us.

so basically everyone who has talked is town?

Yep

This is like the horrendous logic you comndemned Super for? This seems like a post planned for covering up the gambit unless I'm missing something?

1) Because I had already started confronting him before. What does me questioning a player who made questionable moves have to do with anything?
2) Read what you quoted dude, SC thought that he had been voted because of his RVS vote, when it was pretty obvious RC was reaction testing. (At least I think it was pretty obvious he was, he gave no stated reason for the vote and said it was non-rvs)
3) Two Reasons: First is, With the line of questioning we were heading down, any results from said questioning would only tell about him, and if a wagon started to form then it would be pretty easy for scum to get on it and coast on it for an easy lynch. Second is if he was scum then it would be a quick confession in case he bought the trick.
5) What does my logic and Super's logic have to do with each other? I condemned Super for pulling arbitrary logic out of his ass to justify his reaction to RC's vote. That has nothing to do with a fakevig. And what reason do I have to cover up the gambit? What motivation do I even have to do that as Scum? Your townreading Super (I guess?) but if I'm scum then Super has to be Scum also, since the only reason I would pull that fakevig as Scum would be to save his ass.

1)- The distinct possibility you're scum pushing on something that isn't scummy?
2)- So because you knew it was a reaction test, everyone else knew?
3)- You are making no fucking sense. How does it matter if one line of questioning tells us about one person? Why do you think it'd only tell us about Super?
4)- First bit is strawman. You're saying I said that your gambit is the same as what super did, whereas I just used it to emphasise the logical fallacy.
The movitation as scum is to collect towncred or get a claim (like Glork told us.), and it makes no sense that you would only do it with a super!partner.

.

1) But clearly RC thought it was scummy, are you saying RC is scummy too? SC was the only one who had really done anything remotely scummy, did you want me to simply sit back?
2) Well did you think it was a reaction test? Because I thought it was a pretty transparent RT. Especially considering RC still hasn't released her reason for voting him.
3) Because if it only tells us about one person, then it's easy for scum to simply coast on that, especially since the line of questioning was turning to make SC appear scummy. I thought it would only tell about Super because it spawned from Super pulling arbitrary RVS rules out of his ass. Nobody, scum or otherwise, would try to defend that, and so if a Wagon spawned, it would revolve entirely around Super's fuck-up.
4) What is the logical fallacy I made? As for the second part, I oversaw both of those possibilities, forgive me.

[Soapbar]

Forgive the fucked up quotes

[supercool898]

Oh, you're right. I never saw that post at all. Humm.

I don't really get how you didn't see the post, but somehow knew that KTthecreeper didn't pick up his role.

[Glork]

Because creeper got replaced.

[supercool898]

I guess I could see that. It could look like just one person being replaced since there was only one line used in it.