In post 129, Nahdia wrote:@Willow that's a really bold statement. Why can't I just be town who was wrong or scum who voted my partner? I like your posts in the sense that they feel genuine but I'm not quite understanding your logic. Elaborate, please.
Obviously it's a bold statement, everyone throws those in these games. Maybe I'm not as serious as you're assuming. If I really let my reads on you two completely be based on that logic for the whole game, it indeed would potentially be harmful for the reasons you stated. Of course it's only after the flips/endgame that we find out for sure what the case here really is; I'm just speculating, not digging deep into anything, especially since it's this early and I'd really have to stretch to find anything that would make either of you 100% scum in your 11 posts each.
In post 143, GoodNightMsGreen wrote:Get a little more wishywashy, why don't you? Classic newbScum, Creature, I don't like it.
When you say something like that I always get a bad feeling.
tbh I'd like to know what wishywashy means.
1. That's one of Blue's, but I think it was intended as an RV and only an RV.
2. That's a joke any way you look at it.
3. I
am
serious about potentially policy lynching Kain, whether Blue is or not.
4. I think what Blue meant was that Kain is unlikely to post anything alignment-indicative. You'd have to ask him though, since all I can tell you is that I'm definitely ignoring Kain.
5.
a. I don't understand.
b. Even though you disagree?
c. I think you'll find that I said I thought I should. At the time, you hadn't posted anything indicative, though.
d. Why would I push someone who looks Town?
e. OK.
6. Or, possibly, an answer to a question. (This relates to the story of my username but I don't really want to bore anyone with the reasons I try to be nice to people.)
7. Creature you are not even trying either. I honestly expected better from you.
1. Then have him explain.
2. If you say
3. Then tell us why his lynch will be benefitial?
4. Still, not a reason to ignore him.
5.
a. "the teasing really reminds me of something I do as both alignments in Newbie games" So do you consider Ranger town for that?
b. Disagree on what?
c. Thought you were bothered on solving Ranger's "confident" reads.
d. You say you have a bad feeling on his tone.
6. Whatever.
7. This is why I have a bad feeling about this post. You just say "you are not even trying" out of nowhere.
In post 141, acryon wrote:I agree on GoodNightMsGreen, especially seeing them all together.
It's interesting that you say you agree with Creature about our alignment when Creature never actually stated a point about our alignment.[/quote]
In post 147, GoodNightMsGreen wrote:The naked vote on Willow in 70 gels with "someone who doesn't just throw their vote around"?
OK.
Yeah, it was a RVS. I thought this was still up.
In post 155, GoodNightMsGreen wrote:Or he just said he was because he forgot why he was going to say he voted her.
Creature, you don't have to ask GM to get me to explain.
1. It was a RV and KainTepes has a bit of reputation due to his posting style.
2. Did you take this seriously ? you must feel a bit desperate.
3. His posting style is detrimental to the game and town, his lynch is similar in my opinion to lynching a lurker
4. So you accuse me of wanting to policy lynch KT and not giving him enough importance ?
Creature, please give us an exhaustive read on KainTepes, your accusations need to be backed by solid facts : please show us how you are not ignoring KainTepes by giving your reads on him.
Klingon saying she's super town when she has no posts of substance reads like fake town bluster. How can anyone be confused that they're scumread when all of their posts are fluff?
Creature's case on GoodNight is weak. The PL point acts like wanting a policy lynch is a scumtell (it isn't). I'm not even sure what he means by "buddying" in 139. The rest is fluff put there to make the case seem more substantial. It's as if he started with a desire to scumread GoodNight and went through their posts looking for stuff to make them look bad - a manufactured read, in other words.
The case is bad to the point that I don't like Acryon buying into it so easily. What's even scummy about GN? How does what Creature said suggest that at all?
@Acryon: What did you find so convincing about 139?
I already stated KainTepes' behavior seems different. If you want explanation, it's because his town self makes push votes even out of RVS, not the case here. I found it weird GoodNight first came wanting to just policy lynch KainTepes, but then wanting to completely ignore him.
Also, TheSoldier, what's your opinion on GoodNight?
Nahdia wrote:Ranger as much as I enjoy your vague teasing, what you're doing would be really easy to fake as scum. We have no way of judging the sincerity of your reads.
No trust is needed. My reads speak for themself. If you think they are right, then that's great. (This currently seems to be the case.) I don't need to do anything more. If you think they are wrong, then I'll continue to push harder. (I have not seen this.) I'll either be proven right or proven wrong. My alignment isn't really relevant, though, given with this playerlist I'm a near-guaranteed nightkill.
Klingoncelt wrote:I dunno about Creature, but I'm about as Town as it gets.
I've seen you town games up.
This is not you towning a game up.
What you saw was my play during what was without question the worst year of my life. In brief, it started out with a family member stealing a very large amount of cash from me, followed by 6 people dying suddenly in as many weeks, starting with my daughter-in-law's pneumonia and ending with a long-time family friend's suicide. During that time, my son and I both picked up MRSA infections, I recovered quickly, he nearly died. After that came the gangbanger armed robbery.
I have finally overcome the worst of the depression and am beginning to rebuild my life. My play may seem like what you've seen before, but fortunately I am no longer that soulcrushed person. My meta has shifted.
Klingoncelt: "The whole scumteam slipped on page 1. It's the new meta. Sheep me because my reads are so accurate that whoever I name gets mod-converted to scum."
In post 96, Willowmeadow wrote:I can't tell if Nahdia was serious in the start, but they're definitely someone who I won't forget to keep an eye on.
I was serious. What does that mean to you?
That there's probably a scum between you and Masquerade. I don't want to instantly declare you scum based on the early vague scene so for now I'll just see how this is going to develop.
Klingon, you haven't done anything. Why are you expecting conf-town reads already? So far you've just been RVS fluffposting. Are you still just fluffposting? I wouldn't expect any positive reads if I did the same what you're doing.
I lag a bit on Day1. I'm much more of a Day3 player. Don't worry, I'm paying attention and re-reading over and over.
We have 11 days until deadline, I'll draw some conclusions long before then.
Klingoncelt: "The whole scumteam slipped on page 1. It's the new meta. Sheep me because my reads are so accurate that whoever I name gets mod-converted to scum."
What about me? And what makes you confident we're both scum?
@Klingon
Is there something else you find her list wrong other than you being pointed as scum?
See my previous post. Re-reading...
Klingoncelt: "The whole scumteam slipped on page 1. It's the new meta. Sheep me because my reads are so accurate that whoever I name gets mod-converted to scum."
For the record, I don't know most of the players, that requires more time to sort everyone out.
Klingoncelt: "The whole scumteam slipped on page 1. It's the new meta. Sheep me because my reads are so accurate that whoever I name gets mod-converted to scum."
In post 160, GoodNightMsGreen wrote:Creature, please give us an exhaustive read on KainTepes, your accusations need to be backed by solid facts : please show us how you are not ignoring KainTepes by giving your reads on him.
~Blue
Blue you are the best, 100%, no lie nor exaggeration.
In post 143, GoodNightMsGreen wrote:Get a little more wishywashy, why don't you? Classic newbScum, Creature, I don't like it.
When you say something like that I always get a bad feeling.
tbh I'd like to know what wishywashy means.
It means you're a flipflopper, that you won't take a stance. In your readspost you waffled on 3/5 and didn't actually commit to a read on the other 2.
Spoiler:
1. That's one of Blue's, but I think it was intended as an RV and only an RV.
2. That's a joke any way you look at it.
3. I
am
serious about potentially policy lynching Kain, whether Blue is or not.
4. I think what Blue meant was that Kain is unlikely to post anything alignment-indicative. You'd have to ask him though, since all I can tell you is that I'm definitely ignoring Kain.
5.
a. I don't understand.
b. Even though you disagree?
c. I think you'll find that I said I thought I should. At the time, you hadn't posted anything indicative, though.
d. Why would I push someone who looks Town?
e. OK.
6. Or, possibly, an answer to a question. (This relates to the story of my username but I don't really want to bore anyone with the reasons I try to be nice to people.)
7. Creature you are not even trying either. I honestly expected better from you.
1. Then have him explain.
2. If you say
3. Then tell us why his lynch will be benefitial?
4. Still, not a reason to ignore him.
5.
a. "the teasing really reminds me of something I do as both alignments in Newbie games" So do you consider Ranger town for that?
b. Disagree on what?
c. Thought you were bothered on solving Ranger's "confident" reads.
d. You say you have a bad feeling on his tone.
6. Whatever.
7. This is why I have a bad feeling about this post. You just say "you are not even trying" out of nowhere.
1. We're not always around at the exact same time, you know.
2. I do say so.
3. Have you looked at his posts? He looks to me like he's being deliberately bad. That is a "playstyle" we should discourage.
4. Someone who's not going to post anything either alignment-indicative or at least thought-provoking is a distraction and can and should be ignored.
5.
a. No, I'm townreading Ranger for "but it's a lot more Open than that and feels right."
b. Disagree on my Masquerade read.
c. I don't see what Ranger's reads have to do with my read of you.
d. Yes, but I also say it's been a long time since we played and I don't remember how he should sound. Some people just don't mesh on a playstyle level.
6. Whatever? That may have been your best point, and you just let it go?
7. You're not even trying to {scumhunt/make a good case on us/do anything other than try to distract people from wagoning you}. Klingon's not even trying to look Town, she's just telling us she does.
In post 161, TheSoldier wrote:Klingon saying she's super town when she has no posts of substance reads like fake town bluster. How can anyone be confused that they're scumread when all of their posts are fluff?
Creature's case on GoodNight is weak. The PL point acts like wanting a policy lynch is a scumtell (it isn't). I'm not even sure what he means by "buddying" in 139. The rest is fluff put there to make the case seem more substantial. It's as if he started with a desire to scumread GoodNight and went through their posts looking for stuff to make them look bad - a manufactured read, in other words.
This analysis is much better than mine. (omg watch out i might start buddying you)
The case is bad to the point that I don't like Acryon buying into it so easily.
And this was very nearly my exact thought.
In post 162, Creature wrote:I already stated KainTepes' behavior seems different. If you want explanation, it's because his town self makes push votes even out of RVS, not the case here. I found it weird GoodNight first came wanting to just policy lynch KainTepes, but then wanting to completely ignore him.
You are aware that there are several of us, right? It is extremely unlikely that we're going to have the exact same thoughts on the same players at the same times - we have different experience with them and with Mafia in general, different playstyles, different theory, different approaches.
For more on this effect, but in a non-hydra context that may be easier to understand, check the Mason QT from NY169. (post 7251 in the game will give some context.)
NY169 also has some good examples of when hydra dissonance becomes without-a-doubt scummy (Casso) and what Town hydrae should look like (geists, possibly KBBQ).
Creature wrote:@Ranger What about me? And what makes you confident we're both scum?
If it makes you feel better, I don't see anything that really ties you together. It's just you two happen to be the scummiest players in the game and I'm townreading to some extent all the other players.
I didn't like your RVS, nor your reaction to my list.
AKA, rBree2. Casual tryhard. I've Quite the RANGE. #pluralgang
"Interestingly though, town winrate in Blitzes has been really high."
Posts read as fluff and pointless questions. And I'll echo this since it was ignored:
In post 71, TheSoldier wrote:@Kop: You've been passive so far. Why no attempts to engage?
I mostly do early doors during RVS, I like to get a feel of what people are like, then I start looking at things when things starting to get serious.
I'm going to catch up, been inactive due to being busy yesterday and I'm not feeling too good in myself health wise, will try cram as much as thoughts out as I can before I go to the doctors.
In post 85, Masquerade wrote:Hey Willow, can I call you Willow? Do you have any reads so far you'd like to share?
Yeah you can call me that.
I can't tell if Nahdia was serious in the start, but they're definitely someone who I won't forget to keep an eye on. Gut says there's something off about Creature but for now I can't put my finger on it.
I like what Ranger has been doing. Pretty original RVS strategy.
Don't know what zefiend is seeing as fluff in Kop. I'm not going to comment anything else on this
yet
. I hope there's going to be more friction between them.
But in the end, KainTepes is the reason I'm afraid this day is going to end in a policy lynch. I hope he's replacing out before that, though.
There shouldn't be a policy lynch. What is giving you a reason you think there is going to be a policy lynch? Do you not think we will actually find a good candidate to lynch?
I know it's going to be hard to get a 100% read on KT, but unless he does something that is scummy, then yeah we can progress on that, but for policy lynching him, no.
In post 161, TheSoldier wrote:Klingon saying she's super town when she has no posts of substance reads like fake town bluster. How can anyone be confused that they're scumread when all of their posts are fluff?
Creature's case on GoodNight is weak. The PL point acts like wanting a policy lynch is a scumtell (it isn't). I'm not even sure what he means by "buddying" in 139. The rest is fluff put there to make the case seem more substantial. It's as if he started with a desire to scumread GoodNight and went through their posts looking for stuff to make them look bad - a manufactured read, in other words.
The case is bad to the point that I don't like Acryon buying into it so easily. What's even scummy about GN? How does what Creature said suggest that at all?
@Acryon: What did you find so convincing about 139?
VOTE: Creature <-- L-2
Is the case worse than the mostly non-existent one on Creature? Is it great? No, but we are also on page 7 and it's better than any other leads at the moment.
78 reads really badly. Faux-content. 62 is also bad, and looks very much like buddying a townie or preemptively defending a scum-partner.
In post 155, GoodNightMsGreen wrote:Or he just said he was because he forgot why he was going to say he voted her.
This is a bit far fetched. Your trying to take a stance on something on the assumption of what is going on in another mans head.
If he forgot why he voted for her, then he could clearly state that, since he didn't give a reason. I felt it was a RVS post at that time, but I wanted clarification to that vote, since I felt that we were starting to veer away from RVS, with more questions were starting to be asked, not relevant to RVS.
He doesn't need to be on your radar for you to take a issue with it though, surely? Your reading the thread, you don't just think 'I'll not ask anything or talk about that post, he's not on my radar".
In post 172, acryon wrote:78 reads really badly. Faux-content. 62 is also bad, and looks very much like buddying a townie or preemptively defending a scum-partner.
He doesn't need to be on your radar for you to take a issue with it though, surely? Your reading the thread, you don't just think 'I'll not ask anything or talk about that post, he's not on my radar".
"And I'm pretty sure someone had already asked him about it."
What is there to talk about? "Oh, it's a naked vote, I can definitely do shitloads of analysis on it!"
