So In order to do this properly I want to compare 2 things; There active reads, and the comments given. So this top section will be there last known reads (within 100 pages ) And will merely be interrupted with post links (that thing I dislike others doing) I expect if they wish to correct me they will do so, but they should be connected. as a sub note continuing our format war; Next time could you put a blank line between pages so I can at least go these are page one sec. thanks XYZZY
Okay... so erm.. there is 100 pages of no reads given here .. I guess I'll go back another 100 O_o
Or in 200.. Guess I will go into this blind then as anything more back than 200 is likely different now and unreliable to go off of. Though I dislike the fact there isn't reads this far back
Okay to make this easy I'm going to spilt this into 3 parts; Bits I like, Bits I would like expanding and Things That I take issue with. That way we can skip to the good parts after a quick summery
Things I agree with / Think is good. These are townie things.
In post 381, xyzzy wrote:36 (Killthestory): I didn't read Jordarrian's response as defensive, and it's weird that you did.
I agree Though I think it could of been a way to get conversation rolling. as it was still RVS area.
In post 381, xyzzy wrote:55 (Naomi-Tan): I definitely feel the same way as you describe in the first paragraph here a lot; I usually have much stronger town reads than scum reads.
Though I think there read is NAI I like the way they thought and described there own thought process here as akin to my own. being open about playstyle I feel is important to remove confusion.
In post 381, xyzzy wrote:57 (Creature): I don't really like this post very much; Naomi-Tan's post wasn't as bad as Creature seems to imply no matter what you thought of it imo
Totally agree this was the first time I got suspicious of creature for using the term on what wasn't a white-knight time.
In post 381, xyzzy wrote:60 (Vedith): remember what I said earlier about RVS votes when discussion has already started? same thing.
Well.. while I do think that at this stage Vedith could of commented about stuff I do also think that the RVS was kinda stalled still at this point and momentum was yet to be grasped. I agree they should of put more but disagree that it was inappropriate to RVS This is kinda an NAI though. Due to the Duel Motivation of it all.
Nope.
Another good point I dislike how they shut down discussion here its at this point im going to redact my vote from later in this post (welcome to non-chronological ordering)
In post 381, xyzzy wrote:81 (Io): in general I feel like trying to figure out the structure of the game at this point in time is really fruitless beyond just broad statements like "town's probably strong", so trying to figure out what's common doesn't seem like a good plan. also, the P-edit at the bottom is good.
I like how they didn't say they was scummy like my other scum reads. I think its a townie thing to see there views differ from others.
In post 402, xyzzy wrote:104 (pistachi0n): this isn't a good post. by page 4 you should have something to say about your vote for sure.
I kinda agree However, It could also been a reaction test at the time I may of commented on it but I can't remember (nor do I care to check at this stage) so.. Eh?
In post 112, Transcend wrote:this just in kts and naomi are softclaimed masons
because i don't know how anyone could like the toxicity that is naomi
In post 110, Transcend wrote:they're prob town i agree, but their posting style annoys me. wouldn't mind a vig on them lol.
In post 402, xyzzy wrote:10 (Transcend): I really don't like this post at all.
112 (Transcend): this is a terrible post for so many reasons, including the fact that, if you genuinely believe 2 people are masons, saying so on day 1 is basically just super unhelpful.
Strong town reasoning here (for the role stuff) I think its easy enough for scum to fake though Its enough to get another unvote XD
In post 402, xyzzy wrote:140 (light_ganski): it's interesting that light_ganski went from reading Naomi-Tan as null-scum to town from post 107 to 140. this post is okay.
I like this comment as it again goes aganist the active thoughts of this part of the game. shows they are not just wagon and looking for where to push much like where they looked at 81
In post 402, xyzzy wrote:143 (Creature): I'm not a fan of this post and I disagree.
I think Scum!XYZZY would have no reason to point this post out. as its saying there townie and would only make creatures veiw drop and they had no reason to do that as scum. For this reason I'm liking XYZZY even more.
It consistent to what she said about
127 and I like how they are defending there scum read as it fits in with there self description back in there analysis of
55 It would be easier as scum to ignore this post for there Transcend train.
In post 402, xyzzy wrote:185 (Vedith): y'know, you've still not actually clarified whether you were serious or not. 186 points toward you being serious, but you've not explicitly answered that question.
Kinda off topic but I'd love if this was clarified today.
In post 402, xyzzy wrote:188 (Io): this defense of post 81 from Io seems... reasonable.
189 (Vedith): Vedith continues to make unclear posts that do not significantly contribute to the game.
I just agree with these... not more to it.
Things I would like expanding. Things in this section basically come down to why do you think that? please elaborate.
In post 381, xyzzy wrote:19 (Killthestory): I don't think this post would come from scum.
Why? Please explain why scum would not do this or could not?
In post 28, Jordarrian wrote:
T O P K E K
Creature wrote:Jordarrian
Someone got a guilty on you.
Nice try, I read the thread.
In post 381, xyzzy wrote:28 (Jordarrian): this is a good response to Creature's post 27.
Errr Why? Like.. ... Why?
In post 381, xyzzy wrote:32-34: once any of Transcend, BlackStar, Creature or Jordarrian are dead, these 3 posts will be worth thinking about in more detail.
So... Your okay with this wagon. But then you say that about the wagon people? Now I'm just confused. So I'm going to go with; What? why?
In post 50, Naomi-Tan wrote: In post 25, light_ganski wrote:Yeah if the scum team are any good daytalk is more powerful than a PR so we probably have a few
I would like to point out that the fact scum have day talk is in the setup on page one encase anyone miss's it and thinks this is a scum slip.
In post 381, xyzzy wrote:50 (Naomi-Tan): this post feels like it comes from town.
Looks NAI to me, why do you think its townie btw?
Why? I can see it being a cool early claim if they copped scum. I would like to know why you feel this is a bad post?
In post 381, xyzzy wrote:76 (Killthestory): I have a bad habit of interpreting these sorts of posts as scummy even though they're usually not.
Err... Why? What is your reason for scum reading this kinda post?
In post 402, xyzzy wrote:122 (Transcend): Transcend, would you be willing to comment on what made you make this post?
Isn't trying to work out how many scum there are pretty normal? why did you feel the need to question this one? and isn't it NAI?
In post 402, xyzzy wrote:135 (Transcend): why did you feel the need to make this post? it feels annoying and unhelpful.
This comment was entirely unneeded why did you feel the need to make this comment? it feels annoying.... wait..
but yeah this lack lustier comment has now taken up multiple lines and posts entirely unneeded tbh I like it would of saved me a line or two in here just by not including it in your analysis I find it strange you would include such a pointless detail though.
Why? there isn't any new information given its just approval of a vote what do you like about this post?
In post 402, xyzzy wrote:152 (Naomi-Tan): I think gut reads are absolutely fine as long as you make it clear that that's what they are.
Given the content of
152 at the time I wasn't ready to voice my gut reads. Gut reads are pretty good but at the same time If your not able to defend those gut reads scum could put pressure onto them and force a misslynch so I try to hold back my votes longer than normal and only doing so when I feel pretty sure of my reads. though sometimes they can be talked down (like how in this post I've been sure your scum only to be hit with a bunch of townie posts and then gone, maybe there town.)
I like how they took the time to Iso them upto 402 (unless they took my word for it) It shows pro-activeness and that they took the time to understand everything
In post 158, Creature wrote:Naomi
If you do like explanations, why not do some of them yourself?
how does someone be or not be a fan of this post? Really this comment confuses me XD
Things That we will explore. These are things I disagree with or think looks scummy
In post 381, xyzzy wrote:5 (Creature): an RVS OMGUS. probably irrelevant but I'm noting it just in case it feels relevant later.
So... your taking an RVS omgus vote as potentually scummy. a joke vote done on the first page.. REALLY? And something you could of commented on before but didn't? I feel that town wouldn't have a reason to comment on a RVS in a serious manner like this. It just seems desperate and kinda reaching.
In post 6, Killthestory wrote:I've decided to obvious town this game because I feel like it, meaning I'm going to destroy any of you who are scum. I apologize, but this is now a no-fun zone. RVS will be allowed within the first two pages, and then you'll be eliminated.
In post 381, xyzzy wrote:6 (Killthestory): I get a slight town read from this post; I feel like these sorts of things involving making really broad, unlikely statements like this immediately come from town.
Really? you just make a habbit of taking the RVS seriously? and you town read it? I mean its a post thats 100% LAMIST its just entirely NAI Its a joke comment and you just was like; they told a joke that means they are more likely to be town? I just don't.. >_<
In post 381, xyzzy wrote:20 (BlackStar): these kinds of things where someone doesn't notice some aspect of the setup mentioned in the rules that is only directly relevant to scum generally feels town.
Okay so.. in 19 she liked where KTS obversed that scum can fake slips and then doesn't question this interaction like; KTS announced that scum can fake slips then someone does a slip right after and you just brought it? despite liking KTS's Observation? I dislike how these two things you thought was town lined up.
In post 381, xyzzy wrote:24 (Transcend): I'm generally not a huge fan of it when someone RVS votes when there's already discussion going, but I think overall it's a null tell on its own. if it's combined with very little other content later on, though, that's bad.
Firstly; this was still on page 1 which is perfectly fine for RVS and secondly RVS wasn't even over at this stage, there was no trackion other than someone had gone; Scum have day talk. and people going, yes. Now what would you suggest they put other than a random vote; "Hi good work on looking at the rules section." this was a perfectly valid RVS, vote.
In post 29, Killthestory wrote: In post 26, Jordarrian wrote:Alright hello guys! This is technically my first game because both my newbie games I replaced out. Killthestory knows me on another forum which I prefer to play mafia from, but I think we only played 1 game with each other.
If you guys would like links to see my games from there then let me know
VOTE: Jordarrian
Yo Transcend wagon this w/ me
Yo Dawg I heard you like wagons. So I joined the wagon against you. (I gave up meme'ing half way)
VOTE: XYYZY Because I keep disagreeing with them as i'm reading through and I don't think there observations at town ones as a lot of them just look like there just saying everything is town :/ So wanna pressure them.
In post 59, Naomi-Tan wrote: In post 57, Creature wrote: In post 50, Naomi-Tan wrote: In post 25, light_ganski wrote:Yeah if the scum team are any good daytalk is more powerful than a PR so we probably have a few
I would like to point out that the fact scum have day talk is in the setup on page one encase anyone miss's it and thinks this is a scum slip.
We know, you don't need to whiteknight him.
I know you know but someone might of missed it
In post 61, light_ganski wrote:Pretty sure that, considering we were discussing how scum had daytalk, no one's going to think it's a scum slip. ...
In post 381, xyzzy wrote:61 (light_ganski): I feel like trying to derail the conversation by making something mundane like acknowledging the fact that scum have daytalk is something scum could plausibly do.
I feel that It was on topic for the time as quoted. and wouldn't the derailing thing apply to creature more?
In post 381, xyzzy wrote:86 (Transcend): I feel like all of Transcend's posts that I've commented on were things where I was like "that's a bit scummy" but I'd not really paid attention to the fact that all of them come from the same person. this is bad.
Well so far in this post you talked about them once
In post 123, xyzzy wrote:
and why is that? you've yet to meaningfully substantiate what about my play so far you dislike.
and going back through You commented once about them and they answered back with a responsible response for why they disliked your posts.
In post 124, Transcend wrote: In post 14, xyzzy wrote:Killthestory, of the players who haven't posted yet, which is the scummiest? thanks
In post 93, xyzzy wrote:
can you confirm that you're being serious about this statement? BlackStar, what's your thoughts?
I don't like how Jordarrian responded to that wagon, but I'm definitely not putting someone at L-2 on page 4 because that would be irresponsible
posts like these don't sound genuine
Then there are shade posts like this one which you question cred's voting habbits based on a post in the RVS section made by another player all togeather
In post 277, xyzzy wrote: In post 29, Killthestory wrote: In post 26, Jordarrian wrote:Alright hello guys! This is technically my first game because both my newbie games I replaced out. Killthestory knows me on another forum which I prefer to play mafia from, but I think we only played 1 game with each other.
If you guys would like links to see my games from there then let me know
VOTE: Jordarrian
Yo Transcend wagon this w/ me
this post right here makes me very suspicious regarding Transcend's wagon habits
You do have one more comment but I redacted it if you guys are interested its
306 and
308 But This was analysis of the multi-part messages from her so we'll not cover those in this post just to save space on this already length quote post. But this last comment made me put my vote back on.
In post 381, xyzzy wrote:88 (Transcend): also in what sense does Naomi-Tan seem like a gimmick account? what gimmick does she have?
Here they are not saying I'm a gimmick account. If I haddn't checked this It would of been in the townie section. but yeah, there not calling me a gimmick there. though I would be interested to know this too. (if it was true)
In post 402, xyzzy wrote:124 (Transcend: I've already said this, but I don't like the way Transcend sets up looking at me as scum; the only valid response to this is "I disagree" because it's completely subjective.
I covered this post on there look up at 86. However, as an ammendum now they are speaking more about there Scum!Scend read I'm finding it less scummy than I did back then. though I am doing my best to perverse my feelings as I track these two posts as they cover so much that my view is bouncing, its hard to show how reacting post by post in this format as there is what equates to 100 posts of posting in one block.
In post 158, Creature wrote:Naomi
If you do like explanations, why not do some of them yourself?
Unlike in the last comment this one I disagree with. It is always a valid thing to ask for more explanations and at the time I haddn't really given out too many reads and been kinda cautious upto that stage. It was a perfectly valid thing to suspect me before page 10 for this kind of reasoning and I dunno why you would not like this post. If someone is not given information the thing you should do is pressure for it IMO, unless they say they'll give it later.
In post 381, xyzzy wrote:81 (Io): in general I feel like trying to figure out the structure of the game at this point in time is really fruitless beyond just broad statements like "town's probably strong", so trying to figure out what's common doesn't seem like a good plan. also, the P-edit at the bottom is good.
In post 402, xyzzy wrote:164 (Creature): looking back at post 81, I agree with this.
Your analysis doesn't match up with your thoughts here. What happened?
Eeh.. true but its not IO's thoughts that matter here its creatures who was against not voting. so.. this doesn't really work as its not applying IO standards to Creature but comparing creatures standards to themselves.
In post 199, Transcend wrote:Yo V, i looked at Blackstar's posts from the beginning of game til post 60 when you voted. Only thing i disagree from him is this:
In post 40, BlackStar wrote:Tos is kind of fun, but it's too easy because most of the players are horrible
And that's because tos is bottom tier garbage. I didn't get much from his posts up to your vote. Care to elaborate your scum read on him? Are you in a neighborhood with him or something and he made a bad post in your pt? I don't understand the death tunnel. Dibd your vote even start out as rvs? Help a guy pls.
I'd disagree this looks like they want to dig deeper into the reason for there scum!blackstar read rather than the RVS reasoning and it could also be trying to pressure them to confirm what they claimed properly as there sorta being a little crazy in that department.
Comments I have no strong feelings on one way or another (NAI)
98,
108,
127,
128 (Means town Vs Town)
135,
163,
168,
180,
182
UNVOTE:
VOTE: creature Just returning my vote to where it was. obvs going to read them over when I get my mega read out. (this post was exhausting to make XD)
UNVOTE:
VOTE: XYZZY Okay so.. There focusing on Transcend's wagon just seems off to me as it doesn't line up with there reads over the game coming off as more OMGUS'y as they keep calling them suspicious and in reaction they have been focusing them for a while.
UNVOTE:
VOTE: creature
So yeah.. remember when I said I hate these posts.. This is the result of what happens when someone cross analysis's 200 posts of analysis at once. I'm not sure if anyone will make it through this but if you did you earn my respect.
PEDIT; yeah sorry this post took a LONG time to make (like I knew it would) Hope it was worth the wait. now onto my updated read list (sigh I already feel burnt out XD)
