In post 311, SpyreX wrote:Cakes bringing the hard hitting journalism.
You've got two heads producing that. Yes i want you lynched. Would i be shocked if you flipped town? No. Would i cry tears of regret? No.
This nacho wagon is boring. Too boring in fact. But just the right level of boring that it will fester until day end and then lo and nehold there we are
Notice that Spyrex called the Nacho wagon "boring" (not bad) and thinks it's legitimate enough to stick around until the end of the day.
In post 320, Nachomamma8 wrote: In post 299, Elyse wrote:The "I'd move onto something else but I don't have anything" reeks of Nacho wanting to get off kraska because he knows it's a shitty push (or whatever he's calling it) but has nowhere else to go.
This is a not so great premise based on what stage of the game it is currently. I can do whatever the hell I want at this point in the time because everyone who has played more than five games of mafia knows that currently the name of the game is throwing shit at the wall to see what sticks. Arguing that I struggled to get off an RVS push (that no, wasn't a push more than it was questioning) is equivalent to me arguing that this case is you overcompensating because you wanted to separate yourself from your shitty House vote (which, just to be perfectly clear, is 100% an absolutely absurd argument).
By absurd argument are you talking about me saying you're struggling to get off your RVS vote or my House vote?
If it's the former, I think you kinda dug yourself into a hole there when you shrugged your shoulders and said you had nowhere else to go. If it's the latter, then why didn't you call it out earlier? As you said, RVS is mostly throwing shit against the wall and seeing what sticks. What was so "absurd" about what I said? I clearly missed the context because I didn't read the pregame thread at all but I don't see what's so crazy about my House vote.
In post 320, Nachomamma8 wrote:
In post 299, Elyse wrote:"feel free to disagree if you'd like" pings my scumdar. Shows too much uncertainty.
Saying that he could feel free to disagree was a challenge, as evidenced by "...which I don't think is unreasonable or anywhere close to it" which came immediately before. I don't even understand what the "too much uncertainty" point has to do with anything or how you even got to that point if you were actually reading my post; the rest of the post was very strongly and obviously not "uncertain".
I think uncertainty was maybe the wrong word...scared? timid? It's like you were afraid to take a stance and had to add the "feel free to disagree" in there. You say it's a challenge but to me it looks more like you're not trying to take a stance.
In post 320, Nachomamma8 wrote:
In post 299, Elyse wrote:I find Nacho's response here oddly tame. Like he just accused Cakez of misrepping him and just asks him why he did it rather than looking for motivation. Doesn't jive with me.
Cakez misrepped me. I expect Cakez to misrep me regardless of alignment because he doesn't typically read very closely.
Saying that I was too tame for you is equivalent to saying that I'm too defensive, or angry-sounding; unless you have decent familiarity with a person or you've played with them a decent amount, nitpicking someone to the degree that you're doing to me right now is ineffective and annoying as hell.
I don't use meta much, sorry! When I see someone say "why did you misrep me" rather than "Cakez misrepped me, he's scum because of x or it's not alginment indicative because of y" (which you didn't do until I called you out), it's scummy.
In post 320, Nachomamma8 wrote:
Context: Dwlee's entrance was underwhelming and that post was a follow up to that point.
Which you would realize if you were reading my posts.
How am I supposed to know that this was in reference to Dwlee's underwhelming entrance?
I am reading your posts and looking back I guess I could see that but it's not clear at all.
In post 320, Nachomamma8 wrote:
In post 299, Elyse wrote:This is just unnecessary. The jalapeno wagon wasn't ever going through so early. Nacho knows this.
I know that it's happened in the past. I know a couple of times where I've had that same attitude that you have here.
I also know that playing conservatively has absolutely nothing to do with alignment. You know this too!
I also know that trying to derail a nonserious wagon on page 12 on someone who has done nothing is scummy. Especially when you said you were disappointed by their entrance, apparently.
In post 320, Nachomamma8 wrote:
In post 299, Elyse wrote:Again, a tame response. Here jalapeno is accusing him of white knighting and instead of looking at WHY jalapeno would say that, he posits a dumb rhetorical question.
I didn't white knight Dwlee.
I was pushing back against the idea of a speedlynch, as you just noted.
Why is pointing out that I wasn't whiteknighting him an unacceptable response?
I just don't understand why you're giving the dwlee slot so many chances. "It's the beginning of the game, there's not much to go on" "I'm disappointed" "We shouldn't lynch jalapeno" "I didn't white knight you". All of their content is shitty/misrepping you and you seem fine with it.
In post 320, Nachomamma8 wrote:
How on earth are you missing the context here?
Like, okay, maybe I understand you missing the last one, everyone makes mistakes, but there's clearly a reason I'm pointing out that it is still in the early stage in the game that you ignore for absolutely no reason.
Saying that no one has done anything worth reading is scummy because there are certainly things that have happened at that point in time that are worth reading. Like your "push" on kraska. Or the wagon on jalapeno. Or your interaction with Cakez.
In post 320, Nachomamma8 wrote:
In post 299, Elyse wrote:This reads as scum bewildered that his attempted buddying isn't working.
My argument was that Dwlee's early wagon was stupid.
His response was that they hadn't done anything at all (in the first day of the game).
That response was dumb.
I'm not saying it isn't dumb, but you're acting confused when a "dumb" response wouldn't elicit that type of reaction from you.
In post 323, SirCakez wrote: In post 321, Nachomamma8 wrote: In post 291, SirCakez wrote:The nature of being "too" something (too laidback, too lurky, etc.) implies scumminess, so I pointed that out and he agreed and voted Nacho.
Someone acting differently than you expect means that it's perfectly normal (and the purpose of the game even) to prod at it. Someone acting differently doesn't mean that they are suspicious, especially when you don't have any familiarity with a player that's acting differently.
As for your "I'm close to 100% sure that Nacho is scum"... You've played with me a few times but not many times at all, you haven't demonstrated any unique strength in reading me (I remember you being paranoid as hell in Gumball of me as town and I remember you defending me in Musical when I was scum), the game isn't yet three days old... don't you think that you should probably dial back the confidence a couple of notches?
In what world is "too defensive" something used not to describe scummy behavior?
I don't understand the relevance of my past with you, that's pointless shade casting. I don't need experience with you to have a strong read on you.
In post 322, Nachomamma8 wrote: In post 162, SirCakez wrote:Look at this scumbutt
I never said he said "too defensive", I was talking to gigabyte lol.
Gigabyte said that it looked like I was making kraska look too defensive.
Your response was that too defensive = scumminess.
If "too defensive" = "scummy", then "making kraska look scummy" and "making kraska look too defensive" are equivalent statements.
If you didn't agree with his point, then it makes no sense for you to respond to his point the way you did as opposed to saying something along the lines of "I disagree with your point!".
I don't understand the point of this post at all
Yes I think being too defensive is scummy
Cakez is town.
In post 326, Nachomamma8 wrote:Vote: Elyse
While I'm still acknowledging that Elyse's case could have just been a townie trying too hard to put words with feelings, I'm not really buying that Elyse as town would stretch quite that much (in particular her "Nacho's saying that nothing has happened! Scummy!"), and I don't really like her "too tame, too much uncertainty" tells; I don't think that any of what she pointed out is an actual scumtell or anything that she believes is a scumtell and I don't think she'd make such a large case on something she knew was completely insignificant.
Why did you wait to make this vote?
It's also a terrible vote. On the same page (or around there) where you say that nothing noteworthy has happened and people are trying to throw shit that sticks, why is a "stretched" case so scummy?
In post 328, camn wrote:Elyse wrote:@camn
You said earlier that you wouldn't support a Nacho lynch D1 but now say you will. What's up?
In general...I am very uncertain day 1. I act confident, because of course I do, but in truth I don't have strong reads. Yet. As such, my policy is to support lynches on players I don't really know that well...so that day 2 consists of people I can read better, increasing the odds of me winning. So nacho gets a pass, generally.
BUT... He started out so scummy, as you pointed out already. So I reconsider my guidelines. I like lynching scum more than I like internal consistency. So lets see how this all plays out.
UNVOTE: SpicyJalapeñoKnocks
This response feels icky to me. Like you're testing the waters and pushing the Nacho scumread all on me.
Mostly just me overexaggerating
In post 337, SpyreX wrote:Oh i don't think it's a scum move. The double down on it especially. But it's still moon farts
Why is it moon farts? I thought the Nacho wagon was "boring" but would hang around.
Also keep in mind that Spyrex doesn't think it's a scum move.
In post 339, Papa Zito wrote:Elyse's case was a pile of crap and Nacho tore it to shreds. More interesting is Elyse refuses to back down afterwards.
well met
I am entreating the blood gods for a miracle vig. Please oh miracle vig deliver us the dead bodies, amen.
So what does that mean? What are your reads?
In post 338, kraska77 wrote: In post 336, Postie wrote:329 makes me want to both scumread Elyse for how fake it sounds and townread her for how ballsy the push is.
Yeah same her push seems unconditionally strong considering the gamestate
I was iffy on nacho But that last post on elyse was bad...it just seems really weak, like "here, have a vote"
In post 349, kraska77 wrote:okay so elyse went from nothing to gobsmack "LYNCH NACHO THE SCUMZER". there's no succession she just massacred in to attack and her tone is accusatory...it feels forced and offbeat from the gamestate, like she's more content attacking than give room for nacho to explain himself. idk compare this to cakes/nacho interactions, felt more natural and genuine. it's ballsy but i dont feel comfortable writing her off as town for that
post 326 nacho votes elyse and this is totally a valid vote/push to make after his rebuttal of her case...but then he goes on to say he acknowledges that elyse could be town and i feel this negates the effect of his vote if that was supposed to pressure her...why arent you pushing elyse more strongly nacho?
These seem contradictory. You say that Nacho's post/vote was bad and then say it was valid.
In post 352, Papa Zito wrote:
The concentrated awful from the outset certainly doesn't seem to be coming from a sunshine and rainbows place. The subsequent lack of backtrack feels more deer-in-headlights stuck that stubborn stuck. It's "yeah well uh fuck here lemme sling some mud and slink into my hole to let this blow over" to me. If this was true town blinders tunneling AHA I FOUND SCUMZ here I would expect a dissection of Nacho's response but instead she took her ball and went home.
But that's just a theory, a game theory, thanks for watching.
More theory. Why no reads/votes? Why not join the wagon on me?
Slight townread on Giga for 373. I think openly admitting to sheeping for strategic purposes is pretty genuine.
In post 407, camn wrote: In post 404, House wrote:
Thus far you've been pretty salty to me and idk what I've done to deserve it.
Internal dissonance noted.
I find it odd you have no comment on Nacho after agreeing with my scumread on him and instead call out this nonsense.
What's with this progression? Nothing happened in between this. Why didn't you vote me earlier? This just seems like you were waiting for me to post something so you could hop on and got antsy.
In post 419, camn wrote:Alright. Agreed. There is enough meat in this sandwich.
VOTE: SpicyJalapeñoKnocks
I think this is the right move today.
a) likely scum.
b) Reasonable amount of wagon-analysis opportunity.
c) not sold on nacho-scum
d) death to all hydras.
Why is Jalapeno likely scum?
In post 435, camn wrote:
recently he got the N1, and I got the N2. That was great.
ps:
camn-claim: PGO
p-edit. postie why.
Why claim now and not immediately?
Unless it's not a serious claim? I can never tell these days.
In post 461, Postie wrote:2) Along the same kind of lines, why would scum lurk out their partner's lynch at this point rather than bus the fuck out of them? Presently, no one's really shouting about their lynch with any real conviction except SpyreX, and if you want to convince me they're partners then glhf.
Are you townreading Spyrex?
Nonetheless I do like the logic in this post. Enough to make me against a Jalapeno flip at this point.
In post 462, kraska77 wrote:An elyse wagon is something I feel people will actually have opinions about.
Yeah clearly no one wants it. What gives? Why are you pushing so hard when A) I haven't been posting [meaning I can't respond to you/there's no new info for people to vote/not vote me with] B) You weren't sold on me being scum and I haven't posted anything since
In post 472, Papa Zito wrote:I mean
You have a full L-1 wagon tally-ho on one guy
Then you have zero wagon on the second guy
And they're literally the same guy
So what's the point of derailing wagon A at this juncture
House said because hiplop is flying under the radar and Jalapeno isn't. Scum are more likely to start a frenzied lurker lynch on a town lurker than their own buddy.
In post 476, SpyreX wrote:I'd hammer the shit out of elyse, cake, hiplop. You could almost convince me of dram.
Where does this come from? You said that what I did wasn't a scum move but suddenly you'd hammer the shit out of me? And why Cakez?
I've been thinking that too. I'd like you to expand on this.
In post 493, Papa Zito wrote:
You're the only one interested and you haven't been around to push it so ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Spyrex also supports it apparently.
@Nacho
What does that ISO have to do with anything?
My desire for a speedlynch was an over exaggeration. People do this all the time.
In post 502, Nachomamma8 wrote:I pointed out that 1) Cakez sucked reading me in the past, 2) Cakez hasn't played with me much, 3) The game was three days old.
I was pointing those things out because you shouldn't have a "close to 100% read" that early in the game when you don't really have much familiarity with someone and have sucked in that little experience they do have.
So in other words, you're discrediting his read partly because you haven't played with him many times.
In post 507, Nachomamma8 wrote:I also don't really think that the game has been going on long enough to say that people are lurking out anything, but maybe that's just me...?
You did call me a "top-tier lurker" though...
In post 509, SpicyJalapeñoKnocks wrote:Spyrex I was planning on sheeping you for my post and you still have my vote on me but I think you're town so find scum so I can sheep you kthx.
~Dwlee
Ok so scumreading Nacho, camn, slightly Spyrex, maybe Papa Zito and kraska (gotta sort these out, too many)
Townreading Cakez, giga, Postie, slightly Jalapeno for Postie's logic
Everyone else is null
i no longer strictly go by they/them and honestly prefer she/her but they/them's fine if you're used to it i guess