In post 191, bewilderbeast wrote:HeyBox seem to making a lot of comments implying scumminess in multiple people.
@HeyBoxGaming Can you explain to me more why all these people are particularly suspicious?
Deflect off your wagon moar.
In post 191, bewilderbeast wrote:HeyBox seem to making a lot of comments implying scumminess in multiple people.
@HeyBoxGaming Can you explain to me more why all these people are particularly suspicious?
In post 192, heyboxgaminig wrote:Anarchist just made a big push on saad, that's why I don't see him being Scum buddys with him.
My read was based on how when saad pleaded with somebody to hope of the wagon anarchist did not hesitate, almost like taking an order from another scum? sure, Its not a great scum read and that's why I was waiting for more. this whole saad situation made me rethink that.
Even if he was mafia, Getting his side lynched is the worse thing to do day one and we could (much later mind you) mass claim when there are only 3 of us left and our vote on the last scum would be inherently easy.
In post 210, Sky_Paladin wrote:
Mid-tieraka "players I'd like to cop"
Next is Box. I contrast Box with Beast: They are both MAX HYPE but Box seems legitimate and I don't get a bad vibe from his posts. He has not shied away from conversation. I would like to see more engagement with other players and questioning rather than an assertion that he is TOWN and TOWN IS GOOD.
In post 477, House wrote:In post 210, Sky_Paladin wrote:
Mid-tieraka "players I'd like to cop"
Next is Box. I contrast Box with Beast: They are both MAX HYPE but Box seems legitimate and I don't get a bad vibe from his posts. He has not shied away from conversation. I would like to see more engagement with other players and questioning rather than an assertion that he is TOWN and TOWN IS GOOD.
So out of all the players, theyou'd want to investigate is a player who "seems legitimate" and that you "don't get a bad vibe from his posts"?only one
Hell no. That's not town.
In post 212, Seraphim wrote:If Beast was scum, why would he speculate who the roleblocker is?
In post 131, heyboxgaminig wrote:Saad is being oddly defensive and protective of beast...
I might need to rethink my reads... this is certainly interesting.
Will post more tomorrow as it is very late here.
In post 133, Anarchist7 wrote:getting more of a town read now from saad
In post 161, heyboxgaminig wrote:
This is exactly what a scum buddy would say. Your being really defensive and its letting in on your act.
In fact this whole post reeks of scum.
1 you say not to trust the person who is having a scum read on you yet you have said nothing to counter the claims
2 You say beast will not die and that's a fact, a major suspect to be scum.
3 and you don't want us to plan our next kill in advance while we have as many active players as possible.
so, saad. have I misinterpreted something? Am I wrong? Because if so its in your best interest to prove me wrong
In post 314, Anarchist7 wrote:
because jake have been pushing hard on him... so he automatically gets a scum feel from him. I still get a scum read from saad for two reasons.
1. Like stated in the post above, he does not scum hunt at all.
2. He was squirming quite a bit with a very weak defense. And Jake had valid points.
Also, when he flipped and voted bewildered... big scum tell there. Thought he got Jake off his back, and tried to start a new wagon. He had a strong town read on bewildered, and didn't hesitate to suddenly go back on that when Jake decided to SR bewilder on inactivity.
In post 336, bewilderbeast wrote:Whoa: pretty much everyone who was voting saad jumped off of him. I don't want to hammer him now, but some pressure could be helpful for revealing scumminess...
In post 352, heyboxgaminig wrote:
bewilder has not posted enough recently that i can deem scummy so its faded back to null.
In post 356, heyboxgaminig wrote:I dismissed it due to there being no "scum" to "slip"
Surely you, from what i can see, a very logical thinking contributor must realise that "kill" in that instance was in context of lynch? especially when the post was all about lynching?
Word choice could have been improved but feel free to keep your vote on a miss-wording of a term.
Also make life easier on the mod by having vote on a separate line =)
In post 363, Anarchist7 wrote:In post 359, heyboxgaminig wrote:In post 355, Anarchist7 wrote:In post 354, pablito wrote:
In post 351, Anarchist7 wrote:
Jake and Saad had a bit of an altercation, andwhen Jake decided that bewilder is the right lynch, and not saad himself, he immediately jumped on that wagon. Why would he do that? Was bewildered not his absolute VT TR??
And then all of a sudden, when he stands to be lynched, "all this was just a massive test to catch the scum and the town". really? catch the scum? and catch the town?
I'm sorry, but I'm not buying his BS.
Anarchist, Saad also has chosen to not vote during other times even when pressure was high on Saad. What do you make of the previous times that Saad has chosen not to vote someone?
I don't read much into him not voting. I do read into the fact that he flipped on bewildered, and was prepared to lynch him, when he was defending him all this time.
tbh i dont know why he was defending him in the first place...
He was being FOS'ed by bewildered at the time. He was trying to win him over, by town reading him, hoping that the wagon will dissipate. Why would scum town read anyone? To buddy up of course. Especially if said town read is voting for him at that point.
In post 376, bewilderbeast wrote:Lol, it is a confusing forum. As to your earlier question ("Why don't you vote Saad right now?"): Earlier I felt saad was very suspicious, but didn't want to hammer him at L-1. Now however, although he remains my biggest scum read, I remain uncertain on whether to vote him.
In post 377, Anarchist7 wrote:VOTE: saad
Voting because I felt like he thinks he got away.
@saad
Can you please explain why you wanted to lynch bewilderbeast after Jake said "it's the right lynch". Especially after your confident VT TR on him.
In post 251, saad wrote:In post 250, Jake from State Farm wrote:bewilder is the right lynch. hasn't posted in over 48 hours yet logged on last night. He has totally lurked himself into oblivion which OMG is what he said he was going to do.
bewilder is scum, sadly saad is proably town as much as that pains me to say. Last scum is probably highspace but the IC hasn't really impressed me either.
mod please prod bewilder
finally
UNVOTE:
VOTE: bewilderbeast
And what is this now?
In post 400, Coldwine wrote:In post 395, Sky_Paladin wrote:What is your opinion on Seraphim?
At this point, I'm leaning towards believing that Saad's 'combeback post' was coached, and that this is why it seems so much more mature than the rest of his posts. I think that Seraphim is a good candidate for being his mentor, and it's possible that he's much more active in the scum thread than he is in the game thread. I think that the rest of Saad's posts are so sloppy and disorganized that it's hard to believe that he's been working on some complex reaction test for this entire DP.
In post 404, Sky_Paladin wrote:
At the moment, I'd prefer to lynch Seraphim, failing that Saad, failing that, BW. However I'm not really sure when, I started to get a better feeling about BW, so if we happen to rule out Saad/Sera for lynching for whatever reason I'd want to look around and consider other players rather than just wagoning BW.
In post 445, heyboxgaminig wrote:Calm your farm jake (proud of that one) no need to rush votes!
Can I be the first to say that i found the coldwine kill to be quite interesting, not killing the power players scares me. Makes me second guess who i trust, maybe that was there plan. I dont know.
I don't think seph to be scum, hes dodging sure, and even being idle to the extent that its bad for the game, but its too obvious to be scum play.
I dont like pablito/highspace, mainly because he went for an easy lych and even said "lets not let get bewilder of the hook" (paraphrasing) which is another easy lynch for him. Heck i would vouch my life on him continuing to focus on bewilder and I, using saads last words, as empty as they may be. to strengthen his argument on me. we will see how this day goes.
VOTE: pablito
In post 446, heyboxgaminig wrote:Also please not that the "dont rush votes" was part of the joke, As i made obvuise by voting pablito, i think voting straight away is fine
As long as you have a reason for it of course
In post 448, Jake from State Farm wrote:if you recall towards the end of day 1 I was voting seraphim, which means I suspect him more than I do highspace. I need to re-read pablito's posts to see if they make sense, but for now when the IC is basically lurking through an entire day phase and providing little to no content, that worries me quite a bit.
In post 450, Sky_Paladin wrote:@Heyboxgaming
Saad's last instruction was literally to lynch you first x___x
Well to be honest I'm pretty surprised that both Jake and I are around. I kind of figured scum would take a shot at one of the SE or IC's since in the absence of roles, killing off a more experienced player is usually the way to go. That either suggests scum believed in a town doc (possibly, scum has a role blocker to believe this) or scum was fishing for a role. Coldwine...I don't think anybody was really town reading or scum reading him. Might have been something Coldwine said. I'll have to ISO him and see who he was scum reading.
That said, Seraphim failed to bring anything to the table day 1 despite repeatedly promising to do so, so he's my main scum read at the moment. Saad flipping town clears Bewilderbeast from any rolespec about Saad-BW apparently knowing each other's alignment, and also undoes my long suspicion that he had scum-slipped a team out. More to come.
In post 456, Jake from State Farm wrote:In post 454, Anarchist7 wrote:@Jake so FOS on Seraphim for inactivity, has me suspicious as well. How will your suspicion on him change, if he suddenly starts posting more regularly? I guess my question is, if you look at his posts in ISO, and don't take time between them/inactivity into account, do you still find him scummy?
yes I do
1. his reaction to saad getting put at L-1 was imo too cautious. 1. I don't like how he said if saad got lynched it would be unfortunate, which is kind of odd since he was voting saad for a semi-serious reason. 2. If he was a townie, i'd expect more anger or outrage from him towards bewil, instead he asked him why he thought it was a good idea to put him at L-1 which again just seems like he is being cautious, trying to look town
2. Post 49 Seraphim explains how he likes to play " try to engage with different players and force activity out of them to try and generate more material for accurate reads." yet i don't see that happening here and instead it's the opposite, he's the one who needs activity forced out of him
3. His vote on Highspace, some of the reasons he gave about him, could easily be applied to himself and others I don't think make much sense. "I also don't think he's been scumhunting or engaging with the game much" - seraphim is guilty of this. "seems more content to offer summaries of other people's play than provide content of his own." Up until this post he is making, seraphim hasn't really provided much content of his own
Things that don't make sense - "He's had a strange interaction with Anarchist which leaves me with a sour taste in my mouth." why was it strange? typically scum will throw stuff out like this and not explain it because they can't, they just have to kind of grasp at straws. "Anarchist's reaction seems pretty genuine but HS's initiation and subsequent response doesn't seem honest or accomplish anything. " How can he tell the difference between someone being honest or not or genuine or not? I agree the interaction between the 2 was weird but I can't gauge alignment out of either's responses/reactions and he didn't really do a good job convincing me he actually was able to.
Then he gives a list of reads at the end, which I personally can't stand and he doesn't really support them with anything game related. I do get a distinct feeling of a seraphim/anarchist team but without a scum flip, i'm not going to focus too much on that right now. I do find it odd though that it was you anarchist that asked about my seraphim vote.
Post 194 - his explanation as to why he is town reading townbox is very wordy and again he throws out that his posts feel genuine, but how does he determine if a player's posts are really genuine? I mean hell, as scum I make my posts very genuine in the fact that I basically attack the same things I would as I was town and I try to never lie which makes my posts come across genuine. So posts seeming genuine doesn't hold much water for me.
Additionally if he is really scum reading highspace, why isn't he trying to drum up support from others? He just seems content to vote park and let the whole saad/bewilder/jake/etc thing play out
I also don't like how he was kind of defending bewilder (at least saying my point against him wasn't good as he saw no scum motivation for it) yet when I pointed out that he went inactive he was all willing to forget that and at least give him a scum read for going inactive (at least that is how I interpret post 259)
Lastly i don't like how he basically showed up out of the blue and put saad at L-1 and then lied about site meta. When I called him out on that site meta part, he then tried to say it was because deadline was approaching however we still had like 5 or 6 days which is PLENTY of time imo.
lastly I don't like his reaction to sky's case on him. "your case shows you aren't really interested in finding scum so for that I'm not going to suspect you instead I'm going to call you town in hopes you don't push me any further" This is me giving my interpretation of how it reads. Here is the actual quote
In post 343, Seraphim wrote:Your case on me has proven that you are genuinely interested in hunting scum and not just sniping easy targets. It betrays a very public and town thinking persona. It is well thought-out even though for obvious reasons I completely disagree with its content. It is, in other words, very difficult perhaps impossible to fake. Hence, you are town. Which is good. I will work on responding to your points in due time.
So yeah I think if you ignore the inactivity, his posts don't look very town to me, I don't see any genuine scum hunting and and I see at least 2 opportunistic votes for lack of good reasoning.
In post 496, House wrote:And where were all these suspicions when these things were going on?