Can you spell confirmation bias for me? If one of the two miller claims is scum, then you'd also strongly believe that one or more of the people defending the miller claims is scum. Oh, and if both of the miller claims were scum then you'd also strongly believe that one or more of the people defending the miller claims is scum. Basically, disagreeing with you is scummy.In post 152, RadiantCowbells wrote:If both of the millers are town, I would strongly believe that one or more of the people defending the double millers are scum.
Going along that line of reasoning, VOTE: Beeboy
You mean the miller vigilante?In post 159, WhyMafia wrote:Why are you interested in pushing a claimed vigilante?
you mean Lucky voting RC? I'm confusedIn post 145, Randomnamechange wrote:I didn't like his reaction to Lucky's vote. felt like they were worried pressure there would dissolve and wanted to keep it up. combined with a lucky townread this makes me think they were trying to avoid attention falling onto their team.In post 143, Nazeebo wrote:want to explain these? I got nothing up till now.In post 37, Randomnamechange wrote:then i dont rly think anything can be read so far.
so far im townreading lucky and kingmaker and scumreading tucker.
VOTE: tucker
Edit: okay I got lucky and king from reading newer posts. Why did you originally scumread tucker though?
You don't believe his claim to be accurate? Isn't it quite easy for a vigilante to prove themselves?In post 161, 1 Shot Vanilla Town wrote:You mean the miller vigilante?In post 159, WhyMafia wrote:Why are you interested in pushing a claimed vigilante?
Yeah, no thanks.
My problem is that he immediately tries to look for reasons why TwoInAMillion could be scum instead of looking for reasons why he could be town. It has a feel of "oh shit I got caught, I better try and get out of this somehow"In post 147, Shawn and Gus wrote:UNVOTE: Agree with Post 135 and Post 141
I think randomidget Post 145 is unlikely, I don't think tucker's a newbie so why would he worry that a rvs wagon was going to dissolve?
I like RC's Post 33 since I agree with it but would like him to answer Post 63. Are you really that confident with you read on Cookie?
Tarkus' Post 94 bothers me since immediately voted TIAM after his claim.
I dislike Cookie's Post 109 because he want's to ignore the miller situation so we can get to day 1 antics but nothings been happening this game.
Beeboy's Post 125/126 is lacking in content.
Nazeebo could you expand on your problem with Post 85 as what your scum reading him for is pretty reasonable.
-Shawn
In post 143, Nazeebo wrote:are you saying 3P or am I reading this wrong?In post 141, RadiantCowbells wrote:If we can prove that he in fact has a nightkill, I'm perfectly comfortable with never lynching Tarkus and making it mafia's problem whether they kill him.
You could say that about TIAM too though or any scum read. Are you getting that feel from this post alone or is it a combination of his posts?In post 164, Nazeebo wrote: My problem is that he immediately tries to look for reasons why TwoInAMillion could be scum instead of looking for reasons why he could be town. It has a feel of "oh shit I got caught, I better try and get out of this somehow"
Confirmation bias is easy to fake and is not a town-tell. Could you also explain why you scum read him in the first place?In post 154, CookieDotJay wrote:Fuck, actual bona-fide confirmation bias there probably means you're town. Like, that "line of reasoning" can only exist because you're so certain no logical person could disagree with you.
-jj
No, no I don't.In post 163, WhyMafia wrote:You don't believe his claim to be accurate? Isn't it quite easy for a vigilante to prove themselves?
In post 159, WhyMafia wrote:Why are you interested in pushing a claimed vigilante?
Interesting transitionIn post 160, WhyMafia wrote:Gut scum reading randomidget
I meant joke not vote sorryIn post 162, Nazeebo wrote:you mean Lucky voting RC? I'm confusedIn post 145, Randomnamechange wrote:I didn't like his reaction to Lucky's vote. felt like they were worried pressure there would dissolve and wanted to keep it up. combined with a lucky townread this makes me think they were trying to avoid attention falling onto their team.In post 143, Nazeebo wrote:want to explain these? I got nothing up till now.In post 37, Randomnamechange wrote:then i dont rly think anything can be read so far.
so far im townreading lucky and kingmaker and scumreading tucker.
VOTE: tucker
Edit: okay I got lucky and king from reading newer posts. Why did you originally scumread tucker though?
If he kills townie players we can lynch him and if he is a SK his going to get killed by scum eventually.In post 167, 1 Shot Vanilla Town wrote:No, no I don't.In post 163, WhyMafia wrote:You don't believe his claim to be accurate? Isn't it quite easy for a vigilante to prove themselves?
People that say that Vig is an easily provable role are wrong imo.
There's so many roles to prevent this, and not to mention 3rd party.
Sums up my thoughtsIn post 169, Shawn and Gus wrote:If he kills townie players we can lynch him and if he is a SK his going to get killed by scum eventually.In post 167, 1 Shot Vanilla Town wrote:No, no I don't.In post 163, WhyMafia wrote:You don't believe his claim to be accurate? Isn't it quite easy for a vigilante to prove themselves?
People that say that Vig is an easily provable role are wrong imo.
There's so many roles to prevent this, and not to mention 3rd party.
-Shawn
Disagree.In post 169, Shawn and Gus wrote:If he kills townie players we can lynch him and if he is a SK his going to get killed by scum eventually.
-Shawn
You tell them, two!In post 171, TwoInAMillion wrote:If he was really a vig he would have used his shot already. I don't trust him with a 10 foot pole.
