Open 713: Jungle Republic [Game Over]

[Not_Mafia]

wilky go byebye please

[TheGoldenParadox]

wilky go byebye please

Why?

[Espeonage]

vla for weekend

- noted

[Korina]

Wait guys, I've got the perfect way to find out who's a werewolf: Who's a good boy? Who's a good boy?? You are! You are!! I've got a bone!

-Fanta

Goddamn it being a furry and having a dog sona. Must. Not. Grab. Bone. Must. Not. Resort. On. Dog. Instincts.

Anyways, catching up on thread rn, ama

[Korina]

Bujabber:

Spoiler:

To be completely honest, I’m not sure what the case on Buj is. Reading his ISO, nothing really pinged me as scummy.

Null until proven otherwise.

Beefster:

Spoiler:

Thor's town.

that leaves everyone else at 50/50 scum.

Just to explain myself, Thor's frustration with my playstyle is fresh and looks very town. His defense of half-jokingly PL'ing me is genuine.

Looks like scum is already starting to come out of the woodworks. skitter, Korina, and Montosh are all pinging me.

VOTE: Korina

Paradox and wilky are town, I think. Very protown discussion coming from each. I'm more confident with wilky, but it's mostly gut at this point, so we'll see what happens.

Why? (to all of them, 3rd is struck through because it was answered).

As far as I'm concerned NM is null until we can pin associations by vote patterns.

But I guess I'd be okay lynching him as a last resort if we're 3 days from deadline. 5/11 isn't too bad of odds.

I’m not so sure how I feel about the 5/11 thing, nor the lyching him at 3 days until EOD.

We can figure the rest out from there, though I do have a few suspicions.

Care to explain your suspicions or no?

Null.

Not_Mafia:

Spoiler:

VOTE: wilky Serious vote, Montosh is scum too. Wolves NK Thor pls

Please explain your entire thought process on this.
I’m not sure how I feel about it rn. Null.

Thor:

Spoiler:

It's a good policy lynch, and, hey, maybe a wolf or scum to boot.[/quote]
What was the purpose of this post? Was it a joke post, or somewhat serious, or were you actually proposing a policy lynch on Beefster with the justification that there was a 5/12 chance of him being scum on top of that?[/quote]
The purpose of the post was to;
1. Vote Beefster.
2. Explain why I voted Beefster.

There is a joke in there.
There is a policy lynch statement in there.
There is (with only the mildest of squints) an argument that I'm saying 'hey 5/12 let's roll dem bones' to the point I'm willing to agree I was saying that also.

I stand by all of the above and you absolutely caught me doing each and every one.
What of it?[/quote]

I can’t tell if you’re being serious on this, or not. If you’re being serious about all of this, please, explain what you mean by each of those points you brought up.

I'll also add;

Soft town read on BuJaber
Soft scum on Montash

Care to explain why?

So if I get this right you think I'm scum because;

1. I voted someone to get somebody to attack me.
2. I intentionally set up the attack on me to obligate people to react to it.
3. I knew they'd be more likely to agree with me than whoever I argued with.

Is that what you're calling me scum for doing?

I still find this scummy.

1. I voted someone to get somebody to attack me.
2. I intentionally set up the attack on me to obligate people to react to it.
3. I knew they'd be more likely to agree with me than whoever I argued with.

This is what I'm referring to by "that".

I don't see anyone town-motivated player doing this.

What makes you think I did that as opposed to just asking a question?

So, my entire thing about that, is that I honestly have never seen town trying to set up arguments where they know the exact outcome. It seems like something mafia/wolf would do.

I’m saying slight scum vibe from Thor.

Also, personal nitpick, spoiler large-ish posts please. thanks.

Fanta:

Spoiler:

bujaber: espeon, beefster, dr fanta, wilky
wilky: paradox, notmafia
korina: bujaber, laserguy
thor: skitter
skitter: thor
beefster: montosh

nv: korina

I got impatient -Pepper

I find this Townie.
Apart from that, short ISO, not a lot to read.
(Ever so) slight Town read.

Paradox:

Spoiler:

VOTE: Beefster

It's a good policy lynch, and, hey, maybe a wolf or scum to boot.

VOTE: Thor665
No protown player does this in RVS. Semi-serious vote.

The fact that you said this was a semi-serious vote, pings me as sorta scummy. I always count the first vote as RVS, then the second onwards is serious (personality reasons why), but, I don’t feel like a pro-town player would also ever do this during RVS as well.

From my experience, a policy vote on someone, plus saying that they could be scum on top of that, inferring that you meant that there was a 5/12 chance of them being scum so the policy wagon is somewhat justified, seems scummy to me. It seems like an outright scumtell.

Why do you have this experience? Can you show me scum doing it in your games?
I can *assuredly* show you town doing it many times - would that adjust your opinion or no?

Bolded: Or he's really new. Like his reasoning doesn't make much sense to me but it appears to make sense to *him*. By presenting

only

those two options, you kinda transformed this discussion into a you-vs-him type of situation.

If he's really new and he believes his reasoning (your argument for a third category) I would suggest that what you're saying is 'he's really new and doesn't know better'. If you take that to a logical end it's - 'he's honestly wrong' if you compare that to 'you're full of hoo-hah' I submit you will find they are one and the same.

How do you think my setup unfairly cast the situation into a false setup (since I would suggest my setup was 'either Thor is wrong or Paradox is wrong')
Because the only other options are 'we're both right (difficult) or we're both wrong (also difficult).
So...?

VOTE: Beefster

It's a good policy lynch, and, hey, maybe a wolf or scum to boot.

What was the purpose of this post? Was it a joke post, or somewhat serious, or were you actually proposing a policy lynch on Beefster with the justification that there was a 5/12 chance of him being scum on top of that?

The purpose of the post was to;
1. Vote Beefster.
2. Explain why I voted Beefster.

There is a joke in there.
There is a policy lynch statement in there.
There is (with only the mildest of squints) an argument that I'm saying 'hey 5/12 let's roll dem bones' to the point I'm willing to agree I was saying that also.

I stand by all of the above and you absolutely caught me doing each and every one.
What of it?

UNVOTE: Thor665
This is 90% town. I like your response and it feels genuine.

What happened to the other 10%?

Nullish read for now.

Wilky:

Spoiler:

VOTE: wilky Serious vote, Montosh is scum too. Wolves NK Thor pls

This is opportunistic af.

Why do you think that?

Not sure what the mods prod leniency is so just throwing this in aswell.

Still happy with my vote on Buj

I kinda feel like this is scum saying this, because, unless I’m just shit at reading it, I don’t see anything wrong with Buj’s case.

Slight scum lean.

Esp:

Spoiler:

Not really finding anything that pings me as scummy from Esp.

Null for now.

Montosh:

Spoiler:

Like Esp, nothing really pinged me as scummy.
Null for now.

Skitter:

Spoiler:

I don’t really see anything that looks scummy.

Null for now.

Korina (Self):

Spoiler:

I mean, obviously I’m bomber in this setup guys, like seriously.
:^)
I’ll actually read myself.

I do agree, that me posting something/putting off reads until later is scummy, I get that, I’m not gonna make more excuses, just provide explanations, but, making reads takes a while. Often, I’m popping in for a few moments, not reading it fully like rn.

I would under other circumstances say I’m a bit scummy, but I know what my rolecard is already.

(It’s bomber still :^) )

Laser:

Spoiler:

Why couldn't I be scum and also honestly consider you a valid policy lynch?

Can you explain why you think Beefster is worth a policy lynch? I've never played with him before, but I'm getting Town vibes from him at the moment.

Do you care explaining yourself?

@Thor: If it's a T v T, some scum might egg it on sure but I feel like scum are more likely to try and not get too involved with it Day 1,

given that a mislynch is generally pretty likely anyway first day.

In

this

setup? Mmm... This comment bothers me.

Why does it bother you?

VOTE: Montash

Explain your vote?

Korina is nullscum. Very little content, and

her

tone feels kind of strange to me.

his*

Mostly null for now.

TL;DR:

Spoiler:

{Self} - Lock Town
{None} - Gut Town
{Fanta} - Slight Town
{Buj, Beefster, Not_Mafia, Paradox, Esp, Montosh, Skitter, Laser} - Null
{Thor, Wilky} - Slight Scum
{None} - Gut Scum
{None} - Lock Scum

Other Notes:

Spoiler:

I think it'd be worthwhile to look at the people on Buj's wagon, and if anyone wants to explain why he's so scummy atm and why he's the wagon, go ahead.

VOTE: Thor

I feel like Thor is scummier than Wilky atm.

[Korina]

There's a somewhat long list of reads for anyone interested in reading it.

Enjoy.

[skitter30]

So now the issue isn't that I created a conflict

, it's that I made it somehow bigger than I needed to, when I could have created a smaller conflict?
Do I have that right?

Yes, that's basically what I've been trying to say this entire time

But since you framed it as a you-vs-him,

you've made this into an *issue* and a *conflict* between the two of you and are implicitly encouraging people to take sides by presenting the two options. Like you're forcing people to pay attention and pick a side.

Bolded: Because you framed it as you vs him, you made it a bigger conflict than it needed to be.

Italics: I don't like this because doing so had the ultimate effect of creating sides -> people were starting to choose between you and him, and multiple people townread you because of it (I've already shown this elsewhere) -> they chose you over him.

I think that by framing it as a direct conflict (ie in the quote from you that I copied above, you exactly paraphrased what I mean by 'framing it as a conflict' or 'highlighting the conflict') you set up an environment where people would ultimately pick to agree with you *or* him (again, because it was set up as a direct conflict between the two of you), and when faced with the option, people were giving you townreads and calling paradox scummy.

So, I think that this was manipulative/oppurtunistic because you took the oppurtunity to get townreads/to make paradox look scummy by forcing a choice (ie by higlighting a direct conflict)

And that is why I think this differs from 'basic scumhunting'.

Like I've been trying to get this idea across every way I know how and I don't know how else to say it at this point.

Misrepping. In your quote at the start of this post, I bolded a phrase. You're misrepping me there because that was *never* my argument, but you're framing it like I've suddenly changed positions when that never happened. I've been arguing the same thing this entire time.

And I think you're doing it on purpose because way back when, you said:

1. I voted someone to get somebody to attack me.
2. I intentionally set up the attack on me to obligate people to react to it.
3. I knew they'd be more likely to agree with me than whoever I argued with.

This is basically my argument (as I said before, it differs from what I'm saying slightly in that I don't think you *set up* the attack but that when it happened you highlighted the conflict to obligate people to react to it and that you know they'd be more likely to agree with you than whoever you argued with. )

Which means you understood then what I was trying to say so where on earth are you getting the idea that I've changed positions?

I actually think i do understand what you're trying to say - and I'm saying it's scummy and am trying to paint you into a corner where everyone else understands it's scummy also.

-> Given the first quote in this post, either you don't understand what I'm saying (and that's why you're arguing I've changed positions), or you do understand me and you're misrepping me (because I haven't).

If you understand me but are misrepping me, this is scummy for obvious reasons, and this is what I think you're doing.

If you don't understand me, then I don't think you're actually using this argument to *try* to understand me because when you hit upon the main crux of my argument you're using that to argue that I changed positions. Like if you were trying to understand me and you think I suddenly change positions wouldn't that be a hint that maybe you finally figured out what I've been trying to say this whole time?

I don't even get what I'm supposed to have changed positions *from*.

Please show me how I'm re-framing your stance exactly rather than just generically claiming I am.

^^^^^^^

You've done it in this very post, as shown above.

You've been doing it elsewhere and if you need me to I can make a seperate post about it.

Look at your current answer - "

Thor asked the question in a way that was more setting up a conflict than a less setting up conflict answer could have been

"

is a pretty long stride from your initial call against me

, and also pretty much is now implying awareness that what I did is called 'basic scumhunting'.

Bolded: That's been a fundamental part of my argument this entire time so I have no idea where you're getting the italics from.

And again, I think this is scummy (ie and differs from 'basic scumhunting') for reasons outlined in 46 and again elsewhere in this post

I've been very clear about why I find it unsatisfactory, yeah? if not, ask for clarification.

I don't understand why you find it unsatsfactory.

You're complaining that I gave you no "out" before even trying to fulfill the "out" making your prediction self fulfilling (though I feel you went that way because you recognized that you couldn't back up your made-up scum case hoo-hah.

Q: how is what thor did different from basic scumhunting?

A: he highlighted a conflict

when he didn't have to

and in doing so he created an environment where people were likely to choose sides, and in doing so, he got people to townread him and scumread paradox. He took advantage of a non-issue to get himself townreads and to make paradox look scummy. It's manipulative (highlighting conflict when it didn't need to be framed that way) and oppurtunistic to get townreads and make someone look scummy.

I've already said this like four different times, and why on earth are you not considering this an answer?

I feel like you're setting up an impossible bar for me to reach (and like you've already admitted that you're trying to paint me into a corner) because I've answered the question already multiple times and you're telling me I didn't, and you're using my 'lack of answer' as a reason to votepark me and to call me scummy.

I'm ignoring it because it's requiring me to be either
a) a mindreader
or
b) as scum to think that what I'm doing is pro town and seen as pro town and therfore something I'd do as town making it not a valid tell.

a) You can gauge gamestates and anticipate how certain arguments will likely play out and what the reception to your posts will be without being a mindreader. In fact, I'd posit that this is an incredibly important skill to have in this game. You're like taking a fundamental part of the game (gauging how your posts will be perceived) and stretching that to an extreme that clearly isn't possible (mindreading) to discredit my position of 'thor anticipated that people would likely agree with him over paradox'.

b) I don't understand what you're trying to say.

For the tl:dr of why Skitter is scum.

Initial claim is the first quote.
Clarified claim is the second quote.

It's the same arugment. I even used the same wording/phrasing because I don't know how else to express what I'm trying to say. You're saying I changed my position when I didn't.

She has not actually shown me encouraging people to pick a side in any way.

You've already objectively won the argument, remember? You didn't have to actively encourage people.

She has not questioned anyone else for setting up any sort of disagreement.

My point is that you highlighted the conflict when

you didn't have to

, not that any sort of disagreement is bad or scummy,

She agrees I wasn't unfair in my question.

Where on earth are you getting this from? I've been saying that your vote/question are setting an ultimatum that I don't think is possible for me to satisfy. Or to translate, I think your question is unfair.

She has now agreed that there was already inherently conflict (indeed, it was created by the person she is claiming is town in this exchange)

I never said there wasn't ffs. I said you exacerbated/highlighted it.

She agrees that her best examples of how I could have questioned the player *also* caused conflict.
So her basic claim is, I asked a question that was a little more standoffish than it should have had to have been.

I didn't say that my examples didn't; my entire point with those examples was showing that it was possible to have a discussion (ie conflict) without making it into an explicit you v him type of situation. . Ie you framed it as a direct conflict ('I am right and you are wrong') when it didn't have to be a direct you/him thing (ie like the examples I gave). Yes, it was a lot more standoffish than it needed to be, and yes, I think the way you did it was scummy.

And she's doubling down on it as a valid issue to call me scum over this.
(and has now expanded to me misrepping her)

This entire post misreps everything I've been saying this entire time.

I would suggest that if she can't show me misrepping her that people should vote her more.

This post, repeatedly.

[Beefster]

Korina: oh come on. You've got a megapost (admittedly, I haven't really read it) and you've put most of us at null?

Seems like you're just spinning your wheels, but you clearly aren't going anywhere.

VOTE: Korina

[skitter30]

Skitter - what I don't understand is that you're immediately attacking Thor for making something binary and being able to win an argument. Can you please explain your thought process behind that?
Aside from that, I don't think I have much to contribute. Life is hitting me hard.

tldr: he got himself townreads and scumreads for you out of it.

BuJaber's reactions to minimal pressure are damning. Lynch nao.

And this what gave me the impression he wants the day over quick.

I think that phrasing isn't really AI; it's just saying he he wants your lynch imo. IE I think it's indicative of the fact that he finds you scummy and wants to lynch you, and not indicative of 'wanting night'.

I also think that coming to the conclusion that he might be a wolf because he's eager for the night to start based off of that post is kinda reachy.

Because even if 'wanting night' is a valid interpretation of that post, the connection between that and being a wolf specifically is kinda sparse. People could want night for other reasons than being a wolf: being busy irl, being mafia who wants to talk to his buddies. To reach that conclusion based on that post is kinda weird.

What this post does tell me is that you probably aren't scum with him because that's honestly a bizarre thing to say to a partner.

'd suggest you both back down from your tunnels for awhile and see what else is going on that you find interesting... you can always come back to this later if you feel the need.

Um, yeah I think that might be a good idea tbh.

BUT could this be a scum player not wanting to be D1 lynch? At the moment they have a minority and if they lose one to lynch and possibly lose another one to NK, that could definitely give town a distinct advantage for the game's continuance. I don't want to give him an easy pass because he's doing something any (sane) player would.

I agree; I don't really know if that frustration was AI. If anything it felt kinda *desperate* to me? And I don't know if a townie is that ... survivalistic? Like I associate survivalism with scum because losing one member puts them in a significantly worse position. Like town's goal is to find scum, but scum's goal is to not get lynched.

I also don't like how Bujaber backed off after you said this, as this is a bad argument because you aren't correctly accounting for the number of scum in the game. Those three person groups could easily be S vs W under Bujaber's argument rather than T vs S. It feels like he was using any excuse to get off a wagon he didn't feel was working.

I am now very, very, very confident that you are town.

I said I had a theory that there is definitely scum lurking in the game.

I still don't understand what you're basing this theory off of.

So I wanted to vote there. NM hadn't posted at all at the time so it was the most obvious choice. So I voted NM for lurking.

This is low-hanging-fruit-y.

You're really holding on to the very first interaction I had with Paradox to try to sell that I was overly aggressive, but...man, gotta tell you, the second interaction seems to be very reasoned, responsible, and interested in him explaining himself more than setting up some sort of strange scum gambit of choices to be townread over.

You were continuing an argument

you already created

. I don't get your point here.

I find this Townie.
Apart from that, short ISO, not a lot to read.
(Ever so) slight Town read.

Why is this townie? I think it could easily be scum looking for something to do to look helpful/busy, and so I think it's ultimately NAI.

I would under other circumstances say I’m a bit scummy, but I know what my rolecard is already.

Like you're saying you're going to stop with the excuses, but this feels :/ like in an excuse-y/defensive way.

{Self} - Lock Town
{None} - Gut Town
{Fanta} - Slight Town
{Buj, Beefster, Not_Mafia, Paradox, Esp, Montosh, Skitter, Laser} - Null
{Thor, Wilky} - Slight Scum
{None} - Gut Scum
{None} - Lock Scum

This feels overall kinda lackluster and almost like that readslist was an excuse to defend yourself given that you don't have opinons on like half the player list?

[BuJaber]

Okay has to be town That is just too much. If you do do this as scum then good fucking job. That is far beyond any effort scum should even put in so early in the game because getting townread now doesn't guarantee you are townread the whole game. So if all of this to be just an act to gain town cred then it would honestly be a waste of time. You didn't even just respond to all of thor's points. You specifically isolated each and every one. Maybe it's just me but I just can't see this coming from scum.
But as far as I'm concerned with thor I feel like the narrative you're getting from thor seems really good in theory but it just seems too perfect and conspiracy-like for me to believe he did all of this intentionally just to paint paradox as scummy and paint himself as town. It requires quite a bit of planning before game even started.


What I think is more damning is actually his continuation of the argument. He's attacking your posts based on the wrong things. And like you showed he is misinterpretting or maybe even fabricating ypur arguments to make them seem inconsistent. It's just a bad way to defend himself overall. I was wrong before. You're the one more likely to be town and he's more likely to be scum. I'd rather you both just drop the whole thing now.
HOWEVER there is a slight chance that you yourself are doing the same thing with thor that you're accusing him of doing to paradox. I mean I still think you're 99% town but for this 1% chance I don't want to vote for either of you yet. I'd hate to be manipulated into lynching someone.

I read everything korina wrote and then felt very disappointed by the conclusion. You set us up for a much bigger reveal. I also don't like when people do the whole jokey "I'm the most townie town there is" and put themselves on top of their townreads. I know that some townies do it but it always rubs me the wrong way and makes me very suspicious. Keeping my vote here.

[BuJaber]

Skitter's name is missing from my first sentence.

[skitter30]

Okay has to be town That is just too much. If you do do this as scum then good fucking job. That is far beyond any effort scum should even put in so early in the game because getting townread now doesn't guarantee you are townread the whole game. So if all of this to be just an act to gain town cred then it would honestly be a waste of time. You didn't even just respond to all of thor's points. You specifically isolated each and every one.

Mind you, I can't fucking do this as scum

I can't sustain an argument like this when I know I'm bullshitting; literally the last time I tried, it was against Thor, and I gave up after like two half-hearted rounds because I can't make up stuff to holistically satisfy that kind of sustained questioning. I can be stubborn as fuck when I actually believe what I'm saying, and I'll dig in my heels if I think I'm right. But I'm incredibly non-confrontational as scum and I tend to panic-lurk whenever I'm under any sort of pressure. And like making up cases that are sustained in the face of pressure over a lengthy period of time is completely beyond me.

And he like correctly scumread me from like page 4 or whatever it was, and proceeded to shout for my lynch until he actually got it to happen day 2; I basically did my best to ignore his posts that whole time because I knew I didn't have the answers necessary to end the argument and that whatever I posted would make me look much worse.

Subject: Mini Normal 1946 | Classic Hits | Town Victory!

Skitter ignored me again - rather unimpressed by that, especially after my last post about her was specifically about said ignoring.
I'm literally still her biggest pusher and she's pretending like I'm not here and has no read on me.
That's weird any way you cut it, and makes me want to flip her just on general principal that she is proving that she is hard skimming the game but isn't being honest about it.

For me to be scum here, he's positing that scum!me decided it would be a good idea to pick a fight with him after that because .... ? And given that game, the fact that he actually believes scum!me would do that and that scum!me can/would keep the argument up like this is kinda implausible imo?

I'd rather you both just drop the whole thing now.

I mean, I'd like to and I tried to because multiple people asked us to just drop it and I feel like this argument is going nowhere and that I'm shouting at a wall, but if he's making cases against me that are grossly misrepping me, I kinda feel like I have to respond to them.

[BuJaber]

Sorry I didn't read your pronoun. Username kinda sounded male so I went with he. I'll try to get it right from now on.

Yes fine it happened. We can move on now.
Would you have an issue with voting/lynching Korina? Or does it have to be Thor in your opinion?

[BuJaber]

BTW wilky said he hasn't reread yet but he's happy with his vote on me.

Struck me as odd.

[Thor665]

Actually, Fanta wanted to stay on BuJaber but I kinda stole our vote from them, so.

Mostly because the BuJaber wagon has built really quickly on a really flimsy "case" and I don't find any of his posts particularly scummy, so.

Without your own partner's vote the wagon hasn't built quickly, so...?

I can’t tell if you’re being serious on this, or not. If you’re being serious about all of this, please, explain what you mean by each of those points you brought up.

I'm being serious.
How do the points confuse you - they appear quite self evident.

Care to explain why?

For direct value call and for opportunism.

So, my entire thing about that, is that I honestly have never seen town trying to set up arguments where they know the exact outcome. It seems like something mafia/wolf would do.

How would I know what the outcome would be?
You're, like Skitter, accussing me of being a mindreader/master manipulator with zero evidence to support said claim, and then acting like it's a valid call.

Also, personal nitpick, spoiler large-ish posts please. thanks.[/spoiler]
No thank you.

Yes, that's basically what I've been trying to say this entire time

Don't facepalm me - there is *ZERO* in your first post that makes that clear.
Feel free to show how it's clear there and I'll immediately apologize - but you ARE changing your words.
There's a reason you had to admit that conflict was inherent.

Misrepping. In your quote at the start of this post, I bolded a phrase. You're misrepping me there because that was *never* my argument, but you're framing it like I've suddenly changed positions when that never happened. I've been arguing the same thing this entire time.

I literally quoted you explaining your case.

I don't even get what I'm supposed to have changed positions *from*.

You opened with I forced a conflict.
You've changed that to I turned a conflict into a (by some degree) bigger conflict.

You've been doing it (misrepping) elsewhere and if you need me to I can make a seperate post about it.

Please do.

Bolded: That's been a fundamental part of my argument this entire time so I have no idea where you're getting the italics from.

Quote it from your first three posts on the subject.
I'll wait.

And again, I think this is scummy (ie and differs from 'basic scumhunting') for reasons outlined in 46 and again elsewhere in this post

And those reasons are summed up as "it's a bigger conflict than it needs to be" which is bollocks.

I don't understand why you find it unsatsfactory.

That your claim of how it differs from normal scumhunting strikes me as the pretty clear major issue.
"Yeah, it's a conflict and inherently conflict happens but you made it bigger because you knew you would win, and oh, look, your second post with them isn't conflicty but I'll act confused about how that applies to my case - ignore it - and chive on"
Yeah, that's weaksauce.
That you find it a complete and satisfactory answer concerns me.
That you have the top wagon and Lurk fake wall Korina as your prime supporters should concern you, if you're town.

Q: how is what thor did different from basic scumhunting?

A: he highlighted a conflict

when he didn't have to

and in doing so he created an environment where people were likely to choose sides, and in doing so, he got people to townread him and scumread paradox. He took advantage of a non-issue to get himself townreads and to make paradox look scummy. It's manipulative (highlighting conflict when it didn't need to be framed that way) and oppurtunistic to get townreads and make someone look scummy.

I've already said this like four different times, and why on earth are you not considering this an answer?

For starters, what you italicized and I bolded is *already a change from your last answer*.
I asked you for a non-conflict response I could have used and YOU COULDN'T MAKE ONE.
So you *know* this is a bogus argument but are still making it.

a) You can gauge gamestates and anticipate how certain arguments will likely play out and what the reception to your posts will be without being a mindreader. In fact, I'd posit that this is an incredibly important skill to have in this game. You're like taking a fundamental part of the game (gauging how your posts will be perceived) and stretching that to an extreme that clearly isn't possible (mindreading) to discredit my position of 'thor anticipated that people would likely agree with him over paradox'.

b) I don't understand what you're trying to say.

a) That your position can be described as 'mindreading' and you're having to argue that what I'm doing is "stretching" as opposed to "making something up" should concern you without further debate from me being needed.
Please find me anyone who can or will honestly claim they can predict what a given action will do and I'll show you a fool or a liar. Just take something like meta. Half the site says it's great, half the site says it's garbage - so how do you predict how a meta case will be received? RVS, claims, L-1 wagons, gut reads, VCA - literally everything in the game has people with fluctuating opinions on it and what is/isn't a scum or town tell.

b) If you presume I have the powers you proscribe to me in a) then it is silly to suggest I wouldn't have forseen how my attack was overblown and antagonistic and would have had some people scum read me - and if I knew that then why would I do the "plan". Your cumtell requires me to have powers, but also requires those powers to be very weak and not actually that good (which, incidentally, also proves that I'm right about a), that no one actually has that ability )

This entire post misreps everything I've been saying this entire time.

No, it doesn't.

I would suggest that if she can't show me misrepping her that people should vote her more.

This post, repeatedly.

You say that, but I'm literally quoting you above offering *one* and saying you could offer more.
So, literally you're lying in your tl:dr

Sorry I didn't read your pronoun. Username kinda sounded male so I went with he. I'll try to get it right from now on.

Yes fine it happened. We can move on now.
Would you have an issue with voting/lynching Korina? Or does it have to be Thor in your opinion?

How are you following Thor v. Skitter well enough to have an opinion and missed that Skitter and I had an exchange over pronouns already?

[Thor665]

Actually, Fanta wanted to stay on BuJaber but I kinda stole our vote from them, so.

Mostly because the BuJaber wagon has built really quickly on a really flimsy "case" and I don't find any of his posts particularly scummy, so.

Without your own partner's vote the wagon hasn't built quickly, so...?

I can’t tell if you’re being serious on this, or not. If you’re being serious about all of this, please, explain what you mean by each of those points you brought up.

I'm being serious.
How do the points confuse you - they appear quite self evident.

Care to explain why?

For direct value call and for opportunism.

So, my entire thing about that, is that I honestly have never seen town trying to set up arguments where they know the exact outcome. It seems like something mafia/wolf would do.

How would I know what the outcome would be?
You're, like Skitter, accussing me of being a mindreader/master manipulator with zero evidence to support said claim, and then acting like it's a valid call.

Also, personal nitpick, spoiler large-ish posts please. thanks.

No thank you.

Yes, that's basically what I've been trying to say this entire time

Don't facepalm me - there is *ZERO* in your first post that makes that clear.
Feel free to show how it's clear there and I'll immediately apologize - but you ARE changing your words.
There's a reason you had to admit that conflict was inherent.

Misrepping. In your quote at the start of this post, I bolded a phrase. You're misrepping me there because that was *never* my argument, but you're framing it like I've suddenly changed positions when that never happened. I've been arguing the same thing this entire time.

I literally quoted you explaining your case.

I don't even get what I'm supposed to have changed positions *from*.

You opened with I forced a conflict.
You've changed that to I turned a conflict into a (by some degree) bigger conflict.

You've been doing it (misrepping) elsewhere and if you need me to I can make a seperate post about it.

Please do.

Bolded: That's been a fundamental part of my argument this entire time so I have no idea where you're getting the italics from.

Quote it from your first three posts on the subject.
I'll wait.

And again, I think this is scummy (ie and differs from 'basic scumhunting') for reasons outlined in 46 and again elsewhere in this post

And those reasons are summed up as "it's a bigger conflict than it needs to be" which is bollocks.

I don't understand why you find it unsatsfactory.

That your claim of how it differs from normal scumhunting strikes me as the pretty clear major issue.
"Yeah, it's a conflict and inherently conflict happens but you made it bigger because you knew you would win, and oh, look, your second post with them isn't conflicty but I'll act confused about how that applies to my case - ignore it - and chive on"
Yeah, that's weaksauce.
That you find it a complete and satisfactory answer concerns me.
That you have the top wagon and Lurk fake wall Korina as your prime supporters should concern you, if you're town.

Q: how is what thor did different from basic scumhunting?

A: he highlighted a conflict

when he didn't have to

and in doing so he created an environment where people were likely to choose sides, and in doing so, he got people to townread him and scumread paradox. He took advantage of a non-issue to get himself townreads and to make paradox look scummy. It's manipulative (highlighting conflict when it didn't need to be framed that way) and oppurtunistic to get townreads and make someone look scummy.

I've already said this like four different times, and why on earth are you not considering this an answer?

For starters, what you italicized and I bolded is *already a change from your last answer*.
I asked you for a non-conflict response I could have used and YOU COULDN'T MAKE ONE.
So you *know* this is a bogus argument but are still making it.

a) You can gauge gamestates and anticipate how certain arguments will likely play out and what the reception to your posts will be without being a mindreader. In fact, I'd posit that this is an incredibly important skill to have in this game. You're like taking a fundamental part of the game (gauging how your posts will be perceived) and stretching that to an extreme that clearly isn't possible (mindreading) to discredit my position of 'thor anticipated that people would likely agree with him over paradox'.

b) I don't understand what you're trying to say.

a) That your position can be described as 'mindreading' and you're having to argue that what I'm doing is "stretching" as opposed to "making something up" should concern you without further debate from me being needed.
Please find me anyone who can or will honestly claim they can predict what a given action will do and I'll show you a fool or a liar. Just take something like meta. Half the site says it's great, half the site says it's garbage - so how do you predict how a meta case will be received? RVS, claims, L-1 wagons, gut reads, VCA - literally everything in the game has people with fluctuating opinions on it and what is/isn't a scum or town tell.

b) If you presume I have the powers you proscribe to me in a) then it is silly to suggest I wouldn't have forseen how my attack was overblown and antagonistic and would have had some people scum read me - and if I knew that then why would I do the "plan". Your cumtell requires me to have powers, but also requires those powers to be very weak and not actually that good (which, incidentally, also proves that I'm right about a), that no one actually has that ability )

This entire post misreps everything I've been saying this entire time.

No, it doesn't.

I would suggest that if she can't show me misrepping her that people should vote her more.

This post, repeatedly.

You say that, but I'm literally quoting you above offering *one* and saying you could offer more.
So, literally you're lying in your tl:dr

Sorry I didn't read your pronoun. Username kinda sounded male so I went with he. I'll try to get it right from now on.

Yes fine it happened. We can move on now.
Would you have an issue with voting/lynching Korina? Or does it have to be Thor in your opinion?

How are you following Thor v. Skitter well enough to have an opinion and missed that Skitter and I had an exchange over pronouns already?

[Thor665]

Misrepping. In your quote at the start of this post, I bolded a phrase. You're misrepping me there because that was *never* my argument, but you're framing it like I've suddenly changed positions when that never happened. I've been arguing the same thing this entire time.

I literally quoted you explaining your case.

I just wanted to pull this one out, because it's the core of Skitter's claim of misreps from me - which is what pretty much Skitter's entire wall is about.
There is a claim I'm misrepping - by quoting a post of hers where she's explaining the case and bolding the opening line to the explanation.
Yet Skitter also claims she's never changed her story about what her case is.

So, I ask you, how do i misrep her when literally what I quoted was her answering a question about what her case is unless either her story has changed (which it has) or she's straight up lying in a wall and hoping people will buy it (which I believe she's doing).

If I was misrepped more by people quoting my own words I'd be a happy man.

[Korina]

Korina: oh come on. You've got a megapost (admittedly, I haven't really read it) and you've put most of us at null?

Seems like you're just spinning your wheels, but you clearly aren't going anywhere.

VOTE: Korina

Ok, the thing is, there's like 200ish posts. I really can't make very conclusive ideas until there's a lot more. A lot of the people are null because there's so little for me to read. What? You expect me to scumread the 5 posts someone's made, when, I know for a fact that there's very little conclusive evidence about it?

[Korina]

I find this Townie.
Apart from that, short ISO, not a lot to read.
(Ever so) slight Town read.

Why is this townie? I think it could easily be scum looking for something to do to look helpful/busy, and so I think it's ultimately NAI.

It's something that it's dependent on when it's posted ultimately, and this is one of the times I see it as a townie thing.

I would under other circumstances say I’m a bit scummy, but I know what my rolecard is already.

Like you're saying you're going to stop with the excuses, but this feels :/ like in an excuse-y/defensive way.

Let me rephrase: If I was not me, and I was playing as someone else, yes, I would think my slot is scummy, however, that is not the case, and I know my slot's role.

{Self} - Lock Town
{None} - Gut Town
{Fanta} - Slight Town
{Buj, Beefster, Not_Mafia, Paradox, Esp, Montosh, Skitter, Laser} - Null
{Thor, Wilky} - Slight Scum
{None} - Gut Scum
{None} - Lock Scum

This feels overall kinda lackluster and almost like that readslist was an excuse to defend yourself given that you don't have opinons on like half the player list?

Ok, the thing is, there's like 200ish posts. I really can't make very conclusive ideas until there's a lot more. A lot of the people are null because there's so little for me to read. What? You expect me to scumread the 5 posts someone's made, when, I know for a fact that there's very little conclusive evidence about it?

Answer to above question

I read everything korina wrote and then felt very disappointed by the conclusion. You set us up for a much bigger reveal. I also don't like when people do the whole jokey "I'm the most townie town there is" and put themselves on top of their townreads. I know that some townies do it but it always rubs me the wrong way and makes me very suspicious. Keeping my vote here.

I put myself at the top of my reads list just so I can keep track of players. When it gets to later in the game, you'll see me put in the TL;DR players who are alive and dead. I find it helpful to keep track of everything like that.

(My answers are bolded)

[Thor665]

So, my entire thing about that, is that I honestly have never seen town trying to set up arguments where they know the exact outcome. It seems like something mafia/wolf would do.

How would I know what the outcome would be?
You're, like Skitter, accussing me of being a mindreader/master manipulator with zero evidence to support said claim, and then acting like it's a valid call.

@Korina - I knew the outcome would be you missing the question, but let's go with this a second time.

[Thor665]

@Korina - frankly I'm starting to feel like you're taking me outlining Skitter's case as me admitting I did something - which makes your vote on me even iffier.

[Beefster]

Korina: oh come on. You've got a megapost (admittedly, I haven't really read it) and you've put most of us at null?

Seems like you're just spinning your wheels, but you clearly aren't going anywhere.

VOTE: Korina

Ok, the thing is, there's like 200ish posts. I really can't make very conclusive ideas until there's a lot more. A lot of the people are null because there's so little for me to read. What? You expect me to scumread the 5 posts someone's made, when, I know for a fact that there's very little conclusive evidence about it?

No johns. Your post was way longer than anyone is willing to read. If you are going to put the time into a megapost, I sort of expect conclusions rather than an inconclusive summary of a few players' ISOs.

[wilky]

catching up now.

[wilky]

Sounds like you missed my post earlier. I only wanted to vote a lurker in the first place because I also had another theory that there is a good chance of finding scum between the lurkers. I didn't have any particular one in mind. But Espeo seems to imply that NM lurking is by itself a damning thing, and imo that's wrong.

Right so voting NM for lurking is fine when you do it... I think i've got it now.

I mean, ok, I'm gonna explain why I'm lurking, and just prodging for rn:
1) It's d1, chill. I'm used to much shorter d1s like I said earlier
2) I'm trying to make time to actually read the thread, and I end up lurking a lot, especially early-game because there's not a lot I really can comment on/want to comment on. I try to only make major posts later on when I feel I have something I wanna bring up/clarified.
3) I'm in the midst of making reads, and playing 2 other games on separate forums, while juggling schoolwork.
4) Expect a slow start from me rn. I'll post reads sometime later, at least by Friday, assuming school/other games don't have major events occuring barring me from posting.

1- If you are used to much shorter d1's then i'd expect more from you than the average player as you'd be used to cramming much more in.
2- Everyone else can find stuff to talk about...
3- can't you get reads on someone and post at the same time?

Korina and BuJ are both good wagons.

I'd be happy lynching either one at this point.

Agreed just now.

You can't possibly be still asking me about NM?

Here's the whole story summarized again.

I said I had a theory that there is definitely scum lurking in the game. So I wanted to vote there. NM hadn't posted at all at the time so it was the most obvious choice. So I voted NM for lurking.

Espeo later says NM coasts as scum and gets away with it so we should lynch him.

I argued that NM lurking is NAI and so he would do it either alignment and there's no hurry in lynching him particularly if it's just a 50-50 with him. I changed my vote because at that time there were other things to react to and a lurker vote didn't make sense anymore.

So yeah we both voted but for different reasons.

In the same game I am getting voted for narrowing my vote pool and for changing my vote a lot. Make up your mind.

Sorry what is the different reasons I still don't see any difference apart from maybe the fact Espeo had more reason behind their vote than you did:

You voted NM because he was lurking.
Espeo voted for NM because he was lurking and in his experience with NM he lurks as scum.
You call Espeo out because NM lurking is NAI.

Sorry I didn't read your pronoun. Username kinda sounded male so I went with he. I'll try to get it right from now on.

Yes fine it happened. We can move on now.
Would you have an issue with voting/lynching Korina? Or does it have to be Thor in your opinion?

Wait earlier you said this "1 from thor/skitter/paradox, 1 from laser, espeo, beef" Korina isn't in any of these 6 players mentioned and further more you now view Skitter is town so you must think there's a 50% chance of hitting scum in Thor, Paradox so why do you want to push skitter onto Korina?

BTW wilky said he hasn't reread yet but he's happy with his vote on me.

Struck me as odd.

It was a prodge, I don't know how strict/lenient the mod is with prods.

[BuJaber]

@thor - pronoun discussion is irrelevant to the game I ignored it.

@wilky - the difference is basically this: Espeo picked NM for lurking. I picked a lurker who happened to be NM.

I literally wanted to vote a lurker, went to the first page to look at list of players alive and NM was the first name in the list that I didn't remember seeing in the last few posts I read. So if the mod had ordered the list differently it would have been someone else.