Which part, the vote on me or "this is a scumsided setup"?In post 14, Egix96 wrote:Hmm, now why doesn't this seem genuine?
If it's the latter, she did express the same to me while the game was still in sign-ups.
Which part, the vote on me or "this is a scumsided setup"?In post 14, Egix96 wrote:Hmm, now why doesn't this seem genuine?
You've not found it very difficult to townsort me in our previous (completed) games, so why the "RVS" vote on me?
Blame the RNGods, not meIn post 21, DVa wrote:I'm blaming you for talking me into joining this game and then having the audacity to let MDS roll me town.
Are you referring to the recent Dethy game?
Townlean on Persivul. I don't see this kind of post coming from scum. OTOH, Persivul, it's possible that role picking wasn't straightforward and scum might have taken time discussing things firstIn post 36, Persivul wrote:At one point everyone but Inferno and Leo had confirmed (so there were 10+ confirmations), but the game wasn't open (so, scum hadn't chosen their roles yet). Could be one of those two is scum and that was the holdup. Doesn't prove anything, but I'd keep an eye on them.In post 6, MiniDeathStar wrote:The game will begin when 10 players have confirmed their roles and all undead have chosen theirs.
What was the purpose of this question?In post 44, Lamees wrote:@rb what power role would you choose as scum?
Because you're "rb"?In post 45, rb wrote:wow probably roleblocker imo
But we talk to each other based on the votes we make; does that not give enough reason to vote?In post 60, Something_Smart wrote:I don't usually feel like random voting, I don't think it's the votes that spark D1 discussion but just people talking to each other.
And I don't put down real votes often, especially early on. I find it leads to confbias as I'm asked to justify it, and I don't think most players are easier to read under pressure.
I'm not saying it's beyond scum!her. I'm saying I don't think she'd choose to fake that as scum, get what I mean?In post 62, Egix96 wrote:@Bolded bit: I'm surprised that you think this, considering what she managed to get away with in Newbie 1893.
You've seen my scumgames and I questioned a lot in them, why does questioning earn me a townlean here?In post 76, NotNova wrote:I think Auro is townleaning with all the questioning ATM
DVa's non-serious content actually comes more from town!DVa from my knowledge of her; so that's NAI at worst.In post 76, NotNova wrote:don't like the non-serious content by DVa (ex. her last post). Agree it feels LAMIST, wanna see a push there.
You didn't like DVa's earlier posts enough to have a vote on her; why start a new wagon now and break momentum?In post 84, rb wrote:VOTE: Lamees
wow trying so hard to be funny and relaxed like town but obvious scum imo
im so good at this game tbh wow
Same question as above - why'd you break the momentum on my wagon, shifting it to a slot that hadn't even posted till then? Are you towning me?In post 69, DVa wrote:VOTE: Yvotta
For starters, I'd like to hear your thoughts on:In post 80, Something_Smart wrote:Tip for playing with me: you'll get way more mileage asking me for "thoughts on post X" than for "thoughts." I don't have time to write down all my thoughts and if I did they'd be all jumbled anyway.
To me, voting on a zero-content slot looks like a vanity vote, not that you started a new wagon.In post 92, DVa wrote:A new wagon in RVS isn't a "vanity slot" and I don't have to townread you to change votes to someone who isn't posting content yet.
Yep. The most charitable interpretation of his post would be "I dislike her non-serious posts, also I agree her posts look LAMIST" which is fine, but his phrasing is still a bit scummy.In post 101, Lamees wrote:I'm aware of notnova's misrep of DVA, he claimed that the "not serious" posts were lamist. But the actual lamist posts were DVAs first two posts.
He agreed with me though, so he can't possibly be scum.
What is?In post 106, rb wrote:wow so true imo
That's an interesting statement, considering rb is the only vote on you. Why did you say that as though you were close to lunch range?In post 124, Lamees wrote:What's your case? Random wagon that is clearly scum driven.
So playstyles which don't help town wincon auto-earn scumleans from you? Or do you mean you're "tossing" him into a scumlean pool and would sort from there?In post 115, Thor665 wrote:I find a non-proactive playstyle inherently questionable for helping town wincon.
You can be a scum lean now.
I don't think scum overthink THAT much, because self-consciousness at one point becomes obvious.In post 120, Something_Smart wrote:Even then, it's probably offset by the fact that scum want to avoid looking like they're trying to look like town, which under the same assumption town wouldn't care as much about.
How?In post 139, rb wrote:i townread malaIn post 130, Malakitty wrote:Herro y’all I’m going to be here later I skimmed and I see some familiar faces
I look forward to killing all of the scum for u
Wow. Is Dunnstral usually like this?In post 163, Dunnstral wrote:Because they look like town to me so far
Care to go into specifics?In post 167, Dunnstral wrote:I do think Auro looks like scum this game though from their recent posting
I feel NN could do what you're talking about as town
Any reads apart from DVa, Lam?In post 171, rb wrote:VOTE: lamees
wow i've changed my mind on dva again
stop being hard to read imo
I just finished a game where I locktowned scum who pocketed me and lost to them :$ doubly wary. (Although FWIW it was Not_Mafia )In post 170, DVa wrote:Auro is doing like a LOT more questions than he was like in one of our previous towngames where he was more assertive a bit early on, but that could in large part having to do with this list being... gnomic and oblique so far. So he does feel a touch more reactive here but I don't know I'd call him scum for it yet
Read the game, Newbie 1900.In post 174, Dunnstral wrote:I wasn't aware that Not_Mafia did anything in games
I'm pocketed, Dunnstral is locktownIn post 177, Dunnstral wrote:Me, for my stunning insight and townie disposition
When someone plays so differently to their usual style? Maybe "locktown" is the wrong word, but almost all of us (FL, Performer, Me) towned him enough to never lynch him during the game.In post 181, Persivul wrote:Why would you ever locktown anyone (aside from certain claims in certain setups)?In post 173, Auro wrote:I just finished a game where I locktowned scum
The phrasing, "completely random vote" when I was collecting votes and my wagon was growing quick, with no vote till then.In post 180, Persivul wrote:And that's scummy rather than towny because...?In post 136, Auro wrote:Dunnstral's post 25 I dislike a lot -- after two fluff posts, he places a "completely random vote" on *me*, when I already had two votes and my wagon was growing.
Why does someone have to be inept for me to dislike something they did or said? Why would it be "inept" for Dunnstral to do that as scum?In post 191, Persivul wrote:1. You really think he's so inept at scum that he'd try to disguise a purposeful vote by outright announcing it as a completely random vote?
2. Two votes /= collecting votes and my wagon was growing quick. Why the hyperbole?
There are other reasons beyond my dislike of that post because of which I'm fine just with a Dunnstral lunch today. Where did I "push you" specifically?In post 188, Dunnstral wrote:You'd be pushing me if I voted someone other than you too
Their vote was already on me and they broke that momentum, why is that an invalid question? Why does my asking that question imply I shouldn't dislike your post where you voted me?Dunnstral wrote:Earlier you were asking a player why they were "making a new wagon and breaking momentum" instead of voting you
It confuses me because that looks like a sub-optimal way to scumhunt -- some players have playstyles that feel anti-town or scummy in most of their games, so by doing this, you'd end up lynching them every game.In post 201, Thor665 wrote:Yes, playstyles that don't help town wincon earn scum leans from me - it seems silly to do anything else, why would this confuse you as a stance?
I was expecting an answer like this, cool.In post 201, Thor665 wrote:It doesn't help me sort - it's supposed to help others sort me - I've already done sorting.
When you said "I've already done sorting" I assumed you meant you sorted *after* the previous posts, and that meant your current sorts had information beyond the inferred scumlean on Dunnstral.In post 212, Thor665 wrote:Probably you could infer by me saying I scum leaned Dunnstral that I scum read him also.
Why are you asking me such an empty question considering I blatantly stated a second scum read? Are you just skimming and pretending to effort, or what?
No, I'm saying adjust what "scummy" means to their playstyle, and look for players being scummy adjusted to their playstyle.In post 212, Thor665 wrote:I agree it's important to separate play from playstyle. That said, if a player plays scummy, Day 1 is the optimal time to root them out since apparently you can't discern their alignment from play, no? Are you arguing we should not lynch scummy looking players Day 1? Clearly you're not, because that would be daft - so what is your suggestion of who we lynch Day 1? I submit it is best to lynch someone who looks scummy - and that can include playstyle. You're either right, and huzzah, or you're wrong and you get info. Both are preferable to lynching someone off an inherently bad case, which playstyle is not.
Isn't it a bit cheeky for scum? I mean, if he was scum, do you think they actually planned to open the game at that moment just to say this?In post 214, Malakitty wrote:It could actually come from scum, but more for town points then anything else. I vaguely remember playing with Persivul, but I don’t remember which alignment way back when.
Ah, hmm. Okay.In post 223, Malakitty wrote:If I remember right Persi is a very ballsy player. So yes I think he’s a confident mafia player and I could see scum him opening with it
Because if my read was correct, that information *could* have also been a revision on your prior read on Dunnstral, the only scumread that would still be persistent was Leo.In post 226, Thor665 wrote:You read me incorrectly - but even if you did read me correctly why are you asking for more reads when I'd offered a second already and had apparently decided not to share others if I had them?
I had a great case on scum!Volxen in my just-completed Newbie 1900 he was tunneled on me, I kept engaging him on that, showed how his vote shifts were inconsistent and dishonest. I'm actually curious -- I can link you to the posts, tell me why my case (even if correct) was not a "good" one?In post 226, Thor665 wrote:List me all the games ever with a good case on Day 1.
I expect the number to be x<1
I'll wait.
I did recall some game I read earlier where you said you don't believe in posting reads lists; your phrasing "I've sorted already" without posting any other reads reminded me of that. Hence the reason I started off my question with "If you're done sorting". I didn't think too much into whether you were lying about it -- I think it's possible to do this as both alignments -- so I engaged on it.In post 253, Thor665 wrote:Agreed - but after I had already answered I was posting my reads to help people read me, you would then have to presume either I had forgotten my purpose in posting reads or was lying in my answer to have your question make sense.
I effort as both alignments. I'm not covering up that I'm efforting, am I? O.oIn post 253, Thor665 wrote:Just because you efforted as scum in the past does not mean you always will - or are you claiming it does?
I'm not sure what your motivation for it is - but it appears fairly factual you're doing exactly that so now I'm exploring it. It does make more sense to me you'd do it as scum, and it ASSUREDLY makes more sense to me you'd try to cover it up as scum as opposed to admitting it.
I'm feeling more like these answers are deflections than responses. Meh, then again you do answer in questions a lot like I do.
Please delve deeper into that first response and my rebuttal - I feel like the answer to your alignment is there.
In post 253, Thor665 wrote:You can post or link it.
I'm willing to bet my answer will be 'there's a difference between being right and being good'.
Day 1 lynches are, with few exceptions, educated guesses with very limited info. I submit it's impossible to have them be good - the only goal is to have them not be trash.
Oh, I just think asking relevant questions as part of a rebuttal also makes it easier to reach to a conclusion / the root of the disagreement, so I naturally do this. If you think I'm deflecting somewhere specifically, tell.In post 253, Thor665 wrote:Meh, then again you do answer in questions a lot like I do.