Valid lead.
VOTE: Creature
Read's not lazy.In post 1705, Creature wrote:I guess someone made that alt just to get away scumreading the most obvtown players for the laziest reasons possible.
I share Persivul's sentiments of suspicion there.In post 891, Persivul wrote:Lamees claimed Angel. IIRC she was only L-3 at the time.In post 890, Nako wrote:I will start reading soon, anything I should know before reading? Like any claim?
That's backwards. Last few pages show Lamees's scum.In post 1863, Auro wrote:Based off the last few pages Lamees is very likely town.
Not quite as backwards, but almost as bad.In post 1863, Auro wrote: I'm TRing Something_Smart too.
Thor's play's lackluster enough that I'll compromise there, but only as a last resort.
You assume one exists erroneously.In post 1905, rb wrote:if lamees was scum im fairly sure another PR would have claimed by today
Isoed Persivul, sheeped him on claim being scummy. Since then, 1643/1662/1667/1715/1730/1732/1734 as active lurking.In post 1904, BBmolla wrote:Why do you think Lamees is scum Succint
Key note: because scum know how many points they have, they know how many points town have. If they started with 2, then they'd know town has 5.In post 1910, rb wrote:however, assuming the minimum ascension points (5) as opposed to the other 4 possibilities (6,7,8,9) is going with the 20% odds rather than the 80%
if the town had any number of ascension points (6-9) then we could realistically have another PR counter-claim lamees, but we also have room for another PR in the points range too. i think we shelve it for today, but tomorrow we should massclaim
My point holds:In post 1911, Lamees wrote:1765 was to see if he was actually claiming cop.
If you were town, you wouldn't be asking if he was claiming cop at all. You'd already know he wasn't one, and would jump on the assumption he was scum fakeclaiming.In post 1906, Succinct wrote:Later posts do precisely that, butit's the, whereas Lamees's response was delayed over the course of multiple posts.firstreaction that counts; a town player is more prone to an "a-HA!" caught-ya response
So you think active lurking wasn't valid. What's garbage about these, then?In post 1912, Lamees wrote:And there's always going to be posts that look like active lurking in a very lurky player base when I myself am a pretty active player. Case is garbage and clearly scum driven.
In post 1906, Succinct wrote:1672 stances were pure scum.
1717, willingness to lynch anyone indicative of scum.
Your 1726 was accurate. 1727 was a poor defense of it.
1779's push of not responding when the obvious answer was you logged off was bad.
1845+1852+1878/1881 = Lamees is willing to lynch almost everyone. (At least 5/9 slots as named lynch targets.)
In post 1907, Succinct wrote:Forgot: Lamees posited the Creature kill = Molla scum.
It's the opposite; Creature's posts implied Molla town.
Appeal to Majority is a fallacy. I ask again:In post 1914, Auro wrote:I'm not the only one towning Lamees.
I've shown why Lamees is scum; your turn.In post 1906, Succinct wrote:why's Lamees town?
This also means scum know precisely what/how to fakeclaim. They know exactly what role types town has, thus, what roles're optimal to fakeclaim.In post 1916, Succinct wrote:Key note: because scum know how many points they have, they know how many points town have. If they started with 2, then they'd know town has 5.
Obviously, technically we can no-lynch again, but that's sub-optimal. Lynching Lamees is a risk-free way to potentially obtain odds again. If Lamees is scum, we stay on evens but we lynched scum. If Lamees is town and shoots successfully, we go to odds and get dead scum. If Lamees is town and shoots unsuccessfully, shot player is conftown (barring godfather). We lose nothing regardless, but we have much to gain.In post 1916, Succinct wrote:If Lamees is town, then Lamees is the only way to get the game off evens back onto odds.
Don't confuse scum with bad. AtE's a valid tactic for scum.In post 1925, BBmolla wrote:You’re one of the worst players I’ve ever encountered.In post 1920, Lamees wrote:Actually nvm, I agree. Lynch me so I can smite this unholy *censored*
VOTE: Lamees
How? By a lack of other PR claims? Angel's the best role to fakeclaim for a scumteam knowing town has 5 points.In post 1928, rb wrote:lamees is a terrible lynch because their slot will be 100% sorted by a massclaim.
Point them out; I've shown the contrary already.In post 1932, rb wrote:and lamees is also making town posts today, even if they're absurd they're town motivated
Funny, I feel the same about Malakitty. There's reason I opted to join neither wagon yesterday; both felt like mislynches in the making.In post 1966, Auro wrote:No one really has a case on Thor, it's just a paranoia lynch.
I agree with this sentiment.In post 1972, Auro wrote:I'm not hammering a townread, and it looks *obvious* to me how the scumteam is pushing for lynches and setting up future mislynches.
How's this relevant?In post 2000, Auro wrote:VC from a few pages ago @Succint
Let's not lynch any town and instead lynch scum. Nako/Mala/Ruby're all town.In post 2010, rb wrote:VOTE: Nako
if we're gonna end up lynching Mala instead of thor, this is better
Truth.In post 2018, Ruby Red wrote:huh i don't townread SS
Your only bad read.In post 2020, Ruby Red wrote:auro probtown
For a start, 2024.
Backwards; it's the best. 2 Priests? Stretch. 2 Witch Hunters? Stretch. Sorceress? Lack of second NK condemns. Doctor? Requires not targeting the NK, raising questions as to why they didn't protect the obv-NK. Only claims remotely close to Angel's viability are Sorceress+Trickster, both 1-point roles necessitating the presence of a nonexistent Witch (only 1-point scum role). Angel allows for scum's 2-point role to flip and fit with fakeclaim.In post 2076, Something_Smart wrote:angel is a bad fakeclaim
Wanting to know why someone you're voting's not townreading you's overly defensive.
You give why Nako's town here; I'm disinclined to disagree. However, this defense's specific to Nako.In post 2060, Auro wrote:@Egix: Nako and SS both have been "coasting" without any rigid stances. If they're scum, it's reasonable to assume they'd coast along some particular agenda in this gamestate, as opposed to placing votes haphazardly. Many of Nako's votes have been vanity -- like her votes on Creature and You -- which makes me believe she's town, and currently ML bait.
In post 2064, Auro wrote:Who'd be SS' partners here if he flips red?
See my vote.In post 2075, Auro wrote:Lamees also I've been sorta townleaning on, one reason being her "IDC I'll lynch anyone" attitude, I'm disliking that she's not even trying to gamesolve.
Given her Angel claim, if she's in your PoE wouldn't she be a better lynch, since if she's town we get the equivalent of a cop check (framer can't operate in Twilight), there's a chance of a false positive on an immortal but I think on a whole it should be useful. Thoughts?
See my 1902.In post 2078, Egix96 wrote:You maybe? Smart maybe? I say that because you both have been against lynching her.
Second NL puts us onto odds; it's not the end of the world.In post 2086, Malakitty wrote:And I REFUSE TO HAVE ANOTHER NL
Calling your bluff.In post 2088, Auro wrote:I'm actually down to lynch him over Nako cos I trust Red's read
In post 2099, Auro wrote:Willing to lynch Mala more than SS, though, if it wasn't clear.
In post 2097, Succinct wrote:Calling your bluff.In post 2088, Auro wrote:I'm actually down to lynch him over Nako cos I trust Red's read
VOTE: Something_Smart
I'm still calling you a liar, who put on bravado of willingness to lynch someone you had no intent of ever bussing.In post 2103, Auro wrote:Didn't think a Mala lynch was possible today, but it clearly is now.
Yes, my point precisely.
Why? As you said, it's mylo (not lylo); Lamees can't be quickhammered regardless of alignment. If scum, scum wouldn't pile on; if town, scum piling on is gamethrowing as shot scum = we can lynch remaining two tomorrow. Either way, Lamees isn't at risk of a quicklynch.In post 2140, rb wrote:succint's vote is awful
In post 2155, Something_Smart wrote:I guess it could be because they thought he was a different PR, but idk what that could be.
These two together = Something_Smart scumclaimed.In post 2166, Egix96 wrote:I'm a Trickster, I turned invisible on Night 2.
Why?In post 2181, Lamees wrote:This reason is a bit shaky. Feels forced.In post 2176, Succinct wrote:Incidentally, I believe Egix's claim as he had no incentive to claim this as scum.
2813's sufficient an answer.In post 2177, Something_Smart wrote:What are you talking about?
My read on Lamees can be summed up as so:In post 2189, Auro wrote:LameesI'm back to townreading, and I wonder what Succint's current read there is: I really doubt scum!Lamees fakeclaims and self-votes readily in MyLo.
In post 1916, Succinct wrote:I ask again:I've shown why Lamees is scum; your turn.In post 1906, Succinct wrote:why's Lamees town?
Your reasoning's the closest I've ever gotten to an answer, and even it is flawed.In post 1994, Succinct wrote:Point them out; I've shown the contrary already.In post 1932, rb wrote:and lamees is also making town posts today, even if they're absurd they're town motivated
While we're at it: I've explained my Egix townread.In post 1994, Succinct wrote:Don't confuse scum with bad. AtE's a valid tactic for scum.
Whose fault is that? I was voting there since D2; it's not like I didn't present reasons, either, as I've shown above. I was ignored. What can I do about that? I asked questions and raised points nobody bothered to answer or counter.In post 2213, rb wrote:for real if we were going to test the lamees slot, it was meant to happen before mylo. the fact that it occurs _NOW_ just reeks of scum to me. they claimed on day1. we are now on day4, if we didn't lynch them on day1 (or 2) why the fuck is the game still hungup on it.
rb's experienced enough to know this is backwards. Someone who works as scum with anyone's scum with no one.In post 2219, rb wrote:one thing that makes me want to go for nako is that honestly...he's a viable scum partner to almost anyone in the game?
I can't speak for N1 with Persivul. I believe Persivul was shot for his play, not for his role, but having not been in the game I confess I don't know why he'd die.In post 2311, Succinct wrote:rb's been widely townread by players throughout the game;why isn't he dead.
Thank you.In post 2366, the worst wrote:Succinct your reads in particular struck me as amazing.
Not particularly? They were one of the likeliest teams.In post 2373, Egix96 wrote:I knew that Smart had to be scum as soon as he hammered, but I wouldn't have guessed that he was scum with Auro. A+ distancing!