Non random posts are the best sort to sheep.
Could also lynch Dunnstral.
Also;
If you believe this why are all your other posts able to be quoted by going; "First, what?".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.In post 55, Auro wrote:Something_Smart, why have you not voted yet?
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.
What's the issue with that claim?In post 77, DVa wrote:My "non-serious content" is "LAMIST"?
So you don't drive content via questions or votes, but generically drift, let others drive content, and then react to it.In post 80, Something_Smart wrote:I try never to force anything. If I don't have anything I want to talk about, I won't try to force myself to get people talking. So I won't ever make a post with the intent of "driving conversation." I'll make a post with the intent of "talking about X." And I'll do this when, and only when, such an X comes to my attention.
It seems as valid as any other tell.In post 96, Dunnstral wrote:trueIn post 81, Something_Smart wrote:LAMIST is a buzzword and a bullSmurf tell.
It could - except with me there would be a dearth of evidence to support the claim, whereas with you there is plenty.In post 116, Dunnstral wrote:Same can be said about youIn post 115, Thor665 wrote:You feel kind of like you're sidelining and sticking to tearing down other things.
How is it valid to suggest if it's not valid to believe it? I don't see the connective absence there.In post 120, Something_Smart wrote:It's valid to SUGGEST, but it's not valid to BELIEVE without any evidence...?In post 115, Thor665 wrote:Town try not to look scummy, but so do scum, and it's valid to suggest scum would try to do so harder, so...?
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?In post 127, Auro wrote: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?
It doesn't help me sort - it's supposed to help others sort me - I've already done sorting.In post 127, Auro wrote:I don't see how that helps you sort more accurately, can you explain? This applies to the townleans as well.
What would you have discussed if you'd been around? Because here you're not discussing anything, which continues to make me want to lynch you.In post 200, Leodanny wrote:Sorry I don’t live in the same time zone as most of you, so all the action happens when I’m asleep.
Then why are you voting Auro?In post 202, Leodanny wrote:Well I would have replied to auro’s question, with... um... rb. He’s just like wow so true imo lynch lamees
Not really, for someone complaining of a lack of interaction you're not being very proactive when you have interaction - I was mostly just pointing that out to get more votes on you.
All tells doIn post 208, Something_Smart wrote:Eh, ambiguous wording on my part. I don't think you can logically deduce that town are better at looking town than scum are, when they specifically attempt to. That would have to be something that you'd learn from experience, and in my experience it depends very much on the person.
I'll agree there is questionable value to town doing the things being noted as LAMIST - which to my mind justifies using LAMIST as a viable scumhunting tool, really.In post 208, Something_Smart wrote:Also, LAMIST is not putting in a lot of effort to look town. It's very easy to say "I'm town" as either alignment, and there are reasons town players might do it that's not to look town. (i.e. because one school of thought as town is that you should just say literally whatever you feel like you want to say.)
Some players do have playstyles that 'feel' anti town or scummy. But that's a long way different from a playstyle that is reactive as opposed to reactive. Scumhunting is an activity - lack of scumhunting is scummy. I'll agree this might lead to players who play very poorly being lynched every game - hopefully it will teach them to not play poorly. I fail to see the issue.In post 209, Auro wrote: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.
Don't you agree it's important to separate play from playstyle? If a player's doing something scummy, but did that in previous town games as well, we have to judge the player on other parameters. No?
Probably you could infer by me saying I scum leaned Dunnstral that I scum read him also.In post 210, Auro wrote:If you're done sorting and your vote is still on Leo, I'm assuming you SR him? Who else do you think is scum?
Buzzword is a buzzword.In post 211, Malakitty wrote:Buzzwords kill.
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?In post 216, Auro wrote: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.
List me all the games ever with a good case on Day 1.In post 218, Auro wrote:In the abscence of a good case, I'd be down to lynch a scummy player even if it's just playstyle -- but scumleaning them early just for that seems like it'd only lead to conf bias.
What would you like to move on to?In post 219, Something_Smart wrote:I think we've beaten this point quite into the ground; I don't think LAMIST is a useful tell and I've stated my reasons why. Let's move on.
@Something_SmartIn post 226, Thor665 wrote:What would you like to move on to?In post 219, Something_Smart wrote:I think we've beaten this point quite into the ground; I don't think LAMIST is a useful tell and I've stated my reasons why. Let's move on.
I find concern with you attacking someone else's scumhunting while not committing your own and desire to still explore that point, but I'm open to other topics of conversation if you have them.
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.In post 234, Auro wrote:Your reads help us sort you, as you said -- so if something changed/got added from the previous post, asking you to post them would be useful.
Just because you efforted as scum in the past does not mean you always will - or are you claiming it does?In post 234, Auro wrote:Also, what would be my scum motivation in "looking like I'm efforting", considering I've actually efforted in my scum games, especially when I'm questioning why someone townleaned me for doing that?
You can post or link it.In post 235, Auro wrote: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?
Though admittedly I started to quaver on my Auro read earlier, this was a similar thought process to what I had - it was extra interesting because other wagons were being shopped around with cases that are fairly similar to the case on Leodanny (like Yyotta is basically an expy of Leodanny and each case could functionally be tossed at the other effortlessly).In post 247, Egix96 wrote:Leo needs more votes I think. Persi, Thor, and Auro all seem like town to me so far, so I don't think scum are pushing a lynch there. Seems like a good choice.
I'm saying you're not efforting and are trying to cover it up.In post 255, Auro wrote:I effort as both alignments. I'm not covering up that I'm efforting, am I? O.o
I'm saying there's no specialscum motivationfor me to effort, when I know that efforting alone won't make me look any townier. So if you're going to evaluate my alignment based on that question, it shouldn't be for "trying to look like you're efforting". Agree?
Therefore, an accusation of me "trying to look like I'm efforting" shouldn't hold any weight.
Your case was "you're playing inconsistent" That's a fine Day 1 case.In post 255, Auro wrote:If you think this case isn't "good", do tell me your definitions of it, because I think a lynch off this case is superior to someone whose playstyle is naturally scummy.
"The grass is blue."In post 260, Auro wrote:Also, interesting that you use the term "rebuttal" -- I simply asked a question based on an assumption I made and an inconsistency I felt, which wasn't AI -- I never made an argument that you were scum for it, so why was your response a "rebuttal"?In post 253, Thor665 wrote:Please delve deeper into that first response and my rebuttal - I feel like the answer to your alignment is there.
"I'm done sorting" was offered as an explicit answer to your question about how what I was doing would help me sort my town and scum reads.In post 262, Auro wrote:Also remember that my initial question was about you "tossing" people into pools based on their playstyle, and starting from there; something I felt then was different from actual "reads".
"I posted about my tossing people into pools so people could sort me"
"I'm done sorting now" (in a later post without mentioning any updated reads)
If you explicitly said you were *scumreading* Leo/Dunn earlier, instead of the "pool-tossing", I probably wouldn't have made the incorrect assumption when you said "I've already done sorting".
I think Lamees is town. The attack on her is weak, and her attack on rb is so silly it reads town to me.In post 254, Something_Smart wrote:How do you feel about Lamees?
If you downplay something you are weakening a stance/belief/player - that's an attack. You pointing out you're doing it while not assessing scum/town intent actually is my point. You're sidelining and not gamesolving while still attacking.In post 254, Something_Smart wrote:And, I think you're not using "attacking" correctly. Attacking implies aggressive intent; so I would be wanting to call someone either scum or a bad player-- but clearly I don't want either of those things. I'm just giving my opinion on the value of a tell.
Yes, I do find it a stretch.In post 201, Thor665 wrote:It doesn't help me sort - it's supposed to help others sort me - I've already done sorting.In post 127, Auro wrote:I don't see how that helps you sort more accurately, can you explain? This applies to the townleans as well.
As already discussed - there is scum motivation in covering up your lack of effort by claiming you're efforting.In post 296, Auro wrote:Okay, so we've established that there was no scum motivation -> this implies my thought process WRT the post was genuine.In post 295, Thor665 wrote:Yes, I do find it a stretch.
There was no scum motivation in doing it.
There was evidence of not efforting - which is what I said, and I think there is scum motivation in not efforting.
In the universe where I hadn't asked that question, would you call my play "not efforting"?
Because this is supporting evidence at best; so if you don't think I was "not efforting" apart from that, it's a weak attack.
If you do think I wasn't "efforting" in that universe, we can talk about that further.
1. Are you claiming you're not efforting?In post 300, Auro wrote:Where did I "claim" I'm efforting?
You've already picked at my thought process about that question, to see if what makes sense?
So you're saying I'm not efforting *because* of that question, or as a whole?
By trying to step out of the conversation.In post 301, Auro wrote:Where have I changed gears here, Thor?
Why do you keep misunderstanding me by inventing things I never said or even implied?In post 303, Auro wrote:Every time I incorrectly interpret something you say, you seem to be calling me "gear-changing", "fake-efforting", "word-spewing".
Why don't you correct me and allow me to rebut the correct version of things, without attacking me for it?
Like, how do you read this and establish my attack on you as you efforting as opposed to not efforting?In post 212, Thor665 wrote:Are you just skimming and pretending to effort, or what?
I'm allowed to change reads with new info.In post 307, Auro wrote:3. Then how come you townleaned me earlier to that question? Also, you'll have to show that every post of mine appart from that was fake-effort.
You are - but, like I literally just said, you dropped the rebuttal thing (and others) so I literally answered the question you're asking here in part in the post you're responding to. This all feels fake.In post 307, Auro wrote:Which part of the conversation did I hard drop? I thought I was constantly engaging you o.O
In post 308, Auro wrote:Thor, this conversation is becoming unnecessarily bloated -- just cut down to your attack, and explain it in clear terms to dense me, without saying "I've already said it earlier".
In post 253, Thor665 wrote:I'm not sure what your motivation for [efforting] 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.
You asked for the case - I didn't expect you to agree with it.In post 314, Auro wrote:This is the attack? Cool.In post 253, Thor665 wrote: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.
So you think I'm fake efforting, even right now in the process of our engagement, cool.
And your attack on me is that you don't know what my motivation for efforting would be; but I would try to cover my non-efforting up as scum instead of admitting that I am not efforting. Correct? Gosh.
If you take out the 'I don't know what the motive is' part and replace it with 'I see a motive to do this as scum, but not one to do it as town' then yes.In post 317, Auro wrote:Agreements or not aside, my paraphrasing of your case; is it correct?
What experience do you have with me that would expect me to let something go if I thought it was scum indicative?In post 318, Persivul wrote:What I don't get is why Thor keeps on about it.
GoodIn post 342, rb wrote:wow can we cop check thor and auro just because i started reading their interactions and now i have depression imo
Except that it doesn't do either of those things.In post 349, Auro wrote:Cool, so that's your attack. I think it's pretty convoluted and plays around with definitions and semantics.
I agree with everything you said - but fail to see how it applies to my case.In post 358, Persivul wrote:The thing is that I don't see why you would see expending effort as scum indicative. Town is supposed to expend effort. Scum therefore have incentive to expend effort. So, effort is NAI.In post 338, Thor665 wrote:What experience do you have with me that would expect me to let something go if I thought it was scum indicative?
How does that interaction make him look like town?In post 605, Auro wrote:If anyone thinks RB is scum after this interaction, feel free to go ahead and case him.
Can you highlight the frustration you saw?In post 730, Auro wrote:However, he expressed frustration and seriousness during his DVa exchange -- something I'm not able to fit as part of a scum agenda for him. Clearly DVa was attracting votes (even if for meh reasons) and he wasn't being scumread, so I fail to see why he would go to the extent of faking said frustration in that context. I don't think it's likely here that scum!RB gets frustrated genuinely especially considering his prior play.
All o fthat felt about as real as him wow, imo stuff to me.In post 734, Auro wrote:A few of his posts from that interaction, along with the self-vote which points to frustration.
There is nothing convoluted in a case that is "I think you're faking effort, therefore are scum" that's a very simple and easy case.In post 735, Auro wrote:I'm not going to be pulled into this kind of an argument again -- I do think your case is convoluted, and I'll wait for anyone else to actually parse and push me there.
You're now changing the goalposts and not supporting either how my case is convoluted or definition/semantic based.In post 737, Auro wrote:If it was this, I think I already have responded. You thought I was fake efforting because of that "Who's scum then" question I threw at you, and I explained my thought process behind it. You thought it's wonky, but I did show how it was genuine. I also asked you to show me how I'm "faking effort" independent of that question and our interaction after that, and you said it's silly to ask that. I also pointed out that it's my scum meta to effort hard, so I have nothing to really gain by faking effort instead of playing naturally.In post 736, Thor665 wrote:There is nothing convoluted in a case that is "I think you're faking effort, therefore are scum" that's a very simple and easy case.
There is also no definition wordplay at all.
Your defense is scummy here.
I can't possibly "prove" that my effort is "real", and I'm not sure how you'd evaluate it off one question -- but again, I'm not interested in needlessly throwing pages upon pages on this right now. I will be, if any other player sees what you're seeing and doesn't think it's a weak case.
I don't understand what you're asking me here.In post 742, Auro wrote:Again, independent of that question, tell me where you think I was empty efforting.
Not as clearly defined.In post 744, Auro wrote:Now, is there any other evidence you have where you feel like I'm faking effort?
Don't think it has, you don't show me ever agreeing that not reading is good - you do have me showing I'd be happy to see you (or me if you wish) get CoppedIn post 749, Auro wrote:Where has that sentiment disappeared this game?
Why?In post 752, rb wrote:pls no more Thauro665
Why Darklight?In post 753, Egix96 wrote:DarkLight is the one I would lynch first. If he flips town I might look at Smart next.
Why do you townread Nova?In post 764, Dunnstral wrote:All town
What do you like in their content?In post 776, Dunnstral wrote:I like their content and they look like town to me
Yeah, it's rough when people demand you play differently.In post 813, bristep123 wrote:I really love being told what I 'have' to do in these games.
@DunnIn post 781, Thor665 wrote:What do you like in their content?In post 776, Dunnstral wrote:I like their content and they look like town to me
I don't think it's better, and there's more support for Leodanny.In post 818, Auro wrote: Thor, you think RB's slot is iffy, don't you think that flip is better?
You say this like GFs aren't near constant issues with Cops in basically every game.In post 843, Auro wrote:Thor, I want to talk about this more - I think it's a horrendous idea to gate a cop check to one or two people, since if there's a cop it's almost guaranteed that we have a framer/GF or both.
Why were you happy at that suggestion?
He's currently voting the biggest wagon that isn't him.In post 851, Lamees wrote:Why is he scum? I get the "not cotributing" part, but that isnt alignment indicative. I town read him because he isn't pushing for a scum wincon imo. Like you get players who troll around and don't contribute/lurk. But they still push aggressively for mislynches as scum (see notmafia in that game we played together) and kind of what rb was doing earlier this game. Leodanny isnt doing that.
What inconsistency did you see from me to provoke this line of questioning?In post 872, Auro wrote:I do think RB is town -- however, I felt a possible inconsistency in your read on the slot versus your vote, so I called that out. Similar to how I'd question a case on a scumread if I felt it inconsistent, I can also question why someone isn't pushing a townread of mine if it looks potentially inconsistent with their previous sayings and clarify.
Welcome to every closed game, and a fair swathe of Open games of Mafia ever made?In post 877, Auro wrote:Encouraging the cop to check someone (or two) is bad, IMO, and they should keep in mind the existence of framers and GFs when deciding who they target.
I never, at any stage in my posting, claimed otherwise.In post 901, Leodanny wrote:You know when I voted that? Way before my wagon formed. And I did not jump on that without reason.
You claimed that him not pushing for mislynches was townie. I pointed out he is on a quite successful wagon - so unless you know for a fact rb is scum where do you get the justification to claim he isn't successfully pushing for a mislynch?In post 908, Lamees wrote:He voted rb first according to the VC. So him being on that wagon is just him voting for who he thinks is scummy? How does him voting rb make him scum necessarily?
The rest of your question was "why is he scum".In post 908, Lamees wrote:I dont think you answered my question here.
In post 924, Nako wrote:I haven't played with him but if he was scum, he would try to pocket townies instead of war of the walls.
So I was voting one scumread, and saw multiple people expressing interest in the wagon - I pushed on that interest and created a solid wagon on Leo instead of switching to rb who had a lot less wagon interest.In post 927, Auro wrote:Potential*In post 925, Thor665 wrote:What inconsistency did you see from me to provoke this line of questioning?
Your vote then vs the RB read.
Okay, so the inconsistency was one not yet committed?In post 949, Auro wrote:Me: *Asks question*In post 938, Thor665 wrote:So I was voting one scumread, and saw multiple people expressing interest in the wagon - I pushed on that interest and created a solid wagon on Leo instead of switching to rb who had a lot less wagon interest.
No, seriously, describe the inconsistency.
Thor: *Answers question*, "Why ask?"
Me: "Potential inconsistency"
Thor: "Where's the inconsistency?"
Me: "Potential*"
Thor: "Seriously, describe the inconsistency"
Is Thor *this* thick usually? The purpose of *asking* questions is to iron out potential inconsistencies and get to know someone's stance clearer. "Why Leo over RB" is aperfectlyfine question, because Thor did admit RB was iffy although he voted Leo, and now he's had to describe his stance on why Leo. This incessant nitpicks are starting to annoy me. Perhaps he's doing this with the intention of making me back off from asking questions, which I won't, or to start huge wall-wars again which no one's going to read.
In post 974, Auro wrote:Yes, it was not one yet committed.In post 973, Thor665 wrote:Okay, so the inconsistency was one not yet committed?
What's the future potential inconsistency you saw?
Maybe I am thick - but asking you to describe what you saw feels like a fairly simple and reasonable question if asking about an inconsistency that doesn't exist is fine why aren't my questions fine?
Potentially, if I judged that your reasons for voting Leo were too weak to not justify pushing RB, a slot that you said you find scummy, I would've then concluded that your (weak) vote was inconsistent with your (strong) RB read.
The question was (functionally equivalent to) "why Leo over RB". Now, I repeat -- I ask questions to figure out someone's thought process, and make observations about where their actions seem inconsistent with their thought processes, and in this case, said action was the Leo vote, and the thought process, RB scumread.
I never said your answer to "why Leo over RB" was inconsistent or bad, I accepted it.
If you think it's an empty question, I would disagree -- it has achieved some purpose in that I got a better peek into your thought process regarding RB/Leo, which is a good thing, and also FMPOV, made you clearer on your stance on that to town as well.
No doubt it's a reasonable question, but when I said "potential" two times, your treating it as though I had painted some existing inconsistency was what I'm referring to.
In post 818, Auro wrote:Thor, you think RB's slot is iffy, don't you think that flip is better?
I am casing you by attacking you.In post 982, Auro wrote:Go ahead and just case me, get others to see the great ThorLogic that I'm apparently flail-derping as I try to combat it.
You now have two instances of my "empty questions", both for which I've explained myself.
You're trying to convince ME that they're empty, and I disagree.
I agree that Leo and Lamees followed up on my answer to your question and seemed to actually be seeking info from my answer unlike you did, yes.In post 988, Auro wrote:Hell, Lamees and Leo both questioned you on this explanation IIRC -- there you go, your response to my question did instigate an attack from Lamees and Leo.In post 986, Auro wrote:This^ is you explaining your case on Leo. You're saying if I asked you why Leo over RB, I shouldn't be satisfied by this answer?
So there was some positive utility in my asking you that question and your explaining it.
"Give me a case for rb, I think rb looks like scum if Mala is scum"In post 1185, Auro wrote:Case RB, please.
I think you, Egix, RB, S_S all look bad if Mala is scum here
I'm pretty happy with how fast your wagon's built too - probably means at least one buddy is bussing you.In post 1223, rb wrote:im scum because i said a thing i say in nearly all the games i play when there's wallposters that i don't wanna sort
*slow clap*
gotta go to work now so no time to post more right now, but i'm pretty happy with how fast my wagon's built
Who are these scummy slots you think we should be looking into?In post 1238, Auro wrote:Still don't really buy that RB's post was some huge damning slip.
Nice quickwagon on RB, and if he flips town setting up mine and DLA's lynches because of stretchy logic while avoiding looking into other super scummy slots.
Creature replaced Yyotta Cat and is reasonable to call a townread for the moment.In post 1354, Auro wrote:I'd also like some more attention on Creature and Nako.
Maybe you should note that I was responding to rb claiming his wagon was "fast" when I made that comment and it might be tongue-in-cheek.In post 1355, Auro wrote:@Thor: When he got to L-2, the wagon was - Thor, Lamees, DLA, Something_Smart.
If you think RB was scum and he got bussed, which one is it? You're townreading all the other three on that wagon.
I'll agree Creature's readlist is a joke - doesn't actually create scumhunting on the slot though.In post 1372, Auro wrote:No one's really paying attention to her slot, Creature even townreads her.
Her analysis posts from D1 I'm not reading alignment from, her recent posts are really bad as I point out.
I'm pointing that out to get her to post more, I *am* trying to direct attention there in an attempt to explore.
I'm very well justified making that complaint, that I'm not doing anything is a flimsy accusation.
You're right, that's what everyone does in RVS to generate content and it's the only way.In post 1376, Auro wrote:That's all very well, except Ican'tengage with a slot if there's nothing to engage on.
Theonlyoption I have in this scenario, is call them out for active lurking, and then wait for them to produce content.
You're clearly wrong because I'm claiming a townread. I'll agree I might not have said it, but that's immaterial to your questioning of my claim today. Also you're forgetting other players that may magically be the same slot, so...In post 1377, Auro wrote:I'm pretty definite in my recall that no one townread YC, do correct me if I'm wrong.
Well, blatantly, if someone townread the previous slot holder it has *everything* to do with it.In post 1377, Auro wrote:My question is, what does Creature replacing into YC's slot have to do with Creature being a reasonable townread?
You're kind of hard bending over to call Auro's issue immaterial though. That's oddly aggressive defense of objectively poor analysis.In post 1383, Creature wrote:Yeah, it's an inconsistency. Sadly I can't tell if it's a town or a scum inconsistency because that kind of inconsistency has been happening a lot lately.
Sure? But he's only on survivalism because we're advancing a wagon on him. No one with a high chance of being lynched is advancing their team's wincon regardless of alingment.In post 1387, Creature wrote:Even if rb is scum, he's not the one furthering scum's win condition now more than just basic survivalism.
Wow, you're probably right. Can you describe them in your opinion?In post 1393, rb wrote:wow so many bad posts