Open 572: Nightless Vengeful Mayhem - Game Over

Thor665 · Post Post #47 (isolation #0) » Thu Sep 25, 2014 4:37 pm

Vote: Cheetory

L-1

Anyone who isn't serious about this can flee like children now. We have a wagon at near lynch.
I am also open to hear from anyone who likes the idea of hammering it.

I townread Droog.
I would be willing to lynch Dyx as an alternate wagon.

Thor665 · Post Post #48 (isolation #1) » Thu Sep 25, 2014 4:39 pm

In post 46, Cheetory6 wrote:Firstly, I don't understand the point of bandwagoning for the sake of bandwagoning, especially since it seems to me like most of the players here seem experienced enough to know that bandwagon analysis can be useful for town. Why would scum not simply position themselves on a wagon in such a way that will protect them from the general analysis players apply to bandwagons? Unless the point is just to put pressure on someone? Which, again, scum equally stands to benefit from safe bandwagon votes for the sake of appearing to be playing protown.

droog's vote on me stands out as the most likely candidate for scum posing as a protown player for adding momentum to a wagon without really doing anything else, which reads as coasting to me. By extension, I'm also not particularly a fan of Dys's vote, but I feel worse about droog's. Droog also calls YYR's questioning of me bad scumhunting which almost makes me feel like he finds YYR more questionable than me and thus makes his vote on me for purely bandwagon's sake even more questionable.

Correct me if I'm wrong here. But you're pointing out that bandwagoning isn't helpful because scum can place themselves on bandwagons in a way to avoid suspicion.
You then vote Droog for the reasoning of "his position on the bandwagon looks suspicious"

I feel like I *must* be reading this wrong, because if I'm not I feel like you just claimed scum. Discuss?

Thor665 · Post Post #51 (isolation #2) » Thu Sep 25, 2014 4:51 pm

In post 49, Cheetory6 wrote:How am I claiming scum? What?

I explained my issue to you specifically in the post where I stated you were claiming scum. Could you, first off, answer my question asked in that same post? Also, if after answering that question, could you clarify what part of my 'claiming scum' statement you still don't understand, and I'll answer it then. But at least show me the courtesy of answering my question first before making a sort of vague 'who me?' non-response.

Thor665 · Post Post #52 (isolation #3) » Thu Sep 25, 2014 4:54 pm

In post 48, Thor665 wrote:
Correct me if I'm wrong here.
But you're pointing out that bandwagoning isn't helpful because scum can place themselves on bandwagons in a way to avoid suspicion.
You then vote Droog for the reasoning of "his position on the bandwagon looks suspicious"

Here's my question again, in case it was too buried and hard to notice in my three sentence reply.[/sarcasm]

...though, let's be honest [sarcasm]

Thor665 · Post Post #56 (isolation #4) » Thu Sep 25, 2014 5:12 pm

In post 55, Cheetory6 wrote:@Thor, because I don't give a Smurf about the meta here. Obviously people here like early D1 bandwagons and thus would find it normal for people to bandwagon on early D1. I personally find his play suspicious external to what it appears people's expectations are here.

1. I didn't ask whether you did or didn't like the meta - I asked about what you did.
2. I actually think most players here do not like fast early wagons - I am not amongst that number.
3. Why do you find his play suspicious external to people's expectations here (which I don't care about your thoughts on other people's thoughts - I really just want to hear why you find his play questionable)
4. I also still do not feel like this is really n answer of my initial question - do you consider it an answer? I felt you were kind of trying to have your cake and eat it too with the way you replied, d you disagree with this? And if you do, why?

Thor665 · Post Post #59 (isolation #5) » Thu Sep 25, 2014 5:14 pm

In post 54, JohnnyFarrar wrote:I would townread Thor if I didn't know better.

http://wiki.mafiascum.net/index.php?tit ... arently.29

Thor665 · Post Post #64 (isolation #6) » Thu Sep 25, 2014 5:24 pm

In post 62, Blair wrote:I'm not getting your angle here.

"Scum can do X to avoid suspicion" + "PlayerY did X" = "I find PlayerY suspicious"

I disagree, but it isn't that irrational. Saying someone did something to avoid notice is not invalidated by having noticed it.

Cheetory is looking pretty Town to me right now - not terribly pro-town, but Town.

So you feel a strong urge to stand up for and defend this town read, i take it?
Do you consider defense of early town reads pro town? Why/why not?

Also, to answer your defense, she basically pointed out that wagon analysis is wifom - and then proceeded to suggest she could read a wagon enough to vote. That *does* seem to lack internal logic to me as a response. You may continue your defense of her with this clarification from me if you wish.

Thor665 · Post Post #67 (isolation #7) » Thu Sep 25, 2014 5:29 pm

In post 65, Cheetory6 wrote:Okay, I meant that it came across to me as him trying to fit in to what people's expectations of the meta here are, but it seems suspicious to me because it seems like a bad job of it/coasting.

Do you have any reason to believe that a town him would not attempt to conform his game to the local town expected meta?
If you do I would support this issue.
If you don't I'm curious why you considered it worth voting over.

In post 66, shaddowez wrote:I don't think this is what's being said at all...I think the point is just being made that people hopping on a bandwagon for no good reason makes it difficult to actually perform VCA. Basically, if town is filling up the wagon it's easy for scum to hop on and hide in the middle.

She did say that amongst other things, yes. I disagree with your conclusion though.

Thor665 · Post Post #74 (isolation #8) » Thu Sep 25, 2014 5:43 pm

In post 68, Blair wrote:
In post 64, Thor665 wrote:So you feel a strong urge to stand up for and defend this town read, i take it?

Yes, but not for it's own sake - it was more interesting to me that you appeared to be attacking poor logic... illogically.

In post 68, Blair wrote:As much so as at any other point in the game, yes. Is the fact that it's "early" relevant?

I consider early scum reads different from late game after multiple phases scum reads, and the same with town. You do not? Because I think it's very relevant how much info you have at a given time in gauging the quality of a read.

In post 68, Blair wrote:I must have missed where she called it WIFOM - I thought she was asserting she could read it?

That is not how I read her commentary. She indicated that bandwagon analysis is good for town, but that scum could use it against town by controlling where and how they place themselves, and does this while complaining about the wagon on her. So, basically, she's saying no town should be doing it because we should know scum would use it, yet she also thinks town are doing it and that scum are using it. Functionally she's suggesting that everyone here needs a combo of poor town play and good scum play in order for her case to make any sense. It's a wifom snarl, because there is no evidence presented as to why she thinks that way. To be frank, it's also weird because even though she's saying town should know not to do early bandwagons, her only scumhunting effort is based off of analysis of an early bandwagon, meaning that, as town, she understands that's *exactly* a good way to scumhunt whether or not we think scum can try to hide themselves. So...what's her boggle specifically? It doesn't gel for me.

Why do you like the logic? Specifically as you can, please, I'm a little dense at times.

In post 68, Blair wrote:Regardless, do you find a "lack of internal logic" a reliable early scumtell?

Sheer common sense says I have to answer 'yes' to this, otherwise I would be using a different early scumhunting tactic, or, if I am using a different tactic, I wouldn't particularly want to advertise it and would also say 'yes'. It's really kind of an empty question, I clearly feel this is a pro-town way to start a game or I wouldn't do it in any form...except you're not asking me why I think that, you're just going with the empty yes/no aspect. How do you expect that to help sort me?

In post 68, Blair wrote:I find I'm the opposite - I would expect in the earliest stages of the game that scum would generally be the most logical, not the least. It is at this juncture that their information advantage is at its height, and their options are the most diverse - they have the luxury of choosing the scumreads that will sound the most reasonable and running with them, while Town tend to dive in with whatever cases they actually believe with little regard for their reception.

There is a VAST difference between internal logic and 'being logical'.
If you find logical scummy though, vote me now - I'll be doing it for some time.

Thor665 · Post Post #77 (isolation #9) » Thu Sep 25, 2014 5:48 pm

In post 69, JohnnyFarrar wrote:I don't like that Blair has exclusively townreads this early.

Heyo Thor Cheetory is a boy.

1. I find that a good thing, personally.

2. That is the risk you all take for your androgynous anime avatars and genderless names.

In post 71, Cheetory6 wrote:
In post 67, Thor665 wrote:
Do you have any reason to believe that a town him would not attempt to conform his game to the local town expected meta?
If you do I would support this issue.
If you don't I'm curious why you considered it worth voting over.
This is a dumb and leading question. Any action in this game can be made from a town or scum perspective. Obviously I just feel like it's more likely to come from a scum-motivation in this case. He expressed that Young's scumhunting question was bad/useless in a way that made me feel like that was a better lead than pushing a bandwagon for the sake of it. Safe/coasty play strikes me as scummy. droog's play thus far feels safe/coasty to me.

Johnny is being surprisingly useless.

The question may be leading, but it is not dumb.
It is reasonable to ask why something you felt was scummish was, in your opinion, more likely to be scummy than towny.
Do you have any play experience with Droog prior to this game? I know some of you appear to - I am asking about that because you're acting a little meta-ish and I want to know if there are teeth there or not.
I will agree Johnny is playing sub-par, want to vote him?

Thor665 · Post Post #80 (isolation #10) » Thu Sep 25, 2014 5:56 pm

In post 79, Cheetory6 wrote:I want to vote Johnny, but possibly for somewhat biased/OMGUS reasons that I don't feel entirely comfortable pushing at the moment.

Why not?

Your current vote reason is "coasting/safe" which...frankly applies as much to Johnny as Droog, so what's the hangup here specifically?

Thor665 · Post Post #82 (isolation #11) » Thu Sep 25, 2014 6:00 pm

In post 81, Blair wrote:
Why do you like the logic? Specifically as you can, please, I'm a little dense at times.

I don't like the logic, but I can believe that Cheetory meant it when he said it - and I do like that.

I'm tossing a flag on this play. You dinged me for attacking something illogically - I was attacking the logic of the statement. For me to have been illogical you *should* be able to defend the logic to show where your ding on me was coming from.

So please try this again, no dodging allowed. I have a vote and am ornery.

Thor665 · Post Post #105 (isolation #12) » Thu Sep 25, 2014 6:37 pm

In post 84, Blair wrote:P-edit: @Thor: I don't think Cheetory has to be logical for you to be illogical.

I didn't understand the leap from "you seem to be contradicting yourself in the same paragraph" to "You are essentially claiming scum" and I still don't.

Explain my illogic then. Because if the above is it I fail to see how you can justify calling something you don't understand 'illogical'.

I am moving Shadow and YYR to likely town.
I'd like to do the same for Blair, but...eh...

Vote: wgeurts

This can go though. As soon as we started talking about a Johnny lynch suddenly a quick hammer. No thanks.

Thor665 · Post Post #111 (isolation #13) » Thu Sep 25, 2014 6:43 pm

In post 108, Blair wrote:
In post 105, Thor665 wrote:Explain my illogic then. Because if the above is it I fail to see how you can justify calling something you don't understand 'illogical'.

Not understanding someone's logic is generally how I recognize poor logic, yes. It was also an invitation for you to explain that leap to me. Are you declining, or is it so self-evident that you don't feel it's necessary?

I'll explain it as soon as you explain to me how "I don't understand your logic, I'd love you to explain it" became "Thor's attack is illogical" until I forced you to explain it.

Because I'm pretty sure that makes you scum.
We'll verify with some rope in a little bit.

Thor665 · Post Post #112 (isolation #14) » Thu Sep 25, 2014 6:43 pm

In post 110, Blair wrote:Thor and droog raise valid points on wgeurts, by the way. If he doesn't explain himself soon I'm game for this.

(I can hardly imagine a satisfactory explanation but I love being surprised)

Oh man, such scum. And Wp is your bud too, huh? Classic.

Thor665 · Post Post #115 (isolation #15) » Thu Sep 25, 2014 7:00 pm

In post 113, Blair wrote:
In post 111, Thor665 wrote:I'll explain it as soon as you explain to me how "I don't understand your logic, I'd love you to explain it" became "Thor's attack is illogical" until I forced you to explain it.

Did you just accuse me of explaining and not explaining at the same time? Or am I misreading?

No, I accused you of coming up with a cover story to an attack on me that makes no sense at all as soon as anyone looks at it.
I would tell you to kill me, but you can't, so after wgeurts we'll have PLENTY of time for me to explain exactly how scummy what you just said was.

Thor665 · Post Post #146 (isolation #16) » Fri Sep 26, 2014 4:10 am

In post 116, Blair wrote:"Cover story"

"Attack"

"No sense at all"

Strong words, mind explaining them? I know you're working on lynching wgeurts at the moment, but I'm sure you can multitask.

Cover story - you claim that a post you made attacking me was, in fact, really a post made to ask me a question - despite needing to be placed under pressure to get said response...and doing nothing to seek an answer to the question till *after* said pressure. That makes the answer look fake, like a cover story, that only became real after you were forced to explain the attack.

Attack - you called my scumhunting and logic into question in an attempt to start building the foundation for a case for later.

No sense at all - your cover story fails to work if your goal was to get me to answer a question, and therefore makes 'no sense at all'.

In post 117, Blair wrote:Especially the second one, I don't recall "attacking" you.

In fact, I refused to vote you citing the same reason I wasn't voting for Cheetory - I disagreed with your logic but believed that you believed it.

So what was my scum motive behind this grand "attack" on you, Thor? To soft-townread you? Or was this just a clever ruse to discredit your case on Cheetory... who... actually flipped Town so I wouldn't really have a motive for hiding behind a "cover story" while I discredit that, either.

Up until this second you never revealed that you believed or disbelieved my stance, so you can't complain that I didn't include that idea in my case on you and it is disingenuous to do so.
When you call someone illogical (and hypocritical by inference) you are attacking them. This is hardly a shocking or strange stance on my part.
Scum motive would be to get town cred by defending a likely mislynch who would flip town while setting yourself up the next day to call the primary pusher of said wagon scummy for "illogic" attack, and then push to get me lynched. This is an incredibly basic scum strategy and considering the way you have talked about the game I do not believe for one second that you have no idea of it as a strategy.

In post 128, Phillammon wrote:Reading back, for god's sake don't lynch anyone before I get back argh

Can you explain your YYR read in relation to the Johnny flip?

In post 132, wgeurts wrote:Can one vote oneself to prove a point?

Only if one is scum.

In post 136, acryon wrote:What is making you town-read Droog? Additionally, why would you be willing to lynch Dyx? Naked reads don't help us much.

Naked reads help fine because they are statements of intent and belief.

I town read Droog for trying to cut through the dross early.
I scum read Dyx for actively shifting to bigger wagons while not bothering to pressure the people she was voting, half defeating the purpose of being on the bigger wagon. Looked fake scumhunty.

In post 136, acryon wrote:Thank God cheetory was a sniper.

Congratulating accuracy or is this a different rolename than I'm used to?

In post 136, acryon wrote:I'm not interested in hammering in my first real post. Finally, I think that if wgeurts isn't scum, blair is.

Why?

Thor665 · Post Post #147 (isolation #17) » Fri Sep 26, 2014 4:13 am

In post 145, acryon wrote:Long-story short - I don't think she is asking any particularly tough questions, especially outside of the conversation with Thor. It seems like she's jumping on opportunities to earn easy town-points.

I agree with this, and have more opinions besides.

I fail to see the connection or lack of connection to wguerts you get from that. Clarify?

Thor665 · Post Post #149 (isolation #18) » Fri Sep 26, 2014 4:21 am

You actually didn't answer the second part in my opinion, it's why I made post 147 to state that.

Thor665 · Post Post #153 (isolation #19) » Fri Sep 26, 2014 4:30 am

In post 150, Phillammon wrote:YYR's interaction with Johnny seemed to be confined to the discussion of Johnny's meta, which I'm not a fan of. It might just be me being dense, but I don't see YYR so much as insinuating that Johnny is scum until #99, which was after the flip, and as I said, the specific wording of that post had me a bit on edge. There are repeated references to scumJohnny in YYRs ISO, but mostly in relation to Cheetory's (scarily accurate) read, rather than any of his own, as far as I can tell (and, as mentioned earlier, with regards to the clarification and meta thereupon).

Going back and reading it again I think I agree with your interpretation moreso than my own. Carry on.

In post 152, acryon wrote: I Just think Blair is scummy, but I don't think that wguerts and Blair are a team. So it's one of the two IMO.

I would like you to recognize, for this and future games, that what you're saying here is 'my top two scumspects are Blair and wguerts' and that there is no either/or dynamic here other than one you decided to insert for no apparent reason. I am not calling this alignment indicative, but I am saying it's something you should be aware that you are doing.

Thor665 · Post Post #159 (isolation #20) » Fri Sep 26, 2014 4:45 am

In post 155, Dyslexicon wrote:@Thor, You didn't explain your initial "did you just claim scum?" (paraphrasing) thing with Cheetory? I was wuut on that. If the leap is so logical you should have no trouble explaining it. Also, we have PLENTY of time today to explain why Blair is so scummy, since that is what you believe. Why wait for the wgeurts lynch? I don't like how you're avoiding questions.

1. I have been asked this before. My answer was (paraphrased) as follows; I answered that reasoning in the very post that I made the comment you are asking about. Please go back and read that post again. If you still don't understand the logic then come back and ask me about it and I will explain it, but I have already supplied that informationa nd will answer it by quoting it back to you.

That offer and answer stands.

2. I have actively been explaining why Blair is scummy...have you missed all of that?

3. You are saying I am avoiding questions, I will counter with the idea that you are avoiding reading posts, because literally both things you're complaining about I could answer with quotes. Ask me about them again and act bewildered like I haven't answered them and I promise to do so...and to mock your reading comprehension. Or go and read my last few posts today and the post where I made the 'claim scum' comment and notice that I've already done both of these. Your call.

@Droog - I actually though that your 'Thor read on someone else' thing was a joke like 'I could learn something if Thor had a read on someone else'. I think my internal joke was funnier than yours.

Thor665 · Post Post #165 (isolation #21) » Fri Sep 26, 2014 4:48 am

In post 160, Dyslexicon wrote:@Thor, your scum read on me is for very weak reasoning. Do you have any questions about it? Wagon should not be in plural in your sentence :3 (I haaad to).

I never claimed the reasoning was strong and only even provided the reasoning because I was asked to. If I wanted to get answers about it I would have already been asking you questions, I don't think I come across as shy. We are in a different state of the game than when I expressed the desire to lynch you, and though I don't find you townish I also don't see you as a top lynch option today.

Why are you so eager to discuss this?

Thor665 · Post Post #170 (isolation #22) » Fri Sep 26, 2014 5:05 am

In all fairness, I wouldn't do that as scum though - my town goal is about early pressure wagons and thus my scum play is about emulating that. The only way I would have got off would be if I could start another big wagon. I'll agree I was clicking to that a bit, but...

Pedit:

Yeah, also that.

Thor665 · Post Post #184 (isolation #23) » Fri Sep 26, 2014 10:27 am

In post 178, Dyslexicon wrote:1. And I still don't get it. I don't get why it's so logical to assume Cheetory was claiming scum. To me it is not. I think it should be clear that I don't understand it, and I'm asking you to try and explain it in a different way than what you have. I don't see why you're so opposed to this, and I don't think it's too much to ask.

Do you understand what I was calling her scum for? Whether or not you agree with me, do you understand my case?
If yes - then I don't get the point of this question.
If no - what part of my case confuses you and I'll expand on it.

I never claimed to oppose explaining it - why do you think I did? Please back up that statement with a quote or explain why you're trying to act like I'm doing something I very much am not doing.

In post 178, Dyslexicon wrote:2. You hadn't when I posted my post the first time (and it disappeared) and I purposefully didn't catch up on the posts in the meantime because I didn't want to lose my train of thoughts or confuzzle them with new trains. I have a lot of trains. What you had said at that point was that Blair said something scummy and that there was PLENTY of time after the wgeurts lynch to explain that, in which I don't at all see why you would wait until after the wgeurts lynch. You did make claim about Blair afterwards, none of them which I felt pointed towards any alignment, just that you don't get each other's "logic" (and I'm totally writing as I remember things and preceive things, and I'm totally going to keep doing that :3). Acryon had more actual points towrads Blair imo (which are things I'm going to revisit soon).

It is not my job to be aware of what you have and have not read - it is your job to be on top of stuff when you're asking questions.
I didn't want to get into it because I want wgerurts dead. I wanted him dead 12 hours ago, and for some reason town is derping around and wanting to be distracted. i do not think it is a good idea.
My statement on Blair's alignment is very clear.

In post 178, Dyslexicon wrote:3. You are right that I didn't read your very last posts. Nothing in Cheetory's post you pointed out was a scum claim, and I would like you to explain this in another way than you already have. Obviously, I'm not understanding where you're coming from with a couple of things. To me it would be great to get it explained in a different way if possible instead of you being snarky about it. I'm not the only one wondering. If you still feel like you've been as obvious as you can feel free to quote it again, that will help too. I'm trying to get where you're coming from, that's why I bother at all.

If you want it explained in a different way...well, first off ASK THAT. Don't say "you haven't explained it" say "I don't understand your stated reasoning". Those are two vastly different requests and will be approached in different ways.
Also, if you don't understand, it would be helpful to be told *what* you don't understand, so that I don't waste my time. And if it's "everything" then you really need to be totally up front with that because what you're asking for is a baby steps walkthrough...and I reserve the right to be snarky if that's what I need to do.

I'm going to take from your answer the following.

1. You agree you aren't reading things.
2. You agree you are asking me to explain cases further by claiming I haven't explained them at all - and recognize this is a poor way to go about it.
3. You admit to needing baby steps.
4. You admit to trying to slow and collapse the day in discussing cases that are pointless or that are not being actively pushed by me to get a "read" from me while ignoring my primary push that is unquestionably going through today and kind of joinging in the general town herp-derp of wasting time and energy instead of getting a flip now.

I find this bothersome, and refuse to avoid snark in responding to you, and frankly think if you're requesting this you should recognize that you deserve some snark.
I'll do up a step by step breakdown of both cases now.

Thor665 · Post Post #185 (isolation #24) » Fri Sep 26, 2014 10:28 am

In post 184, Thor665 wrote:I never claimed to oppose explaining it - why do you think I did? Please back up that statement with a quote or explain why you're trying to act like I'm doing something I very much am not doing.

I would like you to answer this though considering you admitted to not reading all my posts.
Because that's just screwy and anti-town.

Thor665 · Post Post #186 (isolation #25) » Fri Sep 26, 2014 10:38 am

Thor's case on a dead player that someone wants explained.

Spoiler: Trying to spare town meaningless walls of snark...somewhat ;)

Thor665 · Post Post #187 (isolation #26) » Fri Sep 26, 2014 10:54 am

Thor's case on a living player that Thor is almost assuredly pursuing tomorrow but, despite the fact that neither Thor nor his target are lynch options and also despite the fact everyone will be around to discuss it with after a lynch that must go through today, we want to debate it now for a reason...of...not being able to figure out Thor's alignment without doing so...apparently?

Spoiler: Again, snark and wall behind here

Thor665 · Post Post #190 (isolation #27) » Fri Sep 26, 2014 2:23 pm

In post 189, droog wrote:in the context of everything blair said that one quote doesnt look bad
the general trend of blairs response to you is definitely not an avocado

Yes, it is an avacado, and no, her post does not make sense. Please explain the context you see, because I am clearly missing it. Addressing her dodge would be interesting as well if that also works into your explanation.

Someone should hammer while he's working on this.

Thor665 · Post Post #207 (isolation #28) » Fri Sep 26, 2014 3:27 pm

In post 193, Blair wrote:That was illogical. If it wasn't, explain the logic (and let's skip the part where you claim you already have and then I balk and go straight to the part where you snarkily quote the post where you think you explained it and/or explain it again more clearly and succinctly).

What about considering bad internal logic to equate to scummy behavior is confusing to you?
Let me know and I'll explain it.

In post 197, droog wrote:thor your case is built on a small part of blair
the idea that she was attacking you is laughable reading the full of 68

It is not laughable - she was attacking me. Even if you want to decide she wasn't attacking me, we can call it pressuring, or questioning, or investigating - she did it in a weird way non-consistent with her stated goals.

In post 199, droog wrote:
In post 84, Blair wrote:P-edit: @Thor: I don't think Cheetory has to be logical for you to be illogical.

I didn't understand the leap from "you seem to be contradicting yourself in the same paragraph" to "You are essentially claiming scum" and I still don't.

this is 84 which you did not quote
shes already asked you to elaborate on your logic and then you reply

Explain my illogic then. Because if the above is it I fail to see how you can justify calling something you don't understand 'illogical'.

I did not quote 84, you are correct.
But then 84 is nothing different from the behavior I already quoted from her when I noted my response.
She is saying that she doesn't understand my logic - and that this is illogical.
That doesn't actually hold water.
And I said that was her stance.
I will agree it is her stance - but do you think it holds water? Understanding logic is not a perquisite to having it be logic. I agree that it took her that long to actually say what she is now claiming she always meant, if that's your point. But I'm not sure what you're showing other than that.

Thor665 · Post Post #208 (isolation #29) » Fri Sep 26, 2014 3:27 pm

In post 206, droog wrote:what can we do in day 2 we cant do in day 3?
whereas the sooner day 2 is over the sooner we're free to not vote wgeurts

Give the man a carrot.

Thor665 · Post Post #209 (isolation #30) » Fri Sep 26, 2014 3:27 pm

I mean, we're even already having Day 3 discussion now. It's mind boggling.

Thor665 · Post Post #212 (isolation #31) » Fri Sep 26, 2014 3:33 pm

In post 211, Blair wrote:Sometimes Townies have poor internal logic - which doesn't necessarily mean they can't be suspicious, but you equated it with claiming scum. Was that hyperbole or dogmatism? Because I read the latter.

You asked me early on if I equated that to scummy behavior and I said "yes" so...where is your confusion here?
Apparently it makes sense as confusion to Droog and makes sense as covered up scum play to me, so you might as well explore the thought fully so one of us can change their mind.

Thor665 · Post Post #213 (isolation #32) » Fri Sep 26, 2014 3:34 pm

I am flat out saying that I don't think you care what my answers are, you were doing an attack and are faking all of this - it explains the statements without backup and the answers that are ignored quite functionally in my eyes.
Maybe Droog will clue me in how "in context" it works, but I have doubts. I think once he starts trying he'll notice what I'm seeing, that it's all empty.

Thor665 · Post Post #216 (isolation #33) » Fri Sep 26, 2014 3:40 pm

That is ridiculous - I literally, in the post you discussed, suggested that I could be wrong and asked her to explain the read more so I could understand what she meant.
That is called scumhunting.
It's sort of a thing.

Thor665 · Post Post #217 (isolation #34) » Fri Sep 26, 2014 3:40 pm

In post 215, Blair wrote:You're right, I don't care. I think this is a petty debate over semantics and a contradiction you alone have invented in my posts.

There are no semantics being used in the issue.

Thor665 · Post Post #223 (isolation #35) » Fri Sep 26, 2014 3:49 pm

Wow...

Thor665 · Post Post #224 (isolation #36) » Fri Sep 26, 2014 3:50 pm

Did you even read my exchange with her, or do you just like the invented narrative in your own head?

Thor665 · Post Post #227 (isolation #37) » Fri Sep 26, 2014 3:52 pm

In post 67, Thor665 wrote:
In post 65, Cheetory6 wrote:Okay, I meant that it came across to me as him trying to fit in to what people's expectations of the meta here are, but it seems suspicious to me because it seems like a bad job of it/coasting.

Do you have any reason to believe that a town him would not attempt to conform his game to the local town expected meta?
If you do I would support this issue.
If you don't I'm curious why you considered it worth voting over.

In post 66, shaddowez wrote:I don't think this is what's being said at all...I think the point is just being made that people hopping on a bandwagon for no good reason makes it difficult to actually perform VCA. Basically, if town is filling up the wagon it's easy for scum to hop on and hide in the middle.

She did say that amongst other things, yes. I disagree with your conclusion though.

Like, after Cheetory explained her issue - this was my response.
Just a raging wall of refusing to consider her stance am I - clearly.

You are scum.

Thor665 · Post Post #232 (isolation #38) » Fri Sep 26, 2014 3:59 pm

No, let's not shut this down, let's go;

I'm looking; there is literally nothing suggesting that I was taking a hard line stance on her answers nor that any non-suitable answer would confirm her as scum. Every post is about me trying to understand her stance and get her to explain it. There is nothing to support your claim besides a "you claimed scum" comment...which is apparently the end of all discussion from me towards Cheetory despite being one of the very first things I said to her and never being mentioned by me again - yet that is your big hangup as far as my interactions with her goes?

How does that even work?
Like, why were you so worried that I was going hard line on her (And are till worried that I did) when, that one quote (which, I might suggest comes off as more pressure/joke than serious stance I expected people to sheep) is the only evidence you have and every other interaction showed me talking to her about her thoughts, agreeing with and disagreeing with various parts of them, and even discussing th logic of her vote and offering to help her wagon someone else.

Like...your case is so empty here. What is your boggle, where is the other support that I was being hard line? Where is the other evidence to show my belief was hard line? Where's the beef here?

You're taking one comment and trying to build a mountain of it - what am I missing?

Thor665 · Post Post #233 (isolation #39) » Fri Sep 26, 2014 4:00 pm

In post 231, Blair wrote:
In post 220, Blair wrote:Also, you should stop ignoring my question in #194 or at least come out and say you don't think it's worth your time to respond to.

ISO me, it's not worth my time - I was very explicit.

Thor665 · Post Post #234 (isolation #40) » Fri Sep 26, 2014 4:01 pm

In post 228, droog wrote:which only makes me wonder if you're both scum. probably not.

Thor665 · Post Post #238 (isolation #41) » Fri Sep 26, 2014 4:06 pm

In post 235, Blair wrote:Here you give the appearance of being on the edge of calling me Town.

Yet now you are vehemently calling me scum, and virtually 100% of the reasoning comes from posts of mine prior to the above.

Discuss.

I was considering your interactions with Johnny and whether I saw them as town/scum or scum/scum. On the surface they looked sorta nice so I wanted to clear you, but I found the evidence lacking to be able to make that jump, hence the 'eh'

In post 235, Blair wrote:What you're missing is that you're the one making a mountain of it - I'm focusing on that one comment because that was the comment I was addressing when I called it "illogical," and that word that I used is what you're obsessing over.

You chose the topic, I would love to expand to other areas of our exchange (or others) if you are willing and able.

What other areas would you like to expand on?

While we're at it though - why did you continue calling my play illogical after seeing no supporting evidence that I was using the point you found illogical in any way at all?

Thor665 · Post Post #240 (isolation #42) » Fri Sep 26, 2014 4:07 pm

In post 236, droog wrote:thor everytime you refer to cheetory as 'her' while arguing with a female it only becomes harder to understand which sentence goes where

I am using the pronouns correctly, albeit with the wrong gender. The pronoun usage is never unclear though as long as you just accept both are 'her' when I'm typing.
I'll try to remember to adjust but promise nothing.

Thor665 · Post Post #242 (isolation #43) » Fri Sep 26, 2014 4:12 pm

In post 239, droog wrote:you got the chronology backwards

She said she liked CHeetory's logic. (maybe as an attempt to get me to explain my logic, as she now says?)
I responded by explaining my understanding of the logic and my issue with it.
She responded by calling me illogical as an attempt to get me to explain my logic (or so she now says - which doesn't make much sense if her goal was to get me to explain it)

I feel my timeline is fine - she did go into avacado mode while claiming to want explanation mode, and ignored my explanations and danced when I asked her what the illogic was (and her eventual answer was 'I don't understand your logic' which is a totally different thing than illogic, and even if she equates them as the same - why didn't she just ask questions about my illogic when I did present it to her?

Thor665 · Post Post #244 (isolation #44) » Fri Sep 26, 2014 4:15 pm

In post 241, Blair wrote:
In post 238, Thor665 wrote:What other areas would you like to expand on?

For starters, my first red-flag of the game: Shaddowez

I'd like your input. Am I being irrationally paranoid, or did it look as bad to you as it did to me?

The only thing I remember Shadow being dinged for was sounding weird about the way he was supporting the wpeurg wagon - and my recollection is YYR said that, and it was at the start of Day 2. Is that your case or something else?

If that's your case I'm pretty neutral on that as a tell, but we can toss him in the lynch pool. He's not a town read so I'm fine lynching him in a generic sense at this stage because he's a lurksack.

In post 241, Blair wrote:
While we're at it though - why did you continue calling my play illogical after seeing no supporting evidence that I was using the point you found illogical in any way at all?

I don't think I did? I'm sorry if you got that impression. I've been talking about that post the whole time (regarding "illogical," that is), I was by no means attempting a sweeping personal attack on your intellect.

So you meant it in microcosm and didn't care what my follow up actions in regards to it were?

Thor665 · Post Post #245 (isolation #45) » Fri Sep 26, 2014 4:15 pm

In post 243, droog wrote:thor i thought it was clear from the start that blair thought your logic was bad because you equated cheetory's bad logic on me to a scum claim

i think half the resulting kerfuffle is about how serious that original remark was

That would melt my brain if true.

Thor665 · Post Post #246 (isolation #46) » Fri Sep 26, 2014 4:16 pm

I dunno, looking at her responses I don't think that answer holds water - and my further reactions to Cheetory should have banished all doubt even if it was Blair's belief.

Thor665 · Post Post #249 (isolation #47) » Fri Sep 26, 2014 4:22 pm

In post 247, Blair wrote:No, I'm talking about his jump on the wagon at L-1 today.

My frustration with that is that it hasn't been hammered yet. I guess I could buy town being derp about L-1 after yesterday, and scum wanting to look derp. I don't care. Sure, he can be scummy.

In post 247, Blair wrote:I care (see my response to droog below), but you specifically asked me what I meant by the "illogical" comment and I explained - it was in reference to that specific post.

I want a town game link from you.
It would be very helpful to me.

Thor665 · Post Post #252 (isolation #48) » Fri Sep 26, 2014 4:30 pm

In post 251, Blair wrote:I respectfully decline, people play under misnomers for a reason - is that scummy, too?

It's unhelpful.

Your playstyle is really clicking scummy to me, and you're asking me to buy that you would do some awkward answer mindsets. If I could see you, as town, doing the same it would go a long way towards calming me.
If protecting your alt is more important than that - then I find you scummy, but not for denying me the info, simply the issues already raised.

Thor665 · Post Post #254 (isolation #49) » Fri Sep 26, 2014 4:33 pm

Aw, snap, you're presenting an either or situation - you being so illogical there Droog!

Thor665 · Post Post #257 (isolation #50) » Fri Sep 26, 2014 4:40 pm

In post 255, Blair wrote:I don't see it, Thor, but I suppose I wouldn't.

Thor: Am I misunderstanding, or does Cheetory have poor internal logic? If he has poor internal logic, he just claimed scum.

Me: You are attacking Cheetory's poor logic illogically.

Thor: Wait, when and where was I illogical?

Me: When you said poor internal logic = 100% scum.

Thor: Why are you fixating on that one aspect of my play?!?!

Here's my version;

Thor: Am I misunderstanding, or does Cheetory have poor internal logic? If he has poor internal logic, he just claimed scum.

Me: You are attacking Cheetory's poor logic illogically.

Thor: How is my logic illogical?

Me: Dodgey dodge

Thor: No, seriously.

Me: When you said poor internal logic = 100% scum.

Thor: Why did that take so long to get out of you?

Me: Dunno.

Thor: Why did you not notice that I clearly didn't believe that?

Me: Well, I did, but I decided not to address that when you asked about my issue with your logic, basically I tried to answer as strangely and in as many drips and drabs as was possible.

Thor: So you don't even have an issue with my logic?

Me: Only with one comment that may or may not have been a joke and that i may or may not have realized was a joke.

Thor:

Me: Wheeee! But, by the way, you shouldn't call me scummy over any of that.

Droog: She makes contextual sense!

Thor665 · Post Post #259 (isolation #51) » Fri Sep 26, 2014 4:43 pm

When you get back, please point out which part of the narrative you think I skewed from the truth on.

Thor665 · Post Post #264 (isolation #52) » Fri Sep 26, 2014 4:48 pm

@Mod - I was looking for a list of players I need to hate. What's up with this Fokem cat? Can we get a prod? With a pointed stick?

Also, pretty sure at least one person on this list is being terrible. Probably all of them. Not sure specifically why yet but it *will* come to me I am certain.

Not Voting (5)- Phillammon, acryon, Dyslexicon, wgeurts, Fokem

Thor665 · Post Post #267 (isolation #53) » Fri Sep 26, 2014 5:03 pm

Thank you.

Thor665 · Post Post #268 (isolation #54) » Fri Sep 26, 2014 5:05 pm

In post 265, droog wrote:dyslexicon

reads list please

Out of curiosity though, as long as you're requesting this from a few people (and with an early caveat that I dislike providing them) has anyone actually done this yet besides one guy? I can remember someone doing one, but no one else. I know I've listed my lynch goal beyond today...but frankly I don't think anyone else has even done that.

I'm not thinking I'm crazy, yeah?

Thor665 · Post Post #270 (isolation #55) » Fri Sep 26, 2014 5:42 pm

I don't think your Blair read was clear, I thought you had her and I both as town, myself. Is YYR your biggest lynchgoal after wpeurets?

Thor665 · Post Post #272 (isolation #56) » Fri Sep 26, 2014 6:00 pm

I would wager fair odds that at least one lurker is scum, that's usually a safe bet and Johnny wasn't particularly lurky, so yeah.

Thor665 · Post Post #273 (isolation #57) » Fri Sep 26, 2014 6:02 pm

Though actually I don't really support the YYR nor do I find him lurky, personally. Toss the non-posting guy and acryon in and you have likely scum.
I'd probably toss Phil in my town pool at the moment. He can't play in the deep end but I am unlikely to want to lynch him for a while just off his entrance, really.

Thor665 · Post Post #289 (isolation #58) » Sat Sep 27, 2014 3:23 am

Vote: Blair

In this phase I support getting something out of the Fokem slot, even if it's just a replace and then a new player's thoughts...though, really, that would be about the same thing.

@Dys - I do second Droog's request for your reads. (edit - and hello wall, though I see you put off the read list. I guess I'll go and read it all though)

@Shaddowez - I would like your top scumspect please, also I would like your thoughts on both the Blair and YYR cases as they currently exist.

@Acryon - I would like your top scumspect please, also I would like your opinion on lurkers.

Thor665 · Post Post #290 (isolation #59) » Sat Sep 27, 2014 3:30 am

In post 286, Dyslexicon wrote:Basically I have few strong stances on anyone. I haven't ruled anyone out yet. This will need to be fixed.

This actually sums up Dyx's wall.

I have actually seen players post more to say even less, but not often.
There were about two actual points in that whole thing.

If you want scum games click on my topics list and pick and pluck away - I have a ton of them.
I will admit that I have a ard time believing you're actually going to meta me by reading other games though - as you can barely manage this one.

Unvote: Blair
Vote: Dyslexicon

Thor665 · Post Post #292 (isolation #60) » Sat Sep 27, 2014 3:33 am

Sometimes the timing of the preview function can get a little wonky.

Thor665 · Post Post #299 (isolation #61) » Sat Sep 27, 2014 5:42 am

In post 296, Dyslexicon wrote:So is your alligation that I "can barely manage the game", or that I'm scum? What is making me scummy in that case? Cause here you're not really accusing me of being scum apart from voting me which can be taken as an accusation. I would want to know why you think I'm scum rather than town.

My accusation is really pretty clear...but as far as I can tell no one in this game is capable of reading beyond surface level. It's very strange.
I pointed out that you were barely able to read this game.
I noted that you were asking for other games to read.
I suggested this is a sham - because if you don't have time to read this game then you certainly don't have time to meta dive others.

In short - I am saying that you're extroverting fake scumhunting commentary to try to cover for doing nothing, and am calling you scum because of it.
Hope that makes sense, who can tell anymore.

In post 296, Dyslexicon wrote:Also, did you answer the question I had earlier about if you think Cheetory's lynch would have gone through if wgeurts hadn't quickhammered? I think not?

I didn't, but it's kind of a dumb question. 'Maybe, but I don't know' is the best anyone could do in answering it if they were being remotely honest.

In post 296, Dyslexicon wrote:Also also, what do you make of how people read you, if anything?

As I've noted before, I'm not shy, if I got a read off of any of it I would have said so. Most people are town reading me or calling me some sort of nebulous thing, which is pretty normal. Most of the reasoning is pretty thin. No one has said anything particularly insightful nor strong opinioned as far as I go besides *maybe* Blair's commentary which I don't think makes sense, or your new recent flip flop which I'll discuss in a few.

In post 296, Dyslexicon wrote:
First guess on scum on hunch from D1 would be Thor
.
Oh really? But mere moments ago the commentary was thus;

In post 286, Dyslexicon wrote:
Thor reads more town
, but I still want to investigate him further because my feels said to D1.

I wonder what happened betwixt and between to change your thoughts or clarify them?
Oh, wait, I did this;

In post 290, Thor665 wrote:
Unvote: Blair
Vote: Dyslexicon

Amirite?

Thor665 · Post Post #300 (isolation #62) » Sat Sep 27, 2014 5:43 am

In post 296, Dyslexicon wrote:
First guess on scum on hunch from D1 would be Thor
.

Oh really? But mere moments ago the commentary was thus;

In post 286, Dyslexicon wrote:
Thor reads more town
, but I still want to investigate him further because my feels said to D1.

I wonder what happened betwixt and between to change your thoughts or clarify them?
Oh, wait, I did this;

In post 290, Thor665 wrote:
Unvote: Blair
Vote: Dyslexicon

[/quote]
Amirite?

Thor665 · Post Post #302 (isolation #63) » Sat Sep 27, 2014 6:21 am

Thor665 · Post Post #303 (isolation #64) » Sat Sep 27, 2014 6:22 am

It's like a sloppy shotgun of questions going nowhere and answers saying nothing.

Thor665 · Post Post #304 (isolation #65) » Sat Sep 27, 2014 6:32 am

Oh whatever...

In post 301, Dyslexicon wrote:I disagree that I'm barely able to read the game. I read English pretty well. That I don't interpret it the way you want to =/= I can't read the game. I can't read the game the same way you do. That is true. It's painfully clear we have vastly different thought patterns. I did read some of your games (I skimmed most of course, cause I'm not going to use that much time right now (I can't anyway)). I got the impression that you are slightly less snarky and interested in bashing other players in the scum games I saw. I could read this as town frustration. However, you did have narrow focus (and I don't recall your focus being that narrow in the other game I played with you).

You are pretty apparently not reading this game. i am not debating understanding (I don't think it needs to be debated :rimshot: but you are clearly having issues with reading this game.
I do not believe you have read other games of mine.
I might buy that you lightly skimmed them, but if you'd read them enough to have opinions you would have opinions in this game - that is my point.
I am no more frustrated than normal in this game, and if you think I have a narrow focus I would challenge you to name the player I haven't interacted with...yeah.

In post 301, Dyslexicon wrote:This is definitely a bad accusation. It's your subjective opinion that I can't read the game at best. I did dig up your games, and I'll likely dig up more when I have more time if I'm still not satisfied. If you can't tell, I don't come to hard conclusions often in a game of imperfect information.

I agree you are saying things that are not conclusions while claiming to be getting lots of evidence and working hard behind the scenes.

In post 301, Dyslexicon wrote:Cool. I was wondering because you said this to Blair after Cheetory's lynch:

Scum motive would be to get town cred by defending a likely mislynch who would flip town while setting yourself up the next day to call the primary pusher of said wagon scummy for "illogic" attack, and then push to get me lynched. This is an incredibly basic scum strategy and considering the way you have talked about the game I do not believe for one second that you have no idea of it as a strategy.

I personally don't think Cheetory was a likely lynch, and in any case not a lynch Blair (if scum) would know or have good reason to believe would go through. And you kind of suggest that she planned to "attack" you for it when he flips town. You are calling it a likely mislynch here for your argument, and so I was wondering if you just picked that up to have more "points" on Blair. It doesn't read thought through from a town perspective, more like an afterthought.

She came in and defended an L-1 wagon, by any definition that is a likely lynch.
That is different than 'would be lynched' which is what you asked me.
I hope that explains the difference.
My point was quite good.

In post 301, Dyslexicon wrote:Phil called you solid town. That is strong opinioned. Do you beg to differ? I'm curious why you aren't curious, especially if you don't find his reasoning insightful? Or do you? Also, do you think I would spend my time arguing with you if I was scum? This is a serious question.

Calling me 'solid town' with no reasoning of note and no proactive actions from it is *not* a strong opinion. It is simply a clearly stated opinion. We have no idea how strong that opinion is at this stage.

You have failed to show why I should be curious, so I'm not sure where you come from asking me why I'm not curious. You might as well ask me why I'm not curious about his null read on you. They are of equal value to be curious about. I am curious about many things, that said the human mind can only juggle so many tasks and the Mafia thread can handle less than that.

I do not find his reasoning insightful.

Yes, I think you would spend time arguing with me as scum. Why should I not think this?

In post 301, Dyslexicon wrote:You read more town than I had been reading you in that interaction. Not town. You've never been a town read to me, and actually never very far from null. Scum/null/I has the suspicionz. To be fair that might have been unclear in my post, but my thought process has never been you as a town read.

So...basically your strongest scum read became less scummy, and may be nullish.
Do you feel like wet cardboard yet?
You should feel like wet cardboard.

Thor665 · Post Post #307 (isolation #66) » Sat Sep 27, 2014 6:42 am

Actually I feel her answer makes sense.

It still relegates her to saying "nothing-at-feth-all" but it makes sense.

Contextually even

Of a more valid point though, for someone who cannot read this game enough to offer up a single read - what do you make of her asking me for other games of mine for her to analyze? And then a claim of having skimmed some (in my opinion - aka opening them up and loosely scrolling through so she can claim something...maybe). I'm not buying that story at all. Someone who is actually doing that sort of research would be able to say something. I also don't believe she's doing research on anyone else, so, like, I'm her single option super investigation while everyone else is just null slop? Nah, I don't buy it.

Thor665 · Post Post #308 (isolation #67) » Sat Sep 27, 2014 6:43 am

In post 306, droog wrote:who is doing a great job at absorbing all discussion
and preventing anyone else from having meaningful interactions

Oh don't even.

Thor665 · Post Post #309 (isolation #68) » Sat Sep 27, 2014 6:43 am

Amazingly I've managed to have *multiple* conversations with *multiple* people.
Apparently in doing that I've drowned out the ability of other people to type and respond to things...
Or I'm just the only one trying to interact.

Take your pick.

Thor665 · Post Post #313 (isolation #69) » Sat Sep 27, 2014 7:15 am

In post 312, droog wrote:ok thor have a conversation with me then

I already indicated desire to initiate one.

Of a more valid point though, for someone who cannot read this game enough to offer up a single read - what do you make of her asking me for other games of mine for her to analyze? And then a claim of having skimmed some (in my opinion - aka opening them up and loosely scrolling through so she can claim something...maybe). I'm not buying that story at all. Someone who is actually doing that sort of research would be able to say something. I also don't believe she's doing research on anyone else, so, like, I'm her single option super investigation while everyone else is just null slop? Nah, I don't buy it.

Thor665 · Post Post #314 (isolation #70) » Sat Sep 27, 2014 7:19 am

Also, as far as your "Page 9-13 is all Thor, harumph!"

Looking at Date/Time what you're really saying is 'late Friday and Saturday morning had a lot of Thor and three other people, and no one else really!'

Which seems...normal.

Thor665 · Post Post #316 (isolation #71) » Sat Sep 27, 2014 7:46 am

I don't think she's trying to lynch me, and never meant to imply as such.

I do think she's trying to present herself as scumhunting more the instant pressure was applied to her. Prior to my pressure it was all "Lulz :3" after my pressure suddenly she's looking at past games and analyzing things.
It feels faked to me. I think if she was town and thought she was doing fine before she would keep doing the same, and if she was town who thought she was doing poorly before would have a more wide range scumhunting work as she tried to get reads on multiple people. Instead she talks about doing all this intense work, but only about one player. That doesn't read wonky to you?

Thor665 · Post Post #317 (isolation #72) » Sat Sep 27, 2014 7:47 am

Well, I suppose in a hyper generic sense she's trying to lynch me - but you need a broad definition of "trying" for that.
To clarify - I don't think a lynch push is what she is, or ever has, been attempting. She is not trying to lead or initiate anything...which is about half the point.

Thor665 · Post Post #320 (isolation #73) » Sat Sep 27, 2014 8:31 am

In post 318, droog wrote:I could see a passive dyslex scum.
I could not say the same of Blair
Who could be other types of scum

Sure.
This feels non-sequitur.
I agree that my thoughts on Blair and Dyx are two different types of scum cases spotting two different types of scum playstyles.

In post 318, droog wrote:I would like to see more from dyslex before committing to a read
The shift from nothing to say
To something to say
Will be informative

Okay, though I think that she has typed a lot to say nothing which is informative in its own way.

Would you like to take a run at me again with the YYR case? You seem to have a read on him and though he's posted less I feel he's said more than Dyx, so I'm curious what your beef there is.

Thor665 · Post Post #322 (isolation #74) » Sat Sep 27, 2014 1:10 pm

The summation of that post for me is basically that she claims everything I've said is me "making things up".
No - they're called stating the evidence I see, and drawing conclusions.
That's what a conclusion is.
That's what evidence is used for.

This is a really weird response.
What about when you said I was frustrated? I had never said I was frustrated - is that *you* making things up? Or are you aware of what a conclusion is and just don't want me to be allowed to use them?
This is a serious question.

Thor665 · Post Post #340 (isolation #75) » Sun Sep 28, 2014 3:39 am

In post 325, Blair wrote:This is annoying - whatever you were trying to accomplish here, I feel like it could have been done without making the completely unfounded (and unverifiable) claim that Dyslexicon isn't reading the game thread - or is basically illiterate, or whatever you were trying to say (am I poor at reading, too?)

Is this the old "Let's rile people up with personal sleights to get a better read on them under pressure" angle? Because I find it's generally poisonous to the overall dynamic of the game - please stop.

If I've misunderstood, I apologize.

You ding me for riling Dyx up - but distance from it at the same time, all the while claiming uncertainty about what Dyx has been doing or what I am saying about Dyx, and then suggest riling people up is anti-town, all while basically trying to annoy me as you so grossly wet slap at what I'm saying here.

QUick reversal question instead.

Address my raised issue with Dyx about her statements regarding needing meta on me - go.
I'd love you to give actual commentary instead of this weird emotive commentary you seem focused to live within.

In post 335, droog wrote:im still thinking thor is town
but have you ever had a brilliant case against scum
and they proceed to have a long form argument with you?

no one will read it
most people will develop town or null reads on you and your accuser
thats what the last few pages have felt like

I agree that other people are playing badly and equating walls with town play.
Dyx, who has read multiple of my scum games, should be able to tell you I post walls and do wall wars as scum.
This is a complaint about a playstyle that is only being a problem because the rest of the players here are using bad tells and weak scumhunting.

So...I agree with you, but I disagree with what the issue is.

Thor665 · Post Post #352 (isolation #76) » Sun Sep 28, 2014 8:41 am

In post 351, Bins wrote:I was like: Hey, 15 pages! Easy as fuck!

But then I read through it and I'm not going to lie I pretty much glazed over the Thor/Blair interaction due to the fact that Blair might be one of my stronger townreads. I'd still like to double check everything though, but I am done reading. My reads will be coming shortly.

Good, with a glaze over I am certain they will be insightful.

Thor665 · Post Post #356 (isolation #77) » Sun Sep 28, 2014 9:07 am

Your best point to my mind was the Cheetory comment that was pro-scum on Johnny, yadda, yadda - I agree that I don't see it ther. My issue with it is that he talked with CHeetory about it and she didn't disagree with his take of her commentary. That weakens it for me.

I find your wagoning points from him true, but also find them non-scummy.

I do not dislike the case, but I am not sold by the case.

Thor665 · Post Post #358 (isolation #78) » Sun Sep 28, 2014 12:30 pm

I already asked you a question - when you read through you should answer it.

Thor665 · Post Post #379 (isolation #79) » Sun Sep 28, 2014 5:10 pm

In post 362, droog wrote:
In post 254, Thor665 wrote:Aw, snap, you're presenting an either or situation - you being so illogical there Droog!

thor i looked at my 253 when shaddow quoted it and found this
was very confused, what were you getting at?

It was a joke made about Blair's raised issue with me.

In post 359, shaddowez wrote:He also came in to prod dodge, promised a post by that evening, then replaced out without saying anything.

You say this like it's remotely unusual?

In post 359, shaddowez wrote:I'm really null on the Blair case right now. There seems to be a lot of disagreement between you two on how things are being said/asked/whatever, but there isn't much substance to the argument itself (that I can read, trying to read up on 10 pages of mostly that in just a short time is rough) that makes me think she (or you, for that matter) are scum.

Were you able to follow Blair's dodge and/or not consider it a dodge?

I give mild town points to Bin for clearly having that post in pocket. If there had been a long delay I would have called her scum. Eh.
Probably mild points for Shaddow too, though I dislike most of his conclusions and reasoning.

I'm intrigued that so many like Blair - I feel like no one understands my case on her. Would anyone like to discuss it?
I'd also be pretty content with a Dyx lynch.
I'd rather not lynch YYR today, I think we can do better.
Anyone want to talk about any of this? Anyone not understand the case on Dyx or Blair?

Thor665 · Post Post #381 (isolation #80) » Sun Sep 28, 2014 6:21 pm

In post 380, shaddowez wrote:Are you talking about the very beginning of this spat, in posts 81 and 82? If that's the case, I think she skirted around the answer some, but don't know if I'd call it a dodge necessarily. From there is where it seems to degrade more into wording and personality than anything significant.

Do you think her goal was to understand my point or to attack me?

Thor665 · Post Post #384 (isolation #81) » Mon Sep 29, 2014 3:52 am

In post 382, acryon wrote:Thor665 - Lean-scum. I am inclined to think that Blair and Thor are the same alignment, as the discussion between the two of them did a pretty good job of monopolizing the town discussion. Thor has been posting a ton, but outside of an RVS vote and the vote on wgeurts, he didn't post again for another 46 posts. This strikes me as odd for someone who is posting so much. Thor may actually be my top scumspect.

Wait, what is the 46 post period where I wasn't posting so that it's strange that I didn't post during it?
Because the only one I see is the 3 hours between when the thread opened and I first posted - is that what you're talking about?

Also, could you tell me about the real content you see Dyx posting? I would challenge that she is not posting real content, so I'd like to hear your thoughts on this.

In post 383, droog wrote:I'm willing to entertain scum Thor (suddenly feel like his questions only prove into discussion of what he asks -- will look later)

Isn't that what questions do?

Thor665 · Post Post #386 (isolation #82) » Mon Sep 29, 2014 4:32 am

I agree I asked questions like both of those - I'm not following what the issue is.

Thor665 · Post Post #388 (isolation #83) » Mon Sep 29, 2014 4:34 am

What is strange about going 46 posts without a vote whether or not I'm active?

Thor665 · Post Post #390 (isolation #84) » Mon Sep 29, 2014 4:40 am

When did I not have a vote in play?

Thor665 · Post Post #391 (isolation #85) » Mon Sep 29, 2014 4:41 am

I looked, I have been very quick and aggressive in using my vote every single Day Phase. I do not follow your point here.

Thor665 · Post Post #393 (isolation #86) » Mon Sep 29, 2014 4:48 am

Thor665 · Post Post #395 (isolation #87) » Mon Sep 29, 2014 6:03 am

Thor665 · Post Post #400 (isolation #88) » Mon Sep 29, 2014 7:49 am

Your public reminders are not useful by my standard.

Thor665 · Post Post #407 (isolation #89) » Mon Sep 29, 2014 8:00 am

I have stated Phil as a town read.

As far as showing Dyxs' lack of reading, how about this;

In post 178, Dyslexicon wrote:You are right that I didn't read your very last posts.

Or this?

In post 263, Dyslexicon wrote:That last version is really different than anything I ever got in my head (Thor), and I write drama for a living and it's pretty cool as such. And I will need to read again. BAIIII

Which I'll agree she's claimign to have read - but is now saying she needs to read it twice before being able to offer comments on it...?
Or this?

In post 301, Dyslexicon wrote:(I skimmed most of course, cause I'm not going to use that much time right now (I can't anyway)

Which, fascinatingly, shows I was correct in my belief of her reading.

So on and so forth.
If you find the arguing pointless than don't discuss it.
What I'm asking you is - do you think she said that as town or as scum? You seem to be agreeing she said it for the look of the matter. Now what is your read on her alignment once you notice that? Because you said a lot without concluding much.

Thor665 · Post Post #408 (isolation #90) » Mon Sep 29, 2014 8:02 am

In post 406, acryon wrote:Yes, but in going through his ISO, it seemed very much like there should have been a pressure vote elsewhere that never came.

Thor665 · Post Post #410 (isolation #91) » Mon Sep 29, 2014 8:03 am

@Acryon - please provide a quote from my ISO that shows that I should have placed a pressure vote hat never came.
Please.
Pretty please.

Thor665 · Post Post #428 (isolation #92) » Mon Sep 29, 2014 9:28 am

In post 425, acryon wrote:
In post 410, Thor665 wrote:@Acryon - please provide a quote from my ISO that shows that I should have placed a pressure vote hat never came.
Please.
Pretty please.

See almost every post from you on D2, where you said flat out multiple times that Blair was scum. If you were so sure she was scum, why wouldn't you vote there and get a wagon going rather than leave your vote on a policy lynch?

I did huh?

When you read me, did you read this comment (or any of the dozen or so I made that said the same thing?)

In post 184, Thor665 wrote:I didn't want to get into it because I want wgerurts dead. I wanted him dead 12 hours ago, and for some reason town is derping around and wanting to be distracted. i do not think it is a good idea.

Because...your issue here literally seems to require not reading what I was saying/doing Day 2 and making up your own version of what I wanted.
I did not want a pressure wagon.
I did not want an alternate lynch wagon.
I said as much multiple times.

Response?

Thor665 · Post Post #435 (isolation #93) » Mon Sep 29, 2014 11:03 am

In post 432, acryon wrote:"Hey guys, I'm going to talk about one person being super scummy, but I'm telling you I'm keeping my vote on the policy lynch. But I'm just going to keep it on the policy lynch, so you can't think I'm scummy for leaving it there."

In post 433, Blair wrote:@Thor: I'll join droog in siding with you in the matter of Thor vs acryon as soon as you address the part where he called your wgeurts push a policy lynch.

Because... if wgeurts was a policy lynch then I agree with acryon that a vote on me would have made more sense from a townie perspective. If wgeurts was a scum lynch, then your voting record makes sense.

A policy lynch is a stupid way people have developed to address scumtells. Allow me to show the math;
Player X has done Y - we should lynch them! <--- is this describing a policy lynch or a scumtell (hint - it's both)
The only way a policy lynch is an issue is if you *otherwise* read the slot as town and then want to lynch it for policy.
I did not read him as town.

Acryon's case is weird.
But I am utterly unsurprised that you are dancing about acting like it means anything. You remain scum.

Thor665 · Post Post #437 (isolation #94) » Mon Sep 29, 2014 12:39 pm

In post 436, Blair wrote:I suppose the most direct way to articulate the concern to you is this: You were more sure that wgeurts would flip scum than that I would?

No, but it didn't matter - wgeurts had to die, and he needed to die asap. If I had town reaad him I would have done something else, but I didn't so quick death was optimal play rather than wasting time debating anything when he needed death.

Thor665 · Post Post #448 (isolation #95) » Tue Sep 30, 2014 4:44 am

In post 447, acryon wrote:
In post 437, Thor665 wrote:
In post 436, Blair wrote:I suppose the most direct way to articulate the concern to you is this: You were more sure that wgeurts would flip scum than that I would?

No, but it didn't matter - wgeurts had to die, and he needed to die asap.

So with every other player, there is a discussion, but with wgeurts, he just needed to die? "X did Y scummy. Let's just lynch him and not talk about it at all." I don't like this at all.

I don't really care - what I care about is you calling me scummy because I didn't create a pressure wagon on Day 2 when literally everything I said made it painfully clear that my goal for Day 2 was a speed lynch on wgeurts. Now, you can call *that* scummy if you wish - but to call me scummy for not doing something I was openly saying I had no interest in doing (and actively fought doing) is messed up.

Can you explain the scumtell more?

Thor665 · Post Post #451 (isolation #96) » Tue Sep 30, 2014 5:25 am

In post 449, acryon wrote:Again, it doesn't matter to me that you said you wanted a speed lynch on wgeurts; I still think it was bad and your vote should have been elsewhere given your comments regarding Blair. Your read on wgeurts included one action, while your read on Blair was much more meaty. By your own admission, you weren't sure that wgeurts was a more likely scum-flip than Blair, yet you left your vote on him?

Translating this;
Thor said Blair was scum
Thor also said wgeurts was scum.
I think Thor should have voted Blair.
I have Thor admitting that his read on them he was not certain that wgeurts was more likely scum than Blair.
Conclusion: obviously he should have voted Blair...which, by my same logic, would then have been scummy because he wasn't sure that Blair was more scummy than wgeurts and had a reason to be voting wgeurts and mentioned that he needed to be dead.

In post 449, acryon wrote:Since you are very concerned with the details of my read, I'll spell it out to answer your issues.

In post 448, Thor665 wrote:
I don't really care - what I care about is you calling me scummy because I didn't create a pressure wagon on Day 2 when literally everything I said made it painfully clear that my goal for Day 2 was a speed lynch on wgeurts. Now, you can call *that* scummy if you wish - but to call me scummy for not doing something I was openly saying I had no interest in doing (and actively fought doing) is messed up.

*That* was scummy, and by extension, I think *you* are scummy.

You're changing your story here. I am still left unsure what your issue even is, and I believe it continues to make no sense.

If your issue is what I understand it to be - why are you not complaining that I'm voting Dyx right now instead of Blair?

Thor665 · Post Post #453 (isolation #97) » Tue Sep 30, 2014 5:54 am

In post 452, acryon wrote:Day 2, you left your vote on someone that you seemed to have 1 reason for voting for(wgeurts) and dismissed any notion that his lynch even needed to be discussed.

Quote any attempt at conversation from anyone that I quashed as it related to wgeurts? I don't recall it even happening.
I did try to quash conversation about *other* lynches (specifically ones I agreed with) but that is not the same as what you're saying here.
I will agree that I had 1 reason on my case to lynch wgeurts.

In post 452, acryon wrote:Simultaneously, you had another player who you thought was pretty solidly scum (
at least as much-so as wgeurts, but what appeared to be more-so
), and
seemed to have a lot to back it up
yet never placed your vote on.

Well, first off 'never placed vote on till Day2.
Also all the commentary in bold is pretty opinionated and doesn't actually match with anything I said - as long as you agree that you're projecting those thoughts onto me I am fine, but let's be clear about that part of your case.

In post 452, acryon wrote:Once again, townies try to lynch who they think is most scum.

Agreed.
You have failed to show that I thought Blair was more scum than wgeurts.

In post 452, acryon wrote:You, however, decided instead that wgeurts needed to die "because",

"Because I thought he was scum"
Agreed.

In post 452, acryon wrote:rather than pursuing a lynch that certainly seemed a lot better from your standpoint.

Even though you have no reason to think this other than your own opinion of my thoughts, that also requires me to be lying about what I said I believed.

Thoughts?

Thor665 · Post Post #458 (isolation #98) » Tue Sep 30, 2014 7:38 am

In post 454, acryon wrote:It was an active dismissal that discouraged any discussion. The way you flippantly referred to the wgeurts lynch such as "this can go through", "after wgeurts", and "which must go through today" created a picture of inevitability, and I think your loud voice as town helped cement it as such.

...so, basically by me saying 'we have to lynch this guy' I destroyed the ability of anyone to discuss anything else?
Fascinating considering that I TRIED not to discuss Blair, yet somehow that one happened.
Almost as though I don't have magical mind powers to control the conversation in the thread.

In post 454, acryon wrote:
In post 453, Thor665 wrote:
In post 452, acryon wrote:Once again, townies try to lynch who they think is most scum.

Agreed.
You have failed to show that I thought Blair was more scum than wgeurts.

I disagree, and if I have, I think anyone that looked through your ISO would see that this is almost certainly the case.

In post 454, acryon wrote:Clearly you thought he was scum on some level, but I question the idea that you thought he was actually more likely to be scum than Blair, and your conversation seems to imply that. For someone that you thought was scum, you didn't really have anything to say about why he was actually scum apart from your first comment. Blair, on the other hand, you had plenty to talk about.

1. No one asked for my thoughts on wgeurts.
2. Did *you* not understand my case on wgeurts? Why didn't you ask me about it at the time then?
3. I had plenty to talk about on Blair because someone demanded that I explain my case on Blair - almost as though when asked to provide a case, I provide a case. It's sort of a strange habit I have.
4. Please refernce the comment abouve that I responded to with a

and then note in explaining it you are admitting to drawing conclusions that are based on supposition with no actual support.
5. This case is scummy, it's not just bad.

In post 454, acryon wrote:It seems a bit disingenuous to pretend that the idea that you had more of a scum-read on Blair than wgeurts has no bearing. Anyone who reads through your ISO can get there. It's obviously way too much to quote, but I already quoted some of the more important bits in my previous posts.

I agree that you posted me discussing a scum read on Blair.
I disagree that you have done anything to support the stance that it was stronger beyond trying to not pay attention to why I was saying the things you are using as evidence.

Thor665 · Post Post #460 (isolation #99) » Tue Sep 30, 2014 8:03 am

In post 459, acryon wrote:Oh wow, I didn't realize I was working with someone who doesn't ever act of their own volition, but only as a response to inquiry. Oh wait a second.

When your case on me is "made a big issue on Blair but didn't on wgeurts"
and my response is "I made a case on neither until asked to make one on Blair"
Then...YEAH that is an issue. For you.

The rest of your post was empty nothingness, but this line was scummy cover up.

Thor665 · Post Post #471 (isolation #100) » Tue Sep 30, 2014 9:57 am

Which brings us back to "how was wgeurt's not my top scum read"
Which comes to your "he made more points about Blair"
Which returns to my "I was asked to expand on my Blair case - I was not asked to do so for wgeurts"
Which returns to your...well...you actually haven't really done anything for that other than to provide a quote showing me stating three other reads and acting like that meant I was intentionally trying to talk about Blair or something...which it doesn't show.

Thor665 · Tue Sep 30, 2014 10:05 am

In post 105, Thor665 wrote:Vote: wgeurts

This can go though. As soon as we started talking about a Johnny lynch suddenly a quick hammer. No thanks.

Like, I stated this case.
It's a good case.
No one even so much as blinked at the case.
The wagon was put to L-1 and I *did* make repeated notes that we should hammer it.

How am I supposed to more strongly show that I want wgeurts lynched?
Was I supposed to go YEAH, GOOD JOB VOTING FOR WGEURTS!" after everyone voted him?
Was I supposed to go "HUZZAH, NO ONE IS ASKING ME FOR MY CASE ON WGEURTS NOR QUESTIONING WHY HE IS SCUM - I NEED TO EXPLAIN A CASE ON WGEURTS AND WHY HE IS SCUM!"

There was literally no reason to do any of that.
And you are calling me scum for not doing it.
That is why your case is scummy - because it's pointing out the absence of something that would have made no sense at all if I did it while also complaining that I offered other reads during the day instead of just being quiet and happy with a lynch I was pushing.
As far as I can tell you're pointing at me doing pro-town things and demanding I defend myself for not doing random things instead.

Thor665 · Tue Sep 30, 2014 10:07 am

In post 473, Fink wrote:Thor665 has done much more harm than good in my opinion. Still can't tell whether or not this makes him scum, but he has made this catching up extremely painful and I think helped others to stay in the background without a lot to go on. I'm 50-50 on him being scum at this point, but I think he's certainly helping them, deliberately or accidentally.

Thor665 · Tue Sep 30, 2014 11:11 am

In post 476, acryon wrote:Is one bad action make a good case? I don't think so.

Your case on me is that I pushed a "second" read over a "primary" read.
That's called...one action.
You're voting me.

Sooner or later people will notice how empty all of this is, then you'll be lynched and I'll be happy.
I will vote you over this one issue when that time comes.

Thor665 · Tue Sep 30, 2014 11:13 am

In post 480, Fink wrote:So I'm most inclined to vote for Thor or Phillammon. I don't understand why Thor should get a free pass for wasting countless pages with unhelpful non-responses, circular arguments, and just making everything painful to read and generally upping the uselessness level of that reading since the vast majority of the talking is people having stupid arguments with him. He's hurting the town either as crazy town or as crazily brave scum. I think 50-50 he's scum, and if he's town, we'd be better off without him. If that wagon gets going I would totally vote Thor.

Thor665 · Tue Sep 30, 2014 12:41 pm

I don't particularly think you're that scummy and also don't particularly like your Phil case either.

Can you tell me why Dyxs most recent posting counts as "stepping it up" for you? I'll agree she put work into those posts, but I disagree that it shows much valid work. Like, there is a giant post on Phil. I can sum that post up in two sentences; "He said stuff I disagree with for reasons I won't specify, nor will I explain how disagreeing makes his actions scummy. Also he is saying nice things about Thor (like I'm doing) which is either scum buddying town or scum buddying scum - but, y'know, he's buddying!" She then proceeds to buddy/attack me and buddy about the rest of the town.

I can't describe the case better than that.
As far as I can tell her issue is that he is being too distant.
Compare/contrast with her case on me, where I'm being too forceful in my conclusions.
I do not buy any of that as scumhunting.
I will agree it is long and has pretty subsections and bullet points so that it looks impressive - but it is contentless.

Discuss why you like it with me?

Thor665 · Tue Sep 30, 2014 12:43 pm

Like, I feel you looked at it, said 'wow, this is long, didn't read it and called it good.

I'm not even sure if this is a tongue-in-cheek accusation, I think I might be speaking brilliant truth.

Thor665 · Post Post #498 (isolation #107) » Tue Sep 30, 2014 4:47 pm

In post 490, Fink wrote:I think my
main
reason is that she's been incredibly passive for most of the game, but these posts look like she went through pretty much post-by-post commenting on things from quite a ways back every time they stuck out to her, not just for one person but for every person. I think she put substantially more effort into it than I did, and I felt like I spent too long on reading this thread.

I think it would be much easier for her if she were scum to continue doing more-or-less what she's been doing, with a bit more talking now to try to throw us onto someone else. This amount of effort (which seems almost excessive) seems to me like a town-member who is feeling guilty for not helping more. That's awfully subjective, and sure, she could take advantage of that as scum (although I think it's not THAT likely from someone so inactive, but I'm new, so what do I know?) so here are a few other things:

My two thoughts to this are as follows.

1. She is getting heat for being passive and not doing work (from me) the best way (as scum) to dismantle the push is to do work.
I will agree that applies the same for town - however...
2. She is acting like I'm crazy sauce for questioning her level of work.

If she was town and felt guilty, why would she also claim I am a disparaging scum-wad when i call into question her effort? If she agreed with me and said 'I'll work hardz now!' then, no issue. If she disagreed with me and did the same...well...I'd have an issue but at least I'd agree with you more.

She didn't do that.

Discuss?

In post 491, Fink wrote:I did read Dyslexicon's posts in their entirety. Why did you think I didn't, Thor?

I described specifically why I thought you didn't. What part of it didn't make sense and I'll clarify.

Even your breakdown of her post includes lots of notes of her weighing or considering things. She isn't taking any real stances in that post - that's my point. It's empty work.

In post 495, Blair wrote:
Thor:
For clarity: Were wgeurts and I completely equal scumreads to you on Day 2?

No and I never said anything remotely indicating this to be the case so I am unsure why clarity needs to be offered on the question.

In post 495, Blair wrote:People who don't like the Phillammon wagon should explain why - voting for Phillammon is fabulous, everyone who's anyone is doing it.

The case on Phillamon is an unexplained joke that people are supporting because they don't understand how weak the case is, are scum, or a combination thereof.
Literally no one has made a case on him besides "gut" and while I will admit that is a case I do not think it remotely sensible to act like people who don't support it need to justify their stance. i think people who do support it need to justify the stance.

In post 489, droog wrote:Thor would you still lynch dyx

I am voting Dyx, so I'll go with 'yes'.

In post 492, Dyslexicon wrote:#1: You are quoting just a tiny bit of my post out of context. The full post explains how I hadn't read your last posts YET when posting one of mine. That is because I had just spent time catching up and mafiascum ate my post and it was gone. So I wrote it again WITHOUT looking at the post appearing in the meantime, because I didn't want to lose my train of thought or get more theories in my head confuzzling the thoughts I had there and then. I did, of course, read the post afterwards.

#2: I was pretty drunk when I posted that and the posts around then. I thought mafia was a good idea, but it probably wasn't and I definitely could not have a focused catch up then. Again, of course, I have read the posts afterwards. Maybe I should've explained my drunkness before, but I didn't really think it was such a big deal.

#3: This is a quote about the other games I looked into. Would it help if I called it looked into? Would you understand it then? It's not relevant to the BS claim that you make that I don't read this game anyway.

1. Yes, I agree the post was an admission of not reading. The 'Yet' has no bearing to my point. I will agree everything you have not read you may at some point read in the future - that does not change that you did not read stuff and have not read stuff.
2. Oh, okay, so you were drunk, sorry, can't hold you accountable for that post then.

3. I understand that you claimed to want to meta me, basically didn't meta me, and have come back with no comment on my meta besides 'Thor plays like this as town and scum, I'mma keep calling him scum' I will admit my belief is that you haven't read anything, yes.

In post 492, Dyslexicon wrote:So, is your issue that it can happen that I haven't read things in order, or that I may even dare to post something without being 100% caught up? Ok, maybe you like it when everything is linnear, and think it's mind buggling to have D3 discussion on D2. I don't. How does this makes me scummy? This is your only point on me. Noone else seems to have such a big issue with it, but you really TRY to make it an issue. You're taking things way too literal if you really believe I'm not reading the game.

I do not care what order you read things.
Yes, I think reading things enables you to talk about them sensibly.
I also think you're trying to re-phrase what I'm calling you scummy for here - please remember that my issue is not your lack of reading (though I find that poor play for town) and I NEVER cited you for reading things out of order (you're making up a straw man to defeat there) what I *did* cite you on was trying to fake effort scumhunt by claiming meta-dive efforts when you weren't even keeping up with the current game, which indicates it was a faked attempt to scumhunt.

You are trying to isolate one aspect of my case, act like it's all of it, and then claim you have disproved it because you've caught up to some degree now as proven by a case post that basically said nothing.
My opinion on the matter remains that you are scum going for fake town scumhunt points.

In post 492, Dyslexicon wrote:
In post 458, Thor665 wrote:
1. No one asked for my thoughts on wgeurts.

This bothers me. You've told me several times that "I'm not shy" as a way of implying that you will bring up what's on your mind. Now to say "noone asked me" is another example that you're just picking words to serve whatever your case is at the moment. I'm starting to think this is a null tell for you though.

Oh, yeah...y'know, the whole Blair conversation *started* there because Thor offered his opinion unasked for (also on some other players as well.
I have repeatedly responded that I am not shy when people ask me my read on something.
I have never claimed that I would offer a case unasked for - I have indicated that I would offer reads unasked for.
I also offer cases unasked for - but that doesn't change that no one asked for a case on wgeurts and also that I had provided my read on wgeurts.
So what's your issue here exactly?

In post 494, Dyslexicon wrote:@Thor, I'm not going to respond to you anymore unless you or other people find it strictly necessary. It goes nowhere. You clearly have no interest in listening to anything I say. You seem more interested in discrediting me at any chance. Btw, I think the discrediting of players (not only me) is getting really old, and I hope for less of that and more of the cute snark.

I am sorry that me calling you scum makes you feel discredited.

Thor665 · Post Post #499 (isolation #108) » Tue Sep 30, 2014 4:50 pm

@Dyx - how many of my games did you read/skim/look over? Just the two?

Thor665 · Post Post #501 (isolation #109) » Tue Sep 30, 2014 4:57 pm

I responded to it a lot in a post just a few moments ago.
My basic answer is it doesn't really add any humdingers to the case, but I think there are examples of evasion and strawmanning in it, so at least I don't get a particularly town vibe off anything. I'd call it null to my case purposes. You can go look at my responses to her if you want to see my barbs at work.

Thor665 · Post Post #508 (isolation #110) » Tue Sep 30, 2014 5:20 pm

In post 503, Blair wrote:
In post 325, Blair wrote:
Phillamon:
Your post formatting is pretty (#131). That aside, in #183 you stated I'd used the word "illogical" to "go for the man" Thor himself, as a person - which is virtually impossible to honestly infer from a plain reading of the post in question, which leads me to believe you didn't actually look at the post when you wrote that. Which is interesting because you phrase it as though you arrived at this conclusion independently, not from cursory glances through my banter with Thor (which is where I believe it came from). You also fencepost your read on me in both #131 and #276. In both posts you make vague allusions to both townie and scummy things I have said and then throw your hands up in the air and say you can't make sense of it all - in neither case do you specify the townie and scummy points you are referring to, explain any of them, or appear to actually exert effort in discerning their meaning.

That is a non-gut case that has been made, actually.

Well, I could easily play derp word games here, but;

If I understand correctly, your issue with him is that he wasn't more forthright in describing a read on a player he has cited as neutral during the course of the game.
What do you see as the scum motivation there? Is he just trying to keep you in a pocket and buddy me? That's about the best I can come up with.
But he's already calling me town - so why not just make the easy shift and call you scum outright.
Instead he indicates that he's not sure on you.
I'm not sure why he'd do that as opposed to calling you scum straight up, and even beyond that, at the end of the day calling you kinda nullish and not a player he loves isn't actually inherently scummy.

Can you clarify the issue a bit more?

Thor665 · Post Post #511 (isolation #111) » Tue Sep 30, 2014 5:30 pm

In post 510, Blair wrote:Long story short, I don't believe that read was genuine. He basically says, "She's done some really townie things and some really scummy things and I could go either way here" without specifying what any of those things are, but still presents himself as having thoroughly examined me - I don't believe he did.

I think he's scum who needed reads and cut corners.

Was that the only read that cut corners, or did others?

Thor665 · Post Post #513 (isolation #112) » Tue Sep 30, 2014 5:46 pm

He offered three town reads and two scum reads - I thought that was pretty functional as far as initial reads go.
He offered four null reads, sure, but literally 2 of the slots hadn't been around yet.

Also, on review, he said the only reason you weren't town was some of his noted issues with you, that he did indicate that he shared some of te same issues I was noting - which seems in conflict with your claim that he has not indicated his issues with your slot.

Heck, him calling you town except for that actually seems like a limiter for him, as scum, if you are town. No?

Thor665 · Post Post #514 (isolation #113) » Tue Sep 30, 2014 5:49 pm

Also, you haven't offered any thoughts on Dyx's recent wall.
How do you feel about it in relation to your issues with Phil's wall? I know which one I would champion as offering more reads and constraining language, but you seem to be bothered by one and not the other - any particular reason?

Thor665 · Post Post #519 (isolation #114) » Tue Sep 30, 2014 6:07 pm

In post 515, Blair wrote:Yes, the reads themselves were spread out very well. I just found the explanations lacking.

Yeah, he said I was "attacking the man" or somesuch, which I believe I addressed earlier since I don't think you, I, or anyone else but him actually got the impression I was trying to attack you personally - thus my saying he's skimming the thread and presenting himself as having more carefully constructed reads than they really are.

Actually I thought you were attacking the argument more than the man, as I consider 'attacking the man' a personal attack and against the rules, everything else is not that. But, from my understanding of what he seemed to be saying I didn't find it a bother in what he said and I feel you're mostly playing word games in dismissing his issue. You're very verbally adroit but that doesn't mean he was unclear - just not as clear as you'd like him to be for whatever standard you are using.

In post 515, Blair wrote:As for him limiting himself, I felt the opposite. He didn't call me "Town, but there's this one thing" - he called me "null, because of one thing," which seems like taking someone he honestly feels would be a townread and propping the door open for himself to scumread later.

He explicitly said 'town but for this one thing' and, frankly, either way of saying it puts it in the same ballpark regardless.

In post 515, Blair wrote:P-edit: I shall review it again.

And people wonder why I seem so fighty and annoyed this game.

PEdit - No, you are misconstruing my disdain for her read wall with my case on her, which is about the faked scumhunting. i do think the readwall shows that as well, but it is not the core case. So you feel like Phill was ducking giving clear answers and you feel that because you can 'feel' what she's talking about. Why is it when talking Dyx you can feel things, but when talking Phil it's that he didn't iron out his points clearly? This feels like something of a double standard - am I incorrect?

2nd PEdit - I'm avoiding that because it's a dumb word game that means nothing and is applying two different matrices, acting like they're identical, and than crowing about it like it has shown anything besides a word game. I could argue it, but I don't see the value at this stage. If people actually buy it as something then I'll happily explain the creaky gak it is made of. until then I see no point to it. The basic issue is that scumreads and certainty of flipping scum are not the same thing, though they are similar.

Thor665 · Post Post #522 (isolation #115) » Tue Sep 30, 2014 6:18 pm

In post 521, Blair wrote:
In post 519, Thor665 wrote:This feels like something of a double standard - am I incorrect?

No, you are correct - I have different standards for different people.

Phillammon seems to be trying to present himself as very thorough, but under scrutiny it doesn't hold up.

I never got the impression from Dyslexicon that she was presenting herself as particularly thorough, so the bar for genuineness is lower here.

You are free and expected to balk at that.

I do.

I really wanna flip Dyx now. If she's scum you are an assured the day after.

Thor665 · Post Post #524 (isolation #116) » Tue Sep 30, 2014 6:25 pm

We are in agreement then.

My rebuttal to your Phil case is - it uses double standards and is scummy, so I am not swayed by it.

Which of your wagon mates has made a good Phil case that needs addressing? Dys or Fink? I could do either, but they are also both paper thin.

Thor665 · Post Post #527 (isolation #117) » Tue Sep 30, 2014 6:35 pm

In post 526, Blair wrote:How interesting - your rebuttal is that my case could just as easily apply to Dyslexicon... who you also believe is scum.

I can understand why you feel it's irrational of me to not scumread Dyslexicon, too - but that was a really disappointing rebuttal to the Phillammon case.

It felt very satisfying and refreshing to me. I also pointed out specific issues I drew as different, and though you disagreed with them you can't disprove them, and the double standard is kind of a screaming issue.

Fink's case is best summed up as 'gut' which doesn't invalidate it as a case, but fails to make it something needing sheep either.

Thor665 · Post Post #531 (isolation #118) » Wed Oct 01, 2014 3:14 am

You case for why it's stronger uses the example of 'one action' versus a stronger case with 'more evidence'.

Thor665 · Post Post #534 (isolation #119) » Wed Oct 01, 2014 3:41 am

In post 532, acryon wrote:
In post 531, Thor665 wrote:You case for why it's stronger uses the example of 'one action' versus a stronger case with 'more evidence'.

Can you rephrase this, because it makes no sense to me in the context of what we are talking about.

I'm making fun of you because of how you're harping on the 'one thing' aspect of my wgeurts read without realizing that basically all cases are about one thing, and I'm pointing out how your case on me is about one thing - yet is still able to be your strongest read, thus showing how shallow your analysis of my case is because you refuse to accept that a case based on 'one thing' could possibly be my strongest read.

Thor665 · Post Post #535 (isolation #120) » Wed Oct 01, 2014 3:42 am

In post 452, acryon wrote:Day 2, you left your vote on someone that you seemed to have 1 reason for voting for(wgeurts)

For reference.

Thor665 · Post Post #536 (isolation #121) » Wed Oct 01, 2014 3:42 am

Heck, it overlooks that my issue with Blair had one reason also - it was really a wonky attack.

Thor665 · Post Post #538 (isolation #122) » Wed Oct 01, 2014 4:05 am

In post 537, acryon wrote:I think that at least 1 of Blair/Thor is scum, possibly both. I also think that YYR is probably scum.

You are considering a Thor/Blair/Johnny scumteam?

In post 537, acryon wrote:Well there is a couple problems with this. For one, your one reason for voting wgeurts was based on
one
action. My one reason for voting you was based on a
pattern
of inaction. The second problem is that this isn't the only thing that makes me feel you are scum. It's the most important thing I think, but it's not the only thing. I also think that you are doing a good job of controlling the conversation. You have almost 40 more posts than every player other than droog, whose posts are clear and concise. Your's are not. Posting a lot isn't scummy, but in my experience, posting a lot when most of it is trying to argue against someone over and over, is indicative of scum. Not only does it work to tear down the character of those you are opposing, but it also leads the conversation exactly where you want it. That being said, I like my other reason a lot better than this one, which is why we've been talking about that.

Yes, strange how someone who posts a lot seems to control the conversation, odd that.

In post 537, acryon wrote:hmm, this seems like more than one reason no? You even numbered them for us just to be clear that you had multiple reasons!

1. She *was* attacking me.
2. She never attempted to ask for my logic.
3. She ignored that in Post 74 I explained my logic (allowing her to now assess whether it was or was not illogical - something she hasn't done.
4. When I asked her straight up what she was about (and in her later claim what she was about was asking me to explain my logic) she *dodged* answering.

No, that's a breakdown of a single situation. maybe it's a

pattern

I suppose, but it's certainly not multiple actions because if I take out any of those numbers the case falls apart.

Thor665 · Post Post #544 (isolation #123) » Wed Oct 01, 2014 4:08 am

How about Dyx, do you have Dyx as town? Let's flip Dyx which will actually even give *insight* into the Thor/Blair false dilemma people are excited about.

Thor665 · Post Post #549 (isolation #124) » Wed Oct 01, 2014 4:18 am

In post 546, droog wrote:
In post 544, Thor665 wrote:Thor/Blair false dilemma

why is it a false dilemma

Because here is the logic.
Thor/Blair have argued a lot.
One of them (at least) is scum!

The evidence (we have argued a lot) fails to do *anything* to support the conclusion (at least one of them is scum). Hence it's a false dilemma. But people are acting like it's the Gordian knot or something. I could make a number of equal dilemmas.

Blair/Phill have argued a lot.
One of them is scum.

Droog/Thor have posted a lot.
One of them is scum.

Bins/Phil have posted very little.
One of them is scum.

Dys/Fink are in this game.
One of them is scum.

Every single one of those has just as much foundation as the Thor/Blair one. Except no one is derp enough to push any of the others, but the ol' "they have argued" one is always pushed up. If there is some other aspect to the case I missed, fill me in - but I'm pretty sure that's it. Hence: false dilemma.

Thor665 · Post Post #551 (isolation #125) » Wed Oct 01, 2014 4:20 am

In post 328, Phillammon wrote:I confess that I straight up have not been reading some of your banter with Thor more recently, largely because it appears to be going nowhere productive and is taking up a lot of space. Sorry about that.

Regarding you using the word illogical to attack the man:

In post 68, Blair wrote:you appeared to be attacking poor logic... illogically.

That quote right there is what I'm referring to. You are not referring to anything OTHER than Thor in that sentence. I get that that may not have been your intention, but I don't believe that you can't see that the argument was not mentioned in that block. You then used illogical in #193 to attack the argument, this much is true, and I think what you looked at when you made the last post.

My fenceposting on you has primarily been because you are commiting things that I both consider town and scumtells/town and scum behaviour. I did explain those, regardless of what you're claiming, but thankfully with your most recent post I've got more to throw on the pile with your YYR comment alone. Your request for reframe on the case on YYR- which has been reframed multiple times in posts between the posts you quoted, and thus you *must* have read if you were being thorough- strikes me as something of a stalling tactic on a slot that has been next to inactive and actively prod dodging in its most recent post. What it feels like you are trying to imply is that the slot's only garnering votes due to inactivity (which is not the case, search YYR in my and droog's ISOs), which is sorta corroborated by your list of reads. Trying to defend YYR against an attack which he isn't actually having used against him strikes me as really quite suspicious.

This said, you have spent a majority of your posts so far defending other players (and occasionally yourself), with no overt accusations being made against anyone until the most recent post. This strikes me as something townish- not making any judgements until you've had time to gather information, which is, again, a mark of genuine scumhunting. The fact you're attacking me rather than one of the more popular targets is also indicative of that- you appear to have arrived at Phillascum through your own thought processes. Shame they're wrong, but hey, it's better than not thinking at all.

Thor665 · Post Post #555 (isolation #126) » Wed Oct 01, 2014 5:04 am

In post 552, droog wrote:i would rather believe that thor and blair are both scum than that only one is

Well, if you believe this than your current vote is pretty bad, and if you're just making a joke about it then I don't know why you asked me to explain a false dilemma in the first place.

@Fink - I'm pretty neutral on the case on you, but, no, no your lurking does not preclude you from a lynch today in the hopes that you will provide more later. I do not support that as an idea.

Thor665 · Post Post #570 (isolation #127) » Wed Oct 01, 2014 1:57 pm

In post 556, Fink wrote:My point, Thor, was that I'm not lurking, but YYR was. Scum or town, am I not providing more things to analyze after I'm dead than he was? Why isn't it valuable to allow me the time to vote a few more times, interact with more people etc. I'd think that would provide much more information. But if I had been lurking all game, I'd totally agree with you.

And my point is that players are not exempt for lynching for the idea of future interactions.
I will agree interactions are beneficial, I disagree that the lack of them qualifies as a reason not to lynch someone. If you agree with that then we have no issue.

In post 557, Fink wrote:These two points went completely uncommented on, I'd like some thoughts please.

Phillammon telling wgeurts in post 134 ""If you're scum, then we can disregard them. Or even better, figure out who your remaining partner is from your reads" I didn't notice this when I read through that exchange myself, but it does seem like the kind of thing where town should be worrying that wgeurts is idiot-scum, and thus should NOT be warning him of a potential trap. On the other hand, scum knew he was town and wouldn't really be thinking about it.

In post 275, setting up a future vote on YYR in the event that wgeurts flips town, but would do more analysis if wgeurts flips scum. He's approaching this as if he thinks wgeurts is probably town, but wgeurts is Phillammon's strongest scum-read (post 162), he doesn't want to do any more analysis now. But why wouldn't his main plan be based around that wgeurts would flip scum as he had implied before. To me the implication is that he knew the answer.

1. By the time someone is being asked for a reads list prior to lynch they'd have to be pretty dense scum not to be able to puzzle that one out. I personally only ask for this on the presumption the player might be town. If they are scum I ignore the post entirely and think it is foolish to do otherwise. I suppose that if he thought, like you claim to, that the final scum post should be analyzed, that...yeah...maybe? I dunno, do you honestly think any scum are confused about what to do at that point? I don't believe this, so the point doesn't sell me, but if you believe scum can be fooled like that I guess I see the point.

2. To my mind this is called 'having other reads and being open about them' which I take as pro-town. He's not approaching it as if he thinks wgeurts is town, he's approaching ti with an awareness that he might be and is thus paying attention to the wagon. It also makes sense in how he's suspecting wgeurts, who he is citing for being scummy in how Cheetory was lynched, and now he's noting potential suspicion if wgeurts was town. I can see your point, but see no real evidence for it. I think this is a gut read as it can be read either way.

In post 560, Dyslexicon wrote:I like Blair less. Especially 526, "Yes, if Dys is lynched and flips scum it would be perfectly reasonable to find my defense of her suspicious - that is a tell I wouldn't argue with. (Hold me to it!)". This does not seem town to me. It sound like you're not at all worried that I will flip scum. Which is curious, cause what she calls a "defense" of me doesn't sound very convincing to me.

That is the most pro town thing you have said all game.

Unvote: Dyslexicon
Vote: Blair

Oh, that said, your rebuttal of my points was silly-sauce, but I don't see a value in explaining why at this point.

In post 563, Fink wrote:I have no idea what Thor's actual case on Dyslexicon
is
, even after going back and rereading that post.

@Thor, instead of responding to this by saying "I think it's clear enough", could you just explain? Walk me through why I should be voting for Dyslexicon.

Well, right now - no, I have no desire to do so.
That said, I thought I explained it pretty well point by point in this post;
http://forum.mafiascum.net/viewtopic.ph ... 4#p6251554
If you can explain where I lost you I'll clarify.

Would you like to vote Blair now?

Thor665 · Post Post #571 (isolation #128) » Wed Oct 01, 2014 1:59 pm

In post 569, Fink wrote:Oh, speaking of coaching: Experienced players (especially Thor), given that scum can talk during the day, what would that
look
like. Personal suspicions aside, what should we be looking for as evidence of that?

Well...quick topics?

Theoretically the only possible evidence would be if someone made a post/play that you considered of higher quality than their play skill so that the conclusion would be that they had coaching to put it together in daytalk. It also helps with fakeclaims, though I don't think that will be an issue you could spot in this game.

Thor665 · Post Post #575 (isolation #129) » Wed Oct 01, 2014 3:17 pm

In post 573, Fink wrote:So there was nothing other than this?

In post 299, Thor665 wrote:
In short - I am saying that you're extroverting fake scumhunting commentary to try to cover for doing nothing, and am calling you scum because of it.

I already went into detail on why I thought it was better commentary than you thought it was. The way you have been so dismissive about it, and so strong on it, I thought there must be something more.

Actually, you didn't.
You discussed her case wall, which was a different thing, and my initial point was about the requesting other games to read thing.

That said - why are you not voting Blair?

Thor665 · Post Post #578 (isolation #130) » Wed Oct 01, 2014 4:25 pm

Vote her then, and decrease the surplus population.

Thor665 · Post Post #579 (isolation #131) » Wed Oct 01, 2014 4:26 pm

To clarify, I'm watching Christmas Tale and that might have been a joke that it occurs to me was pretty vague in hindsight.

Thor665 · Post Post #581 (isolation #132) » Wed Oct 01, 2014 4:43 pm

I actually am not for a Dyx lynch right now.

I am against a Phil lynch.
I am not opposed to a YYR lynch but am opposed to the YYR lynch wagon.
I am in support of a Blair lynch.

Thor665 · Post Post #596 (isolation #133) » Wed Oct 01, 2014 6:00 pm

In post 582, droog wrote:
In post 581, Thor665 wrote:I am not opposed to a YYR lynch but am opposed to the YYR lynch wagon.

please elaborate

I don't think the slot looks particularly townish anymore, as I was sold on that his interaction could be taken as scum/scum with Johnny.
That said - that's pretty much the extent of the case, his interaction 'could' be taken as scummy.
While I agree with that, it 'could' also be taken as 'not scummy at all'.
I also discussed with you earlier about your crowning point, the Cheetory misrep, and how she didn't declare it a misrep and agreed with his take. I think that came from their seeming prior knowledge of each other and was pretty null in reality. Without that aspect I think your case becomes one of 'lurk' which isn't exactly sexy.

In post 583, Fink wrote:I'm rereading Blair and it's making me want to kill both her AND Thor, but I'm not sure how much of that sentiment relates to their allignments.

I am frustrated by this because it is laziness, regardless of your alingment, and I am tired of the lazy players here using it as an excuse not to bother to produce a read.
Oh dear lord, there are *words* and some *paragraphs* and they have *debate* and I have to read them and offer an opinion on things that were said!?!
Oh no!
Oh woe unto me, the hapless player...in a forum game...based on words and writing...where the goal is to assess the motivation of the other players...by reading them.
Alternate plot - just read us and come out with an actual opinion?
A thought.

In post 589, shaddowez wrote:
Thor
- Why are you against a Phil lynch? Also, what are your thoughts on an acryon wagon?

I have discussed with both Blair and Fink why I am against the lynch (Dyx too, maybe...?)
Lessee...

http://forum.mafiascum.net/viewtopic.ph ... 2#p6261452
http://forum.mafiascum.net/viewtopic.ph ... 3#p6261603
http://forum.mafiascum.net/viewtopic.ph ... 8#p6261628
http://forum.mafiascum.net/viewtopic.ph ... 1#p6264121

Pretty much covers it.
I can explain anything you don't get, but try to narrow down what it is you don't get if you don't get something.
Otherwise I'll just keep re-quoting those links.
I would say the last two are the big ones. Basically I got Fink to agree his read was maybe not a slam dunk (which, was mildly townish...though he kept the vote in place which was mildly scummish...but I'm having a pain reading that slot. I also got Blair to admit she was running double standards and that she figured that was legit because certain people have 'higher bars' they need to reach. Apparently she has meta on us all. Or is scummy. I choose to believe scummy, because she basically said that Phil, since he "extroverts" logic must be held to a higer standard, even though she has first off not really dinged his logic, and second off has no valid judge of what his logic is like as town or scum - making her case a sham.)

I would support an Acryon lynch. I think a Blair lynch is superior.

Thor665 · Post Post #598 (isolation #134) » Wed Oct 01, 2014 6:35 pm

I agree with your point that he is exhibiting lazy play and skipping reading stuff.
Sadly that is not a unique truth of our existence in this game as I can easily name Fink, Dyx, and acryon and paint them with the same brush.

So...I agree with you, but sheer numbers say it's not a good reason to scumread him barring other info in this game.

Thor665 · Post Post #601 (isolation #135) » Wed Oct 01, 2014 6:39 pm

In post 599, Fink wrote:@Thor: Do you think this makes Dys more likely to be town?

I kind of feel like you described the reasoning already.
The only one that went through my head that you didn't go into - is it matters less what my and Blair's thoughts are as it matters what Dyx's thoughts are.
She showed town paranoia and attacked a defender. That's kind of a big deal.
I approve of your vote.

Thor665 · Post Post #602 (isolation #136) » Wed Oct 01, 2014 6:40 pm

In post 600, Fink wrote:Note to Thor: I went into the big thing I just posted hours ago (when I made the comment about you two driving me crazy.) I wasn't being lazy, I was just taking forever because I went into the Blair re-read basically thinking I was going to come out of it voting for you, started a big bunch of quotes trying to make a ase against you and defend Blair, and as I went on, I just didn't believe that anymore.

It's really obnoxious how you keep jumping at every chance to call all of us lazy or claim that we haven't read things. That's the second time you've told me I was being lazy (and the first time you also said I was lying about it). It really doesn't help anyone, either from a moral point of view, or a productive posts point of view. STOP.

I will STOP as soon as people stop saying stuff like "not reading Thor/Blair".
Until then you ARE being lazy.
If it offends you - never use that excuse again and I will never call you lazy again, I consider that a fair offer.

Thor665 · Post Post #606 (isolation #137) » Thu Oct 02, 2014 3:29 am

In post 603, Fink wrote:I didn't say I wasn't reading you, I said I
was
reading you and it was annoying me.

Yes, and you paired that with complaining about it in general and offering no read at all - which makes me wonder why I had to read it and also appeared to be the be all and end all of your commentary.
That you later came out with commentary was nice, and if I had known then that it was going to happen I wouldn't have said what I said. But I didn't - so I said it.

Thor665 · Post Post #614 (isolation #138) » Fri Oct 03, 2014 4:08 am

In post 607, Blair wrote:This is a peculiar line of questioning - it appears to be:

"Explain why you would be suspicious - because if you can't explain why you would be suspicious, that's pretty suspicious."

I would like to point out, that though she's attempting to make this look a little silly - it's actually a perfectly reasonable and logical statement and is not "peculiar" at all and in addition to that, also isn't really what Fink is saying in any case.

It's just more of her word games.

Thor665 · Post Post #615 (isolation #139) » Fri Oct 03, 2014 5:43 am

Actually, I read that wrong. It is what Fink is saying.

That said, i am correct in that it is perfectly logical and is not peculiar.

Thor665 · Post Post #620 (isolation #140) » Fri Oct 03, 2014 2:38 pm

In post 619, Dyslexicon wrote:Thor is ignoring a bunch of questions too. His only way of tackling things is to just dismiss questions, or rather the person behind them as being silly. Frustration is too nice of a word to how I feel about it.

Meanwhile, in Thor's world, he's left explaining stuff like he was in a Newbie game.
While not being in a Newbie game.

In post 619, Dyslexicon wrote:Can you answer me what an Alt is, cause noone else will?

Like ^^^ seriously. All of you are hardcore newbs, I swear. We have a Newbie Queue for a reason.
Alt = Alternate, generally speaking 'Alternate Account' meaning, a player with more than one account.
We have a Wiki.
http://wiki.mafiascum.net/index.php?title=Alt
You can do this yourself. That was a search for 'alt'.
C'mon now.

In post 619, Dyslexicon wrote:About this, remember it was Blair that first brought up that the me-case and phil-case were similar (Blair's cases anyway).

Thor665 · Post Post #624 (isolation #141) » Fri Oct 03, 2014 3:16 pm

Well...for starters, that was me, not Blair, who did that.
For seconds, she went nowhere with the thought even after bringing up incorrect info. Which was even more frustrating. Her entire post can be summed up as 'not sure about that' as a response to everything. I regret reading it.

Thor665 · Post Post #627 (isolation #142) » Fri Oct 03, 2014 6:14 pm

We're at a seven day point, is the plan legitly to just grind this out he whole way?
Looking at the wagons as currently stands I can't figure out who is for the chop, and I usually pride myself on ability to read wagon strength. I don't think we even remotely have consensus. Part of the fault of that is lurks and replaces, I'll agree - but people (acro and Shadow spring to mind here) do need to pay attention to what their wagon is doing. Other people (Phil and Droog) should probably remind me what is up with their wagon - the fact that I can't describe the Fink case off the top of my head - even in an insulting way - kind of says something about how well you're advancing that case...i.e. not very well)

I would love to see someone throw some spit on one of the 2 vote wagons.
Acro, Shaddow, new Bins guy whenever he shows up - are top contenders for that as their current votes are doing nothing useful at all.

@Dys - you seem aware that something is screwy with Blair. I know that basically in your mind I can be scumbuddies with any and everyone here (including Blair for some reason) so...I dunno, wanna help me bus my scumbuddy? You seem to have no real strong reads at all, so why not shift to whichever of Fink/Blair strikes you as a better wagon since you don't seem to have a strong scumread you're pushing. The other allowable solution is to actually, y'know, state your reasoning and some reads straight up, which would be new and exciting and at least let people know where you're coming from. I am bothered that you're not leading or stating much, yet are helping to lock down the wagons via an odd preference.

@Phil - what's your take on Blair compared to Fink? Would you move?

@Droog - same question to you, really, I thought you had them both as scummy and you seemed to pick Fink for no readily clear reason I can think of - why not pick Blair instead just for yucks?

Thor665 · Post Post #638 (isolation #143) » Sat Oct 04, 2014 4:41 am

In post 633, Phillammon wrote:@Thor: I do not believe Blair to be scum. So no. I could be convinced to move onto Dys, but not onto Blair.

Did you read Dyxs post right before I unvoted her?
Did you assess my stated reasons for no longer voting Dyx?

In post 636, Dyslexicon wrote:Dude. Pay attention. I have stronger reads than a lot of people, and even if you think I don't, I don't give a Smurf.

You should - the game is about communication. if you're town and fail at communication then you fail as town.

In post 636, Dyslexicon wrote: If you find it hard to read between the line, here's the short version. You're welcome.

Thank you, I did find it hard to read between the lines and find it beneficial that you state things clearly as you just did and had failed to do prior.

@Fink - oh dear gawd no! Get back on Blair, I literally just did a call to action for Blair, what the hell?

Thor665 · Post Post #639 (isolation #144) » Sat Oct 04, 2014 4:43 am

In post 637, Fink wrote:He's very carefully voting for wagons that look like they could be starting to take off while making as few waves as possible, as scum would do to encourage the mislynch without really being tied to it.

He literally just turned down an offer to hop onto Blair, a move he could have blamed (easily!) on me i things went south.

Thor665 · Post Post #642 (isolation #145) » Sat Oct 04, 2014 5:05 am

In post 640, Dyslexicon wrote:(Funny sidenote, I seem to think you can't read between lines, and you seem to think I can't read lines.)

I agree with this.
One of them is the more overt and clear method of communication though.

In post 640, Dyslexicon wrote:What's to say they're not both scum?
What even is this?
With all your complaints about people who are not reading the game (who actually are but whatever), and not contributing, you are STILL defending Phil?

1. Nothing besides my reads at the moment. But if he thinks they're both scum I'd still rather he stick to Blair.
2. A complaint that he is killing the Blair wagon (that I support) to embolden the Phil wagon (that I oppose)
3. There is a difference between being an unoptimal player and scum. I call lots of plays bad, I don't call all bad plays scummy. There is a large difference.

Thor665 · Post Post #643 (isolation #146) » Sat Oct 04, 2014 5:06 am

Like, I don't think I've particularly liked any play or move you've done.
I am also defending you (from Phil).

This is not a strange belief system.

Thor665 · Post Post #645 (isolation #147) » Sat Oct 04, 2014 5:07 am

Careful, you almost stated an opinion there.

Thor665 · Post Post #651 (isolation #148) » Sat Oct 04, 2014 5:54 am

In post 648, Dyslexicon wrote:
In post 645, Thor665 wrote:Careful, you almost stated an opinion there.

Haha, I knew you wouldn't be able to resist. Oh, what would you have done without me in the game, Thor? And for the record, it was an opinion: It's a null tell. I interpret it that you're seeing it as a town tell? I do not.

I consider it an important tell considering the presented case on how theoryscum Phil is being said to play - if he is playing that way then the point is a noted town tell as it goes against the theoryscum concept.

@Fink -

Thor665 · Post Post #652 (isolation #149) » Sat Oct 04, 2014 5:55 am

In post 650, Fink wrote:I'm not saying I'd never vote Thor on some future day, given some more evidence of something clever happenning. But if Thor is scum, it seems like his partner is dead weight. And he has daychat to yell at them constantly.

The face for this one is

though.
Or maybe

The earlier face was for your blithe okayness with the Phil wagon.

Thor665 · Post Post #655 (isolation #150) » Sat Oct 04, 2014 6:03 am

In post 653, Fink wrote:My point on Phil isn't that he's jumping at every oppurtunity; it's that he's taking oppurtunities for very little reason, trying to provide minimal ties from himself to his votes. At the same time, I think he's being very cautious (overly so) and not wanting to change his mind or his vote too much. I don't see an inconsistency there.

Maybe, but he was literally in a situation where he was in a three way tie that included himself, and was offered and provided the perfect excuse to put a 'not Phil' wagon into a strong lead without having to accept any blame.

Why would he do that if scum considering your theory of why he is scum?

Thor665 · Sat Oct 04, 2014 12:42 pm

Quick follow up - he gonna be *so* pissed.

Also his only competition was Fink, but, yeah, I'll agree it was better than Fink's.

Thor665 · Sat Oct 04, 2014 12:51 pm

Well at first you think I'm going to lynch Dyx, then I play with your emotions.
Then you find out it's a wedding, Westeros style.

Thor665 · Post Post #668 (isolation #153) » Sun Oct 05, 2014 8:27 am

Let's just declare ourselves obv. town and chain lynch everyone else. If the game continues we'll move on from there

Thor665 · Post Post #681 (isolation #154) » Sun Oct 05, 2014 1:41 pm

I don't hate your vote.
I'd rather lynch Blair.

Thor665 · Post Post #683 (isolation #155) » Sun Oct 05, 2014 2:03 pm

Of course I have actually already provided info on why Blair is a superior lynch, whereas your case on Phil has been questioned and not defended.

:3

Thor665 · Post Post #696 (isolation #156) » Sun Oct 05, 2014 2:23 pm

In post 687, Dyslexicon wrote:But really, I can't understand why you think he's town. Like, at all.

Well, to avoid straw men - my stance is simply that I lean town on him *and* that I find the case on him empty. I will agree to the former my reasoning is mostly 'gut' and 'lack of scumminess' to the latter however I have offered very clear thoughts - something the Phil wagon (which got suspiciously large) totally lacked.
If there isn't scum on that wagon I will eat my metaphorical hat.

Also, you should really stop acting like it's cute that I'm bothered by your lack of input whilst you admit to lacking input.
Yes, I know you're lacking input.
Being self aware of it on your end changes absolutely nothing about the issue with it.

Thor665 · Post Post #697 (isolation #157) » Sun Oct 05, 2014 2:25 pm

In post 695, droog wrote:i dont even like that i was voting yyr so why is philamon voting yyr

Because neither of you are voting Blair.
Y'know, the one who I caught using a double standard who is trying to bluff through it because she "expects" more from a given player because he "presented" as being more logical despite doing zero assessment of whether he is or is not actually logical regardless?
Yeah.
Y'know, the scum?

Thor665 · Post Post #699 (isolation #158) » Sun Oct 05, 2014 2:26 pm

This from the person DCL claims seeks motivation as a scumhunting tool.
Y'know.
Y'know.
Y'know.

Especially by the time you're admitting that your last vote had no reasoning to it?
I am so frustrated right now.
Seriously.

Thor665 · Post Post #700 (isolation #159) » Sun Oct 05, 2014 2:27 pm

@Above - 'person = Blair'

@Dys - then you should write different words.

Thor665 · Post Post #704 (isolation #160) » Sun Oct 05, 2014 2:35 pm

In post 703, droog wrote:
In post 596, Thor665 wrote:I would support an Acryon lynch. I think a Blair lynch is superior.

is this still how you feel

In post 681, Thor665 wrote:I don't hate your vote.
I'd rather lynch Blair.

In post 702, Dyslexicon wrote:Also, three people on a wagon is not suspiciously large. It's suspiciously slow moving if you ask me. Anyway. Let's see if I can gather some thoughs.

Aw, snap, you're right - which wagon got bigger today?
...oh...right.

Speed is, sadly, not an absolute, speed is gauged on how derp-slow the players are being. In this game day, that wagon was pure adrenaline, whiskey, and attitude.

Thor665 · Post Post #710 (isolation #161) » Sun Oct 05, 2014 3:31 pm

The guy who never posts during weekends.

Thor665 · Post Post #711 (isolation #162) » Sun Oct 05, 2014 3:32 pm

Vote: Acronym

If we get a flip sooner rather than later I am in favor.

Thor665 · Post Post #714 (isolation #163) » Sun Oct 05, 2014 7:12 pm

In post 712, shaddowez wrote:I'd rather not sit around and wait for the whole time, but is there any motivation, town or scum, to hurry the vote in a standard(ish) game?

There is motivation to both.
This is not a standard game.

Thor665 · Post Post #722 (isolation #164) » Mon Oct 06, 2014 5:14 am

I'm pretty sure he'll find Phil scummy within the next few days - call it my psychic powers.

As an additional hint, Phil will probably find Acro scummy enough to hammer when/if he shows up again.

If you want to affect the wagon you need to be talking to the people voting it, not the obv. votes that aren't placed yet.

Thor665 · Post Post #723 (isolation #165) » Mon Oct 06, 2014 5:15 am

Like, functionally at this point, Acro is lynched and Phil is L-1.
Work from that perspective.

Thor665 · Post Post #753 (isolation #166) » Mon Oct 06, 2014 8:11 am

@Acryon - why do you rule out Dys as my partner? Since they are 2nd or 3rd most likely scum, but if Phil flips town then #4 DC jumps into being my partner - why not #2-3 Dys?

Also - if I controlled town we would be lynching Blair...or, rather, we would have lynched Blair about a week ago. But it's nice to see that you still think I control town. I have yet to spot any evidence to remotely show this control, but it's nice to think it's a theory that may come true for me at some point.

@Fink - I see your point about Phil there. I will point out that whether or not he thinks the best way to scumhunt someone is to get them to post a lot does not mean that he thinks the best way to play as town is to post a lot - that isn't exactly an either/or situation. So, I'd give it a minor scum twinge, but nothing more. I feel like you think it's a solid hit out of the park - I am very much not with you on that.

@Droog - there re deadlines due to the setup, at some stage, having scum kills. Even though that is gone the deadlines still exist because at one point they mattered. Yes, we could functionally go till Day 473 with no penalty at this point save to our sanity.

Thor665 · Post Post #755 (isolation #167) » Mon Oct 06, 2014 8:12 am

Dear gawd that was hard to post in the stream of comments happening right now.

Thor665 · Post Post #769 (isolation #168) » Mon Oct 06, 2014 8:29 am

In post 762, droog wrote:5 players alive at lylo, so sans self here are 5 players id be comfortable with in lylo

blair
666
dys
thor

i could only find 4

I would not be comfortable with Blair there.
I would also take Fink over DCL any day.

Maybe a Dys, Fink, Droog, DCL...maybe. I do not have a good feel on DCL at this stage and think the slot needs more attention and is still in honeymoon period.

@Acroyn - so you do actually think that Thor/Dys makes sense? Like we come off with a partner vibe in your opinion? Because I can see thinking me/Phil to a degree because I am sniping at the case on him. But me/Dyx? Really?

Thor665 · Post Post #770 (isolation #169) » Mon Oct 06, 2014 8:30 am

@Droog - I'd rather have Fink and Dyx than you - to clarify my reads.

Thor665 · Post Post #824 (isolation #170) » Mon Oct 06, 2014 4:33 pm

In post 807, Dyslexicon wrote:- I don't understand the scum motivation for not voting Phil, unless they are scum together. I don't understand it as town either though, especially since Phil is indeed a scum read of his (weaker than Thor, but still).

He's obligated to do this due to the hardline stance he took about me (even though it's only a presumption on his part who I suspected more and not anything I said, but, still, he's obligated)

To answer your question - no, I am unlikely to vote Phil, I feel I have made that clear.

@Fink - why do you want to talk about voting Phil prior to seeing what Acryon flips? I know my immediate stance is 'well...what will he flip?' In a generic sense I might be like 'Blair - lynch Blair darnit!' but I'd like to see the flip and then glance at his iso if he flips scum before swearing to that. Why are you hard line on it?

Thor665 · Post Post #828 (isolation #171) » Mon Oct 06, 2014 4:45 pm

@Dyx - I'm marginally interested to see his answer, but with a few hundred posts between comments I'll admit 'changed my mind' will be a hard answer to not believe.
Still, I support trying to get him to explain his thought process, i consider that a core scumhunting tool when you understand what the other player was thinking.

@Fink - I swear half of you are buddy hunting like this, it curls my toes.

Thor665 · Post Post #830 (isolation #172) » Mon Oct 06, 2014 6:18 pm

The point is, once he made that case on me, the only way to justify any move ever was to have to backtrack on the case - and he'd been forced to act like it was such a crime he couldn't allow himself to be seen to change from it regardless of his alignment. So, even though, yeah, it would have been good play for either town or scum - he couldn't do it.

Thor665 · Post Post #845 (isolation #173) » Tue Oct 07, 2014 3:20 am

I don't think it's unreasonable what Phil is doing, though I don't agree with the conclusions I likewise do not find them scummy. The worst Phil has done was the 'not stopping review thing' which...eh, actually I think Fink scored a point there and I agree with it. I could do without the theory wagon size debate though, personally.
I find Blair's kind of every which way but lose attitude towards the Acro at the end to be inditing.
When I look at the people off and the people on I find my ol' sore tooth niggle DCL and I suppose Shadow.

I'd like to see Shadow answer Dys from yesterday.
I'd like to see DCL address the wagon and the results.
I'd like to lynch Blair still

That's me.

Thor665 · Post Post #851 (isolation #174) » Tue Oct 07, 2014 3:35 am

In post 847, Fink wrote:Thor: It's not a theory argument. It's a Phil doesn't have his facts straight arguement. Phil says he could have been lynched, I've shown that there were not enough votes for it, that a majority of the town had clearly said they wouldn't lynch him, Phil has pretended that this was not the case.

Yes, but whether or not he believed that is not scummy - you should be discussing how he did or did not use this thought in a scummy way as that is all that matters.
If he disagrees present your evidence and stick to the actual scumtell such as it is.
I, personally, tend to think he acted slightly townish at a point the wagon was not particularly hard codified by other players. If your goal is to get him lynched your job is to convince me what his scum motive was. Your job is not to convince Phil what he thought at the time because that's a losing debate - e.g. look at Acro trying to explain to me that I was scum because I had implied someone was scummier to me by talking about them more. It was going to be an argument that went nowhere with anyone else because it was unprovable that I did or didn't. What he should have focused on was explaining to players who were not me, how what I did had actual scum benefit. He didn't - and when asked about the case actively chose not to do so either, and that made the case bad regardless of his alignment.

We don't need this current debate and it already looks like it's going to get long.

Thor665 · Post Post #852 (isolation #175) » Tue Oct 07, 2014 3:35 am

In post 850, droog wrote:
In post 838, Fink wrote:
In post 837, Phillammon wrote:(saying "only 3 of us seem interested in that" when basically everyone on one wagon except for thor has stated that they could be convinced to go for a Phil lynch is straight up not true)

(Sorry for the multipost)

Straight up lies here. How much more does it take guys?

VOTE: Phil

i have a short attention span
please explain the lie

Thor665 · Post Post #853 (isolation #176) » Tue Oct 07, 2014 3:35 am

@Droog - here are the lies;

"We don't need this current debate and it already looks like it's going to get long."

Oh, wait, that's a painful truth. Moving on!

Thor665 · Post Post #856 (isolation #177) » Tue Oct 07, 2014 4:12 am

Why is my townread there so strong and yet you have a null read?
I think if you iso him and myself and find the back and forth we had mid-day last Day Phase you should be hard pressed to keep up that issue.

Thor665 · Post Post #862 (isolation #178) » Tue Oct 07, 2014 5:29 am

In post 860, Fink wrote:but as much as I've got on Thor's case about saying this: it's really really annoying when people comment without reading the game.

Yes...soon, soon you too shall be making comments and having newbs act like you're being a jerk and then being asked to defend your attitude.
Give in to the hatred, let it flow through you

Thor665 · Post Post #864 (isolation #179) » Tue Oct 07, 2014 5:30 am

@Phil - you seem to town read me, I strongly town read Fink. What are your thoughts on that and why haven't you tried to discuss it with me?

Thor665 · Post Post #884 (isolation #180) » Tue Oct 07, 2014 5:05 pm

In post 883, shaddowez wrote:
Thor
- Considering the flip and everything that's happened since, do you still have a town read on Phil? If so, why, and who but Blair do you think is scummy?

I fail to see how the flip makes Phil look particularly scummy, I also am unaware of any new information that has come to light to suggest he is scummy besides the few things Fink mentioned which I have already addressed.

I have indicated suspicion of both Blair and DCL in my first post of this day phase - those reads remain unchanged for me as neither player has even shown up yet for me to delve for info or assess in any new way.

Thor665 · Wed Oct 08, 2014 12:56 pm

I am aquiver with the vapors in anticipation.

Thor665 · Post Post #902 (isolation #182) » Thu Oct 09, 2014 7:53 am

In post 901, Fink wrote:And I know I'm in the minority, but I'm going to be opposed to vote for Blair's replament for some time, at least until there is time for more interactions. Barring something really really scummy, I'm not going to be interested in lynching that slot today.

This is silly.

Either the slot was or was not scummy.
I will agree the replacement can't properly defend what Blair did - but I am not promising to not vote the new player because of that, the slot remains scummy to me, and the new player is working from a position of 'scum' not a position of 'neutral and new'.

Thor665 · Fri Oct 10, 2014 12:10 pm

Vote: Blair's replacement

This thread is dead, and she should have a warm welcome waiting for her.

Thor665 · Post Post #932 (isolation #184) » Sat Oct 11, 2014 3:25 pm

As long as you're requesting prods - why not put a vote in play if you want to get some activity.
We're not getting any activity till we get a lynch in contention, I pretty much assure it.

Thor665 · Post Post #934 (isolation #185) » Sat Oct 11, 2014 3:35 pm

Why do you need his answer to place a vote? Even if his answer will change your top scumread, why not just vote your top scumread at this moment, and then if the answer changes your reads adjust the vote - why do we need to wait for it? I don't get the logic - I'm willing to go out on a wild limb that there isn't likely to be a sudden flashwagon on page 39. Call it a hunch.

Thor665 · Post Post #935 (isolation #186) » Sat Oct 11, 2014 3:37 pm

And weren't we on a bit of a hold waiting for DCL to present reads in order to get a read on the Bins slot, which we had been on a hold waiting for reads from in order to get a read on the Fokem slot?
This is why waiting for reads is bunk at the moment.
We need more action, not more waiting.

Thor665 · Post Post #938 (isolation #187) » Sat Oct 11, 2014 3:56 pm

They call it 'scumday' it is the anniversary of my join date, yes.
The general method is to wisha happy scumday, or scumiversary.
There is no need for anyone else to bother, and if you post anything of the sort without a vote or other insight to the game I will hate you anyway

Thor665 · Post Post #940 (isolation #188) » Sat Oct 11, 2014 4:12 pm

Explicated?

Thor665 · Post Post #942 (isolation #189) » Sat Oct 11, 2014 4:17 pm

I think it's pretty safe to say that it would be a silly question to ask me, as I have a town read on him.

So clearly I either disagree with you, or agree - but don;t find the comment scummy.

If you really want I could roll through them all. But I don't really see the point to it or why you would ask.

Thor665 · Post Post #943 (isolation #190) » Sat Oct 11, 2014 4:18 pm

Well, 'don't find it scummy enough' I suppose, otherwise that's just saying disagree in a weird way.

Thor665 · Post Post #948 (isolation #191) » Sun Oct 12, 2014 4:01 am

Why am I actually watching two of my townreads vote my strongest town read?
No me gusta.

Thor665 · Post Post #953 (isolation #192) » Sun Oct 12, 2014 7:10 am

Are you asking me to start attacking the Fink case before seeing Fink do it?
I'll do that for you - I just want to make sure that's your desire.

Thor665 · Post Post #955 (isolation #193) » Sun Oct 12, 2014 9:00 am

I'd like to discuss phil/fink vs. DCL/Blair with you, yes.
I'm actually leaning town on Shadow - if he's scum he's flying totally under my radar.
I don't think you're making too many derp-dee-doo moments with the Fink case, but I do think you're dinging him for unfair things, though I also think it is best for you and him to see him respond first. I was quite serious when I said I'd rather take him to lylo than you, I actually find more objectionable in you in how you're pushing this case than in him, but I'd rather sit back and let you feel absolutely confident in what you're saying baout him before I charge into that mess.

Thor665 · Sun Oct 12, 2014 11:56 am

In post 956, droog wrote:i could see scum DCL but i have to reason to suspect scum DCL
blair badly needs a sub

Okay, if you can see scum DCL (though I don't know what it means to say that then you don't - you either suspect the slot or you don't, yeah? This is kinda of doublespeak - clarify your thought next time you're through)

That said, working under the concept that you're aware DCL doesn't look particularly townish - what shoves so many players into the queue before that slot in your mind?

Also, saying Blair needs a replacement is an empty comment - the question is why do you appear to have zero interest in pushing Blair without being willing to tell me you town read the slot?

I have both of those slots pegged as scummier than Fink or Phil.
Let's try to go bullet point;

Blair is scum for choosing to always argue semantics rather than motive, using a double standard and, even after being caught doing so, just trying to act like it was okay even though she had no supportable reasoning for choosing to enact the double standard, and also for the awkward setup as concerns Dys (vis a vi the 'lynch me if she's scum comment)

I think any one of those items is at least worthy of suspicion, I think the full set of them is worthy of a lynch.

Could you present a counter to those points/explanation for why she's not on your lynch radar, and then provide me a similarly presented scum case on your prime scumspect (I presume this is Fink). I don't want a large wall, I want the core kernel of the scumtells like I did with Blair.

In post 968, Fink wrote:@Everyone else
What do you think of Droog's case on me?

I have already answered this, but the basic gist is 'not particularly sold'.

Thor665 · Post Post #970 (isolation #195) » Sun Oct 12, 2014 7:20 pm

v/la - Oct 14-19

I will probably be around, I hope. But potentially sporadic, so v/la is being declared.

Thor665 · Wed Oct 15, 2014 2:10 am

In post 991, Bicephalous Bob wrote:I read everything until the walls started and skimmed through the walls, looking for bits that indicated change of tone and read the surrounding posts. I'm as caught up as I ever will be.

Huzzah.

And you scumread me and townread the slots that townread Blair - shock.

Why did you have a scumread on me on Page 2? I had only made 2 posts at that point, so it should be really easy to describe.

In post 991, Bicephalous Bob wrote:If you're familiar with thor, do you think the post I quoted aligns with his personality and views on anti-town behavior?

Since clearly you want to convince people you are familiar with me - why don't you explain how it doesn't align. You've said it doesn't - but you haven't said how. Examples would probably help convince people you actually grok my meta (and you don't - but you and I both know that you're lying, I just want to show it to everyone else)

My vote is quite happy where it is - seriously, this is a scummy replace in of a scummy slot. Let us lynch it with prejudice.

Thor665 · Wed Oct 15, 2014 3:30 am

In post 1004, Bicephalous Bob wrote:I've talked to you about anti-town behavior and mafia principles, which is what this is all about

You had a way more self-righteous attitude when talking about it in md

You're right - it's shocking I didn't lambast anyone who disagreed with me about it.
What was that? No one even questioned whether it was a good idea other than to be a bit slow about hammering the lynch?
And I *did* lambast them?

So...what sort of attitude did you expect and not see again?

In post 1004, Bicephalous Bob wrote:Why should page 2 reads be easier to explain than page 40 reads? I find them equally hard to articulate.

When I only have two posts it should be pretty easy to narrow in to what bugged you I wold think.

In post 1004, Bicephalous Bob wrote:I think you correctly assessed this town as likely to quickhammer. I'm not against quick L-1 wagons, but you really give me that feeling.

So...on Page 2, I predicted that wgeurts would do what he did?
This is bullSmurf as far as a read goes.
I don't think you had anything and this is what you're coming up with to justify it. Your reads and catchup read exactly like scum. You come in, you make specific dings against your primary attacker, but the rest of your reads are super surface emptiness. You call out on Page 2 that I'm a scumread (though later get nervy when asked to justify that claim) yet no other point in the game (besides one quote from me) was worth calling out? You give us an update on Page 2...but then it's not till the end of theread you can state some town reads, and you got no other real reads during that run?
Nah.
This is a fake read, your catchup is strategic and not scumhunting.

When people read this and go look - they will spot I am correct, and then I will use my psychic powers to predict you will be lynched.

Thor665 · Wed Oct 15, 2014 3:59 am

Thor665 · Wed Oct 15, 2014 5:02 am

So now the defense is fear mongering me?
Nah - how about we lynch you and I become confirmed town instead?