Open 680.1 C9++ | Endgame

[Brian Skies]

VOTE: Brain Skies Obviously scum replacement is obvious.

Do you actually think someone replacing out between games is alignment indicative? And if so, do you think there's a distinction to be made between me and Necta?

[Brian Skies]

If I were scum I'd be more likely to add the 4th vote. I love the early day wagon being on me or my teammates. People see pressure as some sort of purifying fire and getting an early wagon that is never seeing a lynch onto a scum partner is something I'd actively look for.

Why did you feel the need to justify yourself with self-meta?

[Brian Skies]

VOTE: fire
For not getting us to page 19 by now

Sheeping my mason buddy here
VOTE: FireScreamer

Fake claiming masons is like, #1 on my most hated thing that people do ever. Would vote you if I wasn't already voting you.

Official Vote Count

Brian Skies

(3): CommKnight, Titus, Alchemist21

Umlaut

(2): shannon, Green Crayons

FireScreamer

(1): FrankJaeger

Not Voting

(7): Narna, davesaz, Brian Skies, FireScreamer, Umlaut, RoryMK, Necta

With 13 alive, it takes 7 to lynch.

Deadline

: (expired on 2017-05-03 20:06:48)

That's two votes, I should probably claim.

Dont out us yet

I can't believe I'm doing this.

VOTE: Frank (evil joke mason claiming Frank, not my cutest labradorable puppy Frank)

Why did you change your vote?

[Brian Skies]

Because they're both making faux claims and I thought it was time to change things up

If you suspect them both, why change it up when the first one was already gaining votes (and was a wagon you started)? What makes you think they're faux claims?

[Brian Skies]

Oshawott, come back and talk to me. ):

[Brian Skies]

Because they're both making faux claims and I thought it was time to change things up

If you suspect them both, why change it up when the first one was already gaining votes (and was a wagon you started)? What makes you think they're faux claims?

I said i was going to soft mason D1. before the reroll

Even if this is true, I hope you realize how irritating it is to have you interject yourself into my line of questioning. At the very least, you could have waited to see Shannon's response first.

[Brian Skies]

^^That's what makes me think faux claims. Also no one else is taking it seriously as they would if it was a real claim. I always policy vote fake claims, no matter how fake, I'm just sharing the votes around. I can go back to the other faker if it bothers you? ((This is essentially RVS))

Once again, why're you just immediately assuming their claims are fake? I also don't really care whether you vote Umlaut or not. I'm more interested in why you decided to change your vote.

[Brian Skies]

@Brian, would you say replacing out was not a sign of getting a role someone did not like?

Also it's a joke vote. Everyone here except you and Necta were in the last game before it had to be re-rolled. So poking at the newbies who replaced in due to two people not wanting to continue our fun. We were almost to page 100 on D1 but it had to re-roll because everyone claimed pretty much and Umlaut got the wrong role PM (LOL Guess we shouldn't have made Umlaut claim).

Also, your slot was scum before the re-roll. (So was Frank and me).

Finally, VOTE: Necta, time to bring in the IC who's not so innocent anymore.

I have no idea why Momo would replace out between games. Who's to say he even saw his role PM? I also already know what he would have seen if he did, so my opinion is biased.

I can understand wanting to pressure newcomers to the game (I'm not a newbie), but I wanted to know if you actually put thought into your vote or had any other thoughts on the situation.

Also, if my predecessor was scum before the reroll, why do you think he would've been more likely to replace out between games? It didn't seem like he was at risk of replacing out in the previous one.

[Brian Skies]

Nope, I won't be using a p.s. I just wanted to make a point that if Shannon were maf here, you just basically gave her an out as far as explaining her thought process was concerned. I do it all the time myself, I just got annoying that someone else did it to me.

[Brian Skies]

VOTE: Titus

[Brian Skies]

I've already made a statement in the thread I wouldn't have as scum.

Not credible if you're the one claiming it. Also, if true, is borderline bannable as a trust tell.

[Brian Skies]

@Umlaut, depending on how you looked at it, it really was me, you, Alchemist, GC and FS. Of course, me being scum at the time I was trying to control the bloc away from scum and cause enough disruption on a TvT wagon that if I were to flip, the other might get looked into a bit further.

I doubt ThinkBig would abandon complete randomization just to make a second game more interesting.

[Brian Skies]

Can we slow down?

Is shannon lynched yet?

[Brian Skies]

True that it's not credible (and I think everyone has rightly ignored it) but not true that it's a trust tell or really even close to one, even assuming he's town. I could point out things in any of my town games that I never do as scum, because they're not things that get me townread and so I have no real reason to emulate them in my scum games.

This is what a trust tell is as explained on the MafiaScum Wiki.

It's not punishable to just say 'I would never do this as scum.' That is just playing to your win condition and is unlikely to be considered self-imposed.

"A Trust Tell is a specialized behavior a player may use to "prove" their alignment in any arbitrary game

via a personal meta argument

. For instance, a player may promise that they are Town if and only if they actually are Town in a game, and will use that self-imposed rule when they draw Town as an argument to confirm their alignment whenever they see fit." ~The Wiki

What FS is saying is that he cannot be scum here because he did something only a town him would do (what that is, I have no idea, but he insists that he did it). This falls under the first criteria of the trust tell definition that he's 'insisting he only does something as one alignment.' However, this is just one game. But if it happens over the course of multiple games, then it becomes punishable as a 'trust tell' or a 'trust tell in the making.' And there are players that have been punished for things like this (See: Varsoon).

I'm not saying that he has a trust tell, just that he needs to knock it off because the Skittles don't take stuff like this lightly.

[Brian Skies]

Maybe we should quicklynch Necta so ThinkBig doesn't have to look for his replacement.

[Brian Skies]

He's never had a wagon.

[Brian Skies]

Idk how I missed that. I just assumed people only put like one vote or so on Necta.

[Brian Skies]

It's not punishable to just say 'I would never do this as scum.'

What FS is saying is that he cannot be scum here because he did something only a town him would do

These are literally saying the same thing. "never scum" = "only town".

No, they aren't.

Are you really going to nitpick over me explaining what a trust tell is?

[Brian Skies]

It's not punishable to just say 'I would never do this as scum.'

What FS is saying is that he cannot be scum here because he did something only a town him would do

These are literally saying the same thing. "never scum" = "only town".

No, they aren't.

Are you really going to nitpick over me explaining what a trust tell is?

Are you really going to pretend that criticizing another player's non-bannable attempt to clear themselves with the specter of a ban in the game thread itself, itself of taking the issue up with the mod via PM, is not suspicious?

Why would it be suspicious?

I have no idea if he has a trust tell and the mods looked into it anyway.

Also, you cherry picked my statements without taking the context into account. I can understand if I just worded the explanation poorly and you just want me to rephrase, but I don't think that's what you want here. Also, why do you care about me explaining what a trust tell is? Why do you think it's even alignment indicative?

[Brian Skies]

Trying to intimidate another player into not using a method of defense is suspicious because it might actually work, thereby depriving that other player of a valid defense that could help make their case that they are town, if they are in fact town.

It is additionally suspicious because it can be used as a type of reverse psychology on the target, who could start thinking: "this guy is looking out for me by warning me not to go about using trust tells; his interests must align with mine."

I didn't cherry pick. I grabbed the heart of what was wrong with your explanation in the greater context of, if this was a real concern, you could have (should have) taken it to PMs with the mod. Or just waited until after the game was over.

Okay, first of all, I gave him a warning shot because it's literally a bannable offense. And he seemed new.

The second line is you just literally throwing out there to justify you nitpicking an explanation post, which is just what? I haven't even stated a townread on the guy.

You absolutely cherry picked. You snipped out the majority of the second line you quoted, which was me explaining

why it was borderline

. If you truly cared about what the 'heart of my explanation was,' you'd ask for elaboration. Which you haven't done. And to elaborate, the reason why 'just saying you wouldn't do something as scum' is fine is because if you're using that defense

in response

to an accusation, then it's just going to be written off as an expected response as either alignment in most scenarios. The second case, which has everything to do with FS' comment, is borderline because he was either preparing

to cite self meta unprompted

or faking it. Which, if you actually cared about what my post was saying (which wasn't an argument in any way), that you would have read this and made that connection.

So, once again, why are you nitpicking a post whose only purpose is to explain what a trust tell is?

[Brian Skies]

I didn't cherry pick. I grabbed the heart of what was wrong with your explanation in the greater context of, if this was a real concern, you could have (should have) taken it to PMs with the mod. Or just waited until after the game was over.

True that it's not credible (and I think everyone has rightly ignored it) but not true that it's a trust tell or really even close to one, even assuming he's town. I could point out things in any of my town games that I never do as scum, because they're not things that get me townread and so I have no real reason to emulate them in my scum games.

This is what a trust tell is as explained on the MafiaScum Wiki.

It's not punishable to just say 'I would never do this as scum.' That is just playing to your win condition and is unlikely to be considered self-imposed.

"A Trust Tell is a specialized behavior a player may use to "prove" their alignment in any arbitrary game

via a personal meta argument

. For instance, a player may promise that they are Town if and only if they actually are Town in a game, and will use that self-imposed rule when they draw Town as an argument to confirm their alignment whenever they see fit." ~The Wiki

What FS is saying is that he cannot be scum here because he did something only a town him would do (what that is, I have no idea, but he insists that he did it). This falls under the first criteria of the trust tell definition that he's 'insisting he only does something as one alignment.' However, this is just one game. But if it happens over the course of multiple games, then it becomes punishable as a 'trust tell' or a 'trust tell in the making.' And there are players that have been punished for things like this (See: Varsoon).

I'm not saying that he has a trust tell, just that he needs to knock it off because the Skittles don't take stuff like this lightly.

It's not punishable to just say 'I would never do this as scum.'

What FS is saying is that he cannot be scum here because he did something only a town him would do

These are literally saying the same thing. "never scum" = "only town".

Actually, let's take a look at these posts again.

What is the 'heart of the explanation' I'm giving here and why do you think it matters in the overall context of this game? What do you hope to gain out of it? Why do you (or did you) think the explanation was incorrect?

Also, why do you care if I PM the mods about this or not (I haven't) when I can just throw an off-hand comment to tell him to knock it off? Why are you even suggesting I wait until the game is over to bring it up? Regardless of my alignment or his, if he's breaking a rule or in danger of breaking one, why should I table my concerns?

[Brian Skies]

Trying to intimidate another player into not using a method of defense is suspicious because it might actually work, thereby depriving that other player of a valid defense that could help make their case that they are town, if they are in fact town.

Once again, it's a bannable offense. But explain to me how, even if you think this to be true, that it's any different from your post here where you straight up undermine two players' townreads on each other?

[Brian Skies]

Trying to intimidate another player into not using a method of defense is suspicious because it might actually work, thereby depriving that other player of a valid defense that could help make their case that they are town, if they are in fact town.

Once again, it's a bannable offense. But explain to me how, even if you think this to be true, that it's any different from your post here where you straight up undermine two players' townreads on each other?

Because I wasn't threatening their play with the specter of a bannable offense? Which doesn't entail the same side effects I noted in 383.

If I were scum, what would be my motivation to intimidate him? It would be to keep him from being townread. How is this different from you wanting two players wanting to be townread by each other?

[Brian Skies]

I completely butchered that line. How is it any different from a scum you wanting two players to not townread each other? The method is different, but the motivation is the same.

[Brian Skies]

Brian, you can repeat the same question over and over again in 387 and 388, but the answer is literally right there in 383.

Considering you don't even know what the heart of my explanation is, I find your earlier responses completely underwhelming. And I still find it hard to believe that you actually cared about what I was saying instead of just looking for an easy inconsistency to comment on.

[Brian Skies]

Green Crayons is scum. Too much whining.

Please explain this. Is your gameplan this game just to echo my suspicions or what?

[Brian Skies]

Also, why do you care if I PM the mods about this or not (I haven't) when I can just throw an off-hand comment to tell him to knock it off? Why are you even suggesting I wait until the game is over to bring it up? Regardless of my alignment or his, if he's breaking a rule or in danger of breaking one, why should I table my concerns?

Also, Crayola, you haven't answered this.

[Brian Skies]

VOTE: Green Crayons

[Brian Skies]

Scum leans - You, Umlaut,

Brian

So, you think Umlaut and Comm are engaging in scum theater...or what?

Why do you scumread Brian?

His read on GC doesn't seem to make a lot of sense outside of him white knighting for me.

He seemed frustrated by my actions being able to get me successfully townread while never actually making arguments as to why anything I was doing was scummy.

Just unfair.

I think it was genuine anger at an action he believed to be unfair to him.

At no point does he scumread me

but then starts to push GC for arguing the semantics of the rules with him which doesn't seem AI

He is voting to remove opposition not to find scum. Consider my vote on him just as much as Comm

Actually, I've yet to state a read on you or defend you in any way. Or really, try to lynch you in any way either.

Do you think I've been defending you or trying to get you lynched? Your narrative of me can't have it both ways.

You also haven't been reading my posts very closely if you seriously believe my vote on GC boils down to semantics.

[Brian Skies]

I doubt that's the actual factual scum team Brian. I scumread them individually but not as a pair.

Much commitment. Such town.

Also I didn't say you were defending me. Nor did I say you were trying to get me lynched.

Do you know what whiteknighting is? You've also implied that I should be explaining why I think you're scummy, except I've had no reason to do so...?

[Brian Skies]

You've never had independent day 1 reads before? I should throw out a scum read on a player due to the actions of a player who I don't know for sure the alignment of because it's day freaking 1? People correctly argued against me suggesting that last game.

I'm implying that you are voting GC for associative of arguing what a trust tell is and coming down on my side of it despite none of that being AI.

I've had independent reads before. But you're basically taking a non-stance regarding the two of them. So, if Comm flips town, you're likely to just go 'well shit, we were wrong, let's lynch Umlaut now.' Scum do this because it keeps options open and lines up lynches.

Why do you think Umlaut is scum (independently of Comm)?

I'm implying that you are voting GC for associative of arguing what a trust tell is and coming down on my side of it despite none of that being AI.

I've explained what a trust tell is to

Umlaut

. I haven't done anything of the sort to GC. My scumread of GC basically boils down to me thinking he's just looking for easy things to jump on and that his comment about my posting is unlikely to have come from a town thought process.

[Brian Skies]

He didn't. He made an offhand remark, I asked him about it, and then he tried to justify it.

[Brian Skies]

and coming down on my side of it despite none of that being AI.

Also, I never once took your side in anything. So where is this coming from?

[Brian Skies]

Brian Skies is something I've used since high school (and long before I ever joined this site). The avi is just related to my username.

[Brian Skies]

My Umlaut scumread predates my Comm scumread and was explicitly explained in the thread. I should update it tomorrow but for the purposes of this argument that will do. Town also leaves options open because they don't know who scum is.

Provide examples of GC jumping on easy things

And scum like to fencesit.

My argument with GC was about the example.

[Brian Skies]

Why do you think Green Crayons is town?

[Brian Skies]

I correctly read him like this last game.

Yes, because you could possibly already know this.



Any examples?

[Brian Skies]

I correctly read him like this last game.

Yes, because you could possibly already know this.



Any examples?

The roles pre reroll were made public. Stop eye rolling me about things you are ignorant on.

Examples include Comm stuff. Shannon stuff. You stuff. He is actively trying to sort people.

If you make a dumb or unfounded comment, you get the eye roll. Also, unless you're claiming mason with him, then you have no business stating this.

Comm stuff, Shannon stuff, me stuff. Not really sure what you're getting at. I guess I can see you thinking the last line, but has he done anything you don't think a scum him could have faked?

[Brian Skies]

What was unfounded about what I said? I'm saying I correctly hard townread him from an early point last game based on similar tells and unless somethimy upsets the apple cart in a big way.

Someone sharing your thought patterns and not just your conclusions are a huge sign that they are town.

I read it differently, but sure, I can buy that.

I'd like to think so...but maybe that's just me. Also, you haven't actually pointed out what these conclusions were, so all I have left is to guess what they could be.

[Brian Skies]

Also, fyi, I'm grilling you right now because I do think there's a probable connection between you and GC. What with him soft defending you here, him getting all uppity about me giving you a warning shot on a possible trust tell, and you now chainsawing him.

[Brian Skies]

3.

Post 313: Brian gets called out on his trust tell warning, and tries to justify by invoking the wiki.
- The problem in Brian's justification is the parts where he doesn't quote the wiki:

It's not punishable to just say 'I would never do this as scum.'

That is just playing to your win condition and is unlikely to be considered self-imposed.

What FS is saying is that he cannot be scum here because he did something only a town him would do

(what that is, I have no idea, but he insists that he did it). This falls under the first criteria of the trust tell definition that he's 'insisting he only does something as one alignment.'

These statements are articulating the different side of the same coin. Take, for example, what I'm pretty sure FS was originally referring to: his statement regarding whether he would be a 4th vote on a BW. "I would never do that as scum" versus "I would only do that as town" have the same "trust tell value," if you will--that is, they aren't trust tells, they are a type of self-meta about how the player perceives themselves to act as scum or town.

That was the basis for my Post 333 foray into the conversation so see just how far down this bad-logic pit goes.

4.

But even if you disagree with my "these are saying the same thing"! That's okay! Brian's basis for invoking trust tells is still suspicious:

I've already made a statement in the thread I wouldn't have as scum.

And I assure you it wasn't a threat. It was a certainty.

It's not punishable to just say 'I would never do this as scum.'

That is just playing to your win condition and is unlikely to be considered self-imposed.

FS literally did the thing that Brian says

is not punishable

! So why bring up the threat of a ban at all? Hm. Hm. HM.

The difference between the two lines, and the heart of my explanation, is that FS was preparing to cite self meta to prove his alignment, which is what a trust tell is. I have no idea how you keep missing this considering I bolded it in my post, but that just shows you're not actually looking to understand what's being said and just looking for an inconsistency to harp on about.

Spoiler:

"A Trust Tell is a specialized behavior a player may use to "prove" their alignment in any arbitrary game

via a personal meta argument

. For instance, a player may promise that they are Town if and only if they actually are Town in a game, and will use that self-imposed rule when they draw Town as an argument to confirm their alignment whenever they see fit." ~The Wiki

That was the basis for my Post 333 foray into the conversation so see just how far down this bad-logic pit goes.

I highly doubt your offhand comment had any of the intentions you make it out to be, and you trying to dress it up as though you had all these underlying motivations for it is scummy.

This is suspicious because he's trying to foist the image of me not engaging when he just keeps asking the same question differently while ignoring my answer.

When did I ever say you weren't engaging me?

2. The "cherry pick" defense is more than just wrong, it's an in-the-weeds tactic to make this seem much more complex and complicated (meesage: NOBODY READ THIS BORING DISCUSSION) than it really is. That is suspicious because this isn't a complicated discussion. It's quite straightforward. Brian "warned" FS about a bannable offense. Brian's own reasons -- both as explained and as he explicitly admitted -- indicated FS wasn't engaging in bannable conduct. And that is suspicious because it can be used by Brian to 1) strip that other player of a valid defense AND/OR 2) be used as a method to look pro-town by trying to indicate that he's just looking out for the wellbeing of other players

You cherry picked. I've already demonstrated how this is the case.

Contrast that with Brian's tactic of making note of play that is not alignment indicative, that is not even bannable, so that he can bring up the issue of someone maybe getting banned one day for some other type of play.

What are you even talking about here? I saw something that was sketchy, made a comment about it, and the mod felt it was worth looking into and even contacted a listmod about it.

So you saying I had no right to even suspect it could've been the case is just wrong.

4.

And, last but not least:

He didn't. He made an offhand remark, I asked him about it, and then he tried to justify it.

Love that this is the basis for a vote from the guy who is insistent on asking "how is it alignment indicative?"

Yes, asking people why they do the things they do is like half the game. And understanding how people think helps form the basis of figuring out if their acting in a town or scum motivated manner. The first post you linked, I wanted to know Comm's thought process and if he was just selectively applying his reasoning for voting me.

Everything else is directly related to you combing an explanation post for an inconsistency and not even really trying to understand it.

[Brian Skies]

I don't really understand Alchemist's reasoning for voting GC.

[Brian Skies]

I was explaining why I was trying to engage Titus.

The fault is that you didn't care enough to consider Titus could just be Town also scumreading Shannon.

Oh yes. I definitely had Titus completely slotted as scum.

That's totally why I tried to get her to respond to me about her shannon vote and then when she didn't I just let it go because it wasn't worth pursuing.

Completely in line with failing to consider Titus could just be town. Yup. That makes

absolutely no sense.

Is this one of those things whereby acknowledging the vote itself disrupts the reaction test?

^That's pretty much everything you had to say as far as 'engaging' Titus, so uh, what?

[Brian Skies]

This... doesn't actually have any impact on anything. Yes, a trust tell is literally self-meta (e.g., "every time I'm town I will say Blue Bird Pie in my first post"). Not all self-meta is a trust tell. This is a point that doesn't actually change the substantive aspects of your post.


pre-posting edit: Wait. Do you think all self-meta itself is a trust tell? That would be wrong, but that might actually explain a lot.

No, I don't think all self-meta is a trust tell.

Making an action, and then later on citing self meta

unprompted

to

prove

that action is alignment indicative is a trust tell. Which I said.

I play in one game at a time. My posts are almost always aimed to accomplishing something, unless if I'm really drunk, because I don't like to have fun. I have some reason why I make any given "offhand comment" (even if they aren't particularly good reasons), and you dismissing that someone plays in some way that doesn't conform to your understanding of How Mafia Is Played is lolbad.

I don't think your offhand comment was meant to advance any of the suspicions you've later cited your comment was for. It just feels like you're grasping at straws to justify me calling you out.

I can read between the lines.

It's this thing where people play mafia and they are not literal poster boards where the totality of their thoughts are listed in every single post.

Okay, so when have I ever said you weren't engaging me? I've asked you to answer some questions, but I've never once said you weren't engaging me.

It's not "cherry picking" when I've identified the very clear, basic reason -- multiple times over -- why your supposed rationale just doesn't hold up. "Cherry picking" is a pejorative term like "technicalities" people use to complain about when an accused gets released, because they don't want to mention that its required by the Constitution.

You cherry picked. You grabbed two lines to make it look like an inconsistency, and the second line was very clearly cut off to support your point. Now you're just strongly denying this isn't the case even though it's very obvious that you did.

You're also falsely stating that you attacked the heart of my explanation, when you haven't addressed it or noticed its existence at all. This is now beyond just a simple misunderstanding. You're literally claiming that your argument is in the right, when I've showed at least twice now that your 'inconsistency' is predicated on the blatant ommittance of information.

I don't understand how you're failing to understand that I'm saying your attempt in Post 389 to tie your play and my play together is a crap scum tactic. Since the part of my quote that you selectively cut out references Post 389, etc.

Appealing to the fact that the mod asked a list mod to verify that there was no bannable conduct is an appeal to authority that doesn't withstand any scrutiny. TB said he takes the rules very seriously. There was an assertion in his game thread that someone might have broke the rules. TB might have a per se rule of just having a list mod double check. TB might not. We do have the end result -- no bannable offense occurred. Unfortunately, we don't have the mods coming in here and telling us whether your "bannable offense" claim was or was not meritorious because of obvious reasons. Because they can't do that, you invoking the fact that the mods looked at it is scccccccccccccccummy.

I'm not scum, so it's not a scum tactic. You can say it is as much as you'd like, but it doesn't change the fact that my comment to him had zero intention of 'scaring' FS.

If TB clearly didn't think this was the case, he would have just said 'no, this isn't a breach of rules.' But there was obviously enough there that he thought it was worth looking into, and he did. And you continuously arguing that I had no right to bring it up in the first place is bad.

You also haven't explained why you care so much about whether I waited to PM the mods about it at the end game. If I think someone is breaking the rules or in danger of breaking the rules, why should I have to wait until the end of the game? Is FS your scumbuddy and I ruined some grand ploy of his? Why does this bother you so much?

The point is that you want to know whether people are doing something that is AI motivated, and yet your own justification for a GC vote is not AI. I would say that's ironic, except I'm thinking it's something more--it's scummy.

I asked you why you were looking into an explanation post and why you expected anything in it to glean information out of my alignment.

I do think you parsing and cherry picking my post is alignment indicative. Otherwise I wouldn't be voting you.

I don't understand what you're saying here, or why you're quoting those posts. I might be able to respond if you rephrase what you're saying.

You've claimed you tried to engage Titus. I don't think anything you've done or said supports that claim. You asked if she was reaction testing, but you didn't really pursue it in any way. And then you made a post that was very obviously intended largely as a joke, and unlikely to be responded to by anyone.

[Brian Skies]

Well, that's why he's voting you, not me.

[Brian Skies]

Yes, I'm able to keep separate the separately bad reasons to vote GC. You were the one who looked like you were toying with the idea of adopting his bad reasons.

My reasons are my own. And I already said I didn't really understand his.

So do you just not read my posts? I mean, you quoted it and everything:

I do read your posts. I've never even insinuated that you weren't engaging me considering you clearly were. ???

Citation:

/shrug

As if your 'Brian was clearly trying to scare FS' holds any water.

I've reread 313 several times. I just reread it now.

You're right. This isn't a simple misunderstanding. You used bad logic to force a scare tactic. That's scummy.

Yep, you're still scum. Keep holding onto your shit comment and shit case.

Well I am town, and so my criticism of your post is town. I guess we're at a logical impasse.

Well, obviously, trying to convince you that you're scum isn't my goal. It's to show that you're too belligerent and obtuse to be town.

Oh ho.

Well let's just call TB down and have him sort it out?

Oh wait.

Now this is a real impasse.

What are you even talking about? I said if you were actually concerned that it was a legitimate bannable offense, you could have PMed the mods while the game was ongoing or simply brought it up after the game was over--as in, if you were actually concerned about FS doing this in the future, you'd say in post-game "Hey FS I know it was only borderline but man you gotta be careful because ."

But this wasn't a legitimate concern in the here and now, as indicated by not only your reasoning but by your very words.

Also, why do you care if I PM the mods about this or not (I haven't) when I can just throw an off-hand comment to tell him to knock it off?

It was obviously a legitimate concern, otherwise I wouldn't have brought it up to him in the first place. And I already told you this (see above). And if I think someone is breaking the rules, of course I'm going to bring it up, regardless if the game is still ongoing or not. Why do I need to go through all those other things when I already mentioned it in the game itself?

[Brian Skies]

It's to show that you're too belligerent and obtuse to be town.

You really don't know me. Just lol

10/10 defense.



As if I need to know you to catch you.

[Brian Skies]

"Guys, don't listen to this guy. He just doesn't know me or how I think, so he clearly can't be right."

[Brian Skies]

Yep, you're still scum. Keep holding onto your shit comment and shit case.

So are people who even only tepidly agree with me also shit and shit scum? Or just me?

Well, there are more people sheeping me or claiming to sympathize with me, so...?

[Brian Skies]

It was obviously a legitimate concern, otherwise I wouldn't have brought it up to him in the first place. And I already told you this (see above). And if I think someone is breaking the rules, of course I'm going to bring it up, regardless if the game is still ongoing or not. Why do I need to go through all those other things when I already mentioned it in the game itself?

What is this "go through all these other things" business?

Is PMing the mod really

that

much

of

a

trouble?

No. It isn't.

Instead, you posted in game. You knew posting in game would have an immediate effect on the game state. You're saying "No GC I had only honest intentions. I'm a good town who only wants the best for all players."

And that might be true!

If, you know, the basis for you to bring it up in the game thread held up.

It doesn't.

Meaning the more likely answer is you were looking for a reason to bring up the specter of a bannable offense. Which is scummy.


~*~ Shit Case 4 Lyfe ~*~

It takes like 2 seconds to quote and make a comment to another players. Yes, I could have PM'ed the moderator, but didn't. So what? The mod saw it and looked into it anyway. If I already made the comment in the thread and the moderator saw it and claimed he was going to look into it, why do I need to PM him.

I also don't know his alignment or if he really has a trust tell. So why go through the hassle?

At least I know now that me bringing it up has your panties in a bunch.

[Brian Skies]

Well, there are more people sheeping me or claiming to sympathize with me, so...?

Titus who is whatever
Narna is whatever
Alchemist is suspicious because his reasons are rivaling your scare tactic, plus he's in GOLDEN SPOT NO. 4

Umlaut has also claimed he thinks I'm town. As well as Rory (although Rory does it in a very shady manner).

You have...FS and GS?

'What do you think about the people tepidly agreeing with me?'
'More people seem to agree with me?'
'Yeah, but your people don't count.'

???

[Brian Skies]

"Guys, don't listen to this guy. He just doesn't know me or how I think, so he clearly can't be right."

Ah yes. This is definitely my case. Mhm, mhm.

If

your

case is "GC is obtuse and belligerent when people suspect him," you're the one who is lacking.

My case is you making a comment to make it look like you're busy or interested town when you're not. You've since grasped for straws and tried to dress it up into more than it really is. You've also belligerently stood by your claim that your 'inconsistency' has any weight, when I've already shown you that you're just blatantly disregarding what I've said and don't really care about understanding anything.

[Brian Skies]

VOTE: CommKnight

[Brian Skies]

Yo Brian
I'm voting you, whadaya think?

Let me rephrase:
Brian, you said that GC's logic was scum logic, and I voted based on it. Do you think I'm Mafia?

I'm kinda SRing Brian rn, for his pushing the not-trust tell. Seems like he was trying to get a player out of the way.

Other than that, I'm not really sure why you're voting me. And it's not like there's a train of thought to go with you agreeing with Green Crayon's wild suspicion. It's also not related to what I called scum logic, so why are you asking me this?

[Brian Skies]

This appeal to authority does not sit well with me.

Well, I'm not really appealing to anything. Green Crayons asked me what I thought about other people agreeing with him, which I assumed was an appeal to numbers or something, except there are more people agreeing with me. If this isn't what he was going for, then I have no idea.

[Brian Skies]

He did this with the thing I was arguing with him about too.

Spoiler:

Also, why'd Titus have to jump in front of my shannon vote?

I very obviously telegraphed it.

It's coming. Just you wait.

What. Is. This? Me no like this post.

GC, can you explain why you posted this?

Which part?

I telegraphed the beginning of my shannon suspicions in Post 132.

Titus jumped in before the shannon votes started rolling in.

Jumping in before a wagon gets rolling but when the groundwork for votes is being laid is suspicious, because it puts scum not at the golden spot of 3/4s of the way through.

Also pretty sure I never actually voted shannon but I was thinking about doing it back in the 100s-200s or whenever that line of discussion went down.

Alchemist:

132 doesn't even look like you're expressing suspicion.

Second, if you had already found Shannon suspicious, what makes it suspicious of Titus to be voting for Shannon? Maybe Titus has suspicions too and didn't hesitate to vote like you did.

First: That's just, like, your opinion, man.

Second: Maybe you should read my posts. You can join the Brian train of asking questions that already have answers, but I'm not going to repeat myself for you ad naseum, either.

Third: "Maybe Titus has suspicions too and didn't hesitate to vote like you did." Yeah. Maybe. Maybe not. That's the whole point in engaging with another player. To figure these things out. So, what point are you trying to make?

You didn't call her out on lack or reasoning, you called her out on joining a wagon before you did. You didn't engage her on that vote. Your suspicion stems from her taking an early spot on a wagon that you think looks good for scum and being upset that you didn't get it. That's the point I'm making.

Okay? No shit? Because I didn't suspect Titus for her lack of reasoning?

Do you know where suspicion about Titus's "lack of reasoning" has originated? From Alchemist. In Post 425. My suspicions were her sudden jump onto the shannon wagon, which was right when my attention was being drawn to shannon via other players' questioning. Don't foist your suspicions of Titus onto me, and then say it's suspicious that I didn't voice your suspicions when they weren't mine.

Exactly. Your third point was to assert that you engage with other players to find out their reasoning, but since you didn't do that with Titus on her Shannon vote I take it you didn't care if she had reasons or not. You're seriously just sore that she took the spot on the wagon you wanted.

And I never once said I found Titus suspicious, and to claim that I'm projecting my suspicions of her onto your posts is misrep (and it feels like I'm complimenting your blatant falsehoods by giving it that much praise).

GC can hang today.

lol

132 doesn't even look like you're expressing suspicion.

Second, if you had already found Shannon suspicious, what makes it suspicious of Titus to be voting for Shannon?

Maybe Titus has suspicions too and didn't hesitate to vote like you did.

Third:

"Maybe Titus has suspicions too and didn't hesitate to vote like you did."

Yeah. Maybe. Maybe not. That's the whole point in engaging with another player. To figure these things out. So, what point are you trying to make?

"My" third point was responding to YOUR suspicion YOU created in 425. Are you being intellectually lazy or just arguing in bad faith?

I didn't do anything with Titus because she ignored me entirely when I tried to get her attention on shannon.

You're seriously just sore that she took the spot on the wagon you wanted.

lolol

Like, in Post 154 I'm not going to try to engage Titus on Suspicion A that Alchemist comes up with in Post 425 when I'm trying to engage her on Suspicion B that I was actually contemplating at the time I made Post 154.

lol

132 doesn't even look like you're expressing suspicion.

Second, if you had already found Shannon suspicious, what makes it suspicious of Titus to be voting for Shannon?

Maybe Titus has suspicions too and didn't hesitate to vote like you did.

Third:

"Maybe Titus has suspicions too and didn't hesitate to vote like you did."

Yeah. Maybe. Maybe not. That's the whole point in engaging with another player. To figure these things out. So, what point are you trying to make?

"My" third point was responding to YOUR suspicion YOU created in 425. Are you being intellectually lazy or just arguing in bad faith?

I didn't do anything with Titus because she ignored me entirely when I tried to get her attention on shannon.

You're seriously just sore that she took the spot on the wagon you wanted.

lolol

Maybe Titus has suspicions [about Shannon] too and didn't hesitate to vote like you did.

Does that make it easier for you or do you still want to misrep me?

That doesn't clarify anything.

Also, why'd Titus have to jump in front of my shannon vote?

I very obviously telegraphed it.

It's coming. Just you wait.

And you're going to actually try telling us any of this post was expressing suspicion on Titus and attempting to engage her? Rather than you just being sore she voted Shannon before you did?

I found Titus's timing suspicious, and wanted to engage Titus on the timing of her vote.

You came up with Titus failing to articulate any suspicions as scummy, and you are faulting me for failing to engage Titus on not articulating suspicions.

So, whatever.

That doesn't clarify anything.

lol

Seriously, GC can hang today.

I found Titus's timing suspicious, and wanted to engage Titus on the timing of her vote.

You came up with Titus failing to articulate any suspicions as scummy, and you are faulting me for failing to engage Titus on not articulating suspicions.

So, whatever.

LOL I never said it was scummy.

The whole fucking point is that you voted her for voting Shannon (a vote you wanted) before you did. And I'm saying that she could have found Shannon suspicious as well, and just went ahead and voted Shannon instead of waiting on it.

Seriously, GC can hang today.

Also, why'd Titus have to jump in front of my shannon vote?

I very obviously telegraphed it.

It's coming. Just you wait.

And you're going to actually try telling us any of this post was expressing suspicion on Titus and attempting to engage her? Rather than you just being sore she voted Shannon before you did?

Hey oh. Look at this guy. Oh you're good.

Was that saying "Titus is suspicious for the timing of her vote"? No. Was it intended to? No. Did I ever say it was? No. (That you are now saying I was is... wait for it... a misrep.)

Because I don't always go "Hey this is suspicious Player X for Reasons Y." I first try to engage the player and see how they react and what they actually say. And then if there's something there, I make a case (e.g., Brian). If not, then I don't.

Usually, Alchemist -- and this might be a little bit weird to you -- but when someone mentions Player's X name, Player X will have the curiosity piqued and will respond. That's sort of how this game works.

I found Titus's timing suspicious, and wanted to engage Titus on the timing of her vote.

You came up with Titus failing to articulate any suspicions as scummy, and you are faulting me for failing to engage Titus on not articulating suspicions.

So, whatever.

LOL I never said it was scummy.

The whole fucking point is that you voted her for voting Shannon (a vote you wanted) before you did. And I'm saying that she could have found Shannon suspicious as well, and just went ahead and voted Shannon instead of waiting on it.

Seriously, GC can hang today.

lololol

I never voted Titus you dolt.

I don't give a crap about Titus.

She's a nonentity D1.

The whole reason why this post is even being talked about is because Gamma brought it up and asked about it.

lololol you're bad

I never said and never mean to imply that Alchemist is suspicious of Titus.

What did happen is Alchemist created a suspicion -- Titus failed to articulate the reason for her shannon vote -- and then faulted me for failing to have adopted THAT suspicious and try to press titus for THAT suspicious rather than for the suspicion I actually had at the time.

Which is PRET-TEE hilariously bad.

Also, why'd Titus have to jump in front of my shannon vote?

I very obviously telegraphed it.

It's coming. Just you wait.

What. Is. This? Me no like this post.

GC, can you explain why you posted this?

Which part?

I telegraphed the beginning of my shannon suspicions in Post 132.

Titus jumped in before the shannon votes started rolling in.

Jumping in before a wagon gets rolling but when the groundwork for votes is being laid is suspicious, because it puts scum not at the golden spot of 3/4s of the way through.

Never said 154 is expressing suspicion on Titus huh?

and then faulted me for failing to have adopted THAT suspicious and try to press titus for THAT suspicious rather than for the suspicion I actually had at the time.

Again I never faulted you for not thinking that was suspicious. The fault is that you didn't care enough to consider Titus could just be Town also scumreading Shannon.

Haha.


That doesn't say I was expressing suspicion of Titus in 154.


I was explaining why I was trying to engage Titus.

The fault is that you didn't care enough to consider Titus could just be Town also scumreading Shannon.

Oh yes. I definitely had Titus completely slotted as scum.

That's totally why I tried to get her to respond to me about her shannon vote and then when she didn't I just let it go because it wasn't worth pursuing.

Completely in line with failing to consider Titus could just be town. Yup. That makes

absolutely no sense.

I know you can do a better job at trying to engage people than 154; don't even try to sell us on that point.

Oh yes. Have we reached the bottom of the barrel already?

"GC I know you can do better than this. GC I know you're smarter than this."

It only too me three words to engage Brian:

It's not punishable to just say 'I would never do this as scum.'

What FS is saying is that he cannot be scum here because he did something only a town him would do

These are literally saying the same thing. "never scum" = "only town".

No, they aren't.

Are you really going to nitpick over me explaining what a trust tell is?

Post 154 is overwrought in comparison.

Just because he did respond doesn't mean you were trying to get him to respond.

Just because he did respond doesn't mean you were trying to get him to respond.

Okay, Alchemist. This is a great argument you've boiled down your position to.

GC seems to be trying to engage Titus. Also, apologies for causing this trouble, since I noticed GC stated this happened because of my questioning.

Don't apologize. He's trying to pass of 154 as things that it simply wasn't.

I can kind of see what you mean if you just don't agree with his idea of 'engaging' another player, but everything else just feels like you putting words into his mouth.

[Brian Skies]

He did this with the thing I was arguing with him about too.

I can kind of see what you mean if you just don't agree with his idea of 'engaging' another player,

but everything else just feels like you putting words into his mouth.

I actually just think you two are talking past each other. At first I thought you pulled the Titus thing out of thin air, but now I'm pretty sure Green Crayons just has issues with reading comprehension and strawmanned you. Is it scum? I have no idea.

[Brian Skies]

VOTE: GC - This is a pressure vote for claim. I think GC is town still, but I do think it'd help progress this along to get his claim and push FS if it's believable.

Because this is beyond bad.

[Brian Skies]

You called me scum with a shit case and I asked you what does that make people who agree with me (scum or what).

And you get out of that that I was asking for a dick measure of how many people, respectively, agreed with us?

Yes, I'm certainly the one with reading comprehension issues.

Considering you strawmanned Alchemist and still have no clue what's wrong with your 'inconsistency' comment, then yeah. You have reading comprehension issues.

[Brian Skies]

You called me scum with a shit case and I asked you what does that make people who agree with me (scum or what).

And you get out of that that I was asking for a dick measure of how many people, respectively, agreed with us?

Also, I'm not even sure what they agree with. That I was fear mongering FS? Lol. What does that have to do with your 'inconsistency' comment?

If your question about the other people agreeing with you doesn't boil down to an appeal to numbers, then what was the point to your question?

[Brian Skies]

You called me scum with a shit case and I asked you what does that make people who agree with me (scum or what).

And you get out of that that I was asking for a dick measure of how many people, respectively, agreed with us?

Yes, I'm certainly the one with reading comprehension issues.

Considering you strawmanned Alchemist and still have no clue what's wrong with your 'inconsistency' comment, then yeah. You have reading comprehension issues.

Alchemist literally lied about my voting record and "push" to suspect Totus

But I'm the one strawmanning?

Haha.

You do realize that he said several times that wasn't the point he was making right? Like, you literally misread one of his lines and pushed it as an argument for him, even though that was never his intention.

[Brian Skies]

Alchemist:

132 doesn't even look like you're expressing suspicion.

Second, if you had already found Shannon suspicious, what makes it suspicious of Titus to be voting for Shannon? Maybe Titus has suspicions too and didn't hesitate to vote like you did.

First: That's just, like, your opinion, man.

Second: Maybe you should read my posts. You can join the Brian train of asking questions that already have answers, but I'm not going to repeat myself for you ad naseum, either.

Third: "Maybe Titus has suspicions too and didn't hesitate to vote like you did." Yeah. Maybe. Maybe not. That's the whole point in engaging with another player. To figure these things out. So, what point are you trying to make?

You didn't call her out on lack or reasoning, you called her out on joining a wagon before you did. You didn't engage her on that vote. Your suspicion stems from her taking an early spot on a wagon that you think looks good for scum and being upset that you didn't get it. That's the point I'm making.

Okay? No shit? Because I didn't suspect Titus for her lack of reasoning?

Do you know where suspicion about Titus's "lack of reasoning" has originated? From Alchemist. In Post 425. My suspicions were her sudden jump onto the shannon wagon, which was right when my attention was being drawn to shannon via other players' questioning. Don't foist your suspicions of Titus onto me, and then say it's suspicious that I didn't voice your suspicions when they weren't mine.

Exactly. Your third point was to assert that you engage with other players to find out their reasoning, but since you didn't do that with Titus on her Shannon vote I take it you didn't care if she had reasons or not. You're seriously just sore that she took the spot on the wagon you wanted.

And I never once said I found Titus suspicious, and to claim that I'm projecting my suspicions of her onto your posts is misrep (and it feels like I'm complimenting your blatant falsehoods by giving it that much praise).

GC can hang today.

"My" third point was responding to YOUR suspicion YOU created in 425. Are you being intellectually lazy or just arguing in bad faith?

I didn't do anything with Titus because she ignored me entirely when I tried to get her attention on shannon.

You came up with Titus failing to articulate any suspicions as scummy, and you are faulting me for failing to engage Titus on not articulating suspicions.

LOL I never said it was scummy.

The whole fucking point is that you voted her for voting Shannon (a vote you wanted) before you did. And I'm saying that she could have found Shannon suspicious as well, and just went ahead and voted Shannon instead of waiting on it.

Literally talking past each other.

Bolded is Alchemist's main points and him telling you your argument is misguided. Underlined is you pushing an argument Alchemist wasn't making (the strawman).

[Brian Skies]

And from that point on, he didn't say " several times that wasn't the point he was making right." After that, Alchemist ignored it and rested on "GC doesn't engage people like Post 154."

I swear to god you're doing this shit on purpose.

Yes, Alchemist was wrong that you weren't voting him. But what does that have to do with you advancing an argument that he never made (that you suspected Titus for lack of reasoning)? Just because he ended up being wrong about you voting Titus doesn't mean that you weren't strawmanning him before that (and he didn't even mention anything about you voting her until 553).

"You didn't call her out on lack or reasoning"

The way I read his line is as follows:

"My issue with you has nothing to do about her 'lack of reasoning,' but you claiming she 'joined a wagon before you did."

NOT

"You're scummy for calling her out for her lack of reasoning."

If I'm wrong about this, then whatever. But I'm pretty sure this is the main issue in your conversation with each other.

[Brian Skies]

You didn't call her out on lack or reasoning,

you called her out on joining a wagon before you did.

You didn't engage her on that vote.

Your suspicion stems from her taking an early spot on a wagon that you think looks good for scum and being upset that you didn't get it. That's the point I'm making.

Like, the bolded is the point he's making. But you don't like to read entire trains of thought.

[Brian Skies]

Hah. No.

According to Alchemist, I didn't engage Titus because I didn't call her out for lack of reasoning--per the underlined (the reverse is also true: I *only* called Titus out on joining a wagon before I did and therefore I didn't engaged Titus).

Of course, I didn't call her out for lack of reasoning because literally nobody said anything about Titus's lack of reasoning before Alchemist brought it up. As in, for someone to meet Alchemist's definition of ENGAGEMENT, I needed to have come up with that suspicion (lack of explanation) and then tried to engage on that suspicion.

FROM THERE you can get to Alchemist's really stupid conclusion "you are scum who was complaining that they weren't getting a good spot on the wagon" (bold italics). THAT conclusion doesn't follow unless if you FIRST adopt Alchemist's position that I wasn't engaging Titus because I didn't magically divine the appropriate suspicion to engage Titus on.

Well, yeah, he argued you weren't engaging her too, which I even said to Alchemist here.

But it doesn't change that you pulled the 'lack of reasoning' thing out of your ass and are still falsely arguing that he made that as a point against you. And you're still fucking doing it.

[Brian Skies]

You didn't call her out on lack or reasoning

, you called her out on joining a wagon before you did.

I literally don't understand how you believe that the first part of this sentence has anything to do with his suspicions on you when he not only says it doesn't, but everything else in his post only supports the latter.

[Brian Skies]

You didn't call her out on lack or reasoning

, you called her out on joining a wagon before you did.

I literally don't understand how you believe that the first part of this sentence has anything to do with his suspicions on you when he not only says it doesn't, but everything else in his post only supports the latter.

Please tell me what the bolded phrase means to you.

I already fucking told you. The way I read it is as follows:

"I'm not saying you claimed she lacked reasoning, just that you claimed she joined a wagon before you."

[Brian Skies]

Actually, I think you're right about the strawman. Whoops.

[Brian Skies]

BSkies, let's just ignore each other's existence and our game experience will be infinitely better.

I'm still down with killing our mutual enemy CommKnight.

[Brian Skies]

Actually, I think you're right about the strawman. Whoops.

Look at this scum trying to buddy me.

Fight me.

[Brian Skies]

Go away. Why can't we just kill the rolefisher?

[Brian Skies]

Also, I already know what points you were making. Do you think that Green Crayons deliberately made an effort to push the lack of reasoning thing? If not, why are you bringing this up again?

[Brian Skies]

Go away. Why can't we just kill the rolefisher?

You've rolefished this game too.

When?

[Brian Skies]

Also, unless you're claiming mason with him, then you have no business stating this.

^This?

[Brian Skies]

Yeah, I can see that.

But CommKnight is literally voting Green Crayons just to get his claim. Not because he thinks Green Crayons is scum.

@Brian, would you say replacing out was not a sign of getting a role someone did not like?

And I thought this was pretty rolefishy too.

[Brian Skies]

It's too early to lynch and I think we've gotten what we can out of this wagon. The premature claim is also making me think CK really is just like this, so I probably have to meta-dive him at some point for comparison.

So, your read has changed just because he claimed VT...or what?

Why do you think it's too early to lynch?

[Brian Skies]

Half the day left? If you think you found scum, you lynch it. Why screw around for half a day and risk getting a shitty deadline scramble lynch?

You don't think scum can do that? Did you not really believe in the points you argued against him before? How am I supposed to feel about you just bailing at the first sight of a non-PR claim and not just think you're PR-shopping now?

[Brian Skies]

Brian, we still have like 4 vanity wagons. That bugs me.

I guess. But since when do we not have vanity wagons? And some of the other players are just not around.

I know you prefer Shannon or Green Crayons, but no one's going to care about those wagons if they don't have a reason to support it. Why do you like the Green Crayons wagon?

[Brian Skies]

Feel whatever you feel about it, don't ask me.

I just want to confirm with you whether the main reason you've lost your fervor for a CommKnight lynch is his claim.

[Brian Skies]

I read a lot of AtE and a premature claim. Maybe he's town, maybe he's scum trying to diffuse his own wagon. At the very least I know he's not a PR and probably a safer lynch than anything else that's going to be pushed today.

[Brian Skies]

Let's put it this way. He's still voting (or cross-voting) his townread just to push him to claim, with the unreasonable expectation that people will unvote if the claim is 'believable.' This is a semi-open setup. What claim isn't going to be believable as the first claim of the game? And claims don't make alignment anyway (unless it's a mason).

But maybe I just have unrealistic expectations of what town play should be and should just expect everyone to be a clown.

Also, if I didn't think he would flip scum, I wouldn't be advocating for his lynch. But your whole attitude about this does make me reconsider.

[Brian Skies]

VOTE: Rory

[Brian Skies]

Shannon, when you're done putting your head back together, let me know what you think of Rory.

[Brian Skies]

In 342, GC asks Titus again about her vote on me
GC asks follow ups in 357

Also, thanks for confirming that GC did, in fact, engage Titus on his suspicions.

[Brian Skies]

UNVOTE: CommKnight
It's too early to lynch and I think we've gotten what we can out of this wagon.

Gotten what we can? Are you claim collecting?

Why does everyone think this is about the claim.

Probably because it's the only alignment indicative thing you mentioned when you changed your vote.

[Brian Skies]

515 is interesting - looks like Comm has accused Rory of using his mod access to view the existence of a scum PT???

Did scum have daytalk when you were scum? If yes

, why would he coach in-thread?

This looks like he's dropping a towntell in the thread, which could be intentional. I'm not a fan of it since he could have either referred to the previous game or looked at the mafia goon sample PM in the opening post.

I'm going to start townreading Brian Skies. I have a feeling he will eventually catch scum or get killed. Good enough reason for now.

This is the basis of his townread on me, and it feels disingenuous. I feel like he's trying to pocket me. I also get the feeling he could be trying to buddy Umlaut as well.

[Brian Skies]

CK's admitting to my accusation of being from tos fits with his "vote for claim" mentality. This is because I to do tows.

Town.

[Brian Skies]

The most damning point for me is that the whole thing was a total non-issue until Gamma brought it up like 300 posts later.

The specific issue is that it was [Gamma] who started the whole GC vs Alchemist shit show we've been seeing the past umpteen pages.

I don't get this impression.

[Brian Skies]

What happened to your Comm vote?

I was in limbo with my Umlaut/Comm reads and Gamma's vote reminded me that you were in this game, so I decided to take out my frustration on a different scumread.

Feels pretty mild for you to switch your vote to me after the reasoning you had for voting Comm. But okay.

Well, you haven't been here and had like, 12 posts. What do you expect?

[Brian Skies]

I certainly didn't expect you to give up on your belief to vote someone with like, 12 posts. Especially after you kept discussing with Crayons earlier, I didn't think you would disengage so soon.

Umlaut unvoting the way he did made me think Comm could be town and Umlaut scum. Shannon came to a different conclusion, but I can kinda see why she would.

I revisited your posts and think you're scummy, for the reasons I just mentioned.

[Brian Skies]

Because I was scumreading you first and think you're buddying him.

[Brian Skies]

I've never felt buddied by Rory, where is this coming from?

I've never said you thought this. I find his townread on me disingenuous and think that you could be being buddied.

[Brian Skies]

Because I was scumreading you first and think you're buddying him.

I hadn't posted for a long time at that point. Umlaut does something you think he's scum for and you vote me instead? That doesn't really seem logical to me.

Why did you not pressure Umlaut for it immediately?

I

did

pressure him for it immediately.

I think Umlaut could be scum. I think you're scummy and you're buddying Umlaut (which means I still think he could be town). The second one trumps the first.

[Brian Skies]

I mean if he is he's not doing a good job, I don't feel especially friendly toward him and I've had him as pretty much "meh, null" all day.

Why are you defending him?

[Brian Skies]

I've never felt buddied by Rory, where is this coming from?

I asked you first.

I just think he's scummy and he's townreading you (and you're the only other person I believe he's mentioned as a townread up until now).

Why do you feel the need to defend someone from a buddying accusation?

[Brian Skies]

Can you point me to where you did? Phone posting is a pain...

Spoiler:

It's too early to lynch and I think we've gotten what we can out of this wagon. The premature claim is also making me think CK really is just like this, so I probably have to meta-dive him at some point for comparison.

So, your read has changed just because he claimed VT...or what?

Why do you think it's too early to lynch?

Half the day left? If you think you found scum, you lynch it. Why screw around for half a day and risk getting a shitty deadline scramble lynch?

You don't think scum can do that? Did you not really believe in the points you argued against him before? How am I supposed to feel about you just bailing at the first sight of a non-PR claim and not just think you're PR-shopping now?

Feel whatever you feel about it, don't ask me.

I just want to confirm with you whether the main reason you've lost your fervor for a CommKnight lynch is his claim.

Let's put it this way. He's still voting (or cross-voting) his townread just to push him to claim, with the unreasonable expectation that people will unvote if the claim is 'believable.' This is a semi-open setup. What claim isn't going to be believable as the first claim of the game? And claims don't make alignment anyway (unless it's a mason).

But maybe I just have unrealistic expectations of what town play should be and should just expect everyone to be a clown.

Also, if I didn't think he would flip scum, I wouldn't be advocating for his lynch. But your whole attitude about this does make me reconsider.

[Brian Skies]

515 is interesting - looks like Comm has accused Rory of using his mod access to view the existence of a scum PT???

Did scum have daytalk when you were scum? If yes

, why would he coach in-thread?

This looks like he's dropping a towntell in the thread, which could be intentional. I'm not a fan of it since he could have either referred to the previous game or looked at the mafia goon sample PM in the opening post.

I'm going to start townreading Brian Skies. I have a feeling he will eventually catch scum or get killed. Good enough reason for now.

This is the basis of his townread on me, and it feels disingenuous. I feel like he's trying to pocket me. I also get the feeling he could be trying to buddy Umlaut as well.

^Umlaut, what're your thoughts on this?

[Brian Skies]

The way you expressed it made me think you were using the buddying as an additional reason to scumread him. You can't use the judgment that he's scummy as reason to think he's buddying, and then use the judgment that he's buddying as an additional reason to find him scummy. Or you can, but it's the road to confbias and tunneling.

It's just the reason why I chose to vote him over you (and I guess CommKnight).

I think if it involves me I should have some insight into it. I'm not so arrogant as to think I can always tell when someone is manipulating me, but I feel like I should at least notice the person when that happens.

I'll argue with any accusation against anyone if I don't understand it.

Okay, but that doesn't really feel like that was what you were doing here. I started pressing Rory, and you leapt to his defense.

Can you still respond to my other reasons for suspecting him?

[Brian Skies]

I'm going to start townreading Brian Skies. I have a feeling he will eventually catch scum or get killed. Good enough reason for now.

- I love the way Brian Skies plays this game. Solid townread.

- I don't really buy GC's case on Brian Skies at all. It takes balls to engage a vocal player like Skies though, so even though I don't support it, I think he's more likely town for it.

- GC, you need to get out of that Brian Skies tunnel, he's town and so are you.

I don't believe any of these statements are genuine and they feel buddyish.

[Brian Skies]

BSkies:

CK's admitting to my accusation of being from tos fits with his "vote for claim" mentality. This is because I to do tows.

Town.

Comm or Narna?

Narna.

[Brian Skies]

What's the impression that you get? For me, Gamma, Alch, and Titus all come out of it looking bad.

I don't think Gamma had anything to do with the shitfest.

[Brian Skies]

What's the impression that you get? For me, Gamma, Alch, and Titus all come out of it looking bad.

I don't think Gamma had anything to do with the shitfest.

But that also depends on what you consider to be the shitfest (I'm just assuming GC v Alch).

[Brian Skies]

Brian join me? My gut feels Rory is town, or maybe that's my ego.

I'm still not a fan of Rory, but sure.

VOTE: FireScreamer

[Brian Skies]

Whoa. This game just turned into A Tale of Two Fires.

[Brian Skies]

To be more clear: the odds that (a) there's a masonry, and (b) it includes some specific player, are low enough that if FireBringer's answer was "yeah, I'm a mason" it would effectively be a scumclaim.

It wasn't likely to work but it was worth a shot.

What?

[Brian Skies]

Brian, what are your feelings on Titus' play? I'm not necessarily asking for a read, just whether you find it pro-town or think you understand her motivations.

All I know is that Titus is heavily reliant on VCA. However, the stars and the planets have aligned and we agree on a read, so I'm sheeping her. And the Rory wagon had no legs.

I think Narna is probably town. His comment about ToS (which I'm assuming to be Town of Salem), reminded me that there are players who actually do push people just to get a claim (it's not their fault though, their classic setup is predicated upon the idea that claim=alignment and they only get like 2-3 minutes per day phase).

I've gone back and tried to look at the game from a Town-CommKnight perspective. I've found myself townreading his thought processes.

Although I don't agree with him about the probability, I can see why he would think it. And FS piggybacking your argument against him felt wrong to me (he also piggybacked my reasons for scumreading

you

). I don't know if he's given a scumread that was based on his own original thought.

Spoiler: FireScreamer Quotes

But yeah. I feel like I've done something this game that I actively wouldn't do as scum and asked a couple of middling questions. The fact that Umlaut ignored the bigger thing makes me think the read wasn't super thought out and I think town is less likely to not properly think about townreads before expressing them.

UNVOTE:
VOTE: Comm

This gamblers fallacy stuff is lol. Time to pressure Comm till he reveals it was all a ruse and he is actually 1 shot doc pretending to be scummy.

And come on guys what are the odds of him doing that twice in a row

Eh. Usually I'd assume it's a town gambit but Commknight has already shown a willingness to make plays as scum. I don't think he should be gambiting and if that is what he is doing the quickest way to shut it down is votes.

Even is this was OMGUS that's NAI. However I challenge anyone in the thead to seriously decide that I wouldn't scumread you for this if it was targeting anyone else.

I warn you Comm. If you try and take me down here you will lose. If you are town you need to reconsider suiciding based on a provable logical fallacy. It would leave town with nothing to go on tomorrow.

Fearmongering.

I've already made a statement in the thread I wouldn't have as scum. And I assure you it wasn't a threat. It was a certainty.

^This is a trust tell statement.

If people come at me with questions in an attempt to sort me il work with them. If people come with accusations based in provably flawed logic I'm going to treat it as hostility.

If this is town vs town and you tunnel me down scum will just hop on the side that is making sense. That isn't your side.

Fearmongering. Also unnatural.

Generally I bet that this is reaction test nonsense in which case I'd tell you that you don't have town credability doing this so knock it off.

Unnatural. More fearmongering.

As a joke because he has started this game the same as last by trying to fite the player in the thread that has been most overtly townread.

Idk what this is. FS is putting himself on a pedestal and I didn't get the impression he was being overtly townread.

Interesting that all I have to do is mention the words 'trust tell,' and I get accused of fearmongering. Yet, that's exactly what FireScreamer is doing to CommKnight here. Not to mention that CommKnight is right that some of his comments sound very unnatural from a town perspective.

Spoiler: More FireScreamer Quotes

Uh, +1, or ditto, or whatever the cool kids are saying these days.

Lol, "cool kids." I'M COOL. So just follow me. The cool kids speak proper English. Not the lame "txt spk" kids do or the "1337 5p34k" either. Also that is a life tip for the younger ones playing. If you go to hit on a woman. Intelligence is much more valuable than that shit. (I mean, don't go rocket-sciency intelligence because the average high school girl will not give a rats ass about that and will look at you like you're weird. Even if you speak of Elon Musk. All the kids raving about environmentally friendly and all this liberal stuff. Yet don't even know who Elon Musk is or what he does. My coworkers don't care when I explain it out to them).

ANYWAY, back on topic.

- I've made a list of 2 people I won't lynch today due to probability (TODAY ONLY).
- I've TR'd two people.
- The other 8 people I'm up for lynching if there's a good case on them.

Had you previously stated the "today only" aspect of your probability thing?
Have you said who the TR's are?
Do you have any actual SR's yourself?

Are you aware of what the probability thing says to an observer who is outside the 3 people who get a free pass and the people you're directly arguing with?

Pedit: Yay, replacement!

I find it funny you ask me those things... since I'm literally the only person with an actual reads list in the game... that and I've stated those things multiple times. I mean heck, this is my 23rd post, so even ISO'ing me isn't so bad aside from my walls of text. (I'm going to build great walls... they're going to be great... the greatest you could say. I know people... important people... they'll help to ensure the USA pays for these walls. They're great people and I know them. Very important. Much Doge).

On a serious note. VOTE: FireScreamer.

His play feels off from last game.

{FrankJaeger, Brian Skies, Narna}
{Alchemist, Green Crayons}
{davesaz, Titus, shannon, RoryMK, Necta}
{Umlaut, FireScreamer}

If FireScreamer is red, I'm willing to bet Shannon is too.

VOTE: shannon

Is anyone allowed to ask why or are you wanting to engage Shannon herself?

Also, the likelyhood of mafia last game being mafia this game will actually probably be unlikely. So I'm pretty confident in the team being green this time around. But TB definitely rolled some of our bloc from last game as red this one. I'm willing to bet on it being FS of all people.

Look at that beaut. My first serious post of the day has an early reads list (and people have been getting antsy about it ever since.

My blocs went: Not lynching, slight-TR, Neutral, Suspicious.

As you can see, Umlaut falls on that bloc very easily.

I'm certainly not lynching anyone

today

that was scum last game,

because that is counter-intuitive. It is a gambler's bet. But it's a bet even you know is likely to be correct. Rolling something twice in a row is highly unlikely. Especially if we end up being in a 2 mafia vs 10 VT & 1 1-shot PR game.

Either way,

I'd be willing to roll the dice on either FireScreamer or Umlaut.

It's a hunch,

but it's more than likely a right one and they're gonna rip on me after the game for "getting lucky" if I'm correct. But we'll see.

And oh mah gawd. My next post literally has me saying I won't lynch them TODAY. Then I even went on to say my Umlaut/FS reads were a HUNCH. It's almost like these two posts everyone has gone crazy over... because they might be... RIGHT.

Anyway, I don't mean to be a sarcastic prick.. oh wait. Yes I do. (No I'm just being an ass because my ISO is a quick read when you read those two posts and then base everything since then from those.). Seriously though, think about how Umlaut and FS have reacted since and the wagon forming on me based on those two serious posts of the day. I mean I get I didn't have the BEST case on them at the time (there was nothing solid to go on back then). But now.. as stated in one of my latest posts.

Again, you're taking it too literally and skipping over the parts that help make it make sense. Not sure if intentional or if you're reading what you want to read into me.

- I've made a list of 2 people I won't lynch today due to probability (TODAY ONLY).
- I've TR'd two people.
- The other 8 people I'm up for lynching if there's a good case on them.
- Instead of building said case on them, you worry about defending FS. Which honestly started as a simple SR as scummy behaviour. But mixed with your defense of him. I'm willing to bet more on there being one scum in the two of you if you aren't both scum.

If you don't like my SR of yourself or FS, feel free to make a case for something. But worrying about me providing burden of proof (when there is none currently for anyone) is itself a fallacy. In fact, your entire thing and vote on me is that I don't have a solid case to vote FS. (Which shouldn't worry you unless you somehow know for certain he is town). Which I could argue the same back against you both. You got no real case. Just votes on me for voting FS and suspecting him. Which IS an OMGUS vote.

Back when I was going on about the probability numbers, you guys are soo worried I won't lynch into two other people (and myself included). I'm not enforcing this rule on others. But *I* won't vote in the pool. (Which of course I'm in the pool, I'm not going to vote myself. Herp a derp).

But yet you keep pushing this "Why won't you lynch X?" crud. Unless you got a case against either of them, then it's wise to drop it. Because why aren't YOU lynching X? Again, I have TWO people I'm not voting for DAY ONE. This is what you guys blew out of proportion because I said the random probability is lower on them being scum than others. Then you get antsy about a vote on FS. Again, unless you got some reason to solid TR him, you should want more information from the slot as well, should you not? Or are you going to claim mason buddies? Otherwise your defense of the slot as a townie makes zero sense. You should want to sort EVERYONE, but you're using past-game-confirmation-bias to be against my style of play while writing off the difference in FS now play compared to last game play.

Do I need to spell it out any clearer? So far you and FS have been the most scummy in my eyes and it's only getting worse. Want to prove me wrong? Then let us get more info, or you find a good case for me to look at. Because currently I only see the one valid case of your defense of FS and overreaction to initial reads. Part of it was gut, but now it's your guys' play thus far.

Fastposted by Umlaut. Well as I've stated in this post, it's leaving the probability phase and entering a more reaction phase. I had nothing solid to go on now, but now I believe I do. (Read the above paragraphs).

For real, read the first two posts I quoted of myself. Where in them did I say no one else could look into Frank or Blue Skies? I just said I wouldn't lynch them today based on probability. Which like the probability or not, or like the reasoning or not. It's my own train of thought and it is most likely right this game based on their overreaction to it thus far.

@Rory, the above was towards Dave, but I'm really interested on WHAT you support about my wagon. I just pointed out the two things people got all antsy over me for which can be reread in my VERY short ISO. So what do you agree with again? Because you're sliding down any chance of being TR'd for today. That's for sure. At least Daves isn't blindly following something they see as an easy mislynch. To me, you seem less interested in why the wagon is formed on me or even reason to vote me. Just you see something forming and voting it. Am I wrong?

Also, you never answered my question. When you play a game, do you avoid the PT area of the forum on your moderator account?

"The capital of France is Berlin"

"No it is Paris"

"Wow you shook get him boyz"

I didn't really understand this interaction at the time. However, reading through it again, I find myself sympathizing with CommKnight.

I'd rather reread the thread tomorrow before giving a considered full reads list.

Scum leans -

[CommKnight], Umlaut,

Brian

Town leans Alchemist, GC, Dave

I still stand by my accusation of this being incredibly fencesitty and noncommittal.

I can probably do a more in depth case later, but that seems fine to me. Also, I'm hungry and need to do some things before work.

[Brian Skies]

I never accused you of fearmongering to be fair. Don't conflate me with GC.

I didn't say you did.

[Brian Skies]

@Brian Thanks for answering. I was asking because I can't understand why anyone would be willing to vote on Titus' say-so right now. It sounds like you're saying it doesn't have much to do with Titus at all.

What do you find confusing about my test on Firebringer?

Yeah, because it doesn't. I just wanted to let her know I still disagreed on Rory, but would help her with FS.

First of all, I don't really understand what point you're trying to make. And if it is what I think it is, then why are you using a reaction test on someone based on probability after spending the vast majority of this game getting on CK's case about it? It's incredibly hypocritical.

[Brian Skies]

I got on CK's case because his math was just incorrect as a matter of fact, not because using probability is bad.

Okay, I may have gotten you confused with other people.

[Brian Skies]

But consider this: Both FS and Umlaut have played in a way to keep me from sounding credible.

I don't know about Umlaut, but GC does it too. And you think GC is town, so...

I don't care about your probability theory. Although the reactions to it are notable.

[Brian Skies]

I'm the most active poster in the thread. I've engaged in far more pushes and discussion of pushes than you have. I don't need the fire. I AM the fire.

You're just w/e. And now that the actual Firebringer is here, you're probably gonna get overshadowed.

[Brian Skies]

1. Either you independently agree with Titus or you are sheeping her. Which is it?

Both.

2. The narna townread. Why?

Narna has been a lurk sac all game. And by "lurk" I mean present just enough to know that he's been around and paying attention (compared to dave who has been MIA), but I really couldn't tell you what thoughts he's had at all (save one--mentioned below).

Then there was the night that Narna got drunk and decided to flurry post. And then immediately sunk back into a nonentity. I fully support getting shithoused and then posting on MS. But if that's your most significant engagement with the thread, I'm going to be suspicious because it artificially allows you to look involved and free-wheeling (loose and carefree = town, right?).

I disagree with this insofar as the Narna read goes. Observing that Comm's push for a vote-to-claim on a TR aligns with how other forums (or whatever) play mafia is not alignment indicative. Yes, town could say it because it is true; but so could scum (because, again, it is true), particularly if they want a good reason to not vote a popular wagon like Comm, regardless of Comm's alignment.

Partly gut. Partly because I don't see him just getting caught up in the same arguments or same logical conclusions as other people. I feel like he's actively trying to sort people and be vocal about his opinions. Admittedly, he hasn't been around for a while (not really that long, the day or so absence seems expected based on his posting pattern), but the last time he posted, he seemed to either have fallen behind or is struggling to keep up. He was also one of the top posters when he was around and is still one of the top posters despite being absent.

The ToS comment falls in line with his prior comments about Comm. Sure, scum can do it, but I also think it shows that Narna is actually trying to figure people out.

Also, just because you're not paying attention to him or don't remember his posts doesn't mean he's a nonentity. It just means you're not paying attention to him or don't remember his posts, which sounds more like a

you

problem.

3. Why is it wrong to "piggyback" an argument against a demonstrably incorrect strategy such as gamblers fallacy?

There is a right answer and a wrong answer

and there are only so many ways to express that.

That is just your opinion. And it's not about whether or not he has the

right

answer or not, it's about whether it's coming from a town mindset.

I don't really think it's wrong to piggyback. It just felt nice to say and I feel like I'm conditioned to scumread it. Either way, I still don't like the way you reacted to him.

4. Show me where I piggyback your umlaut read or reasoning in any way.

Spoiler: Me

How am I supposed to feel about you just bailing at the first sight of a non-PR claim and not just think you're PR-shopping now?

Spoiler: You

UNVOTE: CommKnight
It's too early to lynch and I think we've gotten what we can out of this wagon.

Gotten what we can? Are you claim collecting?

Granted, we could've just come to similar conclusions.

5. You don't know if I've given a scumread based on my own original thought? Go back and actually look. If you still want to defend that statement once you say you have done that be my guest.

It was a throwaway comment since I just wrote up a quick case. You're more than welcome to show it yourself.

6. Why do my statements seem unnatural from a town perspective?

Because your lines give off this weird impression that you know he's town and you want him to go somewhere else, and then you respond to him with a 'you couldn't lynch me if you wanted to' attitude. In most scenarios, I would expect either a 'you're wrong' or a 'EAT ROPE DIE SCUM' mentality, but that's not what you displayed here. I could reasonably expect different reactions (playful joking around or whatever), but this is not one of them.

[Brian Skies]

Part of that post was directed at Green Crayons, by the way. I just didn't feel like explaining my Narna read twice.

[Brian Skies]

His reads list is very safe. He inexplicably refused to speculate on why town Dave would be townreading him despite being in a situation where he has to have thought about that. Has been reactive and sort of around but refusing to step out of the nullspace to form a strong opinion on anything.

Case on me.

S L I P B O Y Z

VOTE: Alchemist

Self explanatory
So I think FS has a substantial amount of cases.

The first one is the only one I really consider a case based on original thought. But he's basically OMGUS'ing CK, so...

The second one was alright, but he immediately redacted it.

[Brian Skies]

But consider this: Both FS and Umlaut have played in a way to keep me from sounding credible.

I don't know about Umlaut, but GC does it too. And you think GC is town, so...

I mean that GC has discredited other players. I have no idea if he's discredited CK.

[Brian Skies]

His reads list is very safe. He inexplicably refused to speculate on why town Dave would be townreading him despite being in a situation where he has to have thought about that. Has been reactive and sort of around but refusing to step out of the nullspace to form a strong opinion on anything.

Oh, is this a case on Gamma? Okay, he gets 1.

[Brian Skies]

Join me onto FS?

[Brian Skies]

While you're doing that, could you take a look at Rory and let me know what you think of him?

[Brian Skies]

VOTE: Rory

[Brian Skies]

I've already voted and explained my vote previously.

No, I'm not caught up.

[Brian Skies]

But seriously, Brian where is that Rory vote coming from? Are you caught up on the game?

I've caught up and I don't know why you're asking me this.

[Brian Skies]

FS is probably scum preparing his fakeclaim.
Dave is probably town and a bad wagon.
Rory is still probably scum who went on V/LA for a single day because...?

[Brian Skies]

Nothing. I didn't think he was scummy to begin with.

[Brian Skies]

With that kind of plan though don't we need to make him announce his target before the Day ends? Otherwise we won't get any useful info from his action.

Also, this is bad because you'd essentially be announcing to the scumteam who he's blocking and making him worthless.

[Brian Skies]

But the emu already pointed that out so its all good.

[Brian Skies]

I'm just gonna hang out on my vanity wagon. Let me know if you need me.

[Brian Skies]

I don't think my wagon will go anywhere. But you guys either 1) don't care about lynching (or helping me with) my scumreads or 2) want to lynch people I don't think are scum. So we are at an impasse.

And I don't think a single person has given a decent reason for lynching Dave as it is.

If you guys think Day 1 is a crapshoot and don't think I'm scum, you may as well all just sheep me.

[Brian Skies]

Pretty sure his tunnel on you is coming from town.

[Brian Skies]

*sigh*

You realize the people putting you off until D2 are doing so to give you the chance to use your shot, right?

You realize that if you are Town you are now in scum's crosshairs as a PR, right?

Town wants you dead. If you're Town, scum want you dead. When everyone wants you dead, you're not gonna live long enough to see a pay-off in waiting for your actions.

I also really hate this post.

[Brian Skies]

VOTE: Titus

[Brian Skies]

Almost50 if you wish to make a case for why Shannon was town I'd like to hear it

I don't know if you realize how stupid this is.

Also, not RB.

[Brian Skies]

Can you explain how the odds of the 1-shot rb existing are 4.4%?
I just assumed since it needs BB it would be (5/100)*(5/100) = .0025 = 0.25% odds.

I haven't done the math, but since 3 B's doesn't give a 1-shot roleblocker, you're adding the probability of getting exactly 2 B's + the probability of getting at least 4 B's.

[Brian Skies]

I think you should just ignore the math, in all honesty. Right now, you really just need to know that a 1-shot RB can't exist without a RB.

[Brian Skies]

I did agree to ignore you for your mental health.

[Brian Skies]

I did agree to ignore you for your mental health.

I retract my personal hurt and in its place submit righteous indignation that BSkies doesn't even abide by his own word.

I'm a man of empty and broken promises.

[Brian Skies]

FireScreamer is OBVIOUSLY trying to put the wheels back on Gamma to save Titus. dave's wagon hit a brick wall and scum need a counter wagon to beat the one on Titus. That's TWO SCUMS I've nailed so far and I'm willing to wager the whole game on them BOTH flipping red.

What're your thoughts on Titus trying to wagon and lynch FireScreamer then?

[Brian Skies]

I would lynch Titus over Dave and would still love to lynch Rory (who's been avoiding this game since Wednesday).

[Brian Skies]

Brian, I don't find Rory's activity level alignment-indicative at all for him. Speaking as someone who's run a few games in Radja's queue, there are frequently long waits for listmod action there, suggesting that being away from the site for extended periods is his usual MO.

I know that's not the only thing you've said about him, but it's worth responding to since you brought it up.

I just think he's scum dude. And now he's just floating to the night phase.¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[Brian Skies]

FireScreamer is OBVIOUSLY trying to put the wheels back on Gamma to save Titus. dave's wagon hit a brick wall and scum need a counter wagon to beat the one on Titus. That's TWO SCUMS I've nailed so far and I'm willing to wager the whole game on them BOTH flipping red.

What're your thoughts on Titus trying to wagon and lynch FireScreamer then?

Early day wagons rarely ever bear fruit, and especially those of D1. Titus rarely ever busses, but she sure knows how to distance.

I take it you still haven't read this game and are not worth the effort.

[Brian Skies]

VOTE: Gamma

We're lynching Rory tomorrow.

[Brian Skies]

Okay, going from "Titus is a good lynch" to "Titus is probable scum."

She's voting her townread after saying it was stupid to lynch him today and his claim was solid, because

I don't see an rb claim yet. I am starting to think I am wrong on Gamma, but his play is so obvtown.

That's a pretty weird reason to turn around completely, especially given that people are

explicitly

not claiming and Titus herself said she'd rather just hurry up and lynch Dave.

Hey, I wonder if the most recent VC can help us figure out what changed her mind.

Official Vote Count

Titus

(4): Almost50, Umlaut, davesaz, Brian Skies

Gamma Emerald

(4): RoryMK, Alchemist21, Narna, FireScreamer

davesaz

(2): Gamma Emerald, Titus

Almost50

(1): Firebringer

Alchemist21

(1): Green Crayons

Firebringer

(1): CommKnight

Not Voting

(0):

None.

With 13 alive, it takes 7 to lynch.

Deadline

: (expired on 2017-05-03 20:06:48)

Survivalism isn't a scumtell.

[Brian Skies]

I'm caught up. I wouldn't hammer if I wasn't.

[Brian Skies]

Almost50, what's your read on me if Gamma flips scum?

I Gamma flips red you're conf!Town in my book and I will sheep you for as long as I'm alive in this game on both day and night actions.

This is so dumb on so many levels.

[Brian Skies]

Explain what?

[Brian Skies]

Town.

[Brian Skies]

Sure. Adding more people to the questioning pool will not make me answer the question.

Titus didn't lead the wagon, she moved over most likely out of survivalism. So Almost50 ignoring the possibility of a bus is bad. Even if Titus is town here, deferring her actions to another player is also dumb because it defers responsibility and it's not like Titus is some sort of scumhunting god.

[Brian Skies]

/shrug

[Brian Skies]

Okay, I'm leaving. Bye.

[Brian Skies]

I messed up the pronoun and meant 'he' instead of 'she'.

[Brian Skies]

Well, his instead of her, but it should be obvious based on context.

[Brian Skies]

Actually, Gamma was here yesterday, so I don't really understand why he's getting flak for that.

[Brian Skies]

If you really want to discuss people not being here, we should talk about Narna or Rory. But you guys blissfully ignore them for who knows what reason. But I get it, inflated post counts cause inaccurate perceptions of a player's activity.

[Brian Skies]

Also, since Gamma's actually here now, I guess I don't mind explaining why I hammered, namely being that I don't have a reason. I just don't think he's that particularly scummy or townish to begin with and half of you were talking about policy lynching him regardless. I also don't think claim makes alignment so whatever.

Maybe with his flip and a new day, I can actually get some of you to help me with Rory. Or get lynched. Idrc. Getting out of this shitfest of a game seems like a decent consolation prize.

[Brian Skies]

Well, his instead of her, but it should be obvious based on context.

You know what happens when you assume...

Well, I mess up pronouns all the time. Context is your best friend.

[Brian Skies]

I actually forgot why I hated this wagon before I voted, and it's because Rory was leading it. Oh well.

[Brian Skies]

If Gamma flips town, and if Narna or Rory are on my wagon, they're first up for reassessment.

That seems fair.

Also, I don't really feel all that confident in my own reads, hence all my wagon hopping and compromising.

[Brian Skies]

That was terrible. We had two days left

I will never condone delaying a lynch 'just because we have time.' That's how deadline scrambles happen and those rarely hit town (especially since scum don't have to show up and are unlikely to bus their buddies at that point).

[Brian Skies]

*sigh*

You realize the people putting you off until D2 are doing so to give you the chance to use your shot, right?

You realize that if you are Town you are now in scum's crosshairs as a PR, right?

Town wants you dead. If you're Town, scum want you dead. When everyone wants you dead, you're not gonna live long enough to see a pay-off in waiting for your actions.

I also really hate this post.

Why?

Also, to explain this, if Gamma is town, then Alchemist trying to goad Gamma into using his shot and potentially wasting it is scummy.

[Brian Skies]

That was terrible. We had two days left

I will never condone delaying a lynch 'just because we have time.' That's how deadline scrambles happen and those rarely hit town (especially since scum don't have to show up and are unlikely to bus their buddies at that point).

Read my working with town guide.

This myth is terribad.

This is from own personal experience. So yeah, I'm not going to read your guide.

[Brian Skies]

*sigh*

You realize the people putting you off until D2 are doing so to give you the chance to use your shot, right?

You realize that if you are Town you are now in scum's crosshairs as a PR, right?

Town wants you dead. If you're Town, scum want you dead. When everyone wants you dead, you're not gonna live long enough to see a pay-off in waiting for your actions.

I also really hate this post.

Why?

Also, to explain this, if Gamma is town, then Alchemist trying to goad Gamma into using his shot and potentially wasting it is scummy.

I read it as indicative of believing that Gamma didn't have long to live. It's not scaring him if he has reason to be scared. It's just helping him evaluate.

I read that similarly, but if Gamma wastes his shot, then he is no longer a threat and is now just mislynchable (he got lynched anyway, but still).

And scum would love to know whether he's using his shot for reasons Narna already explained (scum no-killing to potentially frame a townie).

[Brian Skies]

That was terrible. We had two days left

I will never condone delaying a lynch 'just because we have time.' That's how deadline scrambles happen and those rarely hit town (especially since scum don't have to show up and are unlikely to bus their buddies at that point).

Read my working with town guide.

This myth is terribad.

This is from own personal experience. So yeah, I'm not going to read your guide.

You're not someone who has trouble with working with town so *shrug*

I lied and actually looked at your guide. But based on what I read there, I don't think this was directed at me.

[Brian Skies]

Someone hypothesizes this about once every other game I'm in, and I'm amazed that anyone takes it seriously. The object of the game for scum is to get to lylo. If they can kill someone they're going to do it, absent a reason to think it will get one of them caught.

Even if hypothetically Gamma planning to block had enticed scum to no-kill, getting scum to no-kill would be a win for us. If you thought that was a likely outcome you should have been looking for a way to make that happen.

Well, I'm not going to play cat-and-mouse with the scumteam and hope scum plays sub-optimally. That's just stupid.

Nor was this a thought I had when I hammered (although I did think it a few days ago and I just remembered it).

What I am going to do is try and find scum.

And I'm not one of these people who were playing patty cake trying to decide if we should get a RB to claim or not or policy lynch Gamma down the line. I don't think Gamma was that town (and could've been scum), I don't care about his claim, and I hammered him because I was fine with his lynch and ready to move on.

[Brian Skies]

Correct. It's at Umlaut.

I read it, it's a good guide.

[Brian Skies]

Well scum Titus does it regardless. But town Titus has every bit of reason to fight to stay alive since she's the only person she knows for certain is town.

[Brian Skies]

These are my reads as they sit
Town: Rory,

Titus

, shannon, CommKnight, Alchemist, Firebringer, Green Crayons, Brian Skies
Nullscum: FS, Narna
Scum: Umlaut, Davesaz,

Titus

[Brian Skies]

Being the hammer because "I don't really have a reason" falls under the didn't want to lynch gamma camp.

It's not like I was against it either.

[Brian Skies]

VOTE: Almost50

[Brian Skies]

Being the hammer because "I don't really have a reason" falls under the didn't want to lynch gamma camp.

It's not like I was against it either.

Just because you're at the end of the lynch pool line doesn't mean that you aren't standing in the line.

This line doesn't make any sense. Please rephrase.

[Brian Skies]

Being the hammer because "I don't really have a reason" falls under the didn't want to lynch gamma camp.

It's not like I was against it either.

Just because you're at the end of the lynch pool line doesn't mean that you aren't standing in the line.

This line doesn't make any sense. Please rephrase.

Just because you're least suspicious in the lynch pool doesn't mean that you aren't suspicious or aren't in the lynch pool.

Well, you're more than welcome to try and lynch me.

And I haven't asked to be removed from the lynch pool or anything. You're just adding me in there because...? You're probably just butthurt that I called you out for your shitty defense of FS at the beginning of the game. And if you and FS are indeed masons, then FS should just crumb better.

[Brian Skies]

If I wanted credit, I wouldn't have hammered and said "I don't have a reason."

[Brian Skies]

W/e. Talking to you two is like talking to two arrogant pricks.