Open 688: Diffusion of Power (Game Over)

[Cooperative Sheep]

Vote: Arogrundy

Creature is scummy for ugly sheeping after avoiding sheeping.
Could also lynch Sesq for the awkward wagon derailment.
I like Gamma as town, and guardedly Lunae and Paul.
Arogrundy deserves a vote though, because the VT thing was actually kinda screwy, and we never got a valid answer for it - also, hey, bonus, lynch a self voter.

[Cooperative Sheep]

Creature is scummy for ugly sheeping after avoiding sheeping.

?

You specifically avoided sheeping onto Arogrundy.
You specifically were very happy to sheep onto me for being "inactive" in the game...for 48 hours...that included the weekend...when my activity is public and you could have checked that I hadn't been on site...and it's also not scummy to be late to the RVS.
Seems like you had an agenda in your voting choices that was not connected to actions of the players.
That would make you scummy.
Make sense now?

Why do you think Creature is scummy but see aron's page 1 joke as more voteworthy?

Why should I not?

Obviously it was a joke. I thought of it before the game started.

I didn't take it as a joke - why was it obvious?

I'm not sure if you actually think I'm scum tho

I certainly see you as more likely scum than town with a self vote in play and doing no scum hunting and sticking to a 'joke' defense, so, yeah, I actually think you're scum moreso than many other players in this game.
Hope that clarifies my stance.

[Cooperative Sheep]

so you think I wasn't joking?

Yes.

[Cooperative Sheep]

Yes, which would make it a crumb coming from someone who didn't have a role PM they were representing honestly.
Which would auto make you scum, not town.

[Cooperative Sheep]

I feel like this is lynch all liars-ish logic. You haven't explained to me what was scum motivated about crumbing vt

I'm not claiming scum motivation in claiming VT, I'm saying that only scum, in this setup, would do that as a crumb.
Literally the only defense is to claim it's a joke - if it's not a joke you're absolutely caught scum. So, if I'm not certain it's a joke, you need rope.
I'm not certain it's a joke.

You can disagree all you want but it was a joke. Like what's the difference between me crumbing vt and gamma claiming scum?

One is more obviously a joke to me and one is not.
Because scum never accidentally open claim as scum, but scum can accidentally crumb a role that can't be in a setup.

[Cooperative Sheep]

K this is the last thing I'm saying about this. You say I could have done it on accident, ok, but who the hell crumbs vt anyway. I've played in this setup before. I knew that there were no vanilla townies

I have, on multiple occasions, witnessed both town and scum players crumb VT.
Do you have a history of joke crumbing VT, because that would affect my read, but your response here does not.

Still town read Paul.
Still scum read Sesq.
I could buy Hellfire as scum just because of the odd flail, but it's a thin vibe.
Whoever pointed out the repeat case can be townish, I forget who it was.

[Cooperative Sheep]

It was alban, I'm okay with that.

[Cooperative Sheep]

Vote: Arogrundy

Creature is scummy for ugly sheeping after avoiding sheeping.
Could also lynch Sesq for the awkward wagon derailment.
I like Gamma as town, and guardedly Lunae and Paul.
Arogrundy deserves a vote though, because the VT thing was actually kinda screwy, and we never got a valid answer for it - also, hey, bonus, lynch a self voter.

Is lynching self voters a policy of yours or what
Can you explain your townreads?

My policy is to lynch scum.
I think self-voting is either extremely terrible town play or passable scum play, so more often than not it deserves attention - him sitting on a self vote that long while not scumhunting is the bigger issue than just the self vote though.

I could explain my town reads, though I don't see much of a point to it, but then again the point of this alt is to be cooperative, so okay, let's go down this *yawn* hole;

Gamma - you asked enough questions in the early stage to make it seem like you wanted to sort people.
Lunae - proposed actual conversation topics that would spark legit game solving discussion, and vibes kind of a pleasant newbie town to me.
Paul - also newbie, but is literally hacking at the game with a hatchet, it is very obvious sorting and feels town.

arona isn't a newb

Sure.
And?

[Cooperative Sheep]

what questions have i dodged?

please repost if you think i missed anything.

He has repeatedly claimed you are dodging explaining your case on him - which is valid as all your answers thus far have been along the lines of 'trust me' and 'got you'. Like, if you offered me a million dollars if I could describe your case on him, I wouldn't be able to travel to Tahiti this year.

[Cooperative Sheep]

Aroma likely knows the setup

Your concept being that, he is too competent as a player to forget the setup - but would think, as any given alignment, that a VT crumb would be a worthwhile move at day start?
Okay, I understand your stance and disagree with it.

you can see why i'm not providing my case, right?

No.
The list of times when withholding a worthwhile case as town is a good move is very limited, and on Day 1 with no Night 0 is even more limited.
I'm pretty much left with the following options;
1. The case is super thin and it's boring/meaningless to explain 'gut'
2. You're convinced your tell is super amazing, and don't wish to reveal it to other scum so that you can catch them.

If it's #1 you're wasting everyone's time by acting like it's anything more than that.
If it's #2 then, I submit, the tell probably isn't as good as you think, and even if it is it's strongly worth explaining to lynch one scum, because I've never seen a secret tell work twice in the same game.
If it's some other option then I'm too dumb to think of it.

Lunae, where have you disappeared?

btw, does scum have a daychat?

No, they do not.

[Cooperative Sheep]

you can see why i'm not providing my case, right?

No.
The list of times when withholding a worthwhile case as town is a good move is very limited, and on Day 1 with no Night 0 is even more limited.
I'm pretty much left with the following options;
1. The case is super thin and it's boring/meaningless to explain 'gut'
2. You're convinced your tell is super amazing, and don't wish to reveal it to other scum so that you can catch them.

If it's #1 you're wasting everyone's time by acting like it's anything more than that.
If it's #2 then, I submit, the tell probably isn't as good as you think, and even if it is it's strongly worth explaining to lynch one scum, because I've never seen a secret tell work twice in the same game.
If it's some other option then I'm too dumb to think of it.

uh, what?

What part confuses you? I think I answered your question very clearly.

Add Cooperative Sheep to the list of people I'd hang today.

The only people who fear gut reads are scum.
[snip]
Why don't you start by telling us who scum is Sheep.

1. When did I indicate that I "fear gut reads" in any way at all?
2. I have already presented a case on Argon - would you like to address my case?

[Cooperative Sheep]

@CommKnight

viewtopic.php?p=9247632#p9247632

[Cooperative Sheep]

@CommKnight

viewtopic.php?p=9247632#p9247632

1.) Against gut reads is because you fear gut reads. Especially when you're scum and they're right.
2.) It's trash.

1. Okay - when did I express this fear exactly? What gut reads were offered on me that I acted bothered by?
2. Why did you act like it didn't exist as opposed to just saying you didn't like it to begin with?

[Cooperative Sheep]

@CommKnight

viewtopic.php?p=9248556#p9248556

[Cooperative Sheep]

@CommKnight

viewtopic.php?p=9247632#p9247632

@CommKnight

viewtopic.php?p=9248556#p9248556

@CommKnight

viewtopic.php?p=9248556#p9248556

[Cooperative Sheep]

Not 328, sorry, just 343 (and 369).

[Cooperative Sheep]

1.) 255
2.) Why do I have to acknowledge a bad case? Does my opinion on it matter that much to you? I think it's shit and that's that. I didn't bother making a fuss about it.

1. Where in that post did I express fear/bother about gut reads? Can you quote the comment specifically and explain it to me? Because I don't see it at all - the closest I get is saying that someone should be willing to admit something is a gut read when it's a gut read and not pretend it's more than a gut read - which is nothing like what you're saying I did.

2. When you ask me to present a case - yeah, I expect you to be aware a case was already presented whether or not you liked it. It makes it look like you're skimming rather than reading, but not willing to admit it.

[Cooperative Sheep]

1. Also it wasn't a gut read about me at all, so I'm not even sure why it would bother me even if I was scum, unless he was my partner or something? But even then the comment doesn't showcase fear as far as I can see.

[Cooperative Sheep]

K this is the last thing I'm saying about this. You say I could have done it on accident, ok, but who the hell crumbs vt anyway. I've played in this setup before. I knew that there were no vanilla townies

I have, on multiple occasions, witnessed both town and scum players crumb VT.
Do you have a history of joke crumbing VT, because that would affect my read, but your response here does not.

@Arona

1.) 255
2.) Why do I have to acknowledge a bad case? Does my opinion on it matter that much to you? I think it's shit and that's that. I didn't bother making a fuss about it.

1. Where in that post did I express fear/bother about gut reads? Can you quote the comment specifically and explain it to me? Because I don't see it at all - the closest I get is saying that someone should be willing to admit something is a gut read when it's a gut read and not pretend it's more than a gut read - which is nothing like what you're saying I did.

2. When you ask me to present a case - yeah, I expect you to be aware a case was already presented whether or not you liked it. It makes it look like you're skimming rather than reading, but not willing to admit it.

@CommKnight

[Cooperative Sheep]

Vote: Sesq

Would also do Arona or Comm, but no one else seems interested in them for some reason.

[Cooperative Sheep]

I'm done with the questions sheep. If you can't see it. Then you never will see it. Which means you'll make the mistake as scum in the future, which is fine by me.

Seems to be 3 main wagons today. Definitely gotta be at least one of them on scum.

No, that's BS - it's not there.
Prove me wrong or admit you're lying.

[Cooperative Sheep]

commknight: town. I can see him putting effort into scumhunting and I can follow his logic. His ISO is cohesive and that's good enough for me d1

How do you follow his logic as based on his attack on me for fearing gut reads?
Because there is no logic there without inventing actions for me.
No?

okay done skimming here are my town reads
stop derailing the thread trying to meta me please?

gamma, creature, comm, njac, Alban

no overly strong scum reads yet
you think any of those 5 are scum tho? bet

I think Comm is scum.
Why do you town read him?
Your other reads I'm fine with, but that one looks straight up bad.

[Cooperative Sheep]

Hahaha, I've pointed to the exact post Sheep is worried about gut. You don't combat gut with "It's nothing/null/useless" anything like that unless of course the gut is correct and you have nothing to really defend against it with.

1. You did link it - but then I asked you to explain why you think it said what you claimed it said and you ran like a scared schoolboy.
2. I never said that gut was null or useless in that, or any other, post - your move.

Like I could act like a perfect townie in any of my games if I wanted to. Have you ever wondered why I don't?

To protect your bad scum play so you don't need to replicate it when scum?

commknight: town. I can see him putting effort into scumhunting and I can follow his logic. His ISO is cohesive and that's good enough for me d1

How do you follow his logic as based on his attack on me for fearing gut reads?
Because there is no logic there without inventing actions for me.
No?

I don't understand the second sentence.

But gut reads are a big thing to go off day 1, just saying.

The second sentence is pointing out that he needs to make up what I said in order to have his case make sense.
If you disagree - please find where I said/did what he claims I did.
I'll wait.
I've been waiting on him to do it most of the game.

I agree gut reads are a thing. That's kind of the point - Comm is claiming I said they were bad (and got scared of them). I didn't.

[quote="In post 467, MuttonChopMagic"why do you scum read him in one post go
am I going to town case? no[/quote]
1. Scum case = He is making up/misrepping things in order to attack me, but is scared to talk about them/admit what he's doing.
2. Why no town case for a top town read you're attacking me for suspecting?

[Cooperative Sheep]

why do you scum read him in one post go
am I going to town case? no

1. Scum case = He is making up/misrepping things in order to attack me, but is scared to talk about them/admit what he's doing.
2. Why no town case for a top town read you're attacking me for suspecting?

[Cooperative Sheep]

why do you scum read him in one post go
am I going to town case? no

1. Scum case = He is making up/misrepping things in order to attack me, but is scared to talk about them/admit what he's doing.
2. Why no town case for a top town read you're attacking me for suspecting?

show where he's making and misrepping things
town cases are effort and I'm lazy ya dig

1. I have shown that a bit in an ongoing conversation with him, but here is the most concise breakdown - viewtopic.php?p=9255516#p9255516

If you see where I "fear gut reads" and "am saying gut reads are bad and shouldn't be used" please let me know.
Heaven knows Comm hasn't managed it yet.

2. I get that - can you sum it up in a sentence or three? Like, he's literally doing nothing but empty attacks, lying, and dodging. if he was town I'd expect him to rub in my face how his claim of what I did is correct - instead he's hardcore avoiding talking about it with me. Why would town do that with someone they claim to believe is scum? Wouldn't that allow him to catch me in a lie? But he's not doing it - even as I *repeatedly* call him out over it.

And even if he thinks I'm scum for other reasons, and thinks my disagreement is relatively meaningless, shouldn't he be willing to at least admit I'm right, and then clarify why he actually thinks I'm scum? But he's not doing that either.

And you think he's town for some reason - and say anyone suspecting him is potential scum. I'd like to hear why so I can figure out your alignment.

[Cooperative Sheep]

Add Cooperative Sheep to the list of people I'd hang today.

The only people who fear gut reads are scum. Because they can look like perfect play and never do anything necessarily "scummy". But still be scum. That is where your gut comes in and says "They're scum". The fact that it's D1 (which you acknowledge in your post) but think people should have a perfect case is VERY telling. Why don't you start by telling us who scum is Sheep. Bring forth some damn good cases too. If you can't, don't continue with your shit.

I'd even lynch Sheep over Lunae now. This game is going to be a breeze catching scum when they act like this.

Here's his original attack against me in full.

He has never shown me fearing gut reads.
He had to be told I'd already presented a case,a nd then just complained that he didn't like it - and when asked why he acted like it didn't exist he got scared and didn't want to debate me anymore.

I feel that's pretty open and shut as a scum case on him - even if you think he "vibes" honest and "sounds sincere" or something, you have to be able to admit he's at least a sloppy town with bad case making skills and no debate ability - and at that point; why is it suspect for people to not town read him?

[Cooperative Sheep]

Also, reading his initial attack post, a straw man appears - he claims I'm demanding people make "perfect" cases when, quite literally, all I'd done is ask Sesq what his case even was.

[Cooperative Sheep]

Like I said before I could do Hellfire. LOL @ Sheep still pissed off with me. I love how people get hooked on my words and then act like they don't got any merit. Well then it should be easier to shrug off.

I'm not trying to shake them off.
I'm using them to showcase how you're scum.

Opinions on njac y'all?

Town.

[Cooperative Sheep]

why do you scum read him in one post go
am I going to town case? no

1. Scum case = He is making up/misrepping things in order to attack me, but is scared to talk about them/admit what he's doing.
2. Why no town case for a top town read you're attacking me for suspecting?

show where he's making and misrepping things
town cases are effort and I'm lazy ya dig

A response to present in rhyme?
Or were you just wasting my time?

[Cooperative Sheep]

I wasn't having the conversation with you to get you to unvote me - I was having it to get you to justify your town read on Ingeel.

[Cooperative Sheep]

Yeah, that makes sense, the thread hasn't had a lot of time to see how Ingeel and I would react without you in the middle.


What?

[Cooperative Sheep]

How about you explain your town read on him now though.
I'd love to hear it.
Because he is oozing scum.
Even a town read on him needs to be threadbare, gut, or role related and so shouldn't have anyone claiming an issue with a scum read on him - no?

[Cooperative Sheep]

To be honest this looks like coming up with reasons to scumread someone... I really doubt this is a thing >.>

I think it's as much of a thing as his claim that he's intentionally not playing 'the perfect townie' which is a nonsensical defense.
I scumread him for his lies and evasion - would you like to weigh in on those? I've stated them much more often, and with, I feel, clarity that those are the reasons I want him lynched.
Any thoughts on those?

[Cooperative Sheep]

Or how about the Sesq wagon - how do ou feel about that, and the wagon composition?

[Cooperative Sheep]

Or maybe a deep insight into Gamma?
I couldn' describe your case on him right now, and I doubt anyone else could either - your wagon of choice is being ignored - how do you feel about that and what are you going to do about it?

[Cooperative Sheep]

Vote: Sesq

Would also do Arona or Comm, but no one else seems interested in them for some reason.

Could you please remember me your case on Sesq?

I'm also interested in your case on Comm.

My case on Sesq is, as I stated it, mostly a compromise because people weren't voting my stronger scum reads and I saw it as the most acceptable of the available large wagons to me.

I created this alt to foster more cooperative and less douchy play - but, I have zero interest in stating yet again my case on Comm - I've stated it for at least two other players in the last few days, and have repeatedly been describing it, and even half described it just earlier today. Go read my posts, then come back with legit non-busy work/empty requests please and thank you.

Unvote: Sesq
Vote: CommKnight

Choo-choo.

[Cooperative Sheep]

Yeah, my vote stays on sheep. Trying to get people to vote sheep is like pulling teeth, which is usually evidence of the correct lynch. If you're gathering votes easily on someone D1, your mind should be telling you something is off.

The lack of votes on me is probably due to your case being based on a lie.
My case on you is based on facts and took the entire phase to make happen.
So the fear mongering doesn't click with me. Are you going to rebut me calling you a liar now? Or just stick to the empty fear monger as a defense?

[Cooperative Sheep]

Like, literally the only vote on you I am quite unhappy with was the one Sesq did, where he flipped to me, then to nothingness while still calling you scum, which really begs the question why he ever voted for me.

[Cooperative Sheep]

How about you explain your town read on him now though.
I'd love to hear it.
Because he is oozing scum.
Even a town read on him needs to be threadbare, gut, or role related and so shouldn't have anyone claiming an issue with a scum read on him - no?

@Mutton

[Cooperative Sheep]

Both were OMGUS votes and both have not bothered to look elsewhere like they claim to want me to do.

I have never asked you to look elsewhere.

Coop's fear of gut reads are more in what he hasn't said compared to what he has said up to and including this point. You have to read between the lines to see it.

You got me, it is correct that I haven't said the thing you're calling me scummy over, I am outplayed

@Sesq - why do you have bad feelings about it? I managed to talk one person out of town reading a slot (to scumreading it with an option for lynching later) off of simply asking a single question. Bet I can sort you too - what's the bad feeling? Like, you think he's town and are voting him? Or do you think he's scum but aren't sure (aka - almost all votes). What's up?

[Cooperative Sheep]

I don't know why i am a suspect.

Because you haven't done much of anything - so it's easy to presume you as scum lying low.

What is your view on the Comm and Sesq wagons and why do you not support either at this late point in the phase?

[Cooperative Sheep]

I unvoted Sesq to push you.
If I thought you were equal scum, then pure logic would dictate that I should vote Sesq as he has more votes right now, instead I've been pushing you.
When last I was asked about the cases I said my case on Sesq was compromise and gut (because I fear gut) and noted that I had repeatedly described my case on you.

If you can't tell which of you I'd rather lynch - the problem isn't in my actions. It's in your reading.

[Cooperative Sheep]

Oh, wait, it's probably all in what I'm *not* typing, but rather what I'm thinking.
Sorry, I haven't adjusted my scum game yet to deal with ESP.
Friggin mutants are ruining this game...

[Cooperative Sheep]

VOTE: CommKnight
Hopefully when this flips I can get a better idea of who's scum >.>

Why

i thought we were gonna wait for a hammer
Not a quick hammer
This is what Newbie Queue does
Do we not do this in opens

If we wanted to do it properly we should have had a hammer intent about seven days ago.
The ship sailed on doing it in an organized fashion at that point.

Comm's oddly timed v/la leaves me still feeling pretty good.
If Comm is town then Hellfire looks suspect.
If Comm is scum then the Hellfire wagon can go die in a fire - or spend time explaining to me why he's so bad at bussing.

[Cooperative Sheep]

What sort of analysis would you like to squeeze in?

[Cooperative Sheep]

I protected Gamma.

Vote: Hellfire

Would also do Aron.

@Sesq - it is not pretty evident why, remember yesterday? Use your words.

[Cooperative Sheep]

better to read his words

That is the opposite of reality and good play - so why don't you explain it now?

Makes more sense for NJAC to be targeted.

I don't fully disagree, but I'm content not to lynch either of them today.

Can someone explain the HM and alban case to me?

The HM case can be everything that bugged people yesterday paired with his vote being the most iffy yesterday on the lynch.

I agree that it's not necessarily a bad idea to lynch inside the claimed doc/target pool

It's provably a bad idea to lynch inside the target pool.

Crumbs?

None from me.

[Cooperative Sheep]

Well, we now know there's one scum in these docs, though alban is the most buyable claim there (not the most buyable nightkill).

We know this?
How so - I'd be happy to lynch in that pool if so - but I'm pretty sure you don't understand the setup (or I don't). Clarify?

VOTE: Gamma

Gamma is currently one of three players least likely to be scum.
Vote better.

[Cooperative Sheep]

Think better.

I do try.

If you don't believe the doc claims such as mine, how can you believe whom I or others saved?

I have not indicated whether I believe or don't believe your claim, so I don't get the point you're making here.

Why is Gamma (or any of the saved folks) least likely to be a scum?

I consider it *highly* unlikely that scum no killed to the point I'm willing to wager the game on it.
At that point we have assured 1 town in the three. That makes that set of three objectively bad to lynch within (the same goes for the Docs, but there is the added benefit that one of the protected *scum* wanted to get rid of [amd also makes that player an unused PR]) that makes lynching within that set of three objectively the worst value call to be made at this point.

If I am scum, why can't I fakeclaim as a doc and pretend to having saved my scumbuddy Creature?

That is certainly a possibility - you could also be scum that fake claimed a town target - which again makes lynching in the Docs smarter than the protects, much less the rest.

Does my stance make more sense now with that explained and not making up a value call of me not believing your claim for some reason?
Also, why were you so convinced I didn't believe your claim? Do you feel your claim sounds/looks false to people?

[Cooperative Sheep]

I wasn't advancing it as a deep revelation - I was asked a question about why I thought as I did, and explained it.
Do you disagree with my logic?
Or are you just empty attacking?

[Cooperative Sheep]

so your argument is there is probably at least one town out of 3 players
much helpful, many thought, deep layers

Also, to clarify my point, my claim was that there is one *confirmed* town in the three - so lynching in them is silly.

[Cooperative Sheep]

there is no *confirmed* town here
if scum is one of the d1 cop claims then no killing conf towns them, you see?

yes it's unlikely but guess what

sure there's at least one of them that is close to conf town but
that isn't even close to a reason to not lynch any of them

and why did you consider gamma a good protect? if you said I don't rem

I never said I didn't remember anything about Gamma or my protect on him - so I don't get your point here.
Gamma, I thought was a good protect due to being my strongest town read. Any Doc protect other than that is inherently silly anyways.

If scum targeted a player that was saved, the doc claim that saved that targeted player is also correct. Which makes it equally bad to lynch within either of the pools.

That is incorrect, even going with both being equally confirmed you have the following adjustments;
1. The protected haven't used their power yet - making them a worse option to lynch.
2. Scum wanted to remove the protected, not the Doc, making the protected a worse option to lynch.

So if you are daft enough to want to lynch in either pool, the Doc pool is the smarter pool to lynch from.

Do you town read Hellfire?

The point of writing 714 had nothing to do with proving my claim. I know who I am. You don't. Obviously you will be suspicious. On my part, I don't give two hoots. I was merely pointing out the logical inconsistency in your and others' arguments that Gamma and the other two are almost confirmed citizens. Coz they are not.

It just felt weird because you were acting like I didn't believe it - I had literally said nothing about your claim at that point, so why defend it to me like I had?

[Cooperative Sheep]

I can provide you the usual list of empty comments when asked about town reads, though I fail to see how they'll help, but here;

Looked like he was trying to game solve.
Didn't feel opportunistic.
Vibed town to me.
The points against him were few and those that existed sucked.
Yadda yadda.

I mean, there's absolutely nothing in my Day 1 that suggests I didn't town read him, as I only called him town and defended him, but even a semi-competent scum player would have the same. But all of this info is useless to you, so I guess blow me away with what you're doing with it (as you only ask me for it and no one else, which makes me question your motives).

[Cooperative Sheep]

Your rebuttal doesn't explain scum intent on my part even if I had been meaning the things you're saying I meant.. Here's my quick rebuttal to your rebuttal;

1. You only asked Sparkles (never Alban) and you never got an answer out of Sparkles - so, yeah, I don't think you were actually targeting either of them, or are at least faking.
1a. I don't recall you asking me to explain my townread yesterday, my bad if I missed it. Vaguely think I didn't though.

2. I agree I know how to explain a town read - I actually did it, so I don't get your whine here.

3. The bold is clearly describing myself - as saying that about Gamma makes no sense, but even if I *was* saying that about Gamma it wouldn't magically invalidate my other reasons even if I, for some reason, thought both.

What's your read on Hellfire?

[Cooperative Sheep]

Went back and looked, all I see from you yesterday is asking me to explain a scum read on Comm (which I did...apparently to the point of convincing you)
and you refusing to explain a town read (even though anyone can do it). So...nah, your case on me is derp.

Talk to me about Hellfire.

[Cooperative Sheep]

"2. I agree I know how to explain a town read - I actually did it, so I don't get your whine here."

no. you buzzworded. try again peer.

I did, but I actually think that's how townreads tend to always look when described.
Tell you what, you do one for Hellfire in the style you'd like to see me use, and then I'll do one for Gamma in that style.

"1. You only asked Sparkles (never Alban) and you never got an answer out of Sparkles - so, yeah, I don't think you were actually targeting either of them, or are at least faking.
1a. I don't recall you asking me to explain my townread yesterday, my bad if I missed it. Vaguely think I didn't though."

has sparkles come back to the thread yet? no

Okay...he actually did come back after you asked the question, and you didn't re-ask the question, but maybe you were waiting for him to come back yet again - my bad.

just checked, didnt I guess I didn't ask Alban after all
however, creature is lock town + one of you and sparkles has to be scum for alban to be so play ball

Yeah, I know - but you made such a big deal out of me being a liar...so...does this change your read on me at all?
Or are you just working an angle here and not scumhunting?

Why does one of the Docs *have* to be scum? We could all be town last I checked - what do you know that I don't about that?

"3. The bold is clearly describing myself - as saying that about Gamma makes no sense, but even if I *was* saying that about Gamma it wouldn't magically invalidate my other reasons even if I, for some reason, thought both."

so it's describing yourself. you scum slipped. nice bro.

I don't see the slip, please describe it?

town!hellfire
that read is higher

Is this how town reads are described?

[Cooperative Sheep]

I don't want to describe my townread on hellfire
I'm not the one who claimed to protect someone who'd never be killed, my situation isn't dire
gamma was your strongest town read, you should have specific things that made you think that
otherwise, the read is shat
no, sparkles didn't come back other than a prodge
stop trying to dodge
I appreciate you constantly shading me in your replies though
discrediting at the source is a strong scum tell bro
all of the docs could be town, yes
but you aren't, so bless

How about you quote me from another one of your games, or even any random player in ANY game - their description of a town read so I know what you're saying you want/need?
Since you are being obstinate and scummy.

I'll agree I'm throwing shade on you, but it's super valid shade that you could easily counter if you were town and being honest...so, why aren't you?

I'll agree that if we ignore when Sparkles came back that he hasn't come back.
You ducked my question about you calling me a liar and then me pointing out that I wasn't.

The slip - you failed to explain that too.

[Cooperative Sheep]

And if all the docs could be town - why are you saying that one has to be scum? Is that just your gut read then?

[Cooperative Sheep]

So you want a specific type of town case, but absolutely refuse to explain to me what sort of town case you want - and call me scum for refusing to give it in the style you refuse to explain?
Bwuh?

You also are pressing a fake slip, and by refusal to explain it are admitting that you're aware it wasn't a slip.

And even though you called me a liar as part of your scum case, despite now having to admit that I wasn't lying, your case remains unchanged.

Why should I think you're town?
Can you make a case for yourself?

[Cooperative Sheep]

You're also stating to do the exact things that got CommKnight lynched and that you called him 'going retarded over'.
So, maybe don't go retarded?
And talk to me like a person who wants to solve the game?

[Cooperative Sheep]

[snip]
I mean, there's absolutely nothing in my Day 1 that suggests I didn't town read him, as I only called him town and defended him, but even a semi-competent

scum

player would have the same. But all of this info is useless to you, so I guess blow me away with what you're doing with it (as you only ask me for it and no one else, which makes me question your motives).

you said any semi competent scum player
you directly implied you were scum
later

Why would I say "but" before admitting I was scum?
For someone who loves rhyme, you seem to have a very limited understanding of what the words mean.
Is this correct? 'But' confuses you as to what it means?
Does this help?

https://www.google.com/search?q=define+ ... 8&oe=utf-8

Buzzwords also seem to confuse you as a concept - they exist as buzzwords because they are shorthand for communicating something.
If I type out longer sentences that say the same thing it actually doesn't make the case different - so what is the actual issue? You saying I scumslipped is a buzzword - does that automatically defeat your case on me? (I'll auto presume 'no' for this rhetorical) so why do you act like it defeats my town case?

I know you don't care how I read you in this little pseudo rant - but unlike you I like to be correct, so I do care how I read you. You're sounding very empty and are trying to cover it up with fake anger - why are you so frothy all of a sudden today? What changed from yesterday?

[Cooperative Sheep]

How am I acting stupid? I frankly feel like I'm arguing circles around you.

If using a buzzword is not buzzwording - how was my town case buzzwording?

[Cooperative Sheep]

you literally just said words, none related to him
that's buzzwording, using the common ping words and not saying anything with them
what about him made him look like he was game solving? in what way was he not opportunistic? what caused him to vibe town? etcetera
none of that applies to gamma. it applies to x player, doing x thing, not this player doing this thing. better
attach meaning to your fake town reads next time
you are eating rope for your crimes

These are illogical whines that could have been solved by you asking this question initially instead of acting like I didn't answer your question.
I would say most of his questions feel like game solving - he probes at people (unlike, say, how it's taking me forever to get you to say what you mean) As an example look at Posts 267-271
I can't show lack of opportunism in a post - can you show presence of opportunism? If not, my stance pings true.
Vibing town is that, to me, his posts feel town. I'll give an example post - 401. Dishonesty is an easy thing for scum to leap on, so why question the veracity of dishonsty as a tell? That's town behavior.

It's all still buzzwords though.
Apparently you wanted post numbers?
Use your words.

I have this feeling Hellfire Missile got scum, anyone else does?

I also feel like that.
I also am suspect of the lack of bodies piling on to me during this debate with Mutton.
I think scum knows the bill of goods is bad, which makes Mutton derp town.

You should vote Hellfire with me.

Like I feel sheep knows what MCM means but is intentionally dancing around it if that makes sense.

I am asking him to specifically explain his thoughts.
Then I am mocking the answers and explaining why they're bad.

I do KNOW his answers insomuch as I suspect that he has bad reasons, and that's why I'm asking those questions - to allow me to showcase his bad logic and crush the case.
But I am allowing him to provide the answers in his own words, and not leap to conclusions.
I don't see how that would suggest I am either town or scum though - it does suggest that Mutton's case is pretty bad though.

What's your read on Hellfire?

[Cooperative Sheep]

he intentionally acted dumb just to throw me off

How did I do this exactly?
Because you keep saying this - but it wasn't being done.

I've literally provided you everything you've asked for or shown how what you're saying is a lie and somehow that makes me scum and your case unchanged.
You are either scum or blind tunneled - why won't you communicate, why are you empty casing?

[Cooperative Sheep]

So my gut feeling is that MCM is genuine.

However, the way the whole case played out, like my brain doesnt see it.

So I dont really understand MCM's case but my gut is saying its right so im really frickin confused.

What do you think about it?

Is your gut saying that he's genuine or is your gut saying he's right, or both?
They are different things.

[Cooperative Sheep]

Calling it T v T is not valid - I'm not trying to lynch him and have been calling him town for some time.
It's T v Derp tunnel

[Cooperative Sheep]

Why are you voting Alban with Sesq?
I wouldn't want to be backing a Sesq case at this point, and I don't think Alban particularly looks bad beyond lurk and lack of input, and there are a number of names we can toss under that bus.

Want to move to Hellfire?

[Cooperative Sheep]

sheep's last post feels very scummy for some reason

Well, I did attack you in that post, is that what triggered you - or was it something else?

[Cooperative Sheep]

it just aint natural dude

How is it not natural?
I consider it very normal to try to advance one's push on someone.

UHHH
Why do you view the saves as town? Do you have no faith in your save? Or are you just mafia that slipped?
VOTE: Agent Sparkles

How is that, in any way, a slip?

VOTE: sparkles

[Cooperative Sheep]

You're too sick to log on and type but know you'll be better by the 10th?

[Cooperative Sheep]

Nio, I think that's a very legit question and I'm not a top lynch option at the moment as town is very fractured so it's not like I'm in danger - would you like to answer the question now?

[Cooperative Sheep]

its how you said it

How did I say it that bothered you?

Any current game facts will be appreciated and town credit Shall be given for it.

There are three doc claims for N1.
So that's a thing.

NJAC, Gamma, and Creature are the declared targets (by Sparkles, myself, and Alban respectively)
People are trying to lynch within the protects, and don't understand why that's silly.
So that's also a thing.

Can we lynch Sesq?

I'd have no issue with that currently, though I think Hellfire is a safer bet.

[Cooperative Sheep]

I agree.
Join us?

[Cooperative Sheep]

Why is Hellfire a safer bet? I just eyeballed the VCs.

Due to his position on the wagon and expressed reasoning for the move.

So correct me if wrong here

Sparkles protected NJAC
You protected Gamma
Alban protected Creature

What reasons did these 3 get protected?

I provided my reasons twice - feel free to ISO me.
Alban described his reason here - viewtopic.php?p=9282797#p9282797
Sparkles ducked the question and Mutton is just now remembering that he was going to bug him about that to avoid hypocrisy

If we Lynch in any group it should be from Sparkles, you or Alban, right?

I disagree, but that is at least more logical than lynching within the protects.

if you idiots refuse to read any of hellfires other games, keep ignoring me and mislynch him that's on you
but after that, sheep better fucking be roped too

Which of his other games are convincing you this is his town meta exactly?

[Cooperative Sheep]

It indicates Sparkles doesn't actually believe in his protect which would make sense if he was mafia

It would also make sense if he didn't think multiple scum would fakeclaim Doc N1 - which is what his post was primarily about saying.

[Cooperative Sheep]

forum.mafiascum.net/viewtopic.php?p=8445979

forum.mafiascum.net/viewtopic.php?f=50&t=69150

just skim the isos
I haven't seen his scum game though

Skimmed through - nothing really seems to address my concerns with him.
His posting is a little less in this game than that one, but appears within his norms.
I ignored the game from 10 years ago.

What am I missing?

[Cooperative Sheep]

It indicates Sparkles doesn't actually believe in his protect which would make sense if he was mafia

It would also make sense if he didn't think multiple scum would fakeclaim Doc N1 - which is what his post was primarily about saying.

Did everyone forget what Sparkles said?

I went back to look at the post, so, yes I did, but at this stage I feel able to discuss it with intelligence - and the post is as I described it as far as I can see. You translate it differently? What do you think it was saying if not what I claimed?

[Cooperative Sheep]

Sheep, I want to talk about your vote position conclusion. Color me intrigued.

I acknowledge your desire to ask me a question and grant you permission to ask it.

[Cooperative Sheep]

If you can tell what Titus wants me to talk about so I can save us time and answer immediately feel free to tell me - otherwise I'm obligated to simply say 'ok' as far as I can tell.

[Cooperative Sheep]

Your answer here that I bolded is what I want elaboration on.

Tbh, I like your reply pretty much saying I hear you but I have no idea.

Is there part of my case you don't understand/see?
If it's the 'entire thing' is what you're looking for an explanation of wagon position scumhunting?
Narrow it down in any way?

[Cooperative Sheep]

VC 1.15

CommKnight (7)

: Agent Sparkles, Cooperative Sheep, NotTheRealPaul, Sesq, MuttonChopMagic, Hellfire Missile, LunaeCinere,

Cooperative Sheep (3)

: CommKnight, Creature, aronagrundy,

Sesq (1)

: Gamma Emerald,

Creature (1)

: NJAC,

Hellfire Missile (1)

: alban,

This is the wagon on CommKnight and the other wagons at the time (of note there was a Sesq wagon also shortly before the CommKnight one sprang up, it looked like this;
Sesq (4): Hellfire Missile, Gamma Emerald, Cooperative Sheep, Agent Sparkles, [which means that literally the entire wagon except for Gamma shifted off Sesq to make the CommKnight wagon happen, which makes Sesq only really likely scum in a world with Hellfire or Spakles (or me if you're an outside observer) and also makes Gamma likely more town, and almost assured town if Sesq is scum.

Then we go to basic wagon theory.
Basic wagon theory is that scum vote to lynch town, or to get bus credit if needed, whereas town fall onto a wagon for a variety of reasons.
Meanwhile scum are motivated in their maneuvers and also know who their partners are, and therefore tend to have their voting patterns have...well, a pattern.
With the awareness that scum have a pattern to voting that town lack, and with a bit of analysis (I can always try to hunt through Mafia Discussion for it if you need to reference) we come to a conclusion that statistically it is highly improbable that zero scum voted to lynch a town player. Taking that info further we can also find that the general expectation in a game with this scum vtown ratio to tend to generate 1-3 scum on the wagon, with one or more being highly probable with a decreasing frequency moving on as we add more expected assured scum.
Therefore, it is safe to assume that 1, maybe 2 scum (and with an eye squint 3, but though that is more likely than 0 I don't think it's a safe assumption) are present on the wagon.

Okay, so at that point you also need to asses random variables - in this wagon I have followed the following conclusions of my own, that feel generally supported by all the evidence I have ever seen.
-With 1-2 scum on a wagon it is generally true that they don't vote next to each other and want to 'space out' their votes.
-With accepted town randomness it is generally true that there would then be an 'early' scum vote and a 'late' scum vote.
-One can locate scum through a combo of ruling out town reads and also assessing motivation (reasons) for placing a vote on the wagon and looking for the iffiest.

So, let's go back to our wagon;

CommKnight (7)

: Agent Sparkles, Cooperative Sheep, NotTheRealPaul, Sesq, MuttonChopMagic, Hellfire Missile, LunaeCinere,
Sparkles is the wagon starter and a claimed Doc (the first at that) and thus is, guardedly, a reasonable rule out on both points.
I rule myself out.
I have a decent town read on NTRP.
Sesq is the counter wagon, but if I was to wager on an early scum he'd be my bet, but it feels dicey as a guess.
Mutton was a town lean coming into the day, and I guardedly stand by that assessment after his push on me as it somewhat vibes me as stubborn town who thinks they're right rather than scum being desperate, though I'll admit I find myself internally debating this every day, but...eh.
Hellfire is a non-entity who had a bad reason for his vote and has supplied no real thoughts on the game.
Lunae's vote was also bad, but I personally feel that scum prefer a spot prior to hammer.

So on that wagon my logic says Hellfire > Lunae > Sesq/Mutton though I may be conflicted on the Lunae/Sesq positions and neither slot is bothering to do much so it's hard to get a sort feel for them. Thus, at this stage due to wagon theory and his vote position, I wish to lynch Hellfire.

Do you understand my stance better now?

[Cooperative Sheep]

Or players who don't process the setup well - I think we have a fair potential that both exist in this game per previous comments I made about the votes and Gamma.

[Cooperative Sheep]

Yes.

[Cooperative Sheep]

zzzz

As long as we're waiting for NJAC, would you like to explore another avenue of discussion?

[Cooperative Sheep]

Vote: Titus

Can you explain to me how what Mutton did with his claim change was scummy in any particular way?

[Cooperative Sheep]

I am not - I am unaware that I ever indicated full belief that Arona's slot was town, but I feel I expressed a lot of issue's with it.
He is also in the Doc pool.
He also seemed to have a random attack/blowup over Mutton doing something that wasn't actually scummy - and I'm curious why.

[Cooperative Sheep]

Why does my question appear meaningless to you?

[Cooperative Sheep]

Why is it not scummy?

That's not how scumtells work.
Do you think it's scummy? If so - why? How does that action benefit scum to do?
The most I have is 'Hellfire is his partner'.

Are you honestly saying that a scum wouldn't have motive to do that?

Genreally speaking - yes, I am saying exactly that.

The action itself is scummy. It adds confusion and a chance to change the lynch pools (which it did) to suit scum.

I don't think it did that, wouldn't changing the lynch pools require there to be less scum in the lynch pool?
Why was the doc lynch pool better for scum? Just because scum want to kill Cops I guess?

Why are you directing this at Titus when I had the exact same response?

Because your reaction was nowhere near the level of his.

[Cooperative Sheep]

For example - All scum claim in cops - It's a fuck up and a scum member needs to provide option to both sections to be considered. Risk is lower than the reward.

Example 2 - The lynch pool looks harder to lynch in cop than in doc. Therefore having majority in doc is the option. Risk is lower than the reward.

Example 3 - N1 Claims made are within the docs - If all town, these slots need to be removed.

Example 1 - this seems unlikely, and also requires Creature to be scum and a bit daft.
Example 2 - Do you think the pools looked like this? I don't.
Example 3 - I don't understand this point, I would tend to argue that the N1 Doc claims are pretty ignorable for scum, you think we're high priority?

Wouldn't you have more concern with me then, over Titus? Titus voiced her opinion strongly, I voted with minimal confrontation on the situation.

No, I don't think that, why should I?
Your theory being scum always don't lead?
I find that very untrue.

When you're scum do you lay back, or lead?

Do you feel calling people out for anti town plays are bad?

No.
I do find calling anti-town plays pro-scum to be bad and anti-town though, so...

[Cooperative Sheep]

Example 1 - this seems unlikely, and also requires Creature to be scum and a bit daft.
Example 2 - Do you think the pools looked like this? I don't.
Example 3 - I don't understand this point, I would tend to argue that the N1 Doc claims are pretty ignorable for scum, you think we're high priority?

1 - Why does it seem unlikely?
The whole point of making scum claim a role is to put them on the spot. Just saying unlikely isn't an argument that I will accept.
2 - I do, yes. Why don't you?
3 - If all town, why are they to be ignored? If scum is found in the docs, that favours the claims meaning the scum have multiple targets to get rid of as those claims then become more believable, and yet not a worthy night kill (Meaning they need these slots lynched).

1. This theory requires Mutton to understand the wall that scum are being put into, and to *also* feel that his scumbuddies made a bad value call after he claimed. The ones who claimed after him are Gamma (who he has been pretty hard attacking) Titus (who attacked him for the switch - and also understands the layout of how the claims impact scum, and claimed Doc) Paul, NJAC, and Creature.
That pretty much drops the possible scumbuddies to a small group, two of which are in the protected pool, and Paul whom I have a decent town read on.

Are you advocating one of these people as the derp scumbuddy who claimed cop when he shouldn't have?
I find it unlikely.

2. Probably because the Cop pool had the leading vote wagon of Hellfire in it, also in the Cop pool was Gamma, who had votes despite being a protect. Who do you see as the super easy Doc lynches scum has to salivate for with these 2 options?

3. That would apply either way though, and doesn't take into account where the third scum is regardless.

Incorrect, my theory is that scum do both. You know, like the guy who's throwing mud but leaving someone to take the lead / pressure.

If scum do both (and I agree with this), why should I suspect you over Titus?

I mis read this part - In response, I feel that Titus reacted well enough.

If even in full defense your response is 'reacted well enough' I fail to see the issue with my pressure,a nd fail to see why you consider it so meaningless as to question if I was just prod dodging when making the attack and asking the question.
Is your town read on Titus that strong?
I've played a lot with Titus - I have no faith to be able to read him that strong, why do you? And if you don't, what is this all about?

[Cooperative Sheep]

1. I'll also add that it doesn't take much effort to look at and see a breadcrumb from Mutton for his coming claim switch *prior* to all the claims being finished. So...that limits the pool potentially a bit more.

[Cooperative Sheep]

1 - I don't think you understand. I was giving an example and scenario. And you are ruling out the situation here where Mutton panicked and claimed after his Scum buddies. And your counter argument is because you have a town read on someone. I think you are missing my point here, or you just know that I'm right so you are changing the playing field.

2 - well for a start hellfire can be scum in this scenario too. Meaning that lynched they want, the cop section has harder lynched. If you look at each side of the claim it's obvious the more Scum read and discussed lynched are in the doc pile rather than the cop. That's just factual and if you disagree I'll provide the recent views of each player in each group.

3 - it's still a Scum motivated situation. What are you not understanding here?

1. Yes, and I explained why I found that an unlikely scenario. I think the chance that he was the last scum to claim, panicked about his claim *prior* to the other claims coming out, breadcrumbed a reverse, and then reversed to be unlikely. I don't think I'm changing any playing field in any way.

2. I already said that the only scum theory I had that made sense required Hellfire to be Mutton's partner, so I agree with you on that point. Who are the strong lynch options in the Doc pile? I listed two in the Cop pile, who do you see in the Doc pile that are remotely as strong as Gamma and Hellfire for lynchability?

3. I actually directly explained why I didn't see it as a clear scum motivated situation because, by definition, it puts a target on your head (as it did). I'll also agree that considering the setup, lying about your claim is pure derp because you can't fool scum - but that makes it anti-town, not pro-scum.

Because what you are saying to be the issue, you should have equal doubt on me and Titus. In your eyes both of our actions should be considered as bad.

I disagree - how would you describe my issue?

Well my issue here is that you originally threw shade on Titus because you said that his actions were okay and not scummy. That was what you were originally arguing over. I have told you that I disagree and shown Why

Agreed.

now your argument is Titus handled the Mutton action badly.

No, I have said nothing of the sort.

Titus is town right now. She's easy to tell as Scum imo, and if Scum it will be made obvious.
If the Scum know her game wise she's a primary kill anyway (that doesn't mean she's Scum if not killed).
Titus is possible in my top 5 played with so that's why I feel confident enough that this is town Titus.

What makes Titus' town play so obvious to you?

But my argument isn't you shading Titus - if people think Titus is Scum I'm open to listening, but your reasoning doesn't sit well with me.

I think that's exactly your argument - you acted like me questioning Titus' motivations was silly to even conceptualize and must be a prod dodge - that's a straight up attack on my question. If you super town read Titus, as you claim, it makes some sense - but even if you super town read Titus, I'm not sure why you'd expect everyone else to considering you haven't town cased Titus.

[Cooperative Sheep]

No, I have said nothing of the sort.

He also seemed to have a random attack/blowup over Mutton doing something that wasn't actually scummy

You are either confused on the argument where it's pointless to carry on until you're not, or you're trying to manipulate what's said.
I suggest you start from the beginning, read what I am saying and stop trying to respond with something that isn't what I'm asking / saying.

Huh?

you originally threw shade on Titus because you said that his actions were okay and not scummy. That was what you were originally arguing over. I have told you that I disagree and shown Why, now your argument is Titus handled the Mutton action badly. Which is different to what I was arguing

Your quotes seem to support only the first half of your comment here, which I agreed with, but doesn't support the second one - which is what I disagreed with.
So...?

If anyone actually has this view on that particular play, I'm A - Not going to take them seriously B - Think that they're scum.

So you think I'm scum defending Mutton who you think is town by attacking Titus for attacking Mutton while avoiding the easy Sesq wagon...so...am I scum with Sesq?
I don't take this comment from you particularly seriously - it looks addled.

Pedit - I have already listed both of those reads.
To restate them;

Town on Mutton.
Scum lean on Sesq.

[Cooperative Sheep]

Yeah, and mutton admitted his play was a mistake and detracted from finding scum. We all agree. It was that humanity that made him townier. His actions are still bad but I am perfectly inclined to go vote for Sesq who basically wet noodled.

I am not debating that it was good/bad play.
I am debating why you called it scummy ad voted him - can you explain?

So you think I'm scum defending Mutton who you think is town by attacking Titus for attacking Mutton while avoiding the easy Sesq wagon...so...am I scum with Sesq?
I don't take this comment from you particularly seriously - it looks addled.

I mean, you can decide my reads for me if you like.
Otherwise I once again, suggest you read my comment (and then read what kind of response I gave you in regards to my comment).
I'm also not concerned if you take my comment seriously or not.

So your reads are different than what I said?

Also, shall I take by silence on the point - that you agree that I didn't change my stance despite you providing quotes tht support that I didn't change my stance as evidence I did?

[Cooperative Sheep]

So your reads are different than what I said?

Also, shall I take by silence on the point - that you agree that I didn't change my stance despite you providing quotes tht support that I didn't change my stance as evidence I did?

My reads are not on the table. You have decided my reads by not reading my comments. As I said, that is fine.

I inferred your reads, since you did call me scum, did call Titus town, and did call Mutton town, and did vote Sesq.

You can take it as you like. I've told you that you are either manipulating the comments or have a lack of understanding. Until I feel you have read my comments properly, that's that.

How am I manipulating anything?
You literally quoted me saying exactly what I claimed I said and not saying what you claimed I said.

[Cooperative Sheep]

since you did call me scum

This is another reason why i will not take you seriously. Did you get confused on players?

The only 2 you can quote me on is Mutton and Titus.

You also said this;

over Mutton doing something that wasn't actually scummy

If anyone actually has this view on that particular play, I'm A - Not going to take them seriously B - Think that they're scum.

And I have repeatedly stated that I believe exactly that - so...I kinda thought that meant you were calling me scum.
I also presumed you'd vote scum reads, so your vote on Sesq was, I assumed, a vote for scum - is he a null or town read then?

My quote was in response to you saying you never said something. I proved you wrong then you said you didn't change your stance?

And after you quoted it I straight up said it didn't show me saying the thing.
It still doesn't.

You did change it. Your first post suggests it's because the action wasn't Scum the second post is because of how Titus reacted.

That is 2 different things.

1. I said the action wasn't scum motivated.
2. I questioned why Titus attacked it.

I'll agree that's two things - but it's not a change of stance in any way.

[Cooperative Sheep]

You also said this;

Before you look stupid... stop, read my comment again. Read how I responded to your original comment.
Then fo back to the comment and choose option A

So you're adding an unwritten either/or into it?

Gosh - how stupid I look.
Like, that's kind of ridiculous to call me stupid for not inventing words and inserting them into your comment for you and instead, asking you about your reads as I understand them and expressing confusion.

I believe that you meant that but you didn't say that (given how you read my other posts).

I am not - I am unaware that I ever indicated full belief that Arona's slot was town, but I feel I expressed a lot of issue's with it.
He is also in the Doc pool.
He also seemed to have a random attack/blowup over Mutton doing something that wasn't actually scummy - and I'm curious why.

How does this quote not support my original stance, my future stance, or suggest a change of stance?
It's literally saying the same thing as the first thing I said.

What you claim I said is that I was bothered with *how* Titus attacked him as opposed to having issues with the *why* which has clearly been my stance the entire time.
You even, ince again, quote me expressing issue with the why, not the how.

[Cooperative Sheep]

How does this quote not support my original stance, my future stance, or suggest a change of stance?
It's literally saying the same thing as the first thing I said.

What you claim I said is that I was bothered with *how* Titus attacked him as opposed to having issues with the *why* which has clearly been my stance the entire time.
You even, ince again, quote me expressing issue with the why, not the how.

I'm don't with you.
You have lack of understanding for the word literally, you have lack of understanding of words I am using, you have lack of understanding of my argument and you have lack of understanding of where you messed up in your comments.

I've honestly never met a player that struggles this much, and I've played with some characters in my time.

I'm struggling this much because you're being intentionally obtuse and trying to avoid the giving of straight answers.
You're very clear on my stance because I'm doing the opposite.
Why is this that someone who grasps words so well struggles to use them to explain his thoughts clearly?

[Cooperative Sheep]

Ive said it clearly.
I've also said to reread from the start. You refuse to reread from the start.
I'm not sure how else I can help you here without drawing you a picture or supplying a pop up book...

State it again.

The specific point I'm utterly lost on, still, is your claim that I changed my stance.

1. What was my original stance?
2. What did it change to?

[Cooperative Sheep]

You (not me, this means you) said that it wasn't scummy. Remember, this was you. If you get a mirror, this will help you determine who "you" is.

I agree with this and follow.

Me (not you, do not use a mirror this time) said why it was scummy. That's right, I said why it was scummy.

Agreed.

You (again, use the mirror) changed it to the way that Titus (the person in question) reacted.

Disagree - because, for starters, it's not a change.
If something isn't scummy - then a person attacking it is a built in aspect of the issue with someone attacking something that isn't scummy.
It's impossible to have an issue with someone not attacking something that isn't scummy.

Now let's break it down.
Calling something scummy when it isn't scummy is different to over reacting to something scummy.
These are the 2 (number after 1) different issues you had before and after my comment.

I'm sorry I didn't do it in colour.

Let's even go with this being two different things.
How is that different, exactly.
Like, describe why I should question Titus in 1. and then describe the *different* way i should question for 2.
Isn't the question in both cases "why did you attack something that wasn't scummy"?

[Cooperative Sheep]

Yeah, and mutton admitted his play was a mistake and detracted from finding scum. We all agree. It was that humanity that made him townier. His actions are still bad but I am perfectly inclined to go vote for Sesq who basically wet noodled.

I am not debating that it was good/bad play.
I am debating why you called it scummy ad voted him - can you explain?

@Titus - if you're intentionally ducking this question can you explain why.
Otherwise I'll have to keep re-quoting it, and that will get annoying for everyone.

[Cooperative Sheep]

Vedith did that.

So your answer is exactly what Vedith said more or less?
What about my comments rebutting his answer - Vedith has washed over them pretty strongly, do you actually agree with him that there are multiple scum benefits to the fake claim, or do you agree with me that there are very limited and specific ones?

[Cooperative Sheep]

Vedith did that.

So your answer is exactly what Vedith said more or less?
What about my comments rebutting his answer - Vedith has washed over them pretty strongly, do you actually agree with him that there are multiple scum benefits to the fake claim, or do you agree with me that there are very limited and specific ones?

Semantic pointless argument.

Scum benefit, scum motive = anti-town needs sorting with votes

It matters to me, because it changes the world of your perception when you attacked him.
There was actually very little/no scum benefit/motive in my eyes, which would then not require voting and sorting.
There was a lot in Vedith's eyes (if you buy his theories) so, maybe then, yeah.

What did you believe specifically?
At the moment I am about ready to presume you just totally crib Vedith's notes as presented - meaning you see many many scum benefits, and have all sorts of pseudo half baked theories you think need to be given equal weight while ignoring the gamestate analysis that some people might have used to assess whether something was scummy or not. Feel free to agree/disagree with this and clarify.

[Cooperative Sheep]

What did you believe specifically?

It's in my ISO.

I believed Mutton might have been covering for Hellfire on first pass.

Your belief =/= reality. No one's does.

*shrug*

If you only thought it was scummy as a defense for Hellfire why switch votes, wouldn't that belief require Hellfire to be scum, and Hellfire has the benefit of being independently scummy moreso than Mutton?

[Cooperative Sheep]

Doc lynch is 100% optimal today because their must be scum in the doctor claimers. There's no guarantee of scum in cop claimers.

I understand the broad stroke Doc lynch choice. I'm working on your specific mental state when voting Mutton.

So a roughly honest translation of your thoughts would be the following; 'The only reason scum Mutton would move is to protect scum Hellfire - but since statistically scum are more likely to be in Docs I need to pressure Mutton, not Hellfire, and I'd like to make him explain his reasoning.'

Are people willing to consider a Gamma wagon? If we're sniping from doctor claims, I want him dead tomorrow.

VOTE: MuttonChop if this is still possible. Not lynching docs outside of this and Sesq.

So you want to know if people would consider Gamma (my answer is no) but want to vote Mutton (whom at least two players are calling town) or Sesq?
The Sesq case has mostly been invented by the people opposing Mutton as a lynch - why do you agree on that and disgaree on the other (especially as the two thoughts are somewhat connected).

Also, where does Gamma fall on your lynch preferences? Is he a third choice, or a second choice, or a first choice?

[Cooperative Sheep]

Lol at how dead wrong Sesq is. I will say I do often erase what I type to try to make it flow a bit better/avoid confusion. Like I rewrote this 2-3 times trying to fit a joke but alas the creative portion of my mind is not at full power and I was unable to come up with anything good.

@Titus thank you for the list oh so very helpful.

lollllll

you're only proving my point

He has specifically proved your point.

How does that make him scum exactly?

[Cooperative Sheep]

Did you have other reasons?
I used 'only' because of your comment here - viewtopic.php?p=9318886#p9318886

[Cooperative Sheep]

I never quite made a lot of the updates when they added them, it's why I still vote in bold as opposed to vote tags also.

[Cooperative Sheep]

Lol at how dead wrong Sesq is. I will say I do often erase what I type to try to make it flow a bit better/avoid confusion. Like I rewrote this 2-3 times trying to fit a joke but alas the creative portion of my mind is not at full power and I was unable to come up with anything good.

@Titus thank you for the list oh so very helpful.

lollllll

you're only proving my point

He has specifically proved your point.

How does that make him scum exactly?

my point is that he is scum and his entire play has been a lie.

Neither your accusation nor his agreement with it proves that point though.

[Cooperative Sheep]

has he done anything productive?

it's just so obvious

I will agree he hasn't been overly productive.
I would note that he is hardly alone in that category, and I'd argue some slots are less productive than him.
I also, sadly, would have to note that being useless is something many town players do - so how does this suggests he's scum, much less suggest he's more likely scum than any of the other non-producers we're having to deal with in this game?

Resistance to the wagon implies Scum.

Resistance to which wagon?
I can count at least two that are getting obvious resistance - which one are you noting?

[Cooperative Sheep]

Heck, we could make it three if we count my push on Titus that you opposed immediately

[Cooperative Sheep]

By that answer I'll presume you mean Sesq and are going with the theory that 1 vote isn't a wagon but 2 is for no readily apparent reason, as though 4 and 5 are different wagons other than relative size.

[Cooperative Sheep]

Is there a particular reason you're being so rude to me?

[Cooperative Sheep]

Well, functionally you just called me bad and laughed at me because I consider a 1 vote wagon a wagon and not...a 1 vote, whereas 2+ votes = wagon.
Which, even if I felt strongly that only 2+ votes could be called a wagon and 1 votes had to be called...I dunno, aardvarks or something - it actually isn't an issue coming from me because;

1) You knew what I meant.
2) My question was valid in a world where I consider 1 votes to = wagons.

Yet, for some reason, instead of answering you tried to downplay my relative skill in a meaningless way while claiming that you didn't consider it insulting, meaning your only goal was to mock my skill level in a non-insulting way.
Why did you want to do that?

[Cooperative Sheep]

So your goal *was* to try and point out how "stupid" I was for calling a person with 1 vote a wagon...because...?

[Cooperative Sheep]

Because you tried to be a smart arse with me on asking which wagon when you obviously knew there was 1 wagon, and that was what I was talking about.

Tell me, why did you do that?

You have claimed that you don't even believe Sesq to be scum, so I was trying to verufy that you were indeed calling Sesq scummy.
Also, I don't think there has been much wagon resistance - besides myself I would tend to suggest there has been none. I would actually suggest the wagon drag is mostly due to a large amount of the votes in the game currently being barely used by players who are only half present in the game.
I was hoping that asking a question like "which resisted wagon" might make you consider the idea that multiple wagons (or aardvarks, as you will) are, even now, being resisted with equal energy to the one you're citing as a scum tell.

So you called me stupid because you don't see any other resistance to any other wagon to the same level as the Sesq wagon?
What resistance is there to Sesq besides me?
And if only me - what is your take on the Gamma wagon/aardvark and the resistance there, or to your defense of Titus for my wagon/aardvark on her? WHy are those resistances different in a scum finding sense?

[Cooperative Sheep]

That's what I thought.

As long as we're playing that game.
What is your take on Titus *agreeing* with my "stupid or scummy" thought that the only pro scum play from Mutton was defending theory bud Hellfire?
Titus straight up avoided your claim (I submit because she knew it was indefensible). Does that also make Titus "stupid"?

[Cooperative Sheep]

@ Vedith - viewtopic.php?p=9325161#p9325161

I'm not sure if I 'struggle' or 'seek clarity' but I'll agree I do that.
Don't think it makes me stupid either way - because even if I'm too stupid to understand what is being said I'm smart enough to want to make sure I understand something before making a value call about it.
But you be you - feel free to blacklist me.

[Cooperative Sheep]

I was so confused with that post then. I never saw your response as I'm at work - However, your post does nothing. You argue there's no resistance, then expect me to tell you that was a damn good opinion.
But I will say again - There is only 1 wagon. Saying that a pen is a book, doesn't make it a book. This is the same for saying there are multiple wagons.

What you are getting at is there is resistance in your thought process. Which isn't something I can explain other than, you only think black and white, and doubt the existence of a grey area.

I won't be blacklisting you, otherwise you will never learn. But I will be either ignoring your comments or shutting them down if I feel the need to.

You're ducking the question by using a lot of words.
What is the resistance to the Sesq wagon as you see it?
How does that resistance differ from resistance to other non-wagons that have 1 vote?

[Cooperative Sheep]

You're ducking the question by using a lot of words.
What is the resistance to the Sesq wagon as you see it?
How does that resistance differ from resistance to other non-wagons that have 1 vote?

Well, for a start, the resistence to the non wagons are a matter of different opinions.
The resistance of the Sesq wagon is people avoiding making a stance or commenting on it... Considering it's the only wagon, that's not normal.

I don't think you've asked anyone for their opinion on it besides me (and it was given).
Is that avoidance or the general malise of the game?
Clearly you're going with avoidance - but off what evidence?

[Cooperative Sheep]

Also, that's too many avoiders to be all scum, so...?

[Cooperative Sheep]

however, what he has done is try to look like he was being productive, and herein lies a valid scumtell.

How has he tried to 'look' productive? If he has, he's doing a weak job of it unless his goal is to look slightly more productive than other slots, but not particularly productive, in which case he's being very brilliant at it, but I'm not sure I buy that as a conscious strategy even if he is scum since it would require enough skill he could be doing far superior strategies one would think.

Anyone wanna vote Sparkles with me

No, no one does.
The case is pretty weak and you're not pushing it particularly hard.

Comment Null and void as both question and comment was stupid.

Your face is stupid, but at least I keep trying.
I think it's a very valid question - you're claiming it as a scumtell, and I'm challenging that claim and asking you to back up your stance.
I'm going to presume inability/unwillingness to do so equates to 'gut' as your best possible answer.

[Cooperative Sheep]

Your face is stupid, but at least I keep trying.
I think it's a very valid question - you're claiming it as a scumtell, and I'm challenging that claim and asking you to back up your stance.
I'm going to presume inability/unwillingness to do so equates to 'gut' as your best possible answer.

Null and void, stupid post.

Okay, you win.

Mod: replacing out - apologies.