It's a confession.
VOTE: Eddie Cane
Disagree.In post 12, mozamis wrote:"He said that some things are really best left unspoken,
But I prefer it all to be out in the open..." (Billy Bragg, "Sexuality").
Good advice for playing as town!
Lets all be out in the open as possible as town and screw scum over!
A eagerness to be townread is a null tell in my opinion. Which is the rather transparent level 1 reasoning to spout something like that.In post 18, DogWatch wrote:This looks like something I would have written the very first time I ever played scumIn post 12, mozamis wrote:Lets all be out in the open as possible as town and screw scum over!
Just because there is no reasoning next to then doesn't mean there is no reasoning behind them.In post 44, DogWatch wrote:Fire has three votes now with zero reasoning behind them. Can the three of you explain? We're getting out of the rvs stage at this point. Which reminds me to remove my random vote UNVOTE:
While I can follow the logic that someone overeager to defend at this point is a possible scumread, I don't understand then voting the defended and not the defender.In post 50, aronagrundy wrote:That said, dog's resistance to the fire wagon makes me want to vote fire so
VOTE: fire
Because it is a wagon with no substance that will dissipate and then if I ever flip it certainly doesn't look bad for him.In post 52, aronagrundy wrote:Well I've just wanted to get a wagon going honestly.
That said 51 is bad. Why would scum!dogwatch be resisting town!fire's wagon at this stage in the game?
If dog isn't scum then what relevance does him defending me have? He would be uninformed. The only way you can read him defending me as me being scum is if you also read it as him being scum. Otherwise it is obviously a null tell.In post 54, aronagrundy wrote:Exactly, which is why his defense lacks substance. If it's going to dissipate anyway, is anyone really going to give him towncred for defending your wagon?
I also never said dog was scum. I've wanted to start a wagon and felt like fucking with him
I've pointed out exactly why I reacted. What you are doing doesn't logically follow the reasoning you are giving for it. Even if you want to giggle it all away as "I was only pretending".In post 56, aronagrundy wrote:I didn't have a read on you when I voted you. But I didn't like your reaction. This is why early game wagons are fun
You don't seem to be able to argue against my point that what you were doing didn't make sense. So I am confused by your conclusion that someone reacting against dissonance is scummy.In post 58, aronagrundy wrote:I wasn't pretending to be looking for reactions
And I have explained why it isn't in the slightest and why any basis on a read on me starting with !scumdog should end with !scumdog. Now we are talking in circles.In post 61, aronagrundy wrote:51 assumes that I thought dog was scum, which i admit could be a fair interpretation of my vote. But I also explained why assuming scum!dog is opposing town!fire's wagon is shaky logic
This.In post 73, Barleycorn wrote:what questions has dogwatch ignored?In post 71, Shadow_step wrote:**ignores every question asked to it**
So by every question you meant one question that could easily be read as rhetorical?In post 76, Shadow_step wrote:You just quoted it in your previous post.In post 73, Barleycorn wrote:what questions has dogwatch ignored?In post 71, Shadow_step wrote:**ignores every question asked to it**
"I don't have an answer to this. Quick his forum title says goon, discredit him!"In post 78, Shadow_step wrote:You'll know with experience.In post 75, FireScreamer wrote:This.In post 73, Barleycorn wrote:what questions has dogwatch ignored?In post 71, Shadow_step wrote:**ignores every question asked to it**
Also in what world is building alternatives to yourself something that only has scum incentives?
Also I thought we have covered already that a desire to appear townie also has incentives for actual townies and is therefor a null tell.In post 79, Barleycorn wrote:so you think scum!dogwatch was trying to look like a concerned townieIn post 74, Shadow_step wrote:No it wasn't.
It's trying to show that he's being pro town by asking a bunch of people as to why they are RVS voting Fire. Being on 3 votes is nothing. It's L-4, what's the big deal?
Well its a good job you are not the IC because you sure like to matter of factly state nonsense and patronize needlessly.In post 85, Shadow_step wrote:More like I'm not the IC and this is not a newbie game so I'm not gonna waste my energy on explaining basic mafia stuff that everyone should know.In post 80, FireScreamer wrote:"I don't have an answer to this. Quick his forum title says goon, discredit him!"In post 78, Shadow_step wrote:You'll know with experience.In post 75, FireScreamer wrote:This.In post 73, Barleycorn wrote:what questions has dogwatch ignored?In post 71, Shadow_step wrote:**ignores every question asked to it**
Also in what world is building alternatives to yourself something that only has scum incentives?
Scum are survivalistic, town are less so. As town you're not as worried about getting lynched as you are as scum. As scum you quickly want a CW. As town you're more relaxed.
Specify how. I should probably be cleaning up the quote pyramids I guess.In post 89, Barleycorn wrote:fire, stop mucking up the thread please.
Nothing i've said has been off topic and I'll respond to someone trying to discredit an argument due to its source with the scorn that it deserves. I'm attacking the actions and not the man.In post 92, Barleycorn wrote:an off-topic post and an antagonizing one.In post 91, FireScreamer wrote:Specify how. I should probably be cleaning up the quote pyramids I guess.In post 89, Barleycorn wrote:fire, stop mucking up the thread please.
I think you should read that again.In post 106, aronagrundy wrote:What do you make of his 180 on dog?In post 102, mozamis wrote:oh, and fire's responses look town. he seems measured and questioning his attackers in a "i dont care, i'm innocent" kinda way.
time to stop voting fire.
In which post do I townread dog?In post 108, aronagrundy wrote:Ok I reread it, now what
I go from saying that I understand how X can be perceived as a possible scumtell to going after some bad logic and clear misrepresentation from Shadow_Step. I'll go after those things wherever I see them regardless of who they are on. Do you think Shadow_step's arguments were well founded?In post 110, aronagrundy wrote:You go from scumreading him to defending him, that's a 180
Yeah I probably will once I resolve this with Grundy.In post 112, Eddie Cane wrote:sheep me?In post 111, FireScreamer wrote:I go from saying that I understand how X can be perceived as a possible scumtell to going after some bad logic and clear misrepresentation from Shadow_Step. I'll go after those things wherever I see them regardless of who they are on. Do you think Shadow_step's arguments were well founded?In post 110, aronagrundy wrote:You go from scumreading him to defending him, that's a 180
Fair enough. We cool then. While I feel your logic earlier was very flawed, for now at least I am willing to believe it was not malicious.In post 117, aronagrundy wrote:Fair enough.In post 111, FireScreamer wrote:I go from saying that I understand how X can be perceived as a possible scumtell to going after some bad logic and clear misrepresentation from Shadow_Step. I'll go after those things wherever I see them regardless of who they are on. Do you think Shadow_step's arguments were well founded?In post 110, aronagrundy wrote:You go from scumreading him to defending him, that's a 180
I agree that shadow's arguments rely on misreps but I think he's town. If he was scum I think he wouldn't have pushed the question thing. At least when I'm scum I double check the things I'm claiming.
Why is starting a wagon on someone at 0 votes opportunistic?In post 120, aronagrundy wrote:VOTE: eddie cane
His case on shadow seems opportunistic. And he basically just repeats what others have said.
You are not going to get 6 other people to agree with Gut. You know this and are not trying. Which means you are putting on a show and I wonder why.In post 161, Transcend wrote:Gut
It can be. But voting him based on that doesnt actually create any pressure on him. So why do it?In post 221, Barleycorn wrote:why can't gut be the honest basis for transcend's read of kaiser?In post 219, FireScreamer wrote:You are not going to get 6 other people to agree with Gut. You know this and are not trying. Which means you are putting on a show and I wonder why.In post 161, Transcend wrote:Gut
How so? What is to be feared of a vote based on intuition which is by its very nature non transferable?In post 223, Barleycorn wrote:it does create pressure.
Is the read I "I like". This is not inconsistent with you being a town read.In post 179, DogWatch wrote:I feel like a scumkeyser would've tried to pile more suspicion on me rather than give me benefit of a doubt as a noob to the current meta. you could say a scum keyser wants town cred if I flip town but im not near a lynch. I dunno, just doesn't feel scummy to me
Eh. You still initially read an obvious attempt at being townread as being scummy and then made something that could be easily perceived as an easy attempt to be townread.In post 236, DogWatch wrote:How did I scumread anyone by asking that question? I did point out one of moz's posts seemed lamist but I revoked that
Fair enough. If you are adamant it wasn't an attempt to be townread then sure. Arguing intentions at this point isnt going anywhere.In post 235, DogWatch wrote:clearly you haven't been paying attention, we've already covered why I asked that question concerning the rvs votes. half the damn game has centered around it. if you're still reading that as lamist then I can't help you
Wait by "on or under Eddie's spot" I meant Dog, not you. If thats not what you mean then I am very confused because my townread on you has not weakened and I have not expressed otherwise.In post 358, Keyser Söze wrote:Sorry, but what point made your t/read of me weaken?In post 354, FireScreamer wrote:Is the read I "I like". This is not inconsistent with you being a town read.
It was very badly worded. Cleared up now though.In post 361, Keyser Söze wrote:I understand now sorry (Eddie's name confused me).
What about that makes you read informed over uninformed?In post 366, aronagrundy wrote:Like looking over it I just see a lot questions without a lot of narrative
Pants is the stone median of the list. If you can't understand why...In post 368, Eddie Cane wrote:hey btw fire, what about this iso warrants being so high on your list?
Trying to engage lurkers and removing thier excuses for lurking or irreverent day 1 play is useful. Even if you want to read it as LAMIST its been discussed to death today that LAMIST isn't a scum tell.In post 627, mozamis wrote:Lets fight them on the beaches!In post 558, FireScreamer wrote:Without people participating in day 1 there are no associations to look at day 2. And people frequently use your logic to ensure just that for themselves Frank. Yes we are going to lynch probably a townie today and probably for bad reasons. Yes we should still try to lynch scum. You lay yourself out there. You form opinions (that you stay flexible with), you push on things that seem odd and you try. Are other days more fun? Yes. Does that matter? No. We are working gradually through a process here. Work we do now will be flawed, but those flaws will be sanded down in the hindsight of days to come. Engage in day one. Read and be read. No excuses.
But this post has very little content.
Fos Fire.
It's your lucky day baby cause it's gonna be easier to lynch Momo if I am bussing him.In post 630, Transcend wrote:Player list
momo (Pants98) SCUM
DogWatch TOWN
Transcend THE BEST THERE EVER WAS
mozamis TOWN
FireScreamer SCUM
aronagrundy TOWN
FrankJaeger SCUM
Selynee (NorskaBlue) VI
gerryoat LEAN TOWN
Eddie Cane TOWN
Barleycorn HARD TOWN
Shadow_step LEAN TOWN BUT U NEED TO DO MORE
Keyser Söze no idea but leaning town
The logic is that lynchbait that your scumreads arn't going anywhere near could in fact just be a bad scum player. I personally hate to play the assosiation guessing game day 1 but I can see where Transcend is coming from.In post 761, DogWatch wrote:Transcend, how is frank both lynchbait and a phenomenal lynch?
Can you explain for me what changed between this post and the post below please Momo?In post 476, momo wrote:I am not really feeling the pressure on fire. Will not have him lynched unless people give me good reasons.
In post 717, momo wrote:I am willing to vote Frank/Fire
I might vote dog as well. We need to hurry though.
This is the scumteam I am with right now.
ANd why would you lynch VT's.
I'll give this a slight town read but not very heavy of one. Momo gets more credit for this than someone like Keyser would though.In post 641, momo wrote:ALL I am going to say is investigate me. I will come out as a VT.
That's fine. Just feed me things like reasoning when you are in a good mood and I feel a lot better being in a game with you. Not asking for you not to conceal reasoning if you feel its important. But right now people are being apathetic and you opening up more at that time to try and actually get something done is something I'm happy to see. Timing of the post as important as the post itself.In post 781, Transcend wrote:gross
this is not against my scum play in the slightest bit, and in fact i'm more likely to make a post like that as scum, but i felt like being nice today.
At the end of my stuff today and not before. The vote should be my conclusion and conclusions come at the end. Plus half of the reason i'm doing this is try to get a handle on the game. Theres a very real chance I change my mind halfway through these reads and voting and then revoting weakens my position on both people.In post 783, Transcend wrote:aite so what are you gonna do with your vote then
"My argument is actually Fire's so vote him if you disagree with it"In post 789, Eddie Cane wrote:How did I try to put pressure on you?In post 786, FireScreamer wrote:Eddie gives me the willies.
124 and 134 just don't jive well at all. Combined with the fact that he then continues to read me as town after it.If he actually townreads me he shouldn't be trying to wash pressure off of him onto me unless its literally me or him.Also my play today hasn't really been towniemctown so I feel as if continuing to back me is trying to pocket me/ make him look good if I get mislynched.
There is also the possibility he just agreed with me on a couple of things early on day 1 and townread me too much for it. Outside of interaction with me I don't think he's done much unusual. I'd lynch Gerry and probably still Frank over him at this point.
Oh I totally can't read. Sorry man.In post 794, Eddie Cane wrote:1 small hole in that argument.In post 134, Eddie Cane wrote:It is indeed a counterwagon to dog. you should probablyIn post 130, Transcend wrote:Fos Eddie as well. Shadow is a shit counterwagon to Fire.vote me over firethough as I did take his argument.
In post 102, mozamis wrote:oh, and fire's responses look town. he seems measured and questioning his attackers in a "i dont care, i'm innocent" kinda way.
time to stop voting fire.
While I totally get a townlean on me turning into a scumlean today (I just FOSed Eddie for NOT doing exactly that) this is a bit different. This isn't changing a read. This is misrepresenting your read's progression entirely. It's a slip. EitherIn post 682, mozamis wrote:VOTE FIREWATER
Havent seen anything town form him all game.
Lot of emoty bullshit.