*gasp!*In post 12, Parama wrote:Zzz Trevor read the rules before you ask stupid questions next time okay? You're my first official scumread now
You're still voting me omgomgus quick lest I die before a single post.
VOTE: Parama
*gasp!*In post 12, Parama wrote:Zzz Trevor read the rules before you ask stupid questions next time okay? You're my first official scumread now
And then... what, exactly? Hope for a derpy Town player to hammer? I'd like to think no one here is that stupid. Why are you against L-2 and L-1 this early?In post 27, Leafsnail wrote:Yeah but that's what your partner is forIn post 22, Tierce wrote:5 to lynch. Mine was L-2.
...L-1 on RVS is claim time? Oh please. And what are people going to claim in this game? There are only VTs and a triggered Innocent Child, so what do you think scum will claim on D1? (Hint: not Town Roleblocker.)In post 41, Leafsnail wrote:L-1 is often claim time so it can be bad in itself, but yeah it's not much of a scumtell. Not sure what relevance pushing early wagons has though considering that's clearly not what you were doing?In post 30, Tierce wrote:And then... what, exactly? Hope for a derpy Town player to hammer? I'd like to think no one here is that stupid. Why are you against L-2 and L-1 this early?
I voted Parama because I could. I see no need to stick to 1- or 2-player wagons, and you are experienced enough to know that pushing early wagons is not a scumtell.
Because I wanted to vote TwoUpstandingGentlemen. If anything, it put me in an equivalent situation in Leafsnail's eyes (an L-2 vote), so it's obviously not a reaction to him.In post 55, Aeris wrote:Tierce - why unvote parama right after being called about by leaf snail?
...In post 58, Aeris wrote:I don't like tierce's repsonses to leaf though. Don't know why she didn't just say what she was doing and needed to point out it wasn't a scum tell.
VOTE: tierce
No, you're saying exactly that. You apparently have a gut scum read on me, and you're saying that me refuting something as an absurd accusation to make (i.e. "you are voting me for doing something that, in truth, is not a scumtell") is 'odd'. What does 'odd' mean? You are clearly classifying 'odd' as scummy here, since you're voting me for it:In post 72, Aeris wrote:Not necessarily. It looked to me like he was trying to get a read on you. The thing that struck me as odd was the 'not a scum tell' part. I just wanted you to respond some more to see if my initial gut read had anything to it.In post 62, Tierce wrote:...In post 58, Aeris wrote:I don't like tierce's repsonses to leaf though. Don't know why she didn't just say what she was doing and needed to point out it wasn't a scum tell.
VOTE: tierce
He was voting me for a reason that makes no sense, what am I expected to do? You're saying that me refuting a nonsensical accusation is scummy? O_o
In what world is showing that I didn't do a scummy actionIn post 58, Aeris wrote:I don't like tierce's repsonses to leaf though. Don't know why she didn't just say what she was doing and needed to point out it wasn't a scum tell.
VOTE: tierce
Yes. I've been in a pretty mellow mood and I'm clearly taking this game slowly.In post 80, TwoUpstandingGentlemen wrote:@Tierce - you feel very agitated, is this just me?
Nothing that I care to share at the moment.
I have everything but lack of commitment. I am, however, not particularly interesting in sharing some of my reads right now. Being unpredictable can be a Town asset.In post 123, Leafsnail wrote:So you're going to just keep your options open and hop on any bandwagon as it comes. That really isn't acceptable.In post 93, Tierce wrote:Nothing that I care to share at the moment.
I think I don't need to explain that lack of commitment is a scumtell, right? Especially in a game where scum may suddenly need to change their suspicions at lylo.
Hai.In post 124, TwoUpstandingGentlemen wrote:I will note - I fully support Ace as a policy lynch today.
He needs to learn that he shouldn't try to protect his weak scumgame by intentionally playing hyper-bad all the time to help hide when he's actually being bad.
Lies. ^w^In post 135, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:It is however anti-town and unhelpful
...You do realize I'm half of Sixty, yes? I can't do everything at once, and at times I actuallyIn post 157, Aeris wrote:Tierce - for spending the majority of time this game in defenseville. (and no defensiveness is not a scum tell, that's not what I'm getting at.). There's no proactive scumhunting and what has been there has felt meh. Though I *liked* enough her latest posts toward Leafsnail but it feels like something is missing.
...except you had no issues whatsoever with my unexplained votes. You wanted me to voice OTHER reads on OTHER players, instead of digging at the reads I did state through votes and seeing whether they make any sense. You are now saying that my unexplained votes left me with open options--yes they did. So why did you choose to focus on "she's not giving any other reads!" and didn't mention it? Wouldn't that be FAR MORE important, and 'lock me' into reads far better than tossing another number of reads I could change at the drop of a hat? That excuse of "I didn't mention it but it doesn't mean I agreed with giving unexplained votes" holds no water, because for someone with the mindset that I'm leaving myself a wide net of options, THAT should have been your first priority. Understand what IIn post 143, Leafsnail wrote:Oh so it's a twisted GOTCHA! argument. I didn't realize.In post 142, Tierce wrote:So when I don't mention things I approve of/disapprove (i.e. things that would be visible reads) it's scummy, but when you do it it's perfectly fine?
There's a pretty obvious difference. In your case you can later say that the votes you made were as a joke/RVS thing in TUG's case or a policyvote in Ace's case. Or you can say you were voting them as scum. Because you didn't make it remotely clear at the time (or even up till now really) your options are open. This is the problem, not that you "don't mention things you approve/ disapprove of".
No, what you said was that not giving other reads was bad. Again, from a Town perspective I can't see why you wouldn't focus on the reads I did voice and try to understand THOSE when you then turn around and censor me for not giving extra reads. It's not a logical Town thought process, it's the behavior of posturing scum who is trying to sell private reads as scummy attitude. If you really wanted more from me, you would have asked about my votes. You did not.In post 143, Leafsnail wrote:In my case... what, I didn't specifically point at your votes and say "these are bad" and instead said "your play [implication: of which your votes are a subset] is bad"?
It was not a defense. You're strawmanning my arguments. I was saying you were being hypocritical in your reads, AND I have explained my reasoning AND you didn't ask me for reasoning for my votes until I noted that I haven't been giving it, so this whole section comes across really forced.I really don't like this method of defense. The two problems areIn post 142, Tierce wrote:
You may want to check your hypocrisy. Hypocrisy isn't a scumtell, but coming from Town, it is a sign of deficient scumhunting technique, as you are not putting yourself in my place and trying to think as I do.
1 you've danced around the "Not committing to reads is scummy because it allows scum to change their opinions on a dime to match the current situation" issue completely, and instead reinterpreted my argument in a weird way to try and make me a hypocrite. Scummy because you should be able to explain the reasoning behind your own play, and the hypocrisy attack looks like an attempt to dodge having to do so.
2 you've only started using actual vote reasoning and commitment now that someone has made an attack on you. Scummy because it suggests you know commitment and reasoning is needed in a decent vote (IE, one that other plays are going to care about and which will actually forward the game), but you're only deploying them defensively.
Why?[/quote]Leafsnail wrote:Unless you can provide me with evidence that I was referring to "other" reads rather than your reads in general (I wasn't) I have nothing else to say on this matter.
In post 89, Leafsnail wrote:Read on any other player at all?
In post 166, Tierce wrote:Leafsnail wrote:Unless you can provide me with evidence that I was referring to "other" reads rather than your reads in general (I wasn't) I have nothing else to say on this matter.In post 89, Leafsnail wrote:Read on any other player at all?
How droll.Aeris 220 wrote:Please do, and if you're town, please post like town.Tierce 210 wrote:Blatant prod dodge. We'll see if I post tonight or tomorrowish.
This seems like something that scum would say to a Town v. Town fight. He wouldn't react like that if Leafsnail was his buddy, and he is not giving this any outside the box thinking--it's just looking at a presumed behavior instead of the motivation behind it. Post 66 seems contrived after Dresden. Way too forced.Konowa 52 wrote:Tierce, why so passive agressive with Leaf?
This is rather awful. He is railing on Aeris for 'contrived' questions and 'desperately posting fluff' (wow, that suddenly turned vicious), but ignored Majiffy and Parama's fluff sequence while asking them questions. The vote on Aeris seems rushed in comparison.F-16_Fighting_Falcon 57 wrote:List of questions feel contrived as if you don't have anything valuable to add but are desperately posting fluff.
Weak stuff.F-16_Fighting_Falcon 102 wrote:VOTE: Parama for ignoring suspicion under the guise of joking around.
Would have expected Town-Falcon to actually make an effort here--either to understand Parama or to ask other players who have played him before. Heck, looking over Parama's meta wouldn't have taken long.F-16_Fighting_Falcon 104 wrote:Can't decide if you[Parama]are a troll or a legit player.
Way too certain, example #1. While being confident is not a scumtell with most players, scum-Falcon is prone to a level of arrogance in his reads that is not present in his Town games, where he is very very paranoid.F-16_Fighting_Falcon 106 wrote:Not addressing suspicion hoping it would go away or that players get distracted instead of probing into it and figuring out if it is legitimate. I gave you a pass since I assumed you were a troll but since you are saying you are serious, no reason to hold back on lynching you now.
Let's push another wagon while we are at it. You know what was Trevor's ONLY post between Falcon's vote on him and Post 126?F-16_Fighting_Falcon 126 wrote:At least one if not both of Trevor or Parama is scum.
Trevor has continued to post but didn't respond to my accusation.
Yeeeeah look at all that wild wild posting while not responding to Falcon's accusation. How dare Trevor do that.Trevor 120 wrote:Aceofspades is too easy. No scum motivation at all.
Woooow overreaction batman. Mind, Trevor posted ONCE and it was a one-liner to speak up against a conveniently easy wagon, but no, Trevor is a criminal and he needs to die already.F-16_Fighting_Falcon 164 wrote:So,if you think I am scum, you should be at least giving a reason for your vote, shouldn't you? You are either convinced I am scum or you have a hunch I am scum and want to figure me out. If it is the former, if you were town, you would push for my lynch and if it is the latter, as town, you would at least ask me why I voted Aeris and what I felt was contrived about Aeris's post and try and figure out the motivations for my post. You are doing neither. You posted a lazy vote and disappeared and only responded when I called you out on it twice. Why are you being so reactive that I need to reach into your throat and pry your thoughts out of you?Trevor 162 wrote:You're using the easiest reads in the book "desperately posting fluff" "because trolling/joking", the vote on you was for the bad aeris vote.F-16_Fighting_Falcon 126 wrote:At least one if not both of Trevor or Parama is scum.
Trevor has continued to post but didn't respond to my accusation.
Parama 174 wrote:SeriouslyParama 107 wrote:>Trolling = town
>Being serious = scum
This is what you're saying
I think the point you're missing is that if I was scum why would I admit to being serious :V
Oh COME ON. Where is the hunt for Parama's motivations?In [url=F-16_Fighting_Falcon 175 wrote:Coz you are stupid?
I'veF-16_Fighting_Falcon 213 wrote:Anyways, I'll doubt you'll answer either since you likely scum.
The point of asking was to figure out if Parama suspects TUG for sheeping/saying they will sheep a scumread.I know for a fact that as town,I'd suspect someone if they sheep me while they maintain a scumread on me. As scum, I wouldn't. I'd be happy that they changed their position from attacking me to sheeping me and wouldn't want to mess it up by turning on them. Town motivation is to hunt scum. Scum motivation is to save themselves. Parama's motivation matches up with scum. The fact that he is refusing to think and analyze various possibilities points to scum.
The stupidity in this post is null. Town can be stupid, so can scum.Parama 211 wrote:That's an incredibly roundabout way of self-righteously defending yourself, I must say. I'm impressed, Fighting, but I'm still going to vote you.
What is scummy is that he dodges the question and misrepresents a direct question as a "roundabout defense"clearly because he has no answer.
F-16_Fighting_Falcon 221 wrote:I like 120 too. Decisive, curt, not fluff. I don't consider the non-hammer to be necessarily a towntell though. Hammering Parama so soon in the day would have put Trevor in the hotseat regardless of Parama's affiliation. I've seen a game (Thor played that game too) where Thor was town and a scum blatantly said "I am not hammering." It is something that is alignment indicative and a totally plausible thing for scum to do.I am certain Parama is scumalthough I am starting to have doubts about Trevor. He still needs to post more though.
And yetF-16_Fighting_Falcon 229 wrote:Regarding the convincing point, why are you being passive about it?It is not like there are no votes on him and it is a real possibility he could get lynched. If you think he is town, you'd want to call off the dogs, right?
Anyways, I can see 194 potentially coming from Thor. Yeah, maybe he is playing mind-games. But if I were in Parama's place and town, and Thor who had me as a scumread suddenly says "make a case and I'll sheep," I think I'd be wary that he is so quickly putting aside his suspicion. Although if I were scum, "yay, I convinced Thor" would probably be the first thing on my mind.Maybe that is just me. More perspectives wouldn't hurt. What would you do?
The part about Parama not voting Trevor: you are essentially saying he is being too scummy to be scum, correct me if I am wrong. "Maybe I am reading too much into it" could come from fence-sitting scum. That wouldn't be alignment indicative either. Also, he continues dodging questions, avoiding the issue and going off on tangents. The most recent page is evidence of that.I guess youcouldWIFOM and say "would he really do that as scum" but that is just going to get us into an endless WIFOM cycle. Better to just pin down anti-town behavior right away, isn't it?
Can you elaborate on your post?
- How does the push on me seem natural. What do you consider 'natural' vs 'artificial'?
- What do you "like" about what I say?
- What don't you agree with about his push and what do you agree with?
New evidence on Trevor - basically avoiding the thread - being passive, casting a lazy vote and disappearing.
* Regarding mislynches, actually they don't win after two mislynches. If we mislynch twice, this goes into rarefaction. Two groups of 3P LYLO cells with one scum in each. Scum need to be in this game for the long run. Can you re-evaluate based on that? It would negate the refusal to hammer as necessarily a towntell. I've played this game once before - the LYLO blocks are really difficult for scum to get past.
Look at how much he's blowing the Trevor case out of proportion.F-16_Fighting_Falcon 230 wrote:@ Aeris:
Case on Trevor: no effort. I asked him a ton of questions 70 was the last I believe and his response is basically this:Passiveness. No analysis, nothing. He didn't like that I said your post was contrived so votes me and sits on it while contributing absolutely nothing. I explained why I voted you, and also asked Trevor the reasoning for voting without promoting discussion. He is just avoiding discussion, sitting back and hoping the town destroy themselves. Trevor needs a wagon too.Trevor 226 wrote:Meh, don't really like that many lynches right now. I'll join any convincing bandwagon that isn't TUG/Parama/veggie. Stayin on F-16
Yet more posturing, and remind me again which players Falcon is actually analyzing? Yeah, no--he hasn't reevaluated reads at all, he's just hammering at the same old ones. There's no sign of the constant turns and twists that Town-Falcon does. Super mega-tunnel on two players go.F-16_Fighting_Falcon 233 wrote:Passive - I am saying "passive" because you cast a vote and sit on it without regard to new developments. You are still trying to justify your weak read on me as opposed to being open to re-evaluating it. Considering I am posting the most analysis out of anyone here, and trying very hard to probe into other player's motivation and scumhunting, I don't believe the only scum-read you would have as town is me. You are not trying to figure stuff out. You are not trying to determine anyone's affiliation. You are not trying to understand the motivation of other players. In short, you are not scumhunting.
"F-16 is scum because he puts random bullshit like "not promoting discussion" or "avoiding the thread", or "being passive"."
This has also been explained. I remember telling you that I voted Aeris partly to see if anyone reacted in a scummy manner. I also said her insistence on demanding an explanation from me while not jumping to conclusions read as town whereas your unexplained vote read as scum. You have been ignoring the responses and parroting the same line that has been refuted.
You seem angry at the fact that you have to post. It is like you are irritated that you need to play this game. Mafia is a voluntary activity. If you don't want to play, please don't. If you do and you are town, at least post in the thread, contribute to discussion, try to figure out the affiliations of various players. Don't sit on a useless vote, get pissed off that you are being called out for not contributing, say you don't like the current wagons and leave it at that. You must have some opinions on the other players in the game. There has been plenty of stuff going on. For instance, what do you think of Parama's reaction to TUG?
These reads are bad. Lousy justifications, and where are the other players?F-16_Fighting_Falcon 244 wrote:I have been reading. I didn't understand your reads properly because you haven't been giving them clearly.
Anyways, could you respond to 229.
I have a *lot* of trouble buying Trevor as town. He is completely reactive as opposed to pro-active. I can buy TUG as Thor being Thor, Tierce is being pro-active, Leafsnail, I have a townread on based on his push on Parama. Maybe I am biased because I agree with him but similar thought processes usually mean similar affiliations.
I think what I have been trying to say in a nutshell is that I disagree with your reads because you are basically going the "too scummy to be scum" route. I mean, literally, there is not one pro-town thing that Ace of Spades did so, it would be great if you could explain that read. Why would you have a townread on AceOfSpades as opposed to say Tierce for instance?
Can you give me your take on 229?
Yikes. The first bit of this is super bad, as I am an excellent example of Cobalt's Law as Town. I tend to be on the largest wagonF-16_Fighting_Falcon 247 wrote:It is similar to you thinking Parama is town but not entirely agreeing with his case on me. Tierce as scum usually bandwagons. I've played two games with her as scum and she bandwagoned on the biggest wagon both times. As scum, she pushes lynches and doesn't probe into motivations as much. As town, she questions players a lot and tries to get inside their head and understand why they are doing what they are doing. Her read on Leaf seemed as such. She was trying to distinguish between scum posturing and town genuinely being suspicious. I don't agree with it because I was thinking the same thing as Leaf at that time (Tierce shouldn't keep her reads close to here chest) and said the same thing as well. So, I see the push as townish but the target as also town.
What Falcon is doing there is completely forbidding me from joining any wagon when other people have already expressed suspicion about said player. This is absurd--I have a whole new slew of reasons to vote him, and any incursion into my Town meta will show that I have often voted people who were already being voted/had suspicion on them. It is not scummy to do so. In fact, this happened in a game where we were both Town. I'm voting for my own reasons, because I think he is scum, but because I'm the third in the wagon I'm suspicious. That's nonsensical and I just unearthed (a lot of) examples through several games that put the lie to that accusation.F-16_Fighting_Falcon 257 wrote:Tierce, your case seems more scummy than town-motivated to me. This was exactly what I was talking about regarding how you as scum bandwagon onto players. I am strongly convinced you are scum based on that. I'll post more analysis but a brief version is this:
1) When you are scum, you usually wagon onto a player who is already being wagoned. This applies here. You claim that you are on the largest wagons always because you are the one pushing them. That misses my point. My point is that you *join* the largest/second largest wagon after others expressed suspicion of the wagoned players.
For pity's sake. I don't need to go on a back and forth with a player if I already have a read on that person. There is a time for asking questions and a time for making cases, and I see no need to ask questions of you right now.F-16_Fighting_Falcon 257 wrote:2) You make no attempt to interact with the player. As can be seen above, there are zero questions in the post. There are statements that end with a question mark, but those are merely rhetorical questions for which you have already made up your mind. you haven't interacted with me in the slightest.
Don't care how many times you explained it, it was still a bad vote and your 'explanations' do not satisfy my lust for scum blood. You mean this?F-16_Fighting_Falcon 257 wrote:3) The vote on Aeris has been explained about 20 times so far. A huge discussion took place about it and I gave my reads as to the reaction of various players. Don't tell you just now happenned to see it andsomehowmanaged to miss the multiple explanations and analysis given based on the vote on Aeris.
Yeah impressive 'multiple explanations and analysis' going on there. Even if they weren't crappy explanation/analysis, that doesn't excuse how shitty the vote was and how much it does not fit with your behavior toward other players.F-16_Fighting_Falcon 95 wrote:At the time I voted, it was partly a gut feeling. The way you made 3 questions to 3 separate people made me feel as though it was not spontaneous. Also, you say "Aeris 60 wrote:But FF you can now point out what is contrived about the questions. I actually want to know the answers to those things.if he was a scum read, why not vote him?" and "I want to vote parama for apparently not knowing who boy George is" came off as dissonant and my general feeling about your post was that it was scummy.
I know it is not a very good reason but it was a start and I voted anyways because it would generate discussion and hopefully make someone react in a scummy/townish way.
Your reaction was townish since you insisted that I explain my reads, didn't jump to conclusions, and wanted more discussion.
Trevor's reaction was scummy. Just a quote and a vote. No comments. Opportunistic as well since I have started arguing with a player meaning I have my hands full. Best move for scum is to jump in hoping that they won't be attacked because I was already busy attacking another player.Trevor, what is the reasoning for your vote?Trevor 92 wrote:F-16_Fighting_Falcon 57 wrote:VOTE: Aeris
List of questions feel contrived as if you don't have anything valuable to add but are desperately posting fluff.Vote: Fighting
*rests chin on hands* I'll be here all day~F-16_Fighting_Falcon 257 wrote:4) The remaining parts are all hilarious exaggerations. Will come to that later.
Yeeeah no. Those aren't 'buzzwords'. When you have lousy justifications for a vote, that is a scumtell, as you are not genuinely scumhunting. Posturing means "To assume an exaggerated or unnatural pose or mental attitude". Which is what you are doing inF-16_Fighting_Falcon 257 wrote:5) Lots of buzzwords like "lousy justifications," "posturing," etc.
You had no issue with me describing behavior as posturing a while back, but now you suddenly call posturing a 'buzzword' when it's used to describe your attitude.F-16_Fighting_Falcon 247 wrote:It is similar to you thinking Parama is town but not entirely agreeing with his case on me. Tierce as scum usually bandwagons. I've played two games with her as scum and she bandwagoned on the biggest wagon both times. As scum, she pushes lynches and doesn't probe into motivations as much. As town, she questions players a lot and tries to get inside their head and understand why they are doing what they are doing. Her read on Leaf seemed as such.She was trying to distinguish between scum posturing and town genuinely being suspicious.I don't agree with it because I was thinking the same thing as Leaf at that time (Tierce shouldn't keep her reads close to here chest) and said the same thing as well. So, I see the push as townish but the target as also town.
Of course he's not playing to 'absolute perfection'. I don't care if he's pushing you--he's doingF-16_Fighting_Falcon 257 wrote:It is also fairly obvious Trevor is not scum as seen by how much Tierce defends him. It is fairly obvious Aeris is town as well. Parama, I am not too sure.
Here is the most damning evidence:Parama is pushing my lynch - me, your biggest sumread. If I am scum, he is doing everything right. From your perspective (thinking I am scum), you should be congratulating Parama because he stays focussed on me. Why do you tell him to "start playing?" In your opinion, he should be playing to absolute perfection by pushing a lynch on me, isn't he? Why do you call him out when he is pushing your scumread?Tierce 256 wrote:Parama--please start playing. I know you're capable of it and we don't have time or lynches in this game for that silliness. Knowing that Aeris is not a newbie, how does that affect your read on her?
And how about all those examples I posted where I did not express suspicion of other players before others did? Again: I brought up plenty of new evidence against you. Go look at Dresden Mafia. We lurked for several days and ended up voting GreyICE on D1In post 299, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:1) Interesting to note, Tierce put Saulres at L-1 in Mafia in Triplicate so bandwagoning by itself is non-alignment indicative to her. The methodolgy of the bandwagon is what matters. In Mafia in Triplicate, she had expressed suspicion of Saulres before. She asked why he was going after a serial flaker. That natural progression of suspicion culminating in an L-1 vote separates her vote on other L-1 wagons like Piggy in Black Flag Nightless where her case lacked any depth to it and merely pointed out the dumb things that Piggy did in an attempt to paint her as scum.
Oh?In post 299, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:2)Tierce's influence over town: When town, Tierce leads the game. She questions players, finds out their motivations, keeps up with the game and isn't self-conscious enough to make long, elaborate "cases." When she sees someone suspicious, she votes them. She asks them questions, tries to find out for herself whether the player is scum or town. This is apparent in both the above town games. As scum, she has relatively little influence over the outcome of the day. As seen in Possessed Pastors, in her later posts, she lurks a lot, makes giant catchup posts and hollow cases. The primary difference in her cases is that as scum, she tries to pin enough inconsistencies on a player in order to achieve a goal - lynching that player. As town, she never stops digging into the "why." She always wants to know why someone is doing what they did and why that could come from a scum motivation.
...So because I didn't notice it on a first pass, I can never bring it up again because doing so makes me scum. Awful reasoning at best, scum covering your tracks at worst. Once more, look at our votes on GreyICE and curiouskarmadog in Dresden Files. We were not interested in puzzle-solving. We were interested inIn post 299, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote::Current game
1) Aeris Vote: Based on my Aeris vote, if it was bad, I'd reasonably expect Tierce as town to attack me instantly for it, and refute my explanation and keep probing as to whether it had scum motivation. Instead, she just made a passing comment and used it as another point in her favor. It seems more like a race to count off how many inconsistencies she can nail as opposed to a puzzle-solving mode of trying to understand motivations which she often takes as scum.
I don't need to ask you why you think Parama is scum. I have no interest in making you repeat yourself--you've already explained that read by "Parama is pretending to be joking around to ignore suspicion on him." This started on Post 102 and didn't change since. Why would I need to ask more questions on this when you've already had back and forths with others that I can refer back to?In post 299, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:2) Me saying Parama is scum:
When I say "I am certain Parama is scum,"
Tierce responds with: "More posturing. Let's make sure that Parama lynch goes through!"
Based on Tierce's town games, I would overwhelmingly expect Tierce as town to ask "why is Parama scum?" and when I give my answer, probe into the motivation for that, refute it, argue with it, etc. Instead she asks no questions to figure out my affiliation but rather chalked it up as a point in her favor.
[/quote]Attacking a lurker is one thing. I am not going after you for 'attacking a lurker'. I'm going after you by how inane your scumread on Trevor is, and by how every post you make on him is yet another way of spinning what little he's doing into scum attitude.In post 299, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:3) Me attacking a lurker. I was town in Micro 51 and attacked a lurker. As I mentioned, Tierce's post was this: #57. Notice how she tries to get into what I was thinking by explaining how I lurked in another game as town and how it not a scumtell. She further elaborates on how lurking may not be indicative of affiliation. Compare that to here. She quotes my post and says "Look at how much he's blowing the Trevor case out of proportion" - and leaves it at that. She collects it as a point in her favor rather than use it to promote discussion to figure out my motivations.
My condolences. I hope everything goes as smooth as possible given the circumstances.In post 304, Konowa wrote:Posting in all games. Just received news that my grandmother passed this afternoon. Posting after tonight will be very limited as I have to help with plans and probably host the reception.
Okay good. My point was whether night-kills were compulsive, because otherwise, with scum lynched on D1, the second scum could no-kill at 3:1 and force a final Day with no Rarefaction (i.e. no cleared Innocent Child if the player is alive). However, Vi says that, in the case of a 3:1 mislynch, Rarefaction would hit immediately after and we would have a 2:1 LyLo.In post 306, Tierce wrote:and there's actually something in the mechanics that is worrying me and I want to PM Vi to clarify
This is utter crap. There was no organic flow in your read on me, there was not a touch of acknowledgment of the previous read when you called me scum. As I said, Falcon-Town does 180-turns on players, but the paranoia is always there and he always mentions stuff he considered previously instead of holding on to a single post like it was the end-all, be-all of a read-flip.In post 309, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:Regarding Tierce's response:
My intial Tierce-townread
It ties into my line of thinking perfectly. As I mentioned, I had some misgivings about Tierce earlier but the overall nature of her play made me read her as town. For instance, she started questioning Leafsnail and asking about his motivations. So, that part reads town which is why I had a town read on her. I am not saying she is incapable of emulating her town meta as scum. She is hyper-aware of her meta and I find it perfectly normal that she would try to emulate it. She did a good job pretending to be town. Over a longer period however, it becomes more and more difficult to uphold your town meta. Tierce slipped when she saw the opportunity to wagon onto me which allowed me to extrapolate her behavior and see that it fits more with her scum-meta.
I forgot to mention. In the Black Flag Nightless game, Empire posts a ton of meta on Tierce - more interesting stuff.
I don't feel the need to mention my townread on Tierce because it is no longer applicable. She fooled me.
pffffahahahahaIn post 309, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:"New Evidence"
Tierce claims she has "plenty of new evidence." This is precisely the problem I have. Why is she counting off how much evidence she has rather than figuring out my affiliation? In no other game as town does she do this. It is always an inquisitive probing into player's minds to determine their affiliation. A series of questions which get more and more detailed the further she probes. Compare that to her case on my vote on Aeris. Very superficial. She just said "bad vote" and counts it as evidence.
No, this is not what you are doing. You are not looking for patterns, because what you are doing is secret numerology and secret numerologyIn post 309, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:Comprehensiveness of meta
I don't think pointing out a single other game where someone was town/scum and corelating that to meta is accurate. "X did Y as scum, he is doing it now, so he scum" is heavily inaccurate.
In order to use meta properly, we need to have a large sample of games and showspatternsof behavior as opposed to isolated behavior. That is what I have done by comparing behavior in two town games and two scum games to show clear patterns across multiple games. As for activity level, I used a total of 18 games so I can confidently say "Tierce lurks as scum and I find her lurking scummy." It is not a guess or a random thought on my part but the product of factually proven analysis of data.
As with any data sample, there will be outliers and exceptions. Tierce saying "I lurked as town in that game" has little relevance or merit. There have been a couple of games where Tierce had a high post count as scum. Again, any data sample will have outliers unless it was done with dishonest intentions. The important thing to consider are overall trends in both behavior and activity level.
Look at you, once more disregarding where I've said I've done that as Town before. Didn't you say one or two situations aren't enough to prove things? Then why is it acceptable for you to present 'proof' in this manner but not for me to disprove it in the same way?In post 309, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:Disinterest in back-and-forths
Tierce says that I've already explained why I think Parama is scum. She doesn't want to discuss it. Again, compare with Micro 51 where she continues questioning until she gets to the absolute bottom of the situation.
I am not interested in lynching Falcon Today. I hopped off that wagon. But I will continue calling out his terrible case and how I believe he is scum. Calling my vote 'silent' when I had already explained my reasoning 24 hours ago doesn't make any sense. I don't need to post wall cases every time I want to move, and my suspicion of the slot is pretty well documented.In post 256, Tierce wrote:Still willing to lynch TwoUpstandingGentlemen. The call for interest on Post 147 (especially after that "Tierce seems agitated" in Post 80) was sketchy, and Majiffy seems more interested in flavor on page 1 than in actually doing things with his hydra partner. As Town, I would expect them to have had some sort of ideas shared between them between Post 20 and Post 23 (QT, AIM, PMs, whatever), but Majiffy ignores Thor's point and rambles pointlessly about flavor. He keeps doing a version of that for the next half hour, which doesn't really show interest in what his hydra partner is doing--he doesn't engage Parama in discussion about the game, even though they are posting back and forth.
Post 44 is a load of puppypoop. Terrible reason to complain about Parama--if you had that much conviction about it, why didn't your hydra partner do anything about it?
Uhm...In post 318, Leafsnail wrote:Holy shit that was well hidden. I guess it's not scummy but if you've made multiple wallposts in the 24 hours between your reason for voting (which is in turn hidden between a bunch of quotes from other people and a massive back and forth with someone else) and your vote would you mind requoting it? I also don't get why any of that stuff is meant to be scummy but at least you had something of a reason
The Parama-you question was part of that interaction analysis. It has nothing to do with my read on you, it has to do with my read on Parama. It should be pretty obvious that I'm not interested in pursuing you right now regardless of Falcon's alignment, either way.In post 328, Aeris wrote:2. You're leaving yourself an out and if you're scum, that "townread" doesn't cost you anything. As scum ,you would know falcon was town; therefore when you get your town flip you get to take it back. When town do the conditional town read thing it usually looks a bit different. "oh I have a town read here, but If this person flips scum, then the town read is stronger.". Or "I was leaning scum here, but this read is stronger and if I'm right on this one then I'm wrong on the other because there's no way they're partners" type thing. Not to mention that you even undermine it in that very post when you ask how me not being a newbie affects Parama's earlier town read on me.
And regarding your 314 in which you say that you can really only win this game by forcing town to interact in a way that will help in rarefaction. If that's true, why have you been nearly absent this game, not attemtpting to force people to interact, asking questions that would help those reads, etc. and instead going I don't want to be a shepherd, let me hold my cards? This doesn't make sense, and I do think the way you and vi did your "game breaking strategy" as scum after the voided lynch in 463 counts to the question knowa was asking you.
The game goes into Rarefaction when # of Town = 2 * # of scum. Which means that we are at 7:2 right now, a mislynch takes us into Night at 6:2, we are likely to come into Day 2 at 5:2. Rarefaction will hit after Tomorrow's mislynch, so we have two mislynches before we cannot mislynch at all.In post 331, Aeris wrote:*regarding rarefaction. If we mislynch today, the game goes into rarefaction tomorrow, right? Then if we mislynch once, in one of the cells, we lose, right?
You're not an idiot and would have discussed the Innocent Child with Thor if you didn't understand it. It's in the rules and it's very clear how it works. Stop playing dumb.In post 345, TwoUpstandingGentlemen wrote:In post 343, Aeris wrote:At rarefaction, the innocent child get mod confirmed to us as innocent. Don't know what else you're looking for.
Oh I don't know, like what any of that means would be great.
How would you feel if I started talking to you about RT60s of different rooms and the effects of thresholds and ratios on compressors?
Yeah, sometimes when someone asks for a definition, they mean an actual definition. Fancy that.
Thor isn't around, so you neglected the game even further. :/ You expect him to do all the work and post for both of you? How does that work? Thor is a better scum player than you are, so I wantTwoUpstandingGentlemen wrote:In case you were too thick to figure it out, Thor isn't around atm. Which is why we got prodded. Which is why I'm posting.
Does this answer your question?
I don't know, maybe it's because I'm Town andIn post 355, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:Lol, I like how Tierce is playing to her town-meta after I make a case on her.
Oh hey. There is also Thor's mega-lurking since his post on the 10th, while he was happily posting elsewhere until his Limited Access notice.In post 357, Tierce wrote:Two jobs, five games, one modding, but you have time to post everywhere but here AND replace into a game three and a half hours ago.
This is not the behavior of someone who feels he is overwhelmed. This is the behavior of someone who is deliberately lurking in this game. You knew Thor would be LA, but it didn't look like he thought it worth a mention in this game, which means that he expects you to keep up. You haven't done so.
So why are you lurking, Majiffy?
Yeah no this is not going to fly at all.In post 361, TwoUpstandingGentlemen wrote:You know, I was going to, but now I've decided you're too much of a headache for me to bother.
Ahahahaha no. What mislynch target in Black Flag? absta? I was defending absta and we were not posting/dead by the time we replaced out, so what frustration are you talking about? And no, of course it's not a situation in which I "don't have to worry about you". I don't believe your claim--I thought this has been made pretty clear. If I believed it, I would have moved on. There is no point in trying to lynch you Today, but you're a scumread and your claim doesn't change that. You've been attacking me with sloppy and sloppier arguments. I'm refuting them and calling you scum with scum-motivated behaviors. Again, not rocket surgery. But keep trying to discredit me while admitting I'm playing to my Town meta, it's been fun.In post 365, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:Tierce's reaction to me claiming isn't a town reaction. When someone that scum is trying to mislynch turns out to be a power role, scum usually get frustrated. This is evident by Tierce's and Vi's reaction in Black Flag Nightless when their mislynch target was confirmed due to the way he replaced out. If Tierce was town, she'd be happy that her biggest scumread (me) claimed IC so she doesn't have to worry about me. Instead, she comes off as angry, frustrated, and in a bad mood, like scum who just got screwed out of a mislynch.
There's no Town motivation for this. Go take your fake irritation and petty bickering elsewhere. You're obviously not interested in lynching scum, don't give a damn about the person you are voting, and your reads on everyone else are paper-thin as you have refused to explain them under the guise of "people are being too stuck-up for me to feel like cooperating". Deal with it. No one is forcing you to play, you signed up for this and knew the playerlist when you did. I don't give a damn if I annoy you or not, but I still need to see if your reads are genuine, and right now every sign points to "no".In post 361, TwoUpstandingGentlemen wrote:You know, I was going to, but now I've decided you're too much of a headache for me to bother.In post 359, Tierce wrote:And longer explanations of your QT reads, please and thank you. A summary of the discussions you have been having (without quotes or timestamps) would be wonderful too.
You knew what you were getting into, as your hydra was the last sign-up. There was no sign of an interest in an aceofspades policy lynch early on, which I could have seen from irritated Town discussing things with each other in their QT. That policy lynch talk only came about when it was convenient. You also knew I would be in the game, you knew my playstyle before this game, yet have since called me and Aeris all the names in the book in an ill-veiled attempt to piss us off and start a scene in-thread. It doesn't parse that you would sign up to play with people you don't like and, as Town, only bring this stuff up when it comes convenient for you to do so: as poor excuses for not cooperating and pushing lynches.In post 1653, Hoopla wrote:Micro 89: Mafia Rarefaction Segunda has filled for Vi with the following playerlist:
Konowa
Parama
Tierce
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
theaceofspades
Aeris
Trevor
Leafsnail
TwoUpstandingGentleman
In post 341, TwoUpstandingGentlemen wrote:Both of us: Leaf town, Parama scum, You scumIn post 334, Tierce wrote:Majiffy: quick. Sum up your QT reads for me, both yours and Thor's. Five minutes, go.
Thor: Ace PL, F-16 "play leaves me unhappy", Aeris town. Parama moving "more to WTF than scum"
I'm seeing F-16 as probably town, Trevor is unsettling but not very noteworthy, and Ace/Konowa are both complete non-issues in the game so far.
In post 353, TwoUpstandingGentlemen wrote:Simple and empty? You specifically asked for the simple and empty version of the reads. You know, those special words "sum up"? Yeah.
In post 361, TwoUpstandingGentlemen wrote:You know, I was going to, but now I've decided you're too much of a headache for me to bother.In post 359, Tierce wrote:And longer explanations of your QT reads, please and thank you. A summary of the discussions you have been having (without quotes or timestamps) would be wonderful too.
You're hilarious. Keep changing that story. Keep trying to paint me as the one and sole reason you aren't explaining a single one of your reads. It's totally my fault you are not playing to a proTown mindset at all.In post 374, TwoUpstandingGentlemen wrote:Here you go, Tierce, in your own words./anymerityourargumentcarriedIn post 127, Tierce wrote:I am, however, not particularly interesting in sharing some of my reads right now. Being unpredictable can be a Town asset.
Timelines say you found out after sign-ups started, and that you signed up knowing that I was in the game.In post 384, Tierce wrote:I actually want to check timelines to see if you knew I knew your identityturtles eating pretzels all the way downbefore or after sign-ups. More curiosity than anything.