[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/ext/alfredoramos/seometadata/event/listener.php on line 114: Undefined array key 9655170 [phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/ext/alfredoramos/seometadata/event/listener.php on line 114: Trying to access array offset on value of type null Micro 745: Beyond Death [Endgame] - Mafiascum.net
Post
Post #27 (isolation #5) » Mon Oct 09, 2017 1:57 am
Postby Micc »
Uhh I guess so? I have a pretty strong opinion about how this part of the game is supposed to go and expressing it usually fulfills my ultimate goal of getting the game started.
Post
Post #29 (isolation #6) » Mon Oct 09, 2017 2:15 am
Postby Micc »
I'm trying to discourage votes that don't help us get out of RSV. RVS voting an empty slot is explicitly not helping the game leave RVS and I'd like to wagon you for doing it.
Post
Post #65 (isolation #7) » Mon Oct 09, 2017 12:23 pm
Postby Micc »
In post 28, Chip Butty wrote:
Micc, if we are going to get all serious, it seems to me that that slot has as much chance of being scum as any other, so why would it matter that RC was replacing out? Are you trying to discourage votes on that slot?
No, I'm just stating how unproductive it is to be voting an empty slot at that stage of the game.
In post 30, northsidegal wrote:
if you're saying that rvs voting an empty slot doesn't help leave rvs because it doesn't draw reactions the same way that rvsing a player who's in the game does, shouldn't your own reaction to that prove that wrong?
I don't think so. By that logic one could argue that self voting is a productive way to end RVS and I don't agree with that at all.
In post 56, Chip Butty wrote:Well, if somehow I do get lynched, look for scum on my wagon. There's only 8 available votes, and there are 5 needed to lynch and I can't see 5 town voting for this RC thing. Or even 4, really...Gotta go...
So who of Cheekyteeky, Micc, and nothsidegal is most likely to be scum on your wagon?
In post 65, Micc wrote:So who of Cheekyteeky, Micc, and nothsidegal is most likely to be scum on your wagon?
although that's a valid question on its own i think he was talking more generally about the idea that he'd be lynched just for the placement of his rvs vote and how scum would have to be on that wagon if it went trhough. i don't think specifically he was calling any of those three scum.
I guess we will just have to wait and see what Chip says Chip meant instead of what northsidegal thinks Chip meant.
micc, it was a mostly random vote but now it's a serious one. what do you think about that?
I think if youre serious about your vote you should be stating a case to convince the other players in the game to join you in forming a wagon.
In post 101, CheekyTeeky wrote:That's very "Switzerland" of you lol. I think your logic is bad though. You can have expectations prior to receiving a response, and get a better read by digging asking questions. I assume that you already have a read on me then, since you're not digging and asking me questions?
Sure, if I was reaction testing it would make sense that I should have expectations prior to receiving a response. But this wasn't even a reaction test. I'm just legitimately curious what northsidegal was trying to do with the vote. Like, I got snarky because she was interfering with my line of questioning on Chip. Yet her questioning seemed like an attempt at engagement. I didn't want to shut that down so I reached out again by asking about the vote, but she's clearly not interested in engagement at this point. Guess I probably answered my own question and it was a reaction test. Regardless she's not getting town points from me until she explains the vote or explains the reaction test.
nothing from you has struck me as awkward or scummy enough to begin questioning. I guess that makes you a town lean but in truth it just means that I haven't begun to try and sort you yet. ill get there at some point tho. I promise.
Post
Post #104 (isolation #14) » Mon Oct 09, 2017 7:01 pm
Postby Micc »
I'll aknowledge the meta argument when you provide analysis of quotes from games of mine as each alignment.
But like, I tried to engage you about your vote in posts 85 and 96. Forgive me for getting snarky again with post 102, but posts 85 and 96 were my response to your vote...and then you just brushed them off. If you followed my advice and posted a case I would have gotten to see why you're vote changed to serious and posts 85 and 96 are exactly me "pressing you for an oddly timed RVS vote". Like what gives?
...and that's why it's rude to answer questions that aren't aimed at you.
@Chip: How is "If I get lynched there is likely scum on my wagon" a useful post if you don't even have an opinion about who the scum on your wagon is? Can't literally anyone who gets lynched make that argument and have it be true more often than not?
Post
Post #136 (isolation #16) » Tue Oct 10, 2017 9:46 am
Postby Micc »
In post 128, Cabd wrote:I realize the creator of this setup is here, but my itch to try and break setups will never truly go away.
sup. For what its worth I wrote the set up with no self protect, but according to the role pm's it is allowed in this game. That might affect possible breaking strategies. I'll have to think on it as well. I remember being pretty confident there were none in the original setup but I don't have or remember any of that analysis.
VOTE: northsidegal
you don't get to admit that you made a bad vote and then still leave it on all while ignoring the posts I made that showed how bad of a vote it was. Also, where's that meta analysis?
l-2
Post
Post #141 (isolation #17) » Tue Oct 10, 2017 10:06 am
Postby Micc »
I remember coming to the conclusion that just being a named townie was as much if not more powerful than the actual protection ability. Named townie guarantees town either a confirmed player or a 1v1 counterclaim at some point in the game. Self protection does guarantee the protection role won't get nightkilled before claiming if they go that route. the quickest path to victory for scum isn't to ignite part way through the game tho so I don't think it's high impact that the protection role can guarantee it survives to "Lylo"
This seems to imply you got a town read on Hopkirk from post 38. Can you explain that one please?
yea i thought that his questions in 38 meshed a lot with what i was thinking when i read those posts which indicates a towny thought process. it wasn't a super strong read at the time but its been strengthened by his recent posts as well
ftr my other tr at the time was chip but when i entered the game the wagon on him was pretty much the only thing happening and i wanted to see what happened with it
has your opinion on chip butty changed as his wagon fell apart? the lack of traction for the wagon meant there was less pressure than I would have liked. I'm left feeling like I don't have a read on him because of it.
Post
Post #148 (isolation #19) » Tue Oct 10, 2017 11:30 am
Postby Micc »
In post 143, northsidegal wrote:sorry, i wasn't clear again. me voting you initially wasn't entirely serious. my vote as it stands now is where i want it to be. let's look at the sum total of your contributions this game: you threw a little fit over someone's rvs vote and then you threw a little fit again over my vote on you. i hope i'm not making the mistake of letting how much i dislike you cloud my judgment, but i don't think i am.
Well, I think ive refuted the points you made regarding the seriously serious vote and I think this post unfairly mis represents my contributions to the game thus far. Do me a favor and seriously think about my play and ask yourself what is likely to come from town/scum and why. If you decide that youre scum reading me solely because you don't like what I'm doing or how I'm doing it then back off. If you really think I'm scum bring the evidence to the table. Right now I'm trying to decide if I caught scum you pushing a bad case or if youre town that is confirmation biasing herself because she doesn't like my approach to the game.
In post 143, northsidegal wrote:it's hard to display in quotes how natural you sound in one game as opposed to the other
and thus why I think this argument doesn't hold water. Its pretty clear that you decided my posts look "awkward" and went into my previous games in order to find evidence that proves to yourself that its alignment indicative. As Cabd can attest to, it takes A Lot of time to make a legitimate meta argument. And if you're going out to find the evidence after you have your hypothesis then your doing it wrong.
In post 142, Micc wrote:has your opinion on chip butty changed as his wagon fell apart? the lack of traction for the wagon meant there was less pressure than I would have liked. I'm left feeling like I don't have a read on him because of it.
eh he's still a tr. i thought his response to his wagon in 56 was fairly towny. it was a lot like how i reacted to being wagoned early in my first newbie game although given his join date i'm a little less inclined to tr it than i would if he was a newbie.
i wish he would contribute more but i'm most interested in hearing btd's thoughts rn
could you expand on post 56 please? that's the post I picked out as pretty useless to make as town and questioned him further on. Is there a reason a newer player wouldn't have this type of reaction as scum? for me it doesn't seem like the kind of thing that needs to be said if he's town and as scum he would likely be using it to discourage the players on his wagon from staying on it any longer.
Post
Post #154 (isolation #20) » Tue Oct 10, 2017 1:12 pm
Postby Micc »
In post 149, Sobolev Space wrote:resignation to being lynched is more townie amongst newbies than not imo. especially trying to give advice for where to look for scum post-flip since scum doesn't really care what town does after they're lynched - they just want to stay alive - while town does.
for example in my last game we wagoned scum early d1 and they responded by being much colder than they were early game
Spoiler: quotes
In post 45, Sunlit Diamond wrote:You have misrepresented my conclusion and are continuing discussion of game mechanics after others have stated that's a bad idea. I find both of those approaches questionable at best.
In post 52, GreenLiquid wrote:You went from discussing mechanics yourself to saying that approach is questionable pretty quickly. What specifically changed your mind?
Sobolev and kittycap's exchange on page 2.
In post 74, Sunlit Diamond wrote:I gave a logical progression from point to point to conclusion, but you stripped out the qualifier in your recap. When I called you on the change you said you hadn't added anything to my conclusion, but in point of fact you subtracted from it. Why?
In post 80, Sunlit Diamond wrote:That is what I did here, but Green skipped my qualifiers and presented it as me making a black and white statement. I appear to being getting heat for what he said rather than what I actually wrote, which is super confusing to me.
meanwhile the newbie townie that we wagoned d1 seemed like they kinda gave up and resigned themselves to being lynched eventually and expressed similar frustration to chip as to the case on them:
Spoiler: quotes
In post 278, BluBlake wrote:If you guys are set on lynching me that's fine. if there's any questions anybody wants to ask before I'm hammered, feel free.
In post 265, BluBlake wrote:I was surprised to see him at the top of her town reads.
why not ask her about it? Does this affect your read on Sobolev? You said she was a top town read, why haven't you tried to reach out and get her to townread you?
It kind of affected my read, but overall I've seen her as town this whole game. I don't know exactly what you mean by reach out to her to change her mind. All I've done this game is post my honest thoughts and don't really see why my posts are "bad in iso." It seems the tone of the game has drastically changed on the last page which has been pretty confusing for me.
i didn't realize chip was as experienced as he was however, so the i'm not tring these as much as before
how much consideration have you accounted for regarding the time left in the Day? Looks to me like BlueBlake was at L-1 with 12 hours left in the Day and Sunlit Diamond went to L-2 on page 4. One player was basically 99% to be lynched that Day and the other maybe 25%. Transitioning back to this game I think its silly for anyone think that Chip was in danger of being lynched on page 4...and with that in mind its more likely that he was trying to dissolve his wagon instead of give sound advice to the town.
Post
Post #159 (isolation #21) » Tue Oct 10, 2017 1:41 pm
Postby Micc »
In post 155, Chip Butty wrote:This is just my second micro and the first finished well over a year ago. I'm just not used to the idea of 5 being enough to lynch on d1, and i was a bit startled that i had 3 seemingly just from the RC thing. It just felt like i was getting railroaded and i want to draw people's attention to it since i wasn't going to be around to defend myself.
So you think there was a reasonably high likelihood of you being lynched in the 10 hours you said you'd be gone...less than 48 hours into the game...and before you claimed?
Post
Post #164 (isolation #22) » Tue Oct 10, 2017 4:51 pm
Postby Micc »
In post 161, Chip Butty wrote:I'm flattered you think i would cook up the ingeniously villainous idea of voting for RC just to drag out RVS a bit longer, but if you go back and read the post you're fixating on, you'll see it says 'If somehow i get lynched...' That indicates i think it is low probability but am saying jic. And it's not like people don't do idiotic things in Mafia.Can we go back to RVS? I feel like we missed out on a proper RVS thanks to your no-fun-allowed policy...
Its not like you've made my point invalid with your play tho... You're most recent vote is still the RVS vote on RC/Cabd. Your contribution to the game thus far is primarily reaction to other players having questioned you and complaining of my playstyle. There is some posts pushing at Cabd but nothing that resembles a case or a reason that you think he's scum. I guess I'm still not convince you've jumped into the game yourself at this point.
Re post 56: but what are you contributing to the town by saying there's likely going to be scum on your wagon if you get quicklynched on page 4? Looking for scum on mislynch wagons is a level zero scumhunting strategy that no town needs to be reminded about. I especially have a problem with your defense given that the equivalent of a vanilla townie in this game gets treestumped upon being lynched and can come back and say whatever they wish the following day.
Post
Post #186 (isolation #23) » Wed Oct 11, 2017 12:09 pm
Postby Micc »
In post 50, Cabd wrote:The setup isn't anything too complex, I will note we will NOT get flips night one; and no-lynching in this setup is almost always the wrong move.
This is what we're analyzing?
Everything before the semicolon is just fact, and everything after the semicolon is fact for anyone who is town. I guess you must be picking out the word "almost" and trying to argue that that its a scum slip because the only reason to use that qualifier is if your alignment is scum.
...I must be missing it still cause that'd be a weak thing to argue as a scum slip
Post
Post #206 (isolation #25) » Wed Oct 11, 2017 1:43 pm
Postby Micc »
If the thing is to actually dive into this game then yes pls do. everytime I go to try and read you here I get reminded of newbie 1516 and I don't want a repeat of that game. I know there were reasons for your disengagement to that game that aren't present here but if feels like you're headed down the same path.
Post
Post #215 (isolation #26) » Wed Oct 11, 2017 2:43 pm
Postby Micc »
yeah idk. I spent some time thinking about it the other night but it never felt like it was going anywhere.
when x=100 we get 1 confirmed town to lylo. when x=0 we have the least amount of information of any value of x. Clearly 100 is the best value of x to get the most for sure confirmed town players. but theres some value of x between 0 and 100 were the scumteam decides the risk is worth it to target the protection role. I would think its just 100percent dived by 7 town players but ehh maybe that's not the right way to look at it?
im at work. I can't guarantee immediate responses until im done in ~4 hours but I will be checking in. things are running good and I have time to check in at least every 30 min
Post
Post #224 (isolation #29) » Wed Oct 11, 2017 4:56 pm
Postby Micc »
bah this is why you don't allow self protection in mafia. ive attacked it from a bunch of different angles and my conclusion is that publicly announcing a value of x just gives scum information they wouldn't otherwise have. There is some amount of room for WIFOM about whether you're actually following the announced strategy...but when it comes down to it there are lines of play for scum to navigate all values of x when the value of x is publicly announced.
Post
Post #229 (isolation #31) » Wed Oct 11, 2017 6:15 pm
Postby Micc »
In post 226, northsidegal wrote:i've been a little but busy but i've also been thinking a lot about this game. the more thought i give to the issue the more i think it's possible i'm reading through the thread with the goal of trying to make you scum in my mind to fit some narrative rather than objectively looking at things. for the sake of both the town and myself i think it's counterproductive for me to keep going with it, so for now i think what i'm going to do is just try to focus on other people.
Cool beans. I can work that. UNVOTE: northsidegal
The lack of ability to build momentum on any wagons so far this game makes me want to look for scum in the lower activity players. At the same time I'm conflicted because I generally view parking a vote on a player for lack of participation as a waste of time.
Post
Post #230 (isolation #32) » Wed Oct 11, 2017 6:19 pm
Postby Micc »
Also I'm home and eating food right now so cabd if you want to hammer out this breaking strategy I'm game. Your going to have to provide the inspiration tho because I'm not coming up with anything productive on my own.
Post
Post #236 (isolation #33) » Thu Oct 12, 2017 9:46 am
Postby Micc »
In post 233, Cabd wrote:I mean yeah NSG's approach to this game has been very weird; but can somebody explain why it's SCUM-weird?
yeah that's where I got hung up as well.
how do you feel about what I said in post 229? ive got a lynch pool of kawso, BTD6_maker and hopkirk and then chip butty and northsidegal are on the second tier.
Post
Post #240 (isolation #35) » Thu Oct 12, 2017 11:10 am
Postby Micc »
Yeah I can see that. your push lines up decently with what I was pushing her for. I unvoted to give her room to focus on other players which is what she said she wanted to do. She's not really taking advantage of that right now.... and with other two players in prod range and yet another on MEGA-VLA the game's stalling out...and she's still voting me?
idk. Im just gunna chill out and hope everything's all better by the time I get home from work.
Micc > Profile page > view their topics > take your pick. Any game thread that wasn't started by me is probably a game I played in. All but two if them I'll be town. search.php?author_id=22688&sr=topics
In post 233, Cabd wrote:I mean yeah NSG's approach to this game has been very weird; but can somebody explain why it's SCUM-weird?
yeah that's where I got hung up as well.
how do you feel about what I said in post 229? ive got a lynch pool of kawso, BTD6_maker and hopkirk and then chip butty and northsidegal are on the second tier.
micc can i convince you to vote for kawso. like i get he's been lurky but i just don't see at all how a townie comes back to the game, sees 4 new pages and just makes 107 with a garbage explanation for a vote. its like he's just searching for reasons to vote so he's at least doing something without actually engaging in the game
Im gunna reply to everything aimed at me in the thread and then go back and reread a bit. if I don't have inspiration in any other direction ill join you but it'd be like 99% a policy lynch because Im not even going to bother trying to get a read based on two posts.
In post 280, Cabd wrote:For the record, I am reserving my real reads list until everyone else has posted theirs, i don't want "sheep the confotown's reads" being a thing.
I haven't had an opportunity to sit down and digest the last few pages yet so this is still where I'm at:
Spoiler:
In post 236, Micc wrote:ive got a lynch pool of kawso, BTD6_maker and hopkirk and then chip butty and northsidegal are on the second tier.
I had a little chuckle. got stuck doing the work I actually get paid for 3 hours past the end of the shift last night. so yeah, it didn't feel like a drop off to me.
Post
Post #300 (isolation #37) » Fri Oct 13, 2017 5:15 pm
Postby Micc »
Spoiler:
In post 242, Chip Butty wrote:We've got Cabd as doc, BTD6 as v/la, and Hopkirk and Kawso in need of a prod. I also don't really want to lynch a lurker but I'm not yet getting any super scummy vibes among Micc, SS, CT, and NSG.
Of those four I'm finding Micc to be townest mainly because he refused to be fobbed off when burrowing on 56, even though i didn't give the answer he wanted right away. I think scum would probably have pretended to be satisfied and moved on more easily. However, of he is operating at the level of designing setups, we are probably screwed if he is scum.
In post 280, Cabd wrote:For the record, I am reserving my real reads list until everyone else has posted theirs, i don't want "sheep the confotown's reads" being a thing.
[Cabd]
[SS, CT, NSG]
[Micc
[Hopkirk]
[]
*Not enough input: BTD6, Kawso
Chip, why are you opposed to lynching a lurker today? What happened to cause me to drop to the bottom of the [micc, SS, NSG, CT] group?
Post
Post #304 (isolation #38) » Fri Oct 13, 2017 5:46 pm
Postby Micc »
well I appreciate the respect but I hardly see how having designed an interesting open setup makes me a talented scum player, and I especially don't see how it makes me scummy in this game.
activity wise, I had a rough night at work and slept the whole next day. im here now. lets chat
Post
Post #307 (isolation #39) » Fri Oct 13, 2017 6:13 pm
Postby Micc »
No, I'm not interested in wagoning anyone who's not here. That's never productive. I kinda want to wagon you because it still bothers me that it never got traction the first time.
Let's talk about Hopkirk. He's your lowest read of the players with more than two posts. I have him moving above you because I liked a lot of things he did in his catch up. What's your read based on?
Post
Post #309 (isolation #40) » Fri Oct 13, 2017 6:31 pm
Postby Micc »
It looks to me like he's actively pushing a wagon on a player he thinks is scum. I'm not exactly sure what you mean by penetrating, but in a game where more people aren't voting than are voting I'd say there evidence that he's got an opinion and he's pushing it. Do you agree?
Im not saying I don't think he can be scum. I'm just saying that voting him isn't gunna make him talk. At some point he'll post or be replaced
Post
Post #312 (isolation #41) » Fri Oct 13, 2017 7:16 pm
Postby Micc »
VOTE: Chip butty
Well none of that moved me away from wanting to see this wagon happen. I don't like his trajectory on me. He moved me from towniest among the active slots to being null simply by not posting for a day. I thought the creater of the setup thing was a joke at first but he reemphisised it without anyone else bringing it up and I can't see why he's letting that have an impact on his read.
My understanding of his point against hopkirk is that hopkirks reads are superficial and or lack deep analysis. Not only do I disagree with that I think I could accuse Chip of that same thing. Seems like more of his reads are activity based than anything else which I see as very superficial.
Post
Post #314 (isolation #42) » Sat Oct 14, 2017 3:18 am
Postby Micc »
I could quote every post hopkirk has made that is either a) actively pushing a wagon on a player he thinks is scum or b) questioning a player in order to develop a read. I could then do the same for you. His list would be significantly longer.
Second paragraph is just being unnecessarily cryptic. I'm over here perfectly willing to engage you, my largest scum read, in conversation with an open mind and thats what you give me. It's like going down my Facebook feed and seeing all the click bait shitty news articles. "You'll wont believe what Micc did - whole player list now thinks he's scum!" Follow thirty different links to find out more!
Post
Post #316 (isolation #43) » Sat Oct 14, 2017 3:50 am
Postby Micc »
I wasn't badgering you during the period of the game where my work rate decreased was I? It's not like you locked in a target and started pushing a wagon. You keep complaining about not much happening in this thread but I don't see you actively trying to fix it. That's the irony is see.
Also the case has built beyond what it was on page 1. Stop pretending like it hasn't.
In post 316, Micc wrote:
Also the case has built beyond what it was on page 1. Stop pretending like it hasn't.
The 'case', as you call it, seems to amount to this:
1. A joke RVS vote on a guy who was replacing out.
2. Post 56, where you failed to notice all the content.
3. We differ in our assessment of Hopkirk. Yet you don't question at least one other who shares my assessment.
4. I downgraded you a notch, and you don't like the reasons stated so far. Yet you don't comment on the unexplained Sobolev progression on Hopkirk.
5. I haven't apparently been gamesolving enough for you, perhaps because like i said I've spent most of my time in this game responding to 1-4. I mean, show me where anyone has come up with a solid case on anyone in this game.
The case is that:
1. There is no town motivation behind your post 56, just the scum motivation of trying to disband your wagon.
2. I think the trajectory and reasoning behind your reads are unnatural and have bad logic.
3. You aren't voting, don't have a primary scum read, and don't appear to be doing anything to change that.
In post 325, Chip Butty wrote:And is this an admission that you have been badgering me the rest of the time? Interesting that you introduce the term badgering which i didn't.
"Badgering" is the equivalent of "pushing" in my opinion. One's a little more in line with the festivities of central Wisconsin on a college football Saturday so that's what I went with.
But yeah. I was pushing you before and then I stopped and now I'm pushing you again. I will admit to that.
I was saying if i got lynched there was a high likelihood of both scum being on my wagon, effectively narrowing the field to 5. How is that not town motivated? I've already pointed this out.
Btw, for the record, which of 1-5 do you currently stand by? And, again, is there anything else you want to bring?
Yes, you pointed that out. And I responded to it in 154 and 164 among other posts. I agree we've done this dance already. We don't need to continue fighting over it, but my opinion hasn't changed and I'm obligated to bring it up when you ask me to state my case.
I literally made a numbered list. I'll go on record for standing by the things on my list. If I had more things they would have gone on my list.
Re 327:
I'm not pushing you for scum leaning Hopkirk. I'm pushing you because I think your reasons for scum reading Hopkirk are poorly analyzed and look like fake reasons. That's not how I feel about Sobolev's reasons which is why I'm not pushing him.
We could flip this around and talk about your assessment of non Hopkirk players and it wouldn't change how I feel. I already gave your read on me as an example and could do the same for your read on now essentially confirmed town Cabd if I wanted to.
Yeah I pushed you because your progression sucked. You moved me down three spots on your reads list because I hadn't posted for like 30 hours. If I noticed other players with read progressions as unnatural as that I'd question them for it too.
Predit:
Geez it doesn't end. Let me grab my laptop so I don't have to try and quote stuff on my phone
Post
Post #333 (isolation #47) » Sat Oct 14, 2017 5:58 pm
Postby Micc »
In post 329, Chip Butty wrote:
Speaking of progressions, you've gone from having Hopkirk in your lynch pool here (above me, I might add) to thinking, apparently, that he is towny. Please detail specifically what changed your mind in the intervening 7 (if i counted correctly) posts.
Sure.
Spoiler:
In post 229, Micc wrote:The lack of ability to build momentum on any wagons so far this game makes me want to look for scum in the lower activity players. At the same time I'm conflicted because I generally view parking a vote on a player for lack of participation as a waste of time.
In post 282, Hopkirk wrote:This kind of conflicts with the previous post, given you imply it's not enough for
you ]/i] to go off of there.
In post 282, Hopkirk wrote:This is your first posts after the one i brought up earlier. Firstly, it doesn't fit with you saying the purpose of RVS is to get out of RVS, and it sounds like you're going for more RVS rather than going with what their was.
More importantly, I don't get why you didn't vote Cheeky, given your suspicion of their interaction with Cabd.
In post 283, Hopkirk wrote:The 'you're not my biggest scumread' doesn't match up with the explination that it was a post about him, not Cabd. I wouldn't find this very significant is you hadn't said you were voting Micc as RVS, and I can't see why you'd do that.
Secondly, you explicitly imply you have scumreads with the phrase that cheeky isn't your biggest scumlean.
If Micc/Cheeky are not these scumreads then it's very unclear who is, I don't know why you'd hide it based on your desire to move things on, and your vote makes no sense.
This is the most significant point on a reread.
In post 284, Hopkirk wrote:Conclusion: Buddying up to a lot of people, not really attacking/pressuring anyone. Some conflicts in terms of says/wants/does. Biggest points of consideration are the confusing voting on Micc, the unresolved issues i have with the cheeky/Cabd thing, and the other scumreads.
Read progression on Micc could would be townish if the first thing was resolved.
These are posts that Hopkirk has made that show him either building or pushing a case on the player he thinks is scum. I moved him above you on my reads list because I think building and pushing cases is a town thing to do and I think the majority of his analysis is natural and has sound reasoning.
In post 307, Micc wrote:Let's talk about Hopkirk. He's your lowest read of the players with more than two posts. I have him moving above you because I liked a lot of things he did in his catch up. What's your read based on?
In post 314, Micc wrote:I could quote every post hopkirk has made that is either a) actively pushing a wagon on a player he thinks is scum or b) questioning a player in order to develop a read. I could then do the same for you. His list would be significantly longer.
Because scum never do these things, right?
They do if they are trying to act like town. What's your point? I don't think Hopkirks push is fake. I do think what little amount of pushing you have done looks fake. I don't know how many different ways I can try to explain or show examples of that.
Post
Post #339 (isolation #50) » Sat Oct 14, 2017 9:52 pm
Postby Micc »
Nah, you can run pretty much anything you want in the micro queue with one game of moderation expierence as long as people will sign up for it. Not too long after I first ran it, the setup won one of the categories of an open setup design contest and got put into the wiki and now it gets ran every once in a while. It's cool and all - I'm certainly proud of it, but I wouldn't even say I'm the most accomplished moderator playing in this game.
Post
Post #382 (isolation #52) » Mon Oct 16, 2017 1:54 pm
Postby Micc »
Yeah that's fine and dandy with me. I don't think I've done anything but respond to your questions or call for other players to join your wagon since I voted you. So yeah, do your thing.
And because I'm not sure if those questions are rhetorical or not, the two sentences I was referring to are quoted below. They summarize the second and third bullet points of the case I made in post 326 quite nicely.
In post 378, CheekyTeeky wrote:...I've just noticed that a few of your posts mention that this game is confusing and that everybody else is confused also. That in combination with, what looks like, you unsuccessfully trying to game solve, leads me to believe this is more of an act than not.
Post
Post #401 (isolation #53) » Tue Oct 17, 2017 11:27 am
Postby Micc »
cheeky I don't understand what your problem with hopkirk is. He clearly had northsidegal as a larger scum read than you. That's why he made a 5 post case on northsidegal and voted her instead of making a 5 post case on you and voting you. He only switched to you after you called him out on things that are explicitly not true and then refused to engage further with him when he tried to explain why you were wrong.
predit: well I didn't read that and I have to go back to work
Post
Post #403 (isolation #54) » Tue Oct 17, 2017 12:01 pm
Postby Micc »
where'd you respond to northsidegal's points? I'm admittedly trying to understand where each of you are coming from on this one and I don't see it.
With regards to Hopkirk, what thing is there to do? You can't blatantly misrepresent what someone's saying then refuse to engage with them when they take issue. There's no master plan buried deep down in that.
Northsidegal, can you try and summarize your case against cheeky in three sentences or less? I get bits and pieces of 400 but im having trouble seeing how it all comes together to make cheeky scum.
Post
Post #414 (isolation #57) » Tue Oct 17, 2017 6:26 pm
Postby Micc »
Do you want me to give you room engage with other players or not? I'm making a conscious effort to let you do the things you say you want to do. Yet these snarky posts about how I'm treating you unfairly keep coming out of nowhere.
I'm sorry that I scum read you and that pressuring scumreads through wagons is how I play the game. If I thought being unnecessarily obtuse was evidence of Cheeky being scum I'd be pressuring and calling for a wagon on her. But I don't so I'm not.