Micro 745: Beyond Death [Endgame]

[Papa Zito]

So I'm looking at the, vote and the timing of it and scratching my head and am unsure why you haven't/aren't doing so too.

This is my last post on this topic because I'm sick of discussing it and you keep moving the goalposts.

1. The vote and timing and reasoning and everything having to do with anything about that post were 0 issue on Day 1 because I wanted Chip dead and he died.
2. The vote and timing and reasoning and everything having to do with anything about that post were 0 issue on Day 2 because north was next most likely partner to Chip.
3. The vote and timing and reasoning and everything having to do with anything about that post were 0 issue on Day 3 because Cheeky was next most likely partner to Chip.
4. The vote and timing and reasoning and everything having to do with anything about that post were 0 issue on Day 4 because BTD was still here doing fuckall in the game other than moaning about Micc and was either scum or a giant liability (see: performance thus far today)
5. The vote and timing and reasoning and everything having to do with anything about that post has been 0 issue Day 5 because

I need to reread this thing

again

I guess.

You asked me why I had no issue with the timing of that post. I've answered that question a hundred times now. If I was in the game at the time I'd have done the exact same thing. Reads on other players don't fucking matter because

they were actually giving content in the game

.

Congratulations you've managed to frustrate the ever loving fuck out of me as confirmed town. As a reminder, I'm not making a post on this subject again, I don't care what you have to say on it or how scummy you decide it makes me.

[Regfan]

Yeah, we're clearly not making any progress here and I'm getting equally frustrated too so we can just end this, I think we're just very different players since it's not really a case of "moving goalposts" but moreso just explaining context-> the issue which I don't think you've really seen but meh.

I'll just wait on your reread for your thoughts on Hopkirk/Micc overall and who you think is scum/why before actually proceeding then.

[Cabd]

Sorry bout that reg; we're having ISP issues at work.. which is sort of important to an internet-based videogame-making company.

I'll be able to circle around tonight, sorry.

[Hopkirk]

Not got tons of time, but I’m going to try and get through Micc/SS now anyway.

b.) That’s not what you asked. You asked me to think about it, then said that you thought I was scum for thinking about it. It seems insane that you seem to be implying that I could only think about what it’d do as scum if I was scum, after you asked me what I’d do (differently) as scum.

c.) I’ve laid it out pretty clearly, and if you’re summarising it as ‘Cabd would x’, when it’s clearly about what I’d do, not what Cabd would do then you don’t understand, and should be reading things a lot more carefully…

Side point, why does PZ make 910 as scum. I feel it would make a lot more sense for him to present me as less of a townread there.

On a.)/my BTD vote. You’ve said several times now that I’d mentioned Chip right before then. The last time I’d mentioned Chip was 4 days before that, and around 50 posts, where I said he was a scumlean, as opposed to harder scumreads like North/Cheeky. I don’t get the logic you’re trying to push that it’s a break in my reads progression.
Even if I hadn’t voted BTD, for legitimate reasons, then there’s n
o reason I’d have voted Chip over North at that stage… since North was a higher scumread. I also clearly said that it was a vote made while waiting for Cheeky. You know why? Because there’s 0 town motivation to directly misquote someone and lie about they said like Cheeky was doing. It’s a wasted vote on the empty slot, but there wasn’t any point going after my second highest scumread (North) or Chip who you seem to think was my highest scumread for some still unknown reason, when I was 90% sure Cheeky was scum and I fully intended to switch back when the slot was full and had made its own catch up post. Obviously I didn’t like BTD’s response to my vote, you can see that from 466 where I ask him several paragraphs worth of questions/things I disliked about his post. In case you can’t work out how the reads progression worked there either, then it means that I scumread him more than when he didn’t have scummy posts. Hopefully this doesn’t lead into another inane bunch of repetition on points that should have been resolved before.

[Hopkirk]

Not much point leaving my vote where it is when it’s waiting for a replacement.
VOTE: BTD6

383 – Gives light scumread on Cheeky, doesn’t follow it with a vote, and promises more content later.
421 - Two days later. No further catch up. Follows up slightly on Cheeky but no vote. Complains about activity (kind of ironically).

Don’t really like the entrance. Both those posts look longish, but have no significant content in them. I could very easily see the Cheeky vote as a bus.

Like, lets just look at the above reasons here.

His posts about #383 is mostly fine but his points about 421 is actually really really really really bad.

BTD didn't vote Cheeky because the slot was getting replaced, the same reason that Hopkirk was unvoting Cheeky to vote BTD so this should absolutely not be something that Hopkirk could be scum reading. Similarly Cheeky was fucking replacing out, how could BTD have followed up on her more when the slot was empty? How is that something to scum read him for. There's no further catch up but there is him saying in that post that he'll be having more spare time later that day where Hopkirk votes him before he gets a chance to get around to. So when you're looking at this and calling it a 'good' or 'logical' vote I'm left just going ????

It was not taking a stance on Cheeky/looking like he was waiting to decide whether to bus or not that I disliked, not that he didn't vote. Vote I used wrongly a couple of times in the post. I corrected one in my next post, but missed rewording the other one properly. That's because I usually type quite quickly and don't reread them afterwards.

I'm obviously not being clear here, I think there were some solid reasons to be scum reading BTD at that time in the game, I can understand people scum reading him there and think I may have as well actually. What I'm trying to get at is that if you actually open up Hopkirks ISO and look through his reads and thoughts in the day and the progression behind them the BTD one comes out of nowhere. Obviously this'll be partially due to BTD not being active before then but if you look at the timing and reasoning behind this vote I struggle to believe that you liked it since I'd probably have burned him D2 for it.

Look at the reasoning he's presented for the vote, then look at how much (if not all) of that reasoning could be attributed to Chip there and it's bad, add to that the fact that a decent chunk of the reasoning behind the BTD vote just doesn't make sense (Didn't vote Cheeky in his recent post due to replacing out v Hopkirk unvoting Cheeky due to replacing out), like if I'm looking at this reasoning behind his vote the only way I buy it is if he's town and really was confident in Cheeky being scum and was using interaction stuff to convince himself that BTD was more likely due to it but that's a read that'd be attached to him so others looking at that reasoning and calling it good is concerning particularly later in the game when reassessment should have kicked in.

Are you fucking serious here?
>BTD had not made a proper post before that point.
>I cannot have a read on someone before they post.
>Saying my 'read progression' was bad when my read went from 'obviously null because he hasn't been here' to 'slight scum lean after a dodgy opening' is just stupid. It doesn't make sense.

Chip had other posts too, I'd interacted with him. Guess who I hadn't interacted with. The guy with 0 posts. What do you think is more valuable, interacting more with someone you have a slight scumread on who you've interacted with, or someone you have a slight scumread on who you haven't interacted with? It's objectively the second one.

[Hopkirk]

Here's another point of interest for you. Micc literally switched off of Chip to vote BTD without any further reasoning. If you dislike me voting BTD instead of Chip, then that should be even worse. Likewise, if you don't think I had enough reasons, this vote should also be worse. You don't mention Micc's vote switch ever though. Pretty biased reporting.

BTD

[Hopkirk]

Going through Micc. Will post general conclusions at the end. Will also break into a few posts I guess.

Note: This is intended to be a biased assessment, working under the impression Micc is scum and seeing if/how his actions make sense from that starting point.

15: Early attack on Chip could be so the wagon happens here instead of later to discredit a wagon on Chip later. Unlikely though.

136: First stance on someone other than Chip. Read progression on Chip at this point is kind of unclear, but it looks like he’s just pushing someone who doesn’t answer a question (like I definitely would have there) and still scumreads Chip.

142: This is something I don’t really like in this readthrough. Micc’s read on Chip disappearing doesn’t seem to fit with my impression of Micc’s read at that point. Chip hadn’t really responded to Micc’s points in 109, so going back to neutral seems weird. It’s also odd that Micc doesn’t look at the wagon at this stage.

154: Admits he didn’t expect anything to come of the early Chip wagon. This kind of conflicts with his previous post which said there his Chip read was affected by the lack of pressure Chip was under from the wagon, but in 154 says that it wouldn’t really pressure Chip whatever. This could be me misinterpreting what Micc meant though.

164: Micc could be legitimately frustrated at Chip here. Chip should have been pushing someone, and if Micc is his partner, then this is some evidence of trying to push Chip to push someone else (asking him to look at the wagon and push someone there). Obviously though this also comes from Micc who is frustrated town (though I’d have probably revoted Chip at that point, but that could be playstyle difference).

229: Given Chip hasn’t responded that well, I’m surprised Micc unvotes and votes nobody instead of voting Chip. As Regfan would probably say if he didn’t like Micc otherwise, this reads progression doesn’t make much sense since Micc didn’t push his top scumread.

Also to note, Micc only really has stances on North/Chip at this point. After this post, not voting anyone else, it doesn’t look like he has any stances- though he kind of admits this saying he wants to look at lower activity players.

300: Why don’t you want to lynch a lurker could again be interpreted as ‘Chip vote someone’.

312: I agree that the setup creator thing still sounds really weird. Approached from the angle of Chip/Micc, this could be because Chip doesn’t want to attack/bus Micc. On the other hand, he engages Micc quite a lot around here, and it would make sense to avoid that if he wanted to avoid conflict. Micc’s vote could again be interpreted as telling Chip to do something- vote me or improve his case. Alternatively, Micc has given up and decide to just bus because he seems Chip as a detriment (not doing anything after Micc tries to get him to). Micc doesn’t leave a strong enough read on Chip here that he couldn’t retract it if Chip started providing content/value.

326: Given Micc attacks Chip for not having reads, it’s very unlikely that they planned to lie low at the start, could again be treated as telling him to do something. A big part of Micc’s scumread at this stage is because Chip isn’t doing enough.

Chip responds to Micc’s posts without taking any stances. If Micc was his partner pushing him to contribute then he’d be legitimately frustrated at that point, given about 5/6 posts could be him pushing Chip to develop his reads/take stances.

332: ‘I'm pushing you because I think your reasons for scum reading Hopkirk are poorly analyzed’. Obviously, this also comes from town, but it also fits with Micc as frustrated partner.

Also as of this point, Micc doesn’t really have any stances other than on Chip, and a few townreads. Although, other than his townread on me at that point, none of them are really beyond ‘they don’t seem scummy yet so they’re default town’. Nothing solid.

401/3: This is one of the things in the ISO that most make me think Micc is town. There’s no reason for him to try and stop me/Cheeky deathtunneling each other, and nobody else is trying to resolve what has been revealed as a ‘misunderstanding’.

(ISO continued on second page following)

[Hopkirk]

Most significant conclusion so far: Micc pressures Chip a lot less than I thought, has less reads overall than I thought, and ‘frustrated partner theory’ seems like it could be accurate.

414- Again, could be interpreted as ‘I’ll back of if you do something’. Chips reactions of being treated ‘unfairly’ align with this perspective.

427- This didn’t quote properly above for some reason so I’ll quote it here. Micc switches to BTD after I do. If there’s anything wrong with my switch then this is worse, given it’s away from Chip. However, I maintain that BTD was a legitimate switch at this point (though switching away from Chip is slightly bad, though still understandable from a town perspective).

431- Claims BTD vote is because BTD is biggest wagon in his lynchpool (unclear if this is anyone other than BTD/Chip), and because the game needs a wagon. His actual push on BTD is good/legitimate though.

(one of the more important points): It’s kind of odd Micc hasn’t tried to push Chip harder- made a full case post or directly asked people why they aren’t scumreading Chip. He claims to want a wagon, but doesn’t push it as hard as you’d expect given Chip was his only scumread, and he says he’s concerned about time.

Vote on BTD continues for four days without really mentioning Chip, putting a case together on Chip, or really mentioning Chip much (this is between posts 427-505). As of 505- His scumread on Chip sounds like it’s a lean rather than heavy like I got the impression of.

513- Tells Chip very explicitly to vote. Potential frustrated partner again. The explicit nature here would explain that he’s willing to make a vote than could become a lynch here- he’s fed up with Chip not voting/doing stuff despite what could be Micc telling him to do so (in various ways) about 10 times.

530- Interestingly, Micc only switches back to Chip when PZ doesn’t really give him the option not to without looking suspicious. Decreases chance of PZ as well.

Yeah, im on board with this.
VOTE: BTD6_maker

[Hopkirk]

558- Micc says to Chip that he’d still support a BTD wagon if it emerged (Or, ‘hey start a counterwagon on BTD’).

Anyway, rest of the day until end of the day is Chip focused again. Not really anything to get from it though.

Day 2

622- Votes North, pushes afterwards.

687- Against Cheeky’s UCV vote.

745- On North, Micc says ‘Her lack of comment or interest on UC voyager's case against BTD is evidence that she's not trying to sort UC despite him being present and in her lynch pool.’ At this stage, UC is in Micc’s lynch pool. Despite this, Micc doesn’t commend on any of UC’s posts. In the last 150 posts, he hasn’t directly spoken to her (as far as I can tell). Micc is responsible of the same thing he’s criticising in North here, which is pretty odd/makes it a worse push.

End of d2, between 26th October and 31st October (entire day 2), doesn’t engage with UC’s slot at all. Makes Micc more likely to have targeted her n1 since he avoids really critiquing the UC slot (when I think there was a fair bit to critique, hence was voting them).

The ignite doesn’t make sense still. Not going to bother speculating since it’s either a mistake, or designed to make wifom.

Day 3

817- I don’t dislike Micc asking the mod for confirmation, despite BTD’s arguments. I’m fairly sure I’d have thought to ask that there too. I guess it makes Micc 1% more likely to be scum, but that’s at the very most really.

The rest of day 3 isn’t really relevant.

Day 4

Engages with BTD for most of the day. Has to do this as scum since he wouldn’t want BTD in the lylo, but it makes sense as town too. Again, not much to get from this.

Also not going to go through day 5 much since I’ve gone through it already this day phase. I still don’t buy the ‘scum wouldn’t bus so lets lynch the most likely bus’ argument being a key part of his read, or waving it away.

[Hopkirk]

After reading around 15,000 words and writing 2700 I don't have time/energy to fully summarise key points/conclusions. I'll try to do that in the morning, but can't guarantee it.
For an update thought, I'm now leaning about 65-35 towards Micc as scum.
Still need to look through SS and Chip again, and maybe more in depth on PZ.

[Regfan]

No problem Cabd, whenever you get the time then.

@Hopkirk RE;

Post 1053/Post 1054/Post 1055, we're not going to agree on b) here in that I think the fact that what you went to makes sense with the weird action N2 is something that's very difficult to completely ignore, not a smoking gun but certainly not a great look, for c) You're looking at it in a "If you think Cabd is on himself then shooting PZ is fine, if you think Cabd is on PZ then shooting Cabd is fine" approach, I'm looking at it in a "If you think Cabd is deciding likely between himself and PZ then shooting elsewhere is the correct move" type one which I think are worlds apart. We're not going anywhere with this though. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

I fully understand the concept of "My vote on BTD was a placeholder to move back to Cheeky when the slot gets filled and thought her being scum made him decidedly likely due to it as well", I can believe that potentially being the case and if you're town here obviously was. Surely you can also understand how looking over that area and thinking "Hopkirk could potentially be distancing with Chip with his read on him but not wanting to buss" given the information we have here. I also kind of find the way that you voted him here to be more in line with how I see people "drop down a case" rather than wanting to interact with a player. It's rather different from how you handled Cheeky and NSG earlier. Can you link me to an instance where you've placed a vote in similar manner before as town? If so I'm happy to drop this.

Just so we're clear you believing that BTD is scum due to those reasons and someone else looking at that post of yours and thinking "Those were good reasons to scum read BTD" are different since they wouldn't have the Cheeky assosication that you would. I don't fault Micc as much for this since his reasoning behind his vote was explained in Post 431 where he states he's voting him to create a meaningful wagon which frankly was needed at the time and I also don't fault PZ for voting BTD there at all in that I can see why PZ would/did scum read BTD at that time and it makes sense so it wasn't exactly them voting him due to loving the reasoning you had in either case. That said I think PZ's Post 910 where he states that vote is one of the reasons he's town reading you is where my qualm lies because I think regardless of your alignment that areas not a great look for you and I'd like to think after mslynching twice in a row (?) a more solid reread would have been done with some of this brought up earlier. His conversation with me earlier didn't help a lot in this other than just point out how differently we approach scumhunting and the game which means it's plausible it's just a playstyle clash that I'm having an issue with.

Really appreciate you taking the time to do the analysis in Post 1056->Post 1058 I'll be reading them properly later when I have time.

[Micc]

I put this together over the course of the day so its probably a little disjointed and I don't really feel like I've drawn any conclusions from it. Regardeless these are my thoughts as I read through Hopkirk ISO.

Spoiler: Hopkirk ISO reread

Why aren't yall helping to wagon the guy who planted his RVS vote on a player who is replacing out and then disappeared from the thread?

I pretty sure you have to wait 48 hours to prod a missing person.
He only 'disappeared' 8 hours ago.

This actually makes more sense and defending his partner than anything else. I don't see evidence of Hopkirk building a read off it or pushing me based on this.

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...

This strikes me as overly concerned with a few RVS votes.

Youre right it was. Why isn't Hopkirk helping me wagon him for it here?

This is an overly strong defense of Cabd given the lack of real pressure that I can see.VOTE: North

Expecially seeing as this is the vote he goes with. I'm not sure how NSG taking issue with Cheeky's push makes her scummy enough to vote here.

This is an overly strong defense of Cabd given the lack of real pressure that I can see.

like i said in some other post, it wasn't really meant to be a defense of cabd so much as pointing out strange behavior. i don't know if it's just me, but it seems like people are acting very odd this game and i'm having a hard time interpreting it.

It doesn't read like that since you don't really mention who you're talking about, so it's going to get lost rather than developed if bringing them to light is your intent.
Also people don't seem 'very odd' moreso than usual at this stage to me.

i tried to make it clear that the whole post was in response to cheeky's one post. that's why i put the "whole post for reference" in a spoiler. if other people don't see it (the strange behavior) then it's possible it's just me.

I'm not happy with this response. I was talking primarily about Cabd, and you don't really mention him, then later say i'm probably misunderstanding. I don't know how you'd clear up the misunderstanding without adressing the core bit.

This continues on and I find myself not understanding Hopkirk's push on NSG at all. First it was that NSG was defending Cabd pretty hard but when NSG clarifies that she meant it to be a push on Cheeky, then when Hopkirk follows up on it 100 posts later he thinks he's been talking about Cabd...huh?

Okay one last comment before i go. I don't think the wagon on NSG is sound. Don't know if it is scummy or not. More later.

Expanding on this was the most interesting thing in Chip's string of posts, so idk why it wasn't expanded on. Maybe sounds like he wants the lynch but doesn't want to be on it.
(please explain if not explained in the next pages)

More Hopkirk suspicion of Chip that ultimately isn't followed up on. I see where Regfan is coming from with regards to Hopkirk having a pretty established suspicion of Chip but not acting on it until the wagon builds.

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.

This is the conclusion of Hopkirk doing a NSG iso dig.

70 so more posts before Hopkirk is back with more pushing on NSG in 345. 346 and 347 show a scum lean on Chip.

372 is Hopkirk voting Cheeky for taking issue with his NSG case. Tbh I would have been irritated at Cheeky too on this one. She basically called Hopkirk out for not doing things he clearly was doing and pretended to have a legitimate motive behind it but that motive never actually came out.

Not much point leaving my vote where it is when it’s waiting for a replacement.
VOTE: BTD6

383 – Gives light scumread on Cheeky, doesn’t follow it with a vote, and promises more content later.
421 - Two days later. No further catch up. Follows up slightly on Cheeky but no vote. Complains about activity (kind of ironically).

Don’t really like the entrance. Both those posts look longish, but have no significant content in them. I could very easily see the Cheeky vote as a bus.

This is where Cheeky replaces out and Hopkirk moves to BTD. It's right after BTD returns from a long absence and gives two really unimpressive posts. I get the desire to vote him and in fact I followed suit two posts later. This is the beginning of the Hopkirk/Micc/Zito voting block.

I don't find this assessment to be accurate.1.) You say you made some pretty obvious errors to see how people would react. If i'm interpreting it right (that you're talking about where you refused to comment further when I demonstarted you were saying factually untrue things like my vote wasn't on North when it was), then you're saying you were acting scummy to see how people would respond- which is both unprovable, and a classic/bad defence.2.) My read on you is not based on 'reads progression'. That was why I initially had you as slightly scum leaning. My read became significant enough to justify a vote because of your dodging/refusal to engage.3.) The reads progression isn't really something that can be solved through discussion. You retracted something that I thought was scummy after I'd commented on it. It wasn't majorly scummy since you changed track, but it was a light scumread since I wasn't sure if you only retracted it to avoid scrutiny.I'm still suspicious of North for the reasons I discussed during my casing earlier. I'm fairly sure you aren't both scum, since North's vote on you didn't really look like a bus (since I didn't give any indication my read had changed on him, so it would be far more advantageous for him to try and discredit me than to bus a partner and than to go along with me and lose a partner without reason to thing I'd think he was town afterwards). It doesn't strike me as a town v town either though.

This is all directed at Cheeky after she returns from never actually being replaced. I like that he's following up that scum read and analyzing Cheeky and NSG interactions. I don't like that he seems to think there is scum between those two all well voting BTD and soon to be voting Chip.

'So here's your problem my friend. You've casually insinuated a few times now that my actions are "scummy" without actually giving any backing to the claim.'

This is exactly how Chip was acting with his read on me earlier too. Like it even less now it's a pattern.
VOTE: Chip

Still want BTD's response to my response on his response.

I like that this wagon is exclusively made of all my town reads.

Here's the Chip vote. The wagon including his town reads makes sense with his read trajectory, but it also marks the fourth person he's considered scummy in a pretty short period of time.

Currently my thoughts (most likely scum) are BTD>UC>Cheeky, but I haven't looked at interactions yet. Also just realized I could have done these over the night in this setup.VOTE: BTD for now

Getting into Day 2 its weird to see NSG has dropped out of Hopkirk's scum pile. I don't see anything that really supports why.

North feels like new town (which I too frequently misread as scum) who’s actually trying.

This is all I see to be honest.

The tone in the second paragraph seems odd. You don't want to get lynched sure, but it sounds like (arguably you say explicitly) you don't understand why people want to lynch you, when there's some pretty obvious reasons.

This is directed at NSG. Shows that he knows there's a decent case against NSG. Pretty weird that he's got her off his scum list considering his day 1 reads.

UNVOTE: BTD VOTE: UC

This vote is also pretty far out of no where. He had UC as second highest scum read early in Day 2 but I didn't really see an explanation for that.

There's some discussion between Hopkirk and UC about NSG vs BDT wagons on Day 1 next that I'm not quite following without context.

Hopkirk feels very reserved with regards to seeing NSG lynch through. It feels consistent with scum trying to be off a wagon that is destined to ultimately result in a lynch. If Hopkirk is town here and is town reading NSG I'd expect to see opposition to that wagon.

It doesn't make much sense from anyone other than Cheeky's slot. Especially since that's who I was going to vote today.
Kind of weird BTD assumed Cheeky was innocent/there was a severe mod error automatically without asking any questions, but it's now more likely Cheeky than him.
I'll leave the hammer to Cabd if he wants it.

This is Hopkirks only post in Day 3. No wonder he doesn't feel memorable during this part of the game.

Will do a reread BTD later, but he's currently my top scumread.

Into Day 4 now. BTD is pretty clearly getting lynched here and nothing is standing out to me regarding Hopkirk.

I'm headed out of town to visit my family this weekend. I'll be posting but can't dedicate a ton of time to it.

[Hopkirk]

17- It was intended as a joke, but it’s a fair point I suppose.

110- This would be a fair point if I hadn’t made 111 in the same sitting. Saying that North’s 83 wasn’t worth pushing doesn’t make sense though. Making a four paragraph post that early, with an overly strong defence of Cabd isn’t something you usually see in RVS, so was worth picking up on.

241- I don’t understand your problem here. A.) I said it was a strong defence of Cabd. B.) North said it was about Cheeky without mentioning Cabd. C.) I clarified it was the Cabd bit that I found suspicious, not the Cheeky bit. Consequently, I don’t see how you’re confused that I’d restate the Cabd part was what I was interested in when North hadn’t addressed it.

245- At this point Chip was a ‘scum or VI read’. I wanted to hear more from him just like you did to determine which.

284- As far as I can tell, you agree that my North read was consistently greater than my Chip read.

467- My vote was on BTD because he hadn’t answered/responded to my questions. To quote myself from the town game I played right before this one ‘I’d strongly consider voting semi-confirmed town in lylo if they didn’t answer my questions’. I consider not answering directions question to have 0 town motivation. My scumread on Cheeky decreased a bit around this time too (while the one on BTD became a full scumread), so I didn’t switch off her, but it didn’t disappear.

731- I did some rereading over the night, and North just struck me as ‘new’ rather than scum. I recognise that I tunnel that kind of play too much (I can give examples if you want), so my scumread decreased a bit on North. Similar reason for why my Cheeky read decreased before to some extent. Adjusting for a bias that I didn’t consider until I was voting someone else, and had a few days not interacting with Cheeky.



723- This is the thing I take the most issue with out of everything you’ve written here. You intentionally cut my justification for that vote out of the quote that you used. To quote it now:
‘BTD’s stuff makes more sense given the context that he missed Cheeky’s initial replace out/replace back in (in regard to me voting him over Cheeky).’
BTD had said he missed Cheeky’s replace out, and that made sense looking back at it.

UC went from 2-1 because BTD went from 1-2/3ish. I’d also raised several point on UC (that they’d ignored by the time of my vote), that I found suspicious, though admittedly not everything.

830- Nothing needed to really be said day 3. The game looked like it had a 90% chance of being over.
863- No thoughts on my rereads here? You say nothing stands out, but I had a fair amount of content.

[Hopkirk]

@Regfan: You don’t have a vote, and everyone except us have probably got a perspective on this discussion by now, so I’m not going to continue debating most of these points unless someone other than you wants to raise them, since It’s just becoming repetition.

In regard to my BTD read, I follow it up quite substantially (about 1000 words worth) outlining my problems with his initial response.

I don’t recall any scenario’s where my top scumread has subbed out. I looked through my more recent games, and it didn’t happen, so anything I could find would be from about 2-3 years ago. If that’s still useful then I’ll have a look longer back, but my playstyle has changed significantly since then.

[Regfan]

No that's fine, I don't expect an answer to my recent post, was mostly just airing to you where my thoughts are. I'll be stepping back mostly for the next ~24 hours and just reading through your guys comments and hopefully something from Cabd/NSG etc before actually stating where I'm at.

It's not really a meta link for a game where you've moved your vote due to a replacement that I'm after but more do you remember a situation as town where you've placed a vote on a player "To try and interact with them / get a read on them" that you think resembles your vote on BTD here as that's not how I'm reading that vote currently and confirmation from you that you've treated someone like that in the past as town would be pretty helpful.

[Hopkirk]

Here's two games that provide examples of that if i'm reading you right. In both scenarios I choose to vote someone I haven't interacted with from a pool of 3-4 potential votes, and also in both scenarios it occurs after switching off of a townie that I had been wrongly tunneling/was changing my read on.

viewtopic.php?p=9355919#p9355919
viewtopic.php?p=9356171#p9356171
In this recent example, I voted Bella after townreading her for most of the game, over a couple of other options which were similar/more significant scumreads. This was partially to get more interaction, though partially given her read on me/Serg. Note that I haven’t interacted with her a lot before said vote. The same game/my unvote at that point, is also an example of me tunnelling someone (Serg) then realizing I’m confusing new town/scum and flipping on the read (both reads were then accurate).

viewtopic.php?p=6824318#p6824318
In this example I stopped voting someone I’d scumread all game and still scumread (more evidence of how I tunnel new too much), and voted instead for Freezing, who I’d explicitly read as netural/null most of the game, and hadn’t had any back and forth with. Got nightkilled (N2) before I could finish developing that read/form a final opinion.

[Hopkirk]

Amazingly, I have time to conclude on Micc and look through SS too.

Six main points/summary of my points on Micc.
-Early read progression on Chip shifts oddly from scum to neutral. Don’t really follow the progression. After asking Chip some questions without satisfactory responses (or at least none noted), unvotes Chip in favour of not voting anyone.

-Fails to make solid reads in general for much of day 1. Other than a consistent townread on me, a shifting read on Chip, and a period of scumreading North, Micc doesn’t have many solid/justified reads until very late D1 (around the time Chip is being lynched). After that, his reads become more pronounced (Townblock of PZ/Micc/Me, Chip scumread becomes harder, North scumread enhances the following day, though that’s alignment based it’s still harder than he really pushed D1 in general).

-Early vote/attacks on Chip aren’t hard enough that they couldn’t be retracted. There was no real wagon momentum on Chip/Micc at this point.

-Thinking about the above point a bit more, Chip’s strategy of not saying anything, combined with Micc’s focus on Chip would allow them to get through the day without making enemies. If Micc didn’t expect more momentum, then this is a safe/good play for them.

-Alternatively to the above point, a lot of Micc’s posts to Chip look like he’s trying to get Chip to say/do more/develop reads.

-Chip doesn’t act to push the Chip wagon substantially. He switches to BTD despite maintaining a greater scumread on Chip. It’s surprising he doesn’t either a.) ISO chip, or b.) Ask people like me/PZ about Chip and try to persuade us to change to Chip. The Chip push in general is weaker than I first though.

-Doesn’t push UC the next day at all really, or interact with them much. Hard push for North instead.


Funny point unrelated to the game. Looking back at prior games, I’ve played with Micc once, and played in a game hosted by him (a while ago), but didn’t remember until now.

[Regfan]

Thanks for those links & the summary on Micc, I'll be reading them in my breaks at work tomorrow.

[Hopkirk]

That should be seven, not six. Anyway, on to SS.

Early game interacts heavily with Cabd/Cheeky. Doesn’t acknowledge the early Chip wagon whatsoever.

119- Explains she townread Chip, but didn’t comment on him as she wanted to see where the wagon went. This seems good, since she still let the wagon go so looks like she wanted reads developed from it.

146- Could be odd that she doesn’t push Chip after admitting she wants to hear more, but there’s lots of inactive slots at this stage.

156- I like that she’s engaging with Micc on his Chip read, though dislike she’s not engaging Chip directly at the same time.

A lot of the following posts are fluff/commenting on Cabd stuff. Reads aren’t developing since vote is on Kawso, an inactive, and she doesn’t seem to mind.

259- Pushes for Kawso again here, demonstrating she does still want it, but 107 is 150 posts ago at this point, and Kawso looks like he’s flaked. It’s a vote parked somewhere that clearly doesn’t have any value in terms of pressuring anyone, and it’s bad that she doesn’t have another scumread. Obviously getting a scumread from 2 RVS posts, and less than 50 words (From someone with less than 200 posts as well) is not a solid read.

261- Her townread on me, and what I think is her only read other than on Kawso/Chip, vanishes.

266- Which is worse with the context that she’s now asked other people why they don’t have any strong reads (while still exclusively pushing someone who looks like they’ve flaked).

Next bunch of posts are all just questions without any demonstrable reads development.

287- Gives reads list. Kawso as hard scum and BTD as netural is odd when they had similar post rates. Me/Micc leaning towards scum doesn’t make much sense since he hasn’t commented on us, or made any attempt to push us. Over three days since Kawso has posted, and SS is voting based on 2 low content RVS posts, and she hasn’t tried to push Micc or me at all. The Chip as town is the only thing that you could expect to see there from her prior posts. No idea where the Cheeky/North townleans emerge from.

As far as I can tell the list is basically ‘me and the confirmed town are town, the flaker is scum, and everyone else is in the middle but I want to make my list like that to cover up having no reads’.

353- Interested in Hopkirk/Micc/Chip interactions. This could have been useful now if she’d finished it. Mentions me/Micc later, but not Chip. First mention of Chip since the early game townread as well.

384- This is pretty explicitly related to what I said in response to 287. She put me and Micc below a complete null because we’re null after posting. That should be all of us on the same level, and if she’s interested in sorting us then she should have looked at me/Micc (though it’s plausible she was just busy and intended to do this before subbing out).

391- Concludes the Chip/Micc/Hopkirk analysis saying she didn’t see anything worth commenting on. Doesn’t update her reads either. Doesn’t make much sense.

By this point, Kawso has been gone for 7 days, and she is still voting him, and still scumreading him for what amounts to not posting. It’s beyond obvious he’s flaked, he might have actually replaced out by this point, I’m not sure without looking for the VC around here.

By point of subbing out, has no reads other than a Chip townread, and a hard scumread on someone who flaked after 2 RVS posts.


This is actually a lot worse than I remember. I’d forgotten SS was around at the start until now really, and I can see why. There’s no stances, just townreading Chip while pushing an inactive surrounded by fluff.

[Hopkirk]

Still need to look through Chip again, and look at PZ closer.
I'll busy away from about an hour's time until evening tomorrow.

[Lycanfire]

VC 5.1

I hear screaming from the water, but there is nobody there.

Not Voting: Papa Zito, Micc, Cabd, Hopkirk

With 4 alive it will require 3 votes to achieve a lynch.

Day 5 will end in (expired on 2017-12-01 20:05:00).

[Regfan]

Still reading along & reading back through the thread, hoping PZ/Cabd come in with their thoughts soon here, day ending in ~1 week and it not being a great idea to run this to deadline means people should really avoid putting off things if they can, ideally we get some votes down in the next 3-4 days.

Still need to look through Chip again, and look at PZ closer.

Looking forward to this as well as you sort of summarising where your heads at when you finish up.

[Micc]

Checking in to say that I’ll be catching up tonight and going through the things I said I wanted to revisit when I did ISO’s.

[Lycanfire]

Prod City

Papa Zito and Cabd have been prodded.

[Hopkirk]

I should be able to do some stuff tonight.