Micro 745: Beyond Death [Endgame]

[Cabd]

Checking back in and reading soon. Lost power a bit in the Chicago storm

[Hopkirk]

i'm not responding to part one. i've already said everything there is to be said regarding that. if you read it one way that's fine, my intent was something else. what's your point?

Part 2

4.) Doesn't adress why Cheeky wasn't a scumlean, and especially why he wasn't worth a vote given you claimed your next vote why RVS.

furthermore, as i've said multiple times before, i was saying that i thought cheeky's behavior was strange, not that it was scummy.

5.) You didn't mention your Micc vote at all in this response. I said that was the most significant point.
6.) It reflects badly on you in my eyes that you say my case is weak because my 'most significant point' is bad when you didn't address what I said was my most significant point (see 5).

i'm sorry, given the run on sentence right before "this is the most significant point" it was a little difficult to determine what you were referring to. what exactly is your question regarding the micc vote?

Primarily why it was made, in light of the other stuff you were saying.

[Hopkirk]

Because he didn't put you in the suspicious section, and I find you suspicious, so want to know why.

But what does this have to do with the post you referenced? What am I missing here? In the post you referenced micc concedes that NSG might be town. He hasn't provided any lists? I find it suspicious that you chose this quote when a couple of quotes later he says he is still suspicious of NSG. It seems like you're choosing a quote that puts micc's suspicion of NSG in a better light and which has nothing to do with me...so you quote that then ask how micc feels about me.

Why are you suspicious of me? Don't make the weak mistake of saying I'm suspicious with nothing to back it up, while providing a null leaning case of NSG...

Because his reads list was in that post. I was asking purely because you were not on the reads list in that post.
I'm suspicious of you based on what I've mentioned already- your reads progression is confusing, and the odd lack of jutifying your read on my by saying you'd do a reads list instead, when that wasn't what had been requested.
Why is my case null leaning? If you think I'm town (based on last reads list), then why not try and persuade me I'm wrong to prevent a TvT?

Oh I see what you mean now.

If you're confused about my reads progression that's your own problem, you should be asking me questions if it's killing you to know. I've already suggested my play is not linear. Anyway confusion on my points is NAI. I've answered your question about my read progression of you and why I didn't do it immediately when requested, so you can drop that line of enquiry or start a new line.

Your case on NSG was waffling on but never came to a conclusion. You need to tell her why you're leaning one way or the other on her and put your vote where your mouth is. The point is that you had time to "analyse" her actions in depth without an indication of your read, but then you just throw out your suspicious read on me without justification. Why?

On you
We’ve already discussed these points, so why are you acting like I’m just bringing it up now? It’s also not from nowhere- because we’ve discussed it. You’re less suspicious than NSG, but you’re still a scumlean.

On NSG- what?
1.) You say ‘never came to a conclusion’- I literally wrote a section titled conclusions.
2.) On you need to ‘tell her why you’re leaning one way or another’- what do you think I was saying throughout.
3.) On ‘put your vote where your mouth is’- It was on her before I made the case, while I made it, and Hasn’t left her.
4.) How am I not reaching conclusions on her? Could you seriously not see I scumread her?

I really don’t see how you can reach the conclusions you did from my posts. Could you reread my NSG case before responding to the above.

[Sobolev Space]

semi-prodge been absurdly busy this weekend and will continue to be busy this week. will try to answer the questions to me tonight. there's some rereading i want to do (hopkirk/micc/chip interactions) but won't have time for a few days.

[northsidegal]

Primarily why it was made, in light of the other stuff you were saying.

i was mad at micc for how rude he was being and i felt the game was still early enough that voting him wouldn't really matter that much. that's the entire reason.

[CheekyTeeky]

Because he didn't put you in the suspicious section, and I find you suspicious, so want to know why.

But what does this have to do with the post you referenced? What am I missing here? In the post you referenced micc concedes that NSG might be town. He hasn't provided any lists? I find it suspicious that you chose this quote when a couple of quotes later he says he is still suspicious of NSG. It seems like you're choosing a quote that puts micc's suspicion of NSG in a better light and which has nothing to do with me...so you quote that then ask how micc feels about me.

Why are you suspicious of me? Don't make the weak mistake of saying I'm suspicious with nothing to back it up, while providing a null leaning case of NSG...

Because his reads list was in that post. I was asking purely because you were not on the reads list in that post.
I'm suspicious of you based on what I've mentioned already- your reads progression is confusing, and the odd lack of jutifying your read on my by saying you'd do a reads list instead, when that wasn't what had been requested.
Why is my case null leaning? If you think I'm town (based on last reads list), then why not try and persuade me I'm wrong to prevent a TvT?

Oh I see what you mean now.

If you're confused about my reads progression that's your own problem, you should be asking me questions if it's killing you to know. I've already suggested my play is not linear. Anyway confusion on my points is NAI. I've answered your question about my read progression of you and why I didn't do it immediately when requested, so you can drop that line of enquiry or start a new line.

Your case on NSG was waffling on but never came to a conclusion. You need to tell her why you're leaning one way or the other on her and put your vote where your mouth is. The point is that you had time to "analyse" her actions in depth without an indication of your read, but then you just throw out your suspicious read on me without justification. Why?

On you
We’ve already discussed these points, so why are you acting like I’m just bringing it up now? It’s also not from nowhere- because we’ve discussed it. You’re less suspicious than NSG, but you’re still a scumlean.

On NSG- what?
1.) You say ‘never came to a conclusion’- I literally wrote a section titled conclusions.
2.) On you need to ‘tell her why you’re leaning one way or another’- what do you think I was saying throughout.
3.) On ‘put your vote where your mouth is’- It was on her before I made the case, while I made it, and Hasn’t left her.
4.) How am I not reaching conclusions on her? Could you seriously not see I scumread her?

I really don’t see how you can reach the conclusions you did from my posts. Could you reread my NSG case before responding to the above.

You're missing the point. This is clearly a dodge lol.

[Chip Butty]

Putting aside Micc's response, how does someone scumreading you in game (who I assume you think is scum based on what you've said) stop you from doing anything else? Unless your internet provider charges you by the word...

It's a question of having limited time and splitting it between 5 games. Why do you assume i scumread Micc when i have him as null? Okay, i admit I've been quietly stalking him, which is why I've been working to get his "case" on me on the record in detail and committed to, but i've been approaching it with an open mind. My main concern with him is that he seems to be employing a double standard with respect to me and everyone else. But trying to look at things objectively, I do need to say more about why I'm scum leaning you, which is something you've also rightly said. I'll make it my first priority but i lack enthusiasm for it because you don't look terrible or anything, just pinging me a tad scummier than everyone else.

[Chip Butty]

I wasn't badgering you during the period of the game where my work rate decreased was I

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.

'Were you murdering the victim during the period of the 12th to the 14th?'
'I was not murdering the victim during the period of the 12th to the 14th.'
'Ah, so is that an admission that you were murdering the victim at another time?'

It's not the same, for some reason i can't be bothered to analyse roght now.

No town motivation behind 56???

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?

Something we certainly wouldn't have thought of ourselves. Especially not Micc the super super experienced setup designer who can design setups but not think of things like 'if a town is quicklynched there's a good shot scum were voting them'.

Read what i said again. I was pointing out BOTH scum would likely be on my wagon. How many times do i need to repeat this?

Sobolev is scum leaning Hopkirk too, yet you have no problem with that?

Nope.

@Micc: Given your keen interest in Hopkirk assessments and progressions, how did you fail to notice this?

I missed it because I don't have a keen interest in Hopkirk assessments

A simple 'nope' isn't going to cut it. You owe us a reason why you have a problem with me scum leaning Hopkirk but not Sobolev scum leaning Hopkirk.

Yes you do have a keen interest in Hopkirk assessments. You have assessed him yourself and attacked me because my assessment differs from yours.

Progressions: you attack me because i lowered you a notch and you don't like the reasons stated so far. So you are noticing progressions, but only selectively, it appears.

I still don't see why anything you've said on me makes me scum leaning rather than null in your perspective.
Still waiting on the case that I'm sure will resolve this.

Don't expect anything bone crushing, it's just a lean.

@Micc: I just want to clear up something before we continue. How many games of Mafia would you say you had played when you designed this setup? Ballpark will do...

Micc said in thread he only had two scumgames.

Other sites are a thing, you know.

[Lycanfire]

VC 1.3

There was no queue, but no food either.

Leading Wagon:
northsidegal (3) - Hopkirk, Kawso, CheekyTeeky

Kawso (1) - Sobolev Space
Chip Butty (1) - Micc

Not Voting: Cabd, BTD6_maker, Chip Butty, northsidegal

With 9 alive it will require 5 votes to achieve a lynch.

Day 1 will end in (expired on 2017-10-22 19:07:10)

Mod notes:
BTD6_maker is V/LA until October 16.
Kawso has failed to pick up their prod after 24 hours (

Weekends are half time per rules.

)
I will be finding a replacement for Kawso.

[Cabd]

VOTE: Micc


Think I'm here right now for reasons.

[Chip Butty]

Primarily why it was made, in light of the other stuff you were saying.

i was mad at micc for how rude he was being and i felt the game was still early enough that voting him wouldn't really matter that much. that's the entire reason.

What Micc said doesn't strike me as all THAT rude, like enough to get mad enough to vote for something clearly NAI. Why not just comment back? And i think we were clearly out of RVS at that point.

[Chip Butty]

VOTE: Micc


Think I'm here right now for reasons.

The thing that bothers me most about Micc is that he first voted me literally two minutes after my joke vote on RC, and he's been on my case almost continually ever since, and is openly employing a double standard. It's like he has decided i am his chosen target for the game regardless of what i say. I've been laying the groundwork for a case but i can't quite decide if he is being scummy or he is just bored.

[Lycanfire]

REPLACEMENT

Lil Uzi Vert replaces Kawso. Welcome, LUV!

[Cabd]

REPLACEMENT

Lil Uzi Vert replaces Kawso. Welcome, LUV!

Hi Uzi.

[Lil Uzi Vert]

Hey guys

What’s shaking?

[Lil Uzi Vert]

I’ll try to catch up sometime tonight.

[Cabd]

I’ll try to catch up sometime tonight.

Oh the usual. I draw town but then confirmed town so I don't get to bullshit around. But otoh I get to live this game.

[northsidegal]

dang, i didn't get to say "what's shaking?" before he did!

[Chip Butty]

I've read through Hopkirk's ISO a few more times but I'm left with the same impression of 'meh'. He's written quite a bit and i don't see anything overtly scummy but it all just seems like minor stuff and he has a slightly unhealthy focus on NSG, who i still lean town despite that unfortunate vote on Micc. It's as if he is doing the same to NSG as i half-suspect Micc is doing to me: just choosing someone to more or less nitpick at, to look busy. At no point reading through Hopkirk's ISO do i get the feeling of aha! yeah he's onto something there'. Of course, this is slightly unfair if me, since none of us has been able to come up with anything much, at least not publicly. However i don't get the same slightly troubled feeling when i read the NSG and CT ISOs, so i guess put it down to gut. I think I'll keep him at scumlean for now. It's kind of a negative, impressionistic case in a way, with no specific posts i can point at. That's why it is just a lean.

[Chip Butty]

I guess what i am thinking is SOMEBODY must be scum, and we would be stiff to have got both in the inactives, in which case everything so far has been people blowing hot air at each other. But I'm really not picking up much among the actives, and Hopkirk just has a slightly less town vibe than the others. I know that's vague but it is the best I've got right now.

[Chip Butty]

Just read NSG's ISO again. Need to read CT and Hopkirk again. So many interactions already - Cabd, Micc, and SS as well. In a way, NSG has been at the centre of things so far. Will read through again later and post comments.

[CheekyTeeky]

Oh no are you scum chip?

[Hopkirk]

Because he didn't put you in the suspicious section, and I find you suspicious, so want to know why.

But what does this have to do with the post you referenced? What am I missing here? In the post you referenced micc concedes that NSG might be town. He hasn't provided any lists? I find it suspicious that you chose this quote when a couple of quotes later he says he is still suspicious of NSG. It seems like you're choosing a quote that puts micc's suspicion of NSG in a better light and which has nothing to do with me...so you quote that then ask how micc feels about me.

Why are you suspicious of me? Don't make the weak mistake of saying I'm suspicious with nothing to back it up, while providing a null leaning case of NSG...

Because his reads list was in that post. I was asking purely because you were not on the reads list in that post.
I'm suspicious of you based on what I've mentioned already- your reads progression is confusing, and the odd lack of jutifying your read on my by saying you'd do a reads list instead, when that wasn't what had been requested.
Why is my case null leaning? If you think I'm town (based on last reads list), then why not try and persuade me I'm wrong to prevent a TvT?

Oh I see what you mean now.

If you're confused about my reads progression that's your own problem, you should be asking me questions if it's killing you to know. I've already suggested my play is not linear. Anyway confusion on my points is NAI. I've answered your question about my read progression of you and why I didn't do it immediately when requested, so you can drop that line of enquiry or start a new line.

Your case on NSG was waffling on but never came to a conclusion. You need to tell her why you're leaning one way or the other on her and put your vote where your mouth is. The point is that you had time to "analyse" her actions in depth without an indication of your read, but then you just throw out your suspicious read on me without justification. Why?

On you
We’ve already discussed these points, so why are you acting like I’m just bringing it up now? It’s also not from nowhere- because we’ve discussed it. You’re less suspicious than NSG, but you’re still a scumlean.

On NSG- what?
1.) You say ‘never came to a conclusion’- I literally wrote a section titled conclusions.
2.) On you need to ‘tell her why you’re leaning one way or another’- what do you think I was saying throughout.
3.) On ‘put your vote where your mouth is’- It was on her before I made the case, while I made it, and Hasn’t left her.
4.) How am I not reaching conclusions on her? Could you seriously not see I scumread her?

I really don’t see how you can reach the conclusions you did from my posts. Could you reread my NSG case before responding to the above.

You're missing the point. This is clearly a dodge lol.

VOTE: Cheeky

If you don't respond to my questions then my vote isn't moving.
You said demonstrably untrue things- such as explicitly saying I wasn't voting someone I was- and are still sticking to them.

[Hopkirk]

VC 1.3

There was no queue, but no food either.

Leading Wagon:

northsidegal (3) - Hopkirk

, Kawso, CheekyTeeky

Kawso (1) - Sobolev Space
Chip Butty (1) - Micc

Not Voting: Cabd, BTD6_maker, Chip Butty, northsidegal

With 9 alive it will require 5 votes to achieve a lynch.

Day 1 will end in (expired on 2017-10-22 19:07:10)

Mod notes:
BTD6_maker is V/LA until October 16.
Kawso has failed to pick up their prod after 24 hours (

Weekends are half time per rules.

)
I will be finding a replacement for Kawso.

[Chip Butty]

Oh no are you scum chip?

No, but we haven't interacted much in this game, so we probably should do that for a bit. What's on your mind?