In post 52, Irrelephant11 wrote:Partially because he ignored my question and partially for reactions. I'll leave my vote until he answers my question
Twain, why didn't you just ask about it?
You're gonna vote me for not answering a question about a silly rvs post? Hmm. Keep it there I guess.
Does that change your read on Irrelephant in any way?
And regardless of that, who do you wanna vote rn?
In post 67, TWAIN wrote:On an unrelated note, is there a way to actually quote inside the quick reply box? I use the above format because I hate changing pages.
Yes, there’s a quote button on the right side of each post.
Or you could always write
btw, the signups for BBT's and DrDoli's wagons are
OFFICIALY OPEN
! Feel free to join, there will be a 100% discount, this day only!
But seriously, Twain's response to pressure was ok, I guess.
If you can even call that being "pressure"
I get the feeling drdoli might be more of a shitter, but I'd like to talk about them regardless.
Same with BBT (not being a shitter, just talk about them).
>>71
>What do you think of him now?
He moved from a -0.3 to a -0.1 pretty much.
>>72
>I'm really happy I'm voting this rn. This is just awful
I'm ok with his reaction, since FWIW that's exactly what I was doing.
>>75
>Yes, there’s a quote button on the right side of each post.
Yeah, that takes me to the preview page. Don't want that, but the quote to come in the actual QR box. Multiquote isn't of use either.
In post 67, TWAIN wrote:>>64
>well if you were scumreading me for not giving a reason, and then I give a reason, are you still scumreading me? If not, then yes, you should move your vote
The matter of the fact remains you didn't give an answer initially. Yeah it's a flimsy reason, but it's more of a reason than the sea of nothing I have. I find Tchill ignoring you regarding that statement a non-issue. I can understand people saying things just for the sake of it early on.
On an unrelated note, is there a way to actually quote inside the quick reply box? I use the above format because I hate changing pages.
My point isn't about the strength of your reason to vote me originally. I'm saying that if you're no longer scumreading me, you should stop voting me.
Separately, scumreading someone for not providing a reason is bad play. I'm townreading you for it because I don't think scum makes that kind of bad play, but my lack of reason is just as likely to be for reactions, to generate discussion, etc. (all of which it was and is - notice how much AI content has come from it) as it is to be hiding how I'm going for a mislynch. The latter is actually much less likely, imo, because scum usually feel some pressure to provide reasoning to look towny.
In post 70, ejjinami wrote:Lol
the reasons for wagoning twain are almost as awful as twain’s reason for their vote.
Yeah, I meant =/= oops. Mobile must have autocorrected it.
No, not scum here either. Someday we will relive our glorious campaign. Someday. Inb4 someone WIFOMs this as some sort of elaborate distancing/blah blah thing.
In post 77, Tchill13 wrote:I don't have a read on irrelephant, I was just trying to get a sense of his play style.
Irrelephant is a brilliant, tryhard player who plans and schemes and min maxes. I highly recommend giving our game together as scum a skim, as well as our pernicious little scheme thread. Essentially, he's capable of faking every bit of effort or "townslip" or whatever that is normally alignment indicative, so it's impossible to read him for any given post. He must be read for perspective/contributions/thought process/tone under pressure/etc., and asked to explain
In post 67, TWAIN wrote:>>64
>well if you were scumreading me for not giving a reason, and then I give a reason, are you still scumreading me? If not, then yes, you should move your vote
The matter of the fact remains you didn't give an answer initially. Yeah it's a flimsy reason, but it's more of a reason than the sea of nothing I have. I find Tchill ignoring you regarding that statement a non-issue. I can understand people saying things just for the sake of it early on.
On an unrelated note, is there a way to actually quote inside the quick reply box? I use the above format because I hate changing pages.
My point isn't about the strength of your reason to vote me originally. I'm saying that if you're no longer scumreading me, you should stop voting me.
Separately, scumreading someone for not providing a reason is bad play. I'm townreading you for it because I don't think scum makes that kind of bad play, but my lack of reason is just as likely to be for reactions, to generate discussion, etc. (all of which it was and is - notice how much AI content has come from it) as it is to be hiding how I'm going for a mislynch. The latter is actually much less likely, imo, because scum usually feel some pressure to provide reasoning to look towny.
In the same post explaining that you like to vote people for pressure, you ask someone why they would continue voting someone they may not necessarily be scum reading (on page 3)? Scum POV nervousness about being caught!
I don’t like how in the same post they give a description of irrelephant as an excellent scum player who can’t be caught by a single post only to then claim to have caught them by a single post. You gave no reference to their Town game and to me it reads like you trying to say “hey this guy’s dangerous as scum and you won’t be able to catch him, but don’t worry because I know exactly how they work and have already caught them for you!”
for the record Nauci has done this to me as tvt before
But that is a little misreppy, nauci - Notice that *my* vote is for pressure and reactions. *Her* vote is apparently because I'm scummy for not providing reasons. If that scumread expires (not super sure why it's there in the first place), I would think it would make more sense to move on, either to another scumread or to create pressure and generate discussion. Instead, she sits on me. Do her actions make sense to you?
Also nauci am I really your scummiest read in this gamestate?
I don’t like how in the same post they give a description of irrelephant as an excellent scum player who can’t be caught by a single post only to then claim to have caught them by a single post. You gave no reference to their Town game and to me it reads like you trying to say “hey this guy’s dangerous as scum and you won’t be able to catch him, but don’t worry because I know exactly how they work and have already caught them for you!”
No, I explained that Irrelephant
can't be town read for typical reasons to town read people
, and that
he must be pressured a ton to sort
.
And that's not a very good reason to discredit an early game read/push at all.
for the record Nauci has done this to me as tvt before
But that is a little misreppy, nauci - Notice that *my* vote is for pressure and reactions. *Her* vote is apparently because I'm scummy for not providing reasons. If that scumread expires (not super sure why it's there in the first place), I would think it would make more sense to move on, either to another scumread or to create pressure and generate discussion. Instead, she sits on me. Do her actions make sense to you?
Also nauci am I really your scummiest read in this gamestate?
As we keep finding out: pressure votes do not work if you announce that they are pressure votes.
Why lift a vote if it continues to generate reactions and sortable content?
Are you suggesting on Twaiin's behalf that her (wait, his? Twaiin are you a he I'm sorry yes you are, your avi got me) his vote is secretly to generate discussion etc?
Also announcing it's a pressure vote has not stopped my vote from generating most of this game's sortable content, imo, so in this particular case I don't see an issue. Meanwhile, I do still want tchill to answer my original question, and can't decide how I feel about his alignment, so my vote is getting more serious over time
No, but I'm saying that it's a categorical reason to not dismiss votes like that. It's just not a good mindset, IMO, and an hinder proper scum hunting.
Also, why do you take responsibility for generating the sortable content? That seems pretty far-fetched.
Mm I'd say most of what there is to read on myself, twaiin, you, alchemist, and tchill are directly or indirectly related to my vote. Only like two other players are sortable atm. I'm not trying to put responsibility on my shoulders if that's what you mean. Either way this isn't that important to note imo it's just in response your question
I'm not trying to dismiss Twaiin's vote? Like are you trying to genuinely read me or just sort me as guilty until proven innocent? I'm saying that if Twaiin's vote is to lynch, it doesn't make much sense at this point. Twaiin has given no indication it's anything but a vote to lynch. If it's a fish for reactions, then great, it's got my reaction and should keep doing what it's doing and I'll gladly hear that explanation later. If not, I think it's a bad vote and he should do something else with his vote
In post 30, BlueBloodedToffee wrote:I said TChill might be scum now I'm wondering why everyone hasn't voted for him.
Maybe you guys missed it? I think TChill could be scum.
In post 31, Rei wrote:Why do you feel like we should vote him if you think he's scum?
Although this comment is quite townie of you since idt if scum would care enough to post this.
[…]
Also why do you think he's scum
In post 33, BlueBloodedToffee wrote:Usually, I find scum, tell everyone else they're scum and then we lynch them leading to a town victory!
Yayyyyy!
Sound like a plan?
The way he went from “sort of a reaction bait” to “everything being one big shitpost” is just...
I have honestly no idea what to make of it, but it gives me a bad feeling
Or if you want an elaboration, I don’t like anything about the posts I quoted.
At first I thought the “lynch tchill” post was supposed to be some sort of a reaction bait.
Or an attempt to progress the game or sth.
But fuck no, it was a shitpost.
It couldn’t have been serious, because it wouldn’t make sense to write sth clearly game-progressive and then make a big joke out of it.
And his response in 33 was tonally awful. It felt forced, as if he made the joke overly obvious so that people will understand clearly that he wasn’t trying to do anything.
And I don’t really like the fact that he didn’t take the time to seriously answer a question that
-was meant to be answered seriously.
-had the probability of creating a conversation.
It’s not that scum indicative, but fricking hell, is it really that difficult NOT to make a shitpost when people ask for content?
I'm kinda tempted to vote it even if only because of the tone of the 2-nd post, but I'm not entirely sure what would be the scum motivation there.
In post 30, BlueBloodedToffee wrote:I said TChill might be scum now I'm wondering why everyone hasn't voted for him.
Maybe you guys missed it? I think TChill could be scum.
In post 31, Rei wrote:Why do you feel like we should vote him if you think he's scum?
Although this comment is quite townie of you since idt if scum would care enough to post this.
[…]
Also why do you think he's scum
In post 33, BlueBloodedToffee wrote:Usually, I find scum, tell everyone else they're scum and then we lynch them leading to a town victory!
Yayyyyy!
Sound like a plan?
The way he went from “sort of a reaction bait” to “everything being one big shitpost” is just...
I have honestly no idea what to make of it, but it gives me a bad feeling
Or if you want an elaboration, I don’t like anything about the posts I quoted.
At first I thought the “lynch tchill” post was supposed to be some sort of a reaction bait.
Or an attempt to progress the game or sth.
But fuck no, it was a shitpost.
It couldn’t have been serious, because it wouldn’t make sense to write sth clearly game-progressive and then make a big joke out of it.
And his response in 33 was tonally awful. It felt forced, as if he made the joke overly obvious so that people will understand clearly that he wasn’t trying to do anything.
And I don’t really like the fact that he didn’t take the time to seriously answer a question that
-was meant to be answered seriously.
-had the probability of creating a conversation.
It’s not that scum indicative, but fricking hell, is it really that difficult NOT to make a shitpost when people ask for content?
I'm kinda tempted to vote it even if only because of the tone of the 2-nd post, but I'm not entirely sure what would be the scum motivation there.
If you're scum you're doing a hell of a job early in day 1
I don't think it's a strong read but I agree with your BBT case
what have you learned?
