Mafia of Revelations ~ Game Over!

[xRECKONERx]

Starbuck is always scummy in my experience. I think you guys are getting a false positive.

SOMEONE WHO KNOWS MY TELL. THANK GOD.

bad look fam

[AGar]

Starbuck is always scummy in my experience. I think you guys are getting a false positive.

SOMEONE WHO KNOWS MY TELL. THANK GOD.

bad look fam

Das all you got from your last post to here?

[Green Crayons]

Starbuck is always scummy in my experience. I think you guys are getting a false positive.

Would you be able to tell the difference?

[Green Crayons]

I’m going to have to actually reread the Blair/Starbuck thing but my skimming as I glanced at the thread about when it was happening looked pretty tvt

[xRECKONERx]

Starbuck is always scummy in my experience. I think you guys are getting a false positive.

SOMEONE WHO KNOWS MY TELL. THANK GOD.

bad look fam

Das all you got from your last post to here?

i skimmed it all but i really dont recall anything fun or exciting other than the starbuck wagon happening and me wanting to ignore it for now

[Green Crayons]

I like MT’s post 473. I know scum can generate these kinds of posts easily enough, but it feels not wrong by and large.

I agree with MT’s sentiments about Auro.

[Blair]

Because directly after a post from Starbuck asking to explain the IAAUN wagon, you dropped the Porkens quote devoid of any context. How Starbuck read it is how I read it, as well. It really wasn't hard to get to that point. Not sure how this is something you can't fathom.

If you decided to push a vote based on it, and then the person you were voting for informed you that they definitely were not pushing a policy lynch, wouldn't you reread their posts instead of doubling down on the misinterpretation for no reason?

[AGar]

Because directly after a post from Starbuck asking to explain the IAAUN wagon, you dropped the Porkens quote devoid of any context. How Starbuck read it is how I read it, as well. It really wasn't hard to get to that point. Not sure how this is something you can't fathom.

If you decided to push a vote based on it, and then the person you were voting for informed you that they definitely were not pushing a policy lynch, wouldn't you reread their posts instead of doubling down on the misinterpretation for no reason?

I'm not Starbuck, so I can't speak for her. I simply showed the work on how we got to that point because you seemed absolutely dumbfounded that someone read it that way, but she wasn't the only one.

Also, from what I see chronologically:

• 337 Starbuck asks for someone to expand on the IAAUN wagon.
  
• 338 Your quote of Porkens which caused lots of problems
  
• 376 Starbuck votes you for "policy push"
  
• 389 You say it's not a policy push. You do not clarify it, you just say it isn't policy. Fine, but does nothing to clear up the issue at hand (338).
  
• 393 Starbuck specifically highlights 338.
  
• 398 You explain that you were highlighting Porkens's post as an attack on the IAAUN wagon (finally!) but immediately jump to bad faith reading.

I can follow the thought process to doubling down there. I think your obstinate insistence that there was no way you could be honestly misinterpreted from 398 and forward, even though I had already basically shown my hand at misreading your post as well in 391 is probtown. I also think Starbuck holding firm and digging in after the fact is town. Sue me.

I'd much rather see a real push on GC who's become suddenly a lot less engaging and confrontational now that a few loud voices have pushed in other directions.

[Llamarble]

I was basically working on the same post Agar just made, so I'll just say his version is very good and leave it at that.
Well, with addendum that after SB realized 338 wasn't an explanation of the wagon, she noted other posts in Blair's ISO that she disliked (the wagon-recruitment ones) as a reason for going with a Blair vote, which is fine.
I'm assuming she read the ISO to clarify her understanding and came across those posts at that time.

Sure, I would normally ISO someone before voting them to begin with, but I don't think that's a requirement - reacting to a vote and an explanation post for it is enough.

[AGar]

I was basically working on the same post Agar just made, so I'll just say his version is very good and leave it at that.
Well, with addendum that after SB realized 338 wasn't an explanation of the wagon, she noted other posts in Blair's ISO that she disliked (the wagon-recruitment ones) as a reason for going with a Blair vote, which is fine.
I'm assuming she read the ISO to clarify her understanding and came across those posts at that time.

Sure, I would normally ISO someone before voting them to begin with, but I don't think that's a requirement - reacting to a vote and an explanation post for it is enough.

I'll try to stop sniping you from here on out

[Albert B. Rampage]

Starbuck is always scummy in my experience. I think you guys are getting a false positive.

Would you be able to tell the difference?

No

[Llamarble]

No your version of the post was better than mine. I have an unfortunate habit of being lazy with links.

505 makes me wonder if it's Auro GC MT Reck? Eh. Maybe. Still like Auro + GC a lot.
At this point my main alternative explanation is GC running down an associative scumtell checklist hoping to create an Auro mislynch after his own red flip.

The 'Auro Sentiments' GC likes so much are
1. "I identify with changing your style"
2. "I like that he voted GC and called GC town"
3. "I'll try and read him later in the game"

1 is harmless but largely irrelevant
2 is fine, similar to Hoopla's take. As I mentioned earlier I see scum-me in that pattern.
3 is on the sketchy side when talking about scum or a serious lynch candidate.

GC, which of those points were you particularly a fan of?

[Llamarble]

Starbuck is always scummy in my experience. I think you guys are getting a false positive.

SOMEONE WHO KNOWS MY TELL. THANK GOD.

bad look fam

Starbuck is always scummy in my experience. I think you guys are getting a false positive.

Would you be able to tell the difference?

No

Rip.
I probably shouldn't post this because it will encourage Blair, but I found it funny.
I guess I'll ask - Starbuck what do you mean about 'knowing your tell'

But I do not endorse voting for Starbuck.

[Green Crayons]

2

[Green Crayons]

Though your characterizing of it is off and you should know it.

[Starbuck]

I guess I'll ask - Starbuck what do you mean about 'knowing your tell'

I've gotten lynched more on this site for "being scum" as town than anything else. Seriously. It is what it is. I resigned to it years ago.

[Untrod Tripod]

I'm having a hard time finding anything to focus on in this game. Can someone offer me some direction in terms of post to read that are especially scummy (inb4 this post). I want to contribute but every time I start reading my eyes cross and I lose consciousness. I just don't even really know where to start

[Llamarble]

Maybe the appropriate term was "rekt" not rip. I should consult Auro.

Okay that's enough nonsense from me.
VP's ISO is okay; his reaction to me saying he's an alternative to Auro reads fine as incredulity (as opposed to "you shouldn't suspect me because I'm voting your other suspects" which is a bit sketchier if still townpossible).
Particularly since there's a reasonable pattern of incredulity at my path established by 161 and 402.
And yeah, Auro voting VP doesn't look great from a wagonomics perspective.
Once again, me-scum would pick the nascent wagon with the best chance of actually surpassing mine, which for Auro is the VP wagon since Hoopla is definitely very influential and is getting it started and VP is a sufficiently difficult to read player that he probably won't townsplode.

P. edit:
I am aware my characterization was an imperfect condensation; thought it might trigger you to elaborate a bit more on the specifics of what you liked but wasn't sure.

[Auro]

That's a lot of over analysis that ignores that I changed my vote to farside pretty quickly.

[Auro]

Now, Llamarble, surely you will reminisce about your scumgames and tell me how you, as scum, would find it a great idea to vote for farside after she was making that push on me, let me guess - to look like I'm doing something, and perhaps to affect wagon analyses by moving my vote quickly (or) settling on what's currently a vanity vote, etc?

[Auro]

VP is a sufficiently difficult to read player that he probably won't townsplode.

What, are you saying that as scum I've done character studies on all of you so that I know who's going to townsplode, who's an "obvious N1 kill" eg. and planning my trajectories on that basis?

What's the point of saying this, otherwise?

[Llamarble]

I don't find it difficult to quickly get at least a vague idea of how players are likely to behave. You don't have to do character studies.
I don't like your vote for Farside because she's been rather town and I don't think that's a difficult read. I'll review it later.
And yeah my vote mobility is (Sometimes) very high as town and I make efforts to simulate that. But maybe you thought Farside just seemed like who you would vote as town, or something. I'll look into that later as well.

[Auro]

There you go. And no, that type of observation about VP Baltar is not inferable from current play.

You will not like any vote of mine - either it will be a difficult read and thus comfortable, or an easy read who you find towny, or an "easy read that's scummy" (to you) that's, again, comfortable for me.

See: you're fitting my play to a scum agenda, without actually solving my play. You're adding the "what would I do" lens to every action of mine.

[AGar]

There you go. And no, that type of observation about VP Baltar is not inferable from current play.

You will not like any vote of mine - either it will be a difficult read and thus comfortable, or an easy read who you find towny, or an "easy read that's scummy" (to you) that's, again, comfortable for me.

See: you're fitting my play to a scum agenda, without actually solving my play. You're adding the "what would I do" lens to every action of mine.

Do. Not. Like.

[Auro]

Explain.