Mini Normal 2209: Musicals II [Endgame]

[bloodhail]

cdb might be okay actually

[bloodhail]

Wagons I'd therefore consider: Anya, T3, NM

however let me ask you do you have actual suspicion of anya and T3 or is it just not townreading them (NM is NM, not worth asking about)

[ItalianoVD]

Who’s up? I’ll be here a little while.

I’m gonna be at a wedding all day tomorrow so may or may not check in.

Anyway any questions I haven’t answered yet?

[ChannelDelibird]

Specifically, the "easy jump onto my wagon was opportunistic" bit. I've reread that part of the thread and that just doesn't look like a reasonable description of what happened; I was only the second vote on you, the first one wasn't all that recent, and nobody else apart from Lemons was really talking about you as scum at all. Indeed, Lemons was actively receiving pushback for making a very similar vote on you to the one that I apparently went on to make "opportunistically". Indeed, you pretty much actively ignored the vote when I made it; it sure didn't seem like it rubbed you up the wrong way at the time, so what's changed?

This is what I mean…

Feels like it's going a little bit far too almost apologise for his lack of townread on me. Like, my 28 isn't exactly framed as demanding that people townread me for what I've been doing (it's a pretty basic behaviour to be describing) but Italiano seems weirdly placatory here.

I mean what is this? It seems like you were just trying to throw anything out there and trying to make it stick. I just didn’t say anything about the vote. Sue me.

OK, so you meant 'reaching' rather than 'opportunistic'. It's not opportunistic if there's not a, y'know, opportunity on which to capitalise. If anything, as mentioned, I was going against the grain at the time.

I disagree that it was reaching, obviously (at the time, anyway). As mentioned, I don't think it's an assessment of your post that fits as well into larger context now that I've seen more of you.

[ChannelDelibird]

I'm definitely still on the learning curve when it comes to getting used to reading players like bloodhail, T3 and Anya

you can just ask me questions i dont bite

Oh, I know, but I like to be able to just eyeball the thread and see a post and be like 'yo that's alignment-indicative', at least as a starting point, y'know? Anyway, we're getting there, I think - hence me actually having an explicit townread on you now, as opposed to the resounding 'idfk' I'd had a few pages ago.

Wagons I'd therefore consider: Anya, T3, NM

however let me ask you do you have actual suspicion of anya and T3 or is it just not townreading them (NM is NM, not worth asking about)

Oh absolutely the latter; I thought that was clear based on how I've never actually expressed any specific kind of suspicion on them and have only really talked about my townreads (plus whatever Italiano is).

[Anya]

i like the bulbasaur too

[boxxy]

cdb might be okay actually

What made you change your mind?

[boxxy]

UNOwen's #205 is the post that makes me most interested in the boxxy wagon of anything I've seen. @UNOwen, what did you think of boxxy's #206? You carried on the conversation with him a bit but didn't follow up on that particular caught-from-the-wrong-reasons angle.

I too would like to hear UNOwens response to this.

@CDB what do you mean by "caught-from-the-wrong-reasons angle"

[InsidiousLemons]

i said T3 plays how he plays and calling reads that are underexplained "fluff" is dumb. if you want more from him, just ask.

you mean like i did in 180, which he has still yet to respond to?

as scum my nefarious master plan is to...defend him?

i think your primary objective is to discredit boxxy. they're making some solid points and by calling them "flipbait" you're insinuating that their perspective is not to be taken seriously. it also leaves the door open to you deciding later that they actually are scum while still being able to claim impartiality. in the same breath, you're actively working against pressure for T3 to reveal his thought process, which in turn makes him harder to read and diminishes his voice. putting 2 very conceivably town players on mute does not help town. i don't see this as a "nefarious plan", but scum very rarely put in major legwork D1 so the potential that this is what you're doing is enough for a scumlean from me.

like if u wanna ask T3 to explain things im not stopping you from doing so but im saying reading into what he does as scummy is bad when its a characteristic of how he acts

i don't disagree with this, but you're still insisting i'm calling him scummy when i'm simply trying to get him to post more detailed and analyzable content. i have never made a push on T3 and i made my objective quite clear in 138. stop misrepping my reasons for putting pressure on him. you can't have it both ways

u seem more concerned with wanting people to act in a way u conceive as the "proper" way to play rather than finding scum

this is laughable as an attack on my request for T3 to explain his reads. asking people to back up their arguments isn't insisting on some arbitrary "proper" playstyle, it's how you gain information on a player's thought process, and i would like to be able to do that for T3.

[InsidiousLemons]

Why even vote then.

A vote with no intent to follow through applies no pressure.

the sense of 197 is that i'm not

pushing

for a policy lim, but at this point am comfortable starting to build traction on one. and if N_M continues to refuse to contribute anything of value? we can reevaluate. i'm saying i don't want him dead on principle as of yet, but that we've got to start doing something to get him back in here, or he's going to get away with ending D1 with literally <10 posts

[InsidiousLemons]

reading page 9 now

[InsidiousLemons]

- i don't like his defense of T3's inactivity and lack of explanation for his reads by writing it off as "how T3 posts". it's true that this has been T3's habit, but i don't see town motivation for fighting a call for him to post more substantially
- don't like his advocacy of a n_m policy lim in 154
- 181 is decent but i don't know that i buy that he believes what he's saying in posts like 145. "minimalist posting"? come on

Agree with bloodhail's take, this is a bad case. What's the scum narrative behind his play that you're seeing?

see 233. it's not a super strong narrative but with only 10 pages to go off of it's a more significant case than i can see for anyone else atp

[InsidiousLemons]

I don't scumread channel right now but he's in my pool right now.
bloodhail is very very very town.

would be interested to know what brought this about. T3, does cdb's posting on page 9 convince you he's more likely to be scum? if so, why? and if you don't think he's scum then why is he on the chopping block today?

[ChannelDelibird]

UNOwen's #205 is the post that makes me most interested in the boxxy wagon of anything I've seen. @UNOwen, what did you think of boxxy's #206? You carried on the conversation with him a bit but didn't follow up on that particular caught-from-the-wrong-reasons angle.

I too would like to hear UNOwens response to this.

@CDB what do you mean by "caught-from-the-wrong-reasons angle"

'Caught for the wrong reasons' is an interesting scumtell that it seemed like UNOwen was trying to see if you were exhibiting. It's when scum players get annoyed in a condescending way that they're drawing votes for what they think are bad reasons, especially if they thought they were doing well at going unnoticed.

[boxxy]

Why even vote then.

A vote with no intent to follow through applies no pressure.

the sense of 197 is that i'm not

pushing

for a policy lim, but at this point am comfortable starting to build traction on one. and if N_M continues to refuse to contribute anything of value? we can reevaluate. i'm saying i don't want him dead on principle as of yet, but that we've got to start doing something to get him back in here, or he's going to get away with ending D1 with literally <10 posts

I understand where you're coming from, but by admitting in the same post that you don't support a policy elim, you take the winds out of your vote. It applies no pressure. At the very least you could pretend to support a policy elim as a means of applying pressure to N_M, whilest still intending to back it off.

Such a move might look scummy, but since when does town care about looking scummy when trying to make a play?

UNOwen's #205 is the post that makes me most interested in the boxxy wagon of anything I've seen. @UNOwen, what did you think of boxxy's #206? You carried on the conversation with him a bit but didn't follow up on that particular caught-from-the-wrong-reasons angle.

I too would like to hear UNOwens response to this.

@CDB what do you mean by "caught-from-the-wrong-reasons angle"

'Caught for the wrong reasons' is an interesting scumtell that it seemed like UNOwen was trying to see if you were exhibiting. It's when scum players get annoyed in a condescending way that they're drawing votes for what they think are bad reasons, especially if they thought they were doing well at going unnoticed.

I'm aware of caught-from-the-wrong-reasons means, I called Italiano out on that early on when I felt he was being overly defensive on Lemon's calling him scum for the "if we're the same alignment" bit.

It didn't appear to me that that's what UNOwen was trying to call out on me, but maybe I just read his post differently.

[UNOwen]

UNOwen's #205 is the post that makes me most interested in the boxxy wagon of anything I've seen.

@UNOwen

, what did you think of boxxy's #206? You carried on the conversation with him a bit but didn't follow up on that particular caught-from-the-wrong-reasons angle.

It didn't do anything to change what I didn't like about the original post. To me it's intuitive that if I'm attracting a lot of suspicion, especially in a game this small, then at least some of it is scum driven. In that circumstance another player defending me wouldn't be inherently suspicious. The exception would be if I thought there was good reasoning against me, which could suggest the player defending me was doing so from an informed position. That's what I was looking for from boxxy's response, however there was no analysis along those lines so nothing that explains why he would suspect Lemons of being white knighting scum instead of town with a correct read.

I wasn't actually thinking about the angle you had in mind, although my line of questioning would've been a neat way to investigate it.

[UNOwen]

see 233. it's not a super strong narrative but with only 10 pages to go off of it's a more significant case than i can see for anyone else atp

Well we're agreed that the narrative isn't very compelling. I can see why dismissing boxxy as flipbait would qualify but the T3 angle is a pretty weird attempt if diminishing town voices was the play, because ultimately T3 will post as extensively as he decides. A more likely interpretation (and my own reading) is that bloodhail was just reacting against suggestions on what counts as valuable play. His posts around the discussion are very fluid and natural sounding, I really doubt there's any calculation there.

[UNOwen]

Anyway any questions I haven’t answered yet?

You haven't yet explained the boxxy vote.

[UNOwen]

VOTE: boxxy

Town can be erratic but the ISO doesn't look like a natural progression to me. Italiano/Anya are suspected initially, then vote against N_M and there's no follow up on the initial suspicions. Italiano renews his vote against boxxy, which is laughed off. T3's posts are dismissed even though there is suspicion against boxxy from him. No attempt to engage with either of these players about their votes despite one being a suspect and the other being one of the low content players boxxy has complained about. Instead of actually discussing suspicions the majority of boxxy's posts are wrapped up in the playstyle debate and the continued N_M vote is eventually justified by 167 which is fine in isolation but "lack of anything else to go on" doesn't match his previous opinions.

I don't see how he can end up on "Lemons might be scum white knighting" before first sorting his own voters.

[UNOwen]

Also I'd still like the fishing comment explained.

[boxxy]

Also I'd still like the fishing comment explained.

You literally asked for a role claim.

[boxxy]

VOTE: boxxy

Town can be erratic but the ISO doesn't look like a natural progression to me. Italiano/Anya are suspected initially, then vote against N_M and there's no follow up on the initial suspicions. Italiano renews his vote against boxxy, which is laughed off. T3's posts are dismissed even though there is suspicion against boxxy from him. No attempt to engage with either of these players about their votes despite one being a suspect and the other being one of the low content players boxxy has complained about. Instead of actually discussing suspicions the majority of boxxy's posts are wrapped up in the playstyle debate and the continued N_M vote is eventually justified by 167 which is fine in isolation but "lack of anything else to go on" doesn't match his previous opinions.

I don't see how he can end up on "Lemons might be scum white knighting" before first sorting his own voters.

I'll be honest, this is my first forum mafia game in a number of years.

That being said, your post reads like you started out with wanting to make a push on me and are trying to find a way to justify it.

No attempt to engage with either of these players about their votes despite one being a suspect and the other being one of the low content players boxxy has complained about.

What is there to engage with an empty re-vote from Italiano?

Instead of actually discussing suspicions the majority of boxxy's posts are wrapped up in the playstyle debate.

I also have posts about possible scumteam Anya/Italiano, scumread Italiano for caught of the wrong reasons or "that's not why I'm scum" as I've been calling it, scumread Lemons for what felt like a buddying attempt.

the continued N_M vote is eventually justified by 167 which is fine in isolation but "lack of anything else to go on" doesn't match his previous opinions.

My Italiano vote felt like it got all the reaction it was going to get, nobody else was pushing with me, so i figured it was time to try to generate content elsewhere.

I don't see how he can end up on "Lemons might be scum white knighting" before first sorting his own voters.

I was starting to get a strong town read on Lemons and we seemed to be the only two who agreed on playstyle. This made me nervous that I was being buddied. I laid out my case for it in 185

And since others told me I wasn't going to get more out of N_M I figured a switch to Lemons might generate a useful reaction.

Unfortunately it fell flat cause I miscounted and put him at E-1, which with N_M here basically guarantees a lynch.

Finally, regarding T3. I honestly haven't looked to closely at him. His posts are pretty empty and the majority of the game seems to be okay with that.

[boxxy]

Reading page 10, I'm starting to think that Lemons and bloodhail are just two town with very different opinions on playstyle conflicting.

I don't like how after bloodhail justifies T3s posts T3 comes you saying that bloodhail is "very very very town"

That's a pretty strong read for day one page 9, @T3, what makes you so certain?

[boxxy]

Sorry for grammar mistakes, phone posting and autocorrect sucks.

Edited.

I don't like how after bloodhail justifies T3s posts, T3 comes out saying that bloodhail is "very very very town"

[UNOwen]

You literally asked for a role claim.

That was a statement. It's standard to force a claim before execution, but it needs to be at E-2 with N_M in game.

I'll be honest, this is my first forum mafia game in a number of years.
..........
What is there to engage with an empty re-vote from Italiano?
...
Finally, regarding T3. I honestly haven't looked to closely at him. His posts are pretty empty and the majority of the game seems to be okay with that.
..........
I also have posts about possible scumteam Anya/Italiano, scumread Italiano for caught of the wrong reasons or "that's not why I'm scum" as I've been calling it, scumread Lemons for what felt like a buddying attempt.
...
My Italiano vote felt like it got all the reaction it was going to get, nobody else was pushing with me, so i figured it was time to try to generate content elsewhere.

-Have you read any other mafia games before joining this one?
-Right but that's my point, didn't you wonder why they are/were voting you? You were worried about Lemons defending you but from your point of view I would imagine the first priority would be the players voting against you.
-That was poorly worded, it should be the majority of your posts until the Lemons read. I don't understand how this lines up with your next response, "lack of anything else to go on" reads to me as "lack of scumreads/suspicions". Was the Italiano suspicion for reaction?