In post 1085, T3 wrote:There may be some funny = town bias. Honestly I haven't really noticed redtea that much.
i consistently post in
giant unmissable blocks
there is no excuse except laziness
In post 1081, T3 wrote:Essoa I have no idea.
You're mafia.
MT is town.
flow is town lean.
redtea is scum lwan.
Dann is town lean.
I'm openwolfing scum. ^j^
"farren is mafia" oh my god the disease is spreading
In post 1073, redtea wrote:well i wouldve had to convince someone to vote mt with me anyway
Morning Tweet could have self-voted.
Whether or not she would have is a different question, but it was certainly an option for her at the time.
true enough
just because it's you- were you going anywhere with this?
In post 1072, Farren wrote:
3) If you're scum, you're worried about getting into a 1v1 with me, despite how D2 went down.
most people (except... mt? i think?) have flow as at least null, if not town. Do you think people's opinion of him would flip so quickly just from voting you (supposed awareness of judgement day or not)?
actually farren
i know you presented it as a "well technically, we can make heavened farren work by sending me to hell"- but is that something you actually want to do, or would you rather try to get scum today and heaven another town tomorrow, at least?
In post 1022, redtea wrote:MT #979
if im reading this right are you saying dann is dancing around t3 based on his post about people dancing around t3
Hahahahaha
It's just EXACTLY the kind of post i would make to justify keeping a scummy slot in contention but not directly suspect them. Cause you could easily just do the opposite and say "If T3 were town, I think scum would probably just townread/ignore him and let town murder him, then profit and win". I'd just use whichever one of those takes are more convenient to me -- it's a bit less likely id use them as town
okay. okay, i guess i can see how this level of abstraction still has something to say.
In post 1022, redtea wrote:MT #981
as to dann seeing more into nsg's post than there probably was- being ungenerous as it were- in my opinion, the ich/esooa blowup mirrors it. Ich was finding all kinds of shit in esooa that neither i nor anyone else (iirc) was seeing, or at least not anywhere near to the depth he was.
Is that something you've considered yet? Or do you have any strong thoughts about that interaction?
(add: i might go back and review ich/farren, similarly. Can you see why i don't want to heaven ich? lol)
I recall Ich being like "Esooa you're not making sense SMH go in the scumpile timeout and think about what you did"
i also recall Ich clinging to a metatell on Esooa that was making Esooa pretty annoyed
It came across to me like Ich was confirm biased and sort of taking everything Esooa says as scummy (Kinda like how they do to Farren as well) which is something i usually associate with Ich's play in general. With Dann it's a lot more subtle. I think it's similar in that it's ungenerous though yea
So in ich's case, it's more or less nai on its own (now we know he's town). Dann plays more carefully, so being ungenerous is somewhat ooc as town. So the question is whether people are satisfied with dann's "nsg makes me paranoid in games in general" statements.
which would then lead us to look to see if dann has done something similar. And you brought up flow trap.
So the question to
that
is whether people are satisfied with "it was early game". Which, maybe if this were about a different player, it would be satisfactory. But the fact that it's dann seems, once again, out of character.
Is that the sum of it?
In post 1074, Farren wrote:
Morning Tweet could have self-voted.
Whether or not she would have is a different question, but it was certainly an option for her at the time.
true enough
just because it's you- were you going anywhere with this?
A bit of reaction-fishing, but not one I expected to go anywhere.
In post 1072, Farren wrote:
3) If you're scum, you're worried about getting into a 1v1 with me, despite how D2 went down.
most people (except... mt? i think?) have flow as at least null, if not town. Do you think people's opinion of him would flip so quickly just from voting you (supposed awareness of judgement day or not)?
Scum|flow trap would have to worry either way - if I win the fight, he's eliminated; if I lose the fight, he has to not get murdered by Ich Troje in Judgment Day.
Although if he really wasn't thinking about Judgment Day, then it'd stand to reason that scum|him wasn't worrying about the consequences of winning the 1v1. Something to think about.
In post 1089, redtea wrote:actually farren
i know you presented it as a "well technically, we can make heavened farren work by sending me to hell"- but is that something you actually want to do, or would you rather try to get scum today and heaven another town tomorrow, at least?
It's not something I *want* to do, but it's something I at least need to consider doing.
From a "fun" perspective: it sucks. It directly opposes one of my core concepts of playing this game - do not self-vote unless there is a *solid* mechanical reason. This reason isn't solid; it relies on things that I believe. but can't know with a 100% certainty.
From a "win the game" perspective: it potentially prevents an auto-loss if we screw up today - and we have three scum waiting to try to ensure just that. Granted, they can't just quickhammer without invoking consequences, but there's a high level of apathy in this game. We've had two wagons pass with only three votes out of five; if that sort of pattern keeps up, it won't take the entire team exposing themselves to influence things in the wrong direction.
In post 1094, T3 wrote:Scum me doesn't heaven Ich over MT because MT is tunneled on me.
Uh ... that sounds like a pretty good reason to exalt Ich Troje over Morning Tweet from scum|T3's POV.
Exalt Ich Troje: they eliminate me.
Exalt Morning Tweet: she eliminates you.
Granted, there's a counterargument that not exalting her means risking her trying to kill you today, but here she needs to get consensus, as opposed to potentially being able to make the decision unilaterally.
