White flag #824 game over

[implosion]

FWIW most of the scumminess in those posts to me is 220 and 222. I'm not convinced the other two are scummy rather than just being faulty logic. My main problem is the vote on goats and the one-dimensionality of saying scum wouldn't bus right now.

[Klick]

VOTE: Datisi

Don't like his slate of posting so far. 14, 44, 46 and 47 all feel like "yes, i am here and doing things in this game, and thinking about things, how are you fellow townies". Especially the latter two. [...] I don't really see how 20 from me being a "vaguely pointless question" makes it a scummy post.

Is overtly trying to appear towny something that town are less likely to do than scum early on? It's the question I'm asking myself in regards to Gamma actually I think. A lot of Gamma's posts are reading as 'hello, look at me, being town, this is what I think town is supposed to do.' But I've seen enough instances of that being a townie's line of play that I'm hesitant to call it a scumtell.

@implosion:

it's not massively relevant anymore but I'd appreciate a response to this nonetheless if you get a chance

In the middle of catching up now

[goats]

I'm not engaging w/ you any more. I'm not gonna convince you to admit that you're scum and I'd rather let you sit here and dig a hole for yourself.

@everyone else vote GL if you want to become confirmed town for free after he flips mafia. no mafia would vote for another mafia d1 after all

it looks like the not engaging strat is working out well for me eh?

[goats]

Gamma wants to actually do something with his opening and use it to solve. It wasn't just the entrance specifically but also how he built off of it and showed how he wanted to use it to solve in a genuine way

What solving did Gamma do with his opening exercise? I didn't see him make many reads off it, he moved on really quick.

Gamma talks about how the info gleaned from it can be used later for associatives and to get people a core group to discuss things with.

has gamma actually done any of that?

and if it's something that bears fruit d2 - shouldn't you be waiting until he actually comes through on it to townread him? otherwise he can easily make a bunch of promises and never actually follow through

it's strange to me that you're townreading him for essentially saying "i have this strategy that will produce good solves, but it will only come true later on", and you're townread him now for it, rather than when he actually produces results

[Klick]

FUCK I'm so angry I was in the middle of writing a post for like an hour and a half and I accidentally pressed x on the tab on my phone
And this will be the only time I have today to post here
Ughhhhh I don't have time to go through everything again to the same level of detail. I'll try to quickly go through again and rewrite my thoughts up to where I got

[implosion]

VOTE: Datisi

Don't like his slate of posting so far. 14, 44, 46 and 47 all feel like "yes, i am here and doing things in this game, and thinking about things, how are you fellow townies". Especially the latter two. [...] I don't really see how 20 from me being a "vaguely pointless question" makes it a scummy post.

Is overtly trying to appear towny something that town are less likely to do than scum early on? It's the question I'm asking myself in regards to Gamma actually I think. A lot of Gamma's posts are reading as 'hello, look at me, being town, this is what I think town is supposed to do.' But I've seen enough instances of that being a townie's line of play that I'm hesitant to call it a scumtell.

@implosion:

it's not massively relevant anymore but I'd appreciate a response to this nonetheless if you get a chance

In the middle of catching up now

I think in theory town are probably thinking less on average about it early. But in principal it's the kind of thing where context (meta, what they're talking about, etc) can be used to read it either way.

[implosion]

Also if a townie is doing something specifically to overtly try to appear towny then if called out they could even explain that that's what they're doing, in theory. 'Tis moot though.

[Klick]

Tldr up to page 7:
- Datisi rather towny, I really like post 97, feels like actual thoughts he'd actually have as town
- GuiltyLion's Dwlee vote was weirdly timed, it wound up being productive but I felt like in theory he definitely had better places for his vote at the time of the vote
- Dwlee's catchup doesn't feel like they want to convince me they're town, which make s me think they're town. Feels a lot more like disengaged town than scum with a team relying on their survival
- Pooky's big post is impossible for me to process. 'I eagerly await your next post Pooky-senpai' was definitely in my first draft

That's everything particularly substantive that I can remember. Happy to expand on anything.

Might not get around to the rest until another time, I'm rather annoyed lol

[Dwlee99]

Gamma wants to actually do something with his opening and use it to solve. It wasn't just the entrance specifically but also how he built off of it and showed how he wanted to use it to solve in a genuine way

What solving did Gamma do with his opening exercise? I didn't see him make many reads off it, he moved on really quick.

Gamma talks about how the info gleaned from it can be used later for associatives and to get people a core group to discuss things with.

has gamma actually done any of that?

and if it's something that bears fruit d2 - shouldn't you be waiting until he actually comes through on it to townread him? otherwise he can easily make a bunch of promises and never actually follow through

it's strange to me that you're townreading him for essentially saying "i have this strategy that will produce good solves, but it will only come true later on", and you're townread him now for it, rather than when he actually produces results

I think he has cause I've seen hints of it but Gamma wants to hold that info for now so that the reactions don't get muddied so I'm not going to elaborate.

[Dwlee99]

sigh. VOTE: guiltylion

dwlee, why is guiltylion your top townread?

It's not ordered

[Datisi]

is the bottom ordered? and you're still free to explain why you townread him

[GuiltyLion]

Instead what I am pushing on is your thought process, what I am saying is that it's really hard for me to grok town in your shoes seeing a scumread voting another scumread and using that as evidence to reinforce their scumread on both players, particularly in a white flag game. You're starting with a conclusion you want to push ("GL is scum") and then arguing from that position in the face of what should have been relatively decent-to-strong evidence immediately to the contrary.

:/

guilty, do you really genuinely believe that one person voting another in what was essentially rvs is" decent-to-strong evidence" for the two of them not being partnered?

I mean yes? I don't look at the first or second vote of my scumreads and assume that means they're partnered or aligned, that's usually evidence they aren't aligned

maybe I'm baited and biased because of where I'm sitting but this:

I think GL's vote on Dwlee can easily be partnered. I would call GL my second top scumread right now.

just stands out as fake, like he's looking for a reason to excuse the inconsistency in his read on me and his read on Dwlee, and I'm kinda shmorcked that you and implosion seem to see some other way

[goats]

klick is town here, and I think datisi is townie too

[goats]

GL is flying to the ends of the known universe to convince us that no scum would ever vote each other and that it's """inconsistent""" to look at one player voting another and conclude that they could be partners, even if the vote is calculated to be minimally commital

[Datisi]

I don't look at the first or second vote of my scumreads and assume that means they're partnered or aligned, that's usually evidence they aren't aligned

but that's not what happened. goats didn't assume that your vote on dwlee meant you were aligned, they thought the vote didn't mean that you aren't aligned. it feels like you're kind of claiming the former when i feel like it's pretty obvious the latter happened.

but even if i'm misreading again, "scum never throwaway votes partners early game" is such a bad(?) take to the point i really struggle to believe you genuinely think that? like this wasn't a serious wagon-building vote, it was a "hi it's page 6 do you have reads" vote. in a setup that will later on boil down to teamhunting, meaning distancing is important. :/

[GuiltyLion]

"The last thing I would be doing right now is voting a partner" when we're in the first day or two of the game, and Datisi wasn't really a wagon with steam, is a vapid take.

how is it vapid??

like, let's say I scum with Dwlee, I vote him, he picks up a handful of votes and then I decide to bail because his wagon is getting too serious. That's going to look infinitely worse on us if either of us were to flip?? that's absolutely not how I play scum, pointlessly set myself up for a harder-to-navigate trajectory for no real gain whatsoever.

How can you not see this as a misrep?

3) GL says "I can't possibly be partners with dwlee, I voted him one time!"

That's never the argument I'm making, and this:

This also seems like trying to have your cake and eat it too. You're saying that goats's logic is wrong because scum wouldn't want to bus right now because the setup disincentivizes it, *but also* scum wouldn't bus right now because they won't get anti-associative credit from it if they can move it. Doesn't the second logic invalidate the first? I know you're saying "using your own logic" but the same trick can be flipped on you here

is exactly the point. There's not really a strong reason to see it as partner indicative, if anything like I said it'd be slightly less so - so the fact that goats concludes an explanation that requires the most assumptions (scum!Dwlee, scum!GL, scum!GL votes partner) is agenda-driven thinking.

[GuiltyLion]

I'm not engaging w/ you any more. I'm not gonna convince you to admit that you're scum and I'd rather let you sit here and dig a hole for yourself.

@everyone else vote GL if you want to become confirmed town for free after he flips mafia. no mafia would vote for another mafia d1 after all

it looks like the not engaging strat is working out well for me eh?

and this is gloating

[GuiltyLion]

whatever, I'm probably too riled up to come here and see townreads voting me for pointing out that scum!GL/scum!Dwlee is a ridiculous take - will be back tomorrow

[GuiltyLion]

like "minimally committal" is just not how I play scum and I have tons of previous mafia PT posts to back this up

[implosion]

I mean yes? I don't look at the first or second vote of my scumreads and assume that means they're partnered or aligned, that's usually evidence they aren't aligned

This is still bad-faith interpretation of goats.

They're not saying you voted dwlee, therefore you're both scum; they're not even saying that you voting dwlee is necessarily evidence that you're both scum. All they've said is that they independently think the two of you are scum and that the vote

could

be a partner vote. Their original phrasing was literally "I think GL's vote on Dwlee can easily be partnered." Not "GL is scummy for their vote on Dwlee looking like a bus" or even "GL's vote on Dwlee is scummy". Just that it *could* be.

How is it good faith to say that goats is "looking at the first or second vote and assuming they're partnered"?

[implosion]

"The last thing I would be doing right now is voting a partner" when we're in the first day or two of the game, and Datisi wasn't really a wagon with steam, is a vapid take.

how is it vapid??

like, let's say I scum with Dwlee, I vote him, he picks up a handful of votes and then I decide to bail because his wagon is getting too serious. That's going to look infinitely worse on us if either of us were to flip?? that's absolutely not how I play scum, pointlessly set myself up for a harder-to-navigate trajectory for no real gain whatsoever.

How can you not see this as a misrep?

3) GL says "I can't possibly be partners with dwlee, I voted him one time!"

That's never the argument I'm making, and this:

This also seems like trying to have your cake and eat it too. You're saying that goats's logic is wrong because scum wouldn't want to bus right now because the setup disincentivizes it, *but also* scum wouldn't bus right now because they won't get anti-associative credit from it if they can move it. Doesn't the second logic invalidate the first? I know you're saying "using your own logic" but the same trick can be flipped on you here

is exactly the point. There's not really a strong reason to see it as partner indicative, if anything like I said it'd be slightly less so - so the fact that goats concludes an explanation that requires the most assumptions (scum!Dwlee, scum!GL, scum!GL votes partner) is agenda-driven thinking.

To the first point: that might not be how you look at scum play. It's absolutely how plenty of people do, you're just painting that kind of tactic in the worst possible light. A lot of the time the wagon will never coalesce and you get distancing cred. A lot of the time a wagon will coalesce then break apart with you still on it and you get even more cred. Sometimes a wagon will form and you'll have to make a choice over whether to push or not push; that's the worst case scenario in principal but there are boons even then (you could push and then try to ride that cred out and hard protect your other scumbuddy, or you could leave the wagon late because of WIFOM value, etc, etc). I'm mostly concerned that you're just acting like this is a cut-and-dry kind of thing. You're not necessarily saying that scum can

never

do this but you're acting as if no one could possibly have any reason for thinking that you *could* be doing it. That's what I mean when I say my main problem was you voting goat. You're not considering that other people view the game differently.

To the second point: as I just said, goats, as far as I can tell, has never once claimed that you voting Dwlee *is* partner-indicative. They've kind of implied that they think it might be but that's in response to you pushing them for reasons. Their initial claim was just that it could be, that it doesn't rule out you two being partners.

You

are the one making the active claim that your vote on Dwlee should be indicative that you're not partners. So you're the one for whom this "have it both ways" logic is invalid.

goats is misrepping you, but goats is clearly doing it for rhetoric/exaggeration purposes (which, i understand can be annoying for you, but is not scummy) and you are misrepping them in turn.

goats can feel free to correct me if they do in fact think that you voting dwlee was a tell that you two are partnered, but I think that you're just reading into that.

[implosion]

And to that point, I don't personally see anything ridiculous about scum!GL/scum!Dwlee. I happen to think Dwlee is townish right now but I don't have any like, ontological issue with thinking you can both be scum just because you voted them.

(Well, actually ironically I think your reaction to this since then makes it very unlikely that you're both scum, but low prior likelihood, etc. I don't see it as a ridiculous take before the past couple of pages certainly.)

[implosion]

And also to be clear GL if you are town and riled up then please do take the time you need to come back and look at things calmly.

[Not_Mafia]

Scumplosion jumping on a wagon the minute he sees any traction on it

[Flea The Magician]

Yeah I'm basically always voting Dwlee here especially after the talk about implosion's AtE.

Pooky, NM, Klick, and Infinity can be trusted. Maybe Flea.

I think GL's vote on Dwlee can easily be partnered. I would call GL my second top scumread right now.

THe only thing you can trust in chaos is that it will be chaotic.
AKA, Never trust Flea.

@pooky re:your reply to my 131 - I haven't played with Flea before, can you link me to some past games you played or read with them? I still don't like that post and fae haven't given many reads to work with

I definitely feel the townvibes from that implo rage I don't think I've ever seen a game where he emoted like that as scum

All my games are on my wiki, go forth and have fun.

VOTE: Gamma Emerald

This is outed actually. He was angry at bugspray being a baboon, implying anger at bugspray's stupidity or lack of reading comprehension. But then he votes bugspray on the basis that they were mafia and intentionally trying to make them look bad. Which makes them scum, not someone who lacks reading comprehension. I think Gamma is mafia who got tilted at being suspected for the wrong reasons by a townie who didn't read their post properly. Which is why he initially calls them a baboon and then switches to a fake reason to attack them after.

And this feels massively over explanatory for page 4/5...

I don't like this, feels like you're embellishing calling it "massively" over explanatory

This is a huge reach.

VOTE: GuiltyLion

How is it a "reach" to say your post wasn't over explanatory, especially not "massively" so?

We're going to have a lot of fun between us I reckon.
So complete honesty I didn't even register your initial response, and we have some picking at the bones to do it seems.

You're calling out something which I've stated is a feeling to me. I don't like over explanatory and over justified posts that early - especially ones which cannibalise themselves slightly.
You've then stated that you feel I'm embellishing slightly. OK fair we're both working on feelings here.

What do you actually think of that initial post?
You know, the one that infers Gamma is

• Angry at bugs being a baboon
  
• Angry at bugs stupidity and lack of reading comprehension
  
• Voting because he believes someone is scum
  
• Tilted
  
• Caught for the wrong reasons by the lack of reading comprehension
  
• Reacts adversely, causing point 1
  
• Uses fake justification for an attack