Fishing. /s
VOTE: Enchant
There's a difference between towny in the sense of meaningful town contribution, and towny due to higher likelihood of coming from town.In post 48, Galron wrote:How are either of those things townie?In post 44, mc esther wrote:i guess rvs joke-voting the inno is loosely town, in that it's kinda similar to rvs self-vote gambits.
The structure of this first post: [vote, justification, townread] comes off as scummy to meIn post 62, GuiltyLion wrote:Hello hello old friends and new
VOTE: Roden
Didn't like his first post, I think using a past game to justify RVS vote is inherently a lil awkward
Also I like Galron for town
Felt as though it was designed to appear towny right off the bat, rather than a naturally townie first post.In post 248, Salsabil Faria wrote:Why? Seems fine to me...
@Salsabil: would you be able to quote instances from the game you played with LicketyQuickety from which you formed your expectation that they are aggressive with votes in that manner?In post 249, LicketyQuickety wrote:I do sometimes just poke things. And I am totally capable of pushing multiple things at the same time. You really should know this about me based on our only game together. If it's not clear from that, then you just haven't played with me enough.
Posts felt constrained. We played before, and I recall you were involved in (even early) gameplay to a greater degree.
Why is it scum thinking - why can't town be unsure? Is there a hidden reason scum would be unsure? Is there fault with her reasoning for not being sure?In post 351, Pavowski wrote:Salsa always seems to have a bit of chaotic energy that I find hard to read, but I was pinging after the whole "I want to vote roden but not sure I should" thing, which is scum thinking though I don't know why it was verbalized
Walk me through your Galron read, I can't see it? Like sure, some of his questions are "pro-town", but what makes them likelier to come from town!Galron?In post 429, GuiltyLion wrote:^ these three feel the most pure / agendaless to me
Similar question to Esther: do you believe that scum!GL wouldn't have posted pro-town content as he did so far?In post 322, mc esther wrote:guiltylion seems by far the most obviously pro-town player, both for his early-game contributions and for his more recent attempt at understanding the thread.
If you townread GL and acknowledge he's pro-town, why on earth would you flip him to determine Bingle's alignment instead of flipping Bingle directly?In post 440, Pavowski wrote:I would also go as far as to say that if we should flip GL, and he turns town, that would be scum indicative on Bingle given the recent shade. But I also kinda don't think GL is likely to get flipped. A NK'd GL would be another story.
@GL: This is the redundancy I was referring to. Like why bring up the GL NK?In post 473, Bingle wrote:Why would you engage in preemptive NKA in the first place though?In post 457, Pavowski wrote:I mean that limming town!GL with Bingles points in mind would be scum indicative on Bingle, but if GL were NK'd I wouldn't assume Bingle was behind it.
Like... This is just introducing so much WIFOM into the thread.
If GL gets shot here, did Bingle do it for towncred? Did scum do it trying to frame Bingle? Did the CPR doc do it trying to save GL from the scum shot that was trying to frame Bingle of either alignment?
Just posting that makes it completely useless.
I'm referring to the first time, or post 440 though?In post 504, GuiltyLion wrote:He brought it up the second time because Salsa asked him why he brought it up and he was trying to clarify his original post. How is that "redundant" when he was literally asked to explain??In post 503, Auro wrote:@GL: This is the redundancy I was referring to. Like why bring up the GL NK?
I'm a little concerned you didn't see this.
I'm VERY concerned you don't see that
And Bingle stated the same as well earlier - even if you disagree about whether it's likely signalling, do you not concede that this is a valid viewpoint?In post 473, Bingle wrote:Why would you engage in preemptive NKA in the first place though?In post 457, Pavowski wrote:I mean that limming town!GL with Bingles points in mind would be scum indicative on Bingle, but if GL were NK'd I wouldn't assume Bingle was behind it.
Like... This is just introducing so much WIFOM into the thread.
If GL gets shot here, did Bingle do it for towncred? Did scum do it trying to frame Bingle? Did the CPR doc do it trying to save GL from the scum shot that was trying to frame Bingle of either alignment?
Just posting that makes it completely useless.
It's straightforward how a scumteam would interpret it given they treat it as a signal. Further discussion would only make it harder for a scumteam to act on it.In post 526, mc esther wrote:i liked auro's earlier posts on signalling -- not in that i really agreed with them, just in that he raised the issue and pushed it reasonably, without discussing how a scumteam might interpret it as a signal -- but this sort of post is the reason i asked pavowski to drop the issue.In post 523, Auro wrote:"hmm, if somehow X slot were to be night killed, hmm hmm hmm, then my opinion could change..."
He didn't say that his problem was GL scumreading you and not voting you, but GL scumreading you and "treating you gently".In post 527, Salsabil Faria wrote:If GL is scumreading me but not voting me is an issue here, you also don't vote me yet but keep expressing multiple times or showing prove that I'm scum here and voting Roden instead...
Are all kinds of gamestate information detrimental to scum, though?In post 436, mc esther wrote:posts like this are the ones that have me going "scum dont have to do this and im really not sure they want to". the evidence in-thread is that nobody wants to make these posts! it pings town over scum to me because i think it disproportionately benefits scum to leave those pages as much a black hole as possible. clarifying the general thrust of the argument and giving interpretations seems to be hurt the mafia's, idk, "abstract wincon" (a low-information gamestate) way beyond any towncred it might be worth; it would cost literally nothing to just, refuse to make any attempt.
No fun in thatIn post 625, GuiltyLion wrote:most players are likely town until there's good evidence otherwise
Why does TRing Bingle mean doubt over my alignment?In post 683, LicketyQuickety wrote:Auro - Having doubts here since I'm probably TRing Bingle and GL more at this point.
In post 726, Pavowski wrote:Does that strike you as a crazy leap in logic?
If the fire team kill was "incinerated", what would you expect the ice team kill to read as?
Mildly refrigerated?
I perceive this game very differently to the rest due to multi-ball and high killing power, so while I'm following the game I'm not too bothered withIn post 811, GuiltyLion wrote:a bit more detached with it
Yeah, but performative per se doesn't necessarily imply scummy, no?In post 816, Bingle wrote:That’s kind of my point. A naked vote would have been fine. Instead you dropped in with your theory about intentionally being weird to dodge a kill which feels unnatural and performative.In post 810, Auro wrote:Last part - I don't envision how the vote could look *bad*? Based on what I've expressed before about LQ, I could simply naked vote and it should be fine.
Why do you think LQ is playing up the weirdness?
To other games. In a vanilla game with a single scum faction I'd prolly be tryharding while I'm alive.In post 820, Galron wrote:Are you talking about to the rest of the plist or games or what? I get the high-powered killing thing but not sure how that fits with what you're saying.In post 814, Auro wrote:I perceive this game very differently to the rest due to multi-ball and high killing power, so while I'm following the game I'm not too bothered withIn post 811, GuiltyLion wrote:a bit more detached with itimmediately nailing scum.
Are you talking about my apparent "detachment" or my "playing to the audience"?In post 825, mc esther wrote:i dont really get where auro's coming from at all, but it also doesnt sound like a made-up excuse, it sounds like something i just dont get.
Yeah^In post 818, Auro wrote:Either way, this setup is really fun (4 scum out of 11 alive, with two opposing factions, with a compulsive vig/doc, it's wild) and I'd like to lim people expressing disinterest and handing out uninteresting/shallow takes.
I don't think it is either, but I could see what GL sees to some part in the direct use of that word. Personally if I hadn't given it any thought I would've phrased it as "killed by the other faction", but Pavowski mentioning Team Fire explicitly earlier in his post suggests some thought to it.In post 842, Roden wrote:I don't think it's unreasonable for anyone to figure that out tbh.
In post 676, LicketyQuickety wrote: Wait. You are Conf Town? How so?
@Roden: leave that, he's not paying any attention to the game whatsoever lolIn post 746, LicketyQuickety wrote:
Also, someone explain why Roden is confirmed Town because I'm not getting that.
Am I understanding this correctly: you thought Roden could be doc?In post 860, Enchant wrote:Maybe thought Roden is Doc actually, hell i know.
Bingle chainsaw'd me when I voted for LQ, and never shifted his vote afterwards.In post 981, DArby wrote:What’s your argument against this slot?In post 978, Auro wrote:I agree on Looker looking like the most likely LQ partner.
If Looker claims to be Ice Mafia I'd reconsider voting them.
Prolly Darby? Think I'll do a full game re-read soon since a lot of slots this game are just merging together in my head.In post 992, mc esther wrote:pavowski, darby, and roden; yes, same old same old. pavowski's posting got kinda weird today imo, but i dont really see how it's alignment-indicative, i think he's just glad that nobody's hounding him for talking about night kills any more (sorry ik im a bit of a bitch about that stuff). darby's frustratingly inactive, but again, i dont think it's alignment indicative, and i dont feel the need to reconsider a read which literally(?) everyone agrees on, i really do believe in the power of consensus. roden's just a hunch.
you might notice that this has implications on your alignment. which read do you disagree with?