Newbie 2086 - Reaction GIFs | End!

[fferyllt]

Vote Count 1-3

butterchurn

(2): V0ID, ɀefiend

GeorgeBailey

(2): Not Known 15, catboi

notscience

(2): butterchurn, Cape90

catboi

(1): GeorgeBailey

Cape90

(1): notscience

Not Voting

(1): ahhlo

With 9 alive, it takes 5 to eliminate.

Deadline: January 4, Midnight US Eastern Time.

Countdown: (expired on 2022-01-03 21:00:00)

Mod Notes:

-

[V0ID]

i don't see the problem with my wording there

The reason I thought it was sorta scummy was that you could have just said "I have the tendency to want to post early in games", explaining it. But you added in the no matter what which reads sort of similar as:
"I have a tendency to want to post early in games even in games I am not mafia." Like I said, it could just me reading too much into it or making something out of nothing.

[butterchurn]

To explain, I did notice that even before you posted about it. I just did not think it was worth mentioning at the time since notscience did participate by calling those two out and it wasn't just a "busy, will post later" post like cape's. But I still did notice a similarity. I thought it was worth mentioning once I saw that someone else did notice it and there might actually be something there.
I guess I am trying to make reads from the little we have. As for leaving myself open, I do lean towards a scum read on cape but you are right I could go in either direction as I am unsure about it.

Alright. This doesn't do anything to diminish my suspicion, but it doesn't increase it either. Seems like a response that would be in character for either side. Thanks for the further explanation of your thoughts.

This sort of flip-flopping kinda post probably only comes from town. I feel like if mafia were to do something like this it would make a lot less sense or heavily favor one side over the other.

FWIW I'm not sure if you misunderstood that section or if I was unclear in my phrasing, but I wasn't flipflopping in that. All of those sentences were on the same track, of saying that notscience's response seems to be a reasonable explanation of his thoughts (first sentence), but I'm not convinced by his case (next three sentences).

----

ahhlo, thought you'd be posting every day, where you at?

[ɀefiend]

Lots of stuff I wanna go over. I'm gonna separate my thoughts into different posts cause I don't wanna make a huge wall and lose track.

---

First up, the cape vs. NS argument. I think cape is genuinely trying to explain stuff, but the word choices and syntax is coming off... badly.

No matter how many times I read this, I just can't parse it completely:

Which is absolutely hilarious that you wouldn't assume I wouldn't start assuming things. I call that out as bull as it is the type of post specifically formulated to invoke the type of assumptions I was making

And the following, I get what Cape is trying to

convey

, but 'flip-flopping' is totally the wrong term:

This sort of flip-flopping kinda post probably only comes from town. I feel like if mafia were to do something like this it would make a lot less sense or heavily favor one side over the other.

@Cape, if you and I engage now or in the future, or if you're engaging someone and feel like they're talking past you (like seems to be the case with NS), I'd encourage you to slow down a bit and ask clarifying questions. Right now y'all are just trading blows trying to assume each other's intentions and characterizing things willy-nilly, in my humble opinion.

As to the substance of the argument, I actually do find NS's post remarkably different from cape's in a way nobody has noticed. That post (#29) keeps getting brought up but hasn't been properly addressed, which I want to do in a little bit here.

Both sides talking about paranoia I find to be reductive in nature.

The pocketing or buddying thing is also pretty dumb. Talking about pocketing at this stage in the game is like talking about VCA (vote count analysis). Like yeah, you could dredge up some ideas about votes in this game and form a 'case' but obviously there's not enough content to form something substantive. Similarly, I could arbitrarily target like three or four other people for trying to "pocket" butterchurn (note: I'm not actually suggesting anyone's currently doing this... because again, there's just not enough content to form something substantive.)

Takeaway, I'm not impressed with NS in this exchange, given that they're an SE. But since this is kinda still ongoing between them, and I have more to say about NS in a little bit, I'm just not seeing anything in the exchange AI

per se

. So why the hell did I type all this up? I don't wanna keep my thoughts in an untitled notepad file all game.

[ɀefiend]

This post. Right here.

hi guys gals and non-binary pals

I’m at the gym but will be here in like two hours. I’m side eyeing GB and NK15 atm, the former more than the latter.

On its face, there's nothing too eye-opening about this post. I see stuff like this all the time, at all points in the game. Someone FoSs one or two people with no reasons given. Maybe the fingerer is looking for reactions, building their case, stalling, whatever. Inevitably, someone asks about it, and maybe reasons are put forward. (Note: to this date, no reasons have been put forward. In fairness, nobody has directly asked.)

Well, I don't really care about the reasons anymore. I mean, if NS wants to afford an explanation for these past FoSs, fine, indulge me. But I'm gonna take it with a grain of salt since at worst it's retroactive reasoning and at best it's probably stale information by now.

---

What actually bothers me is how the above post is treated and referenced further along throughout the game so far:

Let's be specific...

cut by Zefiend for brevity

...

... 2) Jump to discredit and shade me. The difference between his post and my post? The

very

post he quoted from me has

my thoughts

on two players, whereas his did not. ...

has

my thoughts

on two players

Really, your 'thoughts'?

I’m side eyeing GB and NK15 atm, the former more than the latter.

I mean sure, this is technically the truth... you had 'thoughts' about two players. Using this to challenge the notion that your post and Cape's post are similar? Pretty weak. The strangeness of it is, that in this very post (#39) where I'm grilling you over, you do a good job of at least providing structure and volume to your argument. I wanna see less posts like #29 qualifying as 'thoughts' and more of #39 - because you're more than capable.

Don't ever again try to use a weak post like #29 as evidence of activity, or being better than someone else's blurb, or I will vote-park on you faster than you can say 'thots.'

---

Onto who originally got me riled up about NS' #39: VOID.

I too noticed that notscience's post was kinda similar about being busy. But to be fair, he did call out 2 scum reads he had in that same post. For me personally, I did not find cape's intro to have scum vibes initially but the more I think about it the more I don't like it. Also, this could just be me looking too hard into it but the wording of :

I have the tendency to want to post early in games

no matter what

. But really idk.

seems scummy to me especially the bold part.

"I too noticed..." and "I did not find ... initially... but..." are both retroactive statements. Could be true, could be false, but we can never know. Statements made about your stances in the past are of little use, because they can be faked by scum. Normally, I would say this is NAI. But VOID characterizes NS' #29 as "calling out 2 scum reads."

Quite literally, NS did not do any calling out of their "scum reads". More categorically speaking, I don't like this idea of giving credence to weak posts. #29 is such a weak post, but VOID seems to think it carries weight over Cape's intro.

...

I have the tendency to want to post early in games

no matter what

. But really idk.

seems scummy to me especially the bold part.

--butterchurn's post---.

To explain, I did notice that even before you posted about it. I just did not think it was worth mentioning at the time

since notscience did participate by calling those two out and it wasn't just a "busy, will post later" post

like cape's. But I still did notice a similarity. I thought it was worth mentioning once I saw that someone else did notice it and there might actually be something there.
I guess I am trying to make reads from the little we have. As for leaving myself open, I do lean towards a scum read on cape but you are right I could go in either direction as I am unsure about it.

Again

VOID is acting like NS' #29 is really regarded as 'participation,' 'calling' people out, not just 'busy'-posting. I mean really, of all the posts in this game, and VOID feels like #29 deserves a

second

mention?

Look, @VOID, the following two statements do not co-align:

I just did not think it was worth mentioning at the time

I guess I am trying to make reads from the little we have.

If you were genuinely trying to make reads from the little we have, you

would

have mentioned it on your own, regardless of how little it seemed. And going forward, anything and everything is worth mentioning if you're town.

-->> I would like ONE (or more) original idea or observation about this game, VOID, that isn't piggybacking, third-wheeling, fence-sitting, or tiptoeing. I've played a lot of mafia. Not EVERYONE who posts loads of original thoughts is always Town. But ANYONE who never does, is always Mafia.

---

@Catboi, obligatory thoughts on all this. We have 8, 9? days to poke GB and the other lurkers. I want you to get in now while the getting's good.

[notscience]

I skimmed, but just a quick comment before I head off for my day-

If abbreviating my name, please use notty/noddy/notsci, NS refers to a former person on the site and I am a separate entity from them altogether, just to make sure myself/others you play with in the future don’t get mixed up

[GeorgeBailey]

Wake up!

GRAB A BRUSH AND PUT A LITTLE MAKE-UP

[GeorgeBailey]

I don't really see how this is all much different

Notscience gave reads with his check-in post.

Yours felt performative.

[V0ID]

If you were genuinely trying to make reads from the little we have, you

would

have mentioned it on your own

Yea, I should have mentioned it on my own.

regardless of how little it seemed. And going forward, anything and everything is worth mentioning if you're town.

Thanks for the tip I will remember that and try to implement it for the future.

Quite literally, NS did not do any calling out of their "scum reads"

Scum read is the wrong terminology for that, I am realizing. Excuse me on that one, I'm pretty new to this. What I meant to say was that at the very least he dropped some names which was something although obviously very little. Yes, it was weak and barely anything but it was something.

-->> I would like ONE (or more) original idea or observation about this game, VOID, that isn't piggybacking, third-wheeling, fence-sitting, or tiptoeing.

After rereading some of these posts, something that struck me as odd was cape's post#49 where he says

btw butterchurn is almost certainly town IMO

due to butterchurn's post here

So... anyone want to get in an argument over something minor that is probably a null tell, thus creating some content for everyone to discuss and react to? That's how things usually get started, right? Silence is good for scum.

The choice of words of "almost certainly town seems really strong", over pretty weak reasoning in my opinion. Maybe I am missing something.

[GeorgeBailey]

Not sure how to feel on this.

Voting Lurkers/AFKers to pressure them to play is good, usually NAI though.

It gives slots more of a reason to scumhunt.

[catboi]

To explain, I did notice that even before you posted about it. I just did not think it was worth mentioning at the time since notscience did participate by calling those two out and it wasn't just a "busy, will post later" post like cape's. But I still did notice a similarity. I thought it was worth mentioning once I saw that someone else did notice it and there might actually be something there.

I guess I am trying to make reads from the little we have. As for leaving myself open, I do lean towards a scum read on cape but you are right I could go in either direction as I am unsure about it.

I feel like this type of wording comes from scum more often than not. Town can be uncertain about their reads but the language here feels overly cautious in a way that reads more like someone who doesn't want to have the "wrong" opinion.

[catboi]

I somehow doubt it’d be that easy to pocket catboi.

History says I am in fact easy to manipulate.

But regardless, cape is probably fine.


VOTE: GeorgeBailey

Come out and play, George~

Not sure how to feel on this.

I knew George was around but not posting so wanted to see if a vote would get him to talk more.

[catboi]

@Catboi, obligatory thoughts on all this. We have 8, 9? days to poke GB and the other lurkers. I want you to get in now while the getting's good.

Meh? Both your points with regard to notty and void feel like making a lot out of a little, and I say this while having literally just called out void for the wording in his posts. I don't much feel one way or the other about the stuff you're talking about.

Why ask me in particular?

[GeorgeBailey]

Just kinda reads as trying to appeal to catboi meanwhile trying to miselim me at the same time. Also if you are scum, nice job confirming catboi as town

How does this confirm Catboi as town? Do you think scum wouldn't sheep their partner?

Although tbh I found more often than not Scum votes each other in RVS.

To explain, I did notice that even before you posted about it. I just did not think it was worth mentioning at the time since notscience did participate by calling those two out and it wasn't just a "busy, will post later" post like cape's. But I still did notice a similarity. I thought it was worth mentioning once I saw that someone else did notice it and there might actually be something there.

I guess I am trying to make reads from the little we have. As for leaving myself open, I do lean towards a scum read on cape but you are right I could go in either direction as I am unsure about it.

I feel like this type of wording comes from scum more often than not. Town can be uncertain about their reads but the language here feels overly cautious in a way that reads more like someone who doesn't want to have the "wrong" opinion.

I want to expand on this because the quote also really pinged me. Void's language here is very fence-sitty. Saying "I could go either way" while also expressing a scumlean makes it easy to not commit to your reads.

[GeorgeBailey]

I knew George was around but not posting so wanted to see if a vote would get him to talk more.

Say GeorgeBailey 3 times and I will appear

[GeorgeBailey]

Come back! We want to hear your thoughts.

VOTE: ahhlo

[butterchurn]

RE: further VOID discussion, I was hesitant to let myself find his response suspicious partially because to me it seemed like it would be a particularly bold (read: dumb) scum play to respond to a charge of having wishy-washy and manufactured-sounding content with... more of the same tone, and even more extreme hedging. It certainly could be new player not sure how to effectively play scum, but to my eyes it also believably reads as new town who is lacking confidence in their own thoughts, and remaining consistent in that.

It does seem like an easy (albeit fair) thing to pick on, though, and I was interested to see who would.

[butterchurn]

To expand on that last point a bit -- there's certain tells that people tend to find "objectively" suspicious, as in, they don't really require any nuance or gut to notice, and they usually are immediately obvious to people with experience. It's certainly not bad town play to call these out (as giving them a pass can allow scum to get away with obvious mistakes), and some people like to play with that "see tell call tell" mentality. I read a couple newbie games before this and saw multiple cases of experienced town tunneling on newbie town for making a flagrant tell or two, so it definitely happens. However, especially in games with a mix of new players and more experienced players, focusing on these tells is a pretty safe place for scum to hide. The "mistakes" (as they are mistakes whether the perpetrator is town or scum, since it's either suspicious scum play or bad town play) tend to be more prevalent among newer players, and it's hard to argue against someone who is calling them out since it's easy for them to make a logically sound argument.

Now, most of this isn't suuuper relevant here, especially because I'm still leaning scum on VOID from that earlier post even if the later one didn't push the needle for me, and if he is scum then obviously this doesn't apply. But, especially later in the game once we know some alignments, if I'm still around I'll be keeping an eye on those who make a habit of relying on this type of play.

[V0ID]

To explain, I did notice that even before you posted about it. I just did not think it was worth mentioning at the time since notscience did participate by calling those two out and it wasn't just a "busy, will post later" post like cape's. But I still did notice a similarity. I thought it was worth mentioning once I saw that someone else did notice it and there might actually be something there.

I guess I am trying to make reads from the little we have. As for leaving myself open, I do lean towards a scum read on cape but you are right I could go in either direction as I am unsure about it.

I feel like this type of wording comes from scum more often than not. Town can be uncertain about their reads but the language here feels overly cautious in a way that reads more like someone who doesn't want to have the "wrong" opinion.

You are right to think that the wording/tone conveys one of being overly cautious. Because I was being overly cautious when I made those posts. But it was not that I did not want to be marked with having a certain wrong opinion as a scum. I guess I was just afraid of making the wrong read or messing up which seems silly now because making reads (that obviously could be wrong) is the only thing we can do as of now.

[Cape90]

FWIW I'm not sure if you misunderstood that section or if I was unclear in my phrasing, but I wasn't flipflopping in that.

That was more poor wording on my part tbh.
It was more of the thought that you suggesting that my behavior here doesn't reflect my last town game in terms of my beginning.
But then suggesting that my reaction to the accusations were towny.
Like that was towny to me

[Cape90]

I don't really see how this is all much different

Notscience gave reads with his check-in post.

Yours felt performative.

Reads isn't the right word here, they literally said they were keeping an eye on you and not known 15, you know, at a time where you haven't posted and Not Known 15 has only said 1 completely NAI post.
Those aren't

reads

nor does it count as

content

but I see the argument that my opening could be perceived as performative in comparison.

[Cape90]

How does this confirm Catboi as town? Do you think scum wouldn't sheep their partner?

usually what I see from mafia behavior is that mafia would kinda sometimes do that but do it in a way that is less obvious.
Well, that's not to mention, there is only 2 mafia in the game so would mafia really go for that there? Like sure it's possible but I find it unlikely.
Also Catboi and notscience took the suspicion on me in 2 different directions with 1 backing off and one doubling down

[butterchurn]

It was more of the thought that you suggesting that my behavior here doesn't reflect my last town game in terms of my beginning.

Not really a point worth belaboring, but I meant the opposite of this. Perhaps the double negative ("not really incongruous") was confusing.

[fferyllt]

Not Known 15 and ahhlo have been prodded.

[fferyllt]

allez