[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/ext/alfredoramos/seometadata/event/listener.php on line 114: Undefined array key 13728675 [phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/ext/alfredoramos/seometadata/event/listener.php on line 114: Trying to access array offset on value of type null Micro 1077 | True Love at Grandpa's House | Game Over! - Mafiascum.net
In post 24, Andante wrote:
I mean, I wouldn't vote me yet, I'll let yall know, I'm just like kinda confused how no one else is trying to sort their lover.. yall... there are 4 pairs of lovers. 2 are town/town sure, but 2 are also town/scum, so if you are town, I would like to encourage you to really look at your lover..
not really sure I like bianco going "something quite relevant happened" like.. it has barely been 12 hours.. maybe my lover has yet to post in the PT, you doing that? I said I'm waiting... I'll let yall know if I have an update. my post was mostly @ my lover. I do not want votes flying my way till I'm sure
on another note, I hate the chad/vander stuff... like, go interrogate your lover in your pt or something, it takes 5 to lim sure, but this isn't exactly a normal game in terms of RVS. if you're town, you need to be CONFIDENT your lover is town
What makes you say that no one is trying to sort their lover?
Didn't really register with me that this is a mini game so that would put Vander at L-3 already.
Gonna:
VOTE: Andante
I'm torn on the idea of openly discussing theory like that. On the one hand the Mafia inherently has an information edge in general, but in this game there may be some edge the mafia can gain if everything's out in the open.
L-3 is a very long way from death.
What edge do you think mafia would get with all info out in the open?
Didn't really register with me that this is a mini game so that would put Vander at L-3 already.
Gonna:
VOTE: Andante
I'm torn on the idea of openly discussing theory like that. On the one hand the Mafia inherently has an information edge in general, but in this game there may be some edge the mafia can gain if everything's out in the open.
This kind of post seems indicative to me that Bub is trying to put on the appearance of looking pro-town rather than actually being pro-town.
L-3 is like nothing. Like how can you even apply pressure if you're too scared to put on a second vote. I feel like Bub worrying about putting a player at L-3 by adding *just* a second vote shows he's worried about optics here.
And I think schadd_ once said "first unvote is always a wolf."
In post 42, Andante wrote:
ignore what I said before, my lover is definitely town. hahahaha turns out maybe calling someone scum for not talking isn't a great idea, but that reaction they gave me, definitely town, I feel good about it. means that 2/3 of yalls pairs have a scum...
In post 49, Andante wrote:
also, the votes flying my way has me thinking we're a T/T pair cause if yall think about it, scum know their lover, and they know their partner's lover. scum will want to vote in any of the 4 that aren't a scum pairing to get 2 town out... just saying
You have two votes.
Do you really think that's enough to be relevant at this stage of the game?
From this it looks like Vander is your lover, you may want to correct me if that's not the case. Otherwise voting/unvoting your lover, with no valid reasons attached to the unvote, looks very bad. It looks like you want to put on a show that you are considering wagoning your lover, which would be -EV for scum to do, while arbitrarily not actually doing it
In post 57, Bub Bidderskins wrote:
biancospino jumping onto the wagon at the easiest point, but it's productive to get a wagon going this early and I don't think the scum are naive enough to think this wagon is close to escape velocity this early on.
What's your opinion on Andante analyzing her votes?
In post 72, Andante wrote:
they probably have better logic than the votes going my way, cause if I really am a T/T pair, throw votes my way so I can self hammer
The problem with these nondescript chat townreads is that you guys are basically asking us to just trust your read with nothing for us to judge, which is not something I'm going to do.
In post 98, Vanderscamp wrote:
The problem with these nondescript chat townreads is that you guys are basically asking us to just trust your read with nothing for us to judge, which is not something I'm going to do.
This.
I think it's a move to try and control the narrative in an unverifiable way.
I don't, and it's a bit weird that you're saying this, I just think it's useless and unproductive.
In post 104, Bub Bidderskins wrote:
But look at the impact of Andante "town confirming" her lover -- it's an attempt to (unverifiably) shift all suspicion off her and her lover and limit the universe of suspects in a way that could lead us to mislim. It's not just unproductive, it's actively trying to move the game in a certain direction away from considering Andante or her lover as scum. Keep in mind, scum have a vested interest in producting their lover in a way that town don't because an elimination on a scum's lover is just as good as limming them.
Sure, possibly, but it could also be just townAndante having a real townread, right?
In post 98, Vanderscamp wrote:
The problem with these nondescript chat townreads is that you guys are basically asking us to just trust your read with nothing for us to judge, which is not something I'm going to do.
This.
I think it's a move to try and control the narrative in an unverifiable way.
counterpoint #1: There is literally another person in the lover's topic that knows what I'm referring to. If I were scum trying to control the narrative, then my lover would have to be town due to the setup. They could, in turn, point out if I'm throwing them an unearned townread or saying something publicly that doesn't align with our private topic. That's not quite "unverifiable."
counterpoint #2
: I was going to say that if I were scum trying to control the narrative then my partner would have to be town and painting a townie as townie isn't exactly peak "narrative controlling." But I just realized that since this is a lovers game, scum will want their lovers surviving alongside them of course.
counterpoint #3: Made you look!
---
To clarify for transparency (because I think Vanderscamp's quote in the Bub Bidderskins post is actually a valid point), essentially my partner popped in and said something along the lines of "I'm not going to be utilizing this thread until I have a strong townread because solving should go into the main thread."
Which shows to me that: 1) They don't want to be potentially manipulated in the private topic; and 2) They have no interest in trying to manipulate me. These are both town traits.
---
I think Vanderscamp approaches that dilemma with a town mindset ("I can't incorporate your vague info into my solve because I don't have the actual evidence in front of me to judge it") whereas Bub Bidderskins approaches it with a potentially scum mindset (casting doubt on peoples' solves). Still happy with my vote (sorry Vanderscamp !!).
In post 113, Umlaut wrote:
Heads up I'll be out socializing IRL all day today and not really have time to check in.
We should consider whether to claim lovers before end of day. Optimal play is to eliminate the scummiest pair, not just the scummiest individual, so that's useful for town to know.
Why wouldn't we claim lovers?
What's the point of not doing it?
this makes me laugh cause just last night I told my lover I don’t think I wanna vote out you/bub
why thou. If you're town and actually confident about your lover, you're essentially saying you've solved the game already. Wrongly may I add, I'm also confident about my lover's towniness you see.
this makes me laugh cause just last night I told my lover I don’t think I wanna vote out you/bub
why thou. If you're town and actually confident about your lover, you're essentially saying you've solved the game already. Wrongly may I add, I'm also confident about my lover's towniness you see.
In post 98, Vanderscamp wrote:
The problem with these nondescript chat townreads is that you guys are basically asking us to just trust your read with nothing for us to judge, which is not something I'm going to do.
This.
I think it's a move to try and control the narrative in an unverifiable way.
counterpoint #1: There is literally another person in the lover's topic that knows what I'm referring to. If I were scum trying to control the narrative, then my lover would have to be town due to the setup. They could, in turn, point out if I'm throwing them an unearned townread or saying something publicly that doesn't align with our private topic. That's not quite "unverifiable."
Yeah, but humans will still human. It's just natural that if someone chums up to you and thinks your town then you'll wanna take their side. From your point of view, you are town and everything you do is townie!
I do know that not everything I do looks town....
and competent players should know that as well!
Now, yes, there is strong motivation for scum to buddy up their lover and get them townread.
There's also strong motivation for town to get their lover townread if they townread them; so it isn't an ironclad piece of AI content(it is still scum indicative by a bit).
There's also strong motivation for scum to break up potential lover pairs townreading each other, or get them eliminated.
You clamped down right at the spot when you saw someone with an early townread. Not all townreads will come from scum; you can certainly question such scumreads, but hunting someone like a laser here looks more like scum trying to punch through instead of town hunting.
Plus, you have pivoted from voting your lover when you realized they were your lover.
I think you are scum here.
I agree with much of what you say but the 2nd last line is pretty interesting.
Do you think that Bub didn't realize I was his lover when he voted me?
Because I can tell you that's not true.
this makes me laugh cause just last night I told my lover I don’t think I wanna vote out you/bub
why thou. If you're town and actually confident about your lover, you're essentially saying you've solved the game already. Wrongly may I add, I'm also confident about my lover's towniness you see.
Why can't you both be right?
Andante's unwillingness to vote Bub suggests she has a solve of she/her lover & Bub/Vander town. Which I think is wrong.
In post 142, Andante wrote:
so I'm wrong in thinking my lover is town, and you're not wrong for thinking your lover is town? what kind of logic is this??
The kind of logic you get when you misread what I've written.
You don't want to vote Bub. So you must think that B/V is likely t/t. You also think you are in a t/t pair. And you see, there are only two t/t pairs, so my belief to be in one myself is incompatible with that.
If you're town there is a clear way in which we can both be right about our lovers, and in that world you should be accepting of a Bub vote
The problem with this is that even if we assume that all of these townreads are all correct AND you're town in the first place, you're doing nothing to try to convince Andante that that's the case.
Why do you think "my unnamed chat partner has given me, an unconfirmed, a reason to think they're town" should be enough reason to make Andante want to flip their read and vote Bub?
In post 149, Umlaut wrote:
Kind of agree with Andante's solve, tbh. (Incidentally, since we're close to end of day I'm going to come out and say I'm Andante's lover. Would appreciate others following suit, though really we only need one more to know the full set.)
In post 128, Bub Bidderskins wrote:
NK15, with all due respect, I don't think you understand the case against Andante or the setup of this game. The case isn't about Andante townreading their lover...or even so much them making it public. It's about trying to yoink control of the game at the start:
In post 65, Andante wrote:
vander also lean town. bam! leaves scum in 4 people. I'm too good
This kind of overconfidence based on totally unverifiable info leads me to think that Andante is trying to guide the town down a certain path.
In post 127, Not Known 15 wrote:
Plus, you have pivoted from voting your lover when you realized they were your lover.
You understand the setup right? I knew who my lover was from the jump.
I don't know how to justify it but this post put Bub at hard town for me.
Because I can't think of any reasons that outweigh us being able to get such a confident read on your partner.
I see you lack imagination. That's ok.
I may lack imagination, but I don't lack mechanical awareness.
There is literally nothing relevant that can be going on in these chats other than getting reads from them, so if you're not sharing the reads, then idk what you think the point is.
Didn't you find strange how I've parked my vote on Andante, unvoting Bub in the process, and proceeded to nag her to vote Bub? Nobody would put Bub at E-1 in an Andante game! Enchant came to me with a proposition to move my vote so that maybe someone would compensate and put Bub back at E-2, so we could do an extended quickhammer.
Bianco, if you think that you and Enchant wanting to hammer bub is so scummy that there's no defence that saves you, what were you expecting to happen to your spot when it happened?
Did you think you would get autolimmed the next day if we were t/t?
