The person you would be pushing against with evidence, they would be more experienced with the game and more able to defend themselves. Even when you axe them, they would have given out more town-driven content that would be usable, as they are more experienced with what the town needs.
You may have been able to claim a redcheck on anyone to get them axed, but you risk being caught in the backlash.
In post 1072, Jake The Wolfie wrote:
Jackson, is it within your play style to check players you think are highly likely to be scum rather than pushing them during the day?
No it isn't
Would it be within your play style to check players you thought had some scum equity?
The person you would be pushing against with evidence, they would be more experienced with the game and more able to defend themselves. Even when you axe them, they would have given out more town-driven content that would be usable, as they are more experienced with what the town needs.
You may have been able to claim a redcheck on anyone to get them axed, but you risk being caught in the backlash.
If I wanted to gambit I would gambit, I wouldn't do a half assed one to get a LHF killed but this is beyond the point
"Am I a ghost like you, caught between the seams of two intertwining melodies?"
The person you would be pushing against with evidence, they would be more experienced with the game and more able to defend themselves. Even when you axe them, they would have given out more town-driven content that would be usable, as they are more experienced with what the town needs.
You may have been able to claim a redcheck on anyone to get them axed, but you risk being caught in the backlash.
If I wanted to gambit I would gambit, I wouldn't do a half assed one to get a LHF killed but this is beyond the point
You would have needed to gambit if this LHF wasn't as scumread as you've said.
In post 1072, Jake The Wolfie wrote:
Jackson, is it within your play style to check players you think are highly likely to be scum rather than pushing them during the day?
No it isn't
Would it be within your play style to check players you thought had some scum equity?
I'm not sure if you're talking in a specific way or not, if you're asking a super specific question that I am not understanding please clarify but I check players who I scum-read. I'm confident in my reads as I said, and if I start walking off the proper path, I want to get back on it so I do that. I definitely see the use in checking those (on a surface level anyway) I am less sure on but the options are that if I clear them then great I'm still on the path I am on. If I'm wrong that's a mislim. If it's a red-check great, but I feel deep down that I feel more confident that my scum-read flips red than someone I'm not sure on. Which is obvious lol. So why would I do a suboptimal check from my pov?
Aka I check who I think are wolves
Spoiler:
In post 217, JacksonVirgo wrote:
I'm already confident you are meaning this as the logic you had town-read me for before when I was talking with Clap, I wanted to ask you to make sure so I don't unnecessarily tunnel on you but like I'm impatient and the feelings behind this is dying to get loose, so I'm not waiting any further to write this up. I will sit on my hands for a little bit after writing this and because of the amount of effort I'll be putting in with this I will probably post it anyway even if you do say it wasn't to do with back then.
Alright, so walking through it. In post 58 you said that you were ready to say that we're both Town as of post 53. I ask you what reasoning you had to label both of us as Town this early, you say that for me I was townie because I spoke honestly and with detached curiosity. Because of that read, you wanted us to both look elsewhere insinuating that this read was not a throwaway vibe read, it was a confident one that you wanted us to focus elsewhere for. So this read was to do with my content as of and prior to post 53.
Okie dokes, so taking your reasoning to heart, I looked back at every single one of my posts as of 53 and prior there is not a
single
post that had even an
ounce
of curiosity in it, at all. I was calling out Claps' logic for what I saw it as. If I take detached curiosity as I am seeing the thread with an open mind (aka not attached to any particular idea) then that isn't true either, I was straight up shading Clap for most of that and laughing at him for taking this further than it needed to be taken. On top of that, what could I even have remotely said in those four posts that would give you any sense of my honesty? The only part that I spoke about myself that could be attributed to that type of read is me talking about my voting patterns which has absolutely no alignment-tell within it at all, even if you thought it was it would be shallow at
best
.
All this logic would definitely apply to my current play completely and I believe that the initial read on both of us was faked for whatever reason you have needed to fake it. When I waited for you to answer why your read was the way it was, the game advanced further so my true play revealed itself which you could pin as speaking honestly and with detached curiosity. But since your initial read was fake, you don't have the recall about the read that you would have if it was genuine and thus you claim that you read on me as of post 58 was from my actions in the future.
And that don't make much no gosh darn sense, does it?
What's the motivation for a townie who sees supposedly scummy activity, and isn't currently voting anyone, to NOT vote the scummy activity? OTOH, scum could want to point out the activity in hope that another townie picks up on it and starts a push.
Also, your point on my question is wrong. Even if she answers yes, that just means she's playing to her overall scum meta (town would want towniness to come through in RVS). It says nothing about this particular game. It's literally designed to say nothing about this game. So, how would I push her on it, even with an affirmative answer?
All the question does is help me understand her for future games. That's why I prefaced it with "Just curious."
Oh you're serious, lmfao alright.
Even if I was serious enough to think you were >rand wolf from this, I don't care about a vote, I consider it a useless thing to flop around unless I really wanna do something with it or I'm making a joke. If a vote is what's needed to make a point, there's no point in doing anything but just voting people. We can use words, so I'll use words.
My point on your question isn't wrong, it's framed in a way that appears to be trying to make them look bad OR to make you look like you're doing something both of which are bad but I didn't even remotely care outside of poking fun until you're taking this way further than I expected it to.
In post 375, JacksonVirgo wrote:
Ah fuck just realised macho won't respond to me. They've been neutral hunting, which is a scum tell
In post 406, Argonauts wrote:
Nor do I agree that thinking it could be best to take out the SK first is a scumtell. Especially when you're just coming out and saying it like that.
How is it not? Is this a cultural difference? The only people who should care about taking out/focusing the SK are the mafia. Town should just be focusing on who is wolfy
And if I get nudged off the wrong path by a green check. I also have the benefits of my role that I can utilise, which to be was a secondary use. At least that was my focus this game.
"Am I a ghost like you, caught between the seams of two intertwining melodies?"
In post 1081, JacksonVirgo wrote:
And when I am majorly town-read, I can control the Town pretty easily (to a degree where it's still useful to me, not saying I'm an ultra powerful megamind overlord)
EBWOP
"Am I a ghost like you, caught between the seams of two intertwining melodies?"
In post 1072, Jake The Wolfie wrote:
Jackson, is it within your play style to check players you think are highly likely to be scum rather than pushing them during the day?
No it isn't
Would it be within your play style to check players you thought had some scum equity?
I'm not sure if you're talking in a specific way or not, if you're asking a super specific question that I am not understanding please clarify but I check players who I scum-read. I'm confident in my reads as I said, and if I start walking off the proper path, I want to get back on it so I do that. I definitely see the use in checking those (on a surface level anyway) I am less sure on but the options are that if I clear them then great I'm still on the path I am on. If I'm wrong that's a mislim. If it's a red-check great, but I feel deep down that I feel more confident that my scum-read flips red than someone I'm not sure on. Which is obvious lol. So why would I do a suboptimal check from my pov?
Aka I check who I think are wolves
Spoiler:
In post 217, JacksonVirgo wrote:
I'm already confident you are meaning this as the logic you had town-read me for before when I was talking with Clap, I wanted to ask you to make sure so I don't unnecessarily tunnel on you but like I'm impatient and the feelings behind this is dying to get loose, so I'm not waiting any further to write this up. I will sit on my hands for a little bit after writing this and because of the amount of effort I'll be putting in with this I will probably post it anyway even if you do say it wasn't to do with back then.
Alright, so walking through it. In post 58 you said that you were ready to say that we're both Town as of post 53. I ask you what reasoning you had to label both of us as Town this early, you say that for me I was townie because I spoke honestly and with detached curiosity. Because of that read, you wanted us to both look elsewhere insinuating that this read was not a throwaway vibe read, it was a confident one that you wanted us to focus elsewhere for. So this read was to do with my content as of and prior to post 53.
Okie dokes, so taking your reasoning to heart, I looked back at every single one of my posts as of 53 and prior there is not a
single
post that had even an
ounce
of curiosity in it, at all. I was calling out Claps' logic for what I saw it as. If I take detached curiosity as I am seeing the thread with an open mind (aka not attached to any particular idea) then that isn't true either, I was straight up shading Clap for most of that and laughing at him for taking this further than it needed to be taken. On top of that, what could I even have remotely said in those four posts that would give you any sense of my honesty? The only part that I spoke about myself that could be attributed to that type of read is me talking about my voting patterns which has absolutely no alignment-tell within it at all, even if you thought it was it would be shallow at
best
.
All this logic would definitely apply to my current play completely and I believe that the initial read on both of us was faked for whatever reason you have needed to fake it. When I waited for you to answer why your read was the way it was, the game advanced further so my true play revealed itself which you could pin as speaking honestly and with detached curiosity. But since your initial read was fake, you don't have the recall about the read that you would have if it was genuine and thus you claim that you read on me as of post 58 was from my actions in the future.
And that don't make much no gosh darn sense, does it?
What's the motivation for a townie who sees supposedly scummy activity, and isn't currently voting anyone, to NOT vote the scummy activity? OTOH, scum could want to point out the activity in hope that another townie picks up on it and starts a push.
Also, your point on my question is wrong. Even if she answers yes, that just means she's playing to her overall scum meta (town would want towniness to come through in RVS). It says nothing about this particular game. It's literally designed to say nothing about this game. So, how would I push her on it, even with an affirmative answer?
All the question does is help me understand her for future games. That's why I prefaced it with "Just curious."
Oh you're serious, lmfao alright.
Even if I was serious enough to think you were >rand wolf from this, I don't care about a vote, I consider it a useless thing to flop around unless I really wanna do something with it or I'm making a joke. If a vote is what's needed to make a point, there's no point in doing anything but just voting people. We can use words, so I'll use words.
My point on your question isn't wrong, it's framed in a way that appears to be trying to make them look bad OR to make you look like you're doing something both of which are bad but I didn't even remotely care outside of poking fun until you're taking this way further than I expected it to.
In post 375, JacksonVirgo wrote:
Ah fuck just realised macho won't respond to me. They've been neutral hunting, which is a scum tell
In post 406, Argonauts wrote:
Nor do I agree that thinking it could be best to take out the SK first is a scumtell. Especially when you're just coming out and saying it like that.
How is it not? Is this a cultural difference? The only people who should care about taking out/focusing the SK are the mafia. Town should just be focusing on who is wolfy
And if I get nudged off the wrong path by a green check. I also have the benefits of my role that I can utilise, which to be was a secondary use. At least that was my focus this game.
If I'm understanding this right, you've (generally) chosen players for whom you expected your ability to fail?
My gameplan was to lean into the loyal part of the neighbourhood. There's little point (in my eyes) picking who I think is Town if I want to utilise both sides of the role so I felt to squeeze the most utility out of the role, I have to first focus on the loyal modifier which can double as a way to nudge me in the right direction in terms of my reads AND if my scum-reads are wrong I form a masonry that is unlikely to get shot and I can direct people away from to keep them in the balance of not at risk of getting shot AND elimmed so then the masonry lives on much further. If I'm mostly wrong in the game, I form a strong and large masonry. If I'm right, we kill wolves. Optimal even if my reads are wrong rather than just verifying my town-reads which I feel is next to useless or doing what I said earlier and picking nulls which keeps me on the path I am on which does me no good
"Am I a ghost like you, caught between the seams of two intertwining melodies?"
Not as mechanically incompetent after all. While I would be rather frustrated with you and I still don't trust you, I can at least see how your actions would be Jackson!motivated.
In post 1085, JacksonVirgo wrote:
My gameplan was to lean into the loyal part of the neighbourhood. There's little point (in my eyes) picking who I think is Town if I want to utilise both sides of the role so I felt to squeeze the most utility out of the role, I have to first focus on the loyal modifier which can double as a way to nudge me in the right direction in terms of my reads AND if my scum-reads are wrong I form a masonry that is unlikely to get shot and I can direct people away from to keep them in the balance of not at risk of getting shot AND elimmed so then the masonry lives on much further. If I'm mostly wrong in the game, I form a strong and large masonry. If I'm right, we kill wolves. Optimal even if my reads are wrong rather than just verifying my town-reads which I feel is next to useless or doing what I said earlier and picking nulls which keeps me on the path I am on which does me no good
I hope you can see where I'm coming from when I say
What The Fuck Why Would You Think This
given that I have not done a meta dive on you and would have no frame of reference on whether this is normal behaviour or you just being buck wild.
In post 1091, JacksonVirgo wrote:
When I'm Town, I have the freedom to play how I see fit. What's the problem with that mindset? Lmfao
To answer this question, I would need to go so far out of the scope of this game that it would necessarily have to be in a Mafia Discussion post just so that the presumption of good faith would be guaranteed by all parties.
In post 1091, JacksonVirgo wrote:
When I'm Town, I have the freedom to play how I see fit. What's the problem with that mindset? Lmfao
To answer this question, I would need to go so far out of the scope of this game that it would necessarily have to be in a Mafia Discussion post just so that the presumption of good faith would be guaranteed by all parties.
Aww, alright :C
"Am I a ghost like you, caught between the seams of two intertwining melodies?"
I mean, shit on it all you want. It's how I was playing this game, if it doesn't work out (which is hard to tell cuz I overthought my gameplan but overlooked a stupid ass ascetic or I'm getting pinned) it's an experiment and I can learn from it
"Am I a ghost like you, caught between the seams of two intertwining melodies?"
In post 1091, JacksonVirgo wrote:
When I'm Town, I have the freedom to play how I see fit. What's the problem with that mindset? Lmfao
To answer this question, I would need to go so far out of the scope of this game that it would necessarily have to be in a Mafia Discussion post just so that the presumption of good faith would be guaranteed by all parties.
Aww, alright :C
Just go for it anyway I am like so curious
"Am I a ghost like you, caught between the seams of two intertwining melodies?"
