Micro 66 - Robo's F11 (Game Over)

[Malakittens]

So wait? We aren't actually scum reads, but null reads that you incorporated into scum reads because everyone else you have are town reads.

Meh, I don't see how I was hiding amongst the town when I'm sleeping in RL.

[Malakittens]

Oh and PoE at page two? Isn't it a bit too early for that?

[Cheery Dog]

Probably, that's why I don't have faith in my current reads. I think RQS plays with how well I am able to read people on page 2, either that or it's because I don't actually see anyone as scummy as of yet.

[TraceyLyn11]

@Mit: There was no point in Cheery making his comments, though, other than to seem more active than he was. He could have easily gone on and not said anything until he got to a computer. Instead, he chose to tell us what he

couldn't

do. You may choose to compare this to your thoughts on PM, but meta reasoning and reaction fishing leads me to believe PM is unlikely scum. If your thoughts did jump to PM, then why are you writing Cheery off as unknown and PM as scum?

You say there's no point in switching your vote between equally scummy players unless one is closer to a lynch; Cheery now has my vote. Care to join me, or are you all talk and no walk?

Why are you scared of a wagon forming immediately?

@Cheery: I understand why you didn't do the RQS/vote. I have no complaints about that. What I don't like is your announcing that you couldn't. For a more mafia-appropriate term, your post was fluff. There was no point to your post.

Why do you have town reads on Taz, PM, and Riggs? Why do you have less of a town read on Mit and I? Why do you have null reads on Mala, Klick, and Commie? Why would you vote someone with no votes? Doesn't more pressure = more information? Isn't information good for the town?

@Klick: I've only been in two scum games, one of which was my second game on site (i.e. not good for meta reasons) and lost almost intirely to the crash (all but a small portion of day one). However, here is my second scum game (very recent, too): http://forum.mafiascum.net/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=23207 Don't judge me. I probably could have done much better if the time constraints weren't there.

I also don't understand you're reasoning for ignoring PM's meta, so I'm not going to do so. I'm wary of Mala so readily following you. Especially since I'm sure you're both referring to 434.

I am also wary of Cheery pretending (seemingly, anyways) to go along with it.

Mit gets town points for asking.

I don't like how Cheery is using process of elimination so early, nor how he feels it necessary to say his reads aren't concrete.

I'm liking my vote. Follow me.

[Klick]

I'm not going to bother answering rqs since I'm on my phone, you can imagine I gave boring answers if you like though.

And now I don't even remember who is in this game with a name I can write easily on the phone so I may have to skip rvs as well

This makes me feel like Cheery doesn't have a partner.

I want to hear from PM.

[TraceyLyn11]

Why? Because he said something that is ridiculously easy to fake as scum?

[TraceyLyn11]

I want to hear from Commie. He's online.

[Klick]

It feels natural and unnecessary to fake. No one else noticed it, did they?

[TraceyLyn11]

It feels natural and unnecessary to fake. No one else noticed it, did they?

I hope they did - I pointed it out pretty quickly after he posted it.

[Klick]

No you didn't.

[Tazaro]

UNVOTE

My next post will have a seriously casted vote.

[TraceyLyn11]

No you didn't.

Cheery also gives me bad vibes from his posting without saying anything of significance.

[CommieX]

The lack of complaints towards the RQS made me uneasy.

What do you mean, "uneasy"? Uneasy in a way that is relevant to the game/scumhunting?

I don't like Cheery's play so far. Seems like a lot of posts that honestly don't say a lot, and several that say nothing of relevance at all.

Unvote
Vote: Cheery Dog

[Klick]

No you didn't.

Cheery also gives me bad vibes from his posting without saying anything of significance.

This has nothing to do with Cheery seemingly not having a partner. I was saying that he couldn't think of any names, when if he was scum, he would definitely have a name in his mind.

[Cheery Dog]

This probably won't help me, but I said I didn't have any names remembered that were easy to write on the phone.
I did actually remember who some of the players were.
(i think it was klick and taz that I had forgotten.

[TraceyLyn11]

@Commie: I don't know how else I would mean uneasy? This isn't me being sassy; I actually don't understand.

Your vote feels incredibly sheepy, and you've been online for awhile. Why are you sheeping me and why did you not post your short post sooner?

@Klick: You said no one else noticed that post. I pointed out that I called out its insignificance. I guess I misunderstood what you meant.

He would have had a name (though it's not certain that he would even remember their's, let alone how to spell it), but that doesn't mean he couldn't have faked it and said he didn't. It's not hard to do that and it's as simple as, "Huh. I don't remember anyone's names. Oh wait! My partner so-and-so. But voting a partner in RVS can be scummy. I'll pretend I don't know anyone's names." Literally as easy as pi(e?). I don't understand why you're saying it's a town tell (more or less).

PEDIT: God damn it. You're town.
UNVOTE:

Hmm.
VOTE: Commie He is my new victim.

[Klick]

VOTE: Commie I can agree with that vote, as well as the reasoning, for now.

[TraceyLyn11]

VOTE: Commie I can agree with that vote, as well as the reasoning, for now.

Yaaaaay.

Why did you add "for now"? Seems fairly unnecessary.

[Klick]

Because I'm waiting for PM to respond before I reveal another suspicion.

[Mitillos]

Things happening, yay:

@Mala: No, that is not what I said. Indecisiveness itself is alright. What is scummy is coming and effectively saying "Look at me folks, I'm so indecisive, that I will make a big point of not voting anyone.".

@Klick, Mala and Cheery: This is a game of cooperation. Withholding information is scummy. Start talking.

@Tracey: Oh great, I was about to switch my vote to Cheery and you switched away. And I'm not scared of a wagon forming immediately, I just don't think that's necessary. We can have it form later too and it will be just as good. Only scum would absolutely want a wagon forming early, to make sure the conversation goes somewhere safe for them. Town would want to discuss as much as possible. Also, why is Cheery town now? His actions haven't changed because of post 64.

Anyway, I think the Commie wagon is a good one, but I'd like some answers from or about PMyst, before I consider switching to him.

[TraceyLyn11]

Because I'm waiting for PM to respond before I reveal another suspicion.

I'm happy with this answer. You're still town.

@Mit: Withholding information isn't scummy. But for seemingly no reason and with two people following a silly comment, it is. Unfortunately I have a town read on Klick and a probtown read on Cheery. Unsure of Mala. This could just be town reaction fishing rather than scum taking advantage of looking like they're reaction fishing.

I absolutely want a wagon to form early. Am I scum?

He's town because he had absolutely no reason to correct Klick. I've done that as scum before to earn towncred, but I don't think that this is one of those instances.

You were about to switch to Cheery. Why can't you switch to Commie?

[Mitillos]

Let me qualify. A wagon forming early is fine, in and of itself. But if it's formed spuriously, it's not. Aggressiveness is not scummy, manipulating the direction it takes, is. You seem to be happy with the existence of a wagon as long as it's on your scummiest read, so, no, I don't think you're scum.

And I already said why I'm not switching to Commie yet. I want more clarifications on the PMyst thing. Which he can do himself, when he posts next. If that satisfies me, I'll move my vote appropriately.

[TraceyLyn11]

Let me qualify. A wagon forming early is fine, in and of itself. But if it's formed spuriously, it's not. Aggressiveness is not scummy,

manipulating the direction it takes, is.

You seem to be happy with the existence of a wagon

as long as it's on your scummiest read

, so, no, I don't think you're scum.

And I already said why I'm not switching to Commie yet. I want more clarifications on the PMyst thing. Which he can do himself, when he posts next. If that satisfies me, I'll move my vote appropriately.

Bolded: Isn't making sure the wagon is on my strongest scum read manipulating the direction of the wagon? I'll ask again, Am I scum?

I understand your reasoning for not voting Commie. I just don't understand why you were willing to vote Cheery without the reasoning, but now that you want to vote Commie, you have this reasoning.

[CommieX]

Your vote feels incredibly sheepy, and you've been online for awhile. Why are you sheeping me and why did you not post your short post sooner?

It's not sheeping, we had the same thought. Anyone reading his posts would come to the conclusion that he's not contributing much.

As for your second question, I left my computer on when I went to class this morning.

@Tracey: Why is klick town?

Let me qualify. A wagon forming early is fine, in and of itself. But if it's formed spuriously, it's not. Aggressiveness is not scummy, manipulating the direction it takes, is.

I very much disagree. Wagons=pressure=information=good for town. This holds true whether or not the person ends up being town or scum. Just because you wagon one person, doesn't mean that person is the only person you're taking reads off of.

[CommieX]

@Mitillos: If it were up to you, who would you like to see a wagon? Right now, you seem quite eager to sheep Tracey.