The Second Fortnight (Game Over)

[Banakai]

You guys realise that if scum gets lynched today the partner loses too, so if T-bone was my partner then I would be helping myself lose.

I will personnally hammer his wagon though, seriously. Then after tomorrow if you still don't believe me you can accuse me.

[kuribo]

You guys realise that if scum gets lynched today the partner loses too, so if T-bone was my partner then I would be helping myself lose.

I will personnally hammer his wagon though, seriously. Then after tomorrow if you still don't believe me you can accuse me.

why are you reiterating things i've already said?


i know the things i've already said. in fact... i'm the one that said them.

scum can't run their buddy up to an actual lynch in this setup because it would be playing directly against their win condition

[Banakai]

Everyone else seems to not realise that though.

[Quilford]

VOTE: Aegor

His Banakai vote is very weakly justified.

[Quilford]

DGB EXPLAIN YOUR READS ALREADY

Give me 3 reads you want explained.

T-Bone
hiplop
me

[T-Bone]

[quote="In

T-Bone, you're blatantly wrong in #398. I haven't made "excuse after excuse". I told you your read is shitty because it relies on outdated site meta, which is actually pretty damn good for a defense. When is the last time you caught a SINGLE scum with "reads are to safe" on an experienced player (been around 1+ years) without analyzing motivations behind the reads. Like seriously, link me that game and I'll self-vote. Good luck finding it. It doesn't exist

You're flailing, bro.

Ummm no. You have made excuses, so let's not pretend you haven't. Citing site-meta as a defense to your reads is not a defense. Site-meta has nothing to do with this game. It especially has nothing to do with this game because of the way the set-up is. Your motivations behind the reads were to not make any waves, and to push through the most likely lynch candidates. Your lack of perception astounds me. Since you're an experienced player with 1+ years, you should have enough awareness to know what your reads look like to other players. It's just so convenient for you to come into the thread and scumread the players getting the most heat. No it's not our fault that you are choosing to call the players scum that everyone else is without your own original progression to those reads. No it's not site-meta's fault that your reads look safe. That's all on you.

[T-Bone]

Why does everyone think I am scum with T-bone? I still think T-bone is scum and I will in fact join his wagon .

Hey buddy, so I looked through your ISO and surprise, surprise (not really), while you have said 'Bone is weird" you have nothing in there to suggest you thought I was scum. You told Prof Friday's you don't think scum would crumb being scum, and that was really the only thing you've said about me. Then you decided later "I want to put my vote on Bone". And then changed it for awhile to Bulge. But now that my wagon is at L-3, you so conveniently think I'm the best vote again...with little to no explanation. With absolutely no read progression at all. (This paragraph sums up his lack of read progression).

[T-Bone]

Okay, I think I'm having too much fun making up my own flavor. Anywho, srbznz time:

I think Friday was joking around and I'm not sure anything he has done is serious yet. I have two thoughts about Bulge, because A) he could be telling the truth as bad as his reasonings are. Or B) he was trying to also join in the pointless BS that started the day and did so badly. I don't know what that says about his alignment yet, because while we were slowly moving out of the pointless BS, we weren't quite there. Does scum try to extend that phase as long as possible? Absolutely.

Yeah, I was joking around for the most part. I had a slight scum-read on, you, T-Bone, so I thought I'd blow it out of proportion and see where it would go.

I recognized that. So where did it go?

[Prof Fridays]

Hai.

stop being cheeky.


in what fucked up, half-ass, back-water mafia site do you play on where people breadcrumb that they're scum?

Why did you think I was serious?

[kuribo]

Hai.

stop being cheeky.


in what fucked up, half-ass, back-water mafia site do you play on where people breadcrumb that they're scum?

Why did you think I was serious?

why should i have thought you werent?

[DrippingGoofball]

DGB EXPLAIN YOUR READS ALREADY

Give me 3 reads you want explained.

T-Bone
hiplop
me

T-Bone: He's pretty out there and carefree and he's dropping town tells. He's isoing players, working hard, his stances change with new info, looking for scum on his wagon, calling people's play "shit"...

My hiplop read is not robust, I need to see more. There is a lot of fluff and keeping cards close to his chest, that I don't like, peppered with a few succinct but fairly strong stances.

Quilford: I was mostly worried about lurking, you seem OK now.

[Quilford]

Hmmmmmmmm

[farside22]

I've got the lurker report farside boss

I knew you were waiting.

Marquis

Jul 25, 01:17am Jul 25, 06:40pm 0 days 19 hours

6

Aegor

Jul 25, 01:21am Jul 26, 03:03am 0 days 10 hours

5

These two still have fewer posts than the mod.

I think marquis needs to be poked at. He's usually more active.
ugh marathon weekend

[farside22]

Quilford: what is wrong with aegor's vote and reasoning for being on banak?

[DrippingGoofball]

farside, please explain your town read of Aegor since you're chainsaw defending him.

[farside22]

farside, please explain your town read of Aegor since you're chainsaw defending him.

I didn't see what was wrong with aegor's reasons for voting banak.
That is not chainsaw defending. It's asking what the fuck was wrong with what aegor said.

Seriously learn what chainsaw defending means.

[hiplop]

hmmm DGB what do you mean by keeping my cards too close? I can clarify something if needed?

[Serene2]

hmmm DGB what do you mean by keeping my cards too close? I can clarify something if needed?

Your opinions tend to be weak and few... going by memory.

[DrippingGoofball]

hmmm DGB what do you mean by keeping my cards too close? I can clarify something if needed?

Your opinions tend to be weak and few... going by memory.

Well said!

[kuribo]

dammit dgb this is not a court-approved Serene Therapy Session

[hiplop]

TBH I'm not sure I understand. How can I be more blatant than explicitly calling out t-bone as scum?

[Aegor]

VOTE: Aegor

His Banakai vote is very weakly justified.

Are you serious? My vote on Banakai -- which was the

first

vote on him, by the way -- was justified with reference to specific posts, and I elaborated upon my dislike for those posts. I have several times since then pointed out other problems I have had with Banakai's posts.

Since then, several other posters have voted Banakai. Tell me which of

their

votes was better justified. Show me their justifications. And then read my freaking ISO.

[Quilford]

Quilford: what is wrong with aegor's vote and reasoning for being on banak?

It's extraordinarily weak? Out of 33 posts that Banakai has made, Aegor justifies his vote based on only four of them, of which two were made in the very first page of the game. That doesn't convince me that Aegor's scumread is particularly solid or consistent.

Also, the four posts that Aegor calls out he does for really terrible reasons:
-- an RVS vote for allegedly being particularly "lame" and showing "discomfort" (do you see any discomfort or lameness in the post in question? I don't.)
-- another page 1 post for being a "vacuous statement about kanye". Vacuity is hardly alignment relevant.
-- apparently Banakai's post #167 is scummy because he is "casting suspicion on someone without voting them". Well, Banakai said specifically in the post "If he had other suspicious posts he would probbably be my biggest scum read now"... really, anyone who has more than two scumreads and only one vote is casting suspicion on someone without voting them. Another weak reason.

I could go on. But it's much easier to see for yourself. Pull up Aegor's posts, pull up the posts of Banakai he takes issue with, and see whether his reasoning is valid.

I think it's pretty obvious that Aegor is trying to fake scumhunting.

Can we get some more votes here?

[Quilford]

VOTE: Aegor

His Banakai vote is very weakly justified.

Are you serious? My vote on Banakai -- which was the

first

vote on him, by the way

The fact that it was the first vote on him doesn't matter in the slightest. How on earth would that make a difference?

-- was justified with reference to specific posts, and I elaborated upon my dislike for those posts.

Yeah, your elaborations were weak as hell. Vacuity? Discomfort? You're really reaching.

I have several times since then pointed out other problems I have had with Banakai's posts.

Three more times. Banakai's made 33 posts total.

Since then, several other posters have voted Banakai. Tell me which of

their

votes was better justified. Show me their justifications. And then read my freaking ISO.

Their votes aren't relevant. It's the very fact that you've justified your vote more than they have that makes me want to vote you, because so much of your justifications are about trivial things.

[Quilford]

[snip]

:?

Defend based on said meta.
Don't trust the meta read.

:neutral:

Well spotted.