In post 935, Murph wrote:What does this mean ?
Which lead to:In post 754, RedCoyote wrote:
It's not hard at all, but there's no sense in letting you attempt to trap me into committing to something without all the information available to me. There's a possibility that both scum were on the Seth wagon, though I find it very unlikely. However, were the town to lynch you, you flip town and we are provided with no other relevant information that would suggest we do otherwise, then, yes, I think it would be in the town's best interest to lynch KS.
In post 757, Murph wrote:
Here's were I am at:
I think you and Kal are both scum. I believe that you've devised this plan in attempt to not only rid yourself from me but to also clear Kal since there is no way the town will follow you tomorrow after my reveal.
VOTE: Red
In post 758, RedCoyote wrote:Is your contention that every vote on/off the Seth wagon yesterday based on WIFOM? Or do you think there was merit to the individual votes themselves?
I understand your vote. I believe you're being short-sighted and letting your pride cloud your judgment, but your rationale is sound insomuch as that's a reasonable theory. I hope others feel the same way.
In post 951, Hoppic wrote:Ugh. Murph taking offense at the word ignorant seems fake because he's already tunneling. I think, if you're town and scum is trying to frame you, you think, haha nice try. It's only if a townie insults you do you take it personally. And Murph, at that point, was sure redcoyote was scum. So why take offense?
Also, notably in that interaction, alpaca hopped in to defend redcoyote and tell murph to not be offended.
There is no room for ambiguities. He did not say my statement nor reasoning was ignorant. It was directed at me as a person.In post 728, RedCoyote wrote:Goodness, Murph, you truly are either ignorant or devious. I really hope I'm not the only one that sees this...
Of you, Raskolnikov and alpaca, two are scum. Two scum, one scum buddy relationship, one townie. All three of you have 2/3 probability of being scum. You're more likely scum than not. In terms of voting, I don't think we're there yet. I'm not interested in negotiating for the vote yet.In post 955, Murph wrote:I would like to see each of you post your list from scum to town.
I think it's important that we all put our cards on the table now so that we can move forward.
TIA
Where is it that you come from?In post 954, Murph wrote:In post 951, Hoppic wrote:Ugh. Murph taking offense at the word ignorant seems fake because he's already tunneling. I think, if you're town and scum is trying to frame you, you think, haha nice try. It's only if a townie insults you do you take it personally. And Murph, at that point, was sure redcoyote was scum. So why take offense?
Also, notably in that interaction, alpaca hopped in to defend redcoyote and tell murph to not be offended.
Hey Hop, where I come from, calling someone ignorant is offensive, period.
I'm going through ISOs and I'm asking people to explain things that seem weird. I'm going through everything. If you look at my posts, I've actually asked you fewer questions than I've asked alpaca and raskolnikov. I'm putting pressure on all three of you, because I believe that two of you are scum.In post 954, Murph wrote:AND again in context,There is no room for ambiguities. He did not say my statement nor reasoning was ignorant. It was directed at me as a person.In post 728, RedCoyote wrote:Goodness, Murph, you truly are either ignorant or devious. I really hope I'm not the only one that sees this...
I really don't care for the way you keep cherry picking out of context. You cannot paint me as scum with such tactics.
Could you please explain what your point is in posting these quotes? I can't understand what you're trying to say.In post 952, Murph wrote:LoL Hop,
Did you read anything after that post ? Looks like you are cherry picking for the sake of looking busy.
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt but you really should read in context and not just ISO
Red's theory had holes. I was poking him to commit to an agenda which he finally did.
Which lead to:In post 754, RedCoyote wrote:
It's not hard at all, but there's no sense in letting you attempt to trap me into committing to something without all the information available to me. There's a possibility that both scum were on the Seth wagon, though I find it very unlikely. However, were the town to lynch you, you flip town and we are provided with no other relevant information that would suggest we do otherwise, then, yes, I think it would be in the town's best interest to lynch KS.
In post 757, Murph wrote:
Here's were I am at:
I think you and Kal are both scum. I believe that you've devised this plan in attempt to not only rid yourself from me but to also clear Kal since there is no way the town will follow you tomorrow after my reveal.
VOTE: RedIn post 758, RedCoyote wrote:Is your contention that every vote on/off the Seth wagon yesterday based on WIFOM? Or do you think there was merit to the individual votes themselves?
I understand your vote. I believe you're being short-sighted and letting your pride cloud your judgment, but your rationale is sound insomuch as that's a reasonable theory. I hope others feel the same way.
So, as you can see, context makes sense whereas ISO cherry picking creates confusion. Scum love confusion, btw.
I'm new, but I don't think I've been playing the newbcard, because I've played mafia before on other sites and I don't feel new to the game, but definitely new to the rules and conventions on this site, but I don't think I've been playing that particularly.In post 958, Raskolnikov wrote:Murphy if you're town do you know just how difficult you make this?
I go through everything here and hate how defensive you play and your tone and how it felt you were approaching and treating your scumreads and essentially nitpicking them and in how closed you've been with information.
And then I read your town game and everyone says they hate how defensive you play and you're tone and there you tunnel people and nitpick them and they flip town and then you get touchy on people saying things which can be seen as slightly offensive (similar to the reaction to red here) and people say the same thing about not liking how reserved you are with your information and accuse you of stonewalling. And you get mislynched and flip town there and I get the impression it's how any town games of you would go and still have no idea about how scum-you would be different.
And then I go to hoppic and I'm not sure if he's actually misunderstanding 90% of my posts because no one else expressed problems and the hoppic from midgame sounds good at critical thinking and it doesn't mesh with the newbcard but then I go to his last game and he's completely lost the entire time there as legit town and acts frustrated there the same way he's acting frustrated from being in lylo. And he self-doubts all his reads too and actually weakens his own cases with so many caveats which he doesn't really have any reason to do as scum unless it really is oscar level acting.
And it's just like fuck, this is impossible.
I think that was explained decently already but okay.In post 940, Hoppic wrote:Could you please explain the misunderstanding to me again, and especially, why we're you embarrassed?In post 912, Raskolnikov wrote:I scumread redcoyote for his entire post there initially, but then I realized the murph vote which was part of it wasn't actually that bad. I still didn't like red because it read to me that he scumread wgeurts on essentially BS in that post and I still scumread him, but not as much as before since I had misunderstood and sort of jumped to conclusions with the murph vote reasoning.
That was in response to you talking about murph/alpaca associations; I was disagreeing that the early posts there are indicative of them not being partners. From my own experience scum more likely than not will throw in a brief mention consciously at some point (usually pointing out something dodgy but not making a big fuss) at a partner and then pretty much never returning to it; in practice I see them too self conscious about associations to completely up ignore reach other usually. Although yeah, it is wifom at this point; in general I only heavily rely on this research if its a big meaty exchange that DISPROVES an association (I think you/murph is essentially impossible for ex.).In post 941, Hoppic wrote:What are you referring to?In post 913, Raskolnikov wrote:For the record opening up with suspicions on someone which you never follow up on or mention again is actually worse association than nothing. Scum feel compelled to do some distancing out of paranoia whereas ignoring someone entirely is usual if they're a townread.
No.In post 946, Hoppic wrote:Vanishing reads overnight often come from prs. Didn't it cross your mind that he might be the cop?In post 681, Raskolnikov wrote: In a world where red isnt scum I would be concerned about hoppic if only from POE and that their interactions pretty much exclude them being a team so I don't get red vanishing on this read overnight.
If the game is definitely finished it's safe.In post 963, Hoppic wrote:Are we allowed to discuss games that are finished?
Because I'm looking at a player's previous game and his/her meta seems quite different to me. Can I talk about that?
It's mostly just that nobody else found me that confusing so IDK if I can trust you completely on it.In post 964, Hoppic wrote:I'm new, but I don't think I've been playing the newbcard, because I've played mafia before on other sites and I don't feel new to the game, but definitely new to the rules and conventions on this site, but I don't think I've been playing that particularly.
Idk why it seems strange for me to say I'm not understanding stuff. What do other people say when they don't understand stuff - do they just pretend that they do? When I said that on day one, what was your initial reaction at the time, and how do you see it now? Because I don't remember you responding to it at all. It's at post 111, and Murph's reaction comes soon after that.
It irks you that I'm confused but nobody else is? Isn't that always the way with confusion - some people are confused by stuff and other people aren't?In post 966, Raskolnikov wrote:It kinds of irks me that either everyone else understood these or I actually am confusing and nobody else actually read my posts and brought it up or pointed it out
I guess this sort of makes sense. Except that, I don't understand it from the emotional perspective. You're an experienced player and so is redcoyote. When you saw him doing something strange early on in the game, there are lots of possible reasons for it, right? He could be testing people out in various ways. He could be making himself look slightly scummy on purpose, which is a protective thing to do if you're town and a target, especially if he had a power role, to avoid being night-killed. There are lots of scenarios. And you would know that. Even if you thought what he was doing was scummy.In post 966, Raskolnikov wrote:II think that was explained decently already but okay.In post 940, Hoppic wrote:Could you please explain the misunderstanding to me again, and especially, why we're you embarrassed?In post 912, Raskolnikov wrote:I scumread redcoyote for his entire post there initially, but then I realized the murph vote which was part of it wasn't actually that bad. I still didn't like red because it read to me that he scumread wgeurts on essentially BS in that post and I still scumread him, but not as much as before since I had misunderstood and sort of jumped to conclusions with the murph vote reasoning.
1. I read Red's post (70) and think it's terrible because he scumreads murph and wguerts and I don't see any of his points as valid (and I don't expect IC to screw up analysis that hard).
2. I go back and look at murph again and I don't think red's vote on him is that bad anymore; I thought 60 was innocent as my first impression but on next read I could see how people would dislike it. I didn't scumread murph then but I could see why other people did.
3. Based on that, what seemed like redcoyote quoting what looked like an innocent response and saying it was scummy (which I thought was the case, and it looked scummy af) was actually reasonable and I was mistaken to scumread him on that specifically.
4. Even without the murph vote (which was most of it), I still didn't like red's comments on wgeurts in that post which felt like discrediting wguerts on BS reasoning, and I still scumread red but I was a lot less sure than before.
5. Seeing what looked like an incredibly scummy post and then rereading and seeing I misunderstood parts of it and jumped to conclusions was embarrassing, especially from a personal standpoint since I thought I really caught IC-scum that early and I was on a high and then I saw I fucked up and it wasn't actually clear cut and the self doubt crept in and I switched to seth soon after.
Makes sense.In post 966, Raskolnikov wrote:That was in response to you talking about murph/alpaca associations; I was disagreeing that the early posts there are indicative of them not being partners. From my own experience scum more likely than not will throw in a brief mention consciously at some point (usually pointing out something dodgy but not making a big fuss) at a partner and then pretty much never returning to it; in practice I see them too self conscious about associations to completely up ignore reach other usually. Although yeah, it is wifom at this point; in general I only heavily rely on this research if its a big meaty exchange that DISPROVES an association (I think you/murph is essentially impossible for ex.).In post 941, Hoppic wrote:What are you referring to?In post 913, Raskolnikov wrote:For the record opening up with suspicions on someone which you never follow up on or mention again is actually worse association than nothing. Scum feel compelled to do some distancing out of paranoia whereas ignoring someone entirely is usual if they're a townread.
I usually cool down a lot in the time between seeing a flip and the next day starting (and at that point I'm re-evaluating on NK too) so I won't have my emotional response often expressed in thread on them.In post 972, Hoppic wrote:And, when you mislynched twice, you weren't as embarrassed as you were so early in the game with that scum read. Why not? Mislynching is more embarrassing than early suspicions. That's why it doesn't make emotional sense to me.
Then as day 2 developed with red/radiant again I was more convinced on red but I told myself at worst case scenario at least 1 of the two HAD to be scum and I was even looking at them being partners bussing until the flips ended that. And that does fuck with me because I knew if I focused less on the details and mistakes I think (still think) he made and tried to read him on a more emotional or closer level I think I could have went the other way there and we'd be in a very different game now, there were "signs" I feel like when he was pleading and trying to talk everyone out of it but I suppressed them. Right now if I lose this it's essentially on me as the position I've been in has been of the most influence/responsibility this game (with red heavily scumread + dead and wgeurts having dropped off activity) so it is my fuck up and on red especially. But tbh being thrown into today my attention quickly turned to the stress of this situation and trying to figure it out now instead of having the time to even process my own feelings there and dwell on red.