In post 50, PenguinPower wrote:Ugh, RQS is a waste of time. RVS is so much better.
In post 61, implosion wrote:This feels reeeeeeally like a scummy claim to me. Pings me really very hard. Feels like a mafia ascetic trying to act like a town ascetic. It also doesn't necessarily reduce the negative effect of ascetic to claim it, as, if town, eagerSnake is now a free nightkill if scum want to kill him.
In post 69, Gamma Emerald wrote:What happened to "everyone starts scummy"?
In post 73, boring wrote:I applaud the sentiment if it's genuine, but how do you intend to build a townblock in one day? You're either going to be NK'd for being conf. town, or you're going to survive the night, and anyone you'd want for your town block will have a healthy dose of distrust for you. I think you might have to table that plan for now.
In post 79, nn30 wrote:This seems overly aggressive.
Gamma Emerald wrote:In post 98, eagerSnake wrote:Could be faux-analytical
What are you trying to say with this post?
In post 101, boring wrote:I don't like this. It seems in spirit with OMGUS. I don't think it's alignment-related, I just don't think it's effective scum-hunting. You shouldn't town read people for town-reading you.
In post 108, MariaR wrote:I can't tell if there's meaning behind this post or you're trying to rhyme I'll assume the ladder and if so gj ^_^
In post 122, Shadow_step wrote:Hello eager, do you have any early reads?
In post 401, Shadow_step wrote:@Eager what did you learn from that hammer?
What are you current reads?
Even a readlist with one line explanations would be fine.
In post 547, Gamma Emerald wrote:In post 543, nn30 wrote:To add on - the reason his stating so many town tells feels scummy is that scum already know who town is - they have perfect information - what better way to gain cred with the town than "reading" their play and letting them know that he thinks they're town?
This case is bs
In post 550, podoboq wrote:Not Voting (5): Zoronos, Slandaar, Lil Uzi Vert, Grendel, MariaR
In post 579, Zoronos wrote:The dichotomy between Boring and Maria here is interesting; Maria is hard to sort because she is content light (apparently purposefully), and Boring is hard to sort because some of her content makes me go "Yup, that's scummy def" and some is "Well, that is pretty darn reasonable".
In post 679, Shadow_step wrote:In post 654, eagerSnake wrote:Lol. Why are you waiting until now to bring up that you're Ascetic?
Why aren't you considering the possibility of 2 Town having Ascetic?
We don't win by lynching just you. We need to find who your buddies are.
I wasn't doing to have a day where all we do is lynch you and have no info. Nice try though.
investigating Eager's thought processes and opinions is the order of the day.
In post 817, Zoronos wrote:In post 815, eagerSnake wrote:If we don't overcome this, we will almost certainly lose.
If you actually believe this, you should work to convince the undecided voters of the thread that it's true and you're town.
I am willing to entertain the position, but you have to work with me to do that. That means playing along with my question, even if you think it's stupid.
So how about it?
In post 830, Shadow_step wrote:In post 823, implosion wrote:shadow wrote:Show me a game with 2 town ascetic and I *might* reconsider.
Macho is not a neg utility like ascetic so this doesn't apply.
Three things.
One, please take a step back for a moment. The fact that you're saying you *might* reconsider if I show you very direct proof that you are wrong means you are being way too goddamn stubborn right now.
Two, there's a first time for everything. I'm not going to look through a thousand mini normals to find a game that has precisely two ascetics; it quite possibly hasn't happened, I have no idea if it has. That, again, does not make it bastard.
Three, ...what? Macho is straight-up a negative utility role. It's probably the single closest modifier to ascetic.
And @zoronos, site meta is very important when shadow's primary line of thought is "X would be bastard on this site, and this is a normal game, therefore X cannot be happening in this game." The first premise is flawed because he doesn't understand site meta.
one thing, I'd rather lynch Eager and be wrong than be wrong and not lynch ob scum.
In post 872, Gamma Emerald wrote:@Eager and Shadow: do you have other abilities beyond your modifier?
In post 913, Zoronos wrote:In post 907, eagerSnake wrote:What do you want from me?
I had my vote on boring all day and nobody even nibbled at it, usually I would think scum would at least take a nibble at it. This makes it more likely boring is scum. Also boring seems happy with this conflict and jumped on me without any question, also used the gambler's fallacy to her own defense.
Okay, let's talk more about this. What other posts of Boring's make you think she's scum? Anything from before the counterclaim-athon?
In post 934, nn30 wrote:@Eager - I know that you think you're both town ascetic with Shadow. However, pretend for a moment that there are other possibilities. I'd like your best argument for:
1) You both being town
2) Shadow being scum and CCing you
In post 943, PenguinPower wrote:In post 942, Gamma Emerald wrote:In post 939, Shadow_step wrote:Nothing new has happened and sudde ly GE realised he should look back and reconsider which is BS. LUV jumped on my wagon so he jumped on it too to protect his buddy Eager for one more day.
Tomorrow they'll argue he is also town after my flip.
This happened:In post 926, eagerSnake wrote:Yet she somehow has you as top townread for being "aggressive town persona. A hint of grandiosity.", something shes supposedly "never seen before in scum". Sounds like a fake read
Why does it sound like a fake read to you?
In post 948, Shadow_step wrote:GE/Eager scum team. Calling it right now. Not sure who Tue 3rd wheel is.
In post 954, Shadow_step wrote:And last line is BS. I haven't based all my reads on you being scum.
Nice try though.
In post 998, Gamma Emerald wrote:
The fact Eager didn't really interact with either of them. I will admit this perception is colored by my read on Dier.
In post 1014, MariaR wrote:The only time I hard defended a partner is when I was begged to do it in open 646
In post 1023, Prism wrote:Eager playing his role strongly he's doing exactly what I'd expect if he was cc'd scum
In post 1037, boring wrote:Also, why do you keep repeating that I'm happy about the conflict? I've been around for very little of this little scum theater.
In post 1047, Prism wrote:P-edit @Eager: Not really, no. Feel free to vote implosion or nn30 if you want. It's also not a logical fallacy, you're significantly less likely to be town because of it.
In post 1084, Prism wrote:Phone post so keeping it short again.
I think I've been tunneling way too hard on nn30/imposion, whenever I feel like I'm not being heard I tend to get more and more assertive to match and that's a dangerous pitfall to fall into. nn's response to me was good and seemed genuine, on the other hand I still don't like implosion, especially his last post on boring.
ISOing LUV however has made it pretty clear I've been wrong to give him and others a pass while I tunneled. For now I'm going to
UNVOTE: