Newbie 1777: Wedding In Vegas! [Game Over]

-Grey- · Post Post #300 (ISO) » Fri Feb 17, 2017 1:10 am

And Firescreamer becomes a blip on my radar.

FireScreamer · Post Post #301 (ISO) » Fri Feb 17, 2017 1:23 am

Firescreamer - If anyone wants me to ISO myself I will. But there is limited actual value in doing that unrequested.

-Grey-

His take on the gambits seems pretty equal to my own, seemed scummy, Lady can't respond to just namecalling ect.

In post 260, -Grey- wrote:
In post 75, SensFan wrote:Hello everyone. Checking in.
Hello, third early townread.

This game gonna be easy peasy.

I don't understand this post. Who were the other two and why is he the third?

In post 283, -Grey- wrote:
In post 282, MMM wrote:
In post 281, -Grey- wrote:
In post 269, MMM wrote:
In post 266, -Grey- wrote:
In post 116, JenLew wrote:At least if he flips town there would be 5 suspects to check out. If he flips scum there's about 2 who sort of sided with him. Which ever way he flips it will narrow down the search
You're pinging scum to me again.

Town points for anyone that sees what I see in this post. Drixx is disqualified due to insider info.
I assume the fact she's just narrowing down suspects based on votes, but I feel like you see more than that for some reason.
Think procedurally.

Rhetorical Scenario:

You're town. You have a scumread. You are speculating on what happens after the lynch.

What is your first assumption as to the player's alignment?
You'll probably first think they're scum.
PRECISELY.

What was the alignment JenLew reached for first?

While I understand and agree with this logic. We also have this post

In post 105, JenLew wrote:
In post 67, Srceenplay wrote:What will you have to go on the next day when you find out you lost the town hero?
Well, if you turn out to be scum - whooo hoodoo
If you turn out to be town - your sudden and random accusation could have some weight and there will be n list of new suspects based on votes and reactions towards you, thus, we will at least get some info

In which she does the opposite. I guess its a slip either way even if she didn't slip twice. But I wanted to bring this up.

In post 300, -Grey- wrote:And Firescreamer becomes a blip on my radar.

Show thine working. And/or let me finish my reads on everyone.

Scrumread - 2 Nooses out of 5

MMM · Post Post #302 (ISO) » Fri Feb 17, 2017 1:28 am

In post 299, -Grey- wrote:
In post 297, MMM wrote:
In post 116, JenLew wrote:
In post 114, MMM wrote:On second thought however some good might come from this.
UNVOTE: Firescreamer
VOTE: Srceenplay you have some explaining to do and properly at that.
This is L-1. Hammer him without declaring intent and I will hunt you down mercilessly if he flips town.
At least if he flips town there would be 5 suspects to check out. If he flips scum there's about 2 who sort of sided with him. Which ever way he flips it will narrow down the search
You seem to be forgetful, we discussed this like an hour ago lol.
Not forgetful so much as focused.

All I was concentrating on was making my point.

Fair enough.

FireScreamer · Post Post #303 (ISO) » Fri Feb 17, 2017 1:28 am

Epid - This one will be pretty short as he has been pretty inactive and has asked to be replaced

In post 64, Epid wrote: 3. I want to survive

Almost certainly a newbread and not a scumread but mentionable

In post 184, Epid wrote:I agree, I would like to hear more of me too.
I would also like to hear what Meduna's replacement thoughts on this are, in the meant time, my thoughts are this:
Srceenplay will most likely get lynched in the end for his trolling and avoiding questions. I think he's either an unhelpful townie or a inexperienced scum. Most likely the first. He is getting lynched for the fact that he is trolling and no other reason. I am debating with myself whether or not this is a good or bad choice, but we need to get the game started somehow. I'll get back to you on that later, sorry for not posting very often.

Talking about a wagon as a fait accompli seems pretty scummy but again could just be a Newbread

And thats it. Low post amount with low effort put into them. Consistent only with a player who was too busy to play the game.

Scumrating - 3 Nooses out of 5

MMM · Post Post #304 (ISO) » Fri Feb 17, 2017 1:34 am

In post 298, FireScreamer wrote:MMM - His early vote on me without showing his working set me off. He eventually explained it using somebody elses working.

If you do not know what RVS is, I suggest you look it up now.

In post 69, MMM wrote:If you're assuming LadyeAeaea + Drixx based on post 24 that's a longshot

In post 70, Srceenplay wrote:A long shot that now two people seen independently?

In post 71, MMM wrote:I mean I have to admit I had my own thoughts about that but I don't want to jump to conclusions.
Those are posts 69, 70 and 71. Player 1 shows skepticism toward point X. Player 2 says I have independent support for point X. Player 1 says oh yes I secretly also had support for point X all along.

You find this sketchy.... because?

In post 73, MMM wrote:I wonder what the two people who haven't posted yet think about this.
Then almost immediately looks for other peoples opinion on point X that 3 people have now shown support for.

Same as above.

In post 108, MMM wrote:I want Firescreamer and Meduna to speak up too though.

In post 115, MMM wrote:I still want Firescreamer to explain his choice of questions though.

In post 135, MMM wrote:Wheeee Firescreamer said something
I had literally told everyone I wasnt going to be around that day. MMM still attempted to put pressure on my inactivity.

115 was me not wanting to forget about that which I have a tendency to do. If I wanted to put pressure on your inactivity as you mentioned I would have voted you (note: NOT in RVS) and pushed you harder.

-Grey- · Post Post #305 (ISO) » Fri Feb 17, 2017 1:36 am

Fire pinging with the fake scumhunting.

-Grey- · Post Post #306 (ISO) » Fri Feb 17, 2017 1:44 am

In post 301, FireScreamer wrote:Show thine working. And/or let me finish my reads on everyone.

When I'm ready to decorate my living room with your intestines, you'll see plenty of my work.

MMM · Post Post #307 (ISO) » Fri Feb 17, 2017 1:46 am

In post 179, LadyeAeaea wrote:I'm gonna reread the thread in a couple of hours and give my thoughts. Let's not lynch yet please.

I'm sad that she hasn't posted since.

FireScreamer · Post Post #308 (ISO) » Fri Feb 17, 2017 1:53 am

Always awkward to ISO someone who just got ISOed.

JenLaw-

In post 33, JenLew wrote:
In post 32, MMM wrote:UNVOTE: Srceenplay and
VOTE: FireScreamer because your questions are bad
Also sounded like fishing to me, but hey, I'm gonna see where it goes

Did my questions actually sound like fishing to power roles to anyone else? This strikes me as opportunistic grabbing on to the first substantive vote in the game. While not committing her vote she certainly buddies up to MMM with this.

In post 31, JenLew wrote: VOTE: Meduna seeing as he's not going to play anyways and might as well get him out of the way

Looks like its doing something without actually doing anything. You now don't need to feel pressured to commit your vote to something real until Meduna posts. Scummy.

In post 35, JenLew wrote:
In post 34, Srceenplay wrote:VOTE: no lynch
First day is always mislynch. Mafia would love that. Let's get to night so out invests can do there jobs.
Lynching is the only way to get to night without having to wait for 2 weeks

Not exactly the best reasoning for her point. But she is on the right side of the argument and probably a newbread.

In post 46, JenLew wrote:
In post 42, Srceenplay wrote:Why would you not make a night kill? Wouldn't you want as many town dead as fast as possible?
And this question could be asked the other way around as well. Why would you not make a lynch? Wouldn't you want as many scum lynched as fast as possible?

As was pointed out this is from the perspective of the informed minority.

In post 66, JenLew wrote:You took all the words right out of my mouth. I'm still waiting for the explanation on why all of a sudden she's scum and why not vote for her from the beginning if he knew it but rather pushed for a no lynch. This doesn't make sense at all. My vote still stands unless someone can come up with some miraculous reason for it to change. I think the scum claim was just to get the attention in the other direction since it was coming down on him hard. I could be wrong but then at least I'll have something to go on next day.

This also looks like its written by scum who knows Srcreenplay is town.

In post 103, JenLew wrote:
In post 95, Srceenplay wrote:Your threats are not appropriate. I feel like you are mad/angry that is who I'm voting.
Now you resort to this? Playing a victim? He's just stating the obvious seeing that you keep avoiding everyone's main question. How did you jump from no lynch to LadyA? That's all that everyone would like to know and you keep on avoiding the it. First you suddenly claim to be town hero and now Drixx is threatening you....what's next, people attacking you personally? This looks like grabbing for straws if you ask me....

The post equivalent of someone shaking their fist from behind an angry mob.

In post 153, JenLew wrote:
In post 136, Srceenplay wrote: Unfortunately in this game that was you. D1 there's NEVER any info which makes peoples actions and what they say and do the only thing to go on. If you're scum we caught a lucky break, if you're not we get more info from your downfall. This can go 50/50.
If she thinks he is scum why is it unfortunate? If she was town why would it be a 50/50?

In post 160, JenLew wrote:Holy crap this doesn't even merrit a response.

For me at least it is a HUGE scumtell when someone says something like this. I'm surprised I didn't see this before.

While we were distracted with Screens gambit and Sens hammering Grey comes in and provides a very convincing case for JenLaw.

Scumrating 4.25 nooses out of 5

-Grey- · Post Post #309 (ISO) » Fri Feb 17, 2017 1:59 am

In post 308, FireScreamer wrote:While we were distracted with Screens gambit and Sens hammering Grey comes in and provides a very convincing case for JenLaw.

Not that you asked, but I'll provide a little insight into my own scum game.

Whenever I'm Scum, replacements tend to have a short lifespan because they enter the game with a fresh perspective and aren't bogged down by the existing narrative.

FireScreamer · Post Post #310 (ISO) » Fri Feb 17, 2017 2:02 am

In post 304, MMM wrote: Same as above.

FireScreamer · Post Post #311 (ISO) » Fri Feb 17, 2017 2:03 am

In post 304, MMM wrote:
In post 298, FireScreamer wrote:MMM - His early vote on me without showing his working set me off. He eventually explained it using somebody elses working.
If you do not know what RVS is, I suggest you look it up now.

Excuse me? Your post was not RVS. Your vote on me was "I have a problem with your questions". Not only did you put substantive reasoning for your vote making it not RVS but we then discussed that post and at no point did you attempt to call it RVS. You defended the substantive reasoning using JenLaw's reasoning. The putting shade on me with nothing to defend myself with was a small but clear scummy thing to do. Now misrepresenting that it was never substantial to begin with rings very wrong to me.

In post 304, MMM wrote: You find this sketchy.... because?

You reversed your position based on support for the position, not arguments made for or against the position.

In post 304, MMM wrote: Same as above.

Now you are looking to build support on a scumpair you didn't agree with like 5 posts ago and have recieved no arguments for other than it has support

-Grey- · Post Post #312 (ISO) » Fri Feb 17, 2017 2:06 am

I am intrigued.

FireScreamer · Post Post #313 (ISO) » Fri Feb 17, 2017 2:06 am

In post 305, -Grey- wrote:Fire pinging with the fake scumhunting.

Fake scumhunting how? How does it differentiate from real scumhunting? I was away most of yesterday and want to come in and give my thoughts on everyone in the game. My reasoning being as a town player I have the utmost incentive to put what I think down as clearly as possible to get feedback on it. If I were scum this cements me in place and I can't be nearly as opportunistic as i've commited to how I feel about someone and can't radically change that without showing my working

-Grey- · Post Post #314 (ISO) » Fri Feb 17, 2017 2:09 am

In post 313, FireScreamer wrote:
In post 305, -Grey- wrote:Fire pinging with the fake scumhunting.
Fake scumhunting how? How does it differentiate from real scumhunting? I was away most of yesterday and want to come in and give my thoughts on everyone in the game. My reasoning being as a town player I have the utmost incentive to put what I think down as clearly as possible to get feedback on it. If I were scum this cements me in place and I can't be nearly as opportunistic as i've commited to how I feel about someone and can't radically change that without showing my working

Post 303 shows that your analysis is superficial and your intent to gamesolve is a farce.

Put on your detective hat and figure out why, and I just might be swayed into writing it off.

FireScreamer · Post Post #315 (ISO) » Fri Feb 17, 2017 2:12 am

LadyEIEIO

Pretty non substantive. Her posting has been focused on mechanically assessing the IC over actually looking at other players. Mechanics over analysis will always be a scumread for me.

Lady - 3.25 nooses out of 5

MMM · Post Post #316 (ISO) » Fri Feb 17, 2017 2:13 am

In post 311, FireScreamer wrote:
In post 304, MMM wrote:
In post 298, FireScreamer wrote:MMM - His early vote on me without showing his working set me off. He eventually explained it using somebody elses working.
If you do not know what RVS is, I suggest you look it up now.
Excuse me? Your post was not RVS. Your vote on me was "I have a problem with your questions". Not only did you put substantive reasoning for your vote making it not RVS but we then discussed that post and at no point did you attempt to call it RVS. You defended the substantive reasoning using JenLaw's reasoning. The putting shade on me with nothing to defend myself with was a small but clear scummy thing to do. Now misrepresenting that it was never substantial to begin with rings very wrong to me.

Well I'll put it like this - if it wasn't RVS I'd have reasoning longer than 5 words. Right now I don't SR you but I'm wary of you being so defensive over that lynch and reading into it so much. In my mind RVS ended when Srceenplay voted LadyeAeaea.

In post 304, MMM wrote: You find this sketchy.... because?
You reversed your position based on support for the position, not arguments made for or against the position.

That's not evident in the quotes you showed at all.

In post 304, MMM wrote: Same as above.
Now you are looking to build support on a scumpair you didn't agree with like 5 posts ago and have recieved no arguments for other than it has support

....lol

FireScreamer · Post Post #317 (ISO) » Fri Feb 17, 2017 2:17 am

In post 314, -Grey- wrote:
In post 313, FireScreamer wrote:
In post 305, -Grey- wrote:Fire pinging with the fake scumhunting.
Fake scumhunting how? How does it differentiate from real scumhunting? I was away most of yesterday and want to come in and give my thoughts on everyone in the game. My reasoning being as a town player I have the utmost incentive to put what I think down as clearly as possible to get feedback on it. If I were scum this cements me in place and I can't be nearly as opportunistic as i've commited to how I feel about someone and can't radically change that without showing my working
Post 303 shows that your analysis is superficial and your intent to gamesolve is a farce.

Put on your detective hat and figure out why, and I just might be swayed into writing it off.

I honestly don't understand. Epid has like 7 posts. Like 4 of them substantive and those are regarding the Screenwagon wherein everyone at that point, town or scum, would have assessed screenplay as scum or trolly. I really don't feel like there is much to say on that ISO.

Oh. I think I might have said too much, not too little? Is that it? I pulled out some things that were more of a distraction than anything to talk about I guess. I just didn't want to post nothing at all for the guy.

-Grey- · Post Post #318 (ISO) » Fri Feb 17, 2017 2:19 am

In post 317, FireScreamer wrote:
In post 314, -Grey- wrote:
In post 313, FireScreamer wrote:
In post 305, -Grey- wrote:Fire pinging with the fake scumhunting.
Fake scumhunting how? How does it differentiate from real scumhunting? I was away most of yesterday and want to come in and give my thoughts on everyone in the game. My reasoning being as a town player I have the utmost incentive to put what I think down as clearly as possible to get feedback on it. If I were scum this cements me in place and I can't be nearly as opportunistic as i've commited to how I feel about someone and can't radically change that without showing my working
Post 303 shows that your analysis is superficial and your intent to gamesolve is a farce.

Put on your detective hat and figure out why, and I just might be swayed into writing it off.
I honestly don't understand. Epid has like 7 posts. Like 4 of them substantive and those are regarding the Screenwagon wherein everyone at that point, town or scum, would have assessed screenplay as scum or trolly. I really don't feel like there is much to say on that ISO.

Oh. I think I might have said too much, not too little? Is that it? I pulled out some things that were more of a distraction than anything to talk about I guess. I just didn't want to post nothing at all for the guy.

BZZZZZT!

I'm sorry, but that is not the correct answer.

Details will be provided in twilight, so don't you worry.

FireScreamer · Post Post #319 (ISO) » Fri Feb 17, 2017 2:20 am

In post 316, MMM wrote:
In post 311, FireScreamer wrote:
In post 304, MMM wrote:
In post 298, FireScreamer wrote:MMM - His early vote on me without showing his working set me off. He eventually explained it using somebody elses working.
If you do not know what RVS is, I suggest you look it up now.
Excuse me? Your post was not RVS. Your vote on me was "I have a problem with your questions". Not only did you put substantive reasoning for your vote making it not RVS but we then discussed that post and at no point did you attempt to call it RVS. You defended the substantive reasoning using JenLaw's reasoning. The putting shade on me with nothing to defend myself with was a small but clear scummy thing to do. Now misrepresenting that it was never substantial to begin with rings very wrong to me.
Well I'll put it like this - if it wasn't RVS I'd have reasoning longer than 5 words. Right now I don't SR you but I'm wary of you being so defensive over that lynch and reading into it so much. In my mind RVS ended when Srceenplay voted LadyeAeaea.

In post 304, MMM wrote: You find this sketchy.... because?
You reversed your position based on support for the position, not arguments made for or against the position.
That's not evident in the quotes you showed at all.

In post 304, MMM wrote: Same as above.
Now you are looking to build support on a scumpair you didn't agree with like 5 posts ago and have recieved no arguments for other than it has support
....lol

FireScreamer · Post Post #320 (ISO) » Fri Feb 17, 2017 2:21 am

God I keep hitting submit instead of preview. Sorry guys.

FireScreamer · Post Post #321 (ISO) » Fri Feb 17, 2017 2:23 am

In post 316, MMM wrote:
In post 311, FireScreamer wrote:
In post 304, MMM wrote:
In post 298, FireScreamer wrote:MMM - His early vote on me without showing his working set me off. He eventually explained it using somebody elses working.
If you do not know what RVS is, I suggest you look it up now.
Excuse me? Your post was not RVS. Your vote on me was "I have a problem with your questions". Not only did you put substantive reasoning for your vote making it not RVS but we then discussed that post and at no point did you attempt to call it RVS. You defended the substantive reasoning using JenLaw's reasoning. The putting shade on me with nothing to defend myself with was a small but clear scummy thing to do. Now misrepresenting that it was never substantial to begin with rings very wrong to me.
Well I'll put it like this - if it wasn't RVS I'd have reasoning longer than 5 words. Right now I don't SR you but I'm wary of you being so defensive over that lynch and reading into it so much. In my mind RVS ended when Srceenplay voted LadyeAeaea.

In post 304, MMM wrote: You find this sketchy.... because?
You reversed your position based on support for the position, not arguments made for or against the position.
That's not evident in the quotes you showed at all.

In post 304, MMM wrote: Same as above.
Now you are looking to build support on a scumpair you didn't agree with like 5 posts ago and have recieved no arguments for other than it has support
....lol

If you had said your post was RVS the first time you discussed this its a different matter. But we already discussed this and you defended your vote using the reasoning of JenLaw. If it was actually random you have no incentive to say otherwise the first time it came up.

Your position on the first post is that X is a longshot

Screenplay says X has support from another player.

You now say you also support X.

Do you honestly see why this isnt scummy?

FireScreamer · Post Post #322 (ISO) » Fri Feb 17, 2017 2:24 am

Going to do my big post on the SEs and IC in a couple hours. This was more typing than I had imagined.

-Grey- · Post Post #323 (ISO) » Fri Feb 17, 2017 2:24 am

I'm so pumped.

This game is awesome.

-Grey- · Post Post #324 (ISO) » Fri Feb 17, 2017 2:25 am