Open 680.1 C9++ | Endgame

[Green Crayons]

VOTE: Umlaut for thinking I was scum in version 1 of this game

This is a very solid basis to vote someone I 100% agree. VOTE: Umlaut

[Green Crayons]

I also feel really good that everyone was really wrong during the dress rehearsal of this game.

[Green Crayons]

I also feel really good that my chances of beating Fire's post count is at least 13%.

[Green Crayons]

Who is Kira?

[Green Crayons]

I keep pressing the Preview button. WHy isn't it posting my words?!

[Green Crayons]

Who is Kira?

Please tell me that's a joke.

Image

[Green Crayons]

And the third member of the Town Clowns rises from the ashes. Welcome Green

Canyons

!

lol people have been doing this I think since forever

but only on this forum, none others

welcome to a decades-long tradition of not reading closely!

And that is how FAKE NEWS spreads like wildfire!

[Green Crayons]

no but seriously who is Kira

[Green Crayons]

Narna can't be playing games with my heart like this.

[Green Crayons]

I just realized the IC dropped out after that dismal showing in the warm up, ayyy.

Narna can't be playing games with my heart like this.

Let's restart from scratch. Hi there, I'm super scumhunter Narna, you won't put Brian at L-2 this early, no balls.

Hi there, I'm perpetually self-hating Green Crayons. I am obligated to vote people who agreed with my very wrong suspicions this early, because guilt.

[Green Crayons]

look at this guy

in the pocket of big Crayola

[Green Crayons]

as if Crayola are the only crayons around

[Green Crayons]

*quickly does Google search*

[Green Crayons]

Instead of 100, can we just do 10 and lynch Umlaut?

[Green Crayons]

@shannon:

Because they're both making faux claims and I thought it was time to change things up

If you suspect them both, why change it up when the first one was already gaining votes (and was a wagon you started)? What makes you think they're faux claims?

I'm interested in your answer to this question.

[Green Crayons]

Instead of 100, can we just do 10 and lynch Umlaut?

Why? Lol sleepy no read

Because I'm worn out after hitting nearly 100 during the practice game. Let's make D1 shorter this go around. I'm willing to compromise at 50 pages.

Why Umlaut? Because I'm voting him, that's why.

[Green Crayons]

Is this one of those things whereby acknowledging the vote itself disrupts the reaction test?

[Green Crayons]

Also, why'd Titus have to jump in front of my shannon vote?

I very obviously telegraphed it.

It's coming. Just you wait.

[Green Crayons]

I've never been a mason so I don't know exactly how I'd claim, but I think 'Hey mason buddy' 'Don't out us yet, buddy' kind of stuff is not the way.

The question focused on why you switched from Suspect #1 to Suspect #2, when both suspects were doing the same suspicious thing. I don't think you answered that yet.

[Green Crayons]

@Comm:

Also, the likelyhood of mafia last game being mafia this game will actually probably be unlikely.

What role someone was last game doesn't have any impact on their chances of rolling scum this game.

[Green Crayons]

I'm certainly not lynching anyone today that was scum last game, because that is counter-intuitive. It is a gambler's bet. But it's a bet even you know is likely to be correct. Rolling something twice in a row is highly unlikely. Especially if we end up being in a 2 mafia vs 10 VT & 1 1-shot PR game.

I ignored this kind of bad, self-serving logic this last go around--to my detriment. It's literally a 4/12 chance both times, and while I get there's a youtube video about how the probability of rolling scum both times is somewhat less likely than rolling town after rolling scum the first go around, the fact that you're staking out the position on

page 8

that you are going to be a slave to that probability is. very. stupid.

Mafia is a game of personalities. Probabilities divorced from personalities is a scum tool.

UNVOTE: Umlaut
VOTE: Comm

[Green Crayons]

Anyone suspecting anyone for their suspicions on a third player before page 20/30 when we stop stretching our legs is probably not great fodder for finding scum (on the basis of defending the third player) because town are looking for any bad holes in arguments, which necessarily requires that sort of situation.

[Green Crayons]

If defense continues after game is not just right out of the box, feel free to make wild speculation into more concrete arguments.

For now, I'd evaluate arguments based on their own validity, rather than who they do and do not "defend" or whatever.

Also you asking me this triggers my buddy spider-sense which I laid to rest last game but now I'm super paranoid.

[Green Crayons]

lol

okay

let's kill Comm

[Green Crayons]

The math stuff is dumb because everyone (should) recognize that what you rolled last game has no causative effect on what you rolled this game BUT ALSO any given player has less of a chance to roll scum twice in a row in the same game setup (4/13 + 4/13 = 8/26) than roll scum once and then town once in the same game setup (4/13 + 9/13= 13/26). Also that math is very simplified because not every game has a set 4 anti-town slots but the general principle is there.

But that's not the point.

The point is that Comm is like "well obv probabilities matter super most and therefore I'm not going to vote D1 for anyone who rolled scum last game" when he himself rolled scum last time, thereby (1) broadly laying the bad groundwork for why we shouldn't vote him D1 and also (2) planting the buddying seeds in the minds of his prior game scumbuddies' minds that they definitely shouldn't vote him either.

[Green Crayons]

UNVOTE:
VOTE: Comm

This gamblers fallacy stuff is lol. Time to pressure Comm till he reveals it was all a ruse and he is actually 1 shot doc pretending to be scummy.

And come on guys what are the odds of him doing that twice in a row

AGV

AGP

[Green Crayons]

I can either explain it to you and it will be awkward, or we can just accept that you didn't realise I was being sarcastic and move on.

I mean I can't really argue with you if you say it was meant to be sarcastic, but when multiple people are asking you a serious question when trying to get a read on you, sarcasm isn't the answer.

Ircher tried that shit too in the last game.

Was he scum?
Is it alignment indicative?

[Green Crayons]

Oh by the way, I'm pretty sure I live my day to day life without ever benefiting from math.

Why do kids even need to take algebra again? lol that's what phones are for.

[Green Crayons]

But would you say FS has been acting differently this game? Is there anything townie he's doing now that you can hard link to the last game?

Expecting anyone to act the same in different games after there is a mental reset and also a literal role reset, and then suggesting that any differences between the two games is negative alignment indicative, is not particularly fruitful. Heck, I even notice my own different playstyles between games even when I pull VT in the different games. It's going to happen.

I would say Alchemist (much more targeted, focused questions), Umlaut (general vibe), Titus (lol where is she?), and shannon (actually answering questions) have all acted differently. Sure, FS has too because he isn't literally dominating the thread peppering everyone with questions.

[Green Crayons]

That's not even the point I'm trying to make. Before we even have a flip, result or anything, D1 I'd just rather lynch outside of the 3 people who were scum last game. Simply due to the likelihood being less. Whether you agree with my math or not isn't the point of the whole thing. I'm trying to score us a scum lynch D1 even if it comes down to a bit of luck and mixing that with how people act. I mean hell, I suggest go Day 1 without lynching in the pool that were scum last game and already you got people going crazy that they might have to look elsewhere for a single day.

The problem is that it is an artificial no-lynch wall you're putting around three players, and you just happen to be one of them.

Arguing probabilities is maybe something to add onto a town read, but making it a basis to draw a line in the sand is not good.

[Green Crayons]

UNVOTE:
VOTE: Comm

This gamblers fallacy stuff is lol. Time to pressure Comm till he reveals it was all a ruse and he is actually 1 shot doc pretending to be scummy.

And come on guys what are the odds of him doing that twice in a row

AGV

AGP

What does this mean?

A Good Vote

A Good Post

[Green Crayons]

Well I'm pretty sure Umlaut's Town now.

I mean I can't really argue with you if you say it was meant to be sarcastic, but when multiple people are asking you a serious question when trying to get a read on you, sarcasm isn't the answer.

Ircher tried that shit too in the last game.

Was he scum?
Is it alignment indicative?

Shit my bad. I thought he was in a scum slot but he wasn't.

UNVOTE: Shannon

I would be very surprised if this is scum.

A bit excited, aren't we gents?

[Green Crayons]

If you're insinuating something here you should spell it out instead of just eye-rolling.

Are you stating that you don't understand what the insinuation is, or that you don't know whether there is an insinuation?

-----

It's not punishable to just say 'I would never do this as scum.'

What FS is saying is that he cannot be scum here because he did something only a town him would do

These are literally saying the same thing. "never scum" = "only town".

-----

Back when I was going on about the probability numbers, you guys are soo worried I won't lynch into two other people (and myself included).

You should want to sort EVERYONE

Mhm. Mhm.

[Green Crayons]

It's not punishable to just say 'I would never do this as scum.'

What FS is saying is that he cannot be scum here because he did something only a town him would do

These are literally saying the same thing. "never scum" = "only town".

No, they aren't.

Are you really going to nitpick over me explaining what a trust tell is?

Are you really going to pretend that criticizing another player's non-bannable attempt to clear themselves with the specter of a ban in the game thread itself, itself of taking the issue up with the mod via PM, is not suspicious?

[Green Crayons]

Are you stating that you don't understand what the insinuation is, or that you don't know whether there is an insinuation?

Either you think one or both of us is handing out townreads too freely, you think one of us may be trying to buddy the other, or you just really like Pulp Fiction and wanted to post that video.

If there is an insinuation I don't like the vague eye-rolling expression of it because it's just shade and doesn't actually help improve your reads or advance a point.

Well you got the correct message so my method of communication appears to be a success

[Green Crayons]

*shrug* the votes talk to me.

There is no good case d1.

So there's no reason for you to not join literally any other bandwagon that actually has votes (including the largest), so you can get to your vote count analysis?

[Green Crayons]

@Titus:

Vca gives me info about players in relation to each other. I see a bunch of white letters on black paper.

Move to strike as non-responsive.

My question was why you don't just vote for any preexisting bandwagon, if you're just looking for a flip to do your VCA and you think all D1 cases are bad, instead of keeping your vote on a target who is not being voted by anyone else when your basis for voting that target is "lol D1"?

-----

@dave:

Are you stating that you don't understand what the insinuation is, or that you don't know whether there is an insinuation?

Either you think one or both of us is handing out townreads too freely, you think one of us may be trying to buddy the other, or you just really like Pulp Fiction and wanted to post that video.

If there is an insinuation I don't like the vague eye-rolling expression of it because it's just shade and doesn't actually help improve your reads or advance a point.

Well you got the correct message so my method of communication appears to be a success

Several potential messages were mentioned.

Yup.

[Green Crayons]

@Brian:

Why would it be suspicious?

I have no idea if he has a trust tell and the mods looked into it anyway.

Also, you cherry picked my statements without taking the context into account. I can understand if I just worded the explanation poorly and you just want me to rephrase, but I don't think that's what you want here. Also, why do you care about me explaining what a trust tell is? Why do you think it's even alignment indicative?

Trying to intimidate another player into not using a method of defense is suspicious because it might actually work, thereby depriving that other player of a valid defense that could help make their case that they are town, if they are in fact town.

It is additionally suspicious because it can be used as a type of reverse psychology on the target, who could start thinking: "this guy is looking out for me by warning me not to go about using trust tells; his interests must align with mine."

I didn't cherry pick. I grabbed the heart of what was wrong with your explanation in the greater context of, if this was a real concern, you could have (should have) taken it to PMs with the mod. Or just waited until after the game was over.

[Green Crayons]

@Umlaut:

Are you stating that you don't understand what the insinuation is, or that you don't know whether there is an insinuation?

Either you think one or both of us is handing out townreads too freely, you think one of us may be trying to buddy the other, or you just really like Pulp Fiction and wanted to post that video.

If there is an insinuation I don't like the vague eye-rolling expression of it because it's just shade and doesn't actually help improve your reads or advance a point.

Well you got the correct message so my method of communication appears to be a success

Several potential messages were mentioned.

Yup.

Are you just being opaque for fun now?

No.

[Green Crayons]

^^^ More seriously: no.

You managed to articulate the different thoughts I was was attempting to convey in my original post. None of them were lost on you. This was easy enough, as my thoughts were all pretty obvious reactions to the Alchemist/Umlaut posts where each player called the other player some version of obvtown.

[Green Crayons]

@dave:

@GC : Your "yup" is not helpful. I view giving someone multiple vague messages and then saying they received it without saying what it was you think they received as potentially manipulative. Do you have an investigative purpose in doing this?

I wasn't "giving" a message to Alchemist and Umlaut. I was noting their posts that occasioned commentary. I am not required to spell out my exact suspicions of any given player when they occur, and providing non-specific suspicions of a player can make them nervous. Particularly if they are scum.


This isn't groundbreaking. Not sure why you're acting like I'm doing something you've never seen before.

[Green Crayons]

Brian, you can repeat the same question over and over again in 387 and 388, but the answer is literally right there in 383.

[Green Crayons]

Trying to intimidate another player into not using a method of defense is suspicious because it might actually work, thereby depriving that other player of a valid defense that could help make their case that they are town, if they are in fact town.

Once again, it's a bannable offense. But explain to me how, even if you think this to be true, that it's any different from your post here where you straight up undermine two players' townreads on each other?

Because I wasn't threatening their play with the specter of a bannable offense? Which doesn't entail the same side effects I noted in 383.

[Green Crayons]

Green Crayons is scum. Too much whining.

I'm making people angry which is a sign of town. Balances out.

[Green Crayons]

I mean

*stomps feet*

I am NOT being whiny!

[Green Crayons]

lol solid, got a bite

can't wait til morning

[Green Crayons]

Also, why'd Titus have to jump in front of my shannon vote?

I very obviously telegraphed it.

It's coming. Just you wait.

What. Is. This? Me no like this post.

GC, can you explain why you posted this?

Which part?

I telegraphed the beginning of my shannon suspicions in Post 132.

Titus jumped in before the shannon votes started rolling in.

Jumping in before a wagon gets rolling but when the groundwork for votes is being laid is suspicious, because it puts scum not at the golden spot of 3/4s of the way through.

[Green Crayons]

Also GC is town and you should be voting for someone else

I thought it was quite obvious but whatev.

UNVOTE:
VOTE: Brian

On a drunk skim this will do fine.

Oh come on
When will that be

Morning?

I said I was gonna be less active this weekend man.

lolol

Uh, +1, or ditto, or whatever the cool kids are saying these days.

[Green Crayons]

Except I like to vote after I do the case so will be happy to explain why Brian is hyper-sensitive scum when I wake up tomorrow AM.

[Green Crayons]

Also, why'd Titus have to jump in front of my shannon vote?

I very obviously telegraphed it.

It's coming. Just you wait.

What. Is. This? Me no like this post.

GC, can you explain why you posted this?

Which part?

I telegraphed the beginning of my shannon suspicions in Post 132.

Titus jumped in before the shannon votes started rolling in.

Jumping in before a wagon gets rolling but when the groundwork for votes is being laid is suspicious, because it puts scum not at the golden spot of 3/4s of the way through.

Also pretty sure I never actually voted shannon but I was thinking about doing it back in the 100s-200s or whenever that line of discussion went down.

[Green Crayons]

132 doesn't even look like you're expressing suspicion.

Second, if you had already found Shannon suspicious, what makes it suspicious of Titus to be voting for Shannon? Maybe Titus has suspicions too and didn't hesitate to vote like you did.

First: That's just, like, your opinion, man.

Second: Maybe you should read my posts. You can join the Brian train of asking questions that already have answers, but I'm not going to repeat myself for you ad naseum, either.

Third: "Maybe Titus has suspicions too and didn't hesitate to vote like you did." Yeah. Maybe. Maybe not. That's the whole point in engaging with another player. To figure these things out. So, what point are you trying to make?

[Green Crayons]

So. Good.

UNVOTE: unvote: CommKnight
VOTE: Brian Skies

A.

I've already explained my initial suspicions for Brian, but because I know nobody really wants to decipher my posts, here it is for the peanut gallery:

1.

Post 264: FS says he made a comment in the thread that he wouldn't as scum.
- The only thing that made sense to me at the time was his comment in Post 93 where he said that if he were scum he would "be more likely to add the 4th vote"

2.

Post 307: Brian (1) discredits self-meta and (2) follows up with threat about "borderline bannable as a trust tell."
- The self-meta point is not great, but I used to fall into that trap of anti-self-meta. Self-meta is fine as long as there is actual games to back it up. And then it's a matter of whether you give a shit about self-meta, which is fine either way.

- The problem is that Brian invokes a basis to ban a player, but then only calls it "borderline" bannable. So it's not really applicable here, but he's just doing a friendly reminder of Watch Your Ass FS.

- Why this is suspicious and worthy of comment:

Trying to intimidate another player into not using a method of defense is suspicious because it might actually work, thereby depriving that other player of a valid defense that could help make their case that they are town, if they are in fact town.

It is additionally suspicious because it can be used as a type of reverse psychology on the target, who could start thinking: "this guy is looking out for me by warning me not to go about using trust tells; his interests must align with mine."

3.

Post 313: Brian gets called out on his trust tell warning, and tries to justify by invoking the wiki.
- The problem in Brian's justification is the parts where he doesn't quote the wiki:

It's not punishable to just say 'I would never do this as scum.'

That is just playing to your win condition and is unlikely to be considered self-imposed.

What FS is saying is that he cannot be scum here because he did something only a town him would do

(what that is, I have no idea, but he insists that he did it). This falls under the first criteria of the trust tell definition that he's 'insisting he only does something as one alignment.'

These statements are articulating the different side of the same coin. Take, for example, what I'm pretty sure FS was originally referring to: his statement regarding whether he would be a 4th vote on a BW. "I would never do that as scum" versus "I would only do that as town" have the same "trust tell value," if you will--that is, they aren't trust tells, they are a type of self-meta about how the player perceives themselves to act as scum or town.

That was the basis for my Post 333 foray into the conversation so see just how far down this bad-logic pit goes.

4.

But even if you disagree with my "these are saying the same thing"! That's okay! Brian's basis for invoking trust tells is still suspicious:

I've already made a statement in the thread I wouldn't have as scum.

And I assure you it wasn't a threat. It was a certainty.

It's not punishable to just say 'I would never do this as scum.'

That is just playing to your win condition and is unlikely to be considered self-imposed.

FS literally did the thing that Brian says

is not punishable

! So why bring up the threat of a ban at all? Hm. Hm. HM.

B.

Brian's reaction to my prodding is suspicious, too.

1.

Brian tries to discredit my initial suspicions for his raising the specter of a bannable offense by repeatedly asking why it was suspicious after I answered in Post 383: Post 387, Post 388 (where the last three sentences literally ask questions that ignore my entire explanation of why his actions were suspicious), Post 389, Post 395, Post 396. This is suspicious because he's trying to foist the image of me not engaging when he just keeps asking the same question differently while ignoring my answer.

2.

The "cherry pick" defense is more than just wrong, it's an in-the-weeds tactic to make this seem much more complex and complicated (meesage: NOBODY READ THIS BORING DISCUSSION) than it really is. That is suspicious because this isn't a complicated discussion. It's quite straightforward. Brian "warned" FS about a bannable offense. Brian's own reasons -- both as explained and as he explicitly admitted -- indicated FS wasn't engaging in bannable conduct. And

that

is suspicious because it can be used by Brian to 1) strip that other player of a valid defense AND/OR 2) be used as a method to look pro-town by trying to indicate that he's just looking out for the wellbeing of other players.

3.

This:

Trying to intimidate another player into not using a method of defense is suspicious because it might actually work, thereby depriving that other player of a valid defense that could help make their case that they are town, if they are in fact town.

Once again, it's a bannable offense.

But explain to me how, even if you think this to be true, that it's any different from your post here where you straight up undermine two players' townreads on each other?

Brian invokes my Post 306 where I noted that Alchemist and Umlaut were fairly quick to find each other to be town in rapid succession. He does this to ask "how are you any different than me" in an attempt to cut the knees out from under my suspicions.

Please note that Comm-scum tried to pull this exact same BS last game, because it is a scum arguing tactic.

It's a wet fart of a tactic because of reasons I explained in Post 386--in other words, I was noting suspicious play, and have every obligation to make my observations of that suspicious play known in the time and manner I deem appropriate. Contrast that with Brian's tactic of making note of play that is not alignment indicative, that is not even bannable, so that he can bring up the issue of someone maybe getting banned one day for some other type of play.

Brian's trying to discredit me by saying WE'RE EXACTLY THE SAME based on posts that are substantially different in kind and degree. So that's self-evidently suspicious. In the face of that incredible leap to try to link his and my player as identical, it appears that perhaps what caught his eye about my Post 306 is just that Umlaut and dave were caught up on it for a hot second. That's suspicious because it doesn't look like Brian genuinely came to this conclusion, just that he looked for a GC post that others were already having a problem about.

4.

And, last but not least:

He didn't. He made an offhand remark, I asked him about it, and then he tried to justify it.

Love that this is the basis for a vote from the guy who is insistent on asking "how is it alignment indicative?"

[Green Crayons]

Omgus wall ewwww

I can summarize too, you know:

Brian said scary things to FS to scare FS into not defending himself and to think that Brian is pro-town.

Those scary things did not actually match the situation, and were a scare tactic.

When pressed on it, Brian tried to make it seem like he was engaged and others were being obstinate; like this was a really boring, in-the-weeds discussion, and that his play was no different than that of other players when they were really not anywhere nearly identical.

[Green Crayons]

He's buddying me in his conversation with Brian, which I never like. I didn't see myself as defending FS, I saw myself as pointing out Brian's bad "bannable" line of convo, but FS's attempt to build that limited relationship between us into something more strikes me weird. Might be because of the re-roll nature of this particular game, though.

His play itself is mild town. He's pressed Comm on some things, which are generally okay-to-good points, but my Comm suspicions have mellowed so these aren't doing much for me any more. I do agree with Comm's observation that FS appears to be playing differently this game, which reflexively gives me pause, but I also strongly stand by my statement that that doesn't necessarily mean it's alignment indicative.

Brian's actions towards him makes me want to read him stronger town, but I know that's an associative read that needs waiting.

[Green Crayons]

@Comm:

@GC, well consider this: FS hasn't really stated a good reads list of his own. Really only "questions" mine. If he flips red, I'd say because my reads might be correct. He's worried about being singled out by PoE. Not only that, but asking why I TR people constantly seems to be unsure scum who want to know why they aren't in my TR pile. If they were town, they'd create cases for me to examine why I SHOULDN'T TR someone. Not just telling me I shouldn't because herp derp, they told me so.

Is your POE theory just because he doesn't like your "I'm not voting the previous scum team D1" stance?

Criticizing town reads is not alignment indicative, unless if that's the only thing that player is doing.

[Green Crayons]

Alchemist:

132 doesn't even look like you're expressing suspicion.

Second, if you had already found Shannon suspicious, what makes it suspicious of Titus to be voting for Shannon? Maybe Titus has suspicions too and didn't hesitate to vote like you did.

First: That's just, like, your opinion, man.

Second: Maybe you should read my posts. You can join the Brian train of asking questions that already have answers, but I'm not going to repeat myself for you ad naseum, either.

Third: "Maybe Titus has suspicions too and didn't hesitate to vote like you did." Yeah. Maybe. Maybe not. That's the whole point in engaging with another player. To figure these things out. So, what point are you trying to make?

You didn't call her out on lack or reasoning, you called her out on joining a wagon before you did. You didn't engage her on that vote. Your suspicion stems from her taking an early spot on a wagon that you think looks good for scum and being upset that you didn't get it. That's the point I'm making.

Okay? No shit? Because I didn't suspect Titus for her lack of reasoning?

Do you know where suspicion about Titus's "lack of reasoning" has originated? From Alchemist. In Post 425. My suspicions were her sudden jump onto the shannon wagon, which was right when my attention was being drawn to shannon via other players' questioning. Don't foist your suspicions of Titus onto me, and then say it's suspicious that I didn't voice your suspicions when they weren't mine.

[Green Crayons]

idk in the last game Comm pulled it together enough to make me think his earlier actions were an intentional Town gambit so I can't say for sure he'd buckle under pressure.

Also agreed on this, except he still put out some pretty suspicious positions that I handwaved away. So sustained pressure is not probably not necessary and a skeptical eye will suffice.

That said,

I'm pretty sympathetic to the GC wagon

This is a bad alternative and you should feel bad.

[Green Crayons]

lol

132 doesn't even look like you're expressing suspicion.

Second, if you had already found Shannon suspicious, what makes it suspicious of Titus to be voting for Shannon?

Maybe Titus has suspicions too and didn't hesitate to vote like you did.

Third:

"Maybe Titus has suspicions too and didn't hesitate to vote like you did."

Yeah. Maybe. Maybe not. That's the whole point in engaging with another player. To figure these things out. So, what point are you trying to make?

"My" third point was responding to YOUR suspicion YOU created in 425. Are you being intellectually lazy or just arguing in bad faith?

I didn't do anything with Titus because she ignored me entirely when I tried to get her attention on shannon.

You're seriously just sore that she took the spot on the wagon you wanted.

lolol

[Green Crayons]

Like, in Post 154 I'm not going to try to engage Titus on Suspicion A that Alchemist comes up with in Post 425 when I'm trying to engage her on Suspicion B that I was actually contemplating at the time I made Post 154.

[Green Crayons]

That doesn't clarify anything.

[Green Crayons]

I found Titus's timing suspicious, and wanted to engage Titus on the timing of her vote.

You came up with Titus failing to articulate any suspicions as scummy, and you are faulting me for failing to engage Titus on not articulating suspicions.

So, whatever.

[Green Crayons]

Also, why'd Titus have to jump in front of my shannon vote?

I very obviously telegraphed it.

It's coming. Just you wait.

And you're going to actually try telling us any of this post was expressing suspicion on Titus and attempting to engage her? Rather than you just being sore she voted Shannon before you did?

Hey oh. Look at this guy. Oh you're good.

Was that saying "Titus is suspicious for the timing of her vote"? No. Was it intended to? No. Did I ever say it was? No. (That you are now saying I was is... wait for it... a misrep.)

Because I don't always go "Hey this is suspicious Player X for Reasons Y." I first try to engage the player and see how they react and what they actually say. And then if there's something there, I make a case (e.g., Brian). If not, then I don't.

Usually, Alchemist -- and this might be a little bit weird to you -- but when someone mentions Player's X name, Player X will have the curiosity piqued and will respond. That's sort of how this game works.

[Green Crayons]

I found Titus's timing suspicious, and wanted to engage Titus on the timing of her vote.

You came up with Titus failing to articulate any suspicions as scummy, and you are faulting me for failing to engage Titus on not articulating suspicions.

So, whatever.

LOL I never said it was scummy.

The whole fucking point is that you voted her for voting Shannon (a vote you wanted) before you did. And I'm saying that she could have found Shannon suspicious as well, and just went ahead and voted Shannon instead of waiting on it.

Seriously, GC can hang today.

lololol

I never voted Titus you dolt.

I don't give a crap about Titus.

She's a nonentity D1.

The whole reason why this post is even being talked about is because Gamma brought it up and asked about it.

lololol you're bad

[Green Crayons]

I never said and never mean to imply that Alchemist is suspicious of Titus.

What did happen is Alchemist created a suspicion -- Titus failed to articulate the reason for her shannon vote -- and then faulted me for failing to have adopted THAT suspicious and try to press titus for THAT suspicious rather than for the suspicion I actually had at the time.

Which is PRET-TEE hilariously bad.

[Green Crayons]

Haha.


That doesn't say I was expressing suspicion of Titus in 154.


I was explaining why I was trying to engage Titus.

[Green Crayons]

The fault is that you didn't care enough to consider Titus could just be Town also scumreading Shannon.

Oh yes. I definitely had Titus completely slotted as scum.

That's totally why I tried to get her to respond to me about her shannon vote and then when she didn't I just let it go because it wasn't worth pursuing.

Completely in line with failing to consider Titus could just be town. Yup. That makes

absolutely no sense.

[Green Crayons]

Oh yes. Have we reached the bottom of the barrel already?

"GC I know you can do better than this. GC I know you're smarter than this."

[Green Crayons]

It only too me three words to engage Brian:

It's not punishable to just say 'I would never do this as scum.'

What FS is saying is that he cannot be scum here because he did something only a town him would do

These are literally saying the same thing. "never scum" = "only town".

No, they aren't.

Are you really going to nitpick over me explaining what a trust tell is?

Post 154 is overwrought in comparison.

[Green Crayons]

Got my quotes mixed up. It took me 11 words.

[Green Crayons]

Just because he did respond doesn't mean you were trying to get him to respond.

Okay, Alchemist. This is a great argument you've boiled down your position to.

[Green Crayons]

GC seems to be trying to engage Titus. Also, apologies for causing this trouble, since I noticed GC stated this happened because of my questioning.

Don't apologize. He's trying to pass of 154 as things that it simply wasn't.

- Alchemist, Ph.D. in How GC Engages Other Players

[Green Crayons]

@Brian:

Spoiler: boring stuff nobody but Brian will care about. seriously. this is just more of the same, folks

1.

The difference between the two lines, and the heart of my explanation, is that FS was preparing to cite self meta to prove his alignment, which is what a trust tell is. I have no idea how you keep missing this considering I bolded it in my post, but that just shows you're not actually looking to understand what's being said and just looking for an inconsistency to harp on about.

This... doesn't actually have any impact on anything. Yes, a trust tell is literally self-meta (e.g., "every time I'm town I will say Blue Bird Pie in my first post"). Not all self-meta is a trust tell. This is a point that doesn't actually change the substantive aspects of your post.


pre-posting edit: Wait. Do you think all self-meta itself is a trust tell? That would be wrong, but that might actually explain a lot.

2.

I highly doubt your offhand comment had any of the intentions you make it out to be, and you trying to dress it up as though you had all these underlying motivations for it is scummy.

It's great that you have what is apparently a gut feeling about how I play mafia, and you're using that gut feeling as objective reality.

Oh wait. No. That's not great. That's lazy.

I play in one game at a time. My posts are almost always aimed to accomplishing

something

, unless if I'm really drunk, because I don't like to have fun. I have

some

reason why I make any given "offhand comment" (even if they aren't particularly good reasons), and you dismissing that someone plays in some way that doesn't conform to your understanding of How Mafia Is Played is lolbad.

3.

When did I ever say you weren't engaging me?

I can read between the lines.

It's this thing where people play mafia and they are not literal poster boards where the totality of their thoughts are listed in every single post.

4.

You cherry picked. I've already demonstrated how this is the case.

It's not "cherry picking" when I've identified the very clear, basic reason -- multiple times over -- why your supposed rationale just doesn't hold up. "Cherry picking" is a pejorative term like "technicalities" people use to complain about when an accused gets released, because they don't want to mention that its required by the Constitution.

5.

What are you even talking about here? I saw something that was sketchy, made a comment about it, and the mod felt it was worth looking into and even contacted a listmod about it.

So you saying I had no right to even suspect it could've been the case is just wrong.

I don't understand how you're failing to understand that I'm saying your attempt in Post 389 to tie your play and my play together is a crap scum tactic. Since the part of my quote that you selectively cut out references Post 389, etc.

Appealing to the fact that the mod asked a list mod to verify that there was no bannable conduct is an appeal to authority that doesn't withstand any scrutiny. TB said he takes the rules very seriously. There was an assertion in his game thread that someone might have broke the rules. TB might have a per se rule of just having a list mod double check. TB might not. We do have the end result -- no bannable offense occurred. Unfortunately, we don't have the mods coming in here and telling us whether your "bannable offense" claim was or was not meritorious because of obvious reasons. Because they can't do that, you invoking the fact that the mods looked at it is scccccccccccccccummy.

6.

Yes, asking people why they do the things they do is like half the game. And understanding how people think helps form the basis of figuring out if their acting in a town or scum motivated manner. The first post you linked, I wanted to know Comm's thought process and if he was just selectively applying his reasoning for voting me.

The point is that you want to know whether people are doing something that is AI motivated, and yet your own justification for a GC vote is not AI. I would say that's ironic, except I'm thinking it's something more--it's scummy.

-----

^That's pretty much everything you had to say as far as 'engaging' Titus, so uh, what?

I don't understand what you're saying here, or why you're quoting those posts. I might be able to respond if you rephrase what you're saying.

[Green Crayons]

he's seriously trying to put more meaning into his posts than were there before

The worst take.

[Green Crayons]

Not only that be he misrepped my point about him and Titus by saying I was coming up with suspicions of Titus and I never was.

Please cite who came up with these suspicions:

Maybe Titus has suspicions too and didn't hesitate to vote

call her out on lack or reasoning

I'll wait.

[Green Crayons]

You've claimed you tried to engage Titus. I don't think anything you've done or said supports that claim. You asked if she was reaction testing, but you didn't really pursue it in any way. And then you made a post that was very obviously intended largely as a joke, and unlikely to be responded to by anyone.

That conversation was about Post 154. As in, Gamma asked me why 154, I said attempted to engage, Alchemist went OH WHY WELL DIDNT YOU ASK ABOUT <OTHER SUSPICION>, and then from there it went downhill about Alchemist now saying 154 is not an attempt to engage but literally scum saying "i suspect you for taking the voting slot I wanted".

I haven't claimed trying to engage Titus otherwise (though I did try to riff off of FS's question and see if either Titus or FS would engage).

Keep up.

[Green Crayons]

Yes, I'm able to keep separate the separately bad reasons to vote GC. You were the one who looked like you were toying with the idea of adopting his bad reasons.

[Green Crayons]

Spoiler: more fun times with the Brian and GC show

Okay, so when have I ever said you weren't engaging me? I've asked you to answer some questions, but I've never once said you weren't engaging me.

So do you just not read my posts? I mean, you quoted it and everything:

I can read between the lines.

It's this thing where people play mafia and they are not literal poster boards where the totality of their thoughts are listed in every single post.

I don't think your offhand comment was meant to advance any of the suspicions you've later cited your comment was for. It just feels like you're grasping at straws to justify me calling you out.

Citation: <gut feeling about how GC plays>

Great. Keep on keepin' on.

You cherry picked. You grabbed two lines to make it look like an inconsistency, and the second line was very clearly cut off to support your point. Now you're just strongly denying this isn't the case even though it's very obvious that you did.

You're also falsely stating that you attacked the heart of my explanation, when you haven't addressed it or noticed its existence at all. This is now beyond just a simple misunderstanding. You're literally claiming that your argument is in the right, when I've showed at least twice now that your 'inconsistency' is predicated on the blatant ommittance of information.

I've reread 313 several times. I just reread it now.

You're right. This isn't a simple misunderstanding. You used bad logic to force a scare tactic. That's scummy.

I'm not scum, so it's not a scum tactic. You can say it is as much as you'd like, but it doesn't change the fact that my comment to him had zero intention of 'scaring' FS.

Well I am town, and so my criticism of your post is town. I guess we're at a logical impasse.

If TB clearly didn't think this was the case, he would have just said 'no, this isn't a breach of rules.' But there was obviously enough there that he thought it was worth looking into, and he did. And you continuously arguing that I had no right to bring it up in the first place is bad.

Oh ho.

Well let's just call TB down and have him sort it out?

Oh wait.

You also haven't explained why you care so much about whether I waited to PM the mods about it at the end game. If I think someone is breaking the rules or in danger of breaking the rules, why should I have to wait until the end of the game? Is FS your scumbuddy and I ruined some grand ploy of his? Why does this bother you so much?

What are you even talking about? I said if you were actually concerned that it was a legitimate bannable offense, you could have PMed the mods while the game was ongoing or simply brought it up after the game was over--as in, if you were actually concerned about FS doing this in the future, you'd say in post-game "Hey FS I know it was only borderline but man you gotta be careful because <word vomit>."

But this wasn't a legitimate concern in the here and now, as indicated by not only your reasoning but by your very words.

[Green Crayons]

It's to show that you're too belligerent and obtuse to be town.

You really don't know me. Just lol

[Green Crayons]

Yep, you're still scum. Keep holding onto your shit comment and shit case.

So are people who even only tepidly agree with me also shit and shit scum? Or just me?

[Green Crayons]

It was obviously a legitimate concern, otherwise I wouldn't have brought it up to him in the first place. And I already told you this (see above). And if I think someone is breaking the rules, of course I'm going to bring it up, regardless if the game is still ongoing or not. Why do I need to go through all those other things when I already mentioned it in the game itself?

What is this "go through all these other things" business?

Is PMing the mod really

that

much

of

a

trouble?

No. It isn't.

Instead, you posted in game. You knew posting in game would have an immediate effect on the game state. You're saying "No GC I had only honest intentions. I'm a good town who only wants the best for all players."

And that might be true!

If, you know, the basis for you to bring it up in the game thread held up.

It doesn't.

Meaning the more likely answer is you were looking for a reason to bring up the specter of a bannable offense. Which is scummy.


~*~ Shit Case 4 Lyfe ~*~

[Green Crayons]

Well, there are more people sheeping me or claiming to sympathize with me, so...?

Titus who is whatever
Narna is whatever
Alchemist is suspicious because his reasons are rivaling your scare tactic, plus he's in GOLDEN SPOT NO. 4

[Green Crayons]

"Guys, don't listen to this guy. He just doesn't know me or how I think, so he clearly can't be right."

Ah yes. This is definitely my case. Mhm, mhm.

If

your

case is "GC is obtuse and belligerent when people suspect him," you're the one who is lacking.

[Green Crayons]

It takes like 2 seconds to quote and make a comment to another players. Yes, I could have PM'ed the moderator, but didn't. So what? The mod saw it and looked into it anyway. If I already made the comment in the thread and the moderator saw it and claimed he was going to look into it, why do I need to PM him.

I also don't know his alignment or if he really has a trust tell. So why go through the hassle?

At least I know now that me bringing it up has your panties in a bunch.

It's like you're pretending half of my posts explaining what is wrong with your scare tactic don't exist.

Hurrah!

I'll see you tomorrow!

[Green Crayons]

This appeal to authority does not sit well with me.

Well, I'm not really appealing to anything. Green Crayons asked me what I thought about other people agreeing with him, which I assumed was an appeal to numbers or something, except there are more people agreeing with me. If this isn't what he was going for, then I have no idea.

You called me scum with a shit case and I asked you what does that make people who agree with me (scum or what).

And you get out of that that I was asking for a dick measure of how many people, respectively, agreed with us?

Yes, I'm certainly the one with reading comprehension issues.

[Green Crayons]

I'm pretty sympathetic to the GC wagon but I'd still rather attract more attention to Comm, given how badly he buckled under that pressure as scum last time.

Alchemist, what are your independent feelings on FireScreamer? I still think he's town, but I'm much more conflicted on that read than I was last game.

You really are bad at reading me if you thought I "buckled under pressure".

@GC, PoE by TR'ing others. He is left in a pool that I don't TR (or right now I'm even SR'ing). Which as scum, that would not leave much room to wiggle. When I'm pretty much the only one posting full read lists at the moment, scum!FireScreamer could be seeing it as himself being cornered a bit and after comments last game about what happens when a scum gets in my crosshairs.. He could be worried. Especially if he read any of my past games. Now this is just a theory. But it's a possibility that he is worried that if I gain the town cred he says I don't have, that he will be facing the chopping block if people don't believe whatever he claims.

VOTE: GC - This is a pressure vote for claim. I think GC is town still, but I do think it'd help progress this along to get his claim and push FS if it's believable.

Looo at this, no pressure needed.

[Green Crayons]

You called me scum with a shit case and I asked you what does that make people who agree with me (scum or what).

And you get out of that that I was asking for a dick measure of how many people, respectively, agreed with us?

Yes, I'm certainly the one with reading comprehension issues.

Considering you strawmanned Alchemist and still have no clue what's wrong with your 'inconsistency' comment, then yeah. You have reading comprehension issues.

Alchemist literally lied about my voting record and "push" to suspect Totus

But I'm the one strawmanning?

Haha.

[Green Crayons]

[quote="In post 628]
Also, I'm not even sure what they agree with. That I was fear mongering FS? Lol. What does that have to do with your 'inconsistency' comment?

If your question about the other people agreeing with you doesn't boil down to an appeal to numbers, then what was the point to your question?[/quote]
If Part of your case to vote me is "you have a bad case"

Then I want to see how that reasoning holds up when others also vote you based on my case

[Green Crayons]

UNVOTE: Brian Skies
VOTE: Alchemist

[Green Crayons]

You called me scum with a shit case and I asked you what does that make people who agree with me (scum or what).

And you get out of that that I was asking for a dick measure of how many people, respectively, agreed with us?

Yes, I'm certainly the one with reading comprehension issues.

Considering you strawmanned Alchemist and still have no clue what's wrong with your 'inconsistency' comment, then yeah. You have reading comprehension issues.

Alchemist literally lied about my voting record and "push" to suspect Totus

But I'm the one strawmanning?

Haha.

You do realize that he said several times that wasn't the point he was making right? Like, you literally misread one of his lines and pushed it as an argument for him, even though that was never his intention.

Now I'm just a simple, country mafiascum player, but it appears to me that you don't know what I'm talking about:

Spoiler: yawn

I found Titus's timing suspicious, and wanted to engage Titus on the timing of her vote.

You came up with Titus failing to articulate any suspicions as scummy, and you are faulting me for failing to engage Titus on not articulating suspicions.

So, whatever.

LOL I never said it was scummy.

The whole fucking point is that you voted her for voting Shannon (a vote you wanted) before you did. And I'm saying that she could have found Shannon suspicious as well, and just went ahead and voted Shannon instead of waiting on it.

Seriously, GC can hang today.

lololol

I never voted Titus you dolt.

I don't give a crap about Titus.

She's a nonentity D1.

The whole reason why this post is even being talked about is because Gamma brought it up and asked about it.

lololol you're bad

And from that point on, he didn't say " several times that wasn't the point he was making right." After that, Alchemist ignored it and rested on "GC doesn't engage people like Post 154."

[Green Crayons]

Literally talking past each other.

I love how you bold Alchemist's "You didn't call her out on lack or reasoning" in 532, and then say me responding to that accusation in 542 with "Because I didn't suspect Titus for her lack of reasoning" is me making things up.

Those things are talking directly to one another.

[Green Crayons]

Also:

Not only that be he misrepped my point about him and Titus by saying I was coming up with suspicions of Titus and I never was.

Please cite who came up with these suspicions:

Maybe Titus has suspicions too and didn't hesitate to vote

call her out on lack or reasoning

I'll wait.

[Green Crayons]

Guys I have to admit that, as someone not directly involved in all this back and forth, it's bloody hard to follow.

Understandable. Let me share my conclusions so far:

Brian is possibly town from how narrow minded he's coming across in that he just cannot fathom how his post was suspicious. To the point where I think he has an unconscious mental block and literally cannot read his posts objectively.

Alchemist lied about me voting Titus, and falsely insinuated that my Post 154 was a big run up for suspecting Titus, in order to justify voting me. That's why I'm voting him.

[Green Crayons]

You didn't call her out on lack or reasoning

,

you called her out on joining a wagon before you did.

You didn't engage her on that vote.

Your suspicion stems from her taking an early spot on a wagon that you think looks good for scum and being upset that you didn't get it. That's the point I'm making.

Like, the bolded is the point he's making. But you don't like to read entire trains of thought.

Hah. No.

According to Alchemist, I didn't engage Titus because I didn't call her out for lack of reasoning--per the underlined (the reverse is also true: I *only* called Titus out on joining a wagon before I did and therefore I didn't engaged Titus).

Of course, I didn't call her out for lack of reasoning because literally nobody said anything about Titus's lack of reasoning before Alchemist brought it up. As in, for someone to meet Alchemist's definition of ENGAGEMENT, I needed to have come up with that suspicion (lack of explanation) and then tried to engage on

that

suspicion.

FROM THERE you can get to Alchemist's really stupid conclusion "you are scum who was complaining that they weren't getting a good spot on the wagon" (bold italics). THAT conclusion doesn't follow unless if you FIRST adopt Alchemist's position that I wasn't engaging Titus because I didn't magically divine the appropriate suspicion to engage Titus on.

[Green Crayons]

Let's diagram more sentences of bad cases!

[Green Crayons]

Yes, Alchemist was wrong that you weren't voting him. But what does that have to do with you advancing an argument that he never made (that you suspected Titus for lack of reasoning)? Just because he ended up being wrong about you voting Titus doesn't mean that you weren't strawmanning him before that (and he didn't even mention anything about you voting her until 553).

Okay, you tell me why Alchemist is voting me. Make sure you leave out:

1) I failed to engage Titus on "legitimate" suspicion of she failed to articulate her shannon suspicions before voting
2) My Post 154 was not engagement but some sort of showboat of a case to justify a vote (which never happened) and mounting suspicions (which never occurred) on Titus

[Green Crayons]

Yo Frank what's up

A good post.

[Green Crayons]

Trying to reread Narna

Also a good post.

[Green Crayons]

You didn't call her out on lack or reasoning

, you called her out on joining a wagon before you did.

I literally don't understand how you believe that the first part of this sentence has anything to do with his suspicions on you when he not only says it doesn't, but everything else in his post only supports the latter.

Please tell me what the bolded phrase means to you.

[Green Crayons]

Yo Frank what's up

A good post.

Not sure if this is serious.
@FS: Can we talk a bit?

Serious.

[Green Crayons]

lolol

Literally the person who came up with a lack of reasoning is Alchemist.

JFC he literally is the one who came up with it. I didn't say it first. he did. I was responding to him. You don't get to then say "oh ho he was responding to you". He was responding to me responding to him.

[Green Crayons]

Also:

Not only that be he misrepped my point about him and Titus by saying I was coming up with suspicions of Titus and I never was.

Please cite who came up with these suspicions:

Maybe Titus has suspicions too and didn't hesitate to vote

call her out on lack or reasoning

I'll wait.

[Green Crayons]

BSkies, let's just ignore each other's existence and our game experience will be infinitely better.

[Green Crayons]

Actually, I think you're right about the strawman. Whoops.

Look at this scum trying to buddy me.

[Green Crayons]

Comm's being weird again like last game, but I can't tell if it's scummy or just plain bad.

What would help you get off this fence?

[Green Crayons]

@Comm:

how many times have you rolled scum?

[Green Crayons]

@Narna:

What was the scum motivation to how they acted last game? I'm happy enough to treat similar behavior as coming from a similar motivation.

They were bogus. Who can't see that??

2 of them were beinng wagonned. Everything they posted had a defensive twing to it.

I'm not clear who you're talking about. Can you use player names?

[Green Crayons]

Hmm,

Shannon Umlaut GC

That's highly likely scums.

There is no good case d1.

Mhm. Mhm.

[Green Crayons]

Is there a reason to vote Gamma that does not use his Post 412?

[Green Crayons]

@Comm:

how many times have you rolled scum?

And let me just jump right to the point of why I'm asking. Because all of the bolded looks exactly like what you posted last game, when you were scum:

I have a serious question. Where the hell did all of ya'll get your previous experience playing mafia from? It's like playing the game with guppies who think they're a shark.

It isn't "bad play" "scummy" or whatever you want to brush me off as. Hell, half the people against me keep using "well he was scum last game and played similarly. So he MUST be scum. Because we believe he's stupid enough to draw attention to himself if he were scum two games in a row."

I'm going to stop there, otherwise it will get personal. Trying to brush me off as bad play.

You know, scum always try to do that, and they always get caught by me. Then post game one of two things happens. Either they continue their bullshit claims of bad play or admit it was a good game with them falling in my crosshairs.

I say go ahead and lynch me. It'd provide me relief of not having to scum hunt for you guys because when you're looking this far off of finding scum (both wagons are on me and GC which I know I'm town. But I can tell you I'm pretty damn confident GC is town too).

When we both flip green and you try to rub it off as "bad play". Just remember you SR two townies and let scum control the lynches.

Want to find scum and be a good hunter? Look at who's directing the wagons on myself and GC. I can promise you you'll find a scum in it.

Anyway, I'm done with this for a bit. Don't like my play? Don't like my case? Make your own. Or you know, "Oh Comm's case is bad, let's vote him instead of.. ACTUALLY MAKING OUR OWN CASES."

@Frank, this is like that damn bastard game. I nailed both scum and even 3rd party tyrant king. Yet my play was always brushed off as "bad" or "illogical" or "scummy". But I was right, wasn't I?

In case I'm lynched, (Claiming now: VT) calling it now.

Town: GC, Brian Skies, shannon, Narna, Alchemist, Gamma Emerald, FrankJaeger
Mafia: FS, Umlaut (and if three, Titus).
SK: davesaz or RoryMK (If no SK, both are more than likely town).

When half of that is right come end game after my lynch, I'm going to look at Brian, Alchemist and GC for letting scum roll them over.

[Green Crayons]

BSkies:

CK's admitting to my accusation of being from tos fits with his "vote for claim" mentality. This is because I to do tows.

Town.

Comm or Narna?

[Green Crayons]

@FS:

A lack of proactive town play.

People have asked me in both day 1s why I don't feel buddied by you GC. GE has demonstrated none of the reasons I can give for that.

re the bolded: Eh. His ISO could be "let me just be present and somewhat engaged" scum. I mean, he has asked a bevy of questions. Not so much on the forming solid suspicions bit, though.

re the underlined: I don't know what you're saying here

Finding Umlaut more townie. Finding Alchemist less.

A good post.

[Green Crayons]

well compared to last game

So we shouldn't compare your play between two games, because they're similar; but we should compare another player's play between two games, because they're different?

[Green Crayons]

he's been only focused on the defensive this game. I mean hell, when he voted me it was an OMGUS vote and I assumed Umlaut was with him when he constantly defended FS's poor play. Initially it was gut from me, but it become more scummy when he was only reactive and not proactive like he was last game.

Also I just skimmed FS's ISO and defensive/reactive weren't descriptors that jumped out at me. What are you thinking of other than his first time voting you?

[Green Crayons]

If he's town, then why would he act differently than he did as town last time?

Well, we had this convo before:

Expecting anyone to act the same in different games after there is a mental reset and also a literal role reset, and then suggesting that any differences between the two games is negative alignment indicative, is not particularly fruitful. Heck, I even notice my own different playstyles between games even when I pull VT in the different games. It's going to happen.

I would say Alchemist (much more targeted, focused questions), Umlaut (general vibe), Titus (lol where is she?), and shannon (actually answering questions) have all acted differently. Sure, FS has too because he isn't literally dominating the thread peppering everyone with questions.

[Green Crayons]

Becuase I admit to playing like town when I'm scum to make my similar play unreadable. You'll never know if I'm a manipulating scum or insane (but correct) town.

I mean, this answer is what it is and NAI, but I'm always going to be more suspicious of a player who is playing the same as his/her scum game than a player who is not conforming to how they played as a VT.

[Green Crayons]

Three quick votes on GC - 402, 403, 404 (for unrelated stuff - complaining about someone complaining about trust tells)
410 Alchemist could support the GC wagon but wants to stay on Rory

Gamma brings up the Titus voting me issue again in 412 (he has been ISOing GC?) and asks for an explanation.
GC responds in 421

Alchemist gets involved, says it doesn't look like GC was expressing suspicion in 132. (See 425).
GC responds in 519
Alchemist 532 'You didn't call (titus) out for lack of reasoning, but for voting before you did'

The rest I am calling 'blah blah blah'.

Comm's being weird again like last game, but I can't tell if it's scummy or just plain bad.

What would help you get off this fence?

If someone could make a good case for or against him. Right now it's hard to not see the things he's done as just bad play, because even scum would normally know this is bad.

So is Alchemist always this hesitant to join wagons when he's scum?

Also, the "I'm going to fence sit until someone else does the work for me kthx" is bad and bolsters the theory that he's waiting to find an excuse to join an already popular wagon.

[Green Crayons]

VOTE: Gamma Emerald

If that's your real opinion, I'm even more convinced you tried to distract from the Comm wagon by voting me.

You also had no problem voting Firescreamer earlier.

This suspicion valid only if Comm flips scum.

And that's your tipping point to join the Gamma wagon?

[Green Crayons]

@FS:

GC can you attempt to interpret Gamma's side of our 1vs1 on his Commread for me?

Sure:

1.

Yo CommKnight

Doesn't the lack of cases made suggest a passive attitude from FireScreamer?

Your post not only tilted my read of FS to the scum side, it made me find a reason.

VOTE: FireScreamer

Can someone who isn't Commknight explain to me why they are voting me. Can they also explain to me why they think Commknight is voting for me.

I was voting you because Comm said you were playing at a lower level than your last run, but your last post seems to counter that.

I don't particularly care to read the last run so could you or Comm do a summary?

There's some disconnect here. The italics is why Gamma said he voted FS. But originally, it appeared the bolded phrase is what did it: Gamma read FS and decided that FS has a lack of cases = passive attitude = scum. Later, it appears that Gamma is justifying his FS vote (italics phrase) based solely on the underlined phrase--that is, because Comm was talking about a prior game. So, two bases to vote FS--because Gamma thinks FS is being passive, and because Comm said it's different FS play--but when challenged, Gamma relies solely on the latter (and can shift "blame" for his vote onto Comm).

I'm okay with this analysis except for the fact that it all happened pretty quickly. 912 happened late Tuesday night; 929 happened early Wednesday morning. There wasn't real pressure for Gamma to give up one of the bases for his vote, as only FS was asking for explanations.

@Gamma:

as a follow up, can you justify your observation that FS has made a "lack of cases"?

2.

So you voted with what I think was a previously expressed scumlean based on information you didn't care to corroborate?

I took his word. You can run down your actions last time right?

I don't know why you would ever take the word of someone you are reading as scum. This explanation suggests that the scumread was not particularly genuine.

3.

I took his word. You can run down your actions last time right?

CommKnight - The comments about not lynching his former scumbuddies is really weird, but I'm more disturbed by the voting of a townread for a claim. Would vote, but I am not ready for a claim right now.
FireScreamer - Seems like town, do like the open discussion of scumplay as a sign of not caring about preserving scum strategies.

You took the word of a scumread to vote a townread.

Not a scumread anymore. Reads change man.

This is not suspicious. Town are not required to update the town with their ever-changing reads. I don't do it. I don't expect it of others. There's a lot of reasons why not to do so, including depriving scum an accurate, up-to-date barometer of how town actually feels about every single player.

4.

Which parts made more sense and why?

His reads. He went from terrible math to more sensible content reads.

VOTE: Rory

You know. I'm going to grill you for this naked vote after what people made up for excuses to vote me.

- Case on Rory?
- What made you change?
- How confident are you he's scum?
- Looking for another claim today? Rolefisher!
- Not sure if bad play, or just terrible scum!

Come on guys, Brian must be scum, he hasn't even expanded upon this vote since then. His slot was scum last game, herp derp, all aboard the Brian wagon.

Jokevote: Brian Skies

No seriously, town got their head out of their collective asses enough to see GC is a bad choice. I honestly don't want him to claim but at the point I voted him it seemed there would have to be one from him so I wanted to get it done and over with rather than waiting around for some turtle to make up their mind they're going to put him to L1 and make him claim with less than 24 hours left.

So VOTE: FireScreamer <- It's a mistake not to put this one in the noose today.

@shannon, nah, I was just curious, maybe I should've made it clear that was non-game specific question or even taken it to pm. But I was wondering how it worked for the mods since they'd be able to modify the different topics and what not.

@Narna, I claimed VT. Claiming early is NAI (I'm not sure when people think L2 is early, we use to always claim L2, because no point in dragging it out and it prevents someone from making an excuse to cast the hammering vote).

I like this post. It shows a lot of thought, less spewwy than his posting about probabilities.

Which parts of it show a lot of thought. Which parts of it do you like?

I like the list, since it shows articulation. I feel the post shows clear pathways of logic.
Also, I've noted Brian has been wagon hopping a lot lately.

I have no incentive to overtly misrep what you say. Everyone is reading the same thread. Maybe this is a misunderstanding. Tell me again what you like about the post?

I like the way he laid out his points of discussion. It suggests town that is doubling down.

I see "The way he laid out" as meaning the formatting of the post. You arn't really talking about the content at all. Why does that suggest town is doubling down? Define doubling down.

It's like the organization. For some reason words are failing me.
Doubling down means to focus your efforts. It feels like town doubling down since he was in trouble and he shaped up.

This is lazy, and therefore something scum could readily adopt. Comm's probability theory was bad and it was all good fun to suspect him for it, but simply going from <pushing bad theory> to <making coherent arguments> is not alignment indicative.

5.

Why would town "double down" in a position where scum wouldn't?

Scum I believe would start to crack. He just soldiered on.

I don't know what this means, in practice.

Why are scum more likely to crack than town and less likely to try and shape up?

Scum react worse under pressure than town I think

At this point I'm not sure if I actually believe what I'm saying, I've been talking on

Which means this feels pretty genuine. Gamma recognizes that he's in a back and forth and just responding to the questions before him without thinking of the greater context in which they're being asked. That would appear to more likely come from town rather than scum who should be more concerned about how their answers look.

6.

If I provide an example of Comm being taken to claim early on day 1, claiming and then appearing to play better would you reverse your read?

Was he scum?

Yes

Well then there's a shot

Just a shot? You are basing your whole read on that and i'm telling you I can at least prove its NAI and you are telling me theres a SHOT?

I might spot some difference in behavior.

Feels more like directionless town.

[Green Crayons]

@GC Do you think the change in tone from GC towards the end of that analysis is enough to excuse the play during the rest of it?

Not particularly. I don't have a problem with Gamma votes.

[Green Crayons]

Also it's time to get off of Alchemist unless you can make a fresh case.

See:

Three quick votes on GC - 402, 403, 404 (for unrelated stuff - complaining about someone complaining about trust tells)
410 Alchemist could support the GC wagon but wants to stay on Rory

Gamma brings up the Titus voting me issue again in 412 (he has been ISOing GC?) and asks for an explanation.
GC responds in 421

Alchemist gets involved, says it doesn't look like GC was expressing suspicion in 132. (See 425).
GC responds in 519
Alchemist 532 'You didn't call (titus) out for lack of reasoning, but for voting before you did'

The rest I am calling 'blah blah blah'.

Comm's being weird again like last game, but I can't tell if it's scummy or just plain bad.

What would help you get off this fence?

If someone could make a good case for or against him. Right now it's hard to not see the things he's done as just bad play, because even scum would normally know this is bad.

So is Alchemist always this hesitant to join wagons when he's scum?

Also, the "I'm going to fence sit until someone else does the work for me kthx" is bad and bolsters the theory that he's waiting to find an excuse to join an already popular wagon.

[Green Crayons]

Has anyone responded to that argument? Either make a new one, make the same one better or start sorting elsewhere.

I can't force Alchemist to respond to anything.

I've already spewed a lot of words into this thread. I'm not interested in adding more just to restate things I've already said.

Sorting is easy.

01. davesaz: null
02. Narna: possible scum
03. shannon: likely town
04. Firebringer (replaces FrankJaeger): null
05. Alchemist21: possible scum
06. Green Crayons: town
07. Brian Skies: possible town
08. Titus: possible town
09. RoryMK *: possible scum
10. Gamma Emerald (replaces Necta): possible scum
11. Umlaut: likely town
12. CommKnight: possible town
13. FireScreamer: likely town

It's also easily incorrect because this is D1.

[Green Crayons]

V/LA: Thursday, April 27 to Sunday, April 30

.

Best man duties in an out-of-town wedding.

Noted

[Green Crayons]

@GC Do you think the change in tone from GC towards the end of that analysis is enough to excuse the play during the rest of it?

Not particularly. I don't have a problem with Gamma votes.

Yeah looks like we are at the same place on that. Like I get what you mean about the tonal shift but was there really anywhere else for him to go?

As scum? Prob no if he took the tactic of not being aggressive.

[Green Crayons]

If you could talk about your Narna read before you go that would be nice, though we will still be here when you get back.

Narna has been a lurk sac all game. And by "lurk" I mean present just enough to know that he's been around and paying attention (compared to dave who has been MIA), but I really couldn't tell you what thoughts he's had at all (save one--mentioned below).

Then there was the night that Narna got drunk and decided to flurry post. And then immediately sunk back into a nonentity. I fully support getting shithoused and then posting on MS. But if that's your most significant engagement with the thread, I'm going to be suspicious because it artificially allows you to look involved and free-wheeling (loose and carefree = town, right?).

Also:

BSkies:

CK's admitting to my accusation of being from tos fits with his "vote for claim" mentality. This is because I to do tows.

Town.

Comm or Narna?

Narna.

I think Narna is probably town. His comment about ToS (which I'm assuming to be Town of Salem), reminded me that there are players who actually do push people just to get a claim (it's not their fault though, their classic setup is predicated upon the idea that claim=alignment and they only get like 2-3 minutes per day phase).

I disagree with this insofar as the Narna read goes. Observing that Comm's push for a vote-to-claim on a TR aligns with how other forums (or whatever) play mafia is not alignment indicative. Yes, town could say it because it is true; but so could scum (because, again, it is true), particularly if they want a good reason to not vote a popular wagon like Comm, regardless of Comm's alignment.

[Green Crayons]

So I think FS has a substantial amount of cases.

With that in mind, explain to me the bold:

Yo CommKnight

Doesn't the lack of cases made suggest a passive attitude from FireScreamer?

Your post not only tilted my read of FS to the scum side, it made me find a reason.
VOTE: FireScreamer

Because here's how I interpret it. You appear to be asking Comm whether {the lack of cases <your observation>} leads to {a passive attitude <Comm's accusation>}. As in, you know there is a lack of cases, but are wanting confirmation that that means there is a passive attitude (and thus scum).

This interpretation of your 912 appears confirmed by the non-bolded part of the post where you admit that Comm's post "made <you> find a reason," suggesting that you went out and determined, independently of Comm's posts, that FS was scum (because of the aforementioned "lack of cases").

But now you are saying there was a substantial amount of cases. What gives?

[Green Crayons]

VOTE: Brian

It's contrary to previous reads lists but clearly it's time for a fresh take.

Are you waiting for BSkies to ask, or can I ask: why?

I have a theory based on the remainder of your post, but not sure if that's what you're actually intending as the basis for your vote.

[Green Crayons]

So many things happening.

Who should i vote for?

Give me a why too.

[Green Crayons]

VOTE: Titus

Why?

[Green Crayons]

I'm not at all convinced that CommKnight is town.

I'm torn between his reads making some sense

vs. the early attempt to take himself off the table for bad logic.

Comm does not make any sense to me whatsoever. Explain yourself.

[Green Crayons]

*sigh*

You realize the people putting you off until D2 are doing so to give you the chance to use your shot, right?

You realize that if you are Town you are now in scum's crosshairs as a PR, right?

Town wants you dead. If you're Town, scum want you dead. When everyone wants you dead, you're not gonna live long enough to see a pay-off in waiting for your actions.

I also really hate this post.

Why?

[Green Crayons]

I'm ambivalent on Gamma. M

aybe I undervalue roleblockers, but I really don't care about town RBers. I'd be perfectly okay if we agreed that full-time RBer would claim so we can either clear Gamma + <other> (subject to scum gambit paranoia) or just lynch Gamma and be done with it.

[Green Crayons]

I left my laptop charger in a city two hours away, so I'll only be able to phone post tonight. Mostly caught up, but not really keen on who to vote.

Leaning towards dave, Titus, Alchemist, Rory but that's just shooting from the hip.

[Green Crayons]

So back to Gamma boyz?

That's the opposite of what I'm saying. Or, at least, something like 130 degrees of what I'm saying.

[Green Crayons]

I think you should just ignore the math, in all honesty. Right now, you really just need to know that a 1-shot RB can't exist without a RB.

Agreed.

Also personally hurt that BSkies is ignoring me after he didn't agree to ignore me for our mental health.

[Green Crayons]

Also I know nobody cares but Alchemist still lied in his case on me, was called out on it, and then kinda just hoped nobody would pay attention because WORDS WORDS WORDS.

I chalk that up as scummy and because nobody listens to my tryhard cases, that's my lazy case.

[Green Crayons]

Also I'd prob vote dave over Titus and Rory for compromise.

[Green Crayons]

I did agree to ignore you for your mental health.

I retract my personal hurt and in its place submit righteous indignation that BSkies doesn't even abide by his own word.

[Green Crayons]

I don't really care about the RB thing one way or another, I'm just not inclined to lynch Gamma today and am tired of people talking about lynching him (and also, Firestarter, umlaut, and the Shannon replacement).

Also lol at the idea of lynching the claimed full-time RBer.

[Green Crayons]

Last time I did a real look at him he has some good and some bad stuff.

Since then he hasn't screamed out to me as scum. Is there something in particular you think is clitch? I'll take a hard look if there's something in particular.

[Green Crayons]

Here are the tears I'll weap if we lynch Gamma:

[Green Crayons]

I'm just not all that convinced that he's the best lynch. Hence the full RB thang.

[Green Crayons]

Last time I did a real look at him he has some good and some bad stuff.

Since then he hasn't screamed out to me as scum. Is there something in particular you think is clitch? I'll take a hard look if there's something in particular.

Stupid auto correct.

Something you think is clutch? I'll look at it. You can just give me a theory/narrative and I'll look up posts etc

[Green Crayons]

I'm glad A50 replaced in. He's dragging Titus and FS through the mud and they don't even understand how.

?????????

[Green Crayons]

I've only skimmed the last five pages. Am I hammering if I vote anyone?

[Green Crayons]

UNVOTE: Alchemist
VOTE: Gamma

Okay.

[Green Crayons]

Someone mentioned Gamma going radio silent after his claim, so that's my reason + whatever I've said before.

[Green Crayons]

Scum aren't getting lynched unless it's A50 Dave or maybe Gamma

Not a fan of A50's posting that I've skimmed.

Hate that he replaced shannon because I liked her, but willing to admit that's because she actually read the bad GC/Alchemist ring-a-round and agreed with me about voting Alchemist.

[Green Crayons]

@Titus: Can you tell me why Dave other than him tunneling you?

[Green Crayons]

VOTE: Gamma

We're lynching Rory tomorrow.

Why did you hammer though?

[Green Crayons]

Even if Titus is town here, deferring her actions to another player is also dumb because it defers responsibility

Will vote on this alone.

[Green Crayons]

Even if Titus is town here, deferring her actions to another player is also dumb because it defers responsibility

Will vote on this alone.

Are you saying you'd vote me or Almost?

There's a grammatical error in that quote (namely Brian is talking Almost50 deferring to me is scummy) but it sounds like I'm the one deferring in that selected quote.

Almost. I thought it clear Brian misused "her" instead of "his".

[Green Crayons]

That was terrible. We had two days left and most of the people voting Gamma still wanted to get an RB claim. I didn't, but I'm looking closely at people who said they did and yet have no complaint about this.

I don't really care about RBers, but I guess a full RBer is more useful than a 1-shot, so the claim thing is a big shrug.

[Green Crayons]

Oh yeah and

VOTE: CommKnight

I already wanted him yesterday, the Gamma flip only makes it worse.

And not Dave or A50?

Or Brian?

[Green Crayons]

Being the hammer because "I don't really have a reason" falls under the didn't want to lynch gamma camp.

[Green Crayons]

But otherwise agreed.

[Green Crayons]

Being the hammer because "I don't really have a reason" falls under the didn't want to lynch gamma camp.

It's not like I was against it either.

Just because you're at the end of the lynch pool line doesn't mean that you aren't standing in the line.

[Green Crayons]

VOTE: dave

Starting reason is because Alchemist told me to do so.

[Green Crayons]

Being the hammer because "I don't really have a reason" falls under the didn't want to lynch gamma camp.

It's not like I was against it either.

Just because you're at the end of the lynch pool line doesn't mean that you aren't standing in the line.

This line doesn't make any sense. Please rephrase.

Just because you're least suspicious in the lynch pool doesn't mean that you aren't suspicious or aren't in the lynch pool.

[Green Crayons]

?

[Green Crayons]

Testy BSkies is testy.

[Green Crayons]

Mhm. Mhm.

[Green Crayons]

lol

Not undeserved, but coming from left field in this game.

[Green Crayons]

VOTE: Almost50

Also, what happened to the Rory lynch for today?

[Green Crayons]

Guys Brian slot is town and was town. He just wanted to end the day.

His blow up over being called the least suspicious person in today's lynch pool is more suspicious than his treatment of Gamma.

Overly sensitive of suspicions, after a two-real-life-days to cool down from previous game day, is suspicious. Especially after I thought it was pretty obvious that I was town reading him and had been sheeping his Rory suspicions.

[Green Crayons]

Also LOL at Rory and Umlaut.

Speaking of bussing above, check last game. I wasn't afraid to go after either of my scum buddies.

In fact I recall willing to trade one for GC by trying to connect the two. I legit TR'd a scummy. I'm not perfect and even my previous games has me TR'ing one scummy usually out of a 3-man team.

Titus was a counter-wagon and

daves was voted by confirmed scum. So I'll slot them in town-leans.[/]

[Green Crayons]

Also LOL at Rory and Umlaut.

Speaking of bussing above, check last game. I wasn't afraid to go after either of my scum buddies.

In fact I recall willing to trade one for GC by trying to connect the two. I legit TR'd a scummy. I'm not perfect and even my previous games has me TR'ing one scummy usually out of a 3-man team.

Titus was a counter-wagon and

daves was voted by confirmed scum. So I'll slot them in town-leans.

tag fixed

[Green Crayons]

@GC, I'm not afraid to do it. FS admits he's not afraid to do it.

But I don't think Gamma is the type that would, especially while he's the one being lynched.

Why?

[Green Crayons]

Blatant misrep.

Who is scum?

[Green Crayons]

@GC, I'm not afraid to do it. FS admits he's not afraid to do it.

But I don't think Gamma is the type that would, especially while he's the one being lynched.

Why?

[Green Crayons]

You are not my only scumread.

Blatant misrep.

Who is scum?

[Green Crayons]

@GC, I'm not afraid to do it. FS admits he's not afraid to do it.

But I don't think Gamma is the type that would, especially while he's the one being lynched.

Why?

[Green Crayons]

Why is daves scum?

Reason 1:

Basically my case on Davesaz:

OK, so I was going through my own predecessor (shannon)'s ISO and I cam across an interesting reference to what Comm had asked of Rory here:

Also, you never answered my question. When you play a game, do you avoid the PT area of the forum on your moderator account?

I don't care if about the misconception of whether or not someone could see PTs (or INTO PTs). The question itself though sound pretty damning.

It's practically confessing to having a PT for starters

.

However, PTs could be for Masons as well as for Scum, but then if Comm thought Rory could have looked into his PT then he knows Rory -presumably- already knows what he saw (i.e. knows Comm's alignment).

Let me reiterate: I do NOT believe Rory looked into anything (that would be cheating, duh!). It's how Comm asked and how he went about it that is bothering me.

For fairness, and because I may have misunderstood I will simply ask Comm to explain exactly what was going through his head when he asked this, and I would also ask everyone to point out where this has been addressed and explained later (if ever).

Re 1384 I believe there was commentary on that. On my iPad so harder than usual to check.

Petit, yes that is a point and one of the reasons I'm unsure on Comm town.

Like it sounds like you may be onto something a60, but I don't sees it.

It's simple: If you don't have a PT then why ask someone if they use their mod account to view PTs? What even triggers the idea into your mind if you do NOT have a PT to begin with?

Because maybe he wants to know what keeps mods from cheating at the game?

Counter-question: Why didn't Comm ask it in the

last

game, since Comm was scum and Rory was Town?

I'm now suspicious of Davesaz for following on a50's point. He was there last game, he should know better.

Reason 2:

Official Vote Count

Gamma Emerald (7): RoryMK, Alchemist21, Narna, FireScreamer, Titus, Green Crayons, Brian Skies

-- LYNCH!!!

Titus

(4): Almost50, Umlaut, davesaz, CommKnight

davesaz

(1): Gamma Emerald

Commknight

(1): Firebringer

Not Voting

(0):

None.

[Green Crayons]

I'm fine with both the Comm and dave wagon.

Who said that they have to both be scum in order for each wagon to be good?

[Green Crayons]

Doesn't 2073 presuppose that town should know which of the two is more likely scum?

Doesn't 2073 presuppose that town should know who is scum so that they support only wagons that are on scum?

[Green Crayons]

UNVOTE: dave

dave if you weren't voting titus you'd vote: ____________.

Also, do you have a Titus case that isn't "Titus's vote on me sucks"?

[Green Crayons]

Also why didn't you kill Titus?

[Green Crayons]

I am not good at crumbling or deciphering so you'll have to spell out whatever it is you're being coy about in 2119.

[Green Crayons]

Comm was on the first Gamma wagon. They joined in 1454 at my urging. Then the claim happens. Comm now votes FB. Comm doesnt comment on the claim other than to assume it is real in setup spec. Zero comm scrutiny of a one shot claim like that doesn't make any sense given his play in the other day 1. Later he he make a reads list where he implicitly believes the claim. Again. No reason for this. Has Titus as a town lean.


Now we get to his last two posts of the day.

VOTE: Titus Eh, Titus isn't high in my TR's currently. So I'll compromise Titus over Gamma. I also find it funny FS thinks the RBer is useless. You do realize it can counter the scum roleblocker or stop mafia/SK kill right? In a game with limited town PRs, roleblocker is one of the few roles we can at least make use of.

Compromise wagon on titus. Who he explained very recently before was a townlean. Pushing the Gamma counterwagon. Shades my attempts to go through with an RB/Not RB claim because he knows it ends in a gamma lynch.

I'm glad A50 replaced in. He's dragging Titus and FS through the mud and they don't even understand how.

Titus today, FS claims tomorrow and if he doesn't cliam PAGE 1 of D2.. He dies. No exceptions.

@Full RB, stay hidden. We're NOT lynching Gamma today and getting yourself killed in a game with likely zero doctors is not a bright move. Those who have toyed with the RB/Not RB shit will face trial by fire tomorrow when Titus flips red.

Titus has gone from

not high in my TR's currently

to

when titus flips red

. Things are getting desperate and he ramps up his rhetoric. We are NOT lynching gamma today. NOBODY should claim RB or not RB. Firescreamer is scum and should be railroaded after titus flips.

What don't you understand about the comm case. Gamma had a very sketchy and manufactured townread on Comm. Comm jumped off the gammawagon as hard as he could and misrepresented how strongly he felt about the counterwagon to Gamma in an attempt to push it through.

I am happy to lynch Comm today on this but would like BSkies replacement's thoughts.

[Green Crayons]

Thoughts on all players, not just a Comm lynch.*

[Green Crayons]

Spoiler:

I will ask for vigs to not kill tonight. We have no cop investigation and you may hit a PR. So abstain from shooting please.

Strongly disagree.

So far we have shoot Gamma and a no shoot.

Don't remember who it was who said shoot Gamma.

Great, what is your stance. That's a scummary.

Several more opinions given on vig shots.

I'm all caught up.

. . .

Pedit: my main position is that I want to know what other people's positions are.

I still have Titus as scum

but it's not quite enough to pull the trigger

given she has support from some townreads. Part of the research is to see what the Titus supporters said about GE and what they did.

Dare I hope we have a doc?

And here's where my sheeping Titus ends.

VOTE: Narna

So are you sheeping Comm's vote or do you have a different reason for Narna?

[Green Crayons]

so Titus is scum and dave is SK?

[Green Crayons]

because lol at shooting BSkies

[Green Crayons]

Also why didn't you kill Titus?

I did say something.

[Green Crayons]

Also did you not see D2 hammer?

[Green Crayons]

I did see that, what about it?

S-S-S-SCUMMY.

[Green Crayons]

Does he really, though?

[Green Crayons]

Unless if someone else claims a non-mason PR, dave shouldn't claim 1 shot or unlimited.

[Green Crayons]

did Titus just claim scum?

Hunh.

[Green Crayons]

Why not? It forces him to commit to a claim that can likely be disproven later if it's false.

dave is either SK or vig. Why give scum knowledge today about whether dave has another kill in him to work off of tonight?

[Green Crayons]

She's yelling at the vig for not shooting dave and then votes dave.

She also knew which one wasn't the scum kill.

[Green Crayons]

What vig would shoot Firescreamer?

a bad one

[Green Crayons]

So Titus.

dave vote still because he's tunneling you?

[Green Crayons]

dave claimed vig. yesterday.

there is a second death.

dave again claimed vig. today.

[Green Crayons]

someone know knows a shit about this setup, can scum deduce via whatever roles they have whether dave (assuming he's telling the truth) is a single or multi-shot vig?

[Green Crayons]

lol at this wagon

[Green Crayons]

Titus is playing badly and the ease with which her wagon grew to L-1 says more about the wagon than her alignment imo

[Green Crayons]

Titus do you VC analysis kthx.