Open 680.1 C9++ | Endgame

[ThinkBig]

VC 1.12

Official Vote Count

CommKnight

(4): Green Crayons, Umlaut, RoryMK, FireScreamer

Green Crayons

(3): Brian Skies, Titus, Narna

FireScreamer

(2): FrankJaeger, CommKnight

FrankJaeger

(1): shannon

Titus

(1): davesaz

RoryMK

(1): Alchemist21

Not Voting

(1): Gamma Emerald

With 13 alive, it takes 7 to lynch.

Deadline

: (expired on 2017-05-03 20:06:48)

[CommKnight]

Well at this point if FS flips red, I think we'd have quite a few associates to look at.

[FireScreamer]

Also, fyi, I'm grilling you right now because I do think there's a probable connection between you and GC. What with him soft defending you here, him getting all uppity about me giving you a warning shot on a possible trust tell, and you now chainsawing him.

Chainsawing day 1 in a setup that I don't know anything about is suicide. Not gonna say I'd never chainsaw day 1 cause let's not go down that rabbit role again but come on.

I tie myself to GC based on 3 early day 1 votes? If either of us flip and we are a scum team it's catastrophic. If a cop investigates either of us its catastrophic.

Taking strong stances is good. I can townread better than I can scumread.

Why would I all in chainsaw in this situation? After everything I said about early wagons earlier?

[FireScreamer]

I'd need strong incentive to chainsaw on day 1 without knowing the setup and who can compromise it. I don't see what that is here.

[Gamma Emerald]

FS are you a bringer alt

[FireScreamer]

Literally every game I get that. No I am not.

[FireScreamer]

Well at this point if FS flips red, I think we'd have quite a few associates to look at.

You've yet to provide any reasoning behind why that is likely.

[Narna]

I'm sorry for all of those earlier games FS.

[FireScreamer]

What earlier games?

[Narna]

I was kinda mean in homestuck

[Gamma Emerald]

What Homestuck
He's not an alt

[FireScreamer]

I am not Firebringer I just said I wasn't firebringer I'm not an alt please end this meme.

[FireScreamer]

Growlithe can't even learn growl what a shitter.

[Gamma Emerald]

LMAOOOOOOO

[RoryMK]

Rorys posts look disingenuous.

Kinda agree with this. Hard to say if he's just like this on early D1 though.

Rorys posts look disingenuous.

Is there a reason you still haven't moved your RVS vote if you think that's true?

Do you have any other reads?

It also feels like he tried to turn it around on Frank here.

VOTE: Rory

Can you explain where I went wrong by asking Frank 2 questions in an attempt to get him involved?

It looks like you're trying to discredit his point against you by challenging his lack of vote.

How am I discrediting his point? I ask him if he has a reason not to move his RVS vote and followup by asking if he has other reads.
Maybe he has a scumread on that player now, and didn't mention it.

[RoryMK]

Some thoughts:

- I love the way Brian Skies plays this game. Solid townread.
- As much as I was liking FireScreamers reads in the pre-game, I am having opposite reads now... Brian Skies, Umlaut are both solid town to me.

@Rory, the above was towards Dave, but I'm really interested on WHAT you support about my wagon. I just pointed out the two things people got all antsy over me for which can be reread in my VERY short ISO. So what do you agree with again? Because you're sliding down any chance of being TR'd for today. That's for sure. At least Daves isn't blindly following something they see as an easy mislynch. To me, you seem less interested in why the wagon is formed on me or even reason to vote me. Just you see something forming and voting it. Am I wrong?

Spoiler: this is my previous post

Also, the likelyhood of mafia last game being mafia this game will actually probably be unlikely. So I'm pretty confident in the team being green this time around. But TB definitely rolled some of our bloc from last game as red this one. I'm willing to bet on it being FS of all people.

This is pretty terrible tbh. Why would you want to "clear" yourself like this?

All of these posts are bothering me.
Half of them look like coaching. Im not sold on that though.
Fire is putting alot into how he is being perceived. Which isnt a BIG deal but it seems like thats where his effort is right now.

Did scum have daytalk when you were scum? If yes, why would he coach in-thread?

Also, the likelyhood of mafia last game being mafia this game will actually probably be unlikely. So I'm pretty confident in the team being green this time around. But TB definitely rolled some of our bloc from last game as red this one. I'm willing to bet on it being FS of all people.

1. This is phrased as if you were town last game, which you weren't. It's odd that you identify with a townbloc that you weren't really in.

2. Why do you think someone in the townbloc is definitely scum this time? I can dismiss "scum last time won't be scum this time" as a common misconception, but I'm not sure how you're getting this one.

I like Umlaut. Please stay like this.

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.

This is spot on.

I think it says pretty clearly what I'm agreeing with. You used faulty logic to try and clear yourself and to scumread other people.

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 didn't see this question before. I'm not sure what you're aiming at here. Unless someone gives me access to PT's, I can't access them. Does that cover your question?
@Comm, please explain to me why you are townreading Frank and Narna

[Umlaut]

@FireScreamer

What's the thing you've said that you would never say as scum?

I know you may be wary because of the whole not-trust-tell thing but I think you're already in the clear there, so I'd still like to know this.

[shannon]

Hmm I thought I declared VLA here? Maybe I didn't do it right. Anyway, it's over, but I need to catch up elsewhere first x

[Umlaut]

Re. the Brian-FS exchange starting with 470 (on having incompatible scumreads), I see FS' point more than Brian's (even though I'm more sure of Brian being town than FS). We were all rightly on Titus' case last roll for saying basically "since these three people are scum, everyone else voting them must be town." FireScreamer is just

not

doing that.

[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?

[CommKnight]

@Rory, I was just curious as to if you could see the PT's because let's say there was a game with PT's outside of scum chat, if you were able to see it and playing in that game you'd know there'd non-mafia with PT's ongoing. But that's cool. Makes sense to do it that way to prevent things like that.

Also I've had two games with Frank, one as both town and one as both mafia. I'd like to think I got a feel for him. As far as Narna goes? I only had a single game where I was mafia and she was town. I'd like to think I know how town her acts.

[FireScreamer]

Basing reads off of one game is absurd. It can be a piece of the puzzle but people make adjustments.

[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?"

[Titus]

Omgus wall ewwww

[Titus]

Well at this point if FS flips red, I think we'd have quite a few associates to look at.

Fs might be scum, might be lynchbait.